Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
johns624
Posts: 4534
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:58 pm

casinterest wrote:
Okie wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Rittenhouse will be sued, as will the man that bought the gun for him.

I don't know what the verdicts will be , but there will be civil suits. Especially since Rittenhouse did lie about being an EMT to the police. That will establish false premises for the police allowing him to be there.

The city Kenosha is going to get a lot of flack on it as well. The above point about Rittenhouse may get them out if it, or it may not.


Please fill me in on what civil liabilities that you can receive relief from a minor filed after becoming of age.

Okie


There are many options that the lawyers will explore. Either against Rittenhouse or his parents.

1. He was a minor.
2. His mother is a single parent.
3. I doubt that either has much or any money and their future earnings probably won't be much, either.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Topic Author
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:46 pm

casinterest wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
casinterest wrote:

There are many options that the lawyers will explore. Either against Rittenhouse or his parents.


There are many legal options that the Rittenhouse family will explore. Either against journalists or their parent companies.

I think the Rittenhouse's should spend the weekend with the Sandmanns.


Sandmann has nothing to do with this case. Or are you saying that Sandmann killed people ?


I'm saying neither. But consider the suits brought against media by Sandmann and his settlements.

I think the the Rittenhouses might want to do some suing.

Do you speak Meme??

Here's one from the Babylon Bee that may help explain the line of thought I presented that you misunderstood:

Rittenhouse, Sandmann Agree To Share Joint Custody Of CNN

https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/statu ... 82606?s=20
Last edited by DIRECTFLT on Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Topic Author
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:47 pm

You can look at the slant and the tone of this ABC News article on the Rittenhouse acquittal, to see where the bulk of the mainstream media will be going tonight. They are playing to their base.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches- ... d=81108654
 
NIKV69
Posts: 14724
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:57 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
You can look at the slant and the tone of this ABC News article on the Rittenhouse acquittal, to see where the bulk of the mainstream media will be going tonight. They are playing to their base.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches- ... d=81108654


Yep MSNBC in full Jan 6th Domestic terrorist hysteria.
 
CaptHadley
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:57 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
You can look at the slant and the tone of this ABC News article on the Rittenhouse acquittal, to see where the bulk of the mainstream media will be going tonight. They are playing to their base.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches- ... d=81108654


Slant? Please, the article touches both sides and gives each "party" their take on the events. You're trying to fit this article into what YOU are feeling, it fits really bad.
 
CaptHadley
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:58 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
You can look at the slant and the tone of this ABC News article on the Rittenhouse acquittal, to see where the bulk of the mainstream media will be going tonight. They are playing to their base.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches- ... d=81108654


Yep MSNBC in full Jan 6th Domestic terrorist hysteria.


Which is was, to a "T"
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2883
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:18 pm

StarAC17 wrote:


flyingclrs727 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
The Civil lawsuits against Kenosha and Rittenhouse will be interesting to see.

As for this ruling, it comes down to bad police work, and over charging by the prosecutor.

The wrongful death suits will probably be forthcoming.


What civil lawsuits? Wrongful death? The defendant just successfully used a self-defense plea. Claiming self-defense puts the burden of proof on the defense.


Civil law has a much lower burden of proof than criminal law and I can see those lawsuits being somewhat successful. Especially as its likely that Rittenhouse is in a position to profit from this case in terms of media appearances and a potential book deal.

OJ Simpson was deemed liable in subsequent civil trials after his acquittal in 1995.


OJ Simpson never made a self-defense plea. Kyle Rittenhouse did. Making a self-defense plea puts the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that he was justified in his actions that took the lives of the two who died and caused serious injury to the one who was shot in the bicep. A death resulting from self-defense is justifiable homicide. A civil trial would have an impossible job of trying to show by preponderance of evidence that the killing was not justified, when a criminal court with a much higher burden of proof got a verdict that it was justified.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Topic Author
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:18 pm

CaptHadley wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
You can look at the slant and the tone of this ABC News article on the Rittenhouse acquittal, to see where the bulk of the mainstream media will be going tonight. They are playing to their base.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches- ... d=81108654


Slant? Please, the article touches both sides and gives each "party" their take on the events. You're trying to fit this article into what YOU are feeling, it fits really bad.


Yes slant. The Lead off forte was not about how the exonerated Rittenhouse family felt, but how the family of the protestors that the jury determined to be acting in aggression enough towards Mr. Rittenhouse, to support him defending his life, with the firearm, that he was legally carrying at the time felt. It's all about optics, and I can see the slant very plainly for the aggressive protestor's side of things.

Here's a counter-Liberal view about the acquittal from former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard's YouTube website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkaFJG46uU
 
LittleFokker
Posts: 1513
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:25 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:33 pm

Good news, everyone - vigilante murder is legal in Wisconsin now! Should I drive up from Illinois and inflict a little self defense of on own?
 
johns624
Posts: 4534
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:40 pm

LittleFokker wrote:
Good news, everyone - vigilante murder is legal in Wisconsin now! Should I drive up from Illinois and inflict a little self defense of on own?
You can try...
 
User avatar
Veigar
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:44 pm

LittleFokker wrote:
Good news, everyone - vigilante murder is legal in Wisconsin now! Should I drive up from Illinois and inflict a little self defense of on own?


What compels people like you to make ridiculous projections like this? I sincerely mean this in the nicest way possible, and I'm curious.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 14724
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:52 pm

LittleFokker wrote:
Good news, everyone - vigilante murder is legal in Wisconsin now! Should I drive up from Illinois and inflict a little self defense of on own?


No but you can become law enforcement and do a daily tour and protect the community.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:09 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
You can look at the slant and the tone of this ABC News article on the Rittenhouse acquittal, to see where the bulk of the mainstream media will be going tonight. They are playing to their base.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches- ... d=81108654


Slant? Please, the article touches both sides and gives each "party" their take on the events. You're trying to fit this article into what YOU are feeling, it fits really bad.


Yes slant. The Lead off forte was not about how the exonerated Rittenhouse family felt, but how the family of the protestors that the jury determined to be acting in aggression enough towards Mr. Rittenhouse, to support him defending his life, with the firearm, that he was legally carrying at the time felt. It's all about optics, and I can see the slant very plainly for the aggressive protestor's side of things.

Here's a counter-Liberal view about the acquittal from former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard's YouTube website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkaFJG46uU


And here is a counter-conservative view loudly revealing the elephant in the room: if a black kid had come to Kenosha with a rifle and shot two people in self defense, they quite likely would have been convicted.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 87686?s=21
 
Kent350787
Posts: 2167
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:15 am

Aaron747 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:

Slant? Please, the article touches both sides and gives each "party" their take on the events. You're trying to fit this article into what YOU are feeling, it fits really bad.


Yes slant. The Lead off forte was not about how the exonerated Rittenhouse family felt, but how the family of the protestors that the jury determined to be acting in aggression enough towards Mr. Rittenhouse, to support him defending his life, with the firearm, that he was legally carrying at the time felt. It's all about optics, and I can see the slant very plainly for the aggressive protestor's side of things.

Here's a counter-Liberal view about the acquittal from former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard's YouTube website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkaFJG46uU


And here is a counter-conservative view loudly revealing the elephant in the room: if a black kid had come to Kenosha with a rifle and shot two people in self defense, they quite likely would have been convicted.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 87686?s=21


The outcome doesn’t seem unexpected given so many elements of the case. Most other countries don’t see what appears to be a partisan judicial system in their countries.

The statement upthread “don’t attack someone unless you expect to be shot” (or similar) also leaves
Most people outside the US incredulous.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15923
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:23 am

There were a terrible set of circumstances that led to Rittenhouse to use a gun, serious mistakes made by the prosecutors, a political environment that polarized the community by racial lines, our 2nd Amendment absolutism and witnesses that supported part of Rittenhouse's actions. Of course the news channels are going wall to wall covering and analyzing the acquittal, they should just give a few facts form the Jury decision and limit the analysis as will just make Rittenhouse a hero to some and hated by many others.

Let us not what started the events leading to Rittenhouse, White local police officers using a gun on a Black man, paralyzing him as they were trying to arrest him, was resisting it,the police officers saw in his hand close to the LEO's. For almost all Black persons, they see another excessive and racially biased use of force on Black persons that sadly led to street violence "A riot', burning down of businesses, looting and other stupid acts as the cops, unable due to so many doing those acts, backed off, than attracting vigilantes like Rittenhouse to show up with a gun.

Yes, he will have to live down his acts, but he cannot be made a hero as to do so will encourage more vigilantism when the next bad reaction to a cop shooting a Black criminal suspect.
 
johns624
Posts: 4534
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:32 am

Kent350787 wrote:
The statement upthread “don’t attack someone unless you expect to be shot” (or similar) also leaves
Most people outside the US incredulous.
Just like most Americans are dumbfounded when a person (usually in the UK) is tried for using a weapon to protect themselves when criminals break into their homes. There's no such thing as a fair fight when a criminal attacks you.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6284
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:47 am

LCDFlight wrote:

You can't shoot people for rioting. It is arguable if you can shoot them for burning buildings (depends if it endangers innocent people). But if the rioters start assaulting you or endangering you, then yes, shooting them is lawful. As we saw today.


One thing I have not heard many people talk about is why he was there in the first place. Yeah, I know people will say otherwise. On one side of the argument people will say he was there to protect property from rioters. On the other side people say he was there in the hopes he could use his weapon. You can debate both arguments. They both seem to miss the point. The reason this kid got into this whole mess is that his parents failed in their role as parents.
 
KWexpress
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:54 am

LMP737 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:

You can't shoot people for rioting. It is arguable if you can shoot them for burning buildings (depends if it endangers innocent people). But if the rioters start assaulting you or endangering you, then yes, shooting them is lawful. As we saw today.


One thing I have not heard many people talk about is why he was there in the first place. Yeah, I know people will say otherwise. On one side of the argument people will say he was there to protect property from rioters. On the other side people say he was there in the hopes he could use his weapon. You can debate both arguments. They both seem to miss the point. The reason this kid got into this whole mess is that his parents failed in their role as parents.

It really doesn't matter why he was there. It's not illegal for any US citizen to be in a public area.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:09 am

KWexpress wrote:
LMP737 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:

You can't shoot people for rioting. It is arguable if you can shoot them for burning buildings (depends if it endangers innocent people). But if the rioters start assaulting you or endangering you, then yes, shooting them is lawful. As we saw today.


One thing I have not heard many people talk about is why he was there in the first place. Yeah, I know people will say otherwise. On one side of the argument people will say he was there to protect property from rioters. On the other side people say he was there in the hopes he could use his weapon. You can debate both arguments. They both seem to miss the point. The reason this kid got into this whole mess is that his parents failed in their role as parents.

It really doesn't matter why he was there. It's not illegal for any US citizen to be in a public area.


I think he went out “looking for trouble” and perhaps hoping to be attacked, so he could kill in self defense. I suspect he wanted to do that. But that is not illegal and never has been illegal.

It was baffling to see the prosecutors try to make that case. Even if he did go there looking for trouble, that’s not illegal! Half the human race does that on a typical Friday night. And there isn’t one single law against having trouble on your mind.

People have a right to go to public places as they see fit. The curfew legal force was weak, and that non-criminal charge was thrown out. I think it is more of a liability shield for cops trying to clear an area.
 
phatfarmlines
Posts: 2080
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 12:06 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:26 am

The current Wisconsin laws, as well as the incredibly unchecked bias by the judge that could very well be an example of CRT, favored Rittenhouse. I find it hard to believe the current hunting laws allowed him to have legal possession of a firearm when he clearly was not doing that.

So if any 16-17 year old teenager of any ethnic background is carrying a gun of any type and they are stopped by police, does that mean they can avoid a weapons charge?

But I'll buy the self-defense argument - you don't want to set precedents by charging people for defending themselves.
 
johns624
Posts: 4534
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:30 am

phatfarmlines wrote:

So if any 16-17 year old teenager of any ethnic background is carrying a gun of any type and they are stopped by police, does that mean they can avoid a weapons charge?

I don't believe he could've been in possession of a handgun, but I could be wrong. It's happened before...
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4802
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:35 am

The precedent is set: last one still alive is innocent and can claim self defense.


Also, why aren't we talking about the kid's delinquent parents? Driving him across state lines, with a gun to a riot? Can you imagine the outrage at this if it was a person of colour?
 
Elkadad313
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:55 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:57 am

casinterest wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
I think the Rittenhouse's should spend the weekend with the Sandmanns.


Sandmann has nothing to do with this case. Or are you saying that Sandmann killed people ?

He does not, but he has something in common with Rittenhouse: the same knee-jerk media and wokeish mob mentality that convicted him before (even after) the FACTS came out.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2883
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:31 am

johns624 wrote:
phatfarmlines wrote:

So if any 16-17 year old teenager of any ethnic background is carrying a gun of any type and they are stopped by police, does that mean they can avoid a weapons charge?

I don't believe he could've been in possession of a handgun, but I could be wrong. It's happened before...


It's absolutely correct. He couldn't carry any sort of handgun in public either concealed or open carry. The reason the charges for illegally carrying a firearm were dropped was due to the fact that the rifle he was carrying was longer than the minimum length. A handgun would be to short to meet the criteria.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2403
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:33 am

Aaron747 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
CaptHadley wrote:

Slant? Please, the article touches both sides and gives each "party" their take on the events. You're trying to fit this article into what YOU are feeling, it fits really bad.


Yes slant. The Lead off forte was not about how the exonerated Rittenhouse family felt, but how the family of the protestors that the jury determined to be acting in aggression enough towards Mr. Rittenhouse, to support him defending his life, with the firearm, that he was legally carrying at the time felt. It's all about optics, and I can see the slant very plainly for the aggressive protestor's side of things.

Here's a counter-Liberal view about the acquittal from former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard's YouTube website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkaFJG46uU


And here is a counter-conservative view loudly revealing the elephant in the room: if a black kid had come to Kenosha with a rifle and shot two people in self defense, they quite likely would have been convicted.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 87686?s=21


Meh. Just a lazy thinker.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:39 am

DL717 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:

Yes slant. The Lead off forte was not about how the exonerated Rittenhouse family felt, but how the family of the protestors that the jury determined to be acting in aggression enough towards Mr. Rittenhouse, to support him defending his life, with the firearm, that he was legally carrying at the time felt. It's all about optics, and I can see the slant very plainly for the aggressive protestor's side of things.

Here's a counter-Liberal view about the acquittal from former Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard's YouTube website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkaFJG46uU


And here is a counter-conservative view loudly revealing the elephant in the room: if a black kid had come to Kenosha with a rifle and shot two people in self defense, they quite likely would have been convicted.

https://twitter.com/radiofreetom/status ... 87686?s=21


Meh. Just a lazy thinker.


That's funny - you're talking about a conservative who has written three books now on how too many Americans question expertise and lack critical thinking.
 
User avatar
T18
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:28 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:40 am

zkojq wrote:

Also, why aren't we talking about the kid's delinquent parents? Driving him across state lines, with a gun to a riot?


Well because that isn't true....

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/ritte ... ut-weapon/
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:43 am

LCDFlight wrote:
KWexpress wrote:
LMP737 wrote:

One thing I have not heard many people talk about is why he was there in the first place. Yeah, I know people will say otherwise. On one side of the argument people will say he was there to protect property from rioters. On the other side people say he was there in the hopes he could use his weapon. You can debate both arguments. They both seem to miss the point. The reason this kid got into this whole mess is that his parents failed in their role as parents.

It really doesn't matter why he was there. It's not illegal for any US citizen to be in a public area.


I think he went out “looking for trouble” and perhaps hoping to be attacked, so he could kill in self defense. I suspect he wanted to do that. But that is not illegal and never has been illegal.

It was baffling to see the prosecutors try to make that case. Even if he did go there looking for trouble, that’s not illegal! Half the human race does that on a typical Friday night. And there isn’t one single law against having trouble on your mind.

People have a right to go to public places as they see fit. The curfew legal force was weak, and that non-criminal charge was thrown out. I think it is more of a liability shield for cops trying to clear an area.


I think you're right - at the end of the day, the jury clearly thought Rittenhouse's actions were wrong, but not illegal.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 1297
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 4:06 am

johns624 wrote:
Just like most Americans are dumbfounded when a person (usually in the UK) is tried for using a weapon to protect themselves when criminals break into their homes. There's no such thing as a fair fight when a criminal attacks you.


...because that happens so often in the UK, right?
 
travaz
Posts: 1166
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 1:03 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 4:17 am

There is only one thing that has any sense about this trial. A Jury of his peers sat through 3 weeks of evidence and deliberated a unanimous verdict of Not guilty. These people did not volunteer for Jury duty, they were picked by the state on a random bases as citizens of good standing. I have sat on 2 Jury's, its not a lot of fun and takes up your time. Both trials I sat on were fairly mundane but everyone took thier duty seriously and rendered a Verdict that was based on the FACTS of the case. Did I like the accused? No, one of them was a dirt bag from the word go, but the prosecution
failed to make the case. Everyone should get over it as the Jury has spoken.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 1297
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 4:26 am

travaz wrote:
There is only one thing that has any sense about this trial. A Jury of his peers sat through 3 weeks of evidence and deliberated a unanimous verdict of Not guilty. These people did not volunteer for Jury duty, they were picked by the state on a random bases as citizens of good standing. I have sat on 2 Jury's, its not a lot of fun and takes up your time. Both trials I sat on were fairly mundane but everyone took thier duty seriously and rendered a Verdict that was based on the FACTS of the case. Did I like the accused? No, one of them was a dirt bag from the word go, but the prosecution
failed to make the case. Everyone should get over it as the Jury has spoken.


Can't disagree with this.

Also, although the ends should not justify the means, 2 scumbags are no longer with us and another will require help with certain pleasures, so not a bad result.
 
Airstud
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 4:53 am

CaptHadley wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
You can look at the slant and the tone of this ABC News article on the Rittenhouse acquittal, to see where the bulk of the mainstream media will be going tonight. They are playing to their base.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-reaches- ... d=81108654


Slant? Please, the article touches both sides and gives each "party" their take on the events. You're trying to fit this article into what YOU are feeling, it fits really bad.


It might "touch" on both sides but it then devotes about eight times as much space to the "Miscarriage of justice! Scrap the system!" side as it does to the pro-acquittal side.

U.S. news consumers are used to this from the major broadcast networks, Washington Post, New York Times, NPR...
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:37 am

Maybe because it’s blindingly obvious, that if that sick kid hadn’t turned up uninvited as a self-declared vigilante, armed with an automatic rifle, nobody would have died that night?

How any justice system can find anyone innocent in such a situation is a travesty, but, that’s America 2021 for you; the sickest society in the civilised world.
 
Elkadad313
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:55 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:59 am

B777LRF wrote:
Maybe because it’s blindingly obvious, that if that sick kid hadn’t turned up uninvited as a self-declared vigilante, armed with an automatic rifle, nobody would have died that night?

How any justice system can find anyone innocent in such a situation is a travesty, but, that’s America 2021 for you; the sickest society in the civilised world.

Or, to the genesis of it all on August 23, 2020, if a man wanted on a warrant for his arrest from the previous month, based on charges of third-degree sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, and while carrying a knife refused to comply with a lawful police order and instead went to this car, opened the door and then quickly turned toward the police officer and got shot, maybe because it’s blindingly obvious that if Jacob Blake had simply complied two people would still be alive. :(
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:42 am

Unless you also happen to believe Rittenhouse is endowed with prognosticating abilities, apart from obviously being a psychopath, that argument holds no water what so ever. Fact is, he went to a riot armed with a rifle and killed two people. He didn’t have to be there, he had no business playing law enforcement, and he shot three people who didn’t need to be shot.

That US police officers would rather shoot first and ask questions later is also not a very good argument.

As said, the US is the sickest of civilisations.
Last edited by B777LRF on Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:45 am

B777LRF wrote:
Unless you also happen to believe Rittenhouse is a physic, apart from obviously being a psychopath, that argument holds no water what so ever. Fact is, he went to a riot armed with a rifle and killed two people. He didn’t have to be there, he had no business playing law enforcement, and he shot three people who didn’t need to be shot.

That US police officers would rather shoot first and ask questions later is also not a very good argument.


The third sentence is completely true, but the first makes no sense at all - previous poster was talking about a different timeline altogether.
 
johns624
Posts: 4534
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:51 pm

Virtual737 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Just like most Americans are dumbfounded when a person (usually in the UK) is tried for using a weapon to protect themselves when criminals break into their homes. There's no such thing as a fair fight when a criminal attacks you.


...because that happens so often in the UK, right?
It doesn't matter how many times it happens. Once is too often. When people find out what happens when they try to defend themselves, they don't even try.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:46 pm

Elkadad313 wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
Maybe because it’s blindingly obvious, that if that sick kid hadn’t turned up uninvited as a self-declared vigilante, armed with an automatic rifle, nobody would have died that night?

How any justice system can find anyone innocent in such a situation is a travesty, but, that’s America 2021 for you; the sickest society in the civilised world.

Or, to the genesis of it all on August 23, 2020, if a man wanted on a warrant for his arrest from the previous month, based on charges of third-degree sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, and while carrying a knife refused to comply with a lawful police order and instead went to this car, opened the door and then quickly turned toward the police officer and got shot, maybe because it’s blindingly obvious that if Jacob Blake had simply complied two people would still be alive. :(


Multiple things can be true at the same time. Yes, Blake was unwise and met an early demise as a result of his impulsive actions. Yes, that death poured fuel on an already simmering cultural fire. Yes, that sent more people into the streets, whether they had all the facts or not. None of it makes Rittenhouse worthy of the lionization he is receiving from right wing pundits and the worst morons in Congress on the right.
 
johns624
Posts: 4534
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:01 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
Elkadad313 wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
Maybe because it’s blindingly obvious, that if that sick kid hadn’t turned up uninvited as a self-declared vigilante, armed with an automatic rifle, nobody would have died that night?

How any justice system can find anyone innocent in such a situation is a travesty, but, that’s America 2021 for you; the sickest society in the civilised world.

Or, to the genesis of it all on August 23, 2020, if a man wanted on a warrant for his arrest from the previous month, based on charges of third-degree sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, and while carrying a knife refused to comply with a lawful police order and instead went to this car, opened the door and then quickly turned toward the police officer and got shot, maybe because it’s blindingly obvious that if Jacob Blake had simply complied two people would still be alive. :(


Multiple things can be true at the same time. Yes, Blake was unwise and met an early demise as a result of his impulsive actions. Yes, that death poured fuel on an already simmering cultural fire. Yes, that sent more people into the streets, whether they had all the facts or not. None of it makes Rittenhouse worthy of the lionization he is receiving from right wing pundits and the worst morons in Congress on the right.
Blake is still with us, more or less.
 
johns624
Posts: 4534
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:02 pm

B777LRF wrote:

As said, the US is the sickest of civilisations.
It appears you don't like the US...
 
NLINK
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:20 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:27 pm

B777LRF wrote:
As said, the US is the sickest of civilisations.



You sound like a Soros puppet.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:35 pm

B777LRF wrote:
Unless you also happen to believe Rittenhouse is endowed with prognosticating abilities, apart from obviously being a psychopath, that argument holds no water what so ever. Fact is, he went to a riot armed with a rifle and killed two people. He didn’t have to be there, he had no business playing law enforcement, and he shot three people who didn’t need to be shot.

That US police officers would rather shoot first and ask questions later is also not a very good argument.

As said, the US is the sickest of civilisations.


Going to a riot armed with a rifle is not a crime. It is strange that Rittenhouse, a fairly stupid 17 year old, knew so much more about the law than other people. Including the prosecutors. You’re just not making a case that he committed murder. Legally, he didn’t. He was just a dumb guy in a public place who had every right to defend himself from goons terrorizing the community, and did so.

This case was really about violent crime, and the fact we do not need to tolerate threats or violence from criminals. Each citizen has the right to put down threats or violent acts against them.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:43 pm

johns624 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
Elkadad313 wrote:
Or, to the genesis of it all on August 23, 2020, if a man wanted on a warrant for his arrest from the previous month, based on charges of third-degree sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, and while carrying a knife refused to comply with a lawful police order and instead went to this car, opened the door and then quickly turned toward the police officer and got shot, maybe because it’s blindingly obvious that if Jacob Blake had simply complied two people would still be alive. :(


Multiple things can be true at the same time. Yes, Blake was unwise and met an early demise as a result of his impulsive actions. Yes, that death poured fuel on an already simmering cultural fire. Yes, that sent more people into the streets, whether they had all the facts or not. None of it makes Rittenhouse worthy of the lionization he is receiving from right wing pundits and the worst morons in Congress on the right.
Blake is still with us, more or less.


You're right, I stand corrected. That's what I get for posting pre-coffee at the crack of dawn. :splat:
 
Elkadad313
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:55 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 3:16 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
Elkadad313 wrote:
B777LRF wrote:
Maybe because it’s blindingly obvious, that if that sick kid hadn’t turned up uninvited as a self-declared vigilante, armed with an automatic rifle, nobody would have died that night?

How any justice system can find anyone innocent in such a situation is a travesty, but, that’s America 2021 for you; the sickest society in the civilised world.

Or, to the genesis of it all on August 23, 2020, if a man wanted on a warrant for his arrest from the previous month, based on charges of third-degree sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, and while carrying a knife refused to comply with a lawful police order and instead went to this car, opened the door and then quickly turned toward the police officer and got shot, maybe because it’s blindingly obvious that if Jacob Blake had simply complied two people would still be alive. :(


Multiple things can be true at the same time. Yes, Blake was unwise and met an early demise as a result of his impulsive actions. Yes, that death poured fuel on an already simmering cultural fire. Yes, that sent more people into the streets, whether they had all the facts or not. None of it makes Rittenhouse worthy of the lionization he is receiving from right wing pundits and the worst morons in Congress on the right.

Without rain, there can be no flood.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24174
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:38 pm

Veigar wrote:
LittleFokker wrote:
Good news, everyone - vigilante murder is legal in Wisconsin now! Should I drive up from Illinois and inflict a little self defense of on own?


What compels people like you to make ridiculous projections like this? I sincerely mean this in the nicest way possible, and I'm curious.


This verdict. Rittenhouse had no reason to carry an AR-15 into a protest then claim he felt threatened and open fire. None at all. No one but no one was surrounding his house, no one but no one was ransacking his house. He has no reason to walk into a crowd of protesters, claim he felt threatened, and kill. But, the judge and jury believe that is just fine.
 
johns624
Posts: 4534
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:53 pm

seb146 wrote:
No one but no one was surrounding his house.
Yet, that is more or less what the protesters were doing in St Louis when the two lawyers came out on the lawn with guns and you lambasted them then.
 
dtw9
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:09 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:58 pm

seb146 wrote:
Veigar wrote:
LittleFokker wrote:
Good news, everyone - vigilante murder is legal in Wisconsin now! Should I drive up from Illinois and inflict a little self defense of on own?


What compels people like you to make ridiculous projections like this? I sincerely mean this in the nicest way possible, and I'm curious.


This verdict. Rittenhouse had no reason to carry an AR-15 into a protest then claim he felt threatened and open fire. None at all. No one but no one was surrounding his house, no one but no one was ransacking his house. He has no reason to walk into a crowd of protesters, claim he felt threatened, and kill. But, the judge and jury believe that is just fine.


You must have been asleep or in a stupor when the trial was on. Rittenhouse had every legal right to open carry his weapon while Grosskreutz was ILLEGALLY carrying his as he is a convicted FELON. And for you to say he wasn’t surrounded and feel threatened is the most ridiculous statement you’ve made yet. Let’s not forget Freeland the unnamed protester who kicked Rittenhouse in the head. Grosskreutz should be charged with felon in possession and assault with a deadly weapon. Freeland should be charged with assault to do great bodily harm. You need to find a new place to get your news.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:07 pm

Think we found some common ground: The laws as they are written are bonkers. They apparently allow for anyone* to take the law into their own hands, defining themselves when, what and where to exercise the privilege, and doing so armed with semi-automatic weaponry.

And that’s ok in some people’s book, but only because it happens to fit with their political allegiance. Both leads back to earlier comments of my dislike of what the US has become.

*Caucasians and RW enthusiasts only, obvs
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:06 pm

I assume that in Rittenhouse's mind he was defending his homeland from a threat. Note - In his mind.

80 years ago, it is estimated that 6,000 Danes joined the German Army to fight against the Soviets on the Eastern Front. So in 1943, some 17 or 18 year old felt his homeland (Denmark) was under threat. Young men do rash, foolish things. And have since the beginning of time.

To think Rittenhouse's actions are just an American "illness", I'm afraid his train of thought is shared throughout the species.
 
art
Posts: 4403
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:55 pm

I have not followed the case but it seems that there is no enormous disagreement over the facts. So if the jury came to a decision based on the facts with due regard to the legal instruction given to them, I do not see that their verdict is in itself controversial.

Those who find the verdict upsetting are upset by the law being the way it is, aren't they? I think that it is not uncommon for people to judge the outcome of cases based on what they would like the law to be rather than by what it is.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pune, Virtual737 and 19 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos