# Rittenhouse verdict



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have followed most of the trial live on Youtube, and have to say it was a rather bizarre trial.

Without going into the ultimate verdict that the jury renders......some points of interest.

Wisconsin gun laws are rather strange and the "self defense" laws are really complex but wide ranging.

The charge against Rittenhouse being underage to possess a weapon were dismissed by the judge because the barrel was longer than the statute stated.

So if the gun barrel was shorter than an AR15 the charge would have remained. I don't get that part at all.

Examples of their legal system are:

They have 18 jurors but only 12 will make the jury panel that decides the case. All 18 jurors attend the trial and have their names put into a "bingo hall" type of drum from which 12 names are drawn. The jury could end up being mostly women, mostly men, or a any combination possible from 18 jurors. The verdict could well be decided by the names that are pulled out of the drum to make up the final jury.

Rittenhouse was 17 and unable to purchase or own a gun. He crossed state lines with the AR15 that he had a friend purchase and hold for him.
He loaded the gun with full metal jacket bullets, and went to Kenosha falsely claiming he was an EMT and was there to provide medical help and protect businesses. But as noted above......the gun barrel was longer than prohibited by statute, so that charge was dismissed.

The judge in this case is a different sort of fellow, and his instructions to the jury were so muddled that lawyers and legal analysts said he confused even them.
I think they said his charge to the jury was 36 pages long and took hours of complex wording and situations.

It just seems strange to me that a kid can carry a loaded AR15 full of full metal jacket ammunition, parade around waving his gun at unarmed people, and then end up killing 2 people, badly wounding a 3rd person who was armed, and shooting but missing other people.....and they are disputing if it is legal.

I wonder what the next protest in Kenosha will look like. Will both sides come armed to the teeth and ready to do battle ?

It will be interesting to see what the jury decides.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Thank God, it's in the U.S.A. - land of the braves and free (nuts).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This trial, combined with everything else going on......Trump insiders refusing to testify, armed militias marching around in cities, political leaders fanning the flames, both parties trying to change election laws so they can win, defund the police nonsense....the US is heading down the path of armed civil war.

Whatever the jury decides in Kenosha, there will be anger spilling into the streets. The US is a nation divided.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Some more facts that make a person wonder where the US is heading.

Rittenhouse's mother drove her armed 17 year old son to the protest, which she knew would be violent because his goal was to "protect businesses" in Kenosha.....in another state.

Today she says her son is a hero for saving businesses and lives, but her son was the only person who shot anyone and took lives.
Tthe owners of the used car business testified that they had already removed all the vehicles and emptied out the building.

The owners didn't request protection from the armed militia and they left the scene and went home. 

The militia group set up camp there and put snipers on the roof. They were protecting an empty building.

This whole tragic event and all the shootings started with someone saying there was a fire in a dumpster set by a protestor.

Rittenhouse and his mother are heroes to a lot of people and criminals to a lot of other people.

The protestors are heroes to a lot of people and an angry mob of criminals to a lot of other people.

This trial is an insight into the deep troubles brewing in the US, and we must be diligent not to allow it to spread to Canada.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Thank God, it's in the U.S.A. - land of the braves and free (nuts).


Only in the USA can a person armed and loaded with an assault weapon declare he feared for his life from unarmed men.

Now that's a snowflake.

And that's the same kind of defence used in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial too.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Wisconsin has deployed 500 National guardsmen near Kenosha, to wait for the verdict.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

sags said:


> The charge against Rittenhouse being underage to possess a weapon were dismissed by the judge because the barrel was longer than the statute stated.
> 
> So if the gun barrel was shorter than an AR15 the charge would have remained. I don't get that part at all.


I have no doubt that the original bill was a lot harsher and direct. But with the usual partisanship and NRA lobbying, the bill was compromised for it to pass.




sags said:


> The judge in this case is a different sort of fellow, and his instructions to the jury were so muddled that lawyers and legal analysts said he confused even them.


I have seen headlines where the defence was trying to have the trial declared a mistrial. I would have thought it's be the prosecutor trying to call it a mistrial as the judge sermed to be on Rittenhouse's side.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Under the existing law, the trial was essentially done without defense having to said a word. A testimony from the guy who was shot in a bicep was enough to sink the prosecution.
Of course there will be riots as a result but that is basically a tradition already. With rising prices an opportunity to loot can't be missed.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There is a video tape of Rittenhouse saying he wanted to take his AR15 to Kenosha and wouldn't hesitate to use it on protestors.

The judge ruled the tape was too prejudicial and the prosecution couldn't use it or show it to the jury.

I wouldn't say the judge was on either side......but offered a glimpse that he may not be the most competent judge in the US.

I guess he is local and you get what you get.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

The entire defense argument is that when using his weapon he was under impression that his life or health was in immediate danger. What was done days, weeks, or hours before is completely inconsequential when it comes to feeling immediate threat. 
Was he stupid for doing what he did - yes. Is stupidity illegal? No, it is not. Only reason why Canadian government still exists.

That's the standard under existing law.
The prosecution witness literally said his gun was pointed at Kyle while he was shot in a hand. 
Another prosecution witness stated that the AR-15 was touched by rioter.
There are wounds on a head from the skateboard.
There is plenty of video evidence.
Prosecution literally sunk its own case.

I disagree with the low bar for use of lethal force that Wisconsin has, but under existing law the verdict will be not-guilty.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That only deals with a couple of the shootings.

There is the first shooting where the guy was unarmed and Rittenhouse first shot destroyed the guy's pelvis and then was shot 3 more times while falling down.

There is also shots Rittenhouse took at protestors that missed and the guy with the skateboard that he killed.

It is hard to believe he will not be convicted of something, given all the charges and all the shooting he was doing.

Rittenhouse was literally spraying bullets all over the place.

But it depends on the makeup of the jury, and if they throw everything into one lump and find not guilty on all charges.

Personally, I feel sorry for the kid. His mother.........what was she thinking ? He appears to almost not understand the trouble he is in.

He broke down on the stand and while some say it was crocodile tears, my experience is that he was breaking down, feeling alone and afraid.

My goodness.......he is just a kid and his life is forever changed regardless of the verdict.

I would hope that even with a finding of guilt on some charges, he isn't sent to adult prison. That would accomplish nothing.

He needs help that his mother is obviously not giving him. Maybe a long period of probation and some mental help would be the best outcome.

But, the victims had families too and they likely wouldn't agree.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

The first one is the guy who chased him and touched his weapon. 
Second one is the guy who hit him with a skateboard
Third one is they guy with a gun aimed at Kyle.

Since weapon charge has now been thrown out, I don't know if there are any charges that can stick.
Unless misrepresenting himself as qualified EMT to the media is a chargeable offense.

Watching the trial one has to wonder if prosecution was hired by Kyle because they did terrific job in defending him


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think the first guy got close enough to Rittenhouse to touch his weapon. He was still several feet behind Rittenhouse when he was shot 4 times.

He was also unarmed, so that may be the most troublesome for the jury to accept self defense.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

So my take-away from this discussion is
1) pre-meditated no longer applies so this trial can set a precedence for future murder trials;
2) if someone aims a gun at you, don't be a hero and take the bullet. If you act in any way, it may be used against you as an act of aggression.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Gun advocates are following this case closely, because it challenges their claim that "good" people with guns provide safety against the bad guys.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

How does it challenge that claim?
It looks like a gun did end up providing safety against attackers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The gun holder is the only one who shot anyone.

What if another gun holder had shot and killed Rittenhouse because he feared for his life ?

Remember the law applies to everyone, so next time it might be the protestors doing the shooting and claiming self defense.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I have followed most of the trial live on Youtube, and have to say it was a rather bizarre trial.


You missed a few key points



> Without going into the ultimate verdict that the jury renders......some points of interest.
> 
> Wisconsin gun laws are rather strange and the "self defense" laws are really complex but wide ranging.
> 
> ...


The extra 6 are just spares. Good idea.



> Rittenhouse was 17 and unable to purchase or own a gun. He crossed state lines with the AR15 that he had a friend purchase and hold for him.


No he didn't cross state lines with the firearm.




> It just seems strange to me that a kid can carry a loaded AR15 full of full metal jacket ammunition, parade around waving his gun at unarmed people, and then end up killing 2 people, badly wounding a 3rd person who was armed, and shooting but missing other people.....and they are disputing if it is legal.


For someone who "watched the trial" you miss a few things.
1. He loaded his gun with the appropriate ammuntion. You say FMJ like it's special, it isn't.
2. He wasn't waving his gun at unarmed people. Care to show the video.
3. Apparently the first person attacked him, and tried to take his gun.
4. The other 2 people were attacking him, the one that survived even pointed an loaded handgun at him before he was shot.

The video of the second 2 attackers being shot is clear cut self defence.
Kyle was running and they attacked him with weapons. They were chasing him, they were not in fear of their life.
He wasn't shooting and and he posed no threat, beyond simply being a guy with a gun.

I am stunned that they didn't charge the guy with the handgun for his crimes.
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to be chasing someone down the street with a gun.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just another thing to add, some claim he had no business being in Kenosha.

His job was in Kenosha.

This case was totally political from the beginning, but the amount of misinformation is astonishing.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> The gun holder is the only one who shot anyone.
> 
> What if another gun holder had shot and killed Rittenhouse because he feared for his life ?
> 
> Remember the law applies to everyone, so next time it might be the protestors doing the shooting and claiming self defense.


Yeah, including another gun holder who had a gun aimed at him.

And you are right. The law applies to everyone. if protestors do the shooting then it will be up to prosecutors to prove it wasn't in self-defense


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Watch the videos.

The defense team didn't even argue most of the facts with any vigor because they knew his only hope was relying on the Wisconsin "self defence" law.

All they had to prove was Rittenhouse had a "reasonable" fear for his life and that is what they focused on.

In many other states Rittenhouse would have no defense at all. In Canada, he would be pleading guilty with a plea bargain.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Yeah, including another gun holder who had a gun aimed at him.
> 
> And you are right. The law applies to everyone. if protestors do the shooting then it will be up to prosecutors to prove it wasn't in self-defense


The person who was illegally carrying a gun got shot when he pointed it at a fleeing person.
Can't get more self defense than that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> Yeah, including another gun holder who had a gun aimed at him.
> 
> And you are right. The law applies to everyone. if protestors do the shooting then it will be up to prosecutors to prove it wasn't in self-defense


Shoot out at the OK Corral.........all very American.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> The person who was illegally carrying a gun got shot when he pointed it at a person with a gun, darn.


A person with an AR15....full metal jacket ammuniton, who was underage and untrained with weapons, and had already killed 2 people.

But never mind all that. He was there as an EMT......which he wasn't and had to borrow medical supplies from others to put into his kit bag.

By the way, Rittenhouse wasn't the only person pointing his gun at people. There were snipers on the roof pointing their guns at people.

And while Rittenhouse was saving Kenosha from the evil protestors.....the police were a block away.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Watch the videos.
> 
> The defense team didn't even argue most of the facts with any vigor because they knew his only hope was relying on the Wisconsin "self defence" law.
> 
> ...


'Precisely, that's all they had to do so that's what they did.
Honestly, watching the trial, I think if defense got up and literally didn't say anything, they still would have won.
The prosecutor did a terrific job defending Kyle


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> A person who was underage and untrained with weapons and had already killed several people.


Well again you've misrepresented the situation.

1. He wasn't necessarily underage. At least according to the judge.
2. He wasn't untrained, someone clearly taught him something, he responded very well to those in the crowd who put his safety at risk.
3. He killed someone in unknown circumstances, and then shot someone in obvious self defence in clear view of the person who drew their illegal weapon.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Watch the videos.
> 
> The defense team didn't even argue most of the facts with any vigor because they knew his only hope was relying on the Wisconsin "self defence" law.
> 
> ...


Yes, watch the videos.
Of course they didn't argue the facts, because the facts all show a reasonable fear for his life.

When he was alone he was attacked by a known criminal who previously threatened to kill him, and tried to take his gun.
He was then chased by a mob.
He was attacked by another person who chased and hit him, who was shot.
He then had a third person, who pointed a gun at him before he was shot.

It's very clear that any reasonable person would feel they were at risk of imminent harm.
They were attacking someone armed with clearly visible rifle, they weren't asking him to sit down and have a calm discussion, they wanted to hurt him.

If you were running down the street with a mob chasing you, people hitting you with objects and pointing guns at you, would you feel scared for your life?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The first person shot was running behind Rittenhouse. It is clear on video that they are about 6 feet apart when Rittenhouse suddenly turns and opens fire.

He then points the AR15 down and fires 3 more shots into the guy. He kills an unarmed man and runs away.

At that point....Rittenhouse is a felon fleeing a murder scene. He cannot claim self defense for any of the other shootings if he is convicted of the first shooting.

Rittenhouse's future may well depend on how the jury views the first shooting.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

And what was he supposed to do?

Having a rifle (the court case is not about whether he was allowed to have a rifle, or whether it was smart to have it), running away from a guy who is faster than you, hearing a shot from behind, having a guy 6ft behind you and closing?
If it was you or your child would you want to take any chances? - I wouldn't, and wouldn't want my kids to either.

In this scenario everyone would be terrified, and in Wisconsin it is enough to claim self-defense.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The first person shot was running behind Rittenhouse. It is clear on video that they are about 6 feet apart when Rittenhouse suddenly turns and opens fire.
> 
> He then points the AR15 down and fires 3 more shots into the guy. He kills an unarmed man and runs away.
> 
> ...


Are you capable of reporting facts?


Look at the footage. 48 seconds in








Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Drone video shows 1st shooting at close range | Watch News Videos Online


Watch Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Drone video shows 1st shooting at close range Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca




globalnews.ca












Kyle Rittenhouse shot first man at close range: Pathologist


Dr. Doug Kelley was one of the last witnesses for the state before prosecutors rested their murder case after 5 1/2 days of testimony that were aimed at portraying Rittenhouse as the aggressor but often bolstered the young man’s claim of self-defense.




chicago.suntimes.com





On Tuesday, the jury watched drone video that was zoomed-in and slowed down to show Rosenbaum following Rittenhouse, and then Rittenhouse wheeling around and shooting Rosenbaum at close range.

"Kelley, the pathologist, said Rosenbaum was shot four times by someone who was within 4 feet of him. "


Sorry Rosenbaum was chasing then Rittenhouse, who he threatened to kill earlier in the day..

Like you said, the defence didn't offer much, just look at the evidence, you have a violent criminal, attacking a teenager, who defends himself.



There is video footage of every interaction.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> In this scenario everyone would be terrified, and in Wisconsin it is enough to claim self-defense.


In almost every jurisdiction this is enough to claim self defense.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

We should have a poll…i think this kid should do time.

he went looking for trouble and found it.

he was a provocateur. He broke the law didn’t he by Obtaining the gun and travelling across state lines didn’t he? Sorry, I don’t know all the facts.

if I break into my neighbours home, and he attacks me with a knife, I suppose I can kill him in self defence? But maybe still get charged with B and E?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> We should have a poll…i think this kid should do time.
> 
> he went looking for trouble and found it.
> 
> he was a provocateur. He broke the law didn’t he by Obtaining the gun and travelling across state lines didn’t he? Sorry, I don’t know all the facts.


No he didn't. That's pretty well established.




> if I break into my neighbours home, and he attacks me with a knife, I suppose I can kill him in self defence? But maybe still get charged with B and E?


Maybe, the problem is that you committed a crime first.

He was in a mostly public place, and people started attacking him.
If you were walking down the street and someone attacks you, it's simply a question of if the response is proportionate.

In this case it's pretty clear in the second 2 cases. 

The first, you just have a guy who previously threatened to kill him chasing him through a parking lot. Was shooting him a proportionate response, maybe maybe not.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" and a threat to the protestors.

He killed people, wounded people, shot at people and missed, and pointed the gun at people.

He didn't possibly pose a danger. He proved he was. The people who tried to disarm him are heroes.

He might get off, but not because he is innocent.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The question isn't just shooting Rosenbaum. It is shooting him 3 more times after he is crippled and disabled by the first shot.

Boom.......and he is down and in pain and bleeding all over. So then you lower your weapon and boom, boom, boom.........just to be sure ?

The defense argued that Rittenhouse couldn't control the weapon firing all those bullets because he wasn't familiar with the weapon.

Yea well duh.....Rittenhouse shouldn't have had an illegal weapon.

Interesting that the guy who purchased the weapon for Rittenhouse is going to trial.

The guy who bought the gun legally may go to prison while the guy who used it illegally to kill 2 people and wound another might be acquited.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" and a threat to the protestors.


Only the "protestors" who attacked him.



> He killed people, wounded people, shot at people and missed, and pointed the gun at people.


Yup, he killed and wounded people who attacked him.



> He didn't possibly pose a danger.


To all the people who weren't trying to hurt him, he wasn't.



> He proved he was.


Only to those who attacked him.



> The people who tried to disarm him are heroes.


"Agitators", who attacked an armed man who isn't hurting anyone?



> He might get off, but not because he is innocent.


He should get off because he's not guilty of the crimes he's being charged with.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The question isn't just shooting Rosenbaum. It is shooting him 3 more times after he is crippled and disabled by the first shot.


Playing a bit loose witht he facts.



> Boom.......and he is down and in pain and bleeding all over. So then you lower your weapon and boom, boom, boom.........just to be sure ?


You shoot until the threat is neutralized



> The defense argued that Rittenhouse couldn't control the weapon firing all those bullets because he wasn't familiar with the weapon.


Did that actually happen?
Or did you make this up? You've filled this threat with made up facts, and I'm 95% sure you're not going to back this one up either.



> Yea well duh.....Rittenhouse shouldn't have had an illegal weapon.


He didn't.



> Interesting that the guy who purchased the weapon for Rittenhouse is going to trial.


Of course they need to "get someone"
they aren't going to go after the guy who had an illegal gun and threatened Kyle with it.



> The guy who bought the gun legally may go to prison while the guy who used it illegally to kill 2 people and wound another might be acquitted.


Nope, when someone threatens your life you can use proportionate force to stop the attack, and he did.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

There goes the thread.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Tostig said:


> There goes the thread.


I think it went off the rails about here, when someone claimed knowledge, then fabricated 80% of the claims they make in the thread.



sags said:


> I have followed most of the trial live on Youtube, and have to say it was a rather bizarre trial.


 I'm surprised he even got the city right.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Tostig said:


> Only in the USA can a person armed and loaded with an assault weapon declare he feared for his life from unarmed men.
> 
> Now that's a snowflake.
> 
> And that's the same kind of defence used in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial too.


Personally, unlike (it appears) some here, I don't personally know anything about the facts found in this case or anything about the laws that pertain. So I won't post an opinion except to state that 
*'Something Is Rotten In The State Of Denmark'*


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The protestor with the gun is being charged with the illegal possession of a firearm. The prosecutor told the jury that in his closing argument.

Ironic that he is of age but being charged, and a 17 year old who isn't old enough to own a gun isn't......because his gun barrel was longer.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The protestor with the gun is being charged with the illegal possession of a firearm. The prosecutor told the jury that in his closing argument.
> 
> Ironic that he is of age but being charged, and a 17 year old who isn't old enough to own a gun isn't......because his gun barrel was longer.


Definition time
ironic. -
happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.


I don't see how the "opposite" happened.


Well lets see the guy who possessed a gun in clear violation of the law is being charged.

Rittenhouse was charged, but those charges were thrown out.

I've got to ask, how much effort does it take to be this wrong so often?
You claim to have watched most of the trial, yet you can't even seem to recall what he was charged with?



FYI, Canada also differentiates gun types by the size and design of the gun, it's actually pretty common to make different laws for different types of guns.

Secondly the concealed handgun needs a permit, a openly carried hunting rifle does not.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Why were the gun charges against Rittenhouse thrown out ? When did the judge decide to rule on that, since it was brought up early in the trial ?

How about some facts and not just your opinion.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Playing a bit loose witht he facts.
> 
> 
> You shoot until the threat is neutralized
> ...


I’d argue the threat was neutralized after the victim was hit once.

I guess George Floyd wasn’t neutralized until he took his final breath.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Why were the gun charges against Rittenhouse thrown out ? When did the judge decide to rule on that, since it was brought up early in the trial ?
> 
> How about some facts and not just your opinion.


You claim to have watched the trial. 








Judge dismisses weapons charge at Rittenhouse murder trial


Judge at Kyle Rittenhouse trial dismisses charge of possession of dangerous weapon.




www.nbc15.com




"The judge at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial has dismissed a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. "


I'll repeat my ask.
"The defense argued that Rittenhouse couldn't control the weapon firing all those bullets because he wasn't familiar with the weapon." << back up that claim



I've asked you to clarify one fact, for many of your other ridiculous claims I just posted the opposite.

For anyone who's interested, watch the video.

In total 3 people attacked or threatened Rittenhouse, and he shot those 3 people.

That's the whole case.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You didn't answer the question.

Why did the judge rule to dismiss the weapons charge against Rittenhouse ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> I’d argue the threat was neutralized after the victim was hit once.
> 
> I guess George Floyd wasn’t neutralized until he took his final breath.


Fair argument, but he was REALLY close, and there is a claim that he actually grabbed or made contact with the gun.

Shooting a bunch until he let go and was out of arms reach isn't _that_ unreasonable.

You also have to consider that in each shooting instance Kyle was running away and being pursued. That lends a lot to his self defence claim. Again.. watch the video.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Why did the judge rule to dismiss the weapons charge against Rittenhouse ?


He dismissed the charges because Rittenhouse didn't break that weapons law.

Did you watch the trial, or read the article?
"After prosecutors conceded in court Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barreled, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge."

For a more in depth answer








Why did the judge drop Rittenhouse's gun charge?


On the surface, it looked like prosecutors' easiest task at Kyle Rittenhouse's murder trial would be convicting him of a much less significant charge - being a minor in possession of a firearm. However, Rittenhouse's defence team dug up an exception to the prohibition and Judge Bruce Schroeder...




www.ctvnews.ca





Again, you didn't answer my question, and I've answered yours TWICE.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_"The defense argued that Rittenhouse couldn't control the weapon firing all those bullets because he wasn't familiar with the weapon." << back up that claim _

So you are arguing that Rittenhouse deliberately fired 4 shots of high powered full metal jacket bullets (that pierce police body armor and squad cars) into the victim.......3 of which after the victim had his pelvis blown apart and was falling to the ground ?

If his lawyers admitted that........they would be convicting their own client of murder in the first degree.

I am not going to search through all the testimony for that, but it is summed up in the prosecutors closing remarks to the jury........look it up.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The judge refused to rule on the weapons charge early in the trial.

Then he dropped it on the prosecutors lap just before closing arguments when it was too late for them to appeal the ruling to a higher court.

In Judge Schroeder's own words.

_“I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. “I made no bones about that from the beginning*. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that's not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.” *_


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> _"The defense argued that Rittenhouse couldn't control the weapon firing all those bullets because he wasn't familiar with the weapon." << back up that claim _
> 
> So you are arguing that Rittenhouse deliberately fired 4 shots of high powered full metal jacket bullets (that pierce police body armor and squad cars) into the victim.......3 of which after the victim had his pelvis blown apart and was falling to the ground ?
> 
> ...


You never backed up the claim that he wasn't familiar with the weapon.
I think you're making up stuff.


Huh?
It's a rifle, they fire FMJ ammunition, and 5.56 is a small diameter round, and it isn't "high powered".
A .22 will penetrate a squad car, unless it's armoured

There are many reports of people taking several bullets and continuing their attack.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rittenhouse didn't own the weapon or any similar weapon. The guy who bought the gun was holding it until Rittenhouse was of legal age.

The testimony was that Rittenhouse tested the gun once accompanied by the owner.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_A Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) is a bullet that has a soft core, usually with lead, and is encased in a harder alloy metal such as cupronickel or gilding metal. The purpose of these rounds is to hold their trajectory, *and they have greater penetration against soft tissue*. These rounds are ideal for target shooting since they do not expand much when hitting their target. *The down side to FMJ in self defense is the risk of unintended impact further down the range. Penetration could hit an innocent bystander in a parking lot or penetrate through a wall, hitting a loved one in the middle of the night. You can use FMJ ammo for self defense but you must remember the golden rule: know what’s between you and your intended target -- and what’s beyond your target (i.e., down range.) *_


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

It looks like some people never watched the actual video of the attacks (I did) but still somehow they know exactly what happened. A convicted pedophile tried to kill a 17-year old and it was caught on video, but the 17-year old was the one on trial?

Why are people defending this?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Dominick Black was the 18 year old who purchased the AR15 for Rittenhouse. The gun was in his name and stored at Black's stepfather's home.

_Online court records show* prosecutors in Kenosha charged 19-year-old Dominick Black on Nov. 3 with two felony counts of supplying a dangerous weapon to a minor causing death*. Black, who was 18 at the time of the purchase, told authorities that he purchased the weapon at a hardware store in Wisconsin. *He could face up to 25 years in prison if convicted on both counts.* _









Kyle Rittenhouse Reveals How Gun Was Paid For in First Interview Since Arrest


Kyle Rittenhouse spoke publicly in his first interview since he was arrested and charged for shooting three protesters, two of them fatally, during unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, over the summer.




www.nbcchicago.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Close up slow motion video of the 1st shooting by Rittenhouse.

There is clearly a distance between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum.

The first shot had already put Rosenbaum to the ground. There was no need for the next 3 shots, including the fatal one into Rosenbaum's back.









Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Drone video shows 1st shooting at close range | Watch News Videos Online


Watch Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Drone video shows 1st shooting at close range Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca




globalnews.ca


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> The protestor with the gun is being charged with the illegal possession of a firearm. The prosecutor told the jury that in his closing argument.
> 
> Ironic that he is of age but being charged, and a 17 year old who isn't old enough to own a gun isn't......because his gun barrel was longer.


Well, he is a domestic abuser, so that made it illegal for him to have a weapon.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Close up slow motion video of the 1st shooting by Rittenhouse.
> 
> There is clearly a distance between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum.
> 
> ...


Yeah, entirety of the first shooting took less than 1 second of a slowed down video. That means entire shooting took less than 1 second. You really believe if you are being assaulted and your attacker is less than 4ft from you, advancing, with hand in contact with the barrel, then in less than a second you have time to take a shot, assess a damage, and decide whether firing subsequent shots is warranted?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Close up slow motion video of the 1st shooting by Rittenhouse.
> 
> There is clearly a distance between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum.
> 
> ...


Did you see the video that you linked to?
Do you see how quickly the 4 shots went?
They all happened in that few seconds where I assume Global paused the video.

It shows him lunging, getting shot 4 times and Kyle sprinting away.

Since you made a number of provably false claims, and previously refused to back up other claims, and linked to a video that doesn't support this claim. I think you're making stuff up.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Close up slow motion video of the 1st shooting by Rittenhouse.
> 
> There is clearly a distance between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum.


Less than 4ft according to expert witnesses.

You think a deranged mentally ill criminal chasing you, threatening to kill you, at less than 4 feet is "distance".
What was Kyle supposed to do? Call 911?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> Yeah, entirety of the first shooting took less than 1 second of a slowed down video. That means entire shooting took less than 1 second. You really believe if you are being assaulted and your attacker is less than 4ft from you, advancing, with hand in contact with the barrel, then in less than a second you have time to take a shot, assess a damage, and decide whether firing subsequent shots is warranted?


A good reason to ban automatic weapons and some types of ammunition.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The jury ended up being 5 men and 7 women. They are all white except for 1 black person.

Some lawyers are talking about the possibility of a hung jury. I guess then they would have to do it all again.

Kyle Rittenhouse's mother is asking people to fund her son's defense lawyers. I don't think it is right she has to do that.

If the government puts someone on trial they should pay for a good defense, just like they pay for the prosecution.

Money shouldn't be a factor in the outcome of a case. Poor people end up in prison because they can't afford good lawyers.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> A good reason to ban automatic weapons and some types of ammunition.


Why? So next time a child molester threatens to kill someone and goes after them, the victim can't defend themselves?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Automatic weapons aren't the only means of defense.

Police officers don't go around with AR15s all day to protect themselves and the public.

They also don't use full metal jacket bullets in their revolvers, because they are too dangerous to use in public.

The vests that police officers wear won't stop FMJ bullets, so they are also in danger from that type of ammunition.

Rittenhouse was using the same kind of weapon used by terrorists. Was he going to war against the protestors ?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Well, you can have that discussion; however, in this specific case, automatic weapon was used to save innocent life and there was no damage to the public.
Only assaulters were hit. If you are looking for a case against automatic weapons or full metal jacket bullets - this one is not it


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't know about that.

You said the 4 bullets were fired in a second or two. The defense argued that Rittenhouse didn't intentionally pause and shoot Rosenbaum 4 times.

The AR15 is certainly a factor in the outcome of the injuries. Is simply being threatened by words a justification for using lethal force ?

Rittenhouse didn't know anything about Rosenbaum or the other people he shot. He shot them because they yelled at him and chased him.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> I don't know about that.
> 
> You said the 4 bullets were fired in a second or two. The defense argued that Rittenhouse didn't intentionally pause and shoot Rosenbaum 4 times.
> 
> The AR15 is certainly a factor in the outcome of the injuries. Is simply being threatened by words a justification for using lethal force ?


By words? Perhaps not; however, Rittenhouse wasn't threatened just by words. He was chased after Rosenbaum and shot only after he got between cars and the distance between him and Rosenbaum was less than 4ft.

Yes, 4 bullets were fired in a second or two. You think it was a bad thing though - this is not necessarily the case. 
One can speculate now whether one would be sufficient or not. Maybe if there was just one fired then the assaulter would turn into murderer and the victim would be dead?
Maybe the very fact that 4 were fired is the reason why the assaulter didn't end up killing?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

These so called "self defense" laws they have in the US are so bizarre, but so are many of their gun laws.

Imagine if the Capital police had determined they were threatened by the mob attacking the capital and opened fire with AR15s mowing people down.

Have people in the US lost their minds ?

On one hand they wring their hands about the number of shooting deaths, and on the other hand they create legal reasons for more shootings.

Thank goodness our politicians haven't also lost all sense of reality.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> These so called "self defense" laws they have in the US are so bizarre....
> 
> Imagine if the Capital police had determined they were threatened by the mob attacking the capital and opened fire with AR15s mowing people down.
> 
> Have people in the US lost their minds ?


A Capital police officer shot an killed an unarmed woman on Jan 6 from a distance several times greater than the 4 feet Rittenhouse's armed attacker was.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The right wing militias have counted on the fact they are the only ones who hold weapons at protests.

They count on the protestors on the other side not also carrying weapons. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to strut around and intimidate with their weapons.

I wouldn't be surprised that in future protests both sides will be carrying weapons, and instead of loud protests there will be armed standoffs to deal with.



HappilyRetired said:


> A Capital police officer shot an killed an unarmed woman on Jan 6 from a distance several times greater than the 4 feet Rittenhouse's armed attacker was.


Yup....after she ignored verbal warnings and was climbing through the last door that protected the Vice President of the US.

Did Rittenhouse issue any verbal warnings at any time before he started shooting ?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

She was unarmed and shot and killed from a distance. There was no immediate threat, in fact no visible threat at all. All they needed to do was arrest her.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> The right wing militias have counted on the fact they are the only ones who hold weapons at protests.
> 
> They count on the protestors on the other side not also carrying weapons. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to strut around and intimidate with their weapons.
> 
> ...


So you want Rittenhouse to be prosecuted and the capitol police to be a hero? 

There were multiple weapons both among left wing and right wing militia. The 3rd person that was shot (and survived) got shot only after pointing a gun (that he couldn't legally have due to domestic violence charges) at Rittenhouse - as admitted in front of a judge and jury


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

It's very troubling the lengths that many people and the media are taking to defend a domestic abuser and a convicted pedophile. The message being sent is that if you dare to defend yourself against armed and violent rioters they will try to destroy your life.

The prosecutor also admitted in court (accidentally) that the video evidence they provided to the defense was different than their version. That's deliberate withholding of exculpatory evidence.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Capital police were facing a violent mob while protecting the VP and members of Congress.

Rittenhouse was underage, violating a curfew, in another city in another state, walking around with a loaded weapon he wasn't eligible to own.

I don't see any similarities at all.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> The Capital police were facing a violent mob while protecting the VP and members of Congress.
> 
> Rittenhouse was underage, violating a curfew, in another city in another state, walking around with a loaded weapon he wasn't eligible to have.
> 
> I don't see any similarities at all.


I'm new here but it seems like you're just making things up. No one who entered the capital building was armed. Members of congress were in a different building. Footage of the day showed that security opened the doors and welcomed people in who walked around and took selfies.

Rittenhouse's father and much of his extended family live in Kenosha and he was legally allowed to have the gun as per the law and the judges ruling.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Oh, he is definitely making things up.

a) there was verbal communication from Kyle. He yelled 'friendly, friendly, friendly' - and got assaulted.
b) it is a city he worked in half an hour away from home - just because state line was there doesn't change a fact that he had personal involvement with the city 
c) weapon charges were dropped, he isn't charged with violating the curfew

Don't see any similarities either. One was from a far bigger distance with physical barrier in between the woman and the police.
One has full training and back-up, one is a 17yo running away from assaulter
One is a self-defense, other one is during riot control


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The jury has requested to view all the video, and the defense wanted to restrict which videos they could watch.

Of particular concern to the defense is the FBI drone footage which followed Rittenhouse's movements.

It sounds like the judge is going to rule they can watch all the videos without any restrictions on which ones or how many times.

The jury will be watching the videos in the courtroom with all the lawyers in attendance.









Rittenhouse jury sends 2 more questions to the court, according to pool reporter


The jury in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse will continue deliberations today. Follow here for live updates.




www.cnn.com


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

sadly ...it's almost like things like this get so much publicity and scrutiny (and discussions like this...) that it becomes more like fiction, or watching a movie, than sadly, real-life, which sadly, it is .
Sad.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Why did the prosecution give a compressed video to the defense instead of the high definition version they had? What are they trying to hide?

Will the prosecutor be charged with evidence tampering?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Automatic weapons aren't the only means of defense.
> 
> Police officers don't go around with AR15s all day to protect themselves and the public.


No they carry handguns, but they have ready access to rifles, and trained teams with full auto submachine guns and rifles.



> They also don't use full metal jacket bullets in their revolvers, because they are too dangerous to use in public.


Can you source this? It seems completely wrong and made up.

I don't think any police force in Canada uses revolvers.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_firearms_in_Canada



Most police in Canada use 9mm gun, which is mostly FMJ Ball or FMJ Hollow Point.



> The vests that police officers wear won't stop FMJ bullets, so they are also in danger from that type of ammunition.


Matters what distance and power of cartridge.
You also fail to understand that FMJ is just a covering on the lead to reduce jams. A thin layer of copper isn't going to suddenly make it armor piercing.

FYI steel bullets are generally prohibited in the US.




> Rittenhouse was using the same kind of weapon used by terrorists. Was he going to war against the protestors ?


He was also using the same kind of firearm and ammunition used by law enforcement.
Was he trying to enforce law against the rioters?


Again, you've made a number of provably false statements. And again I don't think you'll back any of them up.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The right wing militias have counted on the fact they are the only ones who hold weapons at protests.


That's not true.
There are other groups, unless of course you consider these guys "right wing militia"




__





Loading…






en.wikipedia.org







> Did Rittenhouse issue any verbal warnings at any time before he started shooting ?


He was running away. They assaulted him first.
He responded in self defense.

That's the important part, in all 3 cases the people he shot *ASSAULTED *him immediately *BEFORE *he shot them.
Again, watch the video. The jury is.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Rittenhouse was underage, violating a curfew, in another city in another state, walking around with a loaded weapon he wasn't eligible to own.
> 
> I don't see any similarities at all.


Well maybe there was a curfew, but everyone was violating that.

But he wasn't underage, he wasn't in "another state", he was in the state where he was employed and his immediate family lived. 
Ownership of the firearm is irrelevant, he was in legal possession of it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There's no room for terrorists in our society.

People who cause terror, bring weapons into crowds to cause chaos need to be removed from society, before they kill again.

As the Prosecutor pointed out: you can't claim self defence from a dangerous situation that you created. A person cannot launch an act of aggression (with a dangerous weapon) _into a crowd_, and then claim self defence as he shoots at people who are justifiably responding to threat he created. He initiated the entire interaction.

It's also been pointed out that of all the hundreds (or maybe thousands) of people there that day, only one person shot and killed people. Kyle was the only person that day who killed others.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

james4beach said:


> There's no room for terrorists in our society.
> 
> People who cause terror, bring weapons into crowds to cause chaos need to be removed from society, before they kill again.
> 
> ...


So you blame sexual assault victims for dressing provocatively too?
How about teach idiots not to assault others, no matter what they are wearing or carrying?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

The prosecutor's star witness admitted under oath that he chased Kyle and pointed a load gun in his face after Kyle fell to the ground. It was only then that Kyle finally shot him.

Isn't that a textbook example of self defense?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Not if the jury decides Rittenhouse provoked the response by his presence and actions.

If there is no provocation, then Rittenhouse's use of lethal force must be "reasonable" as the action of last resort in the mind of a 17 year old old.

The test is applied to each specific gun shot at each victim.

In the Arbery trial the defence is making the same self defense claim, but it is clear the defendants provoked the incident and self defense is unlikely to win.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Exactly. Self-defense holds only if there actually was a self-defense.
In Rittenhouse there clearly was. Just mere presence of a weapon doesn't justify an assault.
Grosskreutz also had a gun yet no one assaulted him until he pointed a gun point-blank at Rittenhouse,


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think it is that clear cut.

What if a person armed with an AR15 comes walking into a church during services ?

Would that be sufficient provocation for a church member to shoot them or do they have to wait until after the person starts killing people ?

What about someone walking into a school with an AR15 ? Would security be justified in shooting them or do they have to wait until a student is shot ?

If people have to wait until after the firing starts......it is already too late. Think of what that would mean in all kinds of settings......from malls to airports.

I remember an armed deputy was criticized and investigated because he didn't use his weapon to shoot an armed student before the rampage began.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

One question is why Rittenhouse and his buddies were in Kenosha.

They are not police officers and have no authority to protect property they don't own.

They cannot detain or question people. They can't tell people to keep away or move along.

They have no authority under the law to do anything except stand there holding a gun in an effort to intimidate protestors into compliance.

If Rittenhouse having a weapon was "provocation" is up to the jury to decide.

When "weapon intimidation" backfires........this is the result.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> I don't think it is that clear cut.
> 
> What if a person armed with an AR15 comes walking into a church during services ?
> 
> ...


They don't have to wait until shot.
That's why Rittenhouse is not guilty. He got assaulted and didn't have to wait until someone shot/stabbed/bashed his head in with a skateboard in order to claim self-defense


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> Exactly. Self-defense holds only if there actually was a self-defense.
> In Rittenhouse there clearly was. Just mere presence of a weapon doesn't justify an assault.
> Grosskreutz also had a gun yet no one assaulted him until he pointed a gun point-blank at Rittenhouse,


The key difference is Grosskreutz could have fired as Rittenhouse was reloading his weapon but didn't.

Rittenhouse finished reloading and did fire. The sequence of events is all captured on video.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> They don't have to wait until shot.
> That's why Rittenhouse is not guilty. He got assaulted and didn't have to wait until someone shot/stabbed/bashed his head in with a skateboard in order to claim self-defense


But did Rittenhouse "provoke" that response with his previous shootings ?

For all the protestors may have known, Rittenhouse was a "nut" running around randomly shooting people.

That is part of the context the jury must consider.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Of course. You can speculate whether Grosskreutz would have fired or not.
I am sure though that both myself and you wouldn't wait if someone pointed a gun at you to see if they fire, if we had a chance to defend ourselves.

Doesn't matter what the motivation behind assault were. Once you are assaulted you can defend yourself. Whether they wrongly thought he is a mass shooter or not doesn't matter. Their actions put his life and health at danger so he defended himself. Kyle is not responsible for thoughts of his assaulters


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Much has been made of the backgrounds of the people Rittenhouse shot. 

Rittenhouse also has a background that can't be discussed in the trial.

As one legal expert put it....the jury is considering the video evidence and what it reveals......and that is all.

He used the analogy of a video review of a touchdown in the NFL.

It is focused on the ball crossing the goal line and they don't look into the past of the player involved.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Grosskreutz testified that he could have shot but hesitated until he saw Rittenhouse reloading his weapon.

Grosskreutz could have shot Rittenhouse in the back while he was running away, but he didn't. In fact, Grosskreutz never fired his weapon.

The other victims can't testify to their intentions because Rittenhouse killed them.

I heard testimony that Rittenhouse came with a full 30 round magazine in the gun, so why is he re-loading after only 6 shots ?

I don't remember the testimony being challenged by the defense so my question would be........where were the other 24 bullets ?

Did Rittenhouse fire some of them off somewhere before he shot the first victim ?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Left wing media doing jury intimidation. The guy they ordered to follow jurors was caught running red light though


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MSNBC are now banned from trial coverage as they should be. The jurors are already receiving death threats from supporters of both sides.

And there is this in the public domain.......That is Kyle Rittenhouse in the red, white and blue shorts and distinctive clogs throwing punches on the girl.

His attire is exactly the same as he posted on his Facebook page........so it is him. This kid seemed to be bound for trouble.









Video shows Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse punching a girl: report


A new video appears to show alleged Kenosha killer Kyle Rittenhouse slugging a girl in the Wisconsin city, according to a report. The shocking footage, shot July 1 and posted to Twitter, shows a yo…




nypost.com


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Whichever way you cut it - guilty or not - in jail or not, this guy needs help and ALOT of it.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Probably. The entire experience must have been extremely traumatizing. 
He will get a nice payday in defamation lawsuits though, but ultimately he will probably have to leave US to escape the Mob


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

He is a hero to the right though. Matt Gaetz offered him a Congressional internship if he is found not guilty.

The right is desperate for an example of a "good guy with a gun" who saves the day, and the defendants in the Arbery trial aren't the ones.









Matt Gaetz praises Kyle Rittenhouse for "helping the country," offers him a congressional internship


“We may reach out to him and see if he’d be interested in helping the country in additional ways," Gaetz said




www.salon.com


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> He is a hero to the right though. Matt Gaetz offered him a Congressional internship if he is found not guilty.
> 
> The right is desperate for an example of a "good guy with a gun" who saves the day, and the defendants in the Arbery trial aren't the ones.
> 
> ...


 ... I hope they DO offer him an internship. This way it'll keep the nutcase in the same club until they get a taste of their own medicine.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I hope they DO offer him an internship. This way it'll keep the nutcase in the same club until they get a taste of their own medicine.


I'd rather have the guy who shot in self defense as a last resort on my side than a convicted pedophile or a domestic abuser.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> I'd rather have the guy who shot in self defense as a last resort on my side than a convicted pedophile or a domestic abuser.


 ... I'm sure you do with trigger happy guys.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I'm sure you do with trigger happy guys.


Who was tigger happy?
Rittenhouse waited until the last instant, far more cautious than any cop would have.

No cop or trained person would wait till the person chasing them hit them, or was able to aim at them before shooting back.


Have you even watched the videos?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I heard testimony that Rittenhouse came with a full 30 round magazine in the gun, so why is he re-loading after only 6 shots ?


Because you want your firearm fully loaded.
Assuming he reloaded after firing 6 shots, the reason is obvious, why have it loaded with 25 shots when you can load it with 31?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The difference is that police have the legal authority to enforce their commands.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Who was tigger happy?
> Rittenhouse waited until the last instant, far more cautious than any cop would have.
> 
> No cop or trained person would wait till the person chasing them hit them, or was able to aim at them before shooting back.
> ...


Any examples of a police officer wading into a crowd of protestors, killing two of them and severely wounding a third ?

The mob was chasing Capital police around the Congress and the police didn't fire on them with automatic weapons.

It was a violent mob and one of the leaders was sentenced to 41 months in prison yesterday.

The guy with the Viking helmet is now a guest of the State.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> The difference is that police have the legal authority to enforce their commands.


 ... and watch the replies are gonna to be "US citizens have the rights to bear arms". 

Repeat - this guy at "17" years old only, clearly has problems (and they ain't small) with decades of life ahead of him, doing what exactly ? if not found guilty. As said, an internship with the likes of him is fitting.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Any examples of a police officer wading into a crowd of protestors, killing two of them and severely wounding a third ?


No, but if you want to be accurate to what was on the video you would have asked for examples of 3 people (2 of them with loaded weapons) chasing a cop and then pointing a loaded gun in his face after he fell.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The mob was chasing Capital police around the Congress and the police didn't fire on them with automatic weapons.


Yes they did, in fact they shot unarmed protestors with semi-automatic weapons.

"Asked by Holt what he thought an unarmed Babbitt was doing the moment when he shot her, Byrd said she "was posing a threat to the House of Representatives."








The Police Officer Who Fatally Shot Ashli Babbitt At Jan. 6 Riot Reveals His Identity


Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd is coming forward and talking about the threats he's received since the Capitol insurrection.




www.npr.org





Rittenhouse discharged his legally possessed semi automatic firearm at a person who had just assaulted him.


Also why do you keep saying "automatic weapons, and Full Metal Jacket".
Virtually all firearms used today are semi-automatic, and virtually all ammunition is Full Metal jacket.
FWIW Fully Automatic firearms are heavily restricted in Canada and the US. Anti gunners love to try and conflate the 2. For example by using the term "automatic" to refer to semi automatic, yet pretending they're talking about fully automatic.

You keep repeating these terms like they mean something special?
Like "100°C Boiling water", it's kind of redundant.

Again, which police force doesn't use semi automatics with FMJ ammunition?
I posted the list of Canadian Police forces, they all use Semi automatics with FMJ.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Any examples of a police officer wading into a crowd of protestors, killing two of them and severely wounding a third ?


Any example of Rittenhouse wading into a crowed of protestors killing two of them and wounding a third?

He was RUNNING AWAY. 

Watch the video.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

damian13ster said:


> Left wing media doing jury intimidation. The guy they ordered to follow jurors was caught running red light though


The FBI withheld exculpatory video evidence.
The prosecutor lied in court.
The defense was given deliberately altered video evidence.
NBC attempted to tamper with the jury.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Any example of Rittenhouse wading into a crowed of protestors killing two of them and wounding a third?


He literally went into the crowd of protesters; that's the whole nature of his visit. He came to the scene, heavily armed with a deadly weapon. He's an instigator.

Face it MrMatt, you really haven't thought this through. Imagine there is a demonstration of white rural people (guys like you) for a protest you have.

Then, a convoy of black men in combat gear, with rifles, shows up on the scene. A black militia. They start circling you with their weapons drawn.

You seem to think that's perfectly cool that they're there. They would keep an eye on the white rural protest, to make sure they behave themselves. The black militia is ready with plenty of ammo and heavy weaponry.

If the court determines that Kyle is innocent, then I think the black militias will be quite happy to know that they, too, can start attending white / MAGA rallies with weapons drawn. Maybe the next time there's a MAGA event, several black militias will arrive by busload to keep an eye and make sure there is no trouble.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

What do three white idiots assaulting a white man have to do with black militia?

If the three white idiots didnt assault him, like the rest of the crowd, then there wouldnt be any problems. Kyle would just keep putting out fires and give out bandaids


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> He literally went into the crowd of protesters; that's the whole nature of his visit. He came to the scene, heavily armed with a deadly weapon. He's an instigator.


No he didn't.



> Face it MrMatt, you really haven't thought this through. Imagine there is a demonstration of white rural people (guys like you) for a protest you have.


 I'm not "white rural people", but anyway.



> Then, a convoy of black men in combat gear, with rifles, shows up on the scene. A black militia. They start circling you with their weapons drawn.
> 
> You seem to think that's perfectly cool that they're there. They would keep an eye on the white rural protest, to make sure they behave themselves. The black militia is ready with plenty of ammo and heavy weaponry.


No it isn't cool at all, completely illegal in Canada



> If the court determines that Kyle is innocent, then I think the black militias will be quite happy to know that they, too, can start attending white / MAGA rallies with weapons drawn. Maybe the next time there's a MAGA event, several black militias will arrive by busload to keep an eye and make sure there is no trouble.


The only relevant weapon that was drawn was the illegally carried handgun.
Kyle open carried, in compliance with the laws of the jurisdiction he's in.

FWIW, NFAC is already doing that.

The real problem in Kenosha was the local law enforcement decided to give up enforcing laws, and bad stuff happens.

I understand that you think Kyle shouldn't have had a gun, but he did. You don't like it change the laws.
But the reality is that he was threatened and assaulted multiple times before he defended himself.

Do you really think the people who assaulted Rittenhouse were in the right? On what grounds? 
He was no threat, he didn't attack anyone, he committed no crimes.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> What do three white idiots assaulting a white man have to do with black militia?
> 
> If the three white idiots didnt assault him, like the rest of the crowd, then there wouldnt be any problems. Kyle would just keep putting out fires and give out bandaids


You have to understand the racist view.
Everything is racism, even if it's white on white, it's racist, if it's black on black it's still racist. 

If you deny it's racism, they'll call you racist. If there is no demonstrable racism, they'll call it "unconscious bias" and "systematic racism". Because they can't actually find any evidence of actual racism.

Look at James post, he assumes a racist angle.
If there was a group of people behaving irresponsibly with guns, I leave. Like I mentioned in the other threads (on Rust in particular) I've walked off ranges because I didn't like the behaviour of other people.
In the racist mind, I should be okay with white militias and upset with black militias. Because they honestly think everyone else is as racist as they are.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> You have to understand the racist view.
> Everything is racism, even if it's white on white, it's racist, if it's black on black it's still racist.


 ... I would agree with "everything" is racism in the sense "racism" continues to this day. But I would not agree "even it's white on white, it's racist, if it's black on black it's still racist" that's a load of twisted baloney (the usual). I have yet to hear a white calling another white person to be racist or another black person calling his brotherhood a racist.



> If you deny it's racism, they'll call you racist.


 ... yeah, why not especially when there is evidence (plenty of) of racisms which to this day (November 19, year 2021) still exists. Ie. you can't deny that it does not exists 'cause it existed. You can't erase history unless you say historical evidence of racism did not exist.



> When If there is no demonstrable racism, they'll call it "unconscious bias" and "systematic racism". Because they can't actually find any evidence of actual racism.


 ... another baloney statement. I would agree with the "unconscious bias" as being "no demonstrable racism " because it's part of the racist's nature (or his personal bias) but "systemic" racism produces the evidence. Here's the latest one that happened in (gasp!) Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

Teacher who wore blackface to Parkdale school 'no longer employed' by TDSB

And this one doesn't need to involve violence, guns and militia.

Tell me of ALL the Halloween props this idiotic teacher can dress up as, he has to do a blackface. A real eff-duh. First of all, he's a "teacher" which equates to 1. supposedly be "educated", 2. he's a (diverse) students-facing body, and 3. he's not performing on 2nd City (or whatever comedy skit).

Giving him benefit of the doubt (and I'm being generous here) maybe it wasn't his intention to be racist but putting on that blackface (the evidence) sure show his consideration/display for that. I.e. he has a racist streak in him or it's in his blood or the 'unconscious bias'.

In fact, I don't even need to provide this out in the front news example that racism continues to exists in this country. Just going to work everyday I'm faced with display of racisms throughout ... at the workplace, riding the public transit and even shopping at the supermarket as simple at that.



> Look at James post, he assumes a racist angle.
> If there was a group of people behaving irresponsibly with guns, I leave. Like I mentioned in the other threads (on Rust in particular) I've walked off ranges because I didn't like the behaviour of other people.
> In the racist mind, I should be okay with white militias and upset with black militias. Because they honestly think everyone else is as racist as they are.


 ... his was an extreme if not a clear example/evidence of potential outcomes from exerting racism.

Face it MrMatt, if you were living in a free-speech country where you're picked on 'cause you're "different" from the rest based primarily on your skin-colour, genetic make-up and/or culture, you'll be screaming the same "racists!" chants.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Now we find out that authorities knew the identity of the man who jumped and kicked Rittenhouse in the head but they withheld that information from the defense.

I've lost track of how many times the prosecution and the authorities have broken the law in this case. What are they so scared of?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That was another guy that Rittenhouse shot at....but he missed. I wonder where that bullet ended up ?

I read the guy refused to testify and in the US people can refuse to testify due to the 5th Amendment.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

He refused to testify unless offered immunity. However, his name was never given to the defense. That's illegal.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The lawyers, judge, jury and everyone in court watched the "best" version of the "Tucker Carlson" drone video.

The defense claims about having to use an "altered" video to defend Rittenhouse is nonsense.

The only place the poor video existed was a file on the defense lawyer's cell phone. They didn't use it or rely on it.

The prosecution said they got the file from Tucker Carlson, and sent it to their crime lab. It was then sent to the defence lawyers.

The theory is that it was sent from an Iphone to an Android phone and somehow got compressed and lost quality. I think it was messed up by the crime lab.

The judge has ordered experts to appear to find out what happened before he makes a ruling.

Because the poorer quality video was not the video used in the trial......most legal experts say the objection is going nowhere.

In any event, watching the videos side by side.......one is only slightly more grainy than the other.

The defense knew they were in trouble when the Tucker Carlson video became known.

It clearly shows what happened and the defense is trying desperately to keep the jury from seeing it again.

That video shows the full story of the first shooting and it doesn't look good for Rittenhouse.

From that video and the forensic report....the first shot destroyed Rosenbaum's pelvis and he was falling forward. The next 3 shots were into his back.

Even if Rittenhouse was using "reasonable" force to shoot the first bullet.........was it also "resonable" to shoot him 3 more times in the back ?

Incidentally, this video isn't an FBI video. That is a different overhead drone video that the defense also objected to but lost the ruling.

This drone video was shot by a private person who then sold the video to Tucker Carlson. Fox News ran the video on television.

That is when the prosecution first learned of the video and they seized from Tucker Carlson. They weren't hiding anything from the defense.

A few days later the guy closed his drone video company and took off somewhere. I don't think he has been located.

People who didn't watch the trial are mixing up all the facts.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

With deliberations going on for 4 days now, wonder if division and hate created by politicians has now entered our legal system and there will be much more 'hung juries' than before


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Highly unlikely they will get 12 jurors to be unanimous in a guilty or not guilty verdict on every charge.

As a juror on a big trial explained, they have to negotiate and bargain with each other until they all agree on something.

I expect there will be some guilty verdicts on lesser charges, or possibly a hung jury. All it takes is one stubborn juror.

Different in the Arberty trial. Those idiots convicted themselves in video statements to police and so far in court.

I doubt it will take long for unanimous guilty verdicts in that trial.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

There really aren't any lesser charges here though


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

verdict reached


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

not guilty on all counts - but anyone who saw the trial knew that will be the outcome


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Unbelievable.......and the lawyers say only possible under the Wisconsin self defense law and a weird gun law for minors.

So...minors can legally carry and use long barrel weapons in Wisconsin, and protestors will need their own militias to protect them.

I felt bad for Rittenhouse being in the position he put himself in......because he is only a kid, but wtf are they smoking in Wisconsin ?

Like one dad asked in Wisconsin......so my 10 year old can walk around with a loaded gun and nobody can stop him ?

This trial proves one thing......gun laws matter.

Also, if someone shoots someone and runs away....don't chase them because they could shoot you and claim self defense.

Rittenhouse will sue and get a big pile of cash. That Sandmann kid sued the Washington Post for $250 million.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

you are talking about two different things.

Yes, open-carry is a thing
Yes, if you are assaulted by idiots in the street you can defend yourself


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Glad I live in Canada where we restrict access to guns.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Yes, having a 17 year old dead would be much more preferable than idiots assaulting him ending up shot


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> Glad I live in Canada where we restrict access to guns.


Yeah, I have to agree, but I also understand the sentiment that says "good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns", and sometimes situations occur when that's true, but I think it's best that no one has guns. 
It's hard to stop the illegal ones though. It's a problem, but not as big a problem as it is in the States where everyone seems to have one.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The prosecution's case against self defense hinged on two things that the judge ultimately ruled against.

Rittenhouse's lawyer said the prosecution depended on proving "provocation" saying KR shouldn't have been there and shouldn't have possessed the gun.

The judge threw both out in his rulings, and the prosecution were left trying to prove against the Wisconsin self defense argument.

I am glad KR gets to home home. He looked young and vulnerable, caught up in a whirlwind of trouble.

I wish the dead victims could go home as well, but they can't. None of those involved thought a protest would lead to this.

For me........it all wouldn't have happened without the guns.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> The lawyers, judge, jury and everyone in court watched the "best" version of the "Tucker Carlson" drone video.
> 
> The defense claims about having to use an "altered" video to defend Rittenhouse is nonsense.
> 
> ...


The prosecution gave the defense a low def version of the video that they had. This was discussed in court in front of the judge, and in fact the prosecution admitted in court that they had a high def version. Maybe you're unaware that under the rules of disclosure that is illegal. It doesn't matter that Tucker had the video...the important matter is that the prosecution deliberately gave the defense a low def/compressed version of their copy that had a different name attached than the version the prosecution had.

They also did not provide the name of the person that kicked Rittenhouse in the head. That's also illegal and grounds for a mistrial.

Based on your comments so far it's clear that you haven't watched any of the trial, you're just repeating sound bites from the media.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

That doesn't matter though. The high definition video was given to the jury and after reviewing it, jury ruled 'not guilty on all counts'. The mistrial motion won't be reviewed because there is no need to it


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

damian13ster said:


> That doesn't matter though. The high definition video was given to the jury and after reviewing it, jury ruled 'not guilty on all counts'. The mistrial motion won't be reviewed because there is no need to it


Fair point. But will the prosecution be held accountable? Or will they be allowed to alter evidence without being punished?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Glad I live in Canada where we restrict access to guns.


 ... and let's keep it this way. 

OTOH, you have American "citizens" coming over the border like this:

Florida woman caught with 56 Glock handguns in her trunk at Bluewater Bridge: CBSA


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

There will be no punishment for prosecution. 
There most likely won't even be punishment for NBC intimidating the jury.
Sadly, legal system is not known to take up cases just in order to set precedent.
Just look at what is happening in Alberta. There were illegally introduced rules, court was set to issue the verdict on it, so the rules were withdrawn a week before that - causing court to not issue the verdict.
This way no precedence is set and the illegal rules can be reinstated, illegal actions repeated, for another 18-24 months before court reviews the case again.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... and let's keep it this way.
> 
> OTOH, you have American "citizens" coming over the border like this:
> 
> Florida woman caught with 56 Glock handguns in her trunk at Bluewater Bridge: CBSA


Gun laws are irrelevant. Grosskreutz wasn't allowed to legally have a gun, yet he had it and had it point-blank in Kyle's face.
Same thing in Canada. Anyone who wants a gun can acquire a gun without any issues, so you also have idiots like Grosskreutz running around here.

Kyle's legal gun saved his life.
Grosskreutz's illegal gun cost him an injury.

Canada is full of illegal guns


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> I have yet to hear a white calling another white person to be racist or another black person calling his brotherhood a racist.


That's just ridiculous, lots of white people call Trudeau racist, and that's an easy example.



> In fact, I don't even need to provide this out in the front news example that racism continues to exists in this country.


I never said that racism doesn't exist. I just don't think it's the cause of every problem in society.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> *Gun laws are irrelevant*. Grosskreutz wasn't allowed to legally have a gun, yet he had it and had it point-blank in Kyle's face.
> Same thing in Canada. Anyone who wants a gun can acquire a gun without any issues, so you also have idiots like Grosskreutz running around here


 ... seriously. 

Still time to get your own island and call it Freedom Islands with no rules, laws or whatever. That way you can do whatever you want - with last man standing.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

I wonder how much of Kenosha the peaceful protestors will burn down tonight?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

HappilyRetired said:


> I wonder how much of Kenosha the peaceful protestors will burn down tonight?


Maybe if arson was illegal it would stop all the problems and it would disappear?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> That's just ridiculous, lots of white people call Trudeau racist, and that's an easy example.


 ... only because you/they don't believe in his policies. The political angle, not the human / racist angle.



> I never said that racism doesn't exist.


 .. not outright but your statement from post #116 infers racism doesn't exists. Or in plain language, what's the big deal.

_



If you deny it's racism, they'll call you racist. If there is no demonstrable racism, they'll call it "unconscious bias" and "systematic racism". Because they can't actually find any evidence of actual racism.

Click to expand...

_


> I just don't think it's the cause of every problem in society.


 ... didn't say it was the cause of "every" problem but it sure is the root of ugly problems, if not major ones.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The prosecution's case against self defense hinged on two things that the judge ultimately ruled against.


It relied on people thinking that it is wrong to defend yourself when someone is chasing assaulting and threatening you.



> Rittenhouse's lawyer said the prosecution depended on proving "provocation" saying KR shouldn't have been there and shouldn't have possessed the gun.


It isn't a provocation to be legally carrying a firearm.



> I wish the dead victims could go home as well, but they can't. None of those involved thought a protest would lead to this.


There are no dead victims.
There are dead attackers. I don't necessarily with them dead, but considering the harm their actions inflicted on an innocent man, I'm not shedding any tears.



> For me........it all wouldn't have happened without the guns.


Without the guns, Kyle would be the one in the ground.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... only because you/they don't believe in his policies. The political angle, not the human / racist angle.
> 
> ... didn't say it was the cause of "every" problem but it sure is the root of ugly problems, if not major ones.


No, it is because he is a racist, which is reflected in his speech and actions. Nothing to do with politics.
He is also white yet I still call him a racist - simply because he is one, and judgement is not affected by color of his skin


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Exactly. Thanks to a legal gun, he wasn't the one killed by assaulters


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> > That's just ridiculous, lots of white people call Trudeau racist, and that's an easy example.
> ...


Huh? I, and others, call Trudeau racist because.

1. He treats people differently because of their race.
2. He creates and promotes government programs that treat people differently because of their race.

Those are simple and obvious racist acts.

I know that some people are okay with that type of racism, and that's fine, differentiating between good and bad racism is a political issue. For example some posters here (and Trudeau) think some racism is okay. That's political.
I am not arguing if his actions are good or bad racism, just that discriminating on race is racist.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> No, it is because he is a racist, which is reflected in his speech and actions. Nothing to do with politics.
> He is also white yet I still call him a racist - simply because he is one, and judgement is not affected by color of his skin


... really? Did anyone call or even accuse him of being a racist when he was a drama teacher? I haven't heard.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

This trial showed just how far the prosecution and media will go to protect a convicted pedophile and domestic abuser because they were rioting for their political side. Love them or hate them, at least they're will to do anything to protect their foot soldiers (as long as they're useful).


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Huh? I, and others, call Trudeau racist because.
> 
> 1. He treats people differently because of their race.
> 2. He creates and promotes government programs that treat people differently because of their race.
> ...


 ... of course, Trudeau is a racist towards white people who don't like his fakeness of not being a racist. That's your "version" of being "racist", not mine's.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Exactly. Thanks to a legal gun, he wasn't the one killed by assaulters


 ... time for you to move to the USA if you can't get your own island. You can get your own gun legally and shoot "in the name of self-defense" at anytime.

You can also get your kids (the minute they can walk) their own guns and shoot at their school buddies at anytime "in the name of self-defense" while being socked at in the school yard or the mall.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... really? Did anyone call or even accuse him of being a racist when he was a drama teacher? I haven't heard.





















Not sure. I don't hang out at blackface parties.
I would hope thought that some people did call him out on his racism


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> View attachment 22392
> 
> View attachment 22393
> 
> ...


 .. "hoping" and your "need for evidence" are 2 different things. 

Your/those pics only appear after he became PM. Why didn't the school discipline him if that blackface was considered "racist" at that time ... maybe the school is just as racist which only proves "racism" always existed - everywhere contrary to MrMatt's version of racism. Ie. he sees racism to fit him.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... of course, Trudeau is a racist towards white people who don't like his fakeness of not being a racist. That's your "version" of being "racist", not mine's.


Yes, you use a different definition of racism, you decided that some racism is good racism, therefore not racism.
This is because you're racist.

I simply think we shouldn't treat people differently because of skin colour.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> .. "hoping" and your "need for evidence" are 2 different things.
> 
> Your/those pics only appear after he became PM. Why didn't the school discipline him if that blackface was considered "racist" at that time ... maybe the school is just as racist which only proves "racism" always existed - everywhere contrary to MrMatt's version of racism. Ie. he sees racism to fit him.


You asked if he was called racist before politics.
When he entered politics, number of people aware of his existence increased.
Previous to that clearly social circle was smaller. Maybe he was just hanging out with people who did not mind his racism and didn't call him out on it - I have no way of knowing.
That doesn't mean suddenly racism is good or his racist actions are excused - only because his social circle didn't call him out on them. Racists tend to hang out with other racists so not a surprise his social circle didn't condemn racism.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yes, you use a different definition of racism, you decided that some racism is good racism, therefore not racism.
> This is because you're racist.


 ... really? And funny enough the word "racism" comes from the "English" dictionary and I'm not English nor is English my first language. I wonder how did that noun come about if it didn't exist or happened? Your typical Spin-O-Matics.

From Merriam-Webster Definition of RACISM

*



Definition of racism

Click to expand...

*


> _1*: *a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race_


And what is "race"? Again from Merriam-Webster Definition of RACE

*



Definition of race

Click to expand...

*


> (Entry 1 of 3)
> 1 *: *_any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry_





> I simply think we shouldn't treat people differently because of skin colour.


 ... while you think "we shouldn't ... ", the reality as in the "real world", it's happening - everyday to this day as subtle as it can get. And please don't tell me "skin-colour" ain't a physical trait.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> You asked if he was called racist before politics.
> When he entered politics, number of people aware of his existence increased.
> Previous to that clearly social circle was smaller. Maybe he was just hanging out with people who did not mind his racism and didn't call him out on it - I have no way of knowing.
> That doesn't mean suddenly racism is good or his racist actions are excused - only because his social circle didn't call him out on them. Racists tend to hang out with other racists so not a surprise his social circle didn't condemn racism.
> ...


 ... didn't say it was "good" - that's your accusation. I was asking why wasn't he called out then and now it's all a problem - particularly for MrMatt. Need it for the political angle to fit his (MrMatt's) spin-o-matic agenda?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Maybe because (I assume) Mr. Matt didn't attend the blackface party so had no knowledge of such event?
You can only call out racist event once you are aware of it.

He called you out for racism too - and you are not a politician.
Clearly he calls out racist actions and racist words, not just racist politicians.
Just because prime minister is a racist, you suddenly can't call out his racism without it being political?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... didn't say it was "good" - that's your accusation. I was asking why wasn't he called out then and now it's all a problem - particularly for MrMatt. Need it for the political angle to fit his (MrMatt's) spin-o-matic agenda?


When's the last time a Liberal called out another Liberal for being racist? It doesn't happen. In fact they usually defend or excuse it. In fact, that's exactly what you're doing. Matt pointed out Trudeau is racist and you say it's about politics instead acknowledging the known fact that Trudeau is a racist.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

If people are shocked about the verdict they need to find a better news source.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> When's the last time a Liberal called out another Liberal for being racist? It doesn't happen. In fact they usually defend or excuse it. In fact, that's exactly what you're doing. Matt pointed out Trudeau is racist and you say it's about politics instead acknowledging the known fact that Trudeau is a racist.


 . . when's the last time a Conservative called out another Conservative of being a racist? I'm all ears here.

And what exactly am I doing here? Defending a Liberal or being anti-Con when MrMatt damn well knows politics is the last thing I'm interested in. And I too know damn well any discussions on this forum will draw a political angle from MrMatt 'cause that's his primary interest (in case you're not aware). [This is from his previous explanation (more like excuse) that "everything in life" involves politics!)]

That's why I'm saying his pointing out Trudeau, the "PM" as a racist has a political angle 'cause that's what he thrives on since I don't see any other example he can give to show racism exists that doesn't involve politics. That's what I have been asking daminxxster for proof of Trudeau's display of known racism "prior" to him being a PM. 

And I would not be surprised MrMatt's next example is the BLM is a racist movement ... towards him.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> If people are shocked about the verdict they need to find a better news source.


 ... if people knew the verdict was non-guilty, then there's no need to continue reading the news either to "ensure" that was the case. No?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... if people knew the verdict was non-guilty, then there's no need to continue reading the news either to "ensure" that was the case. No?


After seeing a trial people knew Kyle was not-guilty.
With all institutions and entire society being extremely polarized, the fact that someone is not-guilty doesn't mean he or she won't be convicted.
There is a difference between someone being not-guilty and a verdict being not-guilty, and there are plenty of examples of that being the case.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... if people knew the verdict was non-guilty, then there's no need to continue reading the news either to "ensure" that was the case. No?


Some people are outraged about the verdict. My point was that they only could have been outraged if the information they relied on was inaccurate.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> Some people are outraged about the verdict. My point was that they only could have been outraged if the information they relied on was inaccurate.


 ... you may say the information was inaccurate but the outraged people don't see it that (your) way or that the information was inaccurate. If the verdict was guilty, I'm certain you would be shocked and outraged too and then go on to say - the information that was relied on was falsified.

Btw, I didn't see the trial nor interested in it. I'm neither outraged nor surprised by the verdict as you can see from my earliest posts- it's the USA , land of the braves and free (nuts). And the conclusion I can draw on this young man at 17 years old, going into a criminal trial he would need ALOT of (mental) help. And for those who think they're providing the so-called "help" with cheap words of encouragement is only leading him to a life of doom. So it would be best he gets that internship or sue for billions along with the book deals, talk shows, etc. and never have to do a decent day of work.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> After seeing a trial people knew Kyle was not-guilty.
> With all institutions and entire society being extremely polarized, the fact that someone is not-guilty doesn't mean he or she won't be convicted.
> There is a difference between someone being not-guilty and a verdict being not-guilty, and there are plenty of examples of that being the case.


 ... don't care.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... you may say the information was inaccurate but the outraged people don't see it that (your) way or that the information was inaccurate. If the verdict was guilty, I'm certain you would be shocked and outraged too and then go on to say - the information that was relied on was falsified.
> 
> Btw, I didn't see the trial nor interested in it...


I was referring to outraged people (not you if you don't care). I saw footage of the trial and saw what actually happened. Some people only knew what the media told them, which wasn't what happened in the courtroom. There will probably be another riot in Kenosha tonight, inspired by media lies.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Luckily facts are easily verifiable.
Anyone interested can see sworn testimonies, and can see video evidence, etc. 
Laws are written and documented.
Those are the facts that everyone has an access too. 
If all people base their opinions is FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, then that's their problems - and they are simply being misinformed.

Interpretation of facts may differ from person to person, but facts remain the same - and not knowing them in 21st century......well, those people have noone but themselves to blame.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> That's why I'm saying his pointing out Trudeau, the "PM" as a racist has a political angle


I used him as an example of real life white person that many white people have called out for being racist.
This was specifically to call out this claim by yourself.



Beaver101 said:


> I have yet to hear a white calling another white person to be racist or another black person calling his brotherhood a racist.


I think you were not being truthful when you claimed you've never heard a white calling another white to be racist, since it happens all the time.



> And I would not be surprised MrMatt's next example is the BLM is a racist movement ... towards him.


No, BLM is racist towards black people, it's literally right there in the name. They call for different treatment of black people.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I used him as an example of real life white person that many white people have called out for being racist.
> This was specifically to call out this claim by yourself.
> 
> 
> ...


 ... huh???? Let's go with the last one.

You need to give a survey of the general population to see how many people agree with your statement "_BLM is racist towards black peopl_e" and that "_it's literally right there in the name_." ... talk about being dense.

And the "_They call for different treatment of black people_". What is your definition of "different treatment" here? Still sounds like you're sticking to your definition of racism despite it's defined (and outlined above) by Webster-Merriam (of which neither you nor I composed). Typical of how convenient to ignore.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

acquitted.
stoopid Americans.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> acquitted.
> stoopid Americans.


Well if you watched the videod it was pretty obvious.
Though I doubt they'll be charged with malicious prosecution.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... huh???? Let's go with the last one.
> 
> You need to give a survey of the general population to see how many people agree with your statement "_BLM is racist towards black peopl_e" and that "_it's literally right there in the name_." ... talk about being dense.
> 
> And the "_They call for different treatment of black people_". What is your definition of "different treatment" here? Still sounds like you're sticking to your definition of racism despite it's defined (and outlined above) by Webster-Merriam (of which neither you nor I composed). Typical of how convenient to ignore.


Okay I'll be a bit more specific.
I am much more concerned with racial discrimination than racism itself.











I really have no ability to know what someone beliefs are, and I therefore can not know for sure if someone is indeed racist. I'm not a mind reader.

However I can observe their behaviour, to me the most telling is if they support racial discrimination.
For me it's a pretty convenient tell, if you support racial discrimination, you're racist, you think different races are superior or inferior in some way, justifying unequal treatment.
People who are not racist think we should treat all people equally, irrespective of race, because they do not believe in the inherent superiority or inferiority of any particular race. If the people are equal, you should treat the equally.


So to clarify my real objection is specifically to "racial discrimination", that is treating people differently because of their race. I believe this is the common colloquial meaning of the term "racist" or "racism", as well as being one of the M-W definitions, and this is the definition I am using in the context of this conversation. If there is another term, please suggest it, however "racist" is to the best of my knowledge the most correct term.

Maybe this belongs in another thread.








How to end racism


Don't be racist. That's it. If you're the bank, and someone comes with a good idea, fund it, if it's a bad idea, don't fund it. We don't need different banking systems for each race. That's racist and wrong. Lets treat people like individuals and like, not be racist?




www.canadianmoneyforum.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

KR might well have been convicted, had the judge not made 2 rulings in the case involving the curfew and the gun loophole.

Although not subject to appeal, it is a case that will be looked at closely by many as an example of poorly written legislation.

The gun loophole was created to prevent kids from possessing guns with sawed off barrels, not to allow minors to walk around in possession of assault rifles.

Did the judge error in his ruling on the gun...perhaps by not considering the "intent" of the law.

He made the ruling just before closing arguments when it was too late for the prosecution to appeal the ruling.

Both the defense and prosecution complained that this judge sat on rulings until he announced them when it was too late.

Time will tell if Wisconsin eliminates the loophole now.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Anyone who defends a minor possessing an AR15 doesn't represent the views of any responsible Canadian gun owners that I know.

Will the charges against the person buying the gun for KR still proceed to trial or is it okay to buy a gun for an underage kid in Wisconsin ?

It shows how low the bar is that the US gun lobby has set. They now advocate giving assault rifles to kids, loonies, and anyone who wants one.

Fortunately, the gun lobby in Canada is more circumspect and don't follow the lead of the American gun lobby, although there is a small loonie fringe.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> KR might well have been convicted, had the judge not made 2 rulings in the case involving the curfew and the gun loophole.


Yes if the laws were different he might have been convicted. But he didn't break the laws that actually exist, so he wasn't.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Will the laws change when the right are celebrating Kyle as their latest hero ?

Given his pent up emotional reaction at the not guilty verdicts, I think KR knows how close he was to a life in prison.

I really felt bad for the kid as he stood there trenbling and he doesn't seem to have anyone around to give him good advice.

I hope he listens to his lawyer's advice to stay low and out of trouble.

The media are monsters and they don't care who they hurt.

Tucker Carson broadcast the video live before the trial, and didn't even give a copy to KR's defence team.

To me, that should be obstruction of justice regardless of who does it, but nobody seems to care anymore.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Will the laws change when the right are celebrating Kyle as their latest hero ?
> 
> Given his pent up emotional reaction at the not guilty verdicts, I think KR knows how close he was to a life in prison.
> 
> ...


That's the problem, he was running fearing for his life, dangerous criminals were chasing and attacking him.
It's all on video, yet there was a real risk he'd end up in prison.

There is seriously something wrong that charges were ever brought about.

What law should change? When people threaten to kill you, then chase you down to attack you, you should let them?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I believe they have all been charged and are awaiting trials.

They certainly should get rid of that loophole that allows minors to have guns.

There will likely be opposition to even do that. The US gun lobby won't agree to anything.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I believe they have all been charged and are awaiting trials.
> 
> They certainly should get rid of that loophole that allows minors to have guns.
> 
> There will likely be opposition to even do that. The US gun lobby won't agree to anything.


I generally oppose minors to carry guns, but if anything Rittenhouse shows that some teenagers are capable of handling them properly in a crisis situation.

As many experts have said, he showed incredible restraint in his use of deadly force, and this case is a textbook example of why you don't wait until they're within striking distance to defend yourself.

Until they get serious about law enforcement more of this will happen. 

I really don't know what we're going to do, in some cities in Canada we're dramatically under policed and it's taking days to respond to calls.

Sexual assault - 4 days to respond. 


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-police-response-times-1.6254713



We're poised to see more vigilantism here in Canada. Rape victims shouldn't have to wait more than half a week to have someone file the report.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

These guys will start attending MAGA and Trump rallies, just to make sure there's no trouble.

Keeping the peace.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

james4beach said:


> These guys will start attending MAGA and Trump rallies, just to make sure there's no trouble.
> 
> Keeping the peace.
> 
> View attachment 22398


They already have black gun-owners marches all over the place:









Hundreds of Black Gun Owners Are Marching on ‘Black Wall Street’ This Weekend


The armed protest in Tulsa is expected to be one of the largest gatherings of Black, pro–gun rights Americans in years.




www.vice.com






https://ca.style.yahoo.com/black-gun-rights-groups-started-055400061.html



Guess what. There were no idiots who assaulted them so no one died.
The problem aren't legal gun owners - the problem are idiots assaulting other people

Don't know why you single out Trump rallies. What is different from any other politician rallies?
Was there any arson or looting at Trump rallies?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Same deal as right wing militia groups going to left wing protests.

They go to intimidate the other side with a show of force.

It also disrupts the protests and I doubt Trump or his family would show up at a rally with those guys walking around.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Same deal as right wing militia groups going to left wing protests.
> 
> They go to intimidate the other side with a show of force.


Politician's rallies are not riots.
One has arson and looting, the other doesn't - that is a significant difference
Of course, if there is unlawful activity and arson and looting, then situation changes.

Can't pass an opportunity of having non-guilty verdict in Kenosha - got to grab yourself a Louis Vitton handbag in San Francisco

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1461913496833052674


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

damian13ster said:


> They already have black gun-owners marches all over the place:


They're not going to march. They're going to come to keep an eye on those MAGA types... monitor them to keep them out of trouble.

There are lots of places where unhinged right wingers get out of hand with their protests, like at schoolboard meetings throughout the US. The right wingers are protesting and yelling to school officials, causing chaos, but the heavily armed black militia will come and keep them in check.

I'm sure it's exactly what you want, damian.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

james4beach said:


> They're not going to march. They're going to come to keep an eye on those MAGA types... monitor them to keep them out of trouble.
> 
> And then they're going to visit all the places where unhinged right wingers are causing chaos, like at schoolboard meetings throughout the US. The right wingers will be protesting and yelling to school officials, causing chaos, but the heavily armed black militia will come and keep them in check.
> 
> I'm sure it's exactly what you want, damian.


If there is illegal activity and police is not reacting - I have nothing against citizens looking after each other and their neighbors if that's what you mean, as long as they do it legally. I believe world would be much better place if we helped each other out.

Living on an acreage I saw thieves in the process of robbing my neighbor - I called the police and scared them off. Don't see a problem with that at all.

If there is no illegal activity then that is not comparable at all.

Maybe they should be out tonight protecting stores from looting?


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Are they going to pay him millions like Treudou government did?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sure......the good folks in Wisconsin will pony up the money.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Sure......the good folks in Wisconsin will pony up the money.


Taxpayers are now on the hook because the people they elected willfully allowed violent thugs to riot and destroy property while police stood by and did nothing (orders from above). As a result, a child was forced to defend himself against armed thugs.

They got what they voted for.

I do hope that CNN, MSNBC, and all the other media that lied about Rittenhouse are sued into bankruptcy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> These guys will start attending MAGA and Trump rallies, just to make sure there's no trouble.
> 
> Keeping the peace.
> 
> View attachment 22398


Hopefully they stop shooting each other. If they did, that would be just swell.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Sure......the good folks in Wisconsin will pony up the money.


 ... yep. And since when was the kid considered a (homegrown) terrorist?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

I would be surprised if he doesn't sue MSNBC and Biden


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

damian13ster said:


> I would be surprised if he doesn't sue MSNBC and Biden


MSNBC is probably terrified right now and is hunkering down with their lawyers.

I don't think Biden even knows what's going on.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> MSNBC is probably terrified right now and is hunkering down with their lawyers.
> 
> I don't think Biden even knows what's going on.


Sandman is apparently talking to him. Which is good, he has the experience as a kid, and with a few years of experience he might be able to help.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Apparently the judge let one of the jurors take home a copy of the 30 page charge to the jury.

That is a big no-no for judges, as the juror isn't supposed to discuss the trial with anyone, so taking court documents home is unusual to say the least.

Some lawsuits are already filed. The parents of Anthony Huber filed a federal lawsuit against the Kenosha police and the city.

A federal lawsuit will be out of Wisconsin's control.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Apparently the judge let one of the jurors take home a copy of the 30 page charge to the jury.
> 
> That is a big no-no for judges, as* the juror isn't supposed to discuss the trial with anyone*, so taking court documents home is unusual to say the least.


Please cite a reference that this is illegal under US law. Remember they have different laws than Canada.

The charges should be public record, and jury members are permitted to have copies of documents in the public record.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Some lawsuits are already filed. The parents of Anthony Huber filed a federal lawsuit against the Kenosha police and the city.
> 
> A federal lawsuit will be out of Wisconsin's control.


Considering the police stood back (under direct order) and let violent thugs have their way, Kyle is really the one who should be suing.

Then again, I suppose you can make the argument that the decision to let the riots continue with no police intervention was dangerous to the violent thugs that made the mistake of picking on someone that chose to defend themselves. 😅


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

That's nothing new. The assaulter who got shot in the bicep was already suing the city for 10mln$
Of course the suit doesn't mention he had illegal gun on him and pointed it at Kyle prior to getting shot, so there is a motion to dismiss.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

So, what's the plan now? After losing the trial do the left plan to burn down their own cities again?


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

The leftwing mobs believe that peaceful protest involves attacking the police, burning down private property and looting. Liberal governments who don't support the police, law enforcement and the rule of law share a lot of responsibility for the violence and lawlessness in the uSA.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Now we learn that Tucker Carlson and Fox News were inbedded into the Rittenhouse defense team.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

zinfit said:


> The leftwing mobs believe that peaceful protest involves attacking the police, burning down private property and looting. Liberal governments who don't support the police, law enforcement and the rule of law share a lot of responsibility for the violence and lawlessness in the uSA.


Louis Vitton might get re-stocked by the time the cases are thrown out


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Now we learn that Tucker Carlson and Fox News were inbedded into the Rittenhouse defense team.


embedded, and no they weren't they were there for a period of time filming a documentary.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rittenhouse's own lawyer said they were imbedded against his will and he had to boot them out a couple of times.

They probably learned all the jurors names and addresses, and all kinds of information.

The lawyer said people donating to Rittenhouse's defense demanded Fox be allowed into the defense.

The judge openly criticized media coverage and said he would consider banning the media in the future.

Did he allow Tucker Carlson and Fox into the defense and then later criticize other media ?

The Justice Department should do a full investigation into what was going on in that trial.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

He said it was against his advice, but ultimately it wasn't his decision.

Why would there be an investigation? It wasn't hidden, nor was it illegal.
Media following a defense with a permission from the defense has nothing to do with Justice Department.
Now, media following jurors........


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Investigate possible obstruction of justice and tampering.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

How? How does it have to do with obstruction of justice and tampering?
What scenario would that be?
You are getting desperate


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That is what the DOJ should be investigating to find out. What was Fox News doing rummaging around there.

Since Tucker Carlson bought the drone footage and put it on his show, did the defense know he had that tape before the prosecutors ?

If they did what of their accusations against the prosecution about tampering with the video because they only claimed they only had a poor copy ?

What was the judge's involvement ? Did he know and still blasted the other media ? Did he approve it and not tell anyone ?

There was a lot of shady stuff going on with this judge.

The truth must be told.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

That's not how DOJ works. Fishing expeditions are illegal. You need to have strong probability of there being a crime. Talking to a media isn't a crime.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If there is nothing there....don't worry about it ?

That judge was a shifty one, dropping the weapons ruling just before the trial was over and making a joke about "sitting on it".

Another judge said the jury should have been sequestered in a murder trial like this. Why were they not ?

I wonder how much influence Fox News had on the judge's decisions, since he was an obvious Trumpster.

His cellphone ring was the song used at MAGA rallies.

Only a full DOJ investigation will settle the matter. People demand the truth.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> *If there is nothing there....don't worry about it ?*
> 
> That judge was a shifty one, dropping the weapons ruling just before the trial was over and making a joke about "sitting on it".
> 
> ...


If you believe government should investigate citizens without any indication of a crime then you belong in Communist China, not in Liberal country.

Haha, Trumpist judge appointed by Democrats?
'God Bless the U.S.A. is now what - a MAGA song? 😅 😅 '

You sure have a good sense of humor today! At least I hope you aren't being serious because then again - Communist China is a perfect fit for you


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

The media coverage was terrible . One might wonder based on media narritives why there was a trial as he was clearly guilty . Good that we had a judge who understood principles such as due process, the onus is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused is presumbed innocent. Yes we also have the common sense of the common person with the jury system. This was a clear blow to the crazies who want to wipe out long standing principles and replace it with some loose definition of social justice.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

zinfit said:


> The media coverage was terrible . One might wonder based on media narritives why there was a trial as he was clearly guilty


I actually liked the way this trial unfolded. There was a timely trial. Not much time has passed since the event, so witnesses (memories) are fresh.

It appears to me he was given a fair trial, and there's a clear result. I'm a fan of seeing the justice system work like this. Even if I personally disagree with the verdict, this is how the justice system works -- and it's nice to see.

The part I am not happy about is that he was found not guilty on all counts. There was absolutely no penalty for going, heavily armed, into a protest zone as a vigilante. I think that sets a dangerous precedent and I would have preferred to see the court speak out against *vigilantism*.

I think armed vigilantes are extremely dangerous and put the public in danger. As a result of this verdict, now we're going to see more left wing and right wing lunatics carrying heavy weapons into protest zones. That is NOT good. I predict that in the coming years, we'll see some public shootouts between armed militia factions because they're all going to come armed and ready to fight.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

damian13ster said:


> If there is illegal activity and police is not reacting - I have nothing against citizens looking after each other and their neighbors if that's what you mean, as long as they do it legally. I believe world would be much better place if we helped each other out.


They can look out for each other but I absolutely don't want people with *guns* going to protests, ready to shoot.

Thank god that Canadians can't carry guns around like that. One of the reasons I moved back to Canada is that I become really scared by armed militia groups showing up at public protests. I've seen people like Kyle, and dangerous lefties as well, marching around in public -- some with guns, baseball bats, and other weapons.

It was around 2017 when I first started seeing these crazy armed nuts in public protests (including locations near my office) and I started saying, what the hell is going on with these crazy Americans?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trumpism.

It will fade away after Trump is gone. It may take some time, but the changing demographics ensures it will happen.

As minorities become majorities and assume power, a lot is going to change for the better.

It will be a rocky few years for America though. A vocal minority will cling to white privilege with their cold, dead hands.......as they do with their guns.

The good news is that Canadian society is more highly developed and won't tolerate it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> That is what the DOJ should be investigating to find out. What was Fox News doing rummaging around there.


Filming a documentary of the defence under the direction of the defendant.



> Since Tucker Carlson bought the drone footage and put it on his show, did the defense know he had that tape before the prosecutors ?


Can you support this claim?
What footage are you talking about? The FBI drone footage?



> There was a lot of shady stuff going on with this judge.


Like what?



> The truth must be told.


Watch the video, we have 3 people chase and assault Rittenhouse, and he shoots all 3 of them in self defence.
I'm really thinking you didn't watch the videos.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> They can look out for each other but I absolutely don't want people with *guns* going to protests, ready to shoot.


I don't want those big riots either.



> It was around 2017 when I first started seeing these crazy armed nuts in public protests (including locations near my office) and I started saying, what the hell is going on with these crazy Americans?


It's going to get worse before it gets better.
They're defunding their police, and it's getting harder to attract good cops.
They aren't enforcing laws or protecting people, which is increasing vigilantism.

In Canada we're following the same trends, sure we've banned guns. But the other problems are still here.

Heck we have city politicians handing out free Heroin on street corners and the police don't care.








Here's why police say a Vancouver city councillor wasn't charged for handing out heroin


Earlier this year, a Vancouver city councillor openly handed out hard drugs, but she was never charged by police.




bc.ctvnews.ca





We don't have enough police, they don't enforce the law. This will result in someone stepping up to fill the void. It's either going to be citizens or organized crime.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> We don't have enough police, they don't enforce the law. This will result in someone stepping up to fill the void. It's either going to be citizens or organized crime.


Crime has been steadily decreasing in Canada for decades now.

You're voicing American-style paranoia. Nobody is defunding the police here, and they have excellent pay and massive pensions far greater than anyone else has.

There are plenty of police around. Just yesterday afternoon I dropped by my local community police station, talked a bit with some volunteers and a couple officers about to head out on the streets. Lots of excellent police around, where I live.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Crime has been steadily decreasing in Canada for decades now.
> 
> You're voicing American-style paranoia.
> 
> There are plenty of police around. Just yesterday afternoon I dropped by my local community police station, talked a bit with some volunteers and a couple police about to head out on the streets. Lots of excellent police around, where I live.


What "American Style Paranoia"?

That we're underpoliced and response times are increasing to unacceptable levels?
Maybe not where you are, but that's not the reality everywhere. In some places it's gotten quite bad, and has been for years.

They even brag about it.








London has fewest cops per capita in Southwestern Ontario: StatCan


London has the fewest police officers per capita in Southwestern Ontario, according to a new report from Statistics Canada.




lfpress.com





However I'm pointing out that the shortage is resulting in extremely long response times.
4 days to respond to a sexual assault is NOT acceptable in a major urban center.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-police-response-times-1.6254713



Do you think #defundthepolice is going to make this better?

This has been going on for years.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/impact-of-hiring-new-911-operators-will-be-felt-soon-1.4689756


Woman sounds alarm after she says 911 call put on hold for 5 minutes
"he says while the number of operators hasn't changed in 25 years, the volume of calls they take and the length of time they spend of each call has dramatically increased."

We have chronic shortages of law enforcement, no it isn't as bad as the US situation, but it isn't getting better. To be clear I'm not saying absolute numbers for Canada vs US.
The issue in the US is the wholesale abdication of their responsibility in cities like Kenosha and Portland, which inevitably lead to violence.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Trumpism.
> 
> It will fade away after Trump is gone. It may take some time, but the changing demographics ensures it will happen.
> 
> ...


White privilege? Trumpism? Cold dead hands?

You forgot to mention how Kaepernick (his own words) was a really just a slave while earning millions in the NFL. 🤣


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The "Tucker Carlson drone video" is NOT the FBI video.

The verdict was correct under Wisconsin law. The DOJ should investigate the professional conduct of all concerned in the trial.

I don't know why anyone but the guilty would be opposed to that.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> My point is......if the defense knew about the drone they had access to it, and their conduct in the trial of accusing the prosecution of altering the video is a total lie.


That's false. The prosecution admitted in court (on camera) that they had a different version of events than what they provided to the defense. It's public record and is not in dispute.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The problem with the police is that they are serving as social workers, mental health workers and spending time dealing with issues that should be non-criminal in nature.

"Defund" the police was a stupid phrase. 

What is needed is to spend more on social workers so they can spend less on police officers doing social workers jobs.

The police in our city spend more time dealing with drunks and drug addicts downtown, than on serious crime.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> That's false. The prosecution admitted in court (on camera) that they had a different version of events than what they provided to the defense. It's public record and is not in dispute.


No they didn't. They sent the video they received from Tucker Carlson to the crime lab. The crime lab sent it to the defense.

Tucker Carlson bought and owned the video. He put it on his show.

His camera crew was imbedded into the defense. Of course the defense knew about the video.

You keep referring to the video as the FBI video. It is a different video called the Tucker Carlson video.

The video was key evidence in an ongoing murder trial and Tucker Carlson puts it live on television before giving to the police ?

Maybe it was Tucker Carlson who enhanced the video.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Unhappy that the prosecution was unable to railroad Rittenhouse for defending himself against armed thugs, Democrat Jerry Nadler now wants the corrupt DOJ to investigate (ie: overturn) the jury's ruling. 

The US has become a banana republic.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> No they didn't. They sent the video they received from Tucker Carlson to the crime lab. The crime lab sent it to the defense.


Yes they did. The prosecution stated in court that their version was different than the one they gave the defense.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> The problem with the police is that they are serving as social workers, mental health workers and spending time dealing with issues that should be non-criminal in nature.
> 
> "Defund" the police was a stupid phrase.


It wasn't just a phrase, it was a demand. Some areas even reduced funding based on the demands but it didn't work out very well.

Why do you seem to be you wrong about everything?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> Yes they did. The prosecution stated in court that their version was different than the one they gave the defense.


Not true......but have it your way. That would mean you say the judge erred by not ruling for the defense and ordering a mistrial.

That would mean there could be another trial. A mistrial doesn't mean the defendant is acquitted.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Not true......but have it your way. That would mean you say the judge erred by not ruling for the defense and ordering a mistrial.
> 
> That would mean there could be another trial. A mistrial doesn't mean the defendant is acquitted.


I'm not having it my way. It's on video and a matter of public record that you either didn't watch or chose to ignore.

A mistrial with prejudice means that charges cannot be refiled. Altering and/or withholding evidence is grounds for a mistrial with prejudice.

There never should have been a trial in the first place. This was just a show trial intended to give a message that anyone who defends themselves in the future will be punished. That's why Nadler wants the corrupt DOJ to review (overturn) the decision and why he doesn't want the prosecutor investigated for withholding and/or altering evidence.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Defense doesnt need their motion for mistrial to go ahead because Rittenhouse was cleared of all charges. 
If he lost in court, and only then motion for mistrial would be looked at.

They can go for malicious prosecution and file defamation suit against POTUS and media, but although it would be good for their atrocious behavior to be penalized and result in charges, I dont think Rittenhouse will go for that - too much of a circus again


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

damian13ster said:


> Defense doesnt need their motion for mistrial to go ahead because Rittenhouse was cleared of all charges.
> If he lost in court, and only then motion for mistrial would be looked at.
> 
> They can go for malicious prosecution and file defamation suit against POTUS and media, but although it would be good for their atrocious behavior to be penalized and result in charges, I dont think Rittenhouse will go for that - too much of a circus again


People that called Rittenhouse a white supremacist should be sued into bankruptcy. That includes Biden, MSNBC and several others. If they're allowed to get away with slander and outright lies with no penalty they'll just do it again.

They won't stop until they're forced to stop. I hope he sues and wins big. That's the only way to send a message.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There will be lawsuits flying all over the place. Civil trials are completely different than criminal trials.

Different rules, different rules of evidence, different judge, different jury.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial but guilty in the civil trial.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial but guilty in the civil trial.


It was an obvious case of white privilege when a jury found OJ innocent.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Fox News reported that "leftist" protestors are bringing guns to the protests. Oh my.....there should be a law.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Are they protestors or convicted criminals not allowed to have weapons?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

There is law. There are certain guns that are legal and certain that are not. Some people lose privilege of being able to carry a gun. such as domestic abuser that pointed one at Kyle. Dont see a point of criticizing law-abiding gun owners. Breaking law is a problem


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial but guilty in the civil trial.


No he wasn't.
Go ahead, show the link that he was "guilty" in the civil trial?

You just love making crap up don't you?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Ah.....so you put quotations around the word guilty to parse words.

As I posted, a civil trial is different than a criminal trial and the equivalent of a guilty finding in a criminal court is to be found liable in a civil court.

Since you are into parsing words.......Rittenhouse was not found "innocent". He was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

_The first step to understanding this seeming contradiction is to know that a criminal prosecution involves different laws, a different court system, and different burdens of proof. Specifically, the definition of first degree murder in the context of the O.J. case requires that the act be done with malice aforethought and premeditation. And to convict in the criminal court, the case against the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a civil case for wrongful death, on the other hand, the plaintiffs had to prove only that the defendant 's intentional and unlawful conduct resulted in the victims ' deaths.. The burden of proof in the civil case was preponderance of the evidence -- a much lesser burden than is required in a criminal case.

*So, while a criminal jury might reasonably fail to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit an accused, a civil jury might also reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant 's unlawful conduct results in civil liability. *_






What's the difference between a civil judgment and a criminal conviction?


A civil judgment is a lawsuit, usually for money. A criminal conviction is punishment brought by the state for violating the law.




www.nolo.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Ah.....so you put quotations around the word guilty to parse words.


Yes, because what you said was wrong.



> As I posted, a civil trial is different than a criminal trial and the equivalent of a guilty finding in a criminal court is to be found liable in a civil court.


Yes, that's why he was never found guilty of murder.



> Since you are into parsing words.......Rittenhouse was not found "innocent". He was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


Of course, because not guilty means that the prosecution didn't prove he committed a crime.

It's important to note that in a criminal trial it's the job of the prosecution to prove someone actually committed the crime, and there was simply no evidence that he did.


regarding the rest, I'm glad you decided to read up on some of what you're talking about.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rittenhouse was lucky in a lot of ways. 

I hope he learned from the experience and stays out of trouble.

He should also stay away from all the media maggots.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> There will be lawsuits flying all over the place. Civil trials are completely different than criminal trials.
> 
> Different rules, different rules of evidence, different judge, different jury.
> 
> *OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial but guilty in the civil trial.*


 ... even a dummy like me found the bolded part quite clear.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> Rittenhouse was lucky in a lot of ways.
> 
> I hope he learned from the experience and stays out of trouble.
> 
> *He should also stay away from all the media maggots.*


 ... gonna to be a hard with all those endorsements $$$$ dangling in front of him. 

And don't forget the encouragements and so-called "support" given to him to sue everybody NEWS of him. Start with his encouraging mother. It's the U.S.A. - land of litigations abound.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yea, his mother already gave an "exclusive" interview to Fox, and he is scheduled to be on Tucker Carlson show tonight.

Some are asking if Fox News paid his legal expenses. He did have over $2 million defense fund and they are fighting over who gets the money back.

Meanwhile, a judge said the jury wasn't sequestered because Wisconsin couldn't afford to pay for the hotel rooms and food.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Hey......maybe Fox News could get the Rittenhouse family together with the judge and have a Fox News Christmas Special.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Yea, his mother already gave an "exclusive" interview to Fox, and he is scheduled to be on Tucker Carlson show tonight.


Do you have a point? People are allowed to give interviews to whoever they choose.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> sags said:
> 
> 
> > OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial but *guilty in the civil trial.*
> ...


I don't consider myself a dummy, but I also found the bold part quite clear. Sags has no idea what they're talking about.
They're literally making false claims about things that didn't happen.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

A major attack yesterday in Wisconsin following the trial, dozens of people at a Christmas parade in Waukesha were deliberately run down. 5 dead so far. The suspect was arrested and was out on bail after previously running down another person. He also has several other serious and violent offenses.

This will be downplayed by the media and the story will disappear in a day or so. In fact some of them have already lied and called it "accidental" even though video shows him deliberately accelerating into the crowd. The suspect is non-white and a known Trump hater so it's in the media's best interest to downplay or ignore it.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

I don't believe the two have anything in common.

Other than both being excellent examples that repeat felons should not be allowed back into society.
Rap sheet that is longer than George Martin books, repeat violations of parole, and they set a bail at 1000$? It is a joke. 
Domestic abusers, sexual predators, violent criminals should not be allowed onto the streets.
Two of them, domestic abuser and sexual predator attacked a teenager in Kenosha
And now another one killed at least 5 and injured 40.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

You may be right, maybe they don't have anything in common.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Judges in Wisconsin don't appear to take crime all that seriously.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

It isn't just Wisconsin.
Democratic DA's in general are not taking crime seriously. You can hear it non=stop in the news, that convicted murderers out on bail commit more crimes. Especially frequent in New York.
This is becoming a serious problem.

Ironically:
"On November 22, 2021 an investigation was launched into the Milwaukee DA's office handling of the bail setting for Darrel Brooks, suspect in the murder of 5 and injury of 40 at the Waukesha Christmas Parade. Brooks is accused of plowing his SUV into the parade. As a result of Chisholm's criminal justice reforms, the Milwaukee DA's office had let Brooks out on $1,000 bail a month prior, after he ran a woman over with the same vehicle. [20]"


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

They don't release violent criminals accidentally. It's done for a reason, and the reason isn't to make it safer for law abiding people.

Maybe that's why they went so hard after Rittenhouse. He dared to defend himself and they just can't have that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rittenhouse was charged with killing 2 people and wounded another, and he was out on bail.

Judges determine bail....not the prosecutor. If it was up to prosecutors everyone charged with a crime would remain in custody until trial.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This guy also has an unresolved past gun possession charge.

It seems like everyone in Wisconsin is walking around with a gun.......legal or not.

The Wisconsin justice system is a zitshow.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Judges in Wisconsin don't appear to take crime all that seriously.


Like what?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Rittenhouse was charged with killing 2 people and wounded another, and he was out on bail.


Innocent until proven guilty.

He should have been out on bail, and quite honestly he shouldn't have been charged at all.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I don't consider myself a dummy, but I also found the bold part quite clear. Sags has no idea what they're talking about.
> They're literally making false claims about things that didn't happen.


 ... of course you're not a dummy when you continuously flip-flop or do a spin-o-matic.

Just re-read your post #237, repasted here:



> sags said:
> _OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial but guilty in the civil trial._





> _No he wasn't.
> Go ahead, show the link that he was "guilty" in the civil trial?_
> 
> You just love making crap up don't you?


 ... _does the "No he wasn't"_ and then your "_Go ahead, show the link he was "guilty" in the civil trial_" sounded like you agreed or was clear about any part of his post? No, instead you got him to explain it to you "in depth" in his subsequent post #238 and *only now* you agree his 2nd part was clear. Of course, no dummy of you.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... of course you're not a dummy when you continuously flip-flop or do a spin-o-matic.


You keep saying that, but you still haven't pointed out when I flip-flopped.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spin o matic", but again I'll clarify any confusion if you want.




> Just re-read your post #237, repasted here:
> 
> ... _does the "No he wasn't"_ and then your "_Go ahead, show the link he was "guilty" in the civil trial_" sounded like you agreed or was clear about any part of his post? No, instead you got him to explain it to you "in depth" in his subsequent post #238 and *only now* you agree his 2nd part was clear. Of course, no dummy of you.


No flip flop.
OJ was never found guilty in a civil trial, because people aren't found guilty in civil trials.

The part that is clear is that sags doesn't know what he's talking about. He's very sloppy with language and in this case he is clearly and objectively wrong. 

Oh, and he never backed up his false claim that OJ was found guilty in the murder trial anyway. Because he rarely if ever supports his claims.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> You keep saying that, but you still haven't pointed out when I flip-flopped.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "spin o matic", but again I'll clarify any confusion if you want.
> 
> ...


 ... let's start with your last statement. Sags said OJ was found not guilty in the criminal (murder) trial, no? But guilty in the civil trial by way of civil liability. He clarifed it for you in his post 238.

And to take it one step further - if you want to extend the trials of OJ Simpson, he did go to jail for armed robbery didn't he? Still guilty of criminal charges!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Btw, I'm still LMAO (too bad, now closed) from the "F*ck name of politician ... " thread when you said the forum is better if sags was put on ignore. I would really like to see you start with that.....


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I like it when the trolls put me on ignore. It makes me feel special and important.........


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... let's start with your last statement. Sags said OJ was found not guilty in the criminal (murder) trial, no? But guilty in the civil trial by way of civil liability. He clarifed it for you in his post 238.


Correct, he was wrong in the initial post (about being found guilty in a civil trial).

Yes there was a lot of discussion about how this was definately not true.



> And to take it one step further - if you want to extend the trials of OJ Simpson, he did go to jail for armed robbery didn't he? Still guilty of criminal charges!


Not disputing that, disputing that he was found guilty in a civil trial.

You claim a flip flop, but there simply hasn't been one.
Someone made a false claim, I called them on it, somehow you interepreted this as a "flip flop" or "spinomatic", not sure what your point is.
Mine remains the same, someone was making false claims. I've been quite consistent on that.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> ...
> You claim a flip flop, but there simply hasn't been one.
> Someone made a false claim, I called them on it, somehow you interepreted this as a "flip flop" or "spinomatic", not sure what your point is.
> Mine remains the same, someone was making false claims. I've been quite consistent on that.


 ... since you're no dummy, I'll let you figure out my point(s). 

At the end of the day, nothing changes, hence your consistency there that I don't dispute.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

The media circus continues ...

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-rips-lawyers-feud-021645851.html

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/kyle-ritt...ts-before-you-make-a-statement-071317772.html

I really like to see him suing the POTUS with that $2M promised to him. Says alot about his character of "innocence" at 17 years old only.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> I like it when the trolls put me on ignore. It makes me feel special and important.........


 ... I would like to see that too. Being ignored or not responded to here EVER again by the "Trolls-R-Us" (no offense to ToysRUs).


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> The media circus continues ...
> 
> https://ca.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-rips-lawyers-feud-021645851.html
> 
> ...


He should sue the POTUS. 
Defamation and rush to judgement needs to be stopped. He wouldn't be the first person either who had his life ruined by media and politicians running their mouths based on no facts whatsoever.
A person who defames others for their own gain should be held accountable, no matter what their position in society is. 
Otherwise it will never stop. The disinformation from a media is out of control - it has been months since the shooting happened - it has been weeks since everyone saw evidence from the trial, and media companies still outright lie. For example they still claim he crossed state lines armed. That is simply not true, yet truth no longer matters in the media.

What is your suggestion on how to get back to accountability and introduce standard for the media that at least excludes blatant, verifiable lying on news channels?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

So the prosecution was telling the truth that they sent the "Tucker Carlson" video to the first defense team of Wood and Pierce.

_"In addition to making the $2 million dollar bail, FightBack paid about $700,000 for his attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation, *including spending money to produce the videotape that was kinda the start to finish of what happened,*" Wood said in a call Monday afternoon. _

The rest is MAGA maggots fighitng with each other over the money they used Rittenhouse to raise.

I would include Tucker Carlson and Fox News in that group. They are now upset that Rittenhouse said he supports BLM on Fox News.

They didn't see that coming.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

What I'm getting from all of this is that some people really hate that someone was successfully able to defend himself against pedophiles and violent thugs that were trying to kill them.

Sickening.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

I think the group that is most upset that Kyle supports BLM and their right to protest is BLM 
The guy simply defended himself - he isn't a racist and there was zero indication that he ever was one.
Just don't listen to Biden trying to score political points by lying


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You are making unsupported allegations. 

Do you have any evidence of Biden calling Rittenhouse a racist or white supremacist ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> What I'm getting from all of this is that some people really hate that someone was successfully able to defend himself against pedophiles and violent thugs that were trying to kill them.
> 
> Sickening.


His past lawyers most of all apparently.

Rittenhouse's lawyer called Lin Wood an "idiot" on CNN, and now Lin Wood is threatening to sue him.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> You are making unsupported allegations.
> 
> Do you have any evidence of Biden calling Rittenhouse a racist or white supremacist ?


Of course. Always have evidence of the factual statements I make:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311268302950260737


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I didn't hear Joe Biden say anything about Kyle Rittenhouse.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Say, post on twitter, what's the difference? Whether you call a name or post a picture of supposed white supremacist - the result is exactly the same. You communicate to the world that the person is a white supremacist - you defame that person. 
Just read legal opinions


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Kyle Rittenhouse had the benefit of a judge who wouldn't allow a lot of evidence into the trial.









Judge: Prosecutors Can't Show Kyle Rittenhouse Link to Proud Boys


Prosecutors won’t be allowed to argue at trial that a man who shot three people during a Wisconsin protest against police brutality believes in the Proud Boys’ violent tactics or was affiliated with the white nationalist group the night of last year’s shootings, a judge ruled Friday.




www.nbcchicago.com





I already posted video of Kyle Rittenhouse assaulting a teen girl. That wasn't alllowed into the trial either.

I don't believe anything Kyle Rittenhouse says. He will say anything to try to clean up his image.

I don't blame him for that though. His image needs a thorough cleaning.

He is a kid who has skirted around the law and got away with it. Then he screwed up and I hope he learned a lesson from it.

I have seen kids like him before and they either change or end up in prison.

For his sake.......I hope he picks a different path than he was on.

Otherwise we will hear about him again. Some people are drawn towards trouble like a moth to a flame.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> I didn't hear Joe Biden say anything about Kyle Rittenhouse.


It appears that you don't hear anything that you don't want to hear.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Here is Kyle Rittenhouse........while on bail., flashing the white supremacy sign.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What does that have to do with defamation?
Just because a guy is an idiot (never claimed otherwise) doesn't mean one can label him a white supremacist - that's defamation.
Nor does the fact that I believe a guy deserved a due process and that evidence overwhelmingly pointed to self-defense, and that POTUS shouldn't defame people, suddenly makes him a 'hero'
I don't value your intelligence particularly highly either but I am not going to go around and announce to the world that you are a white supremacist, and will defend you if someone like Biden does it. Those two are not related


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

That link has nothing to do with Rittenhouse.

Are you referring to the OK sign that was a hoax?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Lots of people in the video that Biden tweeted weren't white supremacists.

Are you saying the black couple in the video at 10 seconds are white supremacists ? The girl at 11 seconds with the flowers ?

Provide one piece of evidence where Biden singled out Rittenhouse as a white supremacist.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

The context of the video was extremely clear to anyone who is objective about it. You keep denying simple facts, showing blinding bias, so the discussion is completely useless. People can see the video and judge for themselves. Legal authorities already did and determine that there is basis for defamation lawsuit based on the video - with the win/loss being determined on whether jury would determine that Kyle became public persona by design or as a result of the assault he was a victim of.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rittenhouse's past would be subject to scrutiny, which is why a lot of people who threaten civil lawsuits never follow through with them.

He claims his character was defamed.......okay, let's take a close look at his character.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Yeah, it isn't like MSNBC and CNN didn't look into his past.......
That ship is long gone. 
White supremacist claim is still a defamation.
I don't think he will go against Biden - there is very little reward for that and just a big circus.
Now, going after media though - as case of Nick Sandmann has shown, can be lucrative.
And hopefully another 250mln settlement will make journalists or any other people, like Biden, think twice before defaming someone again.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... since you're no dummy, I'll let you figure out my point(s).
> 
> At the end of the day, nothing changes, hence your consistency there that I don't dispute.


Your point is you don't actually have data to support your claims. Which is interestingly enough also my point.

It isn't flip flopping when you remain consistent in your claims.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nick Sandman didn't shoot 3 people, killing 2 of them. Sandman stood and smiled at a guy.

You think a jury is going to reward Rittenhouse with millions because his feelings were hurt ?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Your point is you don't actually have data to support your claims. Which is interestingly enough also my point.
> 
> It isn't flip flopping when you remain consistent in your claims.


 ... here we go again ... okay, not spin-o-matic. How about twist-o-matic? Sound fancier? Since when does someone need data to flip-flop? Beats me.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Why do you hate self defense so much sags?

What would you do if you were being chased by 3 armed thugs? Try to bullshit your way out of it?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

1. Let violent criminals out of jail
2. Order police to stand down when the criminals riot, commit violence, and burn down cities
3. Prosecute those who are forced to defend themselves
4. Don't prosecute an attempted murderer who admitted under oath that he tried to murder a child

What's step 5?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> Nick Sandman didn't shoot 3 people, killing 2 of them. Sandman stood and smiled at a guy.
> 
> You think a jury is going to reward Rittenhouse with millions because his feelings were hurt ?


Nick Sandman wasn't assaulted by 3 people.
What does one have to do with other?
Not because his feelings got hurt. Defamation has nothing to do with feelings of the victim.
Being defamed by mass media and POTUS is not acceptable and unless it is prosecuted like in Sandmann's case, the behavior will continue


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... here we go again ... okay, not spin-o-matic. How about twist-o-matic? Sound fancier? Since when does someone need data to flip-flop? Beats me.


I'm not calling you a flip flopper, I'm calling you a person who makes unfounded claims.
I'm not sure if it is out of malice, or a lack of understanding.

For example, your claim that I'm a flip flopper. It's a claim that you have no evidence to support.

You then actually pulled an example of me remaining consistent (that OJ was not found guilty in a civil trial) as "evidence" of flip flopping.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> 1. Let violent criminals out of jail
> 2. Order police to stand down when the criminals riot, commit violence, and burn down cities
> 3. Prosecute those who are forced to defend themselves
> 4. Don't prosecute an attempted murderer who admitted under oath that he tried to murder a child
> ...


Sounds like a typical day in WIsconsin.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The guy who drove his SUV into the parade had his bail set at $5 million.

I hoipe nobody will pony up the bail, but what do you have to do in Wisconsin to be held without bail ?

In Canada, if you are out on bail on a charge and are charged with another crime while you are out, there is a reverse onus on you to prove why you should get bail again. It is rarely granted a second time for serious crimes.

Maybe if it is littering or something, but for multiple homicides....you "might" get bail the first time ,but not the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

He was just released on $1000 bail after running down a woman with his car and that's when he committed mass murder. Welcome to Democrat justice.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I'm not calling you a flip flopper, I'm calling you a person who makes unfounded claims.
> I'm not sure if it is out of malice, or a lack of understanding.


 ... talking about yourself? If you keep making accusations like this, you'll find yourself joining the Troll-R-Us camp soon.



> For example, your claim that I'm a flip flopper. It's a claim that you have no evidence to support.


 ... I gave you the evidence in my post 257. How many times do I have to repeat the same evidence over and over and over? I can't help it if you refuse to actually read or think over the responses given since you're so adamant you're right.



> You then actually pulled an example of me remaining consistent (that OJ was not found guilty in a civil trial) as "evidence" of flip flopping.


 ... see above and since I'm not understanding you then here's a piece from Wiki (which I hope is simple enough to understand and please don't tell me the authors are biased (multiple authors of which none I'm familiar with):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson

*



Orenthal James Simpson

Click to expand...

*


> _ (born July 9, 1947), nicknamed "*the Juice*", is an American former football running back, broadcaster, actor, and advertising spokesman. Once a popular figure with the U.S. public, he is now best known for being tried for the murders of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman. Simpson was acquitted of the murders in criminal court* but was later found responsible for both deaths in a civil trial.*
> 
> ...
> In 1994, Simpson was arrested and charged with the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman. He was acquitted by a jury after a lengthy and internationally publicized trial. The families of the victims subsequently filed a civil suit against him. *A civil court awarded a $33.5 million judgment against him in 1997 for the victims' wrongful deaths. In 2000, he moved to Florida and settled in Miami to avoid paying any more of the liability judgment, which as of 2021 he has mostly not paid.*_


To re-iterate for the last time (3rd time is a strikeout): you considered OJ as "not guilty" in the "civil trial" but Wiki (not me) above proves otherwise. Enough data?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> To re-iterate for the last time (3rd time is a strikeout): you considered OJ as "not guilty" in the "civil trial" but Wiki (not me) above proves otherwise. Enough data?


Again your own reference above supports my statement.

You've for the third time posted data that supports my position. Thank you.

Regarding the murder/wrongful death trials, I've been very consistent.
OJ was found responsible in the civil trial.
OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial.

He was never found guilty of murder in either trial, that was my claim, it remains my claim.

As for how many times you'll have to repeat your evidence, as many as it takes for you to realize that it doesn't say what you think it does.
Your evidence is very clear that he was not found guilty in the civil trial. As the other post elaborates civil trials do not determine guilt, therefore they are simply not capable of finding someone guilty.

You seem to think that a civil court rendering a responsible decision is the same as rendering a guilty verdict, but they are not the same. Which again has been my position from the beginning.

In short my opinion and my position match the actual legal reality of the two cases, there is no flip flop or contradiction.






What's the difference between a civil judgment and a criminal conviction?


A civil judgment is a lawsuit, usually for money. A criminal conviction is punishment brought by the state for violating the law.




www.nolo.com




A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his ex-wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first degree murder. Legally, the outcomes do not contradict each other.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Again your own reference above supports my statement.
> 
> You've for the third time posted data that supports my position. Thank you.
> 
> ...


 ... like sags mentioned, you're "parsing" the word "guilty". I'm not a lawyer of which you're fully aware of so I take the (your) "responsible in the civil trial" as an act of guilt found, hence, the civil liability. And yet you were fully aware that the word "guilt" does not exists in a civil trial and does not point out - hence, your consistent opportunity to do a spin-o-matic.

Btw, he was found guilty in a criminal trial for an armed robbery so it's guilty all the way.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Guilty verdicts in the Arbery trial in Georgia.

The defendants tried to use the same "protecting property" and "self defense" theory as Kyle Rittenhouse.

Different state, different judge, different jury verdict.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> Guilty verdicts in the Arbery trial in Georgia.
> 
> The defendants tried to use the same "self defense" as Kyle Rittenhouse.
> 
> Different state, different judge, different jury verdict.


Good. The defendants attacked Arbery, similar to how Rittenhouse was attacked. Except that Arbery wasn't able to defend himself and was killed.

Do you agree that the verdict was the correct one?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... like sags mentioned, you're "parsing" the word "guilty". I'm not a lawyer of which you're fully aware of so I take the (your) "responsible in the civil trial" as an act of guilt found, hence, the civil liability. And yet you were fully aware that the word "guilt" does not exists in a civil trial and does not point out - hence, your consistent opportunity to do a spin-o-matic.
> 
> Btw, he was found guilty in a criminal trial for an armed robbery so it's guilty all the way.


My point is, and remains that he was not found guilty in the civil trial. There was never any spin, or flip flopping.

I understand your lack of knowledge created a misunderstanding on your part, that you clearly describe above.

But that's on you, not me.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

The difference between the two trials is that in the Rittenhouse trial the person on trial was being chased by people trying to kill him. In the Arbery trial the people chasing the victim were on trial.

So why hasn't Grosskruetz been charged with attempted murder?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The only difference is the jury decided the defendants provoked the incident, which negated their self defence claim.

In the Rittenhouse trial, the judge wouldn't let any evidence into the trial that revealed why Rittenhouse was in Kenosha.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> My point is, and remains that he was not found guilty in the civil trial. There was never any spin, or flip flopping.
> 
> I understand your lack of knowledge created a misunderstanding on your part, that you clearly describe above.
> 
> But that's on you, not me.


 ... so what's with the assumption in your post#289 on the possibility that I was doing it with malice? Not on you, then who?



> ... I'm not calling you a flip flopper, I'm calling you a person who makes unfounded claims.
> I'm not sure if it is out of malice, or a lack of understanding. ...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> The only difference is the jury decided the defendants provoked the incident, which negated their self defence claim.
> 
> *In the Rittenhouse trial, the judge wouldn't let any evidence into the trial that revealed why Rittenhouse was in Kenosha.*


 ... exactly. The kid was up to no good. Perhaps finding an opportunity to do some target-shootings with his assault rifle in the name of self-defense subsequently. Or his "heroic act" claim for the "need to defend properties and lives there" as if there's no police dep't there.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> The only difference is the jury decided the defendants provoked the incident, which negated their self defence claim.
> 
> In the Rittenhouse trial, the judge wouldn't let any evidence into the trial that revealed why Rittenhouse was in Kenosha.


Yes, the circumstances were similar to the Rittenhouse trial. The difference is that the attackers were charged in one trial and the person who defended himself was charged in the other trial.

Do you have a point? The verdict in both cases seems fairly clear and just.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... exactly. The kid was up to no good. Perhaps finding an opportunity to do some target-shooting with his assault rifle in the name of self-defense subsequently.


Blame the victim. 

I shed no tears for the death of a convicted pedophile that was trying to kill a child. The world is a better place now that he's gone.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Heroes don't go to a different city to defend an empty building by shooting at 4 people and killing 2 of them.

Nobody else shot anyone there. No protestors or other people "protecting businesses" they didn't own.

It is called vigilante law and hopefully the Arbery verdict puts an end to the hero worship of it.

Now he admits he met with Proud Boys members but blames his lawyer. He says he flashed the OK sign but says he didn't know what it means.

This kid will have a hard time staying out of trouble.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Next career for the kid once he's off (or maybe simultaneously with the suing circus) is a reality tv show.

I don't get it, since he's so much into this "vigilante law" sh1t, why don't he join the US Army first and display his patriotism there whilst getting some real practice.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... so what's with the assumption in your post#289 on the possibility that I was doing it with malice? Not on you, then who?


I took being called a flip flopper as an insult, as you were attacking my credibility.

I consider unfounded personal attacks malicious.

I left open the fact that you were actually not acting maliciously, if you recall I actually said.
" I'm not sure if it is out of malice, or a lack of understanding. "


If you're making false accusations and personal attacks that you know are false, I consider that malicious.
If you're making false accusations and personal attacks, but you honestly think they are true, I don't consider that malicious, because the intent is different.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> He says he flashed the OK sign but says he didn't know what it means.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> He says he flashed the OK sign but says he didn't know what it means.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... exactly. The kid was up to no good. Perhaps finding an opportunity to do some target-shootings with his assault rifle in the name of self-defense subsequently. Or his "heroic act" claim for the "need to defend properties and lives there" as if there's no police dep't there.


There literally was no police department there, they were ordered to stand back from the rioters.

I'm okay if people "target shoot" in legitimate self defense those who are actively trying to seriously injure or kill them.

So what, a few stupid criminals got hurt attacking a 17 yr old kid, I don't really care.
Their actions showed that they were still a threat to society, and the law was unable to stop them, so one of their victims did.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> So why hasn't Grosskruetz been charged with attempted murder?


Since he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse, and didn't discharge it, it's really hard to prove intent to kill.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> There literally was no police department there, they were ordered to stand back from the rioters.
> 
> I'm okay if people "target shoot" in legitimate self defense those who are actively trying to seriously injure or kill them.
> 
> ...


 ... you really don't get it. Did he needed to be there? To play victim?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I took being called a flip flopper as an insult, as you were attacking my credibility.
> 
> I consider unfounded personal attacks malicious.
> 
> ...


 ... so which is it? I have been accused and called everything on this forum ... a racist, a hypocrite, a d1ck ... so many I lost count or recall exactly.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... you really don't get it. Did he needed to be there? To play victim?


Him being there doesn't mean he should be assaulted.
Same as woman wearing a short skirt doesn't excuse rape.

Like was said before. 
In one case the victim was on trial.
In other case the victim was murdered and attackers were on trial.

Victim got exonerated
Attackers got guilty verdict.

Both cases simply show that despite politicians, defamations, threat from protesters, and malice from mass media, the jury system in United States still works.
Not sure for how long, but it is good to know that as of today it is still functioning.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Being found liable in a civil trial is the same outcome as being found guilty in a criminal trial.

The difference is you pay money instead of going to prison.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> View attachment 22408


The photo is missing the Proud Boys.....context is everything.

Rittenhouse said he flashed the sign with them but didn't know what it meant.

Apparently, you don't either.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I wonder if anyone will have this thought…….

”I hate my neighbour! I’m going over to her place….and I’m provoking her until she takes a swing at me….then I’m unloading on her with AR15.” - self defence and all that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

These guys already tried that and might have got away with it, as the prosecutor didn't lay charges for awhile due to lack of evidence.

It wasn't until the third suspect's video turned up and there were public protests that these guys were arrested.

The dummies recorded themselves doing the crime, but didn't think it would matter.

If there was no tape.....they would have killed the guy and gotten away with it.

I watched the judge reading the jury's verdicts and the son looked shocked, and the dad took a long hard look at the 3rd guy.

You could tell what he was thinking.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Here is a lawyer's interpretation of the trial.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Money172375 said:


> I wonder if anyone will have this thought…….
> 
> ”I hate my neighbour! I’m going over to her place….and I’m provoking her until she takes a swing at me….then I’m unloading on her with AR15.” - self defence and all that.


But that's not what happened. Well, unless you consider running from an armed thug to be provocation. 🤣 

Why don't you talk about what actually happened instead of making stuff up? That's what this whole thing is really about. The angry left just found out that people might fight back and it terrifies them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... you really don't get it. Did he needed to be there? To play victim?


Same with the attackers, they had a right to be there.
Did they need to be there? 
Did they need to attack people?

Remember, in each case the attacker continued going after Rittenhouse, even as he tried to flee, which is not actually required in this situation under WI law.
There is a reason several states are "stand your ground" states


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... so which is it? I have been accused and called everything on this forum ... a racist, a hypocrite, a d1ck ... so many I lost count or recall exactly.


Well in this case I'm only calling you a person who makes unfounded claims.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good summation by the lawyer, but I don't think he discussed the possibility that after Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, everyone who chased and attacked him after that considered him to be an "active shooter" running away from a crime. 

In Wisconsin, it would seem that it would not be wise to try to apprehend someone on the basis of believing they are an active shooter.

Fortunately in most States and in Canada, there is a duty to retreat before using self defense as a last resort.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rittenhouse was found not to be "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", which is necessary a high bar.

The Wisconsin justice system is a zitshow.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Well he tried to retreat before using self defense. 
Anywhere in the world self-defense in this case is protected.

Agreed though that Wisconsin justice system is a joke.
Democratic DA sets bail at 500$ and then at 1000$ for a guy with 50 page criminal record and active warrant in Nevada, while arresting a guy with multiple videos clearly showing self-defense - luckily jury system still works.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> I wonder if anyone will have this thought…….
> 
> ”I hate my neighbour! I’m going over to her place….and I’m provoking her until she takes a swing at me….then I’m unloading on her with AR15.” - self defence and all that.


 ... you don't even have to go as far as that to be instigator there.

Look at the simple scenario where some other kid at the schoolyard / mall wants to pick on Rittenhouse and punches him. Now Rittenhouse can pull out his rifle and shoot the other kid all in the name of "self-defense" and is not guilty. I can picture a wild-west transpiring in that neighbourhood or elsewhere in the USA with its guns-loving citizens and the nuts that own them.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... you don't even have to go as far as that to be instigator there.
> 
> Look at the simple scenario where some other kid at the schoolyard / mall wants to pick on Rittenhouse and punches him. Now Rittenhouse can pull out his rifle and shoot the other kid all in the name of "self-defense" and is not guilty. I can picture a wild-west transpiring in that neighbourhood or elsewhere in the USA with its guns-loving citizens and the nuts that own them.


But that's not what happened. There would have had to be 3 kids and 2 of them would have been armed and would only have been shot after the kid flees then falls and only shot after a loaded gun was pointed at his head.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> ... you don't even have to go as far as that to be instigator there.
> 
> Look at the simple scenario where some other kid at the schoolyard / mall wants to pick on Rittenhouse and punches him. Now Rittenhouse can pull out his rifle and shoot the other kid all in the name of "self-defense" and is not guilty. I can picture a wild-west transpiring in that neighbourhood or elsewhere in the USA with its guns-loving citizens and the nuts that own them.


The verdict brings into question the legitimacy of self-defence classes especially for women and children.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Tostig said:


> The verdict brings into question the legitimacy of self-defence classes especially for women and children.


Maybe we should ban self defense classes because it's unfair to violent criminals.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Professional fighters' hands can be treated as deadly weapons in court of law too.
I guess that justifies any dumbass thug assaulting them while on the streets.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In your opinion, nobody bears any personal responsibility for seeking out and injecting themselves into a violent situation that doesn't involve them.

Nobody needed Rittenhouse or his pals to protect an empty auto building and confront any rioters. The police were there and it is their job.

When did the duty transfer to untrained, unqualifed, unlicenced armed citizens to "serve and protect" the public ?

Rittenhouse was extremely lucky that the incident occurred in Wisconsin. In other states he would have been convicted.

Apparently you see nothing wrong with underage kids toting around a loaded AR15. What could possibly go wrong ?

I felt bad for Rittenhouse. He is just a dumb *** kid, where influence from bad sources filled the vacuum his parents left open.

He seems to live in a fantasy world, telling everyone he was a paramedic, and now talking about being nurse one day and a lawyer the next.

The alt right will use him, abuse him, and throw him to the wolves when he is of no value to their cause.

He already met with Donald Trump, and Tucker Carlson has used him as a prime time feature to boost ratings.

I hope this kid takes his lawyer's good advice...change his name, move somewhere else, and stay low.

Otherwise.......you know what. He will be back standing before a judge again someday.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Situation wasn't violent until the thugs made it violent by attacking Kyle
He didn't inject himself in the violent situation, Rosenbaum dragged him in by creating violent situation. 

Need for protection is completely subjective. Another branch of the business was burned down the day before. Rosenbaum was in the process of destroying it. Police was standing down.
It is subjective whether this scenario means there is a 'need for protection'. And what kind of protection was it anyway? Kyle ran away yelling 'friendly, friendly, friendly' - hardly a violent act.
It was an attempt at deterrence - a tactic used throughout millennia

Don't believe there is such duty. But citizens should look out for each other, help their neighbors, family, friends. Not exactly a controversial statement.

There is no justification for creating a violent situation - Rosenbaum created one and he paid for it - dearly.
Rittenhouse was the victim of assault.

Having a weapon doesn't justify violence, having a short skirt doesn't justify rape.
Don't be a violent thug and you will be fine. If you are a violent thug - I hope someone will be there to stop you


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> In your opinion, nobody bears any personal responsibility for seeking out and injecting themselves into a violent situation that doesn't involve them.
> 
> Nobody needed Rittenhouse or his pals to protect an empty auto building. The police were there and it is their job.
> 
> When did the duty transfer to untrained, unqualifed, unlicenced armed citizens to "serve and protect" the public ?


I understand why you're upset...a white person successfully defended themself against violent thugs, one of them a convicted pedophile. 

I'm just glad Rittenhouse wasn't killed, and would feel the same way regardless of his skin colour, gender, or political affiliation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You contradict yourself repeatedly in your own post.

You say the situation wasn't violent, and then say a building was burnt down the day before so Rittenhouse went there to protect a building.

There is no dispute that Rittenhouse voluntarily crossed state line to go to Kenosha, so he injected himself into the situation.

Why would a citizen militia be an acceptable replacement for the police if the police had decided to "stand down" ?

Rittenhouse was running away yelling "friendly, friendly" after he killed Rosenbaum because he was concerned he would be considered an active shooter.

It is the nature of twisted logic that it never makes sense, as exemplified by your responses.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Attending a protest with an AR15 would be a serious crime in Canada, let alone walking around in a threatening manner with it and actually shooting people.

One thing the Rittenhouse case does solidify for Canadians is we need to maintain and strenghthen gun ownership and restriction laws.

I am surprised the gun lobby in Canada would support a minor possessing a loaded AR15. It reveals why they shouldn't be taken seriously.

Examples like Rittenhouse provide public support for government action, and make it easy for government to apply more restrictions on guns.

Perhaps people who advocate for further gun restrictions should thank the gun lobby for helping their cause.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

No, I am not.
Situation was violent a day earlier, not the day of.
Acting as a deterrence is not a new tactic - and unless the other side is full of complete morons, it is extremely effective.
Situation on the day of the incident was not violent until Rosenbaum made it violent by assaulting Kyle.
You have a video. He was running away from Rosenbaum. You have sworn testimonies.
Don't lie when there is overwhelming evidence and proof that you are lying.

Well, in US support for gun restrictions is actually dropping recently. Perhaps because streets are becoming dangerous, DAs are releaseing criminals on 500$ and 1000$ bails, and because people like Kyle were beat up to the brink of death in the riots. 
People are no longer willing to 'let themselves get beat up' like the prosecutor suggested Kyle should do.
Canada also just had highest amount of murders since 1990 - the situation is getting worse here as well. Not quite as bad as in California, Oregon, and New York where lunatics in power promote crime, but we are trending in wrong direction


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

sags said:


> There is no dispute that Rittenhouse voluntarily crossed state line to go to Kenosha, so he injected himself into the situation.


You say "voluntarily crossed a state line" as if it's a crime? Was a law broken?

By the way, several of his family members including his dad live in Kenosha.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

He was much closer to his home than Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were. The state line just happened to be there. And that's on top of having his father and work in Kenosha.
The quote about 'crossing state lines' is absolutely laughable


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> You say "voluntarily crossed a state line" as if it's a crime? Was a law broken?
> 
> By the way, several of his family members including his dad live in Kenosha.


He wasn't at his father's home when he killed the protestors.

He went to Kenosha at the invitation of the group for the purpose of going to the riot area to "protect" property.

They aren't law enforcement. They had no authority to stop or question anyone. They had no authority to use their weapons.

They were there solely for the purpose of intimidation.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

sags said:


> He wasn't at his father's home when he killed the protestors.
> 
> He went to Kenosha at the invitation of the group for the purpose of going to the riot area to "protect" property.
> 
> ...


They didn't stop or question anyone.
He was simply assaulted by rioters and criminals, and defended himself.
The verdict is in, it is clear, and prosecution acknowledges it


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The verdict is correct under Wisconsin laws, but that doesn't mean that Rittenhouse wasn't the master of his own fate and he certainly is no hero.

He is now infamous and will not be able to hide from media scrutiny in anything he does. He belongs to a select club that few want to belong to.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

I don't blame the victim of assault. You do. That's your choice but that doesn't mean its the right one. Luckily this time victim was able to survive - it is a good thing.
Less violent pedophiles on the street is not something I am going to cry over either

And that's why defamation lawsuits are warranted. I think he will end up getting massive settlement with multiple news outlets and go off to live somewhere on private island.
That's what I would do because having POTUS defame you would mean some nutcase might attack you on a street


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> I don't blame the victim of assault. You do. That's your choice but that doesn't mean its the right one. Luckily this time victim was able to survive - it is a good thing.
> Less violent pedophiles on the street is not something I am going to cry over either
> 
> *And that's why defamation lawsuits are warranted. I think he will end up getting massive settlement with multiple news outlets and go off to live somewhere on private island.
> That's what I would do because having POTUS defame you would mean some nutcase might attack you on a street*


 ... I hope so too so he can live on his own island, shooting at wild pigs and cockroaches, out of sight, away from the rest of us (excluding you as I hope he gives you an invite), far far far away from the rest of civilization.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I hope so too so he can live on his own island, shooting at wild pigs and cockroaches, out of sight, away from the rest of us (excluding you as I hope he gives you an invite), far far far away from the rest of civilization.


I sincerely hope that his defamation lawsuits pay off and he is able to afford his own island safely away from violent criminals and pedophiles.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Yep, I would agree too. Repeat: as far far far away from the rest of civilization.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Not related to Rittenhouse but same theme: 

Guns and kids in USA, land of the brave and free (nuts), starting first with the parents' "rights to bear arms".

Teen Gunman’s Parents Charged in Wake of Michigan School Shooting

Talk about the risk of getting Covid at school isn't enough ... getting shot dead is easier.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

You're at a higher risk of being shot on an Alec Baldwin movie set than at a school.

The latest racist mass murderer used a vehicle instead of a gun to kill 6 people and injure about 50. The media seems very uninterested in his motives, although they were very clear.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> You're at a higher risk of being shot on an Alec Baldwin movie set than at a school.


 ... not all kids go to an acting school like you.



> The latest racist mass murderer used a vehicle instead of a gun to kill 6 people and injure about 50. The media seems very uninterested in his motives, although they were very clear.


 ... right, and you can get killed for just jaywalking if you don't look both ways based on your analogy there. And I wonder why the media ain't interested in his motives there nor you posting it here. Yawn.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

* duplicate (again?) deleted *


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... right, and you can get killed for just jaywalking if you don't look both ways based on your analogy there. And I wonder why the media ain't interested in his motives there nor you posting it here. Yawn.


You're comparing a mass murder to jaywalking?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> You're comparing a mass murder to jaywalking?


 ..you're comparing a mass murder by van to guns by a school kids? Are you a parent or not? If you are, is this how you teach your kid just like that Crumbley parents? Talk about another dense head.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ..you're comparing a mass murder by van to guns by a school kids? Are you a parent or not? If you are, is this how you teach your kid just like that Crumbley parents?


I didn't compare the two events.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> I didn't compare the two events.


 ... no, you didn't only you did in your post #347 ... a racist mass murder deserves more news coverage since you're not concerned with killings at schools. Shove it(that news problem) under the rugs and let the kids run amok.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... no, you didn't only you did in your post #347 ... a racist mass murder deserves more news coverage since you're not concerned with killings at schools. Shove it(that news problem) under the rugs and let the kids run amok.


I'm concerned about all school shootings, my comment was how the media chooses to cover it. For example, school shooter Timothy Simpkins was let out on bail the very next day after he shot 3 people. Rittenhouse defended himself against armed and violent thugs and the media ran daily headlines and lied about him for months. 

Last week a racist mass murdered 6 people and injured 40 or 50 and they are silent.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> I'm concerned about all school shootings, my comment was how the media chooses to cover it. For example,* school shooter Timothy Simpkins was let out on bail the very next day after he shot 3 people.* Rittenhouse defended himself against armed and violent thugs and the media ran daily headlines and lied about him for months.


 ... if you were concerned about shootings in school (bolded above which I haven't heard), then why don't you post it? 



> Last week a racist mass murdered 6 people and injured 40 or 50 and they are silent.


 ... topic is on "kids (still in school)" growing up and learning how to shoot to kill in which this case, borrowed his dad's gun with the nut mother basically saying it's okay. No wonder both parents have been charged.

Goes with the famous saying: guns don't kill, it's people who do (or uses those guns to kill).


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

George Floyd's nephew (BLM activist) bragged about doxing jurors. He has now been arrested for allegedly making contact with jurors.

Hopefully the full weight of the law comes down on him.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> I'm concerned about all school shootings, my comment was how the media chooses to cover it. For example, school shooter Timothy Simpkins was let out on bail the very next day after he shot 3 people. Rittenhouse defended himself against armed and violent thugs and the media ran daily headlines and lied about him for months.
> 
> Last week a racist mass murdered 6 people and injured 40 or 50 and they are silent.


The problem is the lengths that the gun lobby will go to "protect" the 2nd Amendment.

In this latest shooter whose parents are now charged, many prosecutors say it will be a difficult case to prove due to lax Michigan gun laws.

There is no requirement in Michigan to lock up guns. They are allowed to take their kids to shooting ranges and gun stores.

The parents actually did nothing wrong legally........as per the gun itself.

The prosecutors are going to try to prove the parents knew the kid had mental problems, were called to the school and shown drawings of his that depicted mass shootings and severe depression, refused to check his backpack and demanded he be returned to class. Then the mom texted the kid like it was all a joke and don't get caught next time.

That is some really messed up parenting, but it isn't illegal to be a moron parent.

It is going to be an uphill climb for prosecutors to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that involves the parent's "intent".

The local prosecutor also sounded bewildered during a CNN interview with Don Lemon. Apparently she announced the charges before telling the police and the parents took off.

The gun lobby bends over backwards to protect any shooters with guns, because they are afraid of losing gun rights. They aren't picky on who they defend.

Next we will hear Tucker Carlson defending the kid on Fox News, not because Carlson believes any of it, but because a lot of people do and his ratings climb.

The US is in one sad situation regarding guns. I heard this is the 651st mass shooting (4 or more people shot) in the US in 2021. That is unbelievable.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> Not related to Rittenhouse but same theme:
> 
> Guns and kids in USA, land of the brave and free (nuts), starting first with the parents' "rights to bear arms".
> 
> ...


 ... 

Chief: Michigan suspect's parents found hiding in building



> _Last Updated Saturday, December 4, 2021 6:41AM EST
> 
> PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) - The parents of a teen accused of killing four students in a shooting at Oxford High School were found hiding in a Detroit building early Saturday, several hours after a prosecutor filed involuntary manslaughter charges against them, officials said.
> 
> ...


 ... in the meantime, their kid sits in a jail cell ... such "caring" parents.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

They also had their cell phones turned off so they couldn't be tracked, but maybe they forgot about their new Kia vehicle. 

They have tracking for the manufacturer and law enforcement can obtain the location of the vehicle. Or, maybe somebody spotted them going in. 

I don't think it will be a big factor, except for bail hearings. They likely will be held in custody now.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The kid is all set up to be deemed unable to stand trial due to mental impairment. He will likely go to a mental institution for awhile.

All of this could be avoided by getting rid of most of the guns or at the very least have some gun laws that make sense.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

sags said:


> ...
> 
> All of this could be avoided by getting rid of most of the guns or at the very least have some gun laws that make sense.


As Republicans would say, now is not the time to discuss gun control.

The US just missed that opportunity when they were between mass-shootings.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Tostig said:


> As Republicans would say, now is nor the time to discuss gun control.
> 
> The US missed that opportunity a few months ago when they were between mass-shootings.


The US has gun control. Unfortunately, criminals tend to ignore those laws.

More people were mad at Rittenhouse than they were at the pedophile and domestic abuser who tried to kill him.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Put your sword back in its place because all who take up the sword will perish by the sword. _


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

sags said:


> _Put your sword back in its place because all who take up the sword will perish by the sword. _


Rittenhouse was afraid his life was being threatened by toothbrush and skateboard. That's why he shot them.

I guess the jury of his peers don't brush their teeth.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

US style self defence........shoot first and find out who you shot later.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ...
> 
> Chief: Michigan suspect's parents found hiding in building
> 
> ... in the meantime, their kid sits in a jail cell ... such "caring" parents.


 ... tells you alot about their parental responsibilities = none (aka other people's problems):

Oxford school shooting: Ethan Crumbley appointed lawyer by court after parents only hired their own - Independent Eagle



> by independenteagle _December 7, 2021
> 
> Michigan school shooting suspect Ethan Crumbley has been appointed an attorney by the court after his parents hired their own high-profile legal team but not a lawyer to represent their son on his murder and terrorism charges.
> 
> ...


 ... I think 15 years each for 4 dead people is far too little. 

Never mind about the kid who's going to a mental institution permanently (if lucky), thanks to fundings by other taxpayers.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Fox News is all over it.

The parents are innocent. The prosecutor is guilty of persecuting them. The shooting was "unfortunate" but it isn't about guns.


----------

