So, is this just based on the McGinnis testimony? (That Rosenbaum lunged for his rifle). Or do you see that in the video?
Just the McGinnis testimony so far. I have not seen a clear video of Rosenbaum trying to grab the rifle, but would like to see it if it exists.
There’s also video of Kyle beating up some girl in a prior altercation. And saying he wished he could shoot shoplifters. Neither of those videos were allowed by the judge. But if we’re basing Kyle’s intentions on his prior actions/words, you’re picking and choosing. Also, Charles Manson played guitar in a church once.
This is news to me. It seems his release may have been ill advised. I’d expect to see a thorough review of his case file and actions taken by his providers. I’d expect to see licenses revoked. I’d also expect to see he was a state case and that he was booted for not meeting minimum state requirements for payment. I expect that Wisconsin may be similar to Texas(where I live) both in its protections of the second amendment and it’s complete refusal to recognize mental health as an actual public health concern. Its fucking garbage.
That said, I can’t deny Rittenhouse the prívale of self defense because Rosenbaum’s ill conceived actions. It just makes the whole thing even sadder.
Which two, and how many times did Rittenhouse shoot them?
OK. Any of the boilerplate phrases in that post actually addressed to me?
It:s going to take awhile for the jury to go through all the charges. They’re called lesser charges but Rittenhouse could still spend years in prison.
I think the reckless endangerment might stick. McGinnis could have easily been hit. It’s ironic that close proximity made him the best defense witness.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-charges-kyle-rittenhouse-face-80917080
It’s bean so common that terms of endearment like “Meal Team Six” were invented just for them.
I always thought they were called vigilantes only with fancier more modern pitchforks and tourches.
This is a pretty quick read. It sums up what I’ve thought about this, about Arbery’s killers, and about George Zimmerman:
Soon we get the judges instructions to the jury. If it’s the ‘fear for his life’ trope then it’s a slam dunk for the defense. The kid was scared.
What we should want less is a society where those who are trained are told by political allies of the far left to do nothing while politically motivated rioting, looting, and violent intimidation is occurring.
Because what we should want more is a society where those who are trained are told by political allies of the far right to do nothing while politically motivated rioting, looting, and violent intimidation is occurring, right?
No thanks.
Much like the free concert at Altamont, it’s not enough to accurately identify a potential problem; you have to have a reasonable solution to that problem.
I’m confused about something. Before the trial, the Judge disallowed the video showing Rittenhouse saying he wanted an AK to shoot suspected looters. Later in the trial Rittenhouse says he got the AK just because it looked cool. When Binger tried to impeach this with the disallowed evidence, the Judge rebuked him. Now I get there is a proper way to do things but based on the new testimony shouldn’t the video evidence now be allowed?
The shooting of Jacob Blake had exactly fucking zero to do with politics, and neither did the angry response to the shooting.
Now the riot at the Capitol last January, that was political.
I theorize (just from looking at him) that he was bullied all through school, and thought that by getting a gun and swaggering through some other town, he could reinvent himself into some kind of ersatz alpha male.
Which side asked the question that got this response?
By trope you mean the legal definition of self defense? 600 plus posts and people are still confused about what a reasonable belief is?
The judge will most likely read the definition of self defense out of the statue then clarify what it means in layman’s terms. The actual statute:
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
In no way does it say fear is all that’s needed.