The Rittenhouse trial

[Senegoid]

@Magiver

I laughed at the headline. The verdict portends a violent future?

I just want to know who the other dude in that picture is? Was Rittenhouse there alone or with an equally-armed buddy?

[CaptMurdock]

What a shock.

@Magiver

If there’s any signal it’s to stop wanton destruction that goes on for days.

Of course, any signal to stop the systemic brutality and murder of innocent POC by the police must be the product of Librul Woke-ism.

[crowmanyclouds]

And they lost Rittenhouse too,

“I’m not a racist person. I support the BLM movement,” Rittenhouse said during an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, a portion of which is slated to air on Carlson’s program on Monday evening.
“I support peacefully demonstrating,” the teen told Carlson, according to a transcript of the interview. “I believe there needs to be change. I believe there’s a lot of prosecutorial misconduct, not just in my case but in other cases. It’s just amazing to see how much a prosecutor can take advantage of someone.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/582568-kyle-rittenhouse-i-support-the-blm-movement

Kyle Rittenhouse to Tucker Carlson: 'I support the BLM movement' | Fox News...

[Crane]

@Lumpy

What do you mean by not being able to fire over a road?

• Florida Statute § 790.15 (1), provides that any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on or over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree .

[Gyrate]

@Martin_Hyde

I hope the 2 dead and 1 wounded stand as a lesson to future criminals who believe you can attack people on the street with impunity. Americans have the right to fight back.

Ironically, the protesters were Americans trying to fight back - within their Constitutional rights - against police attacking and murdering people on the street with impunity.

@octopus

And I have a hard time believing that the same ideological contingent that is so in favor of a Heckler’s Veto to deplatform those they oppose don’t see the similarities in the mob right’s argument of it being a provocation to live a normal life where a politically motivated riot is taken place.

That’s why it’s clear that there is a huge political component to what is and what is not charged in this country and that this selective prosecution is deliberate in an attempt to in essence be a de-facto partisan test of who is allowed liberty and who is not.

You’re right about the problem, but probably not in the way you think you are.

BTW - apologies if I’ve missed it, but did we ever find specific evidence of this:

@Gyrate

And you can point me at some evidence that Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz specifically had been looting and rioting?

[Loach]

@Senegoid

@Magiver

I laughed at the headline. The verdict portends a violent future?

I just want to know who the other dude in that picture is? Was Rittenhouse there alone or with an equally-armed buddy?

He was alone. I’m trying to find where I read that earlier in the evening he was with a small group but at the time of the shooting he was alone.

[Martin_Hyde]

Rittenhouse had traveled to Kenosha with the same friend who bought the gun with him I believe, and that could be the person in the picture (I don’t know what that person looks like, so I am not sure), but the story has always been that they went separate ways eventually as the night progressed and Rittenhouse was not with anyone in the immediate period before the shooting.

[DavidNRockies]

I think KR was ‘with a small group’ at the car dealership. Once he left that property, I think he was with Ryan Balch for a while. It seems that the shit went bad after KR and Balch got separated:

Avowed ‘boogaloo boi’ says he roamed Kenosha streets with Kyle Rittenhouse...

My surmise would be that … that’s when our lovable, impish 17 year old became terrified.

Balch was a former Army infantryman, whereas KR was … well … nothing.

[crowmanyclouds]

Yup, absolutely nothing threatening to be seen here, absolutely nothing…

[DavidNRockies]

H/T to Lumpy

@Lumpy

Not that it would have mattered in this particular case, but I do wish that if people felt the need to carry long guns in public that they carried them scabbarded, the way most people holster carried handguns. This would be a bit of deescalation showing that they are not ready to fire on a second’s notice.

[Procrustus]

Did he ever say what he planned on doing with the gun? Seems like almost every reason he might have ends with “and then I would shoot them.”

[wolfpup]

@crowmanyclouds

Yup, absolutely nothing threatening to be seen here, absolutely nothing…

Jesus H. Christ. Only in America! Only in America would anything like that even remotely be tolerated. Where I live that little scene – a tragedy just waiting to happen – would trigger a response not by police cruisers, but probably a SWAT team. And the perps wouldn’t see the light of day for a long time, even if they hadn’t shot anyone (yet).

If the verdict here was legally correct – and it may be – it just points to some horrifically bad laws that enabled it.

[Martin_Hyde]

I’ll simply point out again that gatherings like this with large numbers of armed people have become very common. I get that you guys want to believe a huge crowd of people went into a panic at seeing Rittenhouse with a gun–that just did not happen, and doesn’t comport with reality.

[tofor]

@Martin_Hyde

You can actually, it’s fairly well established that a bank’s armed guards can use lethal force to protect the bank. In fact I’d be interested to see if you could find a single case in the history of the United States in which someone in a bank was convicted of a crime for shooting a bank robber, regardless of circumstance.

There isn’t AFAIK any special legal privilege to shoot people for robbing a bank, but rather the jurisprudence around self-defense is such that it’s almost a universal understanding that an armed bank robber is a lethal threat to everyone in the bank, and meeting that force with lethal force is inherent self-defense.

(I’m responding to a post from two days ago. There have been hundreds of posts since then and I haven’t read all of them, but I will.)

I was thinking more of unarmed robbery (I walk into a bank with empty hands and presenting no threat, grab a stack of bills out of the teller’s hands as she’s counting them, and attempt to run out the door. I can’t imagine the teller or other customer generally has the right to shoot me in those circumstances.). Of course, your original hypothetical was about the robber shooting back in self-defense, which presupposes an armed robber making my point moot.

[DavidNRockies]

It gets – arguably – worse than that:

Fact check: Police gave Kyle Rittenhouse water and thanked him before shooting

Whether or not KR was breaking any laws in the earlier part of the evening, there’s a strong case to be made that LEOs may have been better off chatting him up, and encouraging him to go back home.

It’s difficult for me to see a reason beyond shared ideology why they treated him with such kid [NPI] gloves.

Another in a long list of points in time where different decisions would likely have altered the outcome.

[Gyrate]

Strange that the police didn’t seem to feel the need to take any action against a couple of armed civilians out after curfew.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Martin_Hyde

I’ll simply point out again that gatherings like this with large numbers of armed people have become very common. I get that you guys want to believe a huge crowd of people went into a panic at seeing Rittenhouse with a gun–that just did not happen, and doesn’t comport with reality.

When you see a guy carrying in ‘low ready’ and you’re not in an actual combat zone maybe you should start thinking about panicking.
Rittenhouse in that picture is what many victims of mass shootings saw right before they stoped being alive.

[Dinsdale]

Yeah - I think that photo clearly demonstrates one dividing point among Americans. A large number of folk see nothing wrong with that photo, and a large number of Americans cannot imagine why that would be allowed/tolerated.

My expectation is that the judicial trend is going to allow/encourage actions such as the photo to be more common. I cannot understand how that is considered to be a good thing in a supposedly enlightened and developed 21st century nation.

[Martin_Hyde]

@crowmanyclouds

@Martin_Hyde

I’ll simply point out again that gatherings like this with large numbers of armed people have become very common. I get that you guys want to believe a huge crowd of people went into a panic at seeing Rittenhouse with a gun–that just did not happen, and doesn’t comport with reality.

When you see a guy carrying in ‘low ready’ and you’re not in an actual combat zone maybe you should start thinking about panicking.
Rittenhouse in that picture is what many victims of mass shootings saw right before they stoped being alive.

The sort of people going to these protests likely have seen similar many, many times, and normally people do not get shot. You can start attending such protests/riots if you want to get more familiar with it, the fact that you aren’t familiar with it isn’t my fault as the information is out there and easily accessible.

[crowmanyclouds]

And none of that changes the fact that there is no excuse for going around with a rifle at the low ready when you’re not in an actual combat zone.