General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Skittles
(171,710 posts)and imagine just what the chances are that that little coward Rittenhouse would actually serve in the military
twodogsbarking
(18,783 posts)
2Gingersnaps
(1,000 posts)Not to mention, he doesn't seem to have too much respect for authority, given that he sure does like to hand it out. Funny little feature of his Proud Boy buddies.
maxsolomon
(38,727 posts)but if he had avoided Kenosha, they probably would have. now he's toxic.
whopis01
(3,919 posts)I am not in any way defending him or saying that has any context regarding the trial. But spreading false information isn’t useful.
Skittles
(171,710 posts)but made such an ass out of himself he didn't get past the recruiting office - he's like the guy who shows up to jury duty wearing a shirt that says I DON'T LIKE YOU SINCE YOU ATE MY DOG
Dawson Leery
(19,568 posts)monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)
Martin68
(27,749 posts)
aggiesal
(10,804 posts)
Alice Kramden
(2,951 posts)Absolutely correct
cadoman
(1,617 posts)Instead of what's his face going into pedantic mode about nothing.
FACT: Kyle is an insurgent.
FACT: Kyle is a terrorist.
FACT: Insurgents and terrorists are responsible for their actions and must be captured and punished.
Fucking clear as day and instead we're arguing about time stamps and video scaling.
Alice Kramden
(2,951 posts)
Beringia
(5,507 posts)
Catherine Vincent
(34,610 posts)Going on Twitter to retweet.
TomSlick
(13,013 posts)
Blue Owl
(59,103 posts)There it is.
nvme
(872 posts)I just hate it that he left Illinois armed to the teeth, lying about his age to the others, getting waved on by the cops (I wonder if my African American brothers were welcomed the same way) then is inserting himself with the other vigilantes and expecting that what he is doing is not putting everyone in danger.
This little turd is throwing gas on already lit fire and he expects everything to remain calm.
I hate it that there is even a question whether it is self-defense. If you are going to a place armed then you expect to engage in violence.
The sad thing is those two dead protesters might not get justice because a White-boy decided he wants to play beat cop.
This kind of shit is maddening.
panader0
(25,816 posts)LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)…since he brought a gun as well. Using this logic.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Reading some of these trial responses in various threads leaves me thinking many have only read the headlines on this case.
Hav
(5,969 posts)so there...
The definitions for terrorist and insurgent just don't fit.
Vinca
(53,994 posts)military-style weaponry. The country has gone nuts. Violent and nuts. I'm still betting the little thug walks and then he'll become the hero of the right. They'll probably elect him to Congress.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)LuckyCharms
(22,648 posts)Honest question, because I don't know. Did that person fire a shot? Have not been following the sequence of events concerning this case.
Thanks.
Ligyron
(8,006 posts)Maybe the little shit was just trying to shoot the pistol out of his hand like he saw on The Lone Ranger?
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)Grosskreutz feigned surrender by putting his hands up, then drew and aimed his Glock at KR at which point he fired and hit Grosskreutz in the arm, forcing him to drop the weapon at which point the threat was no longer life threatening and KR stopped firing.
maxsolomon
(38,727 posts)Can you give me a link?
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)That implies he was trying to psych KR out and then kill him, which I don't believe was ever his intent.
That said, under cross-examination he did admit that he had his gun in his hand, raised his hands, and then inadvertently pointed the gun at KR again, at which point KR fired and hit him in the arm. That admission does play right into the hands of a self-defense claim.
“Correct,” Mr. Grosskreutz answered.
“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” Mr. Chirafisi said.
“Correct,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony.html
maxsolomon
(38,727 posts)even if it is a link to the dreaded NYT!
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)CNN reported the same a few days ago, I recall reading it at the time.
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)It sounds like he tried to encourage the crowd to prevent Rittenhouse from going to the police. If that turns out to be the case, then he's clearly a vigilante.
LuckyCharms
(22,648 posts)Kaleva
(40,365 posts)He does fit the description of a terrorist as given in the OP though.
Kaleva
(40,365 posts)He does fit the description of a terrorist as given in the OP though.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)How a person who came from out of state, armed with an Ar-15, can possibly claim self-defense is beyond me. If he didn't want to be harmed, he should have stayed home.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)For that to be true, the protests would have to have never been non violent in the first place, since the insinuation of your post is any outsider near or in the protest will be met with violence.
Pretty sure that is not the narrative those protesting police violence want. They want it to be “these are non violent protests” to run the day; not “stay home and you won’t get hurt.”
And by-the-way, one he shot was armed. Basically his exact same situation but for the other side. Guess he should have stayed home as well…using your post’s advice.
xmas74
(30,058 posts)Days of looting and an instance of arson.
This is my hometown. I still have family there. There was a citywide curfew in place,announced on both local and national news. My family followed the curfew at night.
He knew about the curfew. His parents knew about the curfew. They all knew there had been issues and that Kenosha was a hotbed. He went there to start shit.
The best self defense was to stay home.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)Looking for trouble. If that wasn't his intention, then why did he come? The demonstrators, who were in another state from Rittenhouse's home, didn't affect him or his property in the slightest.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Who is this purported combat vet Kenneth Ray McCain?
A quick google search brings immediate domestic violence conviction for one Kenneth Ray McCain.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1561791.html
https://casetext.com/case/mccain-v-state-49
Sounds like a guy who shouldn't have a weapon.
maxsolomon
(38,727 posts)Ad Hominem Fallacy.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)An authority I have difficulty verifying after searching. The criminal record is right there when searching for the other.
To answer your question, yes I disagree with the "combat vet's" take.
maxsolomon
(38,727 posts)Vigilante, Militiaman, Combatant, those seem applicable terms, however.
Amishman
(5,929 posts)posted this in another topic, but I'll post it here too because I think people need to understand this and adjust expectations accordingly
The law is not intuitive in this scenario.
WI 939.48
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
So pointing his rifle at someone, his unwanted presence there, being armed in general, putting out fires, etc - all of this would cause him to lose the privilege of self defense under section (a)
The problem is section (b) says that that privilege is regained by withdrawing / fleeing, which it is pretty clear on video that he did.
Now section (c) says if the provoking actions were done with the intent to bait an attack and allow the provoker to cause bodily harm, they cannot claim self defense. I know we all are thinking 'yes, the little shit did!'. The problem is proving intent in court is really really difficult. Other than a few tidbits (like the stupid tiktok video about trying to be famous), there just isn't nearly enough evidence to prove intent to the degree required by the law. Compounding that issue are KR's documented examples of giving aid, putting our fires, and his connections to the town despite not living there - all of these together give a counter-narrative to explain his presence.
So that takes the provoking actions off the table and it comes down to the usual self defense questions.
Victim 1 was heard shouting threats according to witnesses, was chasing, and was within arms reach when shot.
Victim 2 had hit him with a skateboard and the pursuing group was shouting threats in general.
Victim 3 had a gun pointed at him and was advancing.
Going to he hard to successfully argue that there was not a threat for any of those.
I'll say it again - this case is demonstrating that what is right and what is legal can be very different things.
The best hope for a guilty verdict is that the jury ignores the law as written and judges KR on character.
Response to Amishman (Reply #30)
ExTex This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)Based on the facts that have been presented in the trial, including by the prosecution's star witness (who self-destructed on cross-examination), I don't see a conviction for murder being the result here. As was pointed out by Amishman, he attempted to flee prior to opening fire, so under the law, that makes it self-defense unless the prosecution can prove intent, which is difficult in the best of circumstances.
I think Rittenhouse is a moron who had no business being there, but neither of those are crimes. People get hung up on that point, but it wasn't illegal for him to be there. And if we locked people up for being morons, this country would be jail cells from coast to coast.
Amishman
(5,929 posts)Especially since the curfew violation charge was dropped.
Amishman
(5,929 posts)and I am not a lawyer, just an analyst with anal retentive tendencies.
femmedem
(8,561 posts)I think Rittenhouse brought this on himself, should never have been there, and is going to grow up to be a dangerous white supremacist. Yet I wouldn't vote to convict him if I were on this jury, looking at the statute. And I'd be sick over it.
UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)But DU’s Rittenhouse Brigade has finally formulated their talking points on this issue
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)Do facts matter? Do they matter even if they're inconvenient and undermine what you wish to be true?
UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)replies are talking points
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)I’ll give it the same attention Bannon gave his
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)Rittenhouse’s croc tears, huh?
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)are complaining about me replying when you keep doing the same.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)It's my day off, so I can do this all day, my friend. Good entertainment is where you find it. 
UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)that you consider that a serious question that I’m obligated to answer regardless Also amusing that you think your current work status and your willingness to do this all day is relevant
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)Sadly, it's amusing in a dark comedy way rather than a "haha" way. But it's counterbalanced by the fact that you still refuse to answer, so I suppose it's a wash.
Cling to your narrative if you wish, UnderThisLaw. It's quite clear to me that you're married to it and that no facts will result in divorce. If you choose to live in a fantasy land where inconvenient facts don't exist, I suppose at the end of the day I feel more pity for you than amusement.
UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)replies get, the less content they have.
I do find it amusing, that it always seem to be those accusing others of obstinance that are the worst offenders
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)
vDevil Child
(2,728 posts)Watching and following all the details of the trial since start or some convicted domestic abuser's opinion from sep 2020?
Yeah, I'll go with the actual courtroom evidence and statements.
UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)is anything that supports your preconceived notion
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)You taking someone else to task because of their preconceived notions is legit hilarious. There is no other way to describe it.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)You’re not gonna be happy with the verdict and will be posting what amounts to fantasy fiction as a result.
UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)an opinion or fact? Definitions seem pretty loose here
I guess my real question though is if I will feel about this verdict how you felt about the George Floyd verdict
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)You can call the demonstrably true facts "talking points" in attempt to dismiss them. But it only serves to make you look foolish when people discover the truth.
UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)funny how the points made in the op don’t qualify as “demonstrably true facts”
Hav
(5,969 posts)The points in the OP aren't facts, they are opinions and objectively wrong assertions.
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 12, 2021, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)
One I happen to agree with on some points. But it doesn't represent the laws in WI and how they apply to the facts of the Rittenhouse case.
UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)a statement like a prosecution witness being totally discredited is a fact? Ok now I get it
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)Discredited himself by admitting to pointing a gun at KR.
Or in the case of the prosecution lying, video was used to discredit their claims.
These are the facts of the case, as shown on video and backed up by prosecution witnesses including the medical examiner and one of the men shot:
The first man shot threatened to kill Kyle, chased him as he was retreating and tried to grab his rifle. This is on video and backed up by testimony and the autopsy.
The second man shot was in the process of beating him with a skateboard, again this is on video.
The third admitted on the the stand to drawing and pointing his gun at Kyle.
Those are facts, they may not be convenient to the narrative that some are pushing, but they are facts nonetheless.
UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)that a witness has been discredited is certainly an opinion. I could post an alternative interpretation of his testimony. It doesn’t make it a fact. It’s remains opinion
Zeitghost
(4,557 posts)You seem very capable of twisting words to meet your needs.
UnderThisLaw
(335 posts)Any interpretation we don’t like is twisting words, isn’t it?
Paladin
(32,354 posts)
WhiskeyGrinder
(26,955 posts)sarisataka
(22,695 posts)Once had a young Marine ask where I got my medals. I told him at the PX, anyone can buy them but not everyone has earned them.
Kingofalldems
(40,278 posts)
FakeNoose
(41,634 posts)
YoshidaYui
(45,415 posts)i some how have my doubts about this judge.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)dlk
(13,247 posts)A perfect description.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)That being said, Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there. He shouldn't have had a weapon on him, that's for damn sure. It wasn't his town. It wasn't his business. He was a child and should have been home. I agree with all that.
Still, it's clear he was trying to evade. He was assaulted and threatened. He did act in self defense in those moments in question.
I have no idea I he went there to kill anyone. I am inclined to think no based upon what I have seen. The prosecution has done a horrible job trying to prove their case.
Before I continue and get pissy at me (and by the end I am sure you will if you aren't already), I want to point out that I have never owned a gun. I have never fired a gun. I dislike hunting. I commented in general about both over the years.
That being said, I do believe this case is politically motivated. I believe the opinions and outrage by spectators on both sides are too. It's obvious that the prosecution is trying for a do over by intentionally causing a mistrial. His case is hot mess and everyone who is honest ought to see this clearly. Even a newly minted lawyer who just passed the bar knows not to ask a defendant to comment on their assertion of 5th amendment rights. Give me a break.
Don't be surprised if this case is thrown out and the state is forced to retry (if they are able). If the judge believes the prosecution intentionally tried to tank (which the judge does seem to believe), it WILL be thrown out with prejudice.
Then we can have more outrage, more protest, more vandalism and destruction of property.
This country is a disaster.
Aussie105
(7,920 posts)Rittenhouse went armed and looking for trouble.
He found it.
He killed 2 people.
That is all I need to know.
The judge needs to cut through the verbal snowstorm and send a clear message that this was a stupid thing to do.
A whole string of poor judgements that lead straight to a long jail sentence.
I don't know if that judge has the smarts to do that though.
raising2moredems
(752 posts)And I've yet to hear "where were his parents?". If we was not a pasty, out of shape white boy those ponying up money for his defense lawyer would have been squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance. Mommy is a supposed LE - thankfully not in my IL county.