Violence Outbreak in Kenosha WI

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Why would the prosecutor do that at this juncture ? Generally they only focus on facts favorable to the prosecution at this juncture. The only thing I can think of is he will send it to the grand jury to no bill because that went so well during the events in Ferguson.

Probably overcharging on purpose to make sure it doesn't go very far.

Or they have to charge him with something, the maximum charge will best calm down the friends of the deceased ... and they can still add lesser charges which might actually stick. Or offer a plea bargain for lesser charges?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Another time the sheriff once for Black shoplifters to be ‘warehoused’ and kept from having children.

That's not as bad as it sounds though. If you apply it to everyone (not just black people) convicted of a felony, from conviction to the end of parole or probation, for men and women of course ... it could be justified on child protection grounds.

I'm not saying sterilize anyone. Just make it a parole condition that the felon does not get pregnant nor make anyone pregnant.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Ok for a minute I thought this was the Onion. Because this sounds so fucking ridiculous.

That’s normal. Hell its in fucking cop shows

Anything cops do is normalized by being on a "show". That seems like a problem to me.

[Greed and Death]

Probably overcharging on purpose to make sure it doesn't go very far.

Or they have to charge him with something, the maximum charge will best calm down the friends of the deceased ... and they can still add lesser charges which might actually stick. Or offer a plea bargain for lesser charges?

It still doesn't explain why you would put exculpatory evidence in the criminal complaint.

[San Lumen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/28/kenosha-sheriff-aclu-protests-rittenhouse/

The sheriff of Kenosha county once said about black people “They just need to disappear’

Another time the sheriff once for Black shoplifters to be ‘warehoused’ and kept from having children.

And people wonder why there is mistrust of the police. This is why

And a black guy once threw himself into the road to try and get me into an accident. I'm not going to judge all black people based on the few dicks I meet.

The same is true for other categories of people.

I wasn't judging all cops. I was merely saying a sheriff who makes comments like that has no business being in the position.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Or they have to charge him with something, the maximum charge will best calm down the friends of the deceased ... and they can still add lesser charges which might actually stick. Or offer a plea bargain for lesser charges?

It still doesn't explain why you would put exculpatory evidence in the criminal complaint.

No it doesn't. Maybe they're trying to tell the whole story, to avoid riling up supporters of the boy?

If Rosenbaum knew Rittenhouse was carrying illegally (ie knew the law and KR's age), wouldn't it be defensible to try to take the gun off him? It seems rather pivotal to me. If that was a crime (attempted robbery I guess) then all Rittenhouse's acts after that are justified.

Though he'll still be up for the misdemeanor firearm possession. I hope at least that is not dropped: there has to be some disincentive to other kids to go up against BLM to make themselves internet heros.

[Galloism]

It still doesn't explain why you would put exculpatory evidence in the criminal complaint.

No it doesn't. Maybe they're trying to tell the whole story, to avoid riling up supporters of the boy?

If Rosenbaum knew Rittenhouse was carrying illegally (ie knew the law and KR's age), wouldn't it be defensible to try to take the gun off him? It seems rather pivotal to me. If that was a crime (attempted robbery I guess) then all Rittenhouse's acts after that are justified.

Though he'll still be up for the misdemeanor firearm possession. I hope at least that is not dropped: there has to be some disincentive to other kids to go up against BLM to make themselves internet heros.

If that last one is dropped, it'll be due to the poor legal drafting of the law. Basically, the law says kids can't have guns. Except rifles and shotguns with barrels over 16". But only if they comply with all these hunting regulations when hunting.

It never actually addresses the scenario of a kid with a gun outside of hunting.

I actually found a lawyer's comments on this interesting:

Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

Rittenhouse could be in violation of having a gun within a gun-free zone, if there was one covering, for instance, a school nearby. Also, Illinois law requires anyone who owns any kind of firearm in that state to have a Firearm Owners Identification card, but that is only available to someone 21 or older, or someone with a sponsor who is 21 and eligible for a card.

Rittenhouse did not own the gun, his lawyer said Friday.

"Kyle did not carry a gun across state line," L. Lin Wood said in a tweet Friday morning. "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. The gun never left the state of Wisconsin."

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 444231001/

[Nobel Hobos 2]

No it doesn't. Maybe they're trying to tell the whole story, to avoid riling up supporters of the boy?

If Rosenbaum knew Rittenhouse was carrying illegally (ie knew the law and KR's age), wouldn't it be defensible to try to take the gun off him? It seems rather pivotal to me. If that was a crime (attempted robbery I guess) then all Rittenhouse's acts after that are justified.

Though he'll still be up for the misdemeanor firearm possession. I hope at least that is not dropped: there has to be some disincentive to other kids to go up against BLM to make themselves internet heros.

If that last one is dropped, it'll be due to the poor legal drafting of the law. Basically, the law says kids can't have guns. Except rifles and shotguns with barrels over 16". But only if they comply with all these hunting regulations when hunting.

Doesn't that include sitting a test for a hunting permit? I don't know if he did.

It never actually addresses the scenario of a kid with a gun outside of hunting.

I actually found a lawyer's comments on this interesting:

Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

He couldn't find a precedent case? That's odd. I suspect Grieve is looking to get the case himself ...

Rittenhouse could be in violation of having a gun within a gun-free zone, if there was one covering, for instance, a school nearby. Also, Illinois law requires anyone who owns any kind of firearm in that state to have a Firearm Owners Identification card, but that is only available to someone 21 or older, or someone with a sponsor who is 21 and eligible for a card.

Rittenhouse did not own the gun, his lawyer said Friday.

"Kyle did not carry a gun across state line," L. Lin Wood said in a tweet Friday morning. "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. The gun never left the state of Wisconsin."

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 444231001/

I've heard "carrying a gun across state lines" mentioned a few times. That would be a Federal crime?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

And a black guy once threw himself into the road to try and get me into an accident. I'm not going to judge all black people based on the few dicks I meet.

The same is true for other categories of people.

I wasn't judging all cops. I was merely saying a sheriff who makes comments like that has no business being in the position.

It seems to be an elected position, and Kenosha county is ... purple. Well that will be interesting!

[Galloism]

If that last one is dropped, it'll be due to the poor legal drafting of the law. Basically, the law says kids can't have guns. Except rifles and shotguns with barrels over 16". But only if they comply with all these hunting regulations when hunting.

Doesn't that include sitting a test for a hunting permit? I don't know if he did.

Doubt it, but those regulations apply if he goes hunting. There weren’t any deer or turkeys around.

It never actually addresses the scenario of a kid with a gun outside of hunting.

I actually found a lawyer's comments on this interesting:

He couldn't find a precedent case? That's odd. I suspect Grieve is looking to get the case himself ...

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 444231001/

I've heard "carrying a gun across state lines" mentioned a few times. That would be a Federal crime?

No, it’s not, but if he carried a gun across the state line with the intent to use it to kill, it could make the conspiracy to commit the crime a federal crime.

This doesn’t appear to be the case. When he crossed the state line that morning, he apparently had no intent to even go to the riot - he was just going to work.

[The Lone Alliance]

That’s normal. Hell its in fucking cop shows

Not when the man who was cuffed is paralyzed.

He poses no threat and has no way to escape the bed.

I would think it makes perfect sense if he passed out at the scene, because then he's going to wake up in a panic with his last memory of being shot, however if he's woken up and realized that:

A. He was in the hospital.
B. He's paralyzed

There's no need for the cuffs.

No it doesn't. Maybe they're trying to tell the whole story, to avoid riling up supporters of the boy?

If Rosenbaum knew Rittenhouse was carrying illegally (ie knew the law and KR's age), wouldn't it be defensible to try to take the gun off him? It seems rather pivotal to me. If that was a crime (attempted robbery I guess) then all Rittenhouse's acts after that are justified.

Though he'll still be up for the misdemeanor firearm possession. I hope at least that is not dropped: there has to be some disincentive to other kids to go up against BLM to make themselves internet heros.

I don't think white BLM supporters are known for shouting the N word at people. I think they were just a bunch of angry ex-cons who were just mad and the protests gave them a good excuse to vent their anger. I would not be surprised if some of them might have even have been white supremacists.

Doesn't mean they deserved to die, but I think there's a difference between them and actual BLM.

[The Radio Operator]

Can we get a separate thread for national hero Kyle Rittenhouse? Or should we keep that here?

[Galloism]

Can we get a separate thread for national hero Kyle Rittenhouse? Or should we keep that here?

Mod has decided we will discuss Kyle the well meaning idiot in this same thread.

[Rusozak]

Can we get a separate thread for national hero Kyle Rittenhouse? Or should we keep that here?

Very edgy.

[The Radio Operator]

Can we get a separate thread for national hero Kyle Rittenhouse? Or should we keep that here?

Very edgy.

You'd think with this open-and-shut case that this would be a mainstream viewpoint but-

[Kowani]

Can we get a separate thread for national hero Kyle Rittenhouse? Or should we keep that here?

Very edgy.

The pot-stirrers have arrived.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Very edgy.

You'd think with this open-and-shut case that this would be a mainstream viewpoint but-

Defending yourself is a morally neutral act. Why would it make him a hero?

[Rusozak]

You'd think with this open-and-shut case that this would be a mainstream viewpoint but-

Defending yourself is a morally neutral act. Why would it make him a hero?

Probably the same reason some people call the Proud Boys heroes.

[The Radio Operator]

You'd think with this open-and-shut case that this would be a mainstream viewpoint but-

Defending yourself is a morally neutral act. Why would it make him a hero?

You're right, and I concede. Kyle's actions that day should be mainstream and expected from every good American citizen, not just American heroes.

The pot-stirrers have arrived.

There's nothing edgy or flammable of affirming Kyle's actions, what happened is objective thanks to phone cameras.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

No it doesn't. Maybe they're trying to tell the whole story, to avoid riling up supporters of the boy?

If Rosenbaum knew Rittenhouse was carrying illegally (ie knew the law and KR's age), wouldn't it be defensible to try to take the gun off him? It seems rather pivotal to me. If that was a crime (attempted robbery I guess) then all Rittenhouse's acts after that are justified.

Though he'll still be up for the misdemeanor firearm possession. I hope at least that is not dropped: there has to be some disincentive to other kids to go up against BLM to make themselves internet heros.

I don't think white BLM supporters are known for shouting the N word at people. I think they were just a bunch of angry ex-cons who were just mad and the protests gave them a good excuse to vent their anger. I would not be surprised if some of them might have even have been white supremacists.

Doesn't mean they deserved to die, but I think there's a difference between them and actual BLM.

That's a good point. I've probably succumbed to the narrative that anyone acting out on the street must be affiliated with BLM. Of course there's no reason to think unaffiliated AYM are thinking this is a good time to stay home and out of trouble.

(AYM = Angry Young Men)

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Defending yourself is a morally neutral act. Why would it make him a hero?

You're right, and I concede. Kyle's actions that day should be mainstream and expected from every good American citizen, not just American heroes.

His actions in defending himself, yes. Going to a place expecting trouble, carrying a weapon you're not allowed to carry ... not so much.

The best spin I can put on his actions leading up to the violence is "ill advised".

Oh, and "expected" implies that it would be negligent not to. That's not "morally neutral" it's virtuous. And I think when you go beyond "a person may defend their life with lethal force" to "a person is obliged to defend their life with lethal force" you cross the line of self-determination. A fundamental principle of liberty: people are entitled to just let themselves be killed, is that not so?

[The Radio Operator]

You're right, and I concede. Kyle's actions that day should be mainstream and expected from every good American citizen, not just American heroes.

His actions in defending himself, yes. Going to a place expecting trouble, carrying a weapon you're not allowed to carry ... not so much.

The best spin I can put on his actions leading up to the violence is "ill advised".

I thought word got around already that Kyle was actually allowed to carry that rifle, and it wasn't in-fact illegal for him to do so? No?

Whatever. I don't think it's ill-advised to be prepared for trouble. I think that's literally the opposite, 'wise' is the word?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

His actions in defending himself, yes. Going to a place expecting trouble, carrying a weapon you're not allowed to carry ... not so much.

The best spin I can put on his actions leading up to the violence is "ill advised".

I thought word got around already that Kyle was actually allowed to carry that rifle, and it wasn't in-fact illegal for him to do so? No?

Galloism's view is that it will be decided in court.

Whatever. I don't think it's ill-advised to be prepared for trouble. I think that's literally the opposite, 'wise' is the word?

He wasn't carrying a gun when he left for work. Was that ill-advised?

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Defending yourself is a morally neutral act. Why would it make him a hero?

You're right, and I concede. Kyle's actions that day should be mainstream and expected from every good American citizen, not just American heroes.

I don't know about you, but after I shoot someone, even if in self-defense, I'm not gonna run away like a criminal. I would put my hands up, the gun down and let the justice system figure things out. Look at it from the last two victims' perspective: They saw a guy shoot someone (even if you think it was in self defense, you have to admit in the moment that would have been unclear) and gave chase to disarm a man they saw as a threat to public safety, since he just shot a guy. They are the heroes of this story.

[The Radio Operator]

Galloism's view is that it will be decided in court.

Who?

He wasn't carrying a gun when he left for work. Was that ill-advised?

I don't know American gun laws.

I don't know about you, but after I shoot someone, even if in self-defense, I'm not gonna run away like a criminal. I would put my hands up, the gun down and let the justice system figure things out.

That's exactly what I would not do in a riot where an angry mob could swarm me, and for some reason, I think you wouldn't either and that you'd know better.

Look at it from the last two victims' perspective: They saw a guy shoot someone (even if you think it was in self defense, you have to admit in the moment that would have been unclear) and gave chase to disarm a man they saw as a threat to public safety, since he just shot a guy. They are the heroes of this story.

Doesn't work friend. He was running towards a police line that was clearly visible to everyone on that street. Somehow I don't believe those guys are suddenly so concerned for the safety of LEOs that they would put their lives down to protect cops from this 'gunman.'