Kyle Rittenhouse goes to trial

[HISPIDA]

Ahhhh, just warming my hands in the dumpster fire

Kyle was innocent, thank god the justice system still works in this country

Didn't work when they killed breona taylor.

it didn't even work when they lynched ahmaud arbery

[Salus Maior]

Didn't work when they killed breona taylor.

I think that had something to do with her and her boyfriend being drug dealers, as well as a the boyfriend firing at cops when they tried to raid their apartment.

Them being drug dealers doesn't give police a right to murder them, and considering her boyfriend believed he was in a self-defense situation he was justified in firing.

[Senawka]

I think that had something to do with her and her boyfriend being drug dealers, as well as a the boyfriend firing at cops when they tried to raid their apartment.

Them being drug dealers doesn't give police a right to murder them, and considering her boyfriend believed he was in a self-defense situation he was justified in firing.

She wasn't murdered, she was killed in crossfire.

And its hardly self-defence when you're a drug dealer, knowing that police could very well raid your home at any moment.

[Salus Maior]

Them being drug dealers doesn't give police a right to murder them, and considering her boyfriend believed he was in a self-defense situation he was justified in firing.

She wasn't murdered, she was killed in crossfire.

And its hardly self-defence when you're a drug dealer, knowing that police could very well raid your home at any moment.

By the police. When she was sleeping.

He didn't know they were police.

[Senawka]

She wasn't murdered, she was killed in crossfire.

And its hardly self-defence when you're a drug dealer, knowing that police could very well raid your home at any moment.

By the police. When she was sleeping.

He didn't know they were police.

Yes. Thats what crossfire is. It isn't like they saw her sleeping, placed a gun to her head and executed her.

And he could've reasonably assumed that they were police, as he was a drug dealer. They tend to get raided by cops.

[Salus Maior]

By the police. When she was sleeping.

He didn't know they were police.

Yes. Thats what crossfire is. It isn't like they saw her sleeping, placed a gun to her head and executed her.

And he could've reasonably assumed that they were police, as he was a drug dealer. They tend to get raided by cops.

The court decided differently, hence why he was acquitted.

[Senawka]

Yes. Thats what crossfire is. It isn't like they saw her sleeping, placed a gun to her head and executed her.

And he could've reasonably assumed that they were police, as he was a drug dealer. They tend to get raided by cops.

The court decided differently, hence why he was acquitted.

Can't argue with that.

[Gravlen]

The court decided differently, hence why he was acquitted.

Can't argue with that.

You really like offering opinions on thing you know nothing about, don't you? It's really weird.

[Kalaron]

So uhhhhhh, neither Taylor nor her BF were drug dealers. She was associated with one through her Ex-Boyfriend, who was the drug dealer being investigated. So far as I know, she handled money for him (per a leak from the case that was never denied in the news following the release of the court minutes) and others, as he said in a tapped phone-call with another woman. Her BF was totally justified to shoot, he thought they were home invaders owing to what seems like an inability to hear the cops calling out "Police".

[Shofercia]

Hot take: Kyle Rittenhouse has done the smart thing by coming out and publicly supporting BLM.

Even if it is a sincere plea (which, based off the rest of what he is saying, there's no reason to doubt that), doing so muddies him in the culture war vortex that surrounds him. The right no longer see him as this perfect saint, the left no longer purely despise him as a guy who killed someone. He stops being centre of attention, he can fade back into obscurity and try to lead a normal life.

I doubt it, because in his spot, I'd be suing the shit out of those who defamed me. I'd also get a better attorney than Lin Wood, so he has to stay in the spotlight to clear his name. But you're right in that affirming support for nonviolent BLM protests was a chad move on Kyle's part, akin to him owning the prosecutor when Binger went into his mad video game rant.

I think the main takeaway from the case was that at no point did having a gun make anything better for anyone, they're probably going to be brought in even greater numbers to ritual protest.
That is of course everyone's fault, not just Rittenhouse.

If Kyle didn't have a gun, he'd be the one murdered by Rosenbaum, so I'd say that having a gun worked out quite well for Kyle.

So, Kyle Rittenhouse just got sentenced to a half-century of CPAC appearances. Poor guy.

I'm glad the guy's free, what he did was purely legal in the context of self-defence. Plus, there's one less child-rapist on this Earth, so I can't pretend I'm sad that Joseph Rosenbaum is dead.

However, the problem with this case is that, for many Americans (I speak of this topic exteriorly, as I am a Canadian) this trial creates the impression that a double standard exists when it comes to self-defence, a standard seemingly based on ethnicity.

Whether this standard really exists or not is debatable and contextual, but this trial just set a precedent regarding self-defence, and America must remember that precedent because if not, then there really will be a double standard, and from there, boy oh boy, the BLM protests are gonna look like a cakewalk compared to what'll happen in the streets.

The trial made it better, because now a lot of conservatives are moving to defend self-defense, irrespective of skin color, and the number of minority conservatives is growing, meaning that there are less odds of a minority being convicted for self-defense after this trial, than there were before it.

Let me put this to the thread. Do we think it would have been good if Rittenhouse had just gone home and not been in Kenosha at all that night?

If you do think that would have been good then I regret to inform you that you are VICTIM BLAMING and you HATE GUNS, you are saying that Rittenhouse TRIGGERED THE ATTACK with his presence, I can't believe you're being so TOXIC.

Or do we think it was good that he was in Kenosha? Well that is even WORSE, how can you support him being attacked by a RAPIST, how can you be glad that he's TRAUMATISED and his life has been RUINED, I can't believe you're being so TOXIC.

I'm appalled at all of you and you should all be ashamed to have any opinions about anything.

Should people go to riots? NO!

If people do go to riots, should they bring self-defense tools? YES!

So while going to the riot was a dumb move on Kyle's part, it wasn't illegal, and the gun actually helped him defend himself. It's not criminal to attend a riot, if you do so with peaceful intentions, and that's law in the US. Is it a dumb law? Arguably.

Well? The first guy sounds like he had bad mental problems.

The other two?

Question: If you heard gun fire and saw the aftermath and don’t know what led to it; would you run or engage?

Frankly, we'll never know in Huber's case. In Grosskreutz's case, I feel bad for the dude, I think he was probably trying to do what he thought was right and had limited information.

I don't. He pointed his gun at a person who just had a violent confrontation. Furthermore, as Grosskreutz admitted on the stand, Kyle didn't fire until Grosskreutz pointed the gun at him, and de facto challenged him to a duel that Kyle won. I don't think that engaging in duels, at riots, is a good idea.

[Shofercia]

Well shit, really? Stupid fucks, I stand corrected. I guess it was not him breaking cardinal rules. Thank you for the correction.
In any case, I don't want to seem as if I'm blaming the kid. Even if he were the one to isolate himself, he was 17 years old and at his first shindig. It ain't supposed to go well, like a first day at a new job. I only wanna give y'all tips if you decide this is something you ever wanted to do. This dumb shit ain't worth your life or court, so take appropriate steps.

To be honest I have some unprovable suspicions on Balch.

The idea a trained infantryman would ask the (ostensible) medic to come with him into a hostile AO, and then “accidentally” get separated literally less than 120 seconds later…

Well, my nose picks up a foul odor. Can’t prove it. But smells bad.

Yeah, there's that... is it weird that you and I are almost in complete agreement on this case?

But what about that shirt your honor? Can I not talk about the shirt he wore?

His hideous fashion sense is a crime, but does not legally qualify as provocation under Wisconsin law.

Freaking Rittenhouse, he knows exactly what crimes to commit to not be persecuted. Must be white privilege or something!

We're pondering a lot of ifs when the situation turned out as safely for Rittenhouse as it probably could have given he was assaulted by a man who had threatened to kill multiple people that night. PTSD is better than taking a serious beating from a larger ex-felon and a riled up mob - which likely would still lead to PTSD.

Why do we imagine that a mob would have been beating Rittenhouse, had he not had a gun?

Because Rosenbaum said he would, and when he attacked Kyle, others joined in.

Why do we imagine that a mob would have been beating Rittenhouse, had he not had a gun?

Historical data.

Also this ^

How impartial is this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L33XDGdYaGA

Regarding the trial? Is this how it went down?

You should really watch the trial. It shows American Jurisprudence quite nicely.

Well, the rioters aren't noted for being that bright.

Naturally, otherwise they wouldn't be rioters

When I go dancing, girls tell me that I'm a riot

[Shofercia]

He had been released on 8/21/2020 (four days prior) on a $1500 bond, with a no contact order for Kariann Swart.

When we as a society coddle criminals instead of protecting the innocent this is what happens. Look at the idiot in Kenosha, or our looters in San Francisco.

I heard that SF stores were holding a 100% Black Friday sale on their items

When we as a society coddle criminals instead of protecting the innocent this is what happens. Look at the idiot in Kenosha, or our looters in San Francisco.

Or that bail-jumper (out on bail for attempted homicide with a motor-vehicle) that plowed an SUV through a dancing grandma parade. Killing 5 and injuring 40+ for this thanksgiving.

Those who let him out should probably be stripped of their governmental duties and privileges. When someone attempts to murder the mother of his child with a car, they shouldn't be walking around on bail, period. They should be in jail.

Oklahoma senator proposes "Kyle's Law" to compensate victims of malicious prosecution.

I support!

Oklahoma senator proposes "Kyle's Law" to compensate victims of malicious prosecution.

I wonder how one would define "malicious prosecution". Is that, by any chance, left to elected judges to decide on a case-per-case basis according to the local electors' preferences?

The wonders of common law.

Trampling on the Bill of Rights, in this case, the Fifth Amendment. When prosecutors abuse minorities, they tend to favor abusing the Sixth to get to plea bargaining real quick. Some corrupt detectives also find ways around the Fifth. When it comes to arresting people for self-medication, the Fourth's can be broken by law enforcement. Kyle's Law would help.

there's now a bill from Marjorie Taylor Greene to award Rittenhouse a Congressional Gold Medal


it won't, you know, happen, but radicalization go brr

*sigh*

This is even worse than when Pelosi called Floyd a “martyr”.

Can’t we recognize someone is the clear victim without effectively canonizing them?

Hey, for the taxes I pay, the least the government can do is entertain me.

So here's an interesting thing.

(Image)

They started deliberating on 11/16. On the 17th, they decided that he was not guilty on jump kick man and Huber. On the 18th, they decided the same on Grosskreutz. The last holdout was done on the 19th, for Joseph Rosenbaum/Richie McGinnis.

That means that, on the 17th, the jury apparently decided that even if Rittenhouse recklessly killed Joseph Rosenbaum (which was still in doubt), he had the right to self defense against Jump Kick Man and Huber. The next day, they decided the same for Grosskreutz. Apparently even if they were chasing down a reckless homicider (that doesn't sound near as good as murderer, and is no doubt clearly bad English), fuck those guys....?

The very last one was Rosenbaum and McGinnis, where they reached a unanimous verdict on Friday the 19th.

... I totally would have processed those in chronological order, but that's not how they did it. I'm guessing (speculation) that they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict on Rosenbaum/McGinnis to start with, and just tabled it and moved on to the others and see if they could get to a unanimous verdict on those.

… … Wait a minute.

I’m just really surprised there are people who would browse, analyze and read legal documents, forms, and issues like this for fun. You mean you actually went on Court Docs .Com or something, dug this out of publicly disclosed court filings/issues in your free time to produce this argument/analysis?

Now I’m close to truly seeing everything. 0_0

I am very impressed but you and I couldn’t be more different because I wouldn’t touch those things with a pole arm/reach stick the length of several meters unless I had to.

People gamble on everything, including Jury Deliberations. I had a bet that Rosenbaum was decided on the last day of deliberation. Won it!

[Salus Maior]

When I go dancing, girls tell me that I'm a riot

No, they're just rioting because you're there ;P

Be sure to pack some Mace.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

People gamble on everything, including Jury Deliberations. I had a bet that Rosenbaum was decided on the last day of deliberation. Won it!

Okay, that's a new one. This really is a non-typical place for political discourse.... aside from perhaps /pol-chan

[Diarcesia]

No one really believe that the right to self defence is white supremacist propaganda.

So... that's actually somewhat complicated.

The implicit belief among a lot of well-educated BLM supporters is that America and its institutions, including private property and our economic model, are systematically racist. This was a viewpoint often shared by radical feminists in the 1970s and 1980s, with the added point that American society was intrinsically sexist as well. bells hooks provides us with a bit of clarity on the issue through her repeated references to "capitalist, white supremacist patriarchy", which is perhaps her most ridiculous use of language amid fairly interesting insights into social hierarchies and gender relations.

Rittenhouse's presence in Kenosha, for the initial purpose of protecting his employers' business and abetting peaceful demonstrations, can be thus perceived as a defense of white power structures and his act of self-defense against people engaged in tearing down white power structures on a local level can thus be perceived as an act of white supremacy. To a lot of people, the white moderate, the non-racist middle-class white person, is quiet accomplice in white supremacy. This is the position adopted by people like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, and it's something that can be inferred from the frustrations Martin Luther King Jr. expressed about the "white moderate." We can also infer a lot of this from how certain BLM activists, media personalities, and academics have been responding to the case with accusations that it bolsters white supremacists in America, though, admittedly, most of these arguments have been bad because they know their target audience isn't going to challenge them at all. I expect the deluge of books in the next decade will be better.

There has been little hesitation about branding Rittenhouse a white supremacist and, to a significant degree, this logically follows from the paradigm employed. Mind you, there is some nuance here and it's a bit more complex in many cases than "the right to self-defense is white supremacist", but, if you perceive American society as racist and the function of our legal system as racist, it's not really a leap to conclude that the application of the right to self-defense has been and is racist. Especially when a white kid shoots a mentally ill man and two left-wing activists. Which, terrifyingly enough, it actually has been historically. This case just wasn't really an instance of that - at least not discernibly.

I mean, it's a variation of "Ordinary Germans in WW2 did not do anything to topple their genocidal government".

[Hurtful Thoughts]

No one really believe that the right to self defence is white supremacist propaganda.

So... that's actually somewhat complicated.

The implicit belief among a lot of well-educated BLM supporters is that America and its institutions, including private property and our economic model, are systematically racist. This was a viewpoint often shared by radical feminists in the 1970s and 1980s, with the added point that American society was intrinsically sexist as well. bells hooks provides us with a bit of clarity on the issue through her repeated references to "capitalist, white supremacist patriarchy", which is perhaps her most ridiculous use of language amid fairly interesting insights into social hierarchies and gender relations.

Rittenhouse's presence in Kenosha, for the initial purpose of protecting his employers' business and abetting peaceful demonstrations, can be thus perceived as a defense of white power structures and his act of self-defense against people engaged in tearing down white power structures on a local level can thus be perceived as an act of white supremacy. To a lot of people, the white moderate, the non-racist middle-class white person, is quiet accomplice in white supremacy. This is the position adopted by people like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, and it's something that can be inferred from the frustrations Martin Luther King Jr. expressed about the "white moderate." We can also infer a lot of this from how certain BLM activists, media personalities, and academics have been responding to the case with accusations that it bolsters white supremacists in America, though, admittedly, most of these arguments have been bad because they know their target audience isn't going to challenge them at all. I expect the deluge of books in the next decade will be better.

There has been little hesitation about branding Rittenhouse a white supremacist and, to a significant degree, this logically follows from the paradigm employed. Mind you, there is some nuance here and it's a bit more complex in many cases than "the right to self-defense is white supremacist", but, if you perceive American society as racist and the function of our legal system as racist, it's not really a leap to conclude that the application of the right to self-defense has been and is racist. Especially when a white kid shoots a mentally ill man and two left-wing activists. Which, terrifyingly enough, it actually has been historically. This case just wasn't really an instance of that - at least not discernibly.

As fun as it may be to topple an abusive power structure may be, shouldn't BLM first try and develop a competing power-structure first? Preferably then to prove such a structure is viable and productive enough to pull the common proletariat to their cause.

Or is that kind of radical thinking no longer taught in global-history and political theory anymore?

Call it the Enclave and hire some guy named Frank Horrigan while at it.

Otherwise, long-term, BLM is just an anarchist group throwing a temper-tantrum every time a person meeting rather specific socio-racial credentials gets shot, while ignoring similar cases because they happen to be born the wrong race for their agenda.

[The Alma Mater]

As fun as it may be to topple an abusive power structure may be, shouldn't BLM first try and develop a competing power-structure first?

IIRC they tried a few decades ago. The US response was to slaughter them.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So... that's actually somewhat complicated.

The implicit belief among a lot of well-educated BLM supporters is that America and its institutions, including private property and our economic model, are systematically racist. This was a viewpoint often shared by radical feminists in the 1970s and 1980s, with the added point that American society was intrinsically sexist as well. bells hooks provides us with a bit of clarity on the issue through her repeated references to "capitalist, white supremacist patriarchy", which is perhaps her most ridiculous use of language amid fairly interesting insights into social hierarchies and gender relations.

Rittenhouse's presence in Kenosha, for the initial purpose of protecting his employers' business and abetting peaceful demonstrations, can be thus perceived as a defense of white power structures and his act of self-defense against people engaged in tearing down white power structures on a local level can thus be perceived as an act of white supremacy. To a lot of people, the white moderate, the non-racist middle-class white person, is quiet accomplice in white supremacy. This is the position adopted by people like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, and it's something that can be inferred from the frustrations Martin Luther King Jr. expressed about the "white moderate." We can also infer a lot of this from how certain BLM activists, media personalities, and academics have been responding to the case with accusations that it bolsters white supremacists in America, though, admittedly, most of these arguments have been bad because they know their target audience isn't going to challenge them at all. I expect the deluge of books in the next decade will be better.

There has been little hesitation about branding Rittenhouse a white supremacist and, to a significant degree, this logically follows from the paradigm employed. Mind you, there is some nuance here and it's a bit more complex in many cases than "the right to self-defense is white supremacist", but, if you perceive American society as racist and the function of our legal system as racist, it's not really a leap to conclude that the application of the right to self-defense has been and is racist. Especially when a white kid shoots a mentally ill man and two left-wing activists. Which, terrifyingly enough, it actually has been historically. This case just wasn't really an instance of that - at least not discernibly.

As fun as it may be to topple an abusive power structure may be, shouldn't BLM first try and develop a competing power-structure first? Preferably then to prove such a structure is viable and productive enough to pull the common proletariat to their cause.

Or is that kind of radical thinking no longer taught in global-history and political theory anymore?

Call it the Enclave and hire some guy named Frank Horrigan while at it.

Otherwise, long-term, BLM is just an anarchist group throwing a temper-tantrum every time a person meeting rather specific socio-racial credentials gets shot, while ignoring similar cases because they happen to be born the wrong race for their agenda.

Capitalism is well-known for allowing you to set up a totally independent power structure, uh-huh.

You just need to buy a few hundred acres of arable land and… oh.

Just as a side-note, this is what BLM and other anarchist groups are actually doing. They are building democratic power structures and solidarity networks that are capable of fighting oppression. The demand that they do that somehow geographically away from existing structures makes little sense. Those structures are everywhere, anyway.

Those groups don’t have a lot of visibility because that is not their goal, and also not in the interest of media. But they are there, and slowly, they are becoming more and more visible.

[Senawka]

Just as a side-note, this is what BLM and other anarchist groups are actually doing. They are building democratic power structures and solidarity networks that are capable of fighting oppression.

Being allowed to set cities on fire, vandalize and loot with impunity? Whilst the media, democrat politicians and blue tick-marked celebrities act as their flamboyant cheerleaders?

That sounds very oppressed.

[Great Algerstonia]

The more mostly peaceful your protests are allowed to get the more oppressed you are

[Diarcesia]

Just as a side-note, this is what BLM and other anarchist groups are actually doing. They are building democratic power structures and solidarity networks that are capable of fighting oppression.

Being allowed to set cities on fire, vandalize and loot with impunity? Whilst the media, democrat politicians and blue tick-marked celebrities act as their flamboyant cheerleaders?

That sounds very oppressed.

That's a similar mindset of the people who wanted Mike Pence hanged. They see the existing system as no longer valid or legitimate.

[The Alma Mater]

Being allowed to set cities on fire, vandalize and loot with impunity? Whilst the media, democrat politicians and blue tick-marked celebrities act as their flamboyant cheerleaders?

That sounds very oppressed.

That's a similar mindset of the people who wanted Mike Pence hanged. They see the existing system as no longer valid or legitimate.

Correct. Trump supporters and BLM supporters have a lot in common. Obama made a similar observation a few years ago - both he and Trump attracted voters that wanted "change".

[Ifreann]

Shooting people at a protest does sound like something a cop would do.

Perhaps you missed the part where it was in self defense......

Cops get their shootings ruled to be self defence as well.

---

Perhaps you missed the part where it was in self defense......

Given Ifreann has stated he believes Rittenhouse was a white supremacist both before and after the trial...

Have I indeed? When was this? When I responded to your claims that the left is to blame for Rittenhouse associating with the Proud Boys and Tucker Carlson? If those associations make him a white supremacist, then aren't you also saying that he's a white supremacist? You just think that he was made to be a white supremacist by mean leftists calling him a white supremacist.

---

Them being drug dealers doesn't give police a right to murder them, and considering her boyfriend believed he was in a self-defense situation he was justified in firing.

She wasn't murdered, she was killed in crossfire.

And its hardly self-defence when you're a drug dealer, knowing that police could very well raid your home at any moment.

Breonna Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, is not a drug dealer. The police did not suspect that he was drug dealer. The police believed, supposedly, that an ex-boyfriend of Taylor's, Jamarcus Glover, might have left proceeds from his drug dealing in Taylor's possession. He did not, by the way.

[Fahran]

I mean, it's a variation of "Ordinary Germans in WW2 did not do anything to topple their genocidal government".

It's actually a bit more radical than that even. Ibram X. Kendi states on a pretty regular basis throughout his work that a person cannot be non-racist. They're either racist or anti-racist. The implicit understanding here is that short of active resistance against white power structures and white privilege a person is a quiet accomplice and supporter of white supremacy. In short, if you're not throwing Molotov cocktails at Nazis or actively challenging their talking points in public, you're a Nazi.

The race crits do provide numerous valuable insights into racial hierarchy in the United States and disparities in the application of laws, but I don't really agree with their paradigm on the whole and have concluded that its function among the laity has been mostly negative and prejudicial - as Rittenhouse's trial tends to demonstrate.

[Senawka]

Breonna Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, is not a drug dealer. The police did not suspect that he was drug dealer. The police believed, supposedly, that an ex-boyfriend of Taylor's, Jamarcus Glover, might have left proceeds from his drug dealing in Taylor's possession. He did not, by the way.

Breonna Taylor was the drug dealer, wasn't she?

I heard that she took part in Jamarcus' wholesale operation.