Kyle Rittenhouse goes to trial

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Nah. I dissent from Democrats on gender issues all the time. I just don't sympathize with some douchebag who decided to go into a neighbourhood he doesn't live in with a rifle looking for trouble. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Make adult decisions, face adult consequences.

The way we deal with black teenagers; as adults; is more consistent with how white teenagers would in ancient times have been seen; as the adults they actually are. Specifically white teenagers; and only specifically in modern times; are the outlier.

I mean, you know what consequences an adult should face when he did the same thing Rittenhouse did? Whether 18, 25, 45, or 95?

The consequences of having to live with having been forced to kill two people in self defense, which is the consequences Rittenhouse should face for what he did.

A 45-year-old wouldn't have had the same restrictions on purchasing, possessing, and then openly carrying a firearm, and thus, wouldn't have been "breaking the law from the start."

Maybe teenagers shouldn't have restriction on their firearm use, maybe they should. But the law is the law. There are those who say we shouldn't criminalize drug use, but a black man caught with drugs would be going to the slammer, getting ass-raped by Bubba, and ineligible for jobs and welfare when he gets out. Every prison sentence is a life sentence, so whether Rittenhouse is found guilty on the gun charge or murder charge is irrelevant.

[The V I C]

I mean, you know what consequences an adult should face when he did the same thing Rittenhouse did? Whether 18, 25, 45, or 95?

The consequences of having to live with having been forced to kill two people in self defense, which is the consequences Rittenhouse should face for what he did.

A 45-year-old wouldn't have had the same restrictions on purchasing, possessing, and then openly carrying a firearm, and thus, wouldn't have been "breaking the law from the start."

Maybe teenagers shouldn't have restriction on their firearm use, maybe they should. But the law is the law. There are those who say we shouldn't criminalize drug use, but a black man caught with drugs would be going to the slammer, getting ass-raped by Bubba, and ineligible for jobs and welfare when he gets out. Every prison sentence is a life sentence, so whether Rittenhouse is found guilty on the gun charge or murder charge is irrelevant.

My man, I get what you're saying but why did you need to be so graphic? Jesus christ.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

A 45-year-old wouldn't have had the same restrictions on purchasing, possessing, and then openly carrying a firearm, and thus, wouldn't have been "breaking the law from the start."

Maybe teenagers shouldn't have restriction on their firearm use, maybe they should. But the law is the law. There are those who say we shouldn't criminalize drug use, but a black man caught with drugs would be going to the slammer, getting ass-raped by Bubba, and ineligible for jobs and welfare when he gets out. Every prison sentence is a life sentence, so whether Rittenhouse is found guilty on the gun charge or murder charge is irrelevant.

My man, I get what you're saying but why did you need to be so graphic? Jesus christ.

What is the alternative? To sugar-coat the brutal nature of incarceration? To let people continue to ignore how brutal it is, so long as it's happening to people who are poor and/or black?

[Galloism]

It is now.

I thought you were saying it did require unanimous but now it doesn't. But it didn't, now it does.

As I said it was approved by voters a few years back. Was kinda hilarious hearing all of the howls of how it was going to flood the streets with killers and wife beaters, etc.

Voters might have approved it as well, but the Supreme Court ruled last year unanimous juries for criminal trials are the law of the land, regardless of what state law says.

[Seangoli]

I mean, you know what consequences an adult should face when he did the same thing Rittenhouse did? Whether 18, 25, 45, or 95?

The consequences of having to live with having been forced to kill two people in self defense, which is the consequences Rittenhouse should face for what he did.

A 45-year-old wouldn't have had the same restrictions on purchasing, possessing, and then openly carrying a firearm, and thus, wouldn't have been "breaking the law from the start."

Maybe teenagers shouldn't have restriction on their firearm use, maybe they should. But the law is the law. There are those who say we shouldn't criminalize drug use, but a black man caught with drugs would be going to the slammer, getting ass-raped by Bubba, and ineligible for jobs and welfare when he gets out. Every prison sentence is a life sentence, so whether Rittenhouse is found guilty on the gun charge or murder charge is irrelevant.

Jesus, do you know what level of crime it is you are saying he committing by carrying the firearm, assuming such is actually a crime?

A misdemeanor offence. Woah god's, lock him for life in supermax, the kid may have committed a misdemeanor offense.

[Galloism]

I mean, you know what consequences an adult should face when he did the same thing Rittenhouse did? Whether 18, 25, 45, or 95?

The consequences of having to live with having been forced to kill two people in self defense, which is the consequences Rittenhouse should face for what he did.

A 45-year-old wouldn't have had the same restrictions on purchasing, possessing, and then openly carrying a firearm, and thus, wouldn't have been "breaking the law from the start."

So no one is currently charged regarding the purchase. The feds haven't charged, and the purchase was legal under WI law.

Open carrying is also not against the law.

Possession might be. Wisconsin state law is really unclear on 16/17 year olds and long guns, and the judge keeps deferring his ruling on it (he didn't even give the jury instructions on the possession charge yet, because there's still a dispute over the law).

However, even if he is 100% guilty of committing a misdemeanor with the gun (and it's a misdemeanor, not a felony), it has absolutely the fuck nothing to do with him engaging in self defense.

Maybe teenagers shouldn't have restriction on their firearm use, maybe they should. But the law is the law.

The law is the law.

But what the law is in this case is terribly unclear and has been the subject of really intense debate.

There are those who say we shouldn't criminalize drug use, but a black man caught with drugs would be going to the slammer, getting ass-raped by Bubba, and ineligible for jobs and welfare when he gets out. Every prison sentence is a life sentence, so whether Rittenhouse is found guilty on the gun charge or murder charge is irrelevant.

The gun charge is only a misdemeanor (if it applies), and crimes committed by those under 25 can be expunged from the record after they complete their sentence by requesting so from a court of relevant jurisdiction. That's the law.

https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/defau ... punge.pdf'


And also, your example is bad. If Rittenhouse had been carrying crack cocaine that night instead of a gun, and was violently attacked, he'd STILL get self defense under Wisconsin law. The fact that he was engaged in a misdemeanor is largely irrelevant to self defense under the law.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

A 45-year-old wouldn't have had the same restrictions on purchasing, possessing, and then openly carrying a firearm, and thus, wouldn't have been "breaking the law from the start."

So no one is currently charged regarding the purchase. The feds haven't charged, and the purchase was legal under WI law.

Open carrying is also not against the law.

Possession might be. Wisconsin state law is really unclear on 16/17 year olds and long guns, and the judge keeps deferring his ruling on it (he didn't even give the jury instructions on the possession charge yet, because there's still a dispute over the law).

However, even if he is 100% guilty of committing a misdemeanor with the gun (and it's a misdemeanor, not a felony), it has absolutely the fuck nothing to do with him engaging in self defense.

Maybe teenagers shouldn't have restriction on their firearm use, maybe they should. But the law is the law.

The law is the law.

But what the law is in this case is terribly unclear and has been the subject of really intense debate.

There are those who say we shouldn't criminalize drug use, but a black man caught with drugs would be going to the slammer, getting ass-raped by Bubba, and ineligible for jobs and welfare when he gets out. Every prison sentence is a life sentence, so whether Rittenhouse is found guilty on the gun charge or murder charge is irrelevant.

The gun charge is only a misdemeanor (if it applies), and crimes committed by those under 25 can be expunged from the record after they complete their sentence by requesting so from a court of relevant jurisdiction. That's the law.

https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/defau ... punge.pdf'


And also, your example is bad. If Rittenhouse had been carrying crack cocaine that night instead of a gun, and was violently attacked, he'd STILL get self defense under Wisconsin law. The fact that he was engaged in a misdemeanor is largely irrelevant to self defense under the law.

Tell that to Breonna Taylor.

As for expunging criminal records past 25... if they're going to be doing that, why aren't they teaching that in school so that until they're 25, they don't shoot the clerk who catches them trying to shoplift? Right now they could have reasonably believed that if they are caught breaking the law, they now have nothing to lose, no matter their age.

[Galloism]

Tell that to Breonna Taylor.

I can't. She's dead.

However, her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who shot at police had all charges dropped because he was engaging in self defense regarding what he reasonably believed to be a home invasion. The fact that it turned out to be police is irrelevant to his self defense claim, unless he could have reasonably known they were police.

As for expunging criminal records past 25... if they're going to be doing that, why aren't they teaching that in school so that until they're 25, they don't shoot the clerk who catches them trying to shoplift? Right now they could have reasonably believed that if they are caught breaking the law, they now have nothing to lose, no matter their age.

Again, this is the law in Wisconsin, and as you said:

But the law is the law.

[Des-Bal]

Jesus, do you know what level of crime it is you are saying he committing by carrying the firearm, assuming such is actually a crime?

A misdemeanor offence. Woah god's, lock him for life in supermax, the kid may have committed a misdemeanor offense.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... laint.html

It's not even an especially bad misdemeanor statutory maximum is nine months, petit theft is worse in New York.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 948/60/2/a

Also he didn't violate the law because it was a rifle, it wasn't short barreled, and he wasn't hunting.

This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 41.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

This isn't a like a technicality or an issue of ambiguous wording, the legislature EXPLICITLY cut out rifles and shotguns and spelled out the ONLY circumstances where the law would apply to them.

Side note: Wisconsin has the best fucking online statutes- they're intuitive present necessary information easily and are really easy to cite to.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Tell that to Breonna Taylor.

I can't. She's dead.

However, her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who shot at police had all charges dropped because he was engaging in self defense regarding what he reasonably believed to be a home invasion. The fact that it turned out to be police is irrelevant to his self defense claim, unless he could have reasonably known they were police.

. . .

My apologies. I neglected to follow up on that case. Thank you for letting me know about this. Sorry I jumped the gun.

I'm going to back out of this conversation. I now accept that my understanding of the USA is more limited than I realize.

[Ifreann]

Is Luna doing the thing again where he thinks that kids will logically conclude that they should do all the crimes because as children they'll get lenient treatment?

[Galloism]

I can't. She's dead.

However, her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who shot at police had all charges dropped because he was engaging in self defense regarding what he reasonably believed to be a home invasion. The fact that it turned out to be police is irrelevant to his self defense claim, unless he could have reasonably known they were police.

. . .

My apologies. I neglected to follow up on that case. Thank you for letting me know about this. Sorry I jumped the gun.

I'm going to back out of this conversation. I now accept that my understanding of the USA is more limited than I realize.

It's ok.

Typically (i'll get to Wisconsin in a second) for an illegal activity to undercut self defense, it must have a strong "nexus" to the attack. IE, if you try to do armed in person robbery of a bank, and the security guard shoots at you, and you shoot him, that is almost certainly not self defense. Your illegal activity was the proximate cause of the events.

If you rob a bank electronically while sitting in a Starbucks using the free wifi, and someone attacks you randomly while you are there, your robbery of the bank had no nexus to the attack, and thus you have self defense in full.

Now, going back to the armed robbery, there's ways to get self defense back. If you flee the bank, express intent to end hostilities, and run away, and the security guard chases you down the street and keeps shooting at you, he has likely become the aggressor, and you likely get self defense back and can defend yourself from your pursuing assailant.

This is all done this way to minimize bloodshed. We want EVERYONE to retreat and cease hostilities, so that no one has to die.

EDIT: Forgot, promised to get to WI. Give me a moment to edit.

Now, Wisconsin has a pretty expansive self defense law. Here's the law (I spoilered the part on the castle doctrine, as it's irrelevant - no one was in their castle):

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  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.

(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.

(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.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

Now, as of this moment, the prosecution has presented no evidence thus far that Rittenhouse was engaged "in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack" as indicated under 2a. They asserted this in opening arguments, but they haven't presented even a single shred of evidence of it over four days.

But, presuming that they do someday get around to proving that he provoked Rosenbaum to attack him with unlawful conduct (which can be criminal or tortious), then we have to ask if he in good faith withdrew from the fight and gave adequate notice. State witness Detective Howard bolstered the argument for 2b because he stated Rittenhouse yelled "friendly friendly friendly" and confirmed for the jury that this means he had no interest in fighting or anything of the sort.

So even if somehow the state proves he provoked Rosenbaum (which again, four days in we have no evidence of yet), he very likely regained self defense in full under 2b. This is regardless of any criminal activity (misdemeanor) he might have been in engaged in at the time (if it was, in fact, illegal).

[Des-Bal]

Is Luna doing the thing again where he thinks that kids will logically conclude that they should do all the crimes because as children they'll get lenient treatment?

That's actually a thing that happens, then they get charged as adults by judges who know and have given up on them and it's uh honestly fucking brutal.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Is Luna doing the thing again where he thinks that kids will logically conclude that they should do all the crimes because as children they'll get lenient treatment?

More so because they'll get more lenient treatment than an adult would. In Scanadinavia, they tackle the root causes of crime well enough to make rehabilitating adults and children alike politically palatable. It's unclear how much of their low crime rates in general are attributable to tackling said root causes of crime and how much of that is down to them not giving kids an incentive to get a taste for crime when they're young.

That said, it's more so that I consider teenagers adults, as historically they would have been and to this day they're still only infantilized if they're white.

I accept I otherwise screwed up on my warped perception of the USA, but I still felt compelled to address the above remark.

[Christian Confederation]

High ground view, plus dropping tear Gas to the rear of the Rioters as ground forces teargas the front.

Quite aside from the obvious problems of trying to use a gas based weapon from a giant fan, what would it even achieve to drop tear gas behind rioters? The whole point of using tear gas is to disperse a crowd, to make it intolerable to stay where they are and thus force them to leave. Why are you trying to trap them in the one spot?

Plus low passes can Scatter Rioters.

Low passes can crash your helicopter. People riot most often in cities and towns, not in open fields.

That's what Little Birds were designed for. Plus attacking from multiple fronts will disorganize the rioters. The idea Is to disperse them and contain them in a closed area for arrest.

[Galloism]

The idea Is to disperse them and contain them in a closed area for arrest.

What?

[Thermodolia]

The idea Is to disperse them and contain them in a closed area for arrest.

What?

Magic

[The Two Jerseys]

Listening to the trial and all that and...why did this even go to trial? I can only guess that it was to prevent a firestorm because as it is the prosecution has nothing.

General consensus is that it's some combination of the DA pandering for votes and kowtowing to the mob threatening to burn down the city if he doesn't go to jail.

The latter is ironic, since they're the ones calling Kyle a "domestic terrorist"...

[Neutraligon]

Listening to the trial and all that and...why did this even go to trial? I can only guess that it was to prevent a firestorm because as it is the prosecution has nothing.

General consensus is that it's some combination of the DA pandering for votes and kowtowing to the mob threatening to burn down the city if he doesn't go to jail.

The latter is ironic, since they're the ones calling Kyle a "domestic terrorist"...

The problem, if it goes this badly then there are people who will assume some form of conspiracy. Others will still be pissed when he gets off because the protection is doing so badly. We will likely see riots no matter what.

[Vassenor]

Listening to the trial and all that and...why did this even go to trial? I can only guess that it was to prevent a firestorm because as it is the prosecution has nothing.

General consensus is that it's some combination of the DA pandering for votes and kowtowing to the mob threatening to burn down the city if he doesn't go to jail.

The latter is ironic, since they're the ones calling Kyle a "domestic terrorist"...

Where was this mob? Literally never heard about this before?

Or do you mean the mob threatening to start shit if he does go to jail?

[The Two Jerseys]

General consensus is that it's some combination of the DA pandering for votes and kowtowing to the mob threatening to burn down the city if he doesn't go to jail.

The latter is ironic, since they're the ones calling Kyle a "domestic terrorist"...

The problem, if it goes this badly then there are people who will assume some form of conspiracy. Others will still be pissed when he gets off because the protection is doing so badly. We will likely see riots no matter what.

Oh, definitely. If he's convicted it's because he was railroaded by a corrupt justice system, if he's acquitted it's because the good ol' boys are protecting one another.

I wouldn't be surprised if the DA is gambling that the right wing groups are all bark and no bite, and would rather take his chances pissing them off rather than the people who are already rioting.

[The Two Jerseys]

General consensus is that it's some combination of the DA pandering for votes and kowtowing to the mob threatening to burn down the city if he doesn't go to jail.

The latter is ironic, since they're the ones calling Kyle a "domestic terrorist"...

Where was this mob? Literally never heard about this before?

Or do you mean the mob threatening to start shit if he does go to jail?

Remember folks, jury intimidation is OK when Vass' side does it.

[The Black Forrest]

Where was this mob? Literally never heard about this before?

Or do you mean the mob threatening to start shit if he does go to jail?

Remember folks, jury intimidation is OK when Vass' side does it.

How is that jury intimidation?

[Vassenor]

Where was this mob? Literally never heard about this before?

Or do you mean the mob threatening to start shit if he does go to jail?

Remember folks, jury intimidation is OK when Vass' side does it.

Did you pull something reaching that hard for a gotcha?

[Port Caverton]

Remember folks, jury intimidation is OK when Vass' side does it.

Did you pull something reaching that hard for a gotcha?

I mean that's what you always do lol