Rittenhouse Volume 2

[Pakuni]

Yes you’re right, he didn’t it use the word guilt.  But did say it shows bias and lack of credibility.  Either way Binger seems about as slimy as they come and hope there is an investigation into all of the stunts he’s pulled.

He said he wanted to explore the issue for potential bias.
That's not the same "It's an admission of bias."

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

You misunderstood. Rittenhouse will be receiving millions of dollars in damages. Not sure why you weren’t able to infer that.

Oh.  He will be rich, but I doubt it will be from winning lawsuits.

[Pakuni]

You misunderstood. Rittenhouse will be receiving millions of dollars in damages. Not sure why you weren’t able to infer that.

From who?

[Uncle Rico]

Ya KR will be a very rich man if he’s acquitted, some pretty terrible/completely false stuff has been said about him from the media and other very powerful figures.

😂

[wadesworld]

Ya KR will be a very rich man if he’s acquitted, some pretty terrible/completely false stuff has been said about him from the media and other very powerful figures.

What?

[pacearrow02]

He said he wanted to explore the issue for potential bias.
That's not the same "It's an admission of bias."

Fair enough

[Uncle Rico]

He can sue for punitive damages.  Learn about it here:

https://youtu.be/QP-FUaEH--c

[JWags85]

He's not gonna sue any politicians and win.  And I know its one of the dangers of Twitter, but elected officials saying stuff like "executed" swiftly on official channels without having facts of a case or real evidence is a problem.

Especially in comparison to the fact checking that is done in so many statements made in press conferences and the like.  I can't believe those tweets havent been deleted to be honest.

[4everwarriors]

Maybe heel just go down ta da Mexican border, pass go, and collect $450k, aina?

[Hards Alumni]

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1458890557053448203

It did.  Defense objected, Binger said he was trying to prove bias and some other stuff. Judge had to go to a recess, sent jury out of the court room etc

Get off twitter, you're following intellectually dishonest people.

[Hards Alumni]

You misunderstood. Rittenhouse will be receiving millions of dollars in damages. Not sure why you weren’t able to infer that.

I put the chances of this happening at around 0%

[wadesworld]

The only people Rittenhouse is getting rich off of is the middle aged, gun loving men who see the 18 year old as their personal hero.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

The only people Rittenhouse is getting rich off of is the middle aged, gun loving men who see the 18 year old as their personal hero.

  You should probably add the people whose businesses and livelihoods were destroyed as well .
   It also seems like there were gun-loving people on both sides of the riot.   I also remember the business owners in Korea Town during the LA riots protecting their stores with armaments . Can't blame people for wanting to save what they worked hard to build.

[pacearrow02]

Get off twitter, you're following intellectually dishonest people.

1) I don’t follow him
2) don’t know much about him other then he’s a divisive fellow.  Would you rather me follow Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, maybe Rex Chapman??

[rocky_warrior]

Guys - I left this go because discussion of the actual court case is valid, and timely.  However, if you all just want to spout off your personal opinions of what happened that night I'll happily lock this.

[Uncle Rico]

1) I don’t follow him
2) don’t know much about him other then he’s a divisive fellow.  Would you rather me follow Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, maybe Rex Chapman??

Jack Posobiec still touting PizzaGate?

[BrewCity83]

IBTL

[dgies9156]

It seems there are several issues being melded into beliefs about the trial.

First is the legal issue is whether Mr. Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. From a legal standpoint, it's probable that 12 jurors will struggle mightily to find him guilty of anything more than a misdemeanor gun violation. I only know what I have read but it seems that at a 10,000 foot level, the gun misdemeanor given Wisconsin law, may be the only thing he's found guilty of.

Second is the moral/ethical issue of whether he even should have been in Kenosha that night. I find it absolutely amazing that a parent would allow a 17 year old out like that or that a 17 year old would want to insert himself into a riot. As a parent of two 20-somethings, I know how hard it can be to keep 24-hour watch on a teenager, but I would think the teen and the parents would collectively have more sense than this. There is no logical reason for Mr. Rittenhouse to be there. He's not an adult, he had limited firearms and life safety skills (my daughter has the same skills) and his talent as a lifeguard is wasted on asphalt in another state with no sign of water.

It's questionable whether Mr. Rittenhouse can be tried for bad judgment. I'm not going to impugn his character -- others long ago beat me to that and besides, I don't know the guy or his family. But if bad judgment were a crime, he'd be a lifer.

Finally, the question is whether the federal government will come in behind any not guilty state verdict and try Mr. Rittenhouse on different charges using the same fact pattern. I'm fearful the answer is, "yes," given comments of both the President and the Attorney General.

I trust we all will learn from what happened and seek a reconciliation. We have too much to do to build and improve our country to be spending time on hated, weapons and violence against each other.

[🏀]

The only people Rittenhouse is getting rich off of is the middle aged, gun loving men who see the 18 year old as their personal hero.

Jamie already has a framed 8x10 above his kitchen table

[Hards Alumni]

1) I don’t follow him
2) don’t know much about him other then he’s a divisive fellow.  Would you rather me follow Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, maybe Rex Chapman??

I'm very glad you check your sources.  I'm also glad you're showing us who you are in real time.  If you didn't know who he was, why would you link one of his tweets?  He's an alt right weirdo.  Why would I rather you follow those people?

You're terminally online.  Stop.

[JWags85]

Rex Chapman is a hilarious addition to the other 2.  Thanks for the chuckle

[MuggsyB]

It seems there are several issues being melded into beliefs about the trial.

First is the legal issue is whether Mr. Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. From a legal standpoint, it's probable that 12 jurors will struggle mightily to find him guilty of anything more than a misdemeanor gun violation. I only know what I have read but it seems that at a 10,000 foot level, the gun misdemeanor given Wisconsin law, may be the only thing he's found guilty of.

Second is the moral/ethical issue of whether he even should have been in Kenosha that night. I find it absolutely amazing that a parent would allow a 17 year old out like that or that a 17 year old would want to insert himself into a riot. As a parent of two 20-somethings, I know how hard it can be to keep 24-hour watch on a teenager, but I would think the teen and the parents would collectively have more sense than this. There is no logical reason for Mr. Rittenhouse to be there. He's not an adult, he had limited firearms and life safety skills (my daughter has the same skills) and his talent as a lifeguard is wasted on asphalt in another state with no sign of water.

It's questionable whether Mr. Rittenhouse can be tried for bad judgment. I'm not going to impugn his character -- others long ago beat me to that and besides, I don't know the guy or his family. But if bad judgment were a crime, he'd be a lifer.

Finally, the question is whether the federal government will come in behind any not guilty state verdict and try Mr. Rittenhouse on different charges using the same fact pattern. I'm fearful the answer is, "yes," given comments of both the President and the Attorney General.

I trust we all will learn from what happened and seek a reconciliation. We have too much to do to build and improve our country to be spending time on hated, weapons and violence against each other.

The president commented on this today?  Was that before or after his remarks on Satchel Paige?

[forgetful]

Honestly, I find it kind of remarkable that someone could be all over a thread sharing an opinion on this case -- repeatedly cite very specific facts in support of that opinion (i.e., Rittenhouse was chasing the first victim) -- and then find out that they were completely wrong on that one fact but continue holding that same opinion.* I'm not trying to pick on you, Forgetful, but I'm genuinely curious whether finding out that this fact was completely opposite of what you believed cause you to reconsider your position on guilt or innocence of the charged crimes? Even momentarily?

I'm not talking about whether you feel Rittenhouse was stupid, evil, immoral, amoral, etc. I'm talking about does the fact that he was being chased (and heard gunfire behind him) change anything in your thinking about whether this was self defense? Because I do think that that is an extremely relevant point.

*  I'm editing this post to acknowledge that I wasn't completely fair in how I phrased this. I can understand continuing to hold the same opinion if that opinion was based on a number of facts. Changing one fact does not necessarily require that someone change their opinion.

Hey, it's fair to pick on me. I was wrong on a key element that I was posting on. Personally, I think I should be privy to an extra Arby's sauce for correcting my error and admitting fallibility.

Regarding the rest, it does change some of my perception of the case. I much more firmly understand, why as the case currently stands he'll likely be acquitted of the major charges. For me at least, that doesn't change the stance that he is still guilty/responsible for the deaths (illegal possession of the firearm and lack of a true threat). It does change the stance on the current charges though. I find it hard to convict for the current charges based on the totality of evidence available to the jury.

What I would argue is that he is guilty of "imperfect self defense." I believe that is the Wisconsin wording for the law, and would be subject to a lower criminal standard. My personal opinion still remains that anyone who conducted themselves in the same way as Rittenhouse should face serious jail time...notably, my personal opinion is worth bupkis in a court of law, or in Arbys.

[pacearrow02]

I'm very glad you check your sources.  I'm also glad you're showing us who you are in real time.  If you didn't know who he was, why would you link one of his tweets?  He's an alt right weirdo.  Why would I rather you follow those people?

You're terminally online.  Stop.

I linked one of his tweets because I saw it via a retweet from someone who I do follow which is how Twitter works my friend.  I linked his tweet cause good luck finding any “reputable” (in your eyes at least) covering this trial with the video evidence to what Pakuni and I were talking about at the time.  I didn’t link his tweet because of the video in it, not in support of him or any prior positions he’s held.  Should t be that hard to figure out Hards.

[MuggsyB]

Hey, it's fair to pick on me. I was wrong on a key element that I was posting on. Personally, I think I should be privy to an extra Arby's sauce for correcting my error and admitting fallibility.

Regarding the rest, it does change some of my perception of the case. I much more firmly understand, why as the case currently stands he'll likely be acquitted of the major charges. For me at least, that doesn't change the stance that he is still guilty/responsible for the deaths (illegal possession of the firearm and lack of a true threat). It does change the stance on the current charges though. I find it hard to convict for the current charges based on the totality of evidence available to the jury.

What I would argue is that he is guilty of "imperfect self defense." I believe that is the Wisconsin wording for the law, and would be subject to a lower criminal standard. My personal opinion still remains that anyone who conducted themselves in the same way as Rittenhouse should face serious jail time...notably, my personal opinion is worth bupkis in a court of law, or in Arbys.

In other cases, when I person acts in self-defense, is the shooter "guilty/responsible for their deaths" if that's the result?  Are you making a distinction between Rittenhouse and say a person shooting someone if they break into their home?  Technically isn't anyone who kills someone in self-defense "responsible" for the death?  That doesn't mean that it's a crime.