collapse

* Recent Posts

Beating K-State is Imperative by real chili 83
[Today at 05:06:06 AM]


Big East Poll and NET Rankings by MarquetteMike1977
[Today at 12:30:38 AM]


Kohl hole o sole' mio by MuggsyB
[December 06, 2021, 08:18:14 PM]


Shaka's 2021-2022 Season Accomplishments by 1SE
[December 06, 2021, 04:53:30 PM]


2021-22 Big East Conference Results by tower912
[December 06, 2021, 04:20:07 PM]


NM by Fluffy Blue Monster
[December 06, 2021, 03:54:43 PM]


So....What are we ranked on Monday - 12/14/2020 by Nukem2
[December 06, 2021, 03:32:59 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: Rittenhouse Volume 3  (Read 3636 times)

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
  • “We want to get rid of the ballots"
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #50 on: November 19, 2021, 02:16:57 PM »
Tremendous series of eff-ups by the prosecution let a killer go scot-free.

They were incompetent from the start.

Hards_Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5306
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #51 on: November 19, 2021, 02:18:56 PM »
So I have a hypothiticalsituation this seems to effect. If I am a concert with my AR 15 and some drunk anti gun person gets aggressive saying I shouldn't have that and tries to grab my gun I'm allowed to shoot to kill correct?

Now I'm an active shooter, and if anyone who believes me to be an active shooter attempts to come after me to incapacitate me, and I shoot them, I'm still defending myself correct?

If I am correct this sets a precedent that I can be a mass shooter but get away with it by nature of self defense depending on how many people are ill informed on the first shooting and come at me to stop me.

This is why the legislature needs to do its job and clearly define the law for a situation such as this.

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #52 on: November 19, 2021, 02:19:56 PM »
I think it's reasonable to point out that one can believe that this was a just and correct verdict and still agree that there are significant problems - including problems with racism - infecting our criminal justice system.

In my opinion, one of he problems with the Rittenhouse case is that it seems that some people are comfortable with the idea of punishing him to make a broader point about about systemic injustice. Injustice cannot be fixed with injustice.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6408
  • Send it in...medium-sized fella!!
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #53 on: November 19, 2021, 02:23:35 PM »
Excellent analysis right here. Of course, the right won't heed his advice, to too many he will be a hero.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-right-self-defense-role-model/620715/

But these public poses still matter. When you turn a foolish young man into a hero, you’ll see more foolish young men try to emulate his example. And although the state should not permit rioters to run rampant in America’s streets, random groups of armed Americans are utterly incapable of imposing order themselves, and any effort to do so can lead to greater death and carnage.

In fact, that’s exactly what happened in Rittenhouse’s case. He didn’t impose order. He didn’t stop a riot. He left a trail of bodies on the ground, and two of the people he shot were acting on the belief that Rittenhouse himself was an active shooter. He had, after all, just killed a man.

If the jury acquits Rittenhouse, it will not be a miscarriage of justice. The law gives even foolish men the right to defend their lives. But an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero. A political movement that turns a deadly and ineffective vigilante into a role model is a movement that is courting more violence and encouraging more young men to recklessly brandish weapons in dangerous places, and that will spill more blood in America’s streets.






This is really good and sums it up nicely.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.”  -Clarence Darrow

LAZER

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1586
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #54 on: November 19, 2021, 02:26:42 PM »
I think it's reasonable to point out that one can believe that this was a just and correct verdict and still agree that there are significant problems - including problems with racism - infecting our criminal justice system.

In my opinion, one of he problems with the Rittenhouse case is that it seems that some people are comfortable with the idea of punishing him to make a broader point about about systemic injustice. Injustice cannot be fixed with injustice.
This cuts both ways.

muwarrior69

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #55 on: November 19, 2021, 02:27:07 PM »
Agreed and I expect you had the same reaction to the Chauvin verdict?

Actually both trials the juries were swayed by the video and evidence presented, thankfully not by our politics.

21Jumpstreet

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #56 on: November 19, 2021, 02:29:58 PM »
I think it's reasonable to point out that one can believe that this was a just and correct verdict and still agree that there are significant problems - including problems with racism - infecting our criminal justice system.

In my opinion, one of he problems with the Rittenhouse case is that it seems that some people are comfortable with the idea of punishing him to make a broader point about about systemic injustice. Injustice cannot be fixed with injustice.

Truth

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 17163
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #57 on: November 19, 2021, 02:31:54 PM »
I think it's reasonable to point out that one can believe that this was a just and correct verdict and still agree that there are significant problems - including problems with racism - infecting our criminal justice system.

In my opinion, one of he problems with the Rittenhouse case is that it seems that some people are comfortable with the idea of punishing him to make a broader point about about systemic injustice. Injustice cannot be fixed with injustice.

Fair.
“A lot of the stuff that we believe in and that I’ve always believed in — it takes time. It’s not a quick fix. It’s not an instant-gratification thing. It’s a drip-by-drip process.”

-- Shaka Smart, in The Athletic, 10/13/21

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9020
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #58 on: November 19, 2021, 02:33:58 PM »
Actually both trials the juries were swayed by the video and evidence presented, thankfully not by our politics.

thats not what I asked, I want to make sure he upholds his standards for our behavior for himself and his side when a trial doesn't go the typical "right" way. 
Maigh Eo for Sam

muwarrior69

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #59 on: November 19, 2021, 02:38:36 PM »
Excellent analysis right here. Of course, the right won't heed his advice, to too many he will be a hero.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-right-self-defense-role-model/620715/

But these public poses still matter. When you turn a foolish young man into a hero, you’ll see more foolish young men try to emulate his example. And although the state should not permit rioters to run rampant in America’s streets, random groups of armed Americans are utterly incapable of imposing order themselves, and any effort to do so can lead to greater death and carnage.

In fact, that’s exactly what happened in Rittenhouse’s case. He didn’t impose order. He didn’t stop a riot. He left a trail of bodies on the ground, and two of the people he shot were acting on the belief that Rittenhouse himself was an active shooter. He had, after all, just killed a man.

If the jury acquits Rittenhouse, it will not be a miscarriage of justice. The law gives even foolish men the right to defend their lives. But an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero. A political movement that turns a deadly and ineffective vigilante into a role model is a movement that is courting more violence and encouraging more young men to recklessly brandish weapons in dangerous places, and that will spill more blood in America’s streets.


If the prosecutors had followed the lead of the DA in the Chauvin trial they may have gotten a conviction. Justice was served there thanks to competent DA's not bowing to public pressure and overcharging. I remember many here screaming for Murder One. If Manslaughter had been on the table a conviction would have been far more likely in the Rittenhouse case. But instead, it was all or nothing and the DA got nothing.

Well, the Governor, Mayor, the State Police, and Sheriff did not impose order either, they just let the town burn until it was too late.

Hards_Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5306
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #60 on: November 19, 2021, 02:39:49 PM »
Well, the Governor, Mayor, the State Police, and Sheriff did not impose order either, they just let the town burn until it was too late.

You're a special kind of stupid if you think anyone was going to get 'control' of that situation.

muwarrior69

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #61 on: November 19, 2021, 02:54:17 PM »
You're a special kind of stupid if you think anyone was going to get 'control' of that situation.

What, the authorities are not capable of establishing order after 3 days of burning and looting especially after what happened in Minneapolis just a few weeks earlier? I will not retort to ad hominem however.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11105
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #62 on: November 19, 2021, 02:57:14 PM »
I get the point you're trying to make.  But (a) it's speculative, and (b) if it had been one black dumbass shooting another black dumbass, this wouldn't have been a local story, let alone a national story, because the media wouldn't have cared about it.  But that's pure speculation as well, so perhaps it's better to look at the facts of each case rather than generalizations and speculation.

+1

Your speculation makes much more sense than Rico/82’s. But as you say, it’s still speculation. Nobody found Rittenhouse not guilty of being a dumbass. If that was the charge the jury wouldn’t have been out for 10 minutes. But based on the law as it stands, not guilty of murder was the only logical verdict possible. That won’t stop other idiots (Diblasio and Cuomo have already weighed in) from ignoring the law and fanning the flames, though. WTF has happened to our “leaders”?



Uncle Rico

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #63 on: November 19, 2021, 03:01:00 PM »
+1

Your speculation makes much more sense than Rico/82’s. But as you say, it’s still speculation. Nobody found Rittenhouse not guilty of being a dumbass. If that was the charge the jury wouldn’t have been out for 10 minutes. But based on the law as it stands, not guilty of murder was the only logical verdict possible. That won’t stop other idiots (Diblasio and Cuomo have already weighed in) from ignoring the law and fanning the flames, though. WTF has happened to our “leaders”?

I think the outcome was the correct outcome.  I also believe this never gets to trial if Rittenhouse is a minority because he’s dead before we can get that far.  I don’t think that’s wild speculation at all.
Tis a shame, 'tis a rotton shame, for if ye can enjoy the walkin’ ye can probably enjoy the other times in yer life when ve're in between. And that's most o' the time; wouldn't ye say?

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
  • “We want to get rid of the ballots"
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #64 on: November 19, 2021, 03:01:46 PM »
So I have a hypothiticalsituation this seems to effect. If I am a concert with my AR 15 and some drunk anti gun person gets aggressive saying I shouldn't have that and tries to grab my gun I'm allowed to shoot to kill correct?

Now I'm an active shooter, and if anyone who believes me to be an active shooter attempts to come after me to incapacitate me, and I shoot them, I'm still defending myself correct?

If I am correct this sets a precedent that I can be a mass shooter but get away with it by nature of self defense depending on how many people are ill informed on the first shooting and come at me to stop me.

In gun-happy Amurika, you are correct.

Then you accuse all of the dead people of being actors pushing whatever the agenda du jour is.

rocket ALM surgeon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
  • NA of course
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #65 on: November 19, 2021, 03:02:04 PM »
Could someone explain the self defense interpretation in Wisconsin? I was always told you're allowed to use lethal force only if your life is threatened. Ie I can't shoot someone for pushing me.

Is it different in wi? Did the prosecution over charge? Did the jury ultimately decide that all three threatened Kyle's life?

They had to prove he only used lethal force if believed his life was in danger-
   They were able to prove Rosenbaum was the aggressor-if he gets rittenhouse gun, it’s over

Getting chased, kicked, hit while on ground put rittenhouse in imminent danger, once again, if they get his gun, it’s over

The gage guy had a gun and it was pointed In rittenhouse direction


Now people will argue if he didn’t bring the gun…doesn’t matter.  That’s not what the charges were

People keep calling him a vigilante-totally inaccurate.  Just because he had a gun-open carry nonetheless, doesn’t make him one.  It’s how/when it was used.  He never used it prior to getting chased etc. and it was only raised when his life was in imminent danger. Note the questioning around that issue.  The gage dude killled the prosecution on day1 when he admitted rittenhouse only raised gun when he saw his Glock. You could see the heavier set prosecutor do a face plant into his hands behind him as he answered.

Personally, I think open carry is stupid- why advertise?  Once people know what you have, they can base their attack on you accordingly.  Plus I think it demeans the legalization of guns.  Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. I guess it’s hard to conceal an AR, but whatever…
 
"you ever been to a caucus...no you haven't, you're a lying dog-faced pony soldier"

Hards_Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5306
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #66 on: November 19, 2021, 03:06:08 PM »
What, the authorities are not capable of establishing order after 3 days of burning and looting especially after what happened in Minneapolis just a few weeks earlier? I will not retort to ad hominem however.

What should they have done differently?  Crack some skulls?

TSmith34

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3523
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #67 on: November 19, 2021, 03:07:22 PM »
But an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero. A political movement that turns a deadly and ineffective vigilante into a role model is a movement that is courting more violence and encouraging more young men to recklessly brandish weapons in dangerous places, and that will spill more blood in America’s streets.
Those that would make him a hero want that violence. They want it very much.

skianth16

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #68 on: November 19, 2021, 03:10:18 PM »
I think the outcome was the correct outcome.  I also believe this never gets to trial if Rittenhouse is a minority because he’s dead before we can get that far.  I don’t think that’s wild speculation at all.

Is there any data that comes even close to supporting your non-wild speculation?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was data that showed a minority in process of committing a violent crime is more likely to be shot at by police than a white person. But think of the thousands and thousands of situations where police intervene with a violent suspect - how many result in death? It's got to be a super low percentage. It is absolutely not the common outcome. That doesn't mean there's not a problem. But it does mean your assumption is very likely wildly off-base. Facts matter. They need to be discussed more often.

Uncle Rico

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2944
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #69 on: November 19, 2021, 03:12:56 PM »
Is there any data that comes even close to supporting your non-wild speculation?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was data that showed a minority in process of committing a violent crime is more likely to be shot at by police than a white person. But think of the thousands and thousands of situations where police intervene with a violent suspect - how many result in death? It's got to be a super low percentage. It is absolutely not the common outcome. That doesn't mean there's not a problem. But it does mean your assumption is very likely wildly off-base. Facts matter. They need to be discussed more often.

That’s a fair question and criticism.  I think in this case, however, the ending is far different.
Tis a shame, 'tis a rotton shame, for if ye can enjoy the walkin’ ye can probably enjoy the other times in yer life when ve're in between. And that's most o' the time; wouldn't ye say?

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9020
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #70 on: November 19, 2021, 03:16:24 PM »
They had to prove he only used lethal force if believed his life was in danger-
   They were able to prove Rosenbaum was the aggressor-if he gets rittenhouse gun, it’s over

Getting chased, kicked, hit while on ground put rittenhouse in imminent danger, once again, if they get his gun, it’s over

The gage guy had a gun and it was pointed In rittenhouse direction


Now people will argue if he didn’t bring the gun…doesn’t matter.  That’s not what the charges were

People keep calling him a vigilante-totally inaccurate.  Just because he had a gun-open carry nonetheless, doesn’t make him one.  It’s how/when it was used.  He never used it prior to getting chased etc. and it was only raised when his life was in imminent danger. Note the questioning around that issue.  The gage dude killled the prosecution on day1 when he admitted rittenhouse only raised gun when he saw his Glock. You could see the heavier set prosecutor do a face plant into his hands behind him as he answered.

Personally, I think open carry is stupid- why advertise?  Once people know what you have, they can base their attack on you accordingly.  Plus I think it demeans the legalization of guns.  Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. I guess it’s hard to conceal an AR, but whatever…
 

Thank you for youre response, I agree about Rosenbaum. Seems like the guy was a nut job and looking for issues. What I'm confused at is

1) if the jury deems that the second killing is justified they're essentially saying that anyone trying to incapacitate someone they deem as an active shooter is the aggressor and that the active shooter can retaliate in self defense. Essentially, it would seem to me that if I brought a gun to a theater and shot someone, then 9 people rush me to take me down I can now claim I killed the other 9 in self defense and be correct.

2) Would gage have been justified if he shot first? We're talking about someone who just witnessed a guy kill two people and was a responsible gun owner (Let's say his permit wasn't expired). is it essentially a matter of whoever shoots first is correct because they both pointed their guns at each other? I mean what is the gun there for except trying to take down an active shooter, or is the jury saying Gage should have ignored Rittenhouse and any responsible gun owner shouldn't try to take down an active shooter. This take is actually more of an affront to gun rights logic than finding Kyle not guilty IMO.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2021, 03:28:21 PM by Galway Eagle »
Maigh Eo for Sam

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11105
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #71 on: November 19, 2021, 03:23:07 PM »
Compliments to all Scoop responders. This is a really emotional issue. I hope the country can have a similar response.

skianth16

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #72 on: November 19, 2021, 03:29:57 PM »
Thank you for youre response, I agree about Rosenbaum. Seems like the guy was a nut job and looking for issues. What I'm confused at is

1) if the jury deems that the second killing is justified they're essentially saying that anyone trying to incapacitate someone they deem as an active shooter is the aggressor and that the active shooter can retaliate in self defense. Essentially, it would seem to me that if I brought a gun to a theater and shot someone, then 9 people rush me to take me down I can now claim I killed the other 9 in self defense and be correct.


If someone incorrectly assumes you were an active shooter and came after you, you would be entitled to defend yourself, though, right?

I would guess that the jury viewed the initial shooting as justified, and so any attempts to attack/restrain that followed would provide Rittenhouse the ability to defend himself. Kind of a domino effect. However, if the initial shooting was viewed as murder, then I would bet the following actions would also have been viewed as illegal.

Maybe someone from the jury will let us know at some point so we won't have to speculate.

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9020
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #73 on: November 19, 2021, 03:38:37 PM »
If someone incorrectly assumes you were an active shooter and came after you, you would be entitled to defend yourself, though, right?

I would guess that the jury viewed the initial shooting as justified, and so any attempts to attack/restrain that followed would provide Rittenhouse the ability to defend himself. Kind of a domino effect. However, if the initial shooting was viewed as murder, then I would bet the following actions would also have been viewed as illegal.

Maybe someone from the jury will let us know at some point so we won't have to speculate.

Well I'm not sure. In my head, anyone who killed a person and truly believes it to be self defense should probably be willing to be detained by a citizen... say another gun owner. Now of course that's a perfect scenario but if Kyle shoots Rosenbaum (who I concede was the aggressor) and then puts his hands up and kneels down I have a tough time imagining a person comes running up with a skateboard. Then lastly let's say even that still happens and Kyle is forced to defend himself there then it would seem to me that he should be willing to be "detained" by say another gun owner.   
Maigh Eo for Sam

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 3
« Reply #74 on: November 19, 2021, 03:49:07 PM »
I may be wrong, but I don't recall the "active shooter" issue ever coming up in the other thread. This seems to be arising from the prosecutor's closing argument which was, in my opinion, desperate and disingenuous.

Rittenhouse was not acting like an "active shooter" as that term is typically used (i.e., someone who is indiscriminately killing people). He carried that weapon around for hours and did not fire it until he was being chased by someone threatening to kill him and lunging for his gun. After shooting the first person he was leaving the scene and did not shoot anyone else that he didn't perceive as a threat. You may quibble with this description but, by definition, that is what the jury concluded. If I'm not mistaken, he fired eight rounds of the 30 in his mag and only at people who were attacking him (or pointing a gun at him) at the time he fired. That does not feel like an "active shooter." There is every reason to believe that if he had not been attacked, he would not have fired his weapon again. And for the record, I do not fault the people who tried to stop him. As I think someone else said in this thread (or I may have read elsewhere): this was a self defense followed by an absolute tragedy.

I acknowledge that it's very difficult for people in a chaotic situation to know how to act when they may have incomplete information. Assuming for the sake of argument that the second two victims did believe that Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" what should the "rule" be? If, as the jury found, Rittenhouse was legally justified in shooting the first victim (i.e., it was legitimate self defense), is he permitted to defend himself from the mob? Or must he permit himself to be beaten to death?
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.