You are oversimplifying heavily. Reality and the law is about many details and complex reality.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
If I'm Rittenhouse I'd be laying low for a looooooooong while.
Fecking mental he killed 3 people and got off scot free, not in any world is that okay, if that’s a black guy he’s dead before he gets in a cop car…
2.
I've already said I'm not a lawyer, of course I'm oversimplifying. I just watched him and his buddies preparing for a fight, getting one and then claiming self defence. It sounds absurd.
Still mental.
I think they've started looking into it but nothing against KR (yet). I also read that KR may be taking civil action against people for defamation...
Damn, 28000 comments on this thread.
Admittedly don't know a great deal about this case. Hard to find a view online which isn't extremely polarised one way or the other. Could anyone explain why the charge of illegally owning a firearm was dropped?
If I was him, I'd be getting plastic surgery then burning the records á la Face Off.
On the podium, announcing his intention to run for office.
Can’t help but feel like this becomes the benchmark for when these sorts want to live out their cosplay soldier fantasies. Go somewhere armed and provoke people, then kill and claim self defense. What a disgusting set of laws to govern a country with.
The defense attorney just addressed that and he said that they went through that law piece by piece and it did not apply to his client.
And he'll stand a good chance of winning
Is this particularly due to Wisconsin laws or is it for the whole country. For example if he had done this in California would he still be able to claim self defense.
Last edited:
And this is why US and A will always be an international laughing stock.
Thanks!
Full credit to you. Apologies are very rare on the Caf it seems. And I apologize for disparaging the great state of Maryland
Dude has such a punchable face, it‘s insane!
If the reaction was predictable how come the dozens and dozens of other open carry gimps there that night didn’t end up in the exact same situation?
I'd argue that the interpretation of it in that way is redundant because there is (as far as I know) federal law prohibiting the possession of shotguns with a barrel length less than 18 inches or overall length less than 26 inches.
But no one is showing us the Wisconsin law so it's hard to make a determination one way or the other.
Exactly. This ruling says that at the next "Unite the Right" rally, I can go down there with an AR-15 and maybe a banner that reads "Proud Boys Suck Balls". Then I can just stand around aiming my AR-15 at Proud Boys until one of them confronts me in an aggressive manner. At that point, I can let the bullets fly.
This ruling is outrageous.
Unhinged
A mixture of dumb luck and restraint. He was acting pretty suspiciously beyond wandering around with a rifle.
Kinda hoping something like that happens tbh. A mob of mostly minorities exercising their right to protest and to bear arms near the Mccloskey's. Would love to see their reactions. Something tells me they won't be looking so confident.
Probably has been posted but a good video showing what happened that night. One thing for sure is that the police are scumbags. If anyone has any doubts about the shooters motives he's seen making white supremecist hand singles.
Don't think anyone has trouble with that in this thread.
This is a public forum. We can and should look at evidence beyond what a single biased judge decides to allow in his private domain. We can and should look at the totality of evidence and look at things like Rittenhouse being taped saying if he had his AR-15, he'd shoot some alleged shoplifters or that he punched a female in the back. We can recognize that he violated curfew and he clearly should have been guilty of carrying illegally. Yes those were dismissed out of technicality and a single judges biased Interpretation. It clearly wasn't the intent of the exception to make it legal for 16-17 year olds to walk around after a curfew in an emotional heated situation with AR-15s but not nunchucks.
We can also all form different opinions on what qualifies as provocation different than that specific jury because that is a subjective element. It's very possible a different jury could look at the same evidence and not conclude he should have got off on everything.
I'm happy I live a state with different laws where Rittenhouse would not have walked.
In California it's illegal to brandish a firearm so Rittenhose could have been arrested before he ever ran after the first group. In New York, there is a general reckless endangerment law that Rittenhouse also could easily have been guilty of and jailed appropriately.
So no, it has nothing to do with people unable to step outside their political views. We can and should discuss all elements of the case not only the elements a single biased judge declares in his little kingdom.
He had a dream and he fulfilled it.
As Childish Gambino once said:
This is America.
This is America.
Even if he were charged for illegally owning a fire arm, in WI its a class A misdemeanor. Even if that were put to the jury and the convicted him it would be basically a 300 dollar fine . Its not as huge as most would think.
edit: Wisconsin statute 948.60 if you want to look it up.
Zero prison time. its completely insignificant (in Wisconsin)
Surely it’s much more likely that this is the result of a chain of unpredictable events?
America is fecked. There’s been hordes of morons open carrying big guns at flashpoints over the last few years. Thankfully this is a relatively rare event but it seems unlikely that what happened happened because he had uniquely ill intent.
Much more likely a perfect storm of shitty coincidences that caused a bad outcome. Stumbling across mentally ill, aggressive dude at the wrong moment, passerbys who did the opposite of what most people would do, running towards gunfire etc etc
He’s definitely guilty of being a trouble-making twat. He also never should have been let near that gun. What I’m struggling with is the idea he went out that night intent on shooting someone. That seems very unlikely to me.
Apparently wants to be a nurse now.
Guess he's learned what the police are really about.
Guess he's learned what the police are really about.
Depressing news.
If people have actually watched the video n testimony evidence presented during the trial, this should not be a surprise at all. Don't know the exact US laws but prosecution should have tried him for different charges.
Intending to, probably not. Willing to is something one could argue, though.
That was predictable. White privilege in USA is OP.
Thread for people who think there was some kind of conspiracy to acquit him
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date