He'll walk and that City will burn along with a few others.
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 @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
If they do that will be on the arsonists for not thinking for themselves
It's not about thinking for themselves it's about a pressure cooker of frustration with race and politics in Wisconsin going out of control. I spent 20 years in Alabama and things here in Wisconsin are so much worse. Some times enough is enough, even if the final straw is not a real one.
He's walking on everything, what a terrible witness
It's like you're from a hundred years into the future and you just read about 2020 in a blog.
Nah, people won't riot over him walking, maybe a few tiny incidents.
He didn’t just actively go into a situation where he’d be at risk, he created a situation where others were at risk and the end results is two deaths. You have a 17-year old, arming himself with an assault rifle, and fecking off to a protest where part of the underlying issue is essentially Rittenhouse in a nutshell. He knew there were large risks involved just by being there, to the point where he heavily armed himself for his own protection and making sure that any altercation could very easily spiral out of control and end up having a deadly outcome. A civilIan, running around with an assault rifle, also creates fear for others. There’s so many obvious risks involved, but stupid is stupid does.
Yeah I posted as much earlier, just from the legal angle.
That is why your comment earlier...but Georgia... was a bit confusing with the soil you are currently on. I really don't think there are a lot of states that have a moral high ground these days when you consider racial tensions and tribal grounds are getting thrown to the side by state governments.
That comment was more around the history of southern states (especially GA/AL/MS) rigging juries in the trials of lynching's. That being said you are absolutely correct. I have lived in Los Angeles/Birmingham/Madison and each place has shocked me in the amount of racial tension and white supremacy. It's all the same painting, just different colors.
#slanted
That's a weird phrase to use...saying something stupid. Especially when you go ahead and make it explicit that saying something stupid would include things like describing his state of mind at the time of the shootings. That's stupid from the vantage point of someone defending him, his lawyers would consider it stupid, but an enlightened observer who's only interested in assessing the evidence on its merits and coming to the correct conclusion, whatever it may be, would describe it somewhat differently. Maybe your ruse is a bit...stupid?
Not every trial explicitly brings up eyewitness testimony being flawed or imperfect yet that fact still exists since it's been proven across many studies and actual trials. It's also a fact that witness works for a heavily biased website that operates under a strong agenda. These biases can affect his perception of the incident You can choose to ignore this since it fits the narrative you want to push. I will not ignore this fact and do not consider his testimony and reconstructed memory reliable. It's also not comparable to your analogy at all.
Also, the detective testifying now while called by the defense has not really helped the defense case either. He didn't go along with the defense trying to get him to confirm random phrases heard on the video and did admit that Rittenhouse appears to set down his fire extinguisher and bring up his rifle which is not good for the defense.
When speaking at any time you can always misstep within a conversation. It would be a million times worse when your life (at least outside of prison) is on the line. An experienced prosecutor can exploit that, similar to how an experienced defence attorney has destroyed the complaining witness today.
Its the same principle as don't talk to the police.
Called by the prosecution, but yes his testimony didn't help the defence on the drone footage. Though he did sound like a clown since he testified that he only watched the video his phone.
Can’t see that much of an uprising nationwide.
Could see your scenario happening if the Arbery murderers are acquitted.
Think that's it. Prosecution's case in chief is over. All defence witnesses from here.
Until the cop who thinks its appropriate to testify on distance between people in a murder trial from video watched on his mobile the defence was high stepping towards close of business today.
Until the cop who thinks its appropriate to testify on distance between people in a murder trial from video watched on his mobile the defence was high stepping towards close of business today.
Motion to reconsider denied. Illegal possession of a firearm will be tried.
He'll be found guilty of that under the jury instructions.
He'll be found guilty of that under the jury instructions.
That could complicate his self defense case. A death resulting from possession of an illegal firearm can change things for him.
Unfortunate for the prosecution - stippling on Rosenbaum indicates he was within 'a few feet' of Rittenhouse and had gun injuries to the hand. Another prosecution witness assisting self defence claim, and also a sign the investigating detective was a fecking clown or a massive smug liar.
Drainy, i’m still not entirely sure why you’re so occupied with defensivt Rittenhouse
It's an interesting trial that a lot of the evidence is contradicting narrative from the media and I've had time to watch it since I've been ill.
The current evidence being submitted by the coroner has been mixed. Was just coming in to feed back about this, because the first shots were stated as potentially causing him to fall and that might appear as a lunge, but injuries to the hands and stippling show he was within 4 feet and hands were in front of the gun, or on it.
Hehe..well thank god for your narrative then. You seem somewhat incapable of taking into account why Rittenhouse found himself in a potential life and death situation. I have little doubt that Rittenhouse will get away with it, that’s just how fecked up the country is
Would you want him convicted for firing in self-defense?
At the least, he should absolutely be convicted of reckless homicide and reckless endangerment. He instigated the entire incident that endangered lives for no valid reason. He was carrying an illegal AR-15 as an untrained, unexperienced 17-year-old and self-appointed himself a vigilante militia member. Based on the judge (who was quoting the fecking Bible) and the composition of the jury coupled with a lackluster prosecution case, its doubtful he will get a murder conviction but he absolutely should be guilty of the two reckless charges.
Rittenhouse is an alt-right cnut. But that doesn't warrant him to go to prison by murder. If it was self defense it was self defense and he should let be free in that account
He did instigated the entire incident? He was carrying an illegal AR-15?
The judge was quoting the fecking babble? Christ.
How can somebody acting in a manner that was only made illegal by virtue of being a minor be instigating when no one knew him personally to know he was 17 and it would be fecking weird to think that justifies violence.
Its absolutely mind boggling that you can be running around with an ar15 and not have everyone else in fear for their life as a given
Yes. He instigated the entire incident by following and pursuing the victims while brandishing a bloody AR-15 that he shouldn't have been carrying. His actions, the actions of a 17-year-old ideologically motivated and without training or experience to actually be providing vigilante "property protection" that night created an entire unsafe situation. Had he remained on the roof along with his long time friend and fellow vigilante militia member, no one would have been shot.
Also, he is not only charged with murder. He is also charged with reckless homicide and reckless endangerment which have different standards. For instance, someone could technically be freed from murder charges because of "self-defense" but still be convicted of reckless homicide.
I was asking @oneniltothearsenal . In my opinion, though those days where fecked up and militia where provoking conflict everywhere patrolling the way they were doing, is the way US works, than a guy with a automatic rifle can do that legally and another guy can have easily a gun and shit happens. In Spain would be unthinkable to see an AR-15...EVER. And very uncommon to have another guy armed around (not to speak many others that probably had a gun on that street)
But is US and is allowed and accepted.
When this shooting happened, I was dragged by the media and blame Rittenhouse automatically as he represents most of what I despise from the alt-right trumping dystopian reality, but after seeing the videos is clearly that even being an asshole, it was self defense and as much as I would like him to pay just solely for his fecked up ideology, is not how justice works.
Also, he is a minor and whatever grey area he did like crossing a rifle through the border (I believe it was after?) or any other minor thing, should be attenuated for the fact that he still forming as a person going to adulthood
Yup. As I mentioned earlier its a weird artifact of the US' biased law and precedents especially in certain states. Paradoxically, had Rosemblaum killed Rittenhouse, he also could have legitimately claimed self-defense and gotten off on a murder charge. The way many laws are set up, they really favor the victor (look at the Trayvon Martin case for another one) and the trial of the McMichaels which are also going on right now and are simply variations of the same theme.
I don't agree, on the videos it doesn't show that he was instigating anything, his wording neither as he was trying to deescalate the situation. Also, the others were armed too, weren't they prepared for instigating? just because they "lost" on the shoot out doesn't make them less guilty to patrol the streets armed even with a smaller arm
If the other guys would not be roaming the way the did, no one would have been shot applying your logic. If everybody would stay home, no one would have been shot. Or they had the right to roam armed through the streets?
Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for his ideology (quite the opposite) and what militia's did those days, but he didn't instigate (or at least not more than the others) and he tried to deescalate the situation
He was seventeen at the time of the event, not twelve. He had a clear understanding of his actions.
Yes, frankly that was not my main point why he should get away. Just an add on. Also, you need to draw a line at some point and that line is at 18, like it or not. If the line would be at 14 and he would be 13, we could say the same. But is what it is and like it or not, with the perspective of life, when I was 17 I was not mature for many things, specially ideologically speaking (hot boiled it)
But again, that was not even a 1% of my point
He followed and then chased the initial victim, who was not armed with any weapons. It's a case where some people might not feel that is reckless endangerment. Personally, if someone kept following me and chasing me with an AR-15 the way the videos show Rittenhouse doing, I would 100% personally feel threatened by his actions. Not everyone is the same of course. My interpretation of the videos though does not show Ritenhouse "de-escalating" the situation. He could have completely de-escalated the situation by simply stopping his pursuit of the first victim. Bam, disengaged, problem solved. Did Rittenhouse exhaust all possibilities to avoid the situation? Absolutely not, he charged right in and created the situation.
And yes, other armed instigators at various points (the only one, in this case, being Grosskreutz) are also guilty of reckless endangerment. IMO. In many tense situations, both parties can absolutely be acting recklessly, its not an either/or thing.
Oh, and taking the other case in this thread, from what I'm seeing Arbery was not acting recklessly compared to the McMichaels, that case is a little more one-sided.
Not to belabor, but many minors are tried as adults depending on the severity of the crime. That age demarcation line is malleable & should always be so. One does not gain total enlightenment by virtue of hitting a certain age.
But let’s not quibble over a tangent.