Are there people on the left with enough honesty to acknowledge Rittenhouse acted in self defense?

[jotathought]

at protests it should not be allowed. It is moronic to take a gun like that to a hostile protest.

That's your opinion, and many disagree with you .. including the law of Wisconsin.

 

[jotathought]

he is from Illinois and he was 17, not 18. It is legal for someone from Wisconsin, not for someone from Illinois.

Illinois (which is extremely strict on its firearm laws), has not charge Rittenhouse with any crime; Regardless, if I live in Kentucky, and carry a gun openly in Wisconsin, I'm not breaking the law. It's not based on your state of residence, it's based on where the activity takes place.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Dismissed charges are one thing.


Here is proof there was a curfew:

Kenosha Issues Monday Night Curfew After Black Man Shot by Police

A curfew will go into effect Monday Night in Kenosha County hours after businesses were damaged and vehicles were burned during unrest following the police shooting of a Black man that sparked anger nationwide. Jacob Blake, 31, was hospitalized in serious condition following the shooting by...

www.nbcchicago.com

View attachment 67361230

That is from the Sheriff's Department.

Here is a report from the NYT stating that the CITY IMPOSED A CURFEW!!!!

View attachment 67361231

Kenosha Police Shooting of Black Man Is Investigated by Wisconsin Authorities (Published 2020)

The man was hospitalized in serious condition, the authorities said, and Kenosha declared an overnight curfew as protests grew around the city.

www.nytimes.com

There is little question that there was a curfew in effect. So therefore, Kyle, Rosenbaum, etc... had no legal right to be there!

Its not even a question. Yes charges were dropped LATER ON. That doesn't mean that he wasn't violating the curfew; that simply means he isn't being prosecuted for the violation.

Questions that the police instituted curfew that they didn't have the authority to do so and only the mayor. Since its a sheriffs notice and the fact the prosecution did not prove their case on their was a legitimate curfew in place.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

That's correct. Guess who didn't issue the "curfew"?

Perhaps another quote to add to your signiture?

 

[NotreDame]

Not sure how @NotreDame leaned on Chauvin’s conviction. I believe @NotreDame spent decades as an Asst. State Attorney in Indiana. His Pro-Rittenhouse stance alarms me!

Chauvin was rightfully convicted.

I am not “Pro-Rittenhouse.” I’m no advocate for openly carrying an AR-15 in street protests.

But viewing this as “Pro-Rittenhouse” or “Anti-Rittenhouse” is problematic, and a reflection of wider society viewing these facts and the law through a partisan lens. I am focusing upon the facts and the law, and the reasonable conclusions to be drawn.

I’m not interested in partisan Team Rittenhouse or Team Lock Him Up.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

"Questionable".... cool.

Okay...so it was clear the Police wanted everyone to go home at least then...right? Why didn't Saint Kyle --the peaceful, god fearing, junior G-man he claims to be--obey?

Why didn't the rioters comply with the police?

 

[Buckeyes85]

No and no. It's not for you to play vigilante and disarm anyone if you had not witnessed the shooting or rely on hearsay from someone else. Call 911 and report it. You start to take law enforcement into your own hands, you might get shot and in this case rightly so. As it was self defence the first time.

Do you not appreciate the irony/hypocrisy of claiming these people should not have attempted to play vigilante- if in fact that's what they did?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Oh...see...thats sad.

You dont know anything about this incident, do you....

New York Times Releases Footage Showing Kyle Rittenhouse Did Not Fire First Shot - National File

Footage tweeted by the New York Times's Visual Investigations team shows that Kyle Rittenhouse did not fire the first shot in Kenosha.

nationalfile.com

“He’s being chased into a parking lot. While he is being pursued, an unknown gunman fires the first shot into the air.”
"The footage circles Rittenhouse, fleeing from an angry mob before the incident has occurred. “That’s antifa man,” the man shooting the video can be heard saying. The footage then continues, circling a man behind Rittenhouse with a hand-gun, who shoots up into the air – evidence backed up by the man recording."

You thought Grosskuertz was the guy who fired the first shot?

Stop.

Show me where I even remotely implied anything of the sort.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

It's not a misdemeanor ... Rittenhouse wasn't charged with a crime for the apparent straw purchase -- his adult friend was charged with 2 felony counts. Possession of the firearm by a minor isn't related to the straw purchase, outside of having a firearm. Again .. who gets charged with the crime? The buyer, the receiver or both?

I guess I am of the opinion that the two things shouldn't be separated, since without the straw purchase, the minor couldnt be in possession of the firearm illegally anyway.

That said, I DO believe that for his stupidity, Black should also be forfeit of his chance to purchase firearms in the future as well.

 

[ASHES]

I guess I am of the opinion that the two things shouldn't be separated, since without the straw purchase, the minor couldnt be in possession of the firearm illegally anyway.

That said, I DO believe that for his stupidity, Black should also be forfeit of his chance to purchase firearms in the future as well.

None of the gun charges for Black or Rittenhouse have anything to do with the purchase of the gun. It wasn't a straw purchase, and Rittenhouse was possessing it legally.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Chauvin was rightfully convicted.

I am not “Pro-Rittenhouse.” I’m no advocate for openly carrying an AR-15 in street protests.

But viewing this as “Pro-Rittenhouse” or “Anti-Rittenhouse” is problematic, and a reflection of wider society viewing these facts and the law through a partisan lens. I am focusing upon the facts and the law, and the reasonable conclusions to be drawn.

I’m not interested in partisan Team Rittenhouse or Team Lock Him Up.

Do you think Kyle committed a felony, yes, no, maybe?

 

[Trippy Trekker]

None of the gun charges for Black or Rittenhouse have anything to do with the purchase of the gun. It wasn't a straw purchase, and Rittenhouse was possessing it legally.

Did the judge drop Count 6?

 

[ASHES]

Did the judge drop Count 6?

Just watch. It's starting any minute.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

None of the gun charges for Black or Rittenhouse have anything to do with the purchase of the gun. It wasn't a straw purchase, and Rittenhouse was possessing it legally.

How was he legally possessing the gun is the first question? He wasnt hunting, which is what the law says would make his carrying the gun legal in the state of WI. Secondly, he wasnt 18 at the time of the incident, which means that outside of hunting, he wasnt old enough to be in possession of that rifle outside of hunting.

He fails no matter how you try to interpret it.

Oh, and couple that with the fact that through Blacks own testimony THEY both knew on the day of the purchase that what they were doing was at best skirting the law and as Black stated, "might be a bad idea", its hard to call it anything but what it was, which was a straw purchase.

Reality is this....they should have just shut the **** up about who funded the purchase and the reason for it, but I would bet that the second Black realized that the gun would come back to him, he thought it would be better to take a potential charge for buying the gun than potentially being an accomplice to two potential murders, so he fessed up, thus creating the mess.

 

[ASHES]

How was he legally possessing the gun is the first question? He wasnt hunting, which is what the law says would make his carrying the gun legal in the state of WI. Secondly, he wasnt 18 at the time of the incident, which means that outside of hunting, he wasnt old enough to be in possession of that rifle outside of hunting.

That isn't what the law says. 16+ can possess a rifle or shotgun.

He fails no matter how you try to interpret it.

Unless you actually read it.

Oh, and couple that with the fact that through Blacks own testimony THEY both knew on the day of the purchase that what they were doing was at best skirting the law and as Black stated, "might be a bad idea", its hard to call it anything but what it was, which was a straw purchase.

No straw purchase. There was no "prohibited person" involved, as required for a straw purchase in WI, and ownership never transferred from Black.

Reality is this....they should have just shut the **** up about who funded the purchase and the reason for it, but I would bet that the second Black realized that the gun would come back to him, he thought it would be better to take a potential charge for buying the gun than potentially being an accomplice to two potential murders, so he fessed up, thus creating the mess.

No charges related to the purchase in over a year.

 

[j brown's body]

If his victim had shot and killed Rittenhouse first because he thought he had to defend himself from Rittenhouse, would he be innocent of any crime too?

 

[code1211]

I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse thing closely but what I have read seems like he has a fairly obvious case for self defense. I’m mildly astonished they brought homicide charges against him on light of the established facts.

There was a time when the left was against overly zealous, malicious, politically motivated prosecution but I see little evidence of this today.

I did see Tulsi Gabbard come out making observations based on facts that seem reasonable but I’m not sure despite being a Democrat she counts as being “on the left”. Indeed I rather expect people on the left are trashing her and dragging her down for opposing the preferred narrative.

Tulsi Gabbard Defends Kyle Rittenhouse: 'Just a Foolish Kid'

The 18-year-old is accused of murder after killing two people during a Black Lives Matter protest in the highly divisive trial.

www.newsweek.com

So, anyone on the left want to acknowledge they think this trial is a travesty based on the evidence that has emerged? Or is over-zealous prosecution in defense of the narrative more important than facts and evidence?

After seeing the videos of the events in question, it is abundantly obvious that the kid was being attacked and the peril he was in was grave.

Should he have been there? Maybe and maybe not. When the government refuses to provide domestic tranquility, are citizens then demanded to be victims of the mob?

Of the various views of the events specific to the assaults going both ways is the burning, looting and mayhem all around the events specific to those events.

All things considered, I would prefer to have 50 Rittenhouse's over to my home than the 50 of the folks he was assaulted by.

 

[Napoleon]

If his victim had shot and killed Rittenhouse first because he thought he had to defend himself from Rittenhouse, would he be innocent of any crime too?

It depends on who the aggressor is. KR was not the aggressor in any of the interactions so he reserved the right to shoot in self defense.

 

[ASHES]

Did the judge drop Count 6?

Yes.

 

[jotathought]

I guess I am of the opinion that the two things shouldn't be separated, since without the straw purchase, the minor couldnt be in possession of the firearm illegally anyway.

That said, I DO believe that for his stupidity, Black should also be forfeit of his chance to purchase firearms in the future as well.

If Black is convicted with at least 1 felony, he would forfeit his right -- unless it were appealed or commuted / expunged. This is already law.

 

[ASHES]

If Black is convicted with at least 1 felony, he would forfeit his right -- unless it were appealed or commuted / expunged. This is already law.

He can't be. Rittenhouse wasn't illegally possessing the rifle, so Black couldn't have given it to him illegally.

 

[jotathought]

He can't be. Rittenhouse wasn't illegally possessing the rifle, so Black couldn't have given it to him illegally.

I'll wait for the trial to determine the outcome on whether Black is guilty or not based on the specifics. Generally speaking, a felon forfeits their right to possess a firearm -- with exceptions (appealed / overruled / commuted, etc.)

 

[ASHES]

I'll wait for the trial to determine the outcome on whether Black is guilty or not based on the specifics. Generally speaking, a felon forfeits their right to possess a firearm -- with exceptions (appealed / overruled / commuted, etc.)

The charge against Rittenhouse was dismissed. Without it, it can't be proven that Black illegally gave a minor possession of the firearm.

 

[jotathought]

The charge against Rittenhouse was dismissed. Without it, it can't be proven that Black illegally gave a minor possession of the firearm.

That's a good thing ..

 

[Dans La Lune]

Tulsi Gabbard is the biggest FRAUD in the history of the universe. She was never a progressive, never on the left, it was all a scam. She never truly held any left or even moderate positions. Aside from being a Modi cultist, her anti-war stance is to bomb Muslims. She is vehemently hateful towards the LGBTQ. And she takes the right-wing position on basically every issue.

Her shtick is simply for right-wingers to say, "Hey! A progressive agrees with us!"

Just like Dave Rubin, Jimmy Dore, and the rest of the scammers.