• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, charged with murder after two killed during Wisconsin protests

SkyFox76 said:
Why? Pierce and Wood are both showing they aren't fit to take on a trial like this. Pierce probably figured he could scam more money off the fund and Wood is just plain bonkers. Rittenhouse deserves competent counsel and focus. Not two lead attorneys who have enough baggage to fill an airport. Who ever the adult is in the situation needs to heed the warnings many attorneys are offering. Including R&R Law which you've already acknowledged is in defense of Rittenhouse.

Click to expand...

what he isn't understanding is while both you and I think Rittenhouse is guilty, we also think he should have attorneys that are capable of defending him on his case..that is his guaranteed constitutional right and it is wrong for him to be subjected to less than adequate counsel.
 
ClaraD said:
While I sympathize with her being victimized by the person she killed, she had options. She was in a Uber when she went to his home. Why did she not call the police? Why did she get in the Uber to begin with? She had a choice and she chose to go there...and after she killed him, why did she burn down the house instead of calling 911 and telling them she killed someone who raped her? She had opportunity to escape and did not. She cannot take justice into her own hands....she had to call the police and her life was not in danger when she was in the uber traveling to his home, yet she went there anyway knowing that he was going to sexually abuse her.
Click to expand...
Now tell all that to the people defending her while excoriating Kyle Rittenhouse. With her there is even evidence of premeditation via texts, where is the premeditation the DA will show us for Kyle Rittenhouse?
 
ClaraD said:
what he isn't understanding is while both you and I think Rittenhouse is guilty, we also think he should have attorneys that are capable of defending him on his case..that is his guaranteed constitutional right and it is wrong for him to be subjected to less than adequate counsel.
Click to expand...
Did you just assume my gender? I thought that was a no-no...

As for his attorneys, nobody said Pierce or Woods will be in court defending him. How about we wait until we know who his court representation will be before we go doom and gloom on how bad his defense team is, is all I'm saying.
 
ClaraD said:
what he isn't understanding is while both you and I think Rittenhouse is guilty, we also think he should have attorneys that are capable of defending him on his case..that is his guaranteed constitutional right and it is wrong for him to be subjected to less than adequate counsel.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% on his guilt. In the case I need to k now what occurred for Rosenbaum to be chasing him. The last video I see had Rosenbaum and his group heading toward the car lot and Rittenhouse walking alone maybe a block behind them, after he was seen running by with the fire extinguisher at the Ultimate gas station. I think his "self defense" claims for the second round are questionable because to the knowledge of people who were following and trying to disarm him he was an active shooter. But yes, regardless, he doesn't need tweedle whacky dee and tweedle in debt dumb trying to get a book deal on his behalf.
 
SkyFox76 said:
I'm not 100% on his guilt. In the case I need to k now what occurred for Rosenbaum to be chasing him. The last video I see had Rosenbaum and his group heading toward the car lot and Rittenhouse walking alone maybe a block behind them, after he was seen running by with the fire extinguisher at the Ultimate gas station. I think his "self defense" claims for the second round are questionable because to the knowledge of people who were following and trying to disarm him he was an active shooter. But yes, regardless, he doesn't need tweedle whacky dee and tweedle in debt dumb trying to get a book deal on his behalf.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if they had a sincere belief they were stopping an active shooter. That has no bearing on Kyle Rittenhouse's ability to defend himself from them. That only shields them from prosecution, even if there's a mistake of fact (like Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't an active shooter.) Their misperception of the situation going on does not mean Kyle Rittenhouse cannot legally defend himself from them if the first shooting was legally justified.
 
ASHES said:
It doesn't matter if they had a sincere belief they were stopping an active shooter. That has no bearing on Kyle Rittenhouse's ability to defend himself from them. That only shields them from prosecution, even if there's a mistake of fact (like Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't an active shooter.) Their misperception of the situation going on does not mean Kyle Rittenhouse cannot legally defend himself from them if the first shooting was legally justified.
Click to expand...

and is one of many reasons, the often advise against attempting citizens arrests. Besides, they knew Kyle was running to the cops. No reason for them to even try.
 
ClaraD said:
he was shot by Rittenhouse while helping someone else. He is a witness....and the job of any attorney that is worth his salt is to try to discredit any witness against your client.
Click to expand...
?? Grosskreutz was shot by Rittenhouse while charging him with a pistol.
 
ASHES said:
It doesn't matter if they had a sincere belief they were stopping an active shooter. That has no bearing on Kyle Rittenhouse's ability to defend himself from them. That only shields them from prosecution, even if there's a mistake of fact (like Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't an active shooter.) Their misperception of the situation going on does not mean Kyle Rittenhouse cannot legally defend himself from them if the first shooting was legally justified.
Click to expand...
he lost that ability when he killed someone.
 
ClaraD said:
if you charge a guy trying to carjack you and he shoots you is it self defense or murder?
Click to expand...
No one was carjacked here. Again, these people didn't see Rittenhouse commit any crime. He was running away from an angry mob, toward the police.

But if you were walking down the street, and someone shouted "there's a carjacker! Get his A__" and you attacked him with a pistol, yes, you would be in trouble.
 
ASHES said:
Did you just assume my gender? I thought that was a no-no...

As for his attorneys, nobody said Pierce or Woods will be in court defending him. How about we wait until we know who his court representation will be before we go doom and gloom on how bad his defense team is, is all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
if you don't want someone to assume disclose it in your profile. Get over it.
 
ClaraD said:
he lost that ability when he killed someone.
Click to expand...
No he didn't. You can shoot someone in self defense. That isn't illegal. If, after that, some mistaken 3rd party thinks they're a hero and attempts to intervene, anything that happens after that isn't on you. You can defend yourself from that person too. I've already posted all the problems with the "just trying to stop the active shooter" theory. I don't buy it, and the evidence doesn't support it.

ClaraD said:
if you don't want someone to assume disclose it in your profile. Get over it.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of pronouns you could have used, yet you didn't. Telling me to get over it is peak irony. You know people don't walk around with their gender plastered to their forehead so it's easy for you to tell right? Some people present, and some don't. If someone doesn't, does that give you carte blanche to call them whatever you want and tell them to get over it when they object?
 
ASHES said:
No he didn't. You can shoot someone in self defense. That isn't illegal. If, after that, some mistaken 3rd party thinks they're a hero and attempts to intervene, anything that happens after that isn't on you. You can defend yourself from that person too. I've already posted all the problems with the "just trying to stop the active shooter" theory. I don't buy it, and the evidence doesn't support it.


There are plenty of pronouns you could have used, yet you didn't. Telling me to get over it is peak irony. You know people don't walk around with their gender plastered to their forehead so it's easy for you to tell right? Some people present, and some don't. If someone doesn't, does that give you carte blanche to call them whatever you want and tell them to get over it when they object?
Click to expand...
when you have just committed a crime and someone is trying to detain you, you have no right to self defense against those trying to stop you...it is in the law...you better go read it...this fool isn't smart or he would have hired an OJ team, not a personal injury and defamation team.
 
I hadn't followed any of this case, but would have thought it was self defense since Scurlock jumped on Gardner's back and had him in a headlock after Gardner had fired off two rounds. Instead the grand jury decided it was murder.

Special Prosecutor Frederick Franklin has said the grand jury reviewed additional evidence that Kleine didn’t have, including texts from Gardner’s phone, messages on his Facebook profile and his interactions with bystanders before coming into contact with Scurlock.

Franklin declined to provide specifics of what the new evidence shows except to say it undermines the notion of self-defense.
Click to expand...

So for people who might think Rittenhouse has a slam dunk on self defense, this case should open some eyes. Scurlock was also unarmed (like Rosenbaum) and literally on the back of Gardner when he was shot in the clavicle. The actions of Rittenhouse toward others that night could make a difference as has been mentioned. And we know he posted some stuff online while there that night. He better hope he didn't say anything stupid like it being his job to take out a couple of protestors.
 
SkyFox76 said:
I hadn't followed any of this case, but would have thought it was self defense since Scurlock jumped on Gardner's back and had him in a headlock after Gardner had fired off two rounds. Instead the grand jury decided it was murder.



So for people who might think Rittenhouse has a slam dunk on self defense, this case should open some eyes. Scurlock was also unarmed (like Rosenbaum) and literally on the back of Gardner when he was shot in the clavicle. The actions of Rittenhouse toward others that night could make a difference as has been mentioned. And we know he posted some stuff online while there that night. He better hope he didn't say anything stupid like it being his job to take out a couple of protestors.
Click to expand...
The grand jury doesn't get to decide it was murder. All they decide is if it should go to trial.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The grand jury doesn't get to decide it was murder. All they decide is if it should go to trial.
Click to expand...

Well they charged him with manslaughter where as the Douglas county attorney had let it go as self defense. His actions earlier that evening along with social media seems to have painted a bigger picture. Obviously there won't be a trial now, but Gardner must have thought he'd never be found not guilty for whatever reasons.
 
SkyFox76 said:
Well they charged him with manslaughter where as the Douglas county attorney had let it go as self defense. His actions earlier that evening along with social media seems to have painted a bigger picture. Obviously there won't be a trial now, but Gardner must have thought he'd never be found not guilty for whatever reasons.
Click to expand...
It's an attempted passifier for the leftist radicals that want his head on a platter.
 
buck said:
and is one of many reasons, the often advise against attempting citizens arrests. Besides, they knew Kyle was running to the cops. No reason for them to even try.
Click to expand...


There was no "they". He made that statement to one person as he was running from the scene of the shooting. Who's the say to believe if he was telling the truth? And we know for a fact he that after "running to the cops", he then walked on past and went home. He clearly had a number of actions he could have taken so police weren't wasting resources to "find out who did it and searching for him and he chose not to.
 
ASHES said:
No he didn't. You can shoot someone in self defense. That isn't illegal. If, after that, some mistaken 3rd party thinks they're a hero and attempts to intervene, anything that happens after that isn't on you. You can defend yourself from that person too. I've already posted all the problems with the "just trying to stop the active shooter" theory. I don't buy it, and the evidence doesn't support it.


There are plenty of pronouns you could have used, yet you didn't. Telling me to get over it is peak irony. You know people don't walk around with their gender plastered to their forehead so it's easy for you to tell right? Some people present, and some don't. If someone doesn't, does that give you carte blanche to call them whatever you want and tell them to get over it when they object?
Click to expand...

You cannot arm yourself, go look for a confrontation, find a confrontation, threaten deadly force when you have not been so threatened yourself, and then when someone defends themselves from you with nondeadly force, use deadly force against them.
 
dcsports said:
?? Grosskreutz was shot by Rittenhouse while charging him with a pistol.
Click to expand...

He only charged after 2 other people got murdered. You fail to mention that.
 
sjmay said:
Wait...HE had no right being there, but OTHERS did?

Why....how American of you to think that way.....can you tell me WHY he had no right to be there, but others did?
Click to expand...
He is a minor. As a minor he had no right to be there.
 
SkyFox76 said:
There was no "they". He made that statement to one person as he was running from the scene of the shooting. Who's the say to believe if he was telling the truth?
Click to expand...

"They" could see the direction he was running.. and they could see the cops directly ahead in that direction - and not even much further in that direction. So, "they" knew he was running to the cops.

The wise thing to do is don't attack a kid running to the cops and not being a current threat.. and instead ensure the cops knew what occurred so they could properly react.
 
It's not like he was running in some walled off corridor that fed him directly into the police vehicles that were three blocks away. The cops clearly weren't so close that they could see him shooting two more people and that much is obvious. It's just as obvious as the fact he did not go to the police, no matter how many times you try to make the point. He walked past them and went home. That left police to use resources to find out who the killer was and where he was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom