Rittenhouse Defense Team Implodes

[SkyFox76]

I'm just now watching more of the interview and two things.

My speculation from quite awhile back (when I looked better at the school graffiti photo) about his other sister (Mackenzie) being in the shot with Kyle and Dominic was correct. W Rittenhouse just confirmed that in the interview. I wonder when she parted ways with them that day. Was she oblivious that her bf and brother were heading back to the protests that night?

Second, W Rittenhouse also seems to feel that Dominic is getting screwed by Kenosha and she is proud of him. Has no one explained to her that buying that gun for Rittenhouse wasn't legit? Black says he was under the impression she was going to get an FOID. Does it take 4 months to get one of those? There was an increase in applications that delayed processing, however that didn't occur until June and they still claimed it might take 70 days. So what was her hold up? Had she gotten that card and taken control of the weapon would Kyle have had it that night? Would Black be looking at charges of providing that weapon to Rittenhouse? No.

It's funny his attorney says where were the adults that night? Well, where were the adults when Kyle was giving his buddy money to buy him a weapon? Where were the adults (his mom) when it came to taking possession of that weapon? Why didn't Dominic's step dad demand that W Rittenhouse take that weapon because it could be bad news for his step son if something happened? Yes, he locked it up, but then made the mistake of leaving it out when he went to work. What adult taught Kyle that having an adult friend buy a weapon for him when he's underage is a great plan? And what adult taught Dominic the same thing?

 

[Rich2018]

DP should set up a book on who will be convicted

Rittenhouse ?
McMichaels ?

 

[SkyFox76]

DP should set up a book on who will be convicted

Rittenhouse ?
McMichaels ?

Don't forget that concerned neighbor dumbass Roddy. I think McMichaels and him might as well get use to prison food. That one I'd bet on. Rittenhouse? Since I have no idea what the prosecution might have in the way of other videos, witness testimony and Rittenhouse's social media I'll hold off on that one.

 

[Rich2018]

Don't forget that concerned neighbor dumbass Roddy. I think McMichaels and him might as well get use to prison food. That one I'd bet on. Rittenhouse? Since I have no idea what the prosecution might have in the way of other videos, witness testimony and Rittenhouse's social media I'll hold off on that one.

What about Chauvin who killed George Floyd and the other cops on the scene ?
What about the lawyer couple in St Louis who brandished guns at protesters ?
What about the cop who shot dead Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta as he was fleeing ?

IMO, they're all going to jail (for varying periods).

 

[SkyFox76]

What about Chauvin who killed George Floyd and the other cops on the scene ?
What about the lawyer couple in St Louis who brandished guns at protesters ?
What about the cop who shot dead Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta as he was fleeing ?

IMO, they're all going to jail (for varying periods).

Hmmm okay......

Chauvin, yes I think he'll go down. The other will as well to some degree for not stepping in.

The lawyer couple, I'm iffy on that one, they've got the money to hire some double talking attorney. They might get something lame like a month.

The Rayshard Brooks case, I honestly don't know why he took off like he did, but if it comes down to was he a threat at the time? IMO he wasn't. And I think his treatment after being shot was less than professional. But I'm going with a maaaybe, but leaning closer to no.

 

[ASHES]

Hmmm okay......

Chauvin, yes I think he'll go down. The other will as well to some degree for not stepping in.

The lawyer couple, I'm iffy on that one, they've got the money to hire some double talking attorney. They might get something lame like a month.

The Rayshard Brooks case, I honestly don't know why he took off like he did, but if it comes down to was he a threat at the time? IMO he wasn't. And I think his treatment after being shot was less than professional. But I'm going with a maaaybe, but leaning closer to no.

Rittenhouse I think not guilty or charges dismissed during the trial on the felonies, 50/50 on the misdemeanor.

McMichael's and Bryan going down hard. Should be a lot of collateral damage in the DA and Police Dept too. All guilty on all counts.

I think Chauvin and the other three should go down for something, but I think they overcharged considering he is on video eating drugs. Not guilty if there's no lesser included charges.

Lawyer couple, no way they will plea, no jury would convict with the threats alleged, possibility some of them were also armed, and that some of them were cited for trespassing. Not guilty.

Rashard Brooks is tough. Feel like that was a stupid rookie mistake, and there should be some kind of conviction. He didn't pose a deadly threat, but the fact he discharged the taser he stole at police will be enough to prevent conviction, and he'll probably get his job back with back pay. Not guilty.

 

[Rich2018]

Hmmm okay......

Chauvin, yes I think he'll go down. The other will as well to some degree for not stepping in.

The lawyer couple, I'm iffy on that one, they've got the money to hire some double talking attorney. They might get something lame like a month.

The Rayshard Brooks case, I honestly don't know why he took off like he did, but if it comes down to was he a threat at the time? IMO he wasn't. And I think his treatment after being shot was less than professional. But I'm going with a maaaybe, but leaning closer to no.

Chauvin's going down for 20 years or more - the other ex-cop might get a suspended sentence, at most a year

The lawyer couple, I think a matter of weeks in a county jail. The fact that they get a felony conviction hurts them way more with a possible disbarment

The Brooks case, the cop who shot him will get about 10 years I think.

For what it's worth, I think Rittenhouse plea deals and gets 20 years and the McMichaels get 50 years each

We shall see.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

So was that your best example ? (you still haven't answered)

And I won't answer. Because it doesn't matter. You claimed nothing would convince me, and I gave an example of what could convince me. I can see you don't like the example. For the hundredth time, I don't care. It's still a valid example and it disproves your idiotic claim that nothing can convince me of Rittenhouse's intent to kill.

And it proved nothing Btw, as I clearly showed how rare such instances are

You didn't, actually, but even if you did, so what? You made that stupid claim, and I refuted it by giving an example. It doesn't matter at all how frequent it is, or whether you think it's a good example. It's an example of what could convince me of Rittenhouse's intent to kill. Your stupid claim that nothing could convince me of his intent to kill is therefore disproven because I've given you something that could.

Well to start with, your proclamation that it was justifiable homicide - sems like you bent the facts to state that

That's not an answer to the question: which facts?

(more bending of the facts by you Btw)

What facts are being "bent?"

No, you make a prejudiced claim on what you believe you've seen

That's hilarious coming from the guy who's inventing scenarios from whole cloth to justify his conclusion Rittenhouse is a cold-blooded killer.

Nope, the arresting officer charges you with something

Have you never heard of the police dropping the charges ?

No, the arresting officer arrests you for something. No, I've never heard of police dropping charges.

Here's where you dig your hole deeper by deriding the accuracy of Wikipedia

I don't need to. They've done it themselves by listing the quality of that article as Start-Class, defined as: "An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources."

Here's a different source that walks people through the law enforcement process when they don't know anything about it, so it's right up your alley: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/charged-with-crime-how-29677.html

Of note: "A criminal case usually gets started with a police arrest report. The prosecutor then decides what criminal charges to file, if any."

That you're wrong is not an alternate view to yours? Seems the English language presents as formidable barrier, to comprehension to you, as the law does.

See, this is you not walking in a straight ****ing line. You never presented an alternate view to my example of what would convince me Rittenhouse had an intent to kill. You just said it wasn't good enough. That's not an alternate view. There really is no alternate view in this case, anyway. You made your stupid "nothing will convince you" claim, to which I provided an example of what would convince me. At that point, it's over.

This is becoming pointless and irrelevant. Who files charges and whether my example is the "best" one is not material to this thread. I'll not be responding to any more of the crap that falls out of your brain on these topics.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

What about the cop who shot dead Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta as he was fleeing ?

You mean "as he was fleeing and firing a weapon at the pursuing officer after having stolen it from and used it on another officer on scene."

Don't tell me we have to draw this out in pictures for you all over again.

 

[Rich2018]

And I won't answer.

The verb is "don't"

...it's an example of what could convince me of Rittenhouse's intent to kill.

And as I said, if that's your best example, it is a very poor one (for reasons explained)

That's not an answer to the question: which facts?

The "evidence" that you posted on here from what you claim to have seen, and specifically believe to be the case

That's hilarious coming from the guy who's inventing scenarios from whole cloth to justify his conclusion Rittenhouse is a cold-blooded killer.

Another straw man from you
Where has Rittenhouse been described as "a cold-blooded killer"

No, the arresting officer arrests you for something.

So no comment on the site I posted for you:

"A criminal charge is a formal accusation made by a governmental authority (usually a public prosecutor or the police) asserting that somebody has committed a crime..."

Criminal charge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Specifically the bit about the police charging you ?

No, I've never heard of police dropping charges.

Really? Well you have now:

"Charleston police dropped charges against dozens of the protesters arrested May 31 during peaceful but tense demonstrations that followed a night of rioting along King Street. "

Charleston police drop charges against 27 protesters arrested day after May riot

Charleston police dropped charges against dozens of the protesters arrested May 31 during peaceful but tense demonstrations that followed a night of rioting along King Street.

www.postandcourier.com

Of note: "A criminal case usually gets started with a police arrest report. The prosecutor then decides what criminal charges to file, if any."

Indeed the DA's dept will decide what charges to peruse in court or whether to add any
But the bottom line, is that if you're arrested the police will charge you with something, let you go without charge or charge you, then decide to drop the charges and let you go
If charges remain, your case is passed to the DA's office who might still decide to drop some or all charges OR potentially add to them

So you are totally WRONG

But just in case you dispute this, please provide evidence to back up your false claims

...you never presented an alternate view to my example of what would convince me Rittenhouse had an intent to kill....

Your view is that he is innocent, I view him to be guilty as charged. THAT is an alternate view to yours
I can't make it clearer

This is becoming pointless and irrelevant....

A smoke screen for you to admit fault and save face.[/quote]

 

[Rich2018]

You mean "as he was fleeing and firing a weapon at the pursuing officer after having stolen it from and used it on another officer on scene."

Don't tell me we have to draw this out in pictures for you all over again.

Yes, that incident

And Brooks didn't shoot "at" to policeman, but wildly over his shoulder as he fled

One more instance of you viewing "evidence" and forming your own opinion

Doubtless you deem the cop innocent of any criminal act...I dem him guilty of murder and what's more, have previously gone on record as predicting that cop will get about 10 years.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The verb is "don't"

Sure, I guess that works also.

The "evidence" that you posted on here from what you claim to have seen, and specifically believe to be the case

SUCH AS? Specifics, kid. They are helpful.

Another straw man from you
Where has Rittenhouse been described as "a cold-blooded killer"

Alleging he went to Kenosha with an intent to kill people is functionally indistinguishable from saying he is a cold-blooded killer. At least in my opinion. If you think a person who deliberately goes someplace with an intent to kill random people is something other than a cold-blooded killer, I guess that's your prerogative.

Your view is that he is innocent, I view him to be guilty as charged. THAT is an alternate view to yours
I can't make it clearer

Jesus ****ing Christ. STRAIGHT ****ING LINE, KID. Your garbage about an "alternate view" started when you said:

You said you had more but lacked the inclination to list them. Was this your best example ?

I declined to continue playing your stupid game by listing even more things that would convince me Rittenhouse went there with the intent to kill and you whined about me not considering alternate views because my example did not meet your approval. This had nothing to do with Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence specifically, and everything to do with whether or not anything could convince me of his intent. You are in no position to provide an alternate view of what will convince me, since you're (thank GOD) not me.

A smoke screen for you to admit fault and save face.

If that's what you need to tell yourself, go ahead and tell yourself that.

Yes, that incident

And Brooks didn't shoot "at" to policeman, but wildly over his shoulder as he fled

No, the video clearly shows him turn to fire the taser. I covered this months ago: https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...black-man-friday-night.404004/post-1072070455

One more instance of you viewing "evidence" and forming your own opinion

Yup.

Doubtless you deem the cop innocent of any criminal act...I dem him guilty of murder and what's more, have previously gone on record as predicting that cop will get about 10 years.

One more instance of you viewing "evidence" and forming your own opinion.

 

[pamak]

Not in the state of Wisconsin unless that person is a police officer, doubly so for justifiable homicide. You don't have to disarm yourself to an armed and angry mob just because someone thinks you did a bad thing or a group of people are angry with you.

I am really curious about this.

The claim is not that people wrongly "think" that you did something wrong. Say that the court accepts that the people who wanted to disarm you were right to believe that you committed a crime when you first used your weapon. Under these conditions, will the court justify your attempt to resist disarmament and shoot at additional people as they try to to disarm you? It does not sound logical...

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I am really curious about this.

The claim is not that people wrongly "think" that you did something wrong. Say that the court accepts that the people who wanted to disarm you were right to believe that you committed a crime when you first used your weapon. Under these conditions, will the court justify your attempt to resist disarmament and shoot at additional people as they try to to disarm you? It does not sound logical...

There is no requirement that only one side can ever be acting reasonably in such a situation. I think at least some of the people pursuing Rittenhouse could have reasonably believed he just committed a felony. However, that doesn't mean he did, and if he didn't it's reasonable for him to believe he was in danger of death or serious physical injury by the guy who cracked him in the head with a skateboard and the guy who pulled a gun and charged him.

Both can be reasonable, even if one of them is wrong.

 

[pamak]

There is no requirement that only one side can ever be acting reasonably in such a situation. I think at least some of the people pursuing Rittenhouse could have reasonably believed he just committed a felony. However, that doesn't mean he did, and if he didn't it's reasonable for him to believe he was in danger of death or serious physical injury by the guy who cracked him in the head with a skateboard and the guy who pulled a gun and charged him.

Both can be reasonable, even if one of them is wrong.

Is the bold a claim that we have a "draw" in favor of the shooter who claims reasonable self- defense against his disarmament?
Does not it make a difference that the shooter's illegal initiative (prior commitment of crime) put both him and the person who tries to disarm him in such situation?

Without the initial crime, nobody would be forced to be in the situation you describe (both feel reasonable fear for their safety), so I would expect to see the law siding with the person who entered such situation "clean." Otherwise, I can see a terrorist claiming sucessful "self-defense" for killing civilians who try to disarm (or shoot back) at the shooter after the shooter fires the first shot.

 

[ASHES]

Is the bold a claim that we have a "draw" in favor of the shooter who claims reasonable self- defense against his disarmament?
Does not it make a difference that the shooter's illegal initiative (prior commitment of crime) put both him and the person who tries to disarm him in such situation?

Without the initial crime, nobody would be forced to be in the situation you describe (both feel reasonable fear for their safety), so I would expect to see the law siding with the person who entered such situation "clean." Otherwise, I can see a terrorist claiming sucessful "self-defense" for killing civilians who try to disarm (or shoot back) at the shooter after the shooter fires the first shot.

First, KR didn't fire the first shot.

Second, the possible misdemeanor of his possession of the gun does not affect the legality of his self defense claim.

 

[jaeger19]

Is the bold a claim that we have a "draw" in favor of the shooter who claims reasonable self- defense against his disarmament?
Does not it make a difference that the shooter's illegal initiative (prior commitment of crime) put both him and the person who tries to disarm him in such situation?

Without the initial crime, nobody would be forced to be in the situation you describe (both feel reasonable fear for their safety), so I would expect to see the law siding with the person who entered such situation "clean." Otherwise, I can see a terrorist claiming sucessful "self-defense" for killing civilians who try to disarm (or shoot back) at the shooter after the shooter fires the first shot.

You are right. The law is clear that you cannot instigate a deadly threat.. and then kill someone who tries to defend themselves against that deadly threat. Otherwise.. a mugger could hold a firearm to a mans head and then when he moves.. shoot him and say "but but.. I felt I was in danger so I had to shoot him.

In wisconsin.. the law does have a caveat that if say you started a fight and say punched a guy in the nose and a fight ensued.. but then the other guy started deadly intent (like drawing a knife, curb stomping you when you were down).. you could be justified in using deadly force.

 

[jaeger19]

First, KR didn't fire the first shot.

Second, the possible misdemeanor of his possession of the gun does not affect the legality of his self defense claim.

Rosenbaum shot first? Please explain that one.

 

[pamak]

First, KR didn't fire the first shot.

Second, the possible misdemeanor of his possession of the gun does not affect the legality of his self defense claim.

I do not make a claim about him. I have not followed the case. I just saw a comment which implied that he committed first a crime and a response which implied that EVEN if he did commit a crime, he was stilll within his right to kill more people in self-defense, and I found the response wierd.

 

[ASHES]

Rosenbaum shot first? Please explain that one.

A person at the scene of the first shooting that was not KR fired the first shot, and is being charged for it.

 

[pamak]

You are right. The law is clear that you cannot instigate a deadly threat.. and then kill someone who tries to defend themselves against that deadly threat. Otherwise.. a mugger could hold a firearm to a mans head and then when he moves.. shoot him and say "but but.. I felt I was in danger so I had to shoot him.

In wisconsin.. the law does have a caveat that if say you started a fight and say punched a guy in the nose and a fight ensued.. but then the other guy started deadly intent (like drawing a knife, curb stomping you when you were down).. you could be justified in using deadly force.

This, I can understand it!

Thanks



Now, regarding the red part, let's see the following scenario

A person enters a church (or mosque or synagogue, etc) and kills somebody. Then le's say the weapon jams and the shooter decides to withdraw. As he starts running away from the place of the killing, a bystander shoots the terrorist on the back.

Is this justified? I am asking because someone can argue that the retreating shootes was not anymore a "deadly threat"

 

[Rich2018]

Sure, I guess that works also.

As in a refusal to answer

Once again, were confessions and admissions really your best example ?

SUCH AS? Specifics, kid. They are helpful.

Such as your pronouncement that Rittenhouse is innocent, based on the evidence you have seen

Alleging he went to Kenosha with an intent to kill people is functionally indistinguishable from saying he is a cold-blooded killer.

No it's not - why couldn't his killings have been "hot blooded" ?

At least in my opinion....

Entirely in YOUR opinion
See above

Jesus ****ing Christ. STRAIGHT ****ING LINE, KID. Your garbage about an "alternate view" ...

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates

If that's what you need to tell yourself, go ahead and tell yourself that.

No needs here
You backtrack and wriggle to deny what you've said

Or simple delete and don't respond - as with you silence now on police charging someone they're arrested and your never having heard of police dropping charges

You kinda went quiet on that didn't you? Perish the thought that you would ever admit you were WRONG

No, the video clearly shows him turn to fire the taser...

Yeah, a wild, un-aimed shot over his shoulder as he fled

That cop is, IMO, going down. My guess is he'll get about 10 years.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Is the bold a claim that we have a "draw" in favor of the shooter who claims reasonable self- defense against his disarmament?

It simply means that both parties could be acting reasonably, even if one of them was acting on faulty information.

Does not it make a difference tha the shooter's illegal initiative (prior commitment of crime) put both him and the person who tries to disarm him in such situation?

It depends on the nature of the "illegal initiative." For example, if I'm jaywalking (illegal), then a motorist gets pissed, gets out of his car, then chases me down the street with a hatchet, I have not surrendered my right to self-defense just because the act that predicated the attack was illegal.

 

[pamak]

It simply means that both parties could be acting reasonably, even if one of them was acting on faulty information.


It depends on the nature of the "illegal initiative." For example, if I'm jaywalking (illegal), then a motorist gets pissed, gets out of his car, then chases me down the street with a hatchet, I have not surrendered my right to self-defense just because the act that predicated the attack was illegal.

Okay, but here the hypothetical is not about a crime of jaywalking. It is about the crime of shooting/killing somebody. So, I think we can agree (unless one offers a counterpoint) that in such hypothetical, such "illegal initative" does not establish a subsequent right-of self defense based on the claim that there was confusion afterwards and both parties acted on " faulty information"

 

[ASHES]

Okay, but here the hypothetical is not about a crime of jaywalking. It is about the crime of shooting/killing somebody. So, I think we can agree (unless one offers a counterpoint) that in such hypothetical, such "illegal initative" does not establish a subsequent right-of self defense based on the claim that there was confusion afterwards and both parties acted on " faulty information"

That is not the crime. The crime is the alleged illegal possession of the firearm. The hypothetical assumes the shooting was otherwise justified, but the third parties were mistaken in thinking it was illegal.