What should be the correct legal verdict in the Rittenhouse case?

Samm · 2021-11-19T23:10:31.755Z

biggestal99:

tnt:

Matt Gaetz wants to hire him as a congressional intern.

People on this board have talked about sending him to congress.

He’s a hero’s hero to the right.

A statue soon to be erected.

You are projecting. That’s not a thing for the “right,” Only leftists believe that their heroes should get statues.

image1200×1421 127 KB

Samm · 2021-11-19T23:15:38.803Z

zantax:

tnt:

DougBH:

The question for this trial is not whether anyone else had a right to self defense but whether Rittenhouse had a right to self defense. If a manic, outraged person is out to grab someone’s gun and chases them down as they flee, then yes, it is reasonable to believe that they mean to use that gun on them. You don’t have to wait for them to point the gun at your head and pull the trigger because there is the possibility they just want to scare you.

So in the middle of a riot, you see a guy walking around with a rifle strapped to his chest…how do you assess if he is manic? How do you assess that the shots he just fired were purely in self defense?

I’m not making a legal argument here, I’m just saying, this is not a super clear thing…I suspect he is going to be acquitted, but I think it’s crazy to hold this guy up as a hero.

Those people he shot would not be dead today if he didn’t show up there with a rifle.

You can’t assault him unless he was breaking the law, if you aren’t absolutely sure and do, you can be held accountable. If you get it wrong, that’s your problem, not his.

Furthermore, if you attack him without provocation (i.e., he was engaged in threatening you or someone else) he has the right to defend himself from you.

WuWei · 2021-11-19T23:36:02.740Z

Yes, he was.

Samm · 2021-11-20T00:29:57.918Z

No he wasn’t. Reference the definition of “active shooter,”

WuWei · 2021-11-20T00:36:11.008Z

Yes, he was.

Samm · 2021-11-20T00:49:37.172Z

Since you refuse to go back and read the definition of active shooter that I provided earlier, here it is for you again:

The agreed-upon definition of active shooter by US government agencies (including the White House, US Department of Justice, FBI, US Department of Education, US Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Emergency Management Agency) is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a conﬁned and populated area.” In most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.

By no stretch of imagination does Kyle’s activity that evening fit that definition.

zantax · 2021-11-20T00:51:51.252Z

Samm:

Since you refuse to go back and read the definition of active shooter that I provided earlier, here it is for you again:

The agreed-upon definition of active shooter by US government agencies (including the White House, US Department of Justice, FBI, US Department of Education, US Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Emergency Management Agency) is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a conﬁned and populated area.” In most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.

By no stretch of imagination does Kyle’s activity that evening fit that definition.

Starting with the fact he was the only victim.

WuWei · 2021-11-20T00:54:06.703Z

Samm:

The agreed-upon definition

I didn’t agree to it.

Samm:

an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a conﬁned and populated area.

To a “T”.

Samm · 2021-11-20T00:58:19.818Z

WuWei:

Samm:

The agreed-upon definition

I didn’t agree to it.

Samm:

an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a conﬁned and populated area.

To a “T”.

Your stubbornness is secondary only to that of our departed pal WR.

WuWei · 2021-11-20T00:58:53.928Z

Exceeded only by your own.

Samm · 2021-11-20T01:01:42.326Z

Often. But this time I have the facts clearly on my side.

Your argument is akin to refusing to accept that his AR-15 was not an assault rifle.

tnt · 2021-11-20T03:15:52.009Z

So why did the judge dismiss the gun charges? WI law says no guns in schools zones. He was ina school zone with a gun. No one under 18!can carry. He was under 18.

zantax · 2021-11-20T03:17:54.980Z

tnt:

So why did the judge dismiss the gun charges? WI law says no guns in schools zones. He was ina school zone with a gun. No one under 18!can carry. He was under 18.

Without looking up Wisconsin law I can tell you that the law they charged him under wasn’t applicable. That law said minors can’t carry short barrel rifles, his wasn’t. So if you can prove he did break one, complain to the prosecutor.

Samm · 2021-11-20T04:36:56.253Z

tnt:

So why did the judge dismiss the gun charges? WI law says no guns in schools zones. He was ina school zone with a gun. No one under 18!can carry. He was under 18.

We’re tired of educating you. You can look up and read the Judges dismissal of the gun charge as easily as we can.

But where do you come up with this crap? There was no school anywhere close to where this all occurred. The first shooting took place in an auto service parking lot and the other two in the middle of the main street. In any case, it’s a little late to be making up new ■■■■■ There is no wall left for you to throw it against.

WuWei · 2021-11-20T04:58:42.242Z

zantax:

tnt:

So why did the judge dismiss the gun charges? WI law says no guns in schools zones. He was ina school zone with a gun. No one under 18!can carry. He was under 18.

Without looking up Wisconsin law I can tell you that the law they charged him under wasn’t applicable. That law said minors can’t carry short barrel rifles, his wasn’t. So if you can prove he did break one, complain to the prosecutor.

You might need to explain what a “barrel” is.

zantax · 2021-11-20T05:06:55.197Z

Its amazing woke liberals are so tone deaf, there are a lot of democrats who followed the trial rolling their eyes right about now. Maybe even waking up to what they signed on to.

Zander · 2021-11-20T05:17:49.586Z

Biden is such an idiot for saying he’s angry about the verdict. Such pandering crap. Just say the jury has spoken, tell the country it is time to move on, and be a leader.

zantax · 2021-11-20T05:19:45.709Z

Zander:

Biden is such an idiot for saying he’s angry about the verdict. Such pandering crap. Just say the jury has spoken and be a leader.

Not only that, he also refused to retract his accusation Kyle was a white supremacist. Which is funny in a sad way from the guy who said Obama should be getting his coffee.

Zander · 2021-11-20T05:23:11.262Z

Oh, I never followed that very closely. I just remember some pictures of him
hanging out with dudes and doing the signals and stuff. And maybe saying stuff on camera. I don’t know. Or was that all disproven?

zantax · 2021-11-20T05:28:56.221Z

Zander:

Oh, I never followed that very closely. I just remember some pictures of him
hanging out with dudes and doing the signals and stuff. And maybe saying stuff on camera. I don’t know. Or was that all disproven?

Never heard anything about that, if the press had evidence he was a white supremacist I am pretty sure we would all be aware of it by now. In any case when Biden said it they sure didn’t.