Giving Kyle Rittenhouse Basic Due Process Is Not a Scandal
Such motions are "not uncommon in self-defense cases where there is a dispute over who bears responsibility."
![Rittenhouse and Schroeder | Mark Hertzberg/ZUMA Press/Newscom](https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/c800x450-w800-q80/uploads/2021/10/zumaglobaleleven255509-800x450.jpg)
On Tuesday, Judge Bruce Schroeder of the Kenosha County Circuit Court garnered national media attention when he ruled on how prosecutors and defense attorneys may refer to the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse. Schroeder, who will oversee Rittenhouse's trial, ruled that prosecutors will not be able to refer to the people shot by Rittenhouse as "victims," though the defense may refer to them as "rioters" and "looters" if they can provide supporting evidence.
Rittenhouse is standing trial for shooting three people and killing two of them last summer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Citing a significant amount of civil unrest following Blake's shooting, Rittenhouse plans to plead self-defense.
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig called Schroeder's decision "crazy and wrong." Al Jazeera's online platform AJ+ tweeted the news and contrasted it with how "unarmed Black victims have been blamed for appearing suspicious before they were fatally shot." USA Today Deputy Opinion Editor Suzette Hackney asked, "Is fairness and justice supposed to be one-sided?"
But is Schroeder's decision really a sign of favoritism?
Andrew Fleischman, an Atlanta attorney at Ross & Pines LLC who specializes in appeals, tells Reason the request is fairly "boilerplate," and the decision to grant it is "not necessarily a sign of favor." The Kenosha News reported earlier this month that disallowing the term "victim" is Schroeder's "standard practice in criminal cases and is not unique to his handling of the Rittenhouse case." Anecdotally, other defense attorneys have weighed in that in their respective jurisdictions, it is perfectly common to disallow the term "victim." The Chicago Tribune explained that such rulings were "not uncommon in self-defense cases where there is a dispute over who bears responsibility."
There is also an uproar over Schroeder allowing the defense to refer to the alleged victims as "rioters," "looters," and "arsonists." However, as the Chicago Tribune reported, Schroeder "cautioned the defense team against using pejorative terms during opening statements, but he said they could use them in their closing arguments if the evidence suggested the men engaged in criminal acts."
As to whether certain terms should be allowed or disallowed, either in this case or in any other case, that is a different question altogether. The decision whether to allow or disallow certain evidence is purely within the trial judge's purview, contained within Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which states that "court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of…unfair prejudice."
Fleischman says that outside of "excluded evidence," the judge should allow nearly anything, and let the jury decide.
Regardless of any broader considerations about the criminal justice system, however, preserving one defendant's rights to due process does not constitute a one-sided justice system.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“Not unusual in self-defense instances where there is a debate about who bears blame,” according to the court.
https://netflixmodapk.xyz/
Hey Guys, I know you read many news comments and posts to earn money online jobs. Some people don’t know how to earn money and are saying to fake it. You trust me. I just started this 4 weeks ago. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $3850, pretty cool. I hope you tried it.TGo You don’t need to invest anything. Just click and open the page to click the first statement and check jobs .. ..
Go Here…………..Earn App
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it……..CASHAPP NOW
Giving Kyle Rittenhouse Basic Due Process Is Not a Scandal
It’s not like he took an unguided tour of Congress.
The surviving terrorists are getting due process. Are any of them being held in Guantanamo? What is it do you think you believe exactly?
What is it do you think you believe exactly?
Tony thinks I don’t believe my own beliefs. I think he may be stupid.
Tony’s a leftist, that’s here to defend leftists. In this particular case, he’s here to specifically defend violent leftists.
Leftists who are convicted criminals.
Wonder no more, Tony is definitely stupid.
They aren’t given bail for trespassing.
Tony doesn’t care that none of them are being charged with “terrorism” or insurrection. Because he’s a dishonest piece of lefty shit that will blatantly lie for his cause.
Do you think they did the equivalent of walking onto a car lot after hours? Would you think that if it was BLM bashing down the senate doors and threatening to murder the vice president?
Who threatened to murder the VP? And why haven’t they been charged if that’s what happened? Do you really think that if they had evidence of such a thing that we wouldn’t be hearing about it non-stop?
Because the Portland thugs were smarter thugs. They didn’t go around taking selfie’s and posting them on Facebook. They did their thuggery at night in a smallish city where they only had to deal with local cops and prosecutors. They did not enter a place with more security cameras and reporters than anywhere. They didn’t mess with the Feds who have massive resources and are going to hunt you down wherever you are. They dressed in similar clothes and mostly covered their faces.
They did round up plenty of them but they had to be released for lack of evidence. “No it wasn’t me it was some other dude”
The capitol building thugs have to be the biggest idiots on the planet. What they did was like taking a baseball bat to the mafia Don’s car.
That’s true, but has nothing to do with my comment, so I’m not sure what your point is. Yeah, they were idiots and made it easy to catch them. But what almost all of them did was pretty petty stuff. Stuff that charges would be dropped for in most protest/riot situations after things calmed down.
Anyway, my comment addressed the claims that people were trying to kidnap or kill members of congress or the VP. Which there is no real evidence for, or people would be charged with those things and we would be hearing about it constantly.
We do not agree that it was pretty petty stuff.
Petty? Pretty? Are those the adverbs you are sticking with. OK fine. Then we do not agree.
Once again the congress was in session doing this. 12a
“The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”
Pretty petty to violently disrupt that process.
Plenty of people WERE murdered during the BLM rioting, lives that obviously did not matter, and little if anything else happened.
Except the normal course of law enforcement, just as in this case.
I don’t know how to say this more plainly. You’re getting a warped view of reality from your media sources. Do better, citizen.
Cite examples of your claims, Tony.
Something like 15,000 people were arrested in the Floyd protests.
And how many were actually tried, let alone kept in jail for months? How many were treated better only if they recanted their political views?
I assume many went to jail but I don’t give a fuck. You’re reaching. The rule of law depends on everyone respecting the outcome. The rule of law also doesn’t wait to apply to one group of criminals until some other unrelated group of criminals gets their due by your standards.
Bringing up BLM at all when the subject is right-wing terrorism is to downplay the threat of the latter. And they’ve blown up buildings, shot up schools, shot up stores, shot up malls, and stormed the capitol. They’ve been the biggest domestic threat for generations, f you ask the FBI. So stop defending it.
Tony, no, its the school parents that are the biggest domestic terrorist threat in generations according to the FBI! C’mon, man!
“You’re getting a warped view of reality from your media sources. Do better, citizen.”
I think you’ve summed yourself up pretty well right there.
That’s an interesting question. What is your answer to that?
I would think there would be a lot more smoke and fire. It would have been far more violent, not just one broken window.
All the ones that were charged with, in-effect trespassing, are out on bail (or have already plead their case etc.)
The ones refused bail had violence (typically against police officers) in addition to the trespassing charges.
The big difference is they ended up in federal system/jail etc. Apparently the Federal jails are something like 80% illegal aliens – and the Federal jails aren’t used top giving bail. They picked the wrong place to riot.
Dude, even Elizabeth Fucking Warren is talking about their excessively harsh treatment in jail.
Criminal justice reform is in my top 3 big issues, so sure I’ve been for reforming prisons for years. Welcome to the party. A bit strange for you to start caring about the treatment of prisoners once right-wing domestic terrorists are getting a taste of it.
Someone’s being inconsistent in their concepts of justice based on the political leanings of those involved? Where are they, Tony? Where?
You should know that I have always been for reforming prisons if you’ve paid any attention. But this is a lot more than that. This is political persecution.
Not saying that they don’t deserve some punishment. But they are getting extra punishment because the position they were protesting for is unpopular.
They really aren’t. They’re being let off light considering they tried to violently overthrow the election.
Right-wing autocratic coups have been happening all over the world, funded by deliberate actors like Russia, and if you people don’t get your heads out of your asses, it will happen here too.
I assume you don’t want to stop having democracy because you can’t win all the time.
I assume the next time you lose an election, it will be because of Nazis, no matter what actually happens.
The on,y terrorists of note are leftists. People who think like you Tony. Your party is the exclusive province of terror and treason.
“Unguided tour”
I heard they were just hungry and looking for a bowl of that famous bean soup they serve in the cafeteria.
Al Jazeera’s online platform AJ+ tweeted the news and contrasted it with how “unarmed Black victims have been blamed for appearing suspicious before they were fatally shot.”
Al Jazeera must not have reviewed the videos of the incident. Someone trying to shoot you or to bash your head in with a skateboard is not an “unarmed victim who appears suspicious”. That person is more properly called an “attacker”.
It’s Al Jazeera. What do you expect? They’re like CNN but instead of shilling for literal communists they shill for literal terrorists.
At least from what I heard, their not supposed to be that bad when the news item isn’t relevant to their interests. I’m a little apprised to see this take from them.
So you’re saying civil unrest in America fits in as relevant to their interests? Wonder if it’s the marxist angle or just creating a more fertile ground for recruitment.
AJ+’s main audience are American-based Gen-X and Millennial Arabs, particularly Palestinians and Muslim Brotherhood types who, in fact, tend to be dedicated Marxists of both the cultural and economic variety. These are the types who enthusiastically embraced radical left anti-colonialism, anti-Westernism, mass relocation of Arab populations to Western nations; pan-Arabists like Gamel Abdel Nasser are their heroes. In particular, these types enthusiastically promote leftist gender policies in the West that they know would never be accepted back in the Middle East, specifically because they know these policies are subversive to Western homogeny and trust systems.
Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are quintessential AJ+-style politicians.
“Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are quintessential AJ+-style politicians.”
“It’s all about the ‘Benjamins’ Baby!”
And “some people did something” don’t ask me to elaborate, nkay?
alJazeera DO have a vested interest in promoting and encouraging, even fomenting, rioting, civil commotion, anarchy, destruction, here in America. Since their main audience want us destroyed as a nation and as a people, holding the riotous arsonous, violent destructive males who ended up stopping the three rounds Kyle fired in self defense up to be upright kind gentle productive citizens who had nought to do with the fate they all three received fits in very well with their long game. Referring to them as “victims” makes them out to be innocent,
“victims” do NOT ply their opposites in sic situations wiht things like lethal riot-grade skateboards (a favourite weapon of the antifa crowd because it LOOKS innocent and harmless but once a possessor of one is trained in their lethal use, they are a lethal weapon much like a baseball or cricket bat,.
And when one individual is constantly referred to as “victim” in a given situation, his opposite, in this case Kyle, gets branded as the instigating and active party in the conflict. The battle the prosecutor has taken up is NOT to find justic,e but to make Kyle an example of what happens to someone when they manage to best the anarchists, refising t BE the victim of the skateboard/gun wielding anarchist.
I’ve seen the videos. NO WAY was Kyle doing anything but whatever it took, minimum , to excape alive. He used bare minimum force to end lethal attacks from all three males. I wish I could even think I had his level of skill at arms, and the restraint he showed. Three serial atatcks, three hits, two kills. In a very dynamic and rapidly developing running battle. That;s getting into Special Forces level performance.
For the prosecutor to continue labelling the violent attackers “victims” begins straightawy the long term goal of discredtiing Kyle’s integrity making HIM the initiating perpetrator of evil, and the three males hit with his bullets to be innocent heroes.
The battle for the jurymen begins with the selection process, and does not end until the final verdict is read. Using the word “victim” to refer to the three men deservedly shot as they pressed violant attacks would work on the minds and hearts of the jury. They will have been told dozens of ties, by the end of testimony, that the two now dead guys were attacked with no provocation, “victims” of spontaneous violence.
Al Jazeera is biased (because all news is biased), but saying they have a vested interest in fomenting anarchy is a stretch. They’re basically the government-supported news agency of Qatar, which is a close ally with little to no demonstrable interest in the downfall of America. On the contrary, the US is Qatar’s largest source of imports, and at the end of the day, cash is king.
If that was sarcasm, it was masterfully done.
If it was serious, you are a deeply disturbed person.
Here’s hoping that whenever you attack a gun toting citizen and he defends himself that he shoots your dick off.
Here’s hoping that if a vigilante is proved to have attacked unarmed people, he goes to jail.
Here’s hoping that if a vigilante is proved to have attacked unarmed people, he goes to jail.
Here’s hoping that the guy who shot your allies who were attacking him while he was attempting to retreat is exonerated for self-defense.
Not my allies. I’m not sure why you think they are.
I’m bothered by the dubious narrative that he was defending himself and the hero status he has been given. However, if he is found innocent I won’t have a problem with it.
I doubt the same can be said for the wingnuts who have turned him into Captain Justified.
Seems like a pretty clear cut case to me. Self defense isn’t that complicated. Unless there is some evidence not in the videos that were public, he was clearly not the aggressor and was clearly in a situation where any reasonable person would fear for their life. If he gets convicted because he illegally had a gun or something, I would say that’s an unjust outcome. Committing some procedural crime with no victim shouldn’t take away your basic right to defend yourself with the means you have available.
If there is some evidence I don’t know about I would be willing to reassess.
See, there’s where there is disagreement. Not only is the initial shooting unclear, once the first person was shot it is just as likely that those around him felt their lives were in danger (since, you know, it was a skateboard and bare hands against an AR-15). I can see it going either way, to be honest. It isn’t a clear case either way on the first person and even less so on the second and third.
I look at it like that concealed carry killer in Florida who started a shouting match and when he got pushed down he pulled out a gun and killed the guy. The asymmetrical nature of “gun vs. not-gun” makes Rittenhouse’s arguments that he feared for his life a lot less convincing than the same arguments by his targets.
it is just as likely that those around him felt their lives were in danger (since, you know, it was a skateboard and bare hands against an AR-15).
That explains why they were the ones chasing Rittenhouse as he was running toward the Police.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone could actually be as stupid as you’re painting yourself to be.
Then maybe they would have had a self-defense case if one of them had shot Rittenhouse. But that’s not what happened. It’s possible that both sides had a plausible case for self-defense.
As for the asymmetry: one person who got shot tried to take his gun. Another had a gun and was brandishing it. And getting your head smashed in with a skateboard will make you just as dead as getting shot will. What the fuck did they think the guy with a rifle was going to do?
If I see someone with a long gun backing away from me after shooting someone else, my thought would be he was trying to open space to shoot more people without being within grabbing range of the unarmed people he was planning to shoot.
And I’m not saying that getting hit with a skateboard can’t kill you. I’m saying it is a serious asymmetry and if you are the one without the gun it is more likely that you are acting in fear for your life than the one with the gun.
But, again, I’m willing to accept the verdict whether he is convicted or acquitted. How about you?
If I see someone with a long gun backing away from me after shooting someone else
Which is not what happened in the Rittenhouse case. Stop making stuff up, you lying sack of shit.
and if you are the one without the gun it is more likely that you are acting in fear for your life than the one with the gun
If you are the one without the gun and you’re in fear for your life, chasing after the guy with the gun when he’s attempting to get away from you (and many others) and then assaulting him when he falls down makes you one of the most stupid SOBs who ever lived.
Not my allies. I’m not sure why you think they are.
Your continued defense of them kind of gives it away.
I’m bothered by the dubious narrative that he was defending himself and the hero status he has been given.
There’s nothing dubious about it; you’re just lying about what the video showed.
However, if he is found innocent I won’t have a problem with it.
I doubt the same can be said for the wingnuts who have turned him into Captain Justified.
No, I’ll be fine with him being found innocent, too. Dickhead.
As I’ve said, if there is evidence I haven’t seen, I could accept a guilty verdict. But based on the extensive video documentation of events that I’ve seen, I think a guilty verdict would likely be political in nature and not just. But I will judge it when it comes.
“No, I’ll be fine with him being found innocent, too. Dickhead.”
This literally made me laugh out loud. Nicely done!
I think Rittenhouse will get off on the later shots, the first one is the problem.
Its one thing to defend yourself, its another to wade into a riot while armed.
BTW, anyone know if the ‘victims’ were charged – especially the one that wasn’t allowed to have a gun?
“I think Rittenhouse will get off on the later shots, the first one is the problem.”
This is an interesting take. I see the fact that only one person (Kyle) was shooting, it makes the second and third shots less justified to be self-defense due to the asymmetry of the weapons (or lack thereof) involved.
But you seem to be saying that regardless of whether the first shot is determined to be justified or not, the later shots are kosher.
Is that an accurate read? If so, can you elaborate?
Nelson is a disingenuous twat. If Rittenhouse has a duty to retreat, then so does everyone else. From the first shot to the last, Rittenhouse was being chased.
The skater was assaulting Rittenhouse with his board while Rittenhouse was on the ground and the living guy, who claims he was there to act as a medic, is on video pulling and racking his pistol and has publicly declared his intent to murder Rittenhouse. Barring some damning video that has yet to be seen, Rittenhouse was defending himself every time he pulled the trigger.
Nelson is the only one speculating as to motives which is why he is the only one willing to accept a murder verdict. In the videos available, their actions are incontrovertible. The people shot took action to either disarm, assault or kill Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse didn’t shoot at anyone who didn’t advance on him, while retreating the entire time.
This is not anything like Zimmerman. This isn’t even like Bernard Goetz. Nelson should write down his speculations and insert them asymmetrically into his ass.
“Look, some people claim that the moon is made of carbonaceous regolith. I’m just presenting both sides by pointing out the possibility that it’s instead made of green cheese. Why do you guys have to be such assholes about it?”
There is lots of video evidence that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense. There is zero video evidence that Rittenhouse was an aggressor. Because if there was you would have seen it plastered all over every news network.
But these two possibilities should totally be weighted equally as to probability.
Tionico,
I agree with your analysis completely.
The videos show Kyle Rittenhouse to be extremely skilled in the use of arms in self-defense.
If he is a credit, he has a bright future ahead of him in the field of fire arms training
“Attacker” is what I suspect I’d go for as Kyle’s lawyer, I say as someone who is not a lawyer. I mean, seriously, that seems like the right term to use there.
Any word on charges being fired against Grosskreutz (the armed man Kyle shot in the arm)?
I know he was arrested for misdemeanor weapons possession (while intoxicated) and barred from carrying a weapon as a condition of his release prior to the riot. And that he’s publicly wished that he had shot Rittenhouse. And that he has since been arrested for public intox. But any indication if he’ll be arrested for approaching Kyle Rittenhouse and pointing a gun at him?
Sometime around the 12th of never.
Do you mean charges being filed or having a statue built for?
release prior to the riot.
Slow down with the inflammatory language there, spinach chin.
Rittenhouse’s parents should be charged with something.
Letting a 17 year old go to a riot armed is criminally bad parenting.
We’ll, it’s a good thing what you think doesn’t matter.
Obviously, I wasn’t present for every last moment, but Mom and Dad let him go in the morning, unarmed, to help out in the community. Dominick Black, who provided Kyle with the gun, is set to go to trial on Nov. 21.
But hey, while we’re voiding self-defense, might as well bring presumption of innocense and personal autonomy along for the ride.
I wasn’t aware they were charging the person who gave him the gun with something.
Of course you weren’t. Because you wouldn’t be trolling here if you knew what was going on half the time.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the Black trial. and by interesting, I mean I’d put even money on a fucked up ‘felony conviction of providing a minor with the means to defend himself’ decision.
Since he wasn’t armed when he left his house and crossed state lines, I wonder from where that particular butt-nugget was drawn?
Probably wants to charge Nancy Lanza for Adam’s crimes as well.
Posthumously?
Dead enough to vote, dead enough to charge.
Well played
Parent. There is remarkably little information about Rittenhouse’s father.
You’ve been modernized. When I was a kid, my father gave me my first gun when I was 12. So how is it that you think someone needs to be 18 to have a gun today?
And why do you think a parent should watch their sons every move of every day? It’s not logical, nor is it doable. In a gun owning society, any 17 year old kid can get a gun easily. It wouldn’t be the parents fault anymore than if the kid found his dad’s liquor stash in the closet, got drunk, and killed someone in a car wreck. The kid is responsible, not the dad. It’s the same with the gun.
Wis. Stat. § 948.60(2)(a)
So you’re saying it was illegal and it didn’t prevent it? Sounds like it fits the definition of ‘infeasible’ to me.
Jeffrey Reinking, who returned the guns to his son, the Waffle House shooter, has yet to be convicted. Arguably, he can’t be convicted because IL law says being admitted to a mental institution gets your FOID card revoked (which his son’s had been), but doesn’t say anything about your parents’ FOID cards, much less applying to transfers made out of state. And, for the record, I think he should be let go and the persons at the FBI/DOJ responsible for the case be shitcanned. Reinking no-shit and unequivocally violated Federal Firearms laws but they’re letting him be charged under state laws because, they’re either incompetent (good faith assessment) or malicious (bad faith, IL firearm laws should apply in TN, assessment).
That section also includes the following:
“This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.”
941.28 deals with short-barreled rifles, and the other sections don’t seem to place a restriction on rifle use by 17-year-olds. If there was a legal violation in Rittenhouse possessing that rifle, it wasn’t by virtue of that statute.
I got my first gun when I was 4. A .22 Colt Revolver
I didn’t get bullets until I was 12 though
I got mine when I was 5. .22 bolt action rifle. People’s ignorance and bias are showing here. Rittenhouse couldn’t buy a rifle until he was 18, a handgun until 21. He didn’t buy a weapon, he was lent one. Gun charges are on shaky ground, but, they will probably stick for political reasons, not legal ones.
If Rittenhouse was defending the rioters and looters and shot three “white supremacists” he would be hailed as a hero.
If Rittenhouse was defending the rioters and looters and shot three “white supremacists” he would be hailed as a hero.
He shot three white ex-cons, one with a shaved head, named Huber, Rosenbaum, and Grosskreutz. I’m pretty sure, in our current climate, if he’d shot Rohm, Goebbels, and Hitler, he’d still be on trial for shooting a homosexual, an independent journalist, and a Jew.
I got my first gun when I was six. I’m all for kids being educated and using guns.
Using guns safely and taking one to a riot aren’t the same thing.
I ‘got’ ‘my’ first gun, and bullets, at 10. Same gun Grandpa bought for my Uncle when he was a kid. Same gun my son ‘got’ when he was 10. In and out of my Dad’s gun cabinet to this day. 5 owners/’owners’, four states (so far)… I half hope I’m alive to laugh in the face of the FBI/ATF agent who has to track down the owner should it ever be used to shoot someone.
They should be charged with awesomeness.
WTF, Diane. Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people and severely wounded another. He might end up going to prison.
That is not “awesomeness” on the part of his mother.
Right? She should have raised him to let your friends bash his skull in with a skateboard and shoot him.
And burn down an occupied gas station!
He killed criminal scumbags.
All we saw was a confrontation between an armed teenaged aggressor and three people who were doing nothing criminal. Why do you want to call them criminals?
All we saw was a confrontation between an armed teenaged aggressor and three people who were doing nothing criminal.
And by “we” you mean you and the voices in your head? Because NONE of the video, still image or other evidence available supports your description of events, and in fact directly contradicts it.
Actually, my description is just as accurate as yours. It is pretty unclear about the first one, and #2 and #3 are even less likely to break in Kyle’s favor. But when people paint an uncertain picture in absolute terms, I tend to tweak them a little. The foaming-mouthed anger I get back warms my heart.
You’re completely wrong.
Actually, my description is just as accurate as yours.
Your description is complete and utter bullshit that is directly and clearly contradicted by every single piece of evidence available. In both cases what was seen on ALL of the imagery available was Rittenhouse being pursued by by mobs that he was attempting to get away from, and him firing in clear defense ONLY after being cornered and physically assaulted. We also see the 1st shootee attempting to pick fights with numerous people shortly prior to the one that got him ventilated. You know what is NOT seen in any of the evidence? Kyle initiating any sort of confrontation with anyone.
You’re a lying sack of shit.
See, I don’t really care this much. I’m willing to let the justice system slowly work its way to a resolution. And either way, I’m comfortable with the jury’s decision.
How about you? If there is anything short of a complete aquittal, will you accept the jury’s determination?
See, I don’t really care this much.
So you’re repeatedly spouting bullshit for no reason other than you’re a pathological liar.
No, when I see blind allegiance to a preferred narrative combined with extreme accusations and/or death threats, I like to push back. It makes people like you act even more irrationally.
But I noticed you didn’t answer my question. If he is found guilty, will you accept the verdict is fair and just?
No, when I see blind allegiance to a preferred narrative
That would be an excellent description of what you’re doing, except that you’re not peddling your bullshit blindly, and know full well that it’s bullshit.
I like to push back.
And by “push back” you mean repeatedly lie.
But I noticed you didn’t answer my question.
Because it was a stupid and utterly irrelevant question. But I’m feeling generous, so I’ll give it an answer in spite of not deserving one.
If he is found guilty, will you accept the verdict is fair and just?
Based on all of the evidence currently available? No, because it would obviously not be fair or just. If new evidence comes to light that somehow negates all/most of the currently available evidence? Perhaps.
“you’re not peddling your bullshit blindly”
I think any narrative that says this is clearly one thing or the other is bullshit. All I said was that my pushback was as valid as the “Kyle is clearly innocent” position. Neither is justified.
“Based on all of the evidence currently available? No, because it would obviously not be fair or just.”
This is the part that scares the crap out of me, and not just in this context. The unwillingness to accept that the conclusion of a group of people with more information and a transparent process is valid is what led to January 6th, Q-Anon, the big lie, and other fringe beliefs that are dangerous to our country and our democracy.
Rosenbaum was a convicted child molester who’d spent half his life in prison.
Huber had multiple felony arrests for domestic violence.
Sound like “criminals” to me.
Yeah, good. Determining whether or not they are victims is the whole point of the trial.
They are victims in that they are dead.
Possibly victims of their own stupidity, though. The judge is making the correct decision here.
If you attack someone who’s armed and they defend themselves, you’re not the victim.
True. I’m just not sure how common it is to limit language in this way in court. While I don’t think the prosecution has a leg to stand on and by no means should win; I also don’t like that they’re unable to use the word “victim.” I fully agree that they were the aggressors and Rittenhouse fired in self-defense, but I don’t see how hamstringing the prosecution from trying to portray the dead bodies as victims is fair.
Again, he should be acquitted and the evidence clearly shows it shouldn’t have gone to trial, but it does seem like the language is being policed in an excessive way for the defense
At least per the article, it appears this is a consistent policy rather than a special one for this trial. It goes a bit towards mollify me. Though I admit to also feeling uncomfortable at the prosecution being limited on word choices this way.
The State has a lot of resources on its side. It does not need the hyperbole of the term “victim” as well. Whether they are victims is a question of fact. Juries answer questions of fact at the end of the trial.
“Alleged victim” used to be the preferred term. Remember the William Kennedy Smith rape trial in 1991?
I think it’s fairly common. And makes sense. To call someone a “victim” presupposes a particular outcome of the trial.
Not if their death is the result of their own aggressive actions. Then they weren’t victimized, they were just killed. You can call them by their names or call them “the deceased,” etc.
They were a murderous mob and got what they deserved.
What? In what alternate universe is that true?
Have you seen the videos from that night?
Just curious if you’re ignorant or dishonest.
At this late stage in the game, I’m guessing dishonest (though fundamentally indistinguishable from being an ignoramus)
Yes, I have seen the video. And there wasn’t a “murderous mob”. That’s straight-up hyperbole.
It was a violent mob who were chasing Rittenhouse and then physically attacked him when they caught up with him. Clearly they intended to assault him, though no one can determine one way or another if they would have murdered him had he not had a weapon.
Since he was the initial aggressor, they had a right to neutralize the threat he represented. Or does self-defense only count when you like the people who claim it?
Since he was the initial aggressor
You’re an idiot, a liar or both. There is ZERO evidence of Rittenhouse engaging in any initiation of aggression.
You’re an idiot, a liar or both.
Depends on if he actually saw the video or not. If he saw it, he’s lying. If he didn’t, he’s a liar AND an idiot, because he claims he saw it.
Again, I was pushing back in a symmetric way. You are asserting a certainty that Kyle is innocent, which is anything but certain. I merely overstated in the other direction. The only difference is I’m aware that it is an uncertainty and I was overstating my certainty (matching my hyperbole to yours). You seem to be oblivious.
There is lots of video evidence that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense. There is zero video evidence that Rittenhouse was an aggressor. Because if there was you would have seen it plastered all over every news network.
But these two possibilities should totally be weighted equally as to probability.
One was going to shoot him, another was going to bash his head in with a skateboard. Can’t remember what the deal was with the third, but if you see the video, it is clearly self-defense. It’s insane that he even was charged if you ask me. It was all right there to see.
The first asshole was the one that tried grabbing Kyle’s AR by the barrel and promptly got ventilated. Dreadlocked skateboard assholes tried smashing him in the head with his board and got zipped for it. Arm Spaghetti dude pulled a fucking Glock and stuck it against Rittenhouse’s head. All 3 shitbags committed Battery at the very least, and in the latter 2 cases Attempted Murder and/or Aggravated Battery.
Arm Spaghetti dude pulled a fucking Glock and stuck it against Rittenhouse’s head.
He drew and displayed the Glock while approaching Rittenhouse (which in that situation was sufficient to justify what happened to him….and then some), but he didn’t stick it against anyone’s head.
If they were killed in an appropriate act of self-defense, then they aren’t victims. They are aggressors who picked the wrong victim.
Agreed. I don’t think they should be referred to as victims throughout the trial. I think that is the point of the trial, to see if they were victims or not.
By the same token, calling them “rioters” and “looters” when there is zero evidence that they were either is just as biased.
Either both should be allowed or neither. Allowing one type of prejudicial label and not another seems to be a bias in favor of the defense.
We all know that after an entire trial of calling them rioters and looters, if the judge says during jury instructions that they should ignore those labels because they weren’t supported by facts, the damage has already been done.
Judge ruled that defense cannot call them “rioters” and “looters” unless and until the defense presents evidence that they were rioting and looting. So can’t use those words in opening, but may be able to in closing.
Unfortunately, that is not the way it seems to have been presented. “Victims” is banned (correctly, I believe, given the prejudicial implication of that characterization), but “looters” and “rioters” is not. As I understand it they can use those words and, if they can’t support them through evidence in the trial, there will be a jury instruction to ignore those characterizations. It seems like a “closing the barn door after the horse has escaped” situation. And as prejudicial as “victim”.
If there is an actual lawyer who could chime in, it would be appreciated.
By that logic you’re acknowledging that aborted fetuses are victims.
Nope. A fetus isn’t a person legally, morally, or scientifically. So not at all the same thing.
Not all definitions of “victim” are predicated on personhood.
When it comes to humans, yes they are. Except for the unjust and illogical laws referred to as “fetal victim” or “fetal homicide” laws, only legal persons have rights.
When it comes to humans, yes they are.
No, they aren’t.
only legal persons have rights
Your straw man argumentation is weak. Nobody said anything about “rights”, nor are they required by all definitions for “victim”.
You really suck at this.
If you have no rights, there is no basis for a claim of victimhood. It would be like calling a sidewalk a victim.
If you have no rights, there is no basis for a claim of victimhood. It would be like calling a sidewalk a victim.
Your ignorance appears to know no bounds. Victimhood not just a legal concept or human-centric justice issue. Even animals are recognized as being “victims” of abuse in some cases, and are even afforded legal protection from it.
Yes, but a fetus isn’t a living creature like an animal is. Hence my reference to a sidewalk. Or, if you prefer, we can go with something that is biologically alive, but not sentient. Maybe a tree?
Thise rule is irrelevant. What prosecutors and defense attorneys say, which is what is at issue, is not evidence. Only the testimony of witnesses is evidence.
So long as this site as interns write its crim law pieces, we’ll get those cringeworthy errors. Not only are references by attorneys not “evidence,” the FRE don’t mean jack in state court.
>>garnered national media attention
“dog-whistles sent out to start the cancelation”
Promptly followed by his being labeled a “mass shooter” and any discussion of his possible innocence was banned from social media.
the top-down-and-back-up coordination is sickeningly obvious
I never saw him called a mass shooter, but if it happened it was incorrect. A mass shooting is 4 or more people shot, and this was only 3.
Right after the incident it was being thrown around a lot.
I saw a lot of coverage, like everyone else. That was not a descriptor that I recall hearing. But to be fair I would have dismissed it since I’m familiar with what a mass shooting is and this wasn’t it.
I looked to see what “normal” news sources were saying after it happened. It was pretty disgusting. Talking about it as if it was unambiguously some guy just looking to kill people. That may not have lasted long. I don’t know.
He did put himself into the situation armed with a weapon and, obviously, a willingness (if not a desire) to use it. There are plenty of people who would characterize that as “looking to kill people”.
However, I find “he shouldn’t have been there” criticisms to be disingenuous and an attempt to avoid the actual details of the situation. Which is why I never use those arguments. They dishonestly shift the burden from justifying the situation to justifying their presence, which insinuates that everything is “their fault”. Whether or not Kyle “belonged” there is irrelevant. What he did while there is what matters.
Summed from the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal and MSN: “Protesters were recorded on video pushing a burning dumpster through a crowd, towards a gas station. A guard, dressed in similar clothing to Rittenhouse – a green shirt, cap, and bag – put out the dumpster fire, which enraged Rosenbaum, who shouted at the guard. More arson took place and was recorded on video. Someone with identical features to Rittenhouse – having the same build, clothing, and rifle; and also wearing brown shoes, blue gloves, and an orange medical kit – was then seen running with a fire extinguisher. According to Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys, the person with the fire extinguisher was indeed Rittenhouse, and what was not recorded on video was that he used it to put out one of the fires, which provoked a confrontation by Rosenbaum, who mistook Rittenhouse for the guard who had put out the dumpster fire earlier.”
Rittenhouse had volunteered to to prevent a business from being burned down by rioters.
and any discussion of his possible innocence was banned from social media
Followed by? FB was suppressing pro-Rittenhouse-innocence discussion from day 1.
Yes. After it happened. That’s what “followed by” means.
My error. I misread the context as discussing things that are yet to happen.
The idiots who got shot did so while physically assaulting Rittenhouse, which will be very easy to prove given there’s video evidence of them doing just that while Rittenhouse was trying to get away. There’s no evidence that Rittenhouse was the aggressor.
Wielding an AR-15 is pretty aggressive.
He didn’t wield it until it was necessary to protect himself.
Also identified him as a target, so I guess it’s a wash.
Stalking someone with a loaded AR-15 and then trying to grab it from him, in addition to trying to bash his head in and/or feigning surrender before attempting to shoot that person is the very definition of artificial selection in action.
Only a retarded leftist bigot, such as yourself, would think that way.
Sometimes it’s pretty defensive.
The guy with the skateboard was trying to stop Rittenhouse _after_ Rittenhouse had shot two people and appeared to be fleeing the scene.
In other words he was trying to be a responsible citizen and stop a killer from fleeing.
Mind reading doesn’t count.
Wow.
No, Huber (the guy with the skateboard) tried to hit Rittenhouse with it after Rittenhouse had shot one person (Rosenbaum).
And yes of course Rittenhouse was trying to flee the scene, he was fleeing from a mob trying to kill him.
Yeah, running towards a police barricade to turn oneself in hardly comports with “fleeing” in the usual sense.
It’s very difficult to watch that video with some empathy for the defendant and not believe anyone would have reacted in the same way: if a man backed by a mob comes up rearing to attack with an improvised weapon then you need to shoot first and deal with any punishment later. Reginald Denny is a cautionary tale, not an example to follow.
Reginald Denny is a cautionary tale, not an example to follow.
That’s Mike, Nelson, and Tony’s main complaint here, that he didn’t nicely stand still so their leftist allies could kill him.
Mike, Nelson, and Tony need to fucking die.
Why? Because I don’t agree with you? That’s not something worth killing me (or anyone else) over.
Because you’re an evil piece of shit who’s trying to take away people’s rights and an active enemy combatant.
You are literally cancer and a threat to good men everywhere.
OK. You think maybe that’s a little over the top? Maybe you want to take the crazy down a few levels?
Die. Now.
I can taste your impotent tears.
You want to fill Congress with people as aggrieved and emotional as you. You are literally sad about Mr. Potato Head being canceled. You don’t even know why you’re sad. You just know the Facebook algorithm told you to be about… something.
Well, my banned list is now up to 3. Rev, Sevo, and Nardz. Although given the substance free ranting and psychopathic behavior, Nardz may be Sevo.
This isn’t a disagreement about tax rates, immigration, or other policies.
This is a disagreement about leftists being allowed to use violence to achieve their political goals, and whether or not other people can defend themselves and their property from them.
Kyle Rittenhouse had property in the area?
He took it upon himself to protect a business whose owner did not invite him to be there. In other words, he was a teenager with a gun he was carrying illegally looking for a fight.
In other words, he was a teenager with a gun he was carrying illegally looking for a fight.
People who are looking for fights don’t normally try to extract themselves from a situation where people are trying to kill them, you lying sack of monkey shit.
he was a teenager with a gun he was carrying illegally
Are you sure it was illegal for him to be carrying the rifle? I mean, you do know that’s contested (and a solid contest it is, which you would know if you had a clue what the relevant WI statutes say) and has yet to be ruled on by the court, right?
But, it, that mob was MOSTLY peaceful!
I took my CCW training in Wisconsin. At no time is it OK to use violence against a fleeing suspect if they don’t present a direct threat of grave bodily harm. The idea that he might later be a threat gives no justification. It’s not like Rittenhouse was trying to shoot his way through the crowd. He appears to have only fired on individual people after they attacked him.
Doesn’t matter. Sucks for that guy if those were truly his intentions. But you get to defend yourself even if people think they are stopping a murderer when they attack you. Assuming he didn’t shoot anyone not in self defense, which I haven’t seen any reason not to believe.
The guy with the skateboard was trying to stop Rittenhouse _after_ Rittenhouse had shot two people and appeared to be fleeing the scene.
Not even close. They asshole with the skateboard was trying to cave in Rittenhouse’s skull after he was already stopped, having fallen to the ground while running toward police (not “fleeing” anything but the chasing mob), because he heard a shouted claim that Rittenhouse had shot someone.
So…are you that fundamentally ignorant of the facts that have been available for all this time, or are you intentionally lying?
Just to check, most of you believe that Kyle Rittenhouse is completely innocent and was completely justified in shooting three people, killing two?
Do you believe that there is a widespread conspiracy (or, if you prefer, coordinated effort) to railroad him?
Do you believe that if he is found guilty he will be a victim of progressives and their media allies?
Crickets.
He shot three clumps of cells.
What’s your position, so I can take the opposite stance?
Not sure of the Wisconsin laws, KR might be guilty of ‘something’ before the shootings.
But the actual shootings? He tried to disengage several times and was being chased. I think his defense attorneys will be able to successfully argue that he was in fear for his life and that his actions were justified as self defense.
Conspiracy to railroad him? No. But given the national political situation at the time, the Wisconsin officials probably feared further rioting if they did not charge KR with a crime.
I’m not sure what you mean by your 3rd question. I don’t think KR will be found guilty of the murder/assault charges.
It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy. All the leftists would lie, cheat, steal, or kill to put this kid away. But that’s how leftists roll. If KR had been killed but the thug with the skateboard, every democrat, including all of the traitors who post here, would be orgasmic about it.
Do you believe that there is a widespread conspiracy (or, if you prefer, coordinated effort) to railroad him?
If evil people acting in their own evil self-interests do broadly evil things, is a conspiracy necessary? Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia all just innocent mistakes? If W, LBJ, Hitler, and Stalin can claim innocent mistakes in the deaths of thousands, can’t Kyle claim it in the death of two?
Of course, my question is rhetorical because you’ve chosen to prove yourself right in the advocacy of neither good, nor justice, but evil. Here’s hoping you pick on the wrong kid with an Ar-15.
Fair enough. So I have three questions. In this case, who are the evil people, what is their evil self-interest, and what are the broadly evil things?
I’ll always advocate for good and for justice. If he is found innocent (or if he is found guilty), that is justice. And having a fair trial is good.
Yet you are exclusively on the side of evil and tyranny.
Completely justified, I’d say yes (based on the evidence I have seen). Who knows who is innocent? Courts don’t talk about innocence, generally.
Conspiracy? Probably not. But everyone seems to know what’s expected of them.
Yes.
So you have already determined the verdict? And the jury, who will come to their verdict by being there every day, listening to the entirety of every witness’ testimony, have access to every piece of evidence, and are required to come to a unanimous decision, would be wrong if they convict? You don’t see a problem with that?
I’m not on the jury. And as I’ve said repeatedly, if there is something I don’t know about that shows he was the aggressor, I could change my mind.
That’s what it looks like to me right now. I do change my mind sometimes.
So you have already determined the verdict?
What a disingenuous (and stupid) question.
And the jury, who will come to their verdict by being there every day, listening to the entirety of every witness’ testimony, have access to every piece of evidence, and are required to come to a unanimous decision, would be wrong if they convict? You don’t see a problem with that?
So it’s your position that juries are composed of infallible beings, rather than flawed humans, and that one has never handed down a guilty verdict erroneously?
No, but I trust a unanimous verdict of 12 strangers who are, within the limits of voir dire, neutral arbiters of what they see and hear in the trial.
I certainly trust it more than a politicized narrative by people who have no skin in the game and have taken no oath.
The judge may have innocently been offering up a standard (and not unique) preference for not using the word “victim” given that it may have connotations that could cause prejudice against the defendant.
The actual sick thing is that there are Americans who are totally emotionally invested in defending a guy who carried a weapon of war into a protest he wasn’t invited to and shot unarmed people to death. At best, a tragedy. But we know what they’re defending. Why do we pussyfoot so?
They’re glad he killed “leftists.” They want to see more of us killed. There was a guy who asked Charlie Kirk when it’s the right time to start murdering us.
I for one can’t wait until we’re fully past the plausible deniability stage and Republicans are saying, outright and proudly, “Yes, we want to murder our political opponents and seize power by force.”
It will happen, in so many words. Radicalization doesn’t have a natural moderation point where everyone agrees things have gone too far. The most radical will keep going and many will follow, what with being stupid followers caught up in the lizard brain of it all. A few, I assume, are good people who will check out once the blood runs visibly enough.
But leftists always want to murder their political opponents and seize power by force. That’s why they’re called “revolutions.”
I’ve sat here and watched you get more radicalized Brian. You’re saying nonsense that is giving your lizard brain an excuse to justify murder. You should stop before you beclown yourself further.
You’re literally, in the previous comment, making up stories about the psychology of complete strangers and what they must really think, as a justification for ignoring the facts of this case and hating the people you always have.
There’s a reason leftists reflexively call everyone who doesn’t agree with them racist sexist bigots, and that’s to justify whatever they have coming to them. There’s a reason leftists have no problem with the systemic violence of the state used as a tool to solve more and more complex and controversial social problems, and that’s because they like their ideological opponents being on the receiving end of violence.
If you want to seek voluntary cooperation with others to solve problems, then go ahead. Otherwise, spare me the “why don’t you guys respect your political opponents?” sentiment that you reject yourself.
I can’t get past the logic of it all. You say you’re skeptical of state power because state power is inherently violent.
But you only endorse those state actions that involve actual literal violence, like policing and national defense. I can’t take you seriously if you only oppose violence when it’s metaphorical, as in taxes and the social welfare state.
Get better rhetoric.
And you also endorse those state actions that involve literal violence, a long with a host of others seemingly without limit that are supported with those state actions, thereby injecting systemic violence in a much larger portion of society then I do.
If it’s so horrible, act like it.
I’m not against state power or state violence. I’m a statist, same as you. I’m against state violence used for bad purposes, same as you. Between the two of us, I’m the only one interested in actually reducing actual state violence, though. That’s what defund the police was about. Pick a team dude.
I’m not a statist.
Sure you are. Even if you were an anarchist, which you aren’t, you’d still only be a silly idealist instead of a serious non-statist. Real anarchists live in the middle of the woods.
The three people Rittenhouse shot weren’t invited to the protest either. They certainly weren’t invited by the local businesses that were burned down.
Anyway we know why you are so mad. Why pussyfoot so?
You are pissed off that he killed “leftists.” You want to see right wingers killed instead. Just go to any left wing web site, type “Ashli Babbitt” in the search bar, and see how many people are ecstatic of the death of an unarmed woman who wasn’t attacking anyone.
Projection is a bitch.
Just to check, you are saying that the three people Rittenhouse shot were:
1) Not there to protest, and
2) Looted local businesses?
Because to reasonable people it looks like you are trying to indinuate criminals who didn’t belong there. Which would make them getting shot and/or killed what? Their fault?
And Ashli Babbitt got exactly what she asked for. Unlike Rittenhouse’s … since I can’t say victim I’ll say targets … Ashli Babbitt broke into the Capitol and was front and center of a mob trying to breach a barricade protected by armed law enforcement officers charged with protecting the Capitol and Congress members.
What is surprising and impressive is the restraint the defenders showed. I’m surprised more of the attackers didn’t earn a third eye from the Capitol police.
And Ashli Babbitt got exactly what she asked for. Unlike Rittenhouse’s … since I can’t say victim I’ll say targets …
LOL, each one of those assholes were either stalking him, grab his weapon from him, and/or beat or shoot him.
Babbitt was shot from behind by a cop who never said “stop or I’ll shoot.” Rittenhouse’s attackers all went directly at him with the clear intent to harm him. Rosenbaum was already caught on video earlier in the protest chanting at counter-protesters, “Shoot me, nigga! Shoot me, nigga!” Sounds like the convicted child molester got exactly what he asked for.
Nelson’s asking for it too.
“Babbitt was shot from behind by a cop who never said “stop or I’ll shoot.””
Only if “back” means “front” and “never said” means “said”.
Rittenhouse was the agressor. The three he shot were trying to defend themselves and others.
But I am willing to wait and see how this plays out in court. In a perfect world he would take the stand, but there’s no way that will happen.
I also chase people down the street in self defense.
I’m starting to suspect a parody.
Rittenhouse was the agressor. The three he shot were trying to defend themselves and others.
LOL, this is one of the biggest lies ever posted on this site, and shriek’s been posting here for years.
It’s as if there isn’t unedited video of the whole incident which was freely available the day after it fucking happened.
There was no way to confuse Rittenhouse’s actions with that of a mass shooter, for example. Whatever you might think of his motivations, he was in control and apparently lacking in bloodlust – there were plenty of bullets left in his magazine a slew of non-victims that could have been left in his wake.
Nelson says upthread that he saw the whole video, yet persisted in the lie that Rittenhouse was the aggressor.
So he either never saw it, or he’s just assmad that his allies got their shit pushed in by a 17-year-old kid who was in retreat mode the entire time.
Rittenhouse had more fire control and trigger discipline than most cops do.
That’s damning with faint praise.
Rittenhouse was the agressor. The three he shot were trying to defend themselves and others.
LOL! Even forgetting that all of the video from the incident proves that you’re a liar, even the New York Times analyzed all of the evidence and said that you’re full of shit.
They were in the process of trying to kill him.
As somebody above said, “wow”. Wow indeed.
Sure they were there to protest. But it’s absurd to complain that Rittenhouse “wasn’t invited”. Are you saying that the only legitimately invited people were the rioters? No one sends out invitations to these things.
And they weren’t shot for rioting – there were plenty of people setting fires and smashing windows. Rittenhouse didn’t shoot at any of them. He only shot at people who were attacking him.
None of the property owners in the area invited him to come act as their private security force either, that I’m aware of. We don’t have private citizens acting on their own without any state imprimatur to murder trespassers, and certainly not with semi-automatics. That’s not how law works.
Do you not believe in defending from a riot? Seems so.
You know, Tony, I think I’ve heard these excuses before:
“He had no business being there!”
“He was up to no good!”
I can’t put my finger on it… they sound so familiar….
Just to check, you are saying that the three people Rittenhouse shot were:
1) Not there to protest
No, that’s not at all what he said, you moron.
“The actual sick thing is that there are Americans who are totally emotionally invested in defending a guy who carried a weapon of war into a protest he wasn’t invited to and shot unarmed people to death.”
So unless you’re invited by antifa to their mostly peaceful riots, everyone should get out of their way and let them destroy your homes and livelihoods?
As to the rest of your post, I’d prefer that violent leftists never come to where I live and try this shit, but if they do, I hope you’re among them.
Also, AR-15’s aren’t weapons of war, ignorant lefty shit.
You believe Antifa has destroyed neighborhoods, but do you have any evidence of this? Any evidence whatsoever?
Why do you think you’re entitled just to say shit?
Uhhh… we have businesses burned down and looted and millions (billions?) of dollars in damage? In more than one city. What world are you living in, because it isn’t reality.
Evidence that it was Antifa please.
BLM was the largest civil rights protest in American history. A few agitators committed acts of vandalism, but none of it is credibly linked to the BLM movement or Antifa. You’re just using the vandalism as an excuse to crack down on political action you don’t like.
Meanwhile Trumpers tried to violently overthrow the country, and I’m supposed to care about a burned-out Walgreens somewhere?
A few agitators committed acts of vandalism
https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html
The Jan 6 protest cost $30 million. We’re talking $1-2 thousand millions. That’s a lot of millions for “mostly peaceful”, but people are freaking out over $30 million as the second civil war. It’s all just partisan bullshit. I refuse to let myself be manipulated by hacks with no integrity.
Political violence aimed at overthrowing the United States to install Donald Trump as dictator is more of a threat to my way of life than street protests.
Everyone is engaging in street protests. Trumpers are threatening and attacking school board members as part of an astroturf political campaign to elect a Republican in Virginia. Sorry if I’m more sympathetic to the cause of black people having equal rights than I am to religious freaks trying to overthrow democracy. That’s just my politics.
Nonetheless, tens of thousands of arrests were made during the protests, so I don’t know what you’re complaining about. The system worked for them, so why aren’t you focusing on the right-wing terrorists who continue to get away with undermining American democracy and civility to this day?
If you’re so concerned about civility, try looking in a mirror.
Everyone’s so mean to Republicans waah. And y’all can barely stop falling over yourselves saying nice things about progressives.
I’m going to assume that your numbers are honest (although the 140 number seems low) and use the highest number ($2 billion) for the BLM protests, plus I will use the less accurate description (protest) of the January 6th attack on the Capitol
140 BLM protests @ $2 billion in damage = $14,285,714 per event
1 January 6th protest @ $30 million in damage = $30,000,000 per event
So the January 6th rioters caused more than twice as much damage per event than BLM did. And since I believe the number of BLM protests were higher and the damage probably wasn’t the highest figure, it’s probably much worse than that for the delusional Trumpkins.
It wasn’t a second civil war (although if the far right doesn’t rejoin the real world who knows what the future holds). But it was much more violent and destructive than the BLM protests.
I’m going to assume that your numbers are honest
Given your posting history it’s clear that you wouldn’t know honesty if it bit you on your lying ass.
I always stuve for honesty. I’ll admit I have overstated my actual opinion on Kyle’s guilt because it is one of those things that drives wingnuts to frothing rage. I have serious doubts about his innocence, but I don’t think it is clear one way or the other from the video. Especially after the first shot.
There is a difference between dishonesty and disagreement. I definitely don’t agree with the religious and moral totalitarians of cultural conservatism. But I don’t lie about it.
It drives regular old honest men to frothing rage to see lies spoken in a context that might see an innocent man caged, as well.
You should perhaps consider that when you go out trolling “wingnuts”, your net could end up cast farther than you expected.
The actual sick thing is that there are Americans who are totally emotionally invested in defending a guy who carried a weapon of war into a protest he wasn’t invited to and shot unarmed people to death.
1) The 9 mm that Grosskreutz was carrying is also a “weapon of war.” Why not mention him, too?
2) When the fuck was a protest something that people have to be “invited” to? These events aren’t like the fucking Grammys.
3) Rosenbaum was chasing him and then tried to grab his gun before he got shot. If he had left well enough alone, the convicted child molester would still be alive.
4) Anthony Huber was not unarmed; he tried to bash Kyle’s head in with a skateboard, and also grabbed at the gun and got shot in the heart for his trouble. If he had left well enough alone and just told the cops what happened, he’d still be alive.
5) Grosskreutz was not unarmed; he was carrying a pistol, and photos of him after he got shot show him propping himself up with it. He feigned surrender before trying to swing his gun around for a shot. If he had let Rittenhouse go and simply told the cops what happened, he wouldn’t have gotten have his arm turned to hamburger.
They’re glad he killed “leftists.” They want to see more of us killed.
The guys he shot and killed were all white leftists, so yes, I’m quite glad that this happened to them. If he had shot the black kid that tried to kick him in the head, now THAT would be a tragedy.
Parabellum, as in 9mm parabellum, literally translates to
“prepare for war”.
“According to Merriam-Webster Unabridged English Language Dictionary, the word parabellum is part of the Latin phrase “si vis pacem, para bellum.” This Latin phrase means “if you want peace, prepare for war.””
I’m somewhat confident the US criminal justice system will render justice, perhaps in a way only those present at the trial can fully appreciate. I’m not actually interested in turning this double homicide into a political football. It’s not good for the country. You psychopathic morons will take a guilty verdict as evidence of a deep state conspiracy and an excuse to do more violence. It’s already written. You’re so far beyond caring about justice. You just want to murder your perceived political enemies because you have been radicalized, by the book. The only thing left to do is un-radicalize you or kill you when you shoot first. Sorry.
I’m not actually interested in turning this double homicide into a political football. It’s not good for the country.
Bitch, you’re whining throughout this whole thread about it.
Your allies stalked and tried to kill an armed individual who turned out to be a much better shot than they anticipated. You should be grateful he only defended himself against the people attacking him and kept trying to retreat from the situation, rather than take it upon himself to start playing “rabbit season” with the mob.
You’re so far beyond caring about justice. You just want to murder your perceived political enemies because you have been radicalized, by the book. The only thing left to do is un-radicalize you or kill you when you shoot first. Sorry.
There’s nothing wrong with taking satisfaction in watching white leftists suffer the consequences of their retardation.
I probably opined about the events back when I watched the video when it happened. Now I’m content to let justice play itself out. I’m pretty certain they can find at least one juror who, having a similar media diet as you, has no intention of rendering judgment objectively.
Stop ruining the rule of law. You lose elections because your ideas are terrible. Take some personal responsibility.
Cope, seethe, and dilate.
“Both sides”
I don’t care if they set fire to a dumpster and tried to burn down a gas station because they felt George Floyd got what he deserved or was wronged, I care that they set fire to a dumpster and tried to burn down a gas station.
The actual sick thing is that there are Americans who are totally emotionally invested in defending a guy who carried a weapon of war into a protest he wasn’t invited to and shot unarmed people to death. At best, a tragedy. But we know what they’re defending. Why do we pussyfoot so?
They’re glad he killed “leftists.” They want to see more of us killed.
Actually, Grosskreutz’ suit against alleges that he was invited and even deputized. Even if untrue, Kyle alleges he was invited by at least one local business. There’s footage of him earlier in the day helping to remove graffiti as part of a group and even in the footage widely seen, the people he shot were attempting to move a dumpster they didn’t own onto the street and had set fire to (which Kyle and one of his friends were putting out).
You’re absolutely right. We do want to kill people who do evil. Especially those who do evil and claim innocense as, not just an excuse, but a justification. Only evil people would want it otherwise. It’s not really astounding that the decay of the moral fabric in this country has come to this but the two main ways out are for people to choose to stop being evil or to make them stop being evil, including killing them.
move a dumpster they didn’t own onto the street and had set fire to (which Kyle and one of his friends were putting out)
Worth noting that, largely Republicans, had been saying this for months. “Too many dumpster fires, not enough AR-15s” and “It’s only a matter of time before one of these riots happens someplace where the natives don’t approve.”
Given gun sales, I’d wager a fair amount of the country has learned that this wasn’t going to happen in a majority blue or majority red community, but a purple community where just enough people own guns that someone likely to get picked on is likely to be armed while everyone else looks on.
“The actual sick thing is that there are Americans who are totally emotionally invested in defending a guy who carried a weapon of war into a protest he wasn’t invited to and shot unarmed people to death”
You treasonous faggots are sending out invitations asking for an RSVP to your rioting nowadays? I wasn’t aware of that. Also. Your description of events is complete bullshit. Just like you.
The scandal is that he’s on trial at all. it’s obvious to anyone who’s seen the video that he was defending himself from attackers who were trying to kill him. The smear attempts alone from the persecutors show that they know they don’t have a case.
-jcr
Yep – anyone that has actually looked at the videos for more than 2 minutes can see this kid retreated and avoided threats multiple times. Only after being threatened, chased, shot at and attacked did he use his rifle.
The pedo was hit in the head attempting to take Kyle’s rifle from him – never a smart thing to do. But as he was a leftist pedo (but I repeat myself) clearly intelligence and rationale decision-making were not his strong suits.
After fatally wounding the pedo, Kyle stands with the photographer (Richie McGinness) attempting to render first aid concerned for the attacker’s well-being. After McGinness hollers at him to get help, Kyle heads up the block where he sees emergency vehicles approaching. That’s when another mob begins to chase him and we see numerous attackers assaulting him violently.
Kyle decides he’s had enough fucktards for one night and begins return the favor. Another felon is perforated with a fatal chest wound before the 3rd “victim” loses his right bicep while preparing to shoot Kyle.
The kid showed amazing restraint and discipline. I might have shot 3-4 more if I had been in his position.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Egd0pBHXsAA40NV?format=jpg
And you probably would have been justified in doing so.
Someone walks onto my street carrying an AR-15, I’m going to assume he means harm. I realize in cousin-fucking bumfuckville where you’re from, people carry AR-15s to the baby store, but where I’m from a weapon of war is a threat in and of itself, because we’re sane people.
Actually, that’s not how Oklahoma works.
As usual, since the facts aren’t on your side, you resort to your standard snotty and pig-ignorant posturing.
That “weapon of war” canard is particularly idiotic. The AR-15 looks somewhat like the M16, but it’s not capable of full-auto fire, and it’s not issued to soldiers. It is in fact the most common rifle in the country for home defense, hunting, shooting varmints to protect farms and ranches, target practice, etc.
I know that you and your lefturd idols like Nanny Pelosi want to believe it’s some kind of super weapon that only EEEVIL people would own, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
I realize in cousin-fucking bumfuckville where you’re from,
I can only assume that you’re projecting here. FYI, my father was a diplomat, and I grew up outside the USA, mostly in southeast Asia. When I was in the USA, I was in the DC suburbs.
-jcr
I
I can only assume that you’re projecting here.
He’s completely projecting here. Tony’s a white hicklib from Oklahoma.
And gay.
But it’s really the fact that he’s completely fucking retarded that’s the biggest issue. I don’t give a fuck what flavor he is in the sheets. Being a godsdamned shit gargling pants-on-head moron is the problem with Tony. Well, plus being a festering, feculent, fantasist gaslighter who argues in bad faith constantly, of course.
Tony certainly seems to live in factless fantasyland.
Unfortunately, he is pretty representative of a lot of uninformed Americans. Their phones fill their heads with so much that simply isn’t true.
You people can’t abide a street protest of unarmed black people agitating for their own civil rights. But one racist hick with a semi-automatic gun who, prompted by FOX News, travels across state lines to confront such protesters and murders two of them, that’s just an innocent guy protecting property.
Try and have an unbiased view of the world. Just try. Nobody tries at anything.
::But one racist hick with a semi-automatic gun who, prompted by FOX News, travels across state lines to confront such protesters and murders two of them::
::Try and have an unbiased view of the world::
LOL
Funny, all I see is violent white convicts in the videos. Where are all the “unarmed blacks” in those videos?
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/open-and-concealed-gun-carry-laws-oklahoma.htm
“Oklahoma has long been an “open-carry” state, allowing most adults to carry guns openly, without a permit, as long as they have a legitimate purpose and aren’t violating other laws. The state became even more gun friendly in 2019 by eliminating the license requirement for carrying concealed handguns.”
Of course, you can think anything you want to think, as long as you keep your skateboards to yourself.
Guns don’t kill people, skateboards do.
Usually stupidity kills people. Bringing a skateboard to a gun fight will do that.but, if the goal is to be a victim, that’s a good way to do it.
It wasn’t a gun fight until the redneck showed up with a gun.
It was so unfair, wasn’t it?
It’s horrific. A white supremacist who somehow managed to break even US gun laws murdered people protesting for their rights. For some reason that can only be your poisonous media diet, you’re on the side of the perp. Do you think anyone believes this is because of your great concern for local drug stores?
I just call it like I see it.
The information I have is:
1. There was a person running away from a mob with a gun
2. Some of the mob tried to injure him in ways that are life threatening
3. He used violence to defend himself against violence being inflicted upon him
If you want to explain to me how him just being there was a threat to anyone, go ahead, but it sounds like bullshit excuses to hate someone for their political affiliation, aka, your stock and trade.
That is of course not the entire chain of events that day. Just the one edited to be most convenient for your pro-neo-Nazi-murder narrative.
Tony, YOU are the Nazi here, and at all other times too. That’s what you and your party are. You are the most evil and loathsome things in the world.
Liar.
Gaige ‘Righty’ Gross[something] the, literally, disarmed convicted criminal was pointing his Glock at Rittenhouse when Kyle missed delivering a fatal chest would and simply removed a nice piece of his right arm.
The gun shots fired by the mob chasing Rittenhouse before Rosenbaum (the convicted pedo) was successfully defended lend more contrary evidence to refute your lies.
This fact-free universe you live in and refer to as “reality” is quite an Orwellian place.
The AR-15 is not military issue, you stupid faggot.
The scandal is that he’s on trial at all. it’s obvious to anyone who’s seen the video that he was defending himself from attackers who were trying to kill him.
Not just himself, the community. There’s footage of him, among a group of people earlier in the day cleaning up graffiti. The unedited footage of the shooting shows that the altercation with Rosenbaum started when Rosenbaum’s group set fire to a dumpster and was either trying to haul it into the street or push it up against the gas pumps and Kyle and a friend from his group extiguished the fire.
The left is going to lynch this kid using the full power of the state, illegitimate tyrannical government, and fascist media – all cheered on by Nelson, Tony, KARen, flogician, Mike laursen, and the rest of the usual suspects here, while the rest of us just watch.
And then they’ll do it to someone else. And another. And another, until they finally get to you.
You have no rights, and the Mike laursens of the world are coming to take everything you have.
You’d be calmer if you changed your media diet.
Not that much calmer. We have you insane motherfuckers to deal with in the reality-based community. But there is space to be somewhat less emotional than you’re being, because our media figures don’t go straight and surgically to the amygdala like yours do.
You’re being turned into an insane ranting radical by terrible people making money. It’s embarrassing for everyone watching.
reality-based community
LOL.
The reality is, Rittenhouse is innocent.
-jcr
Poor Tony – he thinks his phone is showing him “reality”.
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this.
I would think attackers, assaulters or attempted murderers would be a better description than rioters or looters. I mean they were trying to beat the guy, one with a skateboard, not steal from a business.
But those characterizations would be determined by whether Kyle was defending himself or if the protesters were defending themselves. Which is what the trial will determine.
If Kyle is found to be guilty, the protesters would be defending themselves. Even if he is found innocent, that doesn’t necessarily mean the second and third people weren’t defending themselves. Depending on the trial strategy, the follow-on actions after the first shot may not even be addressed.
You obviously haven’t seen the videos.
Chasing a kid with a gun while yelling “KILL HIM” does not qualify as “defending themselves”.
Rittenhouse retreated multiple times until he was shot at and assaulted by a pedo attempting to take his weapon.
I am for due process rights, and glad the article makes the point. The part where the article obfuscates, is that, the judge actually banned the term victim, and only cautioned against using the other terms rioters, looters, arsonists in the opening statements.
He should have banned those terms and required the defense file a petition to use those terms at the point the feel they had proven them accurate through evidence. That he did not do so, shows the judge is biased. Keep the same principle on both sides if you want to claim unbiased justice.
The part where the article obfuscates, is that, the judge actually banned the term victim
He didn’t “ban” any term. He said that the prosecution can’t use a term to refer to specific 3 people because doing so presupposes a fact that has not yet been established, and that the trial exists to determine the truth/falsity of.
, and only cautioned against using the other terms rioters, looters, arsonists in the opening statements.
No, he said that the defense may apply those terms to individuals whom the defense can show were actually engaged in those activities.
The truth matters. Stop peddling bullshit.
The larger concern is that there is a growing willingness on the right to not just justify and excuse people like Ashli Babbitt, Kyle Rittenhouse, and McMichael/Bryan in the Aubrey killing, but laud them and hold them up as heroes.
I have no idea how the trials of Rittenhouse and Aubrey’s killers will go, but I don’t think guilty verdicts will change the push to lionize them.
Ashli Babbitt was clearly in the wrong and got shot because of her own illegal actions and the lunatic fringe still thinks she’s a hero. Their opinion of the others won’t change, either.
Babbit was an unarmed protestor who was shot by a cop. Didn’t you lefturds pretend you thought that was a bad thing once upon a time?
-jcr
She was front and center of a mob who was trying to breach the House chamber. No one but the most extreme would consider that a bad shoot.
Also, I’m not a leftist. I am culturally left of center and fiscally right of center, but I’m nowhere near the fringes.
I am culturally left of center
That would explain why you’re OK with an apparatchik murdering an unarmed protestor.
-jcr
How do you even have time to post here what with your obviously busy schedule attending BLM protests, since unjust cop executions of citizens is what those are all about?
unjust cop executions of citizens is what those are all about?
Tell us how burning and looting brought George Floyd back to life, lefturd.
-jcr
If all you saw was the burning and looting, and you’re here propagating the deliberately curated perspective that burning and looting was all that happened, you are acting as a foot soldier in the movement against police reform, so it’s your fault if the capitol police got away with something.
The people burning and looting are acting as foot soldiers in the movement against police reform.
I realize that. They were often right-wing interlopers trying to start trouble and discredit BLM. That burning and looting is your best friend. You don’t give a crap about a Walgreens and nobody thinks you do.
I’m sorry: I was too distracted by all the starving children I worry s out so much.
What weee you saying about Alex Jones and false flag operations?
I see you’re admitting to the B and the L, but ignoring the M. Your lefturd hoards also murdered dozens of people in their ongoing Kristallnacht rampage. Of course, you don’t care about that, or you’d be complaining about the routine gang violence in Democrat-run cities, wouldn’t you, you odious little tankie?
-jcr
I don’t really have a judgement about wrong or right here but what she was doing was incredibly risky and goes far past mere protest. Breaking into that place with a mob some of whom were accosting police with congress there and armed guards who were supposed to protect them. C’mon. I am surprised it wasn’t worse.
She was front and center of a mob who was trying to breach the House chamber. No one but the most extreme would consider that a bad shoot.
In addition to being a convicted criminal, a belligerent asshole who was engaged in general destruction and trying to pick fights with numerous people, the first piece of crap shot by Rittenhouse was front and center of a mob that was chasing him…presumably not with the intent to get his autograph…and from which gunshots were coming. And when Rittenhouse could no longer continue his attempt to escape from that mob the leader thereof attempted to take his personal defense weapon from him, which would have rendered Rittenhouse helpless against the violent mob that was pursuing him, and his lead attacker armed. How extreme would you need to be to call that a bad shoot?
“a belligerent asshole who was engaged in general destruction”
Opinion, with a side dish of overexaggeration.
“from which gunshots were coming”
That never happened. The only shots were Kyle’s.
“his personal defense weapon”
Or personal offense weapon. The jury will decide that point.
“violent mob”
After Kyle shot someone, it’s not surprising they got violent. I would, too, if someone shot the guy next to me.
“How extreme would you need to be to call that a bad shoot?”
I wouldn’t have to be extreme. Of the three people he shot, only one is clearly in dispute. If the other two only knew that Kyle shot someone, self-defense is as reasonable a description of their responses as Kyle’s. Which is why this will go in front of a jury.
If I was a betting man I would think that the chance of him getting off on all three is pretty low. A guy with a gun shooting a guy with a skateboard and a guy with no weapon at all will be a tough sell as self-defense. It reminds me of the man in Florida who shot the guy who pushed him down and tried to use the stand-your-ground defense. He’s in prison now.
You are a leftist. Period.
Define leftist. If you mean a left-leaning moderate, I agree. If you mean a left-wing extremist, absolutely not.
Kyle was helping out in the community that day, prior to the riot, for free; giving of his ability to those in need.
They don’t want Marxism, they want to side with evil because they feel it makes them correct.
I reject your framing because it is ignorant and evil.
You are twisting what is right and calling it bad. And what is wrong, you call good.
You’ll have to be more specific. What is ignorant and evil? What is right that I’m calling bad? What is wring that I am calling good?
Opening statement:
“What part of don’t state you are going to kill and then physically attack the guy with the rifle didn’t they understand?”
The “victims” deserve a Darwin award
True that. He was also an idiot for putting himself in that position to begin with. Asking for trouble and it found him.
Echospinner the janitor is asking for trouble, and it will find him.
Kyle or the protesters? It’s equally applicable.
A Wisconsin judge laid out the final ground rules Monday on what evidence will be allowed when Kyle Rittenhouse goes on trial next week for shooting three people during a protest against police brutality, ruling he’ll permit testimony from the defence’s use-of-force expert and on how police welcomed Rittenhouse and others carrying guns during the demonstration.
The hearing was likely the last before Rittenhouse goes on trial Nov. 1 for the shootings during chaotic demonstrations in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, two days after a white police officer in that city shot a Black man, Jacob Blake, in the back while responding to a domestic disturbance.
https://worldabcnews.com/judge-sets-final-ground-rules-for-kenosha-wis-protest-shooting-trial-of-kyle-rittenhouse/
Who cares what CNN’s analist says about the trial. With ratings below that of Nickleodeon and the credibility of a wino on a binge, CNN has become what the rest of the MSM needs to avoid.
Rittenhouse simply defended himself against a violently radical leftist ANTIFA thugs, both of whom had previous criminal records, one of them for sexual assault on a minor and spent several years in prison for it. As far as I’m concerned Rittenhouse did the world a favor by taking out those two little scum.
Now let’s see if the jury feels the same way. If they do a lot of liberal heads will explode.
Expect more BLM/ANTIFA riots.
It’s a crime the kid is in jail in the first place. The videos are very clear. Self-defense is the most basic of rights.
Exactly. They do this to make people afraid of the “consequences” of exercising these rights. His life is over just from the process, even with innocence. Hopefully some lawsuits follow and he gets a sizeable settlement after this. Just think about all the people in prison for self defense who never even make the news. I’m sure Portand is holding hundreds by now. Probably more than actual criminal rioters.
Poor Tony.
… and Fuck Joe Biden