Terrorist Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted on all counts

[ort]

I mean, fuck it, lets just all walk around with assault rifles and shoot each other in the face like it's a normal fucking thing.

[DPCyric]

On 11/22/2021 at 9:43 PM, CitizenVectron said:

I bet at least two to three posters here are Russian plants.

 

That would be impressive can you pick them out of a line up:

 

Endemic Plants Of Russia - WorldAtlas

WWW.WORLDATLAS.COM

---

Russia's mountains and the cold expanses of Siberia house many unique, and often rare, plants.

 

[Brick]

From Facebook (yeah I know), but interesting if accurate. 

 

Log into Facebook | Facebook

M.FACEBOOK.COM

---

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

 

Quote

From a military legal worker:

I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.

Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.

That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.

First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you. 

This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.

However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.

While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.

If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.

He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country. 

And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.

The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department. 

I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it."

First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings. 

Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.

Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.

This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive.

May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.

This has been my Ted Talk.

 

At the end of the day I don't care if what he did is legally self defense because the fact that it could be is damning of American gun culture that someone can walk around with a rifle and legally shoot and kill someone if they feel threatened. Would this kid had been attacked had he not been carrying it in the first place? Probably not. America needs better gun laws, and licenses federally; no more of this different laws for different states bullshit. Time and time again the American public prove way too many of them aren't responsible enough to own a firearm. 

[skillzdadirecta]

20 minutes ago, Brick said:

From Facebook (yeah I know), but interesting if accurate. 

 

Log into Facebook | Facebook

M.FACEBOOK.COM

---

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

 

 

At the end of the day I don't care if what he did is legally self defense because the fact that it could be is damning of American gun culture that someone can walk around with a rifle and legally shoot and kill someone if they feel threatened. Would this kid had been attacked had he not been carrying it in the first place? Probably not. America needs better gun laws, and licenses federally; no more of this different laws for different states bullshit. Time and time again the American public prove way too many of them aren't responsible enough to own a firearm. 

I don't know what the law is in Wisconsin but a lot of states have gotten rid of the requirement to retreat.  I believe that's the basis of most Stand Your Ground laws. Anyway, this country is doomed to repeat its history with gun violence.  You know what tamed the wild west? Gun laws. You know why it was called the Wild west in the first place? Gun violence. We're going backwards. 

[Guest]

He did retreat in each of the three instances, so even though Wisconsin is not a state with a requirement to retreat, he would likely clear that bar in most states that do have requirement to retreat.

 

46 minutes ago, Brick said:

That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

This isn’t true.

 

46 minutes ago, Brick said:

If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense.

Rittenhouse didn’t fire until Rosenbaum lunged at him and grabbed the gun. It is important to note that self defense only requires that you have a reasonable belief you are at imminent risk of death or great bodily harm. You aren’t required to wait until the weapon is taken from you and you find out what the other person is intending to do with it.

 

46 minutes ago, Brick said:

Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record

The least a person could do is some basic research. Rosenbaum was a convicted child molester. Huber was a convicted domestic abuser. Grosskreutz has been convicted of multiple things including a firearm possession with intoxicated charge.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Brick said:

America needs better gun laws

 

Repeal the second 

[Ghost_MH]

58 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Repeal the second 

 

This is the only answer. This entire situation changes the second nobody has a gun. People might walk away with bruises, but 99/100 times, that's all they way away with.

 

Most of the people involved here had a perfectly legitimate and legal right to murder someone in self defense that needs to exist only because there were guns involved. Many of our self defense laws exist the way they do because people having guns creates a reasonable fear of being shot.

[Brick]

I just realized that post I shared is from September of 2020.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Yeah, I had a friend share that same

post. This stuff is really easy to fact check. I hate FB. 

[skillzdadirecta]

If anyone has had a reason to own/carry a gun it would be me. I've had guns pointed at me, was pistol whipped once and been shot at all before I was 18. I never got a gun because I knew back then there was a good chance I would be in a position to use it through no fault of my own. Never felt the need to own one despite how many times in my life me and members of my family have been affected by gun violence.  For me personally,  owning a gun means I'll more than likely use it. Maybe my opinion will change when I have a family if my own to protect, but guns don't make you safer. The statistics are clear on that.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Wish I could use my gun right now, but all I’ve seen this season are illegal deer and baby bucks. Boooo. Another just walked 10 feet from me and didn’t even notice. 

[stepee]

ahhhhh don’t share from facebook even if it’s on your side it’s all bummmppppkissssss

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Used my gun on a pig instead. Too bad it was a boar, they don’t taste good. Least it’s one less pest. 

[Dodger]

4 hours ago, Brick said:

From Facebook (yeah I know), but interesting if accurate. 

 

Log into Facebook | Facebook

M.FACEBOOK.COM

---

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

 

 

At the end of the day I don't care if what he did is legally self defense because the fact that it could be is damning of American gun culture that someone can walk around with a rifle and legally shoot and kill someone if they feel threatened. Would this kid had been attacked had he not been carrying it in the first place? Probably not. America needs better gun laws, and licenses federally; no more of this different laws for different states bullshit. Time and time again the American public prove way too many of them aren't responsible enough to own a firearm. 

 

This guy is wrong in like the first paragraph. You’re still at fault and legally liable for damages if you rear end someone without a license or insurance.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Used my gun on a pig instead. Too bad it was a boar, they don’t taste good. Least it’s one less pest. 

I knew someone who would bow hunt boars

[best3444]

2 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Used my gun on a pig instead. Too bad it was a boar, they don’t taste good. Least it’s one less pest. 

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I knew someone who would bow hunt boars

I never got into bow hunting. Too clumsy.  
 

Just kill those fuckers any way you can. They’re awful. That was actually the first hog I’d ever killed. It was almost dark and my father-in-law said kill whatever pig I saw. I think this made 12 killed on their land this season. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

1 minute ago, best3444 said:

 

Trust me, that’s not a reason to be sad. They’re an invasive species and ruin land. And dangerous. 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I knew someone who would bow hunt boars

 

Was he also a cop?

[best3444]

6 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Trust me, that’s not a reason to be sad. They’re an invasive species and ruin land. And dangerous. 

 

I see. I just couldn't kill an animal. I understand the need etc.

[skillzdadirecta]

31 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Was he also a cop?

Lol no. My friend’s dad actually.

[Ghost_MH]

51 minutes ago, best3444 said:

I see. I just couldn't kill an animal. I understand the need etc.

 

Blame all those people that saw cute piglets on the Internet, bought a one, and then just let them loose into the wild when they learned cute little piglets eventually turn into pigs.

[Chadatog]

12 hours ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Blame all those people that saw cute piglets on the Internet, bought a one, and then just let them loose into the wild when they learned cute little piglets eventually turn into pigs.

Fun fact: domesticated pigs will revert back into boars in their lifespan, gain tusks/grow longer dark hair.  You can also take in a boar and do the opposite, they will eventually loose tusks and hair the longer they are in captivity.

[Fizzzzle]

19 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

If anyone has had a reason to own/carry a gun it would be me. I've had guns pointed at me, was pistol whipped once and been shot at all before I was 18. I never got a gun because I knew back then there was a good chance I would be in a position to use it through no fault of my own. Never felt the need to own one despite how many times in my life me and members of my family have been affected by gun violence.  For me personally,  owning a gun means I'll more than likely use it. Maybe my opinion will change when I have a family if my own to protect, but guns don't make you safer. The statistics are clear on that.

I've been trained how to use guns. Heavily. If someone hands me a gun,I will instinctually remove the magazine and rack the slide, and I'm a pretty good shot with both hands. And I've shot basically all manner of guns, even down to machine guns, and even a grenade launcher.

 

 

I say that to say I would never and will never own a gun. Main reason being my long history of depression and substance abuse. I'm many times more likely to use that gun on myself than have it come in handy for my fucking John McClane moment.

 

 

[Guest]

I just can’t imagine what it is like to have such a fear of things like going to the grocery store that you feel you need a gun on you.

[Kal-El814]

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I just can’t imagine what it is like to have such a fear of things like going to the grocery store that you feel you need a gun on you.

 

I'll never understand this.

 

Liking target shooting? Yes, I get it. Shooting at targets is fun. If I could fling all firearms into the sun, I would... but I still think target shooting can be a good time.

 

Hunting? Sure. And in some areas it's a necessity.

 

Home defense? I think people's understanding of probability is poor if they think gun ownership with easy access at home in the event of a home invasion is a net positive on safety, but I can at least follow the mental gymnastics even if I think they're lulzy.

 

Being armed when you leave the house? Batshit and I can never be convinced otherwise.

[thewhyteboar]

9 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I just can’t imagine what it is like to have such a fear of things like going to the grocery store that you feel you need a gun on you.

I'm gonna paraphrase what AOC said about Gossar, but deep down these cowards know how thoroughly mediocre they are and are absolutely terrified moving through life. They don't need a gun, they need a therapist.

[Keyser_Soze]

Imagine thinking you need to shoot something.

[DarkStar189]

10 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

I've been trained how to use guns. Heavily. If someone hands me a gun,I will instinctually remove the magazine and rack the slide, and I'm a pretty good shot with both hands. And I've shot basically all manner of guns, even down to machine guns, and even a grenade launcher.

 

 

I say that to say I would never and will never own a gun. Main reason being my long history of depression and substance abuse. I'm many times more likely to use that gun on myself than have it come in handy for my fucking John McClane moment.

 

 

For a long long time I always thought, "I should have a gun in the house for protection." There is that very small chance something could happen and maybe it will keep me safe. But as I've gotten older with kids in the house, I feel like the risk of having one in the house is only upping the risk for a horrible accident to happen. For as much as I would have to lock the gun up to keep it away from kids, it suddenly seems useless if I needed it within a few seconds of someone breaking in. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I'd definitely rethink the two pistols I own if I had kids. I mostly have them because they're fun to shoot and maybe that 5% worry about a break-in. I don't think about them most of the time, though.

[skillzdadirecta]

7 hours ago, DarkStar189 said:

For a long long time I always thought, "I should have a gun in the house for protection." There is that very small chance something could happen and maybe it will keep me safe. But as I've gotten older with kids in the house, I feel like the risk of having one in the house is only upping the risk for a horrible accident to happen. For as much as I would have to lock the gun up to keep it away from kids, it suddenly seems useless if I needed it within a few seconds of someone breaking in. 

I know of two incidents with family members accidentally discharging guns in the house. One time some younger cousins got a hold of my grandfather's shotgun and put a hole through the wall that you could see daylight through. Thankfully no one was hurt, but I think the odds of something bad happening go up when you have a firearm in the house and kids.

[SuperSpreader]

We were on our balcony hanging out a year ago and all of a sudden we heard shots from our neighbors house, we grabbed the dogs and ran inside. Turns out my COP neighbor who does WEAPONS TRAINING had accidentally discharged his gun. (Probably an orgasm.)

[mclumber1]

8 hours ago, DarkStar189 said:

For a long long time I always thought, "I should have a gun in the house for protection." There is that very small chance something could happen and maybe it will keep me safe. But as I've gotten older with kids in the house, I feel like the risk of having one in the house is only upping the risk for a horrible accident to happen. For as much as I would have to lock the gun up to keep it away from kids, it suddenly seems useless if I needed it within a few seconds of someone breaking in. 

 

We have a pistol safe in my night stand next to the bed, but all of our other guns are unloaded, and (when possible) partially disassembled, sitting inside a locked gun safe.  We also regularly go shooting with our daughter.  If you are going to have weapons in the house, everyone should know how to use them safely.  Never teaching kids gun safety if you keep guns in the house is a recipe for disaster.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

18 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

I'll never understand this.

 

Liking target shooting? Yes, I get it. Shooting at targets is fun. If I could fling all firearms into the sun, I would... but I still think target shooting can be a good time.

 

Hunting? Sure. And in some areas it's a necessity.

 

Home defense? I think people's understanding of probability is poor if they think gun ownership with easy access at home in the event of a home invasion is a net positive on safety, but I can at least follow the mental gymnastics even if I think they're lulzy.

 

Being armed when you leave the house? Batshit and I can never be convinced otherwise.

need the gun to shoot the FAKE CHINA VIRUS that they refuse to wear a mask for or get vaccinated against

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

keeping guns in the house, regardless of training, increases the likelihood of a 'successful' suicide attempt (to say nothing of crimes of passion). i know the gun nuts don't like to hear about suicide statistics ("they'll find another way") but getting shot kills you faster and with a greater chance of 'success' (and there's less room for error in the case of a last minute step back from the brink) than other ways.

 

if you have kids just don't have guns. simple as that.

[CitizenVectron]

Kyle Rittenhouse can be innocent of the charges against him (because he acted in self-defense) while also at the same time still be 100% responsible for those deaths because he knowingly put himself in that situation. Legally he may be in the clear, but I think it's pretty obvious that morally he is not.