Look, you've got some issues with reading comprehension so I suggest using the quote function - the statement was these weren't normal people, if you deliberately misquote it then it's going to make even less sense to you in the context of the sentence immediately before it and you're already quite bad at not just reading that post but even failing to get basic facts about this whole case correct.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Look, you've got some issues with reading comprehension so I suggest using the quote function - the statement was these weren't normal people, if you deliberately misquote it then it's going to make even less sense to you in the context of the sentence immediately before it and you're already quite bad at not just reading that post but even failing to get basic facts about this whole case correct.
No one said their criminal history was important re: the self-defence claim itself FFS, stop making up arguments that weren't made. It was mentioned in relation to their behaviour - most people wouldn't start attacking someone with an AR-15, some crazy paedo guy with a literal death wish (fresh out of the hospital that moring after a suicide attempt) might though...
FML... this guy just can't read and has already got plenty of basic facts wrong about the case. Now he's arguing against a point that was never made even after it has been pointed out/explained to him.
Anyway on some lighthearted notes - here is prosecution star witness (who confirmed, on the stand, that he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse before being shot!) falling off his chair - Rittenhouse's lawyer laughing, Rittenhsous having to duck under the table to avoid being seen laughing...
And here's Huber's dad indicating what a classy household the skateboarder attacker grew up in... as he flips the bird at the judge!
Of course, the prosecutors were as dodgy as ever in trying to get Kyle even back then, the Judge clearly didn't even trust the DA's office at that point either, was worried about them leaking the new address:
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/02/11/hubers-dad-flips-him-off/
Lastly, someone who knew star witness Gage trolled him in the DM's and we can see what sort of character he is from his reactions/veiled threats made in response:
edit - warning swearing in the screenshots, here is a direct link to the tweet, not embedding it after all:
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1461486743044165642
His last criminal offence was for hitting his own grandmother in the face... this was the prosecution's star witness, the guy whose phone they refused to search and who they didn't bother charging for the actually illegal weapon he brought to a riot - interestingly had he been on bond for a current offence then it could have been brought up in court, rather useful for the state that it was dismissed and that they didn't search his phone and find anything else incriminating:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...reer-criminal-charges-dropped-just-trial.html
Also, his earliest adult offence is rather WTF:
How much of a scumbag do you have to be to attack your own grandmother? Totally normal people we're dealing with here, could have happened to anyone, normal people will totally chase down and attack or threaten people with AR-15s in riots all the time.
And here's Huber's dad indicating what a classy household the skateboarder attacker grew up in... as he flips the bird at the judge!
Of course, the prosecutors were as dodgy as ever in trying to get Kyle even back then, the Judge clearly didn't even trust the DA's office at that point either, was worried about them leaking the new address:
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/02/11/hubers-dad-flips-him-off/
Lastly, someone who knew star witness Gage trolled him in the DM's and we can see what sort of character he is from his reactions/veiled threats made in response:
edit - warning swearing in the screenshots, here is a direct link to the tweet, not embedding it after all:
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1461486743044165642
His last criminal offence was for hitting his own grandmother in the face... this was the prosecution's star witness, the guy whose phone they refused to search and who they didn't bother charging for the actually illegal weapon he brought to a riot - interestingly had he been on bond for a current offence then it could have been brought up in court, rather useful for the state that it was dismissed and that they didn't search his phone and find anything else incriminating:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...reer-criminal-charges-dropped-just-trial.html
Also, his earliest adult offence is rather WTF:
How much of a scumbag do you have to be to attack your own grandmother? Totally normal people we're dealing with here, could have happened to anyone, normal people will totally chase down and attack or threaten people with AR-15s in riots all the time.
Nope. Though why are you asking that poster? You could just watch the testimony or read about it yourself. AFAIK he never claimed to be part of any militia.
His claim is that went to protect the business (at the invitation of the owners) by putting out fires etc.. and he offered medical assistance to people and there is plenty of footage of him doing just that. His weapon was carried for self defence.
There is also an argument that they knew full well that the case was a loser and so wanted (or at least would be happy with risking) a mistrial to save face, the decision to charge him so quickly and to basically throw the book at him + to not charge bicep boy seems very political and a knee jerk reaction to public outrage to the shootings before all the facts were known.
I mean AFAIK part of the key evidence they used as their argument re: provocation wasn't even available at the time they charged him so it's not clear what they thought they were basing the charges on at that time... seems more like they went to charge him quickly based on the outcry then sought to find whatever evidence they could to support it after.
This is part of the problem with this culture war/wokeness nonsense, some of the instigators/powerful supporters of it see themselves as part of a continuation of the civil rights movement. It made sense, back in the day, for the federal government to pursue charges in cases where say the justice system openly racist states had failed black victims.
It makes very little sense for the feds to go after Rittenhouse simply because some powerful politicians don't like the verdict.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-rittenhouse-verdict-doj-review-b1961147.html
FML, he's literally the chair of the house judiciary committee, demanding an investigation on a case he clearly hasn't followed (beyond misleading media snippets) and can't even get basic facts right about. Still citing some debunked talking point about taking a weapon across state lines FFS
The US is supposed to have double jeopardy, though they get around this by this two sovereigns things re: state and federal charges ergo people can be charged twice... useful in say bum**** town, Alabama or similar decades ago where someone has blatantly murdered a black guy and then been let off the hook by an all-white jury full of racist locals, bit dubious in the case of a white kid at a riot shooting other white people and nothing to suggest any racial bias in the case or from the jurors etc.. in fact the main source of bias seems to be political bias working against the now acquitted defendant.
I presume, given that this politician seems a bit clueless about the case, that this is a somewhat empty demand of the DOJ but still...
IIRC the supreme court was going to rule (again) on this obvious double jeopardy loophole but didn't for [reasons], I wonder if it is time that the US ought to get rid of it.
It makes very little sense for the feds to go after Rittenhouse simply because some powerful politicians don't like the verdict.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-rittenhouse-verdict-doj-review-b1961147.html
FML, he's literally the chair of the house judiciary committee, demanding an investigation on a case he clearly hasn't followed (beyond misleading media snippets) and can't even get basic facts right about. Still citing some debunked talking point about taking a weapon across state lines FFS
The US is supposed to have double jeopardy, though they get around this by this two sovereigns things re: state and federal charges ergo people can be charged twice... useful in say bum**** town, Alabama or similar decades ago where someone has blatantly murdered a black guy and then been let off the hook by an all-white jury full of racist locals, bit dubious in the case of a white kid at a riot shooting other white people and nothing to suggest any racial bias in the case or from the jurors etc.. in fact the main source of bias seems to be political bias working against the now acquitted defendant.
I presume, given that this politician seems a bit clueless about the case, that this is a somewhat empty demand of the DOJ but still...
IIRC the supreme court was going to rule (again) on this obvious double jeopardy loophole but didn't for [reasons], I wonder if it is time that the US ought to get rid of it.
Problem is, one of the main catalysts of the riots, dodgy/selective media reporting... drumming up outrage to generate clicks/views hasn't changed at all.
The riot itself was the result of a very dumb protest in response to a police shooting incident that was completely distorted when reported likely because the criminal in question was black and the officer white.
That's even more daft though you need to be able to prove someone broke a law if you want to charge someone else it will just get thrown out - you can't just charge someone with something for the sake of it.
You're describing a country with a few hundred million people, of course plenty are arrested each day. Charging people with crimes they didn't commit isn't the norm per se though.
That isn't necessarily abnormal, certainly not in a self-defence type scenario (there was a guy near me in London who killed a burglar and was simply arrested & interviewed and the case not taken any further even) - Rittenhouse actually had quite a high bail set + spent a couple of months in jail before funds could be raised.
People accused of lesser offenses can often simply use bail bondsmen to get out of jail pretty quickly, raising a couple of million is rather more difficult thus it took 2 months.
It looks like some people traumatised by the verdict are getting their reparations in already:
Joking aside though this is party why this sort of incident occurred... first we had the media stirring things up, then in part (perhaps as a result of fear of the public outrage) we saw rather spineless politicians & prosecutors failing to react.
In Kenosha, they'd had rioting and destruction already but still held the police back, part of the implicit bargain when living in a civil society is that you give a monopoly on violence to the state... if the state then fails to protect you then you get situations like the two Indian businessmen inviting armed men in some sort of attempt to protect/provide a deterrent to people who might be inclined to attack their businesses.
There has been some violence in SF as a result of the verdict and I guess some planned robberies knowing this, that + the San Fran DA is literally what happens when some student radical/leftist actually ends up getting a job with real power:
Check out who raised this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin
Father:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gilbert_(activist)
Mother
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Boudin
Adoptive father:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
Adoptive mother
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn
Essentially the current district attorney of San Fran is the biological son of + adopted son of some far-left terrorists (basically part of what would, these days be an Antifa org) with violent criminal convictions and academic positions at various US universities.
Is it any wonder that he's sympathetic to Antifa/BLM and rioters in general and indeed has some rather dubious views on not bothering to charge people over a range of offences.
If they're not careful in the US then they're going to get more people frustrated at what is happening in their communities and potentially more incidents like this.
Joking aside though this is party why this sort of incident occurred... first we had the media stirring things up, then in part (perhaps as a result of fear of the public outrage) we saw rather spineless politicians & prosecutors failing to react.
In Kenosha, they'd had rioting and destruction already but still held the police back, part of the implicit bargain when living in a civil society is that you give a monopoly on violence to the state... if the state then fails to protect you then you get situations like the two Indian businessmen inviting armed men in some sort of attempt to protect/provide a deterrent to people who might be inclined to attack their businesses.
There has been some violence in SF as a result of the verdict and I guess some planned robberies knowing this, that + the San Fran DA is literally what happens when some student radical/leftist actually ends up getting a job with real power:
Check out who raised this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin
Father:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gilbert_(activist)
Mother
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Boudin
Adoptive father:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
Adoptive mother
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn
Essentially the current district attorney of San Fran is the biological son of + adopted son of some far-left terrorists (basically part of what would, these days be an Antifa org) with violent criminal convictions and academic positions at various US universities.
Is it any wonder that he's sympathetic to Antifa/BLM and rioters in general and indeed has some rather dubious views on not bothering to charge people over a range of offences.
If they're not careful in the US then they're going to get more people frustrated at what is happening in their communities and potentially more incidents like this.
Yeah it does, though if you're unsure why - the point is the weapons charge doesn't apply as he was carrying the rifle legally.
You said:
But that's even dafter, at least they can attempt to make an argument re: the felony homicide or reckless endangerment charges, they don't even have a law that he breached re: the weapons charge.
It's not up to the jury to decide matters of law, this is a basic misunderstanding of what the function of the jury is, they decide matters of fact. The argument re: the facts are available already re: the weapons charge - is he 17 years old - yes, is the barrel length > 16 inches - yes. The prosecution agree and the judge threw the charge out, it didn't even get to the jury as there was nothing to decide.
Ironically Kyle was quite aware of Wisconsin law there and the prosecutor wasn't leading to him schooling the prosecutor on the stand when questioned about why he didn't carry a pistol.
That's a fair point re: the homicide charges but not necessarily re: the weapons charge which was thrown out.
It's more just that the prosecution's case was really weak, there are strong provisions for self-defence and it seemed pretty clear that he'd been acting in self-defence here - they were trying to reach a bit with some blurry footage to claim some provocation angle or trying to argue that some aspects were excessive or reckless etc... There was perhaps some chance with the lesser charges included of a jury finding a guilty conviction if some really wanted to but I suspect it wouldn't have been too safe, seemed highly likely there was going to be a mistrial if he was found guilty and the judge was just waiting for the verdict to see if he could avoid having to make that call.
You don't need to take my word for it, it's got nothing to do with my word, it's just fact! (how are you not following that??? This isn't "dowie's opinion of the law", watch the case instead of posting from a position of ignorance, see the ruling from the local Judge with decades of experience, he's an expert in local law here.
Also, the law professor doesn't contradict that the charges were thrown out he's just commenting that the jury might want to settle on such a charge had it been available. That doesn't negate anything posted! IF Kyle had broken the law they might have just settled on that charge - you don't include a link for context even (wonder why that is...).
Clear to whom? And where did I say anything about last year? I'm commenting on your retrospective assertion in the post I literally quoted... you're now shifting some goalposts.
Also LOL, you're literally quoting Politifact who famously got this completely wrong FFS! Also worth nothing the defence made the argument in court without relying on making any argument re: hunting provisions etc.. they specifically state they weren't doing so even.
To be clear though - this is the post I took issue with:
That's just ass backwards, the only thing to charge him with was the one charge where he didn't break local laws resulting in the prosecution having an egg on face moment and the charge being dropped??? Also, you wouldn't want to even attempt a charge re: reckless endangerment or similar etc.. if you were the prosecutor?
Last edited:
Of course, it's a badly worded law given what the intentions might have been, that doesn't negate that they got it wrong. You don't find someone guilty based on what the law should have said if better drafted and the hunting stuff is a cope on their part after being called out - the defence specifically stated they weren't relying on that and argued their point simply based on the two conditions present in the legislation.
Let's be realistic here, you've been clutching at straws all through this thread, putting loads of weight on the prosecution arguments when they had a fairly weak case and overcharged. Not able to answer follow up questions (I guess in part because you were just making vague assertions based on snippets of what you saw the prosecution say in court and then weren't able to provide explanations/arguments aside from deflection and references to the prosecution - it's a bit silly.)
JFC the argument was already provided in court and the prosecutors had to concede it, they didn't rely on any claims about hunting nor does the legislation require anything about hunting, the defence made the argument without reference to hunting as I literally already pointed out in this thread:
^^^ this is false, you don't have to be 18 necessarily.
^^^ this is misleading, that he wasn't in Wisconsin to hunt doesn't matter.
It was perfectly legal for him to carry that rifle as the law allows it given it is a long-barreled (over 16 inches) rifle and he was 17 years old.
this is why the charges were thrown out, Politifact could have just conceded they were wrong but instead they're doubling down on it.
Because it was literally shown to be true at the trial. They could update the "fact check" but instead they're just throwing in some weak cope...
Because you've been rather silly and it might be an explanation for your erratic posting.
You don't have to answer questions but when there are obvious questions that lead from things you've said that seem to be contradictory or when you post assertions without argument or explanation and then aren't going to address the questions raised it might well lead to the conclusion that you can't. It's a bit silly to engage in a discussion thread with an opposing view and vague assertions then be seemingly unable to offer any clarification re: the point you're trying to make.
It's not his job to solve any flaws re: intent, the defence was clearly able to argue that as the law stands currently it is indeed legal for a 17 year old to open carry a long-barreled rifle in that state, I'm not sure why you're struggling with this.
What do you mean by someone fleeing in a vehicle? They seem to have quite deliberately run people over in a terror style attack.
It seems like quite the coincidence, I guess instead of extremist clerics and infidels we now have talking heads on the news banging on about dubious claims of “white supremacy” in relation to this case and a back drop of scapegoating white people for everything (this case has been cited as an example of “white privilege” for example).
When you’re allowed to demonise a group of people continually then don’t be too surprised if some act on it. It’s not the same background or as extreme as say 1930s Germany, that was a minority rather than the majority and the rhetoric ramped up to 11… But if you do carry on with conspiracies whereby group X has special privileges, everything that’s wrong about society is down to that group etc.. that can drive hatred.
This incident does seem to have been the result of some crazy BLM supporter (he’s been identified, social media posts discovered) and quite plausibly deliberate.
Well here is a 16-year-old + her father, carrying an AR-15 around, literally right outside the Kenosha courthouse yesterday, in full view of police, media etc:
https://nypost.com/2021/11/21/armed-father-daughter-duo-seek-to-protect-anti-rittenhouse-protesters/
Looking for trouble? Clearly white privilege - if they were black then the police would have shot them (oh wait)...
I presume they're not part of the protest or don't necessarily agree with it but are just there because they were asked - that would be too much irony, what does that dad (a 2nd amendment supporter) expect to do if attacked.
Anyway, that the law might need to be changed IF politicians want it to only cover hunting doesn't negate that as it is currently written it does allow the carrying of long-barreled weapons.
Seems like it's "perfectly legal" right now, contrary to what the fact-checkers at Politifact might like to claim.
OK fair enough, that's plausible too but surely both are speculation right now, I'm not sure that pointing out a plausible explanation is necessarily bad - this is a discussion forum after all