Kyle Rittenhouse trial

53,163 Views | 970 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by boognish_bear
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is NBC news. Blatant false reporting. Fox doesn't come anywhere close this kind of deceitful reporting.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kenosha-hopes-calm-kyle-rittenhouse-014803668.html
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.
This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Wangchung said:

More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.
This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.
Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

fadskier said:

Canon said:

fadskier said:

Canon said:

fadskier said:

Canon said:

fadskier said:

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
vigilante

vj-lnt
noun
[ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
  • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct

    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage


    To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.
    No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.
    Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
    Wrecks Quan Dough
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
  • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct

    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage


    To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.
    No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.
    He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.
    Osodecentx
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Wangchung said:

    ATL Bear said:

    Wangchung said:

    More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.
    This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.
    Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.
    Said nobody on this board



    Osodecentx
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Liberals Accuse Rittenhouse Of Trying To Avoid Punishment Through Legal Loophole Known As 'Trial'


    KENOSHA, WILeftists are sounding the alarm that Kyle Rittenhousea notorious slayer of white communist pedophilesmay escape punishment through a little-known legal loophole known as a "trial."
    "This is very concerning," said Chip Cordray, progressive legal expert covering the case. "Using this obscure loophole, Rittenhouse's fate will be decided by an impartial jury of peers based on evidence, rather than the whims of noble communist revolutionaries on Twittersuch as Bette Midler and Joe Biden."
    Experts confirm that if Rittenhouse is found "not guilty," liberals won't be getting their way, which could lead to massive temper-tantrums, such as arson and looting.
    "We can't let this happen," said Cordray. "It's time to talk about closing the 'trial' loophole so that justice can be done according to the whims of the leftist mob, as our founding fathers intended."
    https://babylonbee.com/news/liberals-accuse-rittenhouse-of-trying-to-avoid-punishment-through-legal-loophole-known-as-trial
    Wangchung
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Osodecentx said:

    Wangchung said:

    ATL Bear said:

    Wangchung said:

    More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.
    This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.
    Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.
    Said nobody on this board




    Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the same
    age as Kyle. It wasn't founded by people who hide in their homes.
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    Wangchung
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    FormerFlash
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Cobretti said:


    Whey they make this story into a movie, Jeffrey Tambor should play the judge.

    Osodecentx
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Wangchung said:

    Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
    Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.

    No rioting
    Jack Bauer
    How long do you want to ignore this user?


    "He unloaded 60 rounds" - unreal and defamatory.
    Wrecks Quan Dough
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Osodecentx said:

    Wangchung said:

    Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
    Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.

    No rioting
    What misdemeanor? It cannot be the gun possession charge.
    Wangchung
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    FormerFlash said:

    Cobretti said:


    Whey they make this story into a movie, Jeffrey Tambor should play the judge.


    ONLY because Peter Boyle has passed on.
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    Wangchung
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    Osodecentx said:

    Wangchung said:

    Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
    Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.

    No rioting
    What misdemeanor? It cannot be the gun possession charge.
    Now is the time on Sprockets when we predict!
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    Osodecentx
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    Osodecentx said:

    Wangchung said:

    Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
    Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.

    No rioting
    What misdemeanor? It cannot be the gun possession charge.
    See Count 6
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint
    Osodecentx
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    Osodecentx said:

    Wangchung said:

    Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
    Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.

    No rioting
    What misdemeanor? It cannot be the gun possession charge.
    Did I miss your prediction post?
    Wrecks Quan Dough
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Osodecentx said:

    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    Osodecentx said:

    Wangchung said:

    Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
    Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.

    No rioting
    What misdemeanor? It cannot be the gun possession charge.
    See Count 6
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint

    Kyle cannot violate that statute. Jonathan Turley breaks it down and explains why it is legally impossible for Kyle to be guilty of the charge alleging he possessed a dangerous weapon.
    Wangchung
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    I'm curious as to how that will play out in the judges instructions to the final 12 on the jury.If he violated a gun law, he needs to be convicted on it. Otherwise complete acquittal.
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    303Bear
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Gun charge was just dismissed.
    fadskier
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
  • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct

    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage


    To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.
    No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.
    He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.
    He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.

    I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.
    Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
    Wangchung
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/kyle-rittenhouse-jury-closing-arguments-live-updates
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    Wrecks Quan Dough
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    fadskier said:

    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
  • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct

    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage


    To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.
    No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.
    He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.
    He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.

    I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.


    That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.
    Jack Bauer
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    OUT:
    Kyle is a white supremacist.

    IN:
    The Judge is incompetent

    fadskier
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    fadskier said:

    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
  • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct

    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage


    To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.
    No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.
    He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.
    He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.

    I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.


    That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.
    Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!
    Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
    quash
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Oldbear83 said:

    quash said:

    Oldbear83 said:

    quash said:

    Oldbear83 said:

    quash said:

    Oldbear83 said:

    quash said:

    Oldbear83 said:

    quash said:

    Oldbear83 said:

    You hate the judge for enforcing well-known rules of procedure?

    Makes you look bitter, that.

    Which procedural rule are you whining about?

    You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the trial.

    You brought up a rule of procedure, surely you can say which one.

    You've been an ass on this board for more than two months, surely you can take a break and act like an adult.


    So you don't know which rule of procedure? That you wanted to piously cite?

    Shock.


    OH I know, and you do too. But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.

    No, actually, I have no idea which rule you're talking about. You brought it up, you should cite it.

    I will say it again: But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.


    You called me out. Now you won't back it up.

    And you think I'm the one showing disrespect.

    You have nothing and it's showing.

    And, as usual, you're just boring us.


    If I was wrong, the judge would not be considering the mistrial motion.

    Come on quash, you know full well that before the jury is seated the judge discusses what will and will not be admitted into evidence. The Prosecutor repeatedly tried to use things the judge barred.

    That's been plain for days now.

    So, you have deliberately pretended a universal rule of procedure was not violated here. Hence, you have demonstrated contempt not only for the intelligence of the members of this forum, but also for your own profession.

    Hence, you deserve contempt, nothing better.

    As I posted some time back, only without the detail now presented.

    Yet you imagine you are seen as mature and in control, like a variation of Mr. Bean.

    The difference being that Rowan Atkins only plays at being a buffoon, and is well aware of his act.

    You quash. do not seem to be aware of your divorce from rational analysis,

    A judge does not discuss what evidence will be allowed before the jury is seated, unless there is a motion in limine. You note: "The Prosecutor repeatedly tried to use things the judge barred." Yes. I said as much in the post that triggered you: "I've never seen any prosecutor above municipal court (1) argue the defendant's silence with a (2) a Motion in Limine in place."

    Aside from that motion the evidence is admitted or not based on what happens in trial. Most trials do not involve a motion in limine, as judges have a strong preference for letting jurors decide based on as much as evidence as possible. When an offer of evidence is made at trial the judge, in response to an objection, can decide to admit or exclude. That covers about 99% of the evidence. Probably more.

    There is no "universal rule of procedure". I have asked you several times to identify this rule and you steadfastly refuse. Procedural rules are easy to cite: Rule 92 TRCP, for example. You plainly have one in mind and I'd like to see if it actually applies or not.
    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
    Wrecks Quan Dough
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    fadskier said:

    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    fadskier said:

    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
  • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct

    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage


    To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.
    No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.
    He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.
    He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.

    I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.


    That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.
    Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!
    Actually, I can read the statute and follow Jonathan Turley's reasoning.
    quash
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Jack Bauer said:

    OUT:
    Kyle is a white supremacist.

    IN:
    The Judge is incompetent



    The judge has made some missteps but he's well under the Ito Line.
    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
    90sBear
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    quash said:

    Jack Bauer said:

    OUT:
    Kyle is a white supremacist.

    IN:
    The Judge is incompetent



    The judge has made some missteps but he's well under the Ito Line.

    Media has gone well beyond calling him incompetent and has been doing so for a while.
    quash
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    90sBear said:

    quash said:

    Jack Bauer said:

    OUT:
    Kyle is a white supremacist.

    IN:
    The Judge is incompetent



    The judge has made some missteps but he's well under the Ito Line.

    Media has gone well beyond calling him incompetent and has been doing so for a while.

    Like I keep saying, I don't watch the news, so I'll just take your word on that.
    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
    90sBear
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    quash said:

    90sBear said:

    quash said:

    Jack Bauer said:

    OUT:
    Kyle is a white supremacist.

    IN:
    The Judge is incompetent



    The judge has made some missteps but he's well under the Ito Line.

    Media has gone well beyond calling him incompetent and has been doing so for a while.

    Like I keep saying, I don't watch the news, so I'll just take your word on that.

    He's racist because of his phone ringtone, a joke he made about boats being stuck in Long Beach Harbor, and he's made it more difficult for the prosecution than they would like.

    He also honored veterans, another no-no.
    Harrison Bergeron
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    The ideological media's and the twatterverse's obsession with this case really is the story. Not that we need another example, but it is always fascinating when they completely change principles and POV depending on the jersey. There is no reason this case should take up any time on television or in print outside of maybe reporting of the verdict. It basically boils down to burners, looters, murderers good so Rittenhouse must be bad.

    If we had journalism anymore, it might focus on actual domestic and international issues that affect Americans and the world.
    fadskier
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    fadskier said:

    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    fadskier said:

    Amal Shuq-Up said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    Canon said:

    fadskier said:

    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
  • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct

    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage


    To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.
    No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.
    He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.
    He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.

    I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.


    That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.
    Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!
    Actually, I can read the statute and follow Jonathan Turley's reasoning.
    I read the statue as well. and I listened to the Judge.
    Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
    OsoCoreyell
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    He's going to walk. He should walk, based on what I've seen so far at trial. This prosecutor got bullied into bringing this case.
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.