Kyle Rittenhouse

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,736
2,317
113
New Brunswick
Prosecutions own witnesses are claiming self defense, reacting to not intending too cause harm

Yes, I saw that yesterday.

Their "star witness" lied to the cops, told them at the trial he had a gun and did point it at Kyle after having his hands up first, assuming Kyle was going to shoot him.

Regardless, that destroyed his own testimony.

Against this guy, Kyle was defending himself.

The other two still have to be decided for.

Look, I get you all love the little shit and think he should get off and he's the oh so innocent widdle childman boy, and he will.

But the moment this then seventeen year old *crossed state lines* to join a "protection brigade" (my words) against highly emotionally charged protesters (and looters and rioters too) and was given a WEAPON he was NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO HAVE, how could anyone with any reason what so ever NOT expect someone to be hurt or killed by him?

Why is it of all the people there armed to "Defend" places, only this teen not only shot people, but killed them?

Did he intend to murder anyone? Nope.

Was it a likelyhood? Totally.

He was failed; failed by his own fucking mother who should have said "No" and NOT driven him there, failed by the people who gave him the gun and failed by the people who thought it was okay for him to be there to begin with.

But again, because what he was charged with cannot be proven in absolute, he'll walk. Anyone smart saw that before the trial.

We'll see if a Civil suit comes out of it and how that goes.

For me, this topic is now closed and y'all can circle jerk yourselves with joy that the little racist shit will walk.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Mowich

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,926
2,612
113
Toronto, ON
Yes, I saw that yesterday.

Their "star witness" lied to the cops, told them at the trial he had a gun and did point it at Kyle after having his hands up first, assuming Kyle was going to shoot him.

Regardless, that destroyed his own testimony.

Against this guy, Kyle was defending himself.

The other two still have to be decided for.

Look, I get you all love the little shit and think he should get off and he's the oh so innocent widdle childman boy, and he will.

But the moment this then seventeen year old *crossed state lines* to join a "protection brigade" (my words) against highly emotionally charged protesters (and looters and rioters too) and was given a WEAPON he was NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO HAVE, how could anyone with any reason what so ever NOT expect someone to be hurt or killed by him?

Why is it of all the people there armed to "Defend" places, only this teen not only shot people, but killed them?

Did he intend to murder anyone? Nope.

Was it a likelyhood? Totally.

He was failed; failed by his own fucking mother who should have said "No" and NOT driven him there, failed by the people who gave him the gun and failed by the people who thought it was okay for him to be there to begin with.

But again, because what he was charged with cannot be proven in absolute, he'll walk. Anyone smart saw that before the trial.

We'll see if a Civil suit comes out of it and how that goes.

For me, this topic is now closed and y'all can circle jerk yourselves with joy that the little racist shit will walk.
By using your own logic, the minute the 2 "victims"/looters/"protesters" joined the BLM mob, they should have expected to have whatever happen to them happen.

When this first went down the "racist shit" narrative flew because we had limited information. We only had Kyle's own claims of self defense. And the popular narrative from the protesters and the press that he hunted these guys down. At the time I thought chances conviction were 50/50. However, since that time there has been much more evidence, videos, etc. made available (some by the prosecution) that I do not only not think he will get a conviction but I also think he did act in self-defense. I also don't think there is any evidence to support any settlement at a civil trial.

And yes, he was probably looking for trouble. As were the protesters/rioters in the mob. But as our resident internet lawyer has pointed out, self-defense applies to the moment of the action only. How they got there is irrelevant.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
57,573
8,054
113
Washington DC
I'm more drive-by than resident.

And as I've said before, your belief or refusal to believe affects my licensure status not one whit. So I guess than means you're whitless.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
57,573
8,054
113
Washington DC
Here's a question that I find interesting. A person named Dominick Black bought the weapon for Rottenhouse.

Providing a weapon to a person who could not legally acquire that weapon is a crime.

What, if anything, should Black's punishment be? Should it be greater or lower because of the homicides?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
112,463
12,503
113
Low Earth Orbit
Here's a question that I find interesting. A person named Dominick Black bought the weapon for Rottenhouse.

Providing a weapon to a person who could not legally acquire that weapon is a crime.

What, if anything, should Black's punishment be? Should it be greater or lower because of the homicides?
It goes from a Class I Felony to Class H.

WI 948.60
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,926
2,612
113
Toronto, ON
Here's a question that I find interesting. A person named Dominick Black bought the weapon for Rottenhouse.

Providing a weapon to a person who could not legally acquire that weapon is a crime.

What, if anything, should Black's punishment be? Should it be greater or lower because of the homicides?
What homicides? If ruled self-defense, there is no homicide is there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
57,573
8,054
113
Washington DC
What homicides? If ruled self-defense, there is no homicide is there?
Here we bloody go again.

I really can't be bothered to give you a primer on the differences between "homicide" and the various criminal degrees of homicide. But here's a hint. . . "homicide" means "the killing of a person." It has nothing to do with legal culpability for killing the person.

Google is your friend.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
57,573
8,054
113
Washington DC
It goes from a Class I Felony to Class H.

WI 948.60
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
Oh dear. You read "What should the penalty be" and thought "What is the class of charges?"

Ah well. Communication between Earth and wherever the hell you live is fraught with static.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
You guys watching this? The Judge has just (for the second time) been yelling at Little Finger (the prosecutor), after the defense moved for a mistrial (with prejudice) accusing the prosecutor of trying to force a mistrial because this trial was not going the way he likes.

The judge does NOT like Little Finger, I'll give you that.

Neither do I.
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
And yes, he was probably looking for trouble. As were the protesters/rioters in the mob. But as our resident internet lawyer has pointed out, self-defense applies to the moment of the action only. How they got there is irrelevant.
He was scrubbing graffiti off the walls and cleaning up the mess of rioters hours before the incident went down, not sure exactly what kind of trouble he was looking for.

OIP.qMwTboOn1UAzMMzbcgdKkAHaGf.jpg

This is what happens when feckless leftist governments and hamstrung police leave the defending of cities from burning and rioting to the general population instead of doing their job and taking care of it. The blame ultimately goes squarely on the appalling lack of competant city governance.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,926
2,612
113
Toronto, ON
Here we bloody go again.

I really can't be bothered to give you a primer on the differences between "homicide" and the various criminal degrees of homicide. But here's a hint. . . "homicide" means "the killing of a person." It has nothing to do with legal culpability for killing the person.

Google is your friend.
I always assumed homicide meant murder (the illegal kind). Not being an internet lawyer, it has never really come up .... til now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich and petros

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
Look, I get you all love the little shit and think he should get off and he's the oh so innocent widdle childman boy, and he will.
It's possible you may be mistaking people's admiration for a kid standing up against chaos and anarchy for the utter contempt most logical people feel for anarchists, and the disdain they have toward useless leftist governments championing the destruction of their own cities.