Rittenhouse trial to start soon, Judge is laying out rules.

[WhipperSnapper]

Yes, yes, those who dare fight against systemic racism are the real racists.

They are if they believe that race determines a person's identity and only see people as members of racial collectives and not as individuals. Instead of facing reality and acknowledging that systemic racism no longer formally exists in today's laws [and that individual government actors who engage in racism do so contrary to public policy and that our country and society is less racist than ever before (at least until they started sewing racial division)], they are so obsessed with race that they see racial issues under every stone and around every corner. (Just like how feminist or men's movement fanatics can see sexism everywhere.)

These self-proclaimed "anti-racists" are the unwitting intellectual allies of the tiny amount of KKK members and white supremacists still in existence because they share the same fundamental philosophical premise that race determines who you are and is important. Instead of blaming all of the world's ills on racial minorities like the white supremacists, they instead blame all of the world's problems on white people and believe that they are inherently evil (call it "white fragility" or "white privilege"). The "woke" social justice warriors are doing a far better job of promoting and advancing racism than the white supremacists could have ever dreamed of. Sadly, they are doing a huge disservice to the economically depressed people they claim to serve by preaching victimhood instead of advocating for personal responsibility, and they will end up hurting them more than the evil white people they dream of exterminating in "reeducation" death camps.***

***That might sound like crazy fiction, but "reeducation" death camps have actually happened over the past century in socialist countries such as the Soviet Union, Mao's China, North Korea, and Cambodia where people suffering from "wrong think" were rounded up and murdered in mass. It could happen again here if the Far Left ever takes power.

 

[ch33zw1z]

They are if they believe that race determines a person's identity and only see people as members of racial collectives and not as individuals. Instead of facing reality and acknowledging that systemic racism no longer formally exists in today's laws [and that individual government actors who engage in racism do so contrary to public policy and that our country and society is less racist than ever before (at least until they started sewing racial division)], they are so obsessed with race that they see racial issues under every stone and around every corner. (Just like how feminist or men's movement fanatics can see sexism everywhere.)

These self-proclaimed "anti-racists" are the unwitting intellectual allies of the tiny amount of KKK members and white supremacists still in existence because they share the same fundamental philosophical premise that race determines who you are and is important. Instead of blaming all of the world's ills on racial minorities like the white supremacists, they instead blame all of the world's problems on white people and believe that they are inherently evil (call it "white fragility" or "white privilege"). The "woke" social justice warriors are doing a far better job of promoting and advancing racism than the white supremacists could have ever dreamed of. Sadly, they are doing a huge disservice to the economically depressed people they claim to serve by preaching victimhood instead of advocating for personal responsibility, and they will end up hurting them more than the evil white people they dream of exterminating in "reeducation" death camps.***

***That might sound like crazy fiction, but "reeducation" death camps have actually happened over the past century in socialist countries such as the Soviet Union, Mao's China, North Korea, and Cambodia where people suffering from "wrong think" were rounded up and murdered in mass. It could happen again here if the Far Left ever takes power.

Pretty ridiculous outlook there. Fighting racism is now racism. Gee, you really got a lock on that.

 

[emperus]

Gaige's friend confirmed Gaige was a split second away from killing Rittenhouse. Says when he saw Gaige in hospital, Gaige said "his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him."


You want to claim he set up the Ziminski/Rosenbaum ambush? What was the vigilante provocation that set off Rosenbaum?

There is a lot if cognitive dissonance in your post. Gaige had a gun, why was he a split second away from killing Kyle? It's a fn'ing gun, you don't need to lunge or swipe at the person with it. He could have shot him from where he stood the first time or even before Kyle saw him if he intended to kill him? Why didn't he? Before he was shot he didn't fire and after he was shot he didn't fire. Why not? I mean someone shot him, he had a gun and didn't fire it, and if your argument was his hand was blown off, why didn't he move it to the other hand and fire? Shit if someone shot me I'd die trying to shoot him if I had a gun. Does any of that seem consistent with a man trying to kill him? And I agree with his regret. Isn't that the lesson we learned here. If you shoot first and kill someone, you can then claim self defense and the state has to prove otherwise. And seeing Kyle had a gun, had just killed someone and was pointing the gun at Gaige, what is the probability he gets off? Pretty high me thinks..

Lastly, I can see the reason why the Judge didn't let the evidence that he said he wanted to have his gun to kill looters, yet I can see why it should have been let in as well. But, you've seen it. And again not more than 2 days later he kills people he thought were looters? I bet your believe everything in LIFE is coincidental. I kill flies because my mind is predisposed to believe their life is not as valuable as mine in fact their only bugs so their life isn't valuable at all. If I see a bug in my house I'll kill it. So, in two days if a I kill a bug, it's only because they tried to attack me while sitting at my desk. I hope that facetious bug argument breaks through your cognitive dissonance.

 

[HomerJS]

Where are the courts going to draw the line? Is self defense going to be able to be used if you just kill someone walking down the street because you felt your life was threatened. If I was walking down the street and saw that either George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse was going to cross my path I would feel in danger for my life because they are both mental jobs. So pull out and gun and shoot them before they pull out a gun and shoot you. Claim that your life was in danger for reasons. Welcome to the Wild, Wild, West.

If you are black is is completely reasonable to feel threatened. Let's say if I came upon them walking down the street and they were carrying, I call the police and say they are pointing their weapons at people.

Do you think the police would just pull up and shoot them without assessing the situation like they did Tamir Rice and John Crawford?

 

[ivwshane]

Pretty ridiculous outlook there. Fighting racism is now racism. Gee, you really got a lock on that.

Plus, if you are going to fight racism you have to fight it the way he says is acceptable.

 

[HomerJS]

For those here, right wing media and the Republican Party making a hero out of Rittenhouse take advice from his defense attorney.

Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says it's 'disgusting' that Republicans are trying to trade on his client's 'celebrity' (msn.com)

 

[ch33zw1z]

Plus, if you are going to fight racism you have to fight it the way he says is acceptable.

Of course, do as we say, not as we do.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

For those here, right wing media and the Republican Party making a hero out of Rittenhouse take advice from his defense attorney.

Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney says it's 'disgusting' that Republicans are trying to trade on his client's 'celebrity' (msn.com)

LOL, like they fucking care about principles and morals. That ship has long sailed, sunk and turned into a reef.

 

[RY62]

None of your "simple rules" are the laws of this country.
First, rioting and looting are not capital crimes, and none of the persons shot by Rittenhouse were convicted of those acts. In fact, one was there in a role similar to what Rittenhouse was doing.
Second, that armed individual was not protecting against anything, and he certainly was not upholding the law. Remove your bias, and it could be argued that the mistake made that night was that the crowd tried to disarm the active shooter, instead of actively exercising their own right to self-defense. But I guess they didn't have any according to you.

Finally, neither you nor Rittenhouse are the police, nor do you have any such rights or powers to enforce the law, especially as you clearly have no respect for rights or legal due process. IMO it's just as much self-defense to stop you over-compensating little pricks from your wannabe cop BS, brandishing and threatening people for your political nonsense, than the other way around.

So kindly don't threaten me with your 'simple rules.'

First -
There is video evidence and witness testimony that Rosenbaum was, in fact, engaged in "those acts" which led to the initial confrontation however, it can be difficult to get a conviction when the perpetrator is not arrested or is dead. As to the one who "was there in a role similar to what Rittenhouse was doing"... He was the one person in this case who was illegally in possession of a firearm and who actually appeared to be in the act of an attempted murder when he was shot. Why he wasn't charged and tried is a mystery to me.
Second-
The first sentence is nothing more than your opinion on which we'll just have to disagree. If Rittenhouse were, in reality, an active shooter and not acting in defense they absolutely should have exercised their own right to self-defense. No need to guess, "according to me" everyone had and has the right to self-defense but you'd better be able to prove it in court.
Finally-
Actually, we do have certain rights to defend ourselves and our properties, as the verdicts in this case have shown. Beyond that right of defense, in many states we do have "such rights or powers to enforce the law". In Wisconsin citizens have police powers to "make a felony arrest without a warrant based on probable cause but can make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor only if the misdemeanor is committed in the citizen’s presence and constitutes a breach of the peace.” I do have respect for rights and legal due process. Something you clearly do not understand based on your reaction to the process in this case.

So kindly don't threaten me with your 'simple rules.' "threaten" LOL

 

[soundforbjt]

Your bias is showing. We have video of it being close before first shot, evidence that his hands indeed were close (soot/burns)/gunshot injury to fingers consistent with that interpretation, and McGinnis testimony.

“Well, he said ‘fuck you’ and then he reached for the weapon.” -- McGinnis


Haha, no, they acted with a similar mindset as the McMichaels. They were relying on hearsay and ignored all the evidence that suggested it was just a shooting incident (e.g. time passage; Kyle running towards the cop lights; people not scattering but actually surrounding more and more and screaming that he shot someone). Gaige, himself, did not see him as an active shooter. Not only did he go up to talk to Kyle, he also expressed concern about Jump Kick Man and Huber using the skateboard. Huber acted irrational being the false imprisonment convict he was. And no surprise Jump Kick Man had a mile long rap sheet.

https://ww3.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/JLPP/upload/Robbins-final-2.pdf

. In Wisconsin, a citizen can arrest only for felonies and breaches of the peace so long as that citizen has personally witnessed the crime.64 Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all agree that a felony committed in the arrestor's presence is sufficient for arrest and that the arrestor bears the burden of correctness.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1457992897182281729

"Detain" him with both hands occupied.

Gaige advances on someone running away from a mob. Who the aggressor is is painfully obvious. Grosskreutz wanted a revenge kill. His testimony has more holes than swiss cheese. He says he doesn't know what he was going to do after "hands up, don't shoot" and never would think of actually using the gun.

in that moment i felt that i i had to do something to try and prevent myself from being being killed or being shot or killed and so i decided that the best course of action would be to close the distance between the defendant and i and then you know from there i i don't know i mean if try and win it anthony had just tried wrestling the gun detaining the defendants i i i don't know because i never had an opportunity um i do know though i was never trying to kill the defendant that was never never something that i was trying to do in that moment i was trying to preserve my own life but doing so while also taking the life of another is not something that i'm capable or comfortable in doing that goes against almost a lifelong ethical code that i've lived by in in regards to in regards to medicine

Gaige's friend confirmed Gaige was a split second away from killing Rittenhouse. Says when he saw Gaige in hospital, Gaige said "his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him."



Because it was clear it wasn't an active shooter situation??? While Gaige pretends he thought he was an active shooter, he did not see it that way.



LIttlebinger couldn't show that Kyle felt that way with all the video of that night, so bringing that video in is more prejudicial than probative. Is it really that hard to understand? All what he had was Yellow Pants, which just showed Kyle not wanting to get into an argument with him about his accusation, and Yellow Pants motions with the rifle down.



You want to claim he set up the Ziminski/Rosenbaum ambush? What was the vigilante provocation that set off Rosenbaum?



It's not provocation to open carry in Wisconsin.



Open carry seems more scary, but I wonder if it's really worse than concealed carry in these situations. With a handgun, someone can get into a confrontation with the person carrying and not know that they are armed. Other than Kyle, I don't know of any other incident like it.

Guess how I know you didn’t watch the trial and relied on ‘experts’ to form your ‘opinion’?

 

[Vic]

First -
There is video evidence and witness testimony that Rosenbaum was, in fact, engaged in "those acts" which led to the initial confrontation however, it can be difficult to get a conviction when the perpetrator is not arrested or is dead. As to the one who "was there in a role similar to what Rittenhouse was doing"... He was the one person in this case who was illegally in possession of a firearm and who actually appeared to be in the act of an attempted murder when he was shot. Why he wasn't charged and tried is a mystery to me.
Second-
The first sentence is nothing more than your opinion on which we'll just have to disagree. If Rittenhouse were, in reality, an active shooter and not acting in defense they absolutely should have exercised their own right to self-defense. No need to guess, "according to me" everyone had and has the right to self-defense but you'd better be able to prove it in court.
Finally-
Actually, we do have certain rights to defend ourselves and our properties, as the verdicts in this case have shown. Beyond that right of defense, in many states we do have "such rights or powers to enforce the law". In Wisconsin citizens have police powers to "make a felony arrest without a warrant based on probable cause but can make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor only if the misdemeanor is committed in the citizen’s presence and constitutes a breach of the peace.” I do have respect for rights and legal due process. Something you clearly do not understand based on your reaction to the process in this case.

So kindly don't threaten me with your 'simple rules.' "threaten" LOL

Look, douchebag, I personally have never rioted or looted, so when you tell me that I need to learn to follow your 'simple rules' within a context that you can kill me if I don't, then you are in fact threatening me.
You are not law enforcement, and if you or someone else with a like mind tries to play law enforcement when I'm doing nothing legally wrong, you're gonna find out that liberals also have the right to defend themselves and love the Constitution too.

 

[emperus]

Does anyone know why Kyle did not have a valid driver's license? Nothing's been reported on it and it seems to have been part of some type of pre-trial motion, as the defense attorney objected when the Prosecutor was going further down that line. I'm assuming it may have something to with something that happened while he was underage. Anybody know?

 

[HomerJS]

How did race play into this or is that all you have left?

I was responding to your quote not related to Rittenhouse but the idea white people can just roll up on black people walking the streets, start a confrontation and shoot with a claim of self defense ala Ahmed Arbury.

"a situation where one will have to kill in "self-defense"

There are many threads in this forum with that very scenario

 

[Vic]

I love today's conservative mindset. Everyone just needs to follow their simple rules or else a self-appointed 'Patriot' can extrajudicially execute them on the spot. Comply or die.
Because rights, freedom, law and order, and the Constitution, right?

 

[soundforbjt]

Does anyone know why Kyle did not have a valid driver's license? Nothing's been reported on it and it seems to have been part of some type of pre-trial motion, as the defense attorney objected when the Prosecutor was going further down that line. I'm assuming it may have something to with something that happened while he was underage. Anybody know?

Illinois is pretty strict on their driving laws. Since he’s a dropout, he probably never passed drivers ed, and probably never took private driving lessons. And so he probably never met the requirements to get one.

 

[RY62]

Look, douchebag, I personally have never rioted or looted, so when you tell me that I need to learn to follow your 'simple rules' within a context that you can kill me if I don't, then you are in fact threatening me.
You are not law enforcement, and if you or someone else with a like mind tries to play law enforcement when I'm doing nothing legally wrong, you're gonna find out that liberals also have the right to defend themselves and love the Constitution too.

The fact that you lead with name calling shows that you have nothing of value to say so I should just let it go but you are trying to read in far more than I wrote. First, if you have "personally have never rioted or looted", thank you for following rule one. I have never advocated for myself or anyone else playing law enforcement against you when you're "doing nothing legally wrong". I have also stated that liberals have the right to defend themselves. Just be prepared to justify your actions in court. If there has been any threat issued in our conversation, it could almost be read from your last sentence.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Proof? All anyone being objective saw were Proud Bois, Boogaloo Bois, and Oath Keepers inciting and shooting up cities posing as BLM or whatever other boogeymen you are inventing. They are in Portland as I type this.

Sure they are.

 

[HomerJS]

Sure they are.

Put this on your list, Skippy
Far-Right Boogaloo Admits Shooting Up Cop Station Amid Floyd Protests (thedailybeast.com)

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I got just the one for you too .. No spoilers and no peaking though...

Thanks for admitting it.

 

[Vic]

Sure they are.

They actually are. Of course you ignore that because you support those violent extremist groups.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Put this on your list, Skippy
Far-Right Boogaloo Admits Shooting Up Cop Station Amid Floyd Protests (thedailybeast.com)

As if this isn't a tactic by every opposition group in the country, remember when Tea Party activists had to out instigators in their rallies? or when Trump rallies have had fakes? Same thing, it just gives cowards like you a way to deny what people witness in BLM/Antifa riots.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

How did race play into this or is that all you have left?

That's all he ever has, it's his whole world and his whole life.

 

[Vic]

The fact that you lead with name calling shows that you have nothing of value to say so I should just let it go but you are trying to read in far more than I wrote. First, if you have "personally have never rioted or looted", thank you for following rule one. I have never advocated for myself or anyone else playing law enforcement against you when you're "doing nothing legally wrong". I have also stated that liberals have the right to defend themselves. Just be prepared to justify your actions in court. If there has been any threat issued in our conversation, it could almost be read from your last sentence.

Sorry, but you did in fact advocate playing law enforcement against persons doing nothing legally wrong when you argued in favor of extrajudicial execution. All persons have the right to their day in court. Rittenhouse got his, but his victims didn't. Supposedly because they didn't follow your 'simple rules.' And that is the problem here.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Opinion | Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict has dangerous legal implications

Rittenhouse's lawyer called him a hero, and his expert witness contended aggression is indistinguishable from self-defense. We have normalized the absurd.

www.nbcnews.com

This seems like a central point - the very act of carrying a gun gives you an excuse to use it.

Yeah, the old wild west days all over again. Lefties have been claiming this will happen for the last 20 years, it hasn't.

 

[Vic]

As if this isn't a tactic by every opposition group in the country, remember when Tea Party activists had to out instigators in their rallies? or when Trump rallies have had fakes? Same thing, it just gives cowards like you a way to deny what people witness in BLM/Antifa riots.

Skipping over the fact that you're yet again arguing two wrongs making a right as though that were a valid argument, are you referring to the 'BLM/Antifa riots' that you have never personally witnessed?