You know the first killing must have been in panic when even they say other "militia" members were yelling at him wondering wtf he was doing.....and from the very graphic video i saw i would concur, even though it is hard to see exactly what happened it is still clear his life wasnt in immediate danger.
Fucked up that the cops were pushing them towards the armed militia!
Maybe you should do that to him. Your interactions (at times, not all the time) are so disingenuous it seems like. Not with everyone, only with those you view as "the other side".
I am not trying to be mean to you, i am just hoping you will get a bit more self awareness about some things because all in all i think you are a good/reasonable dude. I did that myself, and that is why since i have come back i get along much better with people i didnt prior to changing my attitudes and posting habits towards people. Just be genuine, that makes a huge difference imo
Seriously, just piss off. I am not interested in your ass kissing Switzerland style or you faux finger wagging. Save it for someone who is interested.
i am not ass kissing you LOL. It is so easy to tell when you come here having a bad day because all you come for is to argue with a select 3 or 4 people.
And then say things like "piss off" as if you are an english soccer hooligan.
I simply asked for more supporting information for his claims. If he doesn't have them, fine. If he does have them then I'd like to see them. If you see no value in my post, then scroll on past it.
Here's a video of the main armed white dude (who was seen several times with Rittenhouse), telling a reporters “Do you know what the cops told us today? We’re going to push them to you, because you can deal with them, then we’re going to leave.”
This is backed up by people on the ground as well as a review of video:
But yeah, just a "local militia" offering to help...
Illy, here is what I posted yesterday about the cops allegedly talking to the vigilantes, eh "concerned citizens", and coordinating to push the protestors towards them to "let them handle them".
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:44 pm
It is so easy to tell when you come here having a bad day because all you come for is to argue with a select 3 or 4 people.
Yep. Probably comes from dissatisfaction from their job/life, etc. You can tell a lot of people are unhappy on here.
"This whole thing was a big dick-waving contest, it's just that my dick was bigger than yours."
Here's a video of the main armed white dude (who was seen several times with Rittenhouse), telling a reporters “Do you know what the cops told us today? We’re going to push them to you, because you can deal with them, then we’re going to leave.”
This is backed up by people on the ground as well as a review of video:
But yeah, just a "local militia" offering to help...
Illy, here is what I posted yesterday about the cops allegedly talking to the vigilantes, eh "concerned citizens", and coordinating to push the protestors towards them to "let them handle them".
And shockingly, or maybe not, only kyle rittenhouse managed to feel the need to kill anyone that night....makes me feel like the cops saying "let them handle them" didnt mean "kill them all"...(not to mention we are taking the word of a militia person that cops even said that in the first place)
My opinion based on the videos i have seen/heard lead me to the conclusion this was not a peaceful protest. Now, much like many of the other protests where things go south it only takes a few bad apples to ruin it...so i dont assume everyone there was rioting...but a lot of times when the bad shit starts the people there for the right reasons with good intentions leave because they feel unsafe (because of either the rioters, the police, or both).
I dont assume those 3 who got shot were all there for the right reasons, but i also dont assume they were necessarily rioting/vandalizing. For 2 of them it doesnt much matter becuase regardless of if they were rioting or not they were murdered, and they didnt deserve that no matter what (especially at the hands of kyle rittenhouse).
Fucked up situation all around. Rittenhouse will likely spend the next 30+ years in jail if i had to guess. He should have stayed home. Glad the rest of the militia was able to avoid killing any of the protestors (and rioters).
So aside from Kyle Rittenhouse, is it fair to say some of the militia people were there with good intentions and only to help keep protestors and cops safe and NOT to kill anyone? Maybe that is why the cops were nice to them?
The articles posted even say they freaked out on Rittenhouse when he shot the first guy....and also that they marched with the protestors in an effort to help keep them safe (even though some protestors for obvious reasons felt uneasy with their presence).
I guess i just dont think it is as simple of a situation as some make it (aside from rittenhouse which to me is simply murder)....
It seems like a majority of the right thinks all protestors are rioters/looters and all cops are good...and the majority of left thinks all protestors are non violent/do no wrong and all cops are bad. It is frustrating. Both groups get screwed by the small amount of bad apples.
Although i think some professions simply cant have bad apples...doctors and cops come to mind. You cant suck at those jobs and have it be "okay".
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:44 pm
It is so easy to tell when you come here having a bad day because all you come for is to argue with a select 3 or 4 people.
Yep. Probably comes from dissatisfaction from their job/life, etc. You can tell a lot of people are unhappy on here.
Ha, as usual, you failed completely in your assessment. My job and my family are doing great. I cannot begin to sing high enough praises for how happy I am with how my employer has handled this whole mess this year. And personally, things are going very well for myself and those I care about.
The irritability, frustration and high aggravation levels are purely from the disgusting state of what's going on in this country. The Believers in this country are being conned and instead of addressing the mountain of evidence of the con, they are doubling down on it. Frankly, that wouldn't really bother me that much if it the nonsense wasn't responded to by questioning my own morals and patriotism.
If you haven't figured out the plot lines of this horrible reality show after 4 years of it being broadcast 24/7 then at least do us a favor and stop questioning the intelligence of others.
The truly f-up thing is the video showing the same cops (same employer at least) who shot an unarmed black man in the back at point blank range, multiple times, did nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, about a white guy who actually killed two people, and in fact made small talk with him/them including offering them water.
zsn wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:12 pm
The truly f-up thing is the video showing the same cops (same employer at least) who shot an unarmed black man in the back at point blank range, multiple times, did nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, about a white guy who actually killed two people, and in fact made small talk with him/them including offering them water.
Let that dichotomy sink in.
Absolutely...but that (the small talk and offering water) was also before any violence had occured.
But the image of them driving right past him is gut wrenching because if he was black they would have slammed on the brakes.
Found this on line from a self-professed paralegal. I have no idea who wrote it or if it is accurate:
Words from a military legal worker (not me)
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.
defixione wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:18 pm
Found this on line from a self-professed paralegal. I have no idea who wrote it or if it is accurate:
Words from a military legal worker (not me)
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.Already skeptical. Homicide and self-defense are mostly state crimes. Each state has different nuances. S/he is not going to have Wisconsin state knowledge from "federal criminal justice and prosecution," which is usually not these types of crimes.
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.This doesn't seem accurate. You usually have a rebuttable presumption of guilt. Here, the person can be cited for illegally driving, but I doubt rear-ending a car is a crime. Thus the front car might get cited, and the rear car might have to still pay. Likely both cars would split. It also depends on never having a license, and having a license expired by a day. Way too much nuance to make a sweeping statement.
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 is debatable, and going to be determined by case law likely. It's not clear cut either way.
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.Castle Doctrine was never at play. Not going to even review.
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. Police may have not known what was going on. I doubt if they knew the true facts, they would've let him walk. Rittenhouse also shouldn't have left the scene of the crime, and should've gone down to the police station right away tho.
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.Lobster says to check 4Chan. But seriously, people who pay their time don't lose their rights. Correct on this.
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.Spelled knowledge wrong.
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.
Twocoach, my comment was not necessarily aimed at you -- I was thinking more of "others." Sounds like you are doing quite well despite having Trump in office. Congrats -- keep it up. You can thrive no matter who is in office, and I'm glad you get that. Now, if only everyone else would get that...
"This whole thing was a big dick-waving contest, it's just that my dick was bigger than yours."
I saw a report that Rittenhouse's legal defense is that he was part of a "well-regulated militia." I would imagine that you won't find a single serious Second Amendment advocate who wants this case to be what sets modern precedent for the scope of the Second Amendment.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 6:31 pm
I saw a report that Rittenhouse's legal defense is that he was part of a "well-regulated militia." I would imagine that you won't find a single serious Second Amendment advocate who wants this case to be what sets modern precedent for the scope of the Second Amendment.
Sounds like you might even have trouble finding people from that militia that agree with what he did.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 6:31 pm
I saw a report that Rittenhouse's legal defense is that he was part of a "well-regulated militia." I would imagine that you won't find a single serious Second Amendment advocate who wants this case to be what sets modern precedent for the scope of the Second Amendment.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but militias don’t govern citizens, right? They are meant to defend against foreign actors and tyrannical governments.
Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:43 pm
Twocoach, my comment was not necessarily aimed at you -- I was thinking more of "others." Sounds like you are doing quite well despite having Trump in office. Congrats -- keep it up. You can thrive no matter who is in office, and I'm glad you get that. Now, if only everyone else would get that...
More of that Trumpian "I just call it like I see it except that I didn't really mean what I said".
jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 6:31 pm
I saw a report that Rittenhouse's legal defense is that he was part of a "well-regulated militia." I would imagine that you won't find a single serious Second Amendment advocate who wants this case to be what sets modern precedent for the scope of the Second Amendment.
uhhh...have you ever met a Second Amendment advocate?
would it really be that surprising to have one juror who disregards the facts, ignores the legal process, and waits until they're in the chamber to get on his soapbox about his constitutional expertise. (or maybe this gets weeded out in the jury vetting, I dunno, but I imagine jury selection is yuge for this one)
I guess my point is, I am kinda concerned this is exactly the type of precedent the 2A crowd wants to set - of some de facto qualified immunity for vigilantes? some case law to support their "make my day" fetish? There just seems to be some critical mass of Mericans who really do believe this was just a poor keed acting in self defense, and won't or can't view it any other way.
and did the defense offer any evidence toward the "well-regulated" part? Or are they just throwing out that buzzword?
and heck, if they're gonna argue "well-regulated," shouldn't they have to argue what he was doing was necessary to the security of a free state? that just feels arbitrary at best.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 6:31 pm
I saw a report that Rittenhouse's legal defense is that he was part of a "well-regulated militia." I would imagine that you won't find a single serious Second Amendment advocate who wants this case to be what sets modern precedent for the scope of the Second Amendment.
uhhh...have you ever met a Second Amendment advocate?
would it really be that surprising to have one juror who disregards the facts, ignores the legal process, and waits until they're in the chamber to get on his soapbox about his constitutional expertise. (or maybe this gets weeded out in the jury vetting, I dunno, but I imagine jury selection is yuge for this one)
I guess my point is, I am kinda concerned this is exactly the type of precedent the 2A crowd wants to set - of some de facto qualified immunity for vigilantes? some case law to support their "make my day" fetish? There just seems to be some critical mass of Mericans who really do believe this was just a poor keed acting in self defense, and won't or can't view it any other way.
and did the defense offer any evidence toward the "well-regulated" part? Or are they just throwing out that buzzword?
and heck, if they're gonna argue "well-regulated," shouldn't they have to argue what he was doing was necessary to the security of a free state? that just feels arbitrary at best.
Might it work to get him acquitted at trial? Sure. But I don't think what happens from there forward is good for hardcore 2A folks.
