Kenosha

[Cascadia]

i don't know where you live. but if people are walking around town pointing guns at each other, you really should consider relocating.

where i live, i have never once seen people walking around town pointing guns at each other.

i see people waving and smiling and helping.

sounds awful where you live. yuck.

Jesus Christ you're dense. We're talking about Kenosha, WI dumbass.

"pro gun people" only live in Kenosha and "Fucking 'Merica!" only pertains to Kenosha?

Take your meds

[ousdahl]

third tier or so is prob about right.

Rather than a whole show, he’ll get 3 minute bits on Tucker and such, and will be introduced as “justice and peace correspondent,” “legal expert,” “weapons specialist,” and the smash hit “well Tucker, this reminds me of when I risked my own life to bring order to the streets of Kenosha…”

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Jesus Christ you're dense. We're talking about Kenosha, WI dumbass.

"pro gun people" only live in Kenosha and "Fucking 'Merica!" only pertains to Kenosha?

Take your meds

I'm not the one who is contradicting myself but hey, I'll give you the attention you're seeking by acknowledging that you came up with your usual highly stale retort.

[Cascadia]

[jfish26]

[ousdahl]

soo that WI weapons statute, about underage and whatnot

I see these headlines like “gun charge dropped as result of poorly worded law”

It apparently covers everything from guns to tasers to nunchucks to throwing stars to brass knuckles….but not, you know, assault rifles, assuming the barrel is of a certain length.

Exceptions include target practice under adult supervision, members of armed forces or national guard, or for deer hunting.

And while it’s not necessarily inappropriate for the court to interpret it on some technical level to not apply to Kyle, could they have interpreted it to apply just the same?

Could a judge say, I think the whole point of this law was to account for essentially these sorts of situations, and don’t think it intends to excuse an assault rifle at a riot. And let appellate courts decide that precedent?

Could a halfway competent prosecutor grill Kyle about the exact terms of the law - eg whether he brought it for deer hunting? And whether he considered brass knuckles instead?

Couldn’t some sane person have said, why could he be busted for fucking nunchucks but not a goddamn assault rifle?

Again, assuming any semblance of sanity in Merica, but could we see legislatures address this in a way to prevent similar future incidents? Maybe even go so far as to say something like, bringing an assault rifle to a riot is provoking enough in itself, so at the very least don’t expect self-defense claims to be available if you shoot the place up.

That’s prob way too much for Merica tho. We’ll prob see codified legislation to instead protect active shooter rights at riots going forward

[jfish26]

soo that WI weapons statute, about underage and whatnot

I see these headlines like “gun charge dropped as result of poorly worded law”

It apparently covers everything from guns to tasers to nunchucks to throwing stars to brass knuckles….but not, you know, assault rifles, assuming the barrel is of a certain length.

Exceptions include target practice under adult supervision, members of armed forces or national guard, or for deer hunting.

And while it’s not necessarily inappropriate for the court to interpret it on some technical level to not apply to Kyle, could they have interpreted it to apply just the same?

Could a judge say, I think the whole point of this law was to account for essentially these sorts of situations, and don’t think it intends to excuse an assault rifle at a riot. And let appellate courts decide that precedent?

Could a halfway competent prosecutor grill Kyle about the exact terms of the law - eg whether he brought it for deer hunting? And whether he considered brass knuckles instead?

Couldn’t some sane person have said, why could he be busted for fucking nunchucks but not a goddamn assault rifle?

Again, assuming any semblance of sanity in Merica, but could we see legislatures address this in a way to prevent similar future incidents? Maybe even go so far as to say something like, bringing an assault rifle to a riot is provoking enough in itself, so at the very least don’t expect self-defense claims to be available if you shoot the place up.

That’s prob way too much for Merica tho. We’ll prob see codified legislation to instead protect active shooter rights at riots going forward

That's the answer, but getting there any time soon seems, ah, unrealistic.

[ousdahl]

Yea.

Would it be inappropriate to create that precedent from the bench? To some degree it’s a matter of judicial discretion whether a law applies, right?

But perhaps that should come from the legislative rather than the judicial branch.

Not that it will either way.

[Cascadia]

We’ll prob see codified legislation to instead protect active shooter rights at riots going forward

Sadly, this is where we’re headed

[ousdahl]

BUT. MAH. RIGHTS.

That NYT article mentions Utah and other states have enacted laws that essentially shift the burden from a defendant to prove it was self-defense, to a prosecutor to prove it wasn’t.

And yeah technical reading of the law I know, but I still kinda can’t get over the mind-boggling lapse of common sense and good faith it seems to have taken to throw such charges out.

But I guess that’s just optics lol sigh.

[Deleted User 89]

You’re not a simpleton, Trad. Stop pretending like you are. It’s getting tiresome.

you’re entire schtick is tiresome

I take back what I said about you not being a simpleton. People who aren't simpletons know the difference between "your" and "you're".

jfc, dude

that’s all you’ve got?

sorry i didn’t catch the auto-correct on my phone…i usually do and have to edit posts to fix it

you really are a pos

[JKLivin]

And before that, Kyle’s rifle was already raised toward Rosenbaum.

Does that make any difference to you?

Cuz that’s the difference the jury is deciding.

That seems to be the major discrepancy between the two accounts. Not sure it makes a difference to me either way.

So it makes no difference to you if randos on the street are pointing guns in people’s faces?

Or is it that it makes no difference to you because in this case you’re less interested in legal accountability and more interested in political ownage?

Cuz I mean randos pointing guns on the street is like so totally NOT the future libs want. So if you are willing to do with that, you shure is owning them on that one!

If, heaven forbid, someone points a gun in your face too, just remember to not get caught up in some adrenaline rush fight or flight reaction like, throw your groceries at them.

A gun in your face is nbd as long as you comply!

Of course it does. You're mischaracterizing Rittenhouse's actions to fit your preferred narrative. Guns weren't pointed until threats were made. I don't believe Rittenhouse had any intention of using the gun until he felt that his life was in danger, which is the whole point of carrying a firearm in the first place.

I'd prefer that no one was walking around with an AR-15 in everyday life. It's overkill and invites problems like the one in Kenosha. I'd also prefer that people didn't feel the need to throw temper tantrums by burning, rioting, and looting the private property of people who had nothing to do with hurting them when court rulings don't go their way. Both actions are wrong and are against the law.

Where I have a problem is that libs tend to get all bent out of shape when the former happens, but excuse and even applaud when the latter happens - to the point where police no longer feel confident enough to step up and handle the problem, leaving private citizens to protect their own property, or in Rittenhouse's case, solicit others to protect it for them.

I'm not interested in "owning" anybody. I'm interested in the legal definition of murder staying where it is rather than being expanded to include people who exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and protect themselves. That's a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

[JKLivin]

you’re entire schtick is tiresome

I take back what I said about you not being a simpleton. People who aren't simpletons know the difference between "your" and "you're".

jfc, dude

that’s all you’ve got?

sorry i didn’t catch the auto-correct on my phone…i usually do and have to edit posts to fix it

you really are a pos

Lulz. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

[Deleted User 89]

i don’t have to tell myself anything

you’re loosing so badly at this that you have to resort to manufactured grammar smack

hey, there’s a squirrel over there…

[jfish26]

That seems to be the major discrepancy between the two accounts. Not sure it makes a difference to me either way.

So it makes no difference to you if randos on the street are pointing guns in people’s faces?

Or is it that it makes no difference to you because in this case you’re less interested in legal accountability and more interested in political ownage?

Cuz I mean randos pointing guns on the street is like so totally NOT the future libs want. So if you are willing to do with that, you shure is owning them on that one!

If, heaven forbid, someone points a gun in your face too, just remember to not get caught up in some adrenaline rush fight or flight reaction like, throw your groceries at them.

A gun in your face is nbd as long as you comply!

Of course it does. You're mishcaracterizing Rittenhouse's actions to fit your preferred narrative. Guns weren't pointed until threats were made. I don't believe Rittenhouse had any intention of using the gun until he felt that his life was in danger, which is the whole point of carrying a firearm in the first place.

I'd prefer that no one was walking around with an AR-15 in everyday life. It's overkill and invites problems like the one in Kenosha. I'd also prefer that people didn't feel the need to throw temper tantrums by burning, rioting, and looting the private property of people who had nothing to do with hurting them when court rulings don't go their way. Both actions are wrong and are against the law.

Where I have a problem is that libs tend to get all bent out of shape when the former happens, but excuse and even applaud when the latter happens - to the point where police no longer feel confident enough to step up and handle the problem, leaving private citizens to protect their own property, or in Rittenhouse's case, solicit others to protect it for them.

I'm not interested in "owning" anybody. I'm interested in the legal definition of murder staying where it is rather than being expanded to include people who exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and protect themselves. That's a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

Speaking of mischaracterization for purposes of fitting a narrative. Woof.

[Deleted User 89]

“ mishcaracterizing ”

this kind of spelling from a supposed college professor?

lemme guess…that’s the biblical spelling

[JKLivin]

“ mishcaracterizing ”

this kind of spelling from a supposed college professor?

lemme guess…that’s the biblical spelling

You got me. Well-played.

[ousdahl]

what to make of the video evidence drama and defense’s motion for mistrial? Did prosecutors really withhold the high quality vid? Is it just me or was prosecution too late to the party about the provocation allegations?

And as we’re well into day 3 of deliberations, is there anything we can read into about that? I think it can’t be more than “jury can’t agree.” Is it fair to assume the longer it takes the more likely the result is hung?

[Cascadia]

That seems to be the major discrepancy between the two accounts. Not sure it makes a difference to me either way.

So it makes no difference to you if randos on the street are pointing guns in people’s faces?

Or is it that it makes no difference to you because in this case you’re less interested in legal accountability and more interested in political ownage?

Cuz I mean randos pointing guns on the street is like so totally NOT the future libs want. So if you are willing to do with that, you shure is owning them on that one!

If, heaven forbid, someone points a gun in your face too, just remember to not get caught up in some adrenaline rush fight or flight reaction like, throw your groceries at them.

A gun in your face is nbd as long as you comply!

Of course it does. You're mischaracterizing Rittenhouse's actions to fit your preferred narrative. Guns weren't pointed until threats were made. I don't believe Rittenhouse had any intention of using the gun until he felt that his life was in danger, which is the whole point of carrying a firearm in the first place.

I'd prefer that no one was walking around with an AR-15 in everyday life. It's overkill and invites problems like the one in Kenosha. I'd also prefer that people didn't feel the need to throw temper tantrums by burning, rioting, and looting the private property of people who had nothing to do with hurting them when court rulings don't go their way. Both actions are wrong and are against the law.

Where I have a problem is that libs tend to get all bent out of shape when the former happens, but excuse and even applaud when the latter happens - to the point where police no longer feel confident enough to step up and handle the problem, leaving private citizens to protect their own property, or in Rittenhouse's case, solicit others to protect it for them.

I'm not interested in "owning" anybody. I'm interested in the legal definition of murder staying where it is rather than being expanded to include people who exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and protect themselves. That's a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

[ousdahl]

I almost think a mistrial without prejudice could be a good thing for prosecution.

Get another go at it, this time with the high quality vid and the provocation leading off

Try to get the narrative shifted from “good keed self defense” to some loon pointing his gun at everybody

Although, now that the weapons and curfew charges are thrown out, I don’t think they can’t be brought again? Or would they be able to reintroduce on the grounds that prosecution actually remembers to submit the curfew order to rules of evidence this time?