Summer of 2020---The Civil Unrest Thread--Read OP Before Posting (in memory of George Floyd)

[Jabbyrwock]

35 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Just another reason parenting should require approval prior to procreation.

 

Yea...cause here in the US we have demonstrated such an enormous capability of creating authorities that don't end up racially biased.  Approval prior to procreation?  How quick before the approval effectively requires a skin tone lighter than pantone 727.

 

 

I think I'll pass.

[Spaceman Spiff]

3 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

It’s future based on past events.
 

If he ultimately isn’t found legally culpable for anything, what would she be charged with? Bad judgement?

 

IIRC, she could be held responsible for transporting a minor over state lines with an illegally obtained firearm. But probably not because she's his guardian.

 

Of course she appears to have done a bad job raising him...IMO, people are upset that people who were marching for a good cause in BLM are dead and no one's going to get punished.  Therefore, they're looking for anyone to level some blame at, even if that person can't really be held legally responsible.  Basically, people are upset, frustrated and need to be able to point the finger at someone else since Rittenhouse is probably getting off.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

16 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

It’s future based on past events.
 

If he ultimately isn’t found legally culpable for anything, what would she be charged with? Bad judgement?

Minimum - Child endangerment

Maximum - Manslaughter

[PartyPosse]

25 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Minimum - Child endangerment

Maximum - Manslaughter

Again, if he’s found innocent, successfully arguing it was self-defense, you couldn’t charge her with manslaughter. That means the DA was successful in proving it wasn’t premeditated. It’s also hard to prove child endangerment if she continues to deny ever driving him to the protest.

38 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

IIRC, she could be held responsible for transporting a minor over state lines with an illegally obtained firearm. But probably not because she's his guardian.

 

Of course she appears to have done a bad job raising him...IMO, people are upset that people who were marching for a good cause in BLM are dead and no one's going to get punished.  Therefore, they're looking for anyone to level some blame at, even if that person can't really be held legally responsible.  Basically, people are upset, frustrated and need to be able to point the finger at someone else since Rittenhouse is probably getting off.

My understanding is the gun was in Kinosha at his step-father’s. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

That'd be the strangest kind of hunting I've ever seen.  

 

I think the dude in Vegas who shot up the country concert was there to hunt.  I think Kyle was there to look cool with his AR15.  **** went sideways, he handled it the wrong way...because he was a kid with a gun who shouldn't have had one.  

 

But hey, how about those Wizards!

You see a large difference between Vegas guy and Kyle.

 

But, I see the same guy.  The only difference is effectiveness.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

9 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Again, if he’s found innocent, successfully arguing it was self-defense, you couldn’t charge her with manslaughter. That means the DA was successful in proving it wasn’t premeditated. It’s also hard to prove child endangerment if she continues to deny ever driving him to the protest.

My understanding is the gun was in Kinosha at his step-father’s. 

Premeditation is a requirement for manslaughter now? 🕵🏼‍♀️👩🏼‍⚖️

[PartyPosse]

23 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Premeditation is a requirement for manslaughter now? 🕵🏼‍♀️👩🏼‍⚖️

Considering self-defense isn’t the same as voluntary or even involuntary manslaughter, then it’s moot. It’s both or neither.

28 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

You see a large difference between Vegas guy and Kyle.

 

But, I see the same guy.  The only difference is effectiveness.

I see a big difference. Kyle was looking for an excuse to kill, Vegas guy didn’t need one. The only similarity is they’re both pieces of ****.

[Destino]

2 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

You see a large difference between Vegas guy and Kyle.

 

But, I see the same guy.  The only difference is effectiveness.

I’m not sure the vegas guy is a good comp for most killers.  That guy piled up a massive body count and didn’t even leave a note or a clue as to why.  No history of violence.  No politics.  No religion.  No run ins with the law save for a traffic citation.  No reasons or warnings of any kind.  The guy lived a long life without making waves and then one day, killed 60 people.
 

Kyle is nothing like that.  Kyle grabbed a gun and went out into the street with his chest out feeling powerful.  The streets are full of kids with stories like that.  All of them have their reasons, things they imagine make their story different, but the story is as old as time. 

[tshile]

So, I guess this is what I get for not paying attention to the story as it originally unfolded. 
 

are there videos of the incident with victims #1 and #2?

 

all I recall is people being mad this guy who shot 3 people wasn’t violently arrested by the police when it happened. 
 

and now I’m seeing these details about the interactions between rittenhouse and the three victims. 
 

I’m seeing a lot of opinion that what he did was obviously not self defense, but a lot of evidence that what he did was self defense. So I’m wondering what I’m missing. 
 

and I’m aware of the premeditation/he doesn’t live there/he shouldn’t have been there/etc aspect. I’m speaking strictly about the incidents (since it seems like the lead up is being completely discounted in the legal case)

Edited November 12, 2021 by tshile

[Ball Security]

Prior to the lunch break: “I hope the Asian food isn’t coming…isn’t in one of those boats along Long Beach Harbor.”  — Judge Schroeder

[tshile]

So, went looking. Found the video his defense team put together. 
 

https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/kyle-rittenhouse-attorney-releases-video-in-self-defense-claim/

 

sorry. That’s self defense. He’s clearly chased and attacked by multiple people, at least one of which had a gun and pulled it on him. (Who’s buddy then went on Twitter and let the world know the guy wish he had killed rittenhouse)

 

I get the lead up. But none of those people should have been there. Apply your standard equally. Either people were allowed to be there despite curfew or they weren’t. And it looks like there were tons of guns there, including victim #3 and many other people supposedly on the side of the BLM movement.

 

Clearly people went looking for trouble, and the found what they wanted. 
 

If you’re going to be an aggressor and go after other people to harm them, then you get no sympathy from me when you get your ass kicked. 
 

go after someone with a gun? With your own weapons? Well then you’re a ****ing moron. 
 

You would need a strong case by the prosecution to get me to vote guilty after watching the video the defense team put out. A very strong case. And this hasn’t been a strong case by the prosecution.

 

I don’t even need to factor in the judges antics. The video is quite clear what’s going on. I’m curious if there’s some other video that depicts a completely different story - because that’s exactly what I would need, considering witnesses in this situation are so blatantly bias. 
 

it’s gonna piss people off but I think not guilty is the right call. Most of this is on the police in my opinion. They let it get out of control and they clearly didn’t fo anything about an obnoxiously obvious presence of guns 

 

you could convince me of the firearm charges but I think that once you dig through the more serious charges, and get to this point, it’d be hard to get all 12 people to vote to get him on gun charges. My gut says at that point most wouldn’t see that as appropriate, and would think the kid went through enough to prove he’s not a murder but was just defending himself. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying that’s my gut feeling on how people would work in that situation. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by tshile

[Larry]

18 minutes ago, tshile said:

But none of those people should have been there. Apply your standard equally.

They are applying the standard equally. They're applying it to every person who brought a gun to a race riot and then felt threatened and killed several people. 

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

They are applying the standard equally. They're applying it to every person who brought a gun to a race riot and then felt threatened and killed several people. 

Hah. Cute, I guess.  Not really how things work but you know that. 
 

this is what I get for just relying on Twitter and media. A completely distorted view of what happened that night. The video is clear as day. It would take a very clear video somehow depicting something completely different. I’m not saying that doesn’t exist, just that I haven’t seen that video yet. 

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Hah. Cute, I guess.  Not really how things work but you know that. 

 

Not sure I follow what you are trying to express here. Are you saying that people only apply that standard in this case because it just happens to be the guy on the other side of the argument from them who ended up killing people? 

 

Also I don't think this has been the prosecutions argument though I haven't listened to a lot of it 

 

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

this is what I get for just relying on Twitter and media. A completely distorted view of what happened that night. The video is clear as day. It would take a very clear video somehow depicting something completely different. I’m not saying that doesn’t exist, just that I haven’t seen that video yet. 

 

Yes. Stop going solely by what twitter and 'media' (?) are telling you if you are frequently finding them wrong. We should all be so wise. I feel like most people I have spoken with cant really argue he was defending himself. Though I feel like the prosecution made an interesting argument that notvictim #3 could have felt his life was in danger (they played video of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at the guy, then lowering it, before #3 raised his own gun concluding with Rittenhouse shooting him), and I feel like getting Rittenhouse to say he didn't think he needed to defend himself before the incident was interesting cause his whole reason for having the gun was to defend himself, and getting Rittenhouse to say on one hand that he was there to help people and then at the same time say that there wasn't anyone for him to help was interesting...…ultimately it doesn't mean much. Dude was being chased. Its clear as day he was defending himself even if he created the situation. 

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Not sure I follow what you are trying to express here. Are you saying that people only apply that standard in this case because it just happens to be the guy on the other side of the argument from them who ended up killing people? 

I think on one side we have:

People ignoring that rittenhouse crossed stare lines as a 17 year old to be at a riot for which there was a curfew, illegally possessing an ar-15, all because there was this other group of people making threats, destroying tons of property, etc

 

and on the other side we have:

people ignoring that a bunch of people took to the streets, apparently many with guns, under the guise of protest just to look and destroy a city, to feel all badass toting around their guns in front of police (in these videos people are just walking around with handguns *in their hands*…), because those other people also shouldn’t have been there. 
 

 

and both sides are using the “they shouldn’t have been there” argument. 
 

 

this entire situation is an expected outcome. The police decided to not do anything about it because of public pressure. People decided to protect their towns. Everyone involved decided they don’t care about the law and wanted to run around with guns. 
 

im honestly surprised we’re talking about 2 dead and 1 wounded. Through all these riots and the way things ha e been handled I’m very surprised this is the only real case of it. 
 

 

as for you comment about the media - this was a story I simply skipped over. I took my information from this thread. I just didn’t have time for this story, when it unfolded. And the information was lacking and biased at best. That kid was chased down and attacked - repeatedly. And he handled himself quite well, in regards to defending yourself in that situation. I’m honestly surprised he’s even alive.  
 

until this morning I was convinced he was a murder that might get off because of a bad judge and a poor prosecution team. 
 

im now convinced he was clearly defending himself, and the only issue is “he shouldn’t have been there” and “he was 17 and it was illegal to have the ar-15”

which as I explained is laughable (in terms of hinging this whole case on that)

 

and based on my opinion/feel for how people work - there’s no way they decide this kid clearly defended himself, have watched everything he’s gone through over it (we have people making threats if he’s found not guilty, he’s going to have to watch himself the rest of his life), and decide to ring him up on simple possession and curfew charges. I just don’t see it. 

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Its clear as day he was defending himself even if he created the situation. 

Pending evidence that suggest otherwise (cause I feel I don’t have all the facts still):

 

it looks like victim #1 (rosenbaum?) was trying to push a dumpster, lit on fire, into a gas station. A person ran up and put it out with a fire extinguisher. Victim #1 becomes irate and starts going after that person. Threads. Clearly trying to attack him. It’s the other protestors that stop him. 
 

then at some point he sees rittenhouse, who is dressed incredibly similarly to the guy with the fire extinguisher. Victim #1 then takes off after rittenhouse - the defense argued because he mistook him for the fire extinguisher guy, which seems reasonable however we will never know - and chased him down through a parking lot. And then gets shot. 
 

And there’s and added element of before rittenhouse turns as fires, gun shots ring out. Even the reporter chasing both of them acknowledges that. 
 

that’s not creating the situation to me. Victim #1 created the situation. The video clearly shows that. 
 

 

again - open to the idea there is a video that depicts the exact opposite, I just haven’t seen it yet. 
 

 

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

and on the other side we have:

people ignoring that a bunch of people took to the streets, apparently many with guns, under the guise of protest just to look and destroy a city, to feel all badass toting around their guns in front of police (in these videos people are just walking around with handguns *in their hands*…), because those other people also shouldn’t have been there.

I absolutely agree that what I think of as "the anarchist opportunists" took advantage. There's an element in our society that seeks out things like this, or a G-8, or political conventions, or lots of things, simply for the purpose of standing behind legitimate protesters and **** things up. 
 

Not sure I agree with "many of them with guns", though. I'd been commenting for months that I was frankly surprised at how rarely we were hearing about guns being used at these protests. (By anybody other than militarized police). I was actually surprised at how many people were showing restraint on that front. 
 

----

 

And I'll freely admit. I haven't looked at any video of his shootings. 
 

For one reason, because such videos are being presented by people who's agenda is "ignore everything that happened before this incident right here". 
 

But mostly because I believe that there are times where a person surrenders the right to self defense. And traveling to an event where you expect to find a race riot, with an "assault weapon", is one of them. 
 

To pick an extreme example, (no, I am not claiming this example is completely identical), I don't have the right to "defend myself" when I'm standing in the living room of the house I broke into. 
 

And I think people give up the right to kill and claim "self defense", when they took active steps to seek out the fight. 
 

Especially when said person brought a gun, and killed somebody who was unarmed. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

And I'll freely admit. I haven't looked at any video of his shootings. 

Not being a dick but I posted a link to a video and said a lot of people have guns, and your response is to question that without looking at the video. 
 

I mean come on. 

[Llevron]

18 minutes ago, tshile said:

that’s not creating the situation to me. Victim #1 created the situation. The video clearly shows that. 

 

Oh I didn't mean he created that particular situation. I'm saying he put himself in danger by being there at all. And I'm well aware you don't like the argument (which is why I'm not arguing it). Its just factual that had he stayed in his state, and not brought an AR-15 to the party, he probably wouldn't have been mistaken for fire extinguisher guy  

 

I guess you can argue his mother created the situation her son found himself in. Dunno. But I wouldn't mind some culpability for the person(s) showing up to a riot with guns. All of them. Doesn't just have to be him. Also the cops who allowed him to do it. Everyone. 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

But mostly because I believe that there are times where a person surrenders the right to self defense. And traveling to an event where you expect to find a race riot, with an "assault weapon", is one of them

As a generic statement, sure. 
 

applied to a specific situation - there’s a whole lot of people doing **** they’re not supposed to here, and conveniently everyone seems to have found a way to completely excuse one side but not the other. 
 

That was my point you first quoted. If you’re gonna have a standard then apply it evenly. 
 

idgaf what standard you pick. At least apply it evenly. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

Oh I didn't mean he created that particular situation. I'm saying he put himself in danger by being there at all. And I'm well aware you don't like the argument (which is why I'm not arguing it). Its just factual that had he stayed in his state, and not brought an AR-15 to the party, he probably wouldn't have been mistaken for fire extinguisher guy  

oh yeah. Individual incident vs being there in general. Sorry easy to mix up with the back and forth. 
 

 

To be clear rittenhouse violated the core of self defense training as I know it. So did Zimmerman. And by that stander, I would deem both criminals deserving of prison. 
 

However, life is not as cut and dry. And there’s a difference between what I think should happen, and what I think will happen due to context/law. 
 

As a general statement I think someone who goes out of their way to show up at a violent riot with a gun and kills someone should go to jail. 
 

the fact that police decided to not do anything and let a town be destroyed, and it wasn’t just here it was across the country due to public pressure and we all watched it unfold over time, is a very interesting wrinkle. I think there’s a very interesting conversation to be had about what is appropriate, and when, when the government authority decides to sit on the side lines while citizens start attacking each other (either attacking people or the buildings/properties/businesses)

 

i think that’s a very interesting conversation. 
 

I also think most people aren’t capable of it because all you have to do is flip whose side is doing what, and you can watch most people completely flip their opinion too. Ie: imagine if it was a bunch of white people destroying black communities because of some complaint they had against black people, and a 17 year old black kid shoots and kills a couple people that were attacking him. 
 

can’t you just see damn near everyone’s opinions change? Instantly? I can. I don’t even think it’s debatable. 
 

which gets to the core - at this point this case seems to hinge on nothing more than preconceived biases about everyone involved. Giving passes to certain people for the same thing they demand other certain people be held accountable for. 

[Larry]

18 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Oh I didn't mean he created that particular situation. I'm saying he put himself in danger by being there at all. And I'm well aware you don't like the argument (which is why I'm not arguing it). Its just factual that had he stayed in his state, and not brought an AR-15 to the party, he probably wouldn't have been mistaken for fire extinguisher guy  

Just pointing out, I also have a problem with the notion that "if there is anything Person X could have done differently, then it's his fault". Seems too extreme. 

[Larry]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

applied to a specific situation - there’s a whole lot of people doing **** they’re not supposed to here, and conveniently everyone seems to have found a way to completely excuse one side but not the other. 

Only if your definition of "completely excuse" is "they're not being accused of killing multiple people, and it's only because they didn't kill multiple people". 
 

If I can take the scenario you described, if Dumpster Guy pulls a gun and shoots Fire Extinguisher Guy, then I want him prosecuted for murder, too.
 

And if somebody shows me a video and says "look, this guy had a fire extinguisher, and he moved towards dumpster guy and his dumpster, and the fire extinguisher could be used as a weapon", I will completely disregard their argument, too. My position will be "you had a gun, he didn't, and you shot him."

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

Only if your definition of "completely excuse" is "they're not being accused of killing multiple people, and it's only because they didn't kill multiple people". 
 

 

I know you think debating this way is cute, but no one really gives it any attention. That should be a cue. 
 

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

If I can take the scenario you described, if Dumpster Guy pulls a gun and shoots Fire Extinguisher Guy, then I want him prosecuted for murder, too.

 

and if rittenhouse had shot people for putting out a fire your example would work. But that’s not what happened. 
 

 

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

And if somebody shows me a video and says "look, this guy had a fire extinguisher, and he moved towards dumpster guy and his dumpster, and the fire extinguisher could be used as a weapon", I will completely disregard their argument, too. My position will be "you had a gun, he didn't, and you shot him."

except that’s not what happened. At all. 
 

rittenhouse was chased, beaten, skateboard guy wasn’t skateboarding he was swinging it like a weapon. Victim #3 had a handgun in his hand while chasing him, and pointed the gun at him while hovering over him. 
 

Other people are seen kicking him in the head while he’s on the ground. Shoving him yo the ground. A mob is chasing him. People are yelling out for someone to shoot him in the head, among other things. And there are gun shots ringing out. 
 

you know - if you wanted to be involved in the conversation about what happened, you should watch the videos. You’ve decided to admit you won’t/haven’t watched the videos, but are insisting on telling others what happened. Really?

[Larry]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

You’ve decided to admit you won’t/haven’t watched the videos, but are insisting on telling others what happened.

 

No. I'm not.