Social Kyle Rittenhouse updates

[jeremyemilio]

No, shit for brains, they aren’t. Because anyone who is actually an attorney knows a self defense claim is an almost unimaginable stretch, given he had a plastic bag thrown at him and a guy wielding a skateboard approached....that isn’t a situation that a reasonable person would believe requires deadly force.


The only ones defending him are dipshit cultists like you two. People who watch Fox News all day. It’s disgusting, and you’re a massive shit stain.


Why don’t you go find a law school and make some serious money doing this, since you’ve got it all figured out.

I'll just leave this right here...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colu...0200903-susvsg45yndn7pb67l42ywnzn4-story.html

 

[King in the North]

It doesn’t matter what the rate black men are incarcerated at, it’s not racism because they’re there. They have committed crimes that brought them there. Now if you want to get into arguments over what constitutes a crime, that’s different. Like drug dealers, people think all drugs should be legal, then we would have less black men in prison, shit we would have less MEN period in prison if that were true. But that’s not what we’re talking about. Usually self defense is determined at the scene. That’s how it used to be. But if a DA sees it and it can be used for political purposes Then they can open up an investigation. It’s like what happened with Jake Gardner, police at the scene, and initially investigated it, cleared Jake Gardner and counted it as self defense. It was the DA that decided to bring it back up for political reasons, It’s like, once they do that, it’s like the police already investigated it, so what’s going to be different now? Maybe some minor details? Maybe Jake Gardner sent some racist text messages a few hours before he acted in self defense, they will paint him as a racist, it doesn’t matter that it was self defense, if you can paint him as a racist, you can convince a jury of stupid people that he didn’t act in self defense. Or at the very least see other criminals charges, it doesn’t matter because his reputation is ruined. That DA in Omaha who decided to re open a self defense case after the fact, is bad fucking news.

it’s like with Amaud Arbery, they released the video, and some feel it was self defense, others say, those guys should have never been following him, so what happened? They went scorched earth, the didn’t just go after the father and son, they went after the guy who filmed the whole thing giving them a case. We are living in dangerous times, where now we have video on almost everything and it can be clear cut, but people won’t see it.

I think you touch on an important point here, and that is the disparity young men are incarcerated at (compared to older men/women and women of comparable ages). Obviously men of color are impacted more harshly, but it’s young men in general. Generally speaking, young men who don’t come from much money.

Although recent trends would tell you we’re also starting to lock up young women at alarming rates. But yes, I think the way we write and enforce laws produces a racist (and sexist?) result. I think most who work in the criminal justice field agree.

It definitely isn’t unheard of for a prosecutors office to amend indictments, but of course I agree, that should never be done because of political pressure. No matter what the charge or who the defendant is.

But I do maintain self defense cases are complicated. Hell, most cases are complicated. But when we have something like this come up, well I wouldn’t want to be that prosecuting attorney.

 

[King in the North]

I'll just leave this right here...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colu...0200903-susvsg45yndn7pb67l42ywnzn4-story.html

It is possible—but an attorney did not write that. By his own admission another guy going down “the rabbit hole” of criminal law and self defense.

Frankly we don’t have all the evidence. It’s just not an open and shut case.

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

I think you touch on an important point here, and that is the disparity young men are incarcerated at (compared to older men/women and women of comparable ages). Obviously men of color are impacted more harshly, but it’s young men in general. Generally speaking, young men who don’t come from much money.

Although recent trends would tell you we’re also starting to lock up young women at alarming rates. But yes, I think the way we write and enforce laws produces a racist (and sexist?) result. I think most who work in the criminal justice field agree.

It definitely isn’t unheard of for a prosecutors office to amend indictments, but of course I agree, that should never be done because of political pressure. No matter what the charge or who the defendant is.

But I do maintain self defense cases are complicated. Hell, most cases are complicated. But when we have something like this come up, well I wouldn’t want to be that prosecuting attorney.

Self defense cases are complicated once it gets to trial. All theyre gonna go off of is what the police report came to In the first place that made them come to the conclusion of self defense, these DAs wanting it to go to trial are doing it for political reasons, if they could just find one bread crumb to taint the defendant, facts be damned. They will come up with some charge that will stick, just to ruin your life out of spite, all politically motivated. It’s pretty disgusting. These DAs are bad news. But they’re good news if they are on your side, ala Jussie smollet. If our justice system is going to be dictated by how black lives matter feels, self defense for white people will be illegal. Thank god Kyle didn’t kill anybody black. That’s all I gotta say.

 

[jeremyemilio]

It is possible—but an attorney did not write that. By his own admission another guy going down “the rabbit hole” of criminal law and self defense.

Frankly we don’t have all the evidence. It’s just not an open and shut case.

Gawd. Nothing is an open and shut case. Certainly not in that chaos. And certainly not in this political climate.

But that doesn't mean I'm about to join you in pretending that I wasn't replying to a comment you made claiming that "anyone who is actually an attorney knows a self defense claim is an almost unimaginable stretch" and that "The only ones defending him are dipshit cultists."

Yeah. That's right.

This reporter for the Chicago Tribune is just a dipshit cultist wasting his time writing a bullshit article about a scenario that is an imaginable stretch.

Watch the videos. Look for some informed commentary. Then maybe come back here and try to have a reasonable discussion with a little less bull and bluster.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You’re working off a video you saw on Tucker Carlson and quoting statutes you don’t even have know how to read.

Actually, I watched this unfold the night it happened in a thread covering the riots on another board. The three shootings, interview with Kyle, and "shoot me, n...." were all posted there before you woke up in the morning and found out shit went down.

Before the clips were available someone posted saying people got shot, and I immediately thought it was someone committing murder. Then I watched the clips and everything about them said self-defense. Since then many details have emerged, but none that have changed what was immediately apparent.

Regarding my understanding of statutes, If you wanna pontificate on those exemptions relating to carrying the dangerous weapon I'm here for you. There's nothing in the self-defense statutes as ambiguous. Kyle had no duty to retreat to begin with, but since he fled, it nullifies any claims of him being the aggressor. Therefore, what's left in there that you can cite?

I’m not sure I agree with that assessment, given black men are incarcerated at disproportionate rates, but even if all of that is true, self defense cases are tough.


Actually we could be civil and get this rolling,

Serious question for all the legal scholars (talking to you @Cubo de Sangre ) : When the defendant raises the defense of self defense in Wisconsin, who is the burden on? Because you bet your ass that matters.

It’s very recent, but in Ohio, the burden falls on the prosecution to prove the defendant did not act in self defense when it is raised.

We had briefly discussed this but I would love to know how Wisconsin handles self defense in this regard.

Burden of proof, to my understanding, is on the defense. While that is certainly a big factor in self-defense cases, the videos speak for themselves. It's an indisputable fact Kyle did what he could to avoid violence and the only people that were shot were physically attacking him. If that's not self-defense then what is.

 

[jeremyemilio]

It’s funny how all the laypeople in this thread that I disagree with want to challenge my credentials. You guys sound insecure.

Wait... what credentials are you pretending to have?

(I missed that.)

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Wait... what credentials are you pretending to have?

(I missed that.)

 

[Mcountry]

Just to be clear I don't condone any rioting or looting. Obviously there have been people breaking the law and the beat thing to do is record them for evidence and let the legal process play out. Sending 17 year olds in to avert a war is just silly to contemplate.

When the police are over ran and the stupid mayor refuses to ask Trump for assistance, it falls on the people to protect themselves and their property.

You do not simply get to run "carte blanch" to burn down the city.

So the allowance of this nonsense to go on for over 100 days invites people to rise up against them with equal power. Which is exaclty why you saw a few people need ar15's ro rise up against hundres of rioters.

It evened the power odds.

 

[Bald1]

Again this is below me... They sent him to protect property with a firearm because they feared rioters. You're leaving it up to a minor to put himself in a threatening situation and decide when lethal force is warranted. Would you take the responsibility of assigning him that task after arming him?

Brain fart - beneath you.

I would not have anyone protecting anything in such a volatile situation unless they were qualified or trained. That doesn't mean he was sent to kill nor does it make the act of extinguishing a fire provocation. If that's the prism were going to look at this situation through then we might as well negotiate with terrorists and invite more craziness.

After all, living under the threat of violence for doing the right thing is a crazy way of going through life.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

When the police are over ran and the stupid mayor refuses to ask Trump for assistance, it falls on the people to protect themselves and their property.

You do not simply get to run "carte blanch" to burn down the city.

So the allowance of this nonsense to go on for over 100 days invites people to rise up against them with equal power. Which is exaclty why you saw a few people need ar15's ro rise up against hundres of rioters.

It evened the power odds.

Do you think the fact this kid was 17 played any role in these events unfolding the way they did?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Brain fart - beneath you.

I would not have anyone protecting anything in such a volatile situation unless they were qualified or trained. That doesn't mean he was sent to kill nor does it make the act of extinguishing a fire provocation. If that's the prism were going to look at this situation through then we might as well negotiate with terrorists and invite more craziness.

After all, living under the threat of violence for doing the right thing is a crazy way of going through life.

I mostly agree with you, but if a group of guys just lit a dumpster fire and you run over and extinguish it, isn't that a provocation? With your experience is that something you would do and not expect a reaction? At least some boos?

 

[Bob Gray]

You realize there are unknown facts right?

Theres always unknown facts. That doesnt mean we assume what they are. We go with what we have and know, not by what might be.

 

[Clifford_Harris]

Arbery grabbed the shotgun and started punching him in the face. This was not a well individual. They showed other police videos of interactions with him and seemed off, when he wears that big jacket in hot weather, that’s the making of a crazy person, they have a hard time regulating their body temperature, one moment they’re too hot, the next moment too cold. I’ve seen it happen too often.
The question is, should they have let it go, and let the cops handle it, that’s also a way to go...but yeah the way Amaud jukes on the other side of the truck to catch the guy with the shotgun off guard to attack him, he crossed the line of being in the wrong. Anybody that attacks someone with a gun in their hand, is choosing the wrong course of action I would say,

So the armed men chasing him all around the neighborhood with trucks didn't do anything wrong? You're aware that these people.... Well the idiot neighbor not only chased Arbery in the truck and tried to cut him off but actually hit him with the truck as well? How long should Arbery run before he gets to defend himself from armed individuals? They all forfeited their rights to self-defense the moment they attempted to corner him using vehicles while armed.

 

[Bob Gray]

I found some pictures of some of @King in the North 's clients.

Spoiler

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

So the armed men chasing him all around the neighborhood with trucks didn't do anything wrong? You're aware that these people.... Well the idiot neighbor not only chased Arbery in the truck and tried to cut him off but actually hit him with the truck as well? How long should Arbery run before he gets to defend himself from armed individuals? They all forfeited their rights to self-defense the moment they attempted to corner him using vehicles while armed.

I didn’t hear he was hit with the truck, if they wanted to shoot him they could have just shot him from the truck. They wanted to confront him, yes, and with their guns out, was the wrong way to go about it. But they wanted to hold him for sure, but the way he went about it was wrong, there was a giant field to the left of him he could have ran into. Where they couldn’t follow him via truck. Trying to disarm someone. Who doesn’t want to kill you, they wanna detain or talk to you in some way, he could have kept on running, or went into the field or kept walking. He didn’t have to answer them or anything, but the moment Amaud attacked, he fucked up. He became the aggressor, it’s like I can call you a pussy in the streets, but if you decide to walk up and punch me for calling you a pussy, doesn’t matter, you hit me first. The end. Doesn’t matter if I provoked you with words. Amaud could have kept on walking away from them, he ran towards them, one truck in the road is not gonna block him, especially with a giant field to the left of him.

 

[Clifford_Harris]

I didn’t hear he was hit with the truck, if they wanted to shoot him they could have just shot him from the truck. They wanted to confront him, yes, and with their guns out, was the wrong way to go about it. But they wanted to hold him for sure, but the way he went about it was wrong, there was a giant field to the left of him he could have ran into. Where they couldn’t follow him via truck. Trying to disarm someone. Who doesn’t want to kill you, they wanna detain or talk to you in some way, he could have kept on running, or went into the field or kept walking. He didn’t have to answer them or anything, but the moment Amaud attacked, he fucked up. He became the aggressor, it’s like I can call you a pussy in the streets, but if you decide to walk up and punch me for calling you a pussy, doesn’t matter, you hit me first. The end. Doesn’t matter if I provoked you with words. Amaud could have kept on walking away from them, he ran towards them, one truck in the road is not gonna block him, especially with a giant field to the left of him.

There wasn't a giant field to his left it was a steep ditch.... If there were a giant field there, then trucks can still drive on it..... It's the reason rednecks always have trucks, to be able to drive through fields and mud lol

He wasn't provoked with words though, he was provoked with threatening actions, being followed, having weapons brandished at him, being hit by a vehicle. Like I said, you can't escalate a situation while committing felonies then decide to play self-defense. Arbery had a right to stand his ground and no duty to retreat from these armed individuals.

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

There wasn't a giant field to his left it was a steep ditch.... If there were a giant field there, then trucks can still drive on it..... It's the reason rednecks always have trucks, to be able to drive through fields and mud lol

He wasn't provoked with words though, he was provoked with threatening actions, being followed, having weapons brandished at him, being hit by a vehicle. Like I said, you can't escalate a situation while committing felonies then decide to play self-defense. Arbery had a right to stand his ground and no duty to retreat from these armed individuals.

You can legally follow people in a public street, it’s like the Trayvon thing, they can follow him all the way until he goes home...also it’s an open carry state, you can carry a shotgun in your arms. There is no law preventing people from walking in public streets, so you can follow who you want, As long as it’s in public. That’s actually how police get homeless folks or others to leave small towns, they just follow them, everywhere, the person gets tired of it and leaves the small town. There is no law saying you can’t follow someone in public. Amaud initiated the violence. End of story.

 

[Bald1]

I mostly agree with you, but if a group of guys just lit a dumpster fire and you run over and extinguish it, isn't that a provocation? With your experience is that something you would do and not expect a reaction? At least some boos?

I understand the argument, don't get me wrong.

My beef is with the notion that we're better off allowing bad things to happen because of fears of reprisals. So if the cops are told to stand down, then what? Be ok with lawlessness and punish those who stand up to fuckery? Where does that lead? Mob rule should never be allowed in a civilized society.

Now the argument could be made that civilians taking security duty into their own hands could lead to mob rule and a different kind of craziness, but that's why we have government sanctioned dispensers of violence. Aka, cops.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You can legally follow people in a public street, it’s like the Trayvon thing, they can follow him all the way until he goes home...also it’s an open carry state, you can carry a shotgun in your arms. There is no law preventing people from walking in public streets, so you can follow who you want, As long as it’s in public. That’s actually how police get homeless folks or others to leave small towns, they just follow them, everywhere, the person gets tired of it and leaves the small town. There is no law saying you can’t follow someone in public. Amaud initiated the violence. End of story.

End of story? It doesn't sound like you even read the first chapter.