Expat Forum For People Moving Overseas And Living Abroad banner
61 - 80 of 89 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
51,971 Posts
And if Kyle Rittenhouse were Black, he would have been convicted tout de suite.
Actually, if Rittenhouse were Black, he never would have made it to trial to be convicted of anything. Some other "vigilante" would have spared the state the bother.

And now, another cheesehead has plowed through a Christmas parade and killed 5 or more people. Wisconsin used to be a sleepy little state just north of Chicago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,967 Posts
The venomous outburst by the "highly respected judge" in this case was embarrassing and beggars belief,, chambers please? You know, a word on the quiet Mr. Prosecutor. One has to wonder the motives.

I grab (arm myself) the car keys because I intend to use it, I grab a hammer, not for adornment but because I know I need it, intend to use it. I'm sure the person in question here wasn't slinging an assault rifle as bling.

OMO.

Cheers, Steve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
A rational person would have stayed at home in Indiana and either watched the tumult on TV or stayed in his mom's basement playing games on his X-Box.
Do you mean like the police who were defunded by the communist mayor and made to stand down did? Kyle Rittenhouse is a private citizen with the right to freedom. He was not defunded or told to stand down, therefore he didn't have to stay home in Indiana, watch TV OR play on his X-Box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
Kyle Rittenhouse is a private citizen with the right to freedom.
What is your position on the freedom of people not to be shot and killed?

The dead people were not posing a threat to Rittenhouse; the demonstration may have been perceived as threatening but how does that give any authorisation to a random private citizen to kill people who were essentially bystanders?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
51,971 Posts
Kyle Rittenhouse is a private citizen with the right to freedom.
"Freedom" in the abstract means nothing. And then we get to that thing about how your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Or how "freedom of speech" doesn't necessarily include the "freedom" to yell Fire! in a crowded theater (especially if there isn't a fire). Or the little detail that you have no "freedom" to beat the living crap out of your neighbor because you don't like them or their Christmas lawn decorations.
 

·
Super Moderator
Originally from UK but lived in many countries
Joined
·
7,108 Posts
What is your position on the freedom of people not to be shot and killed?

The dead people were not posing a threat to Rittenhouse; the demonstration may have been perceived as threatening but how does that give any authorisation to a random private citizen to kill people who were essentially bystanders?
Did you actually see the two videos that showed him being attacked and then shooting people?
In the last video before he gave himself up to the police - protestors were physically attacking him and trying to snatch his gun from him.
Had it not been on a sling - they would have probably succeeded.
As I stated before - the two shootings that I saw in those videos looked like clear cut cases of self defence.
However - I also suspect that he left his house that night with the possible intention of getting into a skirmish with protestors - so that he had a perfect excuse to use his weapon on them and then claim self defence - however he was not on trial for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
I wonder, if people would be so quick to defend the shooting, if it was their kin who where shot.
"Freedom" in the abstract means nothing. And then we get to that thing about how your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Or how "freedom of speech" doesn't necessarily include the "freedom" to yell Fire! in a crowded theater (especially if there isn't a fire). Or the little detail that you have no "freedom" to beat the living crap out of your neighbor because you don't like them or their Christmas lawn decorations.
The two deceased convicted felons also didn't have the freedom to threaten Kyle's life. Had they not done so, they might still be alive.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
51,971 Posts
As I stated before - the two shootings that I saw in those videos looked like clear cut cases of self defence.
However - I also suspect that he left his house that night with the possible intention of getting into a skirmish with protestors - so that he had a perfect excuse to use his weapon on them and then claim self defence - however he was not on trial for that.
One other "catch" I realized in all this. Fifty states, fifty different sets of law concerning "self defense" - and I just read an interesting article talking about how much the self-defense statutes and definitions have changed in the US in the last 15 or so years. Largely as more and more states have implemented gun-friendly laws, like "open carry" and "stand your ground" and now Texas' attempt to drop just about all requirements for buying, owning, and using or displaying a firearm in public. This is all very different from what I knew of these things way back when I still lived there. And in this case you have to refer specifically to Wisconsin law - not what the law may be in neighboring Illinois, or someplace like Texas or Florida.

On your second point, there has been lots and lots of discussion - online, on media, etc. - about what Kyle was charged with and what he could have or should have been charged with. But many public prosecutors in the US have said that no matter what, this was going to be a hard case for the prosecution to win in the "charged" atmosphere at the time (and still).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #76 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
You can start with this article from that bastion of liberal thought, Forbes...

A piece in Forbes. Ok, I’ll bite. I think Forbes is clutching its pearls.

  1. veterans day applause for a witness (who was subject to cross examination by the prosecution). Weird but not likely to impact the jury. Facts introduced in evidence in chief really do matters to juries. This was not an issue where the judge could have been recused and a mistrial moved.
  2. Admonishing the prosector. This was done outside the presence of the jury. It was absolutely correct because the prosecutor told the jury that the accused invoked his right to remain silent. The inference the jury was invited to take from that was that silence equals guilt. Had the jury returned a guilty verdict it would have led to an appeal and a powerful, colorable claim of reversible error. The Due process clause of the federal constitution forbids such an inference. (In England the right to silence exists BUT now the jury may be informed of that. That was a recent change that I think is wrong)
  3. Getting shouted at by the judge generally. I know of no lawyer who practises in court who has not been shouted at by the judge, me included. Goes with the territory. Buckle up. Again, outside the presence of the jury.
  4. The ringtone on the phone. That 1984 song is played in malls, supermarkets, radios on a regular basis for more than 30 years. So what. (And there are always spats about the use by political parties of pop music. ) This was not an issue where one could hope to win a motion for the judge to be recused.

By the way, the judge is a democrat.

The real problems are not the legal rulings in this case. The real problems are political. The real problems are the gun laws and the abject failure of the citizens of the USA and in each and every state to do anything about it.

And yet armchair warriors are bitching about damn ringtones.

The families of the victims of the shootings should pursue civil remedy. If they prevail then Rittenhouse, although poor now, will never be fear of the debt.

Don’t mourn, organise. (See Joe Hill)

(I think this from MSNBC is balanced) Opinion | Why the judge in the Rittenhouse trial wasn't as bad as you may think
 
61 - 80 of 89 Posts
Top