Jump to content

Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots


clapclapclap

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

They are throwing the case. Doesn’t happen very often unless an actual cop is being prosecuted due to public pressure. Then you get this type of show trial. I guess if you publicly back the blue and it’s high profile enough they’ll give you a show trial too.

You think this DA, who is a Democrat, is throwing the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I looked up the Wisconsin self defense statute. You should try reading it closely.

“A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.”

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

I could make a good argument that the whole reason Kyle was there in the first place pointing his gun at multiple people was to provoke an attack. Hell he doesn’t even have to use unlawful conduct to be guilty of it, just have an intent. He wanted someone to attack him. That’s why the judge keeping out the social media statement, if authenticated, was total horseshit as it goes directly to intent and this whole trial is a joke designed to acquit a “back the blue” murderer.
 

It happens. Usually it’s an actual cop though.

If only the prosecution had someone with your impeccable legal mind. 

Ok nevermind 

Edited by immortal13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

You think this DA, who is a Democrat, is throwing the case?

Let’s just say he’s not putting on his best case so far. Or his witnesses aren’t putting on their best case. Or the judge isn’t gonna let him put on his best case. Hard to say which it is from this vantage point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Or the judge isn’t gonna let him put on his best case

this is my opinion. The judge has ensured that only the split second of the shootings and the seconds preceding it are to be considered by the jury. When you aren't allowed to show evidence of the defendant's pattern of behavior to illegally obtained a rifle, wish for opportunities to use it, and coordinating with a militia group to be there, you're not gonna have much of a case to challenge a self defense claim.

As we can see in real-time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Let’s just say he’s not putting on his best case so far. Or his witnesses aren’t putting on their best case. Or the judge isn’t gonna let him put on his best case. Hard to say which it is from this vantage point. 

Or he knows he has a loser case and cannot change the facts.  Unless you have Ken Anderson's ethics, his job as a prosecutor is not to win and get a conviction.  His duty is to see that justice is done.  The facts are the facts.  He can't change them.  The journalist who was an eyewitness just testified. He testified Rosenbaum was going after the rifle. He was chasing Kyle and even when Kyle turned and stopped, Rosenbaum was still going after him.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

this is my opinion. The judge has ensured that only the split second of the shootings and the seconds preceding it are to be considered by the jury. When you aren't allowed to show evidence of the defendant's pattern of behavior to illegally obtained a rifle, wish for opportunities to use it, and coordinating with a militia group to be there, you're not gonna have much of a case to challenge a self defense claim.

As we can see in real-time.

None of that shit comes in during criminal trials under Rule 404.  

Rodney Reed raped like half of Bastrop and committed violent sexual assaults damn near identical to what happened to Stacey Stites.  None of that shit came in during the guilt innocence phase.

@TwiceHorn tried to explain it to you.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Captainant said:

it shows his intent in illegally buying and brandishing a rifle to provoke violence. It's a tactic used by the proud boys and other militia/terrorist groups. They won't start violence, but they'll provoke it and then finish it.

If you start the fight by pointing your toy rifle at people, you don't (or in a sane world, shouldn't) get to claim self defense when they move to disarm you. 

This kid was out after curfew carrying a rifle he could not legally own or purchase, 20 miles from his home. He was out hunting and got what he was looking for. A chance to use his gun.

He broke curfew??? Well fuck man why didn't you say that before. GUILTY!!!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

He broke curfew??? Well fuck man why didn't you say that before. GUILTY!!!

And he illegally bought a gun.  That justified attacking him.  Because Rosenbaum was really an ATF agent and knew the kid wasn't 18.

Plus he crossed state lines.  Those state lines are not just imaginary lines on a map.  They are state lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Captainant said:

it shows his intent in illegally buying and brandishing a rifle to provoke violence. It's a tactic used by the proud boys and other militia/terrorist groups. They won't start violence, but they'll provoke it and then finish it.

If you start the fight by pointing your toy rifle at people, you don't (or in a sane world, shouldn't) get to claim self defense when they move to disarm you. 

This kid was out after curfew carrying a rifle he could not legally own or purchase, 20 miles from his home. He was out hunting and got what he was looking for. A chance to use his gun.

If he was HUNTING as you keep saying, why did he only shoot the 3 people that attacked him?  You talk about how stupid this kid is and then you give him credit as a evil genius that these 3 morons fell for his trap?  We get it...you don't like the kid or the people he "associates" with.  Neither do I, but so fucking what.  You can say that you hope he is found guilty, but stop with this HUNTING nonsense.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

He broke curfew??? Well fuck man why didn't you say that before. GUILTY!!!

Rosenbaum couldnt have known that when he was attempting his valiant citizens arrest. If he did, he wouldve let him go because the kid was already in trouble!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last line of questioning before lunch is must see courtroom action.

Prosecutor trying to make statements on behalf of witness.  Prosecutor arguing with witness about what he is saying.  Defense attorney, whether brilliant or incompetent, is letting it all happen.  Judge has to step in to presumably tell prosecution not to argue with HIS OWN witness.

Edited by JBJ
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You've basically got your witness on the stand saying the guy "lunged" at the defendant. How dumb is this guy? What is his strategy?

He has no case.  The facts are what they are.  Would you rather him just make shit up instead of presenting the facts?

The DA is a democrat and knows he would not get re-elected if he did not bring charges.  So he brought a case that he never should have brought because politics.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You've basically got your witness on the stand saying the guy "lunged" at the defendant. How dumb is this guy? What is his strategy?

He might just be trying to get it all out there early to be prepared to respond.  The rest of his case can now be a cross of the key witness.  Both either incompetent or brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

We are down 63-0 and halftime. In the second half, our plan is to intercept every pass and run it back.

It has worked pretty well against us this year except we are never up 63-0 at the half.

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read part of this thread and watch some of the testimony.  I get the arguments both sides are making.  The question that I have is if you approach someone with a gun, say "fuck you," and grab at it, does that give the gun owner the right to shoot you?  Even if you add it the crazy atmosphere and the erratic behavior, are you reasonably in such fear of death or serious bodily injury (or whatever the particular standard is) that you can then shoot the guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

I read part of this thread and watch some of the testimony.  I get the arguments both sides are making.  The question that I have is if you approach someone with a gun, say "fuck you," and grab at it, does that give the gun owner the right to shoot you?  Even if you add it the crazy atmosphere and the erratic behavior, are you reasonably in such fear of death or serious bodily injury (or whatever the particular standard is) that you can then shoot the guy?

Also the see post above yours. Or this longer copy of the testimony. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bravo said:

the answer is yes especially when being chased by them. also, when the guy that get shots says earlier I'm going to kill you motherfuckers.

Yeah, that certainly would change the calculus.  But it still doesn't seem like a slam dunk.  People threaten to kill folks all the time, especially in the heat of the moment.  But they almost never do it.  The percentage of angry dudes who actually kill someone after making that threat in a confrontation is what?  A tenth of a percent?  I don't think the threat get you there alone.  Add in the chasing, maybe.  But I'm still uncomfortable activating a license to kill in the absence of an true, imminent threat - like a gun or knife coming at you or being on the receiving end of a serious beating.  It's a hard line to find.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

Yeah, that certainly would change the calculus.  But it still doesn't seem like a slam dunk.  People threaten to kill folks all the time, especially in the heat of the moment.  But they almost never do it.  The percentage of angry dudes who actually kill someone after making that threat in a confrontation is what?  A tenth of a percent?  I don't think the threat get you there alone.  Add in the chasing, maybe.  But I'm still uncomfortable activating a license to kill in the absence of an true, imminent threat - like a gun or knife coming at you or being on the receiving end of a serious beating.  It's a hard line to find.

Remember the jury is deciding if their was reasonable cause for the defendant to use self defense. At least 1 in 12 people is going to agree if a crazy guy is chasing at you yelling ‘fuck you’ and lunging for your gun. AFTER he already said he was going to kill you if he found you alone AND you just heard a gunshot fired seconds before by a 3rd party…yeah they guy has responsible doubt. 

He is likely still a asshole but he has a pretty good defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

I read part of this thread and watch some of the testimony.  I get the arguments both sides are making.  The question that I have is if you approach someone with a gun, say "fuck you," and grab at it, does that give the gun owner the right to shoot you?  Even if you add it the crazy atmosphere and the erratic behavior, are you reasonably in such fear of death or serious bodily injury (or whatever the particular standard is) that you can then shoot the guy?

Watch the video clip 3 posts above yours. Listen to the words and you will find your answer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bravo said:

If he is grabbing at your gun after saying he is going to kill you and after chasing you then I think you are way above the line you need to kill that person. Are you serious?

Yeah, I get that.  I guess I'm just not comfortable with the kid and the gun.  Had the kid had a stick and been in the same situation and beat the guy to death, he'd be screwed.  Cause he would have had to beat him a bunch of times and a good chunk of that beating would have happened after the threat was neutralized.  If he had a knife and stabbed him a dozen times, he'd probably be screwed.  A gun is different because it is such an overwhelming escalation of any force or threat other than another gun.  And that idiot kid is the one who injected an ar-15 into the scenario.  I guess I'm just not a Rambo type who thinks idiots should be running around riots carrying assault weapons.  I would have a very high threshold before a person can legally start shooting another person.  If you want to carry around the any-confrontation-Trump-card, I think you should have a legal duty to act with the utmost care.  I don't think standard self defense law really accounts for that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

I read part of this thread and watch some of the testimony.  I get the arguments both sides are making.  The question that I have is if you approach someone with a gun, say "fuck you," and grab at it, does that give the gun owner the right to shoot you?  Even if you add it the crazy atmosphere and the erratic behavior, are you reasonably in such fear of death or serious bodily injury (or whatever the particular standard is) that you can then shoot the guy?

the right answer is to not have been in that situation altogether. 

but if someone hadnt provoked you directly, and you behave exactly in this manner, and you start pursuing said person and grabbed at his/her gun... goddamn right they have a reasonable belief to need to defend themself

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hanrahan said:

Yeah, I get that.  I guess I'm just not comfortable with the kid and the gun.  Had the kid had a stick and been in the same situation and beat the guy to death, he'd be screwed.  Cause he would have had to beat him a bunch of times and a good chunk of that beating would have happened after the threat was neutralized.  If he had a knife and stabbed him a dozen times, he'd probably be screwed.  A gun is different because it is such an overwhelming escalation of any force or threat other than another gun.  And that idiot kid is the one who injected an ar-15 into the scenario.  I guess I'm just not a Rambo type who thinks idiots should be running around riots carrying assault weapons.  I would have a very high threshold before a person can legally start shooting another person.  If you want to carry around the any-confrontation-Trump-card, I think you should have a legal duty to act with the utmost care.  I don't think standard self defense law really accounts for that.

Are you intentionally trying to Cloak Room this thread? Just admit it

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...