Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

These people are weird, but we like to find out what weird people are doing and thinking. It's a hobby.
User avatar
Lani
Posts: 2507
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:42 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#401

Post by Lani »

The main reason why Hawaii is strongly multicultural is due to the white landowners importing Asian labor. Got enough Chinese? Shut that down & bring on the Japanese! And then Portuguese, Filipinos, Koreans, Puerto Ricans, and Okinawans. In more recent decades, Micronesians.

Sure, some people stick with their national origin, and some are racists, but that's hard to maintain with so many interracial families.
Image You can't wait until life isn't hard anymore before you decide to be happy.
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#402

Post by RVInit »

busterbunker wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:50 am RVInit:
>And I apologize for the use of the word enjoyment....

No need to apologize. I got what you were saying. I don't split hairs over words.

When it comes to enjoyment, Kyle Littledick went up to Kenosha for one singular purpose: to have some fun. Shoot his gun in his little video game.

somerset:
>Racism isn't a just white person's disease.

No argument there. You're preaching to the choir. But if you look close, you'll often find some white gloves pulling the internecine strings.

I'm trying to fathom a script, a alternate-universe thing, where a nazi gets shot by the cops and all the nazi and kkk guys come together to peacefully protest aka burn the village. Then a black guy wearing muslim garb wades into the riot, grinning ear to ear. He plugs a couple of nazis with his AK-47 and waves to the friendly cops as he walks home. He gets busted, thanks to his stupid mom, but gets millions of $gofundme and skates on a self-defense plea.

Help me out here.
Yeah, I can't fathom that happening in this universe either. There is so much packed into this one post that probably books and books could be written on the various issues raised here, all valid and important.

My impression of both military and police is that a fair percentage of current military and police also had fathers/grandfathers, maybe even mothers/grandmothers serving. I'm not sure if offspring are more prone to follow in the footsteps of their parents in these professions more than others, but probably at least as much. And with law enforcement in our country it is my belief that there is plenty of evidence to support that the very history of modern law enforcement is steeped in efforts to control Black people and yes, other minorities too, but mainly Black people. Yes, we had Marshalls that kept the law in the wild West, but I'm really talking about more modern law enforcement. There has got to be serious and sweeping change to take place in the law enforcement community as well as the entire legal system if we are ever going to achieve anything resembling an equitable society. Rittenhouse's experience from the moment he arrived on the scene until he left without being arrested is a case study, in-your-face proof that white privilege not only exists, it is alive and well and taken for granted to the point that most conservatives didn't need much convincing that Rittenhouse is the real victim here. Anyway, there's way more issues raised by Busterbunker, all valid, and all needing addressing, but I will stop here. Plenty of others are far more eloquent than me to carry on more conversation.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#403

Post by andersweinstein »

neeneko wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 9:34 am I am kind a with you on this, but I have a big caveat in that I really do not know how the law handles this kind of mess, so jury instructions would make a huge difference for me. This might even be a hole or conflict in the law. How do you handle situations where, because of incomplete information, both sides in a conflict can potentially claim self defense. This might be a case where self defense and stand your ground are in conflict... the shooter, who was allowed to open carry, believed he was in danger from the protesters. The protesters, who were unarmed, believed they were in danger from the shooter. This seems like a situation where something in the general direction of manslaughter or negligent homicide would come in, and I could see convicting him on some variant of that since, regardless of his original intent, he killed 3 people...but it would depend on how the law handles cases where the person believed they were in danger, used deadly force, but in fact were not or were otherwise preventing lawful activity.. which if the protesters felt they were in danger, disarming a shooter could fall under.

So this strikes me as a technicality heavy case, since so much of the ground truth is gonna be lost.
In another post I linked to model WI jury instructions for intentional homicide when self-defense is an issue which real WI criminal defense lawyer fierceredpanda confirmed were correct for this charge. These say
As applied to this case, the effect of the law of self defense is:
• The defendant is not guilty of either first or second degree intentional homicide if the defendant reasonably believed that (he) (she) was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with (his) (her) person, and reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself)(herself).
You can see that this only concerns how things were from HIS perspective. It is not legally relevant whether the others were justifed or not.

If you believe others were justified in attacking him, you could compare this to a case where police enter a home but arguably fail to identify themselves adequately. Police might have had every legal right to enter, but a resident could still claim he was justified in taking them for intruders and using self-defense. The only thing that matters for his guilt or innocence should be whether he acted reasonably given his information.

I have often heard it said that there can be cases where A is legally justified in attacking B and B is also legally justified in attacking A. This could be one of those cases. If that happens it is a tragic situation. But neither side is blameworthy, since each is acting reasonably given their information.

Possibly one could argue it was not reasonable of him to believe the crowd's interference was unlawful. I have not heard people making this case explicitly, but as far as I can see the law provides space for it. Defense can respond that as far as he could tell they were a hostile angry mob that might beat him to a pulp. But it looks like a possible issue for the jury to consider in deciding whether he acted reasonably given his information.
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#404

Post by neeneko »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:27 am I have often heard it said that there can be cases where A is legally justified in attacking B and B is also legally justified in attacking A. This could be one of those cases. If that happens it is a tragic situation. But neither side is blameworthy, since each is acting reasonably given their information.
Legally maybe, but I think contextually the blame falls firmly on the shoulders of the person who traveled across state lines with a high powered rifle in order to fight their culture war. The law might have a bunch of loopholes designed to avoid men feeling less manly, but the 'blame' still rests with them.
Possibly one could argue it was not reasonable of him to believe the crowd's interference was unlawful. I have not heard people making this case explicitly, but as far as I can see the law provides space for it. Defense can respond that as far as he could tell they were a hostile angry mob that might beat him to a pulp. But it looks like a possible issue for the jury to consider in deciding whether he acted reasonably given his information.
I imagine this part of the law will come up though:
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a)(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) 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.
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6688
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#405

Post by pipistrelle »

KYLE RITTENHOUSE DID NOTHING WRONG.

Just like Roger Stone.
User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 2302
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:50 am
Location: Inland valley, Central Coast, CA
Verified:

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#406

Post by Estiveo »

Estiveoshot_20211018_065815.jpg
Image Image Image Image
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#407

Post by andersweinstein »

neeneko wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:17 am
I imagine this part of the law will come up though:
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a)(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) 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.
Yes, I'm sure the provocation issue will come up. I believe the jury instructions get another insert if provocation is an issue, but they just use the language from that statute. One sample I found: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf

I find WI's law really interesting in this regard because it seems uncommonly defendant-friendly on provocation: even if you are the one who provoked the attack, you don't forfeit the privilege of self-defense, you just have a higher burden (to show you exhausted all possible means of escape). AND you can completely regain the privilege of self-defense by "withdrawing from the fight and giving adequate notice thereof".

Rittenhouse supporters use this to argue that even if Rittenhouse provoked the attack, he would still have regained his privilege since he was fleeing, and that was obvious enough to count as "giving adequate notice" for the purpose of the law.

Maybe the prosecution will try to sell the idea that he went there hoping to provoke an attack for the purposes of shooting someone and claiming self-defense. I would have thought that's very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt without some more direct evidence of such an intent. But I guess they can always try to sell it circumstantially.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#408

Post by Maybenaut »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:17 am
neeneko wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:17 am
I imagine this part of the law will come up though:
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a)(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) 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.
Yes, I'm sure the provocation issue will come up. I believe the jury instructions get another insert if provocation is an issue, but they just use the language from that statute. One sample I found: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf

I find WI's law really interesting in this regard because it seems uncommonly defendant-friendly on provocation: even if you are the one who provoked the attack, you don't forfeit the privilege of self-defense, you just have a higher burden (to show you exhausted all possible means of escape). AND you can completely regain the privilege of self-defense by "withdrawing from the fight and giving adequate notice thereof".

Rittenhouse supporters use this to argue that even if Rittenhouse provoked the attack, he would still have regained his privilege since he was fleeing, and that was obvious enough to count as "giving adequate notice" for the purpose of the law.

Maybe the prosecution will try to sell the idea that he went there hoping to provoke an attack for the purposes of shooting someone and claiming self-defense. I would have thought that's very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt without some more direct evidence of such an intent. But I guess they can always try to sell it circumstantially.
As I’ve said, I don’t practice in Wisconsin, but we have a similar rule in the military. Running away wouldn’t be sufficient for the notice requirement. There are two elements - withdrawal and notice.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
bill_g
Posts: 5337
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:52 pm
Location: Portland OR
Occupation: Retired (kind of)
Verified: ✅ Checked Republic ✓ ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#409

Post by bill_g »

IOW - I don't want to fight you. I'm leaving now. Don't follow me, or I will defend myself.
Uninformed
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
Location: England

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#410

Post by Uninformed »

A thought for “the defense”. What if a police officer (someone actually empowered to maintain law and order) had done the same?
If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#411

Post by andersweinstein »

Maybenaut wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:27 am
andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:17 am
Rittenhouse supporters use this to argue that even if Rittenhouse provoked the attack, he would still have regained his privilege since he was fleeing, and that was obvious enough to count as "giving adequate notice" for the purpose of the law.
As I’ve said, I don’t practice in Wisconsin, but we have a similar rule in the military. Running away wouldn’t be sufficient for the notice requirement. There are two elements - withdrawal and notice.
Very interesting. I'd be very curious if anyone knows any more about how that requirement has been interpreted in Wisconsin.

[On the facts, I don't expect there will be any direct evidence that Rittenhouse did anything at all, much less anything illegal, to provoke the initial attack by Rosenbaum. I don't think merely carrying the gun could count, since that's legal for adults in WI and no one else would know he was underage. But it's interesting to know whether the withdrawal + notice requirement puts him reasonably in the clear even if he did.]
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#412

Post by andersweinstein »

Uninformed wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:37 am A thought for “the defense”. What if a police officer (someone actually empowered to maintain law and order) had done the same?
Not sure what you're asking. I think you can rarely claim self-defense against police because in usual situations it is so implausible to claim a belief that the interference was unlawful when it's obvious it's the police. But it can occasionally be claimed if not obvious it's the police.

On the other hand, if you're asking what if a police officer had done the same as Rittenhouse did, I'm sure the end result would be no charges against the officer.
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#413

Post by Maybenaut »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:00 am
Maybenaut wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:27 am
andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:17 am
Rittenhouse supporters use this to argue that even if Rittenhouse provoked the attack, he would still have regained his privilege since he was fleeing, and that was obvious enough to count as "giving adequate notice" for the purpose of the law.
As I’ve said, I don’t practice in Wisconsin, but we have a similar rule in the military. Running away wouldn’t be sufficient for the notice requirement. There are two elements - withdrawal and notice.
Very interesting. I'd be very curious if anyone knows any more about how that requirement has been interpreted in Wisconsin.

[On the facts, I don't expect there will be any direct evidence that Rittenhouse did anything at all, much less anything illegal, to provoke the initial attack by Rosenbaum. I don't think merely carrying the gun could count, since that's legal for adults in WI and no one else would know he was underage. But it's interesting to know whether the withdrawal + notice requirement puts him reasonably in the clear even if he did.]
The reason for the two-pronged requirement of withdrawal *and* notice is to prevent someone from running away only to get in a better position for further attack.
Edit: Also, it’s intended to indicate, from the withdrawer’s perspective, that the fight is truly over. Then any attack from the other eitherside is a fresh assault.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#414

Post by raison de arizona »

Seriously, if these people had just let Rittenhouse live out his little militia gun boy ammo-sexual fantasy, no one would have gotten shot and everything would have been a-ok, right?

Speaking of militias...
Lawsuit over Kenosha shootings: Police enabled armed militia

A man who was shot in the arm by Kyle Rittenhouse during a protest against police brutality in Wisconsin has filed a federal lawsuit alleging police did nothing to prevent the violence.

Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz during the protest in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, after an officer shot Jacob Blake two days earlier. Rosenbaum and Huber died. Grosskreutz survived.

Rittenhouse has argued he fired in self-defense after Rosenbaum and Huber attacked him and Grosskreutz approached him holding a handgun. Rittenhouse, who lives in Antioch, Illinois, is to stand trial next month on multiple counts, including homicide.

Grosskreutz filed the lawsuit Thursday. An attorney representing Kenosha County and Sheriff David Beth says the allegations are false.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
https://www.nbc15.com/2021/10/15/lawsui ... d-militia/

WaPo is covering it too, also.
A protester shot by Kyle Rittenhouse sues Kenosha, Wis., says police deputized ‘vigilantes’

Police deputized a “band of white nationalist vigilantes” during last year’s racial justice protests in Kenosha, Wis., where Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two people and injured a third, the lone survivor of the incident alleges in a new lawsuit.

Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, filed the lawsuit Thursday in federal court in Milwaukee, just weeks before Rittenhouse’s murder trial is set to begin. It marks the second major legal action against the city and county of Kenosha since the Aug. 25, 2020, riot where Rittenhouse shot three people: Grosskreutz, who lost a chunk of his biceps but survived; Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, who both died.

Rittenhouse, 18, whose trial is set to begin Nov. 1, faces homicide charges in both deaths and an attempted homicide charge for shooting Grosskreutz as well as a charge for being a minor in possession of a firearm. Rittenhouse has pleaded not guilty to all charges and his attorneys are expected to argue that he acted in self-defense.

Grosskreutz’s complaint names both the city and county, which oversee their respective law enforcement agencies, as defendants. Kenosha Police Chief Eric Larsen, Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth and former Kenosha police chief Daniel Miskinis are individually named as well. It seeks a jury trial as well as unspecified punitive and compensatory damages.
:snippity:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... m-lawsuit/

The lawsuit: https://www.wpr.org/sites/default/files ... enosha.pdf
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#415

Post by bob »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:17 amMaybe the prosecution will try to sell the idea that he went there hoping to provoke an attack for the purposes of shooting someone and claiming self-defense. I would have thought that's very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt without some more direct evidence of such an intent. But I guess they can always try to sell it circumstantially.
Unlike what is being sold here, prosecutions for virtually all specific-intent crimes rely on inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence. Rare are defendants who provide direct evidence of their intents.

"With malice aforethought, I am provoking you even though I know my fears are not reasonable," said no defendant ever while killing someone.
Image ImageImage
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#416

Post by andersweinstein »

bob wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:44 pm
andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:17 amMaybe the prosecution will try to sell the idea that he went there hoping to provoke an attack for the purposes of shooting someone and claiming self-defense. I would have thought that's very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt without some more direct evidence of such an intent. But I guess they can always try to sell it circumstantially.
Unlike what is being sold here, prosecutions for virtually all specific-intent crimes rely on inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence. Rare are defendants who provide direct evidence of their intents.

"With malice aforethought, I am provoking you even though I know my fears are not reasonable," said no defendant ever while killing someone.
Cute. But part of it is that I think *this* specific intent -- to provoke someone to attack you so you can kill them and claim self-defense -- is extremely rare and unusual. I wonder if it has ever been alleged in any Wisconsin case. It would not surprise me if it never has. I mean getting off on self-defense is an extremely risky thing to pin your plan on (though of course there are lots of stupid criminals).

So that is why I would think this extraordinary intent requires more than the usual evidence to prove. Maybe something like writing it down in your diary or telling someone or otherwise doing something to evince possession of that unusual devious plan.

Another thought that occurred to me: in Death Wish, the mugging victim turned vigilante played by Charles Bronson takes to deliberately riding the NYC subways through bad neighborhoods late at night in nice clothes as bait for muggers, in hopes of blowing them away in self-defense. But he never *provokes* anyone to mug him, he just sits there. So even though he's *hoping* somone gives him an excuse to shoot them, what he's doing still looks like it would be legal under WI law (if other requirements for self-defense are met) because he's not *provoking* in any way. So the WI intent requires more even than just hoping someone gives you an excuse to shoot them.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#417

Post by sugar magnolia »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:06 pm

Cute. But part of it is that I think *this* specific intent -- to provoke someone to attack you so you can kill them and claim self-defense -- is extremely rare and unusual. I wonder if it has ever been alleged in any Wisconsin case. It would not surprise me if it never has. I mean getting off on self-defense is an extremely risky thing to pin your plan on (though of course there are lots of stupid criminals).
Pretty sure Ahmaud Arbery was attacked by people hoping he would fight back and they could claim self defense. How'd that work out for them?
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#418

Post by bob »

andersweinstein wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:06 pmSo that is why I would think this extraordinary intent requires more than the usual evidence to prove. Maybe something like writing it down in your diary or telling someone or otherwise doing something to evince possession of that unusual devious plan.
"Jurors, you must acquit my client because he wasn't stupid enough to memorialize his criminal intent!" said no defense lawyer ever.

What you believe and what the law actually requires, as already amply demonstrated, are two entirely different creatures.

* * *
sugar magnolia wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:38 pmPretty sure Ahmaud Arbery was attacked by people hoping he would fight back and they could claim self defense. How'd that work out for them?
And imagine if in that case it hasn't been filmed. Just the word of three fine Georgia citizens.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
busterbunker
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:46 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#419

Post by busterbunker »

Charles Bronson? Jesus Christ. Well I guess that's one alternate-universe that some of us tough guys choose to live in. There was a whole mess of them Death Wishes. They got predictable and boring. I'm more into Mr. Majestyk, Once Upon a Time in the West, harmonica-guy Bronson.

So maybe we need a bunch of movies where well-meaning black vigilantes shoot and kill evil marauding white gang members? Maybe some video games? If we sufficiently normalize that type of racial violence to the point of boredom, would it help to level the playing field in our two-tiered justice system?

They say you should be nice to people on your way up because you will see them again on your way down. If you were born at the top, oh well, never mind.
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#420

Post by Suranis »

Bronson was a great actor, who got horribly typecast due to the awful Death Wish movies. Check out "Raid on Entebbe" and "Master of the World" for some great Bronson performances. And the latter you get to enjoy Vincent Price playing a Villain you could genuinely Argue could be in the right to some extent. He and Bronson played off one another very well.
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:32 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#421

Post by neeneko »

bob wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:46 pm And imagine if in that case it hasn't been filmed. Just the word of three fine Georgia citizens.
Even with filming their word was almost enough. It took outside attention for the case to move forward. If it had stayed local, it likely would have been dropped.

I know the numbers are still coming in and the research is preliminary, but it already looks like 'pick a fight, have a gun, defend yourself' is a recurring use case of stand your ground, as long as the shooter and victim are the right kinds of people.
User avatar
filly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:02 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#422

Post by filly »

neeneko wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:47 am
bob wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:46 pm And imagine if in that case it hasn't been filmed. Just the word of three fine Georgia citizens.
Even with filming their word was almost enough. It took outside attention for the case to move forward. If it had stayed local, it likely would have been dropped.

I know the numbers are still coming in and the research is preliminary, but it already looks like 'pick a fight, have a gun, defend yourself' is a recurring use case of stand your ground, as long as the shooter and victim are the right kinds of people.
More like "have a gun, pick a fight..." but otherwise I agree.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4916
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#423

Post by p0rtia »

busterbunker wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:33 pm :snippity: So maybe we need a bunch of movies where well-meaning black vigilantes shoot and kill evil marauding white gang members? Maybe some video games? If we sufficiently normalize that type of racial violence to the point of boredom, would it help to level the playing field in our two-tiered justice system?

They say you should be nice to people on your way up because you will see them again on your way down. If you were born at the top, oh well, never mind.
:yeahthat:
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#424

Post by raison de arizona »

CourtTV recap in anticipation of trial starting 11/1: https://www.courttv.com/title/10-18-21- ... pproaches/

Let's just say they are not on team Rittenhouse. Anders will certainly take issue with their commentary :lol:

Sunday 9pm EST CourtTV has a Rittenhouse special. FWIW.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#425

Post by raison de arizona »

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Other weirdos”