Fogbow

Resume18 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 4:34 pm This shitheel went to Kenosha all horny to shoot someone, then he did.

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:25 am I can not believe someone here at FB defends that shitty punk killer

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:24 pm

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:25 am I can not believe someone here at FB defends that shitty punk killer

I don't think I've seen him post in any other thread or about any other topic.

Estiveo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:43 pm

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:24 pm

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:25 am I can not believe someone here at FB defends that shitty punk killer

I don't think I've seen him post in any other thread or about any other topic.

Well, when you've got a kink for defending cherubic, baby-faced, spree-killers on a platform that reviles them, your options are somewhat limited.

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:24 pm

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:25 am I can not believe someone here at FB defends that shitty punk killer

I don't think I've seen him post in any other thread or about any other topic.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 2:44 pm

Meanwhile, in the incidents in question, it looks like he was attacked without provocation and tried to flee before shooting. So it doesn't matter if his motives for going to Kenosha were impure. He didn't behave like someone who wanted to shoot anyone.

He went to a volatile situation with a gun. If you carry a gun that's proof right there that he intended to shoot someone.
Why carry a gun if you don't intend to use it?

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:22 pm I personally think it was jury nullification, but what do I know?

One thing I am curious about is the scope of any waiver of attorney-client privilege between Rittenhouse and his counsel. All that stuff his attorney said about coaching him in the script - what he said to Rittenhouse and what Rittenhouse said to him - would ordinarily be privileged. Unless Rittenhouse waived the privilege - either expressly or by operation of law (by accusing the lawyer in a formal proceeding of ineffective assistance of counsel, for example) - we shouldn’t be hearing from the lawyer about their trial prep. I mean, even if Rittenhouse called his lawyer an incompetent piece of crap in his whine-fest about his childhood (which I haven’t read and don’t plan to), I doubt that would waive the privilege.

So I’m curious.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:50 pm

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 8:29 am Sure I think he had fantasies of himself as a combat medic and thought it was cool to use this military terminology and so on. He mouthed off about shooting looters outside CVS, while just sitting in the car. All this stuff would be prejudicial.

You call it prejudicial, I call it 'state of mind', and I don't think either of us are attorneys, so we can chalk it up to a difference of opinion but let's discuss.

This is actually kind of my point, in fact. A combat medic's job is not to confront, not to defend others (except the patients in their care), and definitely effin' not to think about posting snipers on rooftops. But even when confronted with evidence that Kyle's fascination was not to think of himself as a combat medic but to PRESENT the idea that he was a combat medic to cover darker impulses that he was the shooting protagonist in a video game, you look for and defend the more palatable answer.

Yes, I do give you credit for posting the article, I'll grant you that. I just think you're married to this idea that doesn't let in a scintilla of evidence that Kyle may actually have had bad intentions.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:41 pm Killer Kyle was the bad guy looking for an opportunity to use his gun.

The other vigilantes there could see that.

Why do you refuse to?

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:51 pm The one that took it upon himself to babysit Kyle did so because of his fear of what kind of trouble Kyle would get himself into. Kyle was not in danger of getting killed that night until he killed someone else first. After that, several people chased him not because they would have chased him anyway, but only because he had already killed an unarmed person. The danger Kyle presented to others panned out. Maybe not exactly the way he had fantasized about it, but no matter.

He will likely come to a bad end. His own lawyers were fearful of what he would do in court. How do you trust someone like that with a weapon of war?

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:02 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:22 pm I personally think it was jury nullification, but what do I know?

One thing I am curious about is the scope of any waiver of attorney-client privilege between Rittenhouse and his counsel. All that stuff his attorney said about coaching him in the script - what he said to Rittenhouse and what Rittenhouse said to him - would ordinarily be privileged. Unless Rittenhouse waived the privilege - either expressly or by operation of law (by accusing the lawyer in a formal proceeding of ineffective assistance of counsel, for example) - we shouldn’t be hearing from the lawyer about their trial prep. I mean, even if Rittenhouse called his lawyer an incompetent piece of crap in his whine-fest about his childhood (which I haven’t read and don’t plan to), I doubt that would waive the privilege.

So I’m curious.

Sorry for any confusion, it was NOT from his lawyer. It is from David Hancock the family advisor and spokesman. Hancock was the security consultant who had worked for Linn Wood then had a falling outwith him and took over managing the Rittenhouse affairs after they dumped grifting lawyers Pierce and Wood. Hancock was managing almost everything for the family so has intimate knowledge of every detail. But not a lawyer for the family.

Hancock has now had a falling out with Rittenhouse and is trashing him continually on his Twitter feed.

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:51 pm Kyle was not in danger of getting killed that night until he killed someone else first. After that, several people chased him not because they would have chased him anyway, but only because he had already killed an unarmed person. The danger Kyle presented to others panned out. Maybe not exactly the way he had fantasized about it, but no matter.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 4:20 pm I’m not sure that means the communications aren’t privileged. [Hancock] was present for the trial prep with the attorneys. Non-lawyers participating as a jury consultant or a consultant assisting a defendant in how to behave in front of the jury are generally covered by the privilege. Dude ought to keep his mouth shut.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 8:33 pm Ps 16 year olds shouldn’t be hunting humans.,

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:41 pm Killer Kyle was the bad guy looking for an opportunity to use his gun.

The other vigilantes there could see that.

Why do you refuse to?

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:30 pm

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:50 pm

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 8:29 am Sure I think he had fantasies of himself as a combat medic and thought it was cool to use this military terminology and so on. He mouthed off about shooting looters outside CVS, while just sitting in the car. All this stuff would be prejudicial.

You call it prejudicial, I call it 'state of mind', and I don't think either of us are attorneys, so we can chalk it up to a difference of opinion but let's discuss.

This is actually kind of my point, in fact. A combat medic's job is not to confront, not to defend others (except the patients in their care), and definitely effin' not to think about posting snipers on rooftops. But even when confronted with evidence that Kyle's fascination was not to think of himself as a combat medic but to PRESENT the idea that he was a combat medic to cover darker impulses that he was the shooting protagonist in a video game, you look for and defend the more palatable answer.

Yes, I do give you credit for posting the article, I'll grant you that. I just think you're married to this idea that doesn't let in a scintilla of evidence that Kyle may actually have had bad intentions.

I would say it depends on what exactly the bad intentions were. If he enjoyed fantasizing about himself as a military medic -- "I need cover!" he shouted self-importantly up at the roof when handing off his rifle to try to give aid to a wounded protestor -- or if he got off on walking around with a gun, well, so what? It still looks to me on the evidence that he hadn't done anything illegal when he was attacked without provocation by a bad guy. Since he was the victim of that particular attack, not the aggressor, and he tried manifestly to flee, the only major question I see is whether the attack on him (and the subsequent ones) amounted to a deadly force threat.

But suppose he did go there hoping to shoot someone. That would be bad! But it still doesn't show the verdict was wrong. First, of course because there may not have been good evidence for this in the trial, so the verdict could still be correct on the evidence. But even more, think about the odd situation: To acquit him, the jury must have judged that he was in a situation where it would have been objectively reasonable to use one's weapon in self-defense. I claim there was plenty of evidence supporting this judgment.

So you'd have to argue this was a situation where someone had good reason to shoot in self-defense, but ACTUALLY shot for a different motive, simply because he wanted to. Which is not impossible. But once you find, as the jury apparently did, that it was a reasonable self-defense situation, that seems very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted from a different motive. For one thing (I keep saying this) he was manifestly trying to FLEE the attacks on him and only shot at the last minute and only at people who attacked him, so not behaving like someone who wanted to shoot someone.

So maybe that would make it like a case I sketched where a Proud Boy goes with evil intentions, "looking for trouble", but winds up attacked for a different reason, and still has the right to self-defense against that particular attack.

I keep coming back to the fact that there was no justification for Rosenbaum's attack on Rittenhouse. I think the preponderance of evidence shows he ran ahead and hid behind a car and jumped him as he was headed to put out a fire, after having earlier threatened to kill him. Maybe JR attacked a kid who was there out of bad motives. KR could still have the right to defend himself from that particular attack.