Fogbow

I personally do not see any instance in which someone travels a significant distance voluntarily, believing that they will encounter danger/be attacked when they arrive they are a good self defense case. There is fundamentally no difference between the Rittenhouse argument and the Parsons one outside of distance traveled and the fact that Parsons (who is and was found guilty) knew for a fact that the person he was assaulting was armed. This wasn't in defense of someone else he went out of his way to go to a place where he thought he would be assaulted so that he could justify shooting someone. His actions also inspired a different shooter to attempt the same, driving to a protest so that could say they were scared and shoot someone. Thankfully in that case the jury saw through the fairly transparent ruse.

Baidn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:11 am >I personally do not see any instance in which someone travels a significant distance voluntarily, ...

That references one of the myths of the case. He did not travel a long distance. He did not even travel to Kenosha for the purpose of attending the protests. He made the short drive to the Kenosha area the day before, to work his shift as a lifeguard, then stayed over at his best friend's house near downtown Kenosha. He was there through the first night of rioting and they reportedly could smell smoke from the fires. So he woke up in Kenosha on the day of the shootings, walking distance from the protest area. He and friends went out and viewed some property damage, spent some time struggling to clean graffitti.

It's true enough he made a decision to stay and go armed that evening, and purchased a sling for his rifle, so you can cite those facts. He seems to have been a kind of tag-along, going with his older buddy and the acquaintance (Nick Smith) who had worked for Car Source and was organizing a party of people to help guard the business (at the owners request, according to Smith's testimony, though the owners, who risk lawsuits, have always denied they solicited this help). He also packed his med kit to help act out his fantasy of giving aid to injured protestors, which you see him on video attempting to do at several points on video.

So I think there is a plausible explanation of why he went that doesn't automatically suggest a special trip in hopes of shooting people. At any rate, I don't see reason in these circumstances to think he was more eager to shoot people than the best friend he tagged along with.

Baidn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:11 am ...believing that they will encounter danger/be attacked when they arrive they are a good self defense case. There is fundamentally no difference between the Rittenhouse argument and the Parsons one outside of distance traveled and the fact that Parsons (who is and was found guilty) knew for a fact that the person he was assaulting was armed. This wasn't in defense of someone else he went out of his way to go to a place where he thought he would be assaulted so that he could justify shooting someone. His actions also inspired a different shooter to attempt the same, driving to a protest so that could say they were scared and shoot someone. Thankfully in that case the jury saw through the fairly transparent ruse.

I'm not sure what the Parsons case is. I know the case of Daniel Perry being found guilty for shooting Garrett Foster at a protest in Austin. And I notice in that case Garrett Foster was the one like Rittenhouse, walking around a protest openly carrying an assault weapon and approaching a man in a car surrounded by protestors in way that one could easily find threatening. But Foster was on the protestor side, so folks who are politically sympathetic don't say he "was looking for trouble" or looking to shoot someone or that it was reasonable for Perry to fear for his life on Foster's approach.

I'm not saying that because I disagree with that verdict. I just dislike the lack of consistent principles. "Our guns are OK, your guns are signs of evil intent" is transparently hypocritical.

Anyway, every case is different. I think one has to look at the facts in detail to evaluate them. There was much more testimony and video evidence about the situation and motives in the Rittenhouse case. I don't think the mere fact that he went armed to a protest is strong evidence he was looking to get assaulted and shoot someone. Simply because there were so many other people armed there on both sides, many of whom made longer trips than Rittenhouse to be there, and none of them shot anybody. It just seems common as dirt to for people to view that as a situation in which it is wise to carry a weapon in case of trouble (I disagree, just saying it is a common belief).

The other thing is that on the video or testimony you don't see Rittenhouse looking to start anything. No one ever testified that he initiated a confrontation, raised his voice, got angry, pointed his gun at people. What you see is him roaming around calling "anyone need medical" and announcing himself "friendly friendly friendly" meaning he was not there as an enemy of the protestors. Sure he may have done some of these things, but it was not in evidence at the trial. There is very strong evidence that he was just on his way to put out fire when the attacks occurred which seems innocent enough. (What happened at the point of confrontation with Ziminski and Rosenbaum is murky and unclear. He could have done something aggressive at that point. I don't think we know. But little doubt Rosenbaum ran out at him from a position behind a car.)

And of course there is the fact, which I keep returning to, that he is manifestly TRYING TO FLEE in all of the attacks.

In this case I believe a reasonable jury working in good faith to apply the law to the evidence could very easily conclude (1) he was attacked, (2) had reason to fear death or serious bodily harm, and (3) only used his weapon to eliminate that threat in a situation where (4) he had no alternative. (More precisely: that the prosecution did not disprove any of these beyond reasonable doubt.) But that depends on the very particular facts of this case and evidence. The most debatable point seems to me to be (2). I can also see a reasonable jury reaching the opposite conclusion on (2).

But, yeah, "he went there armed, he must have wanted to kill someone" seems to me weak in the context of all the other evidence.

Kyle definitely eliminated Rossenbaum!

1st shot shattered his hip so he was falling crippled
Kyle’s double tap shattered his hand so Kyle couldn’t be attacked with a plastic bag.

The following two shots into Rossenbaum’s back made sure that Rossenbaum was dead.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 5:50 pm Kyle definitely eliminated Rossenbaum!

1st shot shattered his hip so he was falling crippled
Kyle’s double tap shattered his hand so Kyle couldn’t be attacked with a plastic bag.

The following two shots into Rossenbaum’s back made sure that Rossenbaum was dead.

You have the right of it. He also didn’t know Rosenbaum’s history, which is irrelevant. The lack of remorse for killing and maiming shows his state of mind.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s Christmas Message Sparks Fierce Backlash, ‘Naw, Hard Pass Killer Boy!’

https://www.politicalflare.com/2023/12/ ... iller-boy/

There was a Combat Medic there that day.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot him.

Suranis wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 1:35 pm There was a Combat Medic there that day.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot him.

Never fail to see the irony in that.

Odd fact: Kyle Rittenhouse and Greta Thunberg were born on the same day. Both turn 21 today, Jan 3, 2024.

Killer Kyle Cries Again

‘I Didn’t Receive Any Help’: Kyle Rittenhouse Blasts the NRA for Not Helping Him During Murder Trial or with Civil Lawsuits

https://atlantablackstar.com/2023/12/21 ... -lawsuits/

I guess he means "with Money." Well the NRA seems to be inexplicaply short of cash ever since the Russian money spigot has been cut off lately, so they probably had other stuff to finance.

From the above article

The MAGA supporter is facing several civil lawsuits for the deaths and injuries he caused during the Blake protests. Grosskreutz filed a lawsuit against Rittenhouse for causing him emotional and physical damage, and the Rosenbaum estate is also suing Rittenhouse for “intentionally and unjustifiably” causing Rosenbaum’s death. Huber’s father also filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the killer.

Before I go googling..
Anyone know any trial dates?

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:25 pm Odd fact: Kyle Rittenhouse and Greta Thunberg were born on the same day. Both turn 21 today, Jan 3, 2024.

Odd fact: Greta did not need to kill people to earn her place.

neonzx wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 6:11 pm

Off Topic

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:25 pm Odd fact: Kyle Rittenhouse and Greta Thunberg were born on the same day. Both turn 21 today, Jan 3, 2024.

Odd fact: Greta did not need to kill people to earn her place.

Odd fact: Greta didn't need to wait until 21 to drink legally

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 6:21 pm Odd fact: Greta didn't need to wait until 21 to drink legally

Though Rittenhouse did notoriously drink at 18 with alleged Proud Boys, legal under WI law if accompanied by parent.

Wow, that's what happens when you add moisture to this thread.

Suranis wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 7:09 pm Wow, that's what happens when you add moisture to this thread.

If it relied on Killer Kyle’s tears of remorse… it would have died, desiccated and disintegrated years ago.

Justice weeps and this thread goes on.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:25 pm Odd fact: Kyle Rittenhouse and Greta Thunberg were born on the same day. Both turn 21 today, Jan 3, 2024.

One cares about the world, one is a killer

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 8:41 pm

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:25 pm Odd fact: Kyle Rittenhouse and Greta Thunberg were born on the same day. Both turn 21 today, Jan 3, 2024.

One cares about the world, one is a killer

Which explains why the Reich attacks one and defends the other.

Kyle Rittenhouse @ThisIsKyleR wrote: Training with some special op guys today! Fun content coming soon!

So special they hide their mugs.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 1:47 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse @ThisIsKyleR wrote: Training with some special op guys today! Fun content coming soon!

What, beetlejuice has not arrived yet to raise a defense? Anders? Anders??

Looks like Meal Team Socks, special internet salt squad.

1. No dust on shoes or pants
2. Crease still on his pants from having just taken them out of the package
3. Nothing in his tac vest compartments

Anyone familiar with the patch on his vest under his name? It says Christ, with a half of a stylize bird (eagle)? of some kind.

Those other dudes don't look like "special ops". It's a weekend playdate fantasy . I did shit like that when I was 12. But then I grew up