The prosecutor with his head in his hand near the end here is just brutal. https://t.co/jpghuE5SVS
— AG (@AGHamilton29) November 8, 2021
९ नोव्हेंबर, २०२१
"The prosecutor with his head in his hand near the end here is just brutal."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२९ टिप्पण्या:
The jury decides that and they don't want to be killed by the mob.
These are facts that must’ve been known to the prosecution. Why did they go through the trial anyway?
This case should have never been brought and a directed verdict is the only just option at this point. And the FBI also withholding evidence is further evidence that the FBI needs to stop existing.
Progressive lies are coming to a head. This country is about to blow, and the Progressives just keep pushing and pushing and pushing their lies.. This WILL NOT END WELL.
Since the guy shot is still alive to testify, this can’t be dispositive on the homicide charges. But there may be a way to get the charges about this witness dismissed — which could send a strong message to the jury.
but NONE of this changes The Fact; The FACT that Kyle is Still guilty, guilty of being white
Sadly, I think those of us who do this sort of thing will recognize that there are a few judges out there who would intervene at this point, and there are many who would not, preferring to allow the process to play out fully to minimize the need for a second trial. But the latter are prioritizing the interests of the justice system over justice.
The prosecutor should be disbarred and charged with malicious prosecution and willfully depriving a person of their civil rights under color of law.
I’d like to hear from Althouse if a directed verdict may actually be best here. This is the strangest prosecution I’ve ever seen. The State’s witnesses have been great at making the self-defense case for Rittenhouse. Each day makes the prosecution look worse, more malicious than stupid. Although we can’t rule out stupid, at this point.
Their glee hides the reality of our times. The commentators and apparently the defendant are relived because rule of law should free the defendant.
Evidently, the prosecutor is trying to make the case that these rioters with weapons were trying to disarm an active shooter. Well, they weren't, but even if they thought they were, the thoughts in their heads don't negate his right to self defense. At the time Rittenhouse started shooting, the only shots that had been fired were by the rioters.
Hmmm... I guess we will find out when the state rests.
Motion at close of all evidence. In trials to the jury, at the close of all evidence, any party may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law by moving for directed verdict or dismissal or by moving the court to find as a matter of law upon any claim or defense or upon any element or ground thereof.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/805/14/4
Already the jury is being threatened by the "mostly peaceful" crowd.
Which tells you something about why the Jan 6 "defendants" have not been brought to trial yet. To do so, the prosecutors would have to share information and...available videos. Something they've been holding back for almost a year now. As was the case in Kenosha, where newly released FBI videos clearly show Rittenhouse was first fired at before he responded. (One might think Andrew Weismann was again involved in the prosecution here- you can look up his record with Enron and the Mueller team on the Russia Collusion case).
The fraud emanating from our various Governmental offices has gone well past an occasional embarrassing mistake to 'this is how we operate' territory. Its not sustainable. The people will not abide a corrupt government. Something is going to break. And soon.
RedState has a sampling of misleading online and local news coverage of this trial. I was actually shocked at the presentation of this same witness (a convicted felon carrying a loaded Glock who admitted chasing the defendant while others attacked the boy. Wow. Hard to believe how psychotic the gaslighting is and local Fox affiliates are just like ABCNBCCBS when it comes to this story. I remain shocked at what I just watched.
As others have said elsewhere, perhaps the judge will wait until the jury returns a verdict and then decide whether or not to direct a verdict. Those jurors have to consider their personal safety when all this is over. Conversely, the judge could decide early to direct a verdict and save the jury a great deal of angst and potential problems.
"This is the strangest prosecution I’ve ever seen. The State’s witnesses have been great at making the self-defense case for Rittenhouse."
Maybe this was the plan: put an unwinnable case out there, warts and all, so that when the defendant is acquitted, the level of outrage is within reasonable limits. If, instead, they had simply not prosecuted the case, that decision may have provoked more riots.
It's also quite possible that the DA sees the prosecution itself as a form of punishment and deterrence. Yes, citizens have a right to bear arms and to use them in self-defense; but if you do that in Kenosha, prepare to stand trial for it and risk becoming a penniless, unemployable scourge.
Think back to 2020, with hundreds of American cities afflicted with extremely violent protests, police stations burning, Federal buildings literally firebombed and barricaded as if to trap the occupants, lawless no-go zones where armed thugs threaten and even kill people in the street. Antifa running wild with the FBI’s blessing. BLM overrunning outdoor diners flipping tables. Private property destroyed in the hundreds of billions.
And this, THIS TRIAL, is the only attempt to prosecute anyone from all the above. And the media cannot even honestly describe what we see with our own eyes. They cut off the video to mislead viewers and lie: “Shot with his hands up,” reminiscent of the Michael Brown myth. Maybe progressives are so afraid of people learning nuggets of truth via new media that their new strategy is to burn all news as “trusted” by turning the gaslight up to eleven so nobody will trust any news.
The directed verdict would be that if you confront an active shooter, he has the right to kill you?
This trial is like the Trayvon Martin trial in that many of the State's own witnesses are more than a little favorable to the defense.
Really, it is a travesty of justice that this case was not abandoned long ago before trial.
Chauvin wasn’t a murderer either. Hope the judge takes action, although would be shocked if he did. Note how the trial is being reported in the msm: CNN managed to report that antifa schmuck’s testimony as somehow damaging to Ritternhouse. People not watching alt press think Rittenhouse is headed towards conviction, and they may be right on that even if they’re getting poor information.
The prosecution should be sanctioned for bringing this case.
Doesn't that only justify the shooting of the armed man not the other people that actually died? Asking for a friend because he doesn't bother to pay attention to the details of this sideshow that so enraptures you people.
I don’t have so much animosity for the prosectors. They are representing people, who feel like Rittenhouse is a vigilante, and that’s a worthwhile test. I’m more upset with the city leadership that created this environment for Rittenhouse to encounter Rosenbaum, et al. The police were restrained from protecting property and life, which resulted in the citizens having to protect themselves. In order to hide the malfeasance of the city, the prosecutors had to go after Rittenhouse. Otherwise, it would be obvious that these white thugs were burning the city in the name of BLM while the government sat back and watched. This trial is making it clear what the government of Kenosha, WI thinks of citizens. Each day it continues just makes it clearer.
If it goes to the jury they'll convict under fear of their lives.
The video in slow motion truly reveals Rittenhouse held his fire and lowered his weapon while Grosskreutz feigned retreat for a mere second, and that Rittenhouse only shot him in the arm holding the handgun after Grosskreutz moved forward, raised the gun and aimed at Rittenhouse.
As I've said since the video was made available, Rittenhouse's restraint, reaction time, aim and proportional response in this situation take him from justified self-defense all the way to SuperFly Bad Ass.
Not sure, however, why this should involve a directed verdict on all counts. But any such finding by the judge would have tremendous influence on the jury on all other counts.
"I’d like to hear from Althouse if a directed verdict may actually be best here."
I'm not watching the entire trial.
The decision shouldn't be based on a desire to relieve the jury of the burden of responsibility for a verdict some people aren't going to like or out of fear that they won't do their duty. I'm just saying that because the question of what's "best" sounds pragmatic, and the decision should be based on the evidence and the elements of the crimes charged and the defenses raised.
I understand that the jurors have received death threats, should they vote to acquit. IMHO another reason for a directed verdict. Fine justice system you have there in Wisconsin.
And here is George Floyd's nephew on video threatening to kill jurors if they do not convict Rittenhouse.
Democrats are pushing this prosecution. It is really a persecution.
Democrats are going all in on mob violence. Switch out Cortez Rice for anyone deplorable and this is headline news for a week.
The people that support the Biden Regime are just really terrible people.
Predictions - judge doesn't grant the defendant's motion for directed verdict of not guilty; case get submitted to the jury; jury convicts on some criminal charge; judge rejects motion to set aside the verdict (judgement notwithstanding the verdict, if that's what it's called in a criminal context); conviction gets reversed on appeal; if the appeals court doesn't render a verdict and instead remands to the trial court, the case gets dropped by the prosecutors and other elected officials for practical reasons (and not because the defendant acted lawfully) and if they're Ds, after many loud harrumphings are heard and posturings seen.
I never practiced criminal law so you'll have to forgive me if some of the labels and procedure are wrong. But this is government work, and there are familiar patterns of least resistance.
Of course, I hope I'm wrong and the jury never gets the case because the prosecutor in the first instance withdraws the charges, or the judge in the second issues a directed verdict, because the job each has fairly demands he does so given what's been presented to this point.
Ann Althouse said...
"I’d like to hear from Althouse if a directed verdict may actually be best here."
I'm not watching the entire trial.
The decision shouldn't be based on a desire to relieve the jury of the burden of responsibility for a verdict some people aren't going to like or out of fear that they won't do their duty. I'm just saying that because the question of what's "best" sounds pragmatic, and the decision should be based on the evidence and the elements of the crimes charged and the defenses raised.
And what about the democrats that are threatening those jurors? We had sitting democrat congressman threatening jurors in the Chauvin trial and none of you people said a thing.
We have people driving around bragging openly on social media about stalking Rittenhouse trial jurors and threatening to kill them.
It seems that justice is a matter of personal convenience to some.
How do you think that works out in the long run?
@Althouse, spare us the pablum! “Shouldn’t” this, “should” that. Would you have the courage to vote “based on the evidence and the elements of the crimes charged and the defenses raised” in the face of your address being published and receipt of death threats? Pub-Leez!
“As others have said elsewhere, perhaps the judge will wait until the jury returns a verdict and then decide whether or not to direct a verdict. Those jurors have to consider their personal safety when all this is over. Conversely, the judge could decide early to direct a verdict and save the jury a great deal of angst and potential problems.”
Rittenhouse was decently treated. He has been decently fed and soon, he’ll be decently shot.
I have been following the trial on Legal Insurrection which has numerous clips for the testimony, for people who want to figure things out for themselves. Do not trust how the media reports things here.
It has been obvious from the beginning that the prosecution is either completely incompetent (starting with their pre-trial arguments with the judge) or they are just going through the motions. It may be a combination of both.
"I’d like to hear from Althouse if a directed verdict may actually be best here."
I'm not watching the entire trial.
I've seen lawyers who are watching the trial predict a directed verdict at this point.
Shouldn't George Floyds supposed nephew be arrested for threatening jurors?? What kind of country do we live in, that, THAT is okay to do?? And YOU know they will. There will be riots in the streets again if they find him not guilty. YOU know it and I know it.
Even if Rittenhouse is found innocent where does he get his reputation back? His time back?
Grosskreutz just admitted to attempted murder on the stand.
Grosskreutz just got caught committing perjury on sworn statements in court repeatedly.
Why isn't the prosecution trying to put these violent criminals in jail?
Democrats are trying to destroy this country and damage their political opponents in any way they can. They are liars. They support two tier justice systems.
The prosecution is not trying to put the actual violent criminals who attacked Kyle in jail because they are democrats and they do not give a shit about the law. They only care about power over other people.
The prosecution is doing nothing about the rampant looting and burning by their brown shirts that night. And they are attacking a citizen and a minor who did nothing but defend himself and property from the democrat shithead brown shirts.
There is a reason that Biden got absolutely destroyed in the 2020 election and had to resort to mass mail in fraud. There is a reason that he has historically low approval numbers. The same goes for the media and the same goes for this "prosecutor."
Democrats are evil people. We see you.
THIS is how they treat American citizens who are only being charged with trespassing. Can you imagine the outcry if Islamic Terrorists in Gitmo were treated THIS bad?? The left would be rioting in the streets....AGAIN!!!! https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/j6-defendant-ryan-nichols-speaks-greg-kelly-dc-gitmo-prisoners-beaten-denied-calls-denied-communion-locked-indefinitely-video/
THIS is how they treat American citizens who are only being charged with trespassing. Can you imagine the outcry if Islamic Terrorists in Gitmo were treated THIS bad?? The left would be rioting in the streets....AGAIN!!!! https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/j6-defendant-ryan-nichols-speaks-greg-kelly-dc-gitmo-prisoners-beaten-denied-calls-denied-communion-locked-indefinitely-video/
I wonder if they are going to give the 1/6/21 protesters families $450,000 each for separating them from THEIR kids??
Jeremy Brown NEVER entered the US Capitol on January 6. His actual crime was refusing to be an FBI informant https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/breaking-must-see-video-innocent-j-6-political-prisoner-fbi-whistleblower-declares-hunger-strike-liberty-restored/
Any idea of autopsy results on the two? Gotta be something VERY strong in those veins to be running down an AR15. Pure suicide. Also, their rap sheets point to less than altruistic aims. Kyle was chlorinating the gene pool.
"The directed verdict would be that if you confront an active shooter, he has the right to kill you?"
Who shot first? Hint, I know the answer and I am still asking the question.
What the rioters, err, I mean, "mostly peaceful" protesters really need is George Lucas on the case, so the video shows the right person shooting first.
As with other self defense and use of force trials, I am following this one with Andrew Branca, at Legal Insurrection. My view is that he may be the best out there for this sort of thing, because he is a trial lawyer specializing in self defense issues. If you ever carry a weapon, and esp if you carry concealed, you really do need a copy of his Law of Self Defense.
My view on Directed Verdict here is that of the primary charges, the one most likely to get dismissed at the end of the prosecution’s case is the misdemeanor charge that Kyle illegally had the gun that night. There really aren’t any remaining issues. He was 17 at the time, was carrying the long gun openly, and apparently had had a hunter safety class. Yes, the prosecution could make a strained argument that the statutes might be interpreted to make his possession of the gun that night illegal, based on his age. It would definitely have been illegal if he had been 15, and legal if he had been 18, but he was right between there. But the plain meaning of those laws strongly suggest that he legally possessed that AR-15 that night, and thus Due Process demands dismissal. The advantage, all around, would be that it might shorten the defense presentation, and it was really only thrown in there for sentence enhancement and piling on charges (it usually only receives probation, as contrasted to two Capital charges, and another just one step down).
But I don’t think that the defense will get their directed verdict for the felony charges after the prosecution rests. The case is too high profile. Besides, the prosecution may have Provocation and Active Shooter arguments with at least the latter two felonies, and an argument that Kyle’s first assailant/victim was too small to seriously threaten him with death or great bodily injury. The difference is that he was not armed, while the latter two were armed with deadly weapons.
Then, at the end of the defense’s case, they will likely also move for a directed verdict. This motion will likely be taken under advisement. Then, if the jury convicts on one or more of the charges, the defense renews its motion, and the judge can now dismiss. The key here is that the judge would be allowing the jury to do the right thing, and acquit, but with the motion for directed verdict at the end of the case, he has the power to correct an injustice if they don’t. Of course, this is WI, and, like every other state, have their idiosyncrasies. Never having practiced there, or even been tempted, no doubt there are many here better positioned than I here (esp given Ann’s former employment) to opine here.
As for WI idiosyncrasies, one of them is the exception to self defense for provocation. Branca went through the WI law last weekend, and a strained argument might be made that Kyle, running around the riot scene, visibly armed, putting out fires, and administering first aid, was provocative, esp to AntiFA types like the three assailants he shot. The idea is that sometimes someone can be provoked to draw a gun, in order to give a much more experience combatant the opportunity to kill them in “self defense”. This has long been a staple in Western movies, where the experience gunslinger provokes the farmer with a gun to try to draw on him, and when he does, the gunslinger kills him. Except that that apparently doesn’t work in WI.
Posobiec says the mayor, prosecuting DA, and lead detective are all related to each other...nice!
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1456314432217358344
And a nephew of George Floyd says people are photographing the jury.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1457371324079353869
Justice in America...
Unless there is still information we do not know that is relevant to meeting the prosecution's burden here, I'd like to see the full defense case put out in court, publicly-viewable, quotable, and preserved for future legal and media reference.
Because, as some here have indicated, many who think they know what's gone on in this trial have not followed it, or at least read accurate commentary, closely enough to understand the the intricacies of Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense, and/or the impact and weakness of the prosecution's evidence or lack thereof.
I'd welcome defense counsel laying out all the elements of that claim of self-defense, and walking the jury (and the doubting, ready-to-riot observers) through the evidence that Rittenhouse's actions (and non-actions) meet each and every element. It's wrong, but I'd really like Rittenhouse to "prove his innocence."
...in order to, to the extent possible, (1) give the jury some satisfactory level of comfort when they reach a decision, (2) eliminate any excuse for misleading media commentary and/or mob action aka "peaceful protest" in Kenosha or elsewhere, and (3) to serve as an example of clear misuse of prosecutorial discretion (whether legally punishable or not.)
W/R/t that last, and with the caution provided in my opening sentence, the the Rittenhouse trial should take place alongside the Mike Nifong prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse team in the annals of cases that damage the integrity of what we now-whimsically label "The Rule of Law." IMHO
Andrew Blanca is providing great summaries of the trial: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-3-states-own-witnesses-damage-prosecution-reinforce-self-defense-narrative/
As a former career prosecutor, I tend to react defensively when prosecutors are criticized, but it is becoming impossible to defend them. We have all seen the tapes of Rittenhouse’s troubles and it has been clear from them that he was never the aggressor. Normal people are wondering why prosecutors insist on holding J6 misdemeanants without bail and why judges allow it. Why is the unethical St. Louis prosecutor not disbarred and out of office? Who engineered the prosecution of General Flynn? Soros prosecutors in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, etc., routinely violate their sworn duty to enforce the law.
This is the most telling of the contributions of the Soros/Obama/Holder cabal. When prosecutors sacrifice their honor and their duty to politics. None are safe.
Interesting how one troll completely ignores actual facts presented (“if you confront an active shooter, he has the right to kill you?”) and the other invents a novel defense of a mob of men chasing and beating a boy (“only justify the shooting of the armed man not the other people that actually died”) where a defendant, outnumbered, fearing for his life has retreated, hears two shots close by as he’s kicked in the head by one of Howard’s “unarmed men” while the second grown man beats the boy with a huge skateboard and yet is expected to just die instead of defending himself. That’s a helluva pair of troll takes there. You two should work for MSNBC!
“Doesn't that only justify the shooting of the armed man not the other people that actually died? Asking for a friend because he doesn't bother to pay attention to the details of this sideshow that so enraptures you people.”
The only unarmed assailant/victim was the first one. The second one was beating Kyle with his skateboard, and the way he was doing it, it was legally a deadly weapon, esp after the testimony yesterday by “Lefty”. The third one, Lefty, pointed a Glock at Kyle, which he admitted yesterday under oath. The problem with the first assailant/victim is that he grabbed for Kyle’s gun, trying to take it away from Him. And grabbing the gun of the defendant claiming self defense typically is considered equivalent to wielding it against the defendant. That is probably one of the reasons that the self defense case of Officer Owen Wilson, who shot and killed Big Mike Brown was so clear cut - by the time that Wilson killed Brown, he had personally witnessed Brown having committed a violent felony in his presence, when Brown had tried to take his gun away from him.
“The decision shouldn't be based on a desire to relieve the jury of the burden of responsibility for a verdict some people aren't going to like or out of fear that they won't do their duty.”
Exactly (which is why Ann was the law prof, and I wasn’t). But it can be used, if renewed, after the jury returns a guilty verdict to remedy gross injustice, which would likely be the case here, esp after Lefty yesterday admitted, under oath, that he hadn’t been shot (in the right bicep, earning him his new nickname) until he pointed his handgun at Kyle, while he advanced on the defendant, sitting on the ground.
I would like to read a detailed account about how the FBI tried to keep its videos of the incident secret.
wendybar at 8:21 AM
Shouldn't George Floyds supposed nephew be arrested for threatening jurors??
That is not an option. The nephew is Black.
The State’s witnesses have been great at making the self-defense case for Rittenhouse. Each day makes the prosecution look worse, more malicious than stupid. Although we can’t rule out stupid, at this point.
I watched all of yesterday, and I'm sure that the Prosecution would like some level of a "do-over" but I would highlight something I noticed yesterday. The Prosecution seems to be hanging their hat on the narrative that Kyle shouldn't have been there. They called him a member of a milita, they insinuated he's a Boogaloo boy, they highlighted that he was wearing the same tactical gear as some others, etc.
From my observations of non-lawyer bad legal takes on twitter, everything for some falls back on the fact that Kyle was 17, had a weapon and was sticking his nose in Kenosha business. He should have been home. They may convict on the flawed theory that once you commit a crime of of bringing an AR-15 to a riot, everything that flows from that is illegal as well. There is no self defense in their minds if you are affiliated with white supremacists. If Kyle had stayed home, nobody would have died. Just property would have burned. That's the new standard. Antifa gets to burn cities to blow off steam.
I don't agree with it, but it allows them to not have to acquit and face another riot.
The media on the other hand is actively trying to cause a riot. The NY Times and Reuters reports were 180 degrees from what the trial day showed.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
The directed verdict would be that if you confront an active shooter, he has the right to kill you?
You are a dishonest lying piece of shit.
Back to the original point, the prosecutor’s face-in-palm is hilarious and telling, and also hugely unprofessional. Lawyers at counsel table are on display to jurors (and the judge) just like the witnesses are.
I wouldn’t blame this guy for thinking “Oh Christ, that’s the final nail in this coffin” (and indeed I believe it was), but you never know how the jurors perceive it (or even if they were paying close attention), but this guy all but hung a “we’re fucked” banner across the room.
Remember that time the FBI turned Gen. Flynn by threatening to railroad his kids? Good thing they don't do that stuff any more.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
The directed verdict would be that if you confront an active shooter, he has the right to kill you?
This person knows the whole thing is on video.
And he continues to misrepresent what happened and defend violent brown shirts like Grosskreutz who were looting and burning private property.
These are evil people.
If you ever carry a weapon, and esp if you carry concealed, you really do need a copy of his Law of Self Defense.
Second this. I've given multiple people copies. I'm a 2nd amendment supporter, but there are too many "gun people" who need to know the laws and how easy it is to run afoul of them.
The phrase "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is one such example. I'd rather just go home at the end of the night. "Law of Self Defense" is a tool to do that.
Bruce H, Massad Ayoob’s book “In the Gravest Extreme” is also excellent for understanding what self defense is and how to handle yourself before and after. All my NRA friends and I read it in the early ‘90s.
@hombre - with your expertise, you should be the one explaining directed verdicts here. Maybe not whether or not they would be successful, but how they are used in criminal cases, and when.
What was it like, being a prosecutor? I could probably have been a prosecutor before a defense attorney, and esp a PD. Mostly, because the bulk of defendants are probably guilty. But I talked recently to a fraternity brother who tried it a couple years, and left. As the newby, he had the pot cases and the like. He would be partying with guys on Friday night, then prosecuting them for being rowdy, and maybe some pot, on Monday. And speeding tickets were worse. He had a lead foot himself, and after giving up the practice of law, ended up as a private pilot, flying high end Gulfsteams at an appreciable portion of the speed of sound (his need for speed) around the world. I think that by the time he retired, he had flown in and out of every country in Europe, Asia, and N America with an airport with a suitable runway.
The decision shouldn't be based on a desire to relieve the jury of the burden of responsibility for a verdict some people aren't going to like or out of fear that they won't do their duty≥
So, the fact that they are being photographed and tracked is of no concern ? We are now in an era of jury intimidation on these racial cases. George Floyd died of a fentanyl over dose in police custody. The cop who was trying to control him gets convicted of murder by the intimidated jury but all hell breaks lose anyway.
Plus, of course, we have hundreds of demonstrators on Jan 6 who are accused of misdemeanors held in jail 11 months. The Stasi would be so proud.
I love statements in these forums that tell us the FBI and CIA need to be brought down and that we are on the verge of revolution ("THIS WILL NOT END WELL"). I really think these folks ate the brown acid. And, like the folks who did that 50 years ago, the people who make these extreme threats go nowhere. Sure, the Weather Underground, the Panthers, and others did some damage. They got some attention, made some people afraid. In fact, there was more domestic terrorist activity between 1970 and 1980 than in post-9/11 America. And America weathered it, remaining more or less as we like it, living day to day and enduring whatever minor inconveniences got thrown at us. Same thing applies here. At worst, people will vote for someone the typical Democrat dislikes, and we'll endure another four years of intemperate news reporting and comments from the elite. So what? People like order, whether they're Republican or Democrat, and they are not primed for revolution.
As for this kid, he was spoiling for a fight and he brought a gun. I'm sure there's prosecutorial overreach here, but most Americans don't like vigilantes and aren't going to care if Rittenhouse becomes an example of what happens when you're young and stupid. I'm willing to bet that if I walked a lot of people here through what happened to members of the Black Panther party at the hands of the FBI or Cointelpro, they'd say, "They broke the law and got what was coming to them." What they did was rock the boat and try to force something most Americans don't really want--an actual overthrow of the government. And they paid for it. Same thing will happen here, and it will be a small fraction of the country that will care.
This case is a clear example of the concept that the primary purpose of law enforcement is not to prevent criminals from committing crimes, but to protect criminals from their victims.
It will not end well for criminals, if they are given "space to destroy" as they were, originally in Baltimore, then spreading across the country, stopping in this instance in Kenosha.
The secondary purpose of law enforcement is to prevent or deter crime. That's what most citizens are willing to pay taxes for.
If law enforcement is permitted to do its secondary job, it will have less of its primary job to do, and, as a beneficial side effect, there will be less violence and fewer corpses.
This is not Milwaukee, so the demographic is quite different; and a year has passed since the BLM rioting - so passions have reverted to the mean. Although it would appear the Defense fumbled on jury selection, the Prosecution appears to have been to the same night law school as the Rick Moranis lawyer character in Ghost Busters. I guess the AG was hoping to sufficiently pollute the media coverage so that the trial would take place in the Court of Public Opinion first, making courtroom proceedings merely a formality. The ineptitude of the jury selection may yet do in Rittenhouse, but the judge is a fair one and I have hopes there will be no untended miscarriages of justice. The consensus also appears that there will be no directed verdict.
'As for this kid, he was spoiling for a fight and he brought a gun.'
You should have seen the short skirt she was wearing your honor...and her tits were practically hanging out of her top.
She got what she wanted...
Showing that local media is trash, this article from a Madison enemy of the people publication doesn't mention anywhere that Grosskruetz aimed his weapon at Rittenhouse. You can infer that if you read closely, but nowhere is it stated clearly.
You'd think that little admission was important in some way.
But no, the little Antifa medic hero has to be cast in a heroic light.
https://www.wkow.com/townnews/law/trained-paramedic-shot-and-wounded-by-kyle-rittenhouse-testifies-he-thought-teenager-was-an-active/article_ec027d20-1092-5cd8-84fc-5d3035275323.html
More stupid: "As for this kid, he was spoiling for a fight and he brought a gun." Nice reductionism you got there. "This kid was concerned for his friends and he brought a fire extinguisher to save their business," is my response to yours. How about, "This kid was a trained medic and brought a kit to treat the wounded." So two-thirds of the "gear" Kyle brought were altruistic and helpful, the fire extinguisher and the med kit, and one was for self-defense, which anyone venturing into that melee would be concerned about.
So if we are reading minds here, and we both are, then my statements are just as valid as yours. But Kyle did all three actions. He was in the act of putting out a fire Antifa had started when the three Antifa adults attacked him unprovoked. That is all on video. Antifa doesn't like firefighters. The exact testimony on video in this post shows the witness admitting he brought a gun so maybe he was spoiling for a fight, given the evidence he chased down the teenager urging others to "kill" very loudly. You trolls just aren't doing well handling the facts in this case.
"As for this kid, he was spoiling for a fight and he brought a gun."
He wasn't the only one, either. But he's the only one being prosecuted. He didn't even shoot first. I guess this makes sense to you if you think that there are places in the US where certain citizens can't go. You know what Americans like even less than "vigilanteism"? Rioters, arsonists, and looters who descend on poor neighborhoods and destroy them, like locusts on a wheat field.
The show (trial) must go on!!
Most defendants today don't get a trial by their peers, the risk of a long prison sentence and high lawyer fees are used by prosecutors to get them to agree to a plea bargain.
Howard, this admission by the witness demonstrates Rittenhouse only shot at the moment it was clear that he felt his life was in danger. He wasn't wantonly shooting at random passersby, which is why anyone claiming he was an active shooter is being disingenuous, an idiot, or both.
There were many people around for Rittenhouse to shoot at, yet the only ones he did shoot were those who were actively attacking him. And now we have one of them admitting to threatening Rittenhouse's life when the kid pulled the trigger. We're trying to determine his state of mind when he shot people, and it's unlikely it changed in the few moments between shooting the guy with the skateboard and vaporizing this witness's bicep.
Oh, and tell your friend he's a condescending jackass.
I've been watching this trial, and the prosecutor in question is just writing: he holds his head that way when he does. Regardless, the witness at that point gave testimony that exonerated the defendant. Regardless: stay out of big cities when the verdict is released.
Achilles on Left Bank: "You are a lying piece of shit."
Now, now: "lying"--what's that, anyway? I'm sure to Left Bank, and other State fellators, there is no Truth but the Party's truth.
As for this kid, he was spoiling for a fight and he brought a gun. I'm sure there's prosecutorial overreach here, but most Americans don't like vigilantes and aren't going to care if Rittenhouse becomes an example of what happens when you're young and stupid.
@Joe T., I assume by “this kid,” you mean Gaige Grosskreutz, right? Because he’s the one who brought a gun (his Glock, which he carried concealed despite his CCP being expired) and was clearly “spoiling for a fight.” There is ample evidence already in the trial record that Rittenhouse avoided confrontation until Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz forced confrontation on him.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
The directed verdict would be that if you confront an active shooter, he has the right to kill you?
1: He wasn't an "active shooter" by any reasonable or legal definition of the term. He shot one person who attacked him, them ran to the police to turn himself in, not shooting anyone else until they specifically attacked him or pointed a gun at him.
2: You do not have the right to shoot someone for engaging in legal self defense. You do not have the right to strike someone in the head with a board, or kick them in the head, for lawfully defending themselves via self defense
3: What you ar attempting to support is "mob justice". It's very much "we don't like this guy, so we're going to kill him."
If that's ok in your book, then you have no grounds to complain about anyone shooting any pro-BLM or pro-Antifa "protester", since they're jus engaging in the same mob justice you approved of
4: You don't "wait for the courts" before engaging in self defense because, by the time the cops could get there, you'd already be dead.
If you're not an advocate of mob justice, then you don't attack Kyle Rittenhouse, you take video and later give it to the cops. unless,, of course, you've defunded them
5: If you'd rather just have mob justice, we can do that. Kyle's a sweet kid who went around trying to be a medic to the same protesters who later tried to kill him. When "Lefty" charged at Kyle with a gun in his hand, and Kyle pointed his rifle at Lefty, Lefty slowed down and put his hands up, so Kyle didn't shoot.
Then as soon as Kyle moved his rifle off of Lefty, Lefty pointed his gun at Kyle. Only then did Kyle shoot him, and Kyle only shot once.
If you'd prefer we just start shooting every single rioter (if you're starting things on fire, making the fire grown, destroying anything, or throwing something at anyone, you're a rioter, not a protester), and every single armed "protester", we will be happy to accommodate you
Howard said...
Doesn't that only justify the shooting of the armed man not the other people that actually died? Asking for a friend because he doesn't bother to pay attention to the details of this sideshow that so enraptures you people.
The guy with the improvised mace he was swinging at Kyle's head was armed, and committing assault with a deadly weapon when Kyle shot him.
Rosenberg was grabbing for Kyle's gun after having previously treated to kill Kyle if he ever got him alone. this was after Rosie's friend fired a pistol ~30 feet from Kyle. While we know from video he fired it in the air, there's no reason for Kyle to know that.
Someone shoots at you while someone else attacks you and tries to grab your gun so he can kill yo with it.
If that's not legal self defense, then there's no such thing as legal self defense.
Tl;dr:
Every single person Kyle shot deserved it. the only sad things about the evening are that he missed "jump kick man", and he didn't kill Lefty
Joe T. said...
As for this kid, he was spoiling for a fight and he brought a gun. I'm sure there's prosecutorial overreach here, but most Americans don't like vigilantes and aren't going to care if Rittenhouse becomes an example of what happens when you're young and stupid.
You are an ignorant ass, and / or a liar.
He went there to keep people from destroy private property, and to be a "medic" for injured protesters, including those on "the other side".
The closest him came to being confrontational any time that evening is when a female screamed "F*ck you" at him, and he replied "I love you too, Mam."
The people he was with told him he shouldn't respond at all, so after that when people screamed at him he just walked away.
This is on video, it's been played in Court, by the prosecution. Which you would know if your head wasn't so thoroughly up your ass.
He shot at 4 people: Three were directly physically assaulting him when he shot at them (he missed "jump kick man" who kicked him in the head).
The 4th, Lefty, just admitted under cross examination that Kyle only shot him after he pointed his handgun at Kyle.
Thus the prosecutor with his head in his hands.
Why don't you just FOAD, you lying sack of garbage?
Brian said...
From my observations of non-lawyer bad legal takes on twitter, everything for some falls back on the fact that Kyle was 17, had a weapon and was sticking his nose in Kenosha business. He should have been home. They may convict on the flawed theory that once you commit a crime of of bringing an AR-15 to a riot
It wasn't a crime. Multiple police officers has testified that they saw him walking around with an AR-15 in his hands, and none of them thought anything of it.
As fo him being 17: Here's the gory details: https://gregquark.blogspot.com/2020/09/wi-law-about-16-17-year-olds-carry.html
tl;dr: (3) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593
He was not in violation of any of those three sections. So not a crime
PJ Media is reporting that someone was caught taking video of the jury. Guess best the defense can hope for is a hung jury and a mistrial.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/11/09/someone-was-caught-taking-secret-video-of-rittenhouse-jury-following-threat-n1531102
Bruce Hayden said...
But I don’t think that the defense will get their directed verdict for the felony charges after the prosecution rests. The case is too high profile. Besides, the prosecution may have Provocation and Active Shooter arguments with at least the latter two felonies, and an argument that Kyle’s first assailant/victim was too small to seriously threaten him with death or great bodily injury. The difference is that he was not armed, while the latter two were armed with deadly weapons.
I'm pretty sure the judge has to be aware that ruling that putting out fires is a "Provocation" that entitles you to be killed is a ruling that will get him bench slapped, by the WISC, if no one else.
On cross teh defense got one of the prosecution cop witnesses to agree that Kyle was running away from everyone he eventually shot at, that he never shot at anyone unless they were a direct and active threat to him, that Kyle didn't shoot at people who shot guns near him, but not at him, and didn't shoot at people who were acting in a threatening manner, but were too far away to actually harm him.
IMAO, that's directed verdict for every single one of hte shooting offenses
I learned from the Chauvin trial that the facts of a matter simply don't matter in some cases, and I fear the Rittenhouse trial is the same- the jury will convict on the most serious charges, and only because they fear for theirs and their families' lives.
I have followed this trial closely- I have watched all of the video evidence from that night that has been aired publicly, and I have watched large portions of the state's witnesses testimony- this is a slam-dunk case of self-defense- the prosecution has failed completely to undermine it. Rittenhouse was being stalked long before he shot the first attacker who, by the way, had threatened Rittenhouse with bodily harm earlier in the evening. The other two attackers continued to chase Rittenhouse after Rosenbaum had been shot- sure, Grosskreutz tried to claim he was chasing an active shooter, but Grosskreutz was stalking/chasing Rittenhouse before Rosenbaum had been shot. The second deceased attacker was killed after trying to hit Rittenhouse in the head with the edge of a skateboard- pure self-defense killing there. Grosskreutz could have escaped injury by simply keeping his hand with the gun pointing up, and backing away- Rittenhouse gave him a chance Grosskreutz didn't actually deserve by that point, but Rittenhouse didn't immediately shoot him as he approached with the gun in his hand- it was only when Grosskreutz lowered the weapon and pointed it right at Rittenhouse that Rittenhouse fired.
I do agree with Althouse that the judge should let this go to the jury- the jury should acquit and do so quickly. If they don't, then the judge does need to issue a directed verdict, but I also predict that he won't if the jury convicts- the judge fears for his life, too, just like the judge in the Chauvin trial.
West TX Intermediate Crude above is right- the police and government are failing in their main job- deterring crime, and this continued failure is going to lead to actual true vigilantism (this isn't Rittenhouse- he didn't shoot any looters or arsonists- only the people who directly threatened him physically). You can find videos online of how even petty criminals are dealt with in countries with no rule of law or law enforcement- I promise you those videos aren't for the squeamish. You shouldn't want such a situation here, but it is coming given the breakdown of law enforcement.
I read elsewhere last night that this trial is looking to wrap up in time for the Thanksgiving Holiday break. Great - if an acquittal comes down on Tuesday/Wednesday of that week, the usual miscreants will have lots of time to get themselves into position for a long weekend of mayhem. That said, given that identifiable info on the jurors is being circulated I think an acquittal will be a longshot. Juror self-preservation will win out.
Have a feeling this’ll garner over a hundred responses.
Practice tip: the defense doesn’t want a Directed Verdict. It wants a Jury Verdict that has res judicata with it. If Jury convicts, then go for Directed Verdict and start over.
Joe T, actually Americans love vigilantes especially when removing garbage from the world, see Berhard Goetz, verging else hon said is just straight up stupidity
The fact there's even a trial reveals just how screwed up our 'justice' system is.
"Why don't you just FOAD, you lying sack of garbage?"
The level of intellectual rigor here us humbling.
""This kid was concerned for his friends and he brought a fire extinguisher to save their business," is my response to yours. How about, "This kid was a trained medic and brought a kit to treat the wounded." So two-thirds of the "gear" Kyle brought were altruistic and helpful, the fire extinguisher and the med kit, and one was for self-defense, which anyone venturing into that melee would be concerned about."
If he had only brought those things, he wouldn't be on trial.
"see Berhard Goetz, verging else hon said is just straight up stupidity." Dunno what the "hon" is.
Goetz was sentenced to six months in jail, one year's psychiatric treatment, five years' probation, 200 hours community service, and a $5,000 fine. He lost a civil trial that bankrupted him.
Rittenhouse is 18. His life is over now. Wish that were not the case, and, as I said earlier, I think the prosecution overreached. Still, he shot an unarmed man 4 times. How can that be considered an honorable thing, even by the most zealous gun rights defender?
Aggie needs to rewatch Ghostbusters. Moranis plays a CPA, that’s why he goes on about taxes at his soirée for his clients.
Howard and Joe T seem content to send this kid away for life no matter what the facts are.
Jury intimidation might just get you your wishes, unless the judge has some guts.
The only unarmed assailant/victim was the first one.
So if the other ones are arguably justified, you get a pass on the first one?
If he had only brought those things, he wouldn't be on trial.
So very true, he'd probably be dead.
He was not in violation of any of those three sections. So not a crime
I agree. I'm telling you what people unfamiliar with the law and gun rights think. Some of which may be on the jury.
They see a active shooter with a machine gun looking for a fight. And the NY Times and Reuters aren't helping since they are echoing those biases.
If he had only brought those things, he wouldn't be on trial.
He'd be dead
Traditionalguy, a DV is res judicata, and triggers double jeopardy protections as well. It’s every bit as much an adjudication on the merits as a NG verdict from the jury.
"If he had only brought those things, he wouldn't be on trial."
Correct. He'd be dead. And there would be no trial.
"Still, he shot an unarmed man 4 times. How can that be considered an honorable thing, even by the most zealous gun rights defender?"
An unarmed man who was trying to disarm him and had earlier threatened to kill him. Seems perfectly honorable.
Now go and watch some of the testimony instead of making crap up. We'll still be here when you get back.
The only unarmed assailant/victim was the first one.
So if the other ones are arguably justified, you get a pass on the first one?
Freder,
What do you supposed Rosenbaum was doing when he got shot? I want to hear your opinion on this.
Joe T, goetz was only charged/convicted on an illegal gun charge not taking out the trash which a grand jury rightly didn’t charge him with
Joe T. said...
Still, he shot an unarmed man 4 times. How can that be considered an honorable thing, even by the most zealous gun rights defender?
Hmm, maybe because the unarmed man who was attacking him was less than 4 feet away from him (according to the medical examiner brought in by the prosecutor), and he didn't have time to stop and examine the full effects of each shot before going on to the next one?
4 shots in 3/4 of a second. For the last one Rosenbaum's hand was, according to the prosecutor's medical examiner who did the autopsy, on the barrel of Kyle's rifle.
Shot one hit the charging Rosenbaum in the pelvis. Shots 2 and 3 both hit / grazed, but didn't do any serious damage.
Shot 4, which killed Rosenbaum, was fired while Rosenbaum's hand was on the barrel of Kyle's gun. Which means if he didn't fire that shot, Rosenbaum would have tackled him to teh ground, and attempted to carry out his previous threat to kill Kyle.
My question for you: how can anyone who's not a complete fucking moron, and riot / murder groupie, object to someone shooting at a criminal attacker, and continue shooting until the attacker stops being a threat?
"Why don't you just FOAD, you lying sack of garbage?"
The level of intellectual rigor here us humbling.
This from the shit for brains who's yet to say anything honest about the case.
"So two-thirds of the "gear" Kyle brought were altruistic and helpful, the fire extinguisher and the med kit, and one was for self-defense, which anyone venturing into that melee would be concerned about."
If he had only brought those things, he wouldn't be on trial.
Right. He'd be dead, and you'd be exstactic, because you're a sick fuck.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
>>The only unarmed assailant/victim was the first one.
So if the other ones are arguably justified, you get a pass on the first one?
News flash, moron: more Americans are killed each year by hands and feet than by rifles.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
2015 - 2019: 1573 killed by rifle, 3346 killed by hands / feet.
Not having a weapon in your hand doesn't make you not dangerous. Kyle gets a "free pass" on Rosenberg because Rosenberg threatened to kill him, and then acted out on that threat.
It was entirely legitimate self defense, which everyone who's not pro-criminal scum knows
The only unarmed assailant/victim was the first one.
So if the other ones are arguably justified, you get a pass on the first one?
The first assailant (Joseph Rosenbaum) was unarmed, but committed a hostile act before Rittenhouse fired. He chased Rittenhouse down the street and into a parking lot, threw a bag at Rittenhouse and lunged for his gun. There is testimony that there was a gun shot nearby as this was going on.
A prosecution witness has testified that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Rittenhouse earlier that evening. There is footage of him being aggressively confrontational, especially to people with weapons, that evening.
Rittenhouse was under attack and feared for his life.
I don't know whether it'll be before the jury decides, or after pending their decision, but at some point the judge is going to have to rule that no rational guilty verdict is possible.
Greg the Class Traitor:
“If you'd rather just have mob justice, we can do that.”
And there it is.
Still, he shot an unarmed man 4 times. How can that be considered an honorable thing, even by the most zealous gun rights defender?
Well, Joe T., i don’t know what you were taught in your self defense class, but I was taught to keep shooting until the threat is ended. The threat can be ended by the attacker surrendering. The threat can be ended by the attacker turning and running away. But the video evidence and testimony indicated that Rosenbaum kept moving forward — so Rittenhouse kept shooting. That’s how it works in the real world.
@Freder, even in Wisconsin one is allowed to use lethal force if you perceive yourself to be facing a threat to your life or a threat of bodily harm. The law definitely allow you to use lethal force even when your opponent is unarmed, provided he or she represents a valid threat to you.
Joe T. said...
If he had only brought those things, he wouldn't be on trial.
Not on trial. Dead. He would have been beaten to death by your brown shirt friends.
“The only unarmed assailant/victim was the first one.”
So if the other ones are arguably justified, you get a pass on the first one?
The first attacker (Rosenblum) wasn't “unarmed” — because he was at that moment in the process of violently possessing himself of Rittenhouse's weapon — not to speak of Rosenblum's declaring in Rittenhouse's hearing earlier that evening that he would kill Rittenhouse if he found him alone.
Freder Frederson said...
The only unarmed assailant/victim was the first one.
So if the other ones are arguably justified, you get a pass on the first one?
If someone kicks you in the head and knocks you down, you are completely justified in defending yourself.
It is too bad Rittenhouse missed the brown shirt.
Notice how Freder and the rest of these leftist shitheads are totally cool with the BLM thugs burning and looting and only get upset when someone tries to stop them from burning and looting.
Have a feeling this’ll garner over a hundred responses.
I will write this comment as I see there are 99 other comments and I like to see forecasts come true.
" Rit said...
If he had only brought those things, he wouldn't be on trial.
So very true, he'd probably be dead.
"
Not if he'd stayed home.
Americans love vigilantes. That's why the nation is Foursquare behind the January 6th insurrection vigilantes. Also don't forget Gov. DeSantis is making February 26th George Zimmerman Day.
Howard: "Americans love vigilantes. That's why the nation is Foursquare behind the January 6th insurrection vigilantes. Also don't forget Gov. DeSantis is making February 26th George Zimmerman Day."
It's sad how far you've fallen since the disappearance of your sidekick, *** *****.
You really have nothing left.
@Bruce Hayden: Kyle’s first assailant/victim was too small to seriously threaten him with death or great bodily injury. The difference is that he was not armed, while the latter two were armed with deadly weapons.
1) The bald angry-elf guy was trying to strip Kyle of his weapon. The moment he laid a hand on the rifle, he was legally in possession of it, and therefore was shot in the act of assault with a deadly weapon. The pattern of powder burns and the surveillance video both show he was shot at point blank range, not from a distance. Good riddance.
2) Just a couple of seconds before Kyle’s first shot, while Kyle still had his back turned as the mob was chasing him down, the tall bearded guy fired a shot with his handgun. I’m not sure he shot AT Kyle, but a reasonable person would certainly fear for his life in that situation. When Kyle was trapped, and the angry elf who had already threatened to kill him caught up to him, it was certainly another reasonable assumption that he was the shooter and intended to kill Kyle. Again, good riddance to bad rubbish.
Whooo hooo 115!
Just a fascinating case.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Greg the Class Traitor:
“If you'd rather just have mob justice, we can do that.”
And there it is.
Yes Leftie, there it is.
YOU were the one defending Huber and Grosskreutz on the grounds that they were "chasing an active shooter". IOW, you were celebrating their attempt at mob justice.
You lefties screwed us on Bork, and then were shocked and horrified when we returned the favor with Garland. I don't know what is the mental disorder that keeps you lefties from seeing the basic cause and effect: You attack us, we attack you.
You celebrate "mob justice" against Kyle, then expect that we won't do the same to you?
Why?
@Greg the Class Traitor: If you'd prefer we just start shooting every single rioter (if you're starting things on fire, making the fire grown, destroying anything, or throwing something at anyone, you're a rioter, not a protester), and every single armed "protester", we will be happy to accommodate you
We shouldn’t have to. Arson of an occupied building, or throwing a Molotov cocktail at another person, is attempted murder in every jurisdiction. Those who attempt such acts in a public setting where armed police are present should be instantly shot dead in their tracks, every time.
Uncle Pavian said...
" Rit said...
If he had only brought those things, he wouldn't be on trial.
So very true, he'd probably be dead.
"
Not if he'd stayed home.
Well, if Rosenburg, Huber, and Grosskreutz had stayed home, instead of gone out that night to riot and destroy, they'd all be alive and uninjured.
it's interesting that to you, the law abiding guy who went out to be a medic, and to save people from having their life's work destroyed, he should have "stayed at home."
But the people who went out to riot and destroy, and who tried to murder the nice, law abiding guy? They you're ok with being out there.
Are you always this sick and twisted?
" Rit said...
If he had only brought those things, he wouldn't be on trial.
So very true, he'd probably be dead.
"
Not if he'd stayed home.
The more interesting thing about the exchange is how the 'mainstream' coverage of it is completely ignoring all that and focusing on how he was scared of the defendant. If Rittenhouse is acquitted (I predict a hung jury), there are going to be a lot of people in the liberal news bubble who will find that shocking (and will almost certainly blame white supremacy in the justice system or some such).
Uncle Pavian said...
Not if he'd stayed home.
This is the other part of the situation that the MSM is actively suppressing. I'm not sure what the cops had on the two stoner kids of the Car Source owners to get them to testi-lie (I can guess) but the first three witnesses in Rittenhouse's defense were all in agreement that the actual owners were fully aware of the people, including themselves and Rittenhouse, who came to defend the lot, welcomed and cooperated with them, and even offered to pay them.
In addition to pretty well demolishing any claim that Rosenbaum wasn't an active threat, and that the cops, ATF, and ADAs in the persecutor's office tried to pressure one of them into following along with their 'active shooter' lie.
Uncle Pavian said...
" Rit said...
If he had only brought those things, he wouldn't be on trial.
So very true, he'd probably be dead.
"
Not if he'd stayed home.
But you have nothing to say about the BLM looters and thugs that were out burning and destroying people's property and businesses.
Of course you think BLM should be out that night.
They were persecuting your political opponents.
I maintain that riots are Bad News and people would generally do well to avoid them. Not everyone agrees.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I maintain that riots are Bad News and people would generally do well to avoid them. Not everyone agrees.
In a functioning State where the government is protecting private property and maintaining law and order you are correct.
But when you have an illegitimate regime that is letting a horde of brown shirts run around and destroy peoples livelihoods the People have to stand up and resist.
If everyone in a free society is a coward, it will not be a free society for long.
Achilles said, "If everyone in a free society is a coward, it will not be a free society for long."
Okay. But, assuming that you are not yourself a coward, what was your role in the 19 or so riots since the unrest in Kenosha?
11/10/21, 11:11 AM
Greg The Class Traitor said...
If you'd prefer we just start shooting every single rioter (if you're starting things on fire, making the fire grown, destroying anything, or throwing something at anyone, you're a rioter, not a protester), and every single armed "protester", we will be happy to accommodate you
There's my preference.
Anonymous said...
I maintain that riots are Bad News and people would generally do well to avoid them. Not everyone agrees.
That's true. BLM, andtifa, and their supporters like the Kenosha DA's office strongly disagree with you, since otherwise the first two wouldn't be showing up to riot, and the 3rd would be prosecuting those who do.
The Owners of Car Smart agree with you, too. But, to the tune of something between $400k and $2.5 million, they weren't given that option.
Neither was David Dorn, murdered by "BLM".
If what you really mean to say is "you should not be trying to stop rioters from destroying, Burning, looting, and Murdering", then I can only say FOAD to you.
If you're saying "riots are bad", then I fully agree. but the response to that is to make sure they're especially bad for the people doing the rioting.
Which is what Kyle did. So you should be celebrating him
Uncle Pavian said...
Achilles said, "If everyone in a free society is a coward, it will not be a free society for long."
Okay. But, assuming that you are not yourself a coward, what was your role in the 19 or so riots since the unrest in Kenosha?
None of them has been within 50 miles of me, and I haven't yet felt a strong enough urge to travel to one to help stop it.
But if that changes, I'll build up a higher death tool than Kyle. Because I would have shot GG before he put his hands up, and I would ahve shot the guy who charged, and changed his mind only after there was a gun on him.
Kyle was excessively nice. Keep on pushing, Lefties, and you're get "not nice"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा