Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[7HAR1980 102]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I was merely talking of the use of weapons as an illustration of the mind set when using one. As I said, Rittenhouse appears to me of having the mind set of assault not protection. When did he decide he had to go some distance to protect a gas station?

Why was he carrying a backpack with medical supplies?

He travelled 20 miles. Do you seriously classify that as some distance?

[7HAR1980 102]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

That's why he took an AR-15 military weapon to a city he didn't live in. FFS! surely you can come up with something better than that.

He took the weapon for protection of which he unfortunately had to use. The jury agree. Case closed.

[Fen Canary 789]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

That's why he took an AR-15 military weapon to a city he didn't live in. FFS! surely you can come up with something better than that.

The third man to be shot also took a firearm to a “peaceful” demonstration, perhaps its details such as these that meant the kid felt the need to arm himself?

Also whilst the kid didn’t live in the city, he only lived 20 miles away and had close family including his father there, so clearly had an attachment to the area, probably more so than many of those who had spent the previous nights rioting.

I think all of us can agree that offering to try and protect the local business was a daft decision for a 17 year old, however if the protestors hadn’t spent the previous evenings looting the local area then the kid wouldn’t have travelled up in the first place.

You can’t condemn the kid (who had spent the morning before the events clearing graffiti from walls of local shops) for wanting to protect people’s livelihoods and arming himself to do so, without also condemning those rioting who were also armed at the time. It’s rather hypocritical 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, 7HAR1980 said:

Why was he carrying a backpack with medical supplies?

He travelled 20 miles. Do you seriously classify that as some distance?

Why was he there? Why did he have a gun illegally? 

I have no idea why he had medical supplies. I can hazard a guess that he was pretending to be in the military.

Are you seriously saying he went there to defend a gas station that he probably didn't know existed? Until of course, somebody told him.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

The third man to be shot also took a firearm to a “peaceful” demonstration, perhaps its details such as these that meant the kid felt the need to arm himself?

Also whilst the kid didn’t live in the city, he only lived 20 miles away and had close family including his father there, so clearly had an attachment to the area, probably more so than many of those who had spent the previous nights rioting.

I think all of us can agree that offering to try and protect the local business was a daft decision for a 17 year old, however if the protestors hadn’t spent the previous evenings looting the local area then the kid wouldn’t have travelled up in the first place.

You can’t condemn the kid (who had spent the morning before the events clearing graffiti from walls of local shops) for wanting to protect people’s livelihoods and arming himself to do so, without also condemning those rioting who were also armed at the time. It’s rather hypocritical 

As far as I am concerned, rioters should be banged up. There is no excuse for looting or criminal damage. Protesters don't need them on their side.

So are you saying that the Police are that bad or maybe in league with protesters? Because if civilians have to come out onto the streets with assault rifles to protect property then the Police must not be doing their job.

Mind you, they have a habit of managing to kill black people.

[Fen Canary 789]

23 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

As far as I am concerned, rioters should be banged up. There is no excuse for looting or criminal damage. Protesters don't need them on their side.

So are you saying that the Police are that bad or maybe in league with protesters? Because if civilians have to come out onto the streets with assault rifles to protect property then the Police must not be doing their job.

Mind you, they have a habit of managing to kill black people.

Actually when broken down in terms of police fatalities per arrest, they actually kill more white people than black when apprehending them, it’s just that black people are more likely to be arrested, largely due to living in poorer areas with much higher crime and drug rates. 

But yes this is an abject failure by the police, who seem to have stood back and let the riots unfold with very little pushback. Whilst I certainly don’t condone people people arming themselves to protect their property, I can certainly understand it if the authorities are simply going to allow it to happen 

[horsefly 4,283]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

The third man to be shot also took a firearm to a “peaceful” demonstration, perhaps its details such as these that meant the kid felt the need to arm himself?

Also whilst the kid didn’t live in the city, he only lived 20 miles away and had close family including his father there, so clearly had an attachment to the area, probably more so than many of those who had spent the previous nights rioting.

I think all of us can agree that offering to try and protect the local business was a daft decision for a 17 year old, however if the protestors hadn’t spent the previous evenings looting the local area then the kid wouldn’t have travelled up in the first place.

You can’t condemn the kid (who had spent the morning before the events clearing graffiti from walls of local shops) for wanting to protect people’s livelihoods and arming himself to do so, without also condemning those rioting who were also armed at the time. It’s rather hypocritical 

The Police specifically asked outsiders to stay away. The presence of vigilantes made the job of the Police far more difficult. He had absolutely no business being there. It is illegal for a minor to possess an AR-15. Rioting is wrong, but it is for the Police to deal with such events not some incompetent 17 year old with an illegal weapon. This judgement will now be seen as a green light for extremists to point their weapons at others and claim self-defence when they shoot them. Far from assisting in preventing rioting this judgement will increase it, and sadly increase the violence associated with it.

[Fen Canary 789]

34 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Why was he there? Why did he have a gun illegally? 

I have no idea why he had medical supplies. I can hazard a guess that he was pretending to be in the military.

Are you seriously saying he went there to defend a gas station that he probably didn't know existed? Until of course, somebody told him.

He was there because he wanted to prevent mindless destruction of a community he had close ties to.

He had a gun (albeit one he shouldn’t have had) because those protestors were also armed, as proven by the fact the third man shot was pointing it at him as he fired. As the victim testified in court, the defendant didn’t shoot until he actually raised and pointed the gun at him, and clearly shouted that he was “friendly” before he was set upon by the others.

Should he have been there? Probably not, but then neither should have the rioters. Should he have armed himself? Again probably not but again neither should have the rioters. To pin the entire blame for the situation on the shoulders of a 17 year old kid who was most likely in fear of being killed is just wrong in my view

[Fen Canary 789]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

The Police specifically asked outsiders to stay away. The presence of vigilantes made the job of the Police far more difficult. He had absolutely no business being there. It is illegal for a minor to possess an AR-15. Rioting is wrong, but it is for the Police to deal with such events not some incompetent 17 year old with an illegal weapon. This judgement will now be seen as a green light for extremists to point their weapons at others and claim self-defence when they shoot them. Far from assisting in preventing rioting this judgement will increase it, and sadly increase the violence associated with it.

Didn’t the police also set a curfew, therefore the rioters shouldn’t have been there either? I don’t condone people taking the law into their own hands, but I can understand it when the police seemingly step back and allow “peaceful” demonstrators to smash and loot society. If the rioters hadn’t gone looting, or the police dine their job and actually locked up those destroying property, this kid and others wouldn’t have felt the need to be there in the first place. 

[Fen Canary 789]

11 hours ago, horsefly said:

Listening carefully to the judge's comments throughout the trial and recognising his egregious bias is not the same as second guessing the discussions of the Jury.

This would be the same judge who refused to let the defence mention that the first man shot was a convicted child molester, and the second had convictions for strangulation, suffocation and false imprisonment? Sounds like he was fairly even handed to me 

[RobJames 880]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

This would be the same judge who refused to let the defence mention that the first man shot was a convicted child molester, and the second had convictions for strangulation, suffocation and false imprisonment? Sounds like he was fairly even handed to me 

So he could kill because of previous offences by those killed? Those convictions were immaterial to the case. They were shot and killed while trying to disarm somebody with illegal possession of a gun The judge refused to refer those killed as victims. He persistently referred to them as rioters. There was no evidence to that claim.

Edited November 21, 2021 by RobJames

[7HAR1980 102]

6 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Why was he there? Why did he have a gun illegally? 

I have no idea why he had medical supplies. I can hazard a guess that he was pretending to be in the military.

Are you seriously saying he went there to defend a gas station that he probably didn't know existed? Until of course, somebody told him.

No, more like you ignore the fact he was carrying medical supplies because you believe instead he was there to shoot people and not protect businesses and people.

A jury has found that to not be true.

[RobJames 880]

6 minutes ago, 7HAR1980 said:

No, more like you ignore the fact he was carrying medical supplies because you believe instead he was there to shoot people and not protect businesses and people.

A jury has found that to not be true.

I have never stated he was there to shoot anyone. That he did shoot three people is undeniable. That two were unarmed is also undeniable. If he was there to treat people, why did he not treat those he had shot. The jury found on the misdirection of the judge.

[7HAR1980 102]

Just now, RobJames said:

I have never stated he was there to shoot anyone. That he did shoot three people is undeniable. That two were unarmed is also undeniable. If he was there to treat people, why did he not treat those he had shot. The jury found on the misdirection of the judge.

I was responding to keelansgrandad!

[Fen Canary 789]

7 hours ago, RobJames said:

So he could kill because of previous offences by those killed? Those convictions were immaterial to the case. They were shot and killed while trying to disarm somebody with illegal possession of a gun The judge refused to refer those killed as victims. He persistently referred to them as rioters. There was no evidence to that claim.

I never said that did I. It was irrelevant to the case. My point was that you implied the judge was biased in favour of the defence, I was merely pointing out his handling of the case seemed exceedingly neutral 

[horsefly 4,283]

9 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

This would be the same judge who refused to let the defence mention that the first man shot was a convicted child molester, and the second had convictions for strangulation, suffocation and false imprisonment? Sounds like he was fairly even handed to me 

Jesus! You haven't got the first clue about legal process have you! Firstly, even this judge wouldn't have been so utterly thick as to allow that breach of the rules of court. Secondly do let us know what evidence you have that ****tenhouse has psychic powers such that he new the crimminal history of the people he shot dead. Perhaps you can also remind us of the law which says a 17 year old sporting an illegal weapon is allowed to perform state executions on people with a criminal history. Sadly your point is entirely irrelevant yet again.

[Fen Canary 789]

6 hours ago, RobJames said:

I have never stated he was there to shoot anyone. That he did shoot three people is undeniable. That two were unarmed is also undeniable. If he was there to treat people, why did he not treat those he had shot. The jury found on the misdirection of the judge.

Whilst the first one was unarmed, his accomplice that chased the defendant into the car park with him was armed, and fired his gun into the air during the chase. In that situation I’d be fearful for my life personally, I don’t know about you 

[Herman 9,711]

Probably a regular occurence in Peterborough.

[horsefly 4,283]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

I never said that did I. It was irrelevant to the case. My point was that you implied the judge was biased in favour of the defence, I was merely pointing out his handling of the case seemed exceedingly neutral 

Hilarious! The judge directed that the men shot dead could not be described as "victims" but could be described as "rioters" rather than protester, how "exceedingly neutral" FFS!

But then you obviously haven't paid the slightest attention to the trial proceedings and the huge number of legal experts commenting throughout its course about the travesty of the judge's biased performance.

[Fen Canary 789]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Jesus! You haven't got the first clue about legal process have you! Firstly, even this judge wouldn't have been so utterly thick as to allow that breach of the rules of court. Secondly do let us know what evidence you have that ****tenhouse has psychic powers such that he new the crimminal history of the people he shot dead. Perhaps you can also remind us of the law which says a 17 year old sporting an illegal weapon is allowed to perform state executions on people with a criminal history. Sadly your point is entirely irrelevant yet again.

Perhaps you can actually check the laws, the weapon he held wasn’t technically illegal due to the length of the barrel due to some strange state law.

Secondly I wasn’t the one implying the legal process had been bypassed, that was you. I was showing that the judge had been largely impartial by rejecting items from both the defence and prosecution 

[Fen Canary 789]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Hilarious! The judge directed that the men shot dead could not be described as "victims" but could be described as "rioters" rather than protester, how "exceedingly neutral" FFS!

But then you obviously haven't paid the slightest attention to the trial proceedings and the huge number of legal experts commenting throughout its course about the travesty of the judge's biased performance.

The word victim implies that it was undeserved, random or that the person killed had no control over the situation. In a case where the main argument for the defendant is he acted in self defence, I’d say describing the person killed as a victim could be considered as influencing the jury, there’re the judge is well within his rights not to allow it. 

[horsefly 4,283]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

Perhaps you can actually check the laws, the weapon he held wasn’t technically illegal due to the length of the barrel due to some strange state law.

Secondly I wasn’t the one implying the legal process had been bypassed, that was you. I was showing that the judge had been largely impartial by rejecting items from both the defence and prosecution 

He was a minor in possession of an illegal weapon. I checked the laws, that ruling was shown to be wrong ( the prodecution didn't choose to pursue it, probably because they had bigger issues to pursue than what would have been a minor charge).

" I was showing that the judge had been largely impartial by rejecting items from both the defence and prosecution" Stop being so damned dense! He did nothing of the sort. He allowed the defence to use the term "rioters"  and denied the prosecution the right to use the term "victims"; not remotely impartial.

[Fen Canary 789]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

He was a minor in possession of an illegal weapon. I checked the laws, that ruling was shown to be wrong ( the prodecution didn't choose to pursue it, probably because they had bigger issues to pursue than what would have been a minor charge).

" I was showing that the judge had been largely impartial by rejecting items from both the defence and prosecution" Stop being so damned dense! He did nothing of the sort. He allowed the defence to use the term "rioters"  and denied the prosecution the right to use the term "victims"; not remotely impartial.

Were those people not rioting?

Would you think it appropriate for the prosecution to refer to the defendant as “the murderer” during the trial? If not, why is it appropriate for those men killed to be referred to as victims when the central argument of the whole case was whether they caused the defendant to fire his weapon in self defence? 

[horsefly 4,283]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

The word victim implies that it was undeserved, random or that the person killed had no control over the situation. In a case where the main argument for the defendant is he acted in self defence, I’d say describing the person killed as a victim could be considered as influencing the jury, there’re the judge is well within his rights not to allow it. 

Ridiculous! We describe people as victims of accidents all the while. The judge has no idea whether the men killed were "rioters" or "protesters" (indeed "rioters" don't tend to take skateboards to a protest) and more importantly Rittenhouse had not the slightest idea whether the men he killed were rioters or protesters. A truly impartial judge would have banned the use of  either term or allowed both.

 

[Fen Canary 789]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Ridiculous! We describe people as victims of accidents all the while. The judge has no idea whether the men killed were "rioters" or "protesters" (indeed "rioters" don't tend to take skateboards to a protest) and more importantly Rittenhouse had not the slightest idea whether the men he killed were rioters or protesters. A truly impartial judge would have banned the use of  either term or allowed both.

 

Protesters don’t take a gun to a demonstration either. The kid had no idea whether they were rioters or protesters granted,, however Rosenbaum had told him he’d kill any of those  guarding properties if he caught them alone, and he then chased him along with a man who was armed when he did catch the defendant alone.

[horsefly 4,283]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Were those people not rioting?

Would you think it appropriate for the prosecution to refer to the defendant as “the murderer” during the trial? If not, why is it appropriate for those men killed to be referred to as victims when the central argument of the whole case was whether they caused the defendant to fire his weapon in self defence? 

Oh dear! The fact you used a question mark in "Were those people not rioting?" makes one of my points perfectly. You have no idea whether they were rioters or legitimate protesters, and neither did Rittenhouse, nor the judge. The fact that one of them had a skateboard suggests he was hardly there to riot or loot.

As for your second question, that is just plain idiotic and possibly the worst example of an attempt at a straw-man argument that I have ever seen. Of course no one is going to allow the defendant to be referred to as " the murderer", utterly ridiculous. "Victim" does not imply they were murdered in the slightest, hence we have the expression "victim of circumstance". If he was worried that the jury might mistakenly take the use of "victim" to imply they were murdered he could have simply directed the jury not to do so (such directions happen in trials everywhere on a daily basis).The point you keep failing to address is that the judge allowed them to be called "rioters" but not "victims", and that was clearly unjustified bias. He could have banned the use of either term if he wished to remain impartial, he chose not to.

[Fen Canary 789]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! The fact you used a question mark in "Were those people not rioting?" makes one of my points perfectly. You have no idea whether they were rioters or legitimate protesters, and neither did Rittenhouse, nor the judge. The fact that one of them had a skateboard suggests he was hardly there to riot or loot.

As for your second question, that is just plain idiotic and possibly the worst example of an attempt at a straw-man argument that I have ever seen. Of course no one is going to allow the defendant to be referred to as " the murderer", utterly ridiculous. "Victim" does not imply they were murdered in the slightest, hence we have the expression "victim of circumstance". If he was worried that the jury might mistakenly take the use of "victim" to imply they were murdered he could have simply directed the jury not to do so (such directions happen in trials everywhere on a daily basis).The point you keep failing to address is that the judge allowed them to be called "rioters" but not "victims", and that was clearly unjustified bias. He could have banned the use of either term if he wished to remain impartial, he chose not to.

I see this has descended into one of usual bouts of pedantic nonsense, so you can argue with somebody else, if they can be ar$ed dealing with you. 

[horsefly 4,283]

11 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Protesters don’t take a gun to a demonstration either.

Unless they need to defend themselves against the likes of Rittenhouse armed with AR-15s. And there-in lies the fundamental reason why Rittenhouse should not have been there toting an illegal military weapon, as the Police requested. After this judgement every protester has a reason to arm themselves to protect themselves from vigilantes like Rittenhouse, and now they have the further legal justification for shooting anyone that raises a weapon in their direction. Utter madness!

[TheGunnShow 5,930]

The textbook case of "the law is an a-s-s" or, if we're being more charitable, a decision that is as the letter of the law, but probably not the spirit of the law. Let's face it, anyone who travels twenty miles to ostensibly protect a car showroom but was told not to, then basically stirred s-h-i-t and fired "in self-defence" when they reacted, then fake-cried in the courtroom, was not there for noble purposes.

When some say "but he shot a paedophile", that's irrelevant unless he caught the paedo in flagranti.

Edited November 21, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[horsefly 4,283]

8 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I see this has descended into one of usual bouts of pedantic nonsense, so you can argue with somebody else, if they can be ar$ed dealing with you. 

As ever, you can't deal with a substantive argument so resort to your standard snowflake whining about "pedantry". Try looking the word up so you can use it with it's proper meaning. The points I made are "substantive" (look that up too) points about legal process which you have not got an answer to.

Edited November 21, 2021 by horsefly