Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

While you try to be impartial, you don't succeed, imo.
Take one of your latest posts claiming *I* am not impartial, thinking I have taken a position of having a completely neutral political POV.
I can have both a political preference *and* have objective integrity, as do ethical judges in a court of law.

Ignoring my position in regard to gun control, my hatred of big business, my dislike of Trump, my dissatisfaction with the American health system, my not voting for any party, is a classic example of confirmation bias.
You only see what you want to see, and ignore the rest.
Sorry to inform you.

You say I generalise.
Fake news.
I am non-binary.

Do I have to explicitly say, in every sentence, that I don't generalise?
Must I, in every instance, incorporate explicit qualifiers?
Must I, really?
How about you consider my character in totality?

Let me make this clear:
I will never embrace *extremist* left-wing ideology.
I will never embrace *extremist* right-wing ideology. (I am autistic. How could I???)

There is too much I dislike about the progressive side of politics because of its emphasis on "feelings" and collectivism, rather than individuality, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, reason and critical thinking.
There is too much emphasis, from conservative politics, on satisfying big business.
As you can see, I have more problems with left-wing ideology.

Something/k else you should know.
American conservatives and Australia conservatives are *not* the same animal.
Please keep this in mind.

My understanding, after watching a video where he was interviewed, is that the first lawyers involved were interested in the bond money, rather than getting him out of gaol.

Regarding: "it;s funny his only supporters seem to be weirdos"
*I* support him. Am *I* a weirdo?
Don't answer that.

Some people simply ignore the facts.

I don't want to rattle you, but you generalize right here. You insist on mixing me up with other posters and/or reading things I am not saying into my posts. Right here you attribute to me things I have not said. I know your more progressive positions and recognize them, but that isn't the question. You can say all you want that you don't generalize, but then I SEE you do it. You are human; you aren't exempt from normal human behavior; that isn't a slur. What I want you to do is accurately recognize that sometimes your own reactions and patterns run contrary to your own stated goals and beliefs.



I am not sure you are aware of this, but the single most unifying factor among American "conservatives" at this point in time is not any political ideology, but a simple hatred and distrust of liberals. In this country, staking out a stance that one could never, ever align with the progressives is as strongly partisan as can exist at the moment, as weird as that may sound.

I want to go back to an earlier conversation, about when carrying a weapon can be seen as provocative. Then weave in the discussion about how being shot from a riffle or high velocity weapon is different than being shot from a pistol or low velocity weapon.

Carrying an AR 15 or other highly visible high velocity weapon I believe is more visually provocative than a smaller or concealed weapon. If I understand the ballistics discussion correctly, most of these "big guns" are also much more lethal to their victims than a pistol would be. Isn't the logical conclusion, then, that I SHOULD be more scared of the high velocity weapon? Which brings me back to my point on self-defense: if a person is truly interested in self-defense, and not interested in making a visually provocative statement, why sling the big riffle?

That's very subjective, as the person choosing to openly carry a rifle may be doing so in order to deter rather than provoke violence, as in the case of the Korean shopkeepers defending their stores during the LA riots.



Only if you're planning on doing something that might get you shot, the relative lethality of the round is largely academic if you're not engaging in a conflict with the armed person. It's kinda like seeing a guy walking around with a baseball bat vs a guy with a katana; the katana might do more damage to you, but if you don't plan on picking a fight with either, it doesn't really matter.



Well, it this case it would have been illegal for Rittenhouse to carry a pistol, you have to be 21 for that, and also rifles are much easier to shoot, you have a third point of contact on the weapon in the form of the buttstock that allows for more control, the recoil comes straight back into your shoulder allowing for faster follow up rather than flipping like a pistol, you can deploy a sling for retention and optics for better accuracy, the capacity is higher if you're dealing with multiple assailants, plus you have more powerful rounds available. The only reason to carry a pistol rather than a rifle is convenience and concealment, otherwise the rifle is just a better weapon across the board, in the military context pistols are really just an afterthought.

it's interesting that the bulwark of Kyle supports meticulously avoid the whole "17 year old breaks a curfew and illegally possesses an loaded AR-15 and walks into warzone". The whole reason he bought the gun was because he "wanting to shoot looters". What does everyone expect? He wanted to sit down and have tea and crumpets with BLM?

The protestors saw Kyle carrying a weapon (first provocation) and after the first killing everyone in the crowd legitimately saw Kyle as an active shooter (regardless of what the armchair psychologists claim).

Many of the protestors scattered not wanting to get shot by Kyle, a few did follow him because they wanted to disarm him. Why? because there is a precedence. The right wing erased the memory of Heather Heyer who was an innocent protestor murdered by a right winger named James Fields Jr at Charlottesville. But for protestors at Kenosha, they were acutely aware that militia present at the protests could easily turn rogue and fire on protestors as happened in Charlottesville,. Their actions were to disarm. Otherwise why didn't they attack all the other armed militia (who I again stress vanished the moment Kyle went trigger happy).

The sudden disappearance of Kyle's minders from the Kenosha militia is damning, they clearly didn't want to associate with a shooter.

The purpose of the armed militia at Kenosha had nothing to do with protecting property. Everybody knows that. it was just like Charlottseville. To hide behind the constitutional right to bear arms in order to intimidate and provocation for BLM protestors to do something dangerous.

I doubt either would have killed him, They would have disarmed him (and perhaps punched him a bit) and held him down till the police got there. But I would hazard a guess that the MAGAs championing Rittenhouse's armed vigilanteism would have turned the tables and painted Huber and Grosskreutz as terrorists not heroes.

Ahh, so we're back to "is cyberdad dumb or dishonest?" again, as this was resolved both at trial, and in this thread multiple times already, the weapon being legal for him to possess, and the curfew charge being dismissed as inapplicable to the situation. Also, fleeing from aggression until being forced to shoot is hardly the behavior of someone who wanted to shoot anyone, but apparently that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

So, what is it, dumb or dishonest?

The judge chose to dismiss the charge of breaking a curfew despite the fact the City of Kenosha imposed an 8pm curfew emergency order which Kyle knowingly broke. This smacked of bias from the judge.

Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting or when supervised by an adult in target practice or instruction in the proper use of a dangerous weapon. Again judge Schroeder showed his bias by claiming Wisconsin law was confusing (his words) so dismissed the charge.

I know the judges ruling was final but that doesn't mean they were correct. Don't pretend his verdict is on par with god because you and I both know it wasn't, Kyle just got lucky.

But let's say for example that Grosskreutz felt him having a gun pointed at him felt he was in danger and he managed to shoot first before Rittenhouse, and killed Rittenhouse as a result. Would he still not be prosecuted and hailed as a hero by the prosecutor's office?

I think once they disarmed Rittenhouse then others in the vicinity would have rushed in to help pin him down and call the cops. Remember people in the vicinity were scared because Rittenhouse was armed and he had just killed Rosenbaum. The claim that Huber or Grosskreutz would have killed him is based on Kyle's panic which is a one-sided narrative deliberately designed to paint Kyle's victims as terrorists.

But I mean say they did kill Kyle. Not would have they, etc. Say they did. Then what would have happened to them legally?

They would be recognised as trying to disarm an armed person who just killed somebody and in the process kyle's firearm discharged then probably self-defense.

On the other hand if they a) disarmed kyle and b) pummelled him with a crowbar then probably murder

Given how easy it is for some people to decide a person is picking a fight just by existing, seeing someone armed does make me scared. Why would they display a weapon if they weren't already assuming that someone might pick a fight with them? In my experience, people find what they are looking for. Since I don't want them to find that fight in me, I consider it safest to not share any air at all with them.



None of these details would come into my mind if I saw a young male with a riffle. What would come to mind is that he has the capacity to kill me and wants me to know it.

Bringing a weapon like that into my world is inherently provocative simply because of how I would view it. Even if he had no intent to provoke, my view would be just as valid as his. Quite a tangle, isn't it? Obviously the law picks sides because it has to, but wise people consider how others may view their actions, and not just their own intentions.

The job of the police and prosecutors is to determine if there is a strong possibility of a crime, and if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

I think there would have been pressure to at least bring it to trial, regardless of who did the shooting. If group A wasn't shouting for blood, group B would have been.

I also believe there would have been a case for self-defense by the second or third individuals, if they had ended up being the ones doing the shooting. The situation there that night really was that tangled.

When push comes to shove, stay as far away as possible from civil unrest that has ceased to be peaceful.