Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Yeah. A defense attorney friend of mine had this to say, which I agree with:

“This case was about one defendant in one set of facts. It is not about anything else, and should not be painted as such. A serious jury deliberated, reached a verdict and delivered it. It should be respected and not made a stalking horse for the brazen claims of either side.”

Would anybody have been shot if this impressionable child had not been there with his gun, and his fantasies of protecting and serving crossing into vigilantism? 

The crowd saw what he did, and reacted appropriately in attempting to disarm and arrest him.  Too bad they got shot for it. 

The case was about one defendant in three shooting incidents.  Each count should have been considered separately.

Time for charges against his mother, perhaps in her home in Antioch, Illinois.

This "one set of facts" occurred in a city inflamed by a police officer grabbing Jacob Blake by his shirt with one hand and firing seven handgun rounds into his back with the other.  No criminal or civil charges were permitted there.  Police in Kenosha later saw Rittenhouse and failed to disarm or arrest him.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Would anybody have been shot if this impressionable child had not been there with his gun, and his fantasies of protecting and serving crossing into vigilantism? 

The crowd saw what he did, and reacted appropriately in attempting to disarm and arrest him.  Too bad they got shot for it. 

The case was about one defendant in three shooting incidents.  Each count should have been considered separately.

Time for charges against his mother, perhaps in her home in Antioch, Illinois.

This "one set of facts" occurred in a city inflamed by a police officer grabbing Jacob Blake by his shirt with one hand and firing seven handgun rounds into his back with the other.  No criminal or civil charges were permitted there.  Police in Kenosha later saw Rittenhouse and failed to disarm or arrest him.

"his lawyers successfully argued that he acted in self defense . . . he feared for his life."  He put himself in such a position, illegally by crossing a state line with a weapon he was too young to own.  Dismissed.  Where were his parents in all this?  Are they ok with his actions?  He gets off Scott Free for killing two people, maiming another.  He becomes a hero of the right, encouraging other young ones to act similarly.  The former prez and the nra want to give him a new gun?  Jesus.  Like JFK said 57 years ago, we're in nut country now".

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

" Like JFK said 57 years ago, we're in nut country now".

It's nut country all right. Everywhere. All living in a misguided fantasy world led by their fearless/ savior leader Donald Trump!

Like this kid. He wanted to be a vigilante hero in some far away town? Why? He obviously read some news and thought these dangerous left wing liberals should be confronted?

Did he think of Trump as his hero?

Said he paid his friend to illegally get him this gun because the gun looked "cool."

"Cool?"

This kid was raised playing violent shoot em up video games according to a few sources.  This must have been a exciting real life shoot em up game to him.

Then illegally underage and illegally owning this gun he crosses state lines with it, fully loads it and thrusts himself into a tense and angry politically motivated protest crowd brandishing this very threatening and powerful rifle.

And when someone lunges at him probably worked up more by seeing this deadly rifle he blows his guts out and kills another and wounds another.

He then walks? 

That's as outrageous as LBJ getting Doug Kinser shooting and killing Mac Wallace off Scott free after a Texas jury found him "guilty of first degree murder!"

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Would anybody have been shot if this impressionable child had not been there with his gun, and his fantasies of protecting and serving crossing into vigilantism?

This is irrelevant. That's the point. It has no bearing on the trial whether you or I believe it or not.

11 hours ago, David Andrews said:

The crowd saw what he did, and reacted appropriately in attempting to disarm and arrest him.  Too bad they got shot for it. 

The jury determined after carefully examining the evidence the crowd didn't act appropriately. You're assuming they did but how is KR going to know they are trying to disarm him? Perhaps they were going to kill him?

 

11 hours ago, David Andrews said:

This case was about one defendant in three shooting incidents.  Each count should have been considered separately.

They were to the best of my knowledge. They could have considered lesser charges also.

 

11 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Time for charges against his mother, perhaps in her home in Antioch, Illinois.

This "one set of facts" occurred in a city inflamed by a police officer grabbing Jacob Blake by his shirt with one hand and firing seven handgun rounds into his back with the other.  No criminal or civil charges were permitted there.  Police in Kenosha later saw Rittenhouse and failed to disarm or arrest him.

I'm sorry but all of this has nothing to do with anything regarding his trial and is EXACTLY WHY juries in other cases have wrongly convicted innocent people. I hope you are never in a trial where a jury is asked to factor "inflamed citizenry" into their decisions.

Don't like the guy, his motivations or actions but I'm confident the jury seriously weighed the evidence presented. The clown show prosecution didn't help either but it was probably going to be a tough road to hoe anyway. The fact is the laws as written are the real problem in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A powerful, rapid fire "killing machine" gun in the hands of an emotionally stunted, hero wanna-be adolescent raised on violent video games and who knowingly illegally acquired and carried this loaded weapon across state lines and thrust himself into the super heightened politically charged crowd of liberals close enough to the protesters to enrage them even more at the sight of him brandishing his deadly, scary and threatening looking AR 15 in their faces?

The boy isn't mentally retarded.

He knew the laws! He purposely violated them.

Of course there will be civil suits by the families of the "victims." Sorry judge, the killed and wounded WERE victims.

Any awarded civil judgments against this violent shoot-em up video raised little fascist will be paid by the Trump following. No worries there either.

What is truly and seriously disturbing to me and of course millions of other Americans ( especially us liberals ) is the dangerous message this acquittal sends to us and all of America imo.

If you thrust yourself right wing antagonistically into high emotion feeling liberal minded and legal protests with a brandished gun in your hand and get close enough to the crowd and incite them further just by your brandishing a gun and a physical confrontation ensues, you can shoot to kill, do so, and get away "scot-free" with it!

The Trump "encouraged confrontation" message mentality era is with us in an unprecedented nationwide way, I'm sorry to say.

What was it Trump once shouted to his worked up rally crowd when he saw a protester in the speaking hall?

Get that guy, beat the crap out of him. I'll pay your legal bills?

Or something very close to that?

We all know where this violence encouraging messaging is born from. Donald Trump!

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

This is irrelevant. That's the point. It has no bearing on the trial whether you or I believe it or not.

The jury determined after carefully examining the evidence the crowd didn't act appropriately. You're assuming they did but how is KR going to know they are trying to disarm him? Perhaps they were going to kill him?

 

They were to the best of my knowledge. They could have considered lesser charges also.

 

I'm sorry but all of this has nothing to do with anything regarding his trial and is EXACTLY WHY juries in other cases have wrongly convicted innocent people. I hope you are never in a trial where a jury is asked to factor "inflamed citizenry" into their decisions.

Don't like the guy, his motivations or actions but I'm confident the jury seriously weighed the evidence presented. The clown show prosecution didn't help either but it was probably going to be a tough road to hoe anyway. The fact is the laws as written are the real problem in this instance.

Well, Bob, in the face of that reasoned argument, I defend your right, or anyone else's, to go out and shoot three people under the same, singular set of facts - one off-camera, and two on.  How does that make you feel?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

Well, Bob, in the face of that reasoned argument, I defend your right, or anyone else's, to go out and shoot three people under the same, singular set of facts - one off-camera, and two on.  How does that make you feel?

This is the core ethical issue relating to the Rittenhouse murders, isn't it?

The focus on the legal technicalities in the Rittenhouse trial deflects from the fact that it is simply morally wrong for citizen vigilantes to go to protest rallies and murder citizens with guns.

The same moral logic applies to people who drive their cars and trucks into crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters.

This kind of vehicular homicide is now legal in some red states, but who among us really believes that it is morally right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

This is the core ethical issue relating to the Rittenhouse murders, isn't it?

The focus on the legal technicalities in the Rittenhouse trial deflects from the fact that it is simply morally wrong for citizen vigilantes to go to protest rallies and murder citizens with guns.

The same moral logic applies to people who drive their cars and trucks into crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters.

This kind of vehicular homicide is now legal in some red states, but who among us really believes that it is morally right?

 

Oh, come now, William.  I have conceded my error, and fully give my assent to the Rittenhouse verdict.  I further wish to thank young Master Rittenhouse for his selfless actions in keeping our property insurance rates down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Well, Bob, in the face of that reasoned argument, I defend your right, or anyone else's, to go out and shoot three people under the same, singular set of facts - one off-camera, and two on.  How does that make you feel?

My point is David that the jury didn't make a finding like that. They're not reading papers or watching TV to determine the facts of the case. Neither you or I have been presented with the evidence and considered it in detail to the extent the jury has. In my experience they usually get it right and in this case it appears the jury seriously considered the circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The focus on the legal technicalities in the Rittenhouse trial deflects from the fact that it is simply morally wrong for citizen vigilantes to go to protest rallies and murder citizens with guns.

The same moral logic applies to people who drive their cars and trucks into crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters.

This kind of vehicular homicide is now legal in some red states, but who among us really believes that it is morally right?

 

The jury in the case isn't being asked to determine the moral ramifications of going to protests with guns. That is an issue with local and state laws that is taken up in different venues, not the trial of Rittenhouse. That's not a "technicality". Anyone suggesting that the larger issues circling the Rittenhouse trial should be considered when determining his guilt or innocence, while understandable, is subscribing to vigilantism themselves while clothing it in righteousness. 

As outrageous as his behavior was, the victims weren't lily-white roses walking their sweethearts home from Sunday School when they happened into him. They were all there illegally, in one way or the other, and although that in itself doesn't justify the use of deadly force the protesters don't have carte blanche to destroy property or confront strangers with guns either. By all appearances every one of the shooting victims could have walked away. I don't know that but that's my impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

The jury in the case isn't being asked to determine the moral ramifications of going to protests with guns. That is an issue with local and state laws that is taken up in different venues, not the trial of Rittenhouse. That's not a "technicality". Anyone suggesting that the larger issues circling the Rittenhouse trial should be considered when determining his guilt or innocence, while understandable, is subscribing to vigilantism themselves while clothing it in righteousness. 

As outrageous as his behavior was, the victims weren't lily-white roses walking their sweethearts home from Sunday School when they happened into him. They were all there illegally, in one way or the other, and although that in itself doesn't justify the use of deadly force the protesters don't have carte blanche to destroy property or confront strangers with guns either. By all appearances every one of the shooting victims could have walked away. I don't know that but that's my impression.

Bob,

     Framing these three Rittenhouse murders as a technical legal issue of self defense misses the larger issue.

     To wit, it should be the job of the police and the courts to enforce our laws, not teenage vigilantes with AR-15s.

     Rittenhouse set himself up as Khmer Rouge style judge, jury, and executioner of three American citizens.

     Even if they were malefactors-- rather than civil rights protesters-- they didn't deserve a Rittenhouse death penalty.

    

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

My point is David that the jury didn't make a finding like that. They're not reading papers or watching TV to determine the facts of the case. Neither you or I have been presented with the evidence and considered it in detail to the extent the jury has. In my experience they usually get it right and in this case it appears the jury seriously considered the circumstances. 

OK, Bob, sorry.

It's too bad the prosecution couldn't defer to a change of venue:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/civil-rights-attorney-says-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-with-a-different-jury-you-would-have-a-very-different-outcome/ar-AAQY6X1?ocid=Peregrine

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once any public event becomes a media narrative...truth goes out the window.  Framing the event is king. 

Think of the narratives post-JFKA, 9/11, 1/6. In the latter days of Afghanistan, the M$M media narrative was that the US and Afghan allies were fighting for gay and women's rights. 

The left-right, blue-red, Donk-'Phants are going at it on Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old boy at the time of his crime.

You know, some events are just ugly and squalid, although the narrative-hounds even more so. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bob,

     Framing these three Rittenhouse murders as a technical legal issue of self defense misses the larger issue.

     To wit, it should be the job of the police and the courts to enforce our laws, not teenage vigilantes with AR-15s.

     Rittenhouse set himself up as Khmer Rouge style judge, jury, and executioner of three American citizens.

     Even if they were malefactors-- rather than civil rights protesters-- they didn't deserve a Rittenhouse death penalty.

    

    

I completely agree but that wasn't what the trial was about. The issue was whether he could be found guilty for the charges the prosecutor came up with. The trial had nothing to do with vigilantes, teenagers or even AR-15s. Juries are carefully instructed about the legal issues involved and are asked to consider facts involving very specific circumstances. Drunk driving kills many people every year and untold tragedies among the families and so on but that has nothing to do with a specific DUI claim against Joe Schmoe.

The jury in this case carefully considered the specific facts that could be ascertained during the event and could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know it for a fact (I wasn't there) but it seems they did their job like they were supposed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...