15
   

Kyle Rittenhouse question

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 02:30 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
He doesn't have the capacity for remorse. There's no redemptive measures other than incarceration at this point.

Progressive tyranny never fails to appall.


neptuneblue wrote:
And yes, if it were MY kid who killed two people, that child would be involuntarily mentally institutionalized for a very long time.

I'm sure that you'd try to perpetrate such abuse. But the courts would protect your kid and not allow you to do it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 02:33 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
1. You are presenting opinions as facts.

No she isn't. (I'm assuming "she" due to "gal" in the ID.)


maxdancona wrote:
2. You are ignoring any fact that doesn't fit your ideological point. Even looking at testable facts, if you only look at the ones that support your extreme viewpoint you aren't getting a rational picture.

If you believe that relevant facts are not being addressed, the solution is for you to present an argument that those facts are relevant and should be addressed.


maxdancona wrote:
Take an example. You state that Kyle "did nothing wrong". This is an opinion that I find ridiculous; a 17 year old with an assault rifle in a crowd of people is (in my opinion) very wrong. I can show you that it is illegal but I can get you to change your opinion that there is "nothing wrong" no matter how hard I try.

Instead of nitpicking, just assume that "wrong" was intended to mean "illegal" and present your case for illegality.

Speaking of nitpicking though, here is some of my own: The gun that he carried is not an assault rifle. It is an ordinary hunting and home defense rifle.

And as for opinions, what could possibly be wrong with carrying a rifle in a crowd?


maxdancona wrote:
This "prove my facts wrong" is ridiculous. It is a cheap, stupid, rhetorical trick.

It is a reasonable response when progressives try to claim that someone is wrong while never actually making a case that they are wrong.

Progressives need to back up their claims, or their claims will be dismissed out of hand.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 02:34 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
For Kyle to even be there was idiotic. For him to have a gun was madness.

Really? Why? (Same response both statements.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 03:11 am
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
Q: Why did he bring a medical kit AND a gun?

Because he wanted to help people and be safe while doing it.


Mame wrote:
Q: Why did he shoot 4 times?

Probably because the third shot did not eliminate the threat.


Mame wrote:
Had I been carrying a gun, I would have aimed at his legs to stop him.

You have no business being anywhere near a gun (or anywhere near a keyboard).
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 03:48 am
@oralloy,
No you don't, you like murderers.

Remember how you got so excited after Sandy Hook you needed medical treatment to reattach something.

You support an organisation of child murdering scum the NRA.

You are the very worst.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 04:03 am
@izzythepush,
That is incorrect. Self defense is in no way murder.

Additionally, I was not happy about Sandy Hook, and the NRA does not murder anyone, child or otherwise.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 04:06 am
@oralloy,
Sandy Hook was not self defence.
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 04:39 am
@izzythepush,

a sick **** with a gun has the right to defend himself against an innocent classroom full of kids?

is that what User ignored is trying to say?
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 04:46 am
@Region Philbis,
Sounds like it.

Basically they're saying a white man with a gun should be able to kill whoever he wants and claim self defence.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 08:03 am
Judge to decide on racial slur allegedly uttered by murder suspect in Arbery case

By Jonathan Allen and Rich Mckay

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-decide-racial-slur-allegedly-uttered-by-murder-suspect-arbery-case-2021-11-18/

2 minute read

Nov 18 (Reuters) - A Georgia judge will decide on Thursday whether a jury can hear from Travis McMichael about a racial slur officials say he uttered as Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man, lay dying from shotgun blasts fired by McMichael last year.

Travis McMichael began testifying in his own defense on Wednesday, taking the stand even though it opened him up to questioning by prosecutors who have said they might ask him about evidence he had "racial animus" against Black people.

Travis McMichael, 35, his father, Greg McMichael, 65, and their neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan, 52, all white men, are charged with murder, along with other crimes, in the Feb. 23 slaying of Arbery in their mostly white neighborhood just outside coastal Brunswick.

The McMichaels told police that they chased Arbery in a pickup truck because they thought he looked like a burglar, and Bryan joined the chase after they went by his driveway.

Defense lawyers have said the men were trying to stop Arbery under a now-repealed Georgia citizen's arrest law, and the younger McMichael shot him in self defense. The McMichaels and Bryan face life in prison if convicted of murder.

Cellphone video of the shooting taken by Bryan was widely seen on the internet about two months after Arbery's death and caused a national uproar before charges were ultimately brought.

Speaking on the verge of tears as he took the stand on Wednesday, Travis McMichael said Arbery tried to take his weapon.

"I shot him. He had my gun," Travis McMichael said. "It was a life or death situation."

In a court hearing in June 2020, a special agent with the Georgia Brueau of Investigation (GBI) said that co-defendant Bryan said in an interview that Travis McMichael uttered a racial slur as Arbery lay dying.

On Wednesday, Travis McMichael's attorney Jason Sheffield asked the court to prevent prosecutors from asking about the reported slur unless they could give a "good faith" reason why it was relevant. Judge Timothy Walmsley said he would consider the matter first thing on Thursday, before Travis McMichael is slated for a second day of testimony.


Reporting by Rich McKay in Atlanta and Jonathan Allen in New York; Editing by Donna Bryson and Richard Pullin
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 08:12 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Region Philbis wrote:
a sick **** with a gun has the right to defend himself against an innocent classroom full of kids?
is that what User ignored is trying to say?

Sounds like it.

Nonsense. I never said anything even remotely like that.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 08:53 am
@oralloy,
Liar.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 09:05 am
@izzythepush,
The only people here who are lying are you and Region Philbis.

Shame on you for falsely accusing me of your own dishonesty.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 10:13 am
The Truth About Kyle Rittenhouse’s Gun

Quote:
I’ve spent the past couple of weeks riveted by the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the white teenager who shot and killed two people and injured a third during a night of Black Lives Matter protests and civil unrest in Kenosha, Wis., last year.

It was a turbulent case. For many days the prosecution was on the ropes — some of the state’s witnesses seemed to bolster the defense’s case that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, while the crotchety judge frequently sided with the defense and blew up at prosecutors. After Rittenhouse began sobbing on the stand last week, it looked as if he’d be certain to walk.

But on Monday, the lead prosecutor, Thomas Binger, offered a meticulously documented closing argument that deftly summarized all the ways Rittenhouse acted unlawfully. We’ll see if the jury buys it, but to me, Binger’s argument had a power beyond this case.

That’s because it cleverly unraveled some of the foundational tenets of gun advocacy: That guns are effective and necessary weapons of self-defense. That without them, lawlessness and tyranny would prevail. And that in the right hands — in the hands of the “good guys” — guns promote public safety rather than destroy it.

In the Rittenhouse case, none of that was true. At every turn that night, Rittenhouse’s AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle made things worse, ratcheting up danger rather than quelling it. The gun transformed situations that might have ended in black eyes and broken bones into ones that ended with corpses in the street. And Rittenhouse’s gun was not just a danger to rival protesters. According to his own defense, the gun posed a grave threat to Rittenhouse himself — he said he feared being overpowered and then shot with his own weapon.

This is self-defense as circular reasoning: Rittenhouse says he carried a rifle in order to guarantee his safety during a violent protest. He was forced to shoot at four people when his life and the lives of other people were threatened, he says. What was he protecting everyone from? The gun strapped to his own body, the one he’d brought to keep everyone safe.

The shootings took place more than a year ago, in the pre-election, post-George Floyd, Covid-soaked summer of 2020. Near the end of August, a Kenosha police officer shot a Black man named Jacob Blake, leaving him partly paralyzed. The small city erupted in large protests that quickly turned violent and riotous.

The scene on the night of Aug. 25, 2020, had the makings of a classic gun-rights fantasy. An unruly mob had descended on private businesses. One such business was Car Source, an auto dealership with three locations in Kenosha. Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time and a resident of Illinois (his father lived in Kenosha), said he had come with a friend to protect Car Source on the invitation of the owner. He said he’d chosen a military-style rifle over a pistol because he believed he could not legally possess a pistol and, he conceded, in part because the rifle “looked cool.”

By the time Rittenhouse arrived, more than a hundred vehicles on a sales lot owned by Car Source had been set on fire. There were burning trash cans on the streets. Gunfire rang out often. Officers in riot gear and armed with tear gas were in control of much of the city, but there were sections where the police pulled back. It was here that the people with rifles took a stand against what they saw as a mob.

But as many witnesses testified, the rifles weren’t very helpful at all. Rittenhouse and others in his group said they didn’t intend to kill people that night; the main reason they brought the big guns, they said, was to deter attacks. That backfired. The guns seemed to invite conflict. Drew Hernandez, a right-wing internet personality who was covering the demonstrations, testified that when “rioters” spotted the men with guns, “they immediately attempted to agitate them, to try and start some conflict with them.”

Later that night, Rittenhouse left the car dealership and his armed peers and found himself in a crowd of strangers he suspected might be hostile to him. The prosecution says the killing began when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Joseph Rosenbaum, an unarmed, 36-year-old protester, prompting Rosenbaum to run after him in an effort to stop a potential shooting. Rittenhouse denies provoking the attack; he says that Rosenbaum and another man, Joshua Ziminski, who was armed with a handgun, “ambushed” him, and chased him when he tried to run away.

Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, but the man kept coming. In order to claim self-defense as a justification for shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had to have believed that Rosenbaum posed an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to him. Binger asked Rittenhouse how he could have believed that — Rosenbaum “didn’t have any weapon of any kind, correct?”

“Other than him grabbing my gun, no,” he answered.

It’s a telling response — Rittenhouse’s main worry was his own firearm. As Rosenbaum closed in, Rittenhouse said it became clear to him that Rosenbaum wanted to take the rifle — and if he got it, Rittenhouse said, he would have “killed me with it and probably killed more people.” Rittenhouse fired four shots in quick succession, killing Rosenbaum, just as he said it seemed that Rosenbaum lunged for the weapon.

Chaos ensued. Rittenhouse ran, and people who had just seen him shoot Rosenbaum begin to go after him. At some point Rittenhouse stumbled, and while he lay on the road, an unidentified man jumped and kicked him in the head. Rittenhouse shot at “jump kick man” — as he was often called during the trial — but missed. A 26-year-old named Anthony Huber attempted to smash his skateboard on Rittenhouse’s head. Rittenhouse shot Huber in the chest. He died.

Finally, Rittenhouse was met by Gaige Grosskreutz, an E.M.T. who testified he firmly believed in the right to bear arms and prepared for that night like any other: “It’s keys, phone, wallet, gun.”

Grosskreutz said he had rushed to the scene to provide medical help; as he ran, he’d drawn his own gun, thinking that Rittenhouse was an “active shooter.” Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz squared up, face to face, each lethally armed. But Grosskreutz hesitated. After pointing his gun at Rittenhouse, he testified, he decided that he could not take another human’s life. Rittenhouse had no such qualms. He fired, hitting Grosskreutz in his right biceps.

After all this mayhem, all this death, what use were the guns that night?

The guns failed to deter attacks against their owners. According to the defense, Rittenhouse’s gun was a reason Rosenbaum pursued him. And Grosskreutz’s gun was the reason Rittenhouse shot him.

The guns failed any notion of proportionality or moderation. Prosecutors pointed out that Rittenhouse quickly fired four shots at Rosenbaum. Even if Rittenhouse felt genuinely threatened by Rosenbaum, why hadn’t Rittenhouse stopped shooting after the first shot, which could have immobilized Rosenbaum without killing him? (A defense “use of force” expert implied that the gun shot too quickly for him to pause and reassess the threat between shots.)

If you believe Rittenhouse’s defense, the gun also failed at a more basic level, that of ordinary product safety. Rittenhouse had his rifle strapped to his body but was still worried that it could be taken from him. How useful is a gun that can be pulled away from you by a guy who is also hitting you with a skateboard?

And finally, the guns failed at their most vaunted purpose, helping the good guys fight the bad guys. If Rittenhouse was your good guy, what good did his gun do him? How did it help anyone in the community he was trying to protect? It got two people killed, one person injured, and Rittenhouse himself facing charges of homicide.

On the other hand, it looked cool.

nyt/manjoo
Mame
 
  6  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 10:28 am
Thank you. That answers a few of the questions I had.
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2021 11:53 am
@Mame,
Mame wrote:

Thank you. That answers a few of the questions I had.


For me also.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2021 12:21 pm
There is NO justice!
Walked around with a rifle shot three people killed two and laughed about it.

There was never any doubt in my mind that Kyle Rittenhouse would be found Not Guilty on all charged. If he were black he never would have made it to trail.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2021 12:23 pm
Bismillah! We will let you go!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2021 12:24 pm
@jcboy,
Of course there is justice. He shot them in self defense.

Progressives need to learn to stop attacking people.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Martin/Zimmerman Case: Jury Selection - Discussion by gungasnake
The Slender Man Murder Case - Discussion by tsarstepan
Three cheers for the FBI. - Discussion by izzythepush
Chicago now a war zone - Discussion by gungasnake
Solving bank robberies the hard way... - Discussion by gungasnake
Flouri-DUH vs Shellie Zimmerman - Discussion by gungasnake
Stealing pop and skittles - Discussion by gungasnake
DB Cooper may be in FBI's sights - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 02:32:15