US Politics: Talk Radio Ravings and Other Mindless Mouthing

[Fury Resurrected]

30 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

What if the people chasing you have a gun?  I've just seen footage on the NY times website (so assume reputable) that indicates one of those chasing him who was shot in the arm had a handgun. What if the people chasing you had just knocked you to the floor from behind (though its possible from the video I've seen that he just fell as the person caught up to him). 

Lets not beat around the bush, the kid was clearly a wannabe LEO nutjob fantasist who had no business being within 100 miles of that situation and his parents (and your whole political system) have a fuckload to answer for, I hope he gets a very long sentence.  But if you want to be on the side of right, don't ignore the facts FFS, that's what they do.

 

 

 

The fact that he managed to shoot three separate people and get shot zero times himself and turn himself in at home bears out that he was not in mortal danger. He may have *thought* so, but that’s only considered enough if you are a cop. He killed two people and maimed one and the kid doesn’t have so much as a black eye. The second guy he killed was trying to save lives and was armed with a skateboard. And every gun dude in America bloviates forever about “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” so after he killed someone in public he should 100% have expected someone else with a gun to try and stop him because that’s the system they think we should have.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Can we ignore all the what ifs and just look at the bare facts of what happened.

That murderer violated curfew, crossed state lines with an assault rifle, he had no license for open carry. Stirred up trouble, and then killed two people and injured a third one. And now claims self defense.

FFS in all seriousness, he was an agent provocateur, and created the circumstance thru his illegal actions in the first place. Thus he cannot seriously claim self-defense.

Question for our American legal scholars. Isn't your criminal definition of murder rather broad, and covers any casualties that occur during your criminal action?

[BigFatCoward]

41 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

The fact that he managed to shoot three separate people and get shot zero times himself and turn himself in at home bears out that he was not in mortal danger. He may have *thought* so, but that’s only considered enough if you are a cop. He killed two people and maimed one and the kid doesn’t have so much as a black eye. The second guy he killed was trying to save lives and was armed with a skateboard. And every gun dude in America bloviates forever about “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” so after he killed someone in public he should 100% have expected someone else with a gun to try and stop him because that’s the system they think we should have.

He was literally being chased by someone with a gun, so by any reasonable definition he was in mortal danger, the fact that he should be in mortal danger as he is a murdering fuckwit is moot. 

I can reasonably see how all the incidents up to that point get a conviction, firearms offences, initial discharge that led to him being pursued etc.  But there is a defence (a poor one that shouldn't be available to him) that may get him off with the final incident depending on the self defence laws in that state.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

22 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

He was literally being chased by someone with a gun, so by any reasonable definition he was in mortal danger, the fact that he should be in mortal danger as he is a murdering fuckwit is moot. 

So a bankrobber shooting a customer is self-defense, because another customer had a gun is a viable defense? I am curious, whether you'd be as generous with the term self-defense, if a stray bullet had hit another copper.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

To the bolded no.

A person lunging at another who was armed does not automatically mean they had a good reason, or acting rationally.

Um, yes it does. People don't just charge a guy with an assault rifle because it seems like a good bit of fun......

Quote

I’ve acknowledged this.

So why are you rationalizing why he wasn't the criminal at every stage, then?

[Gareth]

10 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I can reasonably see how all the incidents up to that point get a conviction, firearms offences, initial discharge that led to him being pursued etc.  But there is a defence (a poor one that shouldn't be available to him) that may get him off with the final incident depending on the self defence laws in that state.

Wisconsin does not have a stand your ground law.  If you look at the charges filed, they were based on Wisconsin statutes: 

"first-degree intentional homicide for the death of 26-year-old Silver Lake resident Anthony Huber, attempted first-degree intentional homicide for the shooting of Gauge Grosskreutz, 26, of West Allis, and first-degree reckless homicide for the death of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, of Kenosha."

Here's the timeline of the shootings according to a reporter who was interviewing Rittenhouse and witnessed the first shooting.  Joseph Rosenbaum was his first victim.  Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at the teenager.  They got into an argument and Rosenbaum was shot when he tried to grab the barrel of the gun after Rittenhouse shot a round into the ground.   Then Rittenhouse ran away while telling someone on his phone that he killed someone.  At this point, people start to chase him.  Thats when he stumbled and fell to the ground.  Then Huber hit him with a skateboard and Rittenhouse shot him.  Grosskreutz was shot with his arms raised while approaching the suspect.  I talked to an ADA in the Kenosha DA office and got clarity on the charges that were filed.  The reckless homicide charge is because its impossible to prove that Rittenhouse intended to kill Rosenbaum.  At no time was Rittenhouse in danger of losing his life and his act caused a man to die.  The first degree intentional homicide charge for shooting Huber is he knew or thought he already killed Rosenbaum so was fleeing from a crime so the defending oneself should not apply.  In other words, his shooting Huber was to get away from being caught.  Likewise with his shooting of Grosskreutz.  Its up to the jury to decide.

[BigFatCoward]

18 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So a bankrobber shooting a customer is self-defense, because another customer had a gun is a viable defense? I am curious, whether you'd be as generous with the term self-defense, if a stray bullet had hit another copper.

I never said it was 'reasonable' self defence, but there are some fucked up laws in the US. 

I was commenting on the fact that KF said you cant shoot someone who is 'chasing' you, someone pursuing you with a gun is a bit more than 'chasing' is it not. 

Self defence being reasonable is a fact for courts decide, who the innocent victim is is irrelevant.  I've purposely not signed a petition in the UK currently gaining traction looking for killers of emergency service workers to be treated more harshly. So no, I wouldn't feel any different if it was a police officer getting shot as I dont think we are special or different to members of the public. 

Your example re comparing this to a bank robbery is week. 

 

 

[Ran]

A lot is going to turn on:

1) Can they show from his social media, private messages, and private conversations that he went to Kenosha with the hope or intent of shooting looters, rioters, or protesters?

2) What led to his being chased by Rosenbaum? Did he do something that led to him inciting an attack against him?

 3) Was it 911 he called, where it’s recorded that he said he shot someone? 
 

4) Was he running to get away from being caught, or was he running to surrender himself to the police?

5) What interactions did he have with the police before he returned to Illinois?

My guess is that the intentional homicide will be dropped or plead down, and the reckless homicide will stand.

[Ser Reptitious]

Can we please stop calling this guy a kid? 

He's an armed thug who went looking for trouble, and found it. That's certainly how it would be framed if the perpetrator was black. But lo and behold, when the perpetrator is white, suddenly he's a "kid" and we are discussing whether he was in fact the true victim here and therefore justified in murdering two people, plus an attempted third one. The mind boggles!

[A Horse Named Stranger]

22 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I never said it was 'reasonable' self defence, but there are some fucked up laws in the US. 

I was commenting on the fact that KF said you cant shoot someone who is 'chasing' you, someone pursuing you with a gun is a bit more than 'chasing' is it not. 

Self defence being reasonable is a fact for courts decide, who the innocent victim is is irrelevant.  I've purposely not signed a petition in the UK currently gaining traction looking for killers of emergency service workers to be treated more harshly. So no, I wouldn't feel any different if it was a police officer getting shot as I dont think we are special or different to members of the public. 

Your example re comparing this to a bank robbery is week. 

 

 

Underlining point is. That guy was there illegally, and carrying a gun illegally. Thus he was engaged in a criminal activity - he even traveled there to go about to engage into his criminal behaviour - The bank robbery analogy - As direct result, he ended in dangerous situation for himself (and more importantly others) - the armed customer. It's basically that argument continued to its (il)logical conclusion.

Hell, at that point I feel like any person of colour in the US preemptively killing a police (wo)men after being stopped has better grounds for a self-defense claim, as fearing for their lives.

[Gareth]

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

A lot is going to turn on:

1) Can they show from his social media, private messages, and private conversations that he went to Kenosha with the hope or intent of shooting looters, rioters, or protesters?

2) What led to his being chased by Rosenbaum? Did he do something that led to him inciting an attack against him?

 3) Was it 911 he called, where it’s recorded that he said he shot someone? 
 

4) Was he running to get away from being caught, or was he running to surrender himself to the police?

5) What interactions did he have with the police before he returned to Illinois?

My guess is that the intentional homicide will be dropped or plead down, and the reckless homicide will stand.

2)  He was not chased by Rosenbaum.  While being interviewed by a reporter, Rosenbaum approached him and threw something at him (the reporter in his statement to the police investigators said it was a plastic bag). 
4)  The attorneys on here can correct me on this.  From my numerous discussions with ADAs and other attorneys, there is a reasonable person argument.  Would a reasonable person who shot someone run away after the act (regardless if it is to get away or to surrender to police)?  Or would a reasonable person stay and surrender himself to the police at the scene?

 

18 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Can we please stop calling this guy a kid? 

He's an armed thug who went looking for trouble, and found it. That's certainly how it would be framed if the perpetrator was black. But lo and behold, when the perpetrator is white, suddenly he's a "kid" and we are discussing whether he was in fact the true victim here and therefore justified in murdering two people, plus an attempted third one. The mind boggles!

Or we can call a teenager, a teenager regardless of race or crime they committed.  

[ants]

12 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

That is actually such a great way to reach out to young voters who aren't particularly enthused about him. I don't think that it would mean extending an immense amount of political capital. This is what we talk about when we talk about speaking to people's material interests. If you can promise something that will objectively make people's lives better, and then you actually deliver on it, you can actually build some support within groups that typically don't vote without alienating those who do.

Are these the young voters who didn't come out for Sanders who had significant plans to wipe away student debt? 

[Ran]

19 minutes ago, Gareth said:

)  He was not chased by Rosenbaum. 

The video says otherwise:

Rosenbaum comes into frame chasing after Rittenhouse, throws his bag at him, and proceeds to chase him onto the car dealership grounds.

NY Times did some interesting sleuthing and noticed that some random person fired a gun up in the air behind Rosenbaum, and that this,is what led Rittenhouse to look back.

 

[Gareth]

My bad.  From this statement, I didn't get the impression he was chased:

According to the criminal complaint, Rittenhouse was speaking to a reporter named Richard McGinnis just before the first shooting at about 11:45 p.m. at a used car lot on the corner of Sheridan Road and 63rd Street.

 

McGinnis told police he was walking with Rittenhouse and warning the teen he was not handling his weapon well. Shortly thereafter McGinnis then saw Rosenbaum and others moving quickly toward Rittenhouse. According to the complaint, Rosenbaum appears to throw a plastic bag at the teenager.

[Ran]

The guy has something wrong or there's a gap of some kind because Rittenhouse comes into frame already running and being chased.

[Fragile Bird]

And once again, where was it that he was “stomped on” by protesters, justifying him shooting three people, killing two? Instead the first victim told him he was being careless with his weapon, tried to grab the gun, and was shot and killed?

Where are all the gun owners who always correct us about whatever we say about guns? What kind of a weapon was he carrying and how does it go off accidentally? 
 

And in other news, 3.9 M American mortgages are in default.

[Ran]

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

And once again, where was it that he was “stomped on” by protesters

I assume that refers to the second shooting incident, where after he falls someone takes a flying kick at him and the second homicide victim tries to hit him with his skateboard, Preceding this, according to the NY Times account, you can hear people shouting things like “Beat him up” and “Get him.”

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

, justifying him shooting three people, killing two? Instead the first victim told him he was being careless with his weapon, tried to grab the gun, and was shot and killed?

No, you need to re-read the complaint. McGinnis was the person talking to him when Rosenbaum chased after him. He is the reason for the reckless endangerment charge, as he was almost hit when Rittenhouse shot at Rosenbaum when the latter chased him onto the lot.

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

He was literally being chased by someone with a gun, so by any reasonable definition he was in mortal danger, the fact that he should be in mortal danger as he is a murdering fuckwit is moot. 

I can reasonably see how all the incidents up to that point get a conviction, firearms offences, initial discharge that led to him being pursued etc.  But there is a defence (a poor one that shouldn't be available to him) that may get him off with the final incident depending on the self defence laws in that state.

Self-defense doesn't mean you get to shoot someone illegally, and then shoot people when they try to disarm you.. Every "stand your ground" law I know of explicitly forbids that.

[Week]

Pretty disheartening to see folks leaping to the defense of a(n alleged) murderer aided and abetted by family to cross state lines with an illegal firearm. He has enough defenders among Trumpets and will actually be afforded his constitutional rights unlike George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and the growing litany of names.

It's impossible to not see the connect at the nexus of Blue Lives Matter, violent attacks by police and Feds on protests, the (in-fucking-sane McCloskeys, and the Right's rhetoric against BLM and protestors. Voicing support for the oppressors is absolutely vile at any time and even moreso now.

[Week]

A good 3 minute recap of some of the lies from Trump's speech (most of which he's been repeating for months and years).

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1299197966687842304