Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[ajax18]

So you see no problem with the media stirring up a violent and destructive riot over a case where ultimately there wasn't enough evidence of any police malfeasance to even charge the officer?

The media didn't "stir up" anything. This was caught on cellphones and went viral on social media before the media even caught wind of it. What millions of people saw was white cops gunning down a black man from behind in front of a dozen witnesses.

Has anyone died in the aftermath of the Jacob Blake shooting? Has anyone burned down a business you can falsely attribute to BLM? What you and other like minded Nazis don't understand about black Americans is that they're sick and tired of watching black people being murdered by white cops with impunity. Of course, idiots like you will blindly regurgitate right wing media talking points like "he had a knife," but so the F what? Lots of people carry working knives, and obviously he wasn't using it or he would have done so already. And we've seen time and time again how armed white people have literally pointed guns at cops and walk away unscathed.

Jacob Blake had a warrant out for his arrest for digitally raping his ex. She called Officer Sheskey because Jacon Blake broke a restaining order in going to her house again to kidnap a child. Then Blake resisted arrest. I don't agree with rioting, looting, and burning local businesses as an ethical response to police brutality. The Jacob Blake case wasn't even that. If it were officer Sheskey would be in jail and certainly not back on the job. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden visited Blake and swooned over how proud of him they were.

Everyone who Riitenouse shot, including Maurice jump kick man who he missed were criminals. Everyone killed or wounded was white. Grosskreutz went on to get a DUI 2 months after being shot. That didn't stop The View from having him on as a guest of honor.

And yet true to form the Mainstream media is never held accountable for fanning the flames of not so peaceful protest.

[Jersey Girl]

Upcoming Rittenhouse interview...

'Self defense is not illegal': Kyle Rittenhouse speaks for 1st time after verdict | LiveNOW from FOX
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6WxCjcyLYI

[canpakes]

.
A new criteria has been established to qualify candidates for internships with Republican congresscritters: kill someone.

Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) was gleeful about Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal in two shooting deaths on Friday and posted a video on the subject that include him urging his supporters to “be armed, be dangerous.”

Cawthorn said those same people should also “be moral,” before becoming one of many right-wing Republicans to offer the 18-year-old Rittenhouse an internship.

“Kyle, if you want an internship, reach out to me,” read the caption on Cawthorn’s video.

On Wednesday, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said that Rittenhouse, for some reason, would make a “pretty good congressional intern,” and that his office may reach out to the teen to gauge his interest.

Following Rittenhouse’s acquittal, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) tweeted he would “arm wrestle” Gaetz to “get dibs for Kyle as an intern.” Gosar also asked his followers on Twitter if Rittenhouse should get a congressional medal of honor. The teen shot three people, two fatally, at protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, that erupted following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man. 

As for Cawthorn, it’s hardly the first time he has called for violent confrontation.

At a GOP event in August, he warned of “bloodshed” if elections “continue to be rigged.” They are not rigged to begin with.
Last month, he accused American society of aiming to “de-masculate” young men and asked mothers: “If you are raising a young man, please raise them to be a monster.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rittenho ... 98af057030

[Dr. Shades]

In that scenario, an unexpected move would not even justify use of non-lethal force. You don’t get to shoot someone’s because they made an unexpected move toward you.

So far, so good; BUT. . .

The relevant fact isn’t what the aggressors subjective intent actually was or what the defendant subjectively thought the aggressor’s intent was. It’s whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have reasonably concluded that he or someone else was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.

What if the aggressor's attempt at death or serious harm was "unexpected?" Does the above remain true?

Well that's just F'ing great. Here's hoping someone finds him an imminent threat and wastes him in "self-defense."

If he doesn't try to kill anyone, then that's not at all likely to happen.

This F'ing idiotic country.

Does your comment imply that, the next time someone tries to kill you, you plan to make this country less idiotic by just letting them kill you without defending yourself?

I'm disgusted by the laws that would enable him to walk free.

If you were ever found not guilty by a jury of your peers, would you be equally disgusted?

[Gunnar]

I have mixed feelings about his acquittal. On the one hand, he was where he had no business being in the first place, carrying a weapon he was not legally entitled to have, and doing something he had no business doing. I think he deserved to be charged with something. On the other hand, he was an immature, foolish young boy, who was easily deluded by fhe most corrupt and divisive President in history. I'm not entirely sure that he deserves a life long prison sentence for what he probably was convinced was merely trying to save his own life. Nor am I sure that he is entirely unsalvageable. My biggest concern is that his acquittal will inspire numerous other would be vigilantes to think they can get away with what Kyle did or worse, with no undesirable consequences to themselves.

[SirPoopsaLot]

Well at least one Democrat gets it,

Uh, virtually every Democrat I know believed he would be found not guilty. But that is just a testament to the inadequacies of our laws, which need to change. At the very least he should have been held accountable for brandishing a firearm in public but the law in that state provided a loophole for him. In other states he would likely have been found guilty.

Inadequacies of our laws?. What’s scary is you actually believe the crap you’re typing. A 17 year old is being attacked by multiple rioters, one trying to kick him in the head, one trying to bash in his skull with a skateboard and another pointed a gun at him, and somehow you think he should be found guilty of murder?!?! That’s laughable . Two of the people he shot were felons and somehow the progressives are defending the wrong people again. I’m buying another AR15 today just to piss off the progressive beta boys on this forum!!

[Chap]

As an outside observer of the American scene, my impression of the wider issues raised by the Rittenhouse trial can be summed up as follows:

Once you allow people to walk freely on the street, openly carrying loaded firearms that can in less than a second be used to inflict sudden death or serious injury on people within a very wide radius, then in any conflictual and chaotic situation where death by such weapons is actually inflicted by one or more of the participants, the criminal law will face a next to impossible task in reaching a 'beyond reasonable doubt' decision as to who if anyone should bear criminal responsibility for such deaths.

Who thought what, who intended what, who reasonably feared what - in information processing terms the court system is likely to return a "cannot compute" response to the evidential inputs. I am sceptical that any amount of sophisticated legislative architecture that leaves those weapons out there on the streets in the hands of anybody who feels good about carrying them can solve the consequent issues. So long as the guns are there, there is no way round it.

Good luck in finding a way to deal with all that... and I am glad I live in places where this kind of thing is not amongst the issues I have to be concerned about.

[Res Ipsa]

Shades, I don’t understand the question. Aren’t most attempts attempts to kill unexpected?

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Chap]

I have mixed feelings about his acquittal. On the one hand, he was where he had no business being in the first place, carrying a weapon he was not legally entitled to have, and doing something he had no business doing. I think he deserved to be charged with something. On the other hand, he was an immature, foolish young boy, who was easily deluded by fhe most corrupt and divisive President in history. I'm not entirely sure that he deserves a life long prison sentence for what he probably was convinced was merely trying to save his own life. Nor am I sure that he is entirely unsalvageable. My biggest concern is that his acquittal will inspire numerous other would be vigilantes to think they can get away with what Kyle did or worse, with no undesirable consequences to themselves.

That seems to me a reasonable reaction to this complex situation. A legal framework that allows a teenage boy to procure a lethal weapon and then travel to a city not his own to wander round the streets with his gun on display in a time of disorder on some self-appointed mission to 'protect stuff' seems to me to be flatly insane. I doubt very much that when he shot at people he did so on any other basis than that he was scared of what others might do to him - but what kind of mental immaturity does it take for him not to have anticipated that such things might happen in the situation in which he had deliberately inserted himself?

However 'mental immaturity' is the birthright of all of us when we are teenagers. That's why the law should protect us from our own idiocy by preventing us from roaming the streets with loaded guns.