Thought for the Day

[Nick Danger]

So intent or motive has no force in law? The boy was safe at home, but chose to drive into a town, and into that part of town where he knew there was social unrest. He did not go unarmed, but armed, and not wth a stick, a knife or a pistol, but a battlefield weapon normally issued to trained soldiers -he only claimed self-defence after he was attacked by people he provoked by brandishing his locked and loaded weapon, a weapon he had no legal right to possess. It is the case that we cannot, and will never know if one of the men who allegedly attacked him intended to kill him, but we could reasonably assert that, faced with a reckless teenager with a battlefield weapon he was the citizen defending himself.

The evidence proves that there was only one person who killed and injured that night, and he was not even charged with illegal possession of the weapon that caused injury and murder!

Is there any wonder that your legal system has been turned inside out, that you have law enforcement officers who failed to arrest a teenager with a battlefield weapon, who to him had stood by while Kenosha was attacked? Again, and again, intent stands tall, waving a placard 'Guys, watch me do this!'. To leap over that and begin your case in the midde of a conflict which he created for himself, is to select those parts of the law most likely to get the kid off, rather than to punish illegal acts.

The same assumption you choose not to make, others make with regard to the alleged crimes of his victims, suggesting that armed teenagers -hell, anyone- should have the right to go into the 'bad parts of town' and shoot at will and shoot to kill because, hey, those Black kids on the corner are selling drugs and you don't need an assumption of innocence, evidence or any damn thing, just shoot the dipshits, and the law will say 'well done', now go to DC and intern for a loony who shares your love of violent cartoons!

The moment he left the safery of his home and went into a conflict zone with a weapon his intent was clear. Even Clint Eastwood's classics like Dirty Harry have their moments of ambiguity and moral doubt, but in a country where truth is a lie, compromise a failure, the rule of law an irrelevance, a teenage boy who cries without producing tears, who doesn't know the meaing of life and death, for some reason, this is an 'open and shut case' in which there was only one outcome, an interview with Tucker Carlson.

Now ask -what if that teenager in Kenosha that night was Black? He would not be a hero, he would never have had his day in court or an inteview on Fox News, a public congratulation from a former, twice impeached President, and gushing praise from Congressional representatives.

He be dead.

The jury should have consulted you, Stavros. Because see, THEY thought he didn't go into Kenosha to shoot anyone, after hearing ALL THE FACTS of the case and debating them for 3 days. Know why they thought that? Because he DIDN'T shoot anyone until his life was in imminent danger from a mentally ill child molester twice his age who had verbally threatened to kill him, as proved clearly by indisputable video and eyewitness testimony. Unfortunately the jury didn't have your keen insight into his repulsive motives to factor into their decision, and they also didn't realize he'd been "brandishing" his weapon, since there is zero evidence of that whatsoever and in fact it was never even brought up, and you are literally just making up your bullshit as you go along.

Also, no one in this story is black, Stavros. Does that bother you? Got a race card to play and can't find anywhere to lay it down?

[broncofan]

The Deplorables!

Speaking of deplorable, let's do a quick rundown of Kyle Rittenhouse's victims:

Joseph Rosenbaum - convicted of molesting FIVE children, just out of mental hospital that very day, engaged in attempted murder and instigating a riot at time of death

Anthony Huber - twice convicted for domestic violence, charged with three felonies for strangling, kicking, and falsely imprisoning his own sister, engaged in attempted murder and instigating a riot at time of death

Gaige Grosskreutz - has at least one undisclosed expunged felony conviction, convicted of domestic violence against his own grandmother in 2010, charged with domestic violence and felony burglary in 2012, engaged in attempted murder, illegal possession of a handgun, and instigating a riot at time of death

But of course it wouldn't be fair to talk about what scumbags those 3 dipshits were without talking about the life of Kyle Rittenhouse, a high school student with no criminal past who also holds down a part-time job and is active in several local police organizations' cadet programs, with a stated goal of pursuing a career in law enforcement as an adult. Yeah, what an asshole.

Kyle Rittenhouse-a 17 year old who was not convicted of punching a girl but was videotaped doing exactly that. A kid who posed with literal neo-nazis from the proud boys and flashed a white power sign in the photograph with them. Yes it's the okay sign but they use the okay sign to signify white power because of its supposed ambiguity (it's not ambiguous when you pose with the proud boys and flash it). His three victims had checkered pasts but he's not exactly off to a great start either. Didn't he also impersonate an emt? I didn't think it was especially relevant to the verdict, which is why I only said in a separate post that neo-nazis in your party were celebrating. Guys like mr. camp counselor at auschwitz from January 6th. Basement dwelling white people who dream of killing every minority in this country and think Rittenhouse's acquittal was a referendum on their plans.

They were called deplorables because they create twitter usernames like diejewdie (I received an email from twitter once that diejewdie hadn't broken their rules). Yes they are pieces of shit and I think Kyle, the dry heave cryer, might turn out the same way but I hope not.

Despite this I watched the video and think he was in danger at both points he started firing his gun.

Stavros, intent matters in criminal law, and motive can be used when there's a question as to the identity of the perpetrator to show the defendant was likely that person. But motive is not an essential element of a crime. Intent is more narrow and specifically refers to whether someone intended an action, a consequence, or was merely reckless. I could be wrong about the legal result but I was shocked when I saw the video of what occurred.

[broncofan]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-r...kness-n1284130

I don't often post editorials to speak for me but this is a decent summary I think. It has a hyperlink in it on the words "permissive law" that goes into further depth about the self-defense jury instruction. But I agree with most if not all of this article.

[Nick Danger]

Kyle Rittenhouse-a 17 year old who was not convicted of punching a girl but was videotaped doing exactly that. A kid who posed with literal neo-nazis from the proud boys and flashed a white power sign in the photograph with them. Yes it's the okay sign but they use the okay sign to signify white power because of its supposed ambiguity (it's not ambiguous when you pose with the proud boys and flash it). His three victims had checkered pasts but he's not exactly off to a great start either. Didn't he also impersonate an emt? I didn't think it was especially relevant to the verdict, which is why I only said in a separate post that neo-nazis in your party were celebrating. Guys like mr. camp counselor at auschwitz from January 6th. Basement dwelling white people who dream of killing every minority in this country and think Rittenhouse's acquittal was a referendum on their plans.

Pretty sure some of that information is highly questionable. I'm white and I for one have never been taught the hand signal for white power.

Serious question, Bronco, and I know you're only liberal-leaning and not a full-on retard but I'm sure you must have some negative opinion about Tucker Carlson. Do me a favor and ignore that for a moment. At a minimum we can agree that TC is highly-educated. He said Kyle Rittenhouse would be a fool not to sue President Biden for publicly calling him a white supremacist. Kyle's attorney came right out of the gate after the trial slamming Biden for the same thing, before he even thanked God and the Academy.

So there you have at least two well-informed guys who seem to think the evidence that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist is pretty weak - weak enough to take it to court. Yet you present it as fairly incontrovertible. I have no opinion on the matter, though I've read that the Proud Boys denounce white supremacy. And since all enemies of the Democratic Party's agenda to spend all of this country's money for the next 20 years while they have the reins of power are now demonized in the liberal media as "white supremacists," it wouldn't surprise me if that's true.

Legal opinion?

[broncofan]

Pretty sure some of that information is highly questionable. I'm white and I for one have never been taught the hand signal for white power.

Serious question, Bronco, and I know you're only liberal-leaning and not a full-on retard but I'm sure you must have some negative opinion about Tucker Carlson. Do me a favor and ignore that for a moment. At a minimum we can agree that TC is highly-educated. He said Kyle Rittenhouse would be a fool not to sue President Biden for publicly calling him a white supremacist. Kyle's attorney came right out of the gate after the trial slamming Biden for the same thing, before he even thanked God and the Academy.

So there you have at least two well-informed guys who seem to think the evidence that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist is pretty weak - weak enough to take it to court. Yet you present it as fairly incontrovertible. I have no opinion on the matter, though I've read that the Proud Boys denounce white supremacy. And since all enemies of the Democratic Party's agenda to spend all of this country's money for the next 20 years while they have the reins of power are now demonized in the liberal media as "white supremacists," it wouldn't surprise me if that's true.

Legal opinion?

I said he posed with the proud boys and gave an okay gesture which is used by them to signify white power. The reason they chose a gesture as mundane as the okay sign is because it gives them the opportunity to gaslight those who point it out. They can post pictures of other people using the okay sign to mean okay and then ask "is he a white supremacist?" But it's kind of weird to pose for pictures using it and the context makes it pretty clear what they're doing. https://www.adl.org/education/refere...y-hand-gesture

I did not say Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist (maybe he didn't know what the gesture meant) but if he sues anyone for saying he is he better be careful because the discovery process is very thorough.

The proud boys are white supremacists. They claim they're not and they have one or two minority members but the theories they espouse are the underpinnings of white supremacy. I'm comfortable calling them that. Their members wear shirts that say six million isn't enough and I'm also comfortable calling them neo-nazis, who also will occasionally admit minority members for plausible deniability. You should really look them up. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/

I know fact-checking sites are inherently liberal but here's what a fact-checking site has to say about the proud boys 6mwe meaning.

[Nick Danger]

I said he posed with the proud boys and gave an okay gesture which is used by them to signify white power. The reason they chose a gesture as mundane as the okay sign is because it gives them the opportunity to gaslight those who point it out. They can post pictures of other people using the okay sign to mean okay and then ask "is he a white supremacist?" But it's kind of weird to pose for pictures using it and the context makes it pretty clear what they're doing. https://www.adl.org/education/refere...y-hand-gesture

I did not say Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist (maybe he didn't know what the gesture meant) but if he sues anyone for saying he is he better be careful because the discovery process is very thorough.

The proud boys are white supremacists. They claim they're not and they have one or two minority members but the theories they espouse are the underpinnings of white supremacy. I'm comfortable calling them that. Their members wear shirts that say six million isn't enough and I'm also comfortable calling them neo-nazis, who also will occasionally admit minority members for plausible deniability. You should really look them up. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/proud-boy-6mwe/

I know fact-checking sites are inherently liberal but here's what a fact-checking site has to say about the proud boys 6mwe meaning.

Okay I looked into a couple of things. Agreed, the Proud Boys are a fairly wretched bunch. I kinda get the impression the racism is just another excuse to get into a bit of the old ultra-violence, one pundit called them a "far right fight club," just a bunch of young thugs really.

I also, though, found an item in the New York Post that says that the OK hand signal is just a hoax perpetrated by 4chan and that it's not actually anything at all besides the OK hand signal - https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/10-deb...nhouse-devine/ - and I'm aware the NYP is a right-wing publication, yes.

In that same part of the article it says it was just a chance encounter in a bar with those guys as well, and he posed for photos with others. Also says the FBI searched his phone and nada - no white supremacy shit, only pro-police shit, which makes perfect sense for a kid who wants to be a police officer.

I think there will be a lawsuit. Against the President. I can't think of any other reason that would be the very first thing Kyle's attorney brought up after the trial. Kyle himself has nothing to lose and everything to gain, he's a footloose 18-year-old international celebrity now with only moderate PTSD from the look of it. Time to cash in.

[Stavros]

Despite this I watched the video and think he was in danger at both points he started firing his gun.

Stavros, intent matters in criminal law, and motive can be used when there's a question as to the identity of the perpetrator to show the defendant was likely that person. But motive is not an essential element of a crime. Intent is more narrow and specifically refers to whether someone intended an action, a consequence, or was merely reckless. I could be wrong about the legal result but I was shocked when I saw the video of what occurred.

Thanks for the legal difference between intent and motive, but I think you are missing a paradox in this case that has not been resolved. There had not been any deaths in Kenosha until the boy with his gun arrived, but why is it that he is the person claiming self-defence and not his three victims? Could it not be argued, from their perspective, that when they saw him on the street with heavy artillery it was they who acted in self-defence, and was it also not reasonable for them to assume he not only paraded his weapon in public, but did so with the intention of using it- on them?

From this perspective, it was KR who created the dynamics that led directly to two deaths and one injury.

In addition, you must surely factor in the depressing reality that you Americans allow citizens to carry lethal weapons such as firearms into public spaces, so you cannot then express any reasonable anxiety -or rerget- when they are used -and it is not a fact that for one segment of the American public, that KR had a battlefield weapon and used it is the cause for celebration?

Lastly, and I think this is a key issue, what KR did was not remove the bad buys from the street, but use what is claimed to be his 'Second Amendment Right' to deprive other Americans of their First Amendment right to demonstrate their opposition to the unreasonable conduct of law enforcement officers in Kenosha.

Thus
1) KR created the dynamics that led to injury and death
2) the 2nd Amendment has been used to arm civilians who use it for illegitimate 'law enforcement' regardless of the existence of legitimate and armed police officers at the scene- to support the former must by definition cancel the other = the law ceases to exist as a socially binding mechanism, selfish behaviour replaces it.
3) As I have argued elsewhere, that KR's actions are both illegal and celebrated by supporters in pubic office exposes the crisis of legitimacy that is undermining the Union of 50 States you call the 'US' -if Americans in public office and among the general public do not reclaim their counry for the rule of the law, the Constitution and the Separaton of Powers, you will lose it.

One day you will wake up and law enforcement is not the local police dept, but the Boogaloo Bois, the Oathkeepers, the Proud Boys, and the III Percenters, many of whom are already in the police service and even sew their embles onto their uniforms, so indifferent to terrorism are their commanders. Or maybe they support it?

[Stavros]

I don't know what is more bizarre in the US right now -Mark Meadows suggesting that if the party of Sedition, Sleaze and Lies wins a majority of seats in the House of Representatives in 2022, the twice-impeached liar who is hundreds of milions of dollars in debt will be asked to become Speeaker of the House; or that Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, will become a candidate for the Presidency of the United States in 2024.

Presumably in both cases, because Big Bird and Oprah are not available- ?

[filghy2]

The predictable outcome of the Rittenhouse trial is that every right-wing extremist in the country now thinks they have carte blanche to turn up at left-wing demonstrations and do the same thing. On the off chance they do get convicted, they will still have Tucker Carlson and others turn them into a martyr.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...e-self-defense

[Nick Danger]

The predictable outcome of the Rittenhouse trial is that every right-wing extremist in the country now thinks they have carte blanche to turn up at left-wing demonstrations and do the same thing. On the off chance they do get convicted, they will still have Tucker Carlson and others turn them into a martyr.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...e-self-defense

Does that bother you, Flighty? That the message seems to be, "rioting in the streets is not just fine?"