Thought for the Day

[Nick Danger]

I saw the video. He was being attacked by three people. When he shot Rosenbaum, he was being chased by a guy who was looking to harm him. Then he got chased down the street by dozens of people. He shot Huber when Huber attacked him and he shot Grosskreutz who had a gun drawn and who then decided to charge at him after initially surrendering.

I DO think walking around with an AR-15 creates a danger for people, particularly in an already charged situation. I also don't buy that there is any call for him, a shmuck, to protect other peoples' businesses for which he would not have a privilege to use deadly force.

Now about the calibration of force. He was being attacked and I guess when you have a gun drawn the inference is that if you're overtaken your assailant will shoot you. I would not have been where he is doing what he was doing but I have to admit I am not sure he'd have gotten out of there alive without shooting those three. It doesn't please me to say it because I don't think he had any cause to patrol a protest with a weapon like that for reasons that had nothing to do with him.

Allow me to retort. Kenosha was essentially Kyle's hometown, he worked there and his father and best friend lived there and he lived one town over which just happened to be over a state line. You can't really say the thing had nothing to do with him, it's his town. I'll tell you right now, during those riots, there were a lot of people out on the streets armed and making sure the rioters steered clear of their residential neighborhoods. I can GUARANTEE you my old man was out on his porch every night with his shotgun in his lap. So yeah, people can make it their business to stop their town from being destroyed by a mob I think. No, Bronco, disagree?

[broncofan]

Allow me to retort. Kenosha was essentially Kyle's hometown, he worked there and his father and best friend lived there and he lived one town over which just happened to be over a state line. You can't really say the thing had nothing to do with him, it's his town. I'll tell you right now, during those riots, there were a lot of people out on the streets armed and making sure the rioters steered clear of their residential neighborhoods. I can GUARANTEE you my old man was out on his porch every night with his shotgun in his lap. So yeah, people can make it their business to stop their town from being destroyed by a mob I think. No, Bronco, disagree?

I already said that legally the fact that he's walking around with a military weapon probably does not factor into the analysis of whether he had the privilege of self-defense since the people he shot were assaulting him. At least that's what I was taught. The question is whether he had genuine (subjective) and reasonable (objective element) fear of being killed at the time he fired his weapon. I think probably he did.

I own a business. My office has been vandalized. I own a home. Both are insured. I think it's incredibly pointless to walk into the middle of a crowd of angry protesters, some of whom are law-abiding and some of whom are not, carrying a gun because you're looking to protect property.

You do not get to use a gun to protect someone else's business. It's possible you wouldn't get to use that kind of force to protect your own business. Your home? Yes. And the only thing an AR-15 can do is rip holes in people. I don't have to agree with your vigilante bullshit or that ar-15s should be legal. I don't think they should be. You guys really are addicted to guns.

And I doubt you'd be as honest and non-partisan as I'm being if a liberal were in the position he was in.

[Nick Danger]

I already said that legally the fact that he's walking around with a military weapon probably does not factor into the analysis of whether he had the privilege of self-defense since the people he shot were assaulting him. At least that's what I was taught. The question is whether he had genuine (subjective) and reasonable (objective element) fear of being killed at the time he fired his weapon. I think probably he did.

I own a business. My office has been vandalized. I own a home. Both are insured. I think it's incredibly pointless to walk into the middle of a crowd of angry protesters, some of whom are law-abiding and some of whom are not, carrying a gun because you're looking to protect property.

You do not get to use a gun to protect someone else's business. It's possible you wouldn't get to use that kind of force to protect your own business. Your home? Yes. And the only thing an AR-15 can do is rip holes in people. I don't have to agree with your vigilante bullshit or that ar-15s should be legal. I don't think they should be. You guys really are addicted to guns.

And I doubt you'd be as honest and non-partisan as I'm being if a liberal were in the position he was in.

Hey, that's not fair, Bronco, I'm non-partisan on some matters, not so non-partisan on others. When it comes to crime I don't care if a guy's a dipshit or a Republican when the facts are clear.

To be fair, if I had a son, I would not allow him to go protect other people's businesses from an angry mob, whatever the circumstances leading up to the mob becoming an angry one. Regarding young Kyle's motive, my guess is he did what he did to impress girls. Isn't that why all 17-year-old boys do anything they do?

Not for nothing, Bronco, but we don't have that kind of trouble in my area. It could relate to the fact that most people here legally own automatic weapons and hand grenades. Could relate to the fact that we have a world-class police force in a city of <200,000. Or it could relate to the fact that most people around here are conservatives. But I'm guessing it relates to one or more of those facts.

[Stavros]

I already said that legally the fact that he's walking around with a military weapon probably does not factor into the analysis of whether he had the privilege of self-defense since the people he shot were assaulting him. At least that's what I was taught. The question is whether he had genuine (subjective) and reasonable (objective element) fear of being killed at the time he fired his weapon. I think probably he did.

He had no legal right to possess the weapon, he had no legal right to police the streets of Kenosha wth the weapon 'locked and loaded', he had no legal right to kill two people and injure a third. If the policing of the streets of Kenosha is gong to be left to armed teenagers, then defund the police department.

The case offers an irrefutable fact: to defend himself against any and all threats in Kenosha, the boy needed only to stay at home.

By replacing this fundamental context with the subsequent events and the impact of means and opportunity, a reckless teenager is excused from committing a blatant crime. Had the Jury been asked to investigate who this little boy is, what he was committed to politically, his emotional condition on the night, and the evidence of his association with anti-American terrorists, would he have walked? Perhaps, but that might have more to do with the crisis of legitimacy in the US in which truth becomes lies, loyalty becomes treachery, and a murderer becomes a hero.

[Nick Danger]

He had no legal right to possess the weapon, he had no legal right to police the streets of Kenosha wth the weapon 'locked and loaded', he had no legal right to kill two people and injure a third. If the policing of the streets of Kenosha is gong to be left to armed teenagers, then defund the police department.

The case offers an irrefutable fact: to defend himself against any and all threats in Kenosha, the boy needed only to stay at home.

By replacing this fundamental context with the subsequent events and the impact of means and opportunity, a reckless teenager is excused from committing a blatant crime. Had the Jury been asked to investigate who this little boy is, what he was committed to politically, his emotional condition on the night, and the evidence of his association with anti-American terrorists, would he have walked? Perhaps, but that might have more to do with the crisis of legitimacy in the US in which truth becomes lies, loyalty becomes treachery, and a murderer becomes a hero.

[broncofan]

He had no legal right to possess the weapon, he had no legal right to police the streets of Kenosha wth the weapon 'locked and loaded', he had no legal right to kill two people and injure a third. .

The problem is how do we formulate your last conclusion into a legal rule that incorporates the first two points? If someone has committed an initial illegal act they can no longer use force even if they're chased down and attacked? I can think of a bunch of situations where someone should be able to defend themselves even if they first committed an illegal act. If someone's possession of an instrumentality is illegal that instrumentality cannot be used in an act of self-defense? You could always just charge them with possession of the illegal weapon. Then the question becomes whether at the time he fired the gun it was necessary to keep himself from being killed. Otherwise I think we risk sanctioning the idea that someone walking with the gun is provocative enough that attacks on him are inevitable.

Do you think he would have been killed by Rosenbaum if he didn't shoot Rosenbaum? I'm just curious.

[broncofan]

Had the Jury been asked to investigate who this little boy is, what he was committed to politically, his emotional condition on the night, and the evidence of his association with anti-American terrorists, would he have walked?

From looking at social media many of the people supporting him are the most despicable people in this country. That's for sure...

[Nick Danger]

From looking at social media many of the people supporting him are the most despicable people in this country. That's for sure...

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.

[Nick Danger]

He had no legal right to possess the weapon, he had no legal right to police the streets of Kenosha wth the weapon 'locked and loaded', he had no legal right to kill two people and injure a third. If the policing of the streets of Kenosha is gong to be left to armed teenagers, then defund the police department.

The case offers an irrefutable fact: to defend himself against any and all threats in Kenosha, the boy needed only to stay at home.

By replacing this fundamental context with the subsequent events and the impact of means and opportunity, a reckless teenager is excused from committing a blatant crime. Had the Jury been asked to investigate who this little boy is, what he was committed to politically, his emotional condition on the night, and the evidence of his association with anti-American terrorists, would he have walked? Perhaps, but that might have more to do with the crisis of legitimacy in the US in which truth becomes lies, loyalty becomes treachery, and a murderer becomes a hero.

You're a genuinely shitty person, Stavros - wishing life in prison on an innocent 18-year-old. The facts of the case are EXCEEDINGLY AND ABUNDANTLY clear, the jury has spoken, the "victims" were actually the perpetrators, and Kyle Rittenhouse is actually a fine young man. Look in the mirror today, what have you become?

[Stavros]

The problem is how do we formulate your last conclusion into a legal rule that incorporates the first two points? If someone has committed an initial illegal act they can no longer use force even if they're chased down and attacked? I can think of a bunch of situations where someone should be able to defend themselves even if they first committed an illegal act. If someone's possession of an instrumentality is illegal that instrumentality cannot be used in an act of self-defense? You could always just charge them with possession of the illegal weapon. Then the question becomes whether at the time he fired the gun it was necessary to keep himself from being killed. Otherwise I think we risk sanctioning the idea that someone walking with the gun is provocative enough that attacks on him are inevitable.

Do you think he would have been killed by Rosenbaum if he didn't shoot Rosenbaum? I'm just curious.

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.