Rittenhouse Trial

[Stahlseele]

yeah, nah, MGuy is right, this is going too far.

[Kaelik]

A person that should not have been there shot three other persons that should not have been there.

Yes, we know you believe that no one should ever protest in support of black lives.

Because the three persons who should not have been there attacked the other person who should not have been there.
Despite a clearly visible semi automatic rifle being carried by that person.

Truly what could have possibly been going through the heads of people who tried to disarm an active shooter with a rifle who had in one case directly threatened them or in other two cases they had already seen him kill someone.

Even if they survived, i would advokate for them to be removed from the gene pool.

We get it, you are big on forced sterilizations. That's been pretty abundantly clear for a while.

Especially the one who had his own handgun and still felt the need to go to hand to hand combat distance with the rifleman.

Indeed, I think we can all agree that an armed person who tried to stop a shooting without doing murder is clearly the bad guy here and we need to double down on crowing about how team nazi is violent enough that they murder people without a second thought as proof that team nazi are the good guys.

And in court he admitted that he was only shot when he went for the other persons rifle and started to aim his own handgun at the rifleman.

This is either a lie or the worst writing possible. He "admitted" that he was shot while trying to disarm the shooter. Not when he was pointing a gun.

Also, how much weight does it carry that the two people who were killed for being stupid enough to pursue somebody who had a clearly visible semi automatic rifle with him for half a mile and then attack that same rifleman were a convicted pedophile sexoffender and the other one also a convicted criminal with a record of violent crimes and threats of burning down the house of his own family with them still in it?

It carries no weight at all that you are doing the "no angel" routine that cops always do for their murders about the nazi murder kid.

We get it, you are just doing a victory lap because you are glad that your side, the nazis, got to get away with some murders, and this makes you happy. But your actual defense is painfully stupid and you could just read the National Review or some other racist screed to find out how put the thinnest possible veil over your gleeful support of nazi murderers, instead of just regurgitating the exact arguments that everyone makes on Stormfront about how it's good to shoot people because they are degenerates.

[PseudoStupidity]

Your opinion of the people who were killed doesn't matter when discussing whether or not Rittenhouse was guilty or innocent, or if he was morally justified in shooting the people he shot given Rittenhouse did not show up with the intent of killing those particular people. Rittenhouse obtained a rifle, went somewhere he would be able to loosely justify using it to murder some people, and then murdered some people. That's what happened, and only dipshits and fascists defend the shooting because of how obviously wrong Rittenhouse was.

Stahl, you may remember there was a whole thing where you posted a nazi video and got called a nazi, spawning a thread about whether or not it's ok to call people nazis (that was then deleted I think?). Have you ever considered creating some space between your own opinions and those of nazis?

[MGuy]

Stahl, where did you get these talking points? I had this same argument with these same points with a friend of mine just the other day and he doesn't usually weigh in on these things. Everything from suggesting protestors shouldn't protest to blaming people for trying to stop someone they saw murder someone. It was so there. Just to be sociable I haven't grilled him on where he got this stuff from after he backed down.

You've already decided to side with the Travis on this one and I'm not going to rob you of that but I'm curious about what you're looking at that would make you want to defend this murderer in particular.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

This thread is an excellent case study on how to divide and conquer a populace, and the inability of extremists (who aren't me) to apply principles in a consistent manner. I could only find takes this tepid on Twitter.

[Stahlseele]

@PseudoStupidity
Being called a Nazi by a Fascist does not matter to me.

@MGuy the bit of stuff that makes it over the pond into german TV and Radio for the most part.

I have nothing against protests.
But Arson, Looting, wanton Destruction of Property not your own because you are angry is not Protesting.
None of the sides should resort to violence and stuff like that.

[deaddmwalking]

@PseudoStupidity
Being called a Nazi by a Fascist does not matter to me.

@MGuy the bit of stuff that makes it over the pond into german TV and Radio for the most part.

I have nothing against protests.
But Arson, Looting, wanton Destruction of Property not your own because you are angry is not Protesting.
None of the sides should resort to violence and stuff like that.

Wanton destruction of property IS PROTEST.

There are even times where we, as Americans, consider it justified. Rather than go into an explanation I'll just quote Mary Poppins (the movie)

Mr Dawes Jr: In seventeen hundred & seventy three, An official of this bank unwisely loaned a large sum of money to finance a shipment of tea to the American Colonies... Do you know what happened?

George W. Banks: Yes sir, yes I think I do. As the ship lay in Boston harbor, a party of colonists, dressed as Red Indians, boarded the vessel, behaved rudely, and threw all the tea overboard. This made the tea unsuitable for drinking - - even for Americans!

Americans celebrate the Boston Tea Party as part of learning about the road to Revolution... Oh, incidentally, we also celebrate REVOLUTION as something that is justified.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Ah, yes, the protest that destroyed private property that many Americans at the time were ideologically opposed to, and the revolution that led to... a war. Fantastic examples.
This is the same time in history where dudes would gang up, wear blackface, and beat the shit out of law enforcement because of overregulation. And get fined for it. Public perception of mobs has slightly changed in the past 300 years.

[Kaelik]

It is important that stahlsee wants you to know.

If you are under threat of being murdered you should under no circumstances damage property. That would be untoward.

However arming yourself to go murder people to protect property is good.

And if someone tries to take a gun out of your hand stahlsee wants you to light that fucker up.

Destroying property to prevent murders is bad. Murdering to protect property is good though.

[Stahlseele]

Kaelik wants you to know:

You are too stupid to know what you are saying and if you say anything other than the lies he and his chosen echochamber believe you deserve all the violence to be bestowed upon you and yours and your property and everybody else that does not believe in what his minitru has deemed to be acceptable.

Because he is a Fascist.

Which is actually different from being a Nazi, which he is probably also without realizing it because that is what he and his ilk do.

[Sir Neil]

I know in Alabama, a successful self defense claim makes you immune to civil and criminal penalties. Does anyone know if Wisconsin offers the same protection?

[Kaelik]

Kaelik wants you to know:

You are too stupid to know what you are saying and if you say anything other than the lies he and his chosen echochamber believe you deserve all the violence to be bestowed upon you and yours and your property and everybody else that does not believe in what his minitru has deemed to be acceptable.

Lmao, I know you are mad about people correctly pointing out what you said, but you are really going to have start backtracking real fast and far to convince anyone that you aren't advocating for killing people when your entire posts in this thread are exclusively about how happy you are that people were murdered and how much they deserved it for going to BLM protests.

[Stahlseele]

Why should i backtrack?
You are a lawyer, after all, you can not be expected to argue in good faith and would just find another way to twist my words around to suit your purpose. Less work for me, less ammunition for you to use from your righteus soap box.

You advocate for violence against everybody who does not fall into lockstep with your clique immediately, even if they have nothing to do with whatever you are mad about.
You have your constitutional rights and laws that have been in effect for . . decades?
And now one of those laws (or is that actually one of the constitutional rights? i am not well versed in the american system) again did not yield the result you wanted it to do.
And so you want more violence to happen because of that.

Fascist is as fascist says.


Anyway, i have to get up for work in . . not enough hours for my liking and this is not worth wasting my sleeping time on.

[Kaelik]

You advocate for violence against everybody who does not fall into lockstep with your clique immediately, even if they have nothing to do with whatever you are mad about.

Perhaps you should.... learn to read? I haven't particularly advocated for violence against anyone. It seems mostly pretty pointless for me to advocate for violence against My Mother? My coworkers and subordinates? DeadDM? My personal clique (the political one) is pretty small, and there are lots of people not in it who I would never advocate violence against and would defend. Statistically I think very few people murdered by cops are Marxists.

In this thread I haven't even advocated for violence against Kyle Rittenhouse, a kid who murdered two people after getting a rifle to go shoot "looters." not of course, that they did any looting or that he cared whether anyone was doing any looting.

I understand that you are personally very invested in not having people condemn nazism, especially not in forceful terms like Psuedo Stupidity, a different person then me does so, because you don't want people to punch you. But you could at least learn to recognize different people instead of treating everyone who opposes your political goals of maximizing nazi hate shootings to shut down protests an amorphous scary other. Well I mean....... I guess that is asking a lot of someone like you.

You have your constitutional rights and laws that have been in effect for . . decades?

Imagine being stupid enough to believe that the US has rights for people. We just saw that if you are on the anti fascist side people can just murder you all whilly nilly and no one will try to stop them or punish them after the fact.

And so you want more violence to happen because of that.

Interesting take. Truly it is very sad that I have said I want more violence by uhhhhh.... saying that the guy who tried to disarm Kyle Rittenhouse instead of shooting him was taking a good action instead of just glorifying killing people.

[Whatever Jr.]

Even if they survived, i would advokate for them to be removed from the gene pool.

Just so we're all clear, this is very much a Nazi take. Like, exactly and literally Nazi ideology.

Fuck off, stahlseele.

[MGuy]

Why might you backtrack? Well because you said that you advocate for killing people in your post. A thing that's against the rules here but we'll see if you get pinged for it.

I do want to point out some things though. I'm not a fancy lawyer or anything and I defended you before so take that into consideration when I say this (before you label me a fascist for not agreeing with you here). You are siding with the racists and the fascists here. Rittenhouse is just like every other proud boy, oath keeper, you name it. These groups of nationalists roving around looking for reasons to fight brown people, dirty liberal democrats, and communists. You mention kaelik being a step away from Nazis while doing advocate work for modern day brown shirts. Sure you might not understand how because you are ignorant of the state of American politics for the most part and I doubt you're going to a news source that would lay all this down but the fact that you're coming out swinging for this speaks louder than mere ignorance of the situation would.

The thing the people did that you were advocating for the murder of, by your words (this isn't me twisting them), did two things wrong. Be at a protest (a protest for racial justice) and attempt to stop an active shooter. These are the crimes you decided justifies their murder. You even criticize an armed victim of this murderer for choosing the less lethal method of dealing with this armed murderer. A thing that in a sane world would make that man the more responsible gun owner.

Compare that to Rittenhouse. He showed up intent on killing someone. We can all go see the thing where he fantasizes about killing people prior to the event. He isn't out for racial justice and there's absolutely no reason for a 17 year old kid to get armed to do vigilante work. Vigilante work that implies he's ready to kill people for potentially damaging property. Not a thing that warrants the death penalty in this country.

Even if this kid wasn't obviously a danger to himself and others just on the face of it, these things don't happen in a vacuum. You have outed yourself here. Whenever someone decides to take a stand for something it reflects what is important to them. Here you have shown your personal disinterest in the fight against police shooting citizens and have taken the side of the people who go out there to hurt or kill brown people and their sympathizers. That is what it means to speak out in interest of a murderer who went out with the intent to murder.

I'm not going to call you a Nazi or a fascist but your ignorance is very useful for them.

[Stahlseele]

Havibg woken up and read MGuys posting, yes, i see myself havibg to agree, that was actually beyond the pale.

Back to sleep

[Prak]

Kaelik wants you to know:

You are too stupid to know what you are saying and if you say anything other than the lies he and his chosen echochamber believe you deserve all the violence to be bestowed upon you and yours and your property and everybody else that does not believe in what his minitru has deemed to be acceptable.

Because he is a Fascist.

Which is actually different from being a Nazi, which he is probably also without realizing it because that is what he and his ilk do.

Hey, Stahlseele, do me a favor and define Fascism.

[PseudoStupidity]

I am also very curious as to what Stahl thinks fascism is. However he is that Jean-Paul Sartre quote everybody knows given life, so I doubt we will get a satisfactory answer.

[Kaelik]

I am also very curious as to what Stahl thinks fascism is. However he is that Jean-Paul Sartre quote everybody knows given life, so I doubt we will get a satisfactory answer.

Fascism is when you call someone a fascist just for supporting violent armed right wing paramilitaries showing up at protests to murder people at the protest.

The more you call those right thinking people advocating forced sterilizations and talking about how people who are degenerates should be shot in the streets fascists, the fascister you are!

[Kevin Mack]

So what are peoples thoughts on legal eagles analysis of the verdict?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR-hhat34LI

[Longes2]

So what are peoples thoughts on legal eagles analysis of the verdict?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR-hhat34LI

He's misrepresenting some of the events:

"Gun that crossed state lines" - no.

"Rittenhouse's self-serving testimony against Rosenbaum" - he's ignoring that Richie McGinniss testified about Rosenbaum chasing and swearing at Rittenhouse, and Ryan Balch testified that Rosenbaum threatened them earlier in the night, both being prosecution's witnesses:

"When I turned around, Rosenbaum was right there in front of my face, yelling and screaming," Balch said. "I said, 'Back up, chill, I don't know what your problem is.' He goes, 'I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I'm going to fucking kill you.'"

"Rittenhouse tripped and fell" - Rittenhouse was hit in the head with a rock and fell

"they attacked Rittenhouse with non-lethal force" - Grosskreuz testified he had a gun pointed at Rittenhouse, and Huber was hitting him in the head with a skateboard. Multiple people in the US this year were charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" for attacking someone with a skateboard (sometimes lethally). The caveat here is that a "deadly weapon" can be anything the prosecution feels like, up to and including "quarter-sized rocks tossed softly with one hand".

In a classic LegalEagle fashion he also does some misdirection, such as describing a past case as "walking into a tavern armed constitutes provocation", but the actual events (posted in the video) were "getting into a fight in a tavern, leaving, getting a gun, coming back", which is a rather different story.

Nothing very surprising in the video otherwise. Yes, Grosskreuz would probably be able to get away on the identical self-defense claim, Huber maybe, and Rosenbaum maybe not (due to earlier threats making premediation plausible).

[Kaelik]

I have not watched the legal eagle video but longes is incorrect about some facts and/or applying a very double standard.

The idea that Rosenbaum's threats to a third party that Rittenhouse never heard would deprive him of self defense for "premeditation" doesn't make a lot of sense. (The relevant Wisconsin law is about provocation not premeditation which is extremely lucky for Kyle Rottenhouse because if the prosecution got to introduce the video of Rittenhouse talking about how he wanted to shoot looters the jury would be much less likely to empathize with him.)

Longes also contends that Grosskeuz attacked Rittenhouse with lethal force by:

1) pointing a gun at him.
2) lowering the gun he pointed.
3) trying to disarm Rittenhouse by taking the gun away from him.

But if pointing a gun at someone is attacking them with a lethal weapon then I have some bad news for Rittenhouse defenders, because Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum before any alleged attack and explicitly told Rosenbaum he was pointing the gun at him. Which apparently means that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks by threatening Rosenbaum.

[Longes2]

I have not watched the legal eagle video but longes is incorrect about some facts and/or applying a very double standard.

The idea that Rosenbaum's threats to a third party that Rittenhouse never heard would deprive him of self defense for "premeditation" doesn't make a lot of sense. (The relevant Wisconsin law is about provocation not premeditation which is extremely lucky for Kyle Rottenhouse because if the prosecution got to introduce the video of Rittenhouse talking about how he wanted to shoot looters the jury would be much less likely to empathize with him.)

According to Rittenhouse's testimony and Balch's testimony, Rittenhouse has heard said threats.
I'm not sure why provocation would be relevant? I said that "Rosenbaum maybe not" because in a scenario where Rosenbaum kills Rittenhouse you can make an argument that Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse "if I catch you alone - I'll kill you", and then he caught him alone and killed him. But this is very speculative as in a scenario where Rosenbaum kills Rittenhouse and is being prosecuted everything could be totally different and that testimony may not even be in the case.

Longes also contends that Grosskeuz attacked Rittenhouse with lethal force by:

1) pointing a gun at him.
2) lowering the gun he pointed.
3) trying to disarm Rittenhouse by taking the gun away from him.

But if pointing a gun at someone is attacking them with a lethal weapon then I have some bad news for Rittenhouse defenders, because Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum before any alleged attack and explicitly told Rosenbaum he was pointing the gun at him. Which apparently means that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks by threatening Rosenbaum.

I contend that Huber attacked Rittenhouse with lethal force (i.e. an attack with a skateboard) in opposition to LegalEagle's claim that they did not attack Rittenhouse with lethal force. That is the context in which my statement was made. Do not generalize it.

The situation with Grosskreuz would be more complicated as Grosskreuz comes in third during a brawl. And I already said that if Grosskreuz shot Rittenhouse he'd likely have an identical trial with the same outcome, so, yeah?

Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum and shot when Rosenbaum lunged at him. I don't see the relevance.

Unless you mean "Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Ziminski", which the prosecution did argue based on this photo (no testimony)


For which... Maybe? I don't know what the final judgment on what this even shows and the validity of this image was.

[Kaelik]

I'm not sure why provocation would be relevant?

Well if you take a break from Stormfront to google Wisconsin law you would see that it's the actual relevant part of the Wisconsin law you are trying to cite:

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(c)(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

I said that "Rosenbaum maybe not" because in a scenario where Rosenbaum kills Rittenhouse you can make an argument that Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse "if I catch you alone - I'll kill you"

Again, a threat directed at other people isn't relevant to claims about Rittenhouse.

I contend that Huber attacked Rittenhouse with lethal force (i.e. an attack with a skateboard) in opposition to LegalEagle's claim that they did not attack Rittenhouse with lethal force. That is the context in which my statement was made. Do not generalize it.

Uh.... if you are saying that he wasn't being attacked with lethal force by Grosskreutz then you are effectively admitting that he attempted murder on Grosskreutz because if he wasn't reasonably afraid for his life from Grosskreutz then he doesn't have a self defense claim for shooting him.

Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum and shot when Rosenbaum lunged at him. I don't see the relevance.

The relevance is that if pointing a gun at Rosenbaum is a provocation then Rittenhouse doesn't have a self defense claim against the things that other people do in response to his provocation. So if pointing gun at people = now you get to kill them, then Rosenbaum had a legal right to kill Rittenhouse when he lunged, which means Rittenhouse's killing him after provoking the attack, IE:

"A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack,"

Unless you mean "Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Ziminski", which the prosecution did argue based on this photo (no testimony)

I mean that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum before any (other) alleged threats were made.

(The alleged gun pointing depicted in the drone video footage (not a photo) is also of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Rosenbaum, not just Ziminski.) We also know that he pointed his gun at a minimum of one other person besides the people we shot at, because he testified on the stand that he told someone else he was pointing the gun at them in the middle of fake story about how it was a joke and he definitely never pointed a gun at someone, though that isn't particularly relevant except as far it goes to Rittenhouse's reckless gun pointing.