Acquittal?

[XCR1250]

11 hours ago, Polaris 550 said:

Ridgy, the kid had NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER entering into that explosive situation, while Illegally armed. 

Adult, trained, experienced cops, get hurt and killed in these situations, Kyle was a disaster waiting to happen. 

The cops thanked him for being there as was testified in the Courtroom.

[teamgreen02]

12 hours ago, Polaris 550 said:

Ridgy, the kid had NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER entering into that explosive situation, while Illegally armed. 

Adult, trained, experienced cops, get hurt and killed in these situations, Kyle was a disaster waiting to happen. 

None of this eliminates his right to self defense.

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, teamgreen02 said:

None of this eliminates his right to self defense.

Absolutely none.  Somebody's opinion on this kids judgment isn't even illegal or chargeable in any way (but they are trying).  He has a right to be there...just as much as anybody.  He had a right to carry....just as much as anybody.  And he had a right to protect himself...again, just as much as anybody.

[teamgreen02]

Just now, Zambroski said:

Absolutely none.  Somebody's opinion on this kids judgment isn't even illegal or chargeable in any way (but they are trying).  He has a right to be there...just as much as anybody.  He had a right to carry....just as much as anybody.  And he had a right to protect himself...again, just as much as anybody.

Yup, and that is exactly why they charge him with everything they could besides breaking curfew.  He had a right to be there, just like everyone else.

[Zambroski]

28 minutes ago, teamgreen02 said:

Yup, and that is exactly why they charge him with everything they could besides breaking curfew.  He had a right to be there, just like everyone else.

Here’s the flip side nobody talks about.  While he had the rights to all above, the ones he shot DID NOT have the right to threaten his life.  DID NOT have the right to physically attack him and DID NOT have the right to chase him down and out of the area. Yet, he is on trial.

Nice system we’ve got going here.

[irv]

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

Here’s the flip side nobody talks about.  While he had the rights to all above, the ones he shot DID NOT have the right to threaten his life.  DID NOT have the right to physically attack him and DID NOT have the right to chase him down and out of the area. Yet, he is on trial.

Nice system we’ve got going here.

Isn't Liberalism grand!! 

[ArcticCrusher]

3 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Here’s the flip side nobody talks about.  While he had the rights to all above, the ones he shot DID NOT have the right to threaten his life.  DID NOT have the right to physically attack him and DID NOT have the right to chase him down and out of the area. Yet, he is on trial.

Nice system we’ve got going here.

Wonderful system actually.

 

The one bright side is the curtain is being lowered on the fake news propaganda and more and more are opening their eyes to the truth. 

[Highmark]

5 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Here’s the flip side nobody talks about.  While he had the rights to all above, the ones he shot DID NOT have the right to threaten his life.  DID NOT have the right to physically attack him and DID NOT have the right to chase him down and out of the area. Yet, he is on trial.

Nice system we’ve got going here.

How many other people around the country have been charged in these riots?  Guess arson just isn't that serious of crime. 

[teamgreen02]

18 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Nice system we’ve got going here.

Yup.  The process is the punishment.

[Zambroski]

49 minutes ago, teamgreen02 said:

Yup.  The process is the punishment.

When was the last time we heard the term “legal shooting”?  I wonder why?  That’s what this was.  And that’s what many can be called.

[Mag6240]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

How many other people around the country have been charged in these riots?  Guess arson just isn't that serious of crime. 

"Peaceful Protest"

BULLSHIT.

[Highmark]

2 hours ago, Zambroski said:

Absolutely none.  Somebody's opinion on this kids judgment isn't even illegal or chargeable in any way (but they are trying).  He has a right to be there...just as much as anybody.  He had a right to carry....just as much as anybody.  And he had a right to protect himself...again, just as much as anybody.

There are lots of cases where felons kill people in actual self defense and are not charged with murder.   They might be charged with a weapons violation pending how they came to possess the firearm but EVERYONE maintains the right to defend oneself.   

There was a case on First 48 that had just this scenario.   An ex hardcore gang member and convicted felon returned fire at a car that had or was shooting at his son.  A young man in the car was killed.  He wasn't charged with murder or a even a weapons violation because they were greatful for his honesty and wanted it known in the community that if you help police it goes along ways.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Highmark

[Guest]

5 hours ago, XCR1250 said:

The cops thanked him for being there as was testified in the Courtroom.

 

4 hours ago, teamgreen02 said:

None of this eliminates his right to self defense.

 

2 hours ago, Zambroski said:

When was the last time we heard the term “legal shooting”?  I wonder why?  That’s what this was.  And that’s what many can be called.

I understand your concern of RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE.

However there is a legal principle of: Loss of right to self-defense if your prior actions were in fact illegal or you engaged in an illegal assault. 

I don't know how this trial will play out. I do know that the judge should be removed from the bench.  He's a 75 year old bastard, who is out of control. 

I do believe Kyle is a POLICE WANNABE, who is also autistic. I've seen WANNABES numerous times in the past................THEY ARE FUCKED IN THE HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Me personally, I don't want ANY 17 year old kid, running around with an AR, as a self-appointed vigilante.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Highmark said:

There are lots of cases where felons kill people in actual self defense and are not charged with murder.   They might be charged with a weapons violation pending how they came to possess the firearm but EVERYONE maintains the right to defend oneself.   

There was a case on First 48 that had just this scenario.   An ex hardcore gang member and convicted felon returned fire at a car that had or was shooting at his son.  A young man in the car was killed.  He wasn't charged with murder or a even a weapons violation because they were greatful for his honesty and wanted it known in the community that if you help police it goes along ways.

The scenario you just mentioned is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from the Rittenhouse situation. 

Kyle INJECTED himself into a volatile situation, the gang member did not, but merely responded. Kyle SOUGHT OUT the confrontation. Major difference.  

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, Polaris 550 said:

The scenario you just mentioned is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from the Rittenhouse situation. 

Kyle INJECTED himself into a volatile situation, the gang member did not, but merely responded. Kyle SOUGHT OUT the confrontation. Major difference.  

How does Rittenhouse "injecting himself" into the situation change the right to self defense?   Please state the Wisconsin law not just your opinion.

If Rittenhouse and who he killed were on the same "side" in the riots would that somehow make it different in your mind?

The act of self defense can be an instantaneous process.  Him merely being where a riot is and carrying a gun doesn't give the right for others to attack him.  There has not been evidence provided that he provoked them.   

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

How does Rittenhouse "injecting himself" into the situation change the right to self defense?   Please state the Wisconsin law not just your opinion.

If Rittenhouse and who he killed were on the same "side" in the riots would that somehow make it different in your mind?

The act of self defense can be an instantaneous process.  Him merely being where a riot is and carrying a gun doesn't give the right for others to attack him.  There has not been evidence provided that he provoked them.   

Why did they attack him????

[Highmark]

11 minutes ago, Polaris 550 said:

Why did they attack him????

They perceived him as the enemy.  He was guarding property they wanted to destroy.  He was open carrying a weapon, he wasn't starting shit on fire, he wasn't damaging property.  Basically he wasn't protesting and rioting.  In fact he was trying to put fires out.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Highmark

[Mag6240]

10 minutes ago, Polaris 550 said:

Why did they attack him????

I thought it was because he was putting out fires in dumpsters the rioters were trying to start.... But that's just what I heard, so I really don't know.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Mag6240

[teamgreen02]

26 minutes ago, Polaris 550 said:

I understand your concern of RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE.

However there is a legal principle of: Loss of right to self-defense if your prior actions were in fact illegal or you engaged in an illegal assault. 

I don't know how this trial will play out. I do know that the judge should be removed from the bench.  He's a 75 year old bastard, who is out of control. 

I do believe Kyle is a POLICE WANNABE, who is also autistic. I've seen WANNABES numerous times in the past................THEY ARE FUCKED IN THE HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Me personally, I don't want ANY 17 year old kid, running around with an AR, as a self-appointed vigilante.

 

12 minutes ago, Polaris 550 said:

Why did they attack him????

Good question, we don't really know, but there were multiple witnesses that testified Rosenbaum said "if i catch one of you alone I'm going to fucking kill you."  The prosecutors are now claiming after this happened that Rittenhouse provoke the attack by pointing his gun at Rosenbaum.  This is the video they presented to that theory.

27 minutes ago, Polaris 550 said:

I understand your concern of RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE.

However there is a legal principle of: Loss of right to self-defense if your prior actions were in fact illegal or you engaged in an illegal assault. 

I don't know how this trial will play out. I do know that the judge should be removed from the bench.  He's a 75 year old bastard, who is out of control. 

I do believe Kyle is a POLICE WANNABE, who is also autistic. I've seen WANNABES numerous times in the past................THEY ARE FUCKED IN THE HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Me personally, I don't want ANY 17 year old kid, running around with an AR, as a self-appointed vigilante.

No one cares what you WANT.  We care about if Rittenhouse is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on any of these charges filed against him.

[Highmark]

  Got to love the description "vigilante security guards." 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/

After the city’s mandated curfew of 8 p.m. passed, law-enforcement officers tried to clear a crowd of people a couple of blocks away — which, in effect, pushed the group toward the auto shop where Rittenhouse and others were stationed with guns. People in the crowd apparently threatened the teen and others acting as vigilante security guards, per the attorney’s account. Then, after some running around, Rittenhouse attempted to go to a second mechanic shop, which he apparently believed was vulnerable to property damage. That’s when the attorney said people “began chasing him down.”

[Highmark]

3 minutes ago, teamgreen02 said:

 

Good question, we don't really know, but there were multiple witnesses that testified Rosenbaum said "if i catch one of you alone I'm going to fucking kill you."  The prosecutors are now claiming after this happened that Rittenhouse provoke the attack by pointing his gun at Rosenbaum.  This is the video they presented to that theory.

No one cares what you WANT.  We care about if Rittenhouse is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on any of these charges filed against him.

Zero witness' corroborate that Rittenhouse was pointing a gun at that time.   Just a blurry blown up picture the prosecution is claiming proves it. 

[teamgreen02]

Just now, Highmark said:

Zero witness' corroborate that Rittenhouse was pointing a gun at that time.   Just a blurry blown up picture the prosecution is claiming proves it. 

Yup, this is the different between "taking" a picture and "making" a picture.

The judge should have never allowed that.  If you can't see it on a video or picture shown in its native resolution then it shouldn't be allowed as enhanced.  Any enhanced or upscaled image is just a computer algorithm based interpretation of what the software thinks is there.

Take for example the 2x2 matrix, 10, 20, 30, and 40.  We can blow this matrix up with additional pixels by linear interpolation.  Now between 10 and 20 we have the values of 12 and 17.  Those numbers weren't even in the original matrix but now I'm telling you those are real numbers and belong in the expanded matrix.  Data has only been created to enlarge the matrix to a 4x4.

Similarly, look at the original image of the stick figure.  Enlarging it using the "nearest neighbor" makes the stick figure almost unrecognizable.  This is not an "enhanced" version of the original since it looks nothing like a stick figure.

The bilinear interpolation is even worse.  Now it doesn't even look like a stick figure.  There are now different shades of gray on the photo that never existed in the original imagine.  It looks more like a t-rex walking than it does a stick figure depicted in the original photo.  Certainly this is not an "enhanced" photo of the original.

Even the 4K TVs used in the courtroom are upsampling the lower resolution photos and videos, showing imagines or videos that may not look like the original.  What was being shown was only Samsung, Sony, Dynex's, etc. version of what their algorithms think the original image showed.

[SayatodaU.P.eh?]

On 11/11/2021 at 12:32 PM, Rigid1 said:

I thought it was exceptional

For a 17 year old civilian? Yes, yes it was. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

They perceived him as the enemy.  He was guarding property they wanted to destroy.  He was open carrying a weapon, he wasn't starting shit on fire, he wasn't damaging property.  Basically he wasn't protesting and rioting.  In fact he was trying to put fires out.

You can't use DEADLY FORCE to protect property. 

 

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

They perceived him as the enemy.  He was guarding property they wanted to destroy.  He was open carrying a weapon, he wasn't starting shit on fire, he wasn't damaging property.  Basically he wasn't protesting and rioting.  In fact he was trying to put fires out.

The car lot owner stated that he NEVER asked Ritten to protect his property. 

[Guest]

Any of you boyz ever hear the term......

" VICTIM PRECIPITATED CRIME " ???