Kyle Rittenhouse a hero? (update - not guilty on all charges)

[Chukker Veteran]

Now if the Arbery case ends with a Not Guilty verdict…..

A not guilty verdict could provoke another situation offering many chances to use a gun.

The riots run together in my mind, but I remember in one, right wingers were found to have actually been responsible for pushing a demonstration over the line into a riot.

Go to a demonstration. Start a fire or start breaking windows to give cover to unloading on “them.”

Bring your long gun across state lines and bag a bad guy while squawking about self defense, and become a media star.

No other country is willing to accept the level of gun violence that we do.

 

[AUDub]

I don't see how it does. I think the best the defense can hope for in that one is a hung jury because a moron looking to nullify snuck through jury selection.

The prosecutor is doing a far better job in that one, and unlike the case Binger had to work with the prosecutor in Georgia has a banger of a hand.

One right wing lawyer's breakdown of the goings on of the case yesterday.

He's right. If the judge instructs the jury in the manner he's describing, it's essentially telling them "guilty is the only correct verdict" and the McMichaels are screwed.

Unless there's a bad faith operator in that jury.

 

[AlexanderFan]

I don’t think comparing the two is even remotely similar at all.



Nope try again.




When his own lawyer basically called him an idiot then I don’t think he was wrongfully vilified. Rittenhouse did himself no favors between the time of the shooting and the trial in the public eye.

And no he probably won’t see a dime from this other than signing books and being a useful idiot on Fox.

By all means explain the differences. Now don’t get me wrong here, these guys should fry.

When you take the dominant line of logic around here concerning KR and apply it to the Arbery case you can clearly see how absolutely flawed it is. Arbery was trespassing, he was literally somewhere he shouldn’t have been( as KR was according to the posters here), and those actions resulted in the hillbilly patrol being notified and coming after him (like the 3 goons came after after KR), Arbery attempted to flee, a fight erupted (all because of KR if you ask some on here), and people died. Had Arbery actually subdued or killed his attackers he would’ve claimed self defense (rightfully so) and been celebrated as a hero (feel about the same as I do KR, he wouldn’t be).

You can clearly see how the responsibility for the attacking parties is handled between the two cases by the same people on this board. It is completely absolved in one case (KR), and they are held wholly accountable in another (Arbery). The fact is they are the most responsible in these cases: would you realistically expect KR or Arbery to NOT defend themselves? No, you wouldn’t. Is it realistic to expect people to not attack someone else? Yes, yes it is. I only wish the attackers in the Arbery case suffered the same fate as the ones in the KR case.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

Unleess there's a bad faith operator in that jury.

I heard the town is 55% black with a black mayor, but the jury has only one black person. The defense lawyer has been going on about black preachers and Kentucky Fried Chicken all week. The defense strategy seems transparent and awful at the same time.

 

[AUDub]

Unleess there's a bad faith operator in that jury.

I heard the town is 55% black with a black mayor, but the jury has only one black person. The defense lawyer has been going on about black preachers and Kentucky Fried Chicken all week. The defense strategy seems transparent and awful at the same time.

Like I said, that's really my only concern here.

Even if the jury hangs I'm not too concerned. This is one the state would take another crack at.

 

[81usaf92]

Explain the differences

How about we start with the fact that the Arbery case was initially covered up by a district attorney. A district attorney who knew one of the vigilantes.

Then let’s get into the fact that 9-1-1 told them not to pursue.

Then let’s go into the fact that a guy gets a shot gun pointed in his face while running..

Is it really that hard to see the difference between a kid that is knowingly subjecting himself to a chaotic situation and a guy being chased in a residential neighborhood by a bunch of good ole boys while taking a jog

When you take the dominant line of logic around here concerning KR and apply it to the Arbery case you can clearly see how absolutely flawed it is. Arbery was trespassing, he was literally somewhere he shouldn’t have been( as KR was according to the posters here), and those actions resulted in the hillbilly patrol being notified and coming after him (like the 3 goons came after after KR), Arbery attempted to flee, a fight erupted (all because of KR if you ask some on here), and people died. Had Arbery actually subdued or killed his attackers he would’ve claimed self defense (rightfully so) and been celebrated as a hero (feel about the same as I do KR, he wouldn’t be).

Okay again. The POLICE told them to NOT PUSUE!!! Yet they did it anyway. And the kicker is NONE OF THEM SAW HIM TRESPASS. So forgive me if I find this whole exercise just silly. Because all I can see is the police told the pursuers to not pursue a guy for a crime that they didn’t see him commit.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

How about we start with the fact that the Arbery case was initially covered up by a district attorney. A district attorney who knew one of the vigilantes.

Then let’s get into the fact that 9-1-1 told them not to pursue.

Then let’s go into the fact that a guy gets a shot gun pointed in his face while running..

Is it really that hard to see the difference between a kid that is knowingly subjecting himself to a chaotic situation and a guy being chased in a residential neighborhood by a bunch of good ole boys while taking a jog



Okay again. The POLICE told them to NOT PUSUE!!! Yet they did it anyway. And the kicker is NONE OF THEM SAW HIM TRESPASS. So forgive me if I find this whole exercise just silly. Because all I can see is the police told the pursuers to not pursue a guy for a crime that they didn’t see him commit.

I guess the lesson we should take from this is if you decide to go for a jog around town it might be prudent to carry a shotgun.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Is it really that hard to see the difference between a kid that is knowingly subjecting himself to a chaotic situation and a guy being chased in a residential neighborhood by a bunch of good ole boys while taking a jog

I think you're talking past each other and you're both on the same page here. He's not talking about the specifics of the case, just that in the moment, the aggressors were the guilty party, not Rittenhouse or Arbery. Some folks don't seem to understand how the law views self defense and want to condemn one while dismissing the other.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

I think you're talking past each other and you're both on the same page here. He's not talking about the specifics of the case, just that in the moment, the aggressors were the guilty party, not Rittenhouse or Arbery. Some folks don't seem to understand how the law views self defense and want to condemn one while dismissing the other.

In my opinion, the laws governing self defense have become way too accommodating in how firearms are used. I’ll be glad when the pendulum swings back the other way.

 

[81usaf92]

I think you're talking past each other and you're both on the same page here. He's not talking about the specifics of the case, just that in the moment, the aggressors were the guilty party, not Rittenhouse or Arbery. Some folks don't seem to understand how the law views self defense and want to condemn one while dismissing the other.

But they are totally different circumstances. We KNEW the Arbery case wasn’t a self defense case, and We KNEW the Police told them to stop their pursuit. The only question was if it was a lawful citizen’s arrest.

Kyle Rittenhouse we were just wondering if he provoked the response, atleast the people who understood somewhat how self defense cases go. A jury just didn’t see him as the aggressor.

 

[crimsonaudio]

In my opinion, the laws governing self defense have become way too accommodating in how firearms are used. I’ll be glad when the pendulum swings back the other way.

Not sure they will, not anytime soon. And I'm fine if they don't. Don't want to get shot? Don't attack someone.

In Rittenhouse's case, our society is likely better off without the two dirtbags (serial child rapist and a violent felon) that played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. SoI doubt we'll see them become the cause for change.

 

[crimsonaudio]

But they are totally different circumstances. We KNEW the Arbery case wasn’t a self defense case, and We KNEW the Police told them to stop their pursuit. The only question was if it was a lawful citizen’s arrest.

Kyle Rittenhouse we were just wondering if he provoked the response, atleast the people who understood somewhat how self defense cases go. A jury just didn’t see him as the aggressor.

My point is he's comparing the felons who chased Rittenhouse with the dirtbags who chased Arbery. I don't see him actually comparing the cases, but he can clarify for himself.

 

[81usaf92]

My point is he's comparing the felons who chased Rittenhouse with the dirtbags who chased Arbery. I don't see him actually comparing the cases, but he can clarify for himself.

He has come across as trying to compare the reaction to both of them. He has constantly advocated for Rittenhouse to get compensation from media outlets for how they reported the case. How else am I supposed to take his take as trying to equate reactions from two totally different cases with two totally different reactions.

My point is that we were asking two totally different questions in both cases after we saw the videos, and for good reasons.

Alot of the issues on Rittenhouse were squarely on him and Trump for encouraging the kind of behavior. As his lawyer pointed out, Rittenhouse kind of made himself the villain by going on Hannity, allowing Tucker to get an expose, and allowing Lin Wood do Lin Wood things. But Rittenhouse did himself no favors by snuggling up to with far right activists.
Most reasonable people saw that it was an uphill climb for the prosecution because proving he was the aggressor was going to be near impossible with the video that was provided.

The Arbery case has and still is a case of injustice, corruption, and racism. Anyone that was arguing self defense wasn’t arguing it after the video and the 9-1-1 call. We were asking why the hell did it take two months for these murderers to be arrested, and why the hell are people taking the law in their own hands for crimes that they didn’t see happen?

 

[Chukker Veteran]

Not sure they will, not anytime soon. And I'm fine if they don't. Don't want to get shot? Don't attack someone.

I understand we are discussing self defense laws, however…
With guns in general, i would guess that there are far more people who get shot that have not attacked anyone than those who were doing so.

 

[chanson78]

That's simply not how self defense laws work.

…snip…

This doesn't make it open season for people to carry and shoot others at protests. I suspect some less-informed folks with hatred in their hearts will mis-read this and follow suit, but that doesn't mean KR was guilty of anything.

I'll add one more thing: I said earlier in this thread "it takes two to tango" - if the convicted child-molester hadn't started chasing KR, it's likely none of this happens - there's no evidence that KR was acting violently to that point.

You took out the context when you quoted my post. Would you consider someone pointing a weapon at you grounds to feel in fear for your life?

That’s it. If someone pointing a firearm at you is not something that qualifies then we might have to agree to disagree.

I was attempting to point out, poorly it appears, that there will be people who take firearms to protests. There will be individuals with firearms who will point them at people. At that point, how do you resolve the self-defense Mexican stand off?

 

[AlexanderFan]

He has come across as trying to compare the reaction to both of them. He has constantly advocated for Rittenhouse to get compensation from media outlets for how they reported the case. How else am I supposed to take his take as trying to equate reactions from two totally different cases with two totally different reactions.

My point is that we were asking two totally different questions in both cases after we saw the videos, and for good reasons.

Alot of the issues on Rittenhouse were squarely on him and Trump for encouraging the kind of behavior. As his lawyer pointed out, Rittenhouse kind of made himself the villain by going on Hannity, allowing Tucker to get an expose, and allowing Lin Wood do Lin Wood things. But Rittenhouse did himself no favors by snuggling up to with far right activists.
Most reasonable people saw that it was an uphill climb for the prosecution because proving he was the aggressor was going to be near impossible with the video that was provided.

The Arbery case has and still is a case of injustice, corruption, and racism. Anyone that was arguing self defense wasn’t arguing it after the video and the 9-1-1 call. We were asking why the hell did it take two months for these murderers to be arrested, and why the hell are people taking the law in their own hands for crimes that they didn’t see happen?

I’ve said once he should be compensated, and he should be.

Nothing you bring up has bearing on the case. Arbery was trespassing, as noted by the camera in the house under construction. The owner called the cops, as he’s done every time someone showed up on the camera (even some white people, kudos to him for consistency), Arbery left the house, no big deal, no evidence of theft or anything to warrant the reaction he received. I’m the attempt to defend himself he was tragically killed.

Rittenhouse went somewhere he had no business being. People saw him and attacked him. Nothing he did warranted the attacks no more than Arbery did. These attackers didn’t have the foresight to call the police for advice, so they just approached him. In an effort to defend himself he killed two and injured a third. Both self defense cases, one went tragically. You want to cloud the issue, but in the end, if both parties had just left the other alone everyone would be alive right now.

Videos of Ahmaud Arbery roaming vacant home shown to jury

Jurors in the trial over Ahmaud Arbery's death are watching security camera videos from a home under construction that the 25-year-old Black man was seen running from before he was fatally shot

abcnews.go.com

 

[crimsonaudio]

I understand we are discussing self defense laws, however…
With guns in general, i would guess that there are far more people who get shot that have not attacked anyone than those who were doing so.

That's fair, but you literally said
"In my opinion, the laws governing self defense have become way too accommodating in how firearms are used. I’ll be glad when the pendulum swings back the other way."

I'm not sure how I was supposed to read that as anything other than an attack on self defense law.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Think what a difference it would have made, had WI had this:

AL.com

 

[81usaf92]

I


Nothing you bring up has bearing on the case. Arbery was trespassing, as noted by the camera in the house under construction. The owner called the cops, as he’s done every time someone showed up on the camera (even some white people, kudos to him for consistency), Arbery left the house, no big deal, no evidence of theft or anything to warrant the reaction he received. I’m the attempt to defend himself he was tragically killed.

Videos of Ahmaud Arbery roaming vacant home shown to jury

Jurors in the trial over Ahmaud Arbery's death are watching security camera videos from a home under construction that the 25-year-old Black man was seen running from before he was fatally shot

abcnews.go.com

You do realize we are still talking about a misdemeanor at best, and still none of the 3 men saw the crime happen. As the judge clearly pointed out in a citizen’s arrest case “ only when a felony occurs can you pursue a fleeing criminal, and only when you actually see it”. Two key features of the law that makes the CCTV utterly meaningless.

 

[cbi1972]

I was attempting to point out, poorly it appears, that there will be people who take firearms to protests. There will be individuals with firearms who will point them at people. At that point, how do you resolve the self-defense Mexican stand off?

According to the law. The aggressor loses legal protection. To respond to armed aggression with retaliatory violence may be legally protected, but highly risky on a personal level.

Maybe we should start blaming and prosecuting those who initiate violence and destruction at First Amendment type events. But I don't guess that would go over well with those that have come to view rioting as valid self expression.