Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted: Protests erupt from New York to California: LIVE UPDATES

This is a problem of systems analysis. As much of politics is. The problem with systems is that it's impossible to analyze the entire system as it interacts with time and even more impossible to analyze how each input indirectly effects every possible output. We have to make assumptions. In our current two reality world, we can see for certain that some folks make entirely different assumptions than others. So much of that assumption influenced reality is effected by what people want to be true, rather than what is factually observable.

I think it's undeniable that one narrative is an impossible fantasy. Others think the same of mine. All I can do is argue my case.

That said, notme's statement is true. Gaige had legitimate reason to fear for his life. But that alone doesn't determine whether or not he had a right of self defense. Who's negligence had the most influence on that fear? The photo depicting an instant in time doesn't say. That's why we need a jury to suss that kind of stuff out.

 

So what. Your claim was that "Race is an excuse to burn and loot."... while I sourced that almost all of them protests were peaceful. And so your claim is just a racist stereotype about black people wanting their rights by looting and burning things down.

It seems you do not know your own country.

I have not heard any speech promoting the idea's of running random people down at a Christmas parade during a BLM rally.
So it's obvious the race card stays in play when you insist that there is a link where there is none to be found.
It's not as if you're founded your opinion on a source, now did you?

 

Grosskreutz right to self defense is negated legally the same reason as the Arbery case. He had no direct knowledge of a felony so chasing and trying to detain or shoot Kyle would be a felony no matter how he felt.

 

straw man fallacy. Rittenhouse aint no law officer.

You're asking me a question, while the answer to it, is in the part you deliberately snipped out.
/facepalm.

Are you also aware that the point of post is to point out that I am finding that the prosecutors did a very bad job at things, and could have asked totally different questions that would incriminate Rittenhouse instead of helping out the defense with their questions?

 

The entire point remains that the prosecutors did a very bad job by asking questions whose answers were helping Rittenhouse, besides they did a horrible job with selecting the jury.

 

Complex systems are complex. Had BLM not been protesting the behavior of law enforcement in Kenosha, would a Car Source location have burnt to the ground? If a Car Source didn't burn to the ground would Kyle have been there armed and claiming to be defending a Car Source? Possibly, but I can't imagine it being nearly as likely. Had a more accurate account of the Jacob Blake event been reported prior to the protest would BLM have protested to being with? No way to know. Such is the difficult nature of linking intent to outcome and vice versa.

 

Rittenhouse didn't get off scott free. He was kicked in the head, and beaten with a skateboard. This guy didn't face any consequences for his actions.

 

So you didn't watch the trial huh?

 

A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Doesn't matter if Rittenhouse is an officer or not. The context change only attempts to change your perception of lawful vs unlawful behavior. You're stuck in a frame that needs to be reframed before you can change your mind on the subject. Gaige's behavior was unlawful. He was illegally carrying a firearm. He was advancing on a subject that was not advancing on him. A claim of self defense does not hinge on someone pointing a gun at you. If you are to make such a claim you have to back it up with what you were doing that lead up to the point at which a gun was pointed at you, and what you did after the gun was pointed at you. Again, why we have a jury to figure such things out.

You only claimed Kyle pointed his gun. I gave you a dichotomy. He was either pointing it defensively or offensively. He couldn't have been pointing it both ways. So which is your claim?

That's typically the job of a prosecution, yes. Are you suggesting you would have done a better job misleading the jury?

 

It's as if we live in a simulation that served us up two similar events with polar opposite outcomes. Maybe it will wake up some NPCs. I'm tentatively hopeful.

Will conservatives get credit for not protesting a conviction in the Arbery case? Doubtful.

 

Nothing chances the fact that when an other poster claimed that black people got out looting and burning ... that it's a rather racist stereotype since I sourced that almost all BLM protests are peaceful. That is the key point your are now replying to.

So when you suddenly out of nowhere ask me the question if a random car source location would have been burnt to the ground by a BLM protest, the answer is that it's exceptionally unlikely while it did happen in Kenosha. Do note, Car Source never asked Kyle or anybody to come and shoot people over it. As for Jacob Blake, he got sentenced to just 2 years probation for what he did. Any normal person would conclude that being sentenced to just 2 years of probation is linked to some kind of a crime that's not such a big deal. And when asking yourself if shooting 7 times in somebodies back over that "not such a big deal" is just totally out of proportion, everybody would say that the level of violence doesn't make sense at all compared to what the crime was about. I think you should be honest about that.

 

The defense did a very bad job too but the prosecution never had a case.

 

The defense????

We were discussing if or if not the prosecutors did a horrible job by the way the selected the jury and how they got answers from the witnesses they questioned.
And your replies no longer are about this discussion, even though I complained that you no longer are commenting on that point. So I can only logically conclude that you agreed that you also find that they did a horrible job and moved on to a different subject.

 

What do you think ‘too’ means? The prosecution however bad still had no case.

 

Can you show us the bruise or produce what kind of medical attention Rittenhouse needed?

 

So you are finally agreeing that the prosecution did a bad job. While your claim it all wouldn't have mattered isn't supported by what the highly experienced defense team pulled off to get Rittenhouse acquitted.

 

Not sure what race has to do with anything because the group of people looting and burning are of mixed race. But we do have a record of protests we could contrast with BLM protests. Occupy Wallstreet. Tea Party protests. Same amount of peaceful? Just as almost peaceful as BLM?

No, not "out of nowhere." I'm buttressing the claim that "Race is an excuse to burn and loot." Not once did I claim it was burnt by BLM or even that BLM had an intent to burn it. And yet race is still an excuse as you make almost peaceful excuses for the behavior now.

Where else did exceptionally unlikely lightening strike to cause the billion in riot damage I keep hearing about?

Was anyone shot because the car source burnt to the ground? Nope. A jury found that people were shot because those same people threatened to kill an armed person who defended himself. Why did they make those threats? Did they think Kyle was going to burn down property in the name of BLM?

Blake was armed and attempting to kidnap children. How does past criminal behavior play into this?

 

Here you make a racist claim that I make a "racist stereotype about black people". I have never done that. I classify ALL BLM types as American Marxists and that includes a whole lot of white, America hating people. You've got to quit banging the race drum and open your eyes.

 

He was old enough to enlist in the military, he has family in Kenosha, and lastly (and most importantly) the rioters (not "protestors" as you misrepresent them) wouldn't have been killed if they weren't out doing illegal things.

People don't get to throw a temper tantrum and destroy other people's property and threaten their lives. I don't care what their cause is.

 

You jumped into a conversation where a poster claimed that black people loot and burn things down for the sake of getting equal rights. And I sourced that it's not the case since almost all BLM protests are peaceful, hence he inserted a racist stereotype. I'm not interested if other type of protests are equally peaceful. It hardly can be possible to more peaceful then a BLM protests since they are close to a 100% peaceful.

As just mentioned, I already have sourced that almost all the BLM protests are peaceful.
It is what it is and it's not up for debate.

Car Source did not ask Rittenhouse or anybody else to protect their property, but Rittenhouse did that anyways causing the entire chain of events to happen of him trying to stop rioters who in turn threatened him etc etc.

He wasn't convicted for attempting to kidnap anybody, so it did not happen.

 

That's not what the poster claimed. You assumed the race of the rioters making the excuse.

Facts not in evidence. What is in evidence is your assumption that the poster was talking about a specific race doing the bad behavior. What lead to that assumption? Was it a stereotype?

Court testimony from multiple sources claims they did ask for assistance protecting their property.

That's a strange thing for someone trying to argue Kyle threatened Gaige to say.

Regardless, the law doesn't just consider outcome. It must also consider intent. So again, how did his criminal history, and the facts known at the time influence the intent of the officer that shot him?

 

I previously told you that you're responding to "Race is an excuse to burn and loot" and so I'm in my full right to bang the race drum over it.
I'm not interested when you just barge into this discussion and change it Marxism.

 

Race != Black people. You made that leap on your own. Why? Are you aware there are other races interested in making excuses to loot and burn in the name of racial justice?

 

LOL! Sure, sure you have all the best of intentions.....

 

Inherent to the right of self defense is the ability to prevent unlawful serious bodily harm. The necessity to demonstrate that it took place negates the intent of the right.