open carrying an assault rifle on your shoulder as you drive/walk around areas is obviously intentionally attempting to escalate every situation you are in. you are attempting to cause fear/panic/threaten everyone around you, so you shouldn't get to fall back after you escalated every situation and be like "but they yelled mean things at me!!11!"

Again, unfamiliar. Open carry is perfectly legal in Wisconsin. Take it up with the state legislature.

Speaking of irrelevant stuff that has nothing to do with the claim of self defense. But AFAIK in America people have freedom of movement. Your real question should be why were the rioters and looters there. If they had just stayed home there wouldn't have been a problem.

thats terrible logic.. the person that had no reason to be there was rittenhouse.

the protestors were protesting actual events that occurred in the area. rittenhouse was there because he hoped to shoot someone.


also you dont necessarily have unrestricted freedom of movement, like when a minor illegally crosses state lines with an assault rifle.

Since his trial, Zimmerman has been reported to the police three different times for domestic violence. He tried to sell a bunch of Shutterstock images as original artwork. He posted topless pictures of a ex-girlfriend on-line, along with phone number, address, etc. He called Obama an ignorant baboon. He tweeted a photo of Trayvon Martin's dead body and then tried to auction off the gun he used to kill Martin.

He's just an all-around great guy and definitely not a violent racist. Back in 2012, a few idiots were running around this forum, just like you are now, talking about how Zimmerman was a hero. Those posts haven't aged well. I wonder how your posts about Rittenhouse will age.

A former Prosecutor and Law Professors view of the trial judges bias.



timestamped but entire segment is worth a watch.

still, we are beyond that. do people ask why Nazis want to kill Jews? this is the same. well proly worse.

Freedom of movement, yo.




HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

in general, the left have no balls. since ya know, they care about life and all. but maybe someone gets mad enough to turn this guy into Horst Wessel. would be great for sure.

Just one more reason not to play in the street.

Ya the right claims they support peaceful protests but if that involves taking a knee, fire them, silence them. If that involves peaceful street marches and protests where they close down an intersection run them over and kill them.

But we support peaceful protests.

if that involves blocking cars them move *****, get out the way.

wat??????

Cite?

If you start hyperventilating and panicing when you see someone open carrying it is on you to leave the situation.

That is not a practical answer when it comes to emotionally charged protests.

Whether it is a Charlottesville type 'jews will not replace us' type march down a street or POC marching down a street after seeing George Floyd murdered by a cop, the police must have the power to remove a purposeful provocateur who will enter the area of protest and very deliberately antagonize and basically troll the protestors and then use any threatening reaction to open fire and plow them down.

I would say that whether it was Black Panther type purposely going to the Charlottesville type march or White Supremacists going to the George Floyd march or someone hearing there is a street protest in Florida with an intersection shut down and they purposely drive in to that area and then use the new law there to run a bunch of people over because they say they were being illegally slowed and felt at threat.

The law should recognize that 'this feeling of threat' that Rittenhouse is using as defense is a threat he went courting first.

If anyone disagrees with my position above I would ask the following question.

If you saw video of Rittenhouse, or anyone like that in that position, talking about how they were going to purposely go into that volatile area heavily armed and were so excited that they might get attacked and get an excuse to open fire and kill a bunch of the **** would that change your view even if nothing changed in the way it played out.

If they openly said in private communications "this is like hunting, you just sit and wait like bait and if they take the bait you get a legal reason to kill a bunch of ****' would you still defend this as something that should be allowed in law?

Sure there needs to be more aggressive policing of the streets in america, no argument here.

Or give them bottles of water and let them know how much they appreciate them.
Same same

Meh. Blaming the judge is kind of lame. The fact of the matter is, if you chase someone who is armed, knock him down and get shot that person is going to have an easy time making a case for self defense.

Racist pos or not.

I get your point but what's the law to do ?

Words are words and actions are actions. If a guy says he'd coming down your street to provoke you and you attack him and put him in fear for his life isn't that a mutual engagement ? Neither one of you is an actual victim but he still has a basic right to defend his life, under the law. I would think.

The issue you are raising has been discussed for many decades--for example in conjunction with the Bernhard Goetz case. As I said before, the law isn't set up to deal with situations where someone like Rittenhouse goes looking for trouble and finds it.

Imagine that I carry a concealed weapon to the worst street corner in St. Louis and start counting out thousands of dollars in $100 dollar bills on the sidewalk. Eventually someone tries to rob me at gunpoint and I shoot the person. I was highly confident that this would happen eventually, which is why I decided to count cash on that street corner in the first place.

Like you, I find this sort of behavior abhorrent. But to RFlush's point, I struggle to come up with a workable law that would address this sort of behavior.

I think both can be true.

I agree entirely with the sentiment you express here and expect Rittenhouse to walk on all the major charges.

I also think the judge might be trying to influence this case towards what he thinks is a just outcome and that is wrong.

I'm a firm believer that judges are political actors at the end of the day so I can't argue with that.

From what little I've learned wrt to law it seems like the media may be overplaying his decisions but...you know, he can be a racist post too.
I certainly wouldn't be shocked.

I think the law can look at this much like they do yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theatre wrongly that leads to deaths.


The action of yelling fire is legal and protected speech and yet the law pierces the veil and considers intent and criminalizes that intent despite it otherwise being legal and protected.

I think the law can and should consider the same here.

I think it is not hyperbole, not even a little bit, that if we see any mass national protesters by POC in the future that even if 100% peaceful, that you will see a bunch of people from the Right who oppose those protests show up en masse in vehicles and drive deliberately into the conflict zone and then plow thru and run over a bunch of protestors as their vehicles get surrounded by the march heading down that street. Their defense being their legal use of the road was blocked and they feared for their safety once blocked and surrounded.

Both of the latter could in fact be true but the Law should be able to take in to account that they left their home knowingly and drove themselves purposefully to get in to that spot.

It should cancel out that defense as a way to deter that type of action occurring.

I don't see it as compatible for society to say 'we have a right to protest' and also 'vigilantes who disagree with your protest have a right to impede and then kill you if you don't disband'.