DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Riittenhouse Found Not Guilty

I dont get fleas because I dont sleep with libtards. Yall can keep your diseases to your own kind.

Pretty interesting to see your reaction to this compared to your reaction of the guy who shot Ashli Babbitt…

I think Arch was just answering the disturbing question posed by Gosar. I think him getting off completely scot-free segued into it blowing up into a major crap fest of celebration. I actually commend his attorneys for lambasting a lot of the extremist republicans for doing such. There’s a link out there I saw on Yahoo, but apparently his attorneys had to throw out Tucker Carlson’s crew several times during the course of the trial.

In other news, here’s this guy:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...-tucker-carlsons-filming-crew-out-of?amp

Link I mentioned.

You don't seem flea-less.

You know- I've been reasonably politically aware since the 1970's, and I've never seen such rampant lunacy on a daily basis.

These people have learned the grift: say the most outrageous crap you can, grab some headlines, and use those headlines to raise funds. They've monetized trolling , and are using it to maintain their political careers.

It's cynical in the extreme, and it's causing us to see more and more trash on capitol hill with every election cycle.

That’s a really good way to put it. You’ve put into words what I’ve been feeling for months - years actually - and I’ve struggled to express it in that way. That’s perfect.

I notice you didn't address the actual point of what happened at that bar. It really has nothing to do with the drinking part. It has to do with him hanging out with either proud boys or proud boy sympathizers. You didn't address that he thought shooting shoplifters was a perfectly fine way of addressing shoplifting. You didn't address his assaulting two girls which shows his ability for and actions of violence. You see, the prosecutor was trying to make the argument that Rittenhouse wasn't some innocent child like the portrayal of his sniveling act on the stand. He was trying to show intent as to why Rittenhouse was at the scene in the first place. His intent for going there. That his previous statements and actions show that his reason for going there was to incite and lead to the very thing we saw happen.

Now I have no idea if that would have influenced the jury or not. But then neither do you. Intent does hold a lot of value in a criminal case. But none of that was allowed to be entered into evidence. I wonder how the jurors will feel when they find out all of this evidence was held from them?

And here's the thing about bringing race into things like this. I don't disagree that often times you see the left bringing race into things where it really shouldn't be. That was your accusation to begin with. It actually dilutes the times where race is an issue. Much like The Boy Who Cried Wolf. But then let's look at what happens when the shoe is put on the other foot. You show someone hanging out with Proud Boy sympathizer and signaling racist hand gestures and your reply was "If he is a racist". I can see the two way street here while you seem to be traveling down a one way street.

Yeah Peen, they weren't having any difficulty coming to a verdict. That's why they asked to take home the jury instructions after three days of deliberations. They were all sitting around playing poker and playing a cat and mouse game with the public. Do you even hear yourself?

I didn't address that directly because it has absolutely zero to do with what he was on trial for. The end.

I guess you didn't follow it. The motivation and thought process to why he was there and and his intention for going there was a key part of the case. a part the jury was never allowed to see. As I said, neither you nor I have any idea how that may or may not have influenced the jury despite your seeming assertion to the contrary. It seems you think intent has nothing to do with the outcome of a trial. That's totally not true.

The judge agreed. The PA didn't object. He was not on trial for being a racist. The people in the bar he didn't know weren't on trial. He killed no people of color.

The only place race has anything to do with this is people were protesting a death from prior, and ..........eh, never mind.

Got anymore movies with idiots?

Only you would take the comment as serious over the intent of the comment. To spell it out, any guess as to why it took 3 days is as good as any other since none of us know.

If you want a serious guess, the delay was probably over the lesser charges. I don't think the murder charge was ever going to stick. I think a few on the jury agreed, but just felt he had to be guilty of something, but in the end couldn't go with that either.

Jc

The self defense angle was inevitable.

Here’s my issue: found not guilty on all charges?

So a minor in possession of an illegal firearm isn’t a criminal felony?

A minor in possession of an illegal firearm crossing state lines isn’t a felony?

If that’s the case, then the standard has been set. There’s a bunch for minors in juvenile detention who need to be release and have their records expunged IMMEDIATELY, because clearly the jury of our peers just set the precedent that it’s legal.

So imma need the government to start releasing minors and adults out of prison right now. Cause clearly they have unwarranted felony charges on their records.

That's why I'm looking for some follow-up regarding the judge and/or the prosecutor. Given what I saw, I don't think a murder charge was within reach. But for KR to walk with nothing, which essentially says he has zero accountability for the people he killed (yes, I know that's not what the law actually says), is wrong IMO. Someone cosplaying as Rambo who ends up shooting someone... and then ends up with zilch speaks to this being fumbled at some point.

Minor in Wisconsin is legal; since 1991, the state law only applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns with short barrels. Lawmakers across the country were trying to find ways to curb gang violence. The subsection was likely intended to prevent youths from carrying sawed-off shotguns, instead, it basically nullified the entire law. Bottom line, today in Wisconsin , a youth is legal so long as his barrel is a certain length.

He didn't cross state lines with a weapon, no matter how many times the media states it. His friend purchased the firearm in Wisconsin prior to his arrival.

And yes, the state of Wisconsin should be analyzing 30 years of court records to review, release, expunge and compensate. But we all know that will never happen...

I agree with you and Swish. Especially in a case where jurors were given the option to convict on lesser charges... and you described the result perfectly. I know we're not "supposed to" judge anyone apart from their actual charges, but courts and jurors do it all the time when the precedent is important... the precedent here is terrible.

After the shooting and his arrest, many people questioned whether the then-minor had transported the illegal gun across state lines.

Black testified he had previously purchased an AR-15 firearm for Rittenhouse in Wisconsin.

Rittenhouse was too young to purchase and possess a gun, but he agreed to pay Black for the firearm, Black told jurors.

Black testified that he also had his own firearm, and they had fired the weapons in target practice in a rural area.

Black has been charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18 causing death, according to court records. He has pleaded not guilty. He testified that he hoped taking the stand would lead to leniency in his case.

n Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the misdemeanor weapons charge against Rittenhouse, now 18.

The charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 was punishable by up to nine months in prison. The count was thrown out due to the odd wording of Wisconsin's gun laws.

Schroeder dismissed the misdemeanor charge, noting that the weapon was longer than the measurements required for it to be an illegal "short-barreled rifle" under state law.

Wisconsin law states, "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

A subsection of the statute adds, in part, "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28."

The 941.28 subsections state the illegality would only apply to those armed with a "short-barreled rifle," which is also defined as "a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches" and "a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches."


https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/us/kyle-rittenhouse-what-we-learned-from-trial/index.html

And just a reminder, KR is a resident of Illinois, not Wisconsin. His dad might live there, but he lives with his mom in Illinois.

So I’m seriously just confused and disappointed.

I never bought the racist angle cause he shot 3 white dudes. But the reason why POCs are ticked is because we got black kids locked up right now for a hell of a lot less than this all over the country.

Nobody should be celebrating this verdict.

It was a win for those that agree with self defense in this Country. A win for gun rights. And a win for those that saw an angry mob trample on citizens rights.

Just want to put on record that I fall in line with the three of you here as well.

CBS' 'Face the Nation' corrects claim Rittenhouse crossed state lines while armed: 'Oversight in language'

The rifle Rittenhouse used was already in Kenosha when he drove there from Illinois

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cbs-corrects-claim-rittenhouse-state-lines-armed

That actually makes sense.

Yes. there are lots of them available for your viewing pleasure on FOX News, Newmax and OAN.

It's obvious we're never going to come to any sort of agreement on this so much as it appears you have decided, it's probably best if we drop it.

No agreements are possible when you keep spreading false information and lies on every subject.

Collusion
Quid Pro Quo
Kid crossing state lines with a rifle
and more

SHAME!

If you think it being legal for a minor walking around on the street with a loaded AR-15 is a "win for gun rights", that shows the distinction between people who uphold gun rights and gun nuts. You think it's a win. But the repercussions from this will end up being a net loss. You're the type of person those of us who stand up for our gun rights understand are the ones who hurt our cause the most.

Question -

As I have mentioned before I have not followed this case closely, or the thread or the media spin. Apologies if my question is covered somewhere in these 16 pages.... My only previous comment was regard to his intent and state of mind regards inserting himself, armed and ready to kill, into a volatile/confrontational situation. We agreed that it's (almost) impossible to convict based on intent or cracking what a person thinks and what's going on in their head.

On a segment today on the radio - NPR - they had a retired judge on to discuss the trial and verdict. And while serious questions were raised on how the judge at the trial conducted himself and lead the jury .... something she said was new to me. She incicated that the State of WI is one of only 2 or 3 states where the burden of proof to prove the killing wasn't in self defense is different/harder that all the other states. Apologies for possibly screwing the interpretation of the law up - but it sounded like in other states if you kill someone in self defense the burden of proof is to prove you didn't murder the individual and that you DID act in self defense. In WI and in this trial the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove it was not self defense. Subtle but huge difference.

Has this been discussed and covered here? Regardless of common sense and what our instincts tell us about this individual who has a past and track record that was not shared with the jury ... and the end of the day, just like Tom Cruise said, it doesn't matter what one thinks or knows ... it matters what you can prove (according to the law).

The laws have been changing of late, last few years.

In Ohio, you USED to have to prove, even in your own house, that you could not flee the home without fear of death or bodily injury. Castle Law changed that.

Also, stand your ground became law, meaning, basically, out in public in a situation that presented danger to you, you did not have to first attempt to flee. Obviously, I don't know Wisconsins laws. However, apparently (especially with the videos), WI law protects the shooter, at least in these 3 cases Rittenhouse was facing.

Agree with it or not in Wisconsin, it's legal.

A person in Florida was acquitted of murder the same day as Rittenhouse. Here's the link: https://news.yahoo.com/jury-acquits-gifford-man-claimed-195415308.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Granted, he's now facing charges of being a felon in possession of a gun, and will be tried or sentenced on Jan. 13. He could be facing 30 years in prison for that crime. If he gets the max sentence. But, he was cleared of murder, attempted murder, etc, which would've resulted in mandatory life in prison.

Originally Posted by 40YEARSWAITING

Rittenhouse lawyer rips CNN, MSNBC for false reporting, botching 'basic facts'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rittenhouse-lawyer-cnn-msnbc-false-reporting-coverage-wrong

Here is TODAY'S FOX NEWS PROPAGANDA! ... fixed it for ya.

That is the problem we do not get any real news in this Country anymore. It is all propaganda. From the right and from the left just depends what side you believe. Fox, Newsmax, and OAN are just as one sided as CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC. They are no real journalist left no real news organizations left.

Actually the entire posts you are replying to is about whether one thinks it is right or not. It really has nothing to do with this trial or the legality. One person seemed to be celebrating that such a law exists and myself says it makes no sense. You can choose either opinion you decide. But for some reason I think even you would agree that having any minor walking our city streets with a loaded AK-47 is not a smart thing to be legal. When the law claims a person isn't responsible enough to buy a beer or vote it just doesn't seem to make sense to say but he's responsible enough to walk around where ever he wants with a loaded rifle that can go through 30 rounds in a few seconds.

Absolutely. I agree. However, the law in WI doesn't. My opinion doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the law. Just as I said he wasn't on trial for being racist, he was on trial for what the PA charged him with. Opinion doesn't matter. The LAW matters. Talk to the law makers in WI.

No, it wasn't fumbled... It wasn't botched... It's just white privilege and systemic racism on display. If KR was black, he would never have made it home that night after killing people. If KR were a lefty antifa type instead of a right-wing militia type, he would be dead or in jail. The right and the 'white' card were both in play in this decision. And this judge is a trumpkin bumpkin that should be run pout on a rail.

I'm not really all that upset about this because I knew it would go this way the night he did it. We watched him walk past the police with his hands up, only to be ignored or offered water and thanked for being there. Then was reminded again when we saw the barroom pics with the proud boys and KR flashing white supremacy hand gestures/signals. I'm mad as hell that the NAZI right (not all right-wingers) got a win. KR was probably just taken advantage of in that bar that night. The whole world seemed against him and the klan boys propped him up and made him feel important... Dumbass kid is just like 90% of Trump supporters. Misinformed idiots, doing reactionary dumb stuff, and spreading fascism out of loyalty to lies... and that's just the fools who don't realize what they are doing. Those that spread this propaganda willingly, and/or rejoice in freeing a murderer, and/or who believe or just spread the big lie ARE WILLINGLY FASCIST.

Dear god man, what part of "our opinions aren't about the trial or what the law is" can't you comprehend? And even after we both agreed that the entire "racist thing" was something we mutually agreed to drop, you still can't let it go. Okay, as you wish.....

The motivation and mind set of why he went there in the first place does matter. The intent as to why he was there matters. Racism, if it is part of the cause of going there does matter. And the best BS people can come up with is, "yeah, but he didn't shoot any black people". Those Einsteins can't seem to figure out was the reason he was there was because it was a BLM protest. Duh!

And just think, we had this entire back and forth settled as to "we just agree to disagree" until you just couldn't stop yourself. Now go ahead and blame me for that.