Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[Cope]

I don't think every case has to land in front of a judge. I agree with the prosecution that this case should have.

I don't need to check the evidence since other people did (the prosecution and whomever else is required for this to move to the courts), and those other people know the laws and its intricacies far better than me. I don't even know Greek law, do you expect me to know Wisconsin Law well enough to challenge a bunch of lawyers for the prosecution?

Odd to assert support for the indictments while claiming an ignorance of the relevant evidence and law.

[Mithradates]

Never mind that I'm yet to see evidence that Rittenhouse is that white supremacist people accuse him of.

Yeah about that, those people here who think Rittenhouse is a far-right white supremacist, there is zero evidence for that.
The FBI scoured Kyle’s phone and found nothing about white supremacy or militias, nothing on his (now deleted) social media accounts either.

He was actually condemned by real white supremacists when they found out that, wait for it, Rittenhouse is a BLM supporter.

"But.. but... MSNBC told me he is a white supremacist murderer, they dont lie!"

Well, if any of you have some proof, this is the right time to get rich, sell that proof to CNN, MSNBC, The Intercept etc. they could really, really use it.

[PointOfViewGun]

Who actually here suggested Rittenhouse was a far-right white supremacist?

[Cookiegod]

Who actually here suggested Rittenhouse was a far-right white supremacist?

Here are 2 examples for your perusal:

Blablabla about Federal court. Self Defence Cases were so far: Thiefs in the own house, robbers, rapists, escalating fights the pub.

But no case white far right boy bringing himself in situation to kill lefts.

But im sick of this far right narrative of poor Rittenhouse, so i'm leaving.

We didn't create a right-wing political culture that told him that certain people's lives were worthless because of their political beliefs.

[Gaidin]

Absolutely not. The only thing that would have changed in castle doctrine states would have been that the case would have been thrown out sooner.

There's no state in the US nor in Europe where he didn't do self defense. As much as people want to make it about racial justice, it's not.

Not really arguing about the self-defense situation he was in. Just that other states get a little carried away with their 'duty to retreat' doctrines(that castle doctrines have absolutely nothing to do with) that might have gotten him in trouble where Wisconsin allows him to just defend himself.

[Cope]

"It's her fault for dressing that way! She MADE ME do it!"

No, the killings occurred because Rittenhouse pointed his gun at two people and pulled the trigger.

We didn't make Rittenhouse decide to play Rambo because he was insecure about his masculinity.

We didn't force him to come to Kenosha to flash his gun to intimidate people exercising their constitutional rights.

We didn't create a right-wing political culture that told him that certain people's lives were worthless because of their political beliefs.

We didn't make it easy for people like him to get guns to maximize the profits of the gun lobby and keep violent crime high for more fear-based Republican votes.

Impressive use of anaphora. Some brief points in response:

(1) Being in legal possession of a firearm (as constitutionally protected under the 2A and state law) is not playing “Rambo”, an act of provocation or a violation of another person's 1A rights;

(2) There is no evidence that RH brandished his weapon in an aggressively intimidating manner;

(3) Using a weapon in self-defense is neither a violation of the assailant’s 1A rights, nor evidence of political malice and;

(4) Arson/vandalism (of which RH’s initial assailant was guilty) is not protected by the 1A.

This is just not true. If the media could control people like automatons there wouldn't be shows canceled after a few episodes or movies that bomb or products discontinued because they didn't sell.

Activism is covered by more than just “the media”. Incitement is an act of provocation, not direct control.

Many people do things without thinking of there effects on Donald Trump. Maybe the local politicians (who might have a better immediate grasp of the situation) thought it would only make things worse? Maybe they wanted to try other methods instead of cracking skulls and tear gas first?

Said “local politicians” requested 2000 National Guard for Kenosha County on 8/25, but were given only 250 - hence the inability of law enforcement to adequately contain the unrest. Whatever “other methods” the state had in mind to manage the situation, failed.

Once again it was Rittenhouse's choice to be there and to be armed. Do you really want unaccountable vigilantism? What if someday some armed vigilante decides that he "feels threatened" by you or someone you care about?

(1) RH was entitled to be there and armed (as proven in court).

(2) Loaded question. There is no evidence that RH was acting as a “vigilante” (in the sense that he ignored the law to take justice into his own hands). Nor was he “unaccountable” (he was tried for various offenses and acquitted on all counts).

(3) Loaded question. Deadly force may only be used in self-defense as a last resort if a person reasonably believes that they are at risk of death or serious bodily harm. RH was acquitted under this standard, not a standard pertaining to personal paranoia.

[alhoon]

Odd to assert support for the indictments while claiming an ignorance of the relevant evidence and law.

I voice my trust on the people that made the indictments, which are certified by their state instead of people in a forum. How is that odd?

[Cope]

I voice my trust on the people that made the indictments, which are certified by their state instead of people in a forum. How is that odd?

It's an admission that the argument is entirely based on an appeal to authority.

[alhoon]

It's an admission that the argument is entirely based on an appeal to authority.

Of course, as it should be. Appeal to Authority makes a good argument; this is not a debate after all. "I believe vaccines work because Fauci and the WHO said so" is a good argument.
In the same vein, "I trust those that know more than me and you" brings the onus on you to prove that they don't know more than me and you OR to appeal to a different, serious authority where we will discuss about said authority's credentials OR ... that they were politically motivated as you or other posters have suggested.

[Cyclops]

Not really arguing about the self-defense situation he was in. Just that other states get a little carried away with their 'duty to retreat' doctrines(that castle doctrines have absolutely nothing to do with) that might have gotten him in trouble where Wisconsin allows him to just defend himself.

Its interesting the shades and nuances of the common law in different jurisdictions.

Its clear Rittenhouse easily meets the bar for self defence, getting pursued and bashed by an armed mob is grounds for self defence in any one's language. IIRC in the eyes of an Australian court by taking a big gun and cruising around a trouble spot he'd move his marker a few steps toward manslaughter, but there wouldn't be a common law jurisdiction in the world where that was murder.

We're not in love with guns here, and home owners who gun down intruders can get gaoled. In Australia if you tool up to kill, generally the courts take a very dim view of it.

None of that erases the boy's claim of self defence in the face of a rioting mob that include an bunch of armed ex-cons out to get him (and nearly did get him). The fact this kid had to defend himself like this is a disgrace. I mean its sick he was armed like this too.

[Cope]

Of course, as it should be. Appeal to Authority makes a good argument; this is not a debate after all. "I believe vaccines work because Fauci and the WHO said so" is a good argument.
"I trust those that know more than me and you" brings the onus on you to prove that they don't know more than me and you OR ... that they were politically motivated as you or other posters have suggested.

The claim that the prosecutor is right because he's the prosecutor is a logical fallacy. It isn't really much of an argument, it's simply an expression of faith. In any case, without a degree of familiarity with the evidence or the law there's nothing left to discuss.

[Cookiegod]

Of course, as it should be. Appeal to Authority makes a good argument; this is not a debate after all. "I believe vaccines work because Fauci and the WHO said so" is a good argument.
In the same vein, "I trust those that know more than me and you" brings the onus on you to prove that they don't know more than me and you OR to appeal to a different, serious authority where we will discuss about said authority's credentials OR ... that they were politically motivated as you or other posters have suggested.

If you had watched the trial for even 5 minutes you would realise how bad your appeal to authority is here.

1) Trying to bring up something in front of the jury after the judge had already made it clear to the prosecutor that this shouldn't be brought up.
2) Clear violation of the defendants fifth amendment right by trying to make the point that having remained silent pretrial made him look guilty - this time the judge got so mad he yelled at him.
3) Bringing up one random internet user name of the defendant because spoiler alert, he's a teen, and then asking him if he played shooters.
4) The prosecutors own witnesses often destroyed the whole case for them.
5) Admitting at the end of the trial that several charges weren't actually illegal. So after having argued the entire trial that the defendant was carrying the gun illegally, they admitted that it was legal. So the charge was thrown out along with a ton of others when the jury instructions were being made.
6) Arguing that the defendant should have used more lethal hollowcore ammunition, which shrapnel in the body causing even greater wounds. This to argue that with standard ammunition, theoretically (though highly unlikely), a bullet can pass through one body and then hit another person behind. But that can also happen with hollowcore ammo. Fun fact: One of the very first international arms treaties in the modern world were made to prohibit similar ammo on the grounds that they cause unnecessary suffering. And yet here the prosecutor argued the defendant should have used a more modern version of this ammo that's even worse.
7) Openly pointing out to the judge with a smirk that the trial was political.
8) Violating the right of the defense to have all the evidence available to them, giving them a downgraded version of the footage and only show the high resolution footage at the closing statements. An "accidental" error, except this wasn't the first time this was done.
9) Pretending a key witness ("jump kick man") couldn't be found when it later became clear that witness had tried to get in contact with them in exchange for immunity. They deliberately lied and withheld his information.

There's tons more, I had the livestream often running as background noise whilst working on something (I can't listen to audiobooks because those are too distracting), so I saw the majority of it. It was a show from start to finish.

So no, the line to prosecutorial misconduct was crossed more than once in the trial, in addition to the fact that whilst a prosecutor has a lot of discretion available to them, they need to have something SOMETHING!!! in order to start a trial in the first place.
The fact that the prosecutors had nothing was made clear by themselves tacitly throughout the entire trial given the "arguments" they presented. A lot of the stuff is sadly very widespread in the US, such as deliberately charging extreme stuff in order to psychologically manipulate the jury into a compromise verdict, but a lot of the stuff that went on was extraordinary even for the US.

Not to mention that "If the prosecution brings it up it must be right" is not only a complete logical fallacy but also shows some ignorance as to how the judicial systems work. Prosecutors are the most corruptible and weakest link in most countries. In Europe they're frequently under political control, and in the US it's pretty much a political office in itself, where you try to get as much clout as possible in order to run for elections.

As such the prosecutors pushed the trial more for their own careers, rather than for a greater good.

[PointOfViewGun]

Here are 2 examples for your perusal:

First one yes, second one no. Could the far-right allegation be made in connection to Rittenhouse posing pictures with Proud Boys members and making their signs for a photo?

[Cookiegod]

Could the far-right allegation be made in connection to Rittenhouse posing pictures with Proud Boys members and making their signs for a photo?

I've been photographed with the Danish crown prince. Does that make me royalty?

Taking a photo takes about a couple of seconds of contact, so modern day "right wing extremism" is apparently as infectious as the Coronavirus. Probably because these days not having the opinion that a teen voids his right to live by virtue of being a stupid teen or that grave assaults on a fleeing person are legitimate when politically opportune.

Think back a couple of decades who used the exact same guilt by association reasoning. When did McCarthyism become a "left" thing to do?

[Cope]

First one yes, second one no. Could the far-right allegation be made in connection to Rittenhouse posing pictures with Proud Boys members and making their signs for a photo?

The photograph (post 8/25) was set up by his former counsel (presumably to attract donations/support from the far-right). At the time, RH claims he was unaware of who the group was or what the gesture meant. This denial is corroborated by his lack of prior interest/affiliation with the far-right or militia groups, his refusal to partake in any further photo ops of this type, and his decision to fire his defense team, in part, on the basis of this incident. According to RH, Wood and Pierce immediately filed suit for the $2m bail when the criminal verdict was announced.

[Infidel144]

(4) Arson/vandalism (of which RH’s initial assailant was guilty) is not protected by the 1A.

Along with rioting and assaults, the totalitarian collectivists of the left think it should be for them.
Or as Il Duce Cuomo's consigliere, Chrissy Cuomo says, 'where does it say protests have to be peaceful'.
It can be compared to the pathetic coward nazis who demand that people engaging in their 1st Amendment rights to peaceably assemble be a cause for martial law to be instituted and those exercising that right be declared terrorists and summarily arrested, stripped of their rights and shipped off to prison camps.

6) Arguing that the defendant should have used more lethal hollowcore ammunition, which shrapnel in the body causing even greater wounds. This to argue that with standard ammunition, theoretically (though highly unlikely), a bullet can pass through one body and then hit another person behind. But that can also happen with hollowcore ammo. Fun fact: One of the very first international arms treaties in the modern world were made to prohibit similar ammo on the grounds that they cause unnecessary suffering. And yet here the prosecutor argued the defendant should have used a more modern version of this ammo that's even worse.

If Rittenhouse had been using hollowpoint, the prosecution would have been arguing that it was more dangerous and questioning why he did not use more standard rounds.

[Cope]

Along with rioting and assaults, the totalitarian collectivists of the left think it should be for them.
Or as Il Duce Cuomo's consigliere, Chrissy Cuomo says, 'where does it say protests have to be peaceful'.
It can be compared to the pathetic coward nazis who demand that people engaging in their 1st Amendment rights to peaceably assemble be a cause for martial law to be instituted and those exercising that right be declared terrorists and summarily arrested, stripped of their rights and shipped off to prison camps.

There isn't any evidence that Rosenbaum was a political activist despite being persistently characterized as a "BLM protester" in media reports. I don't know if Ziminski had any political affiliations, but he has a pretty extensive criminal past and I believe he's been charged with arson and disorderly conduct with a firearm. The progs/libs took ownership of these two, as well as Grosskreutz, because they feared that unfavourable coverage of the demonstrations would trigger a conservative response electorally.

[Infidel144]

There isn't any evidence that Rosenbaum was a political activist despite being persistently characterized as a "BLM protester" in media reports. I don't know if Ziminski had any political affiliations, but he has a pretty extensive criminal past and I believe he's been charged with arson and disorderly conduct with a firearm. The progs/libs took ownership of these two, as well as Grosskreutz, because they feared that unfavourable coverage of the demonstrations would trigger a conservative response electorally.

Any doubt that if Rosenbaum and Ziminski had succeeded in killing Rittenhouse they would be publicly declaimed by those now simping for little Jojo the child rapist (simping for child rapists is SOP for them anyways, see, e.g. Roman Polanski)? Privately it would be applauded.
I wonder if Binger will drop the charges on Ziminski, or what sort of deal they have worked out, if any.

[alhoon]

Not to mention that "If the prosecution brings it up it must be right" is not only a complete logical fallacy but also shows some ignorance as to how the judicial systems work. Prosecutors are the most corruptible and weakest link in most countries.
[...]
As such the prosecutors pushed the trial more for their own careers, rather than for a greater good.

That's your opinion though; I consider them honest people by and large.

If you had watched the trial for even 5 minutes you would realise how bad your appeal to authority is here.

1) Trying to bring up something in front of the jury after the judge had already made it clear to the prosecutor that this shouldn't be brought up.
2) Clear violation of the defendants fifth amendment right by trying to make the point that having remained silent pretrial made him look guilty - this time the judge got so mad he yelled at him.
3) Bringing up one random internet user name of the defendant because spoiler alert, he's a teen, and then asking him if he played shooters.
4) The prosecutors own witnesses often destroyed the whole case for them.
5) Admitting at the end of the trial that several charges weren't actually illegal. So after having argued the entire trial that the defendant was carrying the gun illegally, they admitted that it was legal. So the charge was thrown out along with a ton of others when the jury instructions were being made.
6) Arguing that the defendant should have used more lethal hollowcore ammunition, which shrapnel in the body causing even greater wounds. This to argue that with standard ammunition, theoretically (though highly unlikely), a bullet can pass through one body and then hit another person behind. But that can also happen with hollowcore ammo. Fun fact: One of the very first international arms treaties in the modern world were made to prohibit similar ammo on the grounds that they cause unnecessary suffering. And yet here the prosecutor argued the defendant should have used a more modern version of this ammo that's even worse.
7) Openly pointing out to the judge with a smirk that the trial was political.
8) Violating the right of the defense to have all the evidence available to them, giving them a downgraded version of the footage and only show the high resolution footage at the closing statements. An "accidental" error, except this wasn't the first time this was done.
9) Pretending a key witness ("jump kick man") couldn't be found when it later became clear that witness had tried to get in contact with them in exchange for immunity. They deliberately lied and withheld his information.

And I will admit that even skimming that made me say " ahh... yeah. If CG is not exaggerating, then they did a poor job".

[Cyclops]

...
As such the prosecutors pushed the trial more for their own careers, rather than for a greater good.

The political aspects of some US jurisdictions are very alien to me. The election of the state prosecutor/DA (and in some backwoods area police chiefs and judges) means there's a stronger political element in decisions around prosecution in a lot of US jurisdictions, and the lawyer pathway to power is heavily tread.

Australia tries desperately to maintain a "legal priesthood" although that leads to crusty out of touch judges of course doesn't fully prevent politically motivated decisions, and is still vulnerable to tampering (we had a cardinal convicted of rape by jury later exonerated by judges because something something jUsTiCe!).

The stuff about half the people in the city administration having the same surname is wild, a bit "Agent Smith". That's not really a right or left wing thing, more a corrupt little town thing.

I've been photographed with the Danish crown prince. Does that make me royalty?

pwnd Mary!

Hope you are both very happy

Taking a photo takes about a couple of seconds of contact, so modern day "right wing extremism" is apparently as infectious as the Coronavirus. Probably because these days not having the opinion that a teen voids his right to live by virtue of being a stupid teen or that grave assaults on a fleeing person are legitimate when politically opportune.

I think the kid is being used in this photo. Its sad, he stated he's sympathetic to BLM so he's hardly KKK, but he's a political bone to be chewed now so anything he does will be spun.

Think back a couple of decades who used the exact same guilt by association reasoning. When did McCarthyism become a "left" thing to do?

Anyone with respect for history will know authleft removes people from photos!