Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Self-defense is not a defense to killing, it's a defense to murder.

The law of murder and self-defense have been settled for hundreds of years, with a few tweaks around the edges. This is very old law, from before the US was a country.

If you successfully defend against an accusation of murder, no crime was committed. That's because murder is a crime. Killing is not. Rittenhouse definitely killed someone. But he is not proven to have committed the crime of murder.

You correct that the law has been settled for hundreds of years. But the law is not what you say it is. You may be committing libel. That is also illegal. It's a defense to say that you reasonably believe what you are saying is true. Or should I just say you are actually committing libel but that's no insult because you have an excuse.

A crime may not have been committed but the avt still happened. I am most definitely not committing libel. First off I'm not calling anyone a murderer or even reffering to an individual. Secondly the word you are trying to slander me with is slander not libel. You really should not be using words of art and terms that you clearly have no idea what they mean.

If it's writing, it's libel. Here's a lawyer who agrees with that as applied to the internet.
https://www.traverselegal.com/defamation-libel-slander/#clip=2e7f1ot0gvdw

Maybe some other lawyer says differently. Maybe that lawyer is wrong. I don't know. But I guess you think you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Self-defense is not a defense to killing, it's a defense to murder.

The law of murder and self-defense have been settled for hundreds of years, with a few tweaks around the edges. This is very old law, from before the US was a country.

If you successfully defend against an accusation of murder, no crime was committed. That's because murder is a crime. Killing is not. Rittenhouse definitely killed someone. But he is not proven to have committed the crime of murder.

You correct that the law has been settled for hundreds of years. But the law is not what you say it is. You may be committing libel. That is also illegal. It's a defense to say that you reasonably believe what you are saying is true. Or should I just say you are actually committing libel but that's no insult because you have an excuse.

A crime may not have been committed but the avt still happened. I am most definitely not committing libel. First off I'm not calling anyone a murderer or even reffering to an individual. Secondly the word you are trying to slander me with is slander not libel. You really should not be using words of art and terms that you clearly have no idea what they mean.

If it's writing, it's libel. Here's a lawyer who agrees with that as applied to the internet.
https://www.traverselegal.com/defamation-libel-slander/#clip=2e7f1ot0gvdw

Maybe some other lawyer says differently. Maybe that lawyer is wrong. I don't know. But I guess you think you do.

If you're saying that all the people saying that it was self-defense, which necessarily includes murder, are libeling, then I don't know what to tell you. Because that's nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Self-defense is not a defense to killing, it's a defense to murder.

The law of murder and self-defense have been settled for hundreds of years, with a few tweaks around the edges. This is very old law, from before the US was a country.

If you successfully defend against an accusation of murder, no crime was committed. That's because murder is a crime. Killing is not. Rittenhouse definitely killed someone. But he is not proven to have committed the crime of murder.

You correct that the law has been settled for hundreds of years. But the law is not what you say it is. You may be committing libel. That is also illegal. It's a defense to say that you reasonably believe what you are saying is true. Or should I just say you are actually committing libel but that's no insult because you have an excuse.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Rosenbaum was murdered and Rittenhouse did not commit murder are not mutually exclusive statements.

The act of killing someone without inherent authority is called murder. A defense to murder is self-defense. Self-defense can only be raised when a murder has occurred. If one's self-defense claim is upheld then one is not a murderer however the victim was still murdered.

Stop throwing around insults. We have a difference of opinion here. Your definition of murder is incorrect. You are making a small error that essentially calls someone a murderer before they are convicted of the crime. That could be libel. That's my only real point. Yeah, you could say someone was murdered without there being a murderer, but there are still potential libel issues around that, so as a practical matter, I've noticed media sometimes avoid saying that, probably on orders from the legal department even if it's technical okay. If you don't see what I am getting at here, then you've probably never written something that might be reviewed by hostile lawyers someday. You don't have to agree with me. But to assume someone is "deliberately obtuse" because they don't bow to your almighty wisdom is assinine. Especially on a legal issue. Where people really do argue about the meaning of a word all day long and can go to jail if they get it wrong. Call your lawyer if you still don't get it. He's probably had a lot of disagreements like this.

You are an idiot who has reading comprehension issues. I am a lawyer and you clearly are not. The woda murder and murderer refer to two separate things. One is an act while the other is an actor.

No, I am not a lawyer, but I deal with legal issues and lawyers often. You are still missing the point. Resorting to insults when you don't understand what the other person's point is not a mark of intelligence. I can see you still didn't understand my point, but that's okay. I learn a lot from people I disagree with. I even learned something from you. Too bad you don't know how to do the same.

Peace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I admire what this kid was trying to do but he should not have been there. They will convict him of something - perhaps short of murder but my guess is there are a lot of options around crossing state lines and illegal carrying of a weapon, some form of reckless endangerment etc.

I am mad at the Wisconsin governor and local officials for allowing things to get to a point where people feel driven to get involved in this way. I am guessing this kid is a like a lot of us that get really upset at innocent people's businesses being destroyed, elderly shop owners and random other people getting beaten up etc.. We do not see it as acceptable collateral damage for a great cause and are angry at local officials who allow it to happen.

You are putting yourself in his shoes and feeling sympathy for him and his (stated) goal. But he was acting like a movie hero. IRL, John Wick would be a bad guy and charged with murder, even if he only killed criminals.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually nothing like this kid who is either dumb or evil or both.

Admire? This kid was a 17 year old with hero fantasies. Surely these Cadet programs he was in had something to saw about organized law enforcement vs. DIY vigilantism. Surely he know it was illegal for him to be wandering around in Wisconsin (he lived close to the border, people in state border areas know the differences in basic laws and he was into guns).

If there is a spectrum of white supremacy, I would put him on it but probably on a low end--he was a Trump follower, he was into law enforcement, but there's nothing about him being explicit about race. There was a report that when he was much younger his mom asked for a restraining order related to bullying in school, neither side showed up for the hearing so it didn't go anywhere.

He called someone right after shooting the one guy in the head--I thought maybe it was 911, but no, it was some friend. Interestingly, at one point in the lead-up to that shooting one of the older Kenosha Guard-type people (camo, body armor, etc) actually grabbed him and yanked him back. IDK if they thought he was a protestor with a gun or just too young to be in the middle of it or what.

When he was approaching LE vehicles with his hands up, was he just trying to not get shot or was he intending to come forward with hsi self defense explanation? No idea. According to news reports, at that point cops were responding to "shots fired" not "someone shot" and there were guns all over the place.

Did he think he had saved Kenosha? Did he realize how clueless he was? Did he tell his mom what had happened?

As for admiring, as the sheriff or whoever it was in Kenosha said "Oh HELL no". I mean, you have protestors who are armed--for self-defense. You have boogaloo types who are armed. You have vigilante squads who are armed. You have criminals in the mix who are armed. You have random kids who are armed. What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I admire what this kid was trying to do but he should not have been there. They will convict him of something - perhaps short of murder but my guess is there are a lot of options around crossing state lines and illegal carrying of a weapon, some form of reckless endangerment etc.

I am mad at the Wisconsin governor and local officials for allowing things to get to a point where people feel driven to get involved in this way. I am guessing this kid is a like a lot of us that get really upset at innocent people's businesses being destroyed, elderly shop owners and random other people getting beaten up etc.. We do not see it as acceptable collateral damage for a great cause and are angry at local officials who allow it to happen.

You are putting yourself in his shoes and feeling sympathy for him and his (stated) goal. But he was acting like a movie hero. IRL, John Wick would be a bad guy and charged with murder, even if he only killed criminals.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually nothing like this kid who is either dumb or evil or both.

Admire? This kid was a 17 year old with hero fantasies. Surely these Cadet programs he was in had something to saw about organized law enforcement vs. DIY vigilantism. Surely he know it was illegal for him to be wandering around in Wisconsin (he lived close to the border, people in state border areas know the differences in basic laws and he was into guns).

If there is a spectrum of white supremacy, I would put him on it but probably on a low end--he was a Trump follower, he was into law enforcement, but there's nothing about him being explicit about race. There was a report that when he was much younger his mom asked for a restraining order related to bullying in school, neither side showed up for the hearing so it didn't go anywhere.

He called someone right after shooting the one guy in the head--I thought maybe it was 911, but no, it was some friend. Interestingly, at one point in the lead-up to that shooting one of the older Kenosha Guard-type people (camo, body armor, etc) actually grabbed him and yanked him back. IDK if they thought he was a protestor with a gun or just too young to be in the middle of it or what.

When he was approaching LE vehicles with his hands up, was he just trying to not get shot or was he intending to come forward with hsi self defense explanation? No idea. According to news reports, at that point cops were responding to "shots fired" not "someone shot" and there were guns all over the place.

Did he think he had saved Kenosha? Did he realize how clueless he was? Did he tell his mom what had happened?

As for admiring, as the sheriff or whoever it was in Kenosha said "Oh HELL no". I mean, you have protestors who are armed--for self-defense. You have boogaloo types who are armed. You have vigilante squads who are armed. You have criminals in the mix who are armed. You have random kids who are armed. What could possibly go wrong?

If everyone is armed nothing bad will happen

Signed GOP

[Anonymous]

Running home to Illinois and having to be arrested the next day is not the mark of someone who thought they acted in self-defense.

[Anonymous]

a fine young man

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Militia are despicable men.

and so, so, so dorky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Militia are despicable men.

and so, so, so dorky.

Militias are for losers who couldn’t hack it in the real military.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s hard to say qwhite what’s the difference, indeed.

[Anonymous]

hmmmm

kinda changes things, huh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:hmmmm

kinda changes things, huh

I said 30 pages back that if he was pointing his gun — aka brandishing - prior to the chase into the parking lot, his self-defense claim is toast. There is so much more video and eye witness testimony out there that hasn’t been made public. Something happened just before the chase. My guess has been that he was brandishing toward unarmed people and it was interpreted as a threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hmmmm

kinda changes things, huh

I said 30 pages back that if he was pointing his gun — aka brandishing - prior to the chase into the parking lot, his self-defense claim is toast. There is so much more video and eye witness testimony out there that hasn’t been made public. Something happened just before the chase. My guess has been that he was brandishing toward unarmed people and it was interpreted as a threat.

I don't know. Based on that video, he seems too stupid to even know what brandishing mean. Maybe he could plead insanity. I'm only half joking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Militia are despicable men.

and so, so, so dorky.

Militias are for losers who couldn’t hack it in the real military.

That's the truth. These guys are just losers in the game of life and are looking to be somebody.

It seems kind of strange to think of a handful of yahoos who spend too much time on social media as an actual militia. The vast majority of them likely have no training and don't really seem to have an actual objective beyond wanting to do something. I guess I consider a militia as something more like a paramilitary organization like the ELN in Colombia. It's just amazing how many idiots (not just militias) are drawn to these types of volatile situations, especially after what everyone saw happen at Charlottesville.