November 22, 2021 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #2032279
Syag, why is that irrelevant?November 22, 2021 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #2032284
nisht – I completely agree with you. And I think that that information would also be very important to be brought up in court for all those reasons. I was simply speaking in regard to whether or not that identity allows him to shoot. It may be as you say that the person who has such a record will most likely be more menacing, I just see that more as a court defense issue than a shaas maisa consideration.November 22, 2021 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #2032285
ujm> if someone (other than your parent etc) breaks into your house
in the dark, I believe. Otherwise, you can safely retreat. In this case, one might argue that he is defending whole community law & order so retreat was not an option (similar in halakha when a border city is attacked is different from regular robbery)November 22, 2021 5:39 pm at 5:39 pm #2032288
jackk > How many other people were killed during the Kenosha protests ?
What I am saying is that the jury decided that he had a reasonable fear for his life. That is, those other guys possibly were a real threat to him. This is similar to halakha when someone digs into your house at night, you can presume that he is ready to kill you if needed to avoid arrest. Thee was a lot of property damage and when someone tried to stop them, they did not stop.November 22, 2021 8:11 pm at 8:11 pm #2032330
” jackk, your still have to answer why he was prosecuted on the other charges, if you are to argue it wasn’t politically motivated. ”
I am not a prosecutor and I already said that they did a terrible job.
“And you keep referring to Rosenbaum as “unarmed” and keep ignoring the fact that he was trying to get Rittenhouse’s gun. ”
This is a politically motivated slant to change the clear meaning of a English word and you have to ask yourself why you think this way.
The facts are that the first person killed had no deadly weapon – not even the extremely deadly weapon called a skateboard.
“And the notion that he should have just shot him in the arm is 1st grade level stupidity and you know it.”
So you feel that it was stupidity for Kyle to have blown the arm off of of Gaige Grosskreutz. He should have blown his head off.
-“The prosecution did a terrible job.”- I keep seeing people say this, but I don’t see how he could have done a better job considering he didn’t have a case to begin with. ”
I will let experienced prosecution lawyers, who have gotten innocent people sent to death row, answer this. These prosecutors were not the A team.
“More gaslighting, race-baiting garbage.”
Agreed. But this is the way the BLM people see it. And this is America in the year 2021.
“Jackk, my question to you, is why in your mind should Kyle be guilty, and based on what evidence.”
In my mind, he was not guilty based on the laws of Wisconsin. My feelings are that if he had more experience and was more of an adult ( like the many others people just like him who were out there that night defending ) he wouldn’t have feared for his life from Joseph Rosenbaum.
“President Biden “angry” and “upset” with the verdict. Why does Nadler call the verdict a “miscarriage of justice””.
” It’s comments like these that divide the country.”
How about these comments ?
Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-NC, offered Rittenhouse an internship in his office, and told his followers to “be armed, and be dangerous.”
“I will arm wrestle @mattgaetz to get dibs for Kyle as an intern.” Rep. Paul GosarNovember 22, 2021 8:30 pm at 8:30 pm #2032369
“in the dark, I believe. Otherwise, you can safely retreat.”
The Halacha is that if someone breaks into your house, armed or unarmed — day or night, you can immediately blow his head off.November 22, 2021 9:49 pm at 9:49 pm #20324042scentsParticipant
“ It may be as you say that the person who has such a record will most likely be more menacing, I just see that more as a court defense issue than a shaas maisa consideration.”
I did not follow this case that closely, but in general the court would only allow characterizations or personal information that the defendant had at the time of the incident.November 22, 2021 10:19 pm at 10:19 pm #2032419Amil ZolaParticipant
Someone up thread brought up Kyles maturity. I’ve been a lifelong gun owner, as a kid I belonged to the local NJ 4H sharpshooters, heck I even have two AR styled rifles in the gun safe. I had a carry permit for years and have taken numerous gun safety classes. Range shooting is a pastime I enjoy in this era of Covid. I just cant get it through my head that this child of 17 went into the situation having no experience, and the fact that his mother drove him boggles my mind. I’ve spent thousands (that I can afford) on ammo and range time, and cowboy shooting competitions. I couldn’t imagine dropping into the situation like he did, even with my training and skill set. IMHONovember 22, 2021 10:20 pm at 10:20 pm #2032437
ujm, what is your source hat you can kill someone who is not a threat to life, but only to property. Or maybe I misunderstood your words.November 22, 2021 11:01 pm at 11:01 pm #2032460
AAQ: It is an explicit Torah Law. “Ba Bamachteres”. Shemos 22:1, Sanhedrin 72a.November 22, 2021 11:02 pm at 11:02 pm #2032465DBSParticipant
if someone breaks into your house we assume they are willing to kill you unless we have reason to believe otherwise. I assume this is what UJM is talking about.November 22, 2021 11:42 pm at 11:42 pm #2032485
re: Sanhedrin 72a. CM 425:1 if we are clear that he does not intend to kill, we are not allowed to kill – as clearly seen in Gemora’s discussion about father/son
interestingly, Gemora is also discussing a difference between owner and a vigilante
Pesachim 2b is ganav and a similar discussion that if it is clear to you that he is not planning to kill, you also do not.November 22, 2021 11:47 pm at 11:47 pm #2032490
Oh Jackk, -“The facts are that the first person killed had no deadly weapon – not even the extremely deadly weapon called a skateboard.”
That’s right. What a miscarriage of justice.
You can’t kill anybody w/o a gun.
The Guys in Wakshua are Not dead!
It’s just a Bunch of White Racists that claim a Black killed people in a parade!November 23, 2021 6:40 am at 6:40 am #2032534
Jack, stop being a hypocrite. If you were being attacked by someone and you felt your life was in danger you like any other person would see defend yourself anyway you could.
editedNovember 23, 2021 6:42 am at 6:42 am #2032535
So jack wants criminals to be able to prey on their victims wo having to worry about the victims fighting back.
Sweet.November 23, 2021 6:47 am at 6:47 am #2032540
edited – enough already!November 23, 2021 6:48 am at 6:48 am #2032541
The teenager is lucky to be alive and free today .He could have been killed by anyone of his “victims”.
Likewise if it wasn’t for his lawyers who he couldn’t afford he would be in jail for the rest of his live. There is no way a legal aide lawyer would got him offNovember 23, 2021 7:35 am at 7:35 am #2032589
Abba- the prosecuter got him off because the facts kept coming out on his side. His own witnesses couldn’t support his case. You just fell for the propaganda.November 23, 2021 7:36 am at 7:36 am #2032594
BY – jackk said nothing of the sort. Joining in a rant against a case you know nothing about simply because of your politics is puzzling, but he doesn’t make any such claims. Did you have a personal discussion with him about this somewhere else?November 23, 2021 7:36 am at 7:36 am #2032592
2scents – I agree with you. However I thought nishts point wasn’t that they were criminals, but that as violent people they would have made him more afraid and threatened than if it was simply some college student yelling in his face. The defense could use it to explain why someone threatened by such a person would be more fearful.November 23, 2021 8:51 am at 8:51 am #2032619MDGParticipant
“The facts are that the first person killed had no deadly weapon”
That person was reaching for a firearm. It happened to be owned by Rittenhouse.November 23, 2021 9:35 am at 9:35 am #2032650
There is a wonderful feeling that I have that on the same thread per Syag I am “exhibit number 2” and also defended for things I never wrote.November 23, 2021 9:56 am at 9:56 am #2032661
I try to practice what I preachNovember 23, 2021 1:35 pm at 1:35 pm #2032752
Oh Jackk, -“There is a wonderful feeling that I have that on the same thread per Syag I am “exhibit number 2” and also defended for things I never wrote.”
Me & MDG responded to your quote.
So why don’t you have an answer to us?
You libs are always so Smug with your Nonsense!November 23, 2021 2:50 pm at 2:50 pm #2032833
Abba- the prosecuter got him off because the facts kept coming out on his side. His own witnesses couldn’t support his case. You just fell for the propaganda.
If he had a legal aid lawyer, he would have been in jail for over a year and might have taken a plea deal. Also, I doubt the legal aid lawyer would have challenged the curfew & gun charges. Legal aide lawyer is juggling multiple cases at the same time so it’s doubtful he would have caught on that the medic was pointing a gun when he was shot.
The jury was deliberating 3.5 days, if it was an open and shut case why did it take so long?
I am not sure what propaganda I have fell for. When you need surgery do you use your GP or do you get a surgeon?November 23, 2021 2:52 pm at 2:52 pm #2032830
Jackk-“This is a politically motivated slant to change the clear meaning of a English word and you have to ask yourself why you think this way.”-Thinking that a mentally ill person, who threatened to kill you earlier, and is now reaching for your weapon, as a threat to your own life, is “politically motivated”??
-“So you feel that it was stupidity for Kyle to have blown the arm off of of Gaige Grosskreutz. He should have blown his head off.”-No the stupidity I was referring to was the line of thinking that in the spur of the moment, Kyle, if he wants, can decide where exactly he’s gonna shoot. This is the same as saying police should aim for the legs.
-“I will let experienced prosecution lawyers, who have gotten innocent people sent to death row, answer this.”-ah, but when you say ” There surely were many legal reasons for a prosecution. The prosecution did a terrible job.” it sounds like you are thinking there are many legal reasons kyle should have been found guilty, and the prosecution did a bad job bringing them out.
-“Agreed. But this is the way the BLM people see it. “-Are you the spokesman for BLM?
Amil Zola-“I just cant get it through my head that this child of 17 went into the situation having no experience…”-The way he handled himself that night, when he was chased by first a mentally ill person, then by a mob who wanted nothing less than his life, I think is absolutely incredible.November 23, 2021 8:36 pm at 8:36 pm #2033036
Oh Jackk, -“The prosecution did a terrible job.” “This is a politically motivated slant”
The only Politically Slant came from the Woke Government.
I just watched a YouTube video from a Black Guy who’s sells guns or is into promoting them.
He said the Prosecutor lied to portray Rittenhouse as a Killer, to influence the Jury!
He played a clip of the Prosecutor asking what type of bullets he used.
He made it sound that if you use the Hollow Point, you’re out for maximum damage.
The Black expert said the Real reason to use Hollow Points is because the other type of bullet can go through the guy & possibly do collateral damage, even Killing innocent bystanders!November 24, 2021 10:10 am at 10:10 am #2033255
– “Thinking that a mentally ill person, who threatened to kill you earlier, and is now reaching for your weapon, as a threat to your own life, is “politically motivated”??”
Saying that Rosenbaum reaching for a weapon means that he was not “unarmed” is politically motivated.
– “No the stupidity I was referring to was the line of thinking that in the spur of the moment, Kyle, if he wants, can decide where exactly he’s gonna shoot. ”
Rosenbaum was shot 4 times. Maybe he didn’t need to shoot him 4 times to stop him from attacking? The Forensic Pathologist testified that Rosenbaum was first wounded in the groin, then in the hand and thigh, as he faced Rittenhouse. After that, Rosenbaum was shot in the head and in the back. Kelley testified the final two shots were at a downward angle.
– “it sounds like you are thinking there are many legal reasons kyle should have been found guilty, and the prosecution did a bad job bringing them out.”.
Correct. See my previous answer.
– I don’t speak for BLM. But the idea that a lot of money is needed in order to defend yourself in the USA is a fact. Just look at the Rabbi Eisemann case.November 24, 2021 4:19 pm at 4:19 pm #2033434
The next problem for Kyle is the bail money, his former attorney paid the $2 million bail the majority of which the lawyer(s) collected. The lawyer who posted the bail is legally entitled to the bail money. Kyle grew up poor so he has put a claim for that money but so has his ex lawyers. His victims will sue him if he gets the money. It’s doubtful that after legal expenses he will be left with anything so I think he would be better off negotiating with the lawyer for a part of the $2 million bail money.November 24, 2021 5:38 pm at 5:38 pm #2033457
Abba -“His victims will sue him if he gets the money.”
He’ll counter Sue.
He probably will win some cases, especially that they called him a “White Supremacist”.
He will get a lot of money because the Lib Media doesn’t believe in Innocent Until proven guilty, when it comes to White people!November 24, 2021 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm #2033470
Health: Yes he can counter sue and as long as he shows that they were at fault he will win. But they have no money and he will have to pay his lawyer to defend him. As far as the Lib Media is concerned it is very hard to prove libel since he was charged with a crime and there is freedom of the press. He would probably be easier suing the politcians.November 24, 2021 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm #2033475
Jackk-“Saying that Rosenbaum reaching for a weapon means that he was not “unarmed” is politically motivated.”-Thats ridiculous. Obviously at that exact moment that he was shot, rosenbaum was unarmed-as in not carrying any weapon-but for all intents and purposes, he was armed. He was reaching for kyle’s gun. That is as good as armed. I don’t know where your going with this.
-“Maybe he didn’t need to shoot him 4 times to stop him from attacking?”-When an animal is attacking you, you can’t exactly stop to access the situation in between each shot. All 4 shot were shot within a second or two. We live in the real world jackk.
-“Correct. See my previous answer.”-Your previous answer was that there were other cases where good prosecutors got innocent men sent to the death row. What does that have to do with kyle? Not connecting the dots here.November 24, 2021 7:51 pm at 7:51 pm #2033476
Abba_s-Once again, what are/can his victims suing him for??November 24, 2021 10:00 pm at 10:00 pm #2033507ubiquitinParticipant
” what are/can his victims suing him for??”
For violating their civil rights.
Before you say, he had too , hislife was in danger, Yes that is what his lawyers will argue, and probably win. That doesn’t mean he can’t be suedNovember 24, 2021 10:11 pm at 10:11 pm #2033515EJMRBroParticipant
Him and the Judge are BasedNovember 24, 2021 10:14 pm at 10:14 pm #2033521
Abba -“Yes he can counter sue and as long as he shows that they were at fault he will win. But they have no money and he will have to pay his lawyer to defend him.”
It’s an easy case.
The jury already ruled that it was Self-defense.
That means that the attackers were at fault.
You can lose any case with Lousy Lawyers.
I’ve lost many cases.
“As far as the Lib Media is concerned it is very hard to prove libel since he was charged with a crime and there is freedom of the press”
Again any labeling that the Media did – like quoting J. Biden can be sued for either Slander or Libel!November 25, 2021 8:11 am at 8:11 am #2033756
Health: If the media is quoting someone they are protected from libel as they are just reporting the facts. Even if the media libeled someone but retracted the claim prior to trial they can get away with it.November 25, 2021 11:38 am at 11:38 am #2033877EJMRBroParticipant
I think you mean Kyle RITTENHERONovember 25, 2021 4:51 pm at 4:51 pm #2034078
Ubi-“For violating their civil rights.”-2 points. Firstly, in no way shape or form did he violate any civil rights. I’m pretty sure that burning down buildings isn’t a “right”. Secondly, when i’m asking what he can be sued for, i’m coming from a second angle as well-that is, any such lawsuit, would in theory be tied to the trial in which rittenhouse was cleared of all charges. What i’m saying is that if rittenhouse did somehow violate their civil rights, that would mean that he was to some degree the “instigator, and that would inherently take away from his self defense claim, being that you don’t get to claim self defense when your the “instigator”. And the jury already determined that he was not the instigator.November 25, 2021 8:55 pm at 8:55 pm #2034187
Abba -“Health: If the media is quoting someone they are protected from libel as they are just reporting the facts. Even if the media libeled someone but retracted the claim prior to trial they can get away with it.”
I’m not a lawyer, but I saw somewhere that he had a meeting with the kid who won millions with his lawsuit against the Media.
Remember the Catholic Kid who was in DC demonstrating against Abortion and he met an Indian (Now called Indigenous people).
Maybe he will help him get Top Lawyers?!?November 25, 2021 9:50 pm at 9:50 pm #2034229ubiquitinParticipant
“Firstly, in no way shape or form did he violate any civil rights.”
I never said they would win the lawsuit against him. sorry if that wasnt clear
” I’m pretty sure that burning down buildings isn’t a “right”. ”
no but living is.
” And the jury already determined that he was not the instigator.”
This would be a new jury, obviously. And while I would yield to a lawyer of course, I’m pretty sure that under a new trial (as there would be should the families sue) they don’t pick up where the old trial LEft off. “Ok so we concluded Kyle was not the instigator, now should he be civility liable…”
another jury might find that he WAS the instigator (to be clear I’m nto saying he was of that they would) and IS civilly liable
furthermore you are reading more into the verdict than there is. all they said is “not guilty” thats it that doesn’t mean thye accepted all or even any of the defense’s claims. Presumably they did, but the verdict doesn’t somehow encompass that. Not aonly that it doesnt even mean he isnt nt guilty of say first degree intentional homicide, it means he isnt guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt. For vcivil case you dont need “beyond a reasonable doubt” .So even if a second jury found him guilty (not saying they would) the juries would NOT be arguing He could be guilty based on the “preponderance of the evidence” which is “not huilty” when it comes to criminal charges but guilty when it comes to civil.
Fiannly although “negligence” did come up a bit in the trial, as it was a criminal trial the bulk of the case was whther he acted intentially or even recklessly. Even if he was neither of thsoe , he could still have been negligent wh mkes him ily liable
So to sum up. I am not saying he will be sued nor that if sued he would lsoe.
I am saying he could and might be sued.November 26, 2021 7:40 am at 7:40 am #2034346
Ubiq -“I am saying he could and might be sued.”
“I’m not a lawyer, but I saw somewhere that he had a meeting with the kid who won millions with his lawsuit against the Media.”
I wasn’t informed at the time I wrote that post.
Sandmann originally sued for $250 million.
Then the case was settled. The amount is confidential.
So I saw a blog from some lawyer, that the amount couldn’t be
more than 50 thousand.
He wrote he has done defamation cases before.
He’s a typical lawyer/LIAR.
Even though I’m not a lawyer, I had a few cases.
No one settles for that amount, when the original suit was for 250 mil.
I figure he settled for at least one or a few million.
I settled one of my cases, because I wanted out. I still got a few grand.
These lawyers don’t know the meaning of the word “Truth”!November 26, 2021 8:51 am at 8:51 am #2034380user176Participant
Him coming out now as a supporter of BLM changes a lot about what we might have assumed were his motives. I haven’t watched any of the trial but my understanding is that this is new information. Maybe he can still claim self defense but it seems these murders were not entirely lishma.November 26, 2021 1:26 pm at 1:26 pm #2034562
User176 -“Him coming out now as a supporter of BLM changes a lot about what we might have assumed were his motives”
Maybe you shouldn’t comment when you know nothing about the case?!?
His motives are irrelevant – why he was there.
The Jury decided it was a case of Self defense.November 26, 2021 1:29 pm at 1:29 pm #2034569
User176, he’s no blm supporter, he was trying to make the point that he’s not a racist, that he supports black lives. If he was “blm” supporter, he would’ve been burning down buildings, not protecting them from those who were.November 28, 2021 3:10 pm at 3:10 pm #2035268
Health: The jury merely stated that he was not guilty of murder, that the state didn’t prove it’s case that he murder the victims beyond a reasonable doubt. Not that it was self defence, A civil case should his victims or their estate decide to sue, will determine who was at fault.
As far as suing the media like Sandman. While I am not a lawyer it is very hard to win a case against the media. In fact he never won a case. What happen is that it drags on and it cost the defendant thousands of dollars per hour for their lawyers so it’s cheaper to pay the plaintiff $50-100 thosands to settle.November 29, 2021 7:09 am at 7:09 am #2035437BennytheKvetchParticipant
Heath, His motives aren’t irrelevant when some decide to elevate Rittenhouse as a hero. That’s the part that bothers me. Although he seems to be innocent under the law, Rittenhouse is no hero for many reasons. Likewise, I saw no mention here that he was photographed drinking with Proud Boys and flashing white power signs just like the New Zealand mosque shooter. Personally I though he showed his true colors there. Im sure he’s really a BLM supporter and isn’t the least bit antisemitic either.November 29, 2021 7:32 am at 7:32 am #2035464
And stoth name calling to make your point.
You’re just a cheap propogandist.
editedNovember 29, 2021 1:04 pm at 1:04 pm #2035642
Abba -“As far as suing the media like Sandman. While I am not a lawyer it is very hard to win a case against the media. In fact he never won a case. What happen is that it drags on and it cost the defendant thousands of dollars per hour for their lawyers so it’s cheaper to pay the plaintiff $50-100 thosands to settle.”
He didn’t win the case – they settled.
Have you ever sued s/o?
The Judge got rid of most of the Complaints in the lawsuit, but one – three he let stand.
If you think that people settle because of lawyer expense, you’re Very ignorant!
People settle when there is a chance of losing the case, not a Far Fetched chance.
“Not that it was self defence, A civil case should his victims or their estate decide to sue, will determine who was at fault.”
Everyone saw that Kyle shot people.
So what legal defense did he have?
That it was Self defense.
This is from the Trial.
The Jury only decides Guilty or Non-guilty.
Yes, he could still be Sued, but he can counter Sue.
I predict if they sue him and win, they will lose Twice as much in a Counter Suit!November 29, 2021 1:05 pm at 1:05 pm #2035650
BtK -“Heath, His motives aren’t irrelevant when some decide to elevate Rittenhouse as a hero”
You’re a new poster, but you shouldn’t be posting to Me.
If you would have looked at the other Topic on Kyle, I wrote he shouldn’t have been there.
When you write no one should consider him a hero, it depends what you’re talking about.
When the Woke people in this Country think that you can Riot & Burn and there’s No consequences, so yes he did Show Americans that some of Us will Defend Ourselves!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.