Rittenhouse

[BTSinAustin]

It looks like he is going to walk. Will the world burn or not since they were all white?

Stay tuned.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 10, 2021, BTSinAustin wrote
(in article<74fb34ed-40e8-45a0...@googlegroups.com>):

> It looks like he is going to walk. Will the world burn or not since they were
> all white?
>
> Stay tuned.

Good question. This trial is well below the radar from what I can see, so I
don’t see much happening. It was all based on political considerations, but
I still think no one really cares. Arbery is very different, but I don’t
think those guys are walking. At least not all 3 of them. But both trials
have one thing in common, stupid people vs stupid people. That never seems to
end well for anyone.

[BTSinAustin]

The Arbery guys should fry from what I can see. But I don't have all the facts.

Rittenhouse... When the star witness for the prosecution said that he pointed the gun at the kid before he was shot closed the deal. The Twitter mob seems to think the prosecution is throwing the case.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 10, 2021, BTSinAustin wrote

(in article<64257913-cc5b-4e10...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:10:18 PM UTC-5, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 2021, BTSinAustin wrote
> > (in article<74fb34ed-40e8-45a0...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > It looks like he is going to walk. Will the world burn or not since they
> > > were
> > > all white?
> > >
> > > Stay tuned.
> > Good question. This trial is well below the radar from what I can see, so I
> > don’t see much happening. It was all based on political considerations,
> > but
> > I still think no one really cares. Arbery is very different, but I don’t
> > think those guys are walking. At least not all 3 of them. But both trials
> > have one thing in common, stupid people vs stupid people. That never seems
> > to
> > end well for anyone.
>
> The Arbery guys should fry from what I can see. But I don't have all the
> facts.

They should fry for their stupidity. Trying to play cop? Pointing a gun at a
guy for what was essentially trespassing in a house they didn’t even own?
Yeah, 3d party interventions very often end badly. Just ask the “hero” at
the LV Walmart. You could ask him if he weren’t dead. Good intentions
aren’t enough on their own.

>
>
> Rittenhouse... When the star witness for the prosecution said that he pointed
> the gun at the kid before he was shot closed the deal. The Twitter mob seems
> to think the prosecution is throwing the case.

They should throw the case. It was a mistake from the beginning.

[Splashie]

Rittenhouse is basically the same except that he wasn't targeting someone based on their skin color. He's a cop wannabe who crossed state lines to "defend" a business he didn't own that was 20 miles from his house and was illegally carrying (18 is minimum age for open carry in WI and he was 17 at the time).

> >
> >
> > Rittenhouse... When the star witness for the prosecution said that he pointed
> > the gun at the kid before he was shot closed the deal. The Twitter mob seems
> > to think the prosecution is throwing the case.
> They should throw the case. It was a mistake from the beginning.

He'll probably walk on self-defense, but it's obvious he created the situation that required it.

Michael

[BTSinAustin]

I agree the kid had no business being there.

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 8:20:01 AM UTC-8, BTSinAustin wrote:
> It looks like he is going to walk.

What if he'd been a white cop?

[risky biz]

~ On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10:15:25 AM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:

~ He'll probably walk on self-defense, but it's obvious he created the situation that required it.
>
> Michael

The 'situation' was created by the armed rioters who were burning and looting. Don't give Rittenhouse more credit than he deserves.

[risky biz]

~ On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10:30:28 AM UTC-8, BTSinAustin wrote:

~ I agree the kid had no business being there.

Maybe, maybe not, but that isn't the issue. He had a right to be there just like anyone else. He wasn't burning and looting which no one has a right to do.

[BTSinAustin]

I was talking philosophically, not legally. He had every right to be there and he worked there right? What I really meant was he should not have shown up armed, illegally at that.

Yes I support gun laws.

[Splashie]

I meant the situation where he was defending himself from someone trying to grab his rifle away from him. If he had sat his ass at home in Illinois his life would not have been endangered. Like Vanek said, 3rd party interventions very often end badly.

Michael

[BTSinAustin]

I agree.... and if only the rioters would have stayed home too.

[Splashie]

Hypothetical question from a former RGPer...if Rittenhouse was black and went to a WLM protest (say like Charlottesville) and killed two people, even in self-defense, would he be convicted at trial?

Michael

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 10, 2021, Splashie wrote
(in article<9e3f36b7-cdbe-46a8...@googlegroups.com>):

I read today that the ADA twice did things that almost look like sabotage.
The defense motioned for a mistrial with prejudice. The “with prejudice”
part is because they believe the ADA acted deliberately to force them to
motion for mistrial - because the prosecution was losing badly, and wanted a
redo. The defense wants it to end without any chance of a redo, at least by
the state. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules. He has
throughout the trial seemed to be sympathetic to Rittenhouse. Of course. If
he grants the motion, the chorus will rise for the feds to try him for some
civil rights violation.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 10, 2021, Splashie wrote

(in article<9e3f36b7-cdbe-46a8...@googlegroups.com>):

It’s not clear at all that he was carrying illegally based on his age. The
law they cited is a mess, and no one really knows what it means, but there
appears to be an exception for long guns. They charged him with that, and are
desperate to make it stick, because of a quirk in WI state law. If you
don’t believe that, ask yourself why they didn’t charge the injured guy
for illegally carrying concealed? There is no dispute at all that he was
carrying illegally. I’ll try to post the article I just read on this -
it’s very clear and informative, and it’s by someone who certainly know
this stuff.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 10, 2021, Splashie wrote

(in article<bd0c6a19-2556-4f8f...@googlegroups.com>):

Same judge, same jury, same sort of victims, same charges, same prosecution
and defense teams? If so, I’d say the same outcome. But we don’t know the
outcome yet. The reason they are trying to make the gun charge stick is that
WI law says "if a person engages in unlawful conduct that tends to provoke
others to a violent attack, the person can lose his right of self-defense.”
That is a quote from an article I read. So they are trying to convince the
jury that he carried the gun illegally.

[Splashie]

I read up on the law, and the argument seems to be that because Rittenhouse was carrying a rifle, the law didn't apply. But the INTENT of the law, as poorly written as it appears to be, is clearly to create an exemption for hunting (i.e. 17 year olds can legally open carry a rifle or shotgun used for hunting as long as they have a hunting permit, there are further restrictions for younger kids but they can also generally do that under adult supervision). There's no fucking logic that explains why a law prohibiting minors from carrying any dangerous weapon (and makes it a felony for an adult to give them one) would somehow not apply to a kid carrying a weapon on city streets after curfew.

Maybe they aren't prosecuting the injured guy because he didn't actually shoot anyone?

Michael

[Dutch]

On 2021-11-10 8:19 a.m., BTSinAustin wrote:
> It looks like he is going to walk. Will the world burn or not since they were all white?
>
> Stay tuned.

I think you are jumping the gun, no pun intended. I think his
"performance" on the stand probably helped to soften his image with some
of the jury, but the nervous breakdown on the stand stands in stark
contrast to his tone since the incident where has been publicly acting
proud of his actions, not remorseful at all. And will the jurors believe
that he had a reasonable belief that he was in serious threat of harm?
And will they take into account that he created the circumstances that
led to those deaths, that he had no legitimate right to be there armed
with a high-powered rifle? I think lesser included charges are likely to
be the end result.

[Dutch]

The first two victims, the ones he killed, were unarmed. Did you forget
about them?

[Dutch]

Can you claim you were within your rights to shoot an unarmed person in
self-defense when you had no right to be carrying the rifle you shot
them with, and your fear was based on the chance they might take the
illegal gun away from you and shoot you with it? It sure seems like a
circular defense. It's like setting fire to someone's house, getting
burned in the fire, then suing the homeowner for damages.

[Dutch]

Or carrying that weapon. But you think none of that matters, that he
will walk because he created a dangerous situation where he felt
endangered as a direct result of his own series of actions.

[Dutch]

It was not a deadly "situation" until Kyle came into the picture. Nobody
else was brandishing AR-15s.

[Dutch]

Burning and and looting is a matter for police and insurance companies,
not 17-year-old vigilantes strutting around menacing people with AR-15s.

[BillB]

Your analogy doesn't really apply to these facts. I think a better analogy would be that you are driving a car with an expired license and no plates, some drunk runs a red light, smashes into you, kills himself, and then they charge you with a homicide because if you weren't there he wouldn't have hit you. It doesn't work that way.

Rittenhouse is guilty of whatever he is guilty of for illegal possession of a firearm, but that at no point extinguishes his right to appropriately defend himself against death or grievous bodily harm (or however it's phrased in that jurisdiction). Doesn't matter if the guy comes at him with a butcher knife or tries to wrestle his illegally carried gun from him.

It gets muddier if Rittenhouse instigated the confrontation, but from what I have seen that wasn't the case here. I think part of the prosecutions theory is that he instigated confrontation just by being there with a gun, but I think it takes a lot more than that. The real instigators here seemed to be the victims.

I do see room to question the first killing, but I think there is a reasonable doubt. Good job by the defense (or Rittenhouse himself if it was against the advice of counsel) to have the guts to put Rittenhouse on the stand to humanize him. I think he handled himself well on the stand. The cross was not good.

All that said, I haven't researched any of this, so take it with a grain of salt. It's just my educated guess.

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 1:22:29 PM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:34:52 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > ~ On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10:15:25 AM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
> >
> > ~ He'll probably walk on self-defense, but it's obvious he created the situation that required it.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > The 'situation' was created by the armed rioters who were burning and looting. Don't give Rittenhouse more credit than he deserves.

~ I meant the situation where he was defending himself from someone trying to grab his rifle away from him. If he had sat his ass at home in Illinois his life would not have been endangered. Like Vanek said, 3rd party interventions very often end badly.
>
> Michael

Where did you get the idea that American citizens have to get permission from 'antifa'/BLM to go outdoors?

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 2:40:17 PM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 1:25:49 PM UTC-8, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 4:22:29 PM UTC-5, Splashie wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:34:52 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > > > ~ On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10:15:25 AM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ~ He'll probably walk on self-defense, but it's obvious he created the situation that required it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > The 'situation' was created by the armed rioters who were burning and looting. Don't give Rittenhouse more credit than he deserves.
> > > I meant the situation where he was defending himself from someone trying to grab his rifle away from him. If he had sat his ass at home in Illinois his life would not have been endangered. Like Vanek said, 3rd party interventions very often end badly.
> > >
> > I agree.... and if only the rioters would have stayed home too.

~ Hypothetical question from a former RGPer...if Rittenhouse was black and went to a WLM protest (say like Charlottesville) and killed two people, even in self-defense, would he be convicted at trial?
>
> Michael

Your implication is that he would be but that conclusion is entirely spurious. There has been no indication I've seen that a potential jury pool in Charlottesville would be majority biased in favor of the right-wingers that descended on their town. And any gun rights supporter on the jury would focus on that, exonerate on the right to self-defense, and ignore race.

Your conclusion proceeds from your own prejudice.

[risky biz]

~ I read up on the law, and the argument seems to be that because Rittenhouse was carrying a rifle, the law didn't apply. But the INTENT of the law, as poorly written as it appears to be, is clearly to create an exemption for hunting (i.e. 17 year olds can legally open carry a rifle or shotgun used for hunting as long as they have a hunting permit, there are further restrictions for younger kids but they can also generally do that under adult supervision). There's no fucking logic that explains why a law prohibiting minors from carrying any dangerous weapon (and makes it a felony for an adult to give them one) would somehow not apply to a kid carrying a weapon on city streets after curfew.

>
> Maybe they aren't prosecuting the injured guy because he didn't actually shoot anyone?
>
> Michael

Regardless of the niceties of whatever those laws are thry are irrelevant to his right to self-defense. Carrying a gun illegally doesn't meant you are obligated to allow someone to beat you to death with a skateboard. Illegal carrying of a weapon may make him liable for illegal carrying of a weapon. It doesn't magically transpose into guilt of murder if the weapon is used to preserve himself from grievous injury or loss of his life.

The guy that was injured didn't shoot anyone only because the intended victim got his shot off first. The DA gave him extra points for failing then?

[risky biz]

~ The first two victims, the ones he killed, were unarmed. Did you forget
> about them?

Are you referring to the ones kicking him and trying to beat his brains out with a skateboard?

Get a grip 'dutch'. Then flush your next three posts in this thread down the nearest toilet.

[Splashie]

That wasn't my conclusion. And the question wasn't mine, it was originally asked of me by a former RGPer.

Michael

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote
(in article <smifl1$tda$1...@dont-email.me>):

You sure about that? Is that one more thing you just know? And what, really,
is the difference between that gun and the Glock that was pointed at his
head? They’ll both kill you pretty easily. And there is a sound argument
that he was carrying legally, while the other guy definitely was not.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 10, 2021, Splashie wrote

(in article<679cb310-0abd-49f0...@googlegroups.com>):

Is there fucking logic that a day before an 18th birthday a guy is simply not
qualified or mature enough to carry a rifle, but a day later he can and is?
And your opinion on the intent of the law is just that, an opinion, just like
all the opinions that disagree with you. Did you read that article from the
former federal prosecutor that I posted? And where was your outrage on the
other side of things, like Portland, for instance? How about the guy just
handing out long guns indiscriminately? People were killed there, too, you
know. But not a peep about that. You are basing your opinions on politics,
not objectivity.

> Maybe they aren't prosecuting the injured guy because he didn't actually
> shoot anyone?

That doesn’t make sense. People who haven’t committed any other crime are
prosecuted all the time for concealed carry. This is just more proof that
this is a politics based trial.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

(in article <smierb$pf1$2...@dont-email.me>):

What difference does that make? Why are you so stupid?

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

(in article <smidg5$k48$1...@dont-email.me>):

> armed with a high-powered rifle?

Please define that. What sets that apart from “a rifle”? Or are you just
repeating the inflammatory terms your handlers feed you?

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

(in article <smif77$rua$1...@dont-email.me>):

I’m amazed - that’s actually a good question, one that is sometimes
covered in concealed carry classes. It’s too bad you will never understand
the various answers, the nuance, or anything at all about the subject,
because you are fucking blind to anything that disagrees with your childish
world view.

> It sure seems like a
> circular defense. It's like setting fire to someone's house, getting
> burned in the fire, then suing the homeowner for damages.

So you never heard of a burglar suing the homeowner? Probably not.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<dad564d3-5da8-47ac...@googlegroups.com>):

> Rittenhouse is guilty of whatever he is guilty of for illegal possession of a
> firearm, but that at no point extinguishes his right to appropriately defend
> himself against death or grievous bodily harm (or however it's phrased in
> that jurisdiction). Doesn't matter if the guy comes at him with a butcher
> knife or tries to wrestle his illegally carried gun from him.
>
> It gets muddier if Rittenhouse instigated the confrontation, but from what I
> have seen that wasn't the case here. I think part of the prosecutions theory
> is that he instigated confrontation just by being there with a gun, but I
> think it takes a lot more than that. The real instigators here seemed to be
> the victims.

More of your ignorance of what actually happens in US courts. Why don’t you
apply your above thinking to the Arbery case? Is it muddy?

[BillB]

Hilarious that you think I am ignorant but you are not when I clearly know 1000x more than you. Okay, back to your delusions, Walter.

[BillB]

Looks, as I've always said. It appeals to nutters with Rambo delusions. It is the choice of refined mass slaughterers everywhere. Rittenhouse himself said one of the primary reasons he picked that firearm was because it "looked cool." It also has numerous features borrowed from military assault rifles that make easier and more efficient at killing large numbers of people.

[Splashie]

The logic there is that you have to draw a line somewhere legally between a child and an adult, particularly when you are going to hold adults more responsible for breaking the law. For example, the relevant statute here makes it a misdemeanor for a 17 year old to illegally carry a deadly weapon, but a felony for an 18 year old to give the 17 year old that weapon.

> And your opinion on the intent of the law is just that, an opinion, just like
> all the opinions that disagree with you. Did you read that article from the
> former federal prosecutor that I posted?

Yes, I read the article, and the linked Twitter thread where the argument that the statute didn't apply to Rittenhouse was presented. The part he is relying on says that the statute only applies to someone under 18 carrying a rifle or a shotgun as long as they are not violating the restrictions against short-barreled rifles/shotguns (mainly targeting so-called "sawed-off" shotguns) and are in compliance with two other statutes that directly address hunting. The argument made there was that one of the statutes addresses how kids 16 and under can legally hunt under adult supervision (so 17 year olds aren't subject to the same restrictions) and that the other was about obtaining a hunting permit and claiming that didn't matter because Rittenhouse wasn't hunting. And that's exactly where the argument falls apart. Why would it be illegal for a 17 year old to carry brass knuckles, nunchucks, or other weapons, and the one exception to the law being carrying hunting rifles/shotguns as long as the minor is in compliance with hunting regulations if it weren't meant to cover ONLY the situation where a minor is actually hunting? Not a lot of deer on the streets of Kenosha, WI at close to midnight.

> And where was your outrage on the
> other side of things, like Portland, for instance? How about the guy just
> handing out long guns indiscriminately? People were killed there, too, you
> know. But not a peep about that. You are basing your opinions on politics,
> not objectivity.

I know of one death in Portland, and the killer claimed he acted in self defense just like Rittenhouse. The difference there is he never got a chance to stand trial because the US Marshals killed him. Are you claiming you are not basing your opinions on politics? The NR article you linked is full of very subjective viewpoints meant to make Rittenhouse look like a selfless hero who was just trying to help people, with only token admonishment for his decision to go there in the first place.

Michael

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:37:34 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> ~ On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10:30:28 AM UTC-8, BTSinAustin wrote:
>
> ~ I agree the kid had no business being there.
>
> Maybe, maybe not, but that isn't the issue. He had a right to be there just like anyone else.

Illegally brandishing a weapon?

> He wasn't burning and looting which no one has a right to do.

Yet wasn't it illigal for him to have that weapon and cross the state line?

[VegasJerry]

What is unclear about it? (To you)

> The law they cited is a mess...

Does that mean YOU don't understand it? Or can you show us the part you
don’t understand?

> and no one really knows what it means..

Heh, heh. So they made, and passed, a law and “no one really knows what it means..”
Yea, right. Try and got out of that one, you fucking idiot….

(See why he can never reply? [over 500 times])

> but there appears to be an exception for long guns.

In the “Law that’s a mess,” and you “don’t understand?”

> They charged him with that, and are desperate to make it stick

They don’t use, ‘desperate’ dipshit, they use the law.

> because of a quirk in WI state law.

Gee, a “desperate quirk?’ “Better ask BackupBillB, the “Desperate Quirk” pretend lawyer.

> If you don’t believe that, ask yourself why they didn’t charge the injured guy
> for illegally carrying concealed?

This trial isn’t about him.

> There is no dispute at all that he was carrying illegally.

But you said there was, because “No one knows what the law means.”

> I’ll try to post the article I just read on this -
> it’s very clear and informative, and it’s by someone who certainly know
> this stuff.

Heh, like you? Don’t fucking bother….

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 11:03:10 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

Now you're into Brandishing Laws......

[VegasJerry]

Make that Brandishing and Munising

[risky biz]

~ That wasn't my conclusion. And the question wasn't mine, it was originally asked of me by a former RGPer.
>
> Michael

Pass it on, then.

[Splashie]

Done.

Michael

[risky biz]

Assuming the correctness of your accusations of weapons illegality explain how that makes him guilty of murder.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 12:10:15 PM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:

~ Make that Brandishing and Munising

Are you trying to get to 'menacing'?

[Dutch]

On 2021-11-11 10:21 a.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote
> (in article <smifl1$tda$1...@dont-email.me>):
>
>> On 2021-11-10 12:34 p.m., risky biz wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10:15:25 AM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
>>>
>>>> He'll probably walk on self-defense, but it's obvious he created the
>>>> situation that required it.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>
>>> The 'situation' was created by the armed rioters who were burning and
>>> looting. Don't give Rittenhouse more credit than he deserves.
>>
>> It was not a deadly "situation" until Kyle came into the picture. Nobody
>> else was brandishing AR-15s.
>
> You sure about that? Is that one more thing you just know?

No, shit-for-brains, it is reasonable to conclude that if there were
other AR-15s being brandished that night someone would have reported it.

And what, really,
> is the difference between that gun and the Glock that was pointed at his
> head? They’ll both kill you pretty easily. And there is a sound argument
> that he was carrying legally, while the other guy definitely was not.

Yes, notable I think that he knew that a rifle might technically be
permissible while a handgun would not. It goes to a level of planning
and premeditation.

The difference is that a pistol can easily go unnoticed, i.e. not
provoke a reaction from some members of an excited crowd of protesters.
Was Kyle pointing the rifle towards people or was it slung at his side
or across his back to signal that he was, as he claims, there to help,
not do harm?

If you forget all the other circumstances that led to the confrontation
and focus solely on the 15 second confrontation between Kyle the guy who
pointed a pistol at him, then there is a prima facie argument for
self-defense, however that did not happen in a vacuum.

[VegasJerry]

Nope. Care to try again?

[VegasJerry]

Gimmy time, I'll get there....

[Dutch]

On 2021-11-11 10:29 a.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
> You are basing your opinions on politics,
> not objectivity.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Dutch]

[Dutch]

Did Rupert Murdoch Inc tell you to ask that, or did you think it up all
by yourself?

[Dutch]

The AR-15 was not concealed.

It’s too bad you will never understand
> the various answers, the nuance, or anything at all about the subject,
> because you are fucking blind to anything that disagrees with your childish
> world view.

My worldview tells me that if I walk into a theater waving a lit Molotov
cocktail over my head and in the ensuing stampede people are killed that
I bear responsibility. That's what he did.

>
>> It sure seems like a
>> circular defense. It's like setting fire to someone's house, getting
>> burned in the fire, then suing the homeowner for damages.
>
> So you never heard of a burglar suing the homeowner? Probably not.

For what? Did the homeowner shoot him? Did someone shoot Kyle?

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

(in article <smkjus$5rs$2...@dont-email.me>):

Are you saying you are never allowed to shoot dead an unarmed person? What
about granny when some guy kicks in her door? If she doesn’t see a weapon,
she has to use her fists to fight him off? Why are you so stupid? You appear
to know nothing about US law, much like that other Canadian idiot.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<8b22ee42-9e0a-44dc...@googlegroups.com>):

Such as? and exactly what features did Rittenhouse’s have? What made his
“high power”, setting it apart from any other rifle of that caliber? You
weren’t just talking shit, now were you?

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

(in article <smkk5b$70c$1...@dont-email.me>):

Why not just answer the question? You're the one who used the term. What did
you mean by that?

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

(in article <smkkie$8p6$1...@dont-email.me>):

Beyond all odds, you are getting dumber. Concealed weapons don’t stay
concealed permanently. The classes cover what can happen when you display a
firearm.

> It’s too bad you will never understand
> > the various answers, the nuance, or anything at all about the subject,
> > because you are fucking blind to anything that disagrees with your childish
> > world view.
>
> My worldview tells me that if I walk into a theater waving a lit Molotov
> cocktail over my head and in the ensuing stampede people are killed that
> I bear responsibility. That's what he did.

He did nothing of the sort. He walked around for hours with that thing slung
over his shoulder, and no one gave a fuck, including all the cops that were
there - he was not threatening. He had it for nothing more than self defense.
No one cared until he got attacked for trying to put out a fire that your
idolized rioters started, and was then forced to defend himself with deadly
force. And again, he was far from the only one carrying a weapon.

> > > It sure seems like a
> > > circular defense. It's like setting fire to someone's house, getting
> > > burned in the fire, then suing the homeowner for damages.
> >
> > So you never heard of a burglar suing the homeowner? Probably not.
>
> For what? Did the homeowner shoot him? Did someone shoot Kyle?

Like I said, you are getting stupider. What does that question have to do
with anything? Why don’t you try Google? Or have you gotten so stupid even
that is too hard now? You are turning into Jerry.

[Dutch]

It makes a difference. Kyle was not in his home, he was on the street.
The law in that state requires that in order to successfully claim
self-defense he must show that his use of deadly force was a
proportionate response to the threat he faced. That is a lot easier to
do if the person you killed was pointing a gun at you.

[Dutch]

On 2021-11-11 6:51 p.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote
> (in article <smkk5b$70c$1...@dont-email.me>):
>
>> On 2021-11-11 10:33 a.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote
>>> (in article <smidg5$k48$1...@dont-email.me>):
>>>
>>>> armed with a high-powered rifle?
>>>
>>> Please define that. What sets that apart from “a rifle”? Or are you just
>>> repeating the inflammatory terms your handlers feed you?
>>
>> Did Rupert Murdoch Inc tell you to ask that, or did you think it up all
>> by yourself?
>
> Why not just answer the question? You're the one who used the term. What did
> you mean by that?

Why don't I just turn the other cheek to your incessant ad hominems as I
usually do and conduct myself as if this were a normal debate? I don't
know, it gets tedious. I thought it might be a more useful exercise to
try to train you to act like a normal person.

[Dutch]

Then what was the relevance of it being a concealed carry seminar?

>> It’s too bad you will never understand
>>> the various answers, the nuance, or anything at all about the subject,
>>> because you are fucking blind to anything that disagrees with your childish
>>> world view.
>>
>> My worldview tells me that if I walk into a theater waving a lit Molotov
>> cocktail over my head and in the ensuing stampede people are killed that
>> I bear responsibility. That's what he did.
>
> He did nothing of the sort. He walked around for hours with that thing slung
> over his shoulder, and no one gave a fuck, including all the cops that were
> there - he was not threatening. He had it for nothing more than self defense.
> No one cared until he got attacked for trying to put out a fire that your
> idolized rioters started, and was then forced to defend himself with deadly
> force.
> And again, he was far from the only one carrying a weapon.

Do you have a cite that corroborates that narrative? Or are people just
supposed to take your word for it?

>>>> It sure seems like a
>>>> circular defense. It's like setting fire to someone's house, getting
>>>> burned in the fire, then suing the homeowner for damages.
>>>
>>> So you never heard of a burglar suing the homeowner? Probably not.
>>
>> For what? Did the homeowner shoot him? Did someone shoot Kyle?
>
> Like I said, you are getting stupider. What does that question have to do
> with anything? Why don’t you try Google? Or have you gotten so stupid even
> that is too hard now? You are turning into Jerry.

I see, you make a statement and I am supposed to scurry off and research
so I know what the hell you're talking about.. no thanks.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

(in article <smkm8l$ghm$1...@dont-email.me>):

Ah, but you see, I KNOW what you really mean by all that. What you really
mean is that you blurted something out without thinking, as you so often do.
Thanks for admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about, again.

[Dutch]

On 2021-11-11 2:34 a.m., risky biz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10:56:49 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

>> On 2021-11-10 9:21 a.m., BTSinAustin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:10:18 PM UTC-5, Bill Vanek wrote:
>>>> On Nov 10, 2021, BTSinAustin wrote
>>>> (in article<74fb34ed-40e8-45a0...@googlegroups.com>):
>>>>> It looks like he is going to walk. Will the world burn or not since they were
>>>>> all white?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stay tuned.
>>>> Good question. This trial is well below the radar from what I can see, so I
>>>> don’t see much happening. It was all based on political considerations, but
>>>> I still think no one really cares. Arbery is very different, but I don’t
>>>> think those guys are walking. At least not all 3 of them. But both trials
>>>> have one thing in common, stupid people vs stupid people. That never seems to
>>>> end well for anyone.
>>>
>>> The Arbery guys should fry from what I can see. But I don't have all the facts.
>>>

>>> Rittenhouse... When the star witness for the prosecution said that he pointed the gun at the kid before he was shot closed the deal. The Twitter mob seems to think the prosecution is throwing the case.
>

> ~ The first two victims, the ones he killed, were unarmed. Did you forget
>> about them?
>
> Are you referring to the ones kicking him and trying to beat his brains out with a skateboard?

Maybe strutting around pointing an AR-15 at people kinda puts a target
on your back.

> Get a grip 'dutch'. Then flush your next three posts in this thread down the nearest toilet.

I just hope wannabe vigilantes get the right message from this, and they
won't if he just gets off.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

(in article <smkmoc$jkr$1...@dont-email.me>):

It is a class that addresses responsible gun ownership, and it’s required
to get a carry permit. It also addresses open carry. Is that relevant?

> > > It’s too bad you will never understand
> > > > the various answers, the nuance, or anything at all about the subject,
> > > > because you are fucking blind to anything that disagrees with your
> > > > childish
> > > > world view.
> > >
> > > My worldview tells me that if I walk into a theater waving a lit Molotov
> > > cocktail over my head and in the ensuing stampede people are killed that
> > > I bear responsibility. That's what he did.
> >
> > He did nothing of the sort. He walked around for hours with that thing slung
> > over his shoulder, and no one gave a fuck, including all the cops that were
> > there - he was not threatening. He had it for nothing more than self
> > defense.
> > No one cared until he got attacked for trying to put out a fire that your
> > idolized rioters started, and was then forced to defend himself with deadly
> > force.
> > And again, he was far from the only one carrying a weapon.
>
> Do you have a cite that corroborates that narrative? Or are people just
> supposed to take your word for it?

Just take my word for it, or maybe you can look around on your own, you
needy, helpless fucking liberal.

> > > > > It sure seems like a
> > > > > circular defense. It's like setting fire to someone's house, getting
> > > > > burned in the fire, then suing the homeowner for damages.
> > > >
> > > > So you never heard of a burglar suing the homeowner? Probably not.
> > >
> > > For what? Did the homeowner shoot him? Did someone shoot Kyle?
> >
> > Like I said, you are getting stupider. What does that question have to do
> > with anything? Why don’t you try Google? Or have you gotten so stupid even
> > that is too hard now? You are turning into Jerry.
>
> I see, you make a statement and I am supposed to scurry off and research
> so I know what the hell you're talking about.. no thanks.

WTF difference does it make what I say? If you don’t believe me, do what
people with working brains do and check it out. Should I demand a cite for
every last loony claim you make? Honestly, how fucking smart do you have to
be to Google, “do burglars ever sue homeowners”? You really are as dumb
as I think you are, aren’t you?

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

(in article <smkltu$f01$1...@dont-email.me>):

Dumb, dumber, and dumberest all rolled into one. Let me help you: Granny is
now on the street, and an unarmed man violently attacks her. Can she shoot
him? Do you think that there are people out there who can kill with their
bare hands? I am not afraid to admit that there are countless people out
there who could do it to me. And I’ll bet you granny would admit that, too.
But probably not you, running around in your imaginary world.

[BillB]

Can you show me one case where an arsonist or burglar wins won damages for being harmed by a hazard HE created himself (as was the crux in Dutch's example)?

You like to *pretend* you have the knowledge and experience of a lawyer (LOL), but you obviously lack anywhere near the ability to think like one.
That is why people of your intelligence level are simply not permitted to attend a decent law school. They weed out wannabes like you in the admission process.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

(in article <smka6b$i39$1...@dont-email.me>):

> On 2021-11-11 10:21 a.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote
> > (in article <smifl1$tda$1...@dont-email.me>):
> >
> > > On 2021-11-10 12:34 p.m., risky biz wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10:15:25 AM UTC-8, Splashie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > He'll probably walk on self-defense, but it's obvious he created the
> > > > > situation that required it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > The 'situation' was created by the armed rioters who were burning and
> > > > looting. Don't give Rittenhouse more credit than he deserves.
> > >
> > > It was not a deadly "situation" until Kyle came into the picture. Nobody
> > > else was brandishing AR-15s.
> >
> > You sure about that? Is that one more thing you just know?
>
> No, shit-for-brains, it is reasonable to conclude that if there were
> other AR-15s being brandished that night someone would have reported it.

Again, genius, what is the difference between an AR15 and “a rifle”? And
why don’t you tell us what an AR15 is in the first place?

> And what, really,
> > is the difference between that gun and the Glock that was pointed at his
> > head? They’ll both kill you pretty easily. And there is a sound argument
> > that he was carrying legally, while the other guy definitely was not.
>
> Yes, notable I think that he knew that a rifle might technically be
> permissible while a handgun would not. It goes to a level of planning
> and premeditation.

Planning and preparation for self defense? Sounds smart to me.

> The difference is that a pistol can easily go unnoticed, i.e. not
> provoke a reaction from some members of an excited crowd of protesters.

Same with a rifle, when they are expected. And pistols poorly concealed go
unnoticed until someone yells, “he’s got a gun!!!”, which is what
happens when you carry concealed, and then expose it. Rittenhouse was open
carrying. That doesn’t startle anyone in that situation.

> Was Kyle pointing the rifle towards people or was it slung at his side
> or across his back to signal that he was, as he claims, there to help,
> not do harm?

You already know the answer to that.

>
>
> If you forget all the other circumstances that led to the confrontation
> and focus solely on the 15 second confrontation between Kyle the guy who
> pointed a pistol at him, then there is a prima facie argument for
> self-defense, however that did not happen in a vacuum.

No, it happened during a violent riot by fucking leftists, and they provoked
everything. You are stupid, you are ignorant, you are blind, you are Jerry,
you are Leni, you are the Irish Mike of the left. It’s incomprehensible
that someone your age could be so uninformed about just about everything.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<fef9cd0a-ead0-4fa6...@googlegroups.com>):

Congrats on burrowing to Dutch’s level of stupidity. Rittenhouse did not
create the hazard, he reacted to the hazard created by leftist retards,
people like you.

>
>
> You like to *pretend* you have the knowledge and experience of a lawyer
> (LOL),

I have never once done that. But I’ll bet anything that I have more
personal experience in US courtrooms than you, and have been involved in more
court cases here, whether I was in the courtroom or not.

> but you obviously lack anywhere near the ability to think like one.
> That is why people of your intelligence level are simply not permitted to
> attend a decent law school. They weed out wannabes like you in the admission
> process.

Except that I have never had even the teensiest interest in being a lawyer.

[BillB]

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 9:56:46 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:

>It’s incomprehensible
> that someone your age could be so uninformed about just about everything.

Textbook projection.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 12, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<c8ee906c-ee02-406c...@googlegroups.com>):

Textbook schoolyard shit. My, what a fancy word.

[BillB]

LOLOL..do you know how many clients I've had (as every lawyer has had) who were "involved in court cases" who knew exactly NOTHING about the law? You think that's some kind of qualification? LOLOLOL Good God, man Stop embarrassing yourself. It is OBVIOUS to any lawyer that your legal knowledge on a scale of 1 to 100 is at best a 3. There is not one law school exam that you could score more than 10% on. You are completely delusional. I could walk in a week from tomorrow and ace the California Bar Exam.

> > but you obviously lack anywhere near the ability to think like one.
> > That is why people of your intelligence level are simply not permitted to
> > attend a decent law school. They weed out wannabes like you in the admission
> > process.

> Except that I have never had even the teensiest interest in being a lawyer.

And I have never had even the teensiest interest in being a Olympic gold medal 100m sprinter, even though it would make me millions overnight. Do you know why?

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 11, 2021, Splashie wrote
(in article<babd0981-0b72-4f1f...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 2021, Splashie wrote
> > (in article<679cb310-0abd-49f0...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 3:46:59 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > > It’s not clear at all that he was carrying illegally based on his age.
> > > > The
> > > > law they cited is a mess, and no one really knows what it means, but there
> > > > appears to be an exception for long guns. They charged him with that, and
> > > > are
> > > > desperate to make it stick, because of a quirk in WI state law. If you
> > > > don’t believe that, ask yourself why they didn’t charge the injured
> > > > guy
> > > > for illegally carrying concealed? There is no dispute at all that he was
> > > > carrying illegally. I’ll try to post the article I just read on this -
> > > > it’s very clear and informative, and it’s by someone who certainly
> > > > know
> > > > this stuff.
> > >
> > > I read up on the law, and the argument seems to be that because Rittenhouse
> > > was carrying a rifle, the law didn't apply. But the INTENT of the law, as
> > > poorly written as it appears to be, is clearly to create an exemption for
> > > hunting (i.e. 17 year olds can legally open carry a rifle or shotgun used
> > > for
> > > hunting as long as they have a hunting permit, there are further
> > > restrictions
> > > for younger kids but they can also generally do that under adult
> > > supervision). There's no fucking logic that explains why a law prohibiting
> > > minors from carrying any dangerous weapon (and makes it a felony for an
> > > adult
> > > to give them one) would somehow not apply to a kid carrying a weapon on
> > > city
> > > streets after curfew.
> > Is there fucking logic that a day before an 18th birthday a guy is simply
> > not
> > qualified or mature enough to carry a rifle, but a day later he can and is?
>
> The logic there is that you have to draw a line somewhere legally between a
> child and an adult, particularly when you are going to hold adults more
> responsible for breaking the law. For example, the relevant statute here
> makes it a misdemeanor for a 17 year old to illegally carry a deadly weapon,
> but a felony for an 18 year old to give the 17 year old that weapon.

Well of course you have to draw a line somewhere, but you also need to
understand that it’s an arbitrary line, and that there is little actual
difference between the guy who is 18, and the one who will be tomorrow. Using
the age is a gotcha, a techinicality, and the purpose is exactly what
McCarthy said.

> > And your opinion on the intent of the law is just that, an opinion, just
> > liketechnicality
> > all the opinions that disagree with you. Did you read that article from the
> > former federal prosecutor that I posted?
>
> Yes, I read the article, and the linked Twitter thread where the argument
> that the statute didn't apply to Rittenhouse was presented. The part he is
> relying on says that the statute only applies to someone under 18 carrying a
> rifle or a shotgun as long as they are not violating the restrictions against
> short-barreled rifles/shotguns (mainly targeting so-called "sawed-off"
> shotguns) and are in compliance with two other statutes that directly address
> hunting. The argument made there was that one of the statutes addresses how
> kids 16 and under can legally hunt under adult supervision (so 17 year olds
> aren't subject to the same restrictions) and that the other was about
> obtaining a hunting permit and claiming that didn't matter because
> Rittenhouse wasn't hunting. And that's exactly where the argument falls
> apart. Why would it be illegal for a 17 year old to carry brass knuckles,
> nunchucks, or other weapons, and the one exception to the law being carrying
> hunting rifles/shotguns as long as the minor is in compliance with hunting
> regulations if it weren't meant to cover ONLY the situation where a minor is
> actually hunting? Not a lot of deer on the streets of Kenosha, WI at close to
> midnight.

It’s a poorly written law. You read up on it, you made your choice. Some
very smart people have weighed in, and there is no agreement. But like BillB
said, there is always a “correct” answer. So you are free to assert that
it’s yours.

> > And where was your outrage on the
> > other side of things, like Portland, for instance? How about the guy just
> > handing out long guns indiscriminately? People were killed there, too, you
> > know. But not a peep about that. You are basing your opinions on politics,
> > not objectivity.
>
> I know of one death in Portland, and the killer claimed he acted in self
> defense just like Rittenhouse.

Well then you don’t know a few things. I brought up the guy handing out
rifles to his “security detail”, and those very same CHAZ assholes opened
fire on a Jeep with two black kids inside, killing one or both of them. It
didn’t get all that much press, of course.

> The difference there is he never got a chance
> to stand trial because the US Marshals killed him. Are you claiming you are
> not basing your opinions on politics? The NR article you linked is full of
> very subjective viewpoints meant to make Rittenhouse look like a selfless
> hero who was just trying to help people, with only token admonishment for his
> decision to go there in the first place.

That’s not the way I saw it. He stressed repeatedly that he shouldn’t
have been there doing what he did. He was young and stupid, and doing stupid
things in the middle of a crowd of even stupider people. That’s how you end
up in a courtroom.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 12, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<0a1fd088-d40b-4654...@googlegroups.com>):

What a fucking dope. I am not talking about the law, I am talking about
knowing what goes on in US courts. Something you know zero about.

[BillB]

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:02:58 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:

> Congrats on burrowing to Dutch’s level of stupidity. Rittenhouse did not
> create the hazard, he reacted to the hazard created by leftist retards,
> people like you.

Trying to change the subject, eh? I'm sure nobody noticed.

You were attacking Dutch's scenario of an arsonist suing for burn injuries, remember? Gems like this:

"So you never heard of a burglar suing the homeowner? Probably not"

"Honestly, how fucking smart do you have to
be to Google, “do burglars ever sue homeowners”? You really are as dumb
as I think you are, aren’t you?"

Now YOU google me a case, like the one Dutch presented, where the arsonist wins damages for being burned by a fire he started. Show me a case where a burglar wins damages for shooting himself in the face. Don't bother. They do not exist. Yet you call Dutch dumb. LOLOL You need to learn to THINK, but I am afraid it's just too late for you.

[BillB]

More delusions.

[Dutch]

No, what I meant is what I said, but thanks for the demonstration of my
point once again.

[Dutch]

On 2021-11-11 7:44 p.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
>> Do you have a cite that corroborates that narrative? Or are people just
>> supposed to take your word for it?
> Just take my word for it, or maybe you can look around on your own, you
> needy, helpless fucking liberal.

I have a better idea, you feckless piece of human excrement. Until such
time as you back up your bullshit, which is YOUR onus, not mine, I will
assume that it's a pack of lies. I like my odds of being right.

[Dutch]

Sorry to burst your NRA narrative but the law in Wisconsin does not
permit you to use deadly force any time you feel threatened. Look it up.

[BillB]

Be careful, Dutch. He's been involved in court cases!! LOL

[Dutch]

On 2021-11-11 9:56 p.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
>> If you forget all the other circumstances that led to the confrontation
>> and focus solely on the 15 second confrontation between Kyle the guy who
>> pointed a pistol at him, then there is a prima facie argument for
>> self-defense, however that did not happen in a vacuum.

> No, it happened during a violent riot by fucking leftists,

The violence was perpetrated by Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager from
another state whose ability to distinguish between real life and a first
person shooter video game somehow got lost. What other lives were lost
that night that qualify it as a violent riot"? I mean it was no Jan 6,
that's for sure. But, no doubt so many people crying out for racial
justice means you automatically see it as violent.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:50:00 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> On 2021-11-11 9:56 p.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
> >> If you forget all the other circumstances that led to the confrontation
> >> and focus solely on the 15 second confrontation between Kyle the guy who
> >> pointed a pistol at him, then there is a prima facie argument for
> >> self-defense, however that did not happen in a vacuum.
>
> > No, it happened during a violent riot by fucking leftists,

~ The violence was perpetrated by Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager from
> another state

How many miles away from the burning and looting did he live? I think someone said 20 miles. That's 15 minutes. Want to compare that to where some of the burners and looters lived? I'm guessing a LOT of these dicks are like deadheads except the shows they follow around are riots.

~ whose ability to distinguish between real life and a first

> person shooter video game somehow got lost. What other lives were lost
> that night that qualify it as a violent riot"? I mean it was no Jan 6,
> that's for sure. But, no doubt so many people crying out for racial
> justice means you automatically see it as violent.

Well, for one, Kyle Rittenhouse's life wasn't lost because he shot dead the guy that was trying to take his head off with a skateboard and he wounded the guy that was trying to shoot him.

Do I automatically see burning and looting, trying to beat someone's brain out of their skull with a skateboard, and trying to shoot someone as violent? Yes, I do. What's your point exactly? Or maybe I should ask what you're smoking.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:15:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

~ I could walk in a week from tomorrow and ace the California Bar Exam.

You could do that right after winning the World Series of Poker Main Event since it'll only be a 30-minute flight to California.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Then you could ride your bicycle around Compton.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


~ And I have never had even the teensiest interest in being a Olympic gold medal 100m sprinter, even though it would make me millions overnight. Do you know why?

Because anything is possible in the daydreams in which you are always the star attraction?

[BillB]

The guy with the skateboard wasn't trying to take his head off. He was trying to catch and disarm a man who was running away from a shooting with an assault style weapon strapped to his chest, with a crowd following behind him yelling "Stop him! He shot a guy!" He was a brave guy. meanwhile, the dumbass street cops wouldn't even detain Rittenhouse when he was TRYING to surrender. That's what happens when you hire people away from McDonald's.

[BillB]

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 11:39:50 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:15:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
>
> ~ I could walk in a week from tomorrow and ace the California Bar Exam.
>
> You could do that right after winning the World Series of Poker Main Event since it'll only be a 30-minute flight to California.
> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Well, I *could*, but it's very unlikely.

> Then you could ride your bicycle around Compton.
> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

That's no big deal. Do you think it is? Oh, that's right, I forgot. You are terrified of black people.

> ~ And I have never had even the teensiest interest in being a Olympic gold medal 100m sprinter, even though it would make me millions overnight. Do you know why?
>
> Because anything is possible in the daydreams in which you are always the star attraction?

Low-IQ nonsensical response. The correct answer to my question is because I know I lack the ability. A man has to know his limitations. If only you and the other stooges could lean that lesson you would never try to argue with me. You ALWAYS lose.

[Dutch]

On 2021-11-11 11:32 p.m., risky biz wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:50:00 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
>> On 2021-11-11 9:56 p.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
>>>> If you forget all the other circumstances that led to the confrontation
>>>> and focus solely on the 15 second confrontation between Kyle the guy who
>>>> pointed a pistol at him, then there is a prima facie argument for
>>>> self-defense, however that did not happen in a vacuum.
>>
>>> No, it happened during a violent riot by fucking leftists,
>
>
> ~ The violence was perpetrated by Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager from
>> another state
>
> How many miles away from the burning and looting did he live?

Distance is irrelevant, crossing State lines is considered relevant when
assessing the seriousness of a crime.

> I think someone said 20 miles. That's 15 minutes. Want to compare that to where some of the burners and looters lived? I'm guessing a LOT of these dicks are like deadheads except the shows they follow around are riots.

Were the people he shot and killed "burners", "looters", or were they
peaceful protesters? I don't know, do you? Kyle didn't. Was it his job
to protect property, to exact justice? No, that's what police are for.
He made thing way worse.

> ~ whose ability to distinguish between real life and a first
>> person shooter video game somehow got lost. What other lives were lost
>> that night that qualify it as a violent riot"? I mean it was no Jan 6,
>> that's for sure. But, no doubt so many people crying out for racial
>> justice means you automatically see it as violent.
>
> Well, for one, Kyle Rittenhouse's life wasn't lost because he shot dead the guy that was trying to take his head off with a skateboard and he wounded the guy that was trying to shoot him.

There was one other, what about him? Maybe those victims were trying to
stop a shooter from killing more people. Why is Kyle the only one who
gets noble motives attributed to him?

> Do I automatically see burning and looting, trying to beat someone's brain out of their skull with a skateboard, and trying to shoot someone as violent? Yes, I do. What's your point exactly? Or maybe I should ask what you're smoking.

My point is Kyle Rittenhouse precipitated confrontations that resulted
in him killing people and should be severely punished for it.

[BillB]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 1:02:32 AM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:

> There was one other, what about him? Maybe those victims were trying to
> stop a shooter from killing more people.

That's exactly what they were trying to do. As I understand it, the guy who hit him with a skateboard was with his girlfriend minding their own business, when they heard several shots, and then saw the Rittenhouse running down the street with an assault-style rifle, with people screaming "Stop him! He just just killed someone!" (or words to that effect). Against the protestations of his girlfriend, he (foolishly) took off in pursuit of the shooter. Odd how just a week or two ago riskytard was praising the obese guy in the gas station store for attacking the black robber with a gun, but excoriates this guy who was trying to stop a fleeing white person who had just shot and killed someone. Hmm...I wonder why the sudden change in attitude. Any ideas? lol

[BTSinAustin]

"Nathan DeBruin testified for the defense that he ended a meeting with the prosecution, before the trial, and hired a lawyer because he felt uncomfortable, believing that Binger pressured him to change his statement to police. DeBruin claimed that Binger wanted him to add an ID of a man named Joshua Ziminski, whom Binger is also prosecuting (for arson and other charges). He said Binger showed him video that included Ziminski, whom he had not previously identified, and asked if he wanted to change his statement by adding that ID. He took this to be pressure. Ziminski is the man accused of firing a gunshot into the air right before Kyle Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum. He has not yet taken the stand in the Rittenhouse case.

DeBruin was the third defense witness of the day.

“Mr Binger pulled out a cell phone and also a video, which was actually a photo… and asked me if I knew who a gentleman was in that photo. I said I did not,” DeBruin testified under questioning from Rittenhouse’s attorney Mark Richards. “He said this is Joshua Ziminski. Mr. Binger also has a case with him (Ziminski), and I am subpoenaed in that case also and he said that’s who that is. He put the phone down and picked it back up and said who is this. I confusedly said, Joshua Ziminski, and he said would you like to add that to your statement? I just said I didn’t want to change my statement.” DeBruin said the exchang =e made him so uncomfortable that he went and hired a lawyer."


The scariest thing I can think of is a crooked prosecutor.

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/11/10/nathan-debruin/

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 7:05:49 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

> (in article <smkkie$8p6$1...@dont-email.me>):

> > On 2021-11-11 10:36 a.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > On Nov 11, 2021, Dutch wrote

> > It’s too bad you will never understand
> > > the various answers, the nuance, or anything at all about the subject,
> > > because you are fucking blind to anything that disagrees with your childish
> > > world view.
> >
> > My worldview tells me that if I walk into a theater waving a lit Molotov
> > cocktail over my head and in the ensuing stampede people are killed that
> > I bear responsibility. That's what he did.
> He did nothing of the sort. He walked around for hours with that thing slung
> over his shoulder, and no one gave a fuck, including all the cops that were
> there - he was not threatening. He had it for nothing more than self defense.
> No one cared until he got attacked for trying to put out a fire that your
> idolized rioters started, and was then forced to defend himself with deadly
> force. And again, he was far from the only one carrying a weapon.

> > > > It sure seems like a
> > > > circular defense. It's like setting fire to someone's house, getting
> > > > burned in the fire, then suing the homeowner for damages.
> > >
> > > So you never heard of a burglar suing the homeowner? Probably not.
> >
> > For what? Did the homeowner shoot him? Did someone shoot Kyle?

> Like I said, you are getting stupider. What does that question have to do
> with anything? Why don’t you try Google? Or have you gotten so stupid even
> that is too hard now? You are turning into Jerry.

You mean asking you questions you can't answer and end up running from?
(You've admitted to having done that over 500 times).

[VegasJerry]

No, he's not. I'm the one you're afraid of because I'm the one you run from.
(Over 500 times) because I post facts you can't argue or respond to.
(Over 500 times)

[BillB]

Have you considered the possibility that he isn't "running" from you, but just ignoring you because you are a dishonest, repetitive idiot who never says anything intelligent?

I hate to see all this infighting among you three stooges. You made such a great comedy team not that long ago. Now you are all turning on each other.

[VegasJerry]

.
> Have you considered the possibility that he isn't "running" from you?

Like you? No, because he said he was; "over 500 times."

> but just ignoring you because you are a dishonest, repetitive idiot who never says anything intelligent?

Yet repeatedly beat you into submission to point you Run & Hide and Start a New Thread.

[VegasJerry]

This is an entertaining thread and fun to watch; being I’m the ONLY one here
that actually was – and proved I was - trained and in, law enforce.

Compared to a pretend lawyer and pretend ex-cop that have no clue as to the
boundaries of, Deadly force, Menacing, Brandishing, Self Defense, Defense of
Others, Pretrial Evidence and Statements; and what each constitutes in this trial.
(And the wacko Judge that’s setting himself up for his own disciplinary judgements).

For my (and Dutch’s) entertainment, please continue embarrassing yourselves…

[BillB]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 1:12:17 PM UTC-8, VegasJerry wrote:

> > but just ignoring you because you are a dishonest, repetitive idiot who never says anything intelligent?

> Yet repeatedly beat you into submission to point you Run & Hide and Start a New Thread.

lol...I rest my case.

[VegasJerry]

You always do.... Then - as I've proven - start a new one in a new thread... It is as I said....

[risky biz]

~ On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 11:43:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:

> > Well, for one, Kyle Rittenhouse's life wasn't lost because he shot dead the guy that was trying to take his head off with a skateboard and he wounded the guy that was trying to shoot him.
> >

> > Do I automatically see burning and looting, trying to beat someone's brain out of their skull with a skateboard, and trying to shoot someone as violent? Yes, I do. What's your point exactly? Or maybe I should ask what you're smoking.

~ The guy with the skateboard wasn't trying to take his head off. He was trying to catch and disarm a man who was running away from a shooting with an assault style weapon strapped to his chest, with a crowd following behind him yelling "Stop him! He shot a guy!" He was a brave guy. meanwhile, the dumbass street cops wouldn't even detain Rittenhouse when he was TRYING to surrender. That's what happens when you hire people away from McDonald's.

Your theory, then, is that you can alter reality by running your fat, dumb mouth?

[risky biz]

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 11:48:56 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 11:39:50 PM UTC-8, risky biz wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:15:46 PM UTC-8, BillB wrote:
> >
> > ~ I could walk in a week from tomorrow and ace the California Bar Exam.
> >
> > You could do that right after winning the World Series of Poker Main Event since it'll only be a 30-minute flight to California.
> > 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

~ Well, I *could*, but it's very unlikely.

It's unlikely you would take a 30-minute flight to California? Don't attempt to respond in English when you can't comprehend in English.

> > Then you could ride your bicycle around Compton.
> > 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

~ That's no big deal. Do you think it is? Oh, that's right, I forgot. You are terrified of black people.

Why would I be 'terrified' of people who like me and constantly compliment me? Never mind- you couldn't understand.

> > ~ And I have never had even the teensiest interest in being a Olympic gold medal 100m sprinter, even though it would make me millions overnight. Do you know why?
> >
> > Because anything is possible in the daydreams in which you are always the star attraction?

~ Low-IQ nonsensical response. The correct answer to my question is because I know I lack the ability. A man has to know his limitations. If only you and the other stooges could lean that lesson you would never try to argue with me. You ALWAYS lose.

Is the 'losing' measured by the number of your declarations? LOL.

[risky biz]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 1:02:32 AM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> On 2021-11-11 11:32 p.m., risky biz wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 10:50:00 PM UTC-8, Dutch wrote:
> >> On 2021-11-11 9:56 p.m., Bill Vanek wrote:
> >>>> If you forget all the other circumstances that led to the confrontation
> >>>> and focus solely on the 15 second confrontation between Kyle the guy who
> >>>> pointed a pistol at him, then there is a prima facie argument for
> >>>> self-defense, however that did not happen in a vacuum.
> >>
> >>> No, it happened during a violent riot by fucking leftists,
> >
> >
> > ~ The violence was perpetrated by Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager from
> >> another state
> >
> > How many miles away from the burning and looting did he live?
> Distance is irrelevant, crossing State lines is considered relevant when
> assessing the seriousness of a crime.
> > I think someone said 20 miles. That's 15 minutes. Want to compare that to where some of the burners and looters lived? I'm guessing a LOT of these dicks are like deadheads except the shows they follow around are riots.

~ Were the people he shot and killed "burners", "looters", or were they

> peaceful protesters? I don't know, do you? Kyle didn't.

Yeah, good point. How could he possibly guess just because one guy was trying to bash his brains out with a skateboard and the other guy was pointing a gun at him?

What have you been smoking?

[risky biz]

~ Hmm...I wonder why the sudden change in attitude. Any ideas? lol

The only noticeable change is that you have gotten even more stupid.

[Dutch]

Kyle would have us believe that he needed his AR-15 because without it
his life would have been in danger. Funny, because the only people who
lost their lives in all the mayhem that night were the ones he killed.

[Bill Vanek]

On Nov 12, 2021, Dutch wrote
(in article <smmqgj$73e$2...@dont-email.me>):

The ones he killed to save himself. You are dumb. They died, because he beat
them to it.

[BillB]

In other word, you have nothing.