Agreed. But, as I said I think the facts speak for themselves IN SPITE of the shitty prosecution.
Sigh. Technically true...
I've already acknowledged the distinction between 'innocence' and 'not guilty'... Kyle was 'proven' (found) not guilty by nature of a good defense, a bad solicitor, self-evident evidence, confusion on elements of guilt, a combination of all of the above, whatever.
There is a PRESUMPTION of innocence. If the Prosecutors cannot prove guilt, the defendant is presumed to revert to a guilt-less status, aka innocent by any layman's understanding. Sure, TECHNICALLY they are not one in the same - already noted. The defense 'proves' innocence by, in this case convincing the jury (as opposed to a bench trial). The story the defense provided, was to provide facts in the story of self-defense. The jurors heard a case, from the defense, of self-defense. The decision that was made that Kyle was not guilty was based on... self defense. Saying that hasn't been proven is getting lost in the semantics, again. A distinction without a difference. The entire point is that the jury in this case was won over by the understanding that Kyle had been defending himself over the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So, there existed enough doubt against Kyle being guilty due to the self-defense, well, defense.
TLDR, while TECHNICALLY 'proving innocence' isn't a thing (the burden of proof not being on the defense), the prosecution failed to prove guilt... because there is a REASONABLE DOUBT that what the defense said was true (or what the prosecution said was false). And what the defense sought to convince the jury of ('prove to them' in layman's parlance) is a case of... self defense.
So... we actually agree (here). I don't want to get lost in the context of semantics though. The functional result is the jury had been failed to be convinced of his guilt, at least in part by the efforts of the defense seeking to convince of a situation of self-defense (which was exactly their argument, a winning and a correct one).
Plenty of people do it all the time. Without a problem. Even that night. On both sides. It wasn't a function of anyone carrying or having a gun present. It was a function of those seeking to end Kyle's life (several of which were armed, the rest used crowd strength and makeshift weapons), and Kyle defending his life in response.
Violence ONLY erupted (in gunfire resulting in human damage) that night when a pair of people sought to kill Kyle, and started firing in a crowd. (who happened to look like freaking white supremacists btw).
Kyle didn't just walk around screaming "Self-Defense!" and start firing at random. Kyle didn't even try and start a fight or say a cross word on (any of) the videos we have (which cover from before the first shots up until he turns himself over to the cops).
Age also didn't play into the events in the slightest.
Not sure your point considering this is a singular instance of a 17yo that was showing complete competence (what's the outrage based on exactly?). How many instances of 17yo's (or 18 or whatever for that matter) - specifically - have resulted in a threat to the general public? As in people that aren't also involved in a high-risk behavior (like a drug deal, or a fight)
If a 17yo plinks in a forest, would you even know to be upset?
Kyle wasn't doing anything with his gun that caused a problem. UNTIL someone randomly started to end his life. You have it exactly backwards - the vigilantism happening that night was against Kyle.
Lol. You need to tell that to the second two that were shot. THEY were the ones actually playing vigilante.
Kyle didn't not instigate. He was never at any point seeking to 'submit' 'random' 'civilians'. You act like he was policing people at the point of a gun.
That's a concocted narrative, and based on no facts. Kyle was the only one being attacked FFS. The (multiple) video(s) painfully shows that fact.
If Kyle didn't have a weapon he'd likely be dead. The only victim of the night, Kyle, was defended with a firearm. Everything worked exactly how it should have. Literally: the only thing to stop bad guys with guns is a good guy with a gun. That's exactly how it played out.
Agreed.
And when the cops weren't there in the split second you need to defend your life from being taken, the law supports defending yourself, even if by lethal means. Which is what happened with Kyle.
You'd appreciate it if you found yourself in (even against all efforts to avoid) a similar situation.
Patently false. The video shows them chasing him down. Kyle was not firing, not targeting, and told guy #2 he was going to the police. It's an irony beyond ironies that you say KYLE shouldn't be the one policing that night, but act as an apologist for the only people ACTUALLY trying to act like they're police, #2 and #3. Kyle was RETREATING (away from the crowd, towards the police) while they chased him down. He was RUNNING and FACING AWAY. Have you seen all the footage or what?
Further, the audio PROVES that they didn't think he wasn't an active shooter. The audio revolved around Kyle having shot someone, and they sought retribution. "cranium that guy, he shot someone" (<-- what was actually shouted) NOT "OMG, look out, he's trying to shoot us".
Apples to fucking oranges, man.
Again, no. A threat is telling you that they're going to the police while you run them down? That is NOT a threat, and this is the problem you have with understanding self-defense and the nuance involved.
If I try to kill you with a knife, you can kill me (in most instances, all things the same). BUT, if I stop trying to kill you, you disarm me, I throw down my knife, etc, you CAN NOT try and kill me. You can't even seek to attack me if I'm not IMMINENTLY threatening you. Even if I JUST stabbed someone and then stopped. YOU don't get to do anything about it, particularly kill me. At that point it is murder (because you are NO LONGER being threatened). The devil is in the details as far as the law, and common sense sees it. At that point it reverts from ACTUAL self-defense to vigilantism, and you are guilty of murder. Formerly, you would have been legally protected of killing in self-defense. The law does draw an important distinction between murder and killing (in the context of self defense for the later).
Murder is NOT LEGAL, and never will be. Killing as a defense is.
Funny, because Kyle was the only one stopping an immediate shooter that night.
LOL, no. I'm guessing you did not see the actual start either. Kyle was running from a guy screaming at him.
Imagine running AT a guy with a gun, who tries in vain to get away. You then start screaming threats, THROWING things at him as he flees from you, and your accomplice fires a shot at a low angle behind his back when the guy with a gun (who did NOT raise to you, who did NOT threaten you, who TRIED to leave you be) is forced into a narrow field of objects putting him into a bottleneck while being threatened and presumably shot at. He turns at that point thinking he's being shot at, because, shots and threats are coming from two people you've seen acting together several times that night.
That's what happened, that's what the video shows, and that's what the jury saw as well. You could see it too if you'd take the time.
Deadlier than what? What metric? 556 is one of the smallest, weakest rounds that a rifle can be chambered in. It's tiny (but fast). Less energy than practically ANY shotgun, and most other rounds a rifle can fire are more powerful, except maybe the 22LR. It's not even considered large enough to hunt deer in certain places. It's considered an 'intermediary' round because it's so weak relatively-speaking for a rifle round.
Regardless, would you rather be fired at the cranium by a .40 or a 556 at effectively point-blank? Because that's the range this was happening at. Practically any firearm at that range is just as effectively deadly. Kyle wasn't shooting people at 400 yards that didn't see him coming with 3 round bursts FFS.
Saying that Kyle shouldn't be there is also blaming the victim. He had every right and reason to be there. AND to be armed. For HIS defense. Which was found to be necessary after all.
What charge would that be for Kyle?
No. There's literally video evidence showing it was unprovoked. It's in no way lacking.
Yes. Kyle was not an ACTIVE shooter as you're claiming.
He was in retreat. To the police. Which he said (he actually gave them the 'memo' as you put it). As he ran. AWAY. From the crowd. That chased. After HIM. TOWARDS. The police.
It's not semantics, it's simply how courts of law work. The case itself would be pretty different if burden of proof or presumption of innocence was shifted. If kyle actually had to prove his actions were self defense rather than the prosecution having to proof they weren't then the prosecution would have to simply cast some amount of doubt to his claim and he'd end up in prison.
If you have a video of how the confrontation between rosenbaum and rittenhouse started then by all means share. As far as I can tell the videos between them just show rosembaum chasing rittenhouse, they don't show what happened before that. The information on that bit comes from Kyle, some witnesses who saw this from a distance and even they lacked context.
But... the second and third guy weren't out doing vigilantism. The were simply nearby when kyle shot rosembaum... And then as they heard he shot someone they charged at him. Whom they thought was an active shooter and a murderer. Had anyone actually shot and killed rittenhouse at that point they would have had a super easy case arguing self defense. I am not even saying at that point rittenhouse was an active shooter, rather than to the people there it's perfectly reasonable to think kyle was one and a threat.
Also, regarding this:"cranium that guy, he shot someone"... How does that prove they didn't think he was an active shooter? If someone says "he shot someone" then they obviously think he is an active shooter.
In one recent focus group, even those who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 weren’t exactly sure what the party stands for.
www.politico.com
In the days after the Democratic Party’s collapse in the Virginia governor’s race, party strategists descended on the commonwealth to figure out what went wrong and understand just how bad the national outlook might be next year.
What they discovered, largely through focus groups and polling, was even worse than expected. The problems cut far deeper than the failings of their gubernatorial nominee, Terry McAuliffe, or President Joe Biden’s flagging approval ratings. Rather, the Democratic Party’s entire brand was a wreck.
I don't believe anyone here is wondering why no one attempts to have real discussion with "us", whoever that is and whatever that means. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally, I prefer not having to read strawman arguments.
I don't believe anyone here is wondering why no one attempts to have real discussion with "us", whoever that is and whatever that means. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me personally, I prefer not having to read strawman arguments.
In one recent focus group, even those who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 weren’t exactly sure what the party stands for.
www.politico.com
In the days after the Democratic Party’s collapse in the Virginia governor’s race, party strategists descended on the commonwealth to figure out what went wrong and understand just how bad the national outlook might be next year.
What they discovered, largely through focus groups and polling, was even worse than expected. The problems cut far deeper than the failings of their gubernatorial nominee, Terry McAuliffe, or President Joe Biden’s flagging approval ratings. Rather, the Democratic Party’s entire brand was a wreck.
This is a problem democrats have had since obama's presidency ended. Their only message is basically "hey, at least we aren't republicans. We are maybe republicans light".
A jury Wednesday found three White men charged in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, guilty on multiple murder counts, as well as other charges.
www.cnn.com
"WOO!"
It's especially awesome it happened so close behind the Rittenhouse verdict, optically.
The snark wasn't really about one person though was it? I mean, "you guys" implies there's no real discussion going on here, does it not? Why are you still bothering to reply then? Kind of a self-own isn't it?
The snark wasn't really about one person though was it? I mean, "you guys" implies there's no real discussion going on here, does it not? Why are you still bothering to reply then? Kind of a self-own isn't it?
Oh, gee golly, and here I thought I was getting the silent treatment. I'll just wait to see more responses to me from people that don't have the balls (not you, not now) to reply directly when they are in fact responding to what I said. Kind of cowardly, no?
That said, I was referring to people like the person right before me (again, not you). People like him. This was beyond clear as I had responded specifically to points HE specifically made. I didn't see you or anyone else talking about what had been said (nor did I see you or anyone else correcting him, but that's another issue isn't it?).
You know, the guy that went out of his way to repeatedly signal he wasn't responding to me anymore to everyone that would listen. Because that is the order of events chronologically.
If the shoe fits for anyone else, however, well, that would be unfortunate.
I'm obviously talking about groups of people ignoring groups of people. Seeing as I'm one person and there's no group arguing the counterpoints here per se, I'm talking about the general sense - not limited to this forum.
(some) People (in general, but myself included) find that people like that (an individual but also representative of many more - here or elsewhere isn't the point) a lost cause seeing as they refuse to address pointed, direct questions, ignore facts, gloss over valid points, repeat talking points ad nauseum, etc etc.
This is a problem democrats have had since obama's presidency ended. Their only message is basically "hey, at least we aren't republicans. We are maybe republicans light".
Right now it's, "at least we're not Trump!" even though Biden is proving he's SLIGHTLY better than Trump, and only because he doesn't say stupid shit or is openly bigoted.
the right/republicans want safe spaces way more than the left. Trump and his supporters cried when Trump got booed at Hamilton, and he said theaters should be a safe space. And the irony of you and that Jubei talking about false narratives and echo chamber is that you and your ilk only listen to what you agree with and see that as the truth. You'll read InfoWars and Breitbart and listen to Fox News as long as they agree with you, no matter how much they lie and spread false narratives.
Jesus fucking Christ, the way you guys will project onto others you disagree with. So embarrassing.
The snark wasn't really about one person though was it? I mean, "you guys" implies there's no real discussion going on here, does it not? Why are you still bothering to reply then? Kind of a self-own isn't it?
Millions of truckers are balking at President Joe Biden’s workplace vaccine mandate, which would be catastrophic for the nation’s supply chain problem if
www.washingtonexaminer.com
...
Here comes that death to america thing.
Many of you support.
I hope you're all rich and well prepared.
As your indifferent and apathetic stance would seem to indicate.
That's their problem for choosing not to get vaccine. Imagine if people refused polio vaccine back then, or if children refused vaccines mandatory to attend school
Millions of truckers are balking at President Joe Biden’s workplace vaccine mandate, which would be catastrophic for the nation’s supply chain problem if
www.washingtonexaminer.com
...
Here comes that death to america thing.
Many of you support.
I hope you're all rich and well prepared.
As your indifferent and apathetic stance would seem to indicate.
That's their problem for choosing not to get vaccine. Imagine if people refused polio vaccine back then, or if children refused vaccines mandatory to attend school
Democrats can simply abandon lockdowns and vaccine mandates. We have already witnessed the devastation wrought upon the airlines industry and other sectors of the economy by democrat COVID lockdowns and mandates. Why would anyone choose to repeat such disasters in US supply chains?
Democrats entire stance revolves around a flawed unscientific premise that says the vaccinated are more vulnerable to COVID than the unvaccinated.
"We have to vaccinate everyone to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated." --democrats
Its tragic how the majority of people don't know basic science enough to identify glaring flaws in that narrative.
www.politico.com
www.cnn.com
www.washingtonexaminer.com
