Ritttenhouse Trial

toomuchbaloney · Nov 22, 2021

There was approximately $2 million in damages to city or government property during the 2020 Kenosha unrest following the police shooting of Blake. That's not much more than the cost of the damage caused by the Stop The Steal riot at the Capitol on January 6. At least in Kenosha they were protesting something real.

Rittenhouse didn't need that gun to protect the business because it would have been illegal for him to shoot someone who was damaging the property. It would have been especially illegal for him to shoot people to protect property using a weapon that he wasn't old enough to own or carry.

Daisy4RN · Nov 22, 2021

3 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

There was approximately $2 million in damages to city or government property during the 2020 Kenosha unrest following the police shooting of Blake. That's not much more than the cost of the damage caused by the Stop The Steal riot at the Capitol on January 6. At least in Kenosha they were protesting something real.

Rittenhouse didn't need that gun to protect the business because it would have been illegal for him to shoot someone who was damaging the property. It would have been especially illegal for him to shoot people to protect property using a weapon that he wasn't old enough to own or carry.

The article I posted states much much more than 2 million. Now add to that all the other cities that have been ravaged by anti- fascists and anti-racists. The capital was 1.5 million. Both situations wrong but as I stated earlier those from Jan 6 are still in Jail some on only trespass charges. The political elites also provided themselves protection but obviously none or not enough for Kenosha. So you think the Kenosha riots were “unrest” but Jan 6 was a “riot”, good one. Glad to see you don’t see absolutely everything through a partisan lens. And, according to the law he was old enough to have a gun, hence the dismissal of those charges. He only fired in self defense. This is not a very hard concept.

Daisy4RN · Nov 22, 2021

26 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

That's right. That story will continue to be the topic of discussion...for obvious reasons...and people like you and me are going to share thinking and opinions about the evidence and the jury's acquittal. I don't depend upon snippets to inform myself. I watched the trial.

Are you upset that some of us find the acquittal troubling?

I could care less what you think. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I do find it amazing though that some people do not think that others should have the right to protect property or lives from thugs who have no other purpose than to burn, loot and destroy other’s property and/or wound/kill others. (I am guessing you would have a different opinion though if it were you who was in danger or someone trying to take your livelihood away)

toomuchbaloney · Nov 22, 2021

24 minutes ago, Daisy4RN said:

The article I posted states much much more than 2 million. Now add to that all the other cities that have been ravaged by anti- fascists and anti-racists. The capital was 1.5 million. Both situations wrong but as I stated earlier those from Jan 6 are still in Jail some on only trespass charges. The political elites also provided themselves protection but obviously none or not enough for Kenosha. So you think the Kenosha riots were “unrest” but Jan 6 was a “riot”, good one. Glad to see you don’t see absolutely everything through a partisan lens. And, according to the law he was old enough to have a gun, hence the dismissal of those charges. He only fired in self defense. This is not a very hard concept.

The point is that one event was a protest based upon actual police violence and the other event was a mob attack on our Capitol based upon a lie with the specific purpose of interrupting the function of the legislative branch of the federal government.

According to the law, no, Rittenhouse was not old enough to own or carry that rifle that he used to kill two people. You can read the statute. This is not a hard concept.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2)

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor

toomuchbaloney · Nov 22, 2021

39 minutes ago, Daisy4RN said:

I could care less what you think. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I do find it amazing though that some people do not think that others should have the right to protect property or lives from thugs who have no other purpose than to burn, loot and destroy other’s property and/or wound/kill others. (I am guessing you would have a different opinion though if it were you who was in danger or someone trying to take your livelihood away)

I'm going to guess that you do actually "care" or you wouldn't waste any time reading my opinions and engaging with me in response and discussion. Why do you think that some of us believe that people shouldn't have the right to protect their property? Do you believe that lethal force is the first, only or best way to protect against loss of property? Are guns the best solution to these type concerns?

An Interesting thing about property versus life...property can be replaced, remodeled, rebuilt, redesigned or upgraded and lives cannot. Most businesses have insurance to cover economic loss from theft, vandalism or arson. That's why I didn't include the personal/business loss when comparing to January 6. Businesses have insurance. Brandishing a deadly weapon to protect commercial property is discouraged in cultures that claim to value life. My culture values life over money or property, does yours?

The only people wounded or killed that night were shot by Rittenhouse.

Cclm, LPN · Nov 22, 2021

2 hours ago, subee said:

No one was actually attacking HIS town where he lived. I have friends in the burbs but I don't pay taxes their town because it's not my town. I have friends all over the country but would never pack an automatic weapon to drive to their state to "protect" them . That's the act of a paranoid idiot.

It was not a "automatic it was a semi automatic. Perhaps you should research the difference.

His father lived in Kenosha where he would stay with him . He had 2 homes, one dads and one mom's.

Cclm, LPN · Nov 22, 2021

7 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You didn't read about Representative Gaetz talking about an internship for the shooter? I did appreciate the "both sides" comment surfacing in this discussion. I'm having trouble recalling the last time that the left side of the political aisle wanted to turn a killer into a celebrity. Maybe you could help me out.

I could name a few criminals the left side has deemed heros , martyrs and made celebrities. George Floyd comes to mind.

https://nationalfile.com/judge-passes-motion-banning-comparisons-of-george-floyds-death-to-jesus-christs-crucifixion-at-chauvin-trial/

Cclm, LPN · Nov 22, 2021

49 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The point is that one event was a protest based upon actual police violence and the other event was a mob attack on our Capitol based upon a lie with the specific purpose of interrupting the function of the legislative branch of the federal government.

According to the law, no, Rittenhouse was not old enough to own or carry that rifle that he used to kill two people. You can read the statute. This is not a hard concept.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2)

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor

No. The officers involved in the shooting of Jacob Blake were cleared of all charges. So the Kenosha riot was based on a lie. It was not unjust police violence!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-wisconsin/white-police-officer-cleared-of-charges-in-wisconsin-shooting-of-black-man-idUSKBN29A1YV

toomuchbaloney · Nov 22, 2021

32 minutes ago, Cclm said:

I could name a few criminals the left side has deemed heros , martyrs and made celebrities. George Floyd comes to mind.

https://nationalfile.com/judge-passes-motion-banning-comparisons-of-george-floyds-death-to-jesus-christs-crucifixion-at-chauvin-trial/

George Floyd was a victim of a brutal, public murder. He's not a hero, he's a dead victim of police violence. George Floyd wasn't killed for his beliefs or religion, that's what happens to a martyr. Why do you think Chauvin killed Floyd?

9 minutes ago, Cclm said:

No. The officers involved in the shooting of Jacob Blake were cleared of all charges. So the Kenosha riot was based on a lie. It was not unjust police violence!

Officers are most often cleared or not charged at all when they use violence against citizens. The Kenosha riot wasn't based upon a lie. The protests were based upon the police officer shooting the guy 7 times at close range. A fellow who had no gun.

You didn't mention the class A misdemeanor that Rittenhouse was committing when he carried that gun.

Cclm, LPN · Nov 22, 2021

11 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

George Floyd was a victim of a brutal, public murder. He's not a hero, he's a dead victim of police violence. George Floyd wasn't killed for his beliefs or religion, that's what happens to a martyr. Why do you think Chauvin killed Floyd?

Officers are most often cleared or not charged at all when they use violence against citizens. The Kenosha riot wasn't based upon a lie. The protests were based upon the police officer shooting the guy 7 times at close range. A fellow who had no gun.

You didn't mention the class A misdemeanor that Rittenhouse was committing when he carried that gun.

Blake refused police commands to drop the knife, which Graveley said gave Sheskey the right to self-defense. As Sheskey made a final attempt to detain the man, Blake turned and thrust the knife toward Sheskey, an act blocked on the video by the car door and another officer, investigators said.

Quote from link. He was not unarmed!

toomuchbaloney · Nov 22, 2021

14 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Blake refused police commands to drop the knife, which Graveley said gave Sheskey the right to self-defense. As Sheskey made a final attempt to detain the man, Blake turned and thrust the knife toward Sheskey, an act blocked on the video by the car door and another officer, investigators said.

Quote from link. He was not unarmed!

I'm aware of the details. Blake was shot 7 times from behind. As I said before, Blake didn't have a gun and police have qualified immunity in use of force. It's always a nice surprise when police are held accountable for their excessive force.

MunoRN, RN · Nov 22, 2021

Knife or not it was justifiable to shoot Blake.

I see no reason why 7 times was necessary, one should have been enough to keep him from getting in the car and shutting the door.

I have a friend who's an LEO who has argued that he doesn't see any reason why they simply didn't physically prevent him from getting in the car, but acknowledged that many officers don't agree they are obligated to take on any personal risk of harm at all, even if it's to avoid using lethal force when it may not be necessary.

He had two officers with guns on him and despite that was intent on getting into a car with three little kids. There should be a very real concern that someone that intent on doing what they're going to do despite two police firearms pointed at you a few feet away is going to end up killing the kids and themselves. If officers really thought the only way to keep him from getting into the car was to shoot him then I have no problem with that, letting him get into the car was absolutely not an option.