Ritttenhouse Trial

[nursej22]

The Rittenhouse trial has begun in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The prosecution is presenting first, but apparently the defense argument will be self-defense. So a 17 year old travels out of state with his rifle to a demonstration because he fears for his life? 

 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

4 hours ago, Cclm said:

The couple had threats of killing them, killing their dog and raping the woman. They broke through a steel gate. They had no business there. 

I don't recall the couple actually pointing the weapons at the rioters. 

I personally would not have felt the need to brandish a weapon because these types are usually cowards that act tough in a group. 

Perhaps dems should stop defending and disabling police and let them do their jobs? We should add that to the conversation as well. 

Well let me remind you that they did point the gun at the protestors.  I don't know about all those other claims as that is perhaps only their side of the story and they escalated the situation.   My point is can you see how this could have gone wrong with so many armed people?

I'm not getting into the "disabling police and let them do their jobs" conversation.  They have not been disabled and this couple didn't let them do their jobs.  

No, the protestors shouldn't have been there on their property.  But they might have just let them go on buy.  But Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there either.  So there we are.

 

 

[Cclm, LPN]

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

Well let me remind you that they did point the gun at the protestors.  I don't know about all those other claims as that is perhaps only their side of the story and they escalated the situation.   My point is can you see how this could have gone wrong with so many armed people?

I'm not getting into the "disabling police and let them do their jobs" conversation.  They have not been disabled and this couple didn't let them do their jobs.  

No, the protestors shouldn't have been there on their property.  But they might have just let them go on buy.  But Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there either.  So there we are.

 

 

Okay. I guess she did point it. Let me ask you something. Take a look at the right side of the pic with the man in white. Do you see something black and long protruding from the area around his left neck/shoulder? Something that kinda looks like a rifle stock? Pointed at the woman?  Probably not a pic to use as an example. 

Probably a pain ball gun and the gun she had actually was not real. More of a deterrent.  I'm not a fan of gun rights being a Canadian and all but you have to take notice that nobody got hurt and there was minimal property damage. Perhaps because the guns were a deterrent? 

So it was completely unreasonable to use the gun as a deterrent against a mob that broke through a gated community yelling vulgar language, threatening and pointing a gun at them? 

Better yet. Can someone explain what this couple should have done? Or even Kyle. What should they have done??

[MunoRN, RN]

4 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Okay. I guess she did point it. Let me ask you something. Take a look at the right side of the pic with the man in white. Do you see something black and long protruding from the area around his left neck/shoulder? Something that kinda looks like a rifle stock? Pointed at the woman?  Probably not a pic to use as an example. 

Probably a pain ball gun and the gun she had actually was not real. More of a deterrent.  I'm not a fan of gun rights being a Canadian and all but you have to take notice that nobody got hurt and there was minimal property damage. Perhaps because the guns were a deterrent? 

So it was completely unreasonable to use the gun as a deterrent against a mob that broke through a gated community yelling vulgar language, threatening and pointing a gun at them? 

Better yet. Can someone explain what this couple should have done? Or even Kyle. What should they have done??

Its pretty cleanly a microphone, but I get it, he's black so even a microphone can look menacing.

The trespassing protesters should have been rounded up and charged, but they weren't doing anything that justified having guns pointed at them.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

2 hours ago, Cclm said:

Okay. I guess she did point it. Let me ask you something. Take a look at the right side of the pic with the man in white. Do you see something black and long protruding from the area around his left neck/shoulder? Something that kinda looks like a rifle stock? Pointed at the woman?  Probably not a pic to use as an example. 

Probably a pain ball gun and the gun she had actually was not real. More of a deterrent.  I'm not a fan of gun rights being a Canadian and all but you have to take notice that nobody got hurt and there was minimal property damage. Perhaps because the guns were a deterrent? 

So it was completely unreasonable to use the gun as a deterrent against a mob that broke through a gated community yelling vulgar language, threatening and pointing a gun at them? 

Better yet. Can someone explain what this couple should have done? Or even Kyle. What should they have done??

Kyle should have stayed home and the couple should have stayed indoors.  The protestors would have kept moving.  They weren't a target.  

I have made note of protestors open carrying weapons themselves.  It's all a recipe for disaster but nothing we can do.  

[Cclm, LPN]

2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Its pretty cleanly a microphone, but I get it, he's black so even a microphone can look menacing.

The trespassing protesters should have been rounded up and charged, but they weren't doing anything that justified having guns pointed at them.

I'm not sure what you mean? Why would you assume a black man is menacing? Or that I would assume it was a gun not a microphone because he is black? So should I've assumed he was a rapper because it's a microphone and he's black? 

If it is a microphone from that angle it looks like a gun even with a strap. I didn't even notice his race until you pointed it out. Perhaps you should reflect on your own implicit stereotyping? 

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

15 hours ago, Tweety said:

Well let me remind you that they did point the gun at the protestors.  I don't know about all those other claims as that is perhaps only their side of the story and they escalated the situation.   My point is can you see how this could have gone wrong with so many armed people?

I'm not getting into the "disabling police and let them do their jobs" conversation.  They have not been disabled and this couple didn't let them do their jobs.  

No, the protestors shouldn't have been there on their property.  But they might have just let them go on buy.  But Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there either.  So there we are.

 

 

There is no video evidence of protestors ever crossing the hedge row to invade their lawn.  It is easy to misunderstand that the mansion was on a legally, private street.  All the McCloskeys had to do was go indoors.  They are just a couple of  white trash nut jobs like Rittenhouse.

[Beerman, BSN]

14 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Its pretty cleanly a microphone, but I get it, he's black so even a microphone can look menacing.

Thats not really fair. I think most people during a time when violent protests were common, if they saw a group of unfamiliar people in their neighborhood, black or white, with dark object and in the shape of a gun barrel, they would be concerned.

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

Thats not really fair. I think most people during a time when violent protests were common, if they saw a group of unfamiliar people in their neighborhood, black or white, with dark object and in the shape of a gun barrel, they would be concerned.

 I would be concerned for sure.  I'd stay indoors with gun ready hoping they kept marching on by, but wouldn't run outside and face them down with my little handgun.  

I can almost understand standing outside your home as protestors when by with your weapons to show you're not to be messed with.  I wouldn't do that, I would still stay indoors and let them pass peacefully or otherwise.  But to get involved in pointing it at them and facing them off was foolish.  In my opinion.

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

And speaking of Rittenhouse:  I came across this in one of my online newspapers The Forward.  Hannah Arendt was an Israeli ethicist and philosopher who immorialized the Eichman trial in Jerusalem.  She commented on how the interests of the prosecution and the judges had been separated which was the situation in Kenosha.  The kook-judge had a playbook written for the defense.  Asking the trial attendees to applaud for the military was a sympton that he probably needs to be retired.  But I do like the following paragraph the reporter added to his comparison of these two trials?

This, in turn, leads to yet other parallels. In her epilogue, Arendt dwells on a disturbing paradox: the imperative for a proper legal response to the unprecedented crimes of the Nazis and the incompetence of existing laws. We, in turn, must dwell on the confounding yet coherent conclusion of the Kenosha jurors. A teenager who, toting a deadly weapon with the intent to defend property he did not own, proceeds to use it in order to defend himself against individuals provoked by the sight of the gun, is within his legal rights.

[toomuchbaloney]

59 minutes ago, subee said:

And speaking of Rittenhouse:  I came across this in one of my online newspapers The Forward.  Hannah Arendt was an Israeli ethicist and philosopher who immorialized the Eichman trial in Jerusalem.  She commented on how the interests of the prosecution and the judges had been separated which was the situation in Kenosha.  The kook-judge had a playbook written for the defense.  Asking the trial attendees to applaud for the military was a sympton that he probably needs to be retired.  But I do like the following paragraph the reporter added to his comparison of these two trials?

This, in turn, leads to yet other parallels. In her epilogue, Arendt dwells on a disturbing paradox: the imperative for a proper legal response to the unprecedented crimes of the Nazis and the incompetence of existing laws. We, in turn, must dwell on the confounding yet coherent conclusion of the Kenosha jurors. A teenager who, toting a deadly weapon with the intent to defend property he did not own, proceeds to use it in order to defend himself against individuals provoked by the sight of the gun, is within his legal rights.

Exactly correct.  If the laws in Wisconsin allow that then the laws must be reformed if we are to consider ourselves a nation of law and order.  IMV

[Beerman, BSN]

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

 I would be concerned for sure.  I'd stay indoors with gun ready hoping they kept marching on by, but wouldn't run outside and face them down with my little handgun.  

I can almost understand standing outside your home as protestors when by with your weapons to show you're not to be messed with.  I wouldn't do that, I would still stay indoors and let them pass peacefully or otherwise.  But to get involved in pointing it at them and facing them off was foolish.  In my opinion.

I agree.  I wasn't defending the actions of the homeowners.  My post was addressing this statement by Muno:

"Its pretty cleanly a microphone, but I get it, he's black so even a microphone can look menacing."

[Beerman, BSN]

1 hour ago, subee said:

And speaking of Rittenhouse:  I came across this in one of my online newspapers The Forward.  Hannah Arendt was an Israeli ethicist and philosopher who immorialized the Eichman trial in Jerusalem.  She commented on how the interests of the prosecution and the judges had been separated which was the situation in Kenosha.  The kook-judge had a playbook written for the defense.  Asking the trial attendees to applaud for the military was a sympton that he probably needs to be retired.  But I do like the following paragraph the reporter added to his comparison of these two trials?

This, in turn, leads to yet other parallels. In her epilogue, Arendt dwells on a disturbing paradox: the imperative for a proper legal response to the unprecedented crimes of the Nazis and the incompetence of existing laws. We, in turn, must dwell on the confounding yet coherent conclusion of the Kenosha jurors. A teenager who, toting a deadly weapon with the intent to defend property he did not own, proceeds to use it in order to defend himself against individuals provoked by the sight of the gun, is within his legal rights.

The  judge had nothing to do with the outcome of this case.  It was a bad case that never should have been brought to trial.