Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Maik Jeaunz

Recommended Posts

At 17 facing life in prison my guess is that he pleas to reckless homicide and gets like 10 years.  No way he goes to trial relying on Lin Wood’s BS claim of self defense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

Find it interesting that you are defending a guy that beats up girls.  

Have Rover (an actual lawyer) draft up terms of our bet and make it $200. 

May this kid rot in the sort of prison that is unkind to girl beaters. 

And put the money in escrow by Friday.  I don't trust you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The General said:

Back to a question from earlier. If Rittenhouse, or some other play cop, showed up at the Capitol who would they have been shooting?

No one.  Rittenhouse did not shoot anyone who did not intend to kill him.  Your premise is so off base.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, the rover said:

At 17 facing life in prison my guess is that he pleas to reckless homicide and gets like 10 years.  No way he goes to trial relying on Lin Wood’s BS claim of self defense.  

He is going to trial unless they drop murder altogether.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

Who would that be and how would you know what or who I love? 

You think Rosenbaum was an innocent victim instead of someone who was attacking and justifiably shot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

No one.  Rittenhouse did not shoot anyone who did not intend to kill him.  Your premise is so off base.  

He didn’t go planning to shoot someone in Wisconsin did he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

You think Rosenbaum was an innocent victim instead of someone who was attacking and justifiably shot.  

He shot 3 people. Killed 2. I don't need to "love" his victims to know what he did was wrong.  I hope he rots in prison and then rots in hell.  

 

Have Rover or a lawyer of your choosing draw up the details of our wager.  Have a third party we both agree upon to hold our money in escrow.  Deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He is going to trial unless they drop murder altogether.  

Again, you have no clue how the legal system works.  You know who Lin Wood is, right?  How’s his record lately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The General said:

He didn’t go planning to shoot someone in Wisconsin did he?

Some psychopath in DC would not have attacked Rittenhouse.   You seem to believe that Rittehouse provoked it, but there is zero to indicate that.  This Rosenbaum dude ws acting pycho and was  either off his medication or on meth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

He shot 3 people. Killed 2. I don't need to "love" his victims to know what he did was wrong.  I hope he rots in prison and then rots in hell.  

 

Have Rover or a lawyer of your choosing draw up the details of our wager.  Have a third party we both agree upon to hold our money in escrow.  Deal?

The rules are simple.  No conviction on either of the first degree homocide charges.  I am not sure anything else needs to be stipulated.  Payment is made when the trial ends in a verdict or agreement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Some psychopath in DC would not have attacked Rittenhouse.   You seem to believe that Rittehouse provoked it, but there is zero to indicate that.  This Rosenbaum dude ws acting pycho and was  either off his medication or on meth. 

How can you possibly know this :lmao:

A date was selected for a protest, people were aware there would be trouble, Kyle Rittenhouse springs into action to play cop. Loads up his weapons and travels to the protest site. 

A riot happens, a mob of crazy people march, death threats are hurled, windows are being broken, the mob begins to beat cops, cops are getting tazed, total madness. Good thing Kyle is here!

Rittenhouse steps in, he gets shoved, somebody starts punching. Rittenhouse punches back (if the puncher is a woman) there’s a loud bang. Play cop Kyle is threatened. 

But, Kyle only protects car lots from BLM rioters and not the Capitol and the democratic process from Trump’s MAGA dorks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I am not repeating anyone's story.  I have watched various video's of the timeline and can only see one logical conclusion.  It was self-defense in all three cases. 

I've seen the video many times here on the news. I disagree that it was self defense. It was murder.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The General said:

He didn’t go planning to shoot someone in Wisconsin did he?

He did go to Kenosha on the 2nd day, so he knew there was a possibility.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the rover said:

Rejecting valid information based solely on your personal agenda is cognitive dissonance.  

This is you jumping to conclusions about me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, the rover said:

Again, you have no clue how the legal system works.  You know who Lin Wood is, right?  How’s his record lately?

You are hung up on Lin Wood who will not be the main trial lawyer.  They brought on a couple very competent local lawyers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The General said:

 

How can you possibly know this :lmao:

A date was selected for a protest, people were aware there would be trouble, Kyle Rittenhouse springs into action to play cop. Loads up his weapons and travels to the protest site. 

A riot happens, a mob of crazy people march, death threats are hurled, windows are being broken, the mob begins to beat cops, cops are getting tazed, total madness. Good thing Kyle is here!

Rittenhouse steps in, he gets shoved, somebody starts punching. Rittenhouse punches back (if the puncher is a woman) there’s a loud bang. Play cop Kyle is threatened. 

But, Kyle only protects car lots from BLM rioters and not the Capitol and the democratic process from Trump’s MAGA dorks.

Your premise is absurd.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

Your premise is absurd.  

He is a protector of buildings during riots, no?

If he gets upset about a car lot being trashed what must he think about the Capitol building being broken into? This seems right in his wheelhouse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The General said:

He is a protector of buildings during riots, no?

If he gets upset about a car lot being trashed what must he think about the Capitol building being broken into? This seems right in his wheelhouse. 

He did not shot anyone when he was defending the car lot.  As far as i can tell, Rosenbaum was set off unprovoked. He had been aggressively violent all night and then something triggered him to go after Rittenhouse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jon_mx said:

He did not shot anyone when he was defending the car lot.  As far as i can tell, Rosenbaum was set off unprovoked. He had been aggressively violent all night and then something triggered him to go after Rittenhouse.  

The DC insurrectionists were def level headed types. Nothing crazy could have happened in that situation if some kid shows up with a weapon trying to “help”.  That would be absurd!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He did not shot anyone when he was defending the car lot.  As far as i can tell, Rosenbaum was set off unprovoked. He had been aggressively violent all night and then something triggered him to go after Rittenhouse.  

Rittenhouse shot someone earlier, that's why they were chasing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kid went looking for trouble, found it, and should face serious jail time. The last thing anyone needed there were self-described “protectors” who had no other real connection to the area beyond working somewhere in that zip code.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr.Pack said:

Rittenhouse shot someone earlier, that's why they were chasing him.

Rosenbaum was the first one shot.   The later two appearently were acting as vigilanties which i thought we hated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jon_mx said:

Rosenbaum was the first one shot.   The later two appearently were acting as vigilanties which i thought we hated. 

If he didn’t shoot Rosenbaum, they wouldn’t have chased him. Cause and effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kal El said:

If he didn’t shoot Rosenbaum, they wouldn’t have chased him. Cause and effect.

Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse unprovoked.  Rittenhouse only shot after he was cornered.  Rittenhouse then fleed that area and was chased again.  The mob wrongly presumed guilt and was going to kill him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Rosenbaum was the first one shot.   The later two appearently were acting as vigilanties which i thought we hated. 

You seem to be the fan of vigilantes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jon_mx said:

The left loves this Guy:  A meth head with a 10-year long prison record.  Recently again convicted of beating a woman (body slammed her to the ground causing her to bleed profusely) and was just released from jail after spending three weeks there and then checked into a mental facility.  Released earlier than day, he joined the rioters that night.  He proceeding to verbally assault people protecting businesses, and then pushed a flaming dumpster towards a gas station before he was stopped. He was filmed wielding a chain just moments before he started screaming at a 17-year old kid and then chasing him full speed in a violent pursuit. 

 

The left loves this guy?  Can you defend this  sweeping generalization as anything other than you getting frustrated and lashing out?  Your other statements are on point with respect to the debate. But this kind of stuff is counterproductive and detracts from your arguments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse unprovoked.  Rittenhouse only shot after he was cornered.  Rittenhouse then fleed that area and was chased again.  The mob wrongly presumed guilt and was going to kill him.  

:lmao: You might consider trying to get a grip.

Edited by Apple Jack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Mr.Pack said:

I've seen the video many times here on the news. I disagree that it was self defense. It was murder.

Watch out.  Jon will tell you you’re the left and you love meth addict rioters

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

:lmao: You might consider trying to get a grip.

There’s a long-standing pattern to Jon’s posts:

1.  Sweeping generalization

2. False statements in response to requests for factual backup for sweeping generalization

3.  Baseless attacks on posters who provide actual facts 

4.  Backpedaling 

5.  Claims of being persecuted by “the left.”

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

You are hung up on Lin Wood who will not be the main trial lawyer.  They brought on a couple very competent local lawyers.  

Lin Wood is the main driving force behind the  self defense argument.   Competent lawyers will beg for a plea bargain so this murderer doesn’t go to jail for life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

The left loves this guy?  Can you defend this  sweeping generalization as anything other than you getting frustrated and lashing out?  Your other statements are on point with respect to the debate. But this kind of stuff is counterproductive and detracts from your arguments.

By love i mean they completely ignore all of Rosenbaum severe flaws and ignore the contribution he made to the circumstance and then they not only grossly exagerate the flaws in Rittenhouse, but lie about them.  They treat the victims like they are their children, not from an impartal perspective which would weigh the flaws of each in reaching a conclision.  Certainly love is a hylerbole, but it is frustrating that they view the case in such unfair terms. 

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, the rover said:

Lin Wood is the main driving force behind the  self defense argument.   Competent lawyers will beg for a plea bargain so this murderer doesn’t go to jail for life.

Competent prosecuters would not bring this case to court.  It is all politics with very little chance at success.  Much like the Zimmerman case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, the rover said:

There’s a long-standing pattern to Jon’s posts:

1.  Sweeping generalization

2. False statements in response to requests for factual backup for sweeping generalization

3.  Baseless attacks on posters who provide actual facts 

4.  Backpedaling 

5.  Claims of being persecuted by “the left.”

1.  Rittenhouse is universally villianized and despised by the left.  I have yet to see one exception in this case.  

2.  I back up my statement more than the mob does and i am not aware of a single false claim i have made.  I have disproven and corrected a few from the other side.

3.  I post more actual facts on this case than the rest of the forum combined.

4.  I have not backpeddled on my points.

5.  Confirmation of the bs that goes on here. 

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, the rover said:

Lin Wood is the main driving force behind the  self defense argument.   Competent lawyers will beg for a plea bargain so this murderer doesn’t go to jail for life.

Conservative by a large margin see this as a case of self-defense.  Lin Wood has zero bearing on this as it was from day one before Lin Wood even opened his mouth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

By love i mean they completely ignore all of Rosenbaum severe flaws and ignore the contribution he made to the circumstance and then they not only grossly exagerate the flaws in Rittenhouse, but lie about them.  They treat the victims like they are their children, not from an impartal perspective which would weigh the flaws of each in reaching a conclision.  Certainly love is a hylerbole, but it is frustrating that they view the case in such unfair terms. 

Nobody supports violent riots, just like nobody but you supports vigilante murder.  You love this guy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Conservative by a large margin see this as a case of self-defense.  Lin Wood has zero bearing on this as it was from day one before Lin Wood even opened his mouth. 

Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.  Lin Wood is the architect of the self-defense argument.  The same MAGA crowd that believes his election fraud lies believe this nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Competent prosecuters would not bring this case to court.  It is all politics with very little chance at success.  Much like the Zimmerman case. 

Zimmerman was in a state with stand your ground laws.  No such laws exist in Wisconsin.  You’re wrong again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

1.  Rittenhouse is universally villianized and despised by the left.  I have yet to see one exception in this case.  

2.  I back up my statement more than the mob does and i am not aware of a single false claim i have made.  I have disproven and corrected a few from the other side.

3.  I post more actual facts on this case than the rest of the forum combined.

4.  I have not backpeddled on my points.

5.  Confirmation of the bs that goes on here. 

1.  Why would there be an exception to universal disdain for a murderer?

2.  Lie

3.  Lie

4.  Not yet.

5.  Persecution claims have already happened 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, the rover said:

Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.  Lin Wood is the architect of the self-defense argument.  The same MAGA crowd that believes his election fraud lies believe this nonsense.

Lol....you have to be kidding.  There were dozens of youtube videos day one chronicalizing minute by minute account of the shootings and making the case for self-defense.  Lin Wood did not architect anything.  I never even heard the guy speak nor have any idea who he really is.  Seems like a liberal obsession.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, the rover said:

Zimmerman was in a state with stand your ground laws.  No such laws exist in Wisconsin.  You’re wrong again.

Stand your ground did not play a role in the Zimmerman case.  It was a pure case of self-defense.  It does not make a difference here either.  Both cases rely on the same standard and that is if a resonable person would believe they were in danger of severe harm or death.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

River, didn’t know you were a lawyer. Now that I know this, I’ll ask you a couple of questions.  
 

- assuming you’re a defense lawyer, would you take KW’s case?  If so, what defense would you use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, Florida's Stand Your Ground Law Did Not Determine Either Zimmerman or Dunn Cases

By

LEGAL ANALYSIS by DAN ABRAMS

Feb. 17, 2014 — -- When a Florida jury deadlocked on the first degree murder charge against software developer Michael Dunn, the state's controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" was once again hoisted into the media spotlight.

Dunn was convicted on four other charges in the case, in which he fired 10 times at an SUV after an argument with the teens inside about how loud their music was, and will likely be sentenced to a minimum of 60 years behind bars.

As in the case of George Zimmerman, acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, the public outrage was often directed or misdirected, at the Florida law.

Many, including legal commentators who should know better, repeatedly citing the statute as a crucial issue in both cases.

And yet neither defendant invoked the controversial aspects of Florida's law. In fact, both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.

The relevant portion of the law of self defense in Florida reads: "A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"

The controversial section of that law relates to the fact that there is no "duty to retreat," meaning that in non-stand your ground states one must, in most cases, first attempt to get away if he or she can.

In Florida, however, there is no such requirement and the shooter may "stand his or her ground" when firing in self defense.

But the duty to retreat was not an issue in either Dunn or Zimmerman. In both cases the defendants argued that deadly force was used because they "reasonably" believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury. That, is at its core, no different than the law in almost every other state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, the rover said:

1.  Why would there be an exception to universal disdain for a murderer?

2.  Lie

3.  Lie

4.  Not yet.

5.  Persecution claims have already happened 

 

 

 

Also sucker punches girls, no?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Stand your ground did not play a role in the Zimmerman case.  It was a pure case of self-defense.  It does not make a difference here either.  Both cases rely on the same standard and that is if a resonable person would believe they were in danger of severe harm or death.  

Stand your ground absolutely played a role in Zimmerman’s case. It was constantly talked about here in Florida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, the rover said:

1.  Why would there be an exception to universal disdain for a murderer?

2.  Lie

3.  Lie

4.  Not yet.

5.  Persecution claims have already happened 

He has a very viable case for self-defense which will prevail.  You do not sound very lawyerly, imho.  You certainly lack understanding od stand your ground.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kal El said:

Stand your ground absolutely played a role in Zimmerman’s case. It was constantly talked about here in Florida.

Yes, by ignorant lawyer talking heads who were clueless on what the law does.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Yes, by ignorant lawyer talking heads who were clueless on what the law does.  

When it comes to law interpretation, I find it best to pay attention to the majority, since at least in legal realms, they tend to be right. One guy with an opinion piece is hardly the final say on the matter. Of course, this is all irrelevant in this case, since Wisconsin has no stand your ground clause, and Rittenhouse started this whole mess by showing up with a gun, looking for trouble.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...