It is the facts which are persuavive, not the number of people stating something. The facts of the Zimmerman case are accurately portrayed in the article i posted. Nothing in the massive amount if liberal rhetoric whining about stand your ground carries any weight because it clearly was never brought up in the case.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
January 6th - what will happen? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Maik Jeaunz
- Start date
- Status
squistion
Footballguy
Not in this thread,
You posted that Kyle Rittenhouse lived in Kenosha which was a falsehood, not a fact, it is well documented he lived in Antioch Illinois the day he shot three people and killed two.
We’re not talking about Zimmerman. Rittenhouse is facing charges of murder because he went to Wisconsin and started trouble.
Lol...started trouble? He was the one being chased. I am amazed you can even say that with a straight face.
the rover
Footballguy
I’m not a criminal guy, so I defer to DW and Woz, but based on my understanding of Wisconsin law and the facts of this case I wouldn’t advise a 17 year old to risk life in prison. Jurors are unpredictable. I believe the most likely result is he plea bargains for a lesser charge. He killed two people and shot another. Self defense in all three is a big risk.
the rover
Footballguy
I said he lived in the area and worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha. You have this great ability to misrepresent facts.
I support our self-defense laws, which means it was not murder. For a lawyer you are very loose with your terms.
squistion
Footballguy
Antioch is across state lines in Illinois - it is not considered by anyone outside of you as living in the same area as Kenosha.
Both cities literally touch the border. Crossing a state line has no bearing on anything. He worked and volunteered in Kenosha and was part of the community.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I live on a state border and am hesitant to buy beer on the other side (where it is cheaper) because it is technically illegal to bring it back.
squistion
Footballguy
It is an another state, a distance of 21 miles and the cities don't touch each other.
And dude, if he was really part of the same community he wouldn't have faced extradition charges after he fled to Antoich, would he?
Last edited by a moderator:
One dude he shot was down from the Milwalkee area nearly an hour away. Talk about an outsider looking for trouble.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Irrelevant to the charges of murder or manslaughter as far as the law is concerned.
If the victim was down from Gray Eagle Minnesota it would count exactly the same as far as the charges against Rittenhouse are concerned. It is not a valid defense that the victim was not a local resident of Kenosha and traveled some distance to get there.
What impact does it have on Rittenhouse? Hint: none. What is the point that it is an issue.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
It isnt just that the source was unnamed.
It was an unnamed source that wouldnt name who said it and what was said. Anybody defending that can be crossed off the list of people to ever listen to.
They wouldnt even give the level of association.
Source: Hey tribune I have a story for you.
Tribune: oh please tell us, please please please.
Source: well somebody from the proud boys called somebody that can be linked to the white house.
Tribune: awesome! Who was the caller?
Source: cant tell you that.
Tribune: who did they talk to?
Source: cant tell you that
Tribune: what did they talk about?
Source: cant tell you that.
Tribune: how are they connected to the white house.
Source: nope.
Tribune: thanks so much for the story this is great stuff. My editor will be thrilled. My journalism professor would puke, but who cares about any of that stuff anymore.
squistion
Footballguy
If it is has no impact on Rittenhouse, then why did you bring up where the alleged murder victim lived?
It doesn't matter what city the victim who Rittenhouse killed came from.
I bring it up because it hss been brought up a hundred times about how he crossed state lines looking gor trouble.
Wisconsin does not have that law, as has been stated several times. Even if they did, his actions would not constitute application of said law, which again does not exist in Wisconsin.
Self-defense laws? Wisconsin absolutely has self-defense laws. What they don't have is stand your ground modufucation which adds in certain situations you do not have to retreat to use deadly force. But that stipulation is completely irrellevant since Rittenhouse did retreat and only fired after he was cornered or fell to the ground and assaulted.
the rover
Footballguy
Again, you’re ignorant of the law. Sorry, but as a non-lawyer you have no clue what self defense laws actually are.
You keep saying that, but i have quoted the law as it applies to Wisconsin and all you can to is state irrelevant stuff about Wisconsin not having stand your ground laws. I am really doubting your credentials as a lawyer as you have stated inaccuracies, are impercise with your langage and have yer to make even the slightest attempt to describe what is the self-defense law in Wisconsin and why it does not apply in this case. I have provided substance, you have provided nothing except claiming to be a lawyer.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Based on Wisconsin’s self-defense statute, it appears that there are certain situations where a person does not have to retreat to use deadly force - namely if it occurs in the dwelling, motor vehicle or place of business of the person claiming self-defense (typically referred to as the castle doctrine). There is also a provocation element where a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense if that person engaged in unlawful conduct likely to provoke an attack from others and did ultimately provoke the attack in question. I know your position is that he did not provoke the attack, and also that he retreated, but I do suspect these issues (provocation and duty to retreat) will be relevant issues of inquiry in this case.
Edit to add: I’m not a criminal lawyer. Also, I haven’t seen the video footage or delved into all of the relevant facts. That said, based solely on the Wikipedia write-up I just read, the self-defense claim does seem plausible, though going three for three will be a challenge. But I leave that debate to those of you who are more informed. I just wanted to post the relevant statutory language for the sake of the discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
FairWarning
Footballguy
Where you have to keep your head on a swivel in a riot situation, the self-defense clause definitely would apply IMO. It's really tough like Rover brought up when you are facing life and your future is dictated by a jury in a very highly emotional case. If he were there to "protect businesses", is that worse than out of towners coming in to destroy them?
That is all an accurate statement of the Wisconsin law, but it is not simply my position that he retreated. There is irrefutable video of the events leading up to and including the shooting, so Rittenhouse absolutely retreated. Rittenhouse is shown running full speed away from Rosenbaum who is about 10-15 feet behind him in hot pursuit until he is cornered in a parking lot jammed packed with cars. At which point Rittenhouse claims Rosenbaum was reaching for his gun, but the video is from a distance and the scene is mostly blocked by a car. You can hear 4 or 5 shots go off and Rosenbaum falling to the ground next to Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse phones a friend to explain the situation and sees a group of people running towards him. So Rittenhouse flees that scene and is pursued then by several people screaming at him.
That is why I do not see why there is no need for a Stand Your Ground protection. In Florida then main thing that SYG does is provide immunity from civil lawsuits as well as an opportunity for a pre-trail hearing to have the case thrown out. Zimmerman's lawyers opted not to have that pre-trial hearing because it probably would have required Zimmerman to testify to prevail. It really had no bearing on the Zimmerman trial except that SYG language is part of the boilerplate jury instructions. But both cases are a fundamental case of self-defense and comes down to if the jury thinks it was reasonable to for the defendant to believe he was in imminent danger of severe bodily harm or death. Being chased and grabbing for his weapon, it would certainly get a yes from most every conservative jurist. The only way to loose is to have a jury which is packed full of anti-gun types who are generally against the use of deadly force in any circumstance. I knew the Zimmerman case was over when the first staunch pro-gun women was selected to the jury. If I were Rittenhouse lawyer, that would be the key issue I would focus on in jury selection.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom
Footballguy
You may very well be right. But it’s also possible that even a staunch gun’s rights juror could be influenced by the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. In other words, they could conclude that Rittenhouse was a criminal with a gun before anything started (I am very close to a lot of staunch second amendment folks and many of them do not like the idea of people unlawfully procuring firearms). Regarding Rosenbaum “grabbing for his weapon”, did Rosenbaum have a gun?
dawgtrails
Footballguy
It really is amazing how a certain someone manages to turn a thread about January 6th into a Kyle Rittenhouse thread. Thank god nobody bit on his attempt to turn it into a Trayvon Martin thread too
There are some overzealous political prosecutions surrounding Jan 6th just like Zimmerman and Rittenhouse. If you want a unique thread that is fine, but it is a legitimate topic which fundamentally divide the country/parties.
timschochet
Footballguy
I understand there are some legal issues between living in one state or another, but when you cross the stateline do you see that as an act of 'starting trouble'. Some people live across the border from a larger town because of affordability issues or other factors, but they still work and spend a large part of their time in a city and are a part of it. Lots of people live across the state border in Indiana, but feel part of Chicago and even are on their time zone.
Last edited by a moderator:
Desert_Power
Footballguy
The investigation into Jan 6th is ongoing and the FBI continues to find more evidence connecting the White House to the riot. Not surprising that people are distracting from the actual topic with various other alt-right grievances. It happens is basically any thread people try and post about the news these days.
It is funny that any defense of individual rights and government abuse is not labeled on alt-right in this forum. And by funny I mean disgusting.
bigbottom
Footballguy
The sQuad knows they’ve lost the war and want to see if there is a fragment of an issue they can score a point - and often fails on that
bigbottom
Footballguy
I think the individuals who committed crimes on January 6 should be charged with the crimes they committed, no more no less. I feel the same for the rioters who committed crimes over the summer.
I have discussed all issues surrounding January 6th and do not avoid or fragment it. I see the bigger issue of overzealous use of the court system to advance a political agenda by leftists in their war against free speech and different opinion.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Interesting. He got the gun from someone in Wisconsin? From reviewing the statute, it does appear that he may very well have unlawfully possessed it. But I was also disappointed to learn that it’s a Class A misdemeanor in Wisconsin for a 17 year old to possess nunchucks and throwing stars.
Absolutely. But I see many of the prosecutions being for simply being inside the Capitol when the majority entered peacefully and even passed through manned security entrances. The issue was the complete lack of security to control the crowd and the instigators who did violently breech security and/or vandalized the Capitol. Making it about some grand conspiracy to stop the transfer of power and casting everyone present as a terrorist is too much when really the only planning I have seen documented was by a handful of Proud Boys. Yes they should be prosecuted harshly.
Yes, his friend held the weapon for him and I am sure there may be legal consequences to that. A 16-year old can legally own and possess a weapon in Wisconsin for hunting purposes though.Interesting. He got the gun from someone in Wisconsin? From reviewing the statute, it does appear that he may very well have unlawfully possessed it. But I was also disappointed to learn that it’s a Class A misdemeanor in Wisconsin for a 17 year old to possess nunchucks and throwing stars.
moleculo
Footballguy
Being inside the capitol on Jan 6 is a crime. Full stop. No one purchased a ticket, stood line line with other smelly tourists or we're there on ****official business***.
This was not a tour group that took a wrong turn. They were to disrupt congress, no much how badly they protest otherwise.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Not surprising...
"Fake News Gets More Engagement on Facebook—But Only If It's Right-Wing"
https://www.wired.com/story/right-wing-fake-news-more-engagement-facebook/
Basically for misinformation with other partisan slants, it drives less engagement from users. Right wing misinformation drives increased engagement. It sounds like some segments of the population have really entered a post-truth world.
moleculo
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
Desert_Power
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Their party leader (arguably) peddles this stuff actively so this isn’t surprising.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Dude... I'm not watching. Wife scheduled my son's 1st haircut in a year for 11:30.
1-0 to the good this far.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
It could be going either way, both teams have had a lot of good chances.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
At the request of the President. To delay the certification of the EC vote. So that some other part of the plan could happen afterward.
But the pipe bombs were found before they went off, and Congress went straight back into session to finish its work.
- Status
