Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Maik Jeaunz

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Kal El said:

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.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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. 

We’re not talking about Zimmerman. Rittenhouse is facing charges of murder because he went to Wisconsin and started trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kal El said:

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

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?

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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Lol...started trouble?  He was the one being chased.  I am amazed you can even say that with a straight face. 

You don’t see any issue with what he did, including murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, squistion said:

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.

I said he lived in the area and worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha.   You have this great ability to misrepresent facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, the rover said:

You don’t see any issue with what he did, including murder?

I support our self-defense laws, which means it was not murder.   For a lawyer you are very loose with your terms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jon_mx said:

I said he lived in the area and worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha.   You have this great ability to misrepresent facts. 

Antioch is across state lines in Illinois - it is not considered by anyone outside of you as living in the same area as Kenosha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, squistion said:

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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. 

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?

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

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?

One dude he shot was down from the Milwalkee area nearly an hour away.  Talk about an outsider looking for trouble. 

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

6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

One dude he shot was down from the Milwalkee area nearly an hour away.  Talk about an outsider looking for trouble. 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, squistion said:

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

You're right. 

How does that relate to thinking an unnamed source is being fact based?

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jon_mx said:

What impact does it have on Rittenhouse?  Hint:  none.  What is the point that it is an issue. 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, squistion said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

I support our self-defense laws, which means it was not murder.   For a lawyer you are very loose with your terms. 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kal El said:

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

I support our self-defense laws, which means it was not murder.   For a lawyer you are very loose with your terms. 

Again, you’re ignorant of the law.  Sorry, but as a non-lawyer you have no clue what self defense laws actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, the rover said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

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. 

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.

Edited by bigbottom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bigbottom said:

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.

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?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bigbottom said:

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.

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.  

  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.  

  

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

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

Can we find a way to include Dr. Seuss? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, thriftyrocker said:

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.

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

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

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Desert_Power said:

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.  

Possibly, if you do so with an unlawfully possessed firearm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Desert_Power said:

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.  

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. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

The weapon never crossed the stateline.  

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. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bigbottom said:

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. 

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.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

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. :ninja:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.    

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Desert_Power said:

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.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.

I certainly hope you aren't arguing Rittenhouse was there for "hunting purposes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

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. 

Shouldn't you be over in the match thread or are you watching on delay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

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. 

Their party leader (arguably) peddles this stuff actively so this isn’t surprising. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Desert_Power said:

Shouldn't you be over in the match thread or are you watching on delay?

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

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. 

:lol:  It could be going either way, both teams have had a lot of good chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, moleculo said:

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.

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.

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...