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.
The perfect post to sum up jon_mx on footballguys. He knows others better than they know themselves. Whatever doesn't fit his preconceived notions is dismissed is them lying to him. Labeling people things they aren't to make him feel good about himself and his "side". Not going any further in this little fishing trip...have a good day.
Good lord, could you stop making all your arguments personal? You avoid direct questions and continually engage in making points about me. I laid out a lot facts and law in a way that is probably better than most the actual lawyers on YouTube or TV or in the media. You throw out statements with how we have terrible laws and come across as not happy with the possibility that Rittenhouse might get off. I try to find out how the laws are terrible, you just come back to this personal non-sense. Sure I think based on the laws of Wisconsin that the DA has a terribly weak case with little or no chance of success and is being way overcharged. I think it is political and I find such abuse of a trusted position revolting. You want to pretend like you are the one taking the high-road, when in fact you are the one constantly dragging it into the mud.
Really? Do as I say, not as I do is what you're going with here? My first "personal" post was in response to the below. You don't want personal, don't do personal
And that quote was in response to these:Really? Do as I say, not as I do is what you're going with here? My first "personal" post was in response to the below. You don't want personal, don't do personal
So I have not standards in life, I don't listen and I project. Those are personal and BEFORE i told you to stop lying to yourself. I probably do project, but I have lots of standards and consider my stances consistent and I do listen to criticism.
I asked you a question. I asserted nothing. Based on what's been presented, it's a completely valid question in my view. You're all over the place a good part of the time
It's pretty clear that you don't or you wouldn't continue misrepresenting positions of other posters. It's not just me. It's either that or just dishonest fishing. Those are really the only two options.
And it was never about this
It's about listening to other people and their positions and taking them at face value rather than pretending that you know them better than they know themselves and if their response isn't fitting your narrative, it's not that your narrative is completely out of whack, it's that the other person is the problem. It came across as a rhetorical potshot and no it was not fair despite what you think.I asked you a question. I asserted nothing. Based on what's been presented, it's a completely valid question in my view. You're all over the place a good part of the time
It's pretty clear that you don't or you wouldn't continue misrepresenting positions of other posters. It's not just me. It's either that or just dishonest fishing. Those are really the only two options.
And it was never about this
Would it be fair to say that the entire case is dependent on whether or not Rittenhouse did anything prior to the start of the chase/retreat that rises to the level of provocation for a jury? And, you believe that you have complete enough of a picture to say "no"? And, it would take the unlikely event of something being revealed during a trial about this "before" time that is generally unknown today to really change this?
This however, I think you are exaggerating. I mean I think most people would vent along these lines after being shot. Wishing they had shot first. Being upset that they say stupid things like emptying the magazine. It would be a hard sell to convince me that this is in anyway reflective of motive as opposed to the wound.
Does anyone know if the "before" even matters in Wisconsin law? It doesn't in the Florida law. You can be the aggressor and initiator of the entire event and yet, if you feel the only way you can get yourself out of the situation is to shoot someone, it only matters that you feared for your life in that moment.
I honestly do not have any clue on what basis the prosecution sees they can be successful. Provocation is a yes/no answer, and by the law it seems pretty clear Rittenhouse could not be considered to have provoked the attack. I don't have a 100 percent picture, but by testimony it seems clear Rosenbaum was the boisterous one, Rittenhouse was in fear and ran, Rosenbaum aggressively chased and initiated a physical confrontation by trying to take his weapon. I can think of nothing the prosecution would have that could alter that, but perhaps that is possible. Sure, theoretically Rittenhouse could have punched Rosenbaum and ran off, but i am confident nothing like that happened.
It is a hard sell to a jury, but it is not really an exaggeration. If you are chasing someone with a gun out of your holster and in your and are in the process of aiming your weapon at an individual, it is very reasonable to believe he was trying to kill him. It could be argued he was doing it as a defensive posture, but being the one who is pursuing, it seems an act of violent aggression.
This was linked yesterday. I'm not a lawyer, but my reading is that "yes" it matters but what counts as relevant seems rather narrow. Which, absent something we don't know has me more or less on @jon_mx's page - at least as to the law. I'm troubled with this case, but it seems like absent some unknown event in the before that it sounds to me like Rittenhouse has a decent defense.
I'm talking about the statement and not the foolish good Samaritan chasing of a "murderer" with a gun. The statement supports someone who was shot and in a bad mood. It is a leap to suggest that it supports his frame of mine when he chased with a pulled gun and did not actually fire and was instead shot. Maybe in reality it does reflect this, but absent some "you can't handle the truth" moment it would seem to be easy to brush aside as mere venting while licking the wounds.
I didn't say this was interesting through the lens of being able to carry a gun or not
I really wish you'd stop inserting meaning into people's comments that aren't there.
Good lord, would you stop it already. The post was meant to be helpful and explain how that applies to the case. People are making false assertion about that taking Rittenhouse's right to self defense away.I didn't say this was interesting through the lens of being able to carry a gun or not
I'm not one of them and I haven't made an argument one way or the other, so there's no reason to respond to me that way. Respond to those making that argument. And, no, I won't stop. You're not going to put words in my mouth or fabricate my position to mesh with your fantasy of what you want it to be.
You make vague statements like "terrible laws" and "that's interesting" and do not explain what you mean. I really don't think it is presumptuous to assume you meant those comments as applying to this thread in some way. There was zero personal commentary about you, just factual explanations.
It's not. I do think that the law BFS posted is interesting to this case....just not through the lens of guns.
I skipped this for a while to give it some thought. For Rittenhouse I'm not going to be able to contradict your reasoning - sorry. The only way I can make sense of this is to assume that the prosecutor believes that either he has a good case of "disorderly conduct" in the events prior to the chase to sell to a jury, or at least a good enough case that Rittenhouse will be advised to take a plea. What that might bejon_mx said:
. Maybe nothing than what we already know and you at least won't ever be convinced. (Me 
) . But this in my mind is what makes sense right now.
Back at the beginning of this thread, I asked whether, when Rittenhouse heard the gunfire, he turned and pointed his weapon at the unarmed Rosenbaum. I’m not sure whether or not the video or witness testimony provides an answer, but if he did, it could be argued that this was the unlawful act that provoked Rosenbaum to try to disarm him. However, Rittenhouse may very well still have the self-defense argument available to him if he reasonably believed that he had exhausted every means of escape. In any event, I think that could be an argument that might invoke the provocation issue, which takes you to the next level of analysis.jon_mx said:
This is specifically why I asked the question about what happened prior to the shooting. All that seems to be relevant in the story. Does it matter if he was seen earlier in the evening with an alt-right militia group standing guard at a car lot? Does it matter that he pointed his gun at a guy trying to get the hell out of dodge?
If someone is chasing you in a threatening way which could reasonably be viewed as intending to do great bodily harm, pointing is weapon at him is lawful. So IMO, even that would not make Rittenhouse that action illegal. There are specific law/case law about pointing a weapon at someone, but i forgot where i saw it and specifically how it read.
bigbottom was asking about the few seconds before Rittenhouse fired, not events earlier that night. Allegedly being part of some alt-right militia group has zero bearing. That is good political rhetoric, but is speculative and not relevant. The acts of the so-called militia open carrying weapons is legal and would not be considered to be provoking. Earlier events or personal history of violence can be considered, but since these two did not know each other, even Rosenbaum's lifetime of criminal record is not admissible. Probably neither is Rosenbaum pushing a flaming dumpster moments before admissible, unless Rittenhouse witnessed it and that influenced his fear.
It could have been a fear of public pressure of continued riots drove them to rush charges out. But their aggressiveness to get charges out the next day and to pump of the charges seems like they are being steered by politics more than facts. They did not even talk to Rittenhouse before filing charges. I do not even believe they talked to the key witness. Their filing was sloppy and may ultimately help the defense. As much as it could be possible the prosecution has an ace up their sleeve, i am confident that they don't and could not even speculate what that could even possibly be.I skipped this for a while to give it some thought. For Rittenhouse I'm not going to be able to contradict your reasoning - sorry. The only way I can make sense of this is to assume that the prosecutor believes that either he has a good case of "disorderly conduct" in the events prior to the chase to sell to a jury, or at least a good enough case that Rittenhouse will be advised to take a plea. What that might be
Well I can make sense of it a third way in that the prosecutor doesn't care if can be sold to a jury just as long as the prosecutor is getting press in an only "no press is the only bad press". But that doesn't seem like something that works out too often.
And I was asking about events from earlier in the evening. The statute BFS provided doesn't seem to have a timeframe tied to it so it all seems relevant. BB asks if pointing a gun at Rosenbaum would be an issue....I ask if him pointing his gun at anyone would be an issue.
But that is going to require an analysis of the video (which admittedly, I have not and will not watch). The scenario I raised is whether Rittenhouse heard the shots and that caused him to turn and point his gun at an unarmed Rosenbaum. In that scenario, and at that moment, I’m not sure that the self-defense privilege exists. But if, as you state, Rosenbaum was literally on top of him when Rittenhouse turned, then the privilege is much more likely to exist.
Yeah this is a super complicated and jurisdictionally nuanced legal issue. We definitely need to be cool if there are disagreements, misunderstandings, bad questions, etc.
There are seven charges -
I think that’s the part I’m really struggling to understand. For me, the fact the Rittenhouse showed up somewhere with a gun looking for trouble absolutely matters.The Commish said:
Why do you assume Rittenhouse was the one "looking for trouble" and not the so-call protestors who did millions of dollars of damage to Kenosha the night before? That seems like a wildly unfair and weird weird characterization.
Who is this guy?
Well, here in Florida it doesn't matter, so that's why I asked the question. Wisconsin seems to at least allow for the possibility to have events leading up to the conflict to be taken into account, so they start off from a slightly better place. Guess we'll see how this plays out once the trial begins and how big a factor it can be.
First off,, what you think matters, doesn't. Even so, you can't even point to an event which might have caused Rittenhouse to be attacked. You seem to be imagining some event happened so Rittenhouse could be viewed to have provoked it. Is it so hard to believe this raging psychopath who had been acting violently all-night saw Rittenhouse alone and vulnerable and started shouting at him? Rittenhouse scared took off running and the chase started. That is what the facts point to. What do you think happened that is different?
Seriously...just put me on ignore please. What I believe or what I think doesn't matter. What Wisconsin laws says matters. I'll go with them. What the evidence presented in court shows is what matters. I will wait until then to comment on the actual evidence of the case.
Well I guess you can comment when the case is done then. I am telling you what the laws says and you don't care. I am commenting on the facts, the law, the case and the politics. That is what a discussion forum does.
You're telling me what your interpretation of the laws says, and you're right, I don't care.
You're commenting on what you saw in a video from youtube and I don't really care about the politics of it.
If I had said he went to play vigilante - would you agree with that? I can’t think of why else you’d show up to counter-protest with an AR-15.
Sure, he was technically a vigilante....but so were the second wave of people who attacked him.
The lawyers who have commented on it agree with my reading, and it is pretty clear. There is video of 90 percent of what went down. Everything supports a valid self-defense claim by Rittenhouse. You want to invent some event that happened in that 10 percent to somehow blame Rittenhouse, but it is crazy and you can't even identify what it could possible be. We know almost all the facts. The law is clear. The case has a slim to none chance of success on any of the homicide charges.
I don't ignore people. I can handle opinions which are different and even unwarranted and unprovoked personal comments. Feel free to ignore my comments.
I still don’t get this argument. Rittenhouse has already shot and killed someone by this point in the timeline. Both of the people you’re talking about had their guns drawn, Rittenhouse shoots and your immediate conclusion is that the guy who hasn't shot anybody should be charged with attempted murder, but the guy who has now shot 3 and killed two was just defending himself?jon_mx said:
He could have stayed home and let the police deal with the protestors. Instead he went across state lines with a gun to a highly charged scene.
