It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Rittenhouse trial is being set up for unrest
page: 27share:
originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Phoenix
What was the reason he made the trip from Illinois to Wisconsin again? Refresh my memory.
What do you think the reason was ?
And what does it have to do with self defense ? đ
originally posted by: JBurns
Show me where that negates his ability to defend himself from rioters who also werenât supposed to be there.
Ok.
Wisconsin State Legislature 939.48 (2)
939.48â Self-defense and defense of others.
(2)âProvocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
He was there intentionally and illegally.
The only time he tried to disengage was after he had already shot someone intentionally, another illegal act.
He never regained his ability to claim self defense because he never withdrew, he just opened fire.
This is Wisconsin law, you wanna change it? Move there, pay taxes there, petition the local government there to change the laws, then hope for the best.
As far as the "defend himself from rioters who also werenât supposed to be there" part, that's what law enforcement is for, not civilians.
a reply to: alphabetaone
He was not there illegally.
He also fled and disengaged Rosenbaum until he was cornered and Rosenbaum put his hands on his firearm.
As to the other two, he was on the ground lol. Fleeing option was not viable.
Your lack of understanding the law isn't my problem.
He was not there illegally.
He also fled and disengaged Rosenbaum until he was cornered and Rosenbaum put his hands on his firearm.
As to the other two, he was on the ground lol. Fleeing option was not viable.
Your lack of understanding the law isn't my problem.
a reply to: alphabetaone
"As far as the "defend himself from rioters who also werenât supposed to be there" part, that's what law enforcement is for, not civilians."
Since you are so UP on the law. Google Gonzales vs Castle Rock. I'll wait. For those who don't have time. This was a US Supreme Court ruling that stated the Police have no duty to protect an individual or group of individuals their duty is to protect society as a whole. So YOU are your first line of defense.
"A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense,"
Kind of selective in what you put in bold print weren't you?
Even then it doesn't matter. Rittenhouse was doing nothing that was illegal.
"As far as the "defend himself from rioters who also werenât supposed to be there" part, that's what law enforcement is for, not civilians."
Since you are so UP on the law. Google Gonzales vs Castle Rock. I'll wait. For those who don't have time. This was a US Supreme Court ruling that stated the Police have no duty to protect an individual or group of individuals their duty is to protect society as a whole. So YOU are your first line of defense.
"A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense,"
Kind of selective in what you put in bold print weren't you?
Even then it doesn't matter. Rittenhouse was doing nothing that was illegal.
edit on 14-11-2021 by JIMC5499 because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: alphabetaone
People WILL NEVER tolerate rioting. I donât care if itâs blacks or whites, the only good rioter is a stinking dead rioter. Face down. Full of holes. I only wish heâd have gotten every last one.
Let me put the shoe on the other foot:
Soooo...do you think that all the rioting insurrectionists, who stormed the Capitol building on January 6th, should have been killed?
How about the Boston Tea Party protest, back on December 16, 1773?
edit on 14-11-2021 by Erno86 because: added a few words
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: alphabetaone
People WILL NEVER tolerate rioting. I donât care if itâs blacks or whites, the only good rioter is a stinking dead rioter. Face down. Full of holes. I only wish heâd have gotten every last one.
Let me put the shoe on the other foot:
Soooo...do you think that all the rioting insurrectionists, who stormed the Capitol building on January 6th, should have been killed?
That was more like a field trip than a riot, though...
How about the Boston Tea Party protest, back on December 16, 1773?
Our opinions today have no bearing -- nor impact -- on actions done & dead 350 years in the past. Such is linear time, and reaching across centuries is a hallmark of having no dice in an argument.
originally posted by: Nyiah
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: alphabetaone
People WILL NEVER tolerate rioting. I donât care if itâs blacks or whites, the only good rioter is a stinking dead rioter. Face down. Full of holes. I only wish heâd have gotten every last one.
Let me put the shoe on the other foot:
Soooo...do you think that all the rioting insurrectionists, who stormed the Capitol building on January 6th, should have been killed?
That was more like a field trip than a riot, though...
How about the Boston Tea Party protest, back on December 16, 1773?
Our opinions today have no bearing -- nor impact -- on actions done & dead 350 years in the past. Such is linear time, and reaching across centuries is a hallmark of having no dice in an argument.
Your statements in the post are the quintessence of Orwellian doublespeak.
a reply to: alphabetaone
Did some research. That law pertains only to using force to protect property, has nothing to do with using force to defend yourself.
Of course you knew that.
Did some research. That law pertains only to using force to protect property, has nothing to do with using force to defend yourself.
Of course you knew that.
a reply to: Erno86
Doesnât matter what I think, Ashli Babbitt was shot dead for doing far less than Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskuetz individually. The fact is deadly force was used and it wasnât even prosecuted. Just as this case should not have been prosecuted.
As far as the Boston Tea Party goes, they could have tried shooting patriots dead if they wanted. Although Iâd fully expected the patriots to either mow them down on the spot, or follow them back to a place they consider safe to attack later on.
None of which is related to the circumstances of Kyles case. Facts matter. Objective reality matters.
Their job is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did what they alleged. The defense created plenty of reasonable doubt.
Doesnât matter what I think, Ashli Babbitt was shot dead for doing far less than Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskuetz individually. The fact is deadly force was used and it wasnât even prosecuted. Just as this case should not have been prosecuted.
As far as the Boston Tea Party goes, they could have tried shooting patriots dead if they wanted. Although Iâd fully expected the patriots to either mow them down on the spot, or follow them back to a place they consider safe to attack later on.
None of which is related to the circumstances of Kyles case. Facts matter. Objective reality matters.
Their job is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did what they alleged. The defense created plenty of reasonable doubt.
a reply to: alphabetaone
You selectively quoted the law, doesnât apply because he didnât provoke an attack. Nobody forced those dirty psychopaths to attack him but their own poor upbringing and insufficient coping skills. You keep your hands to yourself or YOU are the aggressor.
The rest of your postâŚsay what you want I donât care. Youâre wrong. Theyâre still dead/lifelong damaged and Kyle will walk free to enjoy his millions in appreciation money the American People so kindly donated to him/the cause. I salute his actions and sincerely hope more dirty rioters will take the street temperature challenge
You selectively quoted the law, doesnât apply because he didnât provoke an attack. Nobody forced those dirty psychopaths to attack him but their own poor upbringing and insufficient coping skills. You keep your hands to yourself or YOU are the aggressor.
The rest of your postâŚsay what you want I donât care. Youâre wrong. Theyâre still dead/lifelong damaged and Kyle will walk free to enjoy his millions in appreciation money the American People so kindly donated to him/the cause. I salute his actions and sincerely hope more dirty rioters will take the street temperature challenge
People were there that night for Jacob Blake, Kyle was not. Kyle is in opposition to the protest. A person running towards their opposition with a
loaded dangerous weapon poses a threat and is engaging in conflict. In that moment it is Kyle's fault.
Kyle has no legal authority to be policing protestors, armed with an AR-15, like he's going to point his gun at them (against the law) or shoot them (against the law). He is not allowed to do that! No one is except the police or army!
Kyle is being totally mischievous and his immature mind is not a get of a free jail card, he broke numerous laws on purpose. He fake cries in court but wears "Free as F@&k" shirt flashing the white power sign with Proud Boys. If the jurors don't convict and the judge doesn't give a proper sentence, Wisconsin is going to have the worst reputation.
Kyle has no legal authority to be policing protestors, armed with an AR-15, like he's going to point his gun at them (against the law) or shoot them (against the law). He is not allowed to do that! No one is except the police or army!
Kyle is being totally mischievous and his immature mind is not a get of a free jail card, he broke numerous laws on purpose. He fake cries in court but wears "Free as F@&k" shirt flashing the white power sign with Proud Boys. If the jurors don't convict and the judge doesn't give a proper sentence, Wisconsin is going to have the worst reputation.
a reply to: game over man
But whatabout the bank robber that got convicted because he used a stolen car to get away? đ¤Ł
But whatabout the bank robber that got convicted because he used a stolen car to get away? đ¤Ł
a reply to: game over man
If it has a bad reputation in your eyes it is probably somewhere Iâd cherish and respect.
Given what i have witnessed here, astonishingly, whatever little credibility and goodwill you all had left is gone.
You can call it the white power sign all you like, but to most it simply means A-OK. To a select few, namely 3%, it was a semi-secret handshake used as a way to identify our members who felt it wasnât advantageous to make their status in the ground overtly known. Many still use it. I still use it often.
Of course it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with membership or support of said members. If you meet the criteria, you too can join no matter what personal characteristics you have. 3% cares about what you do, not irrelevant personal characteristics. You already knew it wasnât any sort of âwhite powerâ sign
If it has a bad reputation in your eyes it is probably somewhere Iâd cherish and respect.
Given what i have witnessed here, astonishingly, whatever little credibility and goodwill you all had left is gone.
You can call it the white power sign all you like, but to most it simply means A-OK. To a select few, namely 3%, it was a semi-secret handshake used as a way to identify our members who felt it wasnât advantageous to make their status in the ground overtly known. Many still use it. I still use it often.
Of course it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with membership or support of said members. If you meet the criteria, you too can join no matter what personal characteristics you have. 3% cares about what you do, not irrelevant personal characteristics. You already knew it wasnât any sort of âwhite powerâ sign
a reply to: game over man
By the way, you say people were there for Jacob Blake that isnât true. Some people were. Others were there to hold the line against the groups that remained after the people who were there for Jacob Blake dispersed. You make several fundamentally false assumptions about the rioters
1) That their intent and purpose for being at a location somehow overrides the intent of other individuals. Just because a group says it is in a place for a specific reason doesnât mean others canât show up for something completely different. You still have to restrain yourself from attacking others.
2) That their behavior is somehow meritorious yet those who intended to prevent destruction and chaos are automatically wrong and malicious.
3) And a position that you hold which morally equates setting a fire with putting out fires set by unhinged mobs.
Starting a fire within proximity to a structure or vehicle or person is arson. These were individuals with extensive criminal records that had expressed their intention to become violent and in many casesâŚthe vast majority unidentifiable and unchargedâŚ.those people did become violent and intentionally escalating the threat
Unbelievable to me the left would stake so much independent goodwill and credibility on supporting a criminal sex offender in the act of running down a minor. KR could only run so long. He was carrying a rifle and did not appear to be in exceptional physical fitness. At some point, his unencumbered and likely hopped up attackers were always going to get the better of him. If he didnât act when he did, itâs very likely âthe cheapest strapâ sling he wore and his relative inexperience in retention techniques..at some point he was going to lose control of the weapon and he had every reason to believe he would use it to kill him
From the people who brought you RussiaGate, meet the KR case in the eyes of the left. They see as far as a big scary AR-15 being used appropriately by somebody who threatens their âweâll burn it down if we donât get our wayâ dynamic. Witness BLM leader in NYC threatening this in a not so covert way. There was no implication, that threat is clear. But the Dems wonât dare denounce it because it might cost them a few votes. Kyle Rittenhouse is a threat to their primary means of affecting their vastly unpopular âchangesâ which is threatening or engaging in mob violence when someone tells them no.
Kyle told them No. Kenosha will most likely tell them No soon as well. That crap is not going to be tolerated
By the way, you say people were there for Jacob Blake that isnât true. Some people were. Others were there to hold the line against the groups that remained after the people who were there for Jacob Blake dispersed. You make several fundamentally false assumptions about the rioters
1) That their intent and purpose for being at a location somehow overrides the intent of other individuals. Just because a group says it is in a place for a specific reason doesnât mean others canât show up for something completely different. You still have to restrain yourself from attacking others.
2) That their behavior is somehow meritorious yet those who intended to prevent destruction and chaos are automatically wrong and malicious.
3) And a position that you hold which morally equates setting a fire with putting out fires set by unhinged mobs.
Starting a fire within proximity to a structure or vehicle or person is arson. These were individuals with extensive criminal records that had expressed their intention to become violent and in many casesâŚthe vast majority unidentifiable and unchargedâŚ.those people did become violent and intentionally escalating the threat
Unbelievable to me the left would stake so much independent goodwill and credibility on supporting a criminal sex offender in the act of running down a minor. KR could only run so long. He was carrying a rifle and did not appear to be in exceptional physical fitness. At some point, his unencumbered and likely hopped up attackers were always going to get the better of him. If he didnât act when he did, itâs very likely âthe cheapest strapâ sling he wore and his relative inexperience in retention techniques..at some point he was going to lose control of the weapon and he had every reason to believe he would use it to kill him
From the people who brought you RussiaGate, meet the KR case in the eyes of the left. They see as far as a big scary AR-15 being used appropriately by somebody who threatens their âweâll burn it down if we donât get our wayâ dynamic. Witness BLM leader in NYC threatening this in a not so covert way. There was no implication, that threat is clear. But the Dems wonât dare denounce it because it might cost them a few votes. Kyle Rittenhouse is a threat to their primary means of affecting their vastly unpopular âchangesâ which is threatening or engaging in mob violence when someone tells them no.
Kyle told them No. Kenosha will most likely tell them No soon as well. That crap is not going to be tolerated
edit on 11/14/2021 by JBurns
because: (no reason given)
Did no white police officers kill any black men this year?
I don't recall seeing any riots on TV.
Do we have Kyle Rittenhouse to thank for that?
I don't recall seeing any riots on TV.
Do we have Kyle Rittenhouse to thank for that?
originally posted by: carewemust
Did no white police officers kill any black men this year?
I don't recall seeing any riots on TV.
Do we have Kyle Rittenhouse to thank for that?
Later we will see standards set and named.
Like "The Rittenhouse" Rule and Effect đ
a reply to: game over man
Ok, if you want to bring him up, tell us about Jacob Blake, see if you can turn him into a sympathetic character?
All the sh#t burned down for his sorry ass
Ok, if you want to bring him up, tell us about Jacob Blake, see if you can turn him into a sympathetic character?
All the sh#t burned down for his sorry ass
originally posted by: Erno86
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: alphabetaone
People WILL NEVER tolerate rioting. I donât care if itâs blacks or whites, the only good rioter is a stinking dead rioter. Face down. Full of holes. I only wish heâd have gotten every last one.
Let me put the shoe on the other foot:
Soooo...do you think that all the rioting insurrectionists, who stormed the Capitol building on January 6th, should have been killed?
How about the Boston Tea Party protest, back on December 16, 1773?
You really don't have a clue?
(post by JIMC5499 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
new topics
-
Map of all wars in history for 2500 years
World War Three: 5 hours ago -
The Good Thing About Christianity
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 8 hours ago
top topics
-
GROUND the Boeing 737-MAX...Indefinitely!!
Aircraft Projects: 14 hours ago, 6 flags -
We are Lost (And we ARE)
Music: 14 hours ago, 6 flags -
Map of all wars in history for 2500 years
World War Three: 5 hours ago, 5 flags -
The Good Thing About Christianity
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 8 hours ago, 4 flags
active topics
-
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three ⢠6622 ⢠: Kurokage -
Could Kier Starmer actually be gay?
Politicians & People ⢠20 ⢠: gortex -
Female is Not a Feeling
Rant ⢠118 ⢠: zosimov -
Take your lies and your vegan lifestyle and bugger off.
Dissecting Disinformation ⢠67 ⢠: Justoneman -
Map of all wars in history for 2500 years
World War Three ⢠11 ⢠: network dude -
Trump just announced that Zelenskyy has requested to meet with him tomorrow at Trump Tower
World War Three ⢠127 ⢠: Solvedit -
The Good Thing About Christianity
Religion, Faith, And Theology ⢠5 ⢠: FullHeathen -
Over 1,100 Migrants Arrived in First 10 Days of Labour Government
Social Issues and Civil Unrest ⢠414 ⢠: gortex -
Russian âfloating bombâ ship packed with explosives now just 15 miles from two UK towns
Breaking Alternative News ⢠122 ⢠: Kurokage -
Did Ancient Aliens Really Build the Pyramids? This Video Has Me Questioning Everything!
Aliens and UFOs ⢠45 ⢠: Kurokage