Donald Trump Jr.’s Interview With Kyle Rittenhouse Goes South In A Hurry

[Rimmer]

Some off topic bickering and baiting posts have been removed

[BangkokReady]

17 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The prosecutor alleged it under oath in the court. Taht's good enough for me.

It really shouldn't be.

 

Saying "someone said it so it must have happened, even though a court of law refused to believe them" is terrible in terms of proving something or providing evidence.

 

The prosecutor was pretty much giving their opinion of what the evidence showed, and it wasn't believed.

 

17 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Binger repeatedly showed the jury drone video that he said depicted Rittenhouse pointing the AR-style weapon at demonstrators.

“This is the provocation. This is what starts this incident,” the prosecutor declared.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-over-kenosha-shooting-continues-day-10

I don't think the court believed that and neither do I. The evidence supported Rittenhouse's version of events. He wasn't doing anything wrong when he was targeted by violent protesters. He had no choice but to defend himself and he did so legally.

[placnx]

On 2/25/2023 at 10:12 PM, Jingthing said:

You are extremely naive to suggest the super maga poster boy Rittenhouse and vile Trump son Don Jr. aren't well aware of one of the most widely used and notorious codes of that fascist movement -- demonizing Soros. I do realize Rittenhouse is quite dumb, but he's not that stupid either. He has been actively coached. Also, dude, look at the context, he wasn't talking about currency trading he was talking about funding progressive causes.

 

The Troubling Truth About The Obsession With George Soros (forbes.com)

 

The internet has once again exploded with a surge of social media posts about George Soros, with far-right activists and QAnon conspiracy theorists posting wildly imaginative claims related to the billionaire philanthropist. But behind the spectacle of paranoid outrage, there is a troubling and undeniable truth about the constant attacks on George Soros:

Anti-Semitism.

Victor Orban closed the university in Hungary started by Soros. Is that an anti-Semitic move or just reactionary? Orban also allowed China to set up a branch of Fudan University.

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, placnx said:

Victor Orban closed the university in Hungary started by Soros. Is that an anti-Semitic move or just reactionary? Orban also allowed China to set up a branch of Fudan University.

I think in the case of Hungary, the odds are overwhelming that it's both.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

It really shouldn't be.

 

Saying "someone said it so it must have happened, even though a court of law refused to believe them" is terrible in terms of proving something or providing evidence.

 

The prosecutor was pretty much giving their opinion of what the evidence showed, and it wasn't believed.

 

I don't think the court believed that and neither do I. The evidence supported Rittenhouse's version of events. He wasn't doing anything wrong when he was targeted by violent protesters. He had no choice but to defend himself and he did so legally.

17 years old, a dropout, untrained in policing, Rittenhouse wass certainly doing something wrong by carrying a loaded weapon into a volatile situation. Because of a peculiarity in Wisconsin's law, namely that the gun has to have a barrel less than 16 inches for it to be illegal, he wasn't guilty of committing a crime. That doesn't mean it isn't wrong for an armed minor to have been there. 

[BangkokReady]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

17 years old, a dropout, untrained in policing, Rittenhouse wass certainly doing something wrong by carrying a loaded weapon into a volatile situation. Because of a peculiarity in Wisconsin's law, namely that the gun has to have a barrel less than 16 inches for it to be illegal, he wasn't guilty of committing a crime. That doesn't mean it isn't wrong for an armed minor to have been there. 

Regardless of your opinion on it being morally wrong or wrong "common sense" wise, it wasn't legally wrong and it didn't give anyone the right to try to kill him.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Regardless of your opinion on it being morally wrong or wrong "common sense" wise, it wasn't legally wrong and it didn't give anyone the right to try to kill him.

If he hadn't been there, it's dubious that anyone would have been killed. Sound judgement shouldn't be expected of a 17 year old. That's why auto insurance companies charge teenagers a lot higher premiums.

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

If he hadn't been there, it's dubious that anyone would have been killed.

Sure, if he hadn't been there he would not have had to kill anyone.  But that doesn't make it his fault.  The people that chose to attack him did not have to.  They weren't in any danger and Rittenhouse wasn't posing a threat to anyone.

 

There were simply some very bad people there who saw Rittenhouse as being someone they wanted to harm.  Not because he threatened them, or they were in any danger, but because they were bad people and they saw him as the enemy.  That isn't his fault and he had a right to defend himself.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

It really shouldn't be.

 

Saying "someone said it so it must have happened, even though a court of law refused to believe them" is terrible in terms of proving something or providing evidence.

 

The prosecutor was pretty much giving their opinion of what the evidence showed, and it wasn't believed.

 

I don't think the court believed that and neither do I. The evidence supported Rittenhouse's version of events. He wasn't doing anything wrong when he was targeted by violent protesters. He had no choice but to defend himself and he did so legally.

The claim was not refuted in court anywhere that I can find. Drone footage as presented to support the claim.

Edited February 27, 2023 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Sure, if he hadn't been there he would not have had to kill anyone.  But that doesn't make it his fault.  The people that chose to attack him did not have to.  They weren't in any danger and Rittenhouse wasn't posing a threat to anyone.

 

There were simply some very bad people there who saw Rittenhouse as being someone they wanted to harm.  Not because he threatened them, or they were in any danger, but because they were bad people and they saw him as the enemy.  That isn't his fault and he had a right to defend himself.

I guess you and I will just have to disagree on whether or not it's OK for a minor to be an armed vigilante. I'm taking the crazy position that it's not But who knows?. Maybe more armed 17 year old kids ought to be recruited for vigilante duty.

[BangkokReady]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It was refuted in court anywhere that I can find.

Well, the prosecution said a lot of things that weren't true and were refuted by the evidence presented by the defence.

 

I wouldn't take "the prosecution claimed X" as any kind of evidence, personally.

 

It's better if you can present the evidence and be able to honestly say "this shows X", or even let the evidence speak for itself, which I believe most of the footage of Rittenhouse being attacked and defending himself did.

[ozimoron]

Just now, BangkokReady said:

Well, the prosecution said a lot of things that weren't true and were refuted by the evidence presented by the defence.

 

I wouldn't take "the prosecution claimed X" as any kind of evidence, personally.

 

It's better if you can present the evidence and be able to honestly say "this shows X", or even let the evidence speak for itself, which I believe most of the footage of Rittenhouse being attacked and defending himself did.

Link to evidence that the prosecutor said things that weren't true please?

[BangkokReady]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I guess you and I will just have to disagree on whether or not it's OK for a minor to be an armed vigilante. I'm taking the crazy position that it's not But who knows?. Maybe more armed 17 year old kids ought to be recruited for vigilante duty.

It doesn't really matter if it's "OK" or not.  You can't attack someone for doing something you simply "don't like".  That's the important bit.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

It doesn't really matter if it's "OK" or not.  You can't attack someone for doing something you simply "don't like".  That's the important bit.

Legally, it doesn't matter. But anyone with a grain of sense would know that there should be no place for a 17 year old armed vigilante.

[Mac Mickmanus]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Legally, it doesn't matter. But anyone with a grain of sense would know that there should be no place for a 17 year old armed vigilante.

What does age have to do with it ?

Kyle behaved quite reasonably and responsibly and his age is irrelevant 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What does age have to do with it ?

Kyle behaved quite reasonably and responsibly and his age is irrelevant 

Vigilantism is illegal. If you read links posted here you'd be aware of that.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What does age have to do with it ?

Kyle behaved quite reasonably and responsibly and his age is irrelevant 

Did the jury decide that his behavior was reasonable and responsible? They decided that it was OK for  17 year old to be an armed vigilante? They acquitted him of murder on the grounds that he acted in self defense. They didn't decide that his behavior that night was reasonable and responsible.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Did the jury decide that his behavior was reasonable and responsible? They decided that it was OK for  17 year old to be an armed vigilante? They acquitted him of murder on the grounds that he acted in self defense. They didn't decide that his behavior that night was reasonable and responsible.

I was giving my own opinion on the matter 

[BangkokReady]

35 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Link to evidence that the prosecutor said things that weren't true please?

I'm afraid I don't have time to go through the entire Rittenhouse trial.  I'm pretty sure the prosecution claimed things happened which footage and testimony refuted.

 

If you don't believe, I have no problem with that. ????‍♂️

 

I encourage you to look into the trial a little more though, if you genuinely believe that what the prosecution presented was true, and the judge and jury conspired to let Rittenhouse off without proper evidence (or whatever you think happened).

[placeholder]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

I was giving my own opinion on the matter 

Well, since in your opinion age is irrelevant in the matter of someone carrying a gun, I don't put much faith in its soundness.

[BangkokReady]

25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Legally, it doesn't matter. But anyone with a grain of sense would know that there should be no place for a 17 year old armed vigilante.

You're welcome to hold that opinion, just as long as you don't use that opinion as justification for someone to be attacked.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I'm afraid I don't have time to go through the entire Rittenhouse trial.  I'm pretty sure the prosecution claimed things happened which footage and testimony refuted.

 

If you don't believe, I have no problem with that. ????‍♂️

 

I encourage you to look into the trial a little more though, if you genuinely believe that what the prosecution presented was true, and the judge and jury conspired to let Rittenhouse off without proper evidence (or whatever you think happened).

If you don't have time to "go through" the trial, don't make claims you can't or won't support.It's against the rules.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

You're welcome to hold that opinion, just as long as you don't use that opinion as justification for someone to be attacked.

Thanks for giving me permission to hold that opinion.  And I certainly can't stop you from holding the position that it's OK for a minor to be an armed vigilante, if that's what you believe. But whether you believe it or not, It's obviously nuts.

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, since in your opinion age is irrelevant in the matter of someone carrying a gun, I don't put much faith in its soundness.

Are you aware that 17 year olds can join the USA Army , joining the army where they will be given a gun ?

  Its not just my opinion that 17 years old are old enough to carry guns, its the USA army's opinion as well 

[candide]

It's not surprising that interpretations may differ, as the law applied in Wisconsin considers the perception of danger by the defendent in cases of alleged self-defense. So if a jury thinks the accused actually felt threatened, he may be acquitted. Of course, individual opinions may diverge about the real nature of the threat.

 

"The defendant may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great
bodily harm only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself."

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/rittenhouse-trial-jury-instructions/0b78a521e19f369d/full.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxlsXrzLX9AhXGQ6QEHXSdC34QFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2EN-6c5oyqDXwX7xcWUqYs

[BangkokReady]

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If you don't have time to "go through" the trial, don't make claims you can't or won't support.It's against the rules.

Same to you then.

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

It's not surprising that interpretations may differ, as the law applied in Wisconsin considers the perception of danger by the defendent in cases of alleged self-defense. So if a jury thinks the accused actually felt threatened, he may be acquitted. Of course, individual opinions may diverge about the real nature of the threat.

 

"The defendant may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great
bodily harm only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself."

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/rittenhouse-trial-jury-instructions/0b78a521e19f369d/full.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxlsXrzLX9AhXGQ6QEHXSdC34QFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2EN-6c5oyqDXwX7xcWUqYs

I think if someone is trying to take your gun, kicking or hitting you in the head with a skateboard, or pointing a gun at you, it's reasonable to assume that death or great bodily harm is on the cards.

[ozimoron]

Just now, BangkokReady said:

Same to you then.

I never do unless the claim is uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged or the claim has been supported by past posted links. When challenged I always provide the link. I challenged you to provide a link.

[BangkokReady]

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for giving me permission to hold that opinion.  And I certainly can't stop you from holding the position that it's OK for a minor to be an armed vigilante, if that's what you believe. But whether you believe it or not, It's obviously nuts.

You're welcome to think it's nuts.  But that doesn't give anyone the right to attack someone.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I think if someone is trying to take your gun, kicking or hitting you in the head with a skateboard, or pointing a gun at you, it's reasonable to assume that death or great bodily harm is on the cards.

The reason they did that was to prevent an active shooter situation. They likely succeeded, in part.

 

A person carrying an AR type rifle to a crowd who was not a policeman would reasonably engender that conclusion.

Edited February 27, 2023 by ozimoron