Furloaf

20+ years is a good run and understandable it's time to end

"U.S. health officials' decision to shorten the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to five is drawing criticism from some medical experts and could create more confusion and fear among Americans. To the dismay of some authorities, the new guidelines allow people to leave isolation without getting tested to see if they are still infectious."

 

is this how desperate biden is to save his sinking economy after shut downs destroyed small business, effected minorities at a higher rate, and during another surge?

 

Trust the Science except when it reduces newfound government power.

Epstein is basically guilty by implication.

 

Unfortunately nothing more is likely to happen, no future indictments or discussions on who else was involved.

A GTX970 is near bare minimum if not struggling to run VR games.

Quest 2 is standalone so no PC needed.

that thing's an eyesore

Make those businesses and sales taxes. Oh wait that drives businesses and customers away from your locality. Guess we're stuck taxing the peasants.

We didn't have the scary Omicron variant then.

 

Omicron. Sounds way more scary than Delta.

Just looked, it's not even a different subsection but the in the very same line that the charges were dismissed on. Really hard to see that sticking with a competent attorney.

 

It's a terribly written law.

Especially since he confessed on the stand that he and Kyle had talked about how they knew it was illegal.

 

Someone get that poor kid at least a state rep internship.

 

As I understand it's the same law (different section) that Kyle was charged with and the same conditionals apply. A half decent lawyer should be able to get it dismissed relatively easily.

1st: please let me know how you are going to hold the dead accountable? I'll wait.

 

Those same folks like whom? seems like you are making a lot of assumptions on your part.

 

If KR had been the active shooter that some of those people had mistaken him for and those unarmed people had stopped him, I would be willing to bet you would be lauding them as a hero. So you are right, as long as we are both making assumptions about people your Hypocrisy is laughable.

 

If you want drag in the history of the people attacking him, can we also talk about how all this was over defending a buy here pay here car lot that the owners never asked him or anybody else to "defend"? Is damage to a couple used Hyundai's really worth deadly force and extra-judicial killings over?

 

The keyword there is "active". KR was running to where the police were, saying he was running to the police [to turn himself in] and the mob chasing him attacked him. Within sight of the police line. They were in no danger from him and were not stopping an active shooter fleeing a scene attempting to escape justice.

 

 

Look at what happened with Gaige Grosskreutz. Gaige comes running basically besides Kyle, asking him "You shot someone?" Kyle replies "I'm going to the police". So what does Gaige do next; he drops back a bit behind although still perusing Kyle and starts drawing his illegally carried pistol out of his backside holster. This all before Kyle had stumbled (after being hit twice in the back of the head) and shot at Jump Kick Man (that we now know the identity of, and apparently the prosecution knew the whole time of the trial but with held the identity), and then shot Huber after being hit with his skateboard and Huber attempting pulling the rifle away.

 

 

 

That said however I'm not 100% against the "stopping an active shooter" and give some credence they may have believed that at the time in the heat of the moment. With benefit of hindsight and all the recorded evidence it doesn't fit but in a chaotic environment like it was some benefit of doubt is granted. However that doesn't remove Kyle's self defense right. Said before that self-defense is not zero-sum or mutually exclusive; two parties can both be acting in self defense against each other depending on circumstance.

Rural King is great for guns. RKGuns has some very competitive prices and ships to store without FFL fee. Bought a Sig AR-15 through there and was smooth as can be. Only awkward thing was being escorted to the front door then handed the box.

Yes he was reckless by only hitting the people attacking him and none of the many bystanders. 6 out of 8 shots landed and the 2 at jump kick man don't appear to have errantly hit anyone else. Truth is, the AR-15 is highly precise and easy to aim making it an excellent self defense weapon. Compared to NYPD cops with their "safer" 15lbs trigger Glocks where they tend to hit more innocent bystanders than perpetrators.

 

Acura needs put on trial for that crime

I want to point out that they brought up in the trial, on the record, that Kyle's tiktok account was "4doorsmorewhores"

I just bought a dash cam last week. Feel like an idiot not waiting to see if there will be any sales.

I haven't been watching all the testimony, but I have been paying attention. the three shots thing I got from a news article which I will admit when I went back and read was written in a way that could be read either as he fired three shots one of which was at GG or that he fired 3 at GG. It's bad writing, and I apologize when I get that wrong.

 

When I said "Rosenbaum testimony" I meant the testimony about the incident where Rosenbaum was shot, not the testimony of a dead man. I was trying to say a lot of armchair analysts were focused on that encounter as clearing KR and not the subsequent encounter with GG. That's on me for not being clear.

 

I will also point out that I am not trying to call how this case is going to end. I honestly don't know and even for me this is a tough read.

 

No problem and that's fair. I guess for me it's a bit difficult talking with others as legally each encounter needs to be considered whether it SD was justified. Some people implying if Rosenbaum was not SD, then any of the subsequent shootings could not be either. However that is not true. And the reverse is true as you said, one justified SD doesn't justify use after.

 

Also on what KR's intent was on even being out there that night whether he "went there hoping he would get to shoot someone\people". My comment on him not killing GG leads me to believe he didn't have that general intention.

 

I do agree it was a bad idea for him to be there and he was putting himself into the position he might have to use the rifle. However legally he had just as much right to be there as anyway else - even possibly caring the rifle as the law is ambiguous if that was a crime for a 17-year old. That walking around with the rifle it is provocation by aggravating the rioters I don't quite buy either as his prescience doesn't take away their agency to not commit assaults against him. Everything said to the effect that KR could have stayed home or left the area also apply to the people that attacked him; if they didn't like people with rifles there they could have left. Could have decided to not chase him after the first shooting, which more than not did just that watching the overhead video.

 

If KR was threatening them, acting aggressive and/or pointing the rilfe at them that could be provocation. There's little evidence that occured. State is trying to make it seem that way with the yellow pants guy quote (that isn't on video) and with the extremely grainy "zoomed in" video that probably should not have been admitted as evidence. How it got allowed in with no testimony collaborating it I don't understand. For what it is worth my take watching that video is that he was re-adjusting the sling have he bent over to set the fire extinguisher down. Also KR testimony was that Ziminski (however his name is spelled) had brandished a pistol at him at that point so he wouldn't be initial aggressor had he pointed his rifle back. Plus he fled immediately after so by statute his initial aggressor stance, if he was, went away and Rosenbaum chasing him was the aggressor then.

no, you are just reading to much into "attempted". Attempted DOES NOT mean "something prevented" him from killing - it just means the person didn't die. The legislative history on "attempted" (and I am being really general here) is that homicide charges used to require a body as part of the evidence to convict. Attempted charges evolved out of closing the gap where the victim didn't die or their body could not have been recovered.

 

Attempt does have an intent component that must be proven, which is why you may be confused. One could make the argument that because he didn't take another shot (after the initial multiple shots he took at him - one of which struck him) he didn't have the intent initially, but it is not definitive. This is what both sides will be looking to prove: Defense that he didn't have the intent or that if he did it was derived from his own fear of his life and acting in self defense, and Prosecution that he did have intent to kill Grosskreutz and then changed his mind after wounding Grosskreutz.

 

I appreciate history on how attempted homicide is used legally and admit I'm thinking only colloquially, casually. I wonder what is defined as in the WI law and the jury instructions with how they're supposed to consider it as that is what really matters for for this trial.

 

However also want to point out you've wrote a couple things now that are either mistakes, misconceptions or show you haven't paid much attention to this case and trial. Rittenhouse (KR) fired a single shot at Grosskreutz (GG). GG testimony was that KR did not fire that shot until GR himself had pointed his pistol at KRs head. You also mentioned Rosenbaums testimony which I find odd considering he was the first deceased. Could have meant testimony in regards to the Rosenbaum encounter.

 

GG and KR could both have been acting in justified self defense in their encounter as it can be mutual, I.e. GGs self defense does not nullify KR's

I couldn’t disagree with you more.

 

Every point you’ve stated is what cooperate media is pushing out to parrot once KR is found not guilty on all felony charges (might get a slap on the wrist for the gun charge as technically speaking it’s the most grey area of this whole thing). Every other charge doesn’t hold water IMO. The videos are so damming to the prosecution it’s almost unfair. If you were in the position of KR you would have done the same thing all of us would. He did nothing to provoke the men that attacked him. At least nothing that’s been presented as evidence in this trial. Multiple attackers were met with necessary deadly force to stop them from advancing and killing KR. Every single attacker would have disarmed KR and beat him to death. They are not reasonable people. They were out to destroy property and life. They tried to prey on KR and some of them paid with their lives.

 

Let’s see what the jury does here - I’d be shocked if he is found guilty on any felony charges. But, jury trials are a toss up, so let’s see.

 

Not true I would have put 2-3 rounds into Grosskreutz chest after he pointing a pistol at my head to make sure he couldn't point it at me again.

 

Ironically not killing him is likely the best thing Kyle did for his self defense claim.

 

The attempted homicide charge with regard to Grosskreutz is such a mischarge because of that. Attempted means something prevented him from killing him. But there was nothing to prevent him from shooting again to drop him to the ground; Grosskreutz was still on his feet and hobbling away so Kyle got up off the ground and continued his run to the location that had police presence. The only thing that prevented the "attempted" homicide was Rittenhouse's mercy.

 

The Grosskreutz encounter tells me Rittenhouse wasn't out there with the intention to kill people.

I've been watching the trial and seems a few misconceptions here:

 

The things that have stuck out to me:

 

There was a video of KH a week or two before the incident where he saw people leaving a CVS and he said he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot them. (The judge blocked this from the trial)

Yeah that's pretty bad. Judge had some explanations for why not including it you can look up. They talked about conditions for it to be opened and allowed in but Judge ruled that wasn't met yet.

 

He illegally obtained a firearm and ammunition and crossed state lines (driven by his mom, and she has some responsibility here IMO too)

Questionable straw purchase grounds but that's a Fed law and would be applied to the purchaser. Gifting a rifle to minor with parental approval is okay as far as I know, but Kyle gave the purchaser (Black I think) the money to buy it. However also claims the gun never left Wisconsin, and the agreement was it would be kept in Black's possession until he was 18. So the crossing state lines is not true and even if so not sure there's an applicable law to be charged with. He stayed the night before with someone else (another "militia" guy that was there the night of the 25th - I think it was Black again, not clear to me I think there are two Blacks: Dad\and son\Kyle's best friend) so the claim of his Mom driving him up there and dropping him off downtown with the AR-15 is a total fabrication. Kyle testified the ammunition was supplied by Black.

 

 

Having the rifle on the night of the 25th is ambiguous whether there was a law agaisnt him having it. The law explicitly barred 16 and under, but for 16+ there is a hunting exception and a short barreled rifle\shotgun exception.

There's possibly a hole in the law that allows a 17 year-old to open carry a long rifle. I'm paraphrasing so may not be correct on this.

The judge won't let the people shot by KH be referred to a victims in court. Like, WTF are they then?

Saying victim is prejudicial. The trial's point is to determine if they were victims i.e. unjustifiably shot or killed.

 

In his testimony yesterday KH said the third guy he shot at (the EMT who was carrying concealed and pulled his firearm after KH started shooting) was because he perceived him as a threat. This was before he pointed his firearm at KH.

This was Gaige Grosskreutz and he was the 4th person Kyle fired at, 3rd he hit. In one video he clearly didn't point the rifle at and fire until Gaige had lowered his pistol towards Kyle's head. This is pretty indisputable and even in his testimony Gaige agreed with the defense attorney that Kyle did not fire upon him until he had pointed his pistol at him.

 

There were other people down there with firearms standing in front of businesses that didn't have any incidents. IMO, KH is immature and made several bad decisions that led to this.

Yes but that's not really guilt of anything. I suspect the people that attacked Kyle did so because he was young and separated from the group. Their choice to attack him, or try to disarm him as the most preferential way to describe their actions, was also a bad decision by them given the results.

 

In the days that followed KH was seen celebrating with Proud Boys, flashing white power signs, and wearing a shirt that said Free As Fuck, or something like that. The judge blocked this from the trial.

It's after the event in question. Self defense statutes stress the immediateness of the use of deadly force so it's not really connected. Being an uncouth shithead isn't a crime either.

 

The judges phone even rang in court yesterday and his ring tone is the song Trump walks out to at all his rallies, Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA (sometimes called the MAGA National Anthem). Coincidence? Sure, maybe. But the judges behavior so far has made him appear like a KH defense attorney, so add this to the pattern. Of course now the far right is putting out articles about his ring tone "triggering the libs."

Who cares? What's the insinuation here?

 

I don't like how KH has been turned into some type of far right hero. He is not a role model. Was it murder? I don't know on every count. Manslaughter, probably (because I'm not buying that he can claim self defence here).

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

serious question -

 

Is there a Strat in this? Like to get a different judge or something when they retry it if its a mistrial?

 

As I understand it a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct is a mistrial with prejudice meaning it can not be retried. So if the goal is to get a conviction then no there isn't a strategy at play.

I shouldn't have cancelled my EVGA waiting lists

The amount I've been wondering whether the state is intentionally throwing the trial or trying to get a mistrial has only increased since it began. Has exploded today. Binger almost provoking the judge to sanction him or hold him in contempt. I agree Binger is not working in good faith.

Are you serious on the misinformation? Look at the headlines for how mainstream news media is reporting on Gaige's testimony.

 

Speaking of the Gaige encounter was mischarged. Should not have been attempted homicide. Assault with a deadly weapon would have had a chance of sticking - but would not have appeased the mob which is why there is even a trial going on.

Curfew charge dismissed because the idiot state prosecutor's forgot to present any evidence for it. It was a BS charge anyway.

 

Defense said Kyle was going to testify if I heard right. Very bad idea, it's probably his idea though. I'd say he was like 90% clear of the murder/endangerment charges when state rested. Could really throw it the other way with testifying himself.