XCR Forum banner
41 - 60 of 95 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
Biden's main tweet about Rittenhouse was a video showing a series of images with a voice over about white supremacists. One of the images was Rittenhouse. I'm not sure how a court would treat that, but my opinion is that it does not rise to the level of slander or libel of Rittenhouse. Were I Biden's lawyer, I would argue that both slander and libel require an intent to defame a specific target, and that the video was created with the intention of boosting Biden's election campaign--not specifically to defame any individual. I think that Rittenhouse can show both specific statement and real world damages (also necessary to establish slander) but that his legal team would fall short on showing intention (by Biden) to harm him (Rittenhouse) directly.

I'm not saying I support Biden's statements in this case, but I don't think I'd want to represent Rittenhouse in a suit against him. There are a lot of other potential suits that have much better odds of success.
Yeah, the way Rittenhouse was vaguely referred to in many instances will make a slander/libel lawsuit difficult to win IMO. Americans on the right though are fed up with the left cancel culture and want payback...and I can relate to an extent, but also see a 'sticks and stones' application here. People are assholes. You can't sue them all because of it.

Now, I'm not saying the media hasn't ruined this kid's life and earnings potential in a 'normal career' with their character assassination of him....and for that...they should pay; out the nose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
He really does look like one of Robert De Niro and Val Kilmer's crew in the bank heist scene of Heat. I guess ADA Binger knew that it would be his only time to feel like he was in that heist, so we went for it. It's one of the last fantasies of every man after all.

Seriously, to answer this thread, I think Rittenhouse was put to court because it was the first time (that I am aware of) where someone was recorded on video using an AR-15 defensively, after years of the news feeding people a steady diet of mass shooters using big black rifles and subguns to murder. From a sinister perspective, the trial could have been a way to basically make all gun use illegal as it would have established precedent that there was no way to use a firearm to defend oneself regardless if it's legal to have it in the first place. However I can't think of a time in history where the media wasn't a bunch of hand-ringing ninnies when it can to gun violence, so I think it was natural for them to come down on Rittenhouse thinking he was another Dylan Roof or whatever. So from the perspective of sheeple afraid or ignorant of guns, the trial is a way of finding out if it's even possible to use a big rifle for a truly defensive purpose.

The now meme-ed picture of ADA Binger pointing a gun (presumably at the jury) makes him look like a tool now, but at the time I think there was serious strategy in pulling this move. Tim Pool on the Timcast brought up this idea that the ADA might have done that to force the Jury to understand what Rittenhouse's attackers must have felt like when they were under the gun and evaluate their reactions to it (never mind that his attackers all had recent criminal records and chose to attack someone with a loaded gun instead of backing away like normal people). If the defense objected, it would have allowed Binger to use that objection against them and relate that it was Rittenhouse who did the same that night of the shooting. Right now it seems to have backfired, but at the end of the day Binger is still an ADA and will live to fight another day.

You know, I grew up watching Law and Order and remembered how the ADAs in those shows were hardasses only so they could get the detectives to get the best evidence to convict the bad guys. Apparently in real life, an ADA is a political position, and Binger likely used the trial as a stage to demonstrate his courage and ideologies to the public regardless of what the law said about the matter. He didn't seem intimidated when the Judge scolded him for trying to use Rittenhouses' right to plead the 5th as a way to impeach his innocence, and in fact seemed to be jonesing for the day when he gets to scold an ADA in court when Judge Schroeder retires in a few years and HE gets elected to sit on his seat. These present-day photos of Binger remind me of these old photos of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden back in their prime years, demonstrating and engaging in courtroom combat. I'm betting that when Binger tries to run for US president in 20-30 years from now, his base can point to these photos of him being stunning and brave, ahead of his time while fighting a doomed battle in a turbulent time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
Not sure I'd call Flufferboy a man....he may not identify as such. :ROFLMAO:

He pointed it at the court observers/audience/media....not the jury (from what I've read). But that ploy (having someone object) may have been exactly what he was after....for the very reason you stated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
Fun bit of footage....Kenosha PD pulling over NBC Producer following the jurors' bus.


The audio of the 'excuses' these fuckbags are producing are laughably sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willpgn

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
Um, um, um, you know, um, um, you, um, caught us, you know, um, um, red-handed, um…🤨
Yeah, let's pretend there's some OTHER reason besides divulging their addresses we were after.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: willpgn

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Been following this 'trial' pretty closely....

Can't fathom why this dumbshit of a prosecutor brought charges other than public outcry. Well guess what? The public are largely despotic idiots and dolts. So far, this trial underscores that fact.
While everyone is having a good time beating the we hate liberals drum, I’d like you to ask this question… What do you suppose the outcome of the evening would have been if a black 17 year old had decided to intervene during a pro trump uprising? Does anyone believe for a second that a black teenager would have been allowed to saunter past police lines carrying an AR 15? Who here thinks he would have been riddled with dozens of bullets before getting to claim anything?
To answer the original question, he was not a law enforcement officer, he traveled across state lines and armed himself looking to administer justice, he had no business being there at all. You can’t point a gun at people and then claim self defense when they try to disarm you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
While everyone is having a good time beating the we hate liberals drum, I’d like you to ask this question… What do you suppose the outcome of the evening would have been if a black 17 year old had decided to intervene during a pro trump uprising? Does anyone believe for a second that a black teenager would have been allowed to saunter past police lines carrying an AR 15? Who here thinks he would have been riddled with dozens of bullets before getting to claim anything?
Did you read the FEE article I linked, above? It's almost directly on point to your post.

Our 'justice' system is totally broken. A black teenager would probably have been convicted. And the correct solution to that problem is NOT to convict Kyle Rittenhouse. It's to NOT convict anyone with this fact pattern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
To answer the original question, he was not a law enforcement officer, he traveled across state lines and armed himself looking to administer justice, he had no business being there at all. You can’t point a gun at people and then claim self defense when they try to disarm you.
I don't think that's true.

He wasn't looking to 'administer justice'. He was hoping to provide defense for private property that he thought might come under attack. It turns out he was correct, actually.

I don't think what he did was very smart, but it was within his legal rights. When someone is chasing you and throwing things at you (or striking you), responding with force is justified.


I think a lot of people want to view this incident through the lens of their political beliefs. Those on the right think Rittenhouse was a hero, those on the left think he is a white supremacist murderer. Reality is a lot more nuanced than that. Personally, I think he was a kid who made some poor (but legal) decisions that left him in a dangerous position, and he responded appropriately (and within his legal rights) to the situation he'd foolishly put himself in.

Still, when the police aren't protecting the citizens (and I think it's clear that they are not--and are not legally obligated to do so, actually), then the people are going to have to arm and protect themselves (and each other).

I see Kyle Rittenhouse as the inheritor of a long cultural tradition that includes people like Huey Newton and Bobby Seale--citizens arming themselves and banding together to protect each other when the police fail them, or when the police are actually attacking them.

The real problem is the differential application of justice. The right solution is not to find more "white people" guilty. It's to see that the system is rigged against the average person in the lower half of our society's income range (white, black or orange) and fix the system. Finding less people guilty--not more people--is the right direction to move.



Another good article about the abuse of police power here:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 ·
While everyone is having a good time beating the we hate liberals drum, I’d like you to ask this question… What do you suppose the outcome of the evening would have been if a black 17 year old had decided to intervene during a pro trump uprising? Does anyone believe for a second that a black teenager would have been allowed to saunter past police lines carrying an AR 15? Who here thinks he would have been riddled with dozens of bullets before getting to claim anything?
To answer the original question, he was not a law enforcement officer, he traveled across state lines and armed himself looking to administer justice, he had no business being there at all. You can’t point a gun at people and then claim self defense when they try to disarm you.
First, I'm certainly not a 'conservative'. Just b/c the leftists/Communists have co-opted and hijacked the term 'liberal' doesn't mean they are. The founders were the liberals of their day and I identify as liberal myself under the classical definition of the word.

2nd, I can't really improve upon Tom's reply....but I will expound:

You didn't really give details and specifics about your scenario. If it had been the exact same scenario, but Rittenhouse is black? I'd expect the exact same outcome....the video evidence was overwhelmingly on the side of self defense. And I'd still ask why in the fuck a prosecutor even brought charges in the first place.

That said, our just-us system is totally fucked up and racist in nature...you cannot debate that fact if one looks at the DoJ's own data on incarceration and sentencing rates for similar crimes between whites and other ethnicities. Reform is waaaay overdue...but that's a different topic altogether.

Finally, there have been plenty of armed protests around the country in recent years which included PoC who were carrying AR15s and similar weapons...and they weren't gunned down either so your allegation is disingenuous or ignorant of those instances; your pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: themousethatroared

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 ·
Totally unrelated to this case, but a good example of just one thing wrong with our 'system':

 
  • Like
Reactions: TomAiello

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
While everyone is having a good time beating the we hate liberals drum, I’d like you to ask this question… What do you suppose the outcome of the evening would have been if a black 17 year old had decided to intervene during a pro trump uprising? Does anyone believe for a second that a black teenager would have been allowed to saunter past police lines carrying an AR 15? Who here thinks he would have been riddled with dozens of bullets before getting to claim anything?
To answer the original question, he was not a law enforcement officer, he traveled across state lines and armed himself looking to administer justice, he had no business being there at all. You can’t point a gun at people and then claim self defense when they try to disarm you.
So are you Ben or are you Jerry?
Rectangle Font Screenshot Technology Number


Seriously though, none of those statements were true and I am disgusted how much misinformation is still believed by people who don't even care enough to research the facts from neutral/non-partisan sources. And it's all bearing down on this one teenager, can you imagine what it's like to be that young and have litterally 1/2 the country wanting revenge on you for something you proved in court you didn't do? It's also worrisome how people have attached the case to their identities/pride when most people who have an opinion about the shooting have nothing to do with it. This was a Kenosha, Wisconsin matter yet there are people all over the nation who think they know better than the people who have had this happen in their yard. If we can't trust people to handle their own affairs without outsiders chiming in with their disconnected takes, what kind of country do we expect to have? Unfortunately, it looks like this latest school shooting in Oxford, MI will be what it takes for the MSM to move on and leave Rittenhouse to move on with his life in peace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
I actually agree that the Rittenhouse case points up problems with our justice system. No one, black, white or orange, should be convicted on these facts, and we often see poorer, lower profile defendants railroaded by law enforcement and convicted when they shouldn't be.

The solution isn't 'send Rittenhouse to jail.' It's 'STOP sending people to jail for exercising their human rights.'

The system is stacked against a lot of people. That's what happens when you substitute 'the rule of the officer on site and the prosecutor' for the Rule of Law. We need real reform to fix this.

What we don't need is vindictive calls of 'if the system is stacked against me, then I want it stacked against everyone else too'.

The US has the highest incarceration rate on earth. That needs to change.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
he was not a law enforcement officer
So? You don't have to be one in order to protect life, liberty or property (which doesn't have to be your own]
he traveled across state lines
So? What's your point? You'd be ok with what happened if he lived in a house in Wisconsin? Your right to defend yourself doesn't disappear just because you cross state, city or county lines.
armed himself looking to administer justice
No. If you actually watch the videos of him taken prior to him being attacked, there's no disputing that he armed himself to protect himself from rioters while he was protecting property. One of the dirtbags that attacked him literally threatened to kill him.
he had no business being there at all.
He worked there as a lifeguard, his grandparents own gas stations there and he spent a great deal of time there prior to the riots. It was the big town near where he lived. None of that really matters given the actual details of how people attempted to harm and kill him. However, you point is flat out wrong. You can have your opinion, but you can't make up your own facts.
You can’t point a gun at people and then claim self defense when they try to disarm you.
Again, you're making statements that flat out are not true. The dirtbags attacked him and he then responded with his rifle. There's plenty of video out there. Show me video where he points his rifle at anyone prior to being attacked. The fact is that between each incident, he actually had excellent muzzle awareness.

Finding less people guilty--not more people--is the right direction to move.
Finding guilty people guilty and innocent people innocent is the right direction to move.

The US has the highest incarceration rate on earth. That needs to change.
The vast vast vast majority of people are in jail because they are predators and need to be there in order to protect others. The question is how to do reduce the incarceration rate the right way. Releasing or not charging large numbers of predators is happening all across the country right now. As a result crime rates of all types are soaring, especially in large cities. Should we feel good that these predators are not in jail and are instead roaming the streets looking for their next victims? How is that justice for those they prey upon? If you don't want people in jail, then you need to identify and address the root causes of why they are in jail. One of the primary root causes is the breakdown of the family. The vast majority of criminals were raised without fathers in their lives. These men were never taught how to control themselves. They were never taught right from wrong and didn't face consequences at a young age. So what's the cause of the breakdown of the family? The primary reason for that is social welfare programs that incentivize mothers to not have fathers in the household. Until this gets fixed, crime and the resulting incarceration rate will not be reduced. Well, that is unless you're ok with letting criminals roam free. I'm not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
The vast vast vast majority of people are in jail because they are predators and need to be there in order to protect others.

The federal BOP statistics show that 46% of inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses. You have a right to put whatever you want into your own body--because you own yourself. I have no right to incarcerate you for doing so. The only philosophical justification for allowing that is to say that I own your body. Which means I get to decide what you are allowed to put in it--and that I further get to decide what gets put in it (vaccines, for example).

Those 46% of inmates are incarcerated because the government has abrogated their sovereignty over their own bodies. They are not predators. They do not need to be incarcerated. In fact, incarcerating them is a violation of their human rights (which include a right to control their own bodies).

I simply do not have a right to control your body. It's not OK for me to lock you up if you choose not to be injected with a substance you don't want to be injected with. It's also not OK for me to lock you up because you've chosen to inject yourself with any substance. Your body--your choice.



Well, that is unless you're ok with letting criminals roam free. I'm not.
We have MANY nonsensical laws. The average American breaks several every day. Deciding that people who break laws (speeding, for example, or defending themselves from a violent attacker with the wrong weapon, or ingesting some substance that the government has decided is prohibited) are just 'criminals' who can't 'roam free' is ridiculous.

Exercising control over your own body does not make you a criminal--regardless of what 535 people sitting in Washington DC have to say about it. Locking up people for exercising their right to control their own body (or any of their other rights) is wrong. It doesn't matter if they are 'guilty' under a set of contrived laws that violate their human rights. Just saying 'they're guilty and they're criminals, so lock them up!' doesn't make it just.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
You have a right to put whatever you want into your own body--because you own yourself. I have no right to incarcerate you for doing so.
Mostly agree, but the vast majority of inmates incarcerated for drug offenses are in there for selling, not using (though they may also use). People who sell drugs such as heroin, crack, etc. are preying upon the weak. Like other criminals, they don't give a crap about the physical and social destruction they bring upon the lives of others. They're predators that need to be in jail.

Exercising control over your own body does not make you a criminal
Right, but people who use drugs such as heroin and crack are failing to exercise control over their bodies. Should the predators who prey upon them be allowed to do so with immunity?

We have MANY nonsensical laws. The average American breaks several every day.
I completely agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 ·

The federal BOP statistics show that 46% of inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses. You have a right to put whatever you want into your own body--because you own yourself. I have no right to incarcerate you for doing so. The only philosophical justification for allowing that is to say that I own your body. Which means I get to decide what you are allowed to put in it--and that I further get to decide what gets put in it (vaccines, for example).

Those 46% of inmates are incarcerated because the government has abrogated their sovereignty over their own bodies. They are not predators. They do not need to be incarcerated. In fact, incarcerating them is a violation of their human rights (which include a right to control their own bodies).

I simply do not have a right to control your body. It's not OK for me to lock you up if you choose not to be injected with a substance you don't want to be injected with. It's also not OK for me to lock you up because you've chosen to inject yourself with any substance. Your body--your choice.





We have MANY nonsensical laws. The average American breaks several every day. Deciding that people who break laws (speeding, for example, or defending themselves from a violent attacker with the wrong weapon, or ingesting some substance that the government has decided is prohibited) are just 'criminals' who can't 'roam free' is ridiculous.

Exercising control over your own body does not make you a criminal--regardless of what 535 people sitting in Washington DC have to say about it. Locking up people for exercising their right to control their own body (or any of their other rights) is wrong. It doesn't matter if they are 'guilty' under a set of contrived laws that violate their human rights. Just saying 'they're guilty and they're criminals, so lock them up!' doesn't make it just.
100% AMEN!

On Jan.1, 2012 (as an example of just ONE year) 40K new FEDERAL laws went on the books....that doesn't include local/state. We need to have less 'guilty' people....b/c we need LESS laws. No victim, no crime (with obvious caveats) makes the most sense....especially if we'd actually enforce Rule of Law, applying it equally to all, and ensuring that violent offenders are not released from prison until we are VERY sure they won't commit more of the same. Since we empty the prison for profit system of drug offenses, we have plenty of room to incarcerate those who are violent or committed white collar crimes that have defrauded the populace on a mass scale.

As Ayn Rand put it in Atlas Shrugged:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,804 Posts
Discussion Starter · #60 ·
Mostly agree, but the vast majority of inmates incarcerated for drug offenses are in there for selling, not using (though they may also use). People who sell drugs such as heroin, crack, etc. are preying upon the weak. Like other criminals, they don't give a crap about the physical and social destruction they bring upon the lives of others. They're predators that need to be in jail.


Right, but people who use drugs such as heroin and crack are failing to exercise control over their bodies. Should the predators who prey upon them be allowed to do so with immunity?


I completely agree.
Sorry...they are NOT preying on the weak. They are providing a commodity to a paying customer who WANTS it. And that user/customer should be personally responsible for his own well-being....not his dealer. Dealers do NOT need to be in jail for providing the product the addict wants anymore than the liquor store owner should be for providing it to alcoholics.

How are they failing to exercise control over their bodies? They make a decision to use.....then they beat their wife. The use of the drug isn't the problem....it violated no one else's natural, negative rights....what did violate someone's rights was the physical abuse. He goes to prison for the violence he visits on another..... Saying, "the drugs made me do it!" is a fucking cop out. No, take personal responsibility for your actions...YOU (the figurative you....not you personally) chose to use drugs and then you CHOSE to beat your wife (in this example). Own it.
 
41 - 60 of 95 Posts
Top