The question I have with the arguements of whether or not he had the right to be there or even whether or not he should have been there is wouldn't those same arguements apply to the people he shot?

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
The question I have with the arguements of whether or not he had the right to be there or even whether or not he should have been there is wouldn't those same arguements apply to the people he shot?

It was a "BLM protest", I'm sure you can answer that for yourself.

Also
Edit:

quote:

COUNT 7: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Rittenhouse was charged with being out on the streets after an 8 p.m. curfew imposed by the city, a minor offense that carries a fine of up to $200. Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge during the second week of trial after the defense argued that prosecutors hadn’t offered enough evidence to prove it.

If they charged him with this, then they would need to charge the prosecutions witnesses as well.

I would like to see "lefty" pay the fine. That would be a nice slap in the face.

Geez…the argument the PA was putting forward about endangering Ziminski was basically “we saw video” that maybe kindasorta showed that, not “this is what a witness testified to”.

What a clown show. Now the judge is saying that if the elements aren't there for the original charge...they're done and shouldn't consider lesser charges.

Whatever happened to the "shocking evidence" that Kyle was not actually issued gear by the PD. Or that he wasn't a member of the FD?

That was a big deal on Friday...

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
wouldn't those same arguements apply to the people he shot?

Yes, and it’s something we could ask ourselves, but it’s not a good idea to raise them as a defense. By saying, “Well, those guys shouldn’t have been there either,” it legitimizes the entire “He shouldn’t have been there” argument, and the shootees aren’t on trial. We don’t have to have a reason to be anywhere it’s legal to be, and it’s no different than the, “Why do you need a gun?” assault on our rights. I don’t have to have a reason to need a gun; it’s my right without a reason. On a level that perhaps more people can understand (women, anyway), it’s the same as asking why a rape victim was someplace she “shouldn’t” have been or why was she wearing “provocative” clothes.

“He had no reason …” is an illegitimate argument and should be treated as such. That said, I fully realize that short of the judge smacking it down and preventing its even being raised, it’s something the prosecution can get away with. But wrong or not, if someone like a juror is thinking about it, trying to push it back on the guys who were shot can backfire: “Yeah, nobody should have been there, including the accused.”

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:
Geez…the argument the PA was putting forward about endangering Ziminski was basically “we saw video” that maybe kindasorta showed that, not “this is what a witness testified to”.

The prosecution attorneys have been "testifying" vs presenting evidence the whole trial, and the defense has been allowing it, it's crazy...

quote:

Originally posted by selogic:
Why do all of the internet gun experts find it necessary to point out all of the " errors " that people make when describing firearms ? Does it matter if it's a magazine or a clip ? A charging handle or a bolt or a slide , for the sake of the discussion ? As long as the Jury understands then the point has been made . If any of the Jury are knowledgeable about firearms then they will understand as well . Clip or magazine . Pick one . It won't change anything .

I expect professionals to know the proper terminology of things they're supposed to be knowledgeable about. It's not a good look when a casual enthusiast knows the proper name and the so called "expert" doesn't. If it's "all the same" then why not just use the correct term? Answer: because they either don't know or don't care, neither of which are acceptable in my eyes.


I appreciate a doctor who can dumb it down so I can understand but that doesn't mean when it comes time to explain what exactly was happening to a jury that he gets to fudge the proper medicinal terms "because we know what he meant."

I think it's very possible the jury will take less time to decide on the verdicts that the lawyers will take to decide on these instructions.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
The question I have with the arguements of whether or not he had the right to be there or even whether or not he should have been there is wouldn't those same arguements apply to the people he shot?

The argument is completely irrelevant (yet the left keeps making it). He wasn't charged with being there. But for the sake of argument, lets say he was completely in violation of being there--does that negate his right to self-defense?

Now they decided if he is not guilty on the higher charge, it's over on that charge (perfect defense).
Seems like that should have always been the case and that makes the lesser charges moot.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
The question I have with the arguements of whether or not he had the right to be there or even whether or not he should have been there is wouldn't those same arguements apply to the people he shot?

The argument is completely irrelevant (yet the left keeps making it). He wasn't charged with being there. But for the sake of argument, lets say he was completely in violation of being there--does that negate his right to self-defense?

If you are on someone else's property and they ask you to leave does your right to defend yourself simply disappear?

I don't believe so. The right to self defense extends to wherever I am so long as I'm not provoking other parties.

They suspended the stream for policy violations??? What the heck??? People triggered already?

They don't like people pointing out the actual law...

Try Louder with Crowder: https://rumble.com/vp8w16-live...osing-arguments.html

video here

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-u...s-today-2021-11-15/#




now the DA says the people shot were heroes stopping an active shooter

So, a skateboard is not a weapon when you are pounding someone with it?

This prosecutor needs to be disbarred.

If Mr. Binger "carves out" Mr. Ziminski, as irrelevant to "being there" than Kyle could not have pointed his gun at Mr. He-ain't-there.

Or smacked with a skateboard, figuratively.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
So, a skateboard is not a weapon when you are pounding someone with it?

This prosecutor needs to be disbarred.

I have a funny feeling that after this trial, the best that this prosecutor is going to get is small real estate closings, maybe review a b.s. Contract or two...