Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Icarus]

We don't see good evidence that they intended to kill him.

So if I raise a skateboard above my head to swing down upon your skull, you'll insist that there was no evidence I intended to kill you? I was only trying to disarm you right? What if tried to only sink the skateboard just deep enough into your skull to leave you unconscious rather than kill you, but you ended up dying anyway? Will it matter that I only intended to knock you out? I guess you could count it as a COVID death:)

Watching that video in slow motion, this kid tripped and used the skateboard to catch himself while holding it in his right hand. At no point did he raise it above his head or swing it. You're just making crap up again in a desperate attempt to prove they were intent on killing him. There are no scars or bruises anywhere on his head because he was never hit with it. And after six months of intense protests/riots, how many people have actually been killed by protesters?

[_Icarus]

Just note that Icarus is pathologically incapable of admitting error when engaging him.
- Doc

Why don't you ask Antishock if that's true when he congratulated me a decade ago when I said I was wrong to criticize Obama the way I did. Or maybe ask Brent Metcalfe. Or any number of people I used to argue with before changing my mind on both religion and politics. The difference between us, aside from me not being a wife beater, is that my documented online history proves my mind is actually capable of changing if someone can provide a reasonable argument backed by evidence.

[_subgenius]

Just note that Icarus is pathologically incapable of admitting error when engaging him.
- Doc

Why don't you ask Antishock if that's true when he congratulated me a decade ago .

Apart from the glaring fact that pathological does not mean you're incapable of admitting you are wrong - but if your retort is "10 years ago I admitted it", Doc is probably right.

[_Icarus]

Apart from the glaring fact that pathological does not mean you're incapable of admitting you are wrong - but if your retort is "10 years ago I admitted it", Doc is probably right.

Did you even read what he said? He said I had a pathological inability to admit being wrong. I proved I have admitted being wrong, and here you are saying "Der, that's not what pathological means!"

I proved him wrong, but he'll never admit it because... irony.

Are you unaware of who Antishock is/was? Doc should know exactly what I'm talking about. But the fact that I changed my mind years ago still proves my mind can be changed, which means his caricature of me is just him pissing in the wind. "You'll never admit being wrong" is just something people with bad faith arguments say.

Doc has a habit of making up BS about me, but I'm the one who is pathological? Yeah.

And Doc's never had meltdown exchanges here with other posters huh?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Speaking of weird meltdowns (called it on the bananapants meltdown, by the way), I decided to give it the old college try and search for the “let’s give communism a try” comment again, because I know what I saw and I know what I wrote in response to it.* Anyway, I used duck duck go for a different search vector and an old thread about a poster who narrowly evaded getting shot in the dome populated for whatever reason. This exchange between Some Schmo and another poster resulted in the insult d-i-c-k a-s-s being used which was the first time I think I ever noticed it being used online or in real life.

phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10569&start=42

I gotta admit. I love that insult.

* So, I can’t seem to find it using the search:mormondiscussions.com technique. In the interest of peace, I’ll allow that I might’ve hallucinated seeing that term being used on, I think, an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thread, and additionally hallucinated immediately responding to it incredulously. Unless I can figure out how to find the Google search function more effectively, I’ll concede to, uh, Icarus, that he has the high ground.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

You never heard of the word dickass? Seriously, you need to spend more time in Jersey. Here, let me use it in a sentence. Open the door, Dickass.

[_Jersey Girl]

This kid will never be prosecuted because he's white, and is being represented by a rich high powered attorney. This is going to be a classic ending in another chapter of American racism.

You're joking, right? Are you saying that you think he'll go for a plea deal or the charges will be dropped? I doubt it. From all I have seen and I've seen a ton, I think he'll face prosecution. Time will tell.

[_Jersey Girl]

These events to me seem to be worse because of Trump and those like him who are purposely trying to rile up both sides for political gain. This is the first president from either party I have seen do this.

Yes. I believe Kyle was fueled at least in part by Trump's rhetoric.

[_Jersey Girl]

Why was the kid there in the first place and carrying a loaded AR-15? Surely a good prosecutor would push this question front and center when exploring the kid's intent. The kid will have to take the stand and the conversation he had with the reporter about his gun being there for killing will be put into evidence. Was he there to woop some ass and looking for a confrontation? It looks like it. Yet, a person intent on finding conflict, especially a 17yr old, can be overwhelmed, misinterpret what is happening, feel threatened and fire when less should have been the reaction. He might be guilty but able to reduce charges on an imperfect self-defense theory that just looks at subjectIve intent.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/defense ... f-defense/

I wouldn't be so sure that the kid will have to take the stand. I have followed numerous high profile cases and more recently, what we see is that the defendant never testifies. The only time they speak is to answer the judge's questions about case issues/decisions. They typically don't testify. We'll see how this goes, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he doesn't testify.

[_Jersey Girl]

Why was the kid there in the first place and carrying a loaded AR-15? Surely a good prosecutor would push this question front and center when exploring the kid's intent. The kid will have to take the stand and the conversation he had with the reporter about his gun being there for killing will be put into evidence. Was he there to woop some ass and looking for a confrontation? It looks like it. Yet, a person intent on finding conflict, especially a 17yr old, can be overwhelmed and overreact to a charged situation and fire when less should have been the reaction. He might be guilty but able to reduce charges on an imperfect self-defense theory that just looks at subjectIve intent.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/defense ... f-defense/

Just take the 5th.

He could take the 5th but the kid isn't compelled to testify in an upcoming trial. There's no reason for him to testify unless his attorney believes it will be to his benefit.