Milwaukee Bucks say they will forfeit playoff game tonight, then NBA postpones all games...

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, K-9 said:

 

It is not his defense attorney. It is the attorney who found him defense counsel. 

I think with all the video out there, it will definitely depend upon the jury.  That guy who had his arm blown off statement about wishing he had killed him does not help the prosecution.
 

[K-9]

52 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

How is it an illegal weapon? possession of a weapon is legal that was lawfully owned and legally given. If I give my cousin a gun to use he can legally use it.

At 17 years of age, he’s not old enough to possess that AR15 for starters. 

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

It is not his defense attorney. It is the attorney who found him defense counsel. 

I think with all the video out there, it will definitely depend upon the jury.  That guy who had his arm blown off statement about wishing he had killed him does not help the prosecution.
 

Thanks for the clarification. 

37 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

if you give your teenage cousin a legal gun that he is not permitted to open carry in that state and he is running around the streets I think that gets a bit less legal but I won’t pretend to be an expert in intricacies of WI gun law. 
 

I will say in many states he would not be able to open carry that weapon legally regardless of whether he carried it over the border 

WI law is pretty clear; he simply is not old enough to carry the gun he had in his possession. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

At 17 years of age, he’s not old enough to possess that AR15 for starters. 

Thanks for the clarification. 

WI law is pretty clear; he simply is not old enough to carry the gun he had in his possession. 

Ok, so here is what I found:
 

Could the suspect carry the rifle legally?
 

Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.
 

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.
 

Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
 

</snip>

 

[Sig1Hunter]

35 minutes ago, K-9 said:

The last time we debated, you literally put words in my mouth that I didn’t say because you were so angry while reading what I actually did say. Hard to have any meaningful give and take when that’s the case, so I’m ok with not furthering this discussion. But there’s nothing you could say that would make me go off the deep end; you just don’t have that power. Although you tried by insulting my LEO grandfather and uncles.  
 

I’m not surprised in the least that you disagree with my opinion. In the meantime, I look for the character assassination of Rittenhouse’s victims by right wing media sources to ramp up. 

The right wing media didn’t make them commit those crimes. It’s interesting that out of the three people in this riot whose criminal history we’ve been made aware , that all three are felons. Is it not? Maybe it’s shocking to you that the mob of idiots that you side with is populated by the worst examples of our society, but it’s not surprising to me.

16 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

This just opens up so many more questions.

 

So videos are the end all be all?  Nothing could have happened to provoke the crowd into attacking him?  You trust the cops but not the DA, aren't they all a part of the US judicial system?  If you recognize there are flaws in the judicial system, can't you recognize that people of color might also feel the same way?  If you get to pick and choose what part of the judicial system you don't trust couldn't you see a scenario isn't it only fair that other people get to as well?

 

I'm sorry to pepper all of these questions at you but I am just trying to open my mind to your pov.

I don’t trust elected officials that make charging decisions based upon their own personal interests in power, and which way the wind is blowing on a particular day. 
 

and, no, videos aren’t end all be all. But they are a lot. I stated that I’m open to new evidence that could be presented that shows the kid as the aggressor and not acting in self defense. As of yet, none has been furnished. 

[LB3]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

 

when you stop putting people in buckets of criminals and innocents...  and start following concepts of liberty like being innocent until proven guilty, being owed due process, not authorizing a government you don’t trust to execute citizens in the street for non compliance, etc... it may become a bit more natural.

 

or maybe America isn’t the country for you. There are a lot of more authoritarian countries out there that you could also look into that actually support the values you espouse.

I didn't create the buckets. The actions of the individuals involved did.

 

You forgot to mention life and the pursuit of happiness when you mentioned liberty. I feel nothing for those that purposefully try to take away those from others.

 

I'll choose to stick with America where due process is given, unless you're a moron who chooses resistance over consequences. Breonna Taylor not included in that group. She's a statistical outlier.

Edited August 28, 2020 by LB3

[K-9]

26 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The right wing media didn’t make them commit those crimes. It’s interesting that out of the three people in this riot whose criminal history we’ve been made aware , that all three are felons. Is it not? Maybe it’s shocking to you that the mob of idiots that you side with is populated by the worst examples of our society, but it’s not surprising to me.

I side with the rule of law. Period. The criminal history of any of Rittenhouse’s victims has no bearing on anything in this case at present and the right wing media knows this. But I understand the need to shape that narrative in his defense. Especially in the face of all that damning evidence. 
 

If Rittenhouse’s victims were all churchgoing kitten breeders with no criminal records, would that change your opinion on the matter? 

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

I side with the rule of law. Period. The criminal history of any of Rittenhouse’s victims has no bearing on anything in this case at present and the right wing media knows this. But I understand the need to shape that narrative in his defense. Especially in the face of all that damning evidence. 
 

If Rittenhouse’s victims were all churchgoing kitten breeders with no criminal records, would that change your opinion on the matter? 

What kind of kittens?

[LB3]

9 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I side with the rule of law. Period. The criminal history of any of Rittenhouse’s victims has no bearing on anything in this case at present and the right wing media knows this. But I understand the need to shape that narrative in his defense. Especially in the face of all that damning evidence. 
 

If Rittenhouse’s victims were all churchgoing kitten breeders with no criminal records, would that change your opinion on the matter? 

So you agree that the violent protests are wrong and that we should be rounding up thousands of criminals? That's good to hear.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

What kind of kittens?

That’s better than asking what kind of church.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

 

[K-9]

Just now, LB3 said:

So you agree that the violent protests are wrong and that we should be rounding up thousands of criminals? That's good to hear.

Of course violence, looting, property destruction is wrong. WTF kind of question is that? 
 

I don’t believe for a second it’s thousands of criminals though. Might seem that way to some though, given the media coverage of events. 

[LB3]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Of course violence, looting, property destruction is wrong. WTF kind of question is that? 
 

I don’t believe for a second it’s thousands of criminals though. Might seem that way to some though, given the media coverage of events. 

Thousands seems pretty accurate when you see how many businesses have been looted and burned to the ground in multiple cities. Vandalism is a crime as well.

 

Do you think smaller numbers are destroying entire communities in our major cities?

Edited August 28, 2020 by LB3

[Sig1Hunter]

22 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I side with the rule of law. Period. The criminal history of any of Rittenhouse’s victims has no bearing on anything in this case at present and the right wing media knows this. But I understand the need to shape that narrative in his defense. Especially in the face of all that damning evidence. 
 

If Rittenhouse’s victims were all churchgoing kitten breeders with no criminal records, would that change your opinion on the matter? 

No you don’t. If you did, we wouldn’t be having this debate. 
 

What damning evidence? Jauronimo couldnt answer that one either.

[Sig1Hunter]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

 

when you stop putting people in buckets of criminals and innocents...  and start following concepts of liberty like being innocent until proven guilty, being owed due process, not authorizing a government you don’t trust to execute citizens in the street for non compliance, etc... it may become a bit more natural.

 

or maybe America isn’t the country for you. There are a lot of more authoritarian countries out there that you could also look into that actually support the values you espouse.

Innocent until proven guilty, you say? Is this a message of convenience, or does it also apply to your boogeyman Kyle?

[NoSaint]

12 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Innocent until proven guilty, you say? Is this a message of convenience, or does it also apply to your boogeyman Kyle?

I do think he deserves a fair trial. I don’t think you can point to me advocating he be shot in the street by police. 
 

though in the confusion and guns fired I think it would be easier to see mistakes happen in the volatility and attempts to protect life. I’m not sure  what the police (or individuals involved) would do had they been there.

 

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

At 17 years of age, he’s not old enough to possess that AR15 for starters. 

Thanks for the clarification. 

WI law is pretty clear; he simply is not old enough to carry the gun he had in his possession. 

that is 100% my impression as well, and seems to be that of the DA but always like to give them the chance to show me wrong if I misinterpreted or don’t understand 

Edited August 28, 2020 by NoSaint

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

I do think he deserves a fair trial. I don’t think you can point to me advocating he be shot in the street by police. 

But if he had a knife and was fighting with the cops, it would be ok for the cops to defend themselves..right?

[NoSaint]

7 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

But if he had a knife and was fighting with the cops, it would be ok for the cops to defend themselves..right?

I would encourage the trained professionals to exhaust non lethal options first but if he is creating an immediate threat to life with said knife I agree they should be able to intervene. 
 

I don’t think that should be controversial. 
 

I’ll ask this as it seems you’re a LEO... would you have handled the interaction the same or do you think they may have flubbed it a bit along the way. 
 

do you think that if the officer did not pull the trigger loss of other lives was imminent? How many and who/how?
 

I’ll again echo that I haven’t fully formed an opinion on Blake yet, and have some concerns on both sides of the interaction. 

Edited August 28, 2020 by NoSaint

[Sig1Hunter]

2 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I would encourage the trained professionals to exhaust non lethal options first but if he is creating an immediate threat to life with said knife I agree they should be able to intervene. 
 

I don’t think that should be controversial. 
 

I’ll ask this as it seems you’re a LEO... would you have handled the interaction the same or do you think they may have flubbed it a bit along the way. 
 

do you think that if the officer did not pull the trigger loss of other lives was imminent?
 

I’ll again echo that I haven’t fully formed an opinion on Blake yet, and have some concerns on both sides of the interaction. 

I wasnt there. I dont see any gross negligence, however. I see an interaction’s outcome that was 100% controlled by Blake. 
 

The thing is, this has already been hashed out by the United States Supreme Court and the use of control standard is well established case law. Graham v Conner is the big case that jumps to mind. The standard is “objective reasonableness”...and that standard isnt what Joe Blow cop hater (not you, but some pushing the narrative are firmly in that boat) thinks after the fact. Its what an objective officer on the scene would see as reasonable. Things that go into this are things like: what does the officer know? Does the suspect pose a threat to others? Has there been resistance or flight? Is it objectively reasonable to believe that a man with a felony warrant, who has already physically fought with police, been tased with no effect, and is now armed with a knife, refusing verbal commands and entering a vehicle with children in it, and then engages in a second physical confrontation at the vehicle is a threat? My opinion is a resounding yes.

[K-9]

46 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

No you don’t. If you did, we wouldn’t be having this debate. 
 

What damning evidence? Jauronimo couldnt answer that one either.

Yes I do. And it’s BECAUSE I do that I engage in this debate. A complete 180 from your theory. You don’t own the discussion no matter how frustrating that must be for you. 
 

The evidence of the eyewitness testimony reported on earlier today. 
 

I’m interested in your answer to the question I posed up thread so I’ll ask again: those Rittenhouse victims who got what they deserved in your opinion, what if they were church going kitten breeders with no prior records? Would your opinion of the situation be any different? If so, why?

59 minutes ago, LB3 said:

Thousands seems pretty accurate when you see how many businesses have been looted and burned to the ground in multiple cities. Vandalism is a crime as well.

 

Do you think smaller numbers are destroying entire communities in our major cities?

This strikes me as opinion more than fact. But anyone engaged in violence, looting, destruction of property, etc., should be arrested and charged to the fullest extent. 
 

Yes, given how a narrow video frame shapes our view of events, I think it’s far less than the thousands you cite. If you want to refer me to legitimate sources for these statistics, I’d be happy to takeaway look. 

[K-9]

51 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I do think he deserves a fair trial. I don’t think you can point to me advocating he be shot in the street by police. 
 

though in the confusion and guns fired I think it would be easier to see mistakes happen in the volatility and attempts to protect life. I’m not sure  what the police (or individuals involved) would do had they been there.

 

that is 100% my impression as well, and seems to be that of the DA but always like to give them the chance to show me wrong if I misinterpreted or don’t understand 

@Buffalo_Gal cited some interesting insight earlier. There may be certain loophole arguments to be made. But the law as written is pretty explicit in its limitation of 17 year olds.