Sign in to follow this  
Backroads

Kyle Rittenhouse

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Will you be charged?  Not necessarily.  I have been to self defense shootings numerous times over the years and no charges were filed.  Will you be investigated/questioned.  Well duh.  Answer honestly.  Co-operate, it makes everyone's life easier.

My only potential quibble might be this part.  I think it’s still accurate in 70-80% of cases.  But notwithstanding that nearly all cops are stand-up guys, I think we can all guess what the Kenosha DA would have done with any statement Rittenhouse had offered; and the proportion of prosecutors who believe it is your civic duty to let yourself be brutalized whenever a progressive thinks you deserve, it is only going to increase.

Be involved in your community, know who your DA is, be aware of their political leanings and ambitions, and get ready to exercise your right to silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

proportion of prosecutors who believe it is your civic duty to let yourself be brutalized whenever a progressive thinks you deserve, it is only going to increase.

It's interesting to think of. Growing up you tend to think of prosecutors as the good guys, seeking out truth, justice, and putting bad guys away. When you grow up you begin to realize that they care much more about their careers and embracing the latest social justice causes than juvenile platitudes like “justice”.

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2021 at 9:30 AM, LDSGator said:

It's interesting to think of. Growing up you tend to think of prosecutors as the good guys, seeking out truth, justice, and putting bad guys away. When you grow up you begin to realize that they care much more about their careers and embracing the latest social justice causes than juvenile platitudes like “justice”.

The irony to me is (speaking as one of 400+ lawyers in my state’s AG’s office)—the vast majority don’t plan to run for public office, most of us are overloaded and just want to get cases off our desk in the most efficient (ethical) way possible, and (at least with my employer) no one really pressures us at the individual level about how many “wins” we rack up.  (If anything, when I get bogged down in a hairy case my boss is wont to (very kindly) suggest that maybe I shouldn’t have filed the case in the first place.)

It’s easy to blame “the system” for prosecutorial overreach in cases like Rittenhouse; but I think I the truth is that in most such cases the prosecutors are just terrible people working out of either personal animus or a political vendetta.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2021 at 10:55 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

The irony to me is (speaking as one of 400+ lawyers in my state’s AG’s office)—the vast majority don’t plan to run for public office, most of us are overloaded and just want to get cases on our desk in the most efficient (ethical) way possible, and (at least with my employer) no one really pressures us at the individual level about how many “wins” we rack up.  (If anything, when I get bogged down in a hairy case my boss is wont to (very kindly) suggest that maybe I shouldn’t have filed the case in the first place.)

It’s easy to blame “the system” for prosecutorial overreach in cases like Rittenhouse; but I think I the truth is that in most such cases the prosecutors are just terrible people working out of either personal animus or a political vendetta.

Just an opinion from what I've seen on the case...

With the Rittenhouse situation I don't think the DA had much of a choice in the matter.  It became a political item very quickly.

From what I've seen, they initially felt that he was innocent and there were not going to be any charges filed.  Once it made the major news circuits and various political forums and sites, it became a very hot topic and those in charge felt they HAD to bring up a case against the kid. 

This is one reason I think the DA handed the case off.  A major case like this is normally NOT something you hand off to an Assistant.  The DA didn't want their hands involved with the charade of justice they had to do.  Even if he was guilty, there wasn't enough evidence to expect a conviction in the first place, it was too easy to prove otherwise. 

In this instance, I don't think it was a terrible person, it was that they had nothing to really go at him with, so they grasped at any slight straw sticking out to try to make some sort of case against him because that was demanded to them by their political superiors.

Just my opinion on it from what I've seen thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Just an opinion from what I've seen on the case...

With the Rittenhouse situation I don't think the DA had much of a choice in the matter.  It became a political item very quickly.

From what I've seen, they initially felt that he was innocent and there were not going to be any charges filed.  Once it made the major news circuits and various political forums and sites, it became a very hot topic and those in charge felt they HAD to bring up a case against the kid. 

This is one reason I think the DA handed the case off.  A major case like this is normally NOT something you hand off to an Assistant.  The DA didn't want their hands involved with the charade of justice they had to do.  Even if he was guilty, there wasn't enough evidence to expect a conviction in the first place, it was too easy to prove otherwise. 

In this instance, I don't think it was a terrible person, it was that they had nothing to really go at him with, so they grasped at any slight straw sticking out to try to make some sort of case against him because that was demanded to them by their political superiors.

Just my opinion on it from what I've seen thus far.

That’s a potentially fair point as to the elected DA (though I think a prosecutor does have a responsibility to stand up to the mob when he knows the evidence isn’t there, rather than to put a defendant in jeopardy for liberty and (potentially) life just because the prosecutor is hoping the blame for an unpopular-but-just outcome can be deflected to an unelected jury).

But when it came to the underlings who actually handled the case—the trial I saw didn’t look like a simple matter of putting forth the evidence and letting the jury do what it will, or even merely trying to put the best possible spin on a largely ambiguous body of evidence.  The state’s attorneys lied, they cheated, they withheld evidence.  I think that’s more a function of animus towards the defendant and a fundamental desire to win at all costs.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

though I think a prosecutor does have a responsibility to stand up to the mob when he knows the evidence isn’t there, rather than to put a defendant in jeopardy for liberty and (potentially) life just because the prosecutor is hoping the blame for an unpopular-but-just outcome can be deflected to an unelected jury).

Call it my “Nifong” sense of justice, but I truly think the majority of prosecutors would indict their mother for littering and give her 30 years in the state pen if they thought it would further their career and appease the pitchfork carrying mob. Maybe it’s not the same for everyone in their office, I guess. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/11/29/arizona-state-students-demand-kyle-rittenhouse-withdraw-get-killer-off-our-campus-1169036/?fbclid=IwAR18Uq5lcWiKd5wd7bVy46k5UspiDHDhPbxyL1FQgGNGaBtbf5uqDPPuUkI
 

This is wrong of course, and the Arizona State students are way out of line. But, this is exactly what I was talking about. He’s going to have to deal with this for many years. It’s not worth it .

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just ask J.K. Rowling about being a public figure hated by the radical left.  He's getting death threats now, I hope nobody decides to act on them, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out someone tries to do him physical harm.  I bet he isn't maintaining a permanent residence right now - can you imagine if they find out his home address?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

He's getting death threats now, I hope nobody decides to act on them, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out someone tries to do him physical harm.

Oh, agree. Regardless of how I feel about what he did I pray he stays safe. This will just lead to more violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a thought - young Kyle Rittenhouse was a minor when these events unfolded.   His attackers (by definition) are child abusers.  It is interesting that news organizations (among others) are harboring and encouraging child abuse.  You would think that they would have learned their lesson with Nick Sandmann.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the half of it.  At least one of Kyle's attackers was a convicted pedophile - I think a total of 5 different victims.

And Daryll Edwards who drove his SUV through the Wawkesha parade a few days later, killing old ladies and children, and wounding 40+ others, was actually a for-real child sex trafficker. 

That various media outlets remain silent on such matters, I believe, will speak heavily against an awful lot of people come the final judgment.  Christ was pretty explicit about what he thought of children, and those who offend them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's not the half of it.  At least one of Kyle's attackers was a convicted pedophile - I think a total of 5 different victims.

And Daryll Edwards who drove his SUV through the Wawkesha parade a few days later, killing old ladies and children, and wounding 40+ others, was actually a for-real child sex trafficker. 

That various media outlets remain silent on such matters, I believe, will speak heavily against an awful lot of people come the final judgment.  Christ was pretty explicit about what he thought of children, and those who offend them.

The media outlets keep saying an SUV drove through the crowd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2021 at 3:22 PM, Grunt said:

There should be a law.

When I was in high school (about 60 years ago) I went with some friends on a SCUBA trip to southern California.  On one particular day (towards the end of our trip) after finishing a rather long dive we gathered our equipment together on the beach; we found ourselves in a cascade of events that would be broadcasted to the world as front page news in news papers, on radios and televisions.   Our small little group of guys was in the very center of the event and saw it unfold from its beginning to its conclusion.  That night we watched the events again on TV.  To our surprise the entire story on TV was so inaccurate we were at first convinced that it was a different event.  Then - we saw for one brief moment two of our group in the background on TV.  We were greatly puzzled how the national TV networks had gotten the entire story so wrong.

When we all got back home we told our family, friends and anyone at school about the events that we had witnessed first hand.  To our surprise - everyone thought we were lying????  It became obvious to me that all the news networks had an agenda and were willing to completely distort the truth.  I have pondered that the whole case of confusion could have been staged or planned with a few deceiving the rest.  But the truth was so obvious to anyone actually involved - I have pondered how it was that the truth never got out?  It would be so simple to look at official police records and hospital records and other official records to realize the entire story was false or at best - extremely off the charts exaggerated.

For a long time I thought that people would believe the police at the seen but I have also thought that if they spoke up to correct mistakes they would be treated as my friends and myself - as the ones that had the whole story wrong.  I am convinced that by editing film and interviews that any degree of miss information can be created.  But I have also learned that with very few exception - no one does follow up to investigation to any news story - an AP story is news gospel.   And with such stories like our current pandemic - I do not know what anyone can believe.  One thing for sure - if we base our opinions of things on stories we hear or see on the news - it is likely that our opinions are flawed.  Even simple stories like "Climate Change" or our current "pandemic" it is almost impossible to get access to unedited video and audio of experts let alone the raw data that is used at the very foundations of our "experts" (usually scientists to define what is science) of our news.  We should have learned that bias has an effect - even among experts.  And it should be obvious from my story that I have a bias about the news that was formed by a singular event.  Maybe 99% of news is valid and accurate but because all of the experience I have had (one event) I assume all stories have a bias.

If a law is to be made - how can we keep bias out of it?????

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2021 at 12:59 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Christ was pretty explicit about what he thought of children, and those who offend them.

Christ's condemnation toward those who "should cause one of these little ones to stumble" is, in context, speaking in regards to those who would offend the Saints, who are Christ's "little children". Not that I disagree with your larger point, but the "little children" verses are often taken out of context and applied to small children and minors. I have done so many times in the past. Just clarifying that I believe that is not the immediate literal meaning of the passages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2021 at 1:29 PM, mirkwood said:

The media outlets keep saying an SUV drove through the crowd. 

SUVs kill people. If only we didn't have SUVs, people would not be killed by them. This is obvious logic, and only a blind fanatic would deny it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vort said:

SUVs kill people. If only we didn't have SUVs, people would not be killed by them. This is obvious logic, and only a blind fanatic would deny it.

I would like to use several emojis with this comment.  😎 :roflmbo:  :bawl: :winner: :bouncingclap: :whoa: :berserkmonkey: 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

SUVs kill people. If only we didn't have SUVs, people would not be killed by them. This is obvious logic, and only a blind fanatic would deny it.

That's what I was trying to say, but failed (as usual)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vort said:

Christ's condemnation toward those who "should cause one of these little ones to stumble" is, in context, speaking in regards to those who would offend the Saints, who are Christ's "little children". Not that I disagree with your larger point, but the "little children" verses are often taken out of context and applied to small children and minors. I have done so many times in the past. Just clarifying that I believe that is not the immediate literal meaning of the passages.

I would say the literal meaning was both and intended for both, as seen here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/06/behold-your-little-ones?lang=eng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2021 at 6:29 PM, LDSGator said:

Call it my “Nifong” sense of justice, but I truly think the majority of prosecutors would indict their mother for littering and give her 30 years in the state pen if they thought it would further their career and appease the pitchfork carrying mob. Maybe it’s not the same for everyone in their office, I guess. 

In fairness, consider the sort of mother who rears a child into a law career….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Traveler said:

When I was in high school (about 60 years ago) I went with some friends on a SCUBA trip to southern California.  On one particular day (towards the end of our trip) after finishing a rather long dive we gathered our equipment together on the beach; we found ourselves in a cascade of events that would be broadcasted to the world as front page news in news papers, on radios and televisions. 

Interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2021 at 4:52 PM, mordorbund said:

After some thinking - I have decided to expand.  After our dive and summer day (about 5:00 pm) an elderly lady was walking along a boardwalk in Long Beach.  As she was walking (not many yards from us) a young "black" man ran by her and grabbed her purse (also knocking her down).  The lady screamed.  We left one to watch our SCUBA equipment and took off to assist.  In the 60's the California beaches were mostly controlled by surfers that often acted as life guards (but sometimes not so kind).  Anyway, the black fellow was more pursued by about 5 or 6 surfers bigger and faster than us (there were 3 of us - high school kids - one left behind).  About a 1/3 mile down the beach the black fellow joined in a group of about 20 of his friends.  Suddenly the surfers (and us) were greatly out numbered.  But there are always more surfers on the beaches of California and in perhaps less than a minute there was a small army of about 50 surfers.  The black group was quickly surrounded and in the heat of the moment a fight broke out between the blacks and sun bleached "blond" surfers.  Two of the blacks got beaten up quite badly, the surfers recovered the purse and were returning it to the lady when the police arrived.  My friends and I mostly watched.  The fellow that took the purse was taken by the police and the two blacks that were beaten up badly were taken to the hospital by ambulance.   In less that 15 minutes we all left the seen.

That night the 3 major TV networks showed the event as a riot of whites forcing blacks off the beaches of Long Beach California.   It appeared as though hundreds were involved and many blacks beaten up.  There were different angles of the two blacks (perhaps other pictures) at the ambulances and blood.  There were pictures of people running everywhere??  and what looked like many blacks being beaten up - thought there were only two actually hurt - there many been a dozen or so with a black eye or so.  There were pictures of whites running with clubs and other such weapons - none of which we ever saw.

I am not saying that prejudice was not involved in any way - but prejudice was not the real story - though the networks made it out to be so.  And as the only story.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am not saying that prejudice was not involved in any way - but prejudice was not the real story - though the networks made it out to be so.  And as the only story.

 

It’s sad how the media spins stories like this. Thankfully it was in the 60’s before social media could blow it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this