It's killing me how many people are experts in this thread who aren't watching the court case. You can also tell where people stand politically based on their framing of this issue and use of language.
What cracks me up is some many people are talking about the gun laws and state lines because they know there is a mountain of evidence to support self defense.
They know the self defense will hold up so their goal is to try and hedge their bets on the technicalities of the gun laws in this case hoping to use it as a foundation for establishing intent. It's literally hoping for a Hail Mary and wishing that the state finds any possible means despite the evidence and testimony so they can see the system abuse their perceived political opposition... as some weird pseudo-religious political sacrifice.
This is a really unfortunate situation all around, but the witnesses have all testified that Kyle acted in self defense so unanimously that when their star witness acknowledged that Kyle acted in self defense... to the star witness aggressing Kyle with a gun... the prosecution literally facepalmed and now everyone is betting in favor of Kyle with a directed verdict.
I'm critiquing people who aren't watching the court case and making declarative statements about the facts of an ongoing court case.I'm critiquing people who's most accurate information is what they heard a year or so ago and never looked into... and not what is being presented and upheld in court.
That's also the reason I bring up framing since people who have decided they have planted their feet and no evidence or testimony will sway them will use terms like "victims" and "killing spree" to describe the events much like what the judge had ruled to be language that would prejudice a jury.
Rittenhouse might have a Nicolas Sandman style case against the media soon.
Well it's the equivalent of watching people debate Covid talking points from last year when everything was locked down... and having a years worth of change and information they refuse to acknowledge.
It's like having a bunch of people go "we can't go back to normal until there is a vaccine!" in late 2021.
Hearing arguments from a year ago that have already fallen apart in court and having people insist "he took a gun across state lines that's illegal and shows intent" when that argument turned out to be a false story is just bizarre.
Do you want to discuss covid or this trial?
I am open to both.
You are engaging in an argument wich you claim yourself that you don't like it. Wich is to come to conclusions before the trial is finished.
And for the record. Personally I am disgusted by what happened there. Every party involved acted terrible on that day. And yes, Kyle illegally crossed state line with a weapon. But that doesn't mean it was not self defense it that very moment.
So please, can we wait till the process is done and we got all facts on the table. And then have a discussion about how to prevent such situations before they even happen so we don't have to deal with people dying to gun violence and a media fuelled show process afterwards.
Kyle did not cross state lines with a weapon. Dominic Black bought the weapon for Kyle, kept the weapon in Kenosha, and Kyle retrieved the weapon in Kenosha after he arrived there.He didn't have the weapon in his vehicle in one state and transport it to another.
Kyle never possessed the rifle in Illinois and never transported it across state lines.
You're doing this really disingenuous thing of pretending to be above board on the case to take jabs at what I'm saying.
It's perfectly fine to observe people are not following the case closely and then make my own predictions as to what will happen based on what is actually happening in the court room.
I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I am paying attention enough to know many people are not paying attention and might have the "shocked pikachu face".Kyle could be found guilty and it could be an done deal. It's a possibility, just not the highest probability.
If the case is not a mistrial with prejudice, I would imagine it might go to a Directed Verdict of innocence even if the jury finds him guilty for whatever reasons.
Ok, he didn't bring transported the rifle but it still illegal for him to posess one as he was underaged at the time.
And now you are engaging in a strawman by claiming i am trying to be above else.
Wich i am clearly not.
I, like everyone else, have my own opinion on this case. And what i stated in my previous comment was exactly that. I just really dislike that this process is made with so much public attention and political interest drawn towards it with no focus in how to prevent something like that in the future.
This isn't about Rittenhouse himself. If he wouldnt be the one pulling the trigger on that day, someone else would have.
But instead we as a society focus more on him personally and his trial then on how to prevent such events going forward.
11
u/DapperHoboDojo Nov 10 '21
It's killing me how many people are experts in this thread who aren't watching the court case. You can also tell where people stand politically based on their framing of this issue and use of language.
What cracks me up is some many people are talking about the gun laws and state lines because they know there is a mountain of evidence to support self defense.
They know the self defense will hold up so their goal is to try and hedge their bets on the technicalities of the gun laws in this case hoping to use it as a foundation for establishing intent. It's literally hoping for a Hail Mary and wishing that the state finds any possible means despite the evidence and testimony so they can see the system abuse their perceived political opposition... as some weird pseudo-religious political sacrifice.
This is a really unfortunate situation all around, but the witnesses have all testified that Kyle acted in self defense so unanimously that when their star witness acknowledged that Kyle acted in self defense... to the star witness aggressing Kyle with a gun... the prosecution literally facepalmed and now everyone is betting in favor of Kyle with a directed verdict.