Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For those who are making this argument (in bold), I can't help but wonder what their opinions are about Arbery. After all, the McMichaels hadn't shot Arbery yet, so do they think it was premature for Arbery to try and defend himself from his pursuers?
For some reason, I don't think they will apply the same logic here ...
I havent spent any time trying to detangle the laws of self defense in GA. I have read a good bit about WI.
so anything I have to say, i say as
1. Not a lawyer
2. Not apprised of the laws of GA....
That being said, the prosecution is going to have a pretty steep hill to argue Arbery's killer(s) were acting criminally when they stopped him, and criminally when Arbery was shot considering he attacked the guy with the gun. This is a strange case and there are elements there that arent present in the Rittenhouse case. But that one will have its own difficulties.
I honestly dont have any clue how that one should play out. It isnt like this case. In this case there is a mountain of evidence, there are hours of witness testimony and all of it points to Kyle being innocent of the crime of murder. He defended himself. that has been well established by no less than the prosecutions witnesses, when being questioned by the prosecution. (which is super weird and clearly shows the weakness of the case)
Not for nothing but All of that was explained in the trial. They asked him those things, he answered. They moved on. There was no bombshell.
I get that it's long and boring,..I am lucky( or unlucky) to be working from home, so I just have the thing on the whole time on the side.
In my opinion, it wouldnt matter if they were 15 yrs old. These dudes rushed on him as he was retreating, assaulting him, stood over him with a weapon and the kid defended himself. It's all about that moment.
They all could be scumbags with rocket launchers but one party was clearly aggressing.
Not for nothing maybe you could do me a solid? It should be easy enough, after all, you claimed there was no bombshell, thanks in advance.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,648 posts, read 12,569,566 times
Reputation: 10508
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I haven't been following this case closely, was there ever any push to charge him as a child rather than an adult?
His friend Dominick Black testified he bought the AR15 for him. Two of the militiamen he joined up with testified he was under equipped & inexperienced. Another witness testified he did not think the night called for any force past shouting. That same witness described Rosenbaum as “acting very belligerently” but not in a way that indicated he might endanger himself or anyone else. “I turned my back to him and ignored him,” Lackowski said. “I really didn’t see him as a threat at all, to be honest with you.”
When Lackowski was confronted by Rosenbaum, he had his pals and firepower all around him to back him up. Doubtful that he'd feel the same way if it had been him that Rosenbaum had been chasing down and attacking, with Lackowski's pals nowhere in sight. Easy to be brave in a crowd.
How many shooting do you know of where a 17 year old acquired an illegal gun and ended up shooting 3 people some unarmed and killing two. This is very different than anything we have seen. Maybe that self defense claim is clear to you but not the jury.
Every night in any major city where gangs fight for turf and drug profits.
The day began with opening statements from the prosecution and defense, and ended with testimony from Koerri Washington, a Kenosha resident who live-streamed the protests in 2020. In between came testimony from Dominick Black, a friend of Mr. Rittenhouse who purchased the gun used in the shooting, and from an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, whose testimony was withheld from the public for security reasons.
Lets remember what you said: "His friend bought the gun for him", he may have bought it and let kyle use it, but even by what you posted above does not prove what you said. And even your statement above disagrees with your statement below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I know he's been charged as an adult, & I know you both agree on that.
How did he get there? Did he have a driver's license? His friend bought the gun for him. Could he have legally obtained a gun himself? If so, why didn't he?
& finally, would it be different if he had shot & killed 2 other 17-year-olds, & injured another 17-year-old? (Asking for an opinion) & thanks for getting me up to speed on this case.
I read a few articles, but seems like I was off base with the mother driving him part.
Apologies for that, but what I said still stands. That kid knew what was up
He "knew what was up". Well, I agree with that but probably not in the same way you do. That "that kid" is still alive, talking and breathing is testimony to that methinks. Far better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I've been in lethal encounters involving firearms and other weapons. I have decades of training and a lot of experience in situations where levels of force from non lethal restraint to use of a firearm were involved.
And my assessment is that "this kid" did pretty damn well. He retained his weapon and halted immediate threats to his life and limb. Considering the chaotic nature of the environment and his age and inexperience in such environments he did very well indeed. After the first lethal encounter he kept the presence of mind to seek out the police for aid. That didn't end well even though he found them as he was pretty much just tossed back into the fray. But he did the one thing that one should do in such situations. He survived.
My very worst encounter was against two armed assailants. One with a gun the other with a knife. The one with the gun was pulling it out of his waistband the one with the knife was behind him. I shot the guy with the gun. The guy with the knife dropped it and ran. If he had kept coming I would have shot him as well. Rittenhouse was assaulted by three attackers bent on doing him grave harm. Had Rosenbaum gained control of the rifle her would have turned it on Rittenhouse. Huber was attempting to bludgeon him to death with his skateboard and Grosskruetz was pointing a firearm at him PB with intent.
My encounter was far less chaotic and confusing. In the same situation as Rittenhouse I'm not at all sure I could have done better. "That kid" handled himself very well and the most important thing was achieved...he survived. That is the end all be all primary goal in a lethal encounter. Yes, the leftist elite feel differently. When faced with such circumstances we are supposed to roll over on our bellies...and die gruesomely. Personally I feel very differently about that. And Kyle Rittenhouse did to it seems.
Not for nothing maybe you could do me a solid? It should be easy enough, after all, you claimed there was no bombshell, thanks in advance.
if it's easy enough, you can do it.
It's nothing we already haven't talked about here ad nauseum.
He was 17. He got a rifle, but couldn't keep it because he was underage and waiting for forms so his buddy held it at the time.
he's got those charges hanging over him,..but it's not a bombshell that's gonna lose the case for him.
No one is saying that isn't wrong.
But that takes nothing away from the trial of whether he acted out of self defense or not no matter how many times people try to go after these peripheral things.
And you think this video negates all the other videos of him actually stating why he was there ? Can you please explain how this CVS video changes anything, with facts, not your opinion.
To be devil's advocate, Rittenhouse may have been declaring himself a "medic" just as a pretense to be there in the first place. "Ignore my AR15!!! I am just here to provide medical help!!!"
Yes looting is so much worse than killing people on site because they’re trying to get a rifle out of a 17 y.o. white boys hands. He’s trying to protect car lots! Let him go! There’s no racial issue here, except if he was black we could make comments about how he shouldn’t have been doing that, and maybe throw in some snide footlocker comment. Bizzaro world.
Maybe you're not on other less antiquated social media platforms but there are plenty of people saying he shouldn't have been there (though somehow the same standard doesn't apply to Gaige Grosskreutz). Also a shocking number that don't even seem to know the two killed were white. Too many putting their own narrative before the facts.
I havent spent any time trying to detangle the laws of self defense in GA. I have read a good bit about WI.
so anything I have to say, i say as
1. Not a lawyer
2. Not apprised of the laws of GA....
That being said, the prosecution is going to have a pretty steep hill to argue Arbery's killer(s) were acting criminally when they stopped him, and criminally when Arbery was shot considering he attacked the guy with the gun. This is a strange case and there are elements there that arent present in the Rittenhouse case. But that one will have its own difficulties.
I honestly dont have any clue how that one should play out. It isnt like this case. In this case there is a mountain of evidence, there are hours of witness testimony and all of it points to Kyle being innocent of the crime of murder. He defended himself. that has been well established by no less than the prosecutions witnesses, when being questioned by the prosecution. (which is super weird and clearly shows the weakness of the case)
Absolutely agree. And I, too, do not claim to be a legal expert.
I was pointing out that the people using the argument mentioned in my post don't have the foresight to realize that this flawed argument, when applied equally across both cases (not saying they should be), won't serve them well in justifying why KR shouldn't have shot GG, yet Arbery was justified in trying to take the weapon of his aggressors.
If KR should not have shot GG because GG hadn't shot KR yet, then Arbery shouldn't have lunged at his aggressors because ... well ... they hadn't shot him yet.
I say this is a lack of foresight on their part, but really, it is probably just hypocritical.
I do want to clarify that I do not hold a current position on the Arbery case. Also, I do not want to derail this thread so I'll refrain from speaking any further on it. Just wanting to use this as an example of how some will use this lame logic in this case, but wouldn't fathom doing the same regarding Arbery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
maybe you could do me a solid? It should be easy enough, after all, you claimed there was no bombshell, thanks in advance.
