Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#5,179
#5,179
BayVol7 said:
No. But it doesn’t give you the right to use it every time you feel threatened.
Click to expand...
Those that were killed were shown in a court of law to have access, intent, and ability to kill the defendant in the case. That is all that matters for the legal justification to use deadly force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Orangeslice13, SpaceCoastVol and 1 other person
#5,180
#5,180
tnmarktx said:
Those that were killed were shown in a court of law to have access, intent, and ability to kill the defendant in the case. That is all that matters for the legal justification to use deadly force.
Click to expand...

Completely not was shown in court. Not even close.

That being said, I believe the jury got it right.
 
#5,182
#5,182
ClearwaterVol said:
Completely not was shown in court. Not even close.

That being said, I believe the jury got it right.
Click to expand...
Please explain how those that were killed didn't meet this criteria? If you argue that either didn't have access or intent, you're being completely obtuse. The ability would be your only weak argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, InVOLuntary, SpaceCoastVol and 1 other person
#5,184
#5,184
0nelilreb said:
Stop selling your product to the public and all your worries about how people use it after they buy it will go away . Take one for the team .. shut it all down . Idiots
Click to expand...
Yeah I was a bit conflicted. After reading that, I thought of going out and buying a bottle to celebrate the 'profound loss of life', but I don't want to give Heaven Hill any of my money. I do know that I won't be buying any of their products now that I know where they stand on this. And I fully realize they don't know/care.... but I do, and it is my money they ain't getting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, InVOLuntary and 0nelilreb
#5,185
#5,185
tnmarktx said:
Please explain how those that were killed didn't meet this criteria? If you argue that either didn't have access or intent, you're being completely obtuse. The ability would be your only weak argument.
Click to expand...

Those that were killed were shown in a court of law to have access, intent, and ability to kill the defendant in the case. That is all that matters for the legal justification to use deadly force.[/QUOTE]

The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KR did not reasonably believe the men he shot were imminently going to cause him great bodily harm or death.

Nothing regarding the access, intent or ability to kill KR was proven. It was all about his reasonable belief and the state's failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his belief was unreasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Vol423 and McDad
#5,187
#5,187
ClearwaterVol said:
Those that were killed were shown in a court of law to have access, intent, and ability to kill the defendant in the case. That is all that matters for the legal justification to use deadly force.
Click to expand...

The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KR did not reasonably believe the men he shot were imminently going to cause him great bodily harm or death.

Nothing regarding the access, intent or ability to kill KR was proven. It was all about his reasonable belief and the state's failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his belief was unreasonable.[/QUOTE]
You'd surely agree they had access. As far as intent, Rosenbaum threatened to kill the defendant and Huber struck him with an object that is considered a deadly weapon in many jurisdictions as a crowd chased calling for his death. Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at the defendant. This all proves intent. Go ahead and argue how the three wouldn't have had the ability....
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#5,188
#5,188
tnmarktx, none of the criteria that you laid out in your post need to be proved by the defense attorneys in order to successfully win the case based on self defense.
 
#5,189
#5,189
Vol423 said:
tnmarktx, none of the criteria that you laid out in your post need to be proved by the defense attorneys in order to successfully win the case based on self defense.
Click to expand...
Only that there was reasonable doubt that those killed had access, intent, or ability. That's the justification of someone carrying a firearm's use of deadly force. This is taught in carry permit classes.
 
#5,190
#5,190
0nelilreb said:
All they needed was the disclaimer they already had in the memo .. “They aren’t associated with that case in anyway” . The rest was them injects their thoughts about how they didn’t think they should be celebrating an innocent man being set free from jail and not facing murder charges . It was disheartening to them . That’s a company telling people what they should do with their product after a sell is it not ? KR and his supports have everything to celebrate as far as not being on trial for political reasons and rave baiting . When’s the last time you saw Budweiser tell its customers they are disheartened at them using the beer to celebrate anything ? That’s two examples of complained I’ve given you so far .
Click to expand...
You're manufacturing much of this in your own mind. It simply doesn't state what you say it does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00
#5,191
#5,191
tnmarktx said:
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KR did not reasonably believe the men he shot were imminently going to cause him great bodily harm or death.

Nothing regarding the access, intent or ability to kill KR was proven. It was all about his reasonable belief and the state's failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his belief was unreasonable.
Click to expand...
You'd surely agree they had access. As far as intent, Rosenbaum threatened to kill the defendant and Huber struck him with an object that is considered a deadly weapon in many jurisdictions as a crowd chased calling for his death. Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at the defendant. This all proves intent. Go ahead and argue how the three wouldn't have had the ability....[/QUOTE]

You just don't get it. That is not what was proven in court. Just like KR was not proven innocent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#5,195
#5,195
I have explained it.

The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KR was unreasonable in his belief the men he shot were imminently going to cause him great bodily harm or death.

Nothing regarding the access, intent or ability to kill KR was proven. It was all about his reasonable belief and the state's failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his belief was unreasonable.

Your focus is wrong. Nothing was proven about the three shot guys. Nothing was proven regarding KR.

There was simply a failure of proof by the prosecution.
 
#5,196
#5,196
ClearwaterVol said:
I have explained it.

The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KR was unreasonable in his belief the men he shot were imminently going to cause him great bodily harm or death.

Nothing regarding the access, intent or ability to kill KR was proven. It was all about his reasonable belief and the state's failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his belief was unreasonable.

Your focus is wrong. Nothing was proven about the three dead guys. Nothing was proven regarding KR.

There was simply a failure of proof by the prosecution.
Click to expand...
The case was always a loser, the DA's actions show as much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, txbo and SpaceCoastVol
#5,197
#5,197
ClearwaterVol said:
You'd surely agree they had access. As far as intent, Rosenbaum threatened to kill the defendant and Huber struck him with an object that is considered a deadly weapon in many jurisdictions as a crowd chased calling for his death. Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at the defendant. This all proves intent. Go ahead and argue how the three wouldn't have had the ability....

You just don't get it. That is not what was proven in court. Just like KR was not proven innocent.
Click to expand...
I had no idea that other than tax court one had to be "proven" innocent. I guess that is the new leftist utopia in which we now live
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and StarRaider
#5,198
#5,198
tnmarktx said:
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KR did not reasonably believe the men he shot were imminently going to cause him great bodily harm or death.

Nothing regarding the access, intent or ability to kill KR was proven. It was all about his reasonable belief and the state's failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his belief was unreasonable.
Click to expand...
You'd surely agree they had access. As far as intent, Rosenbaum threatened to kill the defendant and Huber struck him with an object that is considered a deadly weapon in many jurisdictions as a crowd chased calling for his death. Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at the defendant. This all proves intent. Go ahead and argue how the three wouldn't have had the ability....[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it's the semantics that are tangling things up for you.

KR showed up to court innocent. People were shot. He did that and in no way, shape or form was he positing he didn't. His stance was the people were shot in self defense in accordance with the law providing for justification of lethal force. He was literally not there to "prove" his innocence. (legally speaking)

The prosecution showed up to court with the onus of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that KR did not satisfy the justification for the use of lethal force. This is something they very much did have to prove. Failure to adequately make that case defaults to KR being found not guilty of the charges brought against him.

Now all this evidence/testimony presented by the defense (the sort of things you'd cited) makes things very problematic for the prosecution to succeed in making a convincing argument. In fact they obviously did fail to convince the jury and as a result KR was found not guilty of the charges. Make note of the fact that the verdict coming down from the jury is not read as "found innocent" but instead found "not guilty".
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#5,200
#5,200
Just learned Andrew Coffee was found not guilty and all 3 white suspects in the Aubrey case were found guilty. Damn BLM........ there went your “but if he were black” argument. It’ll be interesting to see how it gets twisted into white supremacy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top