• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Kyle Rittenhouse Case starts

Discussion in 'Current News & Events (Articles Required)' started by Pavel Mosko, Oct 26, 2021.

  1. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    +5,357
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    Watching the Tim Cast video right now on it. I guess Rittenhouse had a pretty good opening day in court. The prosecution wanted to call the people shot as "victims" rather than "rioters", "arsonists" etc. so they will be called by those other terms rather than victims seeing how they were not perfectly innocent.

    The police on record were recorded of saying to Rittenhouse "It is good that you are here" (to defend the property).

    There also was some talk about footage being excluded because the judge or somebody didn't want police procedure being put on trial as as a referendum (red herring) distracting from the actual case etc.

    And well that is all I know so far, except that jury selection begins in a week from today.


    https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...tle-use-of-force-experts-at-rittenhouse-trial





    Judge sets final ground rules for Rittenhouse trial evidence
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    +5,357
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    Viva Frei is covering the latest in the case, things look interesting I'm going to go back to watching after posting the link.

    I guess the highlight of things so far is the prosecution in its opening statement had to come to terms with the criminal records of two of the individuals Rittenhouse shot. But that sort of admission as an opening statement, will help the defense when it comes to arguing for self defense.






    Kyle Rittenhouse's trial opens with his lawyer saying the N-word twice in court


    Kyle Rittenhouse trial begins: Key takeaways from Day 1
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2021
  3. dgiharris

    dgiharris Newbie

    +5,167
    Baptist
    For me, the case is pretty simple. I'm not a big fan of someone grabbing a gun, picking a fight, and then claiming self-defense.

    We see this over and over again in one way, shape, or form.

    It's one thing if Kyle was standing outside of his own home, it's a whole other animal when he illegally obtains a firearm, crosses State lines, and then jumps into a riot with said gun.

    For me, this is not about Left or Right, Black or White, Pro Gun or Anti-Gun. For me, it is about common sense. And as a nation, we simply can't have this type of vigilantism.

    When these sorts of cases happen, too often everyone falls behind their established political trenches. I would just for once like to see us not do that and to just evaluate this on its merits. I don't care if this was a BLM riot or the Jan 6th Capital Riots, as a citizen, I don't get to grab my AR-15 and sprint to the riot to "save the day". That is a very very bad idea and if we make that legal, then we are opening up a can of worms we really don't want to open up. And this goes double when we are talking about an illegally obtained firearm and crossing State lines...
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • List
  4. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +9,009
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    Strange.
    Ask folks whether Ashli Bobbit was a victim.

    Hmmm.
     
  5. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +2,313
    Christian
    Married
    Personally? I don't think he should have been there to begin with either.

    Yet, we don't know anything concrete to claim vigilantism. I mean the rioters could be painted with same brush as well. Then it turns into one party of vigilantism against the other. I mean the rioters shouldn't be there destroying a community either. They also didn't just stand on their front porches and start fires, etc.

    Yet, the fact that he was there and claims he was attacked? Was he or wasn't he attacked? If he was does the evidence show he had just cause to defend himself with deadly force or not? Did he attack them first with no regard for their life? Could he face gun charges since he shouldn't be there with a gun to begin with? I mean none of the parties involved in this circumstance should have been there, but since they were? Criminality on both sides needs to be considered.

    I don't think either circumstance (shooting or riots) - as a nation - should happen. Yet it did. In fact during that season our country almost seemed to encourage riots with some claiming it was protests instead. More sane people didn't of course, because there is a HUGE difference between the two. To much enabling of the attitude of justification of these acts also came into play during that season of history in our country as well. I'm honestly surprised more people were not killed during this chaos.
     
  6. dgiharris

    dgiharris Newbie

    +5,167
    Baptist
    I think it is a mistake to conflate the two, that implies some form of symmetry when there is no symmetry here.

    Imagine you and I get into a car accident.
    I happen to be speeding 10mph over the speed limit, I'm breaking the law. You happen to be drunk with a .3% blood alcohol level and can barely walk let alone drive. Do we both share the same level of culpability for our car accident?

    Wrong does not equal wrong.

    And the actions on either side should be judged independently.

    Yeah, I'm not a fan of riots. So sure, every rioter should be judged on what they did.

    However, same goes for Kyle.

    Guns are not toys. Guns are devices specifically created to kill people. A gun is not a stop sign, a gun is not a bullhorn, a gun is not a time out whistle. No. A gun is a device specifically meant to kill people. Bringing a gun to a volatile situation and then claiming self defense is just not okay.
    The law is quite clear on self defense. In order to claim self defense you must be in a situation in which safe retreat is impossible. You seriously damage your argument of "self defense" when you PURPOSEFULLY put yourself into a volatile situation in which safe retreat is possible.

    At any time prior to the shooting, Kyle could have retreated, but he choose not to. He could have not taken his gun, but he choose to be armed. I'm sorry. There is no way in which he is not guilty.

    As for the rioters, that is a whole separate argument and has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.
     
  7. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +2,313
    Christian
    Married
    This is what the trial is about. Was he is a situation in which a safe retreat was impossible. We don't know yet. I think we can agree he shouldn't have been there in the first place, but you don't throw out self defense only due to that. Lesser charges if it was self defense due to him NOT having to be there? Possible.

    One of the individuals that he shot I heard made a comment to police about how he planned to empty his gun into Rittenhouse - he was the one shot in the arm when pointing the gun at him. Now is the statement true? That will come out in court, but he is on video pointing the gun at the Rittenhouse. This was after he was hit in the head by the skateboard. Remember Rittenhouse wasn't the only one with a gun there. The picture below shows the gun, and I know there is another video showing the circumstance from the front angle that shows him pointing it - I just took this from a recent news clip to show the gun.

    rittenhouse gun.PNG

    I can see him being charged with some gun charge, because of this circumstance. I believe he was minor and out of state. I will wait to hear how the other circumstances are proved to have happened, and he could very well be guilty of other charges too.

    If you don't think rioters can be been defined in part with vigilantism? I have to disagree. I'm NOT saying taking a life is the same as burning down and destroying a city. I'm saying that term can be applied to both parties. They claim the reason for the rioting was punishment of offenses - The murder of a man, mistreatment from police, etc. - without the legal authority to do so. That is part of the definition of the word vigilantism.
     
  8. iarwain

    iarwain Newbie

    380
    +200
    Christian
    In Relationship
    There's a video of when the incident began. Rittenhouse is walking down the street asking if anyone needs medical care. Some of the rioters begin to pursue him, threatening him, to which Kyle responds "Friendly! Friendly!", but they yell "Let's get him!" and "You ain't going to do nothing, (expletive)". I don't think I would describe that as picking a fight.

    Maybe he shouldn't have been there, but he was there for a cause he believed in, just as much as the rioters were. That doesn't mean he should have been attacked.
     
  9. Justin-H.S.

    Justin-H.S. New Wineskins

    +921
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Engaged
    "If Rittenhouse wasn't there he wouldn't have been attacked."

    "If she didn't wear that mini-skirt she wouldn't have been raped."
     
  10. LeafByNiggle

    LeafByNiggle Active Member

    373
    +231
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    Is that your go-to source? Tim Cast? Knowing Tim's stance, it is no surprise you came away from it with the impression you did.
     
  11. iarwain

    iarwain Newbie

    380
    +200
    Christian
    In Relationship
    Yeah, people want to blame Rittenhouse, but he was the one who was attacked. He didn't attack anyone initially, he didn't ask to be attacked. They brought the violence to him. I don't know what someone is thinking when they attack a man armed with a semiautomatic rifle, but they attacked him.

    IMO, the second and third shootings are clear cases of self defense. I think the first one is also, but it is the only one there might be any doubt about whether lethal force was justified.

    I also think about that woman who was raped in the subway awhile back, and none of the passengers lifted a finger to help her. People didn't like that no one did anything. But in this case, Kenosha was being burned, and Rittenhouse wanted to do something, and he gets called a vigilante. This sort of thing is exactly why people don't jump in to help. Too often the law takes the side of the criminals, or the aggressors. Maybe he did it in a foolish way, but I do believe his intent was to help.
     
  12. Tom 1

    Tom 1 Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +11,556
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    He’d already killed someone armed with a shopping bag at that point.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  13. iarwain

    iarwain Newbie

    380
    +200
    Christian
    In Relationship
    No, that video was before the first shooting. Before the shooting of Rosenbaum (the guy with the shopping bag). Supposedly the reason Rittenhouse shot him was because he was trying to grab his gun. The key question is, does that represent a lethal threat?
     
  14. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    +5,357
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    Viva Frei actual is my favorite guy on legal subjects since he is a lawyer and great video blogger when it comes to summarizing and explaining things in an interesting engaging way.

    I like Tim Pool in spite of some of his hyperbole, (which is a strike against him) because he is better on covering these kinds of topics than the mainstream press which is often bias to the point of downright dishonesty. Rittenhouse was covered very poorly by most of the press when this story first broke, much like the Covington kids, as far as given hatchet job reporting.

     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2021
  15. Norbert L

    Norbert L Well-Known Member Supporter

    +946
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    Your not making any useful point unless I hear what Tim said was either wrong or at least in question. You would need to reference the time stamp he said it and supply a more rational answer.
    The man went head to head with the best Ivy league trained lawyer Jack Dorsey could find on the Joe Rogan show. He's no pea brain when it comes to making a point with a substantial argument behind it.

    The way I see it, another person with a different conclusion would need to do some investigative research and put more effort in supplying a counterpoint.
     
  16. LeafByNiggle

    LeafByNiggle Active Member

    373
    +231
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    I don't know as Tim said anything wrong. It is more what he does not say, what he leaves out, and the interpretation overlay he puts on things. If you want an extremely right-wing biased commentary to confirm that particular ideology, then Tim is a good one to listen to. But if one is to dismiss everything in the "mainstream press" just because of the assumption that the mainstream media is horribly biased, then how it that any better than my dismissal of Tim the blogger?
     
  17. Pavel Mosko

    Pavel Mosko Arch-Dude of the Apostolic Supporter

    +5,357
    United States
    Oriental Orthodox
    Single
    That's laughable because you make Tim sound like: Sean Hannity, Ben Shapiro, Judge Janine Pirro, the late Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter. This to me makes your opinion suspect because he definitely is not that. I also am starting to see this not as much about Tim but about sacred cows getting gored and their devotees coming to their rescue.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2021
  18. LeafByNiggle

    LeafByNiggle Active Member

    373
    +231
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    Well, he certainly is a long way from Lester Holt, David Muir, or David Brooks - i.e. real journalists.
     
  19. JimR-OCDS

    JimR-OCDS God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

    +2,242
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    The question I have is, what was Rittenhouse doing at the Kenosha Wisconsin BLM protest
    carrying a weapon ?

    He's from Illinois not Wisconsin and the fact that he showed up there armed with a weapon,
    suggests to me that he had an agenda to use it against the protestors.
     
  20. Norbert L

    Norbert L Well-Known Member Supporter

    +946
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    I think both sides practice leaving out information. However..

    Tim or Joe Rogan is no more extreme right wing than other public commentators like David Reuben and Blaire White. When a gay married man and a trans woman appear on conservative media and agree on some issues, extreme right wing is not how I could describe them.

    In my assessment about what plays a big role in public information is how traditional mainstream media has new competition on our modern media platforms. Like the people in government, news agencies by nature take an adversarial role towards each other too. It's the left leaning agencies who are publishing the thought that he as well as those other two political commentators are extreme right wing.

    In my judgement he is not on the extreme right, he's left of center on many social concerns but not all. His stance on 2nd amendment rights changed some time ago to right of center leaning politics. Basically painting him with a broad brush of being extreme right wing doesn't give these topics the contemplative thought they deserve.
     
Loading...