>So most people aren't feeling much sympathy for the fact that he died.

The GP said they were laughing and celebrating it, that's quite different from 'aren't feeling much sympathy for someone dying'.

And robust self-defense laws for when someone poses an immediate threat and there's not enough time to go to law enforcement to help.

>The GP said they were laughing and celebrating it, that's quite different from 'aren't feeling much sympathy for someone dying'.

It's called "understatement." To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it.

> To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it.

It might also be the result of provocation by someone open carrying around an assault rifle in public, after traveling from out of state in order to specifically do that.

Open carrying is not provocation, otherwise open carrying itself would be inherently illegal, nor sure what your reasoning is there.

Edit: Also, what the hell does him crossing state lines have to do with anything? He lives like 5 minutes from the Wisconsin border and lives closer to Kenosha than his three assailants

You mean victims.

With all the witnesses, video recordings, FBI heat imaging video, etc. what makes you suspect the jury is not getting the full picture? If Kyle is convicted on all charges, will you protest the conviction because of this?

That charge was dropped because Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle.

However, ADA Binger did take Kyle's rifle, pointed it at the jury without checking it (saying his assistant had), and had his finger on the trigger while doing so.

Thankfully he didn't go full Baldwin, because there was no clip and no round in the chamber and the judge made them check it afterwards, but you can watch the stream if you want to see how it went down.

There's a disputed drone video footage where some think they see Kyle raising his gun in his left hand, but if you look at the video, the pixels they're pointing at exist before Kyle even reaches that point, meaning it can't be a gun. It may be a mirror or some other part of the car.

This is a major dispute because the prosecution gave the defense a low-quality, strange resolution rip of the video while having a higher-quality version for themselves. They admitted that "our version is better" in open court, before backing off to claim it's "just playing weird."

Kraus, who said he would have a much better job if he knew this encoding stuff, was seen with Handbrake installed on his laptop. The program was installed shortly after Kyle plead guilty according to the dates on the file.

It was perfectly legal for Rittenhouse to carry rifle at the time. The weapon charge has been dropped.

First off, there's no such thing as an "assault" rifle, there's just a "rifle". Stop using idiotic terms made up morons who don't know shit about weapons.

Second, provoking someone who's openly carrying a firearm... yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

As far as what an assault rifle is, it's basically a rifle capable of burst fire or automatic fire (it's a bit more complicated than that but that's the basic idea). Rittenhouse's AR (and virtually all civilian owned firearms for that matter) are not capable of burst or automatic fire and are not assault rifles.

This is only half-true. The difference between a pistol and a rifle is whether it has a stock. The difference between a normal rifle and a short-barreled rifle is whether the barrel is 16" or not.

I'm not saying it makes more sense, but that is the classification the ATF uses. Never put a stock on any weapon with less than a 16" barrel, unless you're really, really, really sure you fall under some kind of exemption (i.e. that might not apply to black powder weapons).

Most hunting rifles for e.g. deer rifles fire larger caliber rounds than the rifle in question in the case. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but "big" does not necessarily mean "more deadly", nor does "big" actually apply to this rifle.

The ATF makes these rules, and currently (my understanding, haven't looked in a while to see if anything changed with the new administration) an AR pistol is something that's less than 26" overall with a barrel of less than 16". There's also rules about how you can't put an actual buttstock on it (but you can put a "brace" ... the definition of which can be confusing). Anything shorter than that and does have an actual stuck is an SBR (short-barrel rifle) and you need an ATF tax stamp for that.

The "messaging"??

The only thing wrong with the "messaging" was that every single citizen of Kenosha didn't show up with AR-15s to ensure all of the out-of-towners weren't able to burn down anything, or try to assault anyone.

If you can spend time to riot, you can spend time filling out resumes for a job. I don't have time to fucking riot... I'm too busy working. These people should have been too. You wanna make the world better for people? Tell them to stop committing sexual assault and stealing people's SUVs. If Jacob Blake hadn't been doing those things, he wouldn't have had a warrant out for his arrest, he wouldn't have been shot for trying to go for his knife, Kenosha wouldn't have had rioting, Joseph Kiddiediddler and Dumbshit Skaterboi would still be alive, the prosecution's star witness would still have his bicep, and Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn't be in this mess.

Amazing how two people had to die, and two others had their lives ruined, and we had hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage, all because a black man in Kenosha thinks he doesn't have to obey the law, only to find out very dramatically that he will in fact obey the law.

It's almost like obeying society's law results in a harmonious society!

Yeah, exactly. ""Assault"" rifles are defined entirely by your emotional response to seeing it. It's a concept invented by the media.

You don't have to answer that, you can if you want, but I just felt the need to point out how ridiculous this "provocation" point actually is.

The difference is

Yes, exactly my point. It's cosmetically scary and calling it an assault rifle makes the minds of many of those hearing it jump to a fear-based response. When in reality an AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle in the same caliber. Slapping black plastic on a gun may make it look "scarier" to the uninformed, but it doesn't change the threat that Kyle did or did not pose by being there armed.

Walking through the streets of a riot (I won't say "brandishing" but...) carrying what LOOKS to be a big scary gun is sending a very strong message to other people around him. A lot of people equate that gun with "active shooter" and "paramilitary."

You may not appreciate it, but there is a substantial difference, not just practically but legally. If you're ignorant of that difference, that's fine. Everybody is mistaken or ignorant some of the time. We're all human after all. But if you know the difference and choose to use the wrong terminology anyway, then you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, it warrants a correction.

It was the first example of the Assault Rifle weapon type with the defining characteristics being an intermediate cartridge (between pistol round and rifle round) that allows controllable automatic fire at engagement ranges further than submachine guns.

Most AR15s cannot be considered 'Assault Rifles' as although they are chambered in an intermediate cartridge, they are for the most part semi-automatic and not capable of automatic fire.

Note that 'Assault Rifle' does not seem to be a ATF defined term, they always use the term Machine Gun for automatic weapons. The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word

Every game I've played where it is relevant uses the "Assault Rifle" term, and way more young people are familiar with game definitions than anything else. Here is roughly how weapons are defined in games:

Submachine gun - Automatic pistol with large clip.

Rifle - Single shot long barrel higher calibre weapon

Battle Rifle - Burst fire rifle with large clip

Assault Rifle - Automatic fire rifle with large clip

Machine gun - Belt fed automatic fire rifle

Edit: Nothing legal about the above, of course, just noting what the general population would associate with each term. And you can understand why people would be worried about automatic fire high calibre weapons. They aren't useful for anything other than to kill lots of people.

And afaik the usual distinction for a battle rifle is that it's larger caliber (e.g. as many cold-war standard-issue rifles were)

I understand the point you were making. I do have to ask people, if there's any difference between the Mossberg 464 lever action and the Mossberg 464 ZMB rifle - I mean purely from how scary it is, or whatever.

Words have meaning and details matter, especially when discussing legalities. It absolutely is always a false claim.

To a lot of people, any big Navy ship that is not an aircraft carrier is "a battleship". To a lot of people, anybody banging away on a keyboard from the command line = "hacking". That doesn't make either claim true. Specificity and clarity are important. To mutually work through a problem set we need commonly-understood definitions, and the lexicon thankfully isn't limited to the simplistic understanding of the uninformed masses.

Source?

>Where was the outrage then?

You seemed to have been pretty outraged.

The title says independent live stream while this thread makes it clear it's right wingers.

The prosecution has beyond ridiculous arguments time and again over the last 2 weeks. The lawyers all started out really civil, and some of the violations (especially the 5th amendment one that even got the Judge angry) began to make then exasperated.

Combine that with the general silence of the defense, and by now they are all pretty angry at how much of a mess this is.

A lot of ridiculous arguments were brought up by the jury about Rosenbaum, to the point that internal jokes have started emerging surrounding the death of Rosenbaum. Most serve to ridicule the prosecution, rather than Rosenbaum himself.

Lastly, They you are in profession where every time you're in court, some has died. You develop a cruel sense of humor to cope. Very common for victims of abuse or military to have similar coping mechanisms. It seems bizarre from a civilian's POV, but that's just our privilege.

They have paid settlements and plead guilty for causing harm through their sting attempts and disinformation multiple times.

Anyone taking Veritas seriously is not looking at their history, which makes it very clear that anything they release is untrustworthy at best. They are very clearly far-right political operatives, and in no way a neutral entity.

I saw that they pled guilty to trespassing but have otherwise won all their completed defamation cases.

Do you have a source/list of which cases they pled guilty to "misinformation" or similar?

> In March 2013, O'Keefe settled the case with Vera, paying Vera $100,000.

He tried to entrap someone for human smuggling. The guy immediately reported it to the police, but O'Keefe released edited footage anyway.

> The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O'Keefe and Giles. Each of the ACORN employees recorded in California was a low level employee whose job was to help the needy individuals who walked in the door seeking assistance. Giles and O'Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited their statements from the released videos.

O'Keefe pictured himself in stereotypical "pimp" clothes in the released footage, while actually wearing normal clothes at the time. The whole thing was clearly an attempt to extract something as damaging as possible and dress it up as an actual problem, regardless of the truth.

Even if you agree with their politics, you'd be a fool to assume anyone willing to spin what they produce like that is going to produce "neutral" videos a third party can trust as a source when they have intentionally edited them misleadingly multiple times.

> Vera filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against O'Keefe and Giles for recording him without his permission, which was a violation of California law.

While recording that conversation appeared to be illegal, that is neither "for causing harm through their sting attempts and disinformation" and definitely not "multiple times".

I'm all for calling out bad actors but at least call them out for what they've done vs what you imagined.

And yet you spread misinformation in this very comment. Bravo.