It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A tactical and legal analysis of the Kenosha shootings

page: 5
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Nyiah


I looked at it from a legal perspective and hes going to jail. In fact he has to could you imagine the riots if he doesnt? but that aside the prosecutor has to show his actions caused their death that wont be terribly hard to do. You can argue self defence all you like but it wont fly by a jury. because everyone is going to say well you bring a loaded gun to a protest then you all ready were planning to use it. Hard to argue they were not when they could simply not have brought loaded weopons and still could have used tazers or bats. This wasnt their property the owners didnt ask them to be there they just wanted to feel important. So these need to be special got people killed/


Enough, emotional manipulation does not work with me.

The law IS on his side. Period. There is very LITTLE wiggle room to make anything stick, and all you got to run with is the weapons charge. End of discussion. Your delicate paper-thin feelz don't change the laws' criteria. If you don't like that, take it up with politicians who enacted them.

And no, they don't haaaaaave to convict him on a charge that does not apply to satisfy the populace to quell anything reactionary that is the responsibility of the public themselves to temper and control. Someone's juvenile lack of self control and legal understanding over a verdict isn't my job to convict someone for. If I were on the jury, every conclusion I came to would be based on LAW, not based on what some angry law-snubbing ass wants as excessive retribution. He. Will. Walk.

What needs to happen is people need to grow the # up, and learn to respect the existing laws & jury structure -- or get more involved in politics than just protesting between jobs (try running for office, it's more effective, jackasses)

The short of this, IMO, is if you don't want to be aerated by someone defending something that isn't yours, THEN DON'T #ING TOUCH IT. In the same vein, if you don't want to be aerated, then DON'T CHASE AFTER SOMEONE TRYING TO AVOID CONFRONTATION & GUNFIRE TO BEGIN WITH.

They brought death upon themselves through stupid shark-jumping. Whoops. At least they won't be doing that again, now will they. Considering they were established criminals with records, and at least one felon to boot there, I'm going to point out that not the brightest of people choose a life of crime. That's not on me, that's on their stupid butts.




posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf

If people hadnt been rioting and buring buisnesses no militia types would have been there and nobody would have been shot.

Which came first the chicken or the egg, no riot no armed citizens on the street, peaceful protests instead of riots and again no armed citizens on the street.


I wonder why the bald guy kept hounding him. He tried to get away from him but ended up alone with the bald guy still going after him. I really think the bald guy didn't think he would ever fire and wanted to take his gun and beat him senseless or worst in some "ya I'm bad" macho kind of way. The bald guy was extremely agitated from the get go screaming Shoot me, Shoot me, SHOOT ME! with explicates throughout.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 12:59 PM
link   
He drove, with intentions, to an out-of-state “fight”.

He was not protecting his own home/property.

He was the aggressor — in a “fight” that really had nothing to do with him.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Sorry the law disagrees, he was trying to run away that shifted the aggressor title to those chasing him.

If you dislike or disagree with it try to get the law changed.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

No he didn't. New information has been made available. He was working in Kenosha on the day this happened. He didn't take a rifle across state lines. After work he received a call asking for help. He arrived at the place in question without a rifle. I don't know who provided him with the rifle but he didn't bring it across state lines. Nor did he cross state lines with any intent other than to work. He was already in Kenosha working.
edit on 29-8-2020 by Khaleesi because: Typo


www.nbcchicago.com...
edit on 29-8-2020 by Khaleesi because: Added link



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: Annee

No he didn't. New information has been made available. He was working in Kenosha on the day this happened. He didn't take a rifle across state lines. After work he received a call asking for help. He arrived at the place in question without a rifle. I don't know who provided him with the rifle but he didn't bring it across state lines. Nor did he cross state lines with any intent other than to work. He was already in Kenosha working.


So I guess the in-depth analysis and the video where he was interviewed stating why exactly he came here and no mention of working there... and it was his rifle he brought for protection?

Loopholes and technicalities.

So I’m going to presume you all are going to run with “he was there because he works there”


edit on 29-8-2020 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

I added a link to an article with his lawyer's statement. If he was working, there should be evidence of that. Work schedule etc.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
He drove, with intentions, to an out-of-state “fight”.

He was not protecting his own home/property.

He was the aggressor — in a “fight” that really had nothing to do with him.




It's amazing and disheartening to me to see you wrote this.

I see it as a well intentioned group of people got together to try and protect their comminity. The terrorists didn't like them being there so they attacked.

They would have liked to have beat them half dead like what happened to the one guy that crashed his truck trying to get away.

I can't believe there are actually people trying to spin this. Your trying make right into wrong and wrong into right.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
He drove, with intentions, to an out-of-state “fight”.

He was not protecting his own home/property.

He was the aggressor — in a “fight” that really had nothing to do with him.




Were the protesters to include the ones he shot from Kenosha?



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz


So I guess the in-depth analysis and the video where he was interviewed stating why exactly he came here and no mention of working there... and it was his rifle he brought for protection?


What he actually said:


“So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and apart of my job is to also help people,” Rittenhouse told McGinniss. “If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit.”


You really don’t like discussing facts, do you?



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

He volunteered to clean up graffiti. Doubt there’s going to be a work schedule for that, but there is a picture of him doing it.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yes he volunteered to clean graffiti AFTER he got off work as a community life guard. There should be a schedule showing he worked that day as a life guard. If that is indeed true.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee
He drove, with intentions, to an out-of-state “fight”.

He was not protecting his own home/property.

He was the aggressor — in a “fight” that really had nothing to do with him.




Were the protesters to include the ones he shot from Kenosha?


Did they murder someone?



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: standingwave

originally posted by: Annee
He drove, with intentions, to an out-of-state “fight”.

He was not protecting his own home/property.

He was the aggressor — in a “fight” that really had nothing to do with him.




It's amazing and disheartening to me to see you wrote this.

I see it as a well intentioned group of people got together to try and protect their comminity. The terrorists didn't like them being there so they attacked.

They would have liked to have beat them half dead like what happened to the one guy that crashed his truck trying to get away.

I can't believe there are actually people trying to spin this. Your trying make right into wrong and wrong into right.


I’m in SW Arizona.

We had vigilante border groups come in from out of state.

Locals ran them out. They didn’t belong there.

That’s my stance.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
Would everyone here feel the same way if the kid was black?

Shooting four people

What if the kid was black, theres no way he would get the same treatment as this white kid.

And theres the problem

Wouldn't change a thing for me personally, I'm not particularly racist..I hate everyone about the same


Should the kid have been there? regardless of the answer, it looked to be self defence on all counts.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
He drove, with intentions, to an out-of-state “fight”.

He was not protecting his own home/property.

He was the aggressor — in a “fight” that really had nothing to do with him.






99.9% of the people there had no reason to join in the "fight".


They are all part of the problem.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Did they murder someone?


Was anyone murdered?

Who was breaking the law, who broke the law... Seems you do not know, or care to know.



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Annee
He drove, with intentions, to an out-of-state “fight”.

He was not protecting his own home/property.

He was the aggressor — in a “fight” that really had nothing to do with him.




Were the protesters to include the ones he shot from Kenosha?


Did they murder someone?


You think defending one's self from physical assault is murder?



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: standingwave

originally posted by: Annee
He drove, with intentions, to an out-of-state “fight”.

He was not protecting his own home/property.

He was the aggressor — in a “fight” that really had nothing to do with him.




It's amazing and disheartening to me to see you wrote this.

I see it as a well intentioned group of people got together to try and protect their comminity. The terrorists didn't like them being there so they attacked.

They would have liked to have beat them half dead like what happened to the one guy that crashed his truck trying to get away.

I can't believe there are actually people trying to spin this. Your trying make right into wrong and wrong into right.


I’m in SW Arizona.

We had vigilante border groups come in from out of state.

Locals ran them out. They didn’t belong there.

That’s my stance.


And how did the locals run them out? Did they run them down and physically assault them?



posted on Aug, 29 2020 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
Good analysis, the kid will likely walk. Looked pretty self defencey when looking at clips last night. I'm not going to comment or suppose whether he should of been there armed or not.


He shouldn't have been there, but neither should the rioters.

This is the kind of thing that will happen with officials abdicating their duty to uphold the law and enforce it.

We better hold them accountable and quick or this sort of incident will become more common as the citizens start taking the law into their own hands.




top topics



 
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join