The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is a hero

I think he just happened to be there. Other people reported encounters with him.

During a protest is a hell of a time to release someone from the nervous ward.

I agree with the second part, but what exemption? He was by himself when it all went down, so it's not like he was under adult supervision, and he sure as hell wasn't just "target shooting" unless you are one cynical sob.

I've only heard there's disagreement, I don't know what the fine points are. If he's ultimately found guilty of unlawfully possessing a firearm, I'm okay with that (inasmuch as such laws are presumptively Constitutional). It's the self-defense vs. murder part I'm concerned with.

There’s a New Yorker article from a few weeks ago that has a good timeline of what happened that night.

This case, the Zimmerman case and the Chauvin case show that getting the charges right is just as important as anything else. Zimmerman was overcharged, Chauvin (despite my early doubts) was properly charged and Rittenhouse quite possibly has been overcharged. The judge IMHO did the prosecutors a big favor by allowing the jury to come back with a lesser-included charge. He (and the people who aided and abetted him) are guilty of any number of things, but murder? I don't think so. I think involuntary manslaughter is the ceiling, which carries enough prison time to be a very serious matter.

Who verified it? Is there a link somewhere? Not that it would surprise me, but I haven't heard this.

Your autism is making you focus on a red herring.

It's enough to eliminate any viable claim of self defense.

Even traveling to another town, with a fully loaded gun, is enough to show premeditation. You're caught up on the wrong thing here.

How far would someone have to travel with a gun for you to consider it premeditated? What other possible reason would someone have have for traveling with a gun to an area of unrest, if not to use their gun?

You would be in the wrong because assault involves no bodily contact, and absent anything else (e.g. a gun) does not involve a threat of imminent death sufficient to warrant self-defense.

It does though. Even though self-defense is legally justified, it's a moral failing.

Are you for real?

Grosskreutz would "safely take him away" from the mob he was a part of? The mob chasing Kyle?

Grosskreutz isn't a police officer. I hope to God he'll never be one.

Jesus Christ. The intellectual dishonesty of the fake left never ceases to amaze me. And no, I'm not coming into this as a "proud boy" or even a conservative. I hate these people with a passion because they have perverted everything Socialism used to stand for.

Wow.

I take it you're a Christian.

Worse, he's a lawyer.

And just a random addition:

You don't need to want to suck black muslim cock to be a Socialist. All it takes it that you hate parasites and you love the people actually contributing anything of value to this society.

Case in point, Jacob Blake, violent rapist. Shot for being an asshole. Somehow the "radical" ""left"" found joy in him as a martyr. As a Marxist, I'm supposed to feel solidarity? Go out and riot? Destroy things working class people have built?

No, you lost me. Everything is much clearer once you come at this from a class perspective. Worker, good. Parasite, bad.

Who the fuck is this guy?

He's a legacy. Give him a hug.

The first two things my mentor taught me were thus: #1: If you require a gavel to keep control of your courtroom, you're not much of a Judge. #2: Use the gray noodle between your ears. You can excoriate an attorney and watch them wilt without raising your voice.

Further, with any video evidence, you have to establish context. At least once per week, someone is in my office wanting to use personal cell phone video, or worse, Facebook video to establish probable cause. Without context, I can't establish probable cause for an Assault. Most of the videos I see are of the fight in progress, and that's just it. It's a fight. The Supreme Court neutered Affray to the point where our State Legislature actually repealed it. Assault is against the law. Harassment (Physical) is against the law. Disorderly Conduct is against the law. Mutual combat is not. So, I'm very skeptical of video that does not establish context.

You mean like the delivery boy being asked in for some hot chocolate?

Please disregard any notices you ever get to sit on a Grand Jury. Tell the Court to contact me for reference.

What? I carry pretty much every time I go on a road trip, and I never do it planning on murdering anyone.

Then what are you planning?

A lot of driving. I'm the family cook, so making a first stop at a grocery store when I get there. Do I have enough gas. Did I pack enough underwear. Dammit! I forgot my toothbrush. The usual.

I drive 8 hours ever couple months for several years and every couple years for 30+ years prior to that. I’ve also lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods. I’ve never carried a gun nor been in a position in which I though I might need one. If I ever am, I intend to put myself in front of others who may not be able to defend themselves.

That's very admirable.

Thanks, but that’s not the point. You do intend to use your gun on someone else if you are ever in the position in which it comes down to someone else’s life or yours. That’s the point Fisherman’s Worf is making. It doesn’t matter if you expect something to happen, you intend to shoot if it does.

I’ve never seen a judge bang a gavel in court and I have been at proceedings from small claims to federal appeals courts. The closest was during a rowdy bankruptcy hearing over a scheme that bilked a bunch of senior citizens. The judge restored order by tapping his pen. That’s one of the neat little touches from the original Perry Mason series: 99.9% of the time the judges tapped a pen. A glance from a judge was usually all it took.

Which isn't illegal, unethical, or immoral. Thus endeth the discussion.