The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is a hero

And now some right-wing cunts have doxxed the prosecutor.

Those idiots are snatching the moral high ground from under themselves. This case was shaping up as a big win for them. Attacking the prosecution before the verdict is just plain

What would happen if some left wing people doxxed a prosecutor of some innocent black person? @Paladin would be crying like a little bitch.

How do you doxx someone who's a public official who's real name is being published in news articles? Just google him? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what "to doxx" means?

Reveal his home address and phone number? I doubt your place of work or your online profile lists those.

County GIS website? If they own a home, they can't be that hard to find.

That is not necessarily hidden info unless they have taken some effort to hide it from easily obtained public sources. If I have your name and general area where you live your address and phone number are easily searched and are given out by a number of corporate and public maintained sources.

You do have to make some effort to stop corporations like the phone companies from telling everyone where you live, and your history of moves along with your family members and their addresses. They love to give that info out and charge very little to people who cannot find a free search to discover all that shit.

It's a dick move no matter how you slice it.

I agree, but when I think "doxx", I usually think someone having private information disclosed that they have a reasonable assumption can't or won't be disclosed. Like someone on the internet with a pseudonym. Tamar type stuff. But if your name is out there in public, then it's all out there in public.

And if you own property, your name is out there in public thanks to the property tax rolls.

And to repeat for the slow among us (who are legion) Rittenhouse didn’t travel *to* the town with his weapon. It was already there. All he and his buddy did was “travel” from the buddy’s house (where the gun was stored, You. Dumb. Fucks.) to where the protests were happening.

Except the second amendment exists and allows for militias.

I was "doxxed" when I lived in Memphis. The Commercial Appeal decided it would be neat if they published everybody's name who had a concealed carry permit. The local paper here was going to pull the same stunt, but the county sheriff told them they'd have to sue him first. For some reason they backed off.

I meant that mutual combat, to a point, is not illegal in the State of Alabama. Notice I did not say legal, I said not illegal. Saying that's it's legal would indicate that there is some statutory protection. That's not the case.

They have an obligation to stop the fight. However, they have no obligation to arrest. In fact, if they do arrest, I'm likely to deny the charge and release the persons. Why? The police didn't see the start. Except in cases of Domestic Violence and DUI, the police are required to witness an offense before effecting a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor. Responding to a call of two men fighting in the parking lot, did you see what started it? No. Therefore, no arrest should be made.

Now, that's what should happen. I'm not saying that's what does happen. I know several police officers that will claim, using their professional experience, that they "just need to get someone off the street for a little while" knowing that I'm going to deny the charges and release the person. That's illegal and the PD is eventually going to get sued into oblivion for it. But, that's not on me. My office follows the Constitution and directives of the Supreme Court.

Let me put it another way. The police are the ones that put you in jail. That's their responsibility and liability. The courts are the ones that keep you in jail. That's my responsibility and liability. I refuse to violate my oath of office and hold someone illegally.

Voting records. Voting registration rolls are public information and contain full legal name and address. I'm thankful that the State of Alabama just extended the same protections to the Judiciary that they have for State Legislators by allowing that information to be redacted for me and my spouse.

Twenty years ago my friends name and number was publicly in the phone book, but the angry ex writing her name and number in bathroom stalls wasn't just sharing that information for the sake of it. Doxxing generally comes with the understanding (spoken or unspoken) that whoever's doing the doxxing would like the recipients of said information to use that information to harass or harm the victim.

Another friend of mine was actually kicked off a public board a couple years ago after the board made a decision that angered a lot of people, and she simply tweeted the boards publicly available general contact email and a link to the publicly available instruction for how to request to speak at the next public board meeting.

You're ignoring the context. He traveled to another town to go to a location in the middle of some unrest. He believed it was a location where a riot was going on. He wasn't a cop and he wasn't counter protesting, so what other explanation is there to travel with a gun to somewhere he believed a riot was occurring? He went there with a very specific goal to use that gun.

I'm not sure why you and @Elwood are deliberately ignoring the context of my statement. It's a little disingenuous to pretend I was making a blanket statement of all situations in which someone travels with a gun to another town.

I'm not saying traveling with a gun is premeditation in every situation. In the context of this situation, it clearly was. He clearly wanted to use his gun.

I would argue that the word "using" doesn't have to be interpreted as meaning he wanted to "shoot" it. Just being there with an AR-15 and thus helping to maintain "law and order" and keeping "BLM/ANTIFA" in their place could be interpeted as "using" it.

Okay, but what about Grosskreutz then? Didn't he also travel to another town to go to a location in the middle of unrest while illegally armed just like Rittenhouse? Or is that a different context?

Then that I can go with. I only read the quoted section. I apologize for misinterpreting you.

What the fuck?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-opens-path-jury-clear-00330679""3.html

"The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Friday said he'll instruct the jury that unless the state proved the teen's AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully short barrel, he can't be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm."

What's this guy's malfunction?

Again, here is where US law is the problem and should be changed. There is a huge difference between carrying your gun hunting or going to the shooting range and bringing it to a protest or into public where you are using it to intimidate and harass other people. If I carry a machete with me no one thinks I am going into a jungle and need to do some gardening. I have been pulled over with my machete next to me and the cop was not impressed with the idea that I might need to cut down some thick branches to get my car unstuck. He would have been correct I carry it around in case of human attack. I have had to pull it out on a person who hit my car in a rest area in the middle of the night. In that case the police who showed up said it was good I scared the people because he thought they were up to no good.

We have to have some regulations on these things or else all of our protests are going to turn into gang fights. We have to start arresting people like the proud boys who use public safety as some excuse to threaten POC when they protest. This is a gang of terrorists who run around the country to terrorize POC who protest peacefully, and look at what their presence has sparked. Now the left has their people coming armed and looking for violence. This is because the police did not do their job of arresting the proud boys for disturbing the peace, and because we do not have laws that make intimidation with a firearm a criminal offense.

Deliberate obtuseness is deliberatately obtuse

I assure you any obtuseness on my part is undel...indel... is not deliberate. I come by it honestly. So what's the Goddamn difference?

The difference? Is who the fuck cares? It’s 9:30 (CST) on a Saturday night. If you’re not drunk and/or single why the fuck are are you posting here?

no one fucking cares what your or my opinion is. In the end, Rittenhouse will be convicted or exonerated based on what the pool of acceptable jurists nd the judge have decided. The rest of us can bitch all we want. it won’t change anything.

Well okay then.

Then why did he try running away from Rosenbaum rather than using it? Why did he wait until he was on the ground being bludgeoned before firing on Huber? Why did he not shoot Grosskreutz at the earliest opportunity? Really sneaky of KR to wait until he could plausibly claim self-defense to fire!

If you bring a loaded gun to an armed robbery, sure, that shows premeditation. But how does what KR did look different from what millions of other Americans who defensively carry do?

Because I see zero intention to shoot anyone. Looks like self-defense to me.

Shitting your pants and running after showing up somewhere with an AR-15 where you had no business is a defense? I wonder how often that's been tried?

Here is where your side is not seeing it. There is a responsibility Rittenhouse has as being part of the altercation and creating the event. He went down there to participate in a violent gang war. He did not go down there to protect some businesses he does not own or have any connection to. He went down there to fight the people who were protesting. If you wanted to help the businesses clean up he could have done that the next day in safety and with cleaning materials and not a gun.

If Kyle was shot in his face by the guy with the pistol that he shot, I would be fine with that guy getting off on self defense. They all got into a fight and they were all violent. They should all go to jail for showing up to a gang war and participating. I do not think kyle should be up for murder, but he should be up for rioting and harassment and intimidation with a firearm. Those should be crimes. He should also be charged with discharging a firearm near roads, businesses, and homes. That is a crime in many places, and should be because you should not be firing your gun in a town, near a road, or near places where people live and do business. That should be an anti hunting law that carries a huge penalty.