Trump officially refuses to condemn Kenosha killer

[Middle-aged Europe]

Donald Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse.

Some right-wingers will probably feel emboldened to shoot further left-wingers in the future now. In return, some left-wingers will probably also feel emboldened to arm themselves in anticipation of that. Question is on which "side" someone will decide to strike first as sort of a preemptive self-defense.

But whatever, it's not like Trump actually cares about that. So why should I?

[T'Chenka]

Donald Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse.

Some right-wingers will probably feel emboldened to shoot further left-wingers in the future now. In return, some left-wingers will probably also feel emboldened to arm themselves in anticipation of that. Question is on which "side" someone will decide to strike first as sort of a preemptive self-defense.

But whatever, it's not like Trump actually cares about that. So why should I?

After five years, we finally know what Trump meant by "Make America Great Again".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's possible that Wisconsin law has moved a great distance from it (I wouldn't know), but you are all aware of what the general Common Law principles around Self Defence actually are, yes? Because much of the discussion I've seen here and elsewhere suggests otherwise...

[lfromnj]

I see that people here continue to defend and make excuses for a killer (when they aren't making a hero out of that piece of sh**t).
Good job mods.

I will repeat here my suggestion that people who justify murder should be muted or banned until election day.

Poster 1: Event E is certain murder, as the prosecution alleges! Accused murderer A must be condemned!

Poster 2: Too little is known of E. A should not be called a murderer absent new evidence.

Poster 3: Furthermore, the case made by the defense is more convincing. Barring new evidence, my hope is a Not Guilty verdict, and I suggest that A is unlikely to be a murderer.

Poster 4: As A's actions would be justified if the defense is correct, and E certainly occurred as the defense details, A's actions were therefore justified.

Poster 5: I know not whether the defense or prosecution is correct about E, but suggest that A is justified regardless!

Who gets banned? I hope only 5.

[Person Man]

If Trump wins, he wins the same exact way that W or Obama did.  Obama and W looked like it would be an uphill battle for them because their hallmark policies weren't as popular or effective as hoped. They weren't total failures, but most people were at least not happy with them. Noneoftheless, people were still interested to see if they could fix them.

Although with Bush, upon reexamining the exit polls, does appear to show that he won because of gay marriage. Maybe police power is Trump's gay marriage? I guess it does fall under the same "Law and Order" rhetoric.

What will be interesting to see with Trump is that the entire party would then be completely married to a lame duck and that his version of Iraq is also his version of Gay Marriage. How do you think that plays out?

[Sir Mohamed]

If Trump wins, he wins the same exact way that W or Obama did.  Obama and W looked like it would be an uphill battle for them because their hallmark policies weren't as popular or effective as hoped. They weren't total failures, but most people were at least not happy with them. Noneoftheless, people were still interested to see if they could fix them.

Although with Bush, upon reexamining the exit polls, does appear to show that he won because of gay marriage. Maybe police power is Trump's gay marriage? I guess it does fall under the same "Law and Order" rhetoric.

What will be interesting to see with Trump is that the entire party would then be completely married to a lame duck and that his version of Iraq is also his version of Gay Marriage. How do you think that plays out?

Obama's reelection was never an "uphill battle". He was always going into the race as the favorite for reelection from spring 2012 on. Not a heavy favorite such as Clinton or Reagan, but not close to where Trump is today. Even by the time of the DNC, the map was pretty much predictable. The only point in time Obama's victory was really in doubt was after the 1st debate, but he quickly got his act together while Romney had a weak finish.

I didn't follow the 2004 campaign at the time, but seems like W's chances were always around 50-50, if not slightly in his favor. His position throughout the election year isn't compareable to Trump in 2020 up to Sept. 1. Trump is in Carter or HW territory.

[Horus]

If Trump wins, he wins the same exact way that W or Obama did.  Obama and W looked like it would be an uphill battle for them because their hallmark policies weren't as popular or effective as hoped. They weren't total failures, but most people were at least not happy with them. Noneoftheless, people were still interested to see if they could fix them.

Although with Bush, upon reexamining the exit polls, does appear to show that he won because of gay marriage. Maybe police power is Trump's gay marriage? I guess it does fall under the same "Law and Order" rhetoric.

What will be interesting to see with Trump is that the entire party would then be completely married to a lame duck and that his version of Iraq is also his version of Gay Marriage. How do you think that plays out?

Obama's reelection was never an "uphill battle". He was always going into the race as the favorite for reelection from spring 2012 on. Not a heavy favorite such as Clinton or Reagan, but not close to where Trump is today. Even by the time of the DNC, the map was pretty much predictable. The only point in time Obama's victory was really in doubt was after the 1st debate, but he quickly got his act together while Romney had a weak finish.

I didn't follow the 2004 campaign at the time, but seems like W's chances were always around 50-50, if not slightly in his favor. His position throughout the election year isn't compareable to Trump in 2020 up to Sept. 1. Trump is in Carter or HW territory.

I would say Trump, because of his high floor, is somewhere between Bush '92 and Bush '04.

[Badger]

Donald Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse.

Some right-wingers will probably feel emboldened to shoot further left-wingers in the future now. In return, some left-wingers will probably also feel emboldened to arm themselves in anticipation of that. Question is on which "side" someone will decide to strike first as sort of a preemptive self-defense.

But whatever, it's not like Trump actually cares about that. So why should I?

After five years, we finally know what Trump meant by "Make America Great Again".

[sparkey]

Now what in the world is this miserable garbage dump of a "fact check" from PolitiFact?

She rates a true statement from Trump "false" because of "missing context," because it would be needed to support a conclusion that he didn't attempt to draw. Then, in attempting to draw a conclusion in the fact check, she misses a lot of context, including the pistol shot during the first pursuit and Grosskreutz drawing his gun at the end of the second. Plus she first says Huber "appeared to hit" Rittenhouse but then says that the fact that he was "violently attacked" "is not fully supported by the videos"... which is it???

Fact check: Stupid/10, Pants on Wrong

[lfromnj]

I think there are three broad possibilities here:

• Rittenhouse's life was not in danger from Rosenbaum, and he knew that, or at least had no excuse not to know. I'll defer to people better versed in the nuances of Wisconsin law as to what would cause him to face which exact charges.
• Rittenhouse's life was not in danger, but it's understandable why he thought it was. I'm thinking this leads to a low-level manslaughter if that.
• Rittenhouse's life was in danger, and the shooting was justified self-defense. He might face a charge of possessing the illegal weapon, but that would be it.

I find C to be by far the least plausible of the three, based on what we know. I understand the urge to presume innocence for Rittenhouse, but in order for him to be innocent, Rosenbaum would have had to been trying to take his gun and then murder him with it, and I'm just not buying that. Sadly Rosenbaum doesn't get to tell his side of the story.

Even Rittenhouse's own lawyers aren't really arguing C:

Rittenhouse eventually made his way toward a second auto shop where he was confronted by protesters, according to a news release.

"Upon the sound of a gunshot behind him, Kyle turned and was immediately faced with an attacker lunging towards him and reaching for his rifle," the attorneys said. "He reacted instantaneously and justifiably with his weapon to protect himself, firing and striking the attacker."

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-defended-himself-did-nothing-wrong-attorney-says/2330687/

It looks like his argument will be B, that he got spooked from hearing a gunshot in the distance and instinctively just shot the man, who happened to be unarmed and had nothing to do with the gunshot, but Rittenhouse can't be expected to have known that in a split second. I hope that if Rittenhouse's official defense in court is B, that all the Trump fans who've anointed Rittenhouse a hero will stop asserting that C is the obvious and only possible explanation.

As for the second killing, I think self-defense is at least plausible, considering how one of the people running after him did have a gun, but I still think that they were most likely planning to disarm him and turn him over to the police, rather than execute him vigilante style. Again, Huber never gets to tell his side of the story, but he appears to have been trying to be a hero, not a murderer himself.

Ultimately, Rittenhouse showed up to counterprotest something that had nothing to do with him, and needlessly brought a gun (that he was legally not allowed to have) and inflamed a situation. He will now have to face the consequences of that bad decision.

There is some debate that under Wisconsin law he might not be able to claim self-defense because he was in the process of committing a crime (illegal gun procession) when he "defended" himself.

Really funny to see these great takes a year later.(Note this take was never even serious because BRTD explained why)

[7,052,770]

Whew, thankfully I didn't post anything here that is embarrassing a year+ later, even as I softened somewhat on my view of the case.

[Umengus]

I think it's pretty clear by now to anyone with more than a couple of functioning brain cells who is the one rooting for more violence.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1300481849085571072

LOL

The left, as usual.

[Person Man]

Whew, thankfully I didn't post anything here that is embarrassing a year+ later, even as I softened somewhat on my view of the case.

It was a good call.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think it's pretty clear by now to anyone with more than a couple of functioning brain cells who is the one rooting for more violence.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1300481849085571072

Another Landslide Lyndon post that didn't age well.

Trump was correct in his response to this.  That should be the Presidential response to all trials, no matter how notorious or virtuous the defendant.

[emailking]

This was Trump's statement:

Congratulations to Kyle Rittenhouse for being found INNOCENT of all charges. It's called being found NOT GUILTY - And by the way, if that's not self defense, nothing is!

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-congratulates-kyle-rittenhouse-101405587.html

[Fuzzy Bear]

This was Trump's statement:

Congratulations to Kyle Rittenhouse for being found INNOCENT of all charges. It's called being found NOT GUILTY - And by the way, if that's not self defense, nothing is!

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-congratulates-kyle-rittenhouse-101405587.html

Trump is no longer President.  This is his statement as a private citizen.  It is also a statement after a verdict in the trial, and not an opinion given before the trial has started.

[emailking]

His statement was absurd.