U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 19, 2021 02:20 PM UTC
40 Comments
It’s the news dominating discussion as the cycle fades into the din of Thanksgiving week, so here’s a thread to discuss the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenage vigilante who everybody agrees killed two complete strangers in the street with a weapon he legally should not have possessed–and just got away with it.
This outcome was foreshadowed on the night of the homicides, when the cops gave Rittenhouse and his compadres bottled water and a rousing "Thank you for your service" speech.
This is a green light and a clear signal to all aspiring violent militias/vigilantes and MAGA mass murderers that they can kill as many people as they want with no consequences. It will be open season on protesters from now on.
This shameful excuse for a country will only become more violent and more lawless as the years grind on.
So many questions:
Does this mean you can shoot riot policemen and get away with self defense?
If two people have guns to defend themselves, which one gets to claim self-defense?
If the race of the shoot is not White, is self-defense still applicable?
If you bring a gun into a school and someone throws a book at you, can you start shooting students?
Heisenberg Uncertainty Vigilantism.
Do two bad guys with guns make one of them a good guy?
Do two good guys with guns make one of them a bad guy?
Well, whatever you think of the jury’s performance of their role, they were the least fucked cog in that machine
Sad but true.
Biden’s statement highlights everything we need to know about the difference between left and right in America.
On the one hand, we have President Biden overtly endorsing the obviously broken system and its unquestionably unjust outcome, while implicitly calling for peace; a call that the left will likely largely follow.
On the other hand, we have the deranged criminal Trump and his deranged violent followers, literally getting away with murder, and joyously celebrating that, while calling for more.
I see a lot of people saying that if the defendant were any color other than white, he would have been shot on sight. True.
But I think we also have to acknowledge that if the weapon had been anything other than a gun (a switchblade, or a baseball bat), we'd have a guilty verdict.
Blessed be the gun owners, I guess.
Where is our friend Negev at a time like this?
Or does he only appear when there has been a mass shooting somewhere?
I take some small comfort in knowing that Rittenhouse has almost no chance of living to a ripe old age . . .
. . . he’ll likely die by his own hand using one of his freedumb toys,
. . . or, he won’t be so very lucky in the next armed confrontation he initiates.
. . . he’s not one who might come to mind when you try to picture either “stable,” or “genius.”
He's going to be fine – he's going to end up a millionaire by selling a book and taking a job on Fox News or Newsmax and eventually being elected to Congress.
Yup, Illinois now has it's very own Lauren Boebert
Rittenhouse will make millions starting a rock band and covering "Tears in Heaven."
ok, this is the new "Rittenhouse Defense"…If a magat mask grabber comes at me to grab my mask, or to do other violent things, I can now blow that magat's face off…seems fair…
The prosecutors overreached. This might shock some of you but I don’t approve of Rittenhouse’s actions. But it was not a case of first degree murder. They should have gone for manslaughter.
Nice that you don’t approve of wholesale state-sanctioned murder of leftist protesters. Since that’s a bit of a low bar, please take a look at my diary
on Lakewood street corner protests from last summer and fall. These started out as “Black Lives Matter” silent vigils at intersections, and evolved to include signs for other issues, including Democratic GOTV efforts. For the latter, we were often mimicked and accompanied by Trumpers waving giant Trump flags.
Most passers by were supportive or neutral; however, some felt they had to yell “All Lives Matter” or call us terrorists, or Antifa, or what have you. Some threw water bottles; some flipped us off or cursed.
Since Rittenhouse walked free, I’d expect escalation from these latter people.
Here’s my questions for you: since these were peaceful, usually silent vigils, would your average gun totin’ MAGA lovin’ freedom fighter be justified in blowing one of us away? Those Black Lives Matter signs are certainly threatening to your buddies, and if a manslaughter verdict is the toughest penalty they might receive for their actions, would it be worth it to silence another leftist?
Also, are people with whom you disagree allowed their First Amendment Rights, or is that only for Republicans and conservatives?
kwtree, the people who flipped you off, cursed you and called you terrorists had an absolute right to do so. Free speech is not for the left alone.
I never said that the drivers- by did not have that right- and our policy was not to engage with them. The people who threw trash and water bottles at us did not have the right to harass us physically.
The Trumper who kept stepping in front of us and blocking our signs with his giant flag was in a legal grey area. His actions were confrontational and intended to start violence. The Jeffco police thought so, too, as they asked him and his fellows to stand on a different corner.
Maybe not, but it's tough sometimes to determine what you actually mean, what with all the accompanying rhetoric.
No one has the right to assault another.
SCOTUS has decided (correctly) more than once that some categories of speech do not have the 1st Amendment guarantee and protection.
I am probably forgetting some, but defamation, obscenity, real threats, fraud, child pornography, speech as art of illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawlessness, speech that violates intellectual property law, true, some commercial speech and the ones I am forgetting.
Did any of the opposition speech or belligerence directed at the street corner activists rise to the level of any of the not protected and even prohibited categories? I am neither lawyer nor law enforcement.
kwtree's point is spot on. How many of the good citizens of Kenosha will be less willing to protest or speak out now? How many provocateurs with violent intent, with or without weapons, will be motivated to come to Kenosha, Lakewood, Charlottesville, Portland, Tulsa Ferguson, or Selma? If even one, the idea of America is diminished.
Speaking of self defense, when protestors in American feel threatened, when can they legally shoot? Hell, when can they lawfully bear arms?
If I emulate George Zimmerman and decide to defend a community that neither includes nor wants me, can I? Sensing danger and risk in another state can I load up my weapons and drive over placing myself in a conflict sure to elicit threats, can I start shooting when I feel threatened?
How about “All lives matter?”
” Restrict illegal immigration. “
“There are small but measureable IQ differences between various identity groups, with Asians testing the highest.”
” Abortion takes human life. “
“Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish national homeland behind secure borders.”
All of those and a lot more would get you banned from many college campuses today, Matt, and might make you the target of violence. Do you regard those as examples of speech unworthy of legal protection? And if not, how far would you go to protect the rights of traditional thinking on college campuses?
Links with specific examples of political persecution, please, not just vague assertions.
Even John Eastman, revealed to be a proven insurrectionist, kept his jobs at three different institutions, not just CU Boulder, until his January 6 actions made that untenable. Students at Cu were boycotting his classes- which is their right.
Disagreement and dialogue do not equal persecution. Studies show tolerance for conservative views on campus.
Wasn't there a Asian-American student at Yale Law School who is a right winger and got busted for politically incorrect stuff?
I can't remember his name but it was couple of months ago.
If this is the same one you’re thinking of, it was a professor and hubby who transgressed all kinds of boundaries with students- but yes, hubby did present it as getting targeted by the liberal left.
yes, thanks for the link
I do not know if any of those examples rise to the SCOTUS defined level. I am not a lawyer.
My point is that there is a level.
As for "…make you the target of violence" if I am armed, and I feel threatened, I can open fire, right?
I would also point out that any of those examples or a thousand others spoken with intent to suppress protected speech, become a problem because of the illegal intent to suppress.
You know this, V. No one should get to silence the press trying to report the news. Likewise, protected political speech cannot be suppressed and should not be intimidated by threats of violence.
Wow!!! Moddy. You actually said something that makes sense!!! Sorry. I still have to put my eyes back in their sockets. They bugged out when I read that.
I know. But then again the broke clock is right twice each day.
Seems to me this verdict directly applies to the shooting of Lee Keltner by the private security guard, a year ago at a BLM protest. Keltner had just used pepper spray on Dolloff when the shooting occurred. Keltner is being charged with second-degree manslaughter and has pled not guilty.
Security guard claims self-defense in fatal shooting at Denver protest; victim identified – ABC News (go.com)
VERY different status of participant. Someone hired to provide "security" without getting the required permit is in a different circumstance.
Very different legal standards, where the guard is acting without authorization to have a gun in Denver (which denies "open carry" and unlicensed concealed carry) and the client (the tv station) did not hire "armed" security.
And I'm not certain, but I don't think the state of Colorado offers a "stand your ground" law — I think the Supreme Court accepted the concept in a case, but I don't know circumstances or status as a solid precedent for all cases.
Yes there is one here, JiD. Here’s which states have them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
The Wikipedia article confirms what I thought … Colorado doesn't have a law, it has a court decision: "8 of the 38 stand-your-ground states[11] have case law/precedent or jury instructions so providing: California,[12][13] Colorado,…"
An attorney, writing in the Vail Daily, says
In the hearings for this murder trial, it seems that the issues are the same – i.e. the fact that Dolloff was hired security or shouldn't have had a gun isn't affecting the "stand your ground" defense. Those hearings are set to resume on Dec. 10. I still think Rittenhouse will loom large in the analysis. Evidence discrepancies the focus of motions hearing in Civic Center Park shooting trial | Local News | denvergazette.com
Time for you to retract and make corrections to your story Pols instead of simply parroting falsehoods published on the web or tweets by Jerry Nadler (one of the foremost proponents of the Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy based on a fake dossier utilized to obtain a FISA warrant.)
Rittenhouse did not cross state lines with an "assault weapon". The AR 15 was at a friends house in Kenosha according to police records and court testimony. The friend who bought the weapon for Rittenhouse is being prosecuted (and rightly so) for being a "straw buyer" which is illegal.
The AR 15 was not an "illegal weapon" as you allege. The court at trial dismissed the count of possession of an illegal weapon because the AR 15 was a legal weapon under Wisconsin statue.
The jury came to a unanimous verdict of "not guilty" on all counts after deliberation of the facts, not the kind of hearsay and falsehoods as contained in your post.
Allyncooper, you’re jumping at gnats and ignoring the rabid rats.
The gnat: Rittenhouse didn’t cross state lines with the AR15. He did pick up the gun, which as a 17 year old he was not allowed to carry, in Wisconsin. So it makes no difference; the gun was illegal for him to carry.
AP looks at the actual crimes Rittenhouse was charged with show some “rats” he should have been convicted on:
The first count was Rosenbaum’s murder.
Second was firng at McGinnis.
Third was firing at an unknown man.
Fourth was murder of Anthony Huber.
Fifth was injuring Gaige Grosskreutz.
All were aggravated by the weapon Rittenhouse chose to carry. Most were endangering safety and showing reckless disregard for human life.
Do you deny that those two men would be alive today had Rittenhouse not showed up carrying an AR15 and showing disregard for public safety and recklessness with human life?
The judge was biased. The jury did not see video showing Rittenhouse as the instigator. Had he been black, his victims would be lauded as martyrs and heroes.
Yes, the judge clearly was biased.
Thanks for the feedback, we did edit this post to correctly account for the weapon's location. Also the judge did throw out the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon on a technicality a few days before the verdict.
https://www.insider.com/6-myths-surrounding-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-debunked-2021-11
Colorado Pols are you saying it is illegal to cross state lines? Millions do so daily, indeed Rittenhouse did so the day before to go to work. Are you saying Rittenhouse wasn't legally able to carry the rifle which had a barrel 16.25" long? If so you are mistaken, as was established during the trial. It is perfectly legal for a 17 year old to have a rifle of that size. You should probably delete that whole thing.
But beyond that why do you wish a teenager who has rightly been found by a 12 person jury to be innocent, to be further harassed? Talk about vigilantism? What do you call it when someone, a minor mind you, is found not guilty as anyone with eyes and a quick look at the vids can tell you, is railroaded into a conviction by a mob of the self righteous? That is exactly what our system of justice is built to guard against. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
som sai* , that sweet lil’ teenager shot at 5 people, and killed two. The video that the jury did not see ( because judge didn’t allow it) clearly showed Rittenhouse instigating the violence..
He was 17- not allowed to carry a weapon unless hunting ( game, not people). Politifact said your claim that Rittenhouse was legally carrying is false.
So how do you figure Rittenhouse is being “railroaded into conviction by a mob of the self-righteous”? Are the families of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz a “mob”? They will soon be plaintiffs, and Rittenhouse will be paying them most of whatever ill-gotten gains he gets from his crimes.
No, no shame for Pols. For you, Mr. “I am”, there’s plenty of shame you should feel.
(* som sai means “ I am” in Slovak)