Quote from: ciao_yall on November 19, 2021, 11:42:10 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 19, 2021, 11:01:58 AM
The jury has found Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts.
That's a travesty. It's also--for the free speech heroes among us--going to seriously chill protest, since it makes it clear that murdering protesters is permissible (as if all those new laws allowing you to run them over didn't already).
Agreed. I'm guessing the jury felt sorry for the dumb kid.
Quote from: mamselle on November 19, 2021, 11:44:36 AM
The idiot judge's signaling moves didn't help, either.
M.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 19, 2021, 12:05:42 PM
Are you particularly sorry for the one who beat Rittenhouse over the head with a skateboard, or the one who (by his own admission on the stand) got shot after he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse?
A few posters have commented on the Rittenhouse Case in various ways. See above. In addition to the outcome -- the justice of the verdict, one might question the process of getting to the verdict.
Marsh's question is about the weight of the evidence. It's a fair question, a question that must be answered -- by a juror. Were I a juror I would not hesitate to answer it, one way or the other.
As for the other comments, where is the travesty?
--In the jury selection system?
--Size of the jury? 12, 24, the whole public?
--In the judge selection system?
--In the laws?
--In trial by jury under Common Law? Under Civil Law? In trial by jury at all?
--In the share of jurors needed to convict?
We don't need a Committee of Public Safety, or do we?
Feeling sorry for the dumb kid is quite possible, but all 12? I doubt it.
The judge could be incompetent or biased. Prosecution has means to deal with it.
Look, what are better alternatives? Trial by public opinion? Trial by journalists' opinions? If so, I prefer jousting!
There are several YouTube channels by lawyers, and it was interesting watching those channels about 2 trials simultaneously; the Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos trial, and the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. These lawyers (who have no connection to either case; they only get their information from the public sources) have progressively noted how the prosecution's case became ever more solid in one case, and ever more tenuous in the other. The difference is quite dramatic.
I'm a bit tired and busy to engage in detail at the moment, so I'll spare you. But I want to note one thing:
On the one hand, "the Left" had to abase itself because someone punched a Nazi in the face. We spent months dissecting it, and "the left" fell over itself to disavow violence, even against Nazis.
On the other hand, this guy murdered two people and maimed a third (and got away with it). And he's being very vocally cheered along for it.
Juries often return bad verdicts. That's a cost we have to live with. And I remain firm in my belief that it's better to let someone get off than to wrongly imprison another. But we need to be able to recognize when the system has returned a bad verdict like this. And all the Rittenhero bullshit is deeply, deeply worrying. This guy is not being disavowed by the right: he's been and is being lionized. That should worry us all.
Apparently, the man didn't murder two people, nor was he guilty of maiming a third. That's what a trial by jury determines.
Is the problem with the outcome or with the system?
Quote from: dismalist on November 19, 2021, 01:44:10 PM
Apparently, the man didn't murder two people, nor was he guilty of maiming a third. That's what a trial by jury determines.
Sure, fine. He killed them with an illegal gun he obtained so he could shoot people with it. He compromised them to a permanent end. Whatever.
And according to the judge, the people he killed weren't "victims", they were "rioters" or "looters" (never mind that the latter appellations are defamatory and haven't been established).
Quote
Is the problem with the outcome or with the system?
There are problems with both. Obviously.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 19, 2021, 01:51:44 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 19, 2021, 01:44:10 PM
Apparently, the man didn't murder two people, nor was he guilty of maiming a third. That's what a trial by jury determines.
Sure, fine. He killed them with an illegal gun he obtained so he could shoot people with it. He compromised them to a permanent end. Whatever.
And according to the judge, the people he killed weren't "victims", they were "rioters" or "looters" (never mind that the latter appellations are defamatory and haven't been established).
Quote
Is the problem with the outcome or with the system?
There are problems with both. Obviously.
Not obvious at all.
Bad judge? Incompetent prosecution! System must be broke?
An outcome one doesn't like is not a sufficient condition for believing that the outcome was either some random error or that the system is rotten.
Looks to me like some people don't like the outcome on other grounds.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 19, 2021, 01:51:44 PM
And according to the judge, the people he killed weren't "victims", they were "rioters" or "looters" (never mind that the latter appellations are defamatory and haven't been established).
I didn't care for that either. This might cause the jury to be biased in favor of those that Kyle shot, as looting is a heroic act of social justice, made necessary by the fact that white people have refused to make an offer of cash reparations. How does the jury know they are looters? They may have just been hanging around, trying to get esteem by association.
One of the NYT articles on the verdict:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/rittenhouse-acquittal-self-defense.html
Here's a New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante/amp?fbclid=IwAR0I0HMES4PyHikWkGGRs7v3ia7c54w_Idgfrqs7WSak62iPtXHE1nfT4W4) article.
Closing sentences:
If a jury appears to sanction vigilantism, it seems likely that more altercations between protesters and counter-protesters will turn deadly.
Thomas sees the case as "a bellwether," putting "guns at the forefront of the stability of our democracy." Protecting citizens' safety "is a primary function of our government," she said. "Yet it's gotten to the point where this idea that you have a right to carry a loaded weapon is starting to literally overtake other rights—the right to express your vote, the right to assemble without fear."
Omg, this is just horrible, horrible. I have never heard of a Black person getting away with murdering two people to be honest. :/
plus one ^
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 20, 2021, 08:06:26 AM
Here's a New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante/amp?fbclid=IwAR0I0HMES4PyHikWkGGRs7v3ia7c54w_Idgfrqs7WSak62iPtXHE1nfT4W4) article.
Closing sentences:
If a jury appears to sanction vigilantism, it seems likely that more altercations between protesters and counter-protesters will turn deadly.
Thomas sees the case as "a bellwether," putting "guns at the forefront of the stability of our democracy." Protecting citizens' safety "is a primary function of our government," she said. "Yet it's gotten to the point where this idea that you have a right to carry a loaded weapon is starting to literally overtake other rights—the right to express your vote, the right to assemble without fear."
More silly liberal outrage. The lesson to be taken from this horrible experience is that things like this are bound to happen when the mayor of the city neglects to let the police keep peace on the streets.
The term 'mostly peaceful protests' from the insufferable liberal media is the culprit. Over the last couple years untold mayhem has been permitted because
not all protesters are doing illegal things. So what?
whacking someone with your skateboard is illegal. So is verbally threatening to kill someone. This is what the dead men did. These things are incendiary and may lead to horrible consequences. Common sense.
ETA: and the other lesson to be taken from this disaster: thank God and the rule of law we have the courts. Even when people are going insane the law, jury, judge, can do their work. 'The wheels of justice grind slow but fine.'
John Kass
https://johnkassnews.com/who-will-apologize-to-kyle-rittenhouse-biden-the-media-dont-hold-your-breath/
From the New Yorker:
"President Donald Trump had been highlighting the destructive aspects of such protests
in order to malign the Black Lives Matter movement."This is kind of stuff that makes my blood boil. Many of the protests were
riots. 'Riots' is the proper English language term for when citizens assemble and disturb the peace with mayhem. The POTUS is as capable of noticing this as are the people who elected him, and it is his job to have a conversation with us from time to time about the state of the nation.
The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.
No matter the defendant's color, no matter the attitudes toward firearms, I think the jury did the right thing.
You cannot find someone guilty of murder simply to make an example or because of the possibility that something might happen in the future.
I stopped reading the New Yorker's political pieces for the same reason I do not watch FOX News.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 09:39:28 AM
The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.
No matter the defendant's color, no matter the attitudes toward firearms, I think the jury did the right thing.
You cannot find someone guilty of murder simply to make an example or because of the possibility that something might happen in the future.
I stopped reading the New Yorker's political pieces for the same reason I do not watch FOX News.
He was attacked
because he shot someone. The people he killed and maimed were unarmed and not his attackers.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 20, 2021, 10:21:40 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 09:39:28 AM
The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.
No matter the defendant's color, no matter the attitudes toward firearms, I think the jury did the right thing.
You cannot find someone guilty of murder simply to make an example or because of the possibility that something might happen in the future.
I stopped reading the New Yorker's political pieces for the same reason I do not watch FOX News.
He was attacked because he shot someone. The people he killed and maimed were unarmed and not his attackers.
Review the chain of events.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 20, 2021, 10:21:40 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 09:39:28 AM
The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.
No matter the defendant's color, no matter the attitudes toward firearms, I think the jury did the right thing.
You cannot find someone guilty of murder simply to make an example or because of the possibility that something might happen in the future.
I stopped reading the New Yorker's political pieces for the same reason I do not watch FOX News.
He was attacked because he shot someone. The people he killed and maimed were unarmed and not his attackers.
Even the
New York Times article above doesn't say that: He shot someone
because he was attacked by that someone. [After that he was skateboarded and then threatened with a pistol.]
The sequence of events, according to the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/03/kenosha-shooting-victims/?itid=hp-top-table-main
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 09:39:28 AM
The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.
He was brandishing a weapon, which by definition makes him the aggressor.
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 20, 2021, 10:46:52 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 09:39:28 AM
The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.
He was brandishing a weapon, which by definition makes him the aggressor.
Brandishing a weapon is illegal in Wisconsin. Five or so of the charges against Rittenhouse have appended to them or have in them "use of a dangerous weapon". He was declared not guilty of all of them.
Wikipedia does not have a paywall:
Quote
Rittenhouse had been pursued by a group that included Kenosha resident Joseph Rosenbaum, who was unarmed.[10] After Racine resident Joshua Ziminski allegedly fired a shot into the air,[11][12] Rittenhouse turned towards Rosenbaum,[13] who according to a witness lunged at him and tried to take his rifle.[14] Rittenhouse fired four times at Rosenbaum, killing him.[15][16] Rittenhouse then ran down the street while being followed by a crowd of around a dozen people.[17] He tripped and fell to the ground after being hit in the head, then fired twice at a 39-year-old man who jump kicked him, his shots missing both times.[18][19] While Rittenhouse was still on the ground, Silver Lake resident Anthony Huber struck him in the shoulder with a skateboard and attempted to take his rifle. Rittenhouse fired at Huber once, fatally striking him in the chest.[10][20] When West Allis resident Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse while carrying a handgun which, in court, he admitted having pointed at Rittenhouse.[21] Rittenhouse shot him once in the right arm.[20][22]
The NYTimes article linked above:
Quote
During the unrest he was pursued by a man, Joseph Rosenbaum, who Mr. Rittenhouse said he feared would wrest control of his gun. Mr. Rittenhouse shot and killed him. That, according to evidence presented at the trial, caused members of the crowd to perceive Mr. Rittenhouse as a dangerous aggressor.
One man, Anthony Huber, used a skateboard as a weapon against him. Mr. Rittenhouse shot and killed him before facing off with a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, who had pulled out a handgun. Mr. Rittenhouse wounded him in the arm.
And watch the videos.
So no, you are wrong.
Is Rittenhouse a stupid young jerk who should have stayed home? Yes.
Is he a gullible little wanna-be tough-guy? Probably.
Is he a product of conservative zealotry and (ostensible) racial bigotry? Probably.
Was he "ethically wrong" to insert himself into the situation in Kenosha? Yes.
Did he do anything illegal in going to Kenosha? No.
As it turns out, did the weapon he was carrying actually fit within the bounds of the law for a 17 year old? Yes.
Does any of that give protestors the right to attack him? Of course not.
Did Grosskreutz in court admit he pointed a pistol at Rittenhouse? Yes.
Should Kyle's mother be given an award for the Worst Mother of the 21st Century? Yes.
We may not like Kyle or what he stands for----I certainly do not. And I had exactly the same impression of the case as do a number of the posters here. Then I watched the video and read about the chain of events.
We cannot just make up facts to fit our own cultural beliefs. And the law applies even to stupid, now-traumatized young wanna-be tough guys.
I agree with a lot of what Wahoo just posted. But I have a question regarding one statement, and also something dismalist said.
First a short belief statement. I don't think the type of weapon he carried should be legal to own. That it can be in the US is awful.
That said, he did not legally purchase the weapon under current law; it was "given" to him by someone unrelated to him, and he carried it across state lines. Is there no Federal charge that can be used in such a case?
Finally, while dismalist is correct on the attached brandishing charges, I did not see anywhere that a specific charge of brandishing was included. I think it was obvious he did that.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 11:16:10 AM
Is he a product of conservative zealotry and (ostensible) racial bigotry? Probably.
What is this zealotry and what evidence is there of racial bigotry? Could it be declining to be a fan of BLM?
ETA: A member(s) of the Proud Boys applauding you for trying to protect businesses from looters and arsonists, graffiti slobs and other vandals is not evidence that one is a white supremacist.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 20, 2021, 11:46:22 AM
I agree with a lot of what Wahoo just posted. But I have a question regarding one statement, and also something dismalist said.
First a short belief statement. I don't think the type of weapon he carried should be legal to own. That it can be in the US is awful.
--While the press often describes an "AR-15 style" weapon as a military weapon, that is not true. The civilian versions are semi-automatic. They have no full auto. Nevertheless, they can be fired rapidly. [I often think Scalia, the textualist, should have consulted his 18th century dictionary [he really used one!] for the definition of "arm". One could hardly use muskets in the rain!]
That said, he did not legally purchase the weapon under current law; it was "given" to him by someone unrelated to him, and he carried it across state lines. Is there no Federal charge that can be used in such a case?
--He didn't carry the gun across state lines. He picked it up from a friend in Wisconsin itself.
Finally, while dismalist is correct on the attached brandishing charges, I did not see anywhere that a specific charge of brandishing was included. I think it was obvious he did that.
--He was not accused of brandishing as far as I can tell from googling. Maybe it wasn't obvious. Maybe the prosecution was incompetent.
Thank you sir!
I don't think of an AR-15 as being military; I just wish they weren't legal to own. Machine guns were made illegal in that way after their use by crooks in the early 20th century because they were so dangerous. I think this category of weapon should be treated in the same way.
I agree the prosecution was not great at all. On another board I visit a commentator pointed out how a legal analyst (don't know who, don't know where) had contrasted this pRosecution with the skilled way in which the case against Elizabeth Holmes is being conducted.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 20, 2021, 11:46:22 AM
I don't think the type of weapon he carried should be legal to own. That it can be in the US is awful.
I think it was obvious he did that.
As you said, it is legal to own such a weapon. Part of the issue with "assault rifles" that we can buy at a gun shop is that they are not structurally all that different from your average hunting rifles. Cosmetically, the weapon Rittenhouse was carrying looked like a military automatic assault rifle, but it wasn't. That is precisely why the weapons charge was dropped; the rifle fit within the definition of a hunting rifle, which 17 year old kids can carry. These cosmetic differences between hunting and "assault" rifles, which do not actually equate to differences in lethality or mechanism, are precisely why "assault" rifles are so hard to ban.
What is the law relating to brandishing in Wisconsin? The prosecution was pretty aggressive----I don't know why they would not pursue a charge of menacing with a weapon if they thought it would stick.
If it is any comfort, consider what this fame and infamy and civil liability is going to do to Rittenhouse's life.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 20, 2021, 01:18:35 PM
Thank you sir!
I don't think of an AR-15 as being military; I just wish they weren't legal to own. Machine guns were made illegal in that way after their use by crooks in the early 20th century because they were so dangerous. I think this category of weapon should be treated in the same way.
If they weren't legal to own, why would he have had one? Maybe you wish the laws were different so Kyle would be guilty of something.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 03:05:31 PM
If it is any comfort, consider what this fame and infamy and civil liability is going to do to Rittenhouse's life.
He now wears the scarlet 'W.' For 'white supremacist.'
"W" for "white supremacist," even if he is not.
"M" for "murderer," even though he was acquitted, and for "moron."
"I" for "in over his head."
"C" for "crier," an image which will always be a part of his public persona from now on.
"H" for "hero" for angry conservative sociopaths and gullible troglodytes.
"B" is for "bankrupt" after the lawsuits which the kick-starters will not be able to cover.
"T" for "target" for all sorts of people, rightly or wrongly.
Rightly or wrongly, like Zimmerman, these events will travel with him through life.
And I can't feel sorry for him, even as I feel sorry for this poor young fool who is clearly not a killer at heart but was manipulated into being a shooter by the zeitgeist.
mahagonny, you are part of the zeitgeist that killed two guys and ruined this kid's life.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 20, 2021, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 20, 2021, 01:18:35 PM
Thank you sir!
I don't think of an AR-15 as being military; I just wish they weren't legal to own. Machine guns were made illegal in that way after their use by crooks in the early 20th century because they were so dangerous. I think this category of weapon should be treated in the same way.
If they weren't legal to own, why would he have had one? Maybe you wish the laws were different so Kyle would be guilty of something.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 03:05:31 PM
If it is any comfort, consider what this fame and infamy and civil liability is going to do to Rittenhouse's life.
He now wears the scarlet 'W.' For 'white supremacist.'
Don't be an ass. I want the laws to be different so that it is harder for people to be killed by other people with those and similar weapons. The first time I felt like this was when I was watching Columbine unfold live. I've gotten to re-live that sickening feeling over and over again. Sandy Hook. Dylan Roof. Pulse. The radicalized terrorists in California. The Walmart gunman in Texas. So no, my feelings about this way preceded Kyle Rittenhouse. Sorry if you can't wrap your head around that.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 20, 2021, 05:02:40 PM
Don't be an ass. I want the laws to be different so that it is harder for people to be killed by other people with those and similar weapons. The first time I felt like this was when I was watching Columbine unfold live. I've gotten to re-live that sickening feeling over and over again. Sandy Hook. Dylan Roof. Pulse. The radicalized terrorists in California. The Walmart gunman in Texas. So no, my feelings about this way preceded Kyle Rittenhouse. Sorry if you can't wrap your head around that.
You don't have to like him. The self-defense provision strikes me as odd in a way. Whereas under the law every person has an equal right to their own life, with killing someone in self defense it seems like you get to circumvent that. You get to value your own life over another's and act on greater society accordingly. Do we think Kyle's life will benefit society more than the others'? Who do you like or dislike more?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 04:44:09 PM
mahagonny, you are part of the zeitgeist that killed two guys and ruined this kid's life.
I'll wear my scarlet 'Z' with appropriate shame, but not too much, since you already tried to link Kyle to white supremacy without any real reason.
QuoteWhereas under the law every person has an equal right to their own life, with killing someone in self defense it seems like you get to circumvent that. You get to value your own life over another's and act on greater society accordingly.
The law recognizes property rights. You have property in your own life. If someone tries to take it, you have the right to defend yourself from this attempted theft. It's like defending your bubble gum from theft, only a hell of a lot more serious.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 20, 2021, 06:12:13 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 20, 2021, 05:02:40 PM
Don't be an ass. I want the laws to be different so that it is harder for people to be killed by other people with those and similar weapons. The first time I felt like this was when I was watching Columbine unfold live. I've gotten to re-live that sickening feeling over and over again. Sandy Hook. Dylan Roof. Pulse. The radicalized terrorists in California. The Walmart gunman in Texas. So no, my feelings about this way preceded Kyle Rittenhouse. Sorry if you can't wrap your head around that.
You don't have to like him. The self-defense provision strikes me as odd in a way. Whereas under the law every person has an equal right to their own life, with killing someone in self defense it seems like you get to circumvent that. You get to value your own life over another's and act accordingly. Do we think Kyle's life will benefit society more than the others'?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 04:44:09 PM
mahagonny, you are part of the zeitgeist that killed two guys and ruined this kid's life.
I'll wear my scarlet 'Z' with appropriate shame, but not too much, since you already tried to link Kyle to white supremacy without any real reason.
Rightly or wrongly, Rittenhouse is now implicated in white supremacy discourse. I do not know what he believes. It is not a big stretch to imagine him associated with those people who honestly do harbor racist beliefs. Conservatives bristle at charges of racism after years of race baiting and stoking racial resentments, then they, like you, regurgitate faux-outrage whenever the subject comes up.
QuoteConservatives bristle at charges of racism after years of race baiting and stoking racial resentments
Contemporary race accusation is a product of the left.
And this is the heart of the Rittenhouse case?
Quote from: dismalist on November 20, 2021, 06:28:17 PM
QuoteConservatives bristle at charges of racism after years of race baiting and stoking racial resentments
Contemporary race accusation is a product of the left.
And this is the heart of the Rittenhouse case?
Well, the Kenosha unrest was a reaction to the Jacob Blake shooting----so yes, race is at the very heart of the Rittenhouse case.
Rittenhouse's beliefs are a mystery. He did go drinking with the Proud Boys after he made bail, and apparently he was photographed making a "white power" hand gesture (thumb and forefinger in a circle) which was actually a faux-symbol from a 4chan hoax-----the question would be if Rittenhouse knew that or not, or if he was bright enough to know who the Proud Boys are. Was he doing parody? Or was he drunk and carried away? Or was he making a white power hand gesture?
I don't know----I've never even been to Kenosha----but I'll say again that he, like a lot of us at that age, seems to be an impressionable teenager caught up in the idea of vigilante heroics, and he is paying the price for it. And at the very deepest heart, race is at the center of these heroics.
And sure, the left launched a number of race accusations. However, we have real problems with race in our country, something that many conservatives resist, probably because it conflicts with their mythologies. Do "leftists" pull the hair-trigger on race a good deal? Sure. But part of this is because conservatives, by and large, frequently have their own reflexive hair-trigger regarding race. The two polarities galvanize each other ad nauseum.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 07:30:15 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 20, 2021, 06:28:17 PM
QuoteConservatives bristle at charges of racism after years of race baiting and stoking racial resentments
Contemporary race accusation is a product of the left.
And this is the heart of the Rittenhouse case?
Well, the Kenosha unrest was a reaction to the Jacob Blake shooting----so yes, race is at the very heart of the Rittenhouse case.
...because the Jacob Blake incident and the George Floyd incident were about race. Okay...
ETA: What was this incident about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa
Quote from: mahagonny on November 20, 2021, 08:17:48 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 07:30:15 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 20, 2021, 06:28:17 PM
QuoteConservatives bristle at charges of racism after years of race baiting and stoking racial resentments
Contemporary race accusation is a product of the left.
And this is the heart of the Rittenhouse case?
Well, the Kenosha unrest was a reaction to the Jacob Blake shooting----so yes, race is at the very heart of the Rittenhouse case.
...because the Jacob Blake incident and the George Floyd incident were about race. Okay...
ETA: What was this incident about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa
Well, I don't know that any of those incidents were truly about race. I cannot imagine anybody torturing someone as the police did Floyd no matter how they are. I simply cannot understand that.
I don't know that the killing of Timpa was about race----I had never heard of the incident before. It sounds more like police brutality to me, as does the Floyd case. The Blake case sounds to me like excessive force on an admittedly violent and armed criminal. I wouldn't know how to gage that one.
Importantly, however, the perception of these incidents as racial profiling and unwarranted police violence toward a minority person is how they are fixed in many people's minds. That is why the heart of these protests are race, rightly or wrongly.
But why even bring this up, mahagonny? Why is that some people, very often angry conservatives, try to play these sorts of games?
If you think Timpa's death was an atrocity, go protest it. That is your right.
Or maybe you should get some therapy, my man.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 09:42:49 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 20, 2021, 08:17:48 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 07:30:15 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 20, 2021, 06:28:17 PM
QuoteConservatives bristle at charges of racism after years of race baiting and stoking racial resentments
Contemporary race accusation is a product of the left.
And this is the heart of the Rittenhouse case?
Well, the Kenosha unrest was a reaction to the Jacob Blake shooting----so yes, race is at the very heart of the Rittenhouse case.
...because the Jacob Blake incident and the George Floyd incident were about race. Okay...
ETA: What was this incident about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tony_Timpa
Well, I don't know that any of those incidents were truly about race. I cannot imagine anybody torturing someone as the police did Floyd no matter how they are. I simply cannot understand that.
I don't know that the killing of Timpa was about race----I had never heard of the incident before. It sounds more like police brutality to me, as does the Floyd case. The Blake case sounds to me like excessive force on an admittedly violent and armed criminal. I wouldn't know how to gage that one.
Importantly, however, the perception of these incidents as racial profiling and unwarranted police violence toward a minority person is how they are fixed in many people's minds. That is why the heart of these protests are race, rightly or wrongly.
But why even bring this up, mahagonny? Why is that some people, very often angry conservatives, try to play these sorts of games?
If you think Timpa's death was an atrocity, go protest it. That is your right.
Or maybe you should get some therapy, my man.
Hah. That's your response?
Of course you never heard of Tony Timpa. Turn off MSNBC and CNN and have a look around. There's a lot going on.
ETA: Look here, brother...I guess I'm trying to rub it in that you've been taken for a ride by the untrustworthy, rabid liberal media. They've been serving koolaid by the gallon, and you've been served generously. Nothing personal. If it's embarrassing, think of this: you've got lots of company.
ETA: These police killings are not about race, and by themselves they are only minor stories. The public's reaction is the story. Overzealous, ignorant or mean police screwing up their work is to the media like popcorn without butter and salt. Add these (race war and accusation) and you've got something that people will buy. That's why we are here at this time.
You rub nothing in, brother. You have simply gone full-on Brietbart.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 21, 2021, 09:47:39 AM
You rub nothing in, brother. You have simply gone full-on Brietbart.
I do not read Breitbart currently, never have, but I get your putdown. I have cooties. Touché!
Have you checked out Joy Reid recently? Breitbart may easily not be the worst thing on cable news.
We actually agreed on plenty, upthread. However...
Kyle Rittenhouse is a dumb kid who's in over his head, eh? Not to me. He was an excellent witness. Not many 18 year olds could handle what he has. He did everything the defense needed him to. Poised, informed, face full of expression. I'd let that lifeguard pull me out of the undertow any day.
Some people are physically braver than others. They have occupations that are right for them.
What are we going to do in the future when small businesses need protection from arsonists and the police are pulling back, restraining themselves too much, so the mayor won't get slaughtered in the media? Where there's a void it will be filled. I wouldn't encourage independent people who see themselves as armed peacekeepers, but I surely won't surprised when they show up. We're asking for it.
I never thought I'd be happy being called a conservative, but i surely don't want to be called a liberal. Not these days.
Several people who have the right take on these issues are Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes and John McWhorter. No, I didn't say Steve Bannon.
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 20, 2021, 10:46:52 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 09:39:28 AM
The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.
He was brandishing a weapon, which by definition makes him the aggressor.
Pretty obviously Grosskreutz was the aggressor in their interaction.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 11:16:10 AM
Wikipedia does not have a paywall:
Quote
Rittenhouse had been pursued by a group that included Kenosha resident Joseph Rosenbaum, who was unarmed.[10] After Racine resident Joshua Ziminski allegedly fired a shot into the air,[11][12] Rittenhouse turned towards Rosenbaum,[13] who according to a witness lunged at him and tried to take his rifle.[14] Rittenhouse fired four times at Rosenbaum, killing him.[15][16] Rittenhouse then ran down the street while being followed by a crowd of around a dozen people.[17] He tripped and fell to the ground after being hit in the head, then fired twice at a 39-year-old man who jump kicked him, his shots missing both times.[18][19] While Rittenhouse was still on the ground, Silver Lake resident Anthony Huber struck him in the shoulder with a skateboard and attempted to take his rifle. Rittenhouse fired at Huber once, fatally striking him in the chest.[10][20] When West Allis resident Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse while carrying a handgun which, in court, he admitted having pointed at Rittenhouse.[21] Rittenhouse shot him once in the right arm.[20][22]
Should Grosskreutz be charged as well?
Of course he should. What if Rittenhouse had missed and hit a bystander? It would be Grosskreutz who initiated the chain of events by doing something illegal.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 21, 2021, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 20, 2021, 10:46:52 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 09:39:28 AM
The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.
He was brandishing a weapon, which by definition makes him the aggressor.
Pretty obviously Grosskreutz was the aggressor in their interaction.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 20, 2021, 11:16:10 AM
Wikipedia does not have a paywall:
Quote
Rittenhouse had been pursued by a group that included Kenosha resident Joseph Rosenbaum, who was unarmed.[10] After Racine resident Joshua Ziminski allegedly fired a shot into the air,[11][12] Rittenhouse turned towards Rosenbaum,[13] who according to a witness lunged at him and tried to take his rifle.[14] Rittenhouse fired four times at Rosenbaum, killing him.[15][16] Rittenhouse then ran down the street while being followed by a crowd of around a dozen people.[17] He tripped and fell to the ground after being hit in the head, then fired twice at a 39-year-old man who jump kicked him, his shots missing both times.[18][19] While Rittenhouse was still on the ground, Silver Lake resident Anthony Huber struck him in the shoulder with a skateboard and attempted to take his rifle. Rittenhouse fired at Huber once, fatally striking him in the chest.[10][20] When West Allis resident Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse while carrying a handgun which, in court, he admitted having pointed at Rittenhouse.[21] Rittenhouse shot him once in the right arm.[20][22]
Should Grosskreutz be charged as well?
I was under the impression that Grosskreutz had just seen two people killed with a gun. I thought we "wanted" a good person with a gun to intervene in such a situation.
So, look, President says verdict must be respected even though it makes him angry
"will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included."
Secretary of Transport echoes "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about"
So, to hell with the judiciary!
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2021, 04:39:20 PM
So, look, President says verdict must be respected even though it makes him angry
"will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included."
Secretary of Transport echoes "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about"
So, to hell with the judiciary!
The deplorables have rendered their verdict, and being good Americans, we respect it.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 21, 2021, 04:14:24 PM
Should Grosskreutz be charged as well?
[/quote]
I was under the impression that Grosskreutz had just seen two people killed with a gun. I thought we "wanted" a good person with a gun to intervene in such a situation.
[/quote]
This would go to the argument for using law enforcement (who are already being paid) to prevent assembly of unruly people to begin with.
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2021, 04:39:20 PM
So, look, President says verdict must be respected even though it makes him angry
"will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included."
Secretary of Transport echoes "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about"
So, to hell with the judiciary!
Nothing about the Buttegieg quote implies that. Here it is from FoxNews in full:
"Look, there's a lot of pain in this country, and that pain and that frustration was aroused by the entire case, including the verdict," Buttigieg said. "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about, but we'll move forward as a country.
"The president continues to believe and this administration continues to believe in America and we've got to continue working to bring Americans together," he said."
I'm fairly confident that you and I have both felt that way about various cases and verdicts. Are we saying "to hell with the judiciary" when we have those feelings? I know I'm not.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 21, 2021, 04:52:59 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2021, 04:39:20 PM
So, look, President says verdict must be respected even though it makes him angry
"will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included."
Secretary of Transport echoes "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about"
So, to hell with the judiciary!
Nothing about the Buttegieg quote implies that. Here it is from FoxNews in full:
"Look, there's a lot of pain in this country, and that pain and that frustration was aroused by the entire case, including the verdict," Buttigieg said. "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about, but we'll move forward as a country.
"The president continues to believe and this administration continues to believe in America and we've got to continue working to bring Americans together," he said."
I'm fairly confident that you and I have both felt that way about various cases and verdicts. Are we saying "to hell with the judiciary" when we have those feelings? I know I'm not.
Both politicians contradict themselves in a single message each. This means anything is possible.
Look, it's the logic that worries me. Not the substance, for there appears to be none.
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2021, 05:34:47 PM
Both politicians contradict themselves in a single message each. This means anything is possible.
Look, it's the logic that worries me. Not the substance, for there appears to be none.
Agreed! When two contrary messages are there, only one is meant. The message 'we must have faith in the courts/we must work to bring America together' is obligatory. The message that they mean is 'we are angry and need to stay angry.' The left thinks it is winning the culture war. That's why the Rittenhouse trial needs to be about race. It's another theatre in which the war can be fought.
Interesting piece....https://www.city-journal.org/how-progressives-enforce-ideological-conformity
The left is losing the culture war with the voters. Witness Virginia, New Jersey, Biden's approval rating. But they're charging full speed ahead, with few exceptions, e.g. Bill Maher, James Carville, trying to warn them.
From the city journal piece:
"While ordinary Americans seem to be souring on political correctness, it remains a booming business in the centers of wealth and power. For corporations, philanthropic foundations, and individuals, purification—surely driven as much by fear of exposure as by true belief—requires the public affirmation of woke orthodoxy..."
ETA: whoa just saw this, sickening....https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/11/car-rams-through-waukesha-holiday-parade-leaving-at-least-5-dead-40-injured-in-milwaukee-suburb.html
ETA: whoa just saw this, sickening....https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/11/car-rams-through-waukesha-holiday-parade-leaving-at-least-5-dead-40-injured-in-milwaukee-suburb.html
« Last Edit: Today at 04:45:34 AM by mahagonny »
Vehicle registered to Antifa and driven by Black Lives Matter.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 21, 2021, 04:14:24 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 21, 2021, 11:38:51 AM
Should Grosskreutz be charged as well?
I was under the impression that Grosskreutz had just seen two people killed with a gun. I thought we "wanted" a good person with a gun to intervene in such a situation.
I'm not sure who "we" is; I'm a Canadian, and I'm very much for the guns on the street being in the hands of law enforcement, not the mob. (Rioters, from
whatever part of the political spectrum, are a danger to the community and to democracy itself. People who are willing to destroy property and attack people are by definition unwilling to abide by any agreed-upon societal limits.)
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 21, 2021, 04:52:59 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2021, 04:39:20 PM
So, look, President says verdict must be respected even though it makes him angry
"will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included."
Secretary of Transport echoes "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about"
So, to hell with the judiciary!
Nothing about the Buttegieg quote implies that. Here it is from FoxNews in full:
"Look, there's a lot of pain in this country, and that pain and that frustration was aroused by the entire case, including the verdict," Buttigieg said. "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about, but we'll move forward as a country.
"The president continues to believe and this administration continues to believe in America and we've got to continue working to bring Americans together," he said."
I'm fairly confident that you and I have both felt that way about various cases and verdicts. Are we saying "to hell with the judiciary" when we have those feelings? I know I'm not.
Isn't this the kind of thing Trump was accused of, the sort of wink and nod to the crazies about how the system had somehow failed, and if citizens were angry, well who could blame them?
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 22, 2021, 06:20:11 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 21, 2021, 04:52:59 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2021, 04:39:20 PM
So, look, President says verdict must be respected even though it makes him angry
"will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included."
Secretary of Transport echoes "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about"
So, to hell with the judiciary!
Nothing about the Buttegieg quote implies that. Here it is from FoxNews in full:
"Look, there's a lot of pain in this country, and that pain and that frustration was aroused by the entire case, including the verdict," Buttigieg said. "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about, but we'll move forward as a country.
"The president continues to believe and this administration continues to believe in America and we've got to continue working to bring Americans together," he said."
I'm fairly confident that you and I have both felt that way about various cases and verdicts. Are we saying "to hell with the judiciary" when we have those feelings? I know I'm not.
Isn't this the kind of thing Trump was accused of, the sort of wink and nod to the crazies about how the system had somehow failed, and if citizens were angry, well who could blame them?
No Marshy, it's not.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on November 22, 2021, 07:43:42 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 22, 2021, 06:20:11 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 21, 2021, 04:52:59 PM
Quote from: dismalist on November 21, 2021, 04:39:20 PM
So, look, President says verdict must be respected even though it makes him angry
"will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included."
Secretary of Transport echoes "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about"
So, to hell with the judiciary!
Nothing about the Buttegieg quote implies that. Here it is from FoxNews in full:
"Look, there's a lot of pain in this country, and that pain and that frustration was aroused by the entire case, including the verdict," Buttigieg said. "And for a lot of us, there's just a lot to be upset about, a lot to be concerned about, but we'll move forward as a country.
"The president continues to believe and this administration continues to believe in America and we've got to continue working to bring Americans together," he said."
I'm fairly confident that you and I have both felt that way about various cases and verdicts. Are we saying "to hell with the judiciary" when we have those feelings? I know I'm not.
Isn't this the kind of thing Trump was accused of, the sort of wink and nod to the crazies about how the system had somehow failed, and if citizens were angry, well who could blame them?
No Marshy, it's not.
Of course he was. Not to mention colluding with Russians to rig the election, which was a total B.S. story propped up by the media and cooked up by the Clintons.
Breitbart, buddy. Breitbart is calling.
Quote from: nebo113 on November 22, 2021, 04:52:03 AM
ETA: whoa just saw this, sickening....https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/11/car-rams-through-waukesha-holiday-parade-leaving-at-least-5-dead-40-injured-in-milwaukee-suburb.html
« Last Edit: Today at 04:45:34 AM by mahagonny »
Vehicle registered to Antifa and driven by Black Lives Matter.
Ban assault vehicles.
Apparently he has struck people with his auto before this. Why was he on the loose, I wonder.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 22, 2021, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on November 22, 2021, 04:52:03 AM
ETA: whoa just saw this, sickening....https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/11/car-rams-through-waukesha-holiday-parade-leaving-at-least-5-dead-40-injured-in-milwaukee-suburb.html
« Last Edit: Today at 04:45:34 AM by mahagonny »
Vehicle registered to Antifa and driven by Black Lives Matter.
Ugly black dude has record of firing handgun, stolen weapons, meth, domestic violence/abuse. Damn the liberal justice system for not locking him up forever. Damn AOC!
Ban assault vehicles.
Apparently he has struck people with his auto before this. Why was he on the loose, I wonder.
Quote from: nebo113 on November 22, 2021, 05:23:45 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 22, 2021, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on November 22, 2021, 04:52:03 AM
ETA: whoa just saw this, sickening....https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/11/car-rams-through-waukesha-holiday-parade-leaving-at-least-5-dead-40-injured-in-milwaukee-suburb.html
« Last Edit: Today at 04:45:34 AM by mahagonny »
Vehicle registered to Antifa and driven by Black Lives Matter.
Ugly black dude has record of firing handgun, stolen weapons, meth, domestic violence/abuse. Damn the liberal justice system for not locking him up forever. Damn AOC!
Ban assault vehicles.
Apparently he has struck people with his auto before this. Why was he on the loose, I wonder.
Either of you happen to work for the DuPage County Democratic Party? (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/wisconsin/articles/2021-11-22/county-democrat-loses-job-over-waukesha-rittenhouse-tweets) Because you are both a couple of class acts.
I have long held the opinion that our laws should be changed so that claims of self-defense (or defense of others) must be based on an actual threat.
Keep in mind that our common law notions of self defense developed before there were firearms, when there were few situations where you would reasonably think someone was trying to kill you without them already trying to hack you with a sword.
Yes this means some people will go to jail for making a mistake, but if you have deadly force available to you, you should be pretty sure not to make mistakes.
Yes this means police will have to take more risks with their lives, but I am confident that fewer total people will be killed.
Personally, I'd rather die than kill someone, but I don't insist this attitude be codified into law.
I respect the decisions of juries. I don't know if the change of law I suggested would have made a difference in this case.
I am disturbed that two gangs could shoot each other on the streets and have no one be guilty of murder because everyone can claim self-defense. I hope someone can think of ways to have laws that address this situation. Perhaps there can be a felony version of disorderly conduct that could apply.
QuoteI don't know that the killing of Timpa was about race----I had never heard of the incident before. It sounds more like police brutality to me, as does the Floyd case. The Blake case sounds to me like excessive force on an admittedly violent and armed criminal. I wouldn't know how to gage that one.
snip
Quote
If you think Timpa's death was an atrocity, go protest it. That is your right.
I doubt it. I can't stand around with a group with signs that say 'White Lives Matter.'
Nebo: I think there is near unanimous agreement that people who would drive a speeding car into a crowd of elderly women and others is bad thing to do, and we need the laws that we have that are against that.
ETA:
Quote
I am disturbed that two gangs could shoot each other on the streets and have no one be guilty of murder because everyone can claim self-defense. I hope someone can think of ways to have laws that address this situation. Perhaps there can be a felony version of disorderly conduct that could apply.
If yesterday your city had mostly peaceful demonstrations that turned into violence and arson after dusk, then you should be able to rule, 'OK, no more demonstrating for the rest of the week.'
Quote from: quasihumanist on November 22, 2021, 06:43:04 PM
I have long held the opinion that our laws should be changed so that claims of self-defense (or defense of others) must be based on an actual threat.
Keep in mind that our common law notions of self defense developed before there were firearms, when there were few situations where you would reasonably think someone was trying to kill you without them already trying to hack you with a sword.
Yes this means some people will go to jail for making a mistake, but if you have deadly force available to you, you should be pretty sure not to make mistakes.
Yes this means police will have to take more risks with their lives, but I am confident that fewer total people will be killed.
Personally, I'd rather die than kill someone, but I don't insist this attitude be codified into law.
I respect the decisions of juries. I don't know if the change of law I suggested would have made a difference in this case.
I am disturbed that two gangs could shoot each other on the streets and have no one be guilty of murder because everyone can claim self-defense. I hope someone can think of ways to have laws that address this situation. Perhaps there can be a felony version of disorderly conduct that could apply.
That is very thoughtful, quasi.
I am mostly with you.
When the "right to bear arms" was formulated, the arm was a musket, something that could hardly be used in the rain, could be reloaded quickly only by highly trained --- malitiamen, and could kill with some certainty only if there was a mass of muskets handled by -- militiamen, or a long rifle could be used by a hunter with good accuracy, but hardly able to re-load.
A felony version of disorderly might very well be a good idea, but I don't see it coming from elected representatives. Maybe judges?
It may turn out that Rittenhouse is not poor for the rest of his life. Defamation cases are hard to win, but many misstatements of fact have happened in the media, and millions heard them, and everywhere you go people are buzzing about it, some are believing false things and lashing out in social media because of the false things they believe about K.R. which at the very least causes him prolonged emotional/psychological stress. I think he could win a pile of money. I don't love the guy, but in my opinion putting Joy Reid and a few other loudmouths out of business would be a very good thing for our society.
Would that be cancel culture? Well, MSNBC would have the option to keep her around if they think it's good for their business, or for any other reason. That would be their call.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-has-every-right-to-sue-the-media-for-defamation
ETA: If someone wants to go on national television and claim you are a white supremacist they should be prepared to prove it. Malice would be easily proven, since few things are reviled than a white supremacist.
an example of a successful case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v._National_Enquirer,_Inc.
Quote from: quasihumanist on November 22, 2021, 06:43:04 PM
I have long held the opinion that our laws should be changed so that claims of self-defense (or defense of others) must be based on an actual threat.
I am disturbed that two gangs could shoot each other on the streets and have no one be guilty of murder because everyone can claim self-defense.
I don't think that is quite the situation in the Rittenhouse case.
The kid was pursued by three full-grown adults who decided, for whatever reason, that they were justifiably provoked. One of them did have a gun. Judging by Rittenhouse's pudgy adolescent frame, I don't think he would have been a very formidable opponent. One can die or take very serious injury from a kick in the head or a blow to the head from a skateboard. Or one can sustain serious injury, even maiming injury, even fatal injury, to the body from other people's hands and feet alone.
I wonder if someone who knows more about colonial America can speak to the violence from that time. From a cursory search online, it does seem that violence of all sorts was endemic, and while an assault rifle is clearly more lethal than a musket, a sword is a deadly weapon. You may not be able to spray a crowd with a sword, but running someone through or cutting off a body part will not do them much good.
I am not someone who would rather die than kill someone else. I certainly, absolutely do not want to harm ANY living creature (I caused a very minor traffic jam the other day to avoid a particularly stupid squirrel) but I see no reason I should allow myself, my wife, or even our dogs to suffer attack if I have the means to protect us. When we moved to our current city, which is very high on the violent crime index, I retrieved my old .22 target pistol and my late father's Army issue .38 revolver from my old home. Both are upstairs in our bedroom, fully loaded. The drivers in our town are VERY aggressive and very bad (traffic laws are only suggestions here) and I have considered putting one of these weapons in our car, although I have not done so yet. I have never shot at a living thing, and I hope never to, but I will defend myself and my family, even our friends who occasionally come to stay, if we are endangered. I also think this applies to dignity; why should I be humiliated by a violent person when I can defend myself using a weapon? I see nothing wrong with this attitude. There is a line from The Wire: "You start shit you can't complain about how shit goes down."
Quote from: ciao_yall on November 22, 2021, 05:54:14 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on November 22, 2021, 05:23:45 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 22, 2021, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: nebo113 on November 22, 2021, 04:52:03 AM
ETA: whoa just saw this, sickening....https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/11/car-rams-through-waukesha-holiday-parade-leaving-at-least-5-dead-40-injured-in-milwaukee-suburb.html
« Last Edit: Today at 04:45:34 AM by mahagonny »
Vehicle registered to Antifa and driven by Black Lives Matter.
Ugly black dude has record of firing handgun, stolen weapons, meth, domestic violence/abuse. Damn the liberal justice system for not locking him up forever. Damn AOC!
Ban assault vehicles.
Apparently he has struck people with his auto before this. Why was he on the loose, I wonder.
Either of you happen to work for the DuPage County Democratic Party? (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/wisconsin/articles/2021-11-22/county-democrat-loses-job-over-waukesha-rittenhouse-tweets) Because you are both a couple of class acts.
I'm sick and tired of our in house troll, so I've decided to troll the troll.
Quote from: quasihumanist on November 22, 2021, 06:43:04 PM
I have long held the opinion that our laws should be changed so that claims of self-defense (or defense of others) must be based on an actual threat.
Keep in mind that our common law notions of self defense developed before there were firearms, when there were few situations where you would reasonably think someone was trying to kill you without them already trying to hack you with a sword.
Yes this means some people will go to jail for making a mistake, but if you have deadly force available to you, you should be pretty sure not to make mistakes.
As one female commentator pointed out, in cases where a person claims self-defense in killing and abusive partner, (which will typically be a woman killing a man), tightening the requirements for a self-defense claim will wind up with more people in this situation being convicted.
Quote
Yes this means police will have to take more risks with their lives, but I am confident that fewer total people will be killed.
Personally, I'd rather die than kill someone, but I don't insist this attitude be codified into law.
I respect the decisions of juries. I don't know if the change of law I suggested would have made a difference in this case.
I am disturbed that two gangs could shoot each other on the streets and have no one be guilty of murder because everyone can claim self-defense. I hope someone can think of ways to have laws that address this situation. Perhaps there can be a felony version of disorderly conduct that could apply.
As for gangs shooting each other, the main concern is innocent bystanders. I'd be happy to hear of a felony version of disorderly conduct that would put
any rioters, looters, and any other kind of violent mob in jail for a very long time.
Quote from: nebo113 on November 22, 2021, 04:52:03 AM
ETA: whoa just saw this, sickening....https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/11/car-rams-through-waukesha-holiday-parade-leaving-at-least-5-dead-40-injured-in-milwaukee-suburb.html
I also posted it to the RIP thread:
http://thefora.org/index.php?topic=122.msg90694#msg90694
The underriding issue--the driver was seeking to escape from domestic violence charges by police who arrived at his door shortly after he took off to escape them--suggests how dangerous those who engage in domestic violence actually are.
Often portrayed as being somehow justifiably aggrieved over "some issue at home," and "lashing out while upset," they often lack the brakes and internal controls needed to protect others once they are called out for their misdeeds, and escalate quickly to wider circles of damage.
Any such deaths and injuries are inexcusable, but the minimization of the charges to a 1,000.00 cash bail contributed to the issue.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on November 23, 2021, 06:04:05 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on November 22, 2021, 04:52:03 AM
ETA: whoa just saw this, sickening....https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/11/car-rams-through-waukesha-holiday-parade-leaving-at-least-5-dead-40-injured-in-milwaukee-suburb.html
I also posted it to the RIP thread:
http://thefora.org/index.php?topic=122.msg90694#msg90694
The underriding issue--the driver was seeking to escape from domestic violence charges by police who arrived at his door shortly after he took off to escape them--suggests how dangerous those who engage in domestic violence actually are.
Often portrayed as being somehow justifiably aggrieved over "some issue at home," and "lashing out while upset," they often lack the brakes and internal controls needed to protect others once they are called out for their misdeeds, and escalate quickly to wider circles of damage.
Any such deaths and injuries are inexcusable, but the minimization of the charges to a 1,000.00 cash bail contributed to the issue.
M.
Darrell Brooks is probably a meth addict freaking out in paranoia. Drugs would be especially easier to smuggle now that there's practically no southern border.
Quote from: mamselle on November 23, 2021, 06:04:05 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on November 22, 2021, 04:52:03 AM
ETA: whoa just saw this, sickening....https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/11/car-rams-through-waukesha-holiday-parade-leaving-at-least-5-dead-40-injured-in-milwaukee-suburb.html
I also posted it to the RIP thread:
http://thefora.org/index.php?topic=122.msg90694#msg90694
The underriding issue--the driver was seeking to escape from domestic violence charges by police who arrived at his door shortly after he took off to escape them--suggests how dangerous those who engage in domestic violence actually are.
Often portrayed as being somehow justifiably aggrieved over "some issue at home," and "lashing out while upset," they often lack the brakes and internal controls needed to protect others once they are called out for their misdeeds, and escalate quickly to wider circles of damage.
Any such deaths and injuries are inexcusable, but the minimization of the charges to a 1,000.00 cash bail contributed to the issue.
M.
But ... but ... cash bail affects poor [criminals] and remember they are INNOCENT LEGALLY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY [despite the bloody woman, defendant on the run, and cop witnessing him committing multiple other crimes]
I'm honestly sick of this crap. Yeah getting arrested is inconvenient. If you happen to be innocent and the state can't prove its case and you sat in jail well ... shit happens. They love to ignore that this system is old and explicitly constitutional. You can be held before being found guilty - that's why it's happening.
I'm echoing the judge, themselves, who said that the low bail amount was a serious error, since it left him out, knowingly out of control, to do what he did.
The original charges were for running down his wife and a child with the same car.
Ipsa historia repetit...
M.
Tough cases make bad law. Rittenhouse was a tough case, as was the decision to bail out the Waukesha scumbag driver. I am very sympathetic, however, to having a very high bar for imposing significant bail on defendants, esp those without records or who were not caught in the act of a violent act (neither applies to this scumbag). WRT Rittenhouse, I am thinking that if I am unarmed, and see a man holding an AR-15 walking towards me, I am in a quandary, made even more quandary-esque by the reality that I have mere few seconds to decide how to act--- if I try to run away, said gunner can shoot the crap out of me more or less at his leisure. One cannot outrun an AR-15, so it may seem very logical to suppose that the only way I can avoid imminent death is to charge at him hoping to take gun away before he could fire it. It is possible that Rittenhouse technically deserved to get off criminally, but he certainly should expect to be sued civilly, where standards of evidence will be dramatically less in his favor. And certainly he should in no wise be trumpeted, celebrated, etc. And this does not even deal with the question as to the proper limits of 'self-defense', ie., can an instigator confronted by a citizen fighting back, then use that response to use deadly force in 'self-defense'? Ask Trayvon Martin.
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 23, 2021, 09:18:53 PM
WRT Rittenhouse, I am thinking that if I am unarmed, and see a man holding an AR-15 walking towards me, I am in a quandary, made even more quandary-esque by the reality that I have mere few seconds to decide how to act--- if I try to run away, said gunner can shoot the crap out of me more or less at his leisure. One cannot outrun an AR-15, so it may seem very logical to suppose that the only way I can avoid imminent death is to charge at him hoping to take gun away before he could fire it.
I don't believe it was someone out walking their dog that Rittenhouse approached with the gun. (In fact,
he was being chased in the incidents on video. Nevertheless....) If someone pointed a gun at me I would see two viable options: stand very still, or run. If the person with the gun seems like a cop or someone relatively calm, I'd stand still and assume the situation can be dealt with by talking. If the person seems like a lunatic, I'll run for cover. the
MOST RIDICULOUS THING I CAN IMAGINE is to try and
run at the lunatic to disarm him. Running at him will make
me seem like a threat to
him so it's more likely to get me shot.
Quote from: Descartes on November 23, 2021, 04:49:03 PM
But ... but ... cash bail affects poor [criminals] and remember they are INNOCENT LEGALLY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY [despite the bloody woman, defendant on the run, and cop witnessing him committing multiple other crimes]
I'm honestly sick of this crap. Yeah getting arrested is inconvenient. If you happen to be innocent and the state can't prove its case and you sat in jail well ... shit happens. They love to ignore that this system is old and explicitly constitutional. You can be held before being found guilty - that's why it's happening.
I'm reasonably sure MSNBC, CNN, and the other authorities on how to fight the horrible blight of anti-black American racism in 2021 will miss this opportunity to point how the white man's system has miserably failed Darrell Brooks by setting the bail so low. Had he been in jail on the $5 million bail now imposed, the five (no, now six) privileged white deaths and dozens of injuries wouldn't have happened, and Brooks would be in less trouble than he is now.
And if it turns out he's a serial domestic abuser, it's the liberal media's ultimate nightmare for editorializing. How do you discuss a lifelong victim, driven to dissolute life and meth addiction by ubiquitous white oppression who abuses women? As little as possible, probably.
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 23, 2021, 09:18:53 PM
It is possible that Rittenhouse technically deserved to get off criminally, but he certainly should expect to be sued civilly, where standards of evidence will be dramatically less in his favor. And certainly he should in no wise be trumpeted, celebrated, etc.
Agreed.
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 23, 2021, 09:18:53 PM
And this does not even deal with the question as to the proper limits of 'self-defense', ie., can an instigator confronted by a citizen fighting back, then use that response to use deadly force in 'self-defense'? Ask Trayvon Martin.
At the same time, this is part of the Arbery prosecution. Arbery had the right to 'stand his ground.'
Agree, but add:
What KR should expect going forward is his problem. The fact that we should expect something approaching vigilante styled public safety regulation as long as continue to destroy our relationship with the police and hamstring mayors with impractical wokeism, is ours.
If there is obvious cover you might well want to seek it out, but your problem would still be there. Gunner could seek you out and shoot you. Standing still is perhaps even worse than running away, as it would make you even easier to hit. Charging at gunner makes you a moving target, may disorient the gunner, and if you can close the gap between him and you, you might be able to get gun away.
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 24, 2021, 09:43:00 PM
If there is obvious cover you might well want to seek it out, but your problem would still be there. Gunner could seek you out and shoot you. Standing still is perhaps even worse than running away, as it would make you even easier to hit. Charging at gunner makes you a moving target, may disorient the gunner, and if you can close the gap between him and you, you might be able to get gun away.
Police and others get all kinds of training in de-escalating dangerous situations. This would be a total waste of time if someone pointing a gun was
always going to shoot. If every time someone pointed a gun at someone else, then in a country like the US the shooting rate would be
astronomically higher than it already is.
People
point guns
vastly more often than they pull the trigger.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 24, 2021, 08:04:32 AM
Quote from: Descartes on November 23, 2021, 04:49:03 PM
But ... but ... cash bail affects poor [criminals] and remember they are INNOCENT LEGALLY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY [despite the bloody woman, defendant on the run, and cop witnessing him committing multiple other crimes]
I'm honestly sick of this crap. Yeah getting arrested is inconvenient. If you happen to be innocent and the state can't prove its case and you sat in jail well ... shit happens. They love to ignore that this system is old and explicitly constitutional. You can be held before being found guilty - that's why it's happening.
I wonder if they looked at his toenails?
I'm reasonably sure MSNBC, CNN, and the other authorities on how to fight the horrible blight of anti-black American racism in 2021 will miss this opportunity to point how the white man's system has miserably failed Darrell Brooks by setting the bail so low. Had he been in jail on the $5 million bail now imposed, the five (no, now six) privileged white deaths and dozens of injuries wouldn't have happened, and Brooks would be in less trouble than he is now.
And if it turns out he's a serial domestic abuser, it's the liberal media's ultimate nightmare for editorializing. How do you discuss a lifelong victim, driven to dissolute life and meth addiction by ubiquitous white oppression who abuses women? As little as possible, probably.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 23, 2021, 10:17:45 AM
Quote from: mamselle on November 23, 2021, 06:04:05 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on November 22, 2021, 04:52:03 AM
ETA: whoa just saw this, sickening....https://www.masslive.com/news/2021/11/car-rams-through-waukesha-holiday-parade-leaving-at-least-5-dead-40-injured-in-milwaukee-suburb.html
I also posted it to the RIP thread:
http://thefora.org/index.php?topic=122.msg90694#msg90694
The underriding issue--the driver was seeking to escape from domestic violence charges by police who arrived at his door shortly after he took off to escape them--suggests how dangerous those who engage in domestic violence actually are.
Often portrayed as being somehow justifiably aggrieved over "some issue at home," and "lashing out while upset," they often lack the brakes and internal controls needed to protect others once they are called out for their misdeeds, and escalate quickly to wider circles of damage.
Any such deaths and injuries are inexcusable, but the minimization of the charges to a 1,000.00 cash bail contributed to the issue.
M.
Darrell Brooks is probably a meth addict freaking out in paranoia. Drugs would be especially easier to smuggle now that there's practically no southern border.
And he has long, dirty toenails.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 25, 2021, 06:11:20 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 24, 2021, 09:43:00 PM
If there is obvious cover you might well want to seek it out, but your problem would still be there. Gunner could seek you out and shoot you. Standing still is perhaps even worse than running away, as it would make you even easier to hit. Charging at gunner makes you a moving target, may disorient the gunner, and if you can close the gap between him and you, you might be able to get gun away.
Police and others get all kinds of training in de-escalating dangerous situations. This would be a total waste of time if someone pointing a gun was always going to shoot. If every time someone pointed a gun at someone else, then in a country like the US the shooting rate would be astronomically higher than it already is.
People point guns vastly more often than they pull the trigger.
Travis McMichael said he had experience in pointing a gun to de-escalate a situation. The jury convicted him of malice murder and a bunch of other stuff. Seems to me that Rittenhouse, a 17 year old with a "quasi legal" gun, and Travis McMicheal, with a completely legal gun, wouldn't have killed if they hadn't had guns. Granted, the right to bare arms has sailed. I live in an area where concealed carry, as in Satillo Shores, is a given. Doesn't make me feel safer.....
If you are walking towards me brandishing an AR-15, I would be stunningly foolish to think you might well have no intention of actually shooting me, esp since I have no gun and do not have police de-escalation training.
Quote from: kaysixteen on November 25, 2021, 08:31:40 PM
If you are walking towards me brandishing an AR-15, I would be stunningly foolish to think you might well have no intention of actually shooting me, esp since I have no gun and do not have police de-escalation training.
I'm not sure how you think running
towards me in that situation would be your least risky option.
It is the only way I could perhaps get the gun away from you. The quicker I close the gap between you and me, the less time you have to aim and shoot. And running at you would likely not be something you, the confident AR-15 brandishing gunner, would expect/ anticipate, and the disorientation this may produce would give me a few extra seconds to close that gap and move to get the gun away from you.
Isn't there a difference between brandishing a gun and carrying one? And carrying a rifle is less sneaky than having a concealed weapon. Running with a gun seems aggressive unless it's apparent one is being chased. If you were resigned to using force, or looking for an excuse, rather than trying to avoid use of force, you'd be less likely to be running.
If I am unarmed, and you are walking at me carrying an AR-15, I will not spend *any* time analyzing your stance, nor in considering whether you are really gunning for me. Why would I? My life is in immediate peril.
He is a dangerous vigilante and he never should have been there in the first place. That said, the jury's task was to decide, within some very specific parameters, whether the prosecutors had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. Within that context, they made a reasonable decision.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 08:59:21 AM
He is a dangerous vigilante and he never should have been there in the first place. That said, the jury's task was to decide, within some very specific parameters, whether the prosecutors had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. Within that context, they made a reasonable decision.
Have the mostly peaceful demonstrators moved into your neighborhood yet?
https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/25/california-looting-continues-with-eighth-smash-and-grab-at-stores-15667402/
ETA: Candidate Larry Elder (you remember, the white supremacist) had this really neat idea for how to control crime: make it illegal. The CA voters, too many of whom who think like you probably do, rejected it.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 08:59:21 AM
He is a dangerous vigilante and he never should have been there in the first place.
This is an important distinction.
There are many people who agree that preparing to potentially engage in a battle with rioters is not a wise idea. If rioters were coming to my neighbourhood, I'd get my family and myself out of there, even at risk to my property. Since some of the rioters will be armed, (as in this case), it's an extremely dangerous situation. I don't have to agree that he made a good choice to be there to evaluate whether his actions
as things unfolded were reasonable or not.
Quote
That said, the jury's task was to decide, within some very specific parameters, whether the prosecutors had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. Within that context, they made a reasonable decision.
Again, that's an important distinction. If he'd been someone out walking his dog, and carrying a cane, and events unfolded the same way, (with people chasing him and him hitting people with the cane rather than shooting them), the jury would have felt he was acting in self-defense for the same reasons.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 28, 2021, 10:32:01 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 08:59:21 AM
He is a dangerous vigilante and he never should have been there in the first place.
This is an important distinction.
There are many people who agree that preparing to potentially engage in a battle with rioters is not a wise idea. If rioters were coming to my neighbourhood, I'd get my family and myself out of there, even at risk to my property. Since some of the rioters will be armed, (as in this case), it's an extremely dangerous situation. I don't have to agree that he made a good choice to be there to evaluate whether his actions as things unfolded were reasonable or not.
OK, sure,
he shouldn't have been there, but studies show liberals are much more likely to be grossly misinformed about the number of unarmed black men killed by police in year. As in, the actual number may be, like 12, or maybe 19, depending on definitions, and people think the number is 100, 1,000 or more. And the more liberal they identify as, the more they overestimate the number. Consequently, they think rioting, I mean, mostly peaceful demonstrating, is inevitable, given the lay of the land. Yet they don't think vigilante justice is inevitable, even though it's true that voters who identify as conservative are better informed about killings of unarmed black men, and better understand that it's the constant drumming of these same few stories over and over again from the media that is getting people riled up.
Of course, we want that number to be zero. But perfect policing is fiction - Micah Torrance and Lucas McCain. No one is incapable of understanding that.
Quote from: mahagonny on November 28, 2021, 12:52:57 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 28, 2021, 10:32:01 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 08:59:21 AM
He is a dangerous vigilante and he never should have been there in the first place.
This is an important distinction.
There are many people who agree that preparing to potentially engage in a battle with rioters is not a wise idea. If rioters were coming to my neighbourhood, I'd get my family and myself out of there, even at risk to my property. Since some of the rioters will be armed, (as in this case), it's an extremely dangerous situation. I don't have to agree that he made a good choice to be there to evaluate whether his actions as things unfolded were reasonable or not.
OK, sure, he shouldn't have been there, but studies show liberals are much more likely to be grossly misinformed about the number of unarmed black men killed by police in year. As in, the actual number may be, like 12, or maybe 19, depending on definitions, and people think the number is 100, 1,000 or more. And the more liberal they identify as, the more they overestimate the number. Consequently, they think rioting, I mean, mostly peaceful demonstrating, is inevitable, given the lay of the land. Yet they don't think vigilante justice is inevitable, even though it's true that voters who identify as conservative are better informed about killings of unarmed black men, and better understand that it's the constant drumming of these same few stories over and over again from the media that is getting people riled up.
Of course, we want that number to be zero. But perfect policing is fiction - Micah Torrance and Lucas McCain. No one is incapable of understanding that.
What on Earth does your first sentence have to do with any of this conversation?
Quote from: jimbogumbo on November 28, 2021, 01:12:06 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on November 28, 2021, 12:52:57 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 28, 2021, 10:32:01 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 08:59:21 AM
He is a dangerous vigilante and he never should have been there in the first place.
This is an important distinction.
There are many people who agree that preparing to potentially engage in a battle with rioters is not a wise idea. If rioters were coming to my neighbourhood, I'd get my family and myself out of there, even at risk to my property. Since some of the rioters will be armed, (as in this case), it's an extremely dangerous situation. I don't have to agree that he made a good choice to be there to evaluate whether his actions as things unfolded were reasonable or not.
OK, sure, he shouldn't have been there, but studies show liberals are much more likely to be grossly misinformed about the number of unarmed black men killed by police in year. As in, the actual number may be, like 12, or maybe 19, depending on definitions, and people think the number is 100, 1,000 or more. And the more liberal they identify as, the more they overestimate the number. Consequently, they think rioting, I mean, mostly peaceful demonstrating, is inevitable, given the lay of the land. Yet they don't think vigilante justice is inevitable, even though it's true that voters who identify as conservative are better informed about killings of unarmed black men, and better understand that it's the constant drumming of these same few stories over and over again from the media that is getting people riled up.
Of course, we want that number to be zero. But perfect policing is fiction - Micah Torrance and Lucas McCain. No one is incapable of understanding that.
What on Earth does your first sentence have to do with any of this conversation?
Well, why not ask what does it have to do with anything? It's meaningless, other than to observe that someone is unhappy that KR was there that day. I'm unhappy about it too, but there's no legal significance, and it's not even a matter that has any consensus. Where's there's rioting and police not stopping it in a society where people understand that their taxes pay for their right to safety for themselves and their property, there is a void that will be filled.
ETA: alternatively, ignore these realities and just get rid of the deterrents to crime almost completely, like they're doing in CA, and try living that way.
Seems a bit arbitrary, over-the-top to call KR a 'dangerous vigilante' after one has already accepted public mayhem that one feels is justified by some call to social justice. And even absurd if that feeling comes from misinformation.
If you identify as a liberal, you get to defend well-circulated liberal positions. You should relish the opportunity.Oh, I see...you meant the whole sentence. Not just the italics. I forgot the italics were mine. Well, my answer is still similar to what I posted already. The supporters of BLM and its agenda have accepted a baseline level of mayhem for their self-expression, so you know...pot calling the kettle black. And probably refusing to understand consequences too. And their pitch is not 'Black Lives Matter' it is 'police violence against persons of color is
eminently unacceptable', because we can shut down sections of urban society if you don't agree. And they are, at best, indifferent about having the public be accurately informed on their issues.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 28, 2021, 10:32:01 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 08:59:21 AM
He is a dangerous vigilante and he never should have been there in the first place.
This is an important distinction.
There are many people who agree that preparing to potentially engage in a battle with rioters is not a wise idea. If rioters were coming to my neighbourhood, I'd get my family and myself out of there, even at risk to my property. Since some of the rioters will be armed, (as in this case), it's an extremely dangerous situation. I don't have to agree that he made a good choice to be there to evaluate whether his actions as things unfolded were reasonable or not.
Quote
That said, the jury's task was to decide, within some very specific parameters, whether the prosecutors had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. Within that context, they made a reasonable decision.
Again, that's an important distinction. If he'd been someone out walking his dog, and carrying a cane, and events unfolded the same way, (with people chasing him and him hitting people with the cane rather than shooting them), the jury would have felt he was acting in self-defense for the same reasons.
This is all basically right. People should look at the specifics of Wisconsin self defense law as well - this trial may have turned out differently in another state.
Levi Strauss Company is offering 'racial trauma counseling' to employees to help them process the experience of the verdict.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/levi-strauss-provides-racial-trauma-help-for-employees-troubled-by-rittenhouse-verdict
'Beyond Levi Strauss, California State University, Long Beach gave students and faculty the chance to attend a "debriefing" of Rittenhouse's acquittal, which would be attended by staff from the Counseling and Psychological Services office. University spokesman Jim Milbury told The College Fix in an email, "When there are higher-profile events and issues in the public discourse, it is not uncommon for our university to provide spaces for our campus community to discuss those topics."'
the intended inference is that the acquittal was illegitimate.
I wonder how this will effect their stock performance.
and
'The Daily Mail reported that Codrington [this is their psychologist-expert in racial trauma who will be giving the seminar] holds staunch left-wing views:
'Jamila Codrington is a New York-licensed psychologist who has appeared on various panels, claiming that "black people have been duped into thinking we do not matter."'
I guess this is why Strauss Co. does not believe it needs to offer counseling to employees who are upset about the six women killed and 40 injured in Waukesha. The white people already know they matter, so they have no needs.
Personally, I don't look to my employer for comforting of any kind. But that's just me.
I am interested in the way politics is infusing the sciences. 'Racial trauma' as opposed to just emotional trauma is now being expertized. Codrington is identified by Strauss Co as a psychologist trained in racial trauma.
This confers particular authority to a set of practitioners who are either starting out with, or acquiring along the way, a racial political agenda, as opposed to the pure study of science. I am not convinced a trauma specialist who is competent could not treat someone for trauma experienced over a situation involving race.
Does the racial trauma psychologist also treat white people traumatized by accusations of racism?
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 04:51:20 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 28, 2021, 10:32:01 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 08:59:21 AM
He is a dangerous vigilante and he never should have been there in the first place.
This is an important distinction.
There are many people who agree that preparing to potentially engage in a battle with rioters is not a wise idea. If rioters were coming to my neighbourhood, I'd get my family and myself out of there, even at risk to my property. Since some of the rioters will be armed, (as in this case), it's an extremely dangerous situation. I don't have to agree that he made a good choice to be there to evaluate whether his actions as things unfolded were reasonable or not.
Quote
That said, the jury's task was to decide, within some very specific parameters, whether the prosecutors had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. Within that context, they made a reasonable decision.
Again, that's an important distinction. If he'd been someone out walking his dog, and carrying a cane, and events unfolded the same way, (with people chasing him and him hitting people with the cane rather than shooting them), the jury would have felt he was acting in self-defense for the same reasons.
This is all basically right. People should look at the specifics of Wisconsin self defense law as well - this trial may have turned out differently in another state.
As commentators have pointed out, Wisconsin is
not a "stand-your-ground" state, so the results may not be that different in most places.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2021, 04:30:21 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 04:51:20 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 28, 2021, 10:32:01 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 08:59:21 AM
He is a dangerous vigilante and he never should have been there in the first place.
This is an important distinction.
There are many people who agree that preparing to potentially engage in a battle with rioters is not a wise idea. If rioters were coming to my neighbourhood, I'd get my family and myself out of there, even at risk to my property. Since some of the rioters will be armed, (as in this case), it's an extremely dangerous situation. I don't have to agree that he made a good choice to be there to evaluate whether his actions as things unfolded were reasonable or not.
Quote
That said, the jury's task was to decide, within some very specific parameters, whether the prosecutors had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. Within that context, they made a reasonable decision.
Again, that's an important distinction. If he'd been someone out walking his dog, and carrying a cane, and events unfolded the same way, (with people chasing him and him hitting people with the cane rather than shooting them), the jury would have felt he was acting in self-defense for the same reasons.
This is all basically right. People should look at the specifics of Wisconsin self defense law as well - this trial may have turned out differently in another state.
As commentators have pointed out, Wisconsin is not a "stand-your-ground" state, so the results may not be that different in most places.
There is Wisconsin specific nuance around provocation, duty to retreat, and right to carry that is relevant to this case. On provocation, Rittenhouse's self-defense case would have been more difficult in other states.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 29, 2021, 05:55:55 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2021, 04:30:21 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 04:51:20 PM
This is all basically right. People should look at the specifics of Wisconsin self defense law as well - this trial may have turned out differently in another state.
As commentators have pointed out, Wisconsin is not a "stand-your-ground" state, so the results may not be that different in most places.
There is Wisconsin specific nuance around provocation, duty to retreat, and right to carry that is relevant to this case. On provocation, Rittenhouse's self-defense case would have been more difficult in other states.
One thing that fascinates me in both the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, is that, as far as I know, the videos that wound up in court were taken and provided by "the mob"; i.e. the
people chasing the individual (Rittenhouse or Arbery), and in both cases "the mob" thought that the video
was in their favour. Clearly, in both cases, the jury was not sympathetic to "the mob" chasing and attacking a single individual (and thus did not think the mob's idea of "provocation" was compelling.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2021, 06:11:40 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 29, 2021, 05:55:55 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2021, 04:30:21 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 04:51:20 PM
This is all basically right. People should look at the specifics of Wisconsin self defense law as well - this trial may have turned out differently in another state.
As commentators have pointed out, Wisconsin is not a "stand-your-ground" state, so the results may not be that different in most places.
There is Wisconsin specific nuance around provocation, duty to retreat, and right to carry that is relevant to this case. On provocation, Rittenhouse's self-defense case would have been more difficult in other states.
One thing that fascinates me in both the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, is that, as far as I know, the videos that wound up in court were taken and provided by "the mob"; i.e. the people chasing the individual (Rittenhouse or Arbery), and in both cases "the mob" thought that the video was in their favour. Clearly, in both cases, the jury was not sympathetic to "the mob" chasing and attacking a single individual (and thus did not think the mob's idea of "provocation" was compelling.)
It is interesting, although in the Rittenhouse case the jury didn't necessarily determine that he wasn't provoking. Rather, Wisconsin law allows the provoker to use deadly force under the right circumstances - the jury may have felt that these were the right circumstances.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 29, 2021, 06:24:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2021, 06:11:40 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 29, 2021, 05:55:55 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2021, 04:30:21 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 04:51:20 PM
This is all basically right. People should look at the specifics of Wisconsin self defense law as well - this trial may have turned out differently in another state.
As commentators have pointed out, Wisconsin is not a "stand-your-ground" state, so the results may not be that different in most places.
There is Wisconsin specific nuance around provocation, duty to retreat, and right to carry that is relevant to this case. On provocation, Rittenhouse's self-defense case would have been more difficult in other states.
One thing that fascinates me in both the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, is that, as far as I know, the videos that wound up in court were taken and provided by "the mob"; i.e. the people chasing the individual (Rittenhouse or Arbery), and in both cases "the mob" thought that the video was in their favour. Clearly, in both cases, the jury was not sympathetic to "the mob" chasing and attacking a single individual (and thus did not think the mob's idea of "provocation" was compelling.)
It is interesting, although in the Rittenhouse case the jury didn't necessarily determine that he wasn't provoking. Rather, Wisconsin law allows the provoker to use deadly force under the right circumstances - the jury may have felt that these were the right circumstances.
That's the thing about the video. It shows that Rittenhouse was retreating in the first case, and on the ground in the second. His defense would have been harder to make without the video. But the mob didn't realize that, which suggests they were so self-righteously convinced of their cause that they couldn't see how an
objective observer (i.e. a jury) without the same ideological motivation wouldn't see it the same way. (Same thing for the guy filming in the Arbery case. As I recall, he was the third defendant and
he leaked the video, obviously thinking it would help their case.)
Humans have an innate sense of fairness, and seeing a bunch of people ganging up on someone creates automatic support for the individual.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2021, 06:36:52 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 29, 2021, 06:24:44 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2021, 06:11:40 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 29, 2021, 05:55:55 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2021, 04:30:21 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 28, 2021, 04:51:20 PM
This is all basically right. People should look at the specifics of Wisconsin self defense law as well - this trial may have turned out differently in another state.
As commentators have pointed out, Wisconsin is not a "stand-your-ground" state, so the results may not be that different in most places.
There is Wisconsin specific nuance around provocation, duty to retreat, and right to carry that is relevant to this case. On provocation, Rittenhouse's self-defense case would have been more difficult in other states.
One thing that fascinates me in both the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, is that, as far as I know, the videos that wound up in court were taken and provided by "the mob"; i.e. the people chasing the individual (Rittenhouse or Arbery), and in both cases "the mob" thought that the video was in their favour. Clearly, in both cases, the jury was not sympathetic to "the mob" chasing and attacking a single individual (and thus did not think the mob's idea of "provocation" was compelling.)
It is interesting, although in the Rittenhouse case the jury didn't necessarily determine that he wasn't provoking. Rather, Wisconsin law allows the provoker to use deadly force under the right circumstances - the jury may have felt that these were the right circumstances.
That's the thing about the video. It shows that Rittenhouse was retreating in the first case, and on the ground in the second. His defense would have been harder to make without the video. But the mob didn't realize that, which suggests they were so self-righteously convinced of their cause that they couldn't see how an objective observer (i.e. a jury) without the same ideological motivation wouldn't see it the same way. (Same thing for the guy filming in the Arbery case. As I recall, he was the third defendant and he leaked the video, obviously thinking it would help their case.)
Humans have an innate sense of fairness, and seeing a bunch of people ganging up on someone creates automatic support for the individual.
Ah I see. Yes, you are right that is interesting.
Take a wild guess as to what recent news topic was discussed at our recent Thanksgiving dinner.
We disagreed but we were all polite about it.
Quote from: Anselm on November 29, 2021, 10:34:09 AM
Take a wild guess as to what recent news topic was discussed at our recent Thanksgiving dinner.
We disagreed but we were all polite about it.
Now
that is something to be thankful for!
We may be seeing a sitting POTUS get sued for defamation of character. Watch video.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2021/11/29/the-incredible-vanishing-national-news-story-in-waukesha-n2599755
Turns out I may have been wrong about Darrell Brooks. Instead of the massacre being the result of a methedrine-induced paranoid rage, it now looks more likely that it was a premeditated hate crime. Against random white people and Jews. Yes, domestic terrorism.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/26/the-shameful-silence-on-the-waukesha-massacre/
Quote from: mahagonny on November 30, 2021, 04:32:24 AM
We may be seeing a sitting POTUS get sued for defamation of character.
OMG, that is unprecedented! Last time that happened was **checks notes** 2019!