Rittenhouse Case

[marshwiggle]

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.)

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

[Anselm]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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!

[mahagonny]

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/

[Sun_Worshiper]

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!