Rittenhouse Case

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

[mamselle]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[Descartes]

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.

[mamselle]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

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.' 

[mahagonny]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[nebo113]

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.

[nebo113]

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.

[nebo113]

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.....