Rittenhouse Case

[kaysixteen]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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?

[mahagonny]

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.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

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.

[mahagonny]

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?

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

[Sun_Worshiper]

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.

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.