US Politics: The supply chain of hot takes remains robust

[Ran]

New thread.

[Mudguard]

Rittenhouse is a piece of shit, but from what I've seen about the case, I think it's extremely unlikely that he'll be convicted for murder or manslaughter.  His claim of self defense is pretty strong, based on evidence presented by, and this boggles my mind, the prosecution.  I agree that the judge was biased, but I don't think it would have made a difference if he was neutral.  Anything is possible with a jury, but a conviction seems extremely unlikely now.

The prosecution's case was so bad, that I'm now wondering who made the call to bring this case, and if it wasn't the lead prosecutor, whether he voiced any reservations or objections when he was assigned the case.  There were portions of the prosecution's case where they seemed to be making the defense's case for them.  And when Rittenhouse decided to take the stand and do a horrible job at fake crying, giving the prosecution one last chance to salvage their case, what does the prosecutor ask him?  Whether he plays Call of Duty?  JFC...

[Ran]

Most legal experts I've seen remarking on this feel that the political moment called for a trial with these particular charges.

The prosecutors have now suggested that they may introduce lesser charges as alternatives to their original intentional homicide and  attempted intentional homicide charges -- either into reckless homicide or perhaps reducing them to the second degree. 

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

I could be proven wrong but my gut instinct tells me there's zero chance Rittenhouse gets convicted. It just seems implausible that there won't be at least one redneck who will feel duty bound to insist he has reasonable doubt and Dudley-do-Right-tenhouse is their hero.

[Ran]

It really doesn't need a "redneck", it just needs a person who pays attention to the case. Again, a lot of lawyers are saying that the case is very weak because the law seems largely on the side of the self-defense claim.

I think bumping down to reckless homicide/attempted homicide may help the prosecution, but some lawyers say that throwing more charges at the jury to consider is a dangerous gambit as it may make them even less credulous of the prosecution's arguments.

ETA: Let me add a few things. First, this article on Judge Schroeder is a good place to start if you're concerned about his biases. It matches well with something Ryan Grim said:

This is a sentiment I've seen a number of defense lawyers state -- prosecutors have a lot of power on their side, and the court should have a responsibility to check that in favor of defendants, and too often doesn't. 

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

A lot of us had said something similar in one of the criminal justice threads (though not using a pejorative term like 'hostile'). For instance, DAs and judges sharing the same building tends to lead to a lot of cozying up, etc. etc. Is this a pattern for the judge though, or is it just this one particular case?

At any rate, I too expect Rittenhouse to walk, since it is happening at the intersection of two aspects of US law; its love for protecting property over human lives, and the special significance guns have when it comes to questions of self-defense

[Ran]

36 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

A lot of us had said something similar in one of the criminal justice threads (though not using a pejorative term like 'hostile'). For instance, DAs and judges sharing the same building tends to lead to a lot of cozying up, etc. etc. Is this a pattern for the judge though, or is it just this one particular case?

Per the Slate piece, defense attorneys are generally happy to draw him on a case because he’s a bit more skeptical of the prosecution 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Ran, based on the article you linked, I'd call that pretty cut and dried. Squinting at the law to say a minor can have a gun to go hunting, and therefore they can open carry at a protest is a pretty weak argument, and it ignores the fact that a minor going hunting still has to have obtained the firearm in a legal way and have a hunting license in the state of Wisconsin which did not happen in this case.

On the marco level, are we really going to be okay with armed people killing unarmed people and getting away with it by dubiously claiming self-defense because they're afraid of getting punched? This is such an absurd way to apply the law, and it's only going to beg more cases like this to happen going forward. Basically anyone with a gun can act aggressively towards another, then claim they feared for their life so they had to shoot first and ask questions later. That's some wild West bullshit. 

[Mister Smikes]

5 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Rittenhouse is a piece of shit, but from what I've seen about the case, I think it's extremely unlikely that he'll be convicted for murder or manslaughter.  His claim of self defense is pretty strong, based on evidence presented by, and this boggles my mind, the prosecution.  I agree that the judge was biased, but I don't think it would have made a difference if he was neutral.  Anything is possible with a jury, but a conviction seems extremely unlikely now.

Yes, his self-defense case is strong.  As for the first bolded remark, I don't see what, other than some tribalistic hatred, would cause you to to use the phrase "piece of shit" for some 17 year old kid you don't even know, who never seems to have done any harm to anybody except (you now concede) in self defense.  

5 hours ago, Mudguard said:

The prosecution's case was so bad, that I'm now wondering who made the call to bring this case, and if it wasn't the lead prosecutor, whether he voiced any reservations or objections when he was assigned the case.   There were portions of the prosecution's case where they seemed to be making the defense's case for them. 

It's called "drawing the sting" - if you know the defense will bring out facts that will damage your case, it can sound better if you bring them out yourself.  But the facts were so strongly against them, and the witnesses so uncooperative with the attempt to spin the narrative, that by the time the sting was drawn there was no case left.

But there don't seem to be any surprises in this trial.  The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that they more or less knew he was innocent from the start but prosecuted him anyway for political reasons.

5 hours ago, Mudguard said:

And when Rittenhouse decided to take the stand and do a horrible job at fake crying, giving the prosecution one last chance to salvage their case, what does the prosecutor ask him?  Whether he plays Call of Duty?  JFC...

I'd say he did a pretty good job of fake crying, assuming it was fake crying at all.   His mom was a pretty good actress as well it seems.  Maybe acting skills run in the family.  Nor would I necessarily blame him, given that his life is on the line.  But I am aware of nothing, other than tribalistic hatred, that would cause you to assume his emotional breakdown on the stand was fake.

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

As for the first bolded remark, I don't see what, other than some tribalistic hatred, would cause you to to use the phrase "piece of shit" for some 17 year old kid you don't even know, who never seems to have done any harm to anybody except (you now concede) in self defense. 

If you take an assault rifle to a protest, you're preparing for a fight to the death.
If you're a person who's willing to transform a protest into a fight to the death, you're a piece of shit.

It's easy to claim self-defense once you've created the situation in which you "had to" use lethal force to defend yourself.
The fact that the prosecution's job (proving Rittenhouse's intent beyond a reasonable doubt) is difficult does not absolve him of his responsibility in creating the situation for which he is being tried. Even if we did give him the benefit of the doubt, he's still the one who brought his assault rifle isn't he? For that alone, I wish he would go to jail.

[Mister Smikes]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Ran, based on the article you linked, I'd call that pretty cut and dried. Squinting at the law to say a minor can have a gun to go hunting, and therefore they can open carry at a protest is a pretty weak argument, and it ignores the fact that a minor going hunting still has to have obtained the firearm in a legal way and have a hunting license in the state of Wisconsin which did not happen in this case.

Nobody cares.  It's a misdemeanor.  If he gets convicted of this, he'll get a slap on the wrist and time served and maybe some community service.  Which is all, under the circumstances, that he should get.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

On the marco level, are we really going to be okay with armed people killing unarmed people and getting away with it by dubiously claiming self-defense because they're afraid of getting punched?

It's not that he was afraid of getting punched.  It's that he was afraid -- and, it seems to me, reasonably afraid -- of getting killed by the people attacking him.   And if the jury agrees with me on that point, he will be acquited.

He was not even the one who fired the first shot.  Zaminski fired that shot ... while Rittenhouse was running away.

[Varysblackfyre321]

22 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I don't see what, other than some tribalistic hatred, would cause you to to use the phrase "piece of shit" for some 17 year old kid

I think he’s at least 18 now so man.

24 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

you don't even know, who never seems to have done any harm to anybody except (you now concede) in self defense.  

Eh, he hangs with the proud boys so IMO probably st this point.

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If you take an assault rifle to a protest, you're preparing for a fight to the death.

Does that obligate you accepting to be beaten to death?

15 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If you're a person who's willing to transform a protest into a fight

That would be the people attacking Rittenhouse.

16 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's easy to claim self-defense once you've created the situation in which you "had to" use lethal force to defend yourself.

Do you have any proof that Rittenhouse ordered any of his assaulted to attack him? Was his gun cast some brainwashing effect that propelled to charge and assault someone armed?

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Even if we did give him the benefit of the doubt, he's still the one who brought his assault rifle isn't he? For that alone, I wish he would go to jail.

Possibly.

[Mister Smikes]

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If you take an assault rifle to a protest, you're preparing for a fight to the death.

It's not illegal to be prepared for a fight to the death.  It is why people carry guns.  

If you have problem with Wisconsin being an open-carry state, then change the laws.  Don't throw some dumb 17 year old under the bus.  

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's easy to claim self-defense once you've created the situation in which you "had to" use lethal force to defend yourself.

Rittenhouse did not rob any banks.  He did nothing that would negate the right of self defense under existing laws.

[sologdin]

horrible job at fake crying

if the jury views it that way, then it could decide that he lacks candor about the facts required to prove self-defense.  then he's got a problem.

 

claiming self-defense because they're afraid of getting punched?

lethal self-defense can be authorized in situations where multiple unarmed assailants attack a solitary person. we'd need to look at wisconsin cases to see the parameters there--but it'd be consistent with the ancient common law were it so there. just a moment's poking around turns this up:

Quote

He argues that "a reasonable view of the evidence" supports his claim "that he was defending himself against a large number of people attacking him." He argues that the evidence, viewed in a favorable light, supports the conclusion that "a number of Mr. Jones' partisans intervened on Mr. Jones' behalf and physically attacked Mr. Loggins. At this point, outnumbered being beaten, Mr. Loggins produced or obtained a gun and started shooting at the persons attacking him."

The problem with Loggins' argument is that it fails entirely to address the requirement that the force used be "only such force ... as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference." See Wis. Stat. § 939.48(1) (emphasis added). As to the deadly force Loggins used, the statute prohibits self-defense by "force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." See id. (emphasis added).

The State concedes that under statute and case law, Loggins "may have reasonably believed that he needed to threaten deadly force to end the attack." (Emphasis added.) It cites to State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, ¶55, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, for the proposition that an accused who threatened to use deadly force may be entitled to a self-defense instruction with a lesser showing than would be needed if he had in fact used deadly force. But it argues that "[n]othing in Loggins' version of events evinced a belief that his attackers were threatening him with imminent death or great bodily harm."

Loggins' testimony was that he had been hit and kicked prior to picking up the gun. At the point when he armed himself with the gun, he testified, he was kicked by someone who missed while aiming for his arm, possibly with the intention of kicking the gun out of his hand. The only threat Loggins has testified that he faced after he picked up the gun was a person, apparently unarmed, who kicked his arm.

The question is whether it was reasonable for Loggins to believe that the deadly force he used was necessary to stop imminent death or great bodily harm. Loggins' burden was to produce "some evidence" that his belief was reasonable. There is no evidence that Loggins was threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm at the moment when he armed himself. His decision to shoot indiscriminately fifteen times therefore was not based on a reasonable belief that it was necessary. The trial court did not err in denying his request for the self-defense instruction.

state v. loggins, 918 N.W.2d 644, 2018 WI App. 54. all very fact intensive, these cases.  i haven't followed the trial testimony closely enough to know if this is analogous or not.  but loggins seems to stand for the proposition that being attacked by multiple unarmed assailants can trigger lethal self-defense, provided there's evidence of the reasonableness of the belief that the lethal self-defender needed to lethally self-defend.  does rittenhouse have that evidence?  the wisconsin cases place the determination of reasonableness totally within the purview of the jury.

[Mudguard]

30 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Yes, his self-defense case is strong.  As for the first bolded remark, I don't see what, other than some tribalistic hatred, would cause you to to use the phrase "piece of shit" for some 17 year old kid you don't even know, who never seems to have done any harm to anybody except (you now concede) in self defense.  

...

I'd say he did a pretty good job of fake crying, assuming it was fake crying at all.   His mom was a pretty good actress as well it seems.  Maybe acting skills run in the family.  Nor would I necessarily blame him, given that his life is on the line.  But I am aware of nothing, other than tribalistic hatred, that would cause you to assume his emotional breakdown on the stand was fake.

He's a piece of shit that had no business bringing an assault rifle to a protest when he clearly lacked the training, experience, and judgment to bring such a firearm into that type of situation.  He probably didn't have a legal right to bring the assault rifle to the protest either.  While he may not be legally guilty of homicide, he's definitely morally culpable for those two deaths that his idiocy directly caused.  If he never brought the assault rifle, those two people would still be alive.  This alone is enough for me to label him a piece of shit.  Beyond this, there are plenty of other things that didn't make it into the trial that I would put into the piece of shit category.  

I watched him attempt to cry and it looked fake to me.  There's plenty of things that could lead a reasonable person to this conclusion.  For example, and this is just one, it looked to me that he kept trying to squeeze out tears, but not a single tear actually leaked out of his dry eyes, at least not that I could see.  Maybe there's a good explanation for this, but to me, it made his crying seemed fake.

[Ran]

17 minutes ago, sologdin said:

does rittenhouse have that evidence?  the wisconsin cases place the determination of reasonableness totally within the purview of the jury.

Interesting case with some distinct similarities.

IIRC, there are several elements to the initial shooting that the defense has focused on: it's alleged Rosenbaum had previously told Rittenhouse he'd kill him if he got him alone, it's alleged that a protester shouted that Rosenbaum should "kill him" or something along those lines, it seems uncontested that Rosenbaum tried to grab the rifle and apparently did briefly grip the barrel which Rittenhouse claims made him fear that the gun would be turned on him if it was taken from him by Rosenbaum, and in the moments just before that a protester named Ziminski fired a shot into the air directly behind Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum which made Rittenhouse believe he was possibly being shot at.

 

[Mister Smikes]

48 minutes ago, sologdin said:

lethal self-defense can be authorized in situations where multiple unarmed assailants attack a solitary person. we'd need to look at wisconsin cases to see the parameters there--but it'd be consistent with the ancient common law were it so there. just a moment's poking around turns this up:

state v. loggins, 918 N.W.2d 644, 2018 WI App. 54. all very fact intensive, these cases.  i haven't followed the trial testimony closely enough to know if this is analogous or not. 

One distinction is that Rittenhouse never shot indiscriminately, as apparently occurred in the Loggins case.  All of his shots were directed at people attacking him, while they were attacking him.

The issue, therefore, boils down to the reasonableness of his fear for his life.

48 minutes ago, sologdin said:

but loggins seems to stand for the proposition that being attacked by multiple unarmed assailants can trigger lethal self-defense, provided there's evidence of the reasonableness of the belief that the lethal self-defender needed to lethally self-defend.  does rittenhouse have that evidence? 

As one who has watched the trial, I would say yes.

 

[sologdin]

He's a piece of shit 

well, he's got bad politics--but most kids do.  say what you want about the tenets of oplocratic authoritarian cultism, at least it's an ethos? by contrast at that age, my politics likely fit within a circle described by pro-abortion in the event one of my fertile paramours suddenly became quick. so we can certainly give him credit for civic engagement. if he wanted to shoot protesters, then he needs some re-education. but most of his politics are not relevant--we simply can't convict people for having bad ideas.  i've pointed out previously in these discussions that this would return to the carceral policy of stalinism.

i'm not impressed by any of the arguments about his firearm being contrary to any regulation in any particular; as smikes is fond of telling y'all, these mala prohibita are irrelevant to the homicide case and are punishable separately in small ways. similarly, the notion that--

Quote

If he never brought the assault rifle, those two people would still be alive.  

--is a counterfactual that we can't know. we know he shot them, and that's the argument the state needs to make--not what might've happened otherwise.

[Rippounet]

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

That would be the people attacking Rittenhouse.

Do you have any proof that Rittenhouse ordered any of his assaulted to attack him? Was his gun cast some brainwashing effect that propelled to charge and assault someone armed?

The very fact of openly carrying an assault rifle as a counter-protester is already a threat. Gun rights activists have even tried to have it protected under the first amendment.

And if it's true he started aiming his rifle at people prior to the attack, then Rittenhouse was acting in a threatening manner on top of that, inciting attacks on his person.
 

5 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

It's not illegal to be prepared for a fight to the death.  It is why people carry guns.

If you have problem with Wisconsin being an open-carry state, then change the laws.

Having the law on your side is no excuse for immoral behavior. Again, if a counter-protester brings an assault rifle to a protest, they are preparing to kill. If they are part of an extremist movement, they are basically premeditating a homicide. The fact that this is difficult to prove in a court of law doesn't change the fact that we all know this.
That kid wanted to kill leftist activists. Let's act like adults and not pretend to not know this. The kid also knew that he would be able to claim self-defense, because the legal loophole is common knowledge by now.

The legal principle of self-defense is originally about using necessary and proportional force and not a synonym for the use of deadly force. The fact that Rittenhouse can claim self-defense in his case is due to US laws being deeply problematic in the first place ; no one should be absolved of the responsibility of escalating a confrontation.
Even assuming that one can plead "not knowing" what was likely to happen because of their actions, there is also the "duty to retreat" if you can avoid a dangerous confrontation. In a rational world, "duty to retreat" would entail not traveling to generate a confrontation in the first place, but anyway, if people started acting threatening or actually threatened Rittenhouse, was he prevented from leaving? I highly doubt that, and that's something the prosecution should work with imho. If it can be proved that he had the opportunity to leave, his choice to stay amounted to accepting the confrontation, in which case he was not acting in self-defense.
At least not under a sane interpretation of the right to self-defense.

All this is a long-winded way of saying Rittenhouse is a piece of shit, regardless of what the law or the court say. I care little for the specific fucked-up laws that Wisconsin may have ; the right to self-defense is a universal principle, and that principle does not actually protect Rittenhouse's actions.

[Mister Smikes]

29 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I watched him attempt to cry and it looked fake to me.  There's plenty of things that could lead a reasonable person to this conclusion.  For example, and this is just one, it looked to me that he kept trying to squeeze out tears, but not a single tear actually leaked out of his dry eyes, at least not that I could see.  Maybe there's a good explanation for this, but to me, it made his crying seemed fake.

You're the one who characterized it as "crying" and then called it "fake".  It looked to me like a panic attack.