US Politics: The supply chain of hot takes remains robust

[JGP]

Without repeating which others, there’s a video, that was disallowed, that also depicts Rittenhouse punching a girl/woman a few times when she gets into an altercation with a companion of his. 

Kid’s a piece of shit, no doubt.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

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.

People absolutely do care. Look, he illegally was in possession of a firearm he couldn’t have. He was illegally displaying it publicly. He was illegally breaking curfew. And his motivation to do all this was to protect property, which was not his own, with a pretext of violence which is also illegal in the state of Wisconsin. Kyle Rittenhouse showed reckless disregard for the law and the safety of others and as a result two people are dead. To portray him as the victim here is a joke, and if he beats these charges I can guarantee you it will embolden more right-wingers to bring guns to protests and it’s reasonable to conclude that more people will die.

Quote

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.

Is it not also reasonable that a group of adults saw a kid walking around with a gun with the suggested intent of using it and as a means of self-defense they wanted to get it away from him? That’s way more logical than anything Rittenhouse did that evening.  

Quote

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

Rittenhouse also said he knew Rosenbaum didn’t have a gun, so hearing a gunshot is not a justification to shoot someone you know is unarmed.

[sologdin]

if he beats these charges I can guarantee you it will embolden more right-wingers to bring guns to protests and it’s reasonable to conclude that more people will die.

this imputes far too much rationality to oplocratic authoritarian cultists (hereinafter 'OAC'). the OAC brings military-style weapons allegedly to defend commercial property with no attachment other than ideological disposition--the OAC already demonstrates a lack of capacity. rather, the OAC needs no encouragement and is afflicted by no discouragement to act in conformity with oplocratic or authoritarian imperatives, as OAC ideology is both second amendment maximalist and first amendment minimalist, with a strong preference for jingoist xenophobia.  

this cuts the other way, too--i doubt that OAC cadres in DC on 6 january required much incitement from the president; they are always already incited.

[IheartIheartTesla]

To recap, the judge is some sort of quirky eccentric old-fashioned boomer who likes playing Jeopardy with potential jurors and makes jokes about Asian food, the prosecution is a bunch of incompetent doofuses intent on scoring own goals, and the defendant a douche-bro too young to understand the ramifications of what he is doing. Everything that is wrong with the US judicial system, and quite unpleasant to follow.

At any rate, in other non-consequential news, Murkowski is going to run for re-election (of course, she will be primaried). If we are going to have GOP senators, I'd prefer it be someone like her rather than a worse alternative.

[Mister Smikes]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Rittenhouse also said he knew Rosenbaum didn’t have a gun, so hearing a gunshot is not a justification to shoot someone you know is unarmed.

If 2 people are trying to kill you (or if you are in reasonable fear that they are trying to kill you), and one has a gun, and the other does not, you are not required to permit to permit the one without a gun to wrestle your gun away from you.   Because if you do, your enemies will have 2 guns, and you will be rendered incapable of defending yourself.

And even if only 1 person is trying to kill you, you are not required to let him take your gun merely because he is currently unarmed.  He will be armed in a second or a minute if you do not stop him from taking your gun.

[Kalbear]

41 minutes ago, sologdin said:

if he beats these charges I can guarantee you it will embolden more right-wingers to bring guns to protests and it’s reasonable to conclude that more people will die.

this imputes far too much rationality to oplocratic authoritarian cultists (hereinafter 'OAC'). the OAC brings military-style weapons allegedly to defend commercial property with no attachment other than ideological disposition--the OAC already demonstrates a lack of capacity. rather, the OAC needs no encouragement and is afflicted by no discouragement to act in conformity with oplocratic or authoritarian imperatives, as OAC ideology is both second amendment maximalist and first amendment minimalist, with a strong preference for jingoist xenophobia.  

this cuts the other way, too--i doubt that OAC cadres in DC on 6 january required much incitement from the president; they are always already incited.

I fundamentally disagree. 

First, Rittenhouse is being hailed a hero. The right did not have this kind of 'hero' in their mix before. There will be a whole lot of people who want to be heroic too - superhero fantasies are a pretty big part of authoritarian mythos. They want to be Batman. 

Second, there will be a bunch of people who view this as now legal and will keep pushing it, because there are plenty of people who are actually dissuaded by doing more extreme things because they believe them to be illegal. 

Third, we already have a ton of information that POTUS and pals (which was the shittiest kids show) did, actually, incite and conspire with a number of these groups. It's hard to say if that was the requirement for them to show up, but the OAC thought it mattered, POTUS & pals thought it mattered. 

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

If 2 people are trying to kill you (or if you are in reasonable fear that they are trying to kill you),

It is not a reasonable fear that when you hear a warning shot someone is trying to kill you. 

13 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

and one has a gun, and the other does not, you are not required to permit to permit the one without a gun to wrestle your gun away from you.   Because if you do, your enemies will have 2 guns, and you will be rendered incapable of defending yourself.

If only there was some way to foresee being a proud boy and going to a conflict with a gun illegally would cause some problems

13 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

And even if only 1 person is trying to kill you, you are not required to let him take your gun merely because he is currently unarmed.  He will be armed in a second or a minute if you do not stop him from taking your gun.

This is such an interesting take. Because the flip side is also true - the unarmed person is also acting in self-defense, because they also have a fear for their life that is reasonable, and thus if they had managed to take Rittenhouse's gun they too would be in the right.

Which might be legal in the Wisconsin laws suck kind of way, but I'm pretty sure is a very, very bad system to base actual society on. If anyone can fear for their life if there is a gun anywhere around AND can reasonably get away with murdering people, it seems like we should have a lot more gangs out there openly carrying, no? I mean, why not? 

What is the material difference between what Rittenhouse did and, say, a gang member shooting an unarmed person who was yelling at them and threatening them? 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

At any rate, in other non-consequential news, Murkowski is going to run for re-election (of course, she will be primaried).

Alaska just adopted a ballot measure where they have a jungle primary in which the top four candidates advance to the general election - where then ranked voting will be employed.  With these changes her seat appears quite safe.

[Mister Smikes]

19 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

This is such an interesting take. Because the flip side is also true - the unarmed person is also acting in self-defense, because they also have a fear for their life that is reasonable, and thus if they had managed to take Rittenhouse's gun they too would be in the right.

It's not an either/or situation.  To establish self defense you do not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your attacker is an attempted murderer.  Whether the attacker is justified in his own mind or under the law is neither here nor there.  There is nothing about the law of self defense that absolutely guarantees that one innocent person is not going to end up killing another innocent person.  You may not like that.  But that's the way it is.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Mister Smikes said:

It's not an either/or situation.  To establish self defense you do not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your attacker is an attempted murderer.  Whether the attacker is justified in his own mind or under the law is neither here nor there.  There is nothing about the law of self defense that absolutely guarantees that one innocent person is not going to end up killing another innocent person.  You may not like that.  But that's the way it is.

Shockingly, I don't like it, and the notion that this is a reasonable law is precisely what I'm pushing back on. 

You may not like that I don't like the law in the US, especially around firearms, and point out how absurdly stupid it is and how incredibly harmful it'll be to society at large. You may even weakly protest 'but that's the way it is' and choose to mistake morality with legality as some kind of pathetic security blanket. But it being legal is not an excuse for it being wrong. 

[Mister Smikes]

21 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Shockingly, I don't like it, and the notion that this is a reasonable law is precisely what I'm pushing back on. 

You may not like that I don't like the law in the US, especially around firearms, and point out how absurdly stupid it is and how incredibly harmful it'll be to society at large. You may even weakly protest 'but that's the way it is' and choose to mistake morality with legality as some kind of pathetic security blanket. But it being legal is not an excuse for it being wrong. 

I think the law is fine more or less the way it is.  And the law of self defense is fairly standard across multiple jurisdictions, for hundreds of years, with minor variations.  And it has no necessary connection with firearm laws.

Human beings are only human, and the self preservation instinct is strong.  If a person is in reasonable fear of his life, no person expects him to sit back and objectively consider, in the course of a split second, what his attacker's perspective is, or whether his attacker might also possibly feel justified, or whether his attacker's right to life is greater than his own.  At least, there are limits to what one can reasonably expect from ordinary people under such circumstances. 

The world is full of good people, bad people, and people somewhere in the middle.  One does not punish people for being somewhere in the middle merely because they got caught in a scary situation.  

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

The world is full of good people, bad people, and people somewhere in the middle.  Once does not punish people for being somewhere in the middle merely because they got caught in a scary situation.  

And here's the real crux.

Being 'caught in a scary situation' when you knowingly went to a place with a firearm you had no right to have in a state you don't live in with the express goal to use force to protect property you do not own is not being caught in a scary situation; it is creating a scary situation and then justifying use of deadly force to get yourself out of that situation. This is akin to saying that someone who drives 120mph and then swerves to avoid hitting something and crashes into someone else was justified in hitting that person. In a neutral situation - maybe? If Rittenhouse was just walking outside his house with his legally owned AR-15 and happened to find himself in a violent protest while people threatened his house, that would be 'getting caught in a scary situation'. 

It's remarkable to the extent that you absolutely remove any culpability from Rittenhouse or those like him, as if this was not a situation of their making. 

[sologdin]

subjective fear is insufficient; the use of force needs to be objectively reasonable.  OAC ideology is premised on subjective fear--of the state, of protesters, of foreigners, of dark complexions, of abstract socialism. not much of their fear is reasonable, of course.

[DMC]

Speaking of GOP Senate primaries...‘But he’s Jewish’: Opponent questions Mandel’s faith in Ohio Senate primary debate:

Quote

A moderator at the debate, held by the Ohio Press Network at North Columbus Baptist Church, asked for Pukita to respond to claims that he is “antisemitic and intentionally divisive and inflammatory.”

"In terms of antisemitism, all I did in an ad was pointed out that Josh is going around saying he's got the Bible in one hand and the constitution in the other. But he's Jewish,” Pukita said. “Everybody should know that though, right?"

Pukita was referring to a radio ad created by his campaign that criticized Mandel for courting evangelical Christians and frequently visiting churches on the campaign trail.

“Are we seriously supposed to believe the most Christian-values Senate candidate is Jewish?” a voice actor asks in Pukita’s radio ad. “I am so sick of these phony caricatures.”

 

[Mister Smikes]

9 minutes ago, sologdin said:

subjective fear is insufficient; the use of force needs to be objectively reasonable. 

There is a standard of reasonableness, yes, which does involve some objective considerations.  The situation is nonetheless to be viewed from the perspective of the defendant's situation, and not from the perspective of outsiders who think, for their own tribalistic reasons, that the defendant's life is worth less than those of his attackers.

9 minutes ago, sologdin said:

OAC ideology is premised on subjective fear--of the state, of protesters, of foreigners, of dark complexions, of abstract socialism. not much of their fear is reasonable, of course.

In my opinion, and I suspect the jury will agree, Rittenhouse can be found to have been in reasonable fear of his life without reference to any of the above considerations.

[maarsen]

Does putting yourself in a situation likely to be dangerous, while carrying a threatening weapon, putting other people in fear of their own life and safety, giving them then the right to self defense also qualify as self defence? I can't see how escalating a situation gives you the right to then claim self defense when your actions were the ones that created the dangerous situation. 

[DanteGabriel]

I predicted when the Rittenhouse killings occurred that there would be enough extenuating circumstances to get him off. Rittenhouse is like George Zimmerman, another idiotic fantasy vigilante who actively looked for trouble, found more than he could handle, killed someone, and then find legal justification under the fucked up gun laws of this fucked up fantasy vigilante country.

[DMC]

So it appears Paul Gosar will be censured - with "RINO" support - Cheney, Kinzinger signal they'd back Gosar censure:

Quote

Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) are expressing support for censuring their fellow Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (Ariz.) for posting a photoshopped anime video this week depicting himself killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Cheney and Kinzinger have frequently criticized their own party over its continued ties to former President Trump, but it is nevertheless extraordinarily rare for lawmakers to back censure efforts against members of their own party.

A group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), formally introduced a resolution on Friday to censure Gosar over the video, which the Arizona Republican defended as a "symbolic" fight over immigration but appeared to remove from Twitter following the outcry.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

Speaking of GOP Senate primaries...‘But he’s Jewish’: Opponent questions Mandel’s faith in Ohio Senate primary debate:

 

Wow.  I never tought I’d see an openly anti-semitic campaign ad in my lifetime.

:/

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

So it appears Paul Gosar will be censured - with "RINO" support - Cheney, Kinzinger signal they'd back Gosar censure:

 

I’d much rather see Gosar expelled.  But I’m glad something is happening.