US Politics: The supply chain of hot takes remains robust

[Rippounet]

36 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 I can’t see the advantage of trying something like this purely on principle. 

You don't understand the advantage of the principle of rule of law...

36 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I would say it warrants an investigation but a trial especially in America could be extremely emotionally and financially intensive for the defendant.

Comedy gold, man.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You don't understand the advantage of the principle of rule of law...

So to be clear if Rittenhouse was shot or stabbed should have proceeded to try crawling away from his attackers? 

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Comedy gold, man.

Eh.

[A wilding]

Does the US judicial system really make decisions on whether to prosecute an alleged crime based on the "emotional and financial" cost of a trial to the defendant? In my part of the world it is supposed to be mainly down to "is there sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction", with a side order of "is a prosecution in the public interest". (Both must be true for a prosecution to go ahead.) The cost to the defendant is immaterial.

[HoodedCrow]

No, the board doesn’t pay money for extreme views. Straw man.

[Ran]

Yeah, can't say I find that a lack of a trial would make me happy with the Rittenhouse situation. This is how the system is supposed to work. I think while the DA may have overcharged, they did introduce lesser charges as alternatives for the jury to consider, which is reasonable. 

The whole emotional and monetary cost thing... like, there are places where that makes sense, where a DA might have leeway not to charge or bargain down, but in a case like this with three deaths it would be absurd. The facts need to be aired out and a jury of peers needs to render a decision so that people understand that the law has some sort of force.

[karaddin]

The double standard is wild. Right wing governors will boast about how many people their state has executed, with most of the condemned having received a fraction of the scrutiny of this case and some are pretty clearly innocent, to rapturous applause from primary debate crowds and that's just loving law and order. 

But putting this guy on trial when it's not even disputed that he killed people, merely whether it was a legal killing or not, is justification for allying with neo nazis that that are actively trying to start a race war and unreasonably persecuting him.

And anyone claiming we don't know who he was sympathetic to is bullshitting themselves as well as us. It's not a legal argument, but we all know what the fuck excessive concern for property is really about.

Also on the "he was running away" thing, you know someone can run around a corner then turn around and shoot people from a distance with a rifle right? The threat doesn't go away just because they've physically opened up some space. And yes we can't know what they were thinking, I think that's the entire point of people pointing out that you're better off killing someone than leaving them alive - if they're alive they can tell us, but if they're dead "we can't possibly know" so we get to presume the worst.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I would say it warrants an investigation but a trial especially in America could be extremely emotionally and financially intensive for the defendant. I can’t see the advantage of trying something like this purely on principle. 

Don't worry about that. Every biggot, proud boy and every other asshole in the US will have contributed to his defense fund. Quick google search confirmed that the main one driven by his mother collected over 500.000 US $. 

8 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

How far could they go in attacking someone trying to get away from them? I keep waiting for an actual answer to this? Do they get to break his teeth? Stab him? Put a gun in his face? 

 

He should've waited until he was decapitated by a skateboard, I just assume that's the answer you are hoping/waiting for.

It's interesting to see how you put the blame almost entirely on his victims.

On the not answering the question issue...

9 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So he didn't show up at the protests visibly armed posing as a threat to them? 

 

You haven't really answered that question, either.

And as soon as somebody points out the several laws he broke to be there, armed and dangerous. 

You point out that, his victims didn't know about his criminal behaviour.

[Ran]

In the Rittenhouse case, the misdemeanor gun charge was just dismissed by Judge Schroeder for exactly the reason legal experts thought it would be -- the drafting history of the relevant statutes appear to have created an ambiguity, specifically in reference to a statute that concerns "short-barreled" rifles and shotguns whereas the AR-15 used by Rittenhouse was not short-barreled.

Andrew Fleischman has a thread about it that's pretty interesting as he

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Tangential to @Rans link, this was an interesting piece I read a few days ago (yes, fair warning, it's from the Cato Institute)

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2019/our-broken-justice-system

Largely about plea bargaining and the circumvention of defendant's rights.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, A wilding said:

Does the US judicial system really make decisions on whether to prosecute an alleged crime based on the "emotional and financial" cost of a trial to the defendant? In my part of the world it is supposed to be mainly down to "is there sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction", with a side order of "is a prosecution in the public interest". (Both must be true for a prosecution to go ahead.) The cost to the defendant is immaterial.

only if they're white

[DMC]

21 hours ago, Ran said:

And the Arbrey case going on right now seems to be much more significant, to my mind, regarding self-defense doctrine given that it's specifically coupled to an attempted citizen's arrest and the situation was so egregious that Georgia actually repealed its citizen's arrest law. IMO, that's a lot more impactful than whatever comes out of the Rittenhouse case.

That may be the case at the technical level.  But the media has clearly homed in on the Rittenhouse case which in turn has enabled the fascist right to make him their vigilante poster boy.  Both make the case much more impactful in the nationalized/generalized sense.

[DMC]

Just saw Pat Leahy is going to retire.  Kinda surprised, looked like he really wanted to break Byrd's tenure record, instead he'll settle for third behind Byrd and Inouye.  Assuming it's gotta be health after that scare back in January.  Logical next person up is Vermont's at-large congressman Peter Welch, who's held the seat since Bernie vacated it 15 years ago. 

He'd breathe some youth into the Vermont delegation as he's only 74.

ETA:  One very interesting thing about Leahy retiring is along with Shelby that means both parties' top members on Appropriations (arguably the most desirable position in the Senate) are leaving.  The two had a very congenial relationship that is basically an anachronism in this day and age.  Next person up for the Dems is Patty Murray, next person up for the GOP is Mitch McConnell (although I can't imagine they'd let him be Leader and Appropriations Chair if the GOP takes back the Senate).  After him are Collins and Murkowski.  Hm...Regardless, expect budget battles to become even more protracted.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

So Beto bravely put his name forward to lose another statewide election.

So much for a Castro run. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So much for a Castro run. 

Neither ever indicated any interest.    It's a very unattractive cycle unless Abbott somehow loses the primary.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Guess that's sorta good news. Better have Beto another go at a state wide election, than waste one of the Castro's.

Either way, still some time before the election, and this GOP always has at least one scandal in it. But it's Texas anyway.

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, Ran said:

think while the DA may have overcharged, they did introduce lesser charges as alternatives for the jury to consider, which is reasonable. 

I would concede those charges are worth pursuing against him.

At the very least he should not be allowed to use a gun again or for a very long time.

as well some negligence charges who gave support to Rittenhouse.

 

7 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Don't worry about that. Every biggot, proud boy and every other asshole in the US will have contributed to his defense fund.

Possibly so, but for many people they don’t have a large segment of a political side invested in their well-being.

7 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

He should've waited until he was decapitated by a skateboard,

Or shot by one of the armed guys chasing him etc etc.

7 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

It's interesting to see how you put the blame almost entirely on his victims.

I don’t see the men who were shot as victims but anything but their own recklessness.

7 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

You haven't really answered that question, either.

And as soon as somebody points out the several laws he broke to be there, armed and dangerous

You are not allowed to post-hoc justify attacking someone for crimes you had no idea they had committed.

And once Rittenhouse began fleeing from these men they could/should have relented going after an armed individual like they did was stupid.they didn’t. They are not victims 

[Tywin et al.]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Just saw Pat Leahy is going to retire.  Kinda surprised, looked like he really wanted to break Byrd's tenure record, instead he'll settle for third behind Byrd and Inouye.  Assuming it's gotta be health after that scare back in January. 

I bet he's retiring so he can be in more Batman films.

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, karaddin said:

But putting this guy on trial when it's not even disputed that he killed people, merely whether it was a legal killing or not, is justification for allying with neo nazis that that are actively trying to start a race war and unreasonably persecuting him.

No.

8 hours ago, karaddin said:

And anyone claiming we don't know who he was sympathetic to is bullshitting themselves as well as us.

I’ll be frank; that ultimately doesn’t matter in deciding whether he gets life in prison.

8 hours ago, karaddin said:

Also on the "he was running away" thing, you know someone can run around a corner then turn around and shoot people from a distance with a rifle right?

Yeah, but he didn’t do that; the last man he shot he had a clearer opportunity to shoot them directly in the eyes when he put his hands up; he only resumed shooting after he was attacked by the man again.

Oh also, show me proof he planned to run a distance and begin shooting indiscriminately? Did he make a declaration on video?

8 hours ago, karaddin said:

I think that's the entire point of people pointing out that you're better off killing someone than leaving them alive - if they're alive they can tell us, but if they're dead "we can't possibly know" so we get to presume the worst.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’ll be frank; that ultimately doesn’t matter in deciding whether he gets life in prison.

Oh also, show me proof he planned to run a distance and begin shooting indiscriminately? Did he make a declaration on video?

Bolded - given I was very clear I wasn't making a legal argument in the following sentence which you cropped, I really don't see how this is relevant. 

Second part - my entire point was that your argumentation supports "if you get into an altercation make sure the other person isn't alive to tell their side" despite you being offended at others pointing that out. And this response continues in line with that. Obviously no one knows what he was planning to do, but he is still alive to claim whatever suits his story, the dead people could have been thinking anything from "I'm going to murder this shit" to "he's going to murder a bunch of people, I'll put myself on the line" and we'll never know nor will it be legally relevant because their self defence argument becomes irrelevant as soon as they die under this framework.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Second part - my entire point was that your argumentation supports "if you get into an altercation make sure the other person isn't alive to tell their side"

No it doesn’t. Throwing a plastic bag at someone doesn’t morally justify shooting them. Trying to wrestle a person’s gun from them and attack them whilst they flee can. 

Sometimes the use of deadly force either by the state or private citizens can be morally justified in the name of self-defense.

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Obviously no one knows what he was planning to do, but he is still alive to claim whatever suits his story,

I imagine it’d be easier to shoot them point blank then rather have turned his back to them if wholesale of them was his intent.

 

you’re completely ready to put forth a particularly impractical set of actions by Rittenhouse as reason why the men chasing Rittenhouse could have been justified when there’s nothing to support that. Maybe Rittenhouse said he was about to eat a baby, or save a baby and they were trying to stop that. Do you ha

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

I'm going to murder this shit" to "he's going to murder a bunch of people, I

Strange how he only ever shot them then. The people attacking him.
 

 

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

he's going to murder a bunch of people, I'll put myself on the line"

So Rittenhouse is morally obliged to submit to their abuse and pray their intent is the latter?

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

and we'll never know nor will it be legally relevant because their self defence argument becomes irrelevant as soon as they die under this framework.

It becomes irrelevant when theres nothing to collaborate it.