Jump to content

US Politics - Hot takes from my cold dead hands


Larry of the Lake
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Ran said:

I had figured it'd be a hung jury after such long deliberations, but the jury came back on the Rittenhouse case: not guilty on all charges.

 

The Militia movement has new poster boy for carrying weapons of war on the streets of America. The message is you can gun down protesters as long as they do so against people arguing for social justice and against police abuse of people of color. One step closer to civil war. Next demonstration I go to, I will expect Kyle Rittenhouse wannabes trying to intimidate us with open carry of these weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the correct verdict.

as there was sufficient evidence for a conviction, either way would've been correct.

 

The message is you can gun down protesters as long as they do so against people arguing for social justice and against police abuse of people of color. One step closer to civil war. 

whatever the message might be, it's extremely limited; acquittals do not disseminate via stare decisis in the same manner and degree as convictions. the case really doesn't stand for the proposition that protesters can be murdered. that conclusion would be more obvious if it were simply a protest--but the evidence involves quite a bit more than that. also, i think the repeated invocations of civil war are not helpful--less an apotropaic than a summoning.  de-escalating a political confrontation requires de-escalating one's own rhetoric first.

let's hope the wisconsin left can use this judicial outcome to drive electoral politics; we know the right up there would have, had there been a conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

The message is you can gun down protesters as long as they do so against people arguing for social justice and against police abuse of people of color. 

That "message" is the fault of people spinning a false narrative.  Rittenhouse did not gun down any people protesting against police abuse of people of color.  He gunned down people attacking him, while they were attacking him.  And the business Rittenhouse showed up to protect was owned by people of color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

That "message" is the fault of people spinning a false narrative. 

Definitely easier to spin the narrative when you're not dead

6 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Rittenhouse did not gun down any people protesting against police abuse of people of color. 

Sure he did. They also happened to be pissed off specifically at Rittenhouse, but they were also protesting against police abuse of people of color. Clearly it wasn't a coincidence that they were there, no?

6 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

He gunned down people attacking him, while they were attacking him. 

*allegedly

Also, just to be clear, 'attacking' is not a reasonable frame for shooting someone dead. You should have said 'attack with deadly force', but that would also have been inaccurate or at least in dispute, so I see why you didn't say that.

6 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

And the business Rittenhouse showed up to protect was owned by people of color.

Did they ask for his help? Genuinely curious. 

Because a whole lot of people out there have no real interest in having random minors with guns show up at their business in order to 'protect' it. And those that do...well, those people usually hire security

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

I found this article to be a good analysis [pre-verdict] particularly when contrasted against the Travis McMicheal case:

'It sees America as a society forever teetering on the brink of Hobbesian breakdown, and firearms as the sole guarantor of individual security. And the more influential this culture becomes, the more its paranoid delusions come to resemble our collective reality.'

 https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/rittenhouse-jury-verdict-self-defense-legal-analysis.html

 

Very good article. The verdict may or may not be the correct decision based on Wisconsin's laws, but those laws in combination with America's insane gun culture have created a situation in which people can try to kill each other and both can legally claim self defense, so long as they survive to walk away and tell their story, and the other guy doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please stop blatantly mischaracterizing Rittenhouse's victims as "attacking" him?  Per Rittenhouse's own testimony, Grosskreutz never touched him and only tried to take the gun of an active shooter.  Even with Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse claims he threatened his life but also admits he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed and similarly did not touch him but rather was trying to take his gun.  That's two out of three victims that never even touched Rittenhouse, let alone attacked him, according to Rittenhouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kalsandra said:

Sure he did. They also happened to be pissed off specifically at Rittenhouse, but they were also protesting against police abuse of people of color. Clearly it wasn't a coincidence that they were there, no?

Rosenbaum had no prior history of attending protests or being politically active and the only reason he was on the streets with only a few possessions in a bag that night is that he had just been let out of a mental health facility and didn't seem to have anywhere to go. I think it was a sad coincidence that he was there, and particularly vulnerable to getting caught up in the riotous situation.

Huber and Grosskreutz were definitely protestors, though.

3 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Did they ask for his help? Genuinely curious. 

Unclear. They say no, others said they did, specifically an acquaintance and former employee of theirs (Nick Smith) who told others that they had asked him to see if there were others willing for help protecting their property and extinguish any fires at their lots. The defense raised the notion that the Khindri family were afraid of liability suits, which they denied, but I think basically it's a wash -- it'll take civil suits, I suppose, to maybe find out the truth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Can we please stop blatantly mischaracterizing Rittenhouse's victims as "attacking" him? 

No we can't.  It is a ridiculous and dishonest request.    They were attacking him, even if you try to argue, as the prosecutor did, that they were justified in attacking him.

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Per Rittenhouse's own testimony, Grosskreutz never touched him and only tried to take the gun of an active shooter. 

Gosskreutz testimony was not credible.   Even so, he admitted he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse at the moment Rittenhouse fired.  Nor did he say he was trying to take the gun of an active shooter.  He said he did not know what he was trying to do.

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Even with Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse claims he threatened his life but also admits he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed and similarly did not touch him but rather was trying to take his gun. 

From Rittenhouse's perspective, at least two people, and possibly more were trying to kill him.  He knew Ziminsiki had a gun out, and that someone (Ziminsiki, though Rittenhouse did not know that) had already fired a shot.  The other was in the process of grabbing his gun.  In a moment, 2 of his adversaries would have been armed with deadly weapons, and Rittenhouse would have been defenseless.

Under the circumstances, he reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm.

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's two out of three victims that never even touched Rittenhouse, let alone attacked him, according to Rittenhouse.

"never touching" is not the relevant standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Even with Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse claims he threatened his life but also admits he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed and similarly did not touch him but rather was trying to take his gun.  

Also, he was 5'4".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, sologdin said:

The message is you can gun down protesters as long as they do so against people arguing for social justice and against police abuse of people of color. One step closer to civil war. 

whatever the message might be, it's extremely limited; acquittals do not disseminate via stare decisis in the same manner and degree as convictions. the case really doesn't stand for the proposition that protesters can be murdered. that conclusion would be more obvious if it were simply a protest--but the evidence involves quite a bit more than that. also, i think the repeated invocations of civil war are not helpful--less an apotropaic than a summoning.  de-escalating a political confrontation requires de-escalating one's own rhetoric first.

Stop looking at this like a lawyer. This ruling did not make it legal for people to gun down protestors, but what it will likely do is inspire more ring wing types to bring guns to protests because they now have a road map on how to potentially get away with killing people if a shooting does occur. And this problem is compounded by right wing leaders both advocating for violence and downplaying threats of violence when their side makes them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ran said:

"You must be at least 5'5" to be considered capable of deadly assault" is, I am sure, codified somewhere in Wisconsin law.

 

I think it's reasonable to say that a 5'4 person who is unarmed probably doesn't pose a huge threat to a bigger person with a very powerful gun.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

No we can't.  It is a ridiculous and dishonest request.    They were attacking him, even if you try to argue, as the prosecutor did, that they were justified in attacking him.

Chasing an active shooter and trying to take his gun - which again is what Rittenhouse himself said Grosskreutz did - is not attacking him.  It is ridiculous and dishonest to argue otherwise.

10 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Nor did he say he was trying to take the gun of an active shooter.  He said he did not know what he was trying to do.

Yes, he did:

Quote

"I thought that the defendant was an active shooter," he said. "Anytime you bring a firearm into that equation, the stakes are much higher for both serious injury and death."

 

13 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

"never touching" is not the relevant standard.

I don't give a shit about the law, but I am familiar with logical arguments.  And it is not logical to argue Grosskreutz was "attacking" Rittenhouse based on Rittenhouse's own testimony.  I suppose we can quibble semantically whether threatening one's life while chasing him constitutes an "attack" in Rosembaum's case, but of course we only have one side of that.  Anyway, I'm not particularly shocked if the law does not align with basic logic.  That's kind of the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...