US Politics - Hot takes from my cold dead hands

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 hours ago, maarsen said:

Well O.J. got off too. Fat lot of good it did him once the civil case destroyed him. I am sure the families of the victims are talking to lawyers now. 

I'd think totally different beast. Maybe our resident lawyers (scot sologdin) can correct me on that one.

OJ went to court: didn't do it. and was found not guilty.

Rittenhouse went into the court: yeah, I did it. So what? It was self-defense, screw you guys, I am going home.

With Rittenhouse the court ruling was basically: Yeah, justified killing, we are cool with it. 

With OJ the court was more like: Ok, you didn't do it. But we'll hold the murderer, whoever it was *wink* *wink* accountable.

I'd assume the first one makes civil cases much harder.

 

And, I am restraining myself very hard from speaking my mind about our resident HJ defenders.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Armed people have been killed by unarmed people. Big people have been killed by small people. People have died from just getting pushed over and hitting their head on concrete the wrong way.

And pro athletes have been killed by average Joes, that doesn't mean you should assume that's the likely outcome. 

Quote

This internet tough guy thing where we can all judge what's really dangerous or not is just absurd. I personally would have been terrified if I were there that night and Rosenbaum came charging up after me, especially if I had witnessed his aggression at the gas station where he was screaming demands to be shot and threatening to kill people if he found them alone. He was not stable, and I defy anyone who thinks wrestling around with a mentally unstable person is a good course of action.

It's absurd when 9% of men respond on a survey that they can beat an elephant in a fight unarmed. It's not when asking how afraid, realistically, should a larger individual with a weapon be afraid of a very small individual who they know is unarmed. Personally I would not have been afraid of him at all even knowing that he was mentally unstable. Give him a weapon and that would be a different story, but that was not the case here. If Rittenhouse truly was afraid for his life over a relatively minor provocation then he never should have been there in the first place, and what he needs isn't a gun, it's some self-defense lessons. 

2 hours ago, sologdin said:

pry it out of my cold dead eyes? 

Not gonna lie, I guffawed. 

Quote

far right populism is based on grievance, though--asinine, fundamentally misattributed grievance, but grievance nevertheless.  here, however, a governmental process has vindicated several of its pet narratives.  does that encourage it in its contrarian recalcitrance--or does it defuse the grievance and thereby assimilate adherents back into legal institutions? the appropriate case study would be whether there's a rise in similar incidents post-acquittal. 

Grievance can be felt in a number of ways, and like you said it doesn't have to be rational. 

Anyways, there are three general outcomes from this. Tensions will either increase, decrease or remain static. Of the three a general decrease in violence seems by far the least likely, less you assume more guns at protests will lead to less violence, and I think it's safe to assume more guns will be a likely outcome as well. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I'd assume the first one makes civil cases much harder.

The cases are different, but it all comes down to what will be admissible in civil court. I think it's a slam dunk that OJ would have been found guilty in criminal court if everything introduced in civil court was allowed. I don't think it's the same with Rittenhouse, but there are pieces of evidence that will likely be introduced in civil court that would have been rather problematic in criminal court had they been allowed. 

[Mister Smikes]

42 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I'd think totally different beast. Maybe our resident lawyers (scot sologdin) can correct me on that one.

OJ went to court: didn't do it. and was found not guilty.

Rittenhouse went into the court: yeah, I did it. So what? It was self-defense, screw you guys, I am going home.

With Rittenhouse the court ruling was basically: Yeah, justified killing, we are cool with it. 

With OJ the court was more like: Ok, you didn't do it. But we'll hold the murderer, whoever it was *wink* *wink* accountable.

On the most basic level, it is the same calculus.  In a civil case, the standard is preponderance of the evidence.  In a criminal case, the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Hence, it is "res judicata" (that is, established as a matter of law) that Rittenhouse is not shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have not acted in self defense.  But it is not "res judicata" that this is not established by a mere "preponderance of the evidence".  The latter question could still be litigated.

42 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I'd assume the first one makes civil cases much harder.

The factor that you are ignoring is the "deep pockets" calculus.  OJ had lots of money, and Kyle Rittenhouse has virtually none -- none, at any rate, that is worth the cost of a civil trial.

Gaige Grosskreutz, I understand, is suing the city of Kenosha for $10 million over his injuries.  Dunno is Rittenhouse is named as a defendant as well, but that's not where the money is.

[Week]

 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Doesn't matter, if Rittenhouse has the money right now, or not. If I were a relative of one of his victims, I'd still name him in any law suit as a matter of principle. And to stop him from making a living out of his murders. If he ends up in debt for the rest of his life, I am all for it.

[Jaxom 1974]

17 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Doesn't matter, if Rittenhouse has the money right now, or not. If I were a relative of one of his victims, I'd still name him in any law suit as a matter of principle. And to stop him from making a living out of his murders. If he ends up in debt for the rest of his life, I am all for it.

This is a joke...or is it...but let the families of the victims benefit from the speaking fees this kid is going to get...

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Personally I would not have been afraid of him at all even knowing that he was mentally unstable. Give him a weapon and that would be a different story,

Like the one in Rittenhouse’s hands that he was attempting to take? 

[Kalbear]

Yeah Rittenhouse has no money uh huh sure

 

 

[HoodedCrow]

I’m trying to find the most obnoxious music ever. My candidate is Rasputin by Boney M.

[JGP]

3 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Yeah Rittenhouse has no money uh huh sure

 

 

I was just watching that. Hard to fathom that Rittenhouse sounds more stupid than I figured he was. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

I’m trying to find the most obnoxious music ever. My candidate is Rasputin by Boney M.

Think, I can beat that.

Modern Talking. Or something from Scooter. 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

I’m trying to find the most obnoxious music ever. My candidate is Rasputin by Boney M.

I've always found Randy Newman rather obnoxious.  Given the prior discussion of Rosenbaum's height, perhaps...

....too soon?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Like the one in Rittenhouse’s hands that he was attempting to take? 

It was strapped to him. And this assumption that taking his gun means he was 100% going to die is nonsense. By this logic I assume you also believe the three men charged with murdering Ahmaud Arbery should also get off, because despite them chasing him around in a truck for several minutes, at the end of the day Travis McMichael said Arbery was going for his gun after he drew it on him so he had to shoot him.

I can't believe that silly South Park episode from nearly 25 years ago has become more or less how we treat shoot things today.

[HoodedCrow]

I am going for something that will travel th ough walls:)

[TrueMetis]

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It was strapped to him. And this assumption that taking his gun means he was 100% going to die is nonsense. By this logic I assume you also believe the three men charged with murdering Ahmaud Arbery should also get off, because despite them chasing him around in a truck for several minutes, at the end of the day Travis McMichael said Arbery was going for his gun after he drew it on him so he had to shoot him.

I can't believe that silly South Park episode from nearly 25 years ago has become more or less how we treat shoot things today.

I mean, if a gun is so dangerous that taking one from someone is grounds to kill them in self defence, just imagine how dangerous someone walking around with one is?

[HoodedCrow]

I kind of like Aquarius., but one for the team.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Two Americas in one tweet:

 

[Mister Smikes]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Doesn't matter, if Rittenhouse has the money right now, or not. If I were a relative of one of his victims, I'd still name him in any law suit as a matter of principle. And to stop him from making a living out of his murders. If he ends up in debt for the rest of his life, I am all for it.

I doubt such a civil verdict could be obtained.  Notwithstanding the different standards of proof, a jury is still likely to feel that Rittenhouse acted in self defense.  And he can counterclaim as well.

Moreover, the purpose of the civil law is to compensate victims, not to vindictively ruin a teenager's life forever.  There are safeguards against the sort of abuses you contemplate.  Rittenhouse, an unemployed 18 year old, can file for bankruptcy.  Then, at some point in the future, he can start rebuilding his life.

If, years down the road, he decides to try making some money off his story, it will be too late to sue him, because of the statutes of limitations.

[Mister Smikes]

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It was strapped to him. And this assumption that taking his gun means he was 100% going to die is nonsense. By this logic I assume you also believe the three men charged with murdering Ahmaud Arbery should also get off, because despite them chasing him around in a truck for several minutes, at the end of the day Travis McMichael said Arbery was going for his gun after he drew it on him so he had to shoot him.

Arbery did not have a gun to defend himself from the armed mob that was hunting him.  That seems to be the main difference between the two cases.