US Politics: Turkeys Available Here

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Near clean guilty sweep in the Arbery murder trial.

[Zorral]

As it should be, though I really and truly doubted  . . . .

The defense, lordessa . . . .

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/23/opinions/ahmaud-arbery-defense-treatment-filipovic/index.html

All this is a part of a much bigger issue - armed white vigilantes running around pretending they're men.  In Texas, the law lets them do this if they suspect and abortion is going on. 

These unjustified killings are just getting going.

 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

Asking if people approve of the verdict is really too simplistic a question as there are multiple dynamics to it. Personally I'd say I don't approve of the verdict, and I don't think the verdict is fair, but I do accept that there's a decent chance it's the legally correct legal decision* based on the current laws of the state. The poll seemed to lack any scope for condemning the laws while accepting the verdict needed to be reached under said laws.

Well, there were a number of items in the poll, which was entirely centered around the case.  The item on approval read:

Quote

Kyle Rittenhouse was found NOT guilty of all charges including intentional homicide, attempted homicide, and recklessly endangering safety after shooting and killing two men and injuring another during a protest against police brutality in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020.  Based on what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the jury’s decision to find Rittenhouse NOT guilty of all charges?

43% strongly or somewhat approved while 39% strongly or somewhat disapproved.  Then the next item was about fairness (the one I'd personally focus on):

Quote

Would you say the verdict of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is fair or unfair?

Here, 45% said it was very or somewhat fair while 37% said it was very or somewhat unfair.  Across all five options, there's very little variance between the two questions, which suggests no matter how you word it that's where respondents are gonna place themselves.  I suspect a lot of people felt conflicted about ALL the charges - I myself think the "intentional" homicide charges were an overreach, and like you am willing to acknowledge under the insane self-defense standards of Wisconsin/US law the verdict may well have been "legally correct," but I still would have answered "strongly disapprove" and "very unfair" for both items.

Actually, another interesting item in the poll was "Which of the following comes closest to your opinion, even if none are exactly correct?"  And the options are:

Quote

(a) Kyle Rittenhouse had a right to use deadly force to defend himself if he believed his life was in danger

(b) Kyle Rittenhouse had a right to defend himself if he believed his life was in danger, but he should not have used deadly force

(c) Kyle Rittenhouse should not have used force to defend himself and should have reached out to trained law enforcement officers for protection if he believed his life was in danger.

33% selected answer (a), 22% selected answer (b), and 28% selected answer (c).  Which suggests, even if ~45% of respondents "approved" or thought the verdict was fair, only a third had no problems with the case while 50% did have clear concerns.

[Ran]

I have to say those (c) answers are all from people who had very little concrete knowledge of the case. Wonder how many of them said they paid a lot of attention to the case.

[HoodedCrow]

Let’s see two friends left Texas because they were sick of all the anti Librul, anti choice stuff. Another friend who left Texas was a Republican but who supports planned parenthood. I didn’t go when we had the opportunity because I was told that I wouldn’t like it by those that I trust. I was told there were women who rose before their husbands so that they would not be seen without their make up on and their hair puffed. Whew!

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Ran said:

I have to say those (c) answers are all from people who had very little concrete knowledge of the case. Wonder how many of them said they paid a lot of attention to the case.

That's largely irrelevant (we can count on a fairly uninformed voting bloc for a very long time in every country) and also somewhat besides the point, given that people can be completely informed about the case AND also be concerned that this is going to cause a rise in protest shootings, more violence, and in general cause them to feel less safe.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Ran said:

I have to say those (c) answers are all from people who had very little concrete knowledge of the case. Wonder how many of them said they paid a lot of attention to the case.

I strongly suspect those 28% were overwhelmingly composed of the 27% that strongly disapproved of the verdict and 25% that said it was very unfair, independent of their knowledge of the case.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I’m pleased by the outcome of the Arbery murder trial.  I’m a little worried about the appeal.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalsandra said:

That's largely irrelevant (we can count on a fairly uninformed voting bloc for a very long time in every country) and also somewhat besides the point, given that people can be completely informed about the case AND also be concerned that this is going to cause a rise in protest shootings, more violence, and in general cause them to feel less safe.

This really isn't a response to @Ran's point. But to answer it, I suspect respondents to all three options vastly overestimate how much they followed the case and understood the law. 

To me what's more interesting is the starting point, and that means asking them regardless of which response they selected if they think it's appropriate or inappropriate for a minor to bring a gun to a protest. That's probably going to you a good indicator as to how they feel about everything that happened after the fact.

[Zorral]

The jury, 11 Whites and one Black (the defense rejected all the other Blacks in the jury pool), found the murderers of Arbery indeed to be murderers.  All three of the lynch team guilty (though the one who didn’t handle a weapon wasn’t found guilty of murder).

Like Rittenhouse, the defendants plead self-defense, they were in terror of their lives. (So did the Charlottesville white supremacists groups.)

In some ways it’s hard for me to react positively to this, given that that it was an unprovoked attack, made on public property by multiple assailants against an individual, and that the murderers literally videoed themselves committing the crime. The only way the bar could be any lower is if they had signed depositions stipulating that they planned to go a-hunting. And yet, their assault nearly went unprosecuted; without family and public outrage, so strong, so constant at the egregious facts it might never have reached a court.  It took 73 days, a video going viral, and allegations from higher authority of prosecutorial misconduct before arrests were made. The DA and police who tried to cover it up, literally told the victim's family that he was killed in the act of committing a crime. Not until the video of the murder -- made by one of the murderers -- and the following allegations of prosecutorial misconduct made by a higher court official, were the locals forced, finally, to take action against the murderers.

What is really interesting to me is that the defense invoked race; the prosecution did not. The defense call the conviction a lynching. Yet it was the dead man surely who was lynched?

[Kalbear]

Thought this was an astute point - conservatives have a very ambitious and far reaching set of policy goals. They just have no interest in using legislation at the federal level to do it. 

 

[Mister Smikes]

4 hours ago, 1066 Larry said:

Get rid of open carry would be a huge start 

By itself that would not change the self-defense analysis.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

By itself that would not change the self-defense analysis.

Huh? It literally changes everything, because then Rittenhouse would be illegally possessing a firearm and he couldn't have been displaying it, so the claim of needing to use deadly force for self-defense would be far less reasonable because he couldn't say he was afraid he was going to get his gun taken away from him.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Huh? It literally changes everything, because then Rittenhouse would be illegally possessing a firearm and he couldn't have been displaying it, so the claim of needing to use deadly force for self-defense would be far less reasonable because he couldn't say he was afraid he was going to get his gun taken away from him.

Plus without his penis replacement on display, there's a way better chance that he wouldn't have become a target in the first place.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

To me what's more interesting is the starting point, and that means asking them regardless of which response they selected if they think it's appropriate or inappropriate for a minor to bring a gun to a protest. That's probably going to you a good indicator as to how they feel about everything that happened after the fact.

There's an item fairly similar to that too!  MCWA6, page 32:

Quote

Initially, one of the charges Kyle Rittenhouse faced was possession of a dangerous weapon as a minor. However, the judge presiding over the case dismissed the charge, agreeing with the defense’s argument that there is an exception in the Wisconsin law for rifles that are not short-barreled, and the rifle Rittenhouse used was not short-barreled.Do you approve or disapprove of the judge dismissing the charge against Kyle Rittenhouse for possession of a dangerous weapon as a minor?

42% somewhat or strongly approved and 39% somewhat or strongly disapproved, pretty much mapping onto the approval/fairness items with slightly higher disapproval.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Huh? It literally changes everything, because then Rittenhouse would be illegally possessing a firearm and he couldn't have been displaying it, so the claim of needing to use deadly force for self-defense would be far less reasonable because he couldn't say he was afraid he was going to get his gun taken away from him.

Yeah if he open carry/concealed carry were illegal the prosecution would obviously have a stronger case that Rittenhouse engaged in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others.

[Mister Smikes]

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

It's not like my post was burying the lede that my criticism is of the laws. As for things I'd change, my comment on what I think should be the bare minimum is literally in the post you're quoting so perhaps start with reading that rather than acting like it's a big mystery which will obviously be highly unreasonable.

Well, I did see a remark of yours which I address at the end of this post.

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Purely using your description of the events of this case Rosenbaum was in a poor state of mind and attempting to provoke armed individuals, and it reads like an implication there may have been a "suicide by cop" dynamic at play. 

Quite possible.  At least, his suicidal tendencies would help explain why self-preservation was not a high priority to Rosenbaum, even if it was not his goal.  On the other hand, tying his shirt around his head as a mask does imply a hope that he won't be identified if the actions he is about to perform are caught on video.

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

The only person that felt sufficiently threatened by this behavior to act on it was the 17 year old who shouldn't have been there. No one else felt the need to shoot Rosenbaum, he didn't assault anyone or take anyone else's gun and shoot them.

Well, he never tried to chase after Ryan Balch or try to wrestle away Ryan Balch's rifle.   If he had, I guess it is an open question if Ryan Balch would have shot him or merely kicked him in the balls.  But regardless, it cannot be denied that a deranged madman, who has previously said that he will kill you if he ever gets you alone, and who is now charging you with the evident intent of taking your gun, and who is hiding his face behind a mask, and who is apparently acting in concert with an ally who has a gun, and who has just fired a shot, perhaps at you, is a fairly serious threat to your life and health.  And if he is suicidal and does not care if he lives or dies, that only makes him more of a threat.

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

If you take all the above as given it's reasonable to infer from this that the inexperienced teenager misinterpreted the situation due to his inexperience and less advanced control of his emotional response which resulted in the deaths of two people. People experiencing mental health crises, especially in a society where they do not receive adequate care and support, deserve to be able to live in that society without being killed by people who are overly scared of them.

The issue is not whether Rosenbaum deserved to die.  

Two wrongs do not make a right.  It is a tragedy, to some extent, that Rosenbaum is dead, but it also would be a tragedy if a teenager, who has not been shown to be morally any worse than you or I, or anyone else, were locked in prison for life merely for failing to adequately overcome his natural and normal human instinct for self preservation.

Would a saintlier man have withheld fire?  Maybe.  But the law is not designed for saints.  It is designed to deter the wicked.  And people in mortal danger, who defend themselves rather than sitting back to philosophically consider whether they REALLY have a greater right to live than their attackers, are not even wicked people.  They are just ordinary people.  Throwing an ordinary man in prison for the crime of being ordinary is not justice.  It is arbitrary, and (I suspect) hypocritical.

There is an expression:  "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".    That is not a moral statement, nor even a legal statement.  It is merely a statement of self interest.  But it does illustrate that there is not much point in deterring people from exercising the right of self defense, in circumstances where they are in fact in reasonable fear for their lives.  When Death stands before you, the Jail is not a consideration.

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Of course those people are far too frequently are police who, despite their training and the responsibility they are invested with, get held to an even lower standard than this (at the time) teenager.

If Grosskreutz had pointed a pistol at a cop, the cop would not have fired once and left Grosskreutz standing still holding a gun in his hand, as Rittenhouse did.   The cop would have behaved in accordance with his training and fired multiple shots until he was absolutely sure his adversary was no longer a threat.    

I express no opinion at this time over whether cop training is appropriate.  But I will say that the kind of police I want serving the community are brave men, who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect the community, and do not believe that any number of civilian lives must be sacrificed for their own need for absolute safety.  

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

And for the record I'd absolutely volunteer myself as having too strong a fear response and too intense emotional waves to be toting firearms around. I'd put myself on that list, so it's not like I'm saying this is damning of a person - simply not possessing a temperament suited to being armed.

which I read as suggesting that a defendant's alleged fear for his life should be judged by the jury from an objective standard of reasonableness.  But that is already the case under Wisconsin law.  It would not be a change.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

40 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

By itself that would not change the self-defense analysis.

It would have changed everything because you wouldn't have a bunch of people all worried one might shoot the other.  Rossenbaum seemed to specifically be asking people to shoot him so he maybe just ignores Rittenhouse altogether.  If you dont have a bunch of people with guns on their hands it takes the entire temperature down.  

The self-defense analysis changes because no one is attacking Rittenhouse, because he doesn't have a gun.  

People get edgy when the see guns out in the open.  

[Mister Smikes]

2 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

It would have changed everything because you wouldn't have a bunch of people all worried one might shoot the other.  Rossenbaum seemed to specifically be asking people to shoot him so he maybe just ignores Rittenhouse altogether.  If you dont have a bunch of people with guns on their hands it takes the entire temperature down.  

The self-defense analysis changes because no one is attacking Rittenhouse, because he doesn't have a gun.  

People get edgy when the see guns out in the open.  

You are applying 20/20 hindsight to a particular situation, and making assumptions even then.  Sometimes people attack you because you have a gun.  Sometimes people attack you because you DON'T have a gun.  Is the latter really less likely than the former?

Anyhow, I am unsure of your assumptions.  It seems to me that what made Rosenbaum really angry, was not the gun, but the fire extinguisher.  

If guns make him so angry, then why did he not attack his buddy Ziminski?

 

[BigFatCoward]

13 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.  It is a tragedy, to some extent, that Rosenbaum is dead, but it also would be a tragedy if a teenager, who has not been shown to be morally any worse than you or I, or anyone else, were locked in prison for life merely for failing to adequately overcome his natural and normal human instinct for self preservation.

 

Lol. Speak for yourself 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Mister Smikes said:

You are applying 20/20 hindsight to a particular situation, and making assumptions even then.  Sometimes people attack you because you have a gun.  Sometimes people attack you because you DON'T have a gun.  Is the latter really less likely than the former?

Anyhow, I am unsure of your assumptions.  It seems to me that what made Rosenbaum really angry, was not the gun, but the fire extinguisher.  

If guns make him so angry, then why did he not attack his buddy Ziminski?

 

It's not 20/20 hindsight about a particular situation, it applies to any situation: if there's no open carry, it's one less factor that goes into determining if a defendant provoked the situation the created the need for self-defense.  

Are you going to tell me with a straight face that getting rid of open carry wouldn't make a self defense case less transparent?  It would make anything like this easier to untangle, for one, and two, would take down the tension and the stakes at any protest.  When you're holding a hammer everything looks like a nail.