Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[hollodero]

(11-05-2021, 02:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, how do you justify putting more restrictions on law abiding citizens when you don't even use the penal code to punish the criminal use of firearms?

Ehm, I guess I don't, I'm for enforcing that penal code.
I see many of the points you and Bels make as fair and I'd agree that a lot of actual measures taken are not within the realms of my own suggestions and I am not advocating many of them. I get that you can and should not confiscate guns, for example.

(11-05-2021, 02:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's all good, I enjoy the perspective of people outside the country on this issue.  It also give us both a chance to learn from the other.  I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll leave it at that

Alright... though there is all said about Rittenhause anyway... according to US laws, he should go free, you made this case convincingly enough.

What I can say about that aside from gun laws (just to add some content still) is that - not to deploy a bad faith argument regarding the trial - I do have a problem with Rittenhouse getting celebrated as some kind of folk hero by large portions of the more extreme right. His deeds get outright celebrated. Doesn't mean he should go to jail as a deterrent, though I can somehow understand that perspective that probably to a large part leads to the numerous refusals of your totally legit take. It just imho is yet another under-discussed example of a deep darkness in the United States coming from the right, a darkness that led to a majority (or at least the most significant portion) of Trump's GOP supporters to come out against accepting election results and against democracy as a whole. And all your guns could do nothing about that threat. The threat to democracy stemming from gun laws, imho, pales in comparison, even if I were to concede all of your points.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-05-2021, 03:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ehm, I guess I don't, I'm for enforcing that penal code.
I see many of the points you and Bels make as fair and I'd agree that a lot of actual measures taken are not within the realms of my own suggestions and I am not advocating many of them. I get that you can and should not confiscate guns, for example.



Alright... though there is all said about Rittenhause anyway... according to US laws, he should go free, you made this case convincingly enough.

What I can say about that aside from gun laws (just to add some content still) is that - not to deploy a bad faith argument regarding the trial - I do have a problem with Rittenhouse getting celebrated as some kind of folk hero by large portions of the more extreme right. His deeds get outright celebrated. Doesn't mean he should go to jail as a deterrent, though I can somehow understand that perspective that probably to a large part leads to the numerous refusals of your totally legit take. It just imho is yet another under-discussed example of a deep darkness in the United States coming from the right, a darkness that led to a majority (or at least the most significant portion) of Trump's GOP supporters to come out against accepting election results and against democracy as a whole. And all your guns could do nothing about that threat. The threat to democracy stemming from gun laws, imho, pales in comparison, even if I were to concede all of your points.

Yes, this is, unfortunately, accurate.  I think, knowing human behavior as I do, this is a response to the largely hands off approach to these riots the past few years.  A lot of lawless behavior was tolerated, in some cases encouraged (see CHAZ/CHOP and the "summer of love") and for many citizens it appeared that simple law and order was no longer a priority for many.  Add in the, and I personally don't think this is disputable, glowingly positive mainstream media coverage of protests that devolved in looting, rioting and violence (mostly peaceful) and many people see Rittenhouse as someone who finally stood up to these "woke" bullies and their lawless behavior.  Add in the fact that none of the three people shot by Rittenhouse were very sympathetic characters, Rosenbaum the convicted child rapist, and IMO the instigator of this whole incident, especially.  Additionally, you have, if you take him at his word, Rittenhouse being there to protect the property of others, coupled with his being shown cleaning graffiti earlier that day.

Add that all up and, for many people, you have Kyle as an all American kid who put himself in danger to help others and was attacked by A-hole rioters (from the perspective of these people) for stopping an attempt to blow up a gas station and then having to defend himself, successfully when those people attacked him.  So, yeah, it does come off as morbid and dark, I can certainly see that.  But I can also see how some would see him as a hero who defended himself from criminals.  Lastly, the vigilante doing what is right when the government won't/can't is a popular theme in US culture; the Death Wish movies and Batman being two popular examples and I could certainly dig up more.  Americans have a bit of a contradictory streak in them.  On one hand we greatly appreciate, and expect, law and order and on the other we have an innate distrust of those in power and will celebrate someone who "does the right thing" when those in power do not, or refuse to.

[Dill]

(11-03-2021, 06:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill, I have a question for you that I didn't want lost in the sauce.  You raised the assertion that Rittenhouse was responsible for the verbal altercation with Rosenbaum that led to Rosenbaum chasing and attacking him.  Do you think that a verbal altercation is sufficient provocation to physically attack someone?  If so, could you provide us with examples of words or statements that would justify physically assaulting someone?

In principle, I don’t think verbal provocations of the smack/ad hominem type justify physical assault, but I can think of circumstances which might make such assault “understandable” to a jury—e.g., if someone tells a bereaved father “I’m glad your son was killed in A-stan. He was gay,” followed by obscene gestures in the faces of that father’s grieving wife and daughter.

But this is a moot question here, since I am not defending Rosenbaum’s “right” to chase people down and wrest guns from them.
 
My issue has always been with how the law is set up to protect armed civilians flouting guns, by reducing all relevant legal determination to the question of whether such people “feel” threatened when confronted. Here the law protects a “right” and a “freedom” to the detriment of public
 
At present, it is not inconceivable that a shooter could kill people trying to disarm him in the interest of public safety—and get off on “self defense” if his lawyers could convince a jury that a “reasonable person” would also feel threatened in the same situation, and he was “retreating” after the previous kill, etc.

[Dill]

(11-05-2021, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably because they're too busy dodging rocks, bottles, fireworks and bags of urine thrown by left wing protestors chanting "F*&k 12", "All cops are bastards", "F*&k the police", while shining laser pointers into the eyes of police.

Good point. 

I have seen no evidence that the Capitol rioters were using lasers, or throwing bags of urine. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-05-2021, 03:45 PM)Dill Wrote: In principle, I don’t think verbal provocations of the smack/ad hominem type justify physical assault, but I can think of circumstances which might make such assault “understandable” to a jury—e.g., if someone tells a bereaved father “I’m glad your son was killed in A-stan. He was gay,” followed by obscene gestures in the faces of that father’s grieving wife and daughter.

Understandable, but still not legal.

Quote:But this is a moot question here, since I am not defending Rosenbaum’s “right” to chase people down and wrest guns from them.

OK, it certainly didn't come across that way, but I am pleased to hear it.
 

Quote:My issue has always been with how the law is set up to protect armed civilians flouting guns, by reducing all relevant legal determination to the question of whether such people “feel” threatened when confronted. Here the law protects a “right” and a “freedom” to the detriment of public

You're referring to stand your ground laws, which do not apply here.  I can understand the concerns raised by the laws as written in some states.  I just don't understand how that's relevant to this case, at all.
 

Quote:At present, it is not inconceivable that a shooter could kill people trying to disarm him in the interest of public safety—and get off on “self defense” if his lawyers could convince a jury that a “reasonable person” would also feel threatened in the same situation, and he was “retreating” after the previous kill, etc.

Well, there's certainly not enough information in this "what if" to determine that.  You cannot write the law to cover every possible occurrence, hence the "reasonable person" standard that actually works quite well.

(11-05-2021, 03:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Good point. 

I have seen no evidence that the Capitol rioters were using lasers, or throwing bags of urine. 

This response was so predictable I would have bet my house it was going to be how you replied. Is your assertion that right wing "protestors" engage in the type of described behavior as much or more than left wing "protestors"?  Evidence from the past few years would strongly indicate the exact opposite, but please make the case if you can.

[Dill]

(11-04-2021, 07:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're confused because of the way right and left are defined in modern American politics. It would blow your mind to realize that gun control is a conservative policy when viewed through the lens of the original and modern dilemmas of politics. Gun control promotes inequality, oppressive governments, and is quite frankly anti-democratic. The ability for the state to strip you of your rights for criminal activity is also a conservative position, which has been moved away from conservatism through ideas like jury trials, innocent until proven guilty, etc.

Not even joking, the ability for someone to defend themselves from others using a firearm like Rittenhouse did is a progressive ideal. But because the majority of Americans don't actually hold a political ideology and instead vote partisan while only forming ad hoc opinions about policy positions we have the completely ****** up view of where these things lie on the spectrum. But this is something I rail on about every once in a while and everyone ignores it or forgets about it until something like this comes up.

I'm a social democrat, coming pretty damn close to democratic socialist these days. This means I'm more leftist than either of our two political parties and, quite frankly, my positions go further left than Bernie or "the Squad." I am what Republicans think the Democratic party is being guided by even though they are center-right, centrist on a good day. I'm a big fan of Karl Marx and John Brown (but not those Soviet ***** that were just authoritarians using the work of Marx to justify their own brand of oppression). My pistol case has a sticker on it that says "this machine makes folk music" and this one is on the other side of it:

Another thoughtful Bels post. Still, as one leftist-without-quotation-marks to another, I'd like to pose some questions to the bolded--starting with the "original and modern dilemmas of politics." 

As a political scientist, you know that, back in the 17th century, post English Civil War, Hobbes, Algernon Sydney, and Locke articulated an individual right to self defense grounded in natural law, law supposed by them to precede government and positive law. No government could cancel this right. This, and the concept of natural, individual equality which accompanied it, were indeed "progressive" as articulated against feudal claims of divinely sanctioned inequality. And they remained so through the American and French Revolutions of the 18th century.
 
But the 19th century is another story. If you are an admirer of Marx, then you know that once the “bourgeoisie” capture the reins of government, putting (classical) liberal conceptions of freedom and equality into law favoring their class, that sets the stage for the coming centuries of socialist struggle. In the U.S., that (classical) liberal conception of rights, freedom and equality—uncontested by a true right or left—becomes THE American ideology, uniting both right and “left” in liberal conceptions of “natural” individual whose rights pre-date government in natural law—rights themselves conceived of as “possessions” which, in turn, convert myriad human relations into contract and property relations, and naturalize them as such. In contrast to Continental Europe, conservatism in the U.S. emerges to maintain this (classical) liberal ideology.
 
One aspect of this American adaptation has been, in an originally frontier society, the yoking of private gun ownership to (classical) liberal conceptions of individual right, personal security, even identity, such that “freedom” is so believed to depend on this right to ownership that any diminution of it is a risk to the Republic. Head scratcher for our European friends, who may also own guns, but cannot flaunt them during a street riot and expect high fives from the police, and who remember well from their own history how the most serious threats to democracy may emerge from their own illiberal voters, in accord with parliamentary procedure, without a weapon drawn.
 
So is this a neutral issue, separate from right or left? I am going with the NRA, Hannity, Trump and all the Michigan militias, whose instincts I trust on this one.* Current laws governing gun ownership and self defense are not “progressive.” And these laws are not “neutral,” neither right nor left, simply because they are laws.  
 
(These points are put forward for general discussion/interrogation. No claim to have settled the debate.)


*Maybe I should add here that I am not lumping you in with Hannity et al., even on this one issue. I'm glad there is another leftist-without-quotation-marks on the message board. I'm generally on your side--just question your take in this issue. Even though I too am gun owner and have a handgun which I bet is bigger than any of SSF's!

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-05-2021, 01:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did he initiate the encounter?

Idk maybe we should let a judge and jury decide and get all the facts. But I see you ducking my hypothetical.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-05-2021, 07:19 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Idk maybe we should let a judge and jury decide and get all the facts. But I see you ducking my hypothetical.

Negative, ghost rider.  I'm not dodging anything.  But since you insist I will answer your completely unrelated to the thread topic question.  The people in the above video, the ones intent on robbing the store, not the Marine, enter the store wearing masks and then pull and brandish previously concealed handguns.  As there was no imminent threat of danger in the gas station (until they entered it) a "reasonable person" would absolutely assume they are intent on robbing the store by entering as they did.  Hence, by definition, they have initiated an encounter via their attempt to commit a crime, in this case robbery.  Please note that open carrying in a state that allows open carry, even if you are, unbeknownst to bystanders doing so illegally, would not trigger the same conclusion in a "reasonable person".  Also, and this is obviously speculation, but this video has no audio, so it's definitely possible that one of the two armed robbers made a statement that would further lead a "reasonable person" to conclude they are there to rob the business.  But we don't know either way so let's move on.

The above being established, i.e. the two assailants have demonstrated their intent to commit armed robbery, they no longer have the luxury of claiming self defense if they are attacked by a person responding to their actions.  They initiated an encounter by brandishing previously concealed handguns (additionally, please read up on why the term "brandishing" is an important one and why the distinction exists).  The concealed part is especially important, as one does not reveal a previously concealed weapon without a "reasonable person" coming to the conclusion that you are about to use it.  This is important as an open carry weapon is clearly visible, hence the term open carry.  As it is already visible, brandishing it would then become necessary for a "reasonable person" to come to the conclusion that it is about to be used.  It being strapped across your chest would not be sufficient to come to this conclusion by the "reasonable person" standard, again in a state in which open carry is legal.

Due to all of the above the two suspects in the video have forfeited any immediate claim to self defense by initiating an armed encounter with the reasonably perceivable intent to commit armed robbery.  That being said, if both suspects ran and the Marine in question pursued them, subsequently shooting them or attacking them while they fled, he has now forfeited any claim to self defense, as he was no longer in danger when they fled and he chose to initiate a second encounter by pursuing them.  Again, as stated earlier in this thread, these distinctions do not often apply to law enforcement.  I make this distinction as there are some on this board who will dishonestly use this point against me in the future if such a distinction is not made.


So, in summation, I don't think I can make the obvious distinction between these two incidents more clear.  If you are still unsure of this difference or persist in equating these two instances as equal then I really have nothing more to say.  Your position could not be more incorrect, as I have taken pains to illustrate, and if you are still of your original opinion then I have no interest in attempting to illuminate the differences further, as I don't know if that's even possible.  If that is the case then please accept my apologies for not indulging your line of reasoning any further than I already have.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-05-2021, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Negative, ghost rider.  I'm not dodging anything.  But since you insist I will answer your completely unrelated to the thread topic question.  The people in the above video, the ones intent on robbing the store, not the Marine, enter the store wearing masks and then pull and brandish previously concealed handguns.  As there was no imminent threat of danger in the gas station (until they entered it) a "reasonable person" would absolutely assume they are intent on robbing the store by entering as they did.  Hence, by definition, they have initiated an encounter via their attempt to commit a crime, in this case robbery.  Please note that open carrying in a state that allows open carry, even if you are, unbeknownst to bystanders doing so illegally, would not trigger the same conclusion in a "reasonable person".  Also, and this is obviously speculation, but this video has no audio, so it's definitely possible that one of the two armed robbers made a statement that would further lead a "reasonable person" to conclude they are there to rob the business.  But we don't know either way so let's move on.

The above being established, i.e. the two assailants have demonstrated their intent to commit armed robbery, they no longer have the luxury of claiming self defense if they are attacked by a person responding to their actions.  They initiated an encounter by brandishing previously concealed handguns (additionally, please read up on why the term "brandishing" is an important one and why the distinction exists).  The concealed part is especially important, as one does not reveal a previously concealed weapon without a "reasonable person" coming to the conclusion that you are about to use it.  This is important as an open carry weapon is clearly visible, hence the term open carry.  As it is already visible, brandishing it would then become necessary for a "reasonable person" to come to the conclusion that it is about to be used.  It being strapped across your chest would not be sufficient to come to this conclusion by the "reasonable person" standard, again in a state in which open carry is legal.

Due to all of the above the two suspects in the video have forfeited any immediate claim to self defense by initiating an armed encounter with the reasonably perceivable intent to commit armed robbery.  That being said, if both suspects ran and the Marine in question pursued them, subsequently shooting them or attacking them while they fled, he has now forfeited any claim to self defense, as he was no longer in danger when they fled and he chose to initiate a second encounter by pursuing them.  Again, as stated earlier in this thread, these distinctions do not often apply to law enforcement.  I make this distinction as there are some on this board who will dishonestly use this point against me in the future if such a distinction is not made.


So, in summation, I don't think I can make the obvious distinction between these two incidents more clear.  If you are still unsure of this difference or persist in equating these two instances as equal then I really have nothing more to say.  Your position could not be more incorrect, as I have taken pains to illustrate, and if you are still of your original opinion then I have no interest in attempting to illuminate the differences further, as I don't know if that's even possible.  If that is the case then please accept my apologies for not indulging your line of reasoning any further than I already have.

What does a reasonable person conclude when they see a person with gloves on and a rifle in their hands running away from a dead body shortly after shots were fired?

And thanks for the killer response

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2021, 02:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: But police always has the right to use force and no democratic system questions this in a way that gives the citizens the right to resist or fire back. Every society knows a system of enforcement that relies on an armed force (aka police) that can overcome resistance to enforce the law. Citizens in a democratic society don't have the right to be on equal footing with the police, armed-wise or resistance-wise.

Eh, I would debate this if I was feeling more up to it. Police as we know them today is not a very old concept. Law enforcement has existed since laws existed, sure, but the way in which we grant the state the authority to use force in the manner we do, now, isn't as old. There are also democratic discussions over whether or not the idea of the police in general is in line with democratic ideals. That's also a more philosophical and deeper question. The main thing to keep in mind is that law enforcement is something that existed long before democracy. It was an authoritarian tool. We place limits on our police, much like we place limits on the rest of the criminal justice system, to try to make it more in line with our democratic societies but we're just trying to make it less authoritarian.

(11-05-2021, 02:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: Which is why the main idea are general restrictions and not expensive permits. I'm also for permits, of course, because I feel society is well served if everyone with a deadly weapon knows the basics of handling them properly and isn't a nutcase.

Even restrictions cause this inequality, though. Let's take the Hughes Amendment as an example. The Hughes Amendment was added to a bill in 1986 that prohibited the manufacture or importation of newly made machine guns after the date of the bills enactment. So this is a general restriction that prevents machine guns from being in civilian hands but allows for those already in civilian hands to remain. Seems fair. What has happened is that it has created a hugely inflated market in which a machine gun has exponentially increased in price making it only affordable to the upper classes.

There is more nuance to it, and more angles that could be discussed, but this is just to highlight how general restrictions can have the same effect of promoting inequality.

(11-05-2021, 02:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: You might know more about that than me.
Gaston Glock is a bit of an a-hole, however, but I hear his products are widely popular.

Yeah, he probably he an asshole, but I love his pistols.

(11-05-2021, 02:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: I doubt that 18th century logic still applies nowadays without modifications. Also, I don't think that an armed populace is an important part of a democratic society in the same sense eg. freedom of speech or free and fair elections are.
Our polulace is not armed and no one takes advantage of that by enforcing his will with his weaponry. Except for the state and the police to enforce the law, but that is still true for the US as well.

Why wouldn't it still apply? As for the lack of will enforcement, as I said, it doesn't necessarily mean it will happen, but it isn't coincidence that disarming the populous is one of the first steps for an oppressor to take.

(11-05-2021, 02:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: So how comes that fatal gun violence incidents in the US are about four times higher than in France (as the European champion in that regard)? France has plenty of racial tensions etc. as well, yet a citizen is four times less likely to fall victim to gun violence. And I'm certain there are many things that play into that, but I don't think it's too far fetched to see gun restrictions as one reason amongst many. It's probably hard to proof without doubt, but I take it as a strong indicator.

The problem is that there are many countries with far fewer guns in civilian hands, but much higher violent crime rates. There are a lot of things that go into it, though, it isn't a simple solution. The main thing, though, is that because there is not evidence of gun control policies reducing crime in this country, it shouldn't meet the test for limiting civil liberties. We do know one thing that decreases violent crime, though, with evidence to back it up. Considering the US has the highest Gini coefficient out of the G7+1, I think it's a great place to start.

(11-05-2021, 02:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't see these things as mutually exclusive. Society should be able to attend to both issues.

They should, but policy should always be evidence based, especially when it involves limiting civil liberties.

[Belsnickel]

(11-05-2021, 05:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Another thoughtful Bels post. Still, as one leftist-without-quotation-marks to another, I'd like to pose some questions to the bolded--starting with the "original and modern dilemmas of politics." 

As a political scientist, you know that, back in the 17th century, post English Civil War, Hobbes, Algernon Sydney, and Locke articulated an individual right to self defense grounded in natural law, law supposed by them to precede government and positive law. No government could cancel this right. This, and the concept of natural, individual equality which accompanied it, were indeed "progressive" as articulated against feudal claims of divinely sanctioned inequality. And they remained so through the American and French Revolutions of the 18th century.
 
But the 19th century is another story. If you are an admirer of Marx, then you know that once the “bourgeoisie” capture the reins of government, putting (classical) liberal conceptions of freedom and equality into law favoring their class, that sets the stage for the coming centuries of socialist struggle. In the U.S., that (classical) liberal conception of rights, freedom and equality—uncontested by a true right or left—becomes THE American ideology, uniting both right and “left” in liberal conceptions of “natural” individual whose rights pre-date government in natural law—rights themselves conceived of as “possessions” which, in turn, convert myriad human relations into contract and property relations, and naturalize them as such. In contrast to Continental Europe, conservatism in the U.S. emerges to maintain this (classical) liberal ideology.
 
One aspect of this American adaptation has been, in an originally frontier society, the yoking of private gun ownership to (classical) liberal conceptions of individual right, personal security, even identity, such that “freedom” is so believed to depend on this right to ownership that any diminution of it is a risk to the Republic. Head scratcher for our European friends, who may also own guns, but cannot flaunt them during a street riot and expect high fives from the police, and who remember well from their own history how the most serious threats to democracy may emerge from their own illiberal voters, in accord with parliamentary procedure, without a weapon drawn.
 
So is this a neutral issue, separate from right or left? I am going with the NRA, Hannity, Trump and all the Michigan militias, whose instincts I trust on this one.* Current laws governing gun ownership and self defense are not “progressive.” And these laws are not “neutral,” neither right nor left, simply because they are laws.  
 
(These points are put forward for general discussion/interrogation. No claim to have settled the debate.)


*Maybe I should add here that I am not lumping you in with Hannity et al., even on this one issue. I'm glad there is another leftist-without-quotation-marks on the message board. I'm generally on your side--just question your take in this issue. Even though I too am gun owner and have a handgun which I bet is bigger than any of SSF's!

I see what you're saying, here, but we also must keep in mind that modern conservatism has moved far from the idea of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism rests on the idea of individual liberty and is more akin to the libertarian values of today. I tend to view this all through the lens of the original and modern dilemmas. The original dilemma being freedom v. societal order, and the modern being freedom v. equality.

Classical liberalism, or libertarianism of today, tends to fall in the freedom category for both. They oppose government intervention to promote either order or equality. Conservatism, though, favors government intervention to promote societal order. This is where my statement that gun control is inherently a conservative ideal comes into play. Gun control is about control, about order. One the other end, though, modern liberalism favors government intervention to promote equality, but not order. We know that gun control policies are not equitable, so the modern liberal take should not be in favor of these measures.

I find it interesting, though, that we discuss Marx and gun control without bringing up the fact that his position was for the entire proletariat to be armed and organized. That the people should be ready for revolution and any attempt to disarm the people should be met with resistance, including force. Marx understood the history of disarming the population so that the ruling class could oppress the people.

[Benton]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-trial-cops-ignore-surrender-20211105-m4n5mmnzjfhqnoadls75q37wdi-story.html

Quote:Video of the armed 17-year-old walking toward armored police vehicles and Moretti’s police cruiser without being stopped went viral and was held up by many as an example of white privilege and racial bias in policing. After Rittenhouse was shooed away by police, his friend drove him back across state lines to Antioch, where he turned himself in to local authorities.

Moretti said Rittenhouse alternated between touching his weapon and raising his hands as he walked toward the squad car so they “weren’t quite sure” what Rittenhouse was doing. They yelled at him to “get out of the road” because he was blocking their way.

Second bolded makes a good argument for the first bolded. If we're going to justify shooting unarmed people because of feeling threatened, what's wrong with the training that makes officers think a guy holding a firearm in an active shooter situation is less of a threat that, say, a guy who shop lifted a bottle of vodka and gets shot in his car without ever brandishing a weapon?

The short of all this begins and ends with the same thing: training for LEOs is... for lack of a better term... whack. A slightly better term would be inconsistent.

[Dill]

(11-05-2021, 09:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see what you're saying, here, but we also must keep in mind that modern conservatism has moved far from the idea of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism rests on the idea of individual liberty and is more akin to the libertarian values of today. I tend to view this all through the lens of the original and modern dilemmas. The original dilemma being freedom v. societal order, and the modern being freedom v. equality.

Classical liberalism, or libertarianism of today, tends to fall in the freedom category for both. They oppose government intervention to promote either order or equality. Conservatism, though, favors government intervention to promote societal order. This is where my statement that gun control is inherently a conservative ideal comes into play. Gun control is about control, about order. One the other end, though, modern liberalism favors government intervention to promote equality, but not order. We know that gun control policies are not equitable, so the modern liberal take should not be in favor of these measures.

I find it interesting, though, that we discuss Marx and gun control without bringing up the fact that his position was for the entire proletariat to be armed and organized. That the people should be ready for revolution and any attempt to disarm the people should be met with resistance, including force. Marx understood the history of disarming the population so that the ruling class could oppress the people.

Thanks for the response.

First a note on M: If we consider Marx's body of work as a whole, where and whether violence was an option for revolutionaries depended upon conjunctural analysis of social forces. E.g., in his letter to Kugelman (April 12, 1871), he suggests that a peaceful socialist revolution might occur in the U.S., given the U.S. lacked the power state bureaucracy and standing military of European powers like France, and Germany. He thought violent rebellion a "stupidity" in GB, where the existing parliamentary system allowed non-violent paths to control of the state. He did support the violent but doomed Paris Commune, but continued rethinking conditions under which revolution might be successful, and what form it might take. Remember that in his writing on the Commune, The Civil War in France, he concludes that the proletariat cannot simply seize and use existing state machinery. All forms of state power are suspect.

I'm going to think some more about your linkage of gun control to conservatism via the concept of "order," before I respond to it. Remember though, that I am historicizing a specific, liberal conception of the possessive individual, and linking that to U.S. conceptions of gun control and freedom to own and carry. Granting that "the people are sovereign" etc., and retain a right to revolt under certain circumstances, that doesn't sufficiently explain why so many American see "freedom" in a proliferation of guns and open carry, and no clash therein with the freedom and safety of others. You even link gun ownership to political equality. Another point I would like to think through. I don't find that convincing at all, but must examine the claims more deeply.

Like Hobbes, I am more fearful of what happens when the state cannot maintain its monopoly on legal violence.

Like you, I grew up around hunters. Every family had guns, and pickups had gun racks. And yet, back in the 50s and 60s, I don't recall anyone open carrying handguns, or wanting to, or thinking "freedom" depended on the right to do that. No militias in MT or SD, where I grew up.  No one carrying military style weapons to political meetings. People bought military weapons, like my father's 1917 Springfield armory 30.06, but then converted them to hunting weapons with shortened stocks and scopes. According to my schooling back then, the only place where armed vigilantes helped keep order was in the South. 

[Dill]

(11-05-2021, 04:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're referring to stand your ground laws, which do not apply here.  I can understand the concerns raised by the laws as written in some states.  I just don't understand how that's relevant to this case, at all.
 
Well, there's certainly not enough information in this "what if" to determine that.  You cannot write the law to cover every possible occurrence, hence the "reasonable person" standard that actually works quite well.

This response was so predictable I would have bet my house it was going to be how you replied. Is your assertion that right wing "protestors" engage in the type of described behavior as much or more than left wing "protestors"?  Evidence from the past few years would strongly indicate the exact opposite, but please make the case if you can.

No. I'm aware WI doesn't have stand your ground laws.

The "reasonable person" standard--I'm betting that in most of these self defense cases, jury selection is the most critical determinant of success for the defense. Think of the current Arbery trial, or Zimmerman before that. The judge in the former has already noted the racial bias in the jury selection, but the law doesn't allow him to do anything about it. 

You might have predicted my response before you understood my point.

I posted two links about a "leftist" who shot a right winger during a riot, and claimed in an interview it was in self defense.
The case never made it to trial, as he was shot by police under questionable circumstances, rather than arrested. 

The reference to the Capitol violence in my response to your post was not an effort to compare which protestors are "worse" or "do it more," right or left, but to suggest we can no longer assume it is only "leftists" attacking police. As far as frequency, I'll grant that after Floyd was killed, there were more "leftist" riots in the U.S. But since 1/6, it is not a given that will be the norm for 2022, as Fox and friends foment midterm election challenges. 

Also note the qualifier "sometimes" in my original post, as in Police don't everywhere and always see armed groups of white men as welcome help during civil unrest. Wherever they do, they are exercising bad judgment. 

[hollodero]

(11-05-2021, 09:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, I would debate this if I was feeling more up to it. Police as we know them today is not a very old concept. Law enforcement has existed since laws existed, sure, but the way in which we grant the state the authority to use force in the manner we do, now, isn't as old. There are also democratic discussions over whether or not the idea of the police in general is in line with democratic ideals. That's also a more philosophical and deeper question.

It sure is - but for starters, I would say yes, policing is in line with democratic ideals. Every government needs tools to enforce their laws and a pretty please often won't do it. Imho, the opposite of an authoritarian regime is not a regime without any authority, but a system where authorities are guided and kept in check by the law and not by the will of a democratically illegitimate leader.

(11-05-2021, 09:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Even restrictions cause this inequality, though. Let's take the Hughes Amendment as an example. The Hughes Amendment was added to a bill in 1986 that prohibited the manufacture or importation of newly made machine guns after the date of the bills enactment. So this is a general restriction that prevents machine guns from being in civilian hands but allows for those already in civilian hands to remain. Seems fair. What has happened is that it has created a hugely inflated market in which a machine gun has exponentially increased in price making it only affordable to the upper classes.

For one, this might have been a bad policy, but bad specific policies do not totally refute the idea behind them. Put in other words, there could be other policies with less adversary effects.
Speaking of this one, if the tradeoff consists of less people being able to own machine guns, then I can live with that. For most of the reasons to be armed, like protecting your home and your family, can also be achieved with a simpler gun. I have a hard time imagining a situation where someone's family got killed because there was only a handgun in the house, but if there had been a machine gun the family would have been saved.
For similar reason, this whole inequality argument imho is a bit artificial. Rich people can always afford more than poor people, machine guns don't need to be the exception. I also have a hard time to see the actual oppression there. I don't think the folks with the machine guns are actually oppressing those who don't have them merely based on their increased fire power.

The 2A, imho, does not give every citizen the right to purchase whatever arms they please to a conveniently cheap price.

(11-05-2021, 09:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why wouldn't it still apply? As for the lack of will enforcement, as I said, it doesn't necessarily mean it will happen, but it isn't coincidence that disarming the populous is one of the first steps for an oppressor to take.

That doesn't mean that said disarming (which I am not advocating anyway, for pragmatic reasons) always happens in the interest of an oppressor.
As to why wouldn't it still apply, my general answer would be that times have changed drastically and this is not the 18th century any more. A point I'd guess you can understand, since when it comes to things like voting rights or the EC, you seem to deploy a similar logic. The founders could not have foreseen modern society, or the modern united states reaching from coast to coast, or what the term "arms" means nowadays for that matter.

(11-05-2021, 09:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that there are many countries with far fewer guns in civilian hands, but much higher violent crime rates. There are a lot of things that go into it, though, it isn't a simple solution.

I find it hard to prove or disprove that sentiment. But sure, in less developed countries with much more hunger, misery and unrest the rates naturally will be higher. I guess a fair comparison would be countries that are similarly developed compared to the US, like Europe, Japan and then some. And even though data seems to be hard to come by to answer that question conclusively, it appears that the US beats all these countries quite convincingly still when it comes to violent crime rates, as it does (I think that's more definitive) regarding gun deaths. But I can be convinced that isn't so, I just did not find it.

(11-05-2021, 09:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The main thing, though, is that because there is not evidence of gun control policies reducing crime in this country, it shouldn't meet the test for limiting civil liberties. We do know one thing that decreases violent crime, though, with evidence to back it up. Considering the US has the highest Gini coefficient out of the G7+1, I think it's a great place to start.

I can't disagree on that one.

(11-05-2021, 09:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They should, but policy should always be evidence based, especially when it involves limiting civil liberties.

This I partially disagree with. Policies are most often a combination of facts and evidence and of ideology. Whether the evidence supports a certain policy is always dependent on what the goal is, and these goals are not always fact-based. Eg. we both think a society is best served when everyone's most basic needs are met and 40 hours of work a week should be sufficient to get by in life, and so on and so on. But others might question these goals, claim that this is socialism that makes people complacent and lazy and that being closer to a "survival of the fittest" approach with little to no entitlements is better for the country. And that is an ideological question, not one that can be conclusively answered or decided with facts and figures alone.

With guns, I do see evidence points that less guns lead to less gun deaths (etc). Others like you claim that less guns leads to oppressive systems (etc). Can't be answered by evidence alone, both stances have some ideological considerations in them.

[hollodero]

(11-05-2021, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, this is, unfortunately, accurate.  I think, knowing human behavior as I do, this is a response to the largely hands off approach to these riots the past few years.  A lot of lawless behavior was tolerated, in some cases encouraged (see CHAZ/CHOP and the "summer of love") and for many citizens it appeared that simple law and order was no longer a priority for many.  Add in the, and I personally don't think this is disputable, glowingly positive mainstream media coverage of protests that devolved in looting, rioting and violence (mostly peaceful)

Yeah I for one do not dispute that. In general I think the "mostly peaceful" line is factually correct, but often gets used in a bad faith manner, eg. to neglect the devastation that, as far as I can tell (hard to trust your media really), actually did occur on a not so small scale. Yeah, some media did a horrible job of glorifying all that and shouting down everyone who dares to question the narrative of the righteous and noble protesters that collectively couldn't hurt a fly (and those who do are akin to the '"bad apples" that don't matter).
- I just don't think this is the whole explanation for the counterreaction. These are people that also endorse the insurrection attempt, are howling mad at Mike Pence for not overthrowing the election, believe in conspiracies and the evil left and DNC servers in the Ukraine, an FBI in Soros' pocket and so on and so on. They are followers of the Trump ideology, that in its core consists of hatred for the enemy, which is the left and the media. The way I see it, Rittenhouse is one more symbol for striking back against said enemy.

All of that, imho, is a result of this radicalized dualistic systems. And while the right is not to solely blame for that, I feel your attempt of an explanation is a tad too willing to lay the blame on the protesters and the other side. It's similar to blaming the MSM for the creation of FOX news in its current form. Meaning, yeah that sure played a part, but it's also an incomplete explanation.
More complete, to me, seems the observation that both sides engage in bad faith arguments ("mostly peaceful" being one minor example). The left/liberal side operates with gross exaggerations, eg. that is racist this is racist everything's racist (or unempathic or stupid or whatever adjective) and in the end even the slightest disagreement with our stance means you're a deplorable person. The right often engages in incredibly incoherent arguments that are so blatantly hypocritical and nonsensical (or say fritzy) that it often makes my blood boil. And I get the feeling that this is all deliberate, that the arguments for both sides already get crafted on purpose to cause maximum rejection, maximum aggression even, from the other side. As if someone in the shadows (I guess you call them "donors") would benefit from that.

And yeah in the end one side aims to break the cycle by just turning the other side down for good. Not accepting election results and trying to determine the winner by other means (eg. by having loyalists that turn down democracy to do your bidding or can be pressured to do so) being one shining example. This is the darkness I'm referring to, the darkness one party succumbed to pretty much entirely; and celebrating Rittenhouse as a hero imho has a big part of that aspect in it, not just frustration with the one-sided coverage of the protests in more liberal leaning media outlets.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2021, 02:24 AM)Dill Wrote: No. I'm aware WI doesn't have stand your ground laws.

The "reasonable person" standard--I'm betting that in most of these self defense cases, jury selection is the most critical determinant of success for the defense. Think of the current Arbery trial, or Zimmerman before that. The judge in the former has already noted the racial bias in the jury selection, but the law doesn't allow him to do anything about it.

Jury selection is key in absolutely every single case that goes to trial, not just high profile ones.  Picking people you think will be most sympathetic to your arguments is lawyer 101. 

Quote:You might have predicted my response before you understood my point.

I posted two links about a "leftist" who shot a right winger during a riot, and claimed in an interview it was in self defense.
The case never made it to trial, as he was shot by police under questionable circumstances, rather than arrested. 

Not a great example for you, as there's video of that person lying it wait to ambush the person he killed.  Lying in ambush not only automatically voids any claim of self defense but it's also solid legal grounds for charging you with first degree murder.  It is a good comparison in that Portland is yet another city were law enforcement had to sit on their hands.  Like I said, that vacuum will be filled by something.  Almost always something not good.

Quote:The reference to the Capitol violence in my response to your post was not an effort to compare which protestors are "worse" or "do it more," right or left, but to suggest we can no longer assume it is only "leftists" attacking police. As far as frequency, I'll grant that after Floyd was killed, there were more "leftist" riots in the U.S. But since 1/6, it is not a given that will be the norm for 2022, as Fox and friends foment midterm election challenges. 

Supposition has been your key approach in this thread, so I suppose a little more won't hurt.  I'm definitely much less concerned about right wing protestors, I've never had one spit on me, scream in my face, thrown bottles and stones at me, etc. and I have numerous friends throughout the country with almost identical experiences.  Odd.

Quote:Also note the qualifier "sometimes" in my original post, as in Police don't everywhere and always see armed groups of white men as welcome help during civil unrest. Wherever they do, they are exercising bad judgment. 

I think for a guy on the ground any friendly face in a sea of angry, violent rioters is a welcome site.  But, this has nothing to do with the actual trial, just an attempt to paint law enforcement as irretrievably biased, so I'll be leaving it at that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2021, 01:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I for one do not dispute that. In general I think the "mostly peaceful" line is factually correct, but often gets used in a bad faith manner, eg. to neglect the devastation that, as far as I can tell (hard to trust your media really), actually did occur on a not so small scale. Yeah, some media did a horrible job of glorifying all that and shouting down everyone who dares to question the narrative of the righteous and noble protesters that collectively couldn't hurt a fly (and those who do are akin to the '"bad apples" that don't matter).

Indeed, and a fair assessment on your part.

Quote:- I just don't think this is the whole explanation for the counterreaction. These are people that also endorse the insurrection attempt, are howling mad at Mike Pence for not overthrowing the election, believe in conspiracies and the evil left and DNC servers in the Ukraine, an FBI in Soros' pocket and so on and so on. They are followers of the Trump ideology, that in its core consists of hatred for the enemy, which is the left and the media. The way I see it, Rittenhouse is one more symbol for striking back against said enemy.

Oh no, of course it isn't.  There's a whole witches' brew of reasons why, and they vary from person to person.  But what the above does do for many is cement in their minds that the media and Democrats are full square behind left wing violence while condemning them even when they were peaceful.  For example, look at the media response to the right wing protest at the Michigan state capitol.  This is a tame example;

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/14/855918852/heavily-armed-protesters-gather-again-at-michigans-capitol-denouncing-home-order

Whitmer's quote was especially telling;

"I respect people's right to dissent, but that does not extend to endangering other people's lives and we take it very seriously," said Whitmer.

These protestors were carrying their firearms legally and peacefully, they committed no acts of violence and zero arrests were made or attempted.  Contrast this with the "mostly peaceful" trope below;



Many people believe, and have been given good cause to do so, that the media is heavily biased in favor of the left.  This perceived unfairness also lends itself to a feeling of being besieged.  No one is listening to you and if you do speak out you're lumped in with actual white supremacists.  I've been at management level for almost seven years now and I can tell you to I strive to be as fair as I possibly can in all things.  Nothing destroys the cohesiveness of a unit faster and more irrevocably than a perception of unfairness, much less actual unfair practices.  We are seeing exactly that on a national scale here.  

Quote:All of that, imho, is a result of this radicalized dualistic systems. And while the right is not to solely blame for that, I feel your attempt of an explanation is a tad too willing to lay the blame on the protesters and the other side. It's similar to blaming the MSM for the creation of FOX news in its current form. Meaning, yeah that sure played a part, but it's also an incomplete explanation.
More complete, to me, seems the observation that both sides engage in bad faith arguments ("mostly peaceful" being one minor example). The left/liberal side operates with gross exaggerations, eg. that is racist this is racist everything's racist (or unempathic or stupid or whatever adjective) and in the end even the slightest disagreement with our stance means you're a deplorable person. The right often engages in incredibly incoherent arguments that are so blatantly hypocritical and nonsensical (or say fritzy) that it often makes my blood boil. And I get the feeling that this is all deliberate, that the arguments for both sides already get crafted on purpose to cause maximum rejection, maximum aggression even, from the other side. As if someone in the shadows (I guess you call them "donors") would benefit from that.

You absolutely have people on both sides who are stoking fires for their own benefit.  Given the past few years I cannot say which side is the worst offender or the least coherent, both have offered up some real doozies.  I also realize I live in a very far left state and work in the second most liberal area of the deep blue state, so my personal perspective is certainly skewed.  That being said, as I stated earlier to Dill, I have friends all over the country who are experiencing the exact same thing, so it's not just confined to the left coast.

Quote:And yeah in the end one side aims to break the cycle by just turning the other side down for good. Not accepting election results and trying to determine the winner by other means (eg. by having loyalists that turn down democracy to do your bidding or can be pressured to do so) being one shining example. This is the darkness I'm referring to, the darkness one party succumbed to pretty much entirely; and celebrating Rittenhouse as a hero imho has a big part of that aspect in it, not just frustration with the one-sided coverage of the protests in more liberal leaning media outlets.

I certainly hope not, and I again reiterate my hope that Trump doesn't run again in 2024, because I think most other GOP possibilities will win handily.  I think Youngkin's win is the GOP blueprint going forward and Trump will, hopefully, be limited.  Winning VA showed just how deeply unpopular Trump's antics now are with the suburbanites, because he got buried in VA.

[Dill]

(11-08-2021, 01:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Jury selection is key in absolutely every single case that goes to trial, not just high profile ones.  Picking people you think will be most sympathetic to your arguments is lawyer 101. 

Unh hunh. And I was specifically relating jury selection to the "reasonable person test." E.g., the Arbery defense went for as many "reasonable" WHITE jurors as possible, figuring they would be "most sympathetic," and Georgia law can't stop them.  

Jury selection was decisive in the Zimmerman case too. 
 
If we move beyond lawyer 101, perhaps the goal is not simply to get a "reasonable" juror but a biased one. 

(11-08-2021, 01:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Supposition has been your key approach in this thread, so I suppose a little more won't hurt.  I'm definitely much less concerned about right wing protestors, I've never had one spit on me, scream in my face, thrown bottles and stones at me, etc. and I have numerous friends throughout the country with almost identical experiences.  Odd.

Quote:Also note the qualifier "sometimes" in my original post, as in Police don't everywhere and always see armed groups of white men as welcome help during civil unrest. Wherever they do, they are exercising bad judgment. 

I think for a guy on the ground any friendly face in a sea of angry, violent rioters is a welcome site.  But, this has nothing to do with the actual trial, just an attempt to paint law enforcement as irretrievably biased, so I'll be leaving it at that.

??? You are disputing that fraternizing with armed militia during riots is bad judgment on the part of police, because an unvetted, civilian "friendly face" is a "welcome sight"??

If you are owning this bias then, really, which of us is “painting” law enforcement as irretrievably biased???
 
Surely it can't be the guy arguing that Police don't everywhere and always see armed groups of white men as welcome help during civil unrest.

(11-08-2021, 01:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But what the above does do for many is cement in their minds that the media and Democrats are full square behind left wing violence while condemning them even when they were peaceful.  For example, look at the media response to the right wing protest at the Michigan state capitol.  This is a tame example;

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/14/855918852/heavily-armed-protesters-gather-again-at-michigans-capitol-denouncing-home-order

Whitmer's quote was especially telling;

"I respect people's right to dissent, but that does not extend to endangering other people's lives and we take it very seriously," said Whitmer.

These protestors were carrying their firearms legally and peacefully, they committed no acts of violence and zero arrests were made or attempted.  Contrast this with the "mostly peaceful" trope below;

At least one of those legally carrying and peaceful protestors was involved in the plot to kidnap and kill the governor of Michigan. I'm pretty sure that would endanger her life.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michigan-militia-dar-leaf-constitutional-sheriff_n_5f809951c5b62f97bac2195a

One of the men charged this week in a militia plot to kidnap the Democratic governor of Michigan shared the stage earlier this year with an extremist sheriff at an anti-lockdown rally, highlighting the often cozy relationship across America between law enforcement and violent right-wing paramilitary groups.

In a shocking interview with Fox 17 on Thursday, [Sherriff] Leaf said he had no regrets for having appeared at the rally with the recently arrested militiaman. He added that he knew Null — as well as his identical twin, Michael, who was also arrested in the terror plot — and called the brothers “nice” and “respectful.” He also appeared to defend the Nulls’ motive for the alleged kidnapping plot, arguing that there’s a legal argument to be made that Whitmer should be arrested for imposing coronavirus restrictions.

I wonder how many also stormed the Capitol on 1/6?
 
You have reminded jj and me that not ALL of the thousands protesting at the Capitol of 1/6 were engaged in breaching the building and assaulting police officers, like that is THE very important thing to remember about this attempt to stop a president's legal certification and keep the loser in power, first time ever in U.S. history. GOP stalwarts pledged allegiance to a flag carried at that insurrection, as they set about campaigning to win the VA governorship, a campaign you tout as a model for other GOP campaigns and a sign Trump's influence is lessening.
 
Aren't the "liberal" media doing something similar to you when they call a protest "mostly peaceful," separating the violent actors from the majority of peaceful protestors? But you want them to emphasize the violence? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-08-2021, 07:43 PM)Dill Wrote: Unh hunh. And I was specifically relating jury selection to the "reasonable person test." E.g., the Arbery defense went for as many "reasonable" WHITE jurors as possible, figuring they would be "most sympathetic," and Georgia law can't stop them.  

Jury selection was decisive in the Zimmerman case too. 
 
If we move beyond lawyer 101, perhaps the goal is not simply to get a "reasonable" juror but a biased one.

Quote:??? You are disputing that fraternizing with armed militia during riots is bad judgment on the part of police, because an unvetted, civilian "friendly face" is a "welcome sight"??

Handing out bottled water is fraternizing?  Also, are they all of the sudden a militia?  Seeing as how anti 2A types are constantly asking "what militia are you in" it's rather comforting to know how easy they are to form.  I suppose that's one anti 2A argument out of the way.

Quote:If you are owning this bias then, really, which of us is “painting” law enforcement as irretrievably biased???

How were they biased?
 

Quote:Surely it can't be the guy arguing that Police don't everywhere and always see armed groups of white men as welcome help during civil unrest.

No, like most things context matters.

Quote:At least one of those legally carrying and peaceful protestors was involved in the plot to kidnap and kill the governor of Michigan. I'm pretty sure that would endanger her life.

During the protest?  If not then you've raised yet another irrelevancy.  

Quote:I wonder how many also stormed the Capitol on 1/6?

 I don't know.  Neither do you.  But not knowing has certainly not stopped you in this thread.

Quote:You have reminded jj and me that not ALL of the thousands protesting at the Capitol of 1/6 were engaged in breaching the building and assaulting police officers, like that is THE very important thing to remember about this attempt to stop a president's legal certification and keep the loser in power, first time ever in U.S. history. GOP stalwarts pledged allegiance to a flag carried at that insurrection, as they set about campaigning to win the VA governorship, a campaign you tout as a model for other GOP campaigns and a sign Trump's influence is lessening.

If it's important to note that not all anti law enforcement protestors were burning down building, looting stores and assaulting people then this distinction is equally important.  Or is that all of a sudden not important to you any longer?
 

Quote:Aren't the "liberal" media doing something similar to you when they call a protest "mostly peaceful," separating the violent actors from the majority of peaceful protestors? But you want them to emphasize the violence? 

Did they emphasize it on 01/06?  I'm asking for consistency, that's all.


But, quite honestly, you keep trying to draw attention away from the actual thread topic, which is the Rittenhouse trial.  Given your performance on that subject I can't say your reluctance to discuss it further is surprising, but please forgive me for not indulging your meandering off topic any further than I already have.