Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(11-16-2021, 06:03 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Self Defense for who ?

Conservatives want to keep the right to kill whoever they call a threat by their own standards but this is not a right who is given to anyone else.

When Amaury Arbery tried to self defense himself, he was killed. 

That's what is on line here. 

Well, this is what is so effed up about the confluence of "gun rights" and the right to self defense in the U.S.

The shooter.Travis McMichael, pled self defense in the Arbery case, because Arbery tried to take his gun away. 

The difference between this and the Ritternhouse case is that R was chased, whereas McMichael was doing the chasing.

The US has been changing over the last 30 years under NRA influence. The NRA has militarized gun culture, which used to be
mainly about hunting. With that has come more guns and more shootings and a powerful lobby to push back efforts
to regulate them.  

I am amazed so many now want to carry weapons, both open and concealed. 

And with the boom in military style weapons and push back against regulations has come a heightened sense of entitlement
regarding their use. Thousands of guys out there now ready to see a "threat" which requires "self defense." 

This kind of thing likely fed the fantasies of 17-year old Kyle.  "Run to danger!" 

[Dill]

(11-16-2021, 05:36 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Haven't fled anywhere. Just not worth the effort trying to convince people who will never be convinced. Although to your credit steelerfan you have tried.

That's sort of how I feel sometimes, though I am on the other side of the issue.

Still, since law and security are at stake, I continue to make the effort. 

I have to say though, I am not sure what the "convincing" was supposed to be about in this case.

I think most people on this thread assumed Rittenhouse would get off. We all remember the Zimmerman case.

The division was between those think that bad and those who think it good. 

"Proving" that R's actions meet the current bar for self defense is probably not an effective way to convince people that the law is just in this case. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-16-2021, 08:46 PM)Dill Wrote: The US has been changing over the last 30 years under NRA influence. The NRA has militarized gun culture, which used to be
mainly about hunting. With that has come more guns and more shootings and a powerful lobby to push back efforts
to regulate them.  

This is a factually inaccurate statement.  There are fewer shootings now then there were thirty years ago.  Spreading disinformation does everyone a disservice.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-16-2021, 05:36 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Haven't fled anywhere. Just not worth the effort trying to convince people who will never be convinced. Although to your credit steelerfan you have tried.

My bad, poor choice of words on my part.  Stopped trying to discuss the issue would have been more appropriate.  One side has facts and evidence, the other has irrelevancies and feelings.  It's not even debatable based on known facts, but we live in a post fact world right now.

[*jason*]

(11-16-2021, 08:57 PM)Dill Wrote: That's sort of how I feel sometimes, though I am on the other side of the issue.

Still, since law and security are at stake, I continue to make the effort. 

I have to say though, I am not sure what the "convincing" was supposed to be about in this case.

I think most people on this thread assumed Rittenhouse would get off. We all remember the Zimmerman case.

The division was between those think that bad and those who think it good. 

"Proving" that R's actions meet the current bar for self defense is probably not an effective way to convince people that the law is just in this case. 

This is just like George Zimmerman except this time a group of Martins chased him down, and physically attacked him.... Oh and this is caught on video. Believe me; I don't like people like this kid. Open carrying to "protect private property" is goofy as hell. He's a dumb kid that should've been home doin' dumb kid things. The people he killed should've been doing more productive things like not engaging in a riot, assaulting kids, and God knows what else. Again... I don't like people that are like what Rittenhouse seems to be, but he wasn't breaking the law, and was trying to remove himself from the situation. It's really that simple.

[Dill]

(11-16-2021, 08:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a factually inaccurate statement.  There are fewer shootings now then there were thirty years ago.  Spreading disinformation does everyone a disservice.

Sure, an overall drop in gun deaths since the early 90s, along with an overall drop in crime.

But a rise in mass shootings, many involving semi-automatic weapons;

and in areas where gun restrictions are rolled back--thanks to NRA lobbying among other things--an increase in gun violence following "stand your ground" legislation. 

This was the point I was making to Arturo, who is probably mystified by this case and U.S. law:

And with the boom in military style weapons and push back against regulations has come a heightened sense of entitlement
regarding their use. Thousands of guys out there now ready to see a "threat" which requires "self defense." 

Where this is NOT occurring, I would not expect a rise in gun violence. 

Would you argue that U.S. gun culture which used to focus primarily on hunting, has not become steadily more militarized under the influence of the NRA and gun manufacturers? 

In your view, what is the primary impetus for stand your ground and other laws which bolster the self-defense defense? The push for relaxed concealed carry laws etc.? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2021, 01:34 AM)Dill Wrote: Sure, an overall drop in gun deaths since the early 90s

So you knew you were spreading disinformation and chose to do it anyways?

Not a good look.

[Dill]

(11-16-2021, 09:42 PM)jason Wrote: This is just like George Zimmerman except this time a group of Martins chased him down, and physically attacked him.... Oh and this is caught on video. Believe me; I don't like people like this kid. Open carrying to "protect private property" is goofy as hell. He's a dumb kid that should've been home doin' dumb kid things. The people he killed should've been doing more productive things like not engaging in a riot, assaulting kids, and God knows what else. Again... I don't like people that are like what Rittenhouse seems to be, but he wasn't breaking the law, and was trying to remove himself from the situation. It's really that simple.

Jason, if you tell me that "he wasn't breaking the law," you may have missed the point I was making in the post you respond to.

For many on this thread, the law is the problem, and, speaking for myself, that's why explaining that R wasn't breaking the law doesn't render the case "simple."  

A question for you, though: would you agree that acquittal sends the message that people who are not police can legally walk through a riot open carrying a rifle, and kill people drawn to it, because they have a right to open carry and defend themselves?  It may send other messages too, but I want to know if you agree it would definitely send that one.

[Dill]

(11-17-2021, 01:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you knew you were spreading disinformation and chose to do it anyways?

Not a good look.

Looks like you missed the point of my post to Arturo. 

I understand that; the claim was too general. My bad. too sloppy.

Then I re-focused the point. For you. But you weren't interested in my actual intent and point.

You want to stick with the point you mistook.

How is THAT a good look? 

[GMDino]

(11-16-2021, 09:42 PM)jason Wrote: This is just like George Zimmerman except this time a group of Martins chased him down, and physically attacked him.... Oh and this is caught on video. Believe me; I don't like people like this kid. Open carrying to "protect private property" is goofy as hell. He's a dumb kid that should've been home doin' dumb kid things. The people he killed should've been doing more productive things like not engaging in a riot, assaulting kids, and God knows what else. Again... I don't like people that are like what Rittenhouse seems to be, but he wasn't breaking the law, and was trying to remove himself from the situation. It's really that simple.

That's where I agree.

Legally he can claim self-defense and will be found not guilty.

But on the other hand he is being deified as a hero by a subset of Americans and others will be encouraged to act the same as he did that put him in the position to being with with the idea that if they are attacked they kill and not be held legally responsible.

Until one of them isn't and then it will be the "liberal courts" attacking gun rights protecting conservatives.

[Belsnickel]

(11-17-2021, 11:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's where I agree.

Legally he can claim self-defense and will be found not guilty.

But on the other hand he isn't being deified as a hero by a subset of Americans and others will be encouraged to act the same as he did that put him in the position to being with with the idea that if they are attacked they kill and not be held legally responsible.

Until one of them isn't and then it will be the "liberal courts" attacking gun rights protecting conservatives.

I have to agree, here. I really don't like Rittenhouse, folks like him, or those that are putting him up on a pedestal. I'm also not someone that believes in protecting property with deadly weapons. But, I feel like far too many people are using that point of view to lead them down a path where they ignore the law.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2021, 12:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to agree, here. I really don't like Rittenhouse, folks like him, or those that are putting him up on a pedestal. I'm also not someone that believes in protecting property with deadly weapons. But, I feel like far too many people are using that point of view to lead them down a path where they ignore the law.

Given the nature of the country right now this type of lionization is/was inevitable and would have happened in the exact same way if a BLM supporter killed three far right protestors after they were attacked.  People want to vicariously vent their spleen at the "other" and this is as close as many people will be able to get to doing so.

This raises a very interesting point though, and one that has been obscured, or little acknowledged, throughout this thread.  You can think what Rittenhouse did was dumb, moronic or the stupidest thing you've ever heard of, but still understand that he legally defended himself.  That's why most, if not all, of the arguments against him are along the lines of "he shouldn't have been there", "he crossed state lines", "he violated curfew", etc. none of which, importantly, have any bearing on whether he was attacked and then legally defended himself.  Essentially, those arguing for conviction want any counter protestor of any sort to be a target for physical violence with impunity, because they "shouldn't be there."  

The laws governing what constitutes murder have no political bias, which is why actually following them is so important.  Sometime the law will work in a way you find favorable, sometimes it will not, but if it is applied equally then the outcome will always, or should always, be fair.  And that's what anyone should want out of the criminal justice system.  There's a reason that Lady Justice is blindfolded, because who is accused is not what's important, the evidence and facts of the case are.

[GMDino]

(11-17-2021, 12:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to agree, here. I really don't like Rittenhouse, folks like him, or those that are putting him up on a pedestal. I'm also not someone that believes in protecting property with deadly weapons. But, I feel like far too many people are using that point of view to lead them down a path where they ignore the law.

Absolutely.  I've read some awful takes.  I'd probably have been one of them even a few years ago letting the emotion get in the way of the law.

It's a two side of the coin thing and those praising him and those ignoring the legal reasons he will (probably) be found not guilty are both dangerously wrong.

[Dill]

(11-17-2021, 01:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Absolutely.  I've read some awful takes.  I'd probably have been one of them even a few years ago letting the emotion get in the way of the law.

It's a two side of the coin thing and those praising him and those ignoring the legal reasons he will (probably) be found not guilty are both dangerously wrong.

I know you are referring to groups outside the trial, but I just want to add that, for those who don't think acquittal in cases like Rittenhouse's is really in the public interest, challenging "the legal reasons he will be ...found not guilty" is the opposite of "ignoring" them. It is placing them front and center of debate. 

If laws were really wholly apolitical and their application just blind justice, we wouldn't be constantly monitoring outcomes and changing laws.
 
That self defense laws are currently the focus so much political activism by "both sides" is a pretty clear indication that they are not entirely separate from politics. 

E.g., If the gun lobby helps pass a "stand your ground" law WI, generalizing the Castle Doctrine to any site outside the home, that doesn't mean the law is "blind" because it is now law. It favors one group's values and sense of justice over another's. If some unarmed person is killed by an armed person during an argument over a fender bender, because he felt (or claims) his life was in danger, how the law determines "irrelevancies" now favors the armed person (though circumstances may not absolve the shooter is in every case). 

One side, it's ground favored by law, gets to say "here's the facts" and "here's the law." End of discussion. But citizens do not have to leave it at that, if they think laws need to be reviewed. 

[GMDino]

(11-17-2021, 02:36 PM)Dill Wrote: I know you are referring to groups outside the trial, but I just want to add that, for those who don't think acquittal in cases like Rittenhouse's is really in the public interest, challenging "the legal reasons he will be ...found not guilty" is the opposite of "ignoring" them. It is placing them front and center of debate. 

If laws were really wholly apolitical and their application just blind justice, we wouldn't be constantly monitoring outcomes and changing laws.
 
That self defense laws are currently the focus so much political activism by "both sides" is a pretty clear indication that they are not entirely separate from politics. 

E.g., If the gun lobby helps pass a "stand your ground" law WI, generalizing the Castle Doctrine to any site outside the home, that doesn't mean the law is "blind" because it is now law. It favors one group's values and sense of justice over another's. If some unarmed person is killed by an armed person during an argument over a fender bender, because he felt (or claims) his life was in danger, how the law determines "irrelevancies" now favors the armed person (though circumstances may not absolve the shooter is in every case). 

One side, it's ground favored by law, gets to say "here's the facts" and "here's the law." End of discussion. But citizens do not have to leave it at that, if they think laws need to be reviewed. 

I had typed and then deleted a bit in there about how *I* thought it fair/okay to look at these  self-defense laws and how they are applied but I don't want to get too deep into the weed on that issue when it won't affect the outcome of this case.

[*jason*]

(11-17-2021, 02:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Jason, if you tell me that "he wasn't breaking the law," you may have missed the point I was making in the post you respond to.

For many on this thread, the law is the problem, and, speaking for myself, that's why explaining that R wasn't breaking the law doesn't render the case "simple."  

A question for you, though: would you agree that acquittal sends the message that people who are not police can legally walk through a riot open carrying a rifle, and kill people drawn to it, because they have a right to open carry and defend themselves?  It may send other messages too, but I want to know if you agree it would definitely send that one.

Well that's what sucks.... Whether the acquittal sends that message or not, the law does. I hate open carry, and I hate people that do it at protests. I hate when people take it upon themselves to go protect property that isn't theirs. That's law enforcement and the Guard's job. Private citizens only get in the way, and I feel like armed citizens (open carrying) only agitate the situation. I don't know for sure, but I think that kid is part of a culture that I really don't like. From what little I've seen of him he's into some things that your average 17 to 18 year olds aren't... But if I remove my personal biases from the situation, he's not guilty. It's a senseless act though.

[*jason*]

(11-17-2021, 11:43 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's where I agree.

Legally he can claim self-defense and will be found not guilty.

But on the other hand he is being deified as a hero by a subset of Americans and others will be encouraged to act the same as he did that put him in the position to being with with the idea that if they are attacked they kill and not be held legally responsible.

Until one of them isn't and then it will be the "liberal courts" attacking gun rights protecting conservatives.

Yeah... That kid's definitely no hero. Honestly I wish something could happen to him like some sort of diversion program or whatever. The problem is he'd have to be found guilty of something. But yeah... I don't like that kid. Especially if that's him hitting that girl in that video that was posted earlier I'm this thread.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2021, 03:17 PM)jason Wrote: Yeah... That kid's definitely no hero. Honestly I wish something could happen to him like some sort of diversion program or whatever. The problem is he'd have to be found guilty of something. But yeah... I don't like that kid. Especially if that's him hitting that girl in that video that was posted earlier I'm this thread.

That kind of thing is very common.  It used to be fights were one on one, I don't recall a single fight at my high school where anyone jumped in and no one ever got beaten once they were down.  Now it's completely normal for the combatant's friends to jump in, for boys to strike girls and the other way around and for people to keep getting hit once they're down.  It's certainly not a good look, but it happens all the time.

[jj22]

Jury has questions during deliberation.

Judge uses moment to repeat Trump talking points attacking media.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1461027613875580931

[jj22]

I wonder how he answered those questions "What do you need to hear to find him not guilty? I let him pick you for a reason"