Rittenhouse cleared of charges

[JaDanketies]

It's surprising the people itt who think they know better than the jury. The jury could've thought the guy was a big bag of shit but still found him innocent.

I'm not saying that Rittenhouse is redeemable. I'm saying the law is an ass and you should've figured this out when you were a teenager. Whether he committed the specific crimes he was charged with isn't a moral question, it's a technical one and the rules have loads of cultural and political influence.

So fuck Rittenhouse but apparently they were all lawful shootings. Perhaps the law isn't infallible.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

He also does seem to have PTSD, and while mocking that is fair game for a place like CaB, I'm not sure its great that so many people with named, checked accounts were jeering at it on Twitter. Perhaps with the confidence that his intentions rather than actions were what was on trial.

Don't give even the slightest shit about decency or tone but jfc it costs nothing not spray gasoline on every fire. I expect "the liberal media mocked him for PTSD" will be a part of the Tucker Carlson thing.

[Ferris]

Yeah, I agree with this. I think the whole thing is awful, but it does seem like a pretty clear case of self defense.

"Pretty clear"? You can't cross state lines with a firearm (that you're not legally allowed to own) and insert yourself into a volatile situation, then off a few people when it gets hairy and claim self defence.

It's like robbing a bank, then shooting the security guards because you were "in a dangerous situation and it was me or him". It is ludicrous.

I've mentioned it on here but we considered moving to the US several years ago just for the life experience and I'm fucking delighted we stayed north of the border. At times, it is a scarily different place and the fact it is largely similar to other western nations makes the scenarios where it is completely batshit that much more jarring.

[BlodwynPig]

He also does seem to have PTSD, and while mocking that is fair game for a place like CaB, I'm not sure its great that so many people with named, checked accounts were jeering at it on Twitter. Perhaps with the confidence that his intentions rather than actions were what was on trial.

Don't give even the slightest shit about decency or tone but jfc it costs nothing not spray gasoline on every fire. I expect "the liberal media mocked him for PTSD" will be a part of the Tucker Carlson thing.

The harrowing face of PTSD



Nnnnnnn-nineteen nineteen

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Yeah, you're right. People with PTSD only have one mood, and you can't get PTSD if you're doing a bad thing.

It's not like I expect anyone to sympathise with the cunt.  More that I doubt people would be so cavalier about that if they knew the facts of the case tilted more heavily towards self-defense than the media made it seem. Now Tucker Carlson is going to describe it heartbreaking detail with violins in the background, maybe even "Fortunate Son" by CCR

[Ferris]

So fuck Rittenhouse but apparently they were all lawful shootings. Perhaps the law isn't infallible.

Or perhaps the jury don't know the law. You can't accurately and precisely calculate and deploy lethal force as you fall backwards firing 4 or 5 (he doesn't know how many he fired) rounds into a crowd of people in the dark. You just can't.

It's not what self defence laws are for, and I would argue at least one of those shootings was pretty clearly voluntary manslaughter which gets you 15 years in federal prison because you crossed state lines (and I'd argue the other two were involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon which would tack another 15-20 years on).

I can't argue with the verdict because it's been recorded, but I can say I wholeheartedly believe it to be the incorrect one and am baffled (but not surprised) he got away with it.

The ruling means you can arm yourself and get into any volatile situation you like then murder your way out of it, gratis, and you better believe that will be the upshot of it. You'll be seeing a lot more vigilantes like this so if you are a protestor you'd better arm yourself (and escalate the capacity for violence, because that's what a divided America need these days).

[Video Game Fan 2000]

He was legally allowed to have the fire arm, crossing state lines didn't make any difference to that legality and neither did his intentions, and he was fleeing from attackers when he fired. The court only recognised one of the people he shot as a protester.

The law was that being a vigilante is OK, commendable even.

[Ferris]

He was legally allowed to have the fire arm, crossing state lines didn't make any difference to that legality and neither did his intentions, and he was fleeing from attackers when he fired. The court only recognised one of the people he shot as a protester.

He was a minor armed with a rifle. Legal in Illinois (I think? Possibly not) but illegal under Wisconsin state law.

You can't claim to deploy lethal force in self defence if you are blind firing into a crowd of people. It doesn't make sense - if it did, he would have been justified in shooting every single person in that crowd, even people who were completely unarmed (in fact, 2 of the 3 people shot were unarmed).

I also have issues with how the court termed the people who were there (you know, the people who were shot with a high velocity rifle and didn't go home to their families because they were dead) but that's a separate issue I suppose.

The law was that being a vigilante is OK, commendable even.

Yeah I think you're right here - what a scary declaration to make in the US in 2021. Couldn't pay me to live down there these days.

[BlodwynPig]

[Video Game Fan 2000]

He was a minor armed with a rifle. Legal in Illinois (I think? Possibly not) but illegal under Wisconsin state law.

The charge concerning possession of the gun was dismissed and the judge made a point of saying it should have been dismissed earlier.

As a European, this is one of the parts of the story that is incomprehensible to me but apparently the law was on his side and people reporting on it should have known that the "illegal fire arm" element was unlikely to stick.

[chveik]

It's surprising the people itt who think they know better than the jury.

for such a big case the way they selected that jury seems a bit dodgy. but i'm not a specialist in wisconsin law

[BlodwynPig]

Got to tip my hat to those fair and logical laws they have.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

for such a big case the way they selected that jury seems a bit dodgy. but i'm not a specialist in wisconsin law (and no one here is)

Honestly this is why I find the detail about the "medic" lie to be unsettling, without knowing about the law you'd assume an obvious lie like that would be an admission of bad intent? Like if you were creeping around the back of a post office and claimed to be "the janitor" a day before a robbery.

[JaDanketies]

Where's this that he "blind fired into a crowd of people," Ferris? I've not seen that. I think there mightve been a lot of disinformation about this case. Apparently loads of people have wrong ideas about what happened.

Not to say you do Ferris.

[Ferris]

The charge concerning possession of the gun was dismissed and the judge made a point of saying it should have been dismissed earlier.

Read the WI state law - it pretty clearly states anyone armed under 18 will face 9 months in prison. The charge was dismissed for a pretty minor reason (something to do with a "hunting" exemption which is pretty fucking chilling if that's what the defence is arguing yer man was doing) and as part of dismissing it, the judge noted he personally was "not a fan" of the law anyway. Seems legit to me!

As a European, this is one of the parts of the story that is incomprehensible to me but apparently the law was on his side and people reporting on it should have known that the "illegal fire arm" element was unlikely to stick.

No these are federal prosecutors, not some country bumpkins (and as CaB's resident gun nut, I'm also surprised it was tossed). The defence tried to have the firearms charge dismissed before the trial to no avail, but during the trial the judge allowed it. Did that cancelling a charge mid-trial prejudice the jury? Probably.

It was absolutely not a hail mary type charge, but he ended up getting an entirely clean sweep with 0 jail time (even on this pretty cut and dry charge thanks to the judge dismissing the charge). Again - seems legit to me!

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Out of my depth, but according to what I read the law didn't apply to the kind of gun he had. The hunting exemption was to do with the length of the barrel and not why he had it.

(not that I wouldn't expect another convenient "exception" to be found if he was carrying another kind of gun - clearly the law tilts in favour of not only owning firearms, but walking around with them)

[BlodwynPig]

Some comfort for the dead people's families. Length of the barrel.

[Ferris]

I wonder how much deer hunting is done in a crowded street in the middle of the night in downtown Kenosha, WI.

Like I say - the state law is pretty clear on minors with firearms, and if you want to overturn it on the basis of barrel lengths via hunting exemptions (in the context of a double-homicide trial no less) then I would argue you pretty clearly have an agenda. If you say "oh and I don't even like that law anyway" as you do it and nullify it mid-trial, then I think it is totally fair to question the motive behind it.

I'm not an expert and obviously wasn't a juror so maybe there was massively compelling evidence I missed, but based on the facts I've seen I think this is the wrong verdict for this case specifically, and for the conclusions people will draw across the wider US as a whole.

I don't know, I found the whole thing so depressing I've tried to avoid it but here I am typing away. Might swerve the thread for a bit and focus on something else. Pathetic.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

The facts of the case "tilt towards self defence" because the US is a ridiculous country where people can arm themselves with weapons that serve no purpose other than to kill human beings and then walk around with said weapons on show, with no duty to de-escalate a situation by, oh, not fucking putting themselves in the situation in the first place. Of course he got chased, he had a weapon and a gunshot had just gone off. Of course someone hit him with a blunt instrument, he'd just killed someone. Of course someone pulled a gun on him, he'd just killed two people. "Bawwwww your honour I was so scared" "Well off you go, poor baby, everybody gets a freebie"

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Let's all agree that guns are bad and its terrible when reactionary 17 year old nationalists walk around with them during a riot.

[BlodwynPig]

The facts of the case "tilt towards self defence" because the US is a ridiculous country where people can arm themselves with weapons that serve no purpose other than to kill human beings and then walk around with said weapons on show, with no duty to de-escalate a situation by, oh, not fucking putting themselves in the situation in the first place. Of course he got chased, he had a weapon and a gunshot had just gone off. Of course someone hit him with a blunt instrument, he'd just killed someone. Of course someone pulled a gun on him, he'd just killed two people. "Bawwwww your honour I was so scared" "Well off you go, poor baby, everybody gets a freebie"

Yup, yet some try using hokey laws to defend the indefensible.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

That's what laws are for in general. Don't take the king's stuff, don't contradict priests.

Again, I'm stunned at what people expected. A heartfelt, Capra-esque reckoning with vigilantism and gun violence? Someone puts Toxic Masculinity in the stand? Rediscovery of the lost "don't be a murdering cunt" clause in the constitution? It was never going be anything other than what it is was. You see could the Fox News party train coming for months. Singal and Greenwald started gloating about this in August.

[Ferris]

Let's all agree that guns are bad

Actually I disagree, I think it's fine for people to have pistols and rifles for hunting and target shooting. The problem here is legalizing vigilantism.

If I take a pistol out of my safe, put it in my pocket and walk around in public, I have broken several Canadian laws and would lose my various licenses, have all my firearms taken away, and face some pretty serious criminal charges. If they were loaded, I'd be properly in the shit. This is before I've started menacing random citizens or even put my finger on it.

Up until this guy pointed it at some unarmed people and pulled the trigger, he had broken no laws (well, he broke the state law but we can ignore that for [insert judges reason here]). That's mad. In fact - now that he's been found not guilty then you can argue he broke no laws at all. Like... what kind of system is that?

Like I say, at the micro level I think this was the wrong decision at this trial, and the wider impacts at a macro level across the US are really worrying. Would you want to freely assemble (per your first amendment rights) for a social justice cause if a gang of right wing lunatics can turn up and shoot you if they feel threatened even if you are unarmed, because they are armed and you could take their firearm and become armed so it's ok that they used deadly force with the same firearm?

This will cause more copycats, guaranteed. You'd want to be very brave protesting in the US from now on.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Up until this guy pointed it at some unarmed people and pulled the trigger, he had broken no laws (well, he broke the state law but we can ignore that for [insert judges reason here]). That's mad. In fact - now that he's been found not guilty then you can argue he broke no laws at all. Like... what kind of system is that?


This will cause more copycats, guaranteed. You'd want to be very brave protesting in the US from now on.

Agreed to both. Both are terrifying. Which is why rampant misinformation here is so dangerous - its not just about owning the liberal media, it seems like there is an atmosphere of uncertainty that heavily favours of the 'self-defense' of vigilantes at the expense of lawful assembly.

(and not sure how much fun there is to be had target shooting with a machine gun but I haven't fired a gun in twenty years)

[Ferris]

Agreed to both. Both are terrifying.

Not sure how much fun there is to be had target shooting with a machine gun but I haven't fired a gun in twenty years.

I've fired several AR-15s over the years, they're semi auto and I don't really like them. I find the super light cartridge and modern optics make target shooting a bit... nothing really. I prefer pistol shooting or long range rifle shooting, but that's just me. I was quite a good skeet shooter back in the day but I've lost my eye for that now.

Like I say, happy to be in Canada where this is allowed but really, really heavily restricted. If I get a DUI or a parking ticket I can expect to pop up on the RCMP's radar and they'll consider taking my guns. Good, that's how it should be.

Anyway, I'm going to make a stir fry and try and forget about how desperately unfair the world is.

Edit: you did a quick edit! But I still totally agree. It's really dangerous and scary stuff.

[BlodwynPig]

Probably best not to go skeet shooting in the local mall.

[Goldentony]

Again, I'm stunned at what people expected.

You know that hat people wanted and what people expected were two different things. You go on like you might have the ability to understand that.

[Goldentony]

golden age for blokes who want to do the defnses job for them in the style of Dave Gorman

[Video Game Fan 2000]

What I want is for liberals to stop teeing up the far right for clicks.

[chveik]

it seems even more unlikely than lil nazi getting convicted