Rittenhouse cleared of charges

Started by bgmnts, November 19, 2021, 06:25:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Enzo

It will be refreshing to watch a US true crime documentary where the Prosecution and the Judge aren't in effective cahoots though.

Butchers Blind


Deliciousbass

He killed two white guys so he can't be that racist.

shoulders

Worth bearing in mind this gaping anus hole of a nation is the one Britain models itself on more and more by the year

Retinend

Quote from: Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse on November 19, 2021, 10:23:26 PMStill at least this means it's fine for BLM protesters to tool up and murder the police in "self defense".

HA HA HA CAN YOU FUCKING IMAGINE HOW QUICKLY THEY'D BE EXECUTED

Are you aware of the details of the case? No policeman was shot.

Retinend

November 20, 2021, 07:43:18 AM #66 Last Edit: November 20, 2021, 08:09:12 AM by Retinend
Quote from: Deliciousbass on November 20, 2021, 01:10:05 AMHe killed two white guys so he can't be that racist.

Black guys would know that if they rushed at some white kid with a gun, that kid could blow them away without consequence, because of institutional racism.

The two white men killed by Rittenhouse somehow presumed that they could disarm the kid with a gun by approaching from his front and manhandling it away from him - they overestimated their own power and they underestimated the baby-faced Rittenhouse, and the institution of gun ownership that would inevitably be on Rittenhouse's side. 

Going against the grain, I think that this result is just -though the wider context of gun ownership is unjust.

What I mean by that is that if you have guns and open carry laws around anyway (which are admittedly insane), then the best thing about them is that they make aggressive people think twice about attacking a person. After all, that is why the BLM of the 1960s, the Black Panthers, embraced open carry laws.

I find the whole situation of the Kenosha boogaloo boys totally foreign and very much nazi-adjacent... but the boogaloo boys are not on trial, and neither is the instition of gun ownership - the motive behind the shooing is. Looking at the details, I can only conclude that it would not have happened if the counterprotesters had kept their distance. I repeat: patriotic gun ownership is already an insane societal parameter, but it's a parameter all the same.

jobotic

Quote from: Retinend on November 20, 2021, 07:24:07 AMAre you aware of the details of the case? No policeman was shot.

No just people.

Why would he shoot police? They're on the same side.

shoulders

Quote from: Retinendmake aggressive people think twice

I think we have located the flaw in this argument.

elliszeroed

Can the prosecution appeal? From all I read (not too much, admittedly) the judge was incredibly biased in this case.

Retinend

Quote from: jobotic on November 20, 2021, 08:13:13 AMNo just people.

Why would he shoot police? They're on the same side.

If I understood Poirot's post rightly, she implied Rittenhouse's acquittal is equivalent to some hypothetical BLM supporter shooting a policeman and getting away with it for self defense. So I figured she had heard that Rittenhouse had shot at police.


Deliciousbass

Quote from: Retinend on November 20, 2021, 07:43:18 AMGoing against the grain, I think that this result is just -though the wider context of gun ownership is unjust.

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

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Deliciousbass on November 20, 2021, 10:34:59 AMYeah, I agree with this. I think the whole thing is awful, but it does seem like a pretty clear case of self defense.

Bullshit.

SpiderChrist

Quote from: Deliciousbass on November 20, 2021, 10:34:59 AMYeah, I agree with this. I think the whole thing is awful, but it does seem like a pretty clear case of self defense.

Riiiiiigggggghhhhhht.

So if a black teenager had done the same thing they would have been acquitted? Come on. They'd be dead.

Deliciousbass

Quote from: SpiderChrist on November 20, 2021, 11:02:31 AMRiiiiiigggggghhhhhht.

So if a black teenager had done the same thing they would have been acquitted? Come on. They'd be dead.

All else being equal, then they ought to be acquitted. I agree whether or not that would happen given institutional (and outright) racism is questionable.

Genuinely happy to be proven wrong, but from what I've seen and read it comes down to the fact that if you 'brandish a firearm' then you are signalling 'lethal intent' - if people then run up to attack you, especially if you are retreating, then you are within your rights to use that weapon as a form of self defense.

JamesTC

Admittedly, I just don't want to look up the details too much as it is just too depressing. But why did he cross state lines with an assault rifle and go to a protest? Is there an explanation as to why that wasn't some form of provocation or incitement? 

Deliciousbass

Quote from: JamesTC on November 20, 2021, 11:26:13 AMAdmittedly, I just don't want to look up the details too much as it is just too depressing. But why did he cross state lines with an assault rifle and go to a protest? Is there an explanation as to why that wasn't some form of provocation or incitement? 

He worked and had a social life in Kenosha, which was a 30 minute drive from where he lived. He picked up the gun from a friend of his in Kenosha.

The protests had turned into riots at that point with something like $50 million worth of damage being done, which is why Rittenhouse and others showed up.

Just to be clear, I think what he did was heinous, but he had the legal right to do so.

JamesTC

Quote from: Deliciousbass on November 20, 2021, 11:33:41 AMHe worked and had a social life in Kenosha, which was a 30 minute drive from where he lived. He picked up the gun from a friend of his in Kenosha.

The protests had turned into riots at that point with something like $50 million worth of damage being done, which is why Rittenhouse and others showed up.

Just to be clear, I think what he did was heinous, but he had the legal right to do so.

Right, cheers.

I guess this is all par for the course for a country who think normal citizens being a well armed militia is a good thing.

Butchers Blind

His fat faced crying got a laugh from me. Cheers, Kyle.

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

Like I said earlier, except people don't fucking read. Apparently it's legally fine that this 17 year old got tooled up with a weapon and went looking for trouble. No need to examine his motive for taking a high-powered weapon designed to kill people to a "counter-protest" to "protect property". The man he maimed in "self-defence" was arguably acting in the defence of everyone else when he pulled a gun on him since the little waste of space had already blown two people away. It's only a pity he wasn't quicker on the draw.

And Retinend, I fucking know the police weren't involved. I was doing this thing where I was applying this ludicrous state of affairs to a situation where a different group of people attempted to murder a group who have proved that they are a threat to them. Then I laughed a laugh of rage because of course if BLM protesters murdered police in "self defence" there wouldn't even be a trial, they'd just be dead.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse on November 20, 2021, 12:10:24 PMLike I said earlier, except people don't fucking read. Apparently it's legally fine that this 17 year old got tooled up with a weapon and went looking for trouble. No need to examine his motive for taking a high-powered weapon designed to kill people to a "counter-protest" to "protect property". The man he maimed in "self-defence" was arguably acting in the defence of everyone else when he pulled a gun on him since the little waste of space had already blown two people away. It's only a pity he wasn't quicker on the draw.


I think this is still more a problem with the US gun laws and other factors. 17-year olds are fucking idiots and shouldn't be allowed to wander around the streets armed to the teeth. Just thinking back to myself and everyone I knew at that age, I wouldn't trust any of them with a firearm.

I mean, I wouldn't trust a lot of adults with a firearm either but if there's a cutoff point I'd have it at 21 minimum.

There's no point getting into grotesque hypotheticals about this, especially about race. Protesters who stand out get maimed for all kinds of trivial reasons, you don't have to imagine BLM protesters pointing guns at cops.

This is a good example how liberal media has a kind of 'outrage complicity' with the hard right. The way the story was ginned up was irresponsible. I don't think any one particular media outlike was intentionally trying to construct a narrative or use the case to push any ideological position, but this trial came at the same time as appalling news for the Biden administration inc the pruning of BBB, the Kamala bullshit, approval ratings drop, inflation, etc. and many others so a lot of untrue or questionable things were presented as fact. Its just mana from heaven for social media engagement. Which serves only to elevate Rittenhouse in the eyes of the hard right, who like the legend of the young Proud Boy member who crossed state lines with illegal guns to shoot into a protest more than they like the reality.

The horror of this is the way that the US seems to actively promote vigilantism and gun ownership. From a political perspective shouldn't be a question of whether it was legally self-defense or not, but whether its good that situation had to arise at all. Detracting from that and acting as if the self-defense dimension was even in question seems to have been, at the very least, horribly irresponsible and now Rittenhouse is getting internship offers from Gaetz and Gosar.

Deliciousbass

Couldn't agree with you more. The media handling has been insanely irresponsible.

Pavlov`s Dog`s Dad`s Dead

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on November 20, 2021, 02:15:55 PMI think this is still more a problem with the US gun laws and other factors. 17-year olds are fucking idiots and shouldn't be allowed to wander around the streets armed to the teeth. Just thinking back to myself and everyone I knew at that age, I wouldn't trust any of them with a firearm.

I mean, I wouldn't trust a lot of adults with a firearm either but if there's a cutoff point I'd have it at 21 minimum.
According to that article posted upthread, even in Wisconsin 17-year-olds aren't generally allowed to tote guns. There are exceptions for hunting, apparently, but how the judge contrived to interpret that exemption as applying here, and thus strike out the charge, is merely one of many questions that still need satisfactory answers.

For the record, I think with things set up as they were its more than possible that he was capable of commiting a much worse atrocity from the position he put himself in, and the fact he lied about his intentions showed at least some premediation (the part of the case that chilled me the most).

But that's not what happened and not what he was on trial for.

chveik

Quote from: Deliciousbass on November 20, 2021, 11:33:41 AMHe worked and had a social life in Kenosha, which was a 30 minute drive from where he lived. He picked up the gun from a friend of his in Kenosha.

The protests had turned into riots at that point with something like $50 million worth of damage being done, which is why Rittenhouse and others showed up.

Just to be clear, I think what he did was heinous, but he had the legal right to do so.

he wasn't there to protect anything, he clearly intended to go and murder people. the self-defence narrative is pure bollocks

chveik

Quote from: Video Game Fan 2000 on November 20, 2021, 02:35:06 PMThere's no point getting into grotesque hypotheticals about this, especially about race. Protesters who stand out get maimed for all kinds of trivial reasons, you don't have to imagine BLM protesters pointing guns at cops.

This is a good example how liberal media has a kind of 'outrage complicity' with the hard right. The way the story was ginned up was irresponsible. I don't think any one particular media outlike was intentionally trying to construct a narrative or use the case to push any ideological position, but this trial came at the same time as appalling news for the Biden administration inc the pruning of BBB, the Kamala bullshit, approval ratings drop, inflation, etc. and many others so a lot of untrue or questionable things were presented as fact. Its just mana from heaven for social media engagement. Which serves only to elevate Rittenhouse in the eyes of the hard right, who like the legend of the young Proud Boy member who crossed state lines with illegal guns to shoot into a protest more than they like the reality.

The horror of this is the way that the US seems to actively promote vigilantism and gun ownership. From a political perspective shouldn't be a question of whether it was legally self-defense or not, but whether its good that situation had to arise at all. Detracting from that and acting as if the self-defense dimension was even in question seems to have been, at the very least, horribly irresponsible and now Rittenhouse is getting internship offers from Gaetz and Gosar.

got to love those Greenwald hot takes.

"self-defense" doesn't apply to him going there, it applies to what happened once he was there. As I understand it, he could have come waving a confederate flag and told people he specifically wanted to shoot looters and it would still apply.

He was clearly there with bad intentions. But thats exactly what self-defense laws are supposed to protect.

If people want the Greenwalds have less moments in the sun, insufferably gloating about stuff like this, they should be more skeptical about CNN and MSBNC, and stuff that comes directly from Democrats.

chveik

don't worry i'm already very skeptical of what the lib media say you smug fuck, but making this case about their irresponsibility isn't the best of takes. the fact that the trial took place at the same time of the democrats fucking up is merely coincidental.

I think coverage of this has actively endangered protesters in future.

Muddying the waters is only ever going to serve one group of people.