As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Kyle Rittenhouse Thread In Which We Take As a Given That Kyle Was Wrong and Stupid

1456810

Posts

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…

    Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.

    There exists a noteable bipartisan current of thought that all pedophiles (or anyone they think is one) deserve to be murdered.

    could say that about a lot of crimes, to be honest

    Which always begs the question, what's the point of incarceration if they don't believe in rehabilitation?

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    GrpAhic DeiGn is My PAssIon
    Lord_AsmodeusMan in the Mistsvalhalla130
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited November 24
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…

    Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.

    There exists a noteable bipartisan current of thought that all pedophiles (or anyone they think is one) deserve to be murdered.

    could say that about a lot of crimes, to be honest

    Which always begs the question, what's the point of incarceration if they don't believe in rehabilitation?

    In fairness, sometimes some people just need to be removed from society because they prove they are no longer fit to be in it.

    The assclown fleeing a domestic violence incident, which he committed while he been released on bail for other previous crimes, who decided to plow into a Christmas parade at full speed in his car killing 5 adults and a child while wounding 60 more, is such an example.

    Sometimes what we need is a big dark hole to throw societies shit into.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    mRahmanielectricitylikesmeCalicaNobeardGnome-Interruptusknitdan
  • minor incidentminor incident Quincentuple Your Money! Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…

    Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.

    There exists a noteable bipartisan current of thought that all pedophiles (or anyone they think is one) deserve to be murdered.

    could say that about a lot of crimes, to be honest

    Which always begs the question, what's the point of incarceration if they don't believe in rehabilitation?

    A lot of conservatives view it very specifically as exclusively punishment, not rehabilitation. Which is why they tend to not give a shit about the crimes against humanity that run rampant in the prison industrial complex — those people aren’t “humanity” after all.

    Steam: minor incident || PSN: inter-punct
    You may not find all that you're after. In the end I hope it doesn't matter.
    DoodmannZibblsnrtPhoenix-DFencingsaxBlackDragon480shrykeLostNinjaMatevNobodyEmperorSethzepherinJaysonFourDarkPrimusShortyLord_AsmodeusMrVyngaardMan in the MistsJazzGennenalyse RuebenkimeShadowfireSleepCalicaRhesus PositiveStabbity StyleKristmas KthulhuHappy Little MachineMr RayGnome-Interruptus
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…

    Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.

    There exists a noteable bipartisan current of thought that all pedophiles (or anyone they think is one) deserve to be murdered.

    could say that about a lot of crimes, to be honest

    Which always begs the question, what's the point of incarceration if they don't believe in rehabilitation?

    A lot of conservatives view it very specifically as exclusively punishment, not rehabilitation. Which is why they tend to not give a shit about the crimes against humanity that run rampant in the prison industrial complex — those people aren’t “humanity” after all.

    Not just conservatives unfortunately.

    minor incidentDoodmannBlackDragon480shrykeBloodsheedLostNinjaMatevdispatch.oElvenshaeNobodyDark_SideEmperorSethjungleroomxJaysonFourGnizmoShortyLord_AsmodeusCaptain InertiaJazzGennenalyse RuebenkimeTransporterShadowfireSleepCalicaRhesus PositiveMorganVSolarStabbity StyleKristmas KthulhuNobeardvalhalla130Happy Little MachineGnome-InterruptusTynnan
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    I’m noticing, both in the last thread, and many other left leaning discussion areas get an influx of new people who are blatantly pro Rittenhouse. And not just ‘Well, the evidence showed he justified’. I’m talking full blown ‘Victim was a pedophile, ergo the Left supports pedos!’ It was kinda surprising how quickly they formed an internet bloc. Suspicious when accounts created in 2008 but almost no activity until this very moment…

    Maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m dissatisfied with the verdict, and disappointed that the internet Right celebrates this horrific tragedy as a sports score.

    There exists a noteable bipartisan current of thought that all pedophiles (or anyone they think is one) deserve to be murdered.

    could say that about a lot of crimes, to be honest

    Which always begs the question, what's the point of incarceration if they don't believe in rehabilitation?

    punishment. they want their pound of flesh. post release in itself is an admission that prison doesn't work and it's part of the same damn system. if prison worked why would you need to watch people for years after they get released?

    Jars on
    Man in the MistsSleepGnome-Interruptus
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    punishment. they want their pound of flesh. post release in itself is an admission that prison doesn't work and it's part of the same damn system. if prison worked why would you need to watch people for years after they get released?

    A lot of the time it's also fishing for an excuse to re-imprison people.

    Stuck in traffic, missed a check-in, the local judge was elected on the promise of keeping the prisons full? That looks great for one person involved!

    DoodmannFencingsaxBlackDragon480dispatch.oCaptain InertiaMan in the MistsJazzKristmas Kthulhuvalhalla130Gnome-Interruptus
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Re: forum fascists bobbing up:

    The PA forums used to be a lot more broad in their perspective, with us having a real mix of views ranging from liberal to libertarian to straight anarchist and as such you could get real interesting conversations going on gay rights, religion and male circumcision.

    The problem was that the sheer ineptitude of bush broke a lot of folks, and it simply wasn’t possible for them to make excuses for neo-conservatism anymore.

    Not everyone flipped of course; there were a handful of republicans/libertarians that stuck it out as the forum became more liberal and the mods more stringent on language.

    Part of me wishes we could have those days and conversations back, but the sad reality is that the Republican Party is largely untethered from reality at this point and whenever such forumites turn back up its an exercise in futility to try and have a good faith discussion with them. :(

    I think the mass exodus was because of the goobers not bush.

    Bush being a disaster, stricter moderation, moderators deciding that certain people didn't need to argue for their right to exist caused a lot of folks to run into buzzsaws... the goober thing probably flushed a few out and then you get to Trump.

    It's probably the moderation over anything else since there's thousands of spaces in real life and on the net that cater to your average 2006 forumer but they were shown the door over a decade ago.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    AegeriBlackDragon480minor incidentJaysonFourElvenshaeJazzkimeRhesus PositiveKristmas KthulhuNobeardMatev
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    We also used to have general politics threads, religion threads, and overall feistier people and conversations

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Hey guys, forum history and general discussion of forumers, past or present, is not on topic in here.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."
    Captain InertiaWhiteZinfandelGnome-InterruptusKoopahTroopah
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited November 24
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Re: forum fascists bobbing up:

    The PA forums used to be a lot more broad in their perspective, with us having a real mix of views ranging from liberal to libertarian to straight anarchist and as such you could get real interesting conversations going on gay rights, religion and male circumcision.

    The problem was that the sheer ineptitude of bush broke a lot of folks, and it simply wasn’t possible for them to make excuses for neo-conservatism anymore.

    Not everyone flipped of course; there were a handful of republicans/libertarians that stuck it out as the forum became more liberal and the mods more stringent on language.

    Part of me wishes we could have those days and conversations back, but the sad reality is that the Republican Party is largely untethered from reality at this point and whenever such forumites turn back up its an exercise in futility to try and have a good faith discussion with them. :(

    Bush may have started that process, but it was goobergate that broke a lot of communities and where decisions were made. It's great that when the first screed about Zoe was posted up on the internet, which started the entire thing, one of the places it was initially posted was actually on Penny-Arcade but tube and the mods took one look and straight up obliterated it. I think in more recent times the Trump presidency just broke everyone remaining who was a conservative and could actually think in any form of reality on this forum.

    I used to have significantly more right wing views when I was younger. A younger me, in his 20s, would even have thought what Kyle did was not inherently inappropriate even if he was stupid for various actions he took on the night. My viewpoint has shifted as it's become more and more clear where how my original viewpoint was formed, it's base origins and the inherently disagreeable connotations it has. Like, it should not be something to celebrate or a surprise that three men couldn't claim self defense for chasing an unarmed person in a truck, confronting them while armed with firearms and then that unarmed person (somehow) ends up dead. I mean, that's open and shut murder surely?

    But here we are. One thing I will say that makes the difference, probably to a jury, is the same thing that was being repeated before. The people Kyle killed were not ideal victims. They are mentally ill, had problems or similar, which allowed the defense to portray them as unstable attackers. In as much as can be said, it was harder for the defense to portray a guy just running in his neighbourhood as not being a victim of three guys who went out to murder someone and surprise, surprise, ended up murdering someone. It's good to see that this verdict does at least mean America hasn't quite devolved into the wild west of "Whoever is left standing is the winner and can claim self defense".

    In another reality though, maybe Arbery did get that shotgun away and shoot one (or more) of those men dead. Then I wonder what would have happened and I suspect he wouldn't have got the initially soft treatment from the DA and so forth those three men got.

    I think it's a little disingenuous to say that the main difference between the cases was that Rosenbaum had a bad past where Arbery did not. As much as people in this thread claimed that the Rittenhouse case was so obvious, I still feel like the facts of the case made it a lot closer than portrayed here. Rittenhouse was threatened and chased, these are very important distinctions compared to the McMichaels who were not threatened and were chasing Arbery (as opposed to being chased).

    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    WhiteZinfandel
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Legal eagle is not a criminal lawyer.

    Legal eagle also tends to skip a lot of pertinent details in trying to get a video under a certain time and simplified for lay people.

    Yes, that's true. But at the same time, he's a lawyer trained in the American legal education system, then spent time in BigLaw. Which means he's been soaking in the profession's institutionalism, and I'd bet he doesn't even see it. Part of why I still read the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money is because the legal writers there have become critical of legal institutionalism (probably because they were some of the first to go after the scam law schools, when a lot of other people were looking the other way.)

    I think the general thrust of his video was "the legal intricacies of the situation, as presented to the jury, had a lot of moving parts, so it's not surprising that the jury didn't come to an immediate conclusion either way."

    Which strikes me as fair. I think it's clear that Rittenhouse should be in prison for what he did and the laws surrounding this are fucked up. It's not ENTIRELY clear to me, though, that Rittenhouse is necessarily guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating Wisconsin laws based on the information presented to the jury.

    As in, while the law should make what Rittenhouse did illegal - and I think, given all evidence we've seen as an external audience, it was - I'm not certain I wouldn't have come to the same conclusion as the jury if I were sitting there and had only the presented case to go on.

    Which is what I got from the Legal Eagle video, as well.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."
    Jebus314shrykeFencingsaxRaiden333LabelBlackDragon480ForarApogeeKnuckle DraggerShadowfireMorganVStabbity StyleCasualjungleroomxHappylilElfGnome-InterruptusTynnan
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited November 25
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die? Alternatively, someone sees Rittenhouse threatening another person with his rifle, takes their gun out and shoots him. Are we back to whoever is left standing is in the right and gets to claim it was self-defense again?

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    Gnome-InterruptusKayne Red Robe
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    My original point was just that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    Aegerizepherin
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    valhalla130
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Your probably right, but I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. I mean it's obviously bad because these specific murderers would have gone free, but your basically saying that if there wasn't a lot of evidence about what happened the jury may have decided that the prosecutions case didn't go beyond a reasonable doubt. Which seems like the system working as intended.

    edit - I should clarify that I am just talking in the abstract here that in general as you start removing evidence the jury should at some point switch from guilty to not guilty. For the actual McMichaels case I'm not familiar enough with the other evidence to know which way I think it should be ruled (ignoring the video), but it would definitely have been harder to decide.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Yeah, I feel the only thing that got such a widely different result was the fact the idiots in the Arbery trial video taped exactly what they did and there weren't inconclusive drone shots as the only evidence to go on. It was clear from their own video they started the entire fatal confrontation - which they didn't even have the right to start in the first place.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Your probably right, but I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. I mean it's obviously bad because these specific murderers would have gone free, but your basically saying that if there wasn't a lot of evidence about what happened the jury may have decided that the prosecutions case didn't go beyond a reasonable doubt. Which seems like the system working as intended.

    Not exactly. There was plenty of evidence. Things like the 911 call, the evidence they hit Aubrey with a truck, etc. But the first two prosecutors wanted to sandbag. Annnd then the idiots released the video and made that impossible.

    AegeriBlackDragon480BigJoeMElvenshaeMan in the MistsGnome-InterruptusMatev
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Yep, the video basically forced the trial and was their undoing.

    They would have got away with it despite copious amounts of obvious evidence what they did was wrong, even without the video.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    ElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Yeah, I feel the only thing that got such a widely different result was the fact the idiots in the Arbery trial video taped exactly what they did and there weren't inconclusive drone shots as the only evidence to go on. It was clear from their own video they started the entire fatal confrontation - which they didn't even have the right to start in the first place.

    I mean, the entire idea of a citizens arrest is stupid. You should obviously be able to try and stop active crimes, but as soon as the criminal decides to run away it shouldn't be legal to pursue. The police should be the only ones allowed to chase/detain people who aren't currently committing a crime. Especially in the age of camera's where it's far less likely that if the criminal gets away they will never be caught.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    kime
  • pyromaniac221pyromaniac221 this just might be an interestin YTRegistered User regular
    I think the differences in the Wisconsin and Georgia self-defense statutes are also pretty significant.

    psn tooaware, friend code SW-4760-0062-3248 it me
  • JokermanJokerman V.Vaughn, The Vaudeville Vilnian Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Yeah, I feel the only thing that got such a widely different result was the fact the idiots in the Arbery trial video taped exactly what they did and there weren't inconclusive drone shots as the only evidence to go on. It was clear from their own video they started the entire fatal confrontation - which they didn't even have the right to start in the first place.

    I mean, the entire idea of a citizens arrest is stupid. You should obviously be able to try and stop active crimes, but as soon as the criminal decides to run away it shouldn't be legal to pursue. The police should be the only ones allowed to chase/detain people who aren't currently committing a crime. Especially in the age of camera's where it's far less likely that if the criminal gets away they will never be caught.

    The concept of a citizens arrest definitely feels a little post-reconstructiony.

    Captain InertiaXaquinA Dabble Of TheloniusDoodmannBigJoeMGnome-InterruptusMatev
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Your probably right, but I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. I mean it's obviously bad because these specific murderers would have gone free, but your basically saying that if there wasn't a lot of evidence about what happened the jury may have decided that the prosecutions case didn't go beyond a reasonable doubt. Which seems like the system working as intended.

    Not exactly. There was plenty of evidence. Things like the 911 call, the evidence they hit Aubrey with a truck, etc. But the first two prosecutors wanted to sandbag. Annnd then the idiots released the video and made that impossible.

    A video they released on the advice of their personal injury lawyer, who's thinking was that the video would show that it was a valid citizen's arrest and everything would calm down.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    BlackDragon480PreacherDarkPrimusminor incidentCaptain InertiaJaysonFourEtiowsaElvenshaeKnuckle DraggerShadowfireMan in the MistsshrykeStabbity StyleboogedybooLord_AsmodeusNobeardvalhalla130Gnome-InterruptusMatev
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    I still don't see how anyone could see three white dudes, two of them armed, chasing you in a truck then demanding you tell them who they are in a country with the legacy of the USA isn't inherently automatically threatening. In fact, it shouldn't even have to be in a context of different races - I would be shitting my pants.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    zepherinCaptain InertiaMathew BurrackelectricitylikesmeElvenshaeLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130StarZapperGnome-InterruptusMr Ray
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Yeah, I feel the only thing that got such a widely different result was the fact the idiots in the Arbery trial video taped exactly what they did and there weren't inconclusive drone shots as the only evidence to go on. It was clear from their own video they started the entire fatal confrontation - which they didn't even have the right to start in the first place.

    I mean, the entire idea of a citizens arrest is stupid. You should obviously be able to try and stop active crimes, but as soon as the criminal decides to run away it shouldn't be legal to pursue. The police should be the only ones allowed to chase/detain people who aren't currently committing a crime. Especially in the age of camera's where it's far less likely that if the criminal gets away they will never be caught.

    The concept of a citizens arrest definitely feels a little post-reconstructiony.

    Cause it is. The concept of citizens being able to act as ad hoc lawmen was how the majority of lynch mobs defended their actions and got off, even in non-Jim Crow states.

    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    zepherinFencingsaxAegeriDarkPrimusCaptain InertiaGennenalyse RuebenBigJoeMBloodsheedMan in the MistsTicaldfjamLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130Gnome-InterruptusMatev
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I still don't see how anyone could see three white dudes, two of them armed, chasing you in a truck then demanding you tell them who they are in a country with the legacy of the USA isn't inherently automatically threatening. In fact, it shouldn't even have to be in a context of different races - I would be shitting my pants.

    The argument was that what Aubrey felt didn't matter - all that mattered was what the three good ol' boys felt. Which is why the defense tried to have Black clergy banned from the Courtroom, and called for a mistrial when Aubrey's mother broke down.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    valhalla130
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I still don't see how anyone could see three white dudes, two of them armed, chasing you in a truck then demanding you tell them who they are in a country with the legacy of the USA isn't inherently automatically threatening. In fact, it shouldn't even have to be in a context of different races - I would be shitting my pants.
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Yeah, I feel the only thing that got such a widely different result was the fact the idiots in the Arbery trial video taped exactly what they did and there weren't inconclusive drone shots as the only evidence to go on. It was clear from their own video they started the entire fatal confrontation - which they didn't even have the right to start in the first place.

    I mean, the entire idea of a citizens arrest is stupid. You should obviously be able to try and stop active crimes, but as soon as the criminal decides to run away it shouldn't be legal to pursue. The police should be the only ones allowed to chase/detain people who aren't currently committing a crime. Especially in the age of camera's where it's far less likely that if the criminal gets away they will never be caught.

    The concept of a citizens arrest definitely feels a little post-reconstructiony.

    Cause it is. The concept of citizens being able to act as ad hoc lawmen was how the majority of lynch mobs defended their actions and got off, even in non-Jim Crow states.
    3 white dudes in a truck is often how lynch mobs get started.

    PreacherBlackDragon480zagdrobFencingsaxDarkPrimusminor incidentCaptain InertiaXaquinGennenalyse RuebenJazzMayabirdBloodsheedTransporterelectricitylikesmeElvenshaeKnuckle DraggerShadowfireMillMan in the MistsTicaldfjamStabbity StyleboogedybooMunkus BeaverLord_AsmodeusNobeardvalhalla130StarZapperGnome-InterruptusTynnanKayne Red RobeknitdanMatev
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I still don't see how anyone could see three white dudes, two of them armed, chasing you in a truck then demanding you tell them who they are in a country with the legacy of the USA isn't inherently automatically threatening. In fact, it shouldn't even have to be in a context of different races - I would be shitting my pants.
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Yeah, I feel the only thing that got such a widely different result was the fact the idiots in the Arbery trial video taped exactly what they did and there weren't inconclusive drone shots as the only evidence to go on. It was clear from their own video they started the entire fatal confrontation - which they didn't even have the right to start in the first place.

    I mean, the entire idea of a citizens arrest is stupid. You should obviously be able to try and stop active crimes, but as soon as the criminal decides to run away it shouldn't be legal to pursue. The police should be the only ones allowed to chase/detain people who aren't currently committing a crime. Especially in the age of camera's where it's far less likely that if the criminal gets away they will never be caught.

    The concept of a citizens arrest definitely feels a little post-reconstructiony.

    Cause it is. The concept of citizens being able to act as ad hoc lawmen was how the majority of lynch mobs defended their actions and got off, even in non-Jim Crow states.
    3 white dudes in a truck is often how lynch mobs get started.

    Yes and I feel the characterization of what they did as a modern lynch mob was more than accurate.

    What disturbs me is how easily they could have got away with it by just being a bit smarter.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    PreacherzepherinBlackDragon480zagdrobFencingsaxDarkPrimusCaptain InertiaGennenalyse RuebenJazzelectricitylikesmeElvenshaeShadowfireMan in the MistsStabbity StyleKristmas KthulhuLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130Gnome-InterruptusMr Ray
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I still don't see how anyone could see three white dudes, two of them armed, chasing you in a truck then demanding you tell them who they are in a country with the legacy of the USA isn't inherently automatically threatening. In fact, it shouldn't even have to be in a context of different races - I would be shitting my pants.
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Yeah, I feel the only thing that got such a widely different result was the fact the idiots in the Arbery trial video taped exactly what they did and there weren't inconclusive drone shots as the only evidence to go on. It was clear from their own video they started the entire fatal confrontation - which they didn't even have the right to start in the first place.

    I mean, the entire idea of a citizens arrest is stupid. You should obviously be able to try and stop active crimes, but as soon as the criminal decides to run away it shouldn't be legal to pursue. The police should be the only ones allowed to chase/detain people who aren't currently committing a crime. Especially in the age of camera's where it's far less likely that if the criminal gets away they will never be caught.

    The concept of a citizens arrest definitely feels a little post-reconstructiony.

    Cause it is. The concept of citizens being able to act as ad hoc lawmen was how the majority of lynch mobs defended their actions and got off, even in non-Jim Crow states.
    3 white dudes in a truck is often how lynch mobs get started.

    Yes and I feel the characterization of what they did as a modern lynch mob was more than accurate.

    What disturbs me is how easily they could have got away with it by just being a bit smarter.

    Yeah they were well on there way of having 2 separate prosecutors letting them off. Like it took 74! days for them to be arrested for a lynching they took video of.

    Anyone trying to act like "today we defeated racism" is willfully lying, like fucking Tulsi Gabbard.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    RedTideAegeriBlackDragon480Gennenalyse RuebenJazzBigJoeMElvenshaeMan in the MistsTicaldfjamStabbity Stylevalhalla130Gnome-InterruptusTynnanknitdanMatev
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    So I’ve been thinking. I don’t have a problem with the idea of a citizen’s arrest, in limited circumstances. And many European countries have laws to that effect. But it should be limited in scope.

    For example restraining someone who is acting violent but is weaker. IE a bouncer restraining a drunk angry patron until the police get to the pub/club is in effect making a citizens arrest. And that happens every night in every major US city.

    zepherin on
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Honestly it feels counterintuitive but I think if Rosenbaum had been black but everything else the same Rittenhouse would have been convicted. Things would have gotten a lot nastier, but still.

    Thank god we got one right decision today, but it does feel like unless things are the most obviously undeniably racist intention from the drop race is just ignored as a factor.

    And I've been engaged in D&D gun discussions for almost a decade now. The Rittenhouse stans that came up out of the woodwork weren't anyone who was back and forth in any of those threads when they were still a thing.

    zepherinRedTideBlackDragon480
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    edited November 25
    zepherin wrote: »
    So I’ve been thinking. I don’t have a problem with the idea of a citizen’s arrest, in limited circumstances. And many European countries have laws to that effect. But it should be limited in scope.

    For example restraining someone who is acting violent but is weaker. IE a bouncer restraining a drunk angry patron until the police get to the pub/club is in effect making a citizens arrest. And that happens every night in every major US city.

    To an extent I agree, but it easier for such statutes to have less messy application and outcomes in Europe, due to the 400-round elephant in the room, we have too many guns for it to be sensible to expect someone to only use proportional force at all times while acting in such a capacity without training, licensing, and some kind of oversight. The bouncer and/or licensed security idea is good in theory, but odds are what went down with the security guard in Chicago that got gunned down because the police thought he was the shooter, after he successfully disarmed and restrained the actual guy, would happen far too often.

    BlackDragon480 on
    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    zepherinminor incident
  • minor incidentminor incident Quincentuple Your Money! Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    Aegeri wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I still don't see how anyone could see three white dudes, two of them armed, chasing you in a truck then demanding you tell them who they are in a country with the legacy of the USA isn't inherently automatically threatening. In fact, it shouldn't even have to be in a context of different races - I would be shitting my pants.
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Yeah, I feel the only thing that got such a widely different result was the fact the idiots in the Arbery trial video taped exactly what they did and there weren't inconclusive drone shots as the only evidence to go on. It was clear from their own video they started the entire fatal confrontation - which they didn't even have the right to start in the first place.

    I mean, the entire idea of a citizens arrest is stupid. You should obviously be able to try and stop active crimes, but as soon as the criminal decides to run away it shouldn't be legal to pursue. The police should be the only ones allowed to chase/detain people who aren't currently committing a crime. Especially in the age of camera's where it's far less likely that if the criminal gets away they will never be caught.

    The concept of a citizens arrest definitely feels a little post-reconstructiony.

    Cause it is. The concept of citizens being able to act as ad hoc lawmen was how the majority of lynch mobs defended their actions and got off, even in non-Jim Crow states.
    3 white dudes in a truck is often how lynch mobs get started.

    Yes and I feel the characterization of what they did as a modern lynch mob was more than accurate.

    What disturbs me is how easily they could have got away with it by just being a bit smarter.

    I mean, similar situations have absolutely happened and the lynch mob has totally gotten away with it (or at the very least, gotten a dramatically lighter sentence than if the races has been reversed).

    Did you know that in Texas, up until 1998, no white man had ever been sentenced to death for killing a black man? Now, setting aside the obvious horror of the death penalty, Texas had, at that time, executed over 1000 people for murder.

    It doesn’t take a hard look to see the thumb of racism on those scales.

    minor incident on
    Steam: minor incident || PSN: inter-punct
    You may not find all that you're after. In the end I hope it doesn't matter.
    BlackDragon480FencingsaxBigJoeMElvenshaeTicaldfjamMan in the Mistsvalhalla130Mr Ray
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    zepherin wrote: »
    So I’ve been thinking. I don’t have a problem with the idea of a citizen’s arrest, in limited circumstances. And many European countries have laws to that effect. But it should be limited in scope.

    For example restraining someone who is acting violent but is weaker. IE a bouncer restraining a drunk angry patron until the police get to the pub/club is in effect making a citizens arrest. And that happens every night in every major US city.

    Eh. I'm not even sure I would support it in that instance. I mean the bouncer definitely has the right to remove the person from the premises. But I would think video footage and or taking their picture should suffice in allowing the police to track them down later and not require them to be held captive until the police arrived. I mean, bars are required to check ID anyway, if they're really having problems they can just start taking pictures of the IDs when they check them. Then it would be very easy to track that person down.

    The only thing that would be difficult to determine, is if say the drunk person was threatening to go get a gun from their car. Basically when there is a reasonable fear that letting them go would lead to an escalation. Then maybe I could see it being ok to detain someone as not a police officer.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I still don't see how anyone could see three white dudes, two of them armed, chasing you in a truck then demanding you tell them who they are in a country with the legacy of the USA isn't inherently automatically threatening. In fact, it shouldn't even have to be in a context of different races - I would be shitting my pants.
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    It's unfortunate we'll never know how the jury in the Rittenhouse case would have ruled if the Judge hadn't thrown out the interviews and gun charge (which I personally think were very important to the determination). But if you feel (as I do) that a reasonable person could go either way on the Rittenhouse case, the combination of these two cases seems like things aren't so terrible for reasonable outcomes from juries these days (racist judges notwithstanding).

    It depends on your inherent point of view though. I don't see bringing a gun into a volatile situation, with the intent to commit vigilante justice, results in someone being able to claim they were defending themselves. Bringing a gun is inherently threatening and again, there is this difference in that the victims in Rittenhouses' case are not perfect. Yet despite one of them being mentally ill, talking shit and trying to start fights all night (if you accept the narrative on that), it's when he ran into the 17 year old vigilante with a rifle that a situation escalates into him being killed. Like a rifle or shotgun or whatever firearm is an inherent escalation, especially when brought into that situation by a bad actor who had the intent of using that weapon to shoot people.

    Like key to me about that case, which the Judge prevented the jury from hearing, was Rittenhouse stating he wanted to go to the protest to shoot people. Then he did! You can tell why the defense and the Judge, acting as an extra defense lawyer, wouldn't want that inconvenient fact to the "Terrified for his life and defending himself" narrative.

    We get a lot of "Good guy with a gun could stop X shooting" as a narrative after America's latest mass shooting that will continue in perpetuity, but now how the fuck do you determine who an active shooter is? If someone can bring a gun, threaten others and then provoke them into trying to stop them - aka the "Good guy with a gun" narrative - so they can then shoot in "self-defense", what's the line? Do they shoot 5 people? 10 people before they become an active shooter? 15? 20?

    At what point does an unarmed person threatened by someone using a firearm get to decide they have to potentially fight or die?

    I totally agree with you, the moment he expressed his intent to kill someone during the protest, he should have lost his right to self defense (and is surpising in a good way that a qualifier like that got into the law). But given the jury wasn't allowed to know that piece the rest gets murkier, and I can't say I completely fault the jury for going that direction.

    Which was my original point, that the Rittenhouse case had a lot of gray to it that isn't present in the McMichaels case. I don't think it's fair to say that the Rittenhouse jury was swayed into giving the wrong verdict just because Rosenbaum wasn't very sympathetic.

    You wouldn't know that from listening to a lot of defenders. The arguments pre trial were incredibly similar. I think without the massive own goal of releasing that video they probably would have gotten away with it.

    Yeah, I feel the only thing that got such a widely different result was the fact the idiots in the Arbery trial video taped exactly what they did and there weren't inconclusive drone shots as the only evidence to go on. It was clear from their own video they started the entire fatal confrontation - which they didn't even have the right to start in the first place.

    I mean, the entire idea of a citizens arrest is stupid. You should obviously be able to try and stop active crimes, but as soon as the criminal decides to run away it shouldn't be legal to pursue. The police should be the only ones allowed to chase/detain people who aren't currently committing a crime. Especially in the age of camera's where it's far less likely that if the criminal gets away they will never be caught.

    The concept of a citizens arrest definitely feels a little post-reconstructiony.

    Cause it is. The concept of citizens being able to act as ad hoc lawmen was how the majority of lynch mobs defended their actions and got off, even in non-Jim Crow states.
    3 white dudes in a truck is often how lynch mobs get started.

    Yes and I feel the characterization of what they did as a modern lynch mob was more than accurate.

    What disturbs me is how easily they could have got away with it by just being a bit smarter.

    Yeah they were well on there way of having 2 separate prosecutors letting them off. Like it took 74! days for them to be arrested for a lynching they took video of.

    Anyone trying to act like "today we defeated racism" is willfully lying, like fucking Tulsi Gabbard.

    If anything these cases have strengthened my belief that juries are actually ok, but god damned do we have a problem with prosecutors and judges.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    I was actually thinking about the lack of evidence thing for self defense though, and I'm just not sure I can see a jury ever going against the person still alive.

    Like ignore the actual cases here and imagine a purely hypothetical case where cops show up and one person is dead and the person alive claims they were attacked and acted in self defense. No injuries on either side other than the gunshot that killed the dead person.

    I mean I feel like they way the laws are written that should be murder, because there is no evidence that the person still alive was acting in self defense. But I can't help but feel like a jury is going to see an actual person in the court room or on the stand, with a tale of being truely afraid for their life, and it will be difficult to side with the person who's dead and not saying anything.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited November 25
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    So I’ve been thinking. I don’t have a problem with the idea of a citizen’s arrest, in limited circumstances. And many European countries have laws to that effect. But it should be limited in scope.

    For example restraining someone who is acting violent but is weaker. IE a bouncer restraining a drunk angry patron until the police get to the pub/club is in effect making a citizens arrest. And that happens every night in every major US city.

    Eh. I'm not even sure I would support it in that instance. I mean the bouncer definitely has the right to remove the person from the premises. But I would think video footage and or taking their picture should suffice in allowing the police to track them down later and not require them to be held captive until the police arrived. I mean, bars are required to check ID anyway, if they're really having problems they can just start taking pictures of the IDs when they check them. Then it would be very easy to track that person down.

    The only thing that would be difficult to determine, is if say the drunk person was threatening to go get a gun from their car. Basically when there is a reasonable fear that letting them go would lead to an escalation. Then maybe I could see it being ok to detain someone as not a police officer.
    Often times the person isn’t stopping so the choice becomes restraint or render unconscious (coma). Jack Daniels does not make for good judgment. And I’d rather be restrained than concussed.

    The citizens arrest is the mechanism for stopping them from harming the bouncer or others.

    zepherin on
    Elvenshae
  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Legal eagle is not a criminal lawyer.

    Legal eagle also tends to skip a lot of pertinent details in trying to get a video under a certain time and simplified for lay people.

    Yes, that's true. But at the same time, he's a lawyer trained in the American legal education system, then spent time in BigLaw. Which means he's been soaking in the profession's institutionalism, and I'd bet he doesn't even see it. Part of why I still read the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money is because the legal writers there have become critical of legal institutionalism (probably because they were some of the first to go after the scam law schools, when a lot of other people were looking the other way.)

    I think the general thrust of his video was "the legal intricacies of the situation, as presented to the jury, had a lot of moving parts, so it's not surprising that the jury didn't come to an immediate conclusion either way."

    Which strikes me as fair. I think it's clear that Rittenhouse should be in prison for what he did and the laws surrounding this are fucked up. It's not ENTIRELY clear to me, though, that Rittenhouse is necessarily guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating Wisconsin laws based on the information presented to the jury.

    As in, while the law should make what Rittenhouse did illegal - and I think, given all evidence we've seen as an external audience, it was - I'm not certain I wouldn't have come to the same conclusion as the jury if I were sitting there and had only the presented case to go on.

    Which is what I got from the Legal Eagle video, as well.

    The dismissal of both underlying misdemeanors killed any chance of Constructive Manslaughter, and that left it up to a crapshoot of whether the jury bought the arguments of provocation or self defense. I’d be very interested in what the split was when they began their deliberations.

    BlackDragon480FencingsaxGnome-Interruptus
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Legal eagle is not a criminal lawyer.

    Legal eagle also tends to skip a lot of pertinent details in trying to get a video under a certain time and simplified for lay people.

    Yes, that's true. But at the same time, he's a lawyer trained in the American legal education system, then spent time in BigLaw. Which means he's been soaking in the profession's institutionalism, and I'd bet he doesn't even see it. Part of why I still read the blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money is because the legal writers there have become critical of legal institutionalism (probably because they were some of the first to go after the scam law schools, when a lot of other people were looking the other way.)

    I think the general thrust of his video was "the legal intricacies of the situation, as presented to the jury, had a lot of moving parts, so it's not surprising that the jury didn't come to an immediate conclusion either way."

    Which strikes me as fair. I think it's clear that Rittenhouse should be in prison for what he did and the laws surrounding this are fucked up. It's not ENTIRELY clear to me, though, that Rittenhouse is necessarily guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating Wisconsin laws based on the information presented to the jury.

    As in, while the law should make what Rittenhouse did illegal - and I think, given all evidence we've seen as an external audience, it was - I'm not certain I wouldn't have come to the same conclusion as the jury if I were sitting there and had only the presented case to go on.

    Which is what I got from the Legal Eagle video, as well.

    The dismissal of both underlying misdemeanors killed any chance of Constructive Manslaughter, and that left it up to a crapshoot of whether the jury bought the arguments of provocation or self defense. I’d be very interested in what the split was when they began their deliberations.

    I feel like LegalEagle intentionally circled but didn't quite touch on a significant point: the inherent vigilantism in Rittenhouse's actions seems enormously problematic to not actually be illegal. Turning up with a group to defend property when you were not asked for engaged by any of the owners or other authorities to do so, and then resorting to lethal force to defend yourself is just objectively a stupid oversight in the law (not to mention leading to weird things like groups of armed people being able to turn up and declare they're "defending your property", thus requiring you to ask them to leave).

    zepherinProhassBlackDragon480ElvenshaeDocKnuckle DraggerFencingsaxMan in the MistsStabbity StyleKristmas KthulhumrondeauboogedybooshrykeForarLord_Asmodeusvalhalla130Gnome-InterruptusMr Ray
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I was actually thinking about the lack of evidence thing for self defense though, and I'm just not sure I can see a jury ever going against the person still alive.

    Like ignore the actual cases here and imagine a purely hypothetical case where cops show up and one person is dead and the person alive claims they were attacked and acted in self defense. No injuries on either side other than the gunshot that killed the dead person.

    I mean I feel like they way the laws are written that should be murder, because there is no evidence that the person still alive was acting in self defense. But I can't help but feel like a jury is going to see an actual person in the court room or on the stand, with a tale of being truely afraid for their life, and it will be difficult to side with the person who's dead and not saying anything.

    Robert Durst killed his neighbor, dismembered him, and dumped him in Galveston Bay, got arrested for it, then jumped bail and fled the state.

    He was acquitted when he claimed self defense.

    BlackDragon480zepherinPreacher
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Doc wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I was actually thinking about the lack of evidence thing for self defense though, and I'm just not sure I can see a jury ever going against the person still alive.

    Like ignore the actual cases here and imagine a purely hypothetical case where cops show up and one person is dead and the person alive claims they were attacked and acted in self defense. No injuries on either side other than the gunshot that killed the dead person.

    I mean I feel like they way the laws are written that should be murder, because there is no evidence that the person still alive was acting in self defense. But I can't help but feel like a jury is going to see an actual person in the court room or on the stand, with a tale of being truely afraid for their life, and it will be difficult to side with the person who's dead and not saying anything.

    Robert Durst killed his neighbor, dismembered him, and dumped him in Galveston Bay, got arrested for it, then jumped bail and fled the state.

    He was acquitted when he claimed self defense.

    Yeah, as a number of commentators have pointed out, a massive problem in self-defense laws is the "last person standing" aspect, in which if you kill someone, it's much easier to claim self-defense. This sets up a number of perverse incentives.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    mrondeauzepherinMan in the MistsSleepGvzbgulMr RayMatev
Sign In or Register to comment.