Summer of 2020---The Civil Unrest Thread--Read OP Before Posting (in memory of George Floyd)

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

No. I'm not. 

You’re right you’re just making analogies that don’t apply at all because you didn’t watch the videos so you don’t realize they don’t apply

 

 

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

oh yeah. Individual incident vs being there in general. Sorry easy to mix up with the back and forth. 
 

 

To be clear rittenhouse violated the core of self defense training as I know it. So did Zimmerman. And by that stander, I would deem both criminals deserving of prison. 
 

However, life is not as cut and dry. And there’s a difference between what I think should happen, and what I think will happen due to context/law. 
 

As a general statement I think someone who goes out of their way to show up at a violent riot with a gun and kills someone should go to jail. 
 

the fact that police decided to not do anything and let a town be destroyed, and it wasn’t just here it was across the country due to public pressure and we all watched it unfold over time, is a very interesting wrinkle. I think there’s a very interesting conversation to be had about what is appropriate, and when, when the government authority decides to sit on the side lines while citizens start attacking each other (either attacking people or the buildings/properties/businesses)

 

i think that’s a very interesting conversation. 
 

I also think most people aren’t capable of it because all you have to do is flip whose side is doing what, and you can watch most people completely flip their opinion too. Ie: imagine if it was a bunch of white people destroying black communities because of some complaint they had against black people, and a 17 year old black kid shoots and kills a couple people that were attacking him. 
 

can’t you just see damn near everyone’s opinions change? Instantly? I can. I don’t even think it’s debatable. 
 

which gets to the core - at this point this case seems to hinge on nothing more than preconceived biases about everyone involved. Giving passes to certain people for the same thing they demand other certain people be held accountable for. 

 

I dont think we really disagree at all when I read this. That sucks (not because i dont like agreeing with you) 

 

But it all just sucks 

51 minutes ago, Larry said:

Just pointing out, I also have a problem with the notion that "if there is anything Person X could have done differently, then it's his fault". Seems too extreme. 

 

Yea. I'm not at all saying my opinion on it is fair. This is why I wish I could trust the law to be a nonbiased arbiter for me in this. I cant, which is what the problem is here I guess. 

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I dont think we really disagree at all when I read this. That sucks (not because i dont like agreeing with you) 

 

But it all just sucks 

Yup. 
 

There is no good that will come from this. No matter what happens one side will be angry. And you can’t blame them. The only people I feel firmly being angry at is the police, but even then I understand why they did what they did.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I’m of them belief that this seems like self defense and he will walk. There is debate around it and I’m on that side but I can see the argument is pretty clear for self defense as in not beyond reasonable doubt. I’m also of the belief that he seems happy with the result and injected himself into a situation with the hope that he’d be able to shoot some people, and once he had perceived justification for doing so, he did. I think there should be more severe consequences for that beyond having Ricky Shroeder wanting to be your friend  

 

[redskins59]

Was he even able to legally possess a gun? I am reading that he was underage for that.  In which case, I don't know about the self defense argument.  

Self defense even though to begin with he could not legally possess a gun?

He has to serve time for illegal gun possession at least.

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

Was he even able to legally possess a gun? I am reading that he was underage for that.  In which case, I don't know about the self defense argument.  

Self defense even though to begin with he could not legally possess a gun?

He has to serve time for illegal gun possession at least.

that’s the thing. My understanding is he is as illegally possessing the gun. 
 

for what it’s worth, according to victim #3’s own testimony on Monday, victim #3 was also illegally possessing a gun. 
 

my take at the moment is that rittenhouse will not get in trouble for that (assuming he gets off on all 3 shooting incidents) It’s a minor violation compared to everything else. Just like the curfew charge was. And I’m having a hard time seeing how 12 people can watch this whole case, decide he was acting in self defense all 3 times, and then nail him on that. 
 

I find it far more likely they’ll consider him to be a victim of political pressure, forced to defense himself from life in prison for lawfully defending himself, and feel it inappropriate to convict him for the possession issue. 
 

which has nothing to do with what I think *should* happen; it’s just what I think *will* happen. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by tshile

[redskins59]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

that’s the thing. My understanding is he is as illegally possessing the gun. 
 

for what it’s worth, according to victim #3’s own testimony on Monday, victim #3 was also illegally possessing a gun. 
 

my take at the moment is that rittenhouse will not get in trouble for that. It’s a minor violation compared to everything else. Just like the curfew charge was. And I’m having a hard time seeing how 12 people can watch this whole case, decide he was acting in self defense all 3 times, and then nail him on that. 
 

I find it far more likely they’ll consider him to be a victim of political pressure, forced to defense himself from life in prison for lawfully defending himself, and feel it inappropriate to convict him for the possession issue. 
 

which has nothing to do with what I think *should* happen; it’s just what I think *will* happen. 

 

Well, let's see what happens, but given that people died, I hope at least that they don't treat that as minor.

Let's say, if a 17 yr old is caught with a gun and nobody has been harmed, then I would agree.  

But here people have died--so I think he needs to be jailed for that.

The other thing here.  Did victim #3 use the gun?  In Rittenhouse's case, he used his gun.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

Did victim #3 use the gun?

Yes. He had it in his hand while chasing rittenhouse and then hovered over him and pointed it at his head. 
 

he used it.

 

edit;: and he lied about the whole thing, to police and in court. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by tshile

[redskins59]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Yes. He had it in his hand while chasing rittenhouse and then hovered over him and pointed it at his head. 
 

he used it.

 

edit;: and he lied about the whole thing, to police and in court. 

 

Which to me means that there are  2 people who need to go to jail. It should be a long sentence.

[Fergasun]

We want the structure and execution of the law to be fair.   Rittenhouse has a Constitutional right to innocence, burden of proof and procedural protections.    If one of the deceased had killed Rittenhouse was on trial, we would want the same standards applied. 

 

The media doesn't have to be fair.  "Vigilante kills two at police shooting protest" sells a lot lf headlines.  There is a lot of truth in those headlines, and a lot of naunce or "not the whole truth". 

 

There are some parallels to the Martin-Zimmerman case, and some key differences.  

 

When I look at all the evidence, he is probably not guilty by route of self defense.  

 

I think there is a legal loophole though.  Similar to how there is a big deal made of drivers leaving the scene of an accident, shooters should be responsible to not flee the crime scene.  Once the first victim was killed, by law he should have been required to disarm and surrender his gun.  It seems dumb we need to have laws against "shoot and run".

 

I have never had the "misfortune"/"terror" of being held up or worse at gunpoint.  Robbery is one thing, but I doubt whoever has that gun would have intention on murder.

[TheGreatBuzz]

15 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

think there is a legal loophole though.  Similar to how there is a big deal made of drivers leaving the scene of an accident, shooters should be responsible to not flee the crime scene.  Once the first victim was killed, by law he should have been required to disarm and surrender his gun.  It seems dumb we need to have laws against "shoot and run".

I disagree.  Maybe if he didn’t try to turn himself into the police, I would agree.  But he removed himself from the situation before more threats came about (which probably would have happened based on the crowd).

 

As for him illegally  carrying the rifle, I think that the state should have to pick a horse and ride it.  If you want to get him for being a juvenile and carrying the gun, then they should have tried him as a juvenile.  If he is adult enough to be charged as one, then you shouldn’t be able to turn around charge his as an adult for being a juvenile carrying a gun.  Seems wrong.

[tshile]

17 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

I think there is a legal loophole though.  Similar to how there is a big deal made of drivers leaving the scene of an accident, shooters should be responsible to not flee the crime scene.  Once the first victim was killed, by law he should have been required to disarm and surrender his gun.  It seems dumb we need to have laws against "shoot and run".

For what it’s worth:

after he shoots victim #1, the reporter chasing them (person #3 in the video of the chase) stops to tend to victim #1. You can hear people eventually accuse him of shooting the guy, and him denying it, as ge tries to assist. It’s audible in the video

 

At the same time rittenhouse pulls out his phone and circles back to victim #1. He stands over victim #1 while on the phone with 911. He is reporting the shooting and that he was the shooter.  He only takes off once the mob of people start to descend on the area, with all sorts of chants about rittenhouse being a shooter and things of a “get him” nature. 
 

 

the rest of the video montage is of rittenhouse running through the streets, being chased by the mob, while people shove him to the ground, call out for violence against him, one dude stomps him in the head (or maybe it was a just a kick to the head?), etc. this is when the other two shootings take place. According to rittenhouse, and what seemed apparent from the video and the subsequent scene of him trying to turn himself in the police (the whole ‘white dude with an ar-15 that just shot 3 people is being protected by the police’ narrative that first broke on this story)

 

he tried to do the right thing. He immediately reported it and tried to stick around. Throughout the entire aftermath he seems to be genuinely looking for police to report to. He didn’t shoot and run. There’s lots of wiggle room on almost every aspect of this story, but not that one. 

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

As for him illegally  carrying the rifle, I think that the state should have to pick a horse and ride it.  If you want to get him for being a juvenile and carrying the gun, then they should have tried him as a juvenile.  If he is adult enough to be charged as one, then you shouldn’t be able to turn around charge his as an adult for being a juvenile carrying a gun.  Seems wrong.

And for me there’s another element:

the police sat on the sidelines. So many people have not been arrested for things they should have been. So many things should have never been allowed to occur. 
 

I’m very conflicted on the idea he should be convicted for something the government clearly had no issue with other people violating. They’ve got a witness testifying he was also carrying a gun illegally - you’ve already investigated it, know who he is, and it’s not debatable whether he broke that law. Have they charged him? Whatever everyone else out there flaunting guns? 
 

That’s where I fall back on a basic idea I try to stick to as much as possible: I don’t care what your standard is, but apply it evenly and be logical/reasonable about it. 
 

the further conflict my opinions:

im not sure how I really feel about the idea that - you started the chain of events by committing a crime, therefore what follows is also a crime (or at least you cannot use self defense to justify it)

 

there are so many situations where that makes sense. And until now id always thought that was a reasonable way of doing things

 

but in the chaos of rioting where the government has decided to sit on the sidelines, and you have a group of people destroying a town and a group of people supposedly just trying to protect it… I have issues squaring all that. I’m very conflicted. 
 

and all that is against the backdrop of this going on across the country. It’s not like the people there supposedly defending businesses and property came up with this idea on their own out of the blue. It followed a nationwide issue with where police backed off controlling and stopping rioting because it was a bad look and for the people in charge it was more political convenient to order people to sit on the sidelines than to risk the media circulating those photos and videos. 
 

the government(s) across the board have ****ed this up and created this problem. From the start when they didn’t take the issue seriously, all the way through to this. 
 

im not a two wrongs make a right guy, but I also have a very hard time selectively applying the law like that end pinning what is a huge problem that caused all this on one person because the inevitable happens when you let civilians take over the streets and attack each other. 

[Burgold]

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

I dont think we really disagree at all when I read this. That sucks (not because i dont like agreeing with you) 

 

But it all just sucks 

 

Yea. I'm not at all saying my opinion on it is fair. This is why I wish I could trust the law to be a nonbiased arbiter for me in this. I cant, which is what the problem is here I guess. 

Seconded. This is why the judge seemingly going out of his way to help the defendant stinks so much. 
 

It’s sort of like when the ‘skins play the Packers and the refs call an exceedingly one-sided game plus throw extra phantom flags on one side. 
 

We know circumstances are stacked against the ‘skins. The Packers don’t need to get the refs help on top of everything else. 

[Larry]

Gonna make one more attempt at an analogy. Not to claim that the analogy perfectly matches this case. (There's no rule that says it has to). But more as a way of illustrating my feelings on the larger issue. 
 

If I'm walking down the street, and somebody steps out, blocks my path, and tells me to give him my wallet, I'm allowed to refuse. To use force to refuse. To use lethal force, to refuse. 
 

As an aside, that's why I support the right of gun ownership. I want that citizen to have the right to be armed, just in case that happens. 
 

But....

 

If I was walking down that street, because there's been a lot of robberies on that street, and I've decided that I'm gonna grab my gun and go put a stop to it?  
 

Then I don't think I can say "self defense, can't prosecute me". 
 

Not because me walking down that street is illegal. In any way. 
 

But because I wasn't playing on the defensive team. I wasn't just there, and he attacked me. I was there, hoping to find that situation. I went looking for it. And brought a gun, to use if it did. 
 

----

 

And BTW, @tshile ?

 

Thanks for the information you're bringing to the thread. You're telling me things I didn't know. And changing my opinions about things, somewhat. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Larry

[PartyPosse]

Kyle is the equivalent of a non-vaccinated showing up at an anti-mask rally, getting covid and expecting taxpayers to foot his hospital bill. Once you knowingly put yourself on that position for no other reason than to prove you can you should be waving your constitutional rights.

[tshile]

https://madison.com/news/state-and-regional/watch-live-prosecution-gets-wins-in-jury-instructions-debate-in-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/article_46dcee39-5f37-5199-98d2-b908fa9985ca.html
 

so basically it sounds like the judge is going to allow a whole list of lesser charges to be considered. 
 

I can’t wrap my head around where everything should fall. But that certainly throws a monkey wrench in trying to figure out what’s fair/right/likely/etc. 

[PartyPosse]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

https://madison.com/news/state-and-regional/watch-live-prosecution-gets-wins-in-jury-instructions-debate-in-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/article_46dcee39-5f37-5199-98d2-b908fa9985ca.html
 

so basically it sounds like the judge is going to allow a whole list of lesser charges to be considered. 
 

I can’t wrap my head around where everything should fall. But that certainly throws a monkey wrench in trying to figure out what’s fair/right/likely/etc. 

Problem is everything is speculation and the only accounts that matter are the ones of those that are dead. The whole trial is both a sham and a travesty and will only create more dissension. I say just burn it all down, have ourselves a purge and pop some corn.

[Yohan]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

https://madison.com/news/state-and-regional/watch-live-prosecution-gets-wins-in-jury-instructions-debate-in-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/article_46dcee39-5f37-5199-98d2-b908fa9985ca.html
 

so basically it sounds like the judge is going to allow a whole list of lesser charges to be considered. 
 

I can’t wrap my head around where everything should fall. But that certainly throws a monkey wrench in trying to figure out what’s fair/right/likely/etc. 

The inclusion of provocation is helpful to the prosecution as well. They spent a good 45 mins today discussing provocation, regarding 1 picture or video where maybe Rittenhouse pointed his gun Rosenbaums way, which started the chase. (I only say maybe, because I couldn't make it out one way or the other).  I also noticed that ADA Binger was not doing much of the talking the past 2 days.

 

Also, thank you all for keeping this very difficult topic, situation, civilized. I am 10ish miles away. This is on every local news channel, local newspaper/website all day long. People here are clearly dug in on their sides and I fear what may happen here after the verdict.

 

[tshile]

As someone who has been a defendant when the state decided:

we think you did X. We’re charging you with X. 
but we’re also charging you with every lesser form of X on the books in case we don’t get a conviction on X, hoping we get you on *something*
 

i have a huge problem with it when it’s done pre-trial, as was done to me. I have an ever bigger problem with it when it’s done post-trial. 
 

the only catch here for me is it’s such a mess of a case, you can’t ignore the idea that he went out looking for an excuse to shoot people, and maybe there’s some justice here if ultimately he’s convicted of something less. I really don’t know how I feel. There’s a very strong case for self defense. It’s just a mess. Total, nasty, tragic mess that we’ve reached a point where things like this happen. 

[Larry]

41 minutes ago, tshile said:

As someone who has been a defendant when the state decided:

we think you did X. We’re charging you with X. 
but we’re also charging you with every lesser form of X on the books in case we don’t get a conviction on X, hoping we get you on *something*
 

i have a huge problem with it when it’s done pre-trial, as was done to me. I have an ever bigger problem with it when it’s done post-trial. 

I can see a problem with it. Among other things, I've read quotes from jurors, after a trial, along the lines of "Well, Crime1 caries a sentence of 20-life. And we thought that was too much, for what he did. But we thought 5-10 was about right, so we convicted him of Crime2."

 

I think it invites a "close enough" attitude from the jury. 
 

But then, I think of somebody charged with, say, Murder 2. And I can see it being valid, to tell the jury "If you think he intended to kill, it's Murder 2. If you think it was an accident, but they didn't prove intent, it's Manslaughter."  And I think it's a legitimate issue for the jury to rule on whether intent was proven or not. 

[Yohan]

Gov Evers just announced the mobilization of 500 national guard troops to Kenosha. From my understanding they will be on standby outside of the City of Kenosha, to be ready if local law enforcement request their help. Evers is urging people not from the area to respect the community and reconsider any travel plans to Kenosha.

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, Larry said:

I think it invites a "close enough" attitude from the jury. 

I also feel like it leads to over charging. 
 

if you popped me for doing 15 mph over, then charge me for doing 15 over. 
 

don’t charge me for 15, 14, 13, 12, etc mph over, because should think it may be too difficult to get me on 15, but you think there’s a great chance on getting me on at least 12 over. 
 

Pick what it is you think you have a chance of charging me for, and prove your case.

 

 

im also not a fan of the leverage it poses for the state pre-trial when angling for a plea bargain. The stories are numerous of people who admitted to taking a plea because, while they were innocent, they felt they had no chance against the system and that 1 year away from the family was tolerable but 15 years was too much.  After all in 15 years that 4 year old will be an adult and you’ll have missed its entire childhood and have no relationship with it. 
 

charge what you feel you can prove according to the rules and then just do your best job. It’s not a fishing expedition.  

Edited November 12, 2021 by tshile

[Springfield]

I haven’t been following this trial anywhere near as close as the rest of you, but I’m going to throw my two cents in.

 

Rittenhouse seems like the prototypical “I wish a mother****er would” gun nut. I hate that he’s going to go free because he obviously put himself in that situation with the intent to use his illegally possessed weapon. He played soldier and killed a guy. I absolutely hate the type that this kid is. His parents should face charges.

[Burgold]

37 minutes ago, tshile said:

I also feel like it leads to over charging. 
 

if you popped me for doing 15 mph over, then charge me for doing 15 over. 
 

don’t charge me for 15, 14, 13, 12, etc mph over, because should think it may be too difficult to get me on 15, but you think there’s a great chance on getting me on at least 12 over. 
 

Pick what it is you think you have a chance of charging me for, and prove your case.

 

 

im also not a fan of the leverage it poses for the state pre-trial when angling for a plea bargain. The stories are numerous of people who admitted to taking a plea because, while they were innocent, they felt they had no chance against the system and that 1 year away from the family was tolerable but 15 years was too much.  After all in 15 years that 4 year old will be an adult and you’ll have missed its entire childhood and have no relationship with it. 
 

charge what you feel you can prove according to the rules and then just do your best job. It’s not a fishing expedition.  

Sure, but charge you for going 15 over, reckless endangerment, dui, running a red light, and driving with your brake lights out. 

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

I haven’t been following this trial anywhere near as close as the rest of you, but I’m going to throw my two cents in.

 

Rittenhouse seems like the prototypical “I wish a mother****er would” gun nut. I hate that he’s going to go free because he obviously put himself in that situation with the intent to use his illegally possessed weapon. He played soldier and killed a guy. I absolutely hate the type that this kid is. His parents should face charges.

This is pretty much where I stand. I also think he’s guilty of murder even if he’s not legally guilty of murder.