Figured it's probably better for it to have it's own thread rather than continue using a relax-thread for it.
One thing that has really stuck out to me in this case and made me far more aware of how common it is, is how many people think the legal system should be based on lynch mob justice rather than evidence-based justice.
This was a pretty clear-cut case of self-defense, with the evidence showing it being exactly that, and yet the amount of people who essentially out-right admitted they didn't care about the evidence (or never even watched it, they just very strongly believe he is guilty) is disturbing... particularly both in how passionate they are about his guilt and the fact that many political leaders, from Congresswomen, to mayors, to the bloody president of the United States believe either justice was not served or that the justice system is broken and this is proof of it.
Another disturbing trend is, "If he was black, he wouldn't have gotten away with." as an excuse to find him guilty; I don't inherently disagree with the premise, but the conclusion is moronic. "The answer to racism is... more racism!".
Despite the court coming to the right decision, I am feeling more disillusioned with America than I have in awhile. The GOP want the law to be based upon their religious moralities, the DNC want the law to be based on their emotion-based group-think, and the rest of the country seems to be indifferent to which one takes power.
I don’t think it’s typical for someone who was only going there to assist with first aid to bring an illegally obtained AR-15 across state lines with him. Just saying’. The point of bringing a gun like that is to use it, which he did. The self-defence line is pretty sus IMHO.
Quote from: Biffster on November 20, 2021, 04:39:17 AM
I don’t think it’s typical for someone who was only going there to assist with first aid to bring an illegally obtained AR-15 across state lines with him. Just saying’. The point of bringing a gun like that is to use it, which he did. The self-defence line is pretty sus IMHO.
A. It wasn't illegally obtained or possessed.
B. He picked it up in Wisconsin, he didn't take it across state lines.
C. Even assuming A and B aren't true, that only is grounds for illegal possession of a firearm, which does not negate self-defense as far as I am aware.
The only person unlawfully in possession was the felon burglar and domestic abuser (assault of his grandmother), Gaige Grosskreutz, who drove twice the distance Rittenhouse did from Milwaukee and pointed a pistol at him.
If assault with a blunt weapon from behind to the back the head, and then having a pistol pulled on you isn't grounds for self-defense, I really cannot fathom what is.
"It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on this law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse’s actions. Much of the conservative media and the Republican Party, however, don’t see the killings as “wrongful†in any sense, instead elevating Rittenhouse as the manifestation of retributive violence against their political enemies. ... Right-wing gun culture is not unlike the wellness industry, in that it requires the cultivation of a sustained insecurity in its audience, in order to facilitate the endless purchase of its products. You can never be too skinny, and you can never have too many guns to stop the impending communist takeover." - Adam Serwer
Quote from: Shiranu on November 20, 2021, 04:53:03 AM
A. It wasn't illegally obtained or possessed.
B. He picked it up in Wisconsin, he didn't take it across state lines.
C. Even assuming A and B aren't true, that only is grounds for illegal possession of a firearm, which does not negate self-defense as far as I am aware.
The only person unlawfully in possession was the felon burglar and domestic abuser (assault of his grandmother), Gaige Grosskreutz, who drove twice the distance Rittenhouse did from Milwaukee and pointed a pistol at him.
If assault with a blunt weapon from behind to the back the head, and then having a pistol pulled on you isn't grounds for self-defense, I really cannot fathom what is.
17 year olds are legally allowed to purchase and use firearms?
He didn't purchase it, and yes they are allowed to use them under Wisconsin law ; the minimum age was like 13 or 14.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 20, 2021, 08:07:39 AM
"It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on this law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse’s actions. Much of the conservative media and the Republican Party, however, don’t see the killings as “wrongful†in any sense, instead elevating Rittenhouse as the manifestation of retributive violence against their political enemies. ... Right-wing gun culture is not unlike the wellness industry, in that it requires the cultivation of a sustained insecurity in its audience, in order to facilitate the endless purchase of its products. You can never be too skinny, and you can never have too many guns to stop the impending communist takeover." - Adam Serwer
On this I agree.
I think he is a fucking dumbass, and probably a right wing dumbass, but what I think is irrelevant when neither of those are crimes. My opinion on someone is not, and should not, dictate how the law treats them.
But anyone who thinks he is a hero clearly has some other motive than just upholding the law.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 20, 2021, 08:07:39 AM
"It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on this law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse’s actions. Much of the conservative media and the Republican Party, however, don’t see the killings as “wrongful†in any sense, instead elevating Rittenhouse as the manifestation of retributive violence against their political enemies. ... Right-wing gun culture is not unlike the wellness industry, in that it requires the cultivation of a sustained insecurity in its audience, in order to facilitate the endless purchase of its products. You can never be too skinny, and you can never have too many guns to stop the impending communist takeover." - Adam Serwer
Exactement, as the French would say.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Shiranu on November 20, 2021, 02:21:13 AM
To the bloody president of the United States
I thought biden said he stood by what the jury had concluded, tbh.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 20, 2021, 02:02:13 PM
I thought biden said he stood by what the jury had concluded, tbh.
He's also said he is angry and saddened that he wasn't found guilty. I do respect that unlike other politicians he isn't throwing more fuel on the flame though.
The reality…..IMO…..the boy went there specifically to shoot his self some darkies…shit went sideways….he found himself surprised that some white folk were on the darkies side…ended up shooting them….probably a win win for him.
Quote from: aitm on November 20, 2021, 08:12:19 PM
The reality…..IMO…..the boy went there specifically to shoot his self some darkies…shit went sideways….he found himself surprised that some white folk were on the darkies side…ended up shooting them….probably a win win for him.
Which is perfectly fine to think, and probably not horribly far off of how I seem him, but unless you can legally prove that he has to be found innocent.
We cant start demanding that our courts find people guilty because solely because they are guilty in the eyes of the mob. I don't think I need to stress how dangerous that is.
Edit: And thats what the crux of my OP was about, that the idea the court should be based on opinions rather than facts is becoming far too common, even amongst elected officials.
Question: If Ahmaud Arbery had a weapon with him on the day he was shot, would he have been justified to use it to defend himself?
Quote from: GodFree on November 21, 2021, 12:04:31 AM
Question: If Ahmaud Arbery had a weapon with him on the day he was shot, would he have been justified to use it to defend himself?
Yes.
Of course I agree, (given that I only know a little, but at this point I'm struck by the similarities with the Rittenhouse story)
1. Appears both young men were not violating any law, and had every right to be where they were.
2. both were attacked - unfortunately only one was able to defend himself.
3. The attackers were ruled by emotion not rational thought
From what limited knowledge I have. I believe the result of the Arbery case will be a conviction for all defendants.
I'm interested to hear from atheists who would not support the right to self defense in one case and not the other, if there are any here.
Quote from: GodFree on November 21, 2021, 12:48:07 AM
Of course I agree, (given that I only know a little, but at this point I'm struck by the similarities with the Rittenhouse story)
1. Appears both young men were not violating any law, and had every right to be where they were.
2. both were attacked - unfortunately only one was able to defend himself.
3. The attackers were ruled by emotion not rational thought
From what limited knowledge I have. I believe the result of the Arbery case will be a conviction for all defendants.
I'm interested to hear from atheists who would not support the right to self defense in one case and not the other, if there are any here.
Yeah, I'm pretty optimistic about them being absolutely destroyed by the legal system; even in the South the evidence against them is just too much, and the leader from what I saw seems to be aware of that.
Quote from: GodFree on November 21, 2021, 12:48:07 AM
I'm interested to hear from atheists who would not support the right to self defense in one case and not the other, if there are any here.
If I am walking through a mall and turn the corner to see a person pointing a gun at someone, am I morally obligated to attack that person? And if I do under the guise of protecting someone else and I am killed am I the attacker? But if I do nothing and the person shoots one or 20 am I held harmless for doing nothing? Or if I have a weapon and I watch him shoot and still do nothing and I held harmless for doing nothing?
If we allow people to simply walk around and point loaded weapons at people and we do nothing it’s a little goddamn late when they start firing at people.
This was a precipitated action that had predictable scenarios. Quite simply, to him human life was of less value than an insured building of which he claims he was there to protect. Legal or not, he is a piece of shit that I hope someone is able to eliminate successfully.
Quote from: aitm on November 21, 2021, 05:12:12 AM
If I am walking through a mall and turn the corner to see a person pointing a gun at someone, am I morally obligated to attack that person? And if I do under the guise of protecting someone else and I am killed am I the attacker? But if I do nothing and the person shoots one or 20 am I held harmless for doing nothing? Or if I have a weapon and I watch him shoot and still do nothing and I held harmless for doing nothing?
If we allow people to simply walk around and point loaded weapons at people and we do nothing it’s a little goddamn late when they start firing at people.
This was a precipitated action that had predictable scenarios. Quite simply, to him human life was of less value than an insured building of which he claims he was there to protect. Legal or not, he is a piece of shit that I hope someone is able to eliminate successfully.
If the shooter isn't draped in ISIS flags firing randomly into the crowd, or somebody pointing a gun at someone you know and love then GTFO. The point being don't know exactly what is going on don't get involved. The guy with the gun could be a good guy, and you could be putting yourself and others at risk, and wind up in jail or worse yourself.
Taking this case from the point of 'oh, it was self defense' is pure stupidity. It is going to have serious consequences first in the States and then world wide. Let me put it this way, probably some time later people will remember this case "yeah, it seems like after that thing, it all went down eh..."
Also
@Shiranu the opening post you have written is a manipulative, badly written post. People always advocate for lynching mobs. This can't be the first time you have seen it, can it? People have been doing that for around tens of actually hundreds of thousands of years. Rittenhouse has never been in danger of being killed by a lynch mob. Probably, he'll never be. He's never been in danger of getting shot dead by a cop either. Probably, he'll never be. But lot of people have been/are in danger of killing by a lynch mob in the States. What people say online is that what people say online. Why is that suddenly the big problem with his case? People make fun of tortured, raped victims during trials all the time ffs. People have been saying horrible stuff forever. Why is it a problem when it is said about Rittenhouse?
Your post almost reads like 'I hated people's reactions about this case so much, I don't care what it means for the society I live in'. E: I mean you worry about him more. Why? What is going on?
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on November 21, 2021, 10:01:35 AM
If the shooter isn't draped in ISIS flags firing randomly into the crowd, or somebody pointing a gun at someone you know and love then GTFO. The point being don't know exactly what is going on don't get involved. The guy with the gun could be a good guy, and you could be putting yourself and others at risk, and wind up in jail or worse yourself.
Exactly. If it ain’t my business let em fire away. That’s is why three men can beat up a woman and toss her over a bridge while 20 watch. She coulda been a real mean woman. Ain’t our business.
QuoteAlso @Shiranu the opening post you have written is a manipulative, badly written post. People always advocate for lynching mobs. This can't be the first time you have seen it, can it?
Aye, it's not the first time I've seen it... I've just generally been on their side, so I didn't realise how destructive of mindset it is.
QuoteRittenhouse has never been in danger of being killed by a lynch mob.
Except for the mobs outside of the courthouse calling for his head, where several people were armed... or the people who are starting to set fires in our cities again because they are pissed off the court didn't bow to their will.
QuoteI mean you worry about him more. Why? What is going on?
I'm not particularly worried about him; I think he was a fucking dumbass and was asking for trouble.
What I am worried about from a legal stand point is the right to self-defense was what was on trial, and people wanted that right taken away if it means a shitty kid got found guilty (regardless of what the evidence showed)... and not just people on forums or twitter or whatever, but elected officials, the media, people with legitimate social and political power within this country.
Our self-defense laws are already too restrictive as it is, we don't need them taken away any further.[/quote]
Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 21, 2021, 10:49:53 AM
Your post almost reads like 'I hated people's reactions about this case so much, I don't care what it means for the society I live in'. E: I mean you worry about him more. Why? What is going on?
It did sound like that. The implications for our future society are hinted at by the verdict. You can bet the white supremacists and the Proud Boys are taking note of this decision, and I think more importantly, it is a prediction of things to come. Personally, I'd rather not have vigilantes killing people. The cops are bad enough.
I mean if someone assaults a white supremacist, no matter how disgusting of person I think they are, they have the right to act in self-defense.
My personal reflections on Kyle Rittenhouse:
He doesn't appear to be a racist, I think he was (typical for a young man) idealistic, thinking he was doing a righteous thing.
I think he was asked to be there by the property owners, and now they are scared shitless of a lawsuit.
He was naive. While he may have the right to carry an AR-15, like many other rights, just because you CAN....doesn't necessarily mean you should.
Probably a much better way (hindsight being 20-20 as always) would have been to always be with a buddy, carry a concealed handgun if absolutely necessary for self-protection. (which may not have been a legal option), and concentrate on benevolent activities, assisting the injured, putting out fires, perhaps video documenting the activities of those who were rioting and cooperate with authorities to identify them. (Assuming a police force and DA willing to bring them to justice)
If police were allowed to do their job and keep control of the streets, there wouldn't have been a place for Kyle or others trying to do the same thing.
If the "Proud Boys" and "white supremacists" (really?, perhaps we should include boogeymen too?) have anything to take note of it should be the outcome of the Arbery trial - I don't know if the death penalty is on the table, but if it were I would bet they're going to fry!
Regarding racism, I know the south has long been portrayed as racist, but honestly, I heard more racism in the north than I have in 40+ years in San Antonio. (and I recognize San Antonio is not "The South" like other southern locations).
For that matter, I have met many good very religious people in the south. The difference seems to be those who use their religion to try and make themselves a better person,....and those who spend their time (and religion) trying to make everyone else a "better" person.
aitm:
"If we allow people to simply walk around and point loaded weapons at people and we do nothing it’s a little goddamn late when they start firing at people."
At least here in TX, pointing a gun (doesn't matter if it's loaded) at someone is use of deadly force, same as if you shoot at them.
As to your point about spotting someone in a mall shooting people are you REQUIRED to try to disarm them. No, of course not, not morally, and not legally,...you may be a hero, with the skills and the inclination to do so, but obligated, no. To quote the guy on the Active Self Protection YouTube videos...."You're well within your rights to say "Not my Circus, Not my monkeys"
He also teaches the heavy responsibilities for those of us who carry every day all the time....we are responsible for every round that leaves our gun, and this includes negligent discharges, justifiable self-defense situations that result in a shot that misses the intended target and harms someone you did not intend to shoot. It is a very heavy responsibility that anyone thinking of carrying a weapon needs to have the training and the serious consideration of their abilities, and accept the consequences of their actions.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 21, 2021, 02:09:20 PM
Aye, it's not the first time I've seen it... I've just generally been on their side, so I didn't realise how destructive of mindset it is.
We have all seen it for countless times. People write/speak with this mind set for every little thing all the time. Things they have never suffered or even experienced.
If you are that disgusted by it that's what you write. It looks like you wrote a bullshit OP just to snub any kind of discussion about this because you were triggered by people in some other forum. Nobody has forced you to join a lynch mob lately, have they? Seriously, have you been out on the street witnessing anything like that? It's a serious trauma, I should know, I have a couıple.
QuoteExcept for the mobs outside of the courthouse calling for his head, where several people were armed...
Good. His non-white peers are living under a broken contract. I hope he lives with that fear for some time.
Quote...or the people who are starting to set fires in our cities again because they are pissed off the court didn't bow to their will.
They are acting that way -and you should expect for the far worse honestly- because while they live in the richest, most powerful country in the world, nobody is making policies for people. Especially for a specific group of people. Nothing happening in America is out of place right now.
QuoteI'm not particularly worried about him; I think he was a fucking dumbass and was asking for trouble.
Yeah, but there was no consequence for him. And he is a tool now. They are going to use him to no end. He'll be a hero.
QuoteWhat I am worried about from a legal stand point is the right to self-defense was what was on trial, and people wanted that right taken away if it means a shitty kid got found guilty (regardless of what the evidence showed)... and not just people on forums or twitter or whatever, but elected officials, the media, people with legitimate social and political power within this country.
Sweetie, this is what happens all the time. Elected officials spewing abhorrent stuff, no shit. Media? No way?! Anyway, so this case disillusioned you about where things have arrived. OK. Would this happen a few years ago?
Quote from: Shiranu on November 21, 2021, 02:09:20 PMOur self-defense laws are already too restrictive as it is, we don't need them taken away any further.
But this is completely a different statement than what you have written above. Are you sure, your reaction is not about this? Because this is burried in the bottom in most American heads, and itching this now and then is one of the natural ways of making politics there as far as I understand.
Do you approve kids having access to guns at the age 13-14, or again guns and fire arms at the age 17 for self defense? Because if you do; if you approve 'the gun situation' in your country, then you approve what's been going on with this.
[Do you know who needs self defense with heavy assault weapons? People living in Afghanistan. So they could have a chance against the mobs that would get into their houses, take everything they have, rape and torture then kill everyone. Not civilians in the United States of America.]
Rittenhouse is a 17 year old kid who sees himself entitled to execute people who go out to protest white cops killing black people. This is the meaning of this case. Not self defense laws. Not some 'other side' wanting to take somebody's right to defend himself. It's a fantasy, it is a bait and Americans swallow the bait every fucking time.
You can't remove self defense from any kind of a law system as long as it is going to serve as a law system. Certainly not by angry people's threats or comments. Every system of law includes it. It's nothing but the old republican scare of they are coming to take our guns and bibles bullshit.
I think along the lines of
@SGOS and
@drunkenshoe .
My worry is that this verdict will enable other angry, white, gun toting men to imagine that its ok to use deadly force in a self-assigned vigilante action as long as they claim that they felt threatened and did so in self defense, even on an unarmed person. The U.S. justice system seems to still excuse such actions based upon this rationale.
I wish that I could have taken Kyle under my wing, taught him that one needs to "defend" oneself 0% of the time in dangerous situations that one doesn't place themselves into, that "defending" other people's business property is a horrendous reason for entering a hornet's nest, and prevent him from exercising very bad judgment in a situation for which he had no training or experience.
Some lessons on the way to becoming a reasonable, situationally aware person come harder than others, IME.
Opinions aside... This thread's title refers to another thread posted here after George Floyd's death. It's called "George Floyd and racial justice". It was posted so people would share their thought, feelings to cope with the events which they were watching in horror back then. It was also about very natural reactions of Black Americans about police brutality targeting them. Protests. Soon, it was obvious the social contract was broken or more accurately, it has only worked one way anyway. It was an important, short period of time in the U.S...etc. That was the thread.
This thread is about Kyle Rittenhouse. He is alive. He is not lynched by a mob. It's very highly unlikely he will ever be. He is not a victim of some kind of random police violence ending killing him like Floyd or other black people while minding their own business. He got armed, and has traveled somewhere to be in that situation. (Yeah, I personally agree with aitm.)
However, Shiranu opened this thread with this title because he was angry at people who wanted him dead. Apparently, there were people outside the court building (and many online I guess) who wanted him to kill/killed by a lynch mob. Wow, it must be a day ending with y in planet earth, human culture. I'm guessing our mod wanted to punish them by posting this into a forum, where nobody has ever supported a lynch mob for anything yet in 20 something years since it's got online? Taking revenge for Rittenhouse? But in the end, informing us that our opinions don't count anyway because he has the correct one and here it is.
Another thing. There were a few -I have seen few- articles on the net, titled, themed that how 'the left' in the US got disillusioned by this trial in masses because "Dude shot white dudes in self defense, and look what happened?". You know?
"This trial has nothing to do with race." "He is a sweet kid." - Carlson Tucker
Anway, whatever it is, it looks like Shiranu has managed to turn this into a tiny reflection of American politics he supposedly hates. Congratulations. I hope it was worth to ruin a good reputation, and trust, man. Fuck you. Now you are one of those people for me to check everything he posts. Also fuck me for getting angry with you, and feeling some sort of bond to some people here.
Quote from: Docillinois on November 22, 2021, 06:10:58 PM
I think along the lines of @SGOS and @drunkenshoe .
My worry is that this verdict will enable other angry, white, gun toting men to imagine that its ok to use deadly force in a self-assigned vigilante action as long as they claim that they felt threatened and did so in self defense, even on an unarmed person. The U.S. justice system seems to still excuse such actions based upon this rationale.
I wish that I could have taken Kyle under my wing, taught him that one needs to "defend" oneself 0% of the time in dangerous situations that one doesn't place themselves into, that "defending" other people's business property is a horrendous reason for entering a hornet's nest, and prevent him from exercising very bad judgment in a situation for which he had no training or experience.
Some lessons on the way to becoming a reasonable, situationally aware person come harder than others, IME.
What I found particularly disgusting was that police officers were thanking Kyle for assisting them. Yeah, of course. Let's encourage vigilantes to enforce the law with deadly force. Not that the cops composed themselves much better, attacking and arresting peaceful protestors, attacking camera crews who were obviously there to document, not to cause trouble, attacking people who had nothing to do with the protests, and were walking home from the grocery store, macing children in the face.
In sort of related news:
Georgia jury convicts three white men of Arbery murder, rejects self-defense
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-jury-resume-deliberations-arbery-murder-trial-2021-11-24/
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has introduced a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal â€" the legislative branch’s highest honor â€" to Kyle Rittenhouse.
I'm feeling increasingly alienated in American culture.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 26, 2021, 07:37:42 AM
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has introduced a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal â€" the legislative branch’s highest honor â€" to Kyle Rittenhouse.
I'm feeling increasingly alienated in American culture.
Me too. And increasingly ill.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 26, 2021, 07:37:42 AM
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has introduced a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal â€" the legislative branch’s highest honor â€" to Kyle Rittenhouse.
I'm feeling increasingly alienated in American culture.
He'll be in the company of recipients such as Mary Jackson, Ulysses Grant, Aung San Suu Kyi, and George Peabody.
I'll hand it to Rep. Greene - her decisions and rationales are, at least, consistently and transparently ludicrous.
Quote from: Docillinois on November 26, 2021, 02:58:59 PM
I'll hand it to Rep. Greene - her decisions and rationales are, at least, consistently and transparently ludicrous.
Not to her followers--she is accurate, to the point and fully rational.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 26, 2021, 06:21:57 PM
Not to her followers--she is accurate, to the point and fully rational.
A symptom of the larger problem of many living in self imposed fantasy and unreason, IMHO.
Quote from: Docillinois on November 26, 2021, 08:17:05 PM
A symptom of the larger problem of many living in self imposed fantasy and unreason, IMHO.
I very much agree. Our country seems to be embracing the label of 'stupid' with open arms.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 26, 2021, 08:19:55 PM
I very much agree. Our country seems to be embracing the label of 'stupid' with open arms.
Remember half the population of any country has an IQ below 100.
Quote from: SGOS on November 27, 2021, 02:52:18 AM
Remember half the population of any country has an IQ below 100.
Sorry, but that no longer holds in this country. So many in this country has striven to become and stay stupid; it's the way to be now.
It does seem that ignorance and stupidity has become a point of pride and a new goal. It's part of this so called new "Age of Information" that began in the last century, and for which we had not yet developed the critical thinking skills necessary for processing it all.