Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Agema]

Agema. We have video of almost everything that happened, testimony that favors the accused, knowledge of laws. Why are you so hung up on digging your heels in on this? If you were from the US then I might get it because then you'd be yet another person who's just doing this because "If this doesn't go the way I want it then the other tribe will have won" like a bunch of other people have been duped into acting here, but you're not, and so I'm confused. The facts were known a year ago to make this self-defense and all new facts turned over by the actual trial have all bolstered the defense. Just let it go already.

Okay, let's take an analogy. On a construction site, a site foreman accidentally drops a brick and it strikes a worker on the skull and kills him. Had the deceased worker been wearing a hard hat, he would have survived. It turns out that he was not wearing a hard hat because the site foreman had not enforced rules on proper safety gear. By your logic, the foreman is blameless and this is just an accident. But that's really not the case, is it? The precise details of how a brick was dropped are not the problem, the problem is that workers were not required to wear hard hats. This negligence created a situation where serious injury or death was made much more likely, and should have reasonably been foreseen. It would not be controversial to charge the site foreman for his negligence.

This aspect has been pointed out to you dozens of times. The only way you have responded to it is deliberate myopia to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Agema]

And frankly, convicting Rittenhouse will get the right-wing nutjobs vastly angrier than acquitting him. Fueled paranoid delusions are more powerful than deprived paranoid delusions. As I alluded to earlier, Timothy McVeigh didn't bomb the Alfred P. Murrah building because the Waco siege ended peacefully and without loss of further life.

Yes, but the law isn't there to make up shit just to keep right-wing nutjobs happy, is it? And the minute it does, you may as well hand right-wing nutjobs the keys to the Capitol and the White House and let their militias replace the police and courts.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Okay, let's take an analogy. On a construction site, a site foreman accidentally drops a brick and it strikes a worker on the skull and kills him. Had the deceased worker been wearing a hard hat, he would have survived. It turns out that he was not wearing a hard hat because the site foreman had not enforced rules on proper safety gear. By your logic, the foreman is blameless and this is just an accident. But that's really not the case, is it? The precise details of how a brick was dropped are not the problem, the problem is that workers were not required to wear hard hats. This negligence created a situation where serious injury or death was made much more likely, and should have reasonably been foreseen. It would not be controversial to charge the site foreman for his negligence.

This aspect has been pointed out to you dozens of times. The only way you have responded to it is deliberate myopia to pretend it doesn't exist.

A foreman has a responsibility for his workers, Rittenhouse did not have any such responsibility for the actions of Rossenbaum that night and all the video evidence and eye-witness testimony shows Rossenbaum to be the agitator. Maybe the issue is that you're from Britain and the laws work differently over there, maybe you should read up on how the American legal system works?

 

[Agema]

A foreman has a responsibility for his workers, Rittenhouse did not have any such responsibility for the actions of Rossenbaum that night and all the video evidence and eye-witness testimony shows Rossenbaum to be the agitator. Maybe the issue is that you're from Britain and the laws work differently over there, maybe you should read up on how the American legal system works?

Okay, stop right there, because you don't truly care how the US legal system works any more than most people here. You're not in here arguing from the pristine neutrality of a disinterested party assessing the mechanics US jurisprudence, you want Rittenhouse to be found innocent for your own personal motivations.

I'm very clear about the fact that as far as I'm concerned, if Rittenhouse is not guilty, it is merely a deficiency of the legal process in that state that is not affording its citizens adequate protection.

 

[gorfias]

I just don't think you do this in front of a judge and jury, even when your star witness provides sufficient facts to a directed verdict:

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Okay, stop right there, because you don't truly care how the US legal system works any more than most people here. You're not in here arguing from the pristine neutrality of a disinterested party assessing the mechanics US jurisprudence, you want Rittenhouse to be found innocent for your own personal motivations.

I have said and done nothing to suggest your accusation, so from where do you get such an idea?

 

[Agema]

I have said and done nothing to suggest your accusation, so from where do you get such an idea?

Because human communication involves a great deal more information than just the literal words presented, and obvious is obvious.

 

[Buyetyen]

I have said and done nothing to suggest your accusation, so from where do you get such an idea?

You're also a shitty liar. Just saying.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Because human communication involves a great deal more information than just the literal words presented, and obvious is obvious.

What personal motivation do you believe is behind my arguments?

 

[Schadrach]

That is a compelling piece of testimony in Rittenhouse’s favour.

That applies to most of the evidence in Rittenhouse's favor. It's all pretty compelling if you treat the case as being about the events that transpired rather than some wider political or social narrative.

It's amazing watching how the stuff is being spun from what is said and major points to that clip I showed above the witness also claimed Kyle reloaded before shooting him. Guess what many outlets have run with? The claim Kyle reloaded to shoot again not the fact he admitted (and footage shows this) that he was only shot once he pulled his own gun and advanced on Kyle.

Someone should make a list of the worst examples of spin they are seeing in the media coverage of this, and matching clips from the trial footage to make it clear what was actually said. I feel like that would be immensely useful in the coming days.

It's a good thing juries in criminal trials don't declare people innocent, then. What juries declare, is the prosecution failed to make a case the defendant was guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. "Not guilty" is not synonymous to "innocent".

Interestingly there are a few jurisdictions in the US where there is such a thing as a finding of innocence. As in, innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It's extraordinarily rare, usually a bench trial, and usually involves cases where someone already found not guilty (and who has a ton of exculpatory evidence) is trying to get their records expunged so as to not have the accusation follow them on every background check forever.

And if it had gone the other way that Kyle was dead and the other guy was facing prison charges no one would be upset in the slightest.

You mean if the guy that had attacked Rittenhouse without provocation had killed him, no one would be upset that he was facing charges that he probably wouldn't have been able to make a self-defense argument against (because he was the aggressor)? I can see that.

Basically if someone dies as a result of the felony you committed it can automatically be charged as murder.

The weapon possession by a minor law people keep invoking is a misdemeanor for the minor in question (it's a felony for the person providing the weapon), so there's no world where him carrying the gun is a felony. Which means the felony murder rule wouldn't apply, doesn't it?

 

[SilentPony]

Yes, but the law isn't there to make up shit just to keep right-wing nutjobs happy, is it? And the minute it does, you may as well hand right-wing nutjobs the keys to the Capitol and the White House and let their militias replace the police and courts.

This is the subtext of this entire case. Whether or not right-wing militias are now official police officers, and you better believe if this kid gets off the number of deaths from emboldened militias will increase.
This is not just a murder trial, its a referendum on this whole "scared white guy shoots first, and he's white so that's okay" mentality that's been growing these past few years.

 

[Baffle]

I have said and done nothing to suggest your accusation, so from where do you get such an idea?

I dunno man, but you do give the strong impression that you'd like to indulge in consequence-free vigilantism if you could just get past that cursed basement door.

But the lefties are safe for now. *Suspenseful music*.

 

[CM156]

@CM156, as the resident lawyer around here, I was wondering I'd you could clear this up for me. What is the deal with using illegal weapons in defense of yourself? I keep saying what I do because it feels right to me, but I freely admit to being a bit dumb about things. Like, am I allowed to use a hand grenade to fend off home invaders? For a less stupid example, my state in particular outlaws the carrying/use of brass knuckles, but what happens if I crack someone's skull and kill them with a pair defending myself?

EDIT: Isn't the use of an illegal weapon in and of itself excessive force due to it being illegal in the first place?

Self-defense laws are state specific and I am not familiar with the laws in Wisconsin nor the caselaw behind it.
All I can say is this: Even if it's illegal for a person to have a weapon, that does not mean their use of said weapon is an unlawful homicide automatically.

This is not legal advice, by the way. I have to repeat that like a mantra.

 

[CM156]

Seems a bit of a mad system, that.

The best argument against the jury system is a five minute conversation with your average juror.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I dunno man, but you do give the strong impression that you'd like to indulge in consequence-free vigilantism if you could just get past that cursed basement door.

But the lefties are safe for now. *Suspenseful music*.

A vigilante that doesn't provoke or fire their weapon until attacked isn't a vigilante. The laws are clear, the evidence is clear, the testimony is clear.

This is the subtext of this entire case. Whether or not right-wing militias are now official police officers, and you better believe if this kid gets off the number of deaths from emboldened militias will increase.
This is not just a murder trial, its a referendum on this whole "scared white guy shoots first, and he's white so that's okay" mentality that's been growing these past few years.

There are few things I despise more than manipulating people. If anyone wonders why I hate journalists now, that's why. Suggesting that the verdict that should come down should be done so contrary to all the evidence sounds an awful lot like playing with lives for political reasons, kind of like what a politician would do. I think maybe you should rethink what kind of precedent Rittenhouse being convicted with such rock solid evidence would mean.

 

[SilentPony]

There are few things I despise more than manipulating people. If anyone wonders why I hate journalists now, that's why. Suggesting that the verdict that should come down should be done so contrary to all the evidence sounds an awful lot like playing with lives for political reasons, kind of like what a politician would do. I think maybe you should rethink what kind of precedent Rittenhouse being convicted with such rock solid evidence would mean.

Impersonating a security officer and having a gun illegally should be punished? Boy howdy, that would be a hell of a thing, enforcing the laws on white people?!
And the whole thing is already political. What, the protest over police brutality against African Americans where white vigilante militias showed up to kill protestors to enforce the police state against minorities is somehow political?! Wow gee, you might be onto something. Its almost as if this case is about if white vigilantes are allowed to operate with impunity and laws no longer apply to them. Can't imagine why some groups of people, say upset for an election result, would find it very heartening if Rittenhouse was allowed to walk. Vigilante murder = self defense. Can't see that going wrong.

 

[Baffle]

The best argument against the jury system is a five minute conversation with your average juror.

Hey, man, I've been on the internet for about 20 years. I think we might as well just roll some d20 and take an average for the outcome.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Impersonating a security officer and having a gun illegally should be punished?

Golly! Good thing I didn't argue he shouldn't be punished for that!

Boy howdy, that would be a hell of a thing, enforcing the laws on white people?!
And the whole thing is already political. What, the protest over police brutality against African Americans where white vigilante militias showed up to kill protestors to enforce the police state against minorities is somehow political?! Wow gee, you might be onto something. Its almost as if this case is about if white vigilantes are allowed to operate with impunity and laws no longer apply to them. Can't imagine why some groups of people, say upset for an election result, would find it very heartening if Rittenhouse was allowed to walk. Vigilante murder = self defense. Can't see that going wrong.

You are ascribing your own wants and desires and this. Once again, it is not vigilante justice for Rittenhouse to run away from people and only shoot when he could no longer retreat and was being attacked. This should apply to all people in our country regardless of skin color. None of the people he shot were black and he in fact passed up the opportunity to shoot a black guy coming up to him after Grosskreutz was shot. The laws, evidence, and testimony are all clear on what happened.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

A vigilante that doesn't provoke or fire their weapon until attacked isn't a vigilante. The laws are clear, the evidence is clear, the testimony is clear.

Yes, you aren't a vigilante for defending yourself. You are a vigilante, however, if you knowingly place yourself into a dangerous situation armed with a weapon. That's the problem.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

Yes, you aren't a vigilante for defending yourself. You are a vigilante, however, if you knowingly place yourself into a dangerous situation armed with a weapon. That's the problem.

This! How are you not getting this Specter?! It doesn't count as self-defense if you arm yourself and go looking for a fight.
And given that he traveled over state lines, claimed to be a security officer, armed himself and started patrolling and issuing commands its pretty clear he was engaging in a power fantasy. Its clear he wanted to shoot someone. There's no other reason for an underage kid to travel to an area, pretend to be law enforcement, take up a gun and start hunting for protestors.

He wasn't called up, he's not in the reserve, he wasn't deputized, he's not licensed, and he doesn't even live in the state this took place in. He was an armed, dangerous, power hungry vigilante looking to murder people to prove he's a tough guy, and that's exactly what he did.