Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[SilentPony]

WOW! I did NOT see this coming! Complete shocker!

Donald Trump Welcomes 'Nice Young Man' Kyle Rittenhouse To Mar-A-Lago

The former president gushed about his meeting with the Kenosha killer during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Just gonna ignore that case where a black guy won a self defense case against police officers that was brought up earlier?

 

[MrCalavera]

WOW! I did NOT see this coming! Complete shocker!

Donald Trump Welcomes 'Nice Young Man' Kyle Rittenhouse To Mar-A-Lago

The former president gushed about his meeting with the Kenosha killer during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity.

www.yahoo.com

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

Yeah he's setting himself up for a very unhappy life if he thinks the Trump cult is at all forgiving.

 

[Silvanus]

No people would be saying the person was bloody lucky the police didn't kill them.

If it wasn't the police who broke in. Remember, they failed to identify themselves.

Also I love how you're seemingly trying to frame my position as dude shouldn't have got off. He should the police fucked up.

The salient point is that the two situations are utterly incomparable, because the black guy was in his own home, didn't kill anyone, and reacted to a break-in and police brutality. Absolutely none of which applies to Rittenhouse.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Just gonna ignore that case where a black guy won a self defense case against police officers that was brought up earlier?

Yes, because that dude didn't kill anybody.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I can't say I know all about this case but when I saw that image posted a few days ago I was very much like "Yeh she should get off".

Then I looked into it more and it gets more complicated.

1) The age of consent in Wisconsin is 16
2) She posted on backpage at 16 and he contacted her
3) Eventually she agreed to live with him and had been living with him for months
4) She stole his gun, shot him in the head twice, set the house of fire and stole his car to get away.
5) She was arrested when she was found at the home of her apparent boyfriend in Milwaukee


The argument being used is that the guy she killed was an abuser, which by all accounts dude was a nasty piece of work but this isn't as clear cut a case as is being made out not least because she burned the damn evidence that could be used in a self defence argument when she set fire to his home. She was also legal age and chose to live with him of her own free will seemingly too...... I think 2nd degree murder is likely in her case or Manslaughter on grounds of diminished mental state.

 

[Agema]

" A deadly weapon, sometimes dangerous weapon or lethal weapon, is an item that can inflict mortal or great bodily harm. "

Right, no.

The case here is that a tennis shoe could be argued to be a deadly weapon because the protection it afforded the assailant's foot allowed him to inflict injuries he could not have done with a bare foot. By the same measure, if you hit someone with a pillow, it would not constitute a deadly weapon because there is no way a soft and fluffy pillow could reasonably be held to be dangerous. But if you stuck a pillow over someone's face and suffocated them, it would be a deadly weapon.

Thus whether something can be classified as a dangerous weapon under this rationale is extremely context-dependent. Simply kicking someone with a regular shoe could not reasonably have a shoe described as a deadly weapon.

 

[gorfias]

Right, no.

The case here is that a tennis shoe could be argued to be a deadly weapon because the protection it afforded the assailant's foot allowed him to inflict injuries he could not have done with a bare foot. By the same measure, if you hit someone with a pillow, it would not constitute a deadly weapon because there is no way a soft and fluffy pillow could reasonably be held to be dangerous. But if you stuck a pillow over someone's face and suffocated them, it would be a deadly weapon.

Thus whether something can be classified as a dangerous weapon under this rationale is extremely context-dependent. Simply kicking someone with a regular shoe could not reasonably have a shoe described as a deadly weapon.

Seems reasonable that context can matter. Kicking someone in the head would be exactly when I'd think that is at issue, as opposed to say, kicking someone in the knee.

Real life case dramatized by Valerie Bertinelli: she is an abused housewife. In front of a cop, her estranged husband has beaten her to the ground. The cop draws a gun on the husband, who is screaming, "I hope she dies!". The cop does nothing as the ex draws his foot back and kicks her in the head. Such a kick is enough to kill a person. In her case, she suffers from permanent paralysis. I fault the cop for his failure to act.

 

[Agema]

Seems reasonable that context can matter. Kicking someone in the head would be exactly when I'd think that is at issue, as opposed to say, kicking someone in the knee.

Real life case dramatized by Valerie Bertinelli: she is an abused housewife. In front of a cop, her estranged husband has beaten her to the ground. The cop draws a gun on the husband, who is screaming, "I hope she dies!". The cop does nothing as the ex draws his foot back and kicks her in the head. Such a kick is enough to kill a person. In her case, she suffers from permanent paralysis. I fault the cop for his failure to act.

The context of the initial case you mentioned is a particularly aggravated assault with kicking and stomping, in which case the shoe becomes very relevant. I actually have to say, the law was interpreted as it was, but I don't think it's a good ruling so much a dodgy way to vindictively make the punishment more severe (as if stamping someone to death isn't enough on its own - and it should be).

In the latter case... I suspect that set-up might not fairly reflect the sorts of things a cop has to consider. I'm inclined to the view that life should not be taken lightly, and cops are better exercising restraint than being trigger happy. Error is inevitable: sometimes that might mean a cop doesn't shoot when it might have better if they had. But on balance, I prefer that to them shooting when they shouldn't have.

 

[gorfias]

The context of the initial case you mentioned is a particularly aggravated assault with kicking and stomping, in which case the shoe becomes very relevant. I actually have to say, the law was interpreted as it was, but I don't think it's a good ruling so much a dodgy way to vindictively make the punishment more severe (as if stamping someone to death isn't enough on its own - and it should be).

In the latter case... I suspect that set-up might not fairly reflect the sorts of things a cop has to consider. I'm inclined to the view that life should not be taken lightly, and cops are better exercising restraint than being trigger happy. Error is inevitable: sometimes that might mean a cop doesn't shoot when it might have better if they had. But on balance, I prefer that to them shooting when they shouldn't have.

ITMT: The killer's of Ahmaud Arbery have been convicted of murder. I wonder, had they said they thought Arbery had committed felony burglary and were trying to make a lawful citizen's arrest, would they be exonerrated, even if incorrect? I hope not.

Gaige Grosskreutz pulled a gun on Rittenhouse. He did think Rittenhouse had unlawfully shot someone. To my knowledge, he does not face any criminal charges. That may have to do with him agreeing to testify, more than how the law works but I don't know.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Yes, because that dude didn't kill anybody.

So the system is only racist against black people if they can get them on murder charges? Or how bout this headline?

3 men found guilty of murdering Ahmaud Arbery

Travis McMichael, his father Gregory McMichael and their neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan face sentences of life in prison.

www.cbsnews.com

Golly. Three white men kill a black guy and are getting convicted of murder for it!!!

 

[Seanchaidh]

Just gonna ignore that case where a black guy won a self defense case against police officers that was brought up earlier?

the one where they literally shot and killed his girlfriend? and he didn't kill anyone? or is this some new thing?

 

[McElroy]

So now that that guy has been proven innocent of *checks notes* the cops murdering his girlfriend, what're the odds of the cops getting in trouble for murdering his girlfriend?

As insane as it is, shooting at houses is a-okay and American police return fire if they are shot at. Dude started a firefight and an innocent girl paid for it. I wonder what the upside of this sort of trigger happiness is.

 

[Casual Shinji]

3 men found guilty of murdering Ahmaud Arbery

Travis McMichael, his father Gregory McMichael and their neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan face sentences of life in prison.

www.cbsnews.com

Golly. Three white men kill a black guy and are getting convicted of murder for it!!!

I don't know all the ins and outs, but that case apparently only got rolling after the video of Ahmaud Aybery's murder got released to the public. The cops were seemingly told by the DA months before to not make any arrests.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So the system is only racist against black people if they can get them on murder charges? Or how bout this headline?

3 men found guilty of murdering Ahmaud Arbery

Travis McMichael, his father Gregory McMichael and their neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan face sentences of life in prison.

www.cbsnews.com

Golly. Three white men kill a black guy and are getting convicted of murder for it!!!

Only happened because leaked video went viral. Cops and the DA were trying to bury it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Neo-Nazis are claiming Rittenhouse, because of course they are

 

[Agema]

ITMT: The killer's of Ahmaud Arbery have been convicted of murder. I wonder, had they said they thought Arbery had committed felony burglary and were trying to make a lawful citizen's arrest, would they be exonerrated, even if incorrect? I hope not.

If you're going to make a citizen's arrest, you should have a good reason to believe a crime was committed. And I mean good. Not "a black guy is out for a jog and someone saw him wander into an open building site for a couple of minutes".

Not only that, but I think chasing someone down the road in a vehicle and all the rest of it is also beyond the scope of reasonable exercise of citizen's arrest. You can argue that Arbery attacked the men, prompting them to shoot him in self defence. But that's nonsensical in the light of them pursuing him and preventing him running away. It's incredibly threatening to be chased by random guys with guns, and when someone who feels their life is in danger and can no longer run away, what do we expect they will do? People cannot be allowed to unnecessarily manufacture a situation with high risk of violence and then claim self-defence.

Gaige Grosskreutz pulled a gun on Rittenhouse.

Right, but Rittenhouse shot someone. So surely Grosskreutz had a gun in his hand with a clear justification of self-defence: therefore Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz because Grosskreutz acted in self-defence.

What a clusterfuck. And that's a lot of the reason I am deeply skeptical about civilians bearing arms, especially without a lot training.

 

[Agema]

Neo-Nazis are claiming Rittenhouse, because of course they are

A historian of white power reacts to the Rittenhouse verdict: ‘a bonanza for the far-right’

Kathleen Belew says Rittenhouse’s acquittal signals an approval for growing militant vigilantism against racial justice protesters

www.theguardian.com

This is a huge encouragement for the far right. There is simply no other way it would be otherwise. A kid joined a militia and shot some (left-wing, BLM-associated) protestors. Those simple facts mean he was always going to be a poster boy for them, and the fact he was found not guilty just makes it even sweeter, because they'll all dream of nailing some disobedient, disorderly, pinko hippies and getting away with it too.

That he's popped onto Tucker Carlson and met Trump tells us Rittenhouse wants to embrace the support of those fans. No amount of cheap PR "I support BLM" social media posts (whether true or not) matter a damn in the context that he has so happily thrown his lot in with that side - which happens to includes the exultant neo-Nazis.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

If it wasn't the police who broke in. Remember, they failed to identify themselves.



The salient point is that the two situations are utterly incomparable, because the black guy was in his own home, didn't kill anyone, and reacted to a break-in and police brutality. Absolutely none of which applies to Rittenhouse.

And Rittenhouse was chased down by people trying to attack him.
Both were self defence.

Gaige Grosskreutz pulled a gun on Rittenhouse. He did think Rittenhouse had unlawfully shot someone. To my knowledge, he does not face any criminal charges. That may have to do with him agreeing to testify, more than how the law works but I don't know.

Gaige may face charges for illegally carrying the firearm both due to his conviction and or due to an expired concealed carry licence while concealed carrying.

the one where they literally shot and killed his girlfriend? and he didn't kill anyone? or is this some new thing?

So because he's a worse shot it makes the difference?