Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[Infidel144]

"In Wisconsin, as in most U.S. states, the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self-defense claims beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, at his trial, Rittenhouse did not need to prove that each shooting in Kenosha was an act of self-defense; the prosecution needed to prove that this was not the case."
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021...-analysis.html
"In Wisconsin, self defense works like this: If a jury is convinced Rittenhouse reasonably feared he would be killed or seriously hurt by Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz, he would be found not guilty of most of the shootings.
Rittenhouse need only make "some showing" of self defense before the burden shifts to prosecutors to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Rittenhouse's belief only deadly force would save him was either dishonest or unreasonable."
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...ry/8469152002/
"Contrary to what many people may have thought, Rittenhouse didn’t have to prove that he was acting in justifiable self-defense. Rather, the state had to disprove at least one legal element of his self-defense claim, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
...
That the state had the burden of proof didn’t mean Rittenhouse could just pronounce “I did it in self-defense!” and sit down. He bore the “burden of production” — one component of the burden of proof — meaning he had to present facts that could be found by a jury to constitute valid defensive force.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has made clear that the burden of production is a fairly low (if meaningful) bar in a case like Rittenhouse’s. The narrative that he laid out cleared it: Rittenhouse, who was carrying a rifle, said that he was chased by 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum and 26-year-old Anthony Huber, and that they grabbed his gun; 26-year-old Gaige Grosskreutz, who survived, admitted he pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse. It then fell to the prosecution to disprove at least some part of that narrative. Given the difficulty of the prosecutor’s task, experts had suggested that guilty verdicts would be a long shot.

That the burden of proof is on the state, not the young man wielding the gun, may seem surprising to many, but Wisconsin’s approach is the mainstream one. Virginia may be the last state that requires a defendant to prove that he or she was acting in self-defense, after Ohio reformed its law in 2019. State defensive-force statutes often vary widely in how they are written — with differences that can determine whether a defendant is found innocent or guilty — but putting the burden of proof on the prosecution is something nearly all of them have in common."
https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Cope]

That's not exactly how a self-defense claim for homicide works in every state. That Rittenhouse purposely shot and killed people is undeniable, what needed to be sorted was if it was for a legally justifiable reason. I am not 100% sure on this, but I believe Wisconsin is a state in which self-defense is done in an affirmative defense; that is, Rittenhouse needs to provide evidence that the homicide he committed was in the legal bounds of self-defense. The prosecution's strategy here wasn't to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse committed murders, it was to break apart his affirmative claim that he was acting of self-defense. They failed, the jury came to their verdict and the world keeps spinning.

In WI, the prosecution must disprove the self-defense theory beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if we assume a shifted burden, the footage still unambiguously shows Rittenhouse retreating rapidly in the face of an aggressor who corners him and attempts take to his rifle.

People say this about, literally, every controversial trial. And when people don't get the ruling they expect/wanted, they will claim it was a miscarriage of justice/jurors were intimidated into providing a particular verdict or whatever.

That doesn't mean it isn't sometimes true. Authorities in Kenosha threw Rittenhouse under the bus (in contrast to Sheskey) to satisfy election activists and to distract from the Blake shooting and the mishandling of the riots.

[The spartan]

In WI, the prosecution must disprove the self-defense theory beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if we assume a shifted burden, the footage still unambiguously shows Rittenhouse retreating rapidly in the face of an aggressor who corners him and attempts take to his rifle.

It's not an attempt to shift burden, the prosecution still has the burden of proof to convict Rittenhouse of murder, but that would have been A LOT easier for them if Rittenhouse had failed the claim of self-defense. The bold part is, again, literally the point of jury. The broader circumstances; the past-curfew environment in which it happened, the fact Rittenhouse came armed, and the fact that some of those shot were unarmed lends credence to the idea of this case being brought to trial. From the initial video footage, I too assumed Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. But in legal terms, the "it's obvious" claim is usually pretty weak. It often needs to be looked into further.

That doesn't mean it isn't sometimes true. Authorities in Kenosha threw Rittenhouse under the bus (in contrast to Sheskey) to satisfy election activists and to distract from the Blake shooting and the mishandling of the riots.

I mean, that's one interpretation. I just view it as another trial that gets overly politicized by the "sides" battling over about it. For example, back during the James Fields trial (the guy who drove his car into counter-protestors in Charlottesville), we had, uh, certain right-wing members on this site fabricating stories about the case claiming Fields was under attack before he drove his car into the group of protestors and then claimed the only reason he was found guilty of his charges was because the jury was politically pressured. This was demonstrably false but, you know, partisans gonna partisan.

[Gaidin]

Self defence is justification for violence in most countries. But it does often conflict with the right to bear arms - often times having a firearm in public would lead to a raft of other charges and might prejudice a self defence claim - as having the firearm in this situation might itself indicate the intent to use it.

If this situation was in say the UK or Australia, it is unlikely anyone would have brought a firearm, and we would likely have seen some hospitalisations and assault charges. And had Rittenhouse brought a firearm in one of these countries, it is highly likely that a murder or manslaughter charge would have seen him in prison - and likely with a host of firearms charges. But then his sentences would be served concurrently so he might serve a lot less time.

But that's another conversation, and the culture of firearms isn't going to change while there is so much money in selling them.

If you don't like me telling her that that Wisconsin isn't isn't Germany...reply to someone else.

[Cope]

It's not an attempt to shift burden, the prosecution still has the burden of proof to convict Rittenhouse of murder, but that would have been A LOT easier for them if Rittenhouse had failed the claim of self-defense. The bold part is, again, literally the point of jury. The broader circumstances; the past-curfew environment in which it happened, the fact Rittenhouse came armed, and the fact that some of those shot were unarmed lends credence to the idea of this case being brought to trial. From the initial video footage, I too assumed Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. But in legal terms, the "it's obvious" claim is usually pretty weak. It often needs to be looked into further.

The police/investigators were not wrong to examine the case beyond the footage. That doesn't mean that bringing murder indictments was justified. I don't recall a single piece of substantive evidence that the prosecution introduced against the self-defense claim.

I mean, that's one interpretation. I just view it as another trial that gets overly politicized by the "sides" battling over about it. For example, back during the James Fields trial (the guy who drove his car into counter-protestors in Charlottesville), we had, uh, certain right-wing members on this site fabricating stories about the case claiming Fields was under attack before he drove his car into the group of protestors and them claimed the only reason he was found guilty of his charges was because the jury was politically pressured. This was demonstrably false but, you know, partisans gonna partisan.

The only reason Rittenhouse stood trial for murder is because the case was unnecessarily politicized (sometimes politicization is justified if it is in response to corruption).

As for Fields Jr, online nobodies and far-right conspiracy theorists may have attempted to justify his actions but there wasn't a concerted effort by powerful media institutions, activist organizations, influencers and national politicians to obscure or openly fabricate the facts of the criminal case. In principle and spirit, the treatment of Rittenhouse by relevant lib/left institutions and personalities (inc. Biden) was no different from Trump's election fraud conspiracy.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I know that Wisconsin is not Germany. My point is that the claim Rittenhouse would have been found not guilty in every other european/western country too, is wrong.

[Gaidin]

I know that Wisconsin is not Germany. My point is that the claim Rittenhouse would have been found not guilty in every other european/western country too, is wrong.

Define Western.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Ok i should'ht have used the undefined Term western, if i have only Canada, Australia and New Zealand in mind.

[Cookiegod]

I have worked in the crimnal law sector and i give a on the opinion of a layman about german criminal law.

Morticia, your snappy appeal to ethos doesn't work when your argument is this:

Nonsense. He would have been sentenced because of murder of second degree in Germany (Totschlag), because he shot on the upper body part of unarmed protestors.

[...]

Even if the claim that he want to defend the shop owners is true, there is an out of proportion ("nicht erforderlich") use of deadly violence by aimed shots in the upper body. He would have been sentenced by murder of second degree.

You're either purposefully misrepresenting the case or you do not have an idea as to what happened. It is not the argument of the defense, nor what's shown on the video cameras, that Rittenhouse fired the shots in the defense of shops, nor is it the claim of the defense that he was walking around to protect shops at that point in time. The reality of the fact is that in all cases he had tried to retreat and was no longer able to retreat any further and was defending attacks against his own person, not shops.

§ 32 StGB

(1) Wer eine Tat begeht, die durch Notwehr geboten ist, handelt nicht rechtswidrig.
(2) Notwehr ist die Verteidigung, die erforderlich ist, um einen gegenwärtigen rechtswidrigen Angriff von sich oder einem anderen abzuwenden.

Yup, I know what the Notwehrparagraph is, and it doesn't support your argument at all. Your claim that he was not allowed to shoot the upper body of the assailants is wrong in the given context (1 shot mid lunge; 1 shot holding his rifle and beating down on him while he was laying on the ground), but even if one were to follow your argument he'd still have § 33 to rely on:

§ 33
Überschreitung der Notwehr

Überschreitet der Täter die Grenzen der Notwehr aus Verwirrung, Furcht oder Schrecken, so wird er nicht bestraft.
If the perpetrator exceeds the boundaries of self defense out of confusion, fear or scare, he won't be punished.

There's plenty of case law in Germany on deadly use of self defense as well, so no. Guns are obviously far more rare here, so you'll more often see knives and even spades, but none of the case law supports what you imply, that the act of self defense can't be deadly.

As an example here's one from the German Federal Court, where I'll quote the introduction:

1. Die Erforderlichkeit einer Verteidigungshandlung i.S.d. § 32 StGB ist gegeben, wenn sie zu einer sofortigen und endgültigen Abwehr des Angriffs führt und es sich um das mildeste Abwehrmittel handelt, das dem Angegriffenen in der konkreten Situation zur Verfügung stand. Ob dies der Fall ist, muss auf der Grundlage einer objektiven ex ante-Betrachtung der tatsächlichen Verhältnisse im Zeitpunkt der Verteidigungshandlung beurteilt werden. Auf weniger gefährliche Verteidigungsmittel ist nur zurückgreifen, wenn deren Abwehrwirkung unzweifelhaft ist und genügend Zeit zur Abschätzung der Lage zur Verfügung steht. Gegenüber einem unbewaffneten Angreifer ist der Gebrauch eines bis dahin noch nicht in Erscheinung getretenen Messers allerdings in der Regel anzudrohen.

2. Angesichts der Unkalkulierbarkeit des Risikos einer ungeeigneten Verteidigungshandlung dürfen an die in einer zugespitzten Situation zu treffende Entscheidung über die vorherige Androhung eines Messereinsatzes oder eine weniger gefährliche Stichführung jedoch keine überhöhten Anforderungen gestellt werden. Ist in einer bedrängten Lage eine weitere Eskalation des Geschehens nicht ausgeschlossen und die Aussicht auf eine endgültige Abwehr des Angriffs durch ein weniger gefährliches Vorgehen nicht frei von Zweifeln, kann vielmehr auch der tödliche Einsatz eines Messers ohne vorherige Warnung gem. § 32 StGB gerechtfertigt sein.

1: The act of self defense has to lead to an immediate and final defeat of the attack and it has to be the mildest tool the defendant was in possession of at the time of the attack. You only have to use less dangerous tools of self defense if their utility is undubitable and if enough time to assess the situation is available.

2: Given that the riskiness of of an unsuited defense is uncalculable, the you cannot impose excessive demands. [I'm leaving the less relevant stuff out here in the translation]

The given case was far more in the greyzone than what Kyle Rittenhouse did. You can read the case and see that the prosecutors there had some case. The defendant did not announce his possession of a knife, and the preceding court had thus found him guilty given that he should have announced it to deter a further escalation of the attack. The federal court on the other hand found that even though under usual circumstances you'd have to announce it, you have to go easy on a defendant in a chaotic situation and expect him to perform flawlessly. Which is something Morticia you're doing. Your demand that he should have shot in the limbs absolutely does not work in the Rosenbaum and Huber cases.

And its a fact, that more black people are sentenced to lifetime penalties or death penalties than white people in the US.

Yup, but we're talking self defense here. Far more black people are making use of the self defense clauses than white people. My whole point is that it isn't exactly progressive to agitate against self defense when the reality in the US is that ghettos tend to be underpoliced and their inhabitants all but abandoned.

Nor is it a valid argument to demand a sentencing of a teen simply based on his race and because some other person in an unrelated case got a life sentence for a crime where the other person didn't claim self defense.

Stop with that far right extremism nonsense.

Stop calling people far right just because they disagree with you.

I think their might even be a US state or five where his actions might fall under some form of manslaughter or even a degree of murder. But the thing you're going to have to live with is he was in Wisconsin.

There's 50 US states. And there's a crap ton of countries. The laws differ in all of them.

Absolutely not. The only thing that would have changed in castle doctrine states would have been that the case would have been thrown out sooner.

There's no state in the US nor in Europe where he didn't do self defense. As much as people want to make it about racial justice, it's not.

[alhoon]

(1) Rittenhouse did not shoot three people in a parking lot.
(2) Exculpatory video footage (from a variety of angles) plainly shows that each time Rittenhouse fired, he was being actively assailed.
(3) The prosecution failed to introduce any substantive evidence which discredited the footage or provided incriminating context.

Rittenhouse was charged with murder in spite of the evidence, not in accordance with it.

And all those need a trial to be made clear. Of course he would be charged. Whether he should have fired in each of this cases was debatable, not clear-cut.
So, it went to court. And the jury agreed with you.

[Cope]

My whole point is that it isn't exactly progressive to agitate against self defense when the reality in the US is that ghettos tend to be underpoliced and their inhabitants all but abandoned.

Actually, "ghettos" are more likely to be "overpoliced" compared to other areas. This explains, in part, the racial disparity in arrest and conviction numbers and has been a key point for progs.

As far as the RH case is concerned, lib/prog activists created the circumstances in which the homicides occurred. They incited the unrest with disingenuous analyses of the Blake shooting then refused to deploy the national guard in sufficient numbers to support the small local PD (largely to score points against Trump). The unchecked lawlessness caused tens of millions in damages which triggered people like RH to protect local businesses.

Absolutely not. The only thing that would have changed in castle doctrine states would have been that the case would have been thrown out sooner.

Castle doctrine removes the obligation to retreat in one's own home. Stand-your-ground laws remove the obligation to retreat in general.

There's no state in the US nor in Europe where he didn't do self defense. As much as people want to make it about racial justice, it's not.

Not sure this is true. If it is a significant crime to be in possession of a semi-automatic rifle (which in many European states it is) then the act of possession, in and of itself, would likely be viewed as an act of provocation/aggression which negates any right to use the weapon defensively.

And all those need a trial to be made clear. Of course he would be charged. Whether he should have fired in each of this cases was debatable, not clear-cut.
So, it went to court. And the jury agreed with you.

Those points did not need a trial to be made clear. Whether RH had the right to fire in each case was not substantively debatable in a legal context.

[alhoon]

Those points did not need a trial to be made clear. Whether RH had the right to fire in each case was not substantively debatable in a legal context.

That's your opinion. Prosecution and the judges that decided it should proceed to indictment and trial obviously disagreed.

[Cope]

That's your opinion. Prosecution and the judges that decided it should proceed to indictment and trial obviously disagreed.

As explained above, the prosecution's rush to indict RH for murder was motivated by exterior political pressure. It is rare for a judge to dismiss an entire case on its lack of evidentiary merits (although he did drop two of the charges) because the state has not presented its full argumentation prior to the conclusion of the closing statements. With hindsight, we can criticize the indictments as unjustified because it is clear that the prosecution bought no substantive evidence or convincing argumentation to trial.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Still Rittenhouse told explicitly that he drove to that town to help the police preventing plundering. And in Germany carrying guns without license is illegal. Going armed to a Demonstration even more. So you first have to think that the victim who drag on the gun is acting in self defense against an illegal threat. Then Rittenhouse is the attacker and can never be justified by self defence.

Rittenhouse could easily stop the action by dropping the gun

Blablabla about Federal court. Self Defence Cases were so far: Thiefs in the own house, robbers, rapists, escalating fights the pub.

But no case white far right boy bringing himself in situation to kill lefts.

But im sick of this far right narrative of poor Rittenhouse, so i'm leaving.

[Coughdrop addict]

As far as the RH case is concerned, lib/prog activists created the circumstances in which the homicides occurred.

"It's her fault for dressing that way! She MADE ME do it!"

No, the killings occurred because Rittenhouse pointed his gun at two people and pulled the trigger.

We didn't make Rittenhouse decide to play Rambo because he was insecure about his masculinity.

We didn't force him to come to Kenosha to flash his gun to intimidate people exercising their constitutional rights.

We didn't create a right-wing political culture that told him that certain people's lives were worthless because of their political beliefs.

We didn't make it easy for people like him to get guns to maximize the profits of the gun lobby and keep violent crime high for more fear-based Republican votes.

They incited the unrest with disingenuous analyses of the Blake shooting then refused to deploy the national guard in support of the small local PD (largely to score points against Trump).

This is just not true. If the media could control people like automatons there wouldn't be shows canceled after a few episodes or movies that bomb or products discontinued because they didn't sell.

Many people do things without thinking of there effects on Donald Trump. Maybe the local politicians (who might have a better immediate grasp of the situation) thought it would only make things worse? Maybe they wanted to try other methods instead of cracking skulls and tear gas first?

The unchecked lawlessness caused tens of millions in damages which triggered people like RH to protect local businesses.

Once again it was Rittenhouse's choice to be there and to be armed. Do you really want unaccountable vigilantism? What if someday some armed vigilante decides that he "feels threatened" by you or someone you care about?

[Cookiegod]

Actually, "ghettos" are more likely to be "overpoliced" compared to other areas. This explains, in part, the racial disparity in arrest and conviction numbers and has been a key point for progs.

That refers to police doing patrols through those neighbourhoods. It does not refer to responses to emergency calls:

African American and Latino neighborhoods -- largely on Chicago's West and South sides -- continue to suffer inequitable police services, according to new data obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois through Freedom of Information Act requests to the City. The data shows that as a result of a disparate system of deploying police officers across the city -- over-deploying police in predominantly white neighborhoods -- African American and Latino neighborhoods wait much longer for a police officer to be dispatched after an emergency 911 call, have fewer officers assigned to minority districts for each emergency call than predominantly white neighborhoods and that minority neighborhoods continue to have more violent crimes per officer than white neighborhoods.

Nearly three years ago, the ACLU of Illinois and the Central Austin Neighborhood Association (CANA) filed a lawsuit challenging the City's scheme for police deployment, asserting that police officers are over-deployed in majority white communities, while neighborhoods of color have fewer police to respond to violent crimes and emergency calls for service. The disparity in deployment has been well-document in recent years. For example, communities of color regularly experience situations when no police officer is available to respond to a 9-1-1 emergency call, a situation rare in majority white neighborhoods.

https://www.aclu-il.org/en/press-rel...ices-south-and

As far as the RH case is concerned, lib/prog activists created the circumstances in which the homicides occurred. They incited the unrest with disingenuous analyses of the Blake shooting then refused to deploy the national guard in support of the small local PD (largely to score points against Trump). The unchecked lawlessness caused tens of millions in damages which triggered people like RH to protect local businesses.

I agree with you on that one. One should keep in mind this isn't the only riot where people died. CHOP/CHAZ comes to mind.

Not sure this is true. If it is a significant crime to be in possession of a semi-automatic rifle (which in many European states it is) then the act of possession, in and of itself, would likely be viewed as an act of provocation/aggression which negates any right to use the weapon defensively.

It's true that acts of provocation limit the right of self defense, but it doesn't completely do away with them, be it in Germany or in the US. My statement obviously assumes that the assailants still would have acted without provocation, and that the exact same occurances would have happened as they did in Kenosha. The example case in Germany I presented btw. held that in such a situation where one is about to defend oneself, one should show the weapon one is in possession of if possible so that deterrance can stop further escalation. The presented case happened with a knife, but you're not allowed to carry around a knife without cause in Germany either.

Either way even if you accidentally provoke someone, that does not do away with your right of self defense entirely either.

Castle doctrine removes the obligation to retreat in one's own home. Stand-your-ground laws remove the obligation to retreat in general.

Correct. My bad, I said one term whilst thinking of the other.

And all those need a trial to be made clear. Of course he would be charged. Whether he should have fired in each of this cases was debatable, not clear-cut.
So, it went to court. And the jury agreed with you.

Those points did not need a trial to be made clear. Whether RH had the right to fire in each case was not substantively debatable in a legal context.

This. I'm still waiting for anyone to make a case where this wasn't self defense that isn't based on fantasy land.

The killings would have been debatable in court if there hadn't been such an overabundance of video documentation. It is untrue to state that every case of self defense has to be tried in court. Prosecutors in most countries have a degree of discretion as to what cases they want to try and which ones they don't want to try. This case was tried entirely on the grounds that it was politically sensitive and that people were/are crying for his head.

Still Rittenhouse told explicitly that he drove to that town to help the police preventing plundering.

That is irrelevant. When he was protecting that one place no killings occured. He left that place to work as a medic. His possession of a medical aid kit and the video material available (him yelling "friendly! Friendly!" to protestors before the situation escalated later on) all corroborate his claim that he was walking around as a medic for first aid purposes. A very stupid thing to do given the circumstances, but being stupid does not do away with ones right to live.

And in Germany carrying guns without license is illegal. Going armed to a Demonstration even more. So you first have to think that the victim who drag on the gun is acting in self defense against an illegal threat. Then Rittenhouse is the attacker and can never be justified by self defence.

Yes, carrying guns without license is illegal, but illegal acts don't do away with your right to preserve your own life. If you shoot someone with a gun you are not allowed to own, you get sentenced for illegal possession of the gun, but not for the act of self defense.

You are not allowed in Germany to walk around carrying knives. Yet this had no bearing on the self defense case that I presented to you. Nor did the prosecution argue that the fact that carrying a knife is illegal would mean that the person had no right to use it in self defense. Given your legal expertise you should know that.

Rittenhouse could easily stop the action by dropping the gun

Because the hyperaggressive (not only towards him) guy who had been released from a mental institution on that very same day and who had on a previous encounter said that he would kill him next time he saw him would not have used that gun against him? What facts are you basing your claim on?!

Blablabla about Federal court. Self Defence Cases were so far: Thiefs in the own house, robbers, rapists, escalating fights the pub.

But no case white far right boy bringing himself in situation to kill lefts.

Morticia before: I'm an expert on German law. What he did was 100% illegal. Morticia now: There's no legal precedence based on which he would have been sentenced.

But im sick of this far right narrative of poor Rittenhouse, so i'm leaving.

Again: Just because you call me such doesn't make it so. Return to reality, will you?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

"It's her fault for dressing that way! She MADE ME do it!"

No, the killings occurred because Rittenhouse pointed his gun at two people and pulled the trigger.

We didn't make Rittenhouse decide to play Rambo because he was insecure about his masculinity.

We didn't force him to come to Kenosha to flash his gun to intimidate people exercising their constitutional rights.

We didn't create a right-wing political culture that told him that certain people's lives were worthless because of their political beliefs.

We didn't make it easy for people like him to get guns to maximize the profits of the gun lobby and keep violent crime high for more fear-based Republican votes.



This is just not true. If the media could control people like automatons there wouldn't be shows canceled after a few episodes or movies that bomb or products discontinued because they didn't sell.

Many people do things without thinking of there effects on Donald Trump. Maybe the local politicians (who might have a better immediate grasp of the situation) thought it would only make things worse? Maybe they wanted to try other methods instead of cracking skulls and tear gas first?



Once again it was Rittenhouse's choice to be there and to be armed. Do you really want unaccountable vigilantism? What if someday some armed vigilante decides that he "feels threatened" by you or someone you care about?

Very good post.

[alhoon]

This. I'm still waiting for anyone to make a case where this wasn't self defense that isn't based on fantasy land.

The evidence should have been examined to determine that. Which is what the prosecution and the state that pushed this to trial believed. Apparently, the jury disagreed after considering the evidence and the arguments and Rittenhouse was declared innocent. But to say that there was no case to be examined and that this should have been thrown out immediately without a trial? That's false.
The guy shot three people, killed two. Of course he doesn't get to just walk before the video evidence is examined.

[Cookiegod]

"It's her fault for dressing that way! She MADE ME do it!"

Very poorly chosen comparison given that if you had followed the trial you would know that this was unironically the excuse the prosecution had for the assailants attacking Rittenhouse several times.

No, the killings occurred because Rittenhouse pointed his gun at two people and pulled the trigger.

Well yeah. Harambe died because someone pointed the gun at him and pulled the trigger. Doesn't change the fact that in both cases a dumb kid doesn't lose the right to live just because he fell down.

We didn't create a right-wing political culture that told him that certain people's lives were worthless because of their political beliefs.

Lol the lack of selfawareness here is hilarious. Remind me again who's arguing that the kid voided his right to live based on his alleged political opinions. Not to mention the race war being constantly pushed by the "left":







Thing is I don't disagree with you or Morticia on there being racists and extremists both here and in the public debate, but I very strongly disagree with you on who those people are.

I consistently rate left no matter what political test I make, and in the recent elections we had here in Denmark not a single right wing politician showed up in my list of politicians my views most closely correspond to, but I'm not going to change my positions just because of tribalism and because unprovoked assaults on people who try to run away is apparently a good thing when politically expedient.

Never mind that I'm yet to see evidence that Rittenhouse is that white supremacist people accuse him of. Not that it matters that terribly because at best it'd warrant jail time in my view based on Popper's tolerance paradoxon, it'd not void his right to live.
Not that I'm about to see any evidence on that any time soon. The best I have seen from the "left" here (again: Strongly disagree on that) are completely unsubstantiated claims and a complete unwillingness to corroborate those claims with any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence should have been examined to determine that. Which is what the prosecution and the state that pushed this to trial believed. Apparently, the jury disagreed after considering the evidence and the arguments and Rittenhouse was declared innocent. But to say that there was no case to be examined and that this should have been thrown out immediately without a trial? That's false.
The guy shot three people, killed two. Of course he doesn't get to just walk before the video evidence is examined.

I don't think you know how the judicial systems work almost anywhere in the world. Prosecutors do have a lot of discretion as to what cases they can push. Counterfactual prosecutions are malicious and generally not allowed, nor are prosecutors supposed to push cases they don't have a reasonable chance of winning. That's without mentioning that the rights of the defendant were breached repeatedly.

Your belief that every single case has to land in front of a judge is wrong. Can you please look at the evidence yourself before claiming this should have gone before a court?

[alhoon]

I don't think you know how the judicial systems work almost anywhere in the world. Prosecutors do have a lot of discretion as to what cases they can push. Counterfactual prosecutions are malicious and generally not allowed, nor are prosecutors supposed to push cases they don't have a reasonable chance of winning. That's without mentioning that the rights of the defendant were breached repeatedly.

Your belief that every single case has to land in front of a judge is wrong. Can you please look at the evidence yourself before claiming this should have gone before a court?

I don't think every case has to land in front of a judge. I agree with the prosecution that this case should have.

I don't need to check the evidence since other people did (the prosecution and whomever else is required for this to move to the courts), and those other people know the laws and its intricacies far better than me. I don't even know Greek law, do you expect me to know Wisconsin Law well enough to challenge a bunch of lawyers for the prosecution?