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

[Heathen Hammer]

Awarding Rittenhouse for practicing self-defense would kinda be against the point of gun rights and self-defense being routine and unquestionable things.
Having said that, Rittenhouse shouldn't have been charged in the first place as overwhelming evidence was present proving he was innocent there and then, while he was still charged clearly by politically biased scummy DA, so I do believe he should receive an award for being a survivor of a political witch-hunt.

[antaeus]

Awarding Rittenhouse for practicing self-defense would kinda be against the point of gun rights and self-defense being routine and unquestionable things.
Having said that, Rittenhouse shouldn't have been charged in the first place as overwhelming evidence was present proving he was innocent there and then, while he was still charged clearly by politically biased scummy DA, so I do believe he should receive an award for being a survivor of a political witch-hunt.

He was arrested and charged because he shot people during a conflict in a public space. Suspects aren't arrested because they are already proven guilty - they are arrested because there is a weight of evidence that suggests the person might have something to answer for: they are suspected of the crime. The trial is where the evidence is weighed and the guilt judged. In this scenario, the system worked exactly as it should have - there was a killing in a confused scenario, suspect was arrested, evidence was found wanting, suspect was cleared.

[Cope]

He was arrested and charged because he shot people during a conflict in a public space. Suspects aren't arrested because they are already proven guilty - they are arrested because there is a weight of evidence that suggests the person might have something to answer for: they are suspected of the crime. The trial is where the evidence is weighed and the guilt judged. In this scenario, the system worked exactly as it should have - there was a killing in a confused scenario, suspect was arrested, evidence was found wanting, suspect was cleared.

At no point did the evidence justify murder indictments. They were bought to satiate political activists.

[antaeus]

At no point did the evidence justify murder indictments. They were bought to satiate political activists.

And that is your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

[Cope]

And that is your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

An informed opinion based on the facts*.

[alhoon]

An informed opinion based on the facts*.

And an opinion none the less. And now, we have a not guilty verdict to go with that opinion. Rittenhouse shot 3 people, of course he would stand trial. That's where the facts and evidence gets weighted and examined.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Whites get away with clear murder, innocent blacks need 43 years to become justice.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/23/u...rnd/index.html

[Coughdrop addict]

And an opinion none the less. And now, we have a not guilty verdict to go with that opinion. Rittenhouse shot 3 people, of course he would stand trial. That's where the facts and evidence gets weighted and examined.

They really believe that since he shot people who thought that Black lives were of equal value to those of Whites, he should have been rewarded and praised instead of arrested and put on trial, facts and evidence and circumstances be damned. And yes, if he had been a BLM activist and shot three pro-Trumpers in the same circumstances they'd be howling for his blood.

[Cope]

And an opinion none the less. And now, we have a not guilty verdict to go with that opinion. Rittenhouse shot 3 people, of course he would stand trial. That's where the facts and evidence gets weighted and examined.

There is no reason to expect that a person would be put on trial for murder when the evidence overwhelmingly supports a self-defense claim. The "facts and evidence" also "get weighted and examined" during the investigative phase to ensure that appropriate indictments are handed down. Let's not forget that it was the same DA's office which had refused to indict Sheskey over the Blake shooting which then rushed to charge Rittenhouse.

They really believe that since he shot people who thought that Black lives were of equal value to those of Whites, he should have been rewarded and praised instead of arrested and put on trial, facts and evidence and circumstances be damned.

Rosenbaum (the man who initiated the deadly chain of events) was an apolitical arsonist with a history of violent criminality and mental illness who was filmed hurling racial slurs that evening. He was not a BLM activist.

And yes, if he had been a BLM activist and shot three pro-Trumpers in the same circumstances they'd be howling for his blood.

This tu quo que attempt to absolve those who mistreated Rittenhouse serves only as an inadvertent admission that liberal/leftist activists are no different from far-right actors like MTG.

[The spartan]

There is no reason to expect that a person would be put on trial for murder when the evidence overwhelmingly supports a self-defense claim.

Of course there can be. Whether 'evidence overwhelmingly supports a self-defense claim' is what the trial is about. Innocent people are brought to trial all the time.

[Cope]

Of course there can be. Whether 'evidence overwhelmingly supports a self-defense claim' is what the trial is about. Innocent people are brought to trial all the time.

The trial is about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of a specific offense/offenses. Bringing charges with no substantive evidence of the accused's guilt (in this case there was actually clear countervailing evidence) is an abuse. Setting Rittenhouse aside, prosecutors are known to frighten suspects with serious charges for which is there is little evidence in order to coerce them into agreeing to plea deals.

[Cookiegod]

Whites get away with clear murder, innocent blacks need 43 years to become justice.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/23/u...rnd/index.html

Neither of the claims in that statement are correct. For one, Rittenhouse clearly did not commit murder and would have been found innocent anywhere in Europe etc. as well.
Secondly, self defense paragraphs do not overwhelmingly benefit the white population. In the US, the main beneficiaries of self defense paragraphs are black people. They live in the most violent and yet least policed parts of any city. This drives up a lot of the statistics. Both the statistics for false indictments and prison sentences, simply because more crimes happen in their vicinity, but also far more self defense claims are being presented by black defendants than white ones.

You and I are privileged in that we don't live in a country with that kind of weapon laws and caste system (though as I'm sure you'll agree most countries in Europe can improve on that as well), but when talking about Rittenhouse one has to deal with the circumstances that exist in the place he lives in. Which sadly includes gun fetishism as a broad phenomenon not limited to Rittenhouse himself. That a 17 year old boy follows that same trend and finds guns cool is hardly surprising. Turning him into a sacrificial offering to racial justice does not actually help racial justice, it distracts from legitimate issues whilst also raising illegitimate ones.

The smart move here is not to fight on Rittenhouse when the video evidence and witness statements are so overwhelmingly clear.

Of course there can be. Whether 'evidence overwhelmingly supports a self-defense claim' is what the trial is about. Innocent people are brought to trial all the time.

But that's rarer still than charges being simply dismissed when they are completely unsubstantiated. One does not have to think Rittenhouse was a hero (I don't) or that American gun laws are sane (I don't) to know that the state crossed the line to malicious prosecution several times.

The trial would not have happened if it hadn't been so severely politicised. And people get way too much hung up on and talking about Wisconsin gun laws when the reality is that he would have been found innocent of murder basically anywhere in the civilised world. Of course he wouldn't have been allowed to run around with an assault rifle in e.g. Germany, but in a hypothetical where some dude digs up his grandfather's StG 44 and the exact same event occurs in the exact same way, he would have been found guilty of illegal possession of such a weapon, but not of murder, as it was clearly self defense. But in Wisconsin, where Kyle was being in court, he wasn't carrying the law illegally either.

That said I absolutely think that anyone who's been harmed in any of the riots including the rioters themselves (like Grosskreutz) have a right to be compensated by the government that failed to maintain order and protect them.

[alhoon]

The trial is about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of a specific offense/offenses. Bringing charges with no substantive evidence of the accused's guilt (in this case there was actually clear countervailing evidence) is an abuse.

This is not the case here though, Cope. He shot 3 people in a parking lot. He didn't shoot 3 people armed with knives in his home in the dead of the night.

[Cookiegod]

This is not the case here though, Cope. He shot 3 people in a parking lot. He didn't shoot 3 people armed with knives in his home in the dead of the night.

He first shot one mentally very unstable and very aggressive man lunging at him, who had threatened to kill him earlier as corroborated by other witness testimonies. There was absolutely no case to be had that this wasn't self defense.

The second case was one man beating him on the head whilst he was lying on the ground with a skateboard with one hand whilst grappling his weapon with the other. This again after the boy had tried to retreat and had been kicked to the ground. Again no case whatsoever to be had that this wouldn't count as self defense anywhere in the world.

The third case was a man who on the stand admitted that he wasn't fired at until he pointed his gun at him, and who according to his own associates expressed regret that he didn't manage to shoot him first. I.e. clear admission of his deadly intent (which btw. isn't nessecary in the first place). Again zero case to be had there either.

Your hypothetical example doesn't hold true either. If you have a burglar in the house and he holds a knife in the hand, that doesn't necessarily give you the right to shoot him. You gain that right the very moment he attacks you, whether he has that knife or not, and whether he's in your house or not. You're not allowed to kill a burglar if he isn't clearly a threat to you. Of course you often get presumed self defense in those situations, but a person isn't forfeited the right to live simply for doing a wrong choice in his life. Nor did Kyle lose that right to live for his dumb choice of being outside either. And by the way, even in the extremely gun happy and overmilitarised USA more people are killed without firearms than with them. If you don't think that being hit in your head repeatedly with a blunt object and kicked isn't exactly good for your health I absolutely don't know what to tell you.
Same again with the mentally very unstable and hyperagressive first person. If your best argument against the use of deadly force is "everyone takes a beating sometimes, right?" (direct quote from the prosecution's closing argument), i.e. you're supposed to simply trust that the stranger will be kind enough to not kill you and merely to beat you up a little bit, and not take that gun from you and aim it at you, well, again, I absolutely don't know what to tell you. Look up head injuries and how lasting they can be.



Quite honestly I'm not nearly as baffled about the behaviour of the four people involved as I am about the people calling that guy a murderer and insisting on turning this into an ideological fight where it doesn't have to be one.

Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there, especially not with an assault rifle, but he's a dumb kid and it's the USA where he has the right to walk around like that, and where the local government did no attempt to prevent this very likely event from happening.
Rosenbaum was a man who had been released from a mental institute that very same day. Again, he shouldn't have been there that day, nor should he have behaved that hyperaggressively, but he wasn't exactly able to do rational choices in the first place.
The other two and the mob descending on Rittenhouse clearly believed him to be a murderer and were also not exactly in the right state of mind to do rational choices, and mob mentality is a thing.

But the people who go ahead and declare a pedophile who shouted the N-word all night to be a BLM hero and a victim, when he clearly was the one not only starting the confrontation, but forcing it on someone who trying to get away from him I absolutely do not understand. I absolutely do not understand how this has to be turned into an ideological fight where it clearly doesn't have to be one. All you do with that choice is putting yourself in very unfavourable ground very unnecessarily, as you will lose any rational argument on that case, which will reflect badly on the broader point you want to make, even though, again: Completely unnecessary.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The smart move here is not to fight on Rittenhouse when the video evidence and witness statements are so overwhelmingly clear.

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.

§ 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.



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.

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

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

Stop with that far right extremism nonsense.

[Cope]

This is not the case here though, Cope. He shot 3 people in a parking lot. He didn't shoot 3 people armed with knives in his home in the dead of the night.

(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.

[Gaidin]

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.

§ 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.

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.

[Mithradates]

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.

The claim is he was defending himself, his own life.

[antaeus]

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

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.

[The spartan]

The trial is about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of a specific offense/offenses. Bringing charges with no substantive evidence of the accused's guilt (in this case there was actually clear countervailing evidence) is an abuse. Setting Rittenhouse aside, prosecutors are known to frighten suspects with serious charges for which is there is little evidence in order to coerce them into agreeing to plea deals.

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.

But that's rarer still than charges being simply dismissed when they are completely unsubstantiated.

Not really, it depends on the state laws of the place the homicide was committed. Especially in the messy setting of public streets during a curfew, it doesn't surprise me that such a case would be brought to trial in Wisconsin. Self-defense is weighed in homicide cases all the time.

The trial would not have happened if it hadn't been so severely politicised.

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.