Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[aylwin13]

2 hours ago, Pariah said:

The guy who needs to put that guy in his place isn't Fred Rogers. It's Steve Rogers. 

Yup. Cap needs to Schlapp Matt around a bit.

[assault]

White Muppet complains about Asian American Muppet.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

So apparently we're legalizing vigilantism. Sigh....

[Old Man]

9 minutes ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

So apparently we're legalizing vigilantism. Sigh....

 

That happened years ago with Zimmerman.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

21 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

That happened years ago with Zimmerman.

 

Now we're fine with kids doing it too.

[Cygnia]

2 hours ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

So apparently we're legalizing vigilantism. Sigh....

Worse.  We're legalizing agenda-sanctioned murder

[Pattern Ghost]

Did anyone watch the trial on this one? I haven't had time.

[unclevlad]

30 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Did anyone watch the trial on this one? I haven't had time.

 

No.  Didn't even think of it.  

 

CNN has a piece up about the Rittenhouse verdict.  

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/us/legal-experts-what-helped-rittenhouse-acquittal/index.html

 

Quote

Wisconsin law allows the use of deadly force only if "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." And because Rittenhouse's attorneys claimed self-defense, state law meant the burden fell on prosecutors to disprove Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
And it was an uphill battle to climb from the start, because of the facts in this case, experts said.

 

And this is CNN, not Fox, so we can't play the "conservatives reading the facts to their advantage" card.

 

The article also points to prosecutorial tactical mistakes, as I noted over in the In Other News thread.

 

So things aren't all that cut and dried.

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Did anyone watch the trial on this one? I haven't had time.

The highlights alone were NSFL if you value even the appearance of impartiality in your justice system. It was an honest to God, fix-is-in kangaroo court.

[assault]

There was also a fine case at more or less the same time (in New York) where a rich white kid got probation for crimes that would have sent anyone else to the Big House for a considerable period.

 

Not equal justice.

 

I won't link to it because it's that disgusting 

[Pariah]

And now the right wingers are on the attack, saying that the three victims were all convicted felons and that they pretty much got what they deserved.

 

(It's a lot more complicated than that, of course: What’s True and False About Kyle Rittenhouse’s Alleged Victims)

 

That whole bit about stones and glass houses comes to mind.

 

 

[csyphrett]

The story linked on the other thread stated that the Rittenhouse prosecutors may have engaged in misconduct. It kind of reminds me of police trials where the DAs involved are accused of throwing the cases so the policemen involved are allowed to walk away

CES

[Pattern Ghost]

Thanks, unclevlad, I'll give that CNN piece a read. I've been trying intermittently to find an unbiased legal analysis to no avail. I read that Snopes article about the victims last week, and even though Snopes is supposed to maintain a neutral tone, the author went out of their way to add in irrelevant details instead of just examine the actual claims. There's a lot of strong bias on either side on this one. 

 

One thing stands out to me as far as what I've seen from the trial coverage:

 

While the matter of self defense is extremely complicated, there's one thing that's not: It's simply not legal for a 17 year old to be carrying a firearm in public. Period. Full stop. No room for any mitigating arguments. And the judge tossed that charge out, along with another very telling one: being out past curfew. 

 

These stand out to me because one of the arguments the defense made, and one that's central to many self-defense claims, is that Kyle was in a place where he was legally allowed to be, and had as much right to be there as the people he shot. Wisconsin has no statutory duty to retreat. So, removing the fact that he was committing multiple crimes by being there (and the fact that his friend allegedly  bought the gun for him -- a straw purchase if true) adds serious support to the defense claim. That's a pretty strong indicator of bias.

 

 As far as I can see, the prosecutors handled their part like complete clowns, so csyphrett may be on to something.

 

Had Kyle been convicted on the weapon and curfew charges, it would have seriously hurt his case. I could see him going up on reduced charges for the shootings had those charges not been thrown out.

Edit: Apparently, underage firearms possession isn't that cut and dry in WI: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031

 

 

 

 

[Pariah]

Ultimately, I think the real question is this: Let's say a 17 year old black man goes to a Trump rally and shoots three people, two fatally. He pleads self-defense at his trial. Is he acquitted?

 

(Answer: Trick question. There's never a trial in this case, because that the police shoot and kill that guy on the spot. The officers involved probably get acquitted, though.)

[Twilight]

35 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Ultimately, I think the real question is this: Let's say a 17 year old black man goes to a Trump rally and shoots three people, two fatally. He pleads self-defense at his trial. Is he acquitted?

 

(Answer: Trick question. There's never a trial in this case, because that the police shoot and kill that guy on the spot. The officers involved probably get acquitted, though.)

I don't imagine that guy gets to shoot anybody before being shot himself.  Cops shoot him down without any thought about what the man's intentions are, regardless if he's being threatening at the time then malign his memory to justify it.

[Old Man]

58 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Ultimately, I think the real question is this: Let's say a 17 year old black man goes to a Trump rally and shoots three people, two fatally. He pleads self-defense at his trial. Is he acquitted?

 

(Answer: Trick question. There's never a trial in this case, because that the police shoot and kill that guy on the spot. The officers involved probably get acquitted, though.)

 

Edited to remove extraneous words.

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

One thing stands out to me as far as what I've seen from the trial coverage:

 

While the matter of self defense is extremely complicated, there's one thing that's not: It's simply not legal for a 17 year old to be carrying a firearm in public. Period. Full stop. No room for any mitigating arguments. And the judge tossed that charge out, along with another very telling one: being out past curfew. 

 

These stand out to me because one of the arguments the defense made, and one that's central to many self-defense claims, is that Kyle was in a place where he was legally allowed to be, and had as much right to be there as the people he shot. Wisconsin has no statutory duty to retreat. So, removing the fact that he was committing multiple crimes by being there (and the fact that his friend allegedly  bought the gun for him -- a straw purchase if true) adds serious support to the defense claim. That's a pretty strong indicator of bias.

 

 As far as I can see, the prosecutors handled their part like complete clowns, so csyphrett may be on to something.

 

Had Kyle been convicted on the weapon and curfew charges, it would have seriously hurt his case. I could see him going up on reduced charges for the shootings had those charges not been thrown out.

Edit: Apparently, underage firearms possession isn't that cut and dry in WI: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031

 

 

 

 

 

So, slamming the judge on this sounds like sour grapes.  He didn't write the details of the firearms law and it darn sure doesn't look like there was any room for interpretation.

 

That said, I hesitated to comment on this thread initially because I agree:  carrying the firearm, not simply in public, but into a situation where anger and hostility could be *assumed*, rationally challenges much, if not most, of the self-defense angles.

 

But again, that's not how the law was written.

 

I personally feel Rittenhouse deserves to be in jail.  My standard's different...almost classical.  It starts with:  you don't draw a firearm unless you are prepared to use it.  Extend that to this situation;  Rittenhouse deliberately carried a weapon...why?  That creates a presumption that he intends, or at least is willing, to use it.  And his self-defense claims are FAR weaker.

 

But that's not the law in Wisconsin.

 

I'm not gonna touch the what-if's about similar scenarios with a black teen.  Just this case.  Those trying to make it a cause celebre for white privilege that the kid got off...sorry, but this really, really feels like knee-jerk reactions, that "oh the kid got off, it HAS TO BE WHITE PRIVILEGE!!"  Sorry, folks, but it just doesn't look that way here.  Bad law mixed with bad case handling.

[Grailknight]

Sadly, there are more states where it is legal for a minor to possess a long gun(30) that not. They cannot purchase for themselves but can be given it as a gift by a legal purchaser.

[BoloOfEarth]

3 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Edited to remove extraneous words.

 

You forgot to cross out "probably".

[Dr. MID-Nite]

I just don't get the mentality of those who think having unaccountable armed militia on every street corner make us more "free". Probably just me though....sigh...

[Lord Liaden]

If it makes you feel any better, most of the rest of the developed world looks on that mentality with bemusement.

[Old Man]

4 hours ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

I just don't get the mentality of those who think having unaccountable armed militia on every street corner make us more "free". Probably just me though....sigh...

 

Depends if you want to be an unaccountable armed militiaman or not.

[Ragitsu]

Gun culture can take on a large part of the blame.

[Lord Liaden]

As an outsider looking in, I've maintained for a long time that the gun problem in the United States isn't that you have guns. It's that, as a culture, you love guns. Your media depict them as beautiful and cool and sexy, the symbol and source of power, respect, and freedom. You perceive shooting a gun as if it were as natural as eating or sex. Many Americans claim to treat guns as tools, but I also see many who seem to treat them more like toys. It's an attitude that can easily grow into an obsession, especially for people who are otherwise insecure or under pressure. When gun use is normalized, even glorified, it can seem like a viable option for people to resolve whatever conflict they're experiencing.

 

Obviously, there are plenty of exceptions to the above among Americans; but as a widespread cultural element it's almost unique to the United States. IMHO gun violence in the US won't substantially improve unless and until that culture changes.

[Hugh Neilson]

I recall reading an article suggesting that there was never a better climate for the US to move away from gun culture and better regulate firearms.  Within a period of months, prominent members of both the Left and the Right had been seriously impacted by gun violence.  That was in 1981, when both the murder of John Lennon and the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, which disabled James Brady, were still fresh.  It took another 12 years just to pass the Brady Bill imposing a 5-day waiting period to allow a criminal background check.  In between, the US passed the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986, loosening regulations.  [https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/]

 

I will suggest the inability to meaningfully restrict ownership and use of firearms in the US traces back to the same issues with COVID-19 measures like masks, social distancing and vaccination.  US culture sets a significant priority on the rights of the individual over the responsibility of the individual to others, and to society as a whole.  Most other nations have adopted a balance which places a less significant priority on individual rights, with a greater balance towards responsibility to the broader society.  The results include a greater acceptance that the right of the individual to own and carry firearms is subordinated to the right of society to reduce the risks and incidence of gun violence. In the same manner, it results in a greater willingness to accept restrictions like masks for the benefit of others, even if they result in inconveniences compromising the rights of the individual.