Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...