I knew nothing of this story three days ago and now (after having been briefed on it) all i can see if that my Facebook feed is even more of a trash fire than usual (and i keep decently high...
I knew nothing of this story three days ago and now (after having been briefed on it) all i can see if that my Facebook feed is even more of a trash fire than usual (and i keep decently high quality friends at least on the US side).
People calling for mistrials, being super aggressive and passionate about what should have been, completely forgetting a variety of judicial standards, etc.
It's appalling to see this as a neutral third party. You'd think this is the OJ trial.
The moment something turns political, people really lose their shit.
Damn it man, you made me read the article. I stopped reading Greenwald when he became unhinged a few years ago. But this was actually a good one. Key quote: Now, I think you're partially right, in...
Damn it man, you made me read the article. I stopped reading Greenwald when he became unhinged a few years ago. But this was actually a good one.
Key quote:
If you say that — after having actually watched the trial — you believe the state failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in light of his defense of self-defense, many will disbelieve your sincerity, will insist that your view is based not in some apolitical assessment of the evidence or legal principles about what the state must do in order to imprison a citizen, but rather that you must be a "supporter” of Rittenhouse himself, his ideology (whatever it is assumed to be), and the political movement with which he, in their minds, is associated.
Now, I think you're partially right, in that the judicial system in the US is (to rephrase) unfavorable towards the black community. There's good evidence to this as a whole. But again, as a neutral third party, I'm not seeing it here. It's just people being hyperpolitical. Like, shit like this happens ALL THE TIME in the US; this time it just got a lot of media attention for a variety of reasons.
But what Greenwald is pointing out is what I'm seeing in all these posts (and even slightly in your reply): The trial got it wrong. Not because they failed to consider all the facts, but because they're racist, they're conservative, they're biased, pick one.
And this talk is exactly what I would see in a more conservative Facebook feed, had the result gone the other way.
I refuse to take seriously any of this kind of political talk that the "other side" would use when the situation is flipped.
The sticky point is that it’s not the trial that was wrong, it’s the laws as they are written. The trial only decides if you broke the law or not. Based on that law he was allowed to carry a gun...
The sticky point is that it’s not the trial that was wrong, it’s the laws as they are written. The trial only decides if you broke the law or not. Based on that law he was allowed to carry a gun across state lines and he was allowed to shoot people if he “felt threatened.”
That does not mean anything that happened was good or that Rittenhouse isn’t a paramilitary, right-wing shithead. It just means the state isn’t allowed to do anything about it according to its own rules. The police there encouraged and supported armed right wingers arriving and agitating protestors to provoke fights. That’s what he did and the deaths are the predictable outcome of the rules being this permissive. And, of course, the rules are this permissive because politicians like having these people around to cajole and threaten violence against their political adversaries since they can’t win on the popularity of their ideas.
Does carrying a gun across state lines mean that much anyway if it isn't illegal? I see it brought up a lot in regards to this case like it makes the situation worse and I'm not sure I see why. Is...
Does carrying a gun across state lines mean that much anyway if it isn't illegal? I see it brought up a lot in regards to this case like it makes the situation worse and I'm not sure I see why. Is it a bigger deal to drive from a suburb just down the road in another state, than driving from Amarillo to Houston with a gun?
I don't know. Truth be told I don't know much about the case that I can trust anyway. I saw a lot of different write-ups that basically reflect the content of this post; i.e. people villanizing...
I don't know. Truth be told I don't know much about the case that I can trust anyway. I saw a lot of different write-ups that basically reflect the content of this post; i.e. people villanizing Rittenhouse without actually checking what happened.
I don't know either exactly. I actually thought about making a text Tildes post attempting to summarize what happened as drily as possible, it would have the added benefit that people would correct me if I got something wrong because that is much more effective than asking what actually happened.
I don't think that you understand their point. The view that the people running the trial are pure evil and the view that the result of the trial is legally correct aren't contradictory.
I don't think that you understand their point. The view that the people running the trial are pure evil and the view that the result of the trial is legally correct aren't contradictory.
I mean, yes of course. The criminal justice system, drug laws, there's a whole suite of things that make it hard to be dark skinned in the US. But none of that is relevant to the legalities here...
Namely, the US judicial system is highly slanted towards white supremacy. Obviously, this decimates minority communities.
I mean, yes of course. The criminal justice system, drug laws, there's a whole suite of things that make it hard to be dark skinned in the US. But none of that is relevant to the legalities here because Rittenhouse's victims were not POC. They might have been protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake, but they themselves were not POC.
Excellent write-up. To be fair, charging Rittenhouse with murder was the first big problem. Based on what we know, murder is a too steep charge to prove. Rittenhouse certainly didn't go to a...
Excellent write-up.
To be fair, charging Rittenhouse with murder was the first big problem. Based on what we know, murder is a too steep charge to prove. Rittenhouse certainly didn't go to a protest to start killing people because he wanted to. Manslaughter might've been more appropriate, but if your legal system allows for a person to wield a rifle in public completely legally then the self-defense defense is completely justified and correct.
You can of course, disregard the legal lense and try and approach it with a different one. There's a good chance your conclusion will be different.
Is that really certain? [emphasis mine] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-opinion-not-innocent-shootings/
Rittenhouse certainly didn't go to a protest to start killing people because he wanted to.
Is that really certain?
That said, a series of decisions by Judge Bruce E. Schroeder may have tipped the scales in Rittenhouse’s favor. He forbade the prosecution from calling the three men Rittenhouse shot “victims.” The judge called it a “loaded term” and said they should be called “decedents” or “complaining witnesses.”
More significantly, Schroeder blocked prosecutors from introducing three pieces of evidence that illustrated the trigger-happy defendant’s propensity for violence. A video recorded 15 days before the bloodshed in Kenosha shows Rittenhouse lamenting that he didn’t have his gun as he watched what he believed were shoplifters exiting a CVS store. “Bro, I wish I had my [expletive] AR,” he says. “I’d start shooting rounds at them.”
Second, Rittenhouse appeared in January with members of the Proud Boys, a group that embraces political violence. Third, the judge wouldn’t allow the prosecution to introduce evidence showing that Rittenhouse attacked a woman in June 2020 as she was fighting his sister. The judge ruled that none of this was relevant to what happened the night of the shootings. The jury should have gotten the chance to decide for themselves whether Rittenhouse’s state of mind meant he was looking for trouble.
I knew nothing of this story three days ago and now (after having been briefed on it) all i can see if that my Facebook feed is even more of a trash fire than usual (and i keep decently high quality friends at least on the US side).
People calling for mistrials, being super aggressive and passionate about what should have been, completely forgetting a variety of judicial standards, etc.
It's appalling to see this as a neutral third party. You'd think this is the OJ trial.
The moment something turns political, people really lose their shit.
Damn it man, you made me read the article. I stopped reading Greenwald when he became unhinged a few years ago. But this was actually a good one.
Key quote:
Now, I think you're partially right, in that the judicial system in the US is (to rephrase) unfavorable towards the black community. There's good evidence to this as a whole. But again, as a neutral third party, I'm not seeing it here. It's just people being hyperpolitical. Like, shit like this happens ALL THE TIME in the US; this time it just got a lot of media attention for a variety of reasons.
But what Greenwald is pointing out is what I'm seeing in all these posts (and even slightly in your reply): The trial got it wrong. Not because they failed to consider all the facts, but because they're racist, they're conservative, they're biased, pick one.
And this talk is exactly what I would see in a more conservative Facebook feed, had the result gone the other way.
I refuse to take seriously any of this kind of political talk that the "other side" would use when the situation is flipped.
The sticky point is that it’s not the trial that was wrong, it’s the laws as they are written. The trial only decides if you broke the law or not. Based on that law he was allowed to carry a gun across state lines and he was allowed to shoot people if he “felt threatened.”
That does not mean anything that happened was good or that Rittenhouse isn’t a paramilitary, right-wing shithead. It just means the state isn’t allowed to do anything about it according to its own rules. The police there encouraged and supported armed right wingers arriving and agitating protestors to provoke fights. That’s what he did and the deaths are the predictable outcome of the rules being this permissive. And, of course, the rules are this permissive because politicians like having these people around to cajole and threaten violence against their political adversaries since they can’t win on the popularity of their ideas.
I thought he didn't carry the gun across state lines? Didn't he get it from a friend he was staying with?
Does carrying a gun across state lines mean that much anyway if it isn't illegal? I see it brought up a lot in regards to this case like it makes the situation worse and I'm not sure I see why. Is it a bigger deal to drive from a suburb just down the road in another state, than driving from Amarillo to Houston with a gun?
I don't know. Truth be told I don't know much about the case that I can trust anyway. I saw a lot of different write-ups that basically reflect the content of this post; i.e. people villanizing Rittenhouse without actually checking what happened.
I don't know either exactly. I actually thought about making a text Tildes post attempting to summarize what happened as drily as possible, it would have the added benefit that people would correct me if I got something wrong because that is much more effective than asking what actually happened.
I don't think that you understand their point. The view that the people running the trial are pure evil and the view that the result of the trial is legally correct aren't contradictory.
I mean, yes of course. The criminal justice system, drug laws, there's a whole suite of things that make it hard to be dark skinned in the US. But none of that is relevant to the legalities here because Rittenhouse's victims were not POC. They might have been protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake, but they themselves were not POC.
Excellent write-up.
To be fair, charging Rittenhouse with murder was the first big problem. Based on what we know, murder is a too steep charge to prove. Rittenhouse certainly didn't go to a protest to start killing people because he wanted to. Manslaughter might've been more appropriate, but if your legal system allows for a person to wield a rifle in public completely legally then the self-defense defense is completely justified and correct.
You can of course, disregard the legal lense and try and approach it with a different one. There's a good chance your conclusion will be different.
Is that really certain?
[emphasis mine]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-opinion-not-innocent-shootings/
Certain enough to lock the man up for life?
Another answer would be that criminal charges are under a presumption of innocence and must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That is what I meant. In dubio pro reo exists for a very good reason.