Forum menu
Mefty,
It wasn't a trial it was a procedure, a complete shit storm. I read that article and there was nothing in it that wasn't fairly common knowledge. I notice the article doesn't mention all the evidence that the prosecution wasn't allowed to present to the 'jury', especially that the killer had been recorded a few weeks earlier saying how he wanted to kill a looter coming out of a store.
There's also the fact that under Wisconsin law it is illegal to shoot someone in the defence of property, but that's a moot point because if you are a white child with self esteem issues it's legal to swap out your security blanket for a machine gun.
The most important trial for years and we get a Judge and a prosecutor straight out of South Park and a Jury selected from the cast of the Simpsons, with at least one of the jurors showing white supremacist leanings. You'd think they'd vet the jury for such an important trial.....Doh, my bad, they did vet the jury didn't they!
This is where the story is, if it was about wether the defendant acted in self defence or not the court wouldn't have been stacked so heavily in the little shits favour.
This trial wasn't about a 17 year old kid, it was about legitimizing militia style activity.
An assault weapon is exactly that. It's not for defending yourself it's for assaulting others, the clue's in the name.
Sorry mefty, just saw your other post.
Trying to process what you mean by "increasing divisions"?
Wether division's are increased or not should have nothing to do with how the trial was conducted. You are contradicting yourself. It's either about truth or perception, which one is it? What the media thinks should have no bearing, what the public thinks should have no bearing.
The only increase in division that matters in this case is the division between life and death.
I don't think there's any doubt that this emotionally immature teenager wanted to be a gun toting vigilante hero, and went looking for that chance.
Rightly or wrongly, that put him in a situation where he ended up in a situation where it was easy to play the self defence card.
He wasn't charged with being a dangerous wannabe, he was charged with murder and had a plausible defence, which the jury - for any number of reasons - accepted.
Like a lot of people, my emotional half would have been happy to see him convicted, at the risk of giving the right wing gun lobby a martyr.
My rational half remembers I keep telling you all to read Fake Law by The Secret Barrister, which warns how knee jerk reactions to media reporting of cases is usually a bad thing politically and legally.
I am not sure how relevant an article about killings of black men by whites is in this context
Because it points out how self-defence is considered far less justified if the killer is black.
The article is several years old and is obviously not relevant to this particular case but it makes all the points concerning reasonable fear, justified self-defence, etc, and how the courts disproportionately accept self-defence from white killers.
It is not reasonable to automatically assume that the result would have been the same had Rittenhouse been black, whatever the colour of his victims. He had a pretty good case for self-defence and he is white.
The Rittenhouse story is a thoroughly depressing example of how messed up things are in the states today.
He got off on self defence, because that's exactly what happened.
He was chased down the street by a gang of thugs and didn't shoot until he had been knocked down and a gun pointed at him.
The sheer volume of lies told by the media about the case is shocking.
I must confess I hadn't heard about the case until I stumbled upon it when listening to a Bari Weiss podcast the other day. Her podcast is excellent, well worth a listen.
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-medias-verdict-on-kyle-rittenhouse
One of the more mind boggling things about the case is that there was nothing at all illegal about him being out on the street with that gun that night. 🤯
An lot of you on here seem keen to blame the media rather than the way this trial was set up.
Why was he charged with multiple counts of murder rather than some form of manslaughter?.... Because it was obvious that he would get off on a murder charge but much less certain that he would get off with manslaughter charges against him.
But yeah, the media....
Why were the lesser charges related to gun possession dropped?....because he would have definitely have got 9 months in prison for that charge but then again.....the media.
Everything about this case was constructed to make sure the killer wasn't going to go to prison. This case was a shit storm due to how the judge, the Prosecutor and the Jury were appointed, but let's all talk about the media shall we....
A quote from Bernice King;
"Justice is not just about verdicts. It is a continuum".
It's in that spirit that I started this thread a couple of days ago, I didn't want to put the name of the killer up in lights in the thread title, I wanted a title that would put the trial in context.
Republican politicians calling him a hero and offering him jobs etc. America is a seriously messed up place.
bedmaker,
"gang of thugs"....eh? That's a bit pejorative.
Some of the protesters thought they were dealing with an active shooter, (they were)
"One of the more mind boggling things about the case is that there was nothing at all illegal about him being out on the street with that gun that night. 🤯"
There's was, he was underage (illegal ownership of a firearm) and he crossed state lines with said firearm.
Why were the lesser charges related to gun possession dropped?….because he would have definitely have got 9 months in prison for that charge but then again…..the media.
Why would he have definitely gone down for that? My understanding of that particular law is that a subsection specifically states that for the offense to be committed the weapon has to be "short barrelled", and Rittenhouse's rifle did not fall under the legal definition of "short barrelled".
I'm not defending that law in particular, I think it's batshit crazy, but the charge was dropped for a reason and that reason is made explicitly clear in the law.
Fair point Ox regarding the tape measure thing, still underage though and still crossed State lines and not even a misdemeanor charge
This verdict sends out the message that if you are a white adolescent you can carry a machime gun anywhere you want and point it in peoples faces.
And if you end up killing someone youll likely be offered a job as an intern in congress.
he crossed state lines with said firearm.
Incorrect. The sworn and unchallenged testimony was that the rifle was kept at Rittenhouse's father's house in Kenosha.
It's OK to be not OK with the verdict. It's not OK to be OK with perpetuating already-debunked falsehoods about the facts of the case.
still underage though
He's not underage though. The wording of the law about being underage is cancelled out by the wording about barrel length - for the underage element to apply the barrel must be shorter than 16". It's a ridiculous qualifier and the Judge admitted he was uneasy about dismissing the charge as the law basically negates itself, but the law is the law. And the law is very much an ass.
100% agree about the verdict and how certain elements of US society will take it as a green light to patrol the streets tooled up and looking for an excuse. And I don't like how those on the right are trumpeting Rittenhouse as a hero either - there are lots of things that I simply don't understand with how the trial and prosecution was conducted: the gun was illegally purchased, how is that not relevant?
So the gun was licenced to the owner in Kenosha then Ox? I guess thats ok then.
It wasn't 'proven' that the gun was kept at his father's house. To be a debunked falsehood it would have to be proven as a falsehood and it wasn't, it just went uncontested.
But yes, I am speculating that the child went to bed every night cuddling his AR 15, I have no evidence for that. There does seem to be a fair amount of evidence that he was underage and had no licence for the firearm though and he faced no consequences for that, (other than being offered internships in Congress).
It’s only a barely-functioning democracy now but I think to go from there to anarchy/revolution/civil war is a massive step that I can’t see happening without much more significant events than we’ve already seen
Not really. The issue is the US operates under a multi-layered democratic state and federal system that was envisaged as a way of providing checks and balances and prevent too much power resting with one individual or group. But that system has steadily been gamed, undermined, filibustered and gerrymandered in every way and at every level at every opportunity to prevent exactly that. Republicans have put more energy distorting the democratic process in their favour than in to actually doing anything with the power they've acquired.
For instance - currently the Senate is pretty much split 50 50 between parties in terms of seat (with the vice president's casting vote just edging the Senate over to the Democrats). To be split so evenly in that way in terms of Senate seats the Democratic Party have poled 41 million more votes than the Republicans.
You'd expect the point of a democratic system would be to elect representatives on the basis of the being a majority of voters acting in support of those representatives. And you'd expect a party who seek to lead, would seek the support of most of the people in the country - to seek consensus for their cause or at least have that ambition. But America's system can work in a way that power can instead rests with a minority - thats not how it was designed but its how it can work. The Republican Party has decided that outcome is the better strategy and in more intent on gaining power that way - suppressing opposition, moving boundaries, disenfranchingung and de-registering voters in order to win power with the support of a minority- than by trying to win support by having a vision of unity and appealing to a wider majority.
It works for them in the sense that they can either win elections, or that they can play the system to hamstring their opposition even when they lose and make it impossible for them to legislate- so they hold power of one sort or another - to lead or sabotage - all the time.
The US isn't alone in having a polical system that is skewed so heavily in favour a minority over the wider population. There are other countries that have operated in this way - Its not a long list but Rwanda, Iraq and Syria are all on it. What have all those countries got in common I wonder?
So for the US a 'Significant event' isn't what would cause the country to tip into civil war, significant events are what are required steer them back away from the precipice.
Agree with you Ox about relevant facts not being introduced into the case.
Given the way the case was set up and conducted I think its pretty fair to say the verdict came before the trial. For me it is not about being OK or not OK with the Verdict, as per the thread title, I'm more interested in what the whole affair signifies. The case was conducted in a kangaroo court where legalistic tautology trumped morality.
As crap as American law is I can't believe that there wasn't a course of action that would have seen the defendant held responsible for his actions in some way. You know if the defendant was black the defendant would either be dead already or beginning a life sentence. (I know you know this Ox)
The whole thing was an exercise in pissing on our backs and telling us it's raining.
I guess I'm more interested in the truth.
So the gun was licenced to the owner in Kenosha then Ox? I guess thats ok then.
In the eyes of the law, yes.
It wasn’t ‘proven’ that the gun was kept at his father’s house.
And therefore you confidently proclaim on more than one occasion that he definitely crossed state lines with it. No wonder you're annoyed with people blaming "the media": you're guilty of the same things as them.
It wasn't proven that he crossed state lines with the rifle, which is what was required for the offense to be committed. If it was the slam-dunk conviction you seem to think it was then sworn testimony to the contrary is unlikely to have gone unchallenged.
But yes, I am speculating that the child went to bed every night cuddling his AR 15, I have no evidence for that.
Evidence is kinda pivotal in whether or not a charge sticks, and a lack of it generally doesn't end up achieving things in a criminal trial.
There does seem to be a fair amount of evidence that he was underage and had no licence for the firearm though and he faced no consequences for that, (other than being offered internships in Congress).
I'm not arguing that the laws aren't daft, or that the charges brought were the correct ones, or that Rittenhouse might have faced a different verdict with a competent prosecution. Just that based on sworn testimonies and Wisconsin State Law, some of the things you've said directly contradict the legally accepted facts of the case.
The whole thing was an exercise in pissing on our backs and telling us it’s raining.
I guess I’m more interested in the truth.
100% agreed. I think it has all the hallmarks of a sham trial. Commentary about the prosecution's competence in particular are telling.
Interestingly I'm seeing all this on the news with the backdrop of being at work surrounded by 100% Southern-state, God-fearing, Biden-hating, COVID-skeptical, gun-loving Republicans and they are all very, very quiet on this matter. I think they know something might be a bit ****y with the whole thing.
Bloody hell Ox, posting on STW whilst being sat in that environment it must feel like you're in a parallel universe.
Interesting to note your observations of the reaction of those around you. When you say they might be thinking things might be a bit '****y' with all this, do you think that's because they are more scared of potential protests from progressives, potential escalation of militia activities or worried that there could potentially be changes to gun laws?
Obviously it could be a combination of all three but I'd be interested to hear which you thing matters most to them.
From talking to them they LOVE their guns. I have no doubt the guys I work with are responsible gun owners but reading between the lines I think they're most concerned about tightening gun laws. Not necessarily because of this incident but from the incidents that might follow as a result of Y'all Qaeda thinking they're now allowed to shoot folk for the slightest perceived slight. There are also a couple who I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been present on Jan 6th, and I think the more sensible ones don't want to get into any conversations with them.
Cheers Ox,
Strangely goes along with my polemic at the beginning of the thread. They, like me believe that the mayonnaise militias are going provoke incidents that will lead to the tightening of gun laws.
I asked "what are their fears" for a particular reason, (you know that too). They were looking at the trial in the way it affects themselves rather than issues of justice or safety. I'm assuming because you said they 'LOVE' their guns they are refering to their porn collection of military grade sex toys and not the pistol they have for self protection, (self defence meaning something entirely different in an age of 'stand your ground' etc.)
You won't be surprised that I find the terms 'responsible gun owner' and 'military assault weapon' somewhat mutually exclusive! I see private ownership of such weapons as the indulgence of a fetish.
I’m assuming because you said they ‘LOVE’ their guns they are refering to their porn collection of military grade sex toys and not the pistol they have for self protection
Don't forget that many, I suspect the majority of gun owners in large parts of the country view them as sporting equipment like fishing tackle or bikes, and they are used as such.
Bari Weiss podcast the other day. Her podcast is excellent, well worth a listen.
Bari Weiss?....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah, she's starting a non woke university of Austin with some very colourful characters (grifters)
molgrips, I'm not forgettimg that but what were talking about here is military assault weapoms, the kind you couldnt have legally between the 1960's and the early 2000's, when Bush re legalised them.
The kind of weapon the little shit took onto the streets of Kenosha.
I wouldn't want to conflate banning machine guns, open carry on city streets and the 'attached' stand your ground laws with the use of sporting rifles and concealed side arms but I understand many do.
One of the more mind boggling things about [s]the case [/s] [b]'merica[/b] is that there was nothing at all illegal about him being out on the street with that gun that night.
Ftfy.
This then is why the shooting happened. The events afterwards and the deaths were basically inevitable.
But in 'merica it seems more about taking sides, any side, on an issue than seeing the bigger picture that thier culture and laws are f*****d.
I guess thats ok then.
I don't think any of us have said it was anything like ok, I appreciate you are understandably angry and concerned by all the various awful legal shenanigans here, but I think a few deep breaths are in order.
Hope you don't have access to any weapons when you're that wound up.
Looks to me from the footage that at the time he fired, he probably was genuinely acting in fear of his life.
I'd agree with that, but it's a position he placed himself into. His position was to usurp the law.
Besides, wasn't the first guy he killed unarmed ?, and subsequent shootings came about after the crowd went after him, because of what he'd done.
It was stated that the first victim was part of a crowd that went after Rittenhouse, but is that credible. I mean how sane would it be for unarmed people to try to attack someone they can see is armed with an assault rifle.
The scenario could be said that if you were in a protest, and someone killed someone else, and you as a law abiding citizen went after that killer, the killer would be justified to kill or attack you and any others because he was in fear.
Hardly sounds a credible defence.
And I think if Rittenhouse had been black, he's have gotten life
This shows the mindset of many in positions of privilege and power in ‘Murika:
And if you want to see the fetishisation of weapons in action, take a look at the background of Rep. Lauren Boeber’s video cast. And I thing she also represents the mindset of far too many in ‘Murika.
My personal fave is
Win Marjorie Taylor Greenes 50 cal
Just what every household needs for personal protection 🙂
Don’t forget that many, I suspect the majority of gun owners in large parts of the country view them as sporting equipment like fishing tackle or bikes, and they are used as such.
Yep I have a feeling we’ve done this convo a few times before, it’s also a minority of people who own multiple guns, not everyone’s running around like Clint E.
^ I so want that to be a parody, not real.
And I think if Rittenhouse had been black, he’s have gotten life
If he was black he'd have been dead before he got to the Police lines.
Why did you post that comment adressed to me further up the page More cash?
I was going to suggest you're confusing a bit of sarcasm with anger. The comment wasn't even addressed to you and I don't think Ox needed your support. Your mock concern for my state of mind reads more like an attempt to wind me up personally.
I'm really offended by that comment and find it beyond patronising. The only temporary ban or censure I've had on here was for telling you to **** off one time.
I shan't say it again.
Whilst America's relationship with guns may be 'complex' (as a few have noted) the isn't much complexity with Bobert,Taylor Green and Crawthorn.
Given that these individuals amassed enough votes to get into Congress, the fact that most American gun owner's might not be bat shit crazy doesn't fill me with too much confidence.
The fetishization and accumulation of military grade equipment is a relatively new thing and a thing enabled by Republicans with legislation they have passed.
I dont understand what The banning of assault weapons and open carry has to do with responsible gun owners using them for sport or personal protection? Conflating the two things is NRA territory to me.
A good outcome. Good decision.
The rights to bear arms (America btw) should Not be negotiable or even discussed.
A good outcome. Good decision.
The rights to bear arms (America btw) should Not be negotiable or even discussed.
the fact that most American gun owner’s might not be bat shit crazy doesn’t fill me with too much confidence.
They need their guns because others have guns and they are afraid of those others with guns. Classic vicious circle.
Why not chewkw ? Afraid they might decide that racism and murder are wrong ?
An informative read on this verdict - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rittenhouse-prosecution-faced-difficult-task-proving-negative-2021-11-19/
More on the 'stand your ground' rule - https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/17/wisconsin-self-defense-law-rittenhouse-522814
As discussed in the first link there isn't this rule in Wisconsin, which I didn't understand as it seems it would weaken his defence. But the Politico article explains why there effectively is a very similar rule on using lethal force in self defence, in a situation that he was in or could at least reasonably claim he was in (plenty of video evidence backing that up, it seems).
The way this has been presented as emboldening vigilantes and white power supporting itself is bit that made me want to read more about why he went free. Since (crazily, and the route of why this is all so fked up?) he was there with an assault rifle legally it seems to be about self-defence law and it's quite easy to see how he was acquitted of murder by a jury on that basis.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/states-own-witnesses-laid-path-rittenhouse-acquittal-2021-11-19/
Also of interest perhaps - how the witnesses for the prosecution actually backed up his claim of self-defence.
They need their guns because others have guns and they are afraid of those others with guns. Classic vicious circle.
This is the crazy thing. He can claim self defence, but surely the people he killed were acting in self defence too, because they were afraid of the kid with the assault rifle. Or do self-defence rules only apply to white right-wingers? What level of aggression is permitted against someone with an assault rifle you perceive to be a threat? Are you only allowed to view him as a threat once he actually points the gun at people? Or only when he starts shooting?
What a stupid situation all round.
What a stupid situation all round.
Even more crazily, I think all the Americans I've ever met think so as well.
"What level of aggression is permitted against someone with an assault rifle you perceive to be a threat?"
Needs a 'Charlie Says' style government public information film.
Thanks @jameso, my initial reaction was "what were the jury thinking" but given the law they appear to have returned the right verdict.
The shooter is a git, the jury were given a difficult job to do.
If open carry is allowed, how do you stop it being used to inflame a situation? Drafting a law that catches people who drive to a place of potential conflict to escalate conflict sounds hard - needs to be like the "going equipped for burglary" law where the intent is what needs to be shown. A builder would have a legitimate reason to carry a crowbar, a locksmith would have a legitimate right to carry lock picks but someone (including the builder and the locksmith) hanging around at 2 in the morning by my back door without an explanation will have committed an offence.