George Floyd...

[zappatton2]

Hey, all I know it that any time my computer gives me issues, I just light incense and beseech the computer gods. Works like a charm. Or at least as well as any of the magical charms I also own.

 

[Adieu]

Pfftt... amateur.

Y'all gotta learn to curse in Russian. It's got all the best "incantations" for reviving stuck machinery.

 

[nightflameauto]

I keep a vat of chicken blood on the desk for anointing any machine that acts up. Sometimes we have to sacrifice a goat to appease the gods of technology. The fairies that operate the internals need whupped sometimes too.

 

[Drew]

According to his testimony he ran away until he was cornered and had no where else to go.

What surprised me, the transcript makes it seem like he turned his head, turned back around and saw the guy grabbing the barrel, then heard a gunshot, so he reacted and shot.

By this account, the prosecutor is incompetent if he didn't ask, "did you mean to shoot him or did you react to the gunshot?" In like 15 minutes I found in the Wisconsin self-defense law the section that says self defense is waived if the shooter does not intentionally shoot the victim.

Other law in Wisconsin and pretty much every state indicates that self-defense had to match the level of threat and not exceed it. A guy coming at you with a chain is likely not going to kill you. Shoot them once in the leg, not 4 times (including the torso and head).

I get why gun rights people want to justify this as self defense, but they are really overlooking the details of what self-defense means and what situations someone cannot use self-defense as an excuse. I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't stress these points more.

Well, two things.

One, I haven't been following this to the level of closeness that this would imply... but the video of him breaking into tears did make the rounds (aside; how the fuck are there video cameras in the courtroom?) and he broke down after the prosecutor had pointedly pushed him on the subject, for a long exchange, that when he said he "was just defending myself," he was well aware that it was lethal force he was using to defend himself, and that when he pulled the trigger he had every reason to believe that the man he was shooting at would die.

So, one, that sort of DOES answer the "did you mean to shoot him or did you react to the gunshot," since he did get Rittenhouse to explicitly say he pulled the trigger because he feared for his safety, and that he knew he was using lethal force when he did. Since I don't think anyone else in that exchange was carrying an AR15, that also does indicate the level of threat was not being matched when he did, either.

Two, I'd think it would be FAR more likely for the defense to have tried to ask the question "were you just reacting to the sound of a gun, or did you intend to shoot the victim-excuse-me-rioter," since they would be the ones with the most to gain by bringing up that nuance in the courtroom (the jurors aren't expected to be experts in the law, it's up to the defense to show why Rittenhouse was not guilty and the prosecution to show why he was, and - IMO here - that's the sort of loophole that if you didn't know about it helps the prosecution way more than the defense because it gives him a possible defense for having shot him, if he didn't mean to). But, in any event, the prosecution has established that Kyle pointed the gun at the victim and pulled the trigger with every realistic expectation that doing so would kill the victim, so it's a moot point.

 

[Drew]

Pfftt... amateur.

Y'all gotta learn to curse in Russian. It's got all the best "incantations" for reviving stuck machinery.

Oddly, I don't doubt this in the slightest.

 

[fantom]

But, in any event, the prosecution has established that Kyle pointed the gun at the victim and pulled the trigger with every realistic expectation that doing so would kill the victim, so it's a moot point.

Sure... Except Rittenhouse repeatedly testified that he didn't intend to kill anyone.

Honestly the kid is young enough and made enough stupid decisions that I believe he did NOT have an expectation that bringing an assault rifle, pointing it at someone, and shooting it would kill anyone.

My point was, his intent doesn't matter. He intended to defend himself, yes. But either he didn't intend to use deadly force (and is guilty because he can't use the self defense law) or he intended to use deadly force (and is guilty because he used excessive force).

Am I ok with a lenient sentence because he was acting like stupid kid? Ya. Am I ok with him walking free and society acting like being a young ignorant and reckless kid with no regard for human life is acceptable? Nope

 

[mmr007]

Wait why are we still picking on this kid? I thought it was established already it was ANTIFA dressed as Rittenhouse no?

 

[Randy]

 

[bostjan]

Ritttenhouse is very likely not going to get convicted of the charges the prosecutor brought. I'd say it's more likely that he goes free at this point than that he does any serious time.

But guys, be careful what you say, or else he might come to your house to defend himself with a bazooka.

The way I learned it (which has changed drastically since Treyvon Martin and stand your ground), is that you are not authorized to use deadly force as long as you can simply walk away from the confrontation. If you shoot a guy who swung at you with an improvised weapon, that would be murder. If you shoot a guy who points a gun at you, it's not murder. If you shoot a person who's damaging someone else's property, that's murder. I think it's a simple enough concept that life is worth more than personal property, so self defense stops when it stops being in defense of one's "self" (or another person's life and limb, which I think would be clearer if it were justified as "defense of another person's life and limb," but that's a mouthful, whatever, we live in a soundbyte, I get it). Anyway, under that concept, the very act of going into a riot zone, as a "concerned citizen" from another state entirely, armed with a deadly weapon (meaning an object that has the sole purpose of killing other people), would be premeditation of a violent crime. It doesn't look like the prosecution touched much on that, and maybe it's just the same as it's not a logical world in which we live.

Here in VT, I'm pretty sure a person could be considered conspiring to commit violence for showing up at a bar during a Red Sox game wearing a Yankees hat. But, if Rittenhouse gets acquitted from all charges entirely, with no lesser charges, it's basically going to tell the rest of the nation to grab their guns and go hang out at protests. And, just following this logical outcome to the next step, picture two right-wingers shooting each other, because they both pointed their guns at each other, because they both happened to be holding a gun whilst attending a riot, which they both did because of the Rittenhouse verdict. Maybe the problem will sort itself out after that almost inevitable event in the future.

Or, who knows, maybe this is all small fry compared to the weird civil stuff that's bound to keep happening as we sail through the age of unbridled police violence, novel deadly diseases, and political leaders who brag about how big their nuclear button is to hostile nuclear dictators.

 

[fantom]

Over/under on number of days between the verdict and an appeal being filed?

 

[fantom]

Ritttenhouse is very likely not going to get convicted of the charges the prosecutor brought. I'd say it's more likely that he goes free at this point than that he does any serious time.

But guys, be careful what you say, or else he might come to your house to defend himself with a bazooka.

The way I learned it (which has changed drastically since Treyvon Martin and stand your ground), is that you are not authorized to use deadly force as long as you can simply walk away from the confrontation. If you shoot a guy who swung at you with an improvised weapon, that would be murder. If you shoot a guy who points a gun at you, it's not murder. If you shoot a person who's damaging someone else's property, that's murder. I think it's a simple enough concept that life is worth more than personal property, so self defense stops when it stops being in defense of one's "self" (or another person's life and limb, which I think would be clearer if it were justified as "defense of another person's life and limb," but that's a mouthful, whatever, we live in a soundbyte, I get it). Anyway, under that concept, the very act of going into a riot zone, as a "concerned citizen" from another state entirely, armed with a deadly weapon (meaning an object that has the sole purpose of killing other people), would be premeditation of a violent crime. It doesn't look like the prosecution touched much on that, and maybe it's just the same as it's not a logical world in which we live.

Here in VT, I'm pretty sure a person could be considered conspiring to commit violence for showing up at a bar during a Red Sox game wearing a Yankees hat. But, if Rittenhouse gets acquitted from all charges entirely, with no lesser charges, it's basically going to tell the rest of the nation to grab their guns and go hang out at protests. And, just following this logical outcome to the next step, picture two right-wingers shooting each other, because they both pointed their guns at each other, because they both happened to be holding a gun whilst attending a riot, which they both did because of the Rittenhouse verdict. Maybe the problem will sort itself out after that almost inevitable event in the future.

Or, who knows, maybe this is all small fry compared to the weird civil stuff that's bound to keep happening as we sail through the age of unbridled police violence, novel deadly diseases, and political leaders who brag about how big their nuclear button is to hostile nuclear dictators.

Nailed it.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Over/under on number of days between the verdict and an appeal being filed?

Can't appeal an acquittal.

 

[mmr007]

The issues that have caused us to discuss this case are not going away without bloodshed. We are fucked no matter what the result is.

 

[spudmunkey]

In Wisconsin, can the Jury consider lower-level charges? If the state just doesn't have quite enough for an 'intentional" something, could the jury consider "negligent/accidental"?

 

[Adieu]

Can't they try him separately on Federal Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism charges (throw the mom in for good measure) or something?

Frankly, the idea that he killed people and might get away with it is slightly LESS horrifying than the idea that a court might uphold the alleged RIGHT of a minor to travel somewhere with an assault rifle with intent to escalate and start sh!t against his political/racial enemies

 

[fantom]

Can't they try him separately on Federal Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism charges (throw the mom in for good measure) or something?

Frankly, the idea that he killed people and might get away with it is slightly LESS horrifying than the idea that a court might uphold the alleged RIGHT of a minor to travel somewhere with an assault rifle with intent to escalate and start sh!t against his political/racial enemies

Under what jurisdiction? USC 2332b only grants jurisdiction if the act is targeting the federal government. The only way this will come up is if any of the victims was a federal employee. Maybe the 3rd victim was? Even then, you have to overcome his self defense claim.

Just because you know something was wrong doesn't mean the person is guilty. You need to find a law they actually violated... Not throw darts with a jury. The judicial system has to follow the legislation. If the legislation isn't specific or clear, the person didn't do anything illegal. Changing the law requires a legislative change.

This is a fundamental cornerstone of the US government.

 

[Adieu]

Wait, terrorism isn't federally illegal???

Also, isn't it interstate terrorism with intent to literally terrorize residents of other states?

 

[Miek]

Just remember, people who back Rittenhouse also want Alec Baldwin in jail for firing a pistol, which he was told was unloaded by the armorer, and killing someone.

Is it just me or is it impossible to have an objective discussion at this point?

i dont want to bring up an old point, but to be fair, as a producer, baldwin definitely has his share of responsibility for that completely preventable death, yeah.

Pfftt... amateur.

Y'all gotta learn to curse in Russian. It's got all the best "incantations" for reviving stuck machinery.

cyka blyat

 

[Adieu]

What looks like "cy" in Cyrillic is actually "su"

PS not in-in the word Cyrillic

 

[philkilla]

The issues that have caused us to discuss this case are not going away without bloodshed. We are fucked no matter what the result is.

Just wait for the mostly peaceful protests to occur.