George Floyd...

[narad]

Is it legal to hire paramilitary child soldiers with automatic weapons now?

As long as they're using long-barrel rifles.

 

[Randy]

How was it a "smart" move? It seems like if he'd shown up without a gun... nothing would have happened. No one would have died. Maybe a car lot would've been vandalized. We'd see some news stories about protests and minor clashes in Kenosha like all the other places that had protests and we'd all have forgotten about it in a few weeks. Rittenhouse wouldn't have spent months in jail and become a pariah to half the country for the rest of his life.

"Smart move" is in the context that it was full Thunderdome (or The Purge, since it was brought up) and he went there not to help anything but to fulfill his murder fantasy unabated because he knew people like him were being given a free pass from the local cops.

The people he killed weren't there to protest for racial equality. We saw for weeks/months that there were protests by people who wanted change during the day and riots by the people who wanted anarchy at night. It was a literal political battleground.

Remember the other incident in another city where MAGAs were paintballing people from trucks and one of them paintballed a dude and got shot? Another one where a MAGA pulled bear spray out on a guy and the other dude pulled out a gun and shot him? It was all over the place, everyone was staging their own little Democrats vs Republican downtown quick draw competition.

So yeah, in the context the police were allowing people to exercise political violence out in the open until someone gets killed, THEN they intervene, yeah it was the smart move. It was literally just bringing a better weapon at murdering people to a place where everyone was itching to murder someone.

The rest of the stuff I don't qualify as "not smart" either. I'm not sure Rittenhouse spent more than a couple nights in jail, I seem to remember him being bailed out and when they wanted to revoke his bail, that scumbag judge refused. He's also going to land somewhere cushy as a result of the political dimension to this.

Now if "law and order" were intact, it would have been a "dumb move" because he WOULD have ended up in jail for just being there, and double for killing two people. Or he'd have been shot on sight. But instead it was an "anything goes and by the way, if you shoot an unarmed person, you're going to become a rich conservative icon for the rest of your life" situation.

Again I return to the fact the local authorities were responsible for this.

 

[Randy]

As long as they're using long-barrel rifles.

Just NOT medium barrel rifles.

 

[mmr007]

Is it legal to hire paramilitary child soldiers with automatic weapons now?

The rest of the world to the US-“you should have universal healthcare like the rest of the planet”

US -“ nah we’re good. We’re liking that child soldier thing tho. Maybe we’ll give that a try”

 

[bostjan]

Is it legal to hire paramilitary child soldiers with automatic weapons now?

It probably depends on the state. If you took out the child part, then I believe so.

In pretty much any civil case, if someone hired you to do something and provided nothing in writing, then failed to pay you, and you sued but were unable to prove in court that you were ever hired, the judge would throw it out of court.

In a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution; however, if you said someone hired you for a job, say, to establish an alibi or something, and the boss testified under oath that you were never hired, and there was no evidence in writing or whatever that you were hired, you'd be boned on your alibi.

In the case of self defense, if you are claiming you were hired to guard business A and shot someone over at business B and then two more people in the middle of the street, I suppose it's going to be an uphill battle even establishing relevance. Unless, of course, your prosecutor is going too far with the charges, doesn't know his legal ass from his elbow, the judge happens to be your biggest fan, and any one or more particular fringe groups pick up your cause as a crusade to "own" their political opponents, then you'd be walking away scot-free.

 

[nightflameauto]

This entire situation can basically be summed up with this:

"MERICA! FUCK YEAH!"

What a mess.

 

[Adieu]

This entire situation can basically be summed up with this:

"MERICA! FUCK YEAH!"

What a mess.

Duuude you misspelled 'Murica

 

[Drew]

His defense was “self defense” which was rather easily proven given the evidence.

You're making a lot of other claims that don't really have any backing in publicly-available evidence, that others are already addressing. So, I'll just hone in on this, since this was in direct response to my own post.

This isn't corrent. Two reasons.

One, "self defense" wasn't proven. It didn't have to be proven. Rather, "murder" failed to be proven. This is a technicality, maybe, but an important one - failing to convict isn't the same as proving Kyle's innocence, because that's not the standard the US judicial system is held to. Failing to convict simply means there was not adequate evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not the same as saying murder definitively didn't happen, it just means that Rittenhouse can't be imprisoned for murder because it was not clear "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he committed murder. This goes both ways - it's not appropriate for his critics to say "yeah, but he got off on a technicality, we all know he really did it," but it's also not appropriate for his supporters to say, "the courts proved he acted in self defense and proved his innocence!" They didn't - they merely determined there was insufficient evidence to convict. This was something we talked a lot about after the Mueller Report.

Two, "self-defense" has a very technical definition in Wisconsin law, and part of that definition is the principle of using proportional force in self defence and not escalating force. Yes, one of the three victims had a gun. the other two didn't, and Kyle pretty clearly escalated force in those two shootings, which makes a "self defense" defense kind of hard to jive with the facts.

 

[bostjan]

Well, it's a bit slippery with self-defense. It's an affirmative defense, which means that the defense, legally, picks up the burden of proof. You can't plead insanity or self defense (or statute of limitations, either, for example) and then leave it for the prosecution to prove that it's not the case.

The American legal system uses the burden of proof to keep anyone from having to prove a negative, which is different from "innocent until proven guilty."

When someone kills someone and then pleads any affirmative legal defense, it's usually an uphill battle, generally. Wisconsin law is no different regarding self defense.

However, what you have to prove in Wisconsin is simply that you feared for your life and reacted reasonably based on your situation and whatever you believed at the time.

However however, I don't think someone who rolled up in a car and shot someone else is going to be able to simply say "Huh, I was, umm, like, scared for my life, or uhh ... somethin'" and get away with it.

Rittenhouse's defense did a good job proving that he was scared for his life. The prosecution could have countered loophole for loophole, but they were inept and didn't really go that route, at least not for more than a hot minute.

 

[Randy]

If you rape a baby to death and the father chases after you with a skateboard, can you legally shoot him to death because you're scared for your life?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

If you rape a baby to death and the father chases after you with a skateboard, can you legally shoot him to death because you're scared for your life?

Depends, are you a white male with right wing views?

 

[StevenC]

 

[Wuuthrad]

I'm suggesting I've never seen the shop owners quoted as saying they hired these guys, in any context, media, courts, or otherwise.

To your latter claim about "it's not a crime" -- we're not arguing whether he has been found guilty or not. We are arguing where he went wrong, what his intentions were, where policy goes wrong, and where the legal system goes wrong. Only psychopaths look at 3 people shot on the streets by a 17 year old and think, "whelp, wasn't a crime, nothing to see or discuss here."

Psychopath? Give me a break dude… I never said any of this wasn’t worth discussing, you are reaching. Try a little harder next time you want to take the piss.

My point is what he did protecting the business was not a crime, and was not crucially important to the facts of the case, according to the proceedings of trial re. what transpired afterwards.

You seem to be picking a relatively inconsequential detail of the trial to justify your moral opinion.

I never shared my opinion really, but it doesn’t really matter what I think! You don’t like the laws, change them. But you yourself cannot, I assume based on your citizenship?

That’s what makes your arguments disingenuous- you are looking down from afar. Would I be so quick to judge things in your Society? Who knows?

Go and watch the trial if you want to discuss it from a position of some knowledge. You seem to be disagreeing with his testimony about his intentions because they conflict with your opinions, as if you are some moral authority on what’s right and wrong?

And so quick to judge. You would quickly be excused from Jury duty with all this presumption and self righteous blather. Impartial much? Oh wait- again I presume you would never be asked to Jury duty.

Your Presumption:

How did the legal system go wrong here exactly? As if it is supposed to prevent these things from happening in the first place? Or wrongly convict someone?

There is an interesting legal doctrine here that I learned watching this case:

1895 U.S. Supreme Court case which stated, “it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” This doctrine was dated back to Roman law.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...guilty-persons-go-free-one-innocent-person-be

Think about how that applies here.

Also what exactly are you suggesting? You think he should have been convicted? There is no evidence to support that.

You think he never should have done what he did? Who’s to say? You’re not his parents!

You think he is part of a R-Wing militia because he took a photo with some supposed Proud Boys or whatever who bailed him out or something? You have ignored the fact that he said he supports peaceful protest and BLM.

Let me ask you this- if you were in on charges and someone payed your $2 mil bail, would you refuse to leave because you disagreed with them politically?

 

[Wuuthrad]

According to you, you know more about the case than the media. Also according to you, Kyle's claims that he was hired to protect property was validated in court.

I asked who validated that, pretty specific question.

Your answer: well, Kyle and maybe someone else, you don't remember.

I mean, that's some weird recursion there. If Kyle makes a claim in his defense that should be validated by a receipt, contract, text message, etc. pretty easily, and you're willing to accept Kyle's testimony without corroborating evidence against two other witnesses saying it's untrue under oath, then I believe you don't understand how evidence works.

Did you even watch the trial? I skipped over that detail mostly because it really seemed inconsequential to the facts of the case- the shootings transpired after he left that place to help put out a fire.

What was he doing there in the first place? Easy question. Answered. Do we believe him and the multiple corroborating witnesses? Is it right or wrong. Is legal good? Should be right?

But… its all relative isn’t it. Morally and otherwise.

 

[Wuuthrad]

You're making a lot of other claims that don't really have any backing in publicly-available evidence, that others are already addressing. So, I'll just hone in on this, since this was in direct response to my own post.

This isn't corrent. Two reasons.

One, "self defense" wasn't proven. It didn't have to be proven. Rather, "murder" failed to be proven. This is a technicality, maybe, but an important one - failing to convict isn't the same as proving Kyle's innocence, because that's not the standard the US judicial system is held to. Failing to convict simply means there was not adequate evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not the same as saying murder definitively didn't happen, it just means that Rittenhouse can't be imprisoned for murder because it was not clear "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he committed murder. This goes both ways - it's not appropriate for his critics to say "yeah, but he got off on a technicality, we all know he really did it," but it's also not appropriate for his supporters to say, "the courts proved he acted in self defense and proved his innocence!" They didn't - they merely determined there was insufficient evidence to convict. This was something we talked a lot about after the Mueller Report.

Two, "self-defense" has a very technical definition in Wisconsin law, and part of that definition is the principle of using proportional force in self defence and not escalating force. Yes, one of the three victims had a gun. the other two didn't, and Kyle pretty clearly escalated force in those two shootings, which makes a "self defense" defense kind of hard to jive with the facts.

Again, you don’t seem to understand the law in WI despite my quoting and linking it- you are in fact allowed to use Lethal Force as Self Defense when afraid for your life, and this was clearly demonstrated by multiple eye-witness testimony, video and audio evidence.

Did you even read where Grosskruetz admitted that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him in the arm until he pointed a gun at him, and not when he had his arms up?

Or that K.R. said on multiple occasions he never intended to kill anyone and only shot people because he was afraid they were going to kill him, one of whom was screaming the words and others who acted in mob mentality with same intent and similar language?

I mean this is like repeating the same thing over and over again- you seem to think he murdered people, despite the evidence.

I will say I thought initially back when this happened- what is this dumass doing with an AR? Some kind of militia vigilante? Disagreeable sure. Criminal? Not after seeing the trial. Fucked up situation all around regardless.

Ultimately the “presumption of innocence” was unanimously upheld by the Jury’s Not Guilty verdict.

The burden of proof resting on the prosecution does not mean that not guilty verdicts are not proven fact. The opposite is true. A not guilty verdict is the ultimate proof of innocence. You cannot appeal not-guilty.
A “presumption of innocence” is not a proven fact in criminal proceedings until a verdict is reached.

All of the details are in the trial video if you want to educate yourself more. I have watched very little of the news media narrative of the case, and quite a bit of the actual trial.

Interesting discussion altogether.

 

[narad]

My point is what he did protecting the business was not a crime, and was not crucially important to the facts of the case, according to the proceedings of trial re. what transpired afterwards.
...
You seem to be pickingI hate a relatively inconsequential detail of the trial to justify your moral opinion.

Again, not important to the case on a purely legal level. One that we're not discussing. The outcome is terrible... how do we avoid that outcome? It is a failure on multiple levels, from the federal government take a hands-off approach to protests in general, to the state governments not calling in for aid in a situation they were clearly incapable of dealing with, to a boy getting involved in situations they should not be getting involved in, to a hospital releasing mentally unstable patients they shouldn't be, to a boy getting in way over his head with a powerful weapon.

I hate to quote an over-used meme phrase, but play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It applies to everyone here. And games of this degree of stupidity are not the ones we're supposed to be playing in a civilized society.

I never shared my opinion really, but it doesn’t really matter what I think!

When you hedge on unsubstantiated claims it really helps inform everyone what you do think.

You don’t like the laws, change them. But you yourself cannot, I assume based on your citizenship?
...
That’s what makes your arguments disingenuous- you are looking down from afar. Would I be so quick to judge things in your Society? Who knows?
...
You would quickly be excused from Jury duty with all this presumption and self righteous blather. Impartial much? Oh wait- again I presume you would never be asked to Jury duty.

You really went out of your way digging this big hole about me not knowing how America works...

Also what exactly are you suggesting? You think he should have been convicted? There is no evidence to support that.

I'm suggesting 17 year olds shouldn't be running around shooting people under any circumstances outside of "Red Dawn". That outcome is a failure, and we should reflect on what cultural and political factors led to that outcome. Kyle isn't guilty of murder -- he was scared and he defended himself and in Wisconsin that's enough. But Kyle put himself in a situation that was likely to end in a confrontation with a gun, and he bears the responsibility of those moronic actions. There obviously needs to be some reigning in of these laws if you can shoot someone hitting you with a skateboard (in an attempt to disarm you, an active shooter who just killed a guy) under the grounds that you feared for your life.

 

[Wuuthrad]

Again, not important to the case on a purely legal level. One that we're not discussing. The outcome is terrible... how do we avoid that outcome? It is a failure on multiple levels, from the federal government take a hands-off approach to protests in general, to the state governments not calling in for aid in a situation they were clearly incapable of dealing with, to a boy getting involved in situations they should not be getting involved in, to a hospital releasing mentally unstable patients they shouldn't be, to a boy getting in way over his head with a powerful weapon.

I hate to quote an over-used meme phrase, but play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It applies to everyone here. And games of this degree of stupidity are not the ones we're supposed to be playing in a civilized society.

Can you please edit the quoted bits I’m having trouble reading your replies- they're all grey and tiny on my phone.

 

[mmr007]

If you rape a baby to death and the father chases after you with a skateboard, can you legally shoot him to death because you're scared for your life?

sounded like you had song lyrics going there for a second.......

 

[Wuuthrad]

Again I return to the fact the local authorities were responsible for this.

How?

What should the police have done exactly?

Shoot people? Rubber bullets? Tear Gas?

Should they have gone Kent State/Philly/Watt’s Riots on them?

I thought Law Enforcement was supposed to be “reformed” or whatever…

 

[MaxOfMetal]

How?

What should the police have done exactly?

Shoot people? Rubber bullets? Tear Gas?

Should they have gone Kent State/Philly/Watt’s Riots on them?

I thought Law Enforcement was supposed to be “reformed” or whatever…

Enforce the curfew and de-escalate the situation for starters. You know, like their job and stuff.

I live closer to Kenosha than Kyle and the entire police response, state and local, was an absolute joke.