Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Page 55 of 60 [ 954 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 ... 60 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Dec 2021, 6:54 pm

Dillogic wrote:

Shouldn't have gone to trial IMO because of the exonerating footage,.

Sure, many of those recommending no trial would sing a different tune if Kyle shot one of their family. Putting aside the three shooting victims (yes they still are victims). Those at the incident openly stated he was perceived as an active shooter. It had to go to trial.

Kyle is damn lucky that one of his stray bullets didn't catch a member of the public. He's not in law enforcement so doesn't get a free pass if random people got hit.

Regardless of the verdict, the general consensus was a trial was necessary. Pretending retrospectively the outcome was a open and shut case is pretending to have the power to predict the future.

As it turned out the evidence for culpability was sufficiently ambiguous as to cast "doubt". But that took many months to decide which is in itself a testimony to how unusual this case has been,

Those cheering Rittenhouse seem to lack empathy for the victims.

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

14 Dec 2021, 7:12 pm

It shouldn't have gone to trial insofar as self-defense laws are usually written. I see fleeing, so that meets the duty to retreat, which is often something needed in public spaces. The rest are easy to see, such a fear of life and appropriate force. If one of my family members attacked someone in such a way that caused someone to fear for their life, then it'd be on them; I'm being objective here. Cops need to work through the bullet points of the criminal code wherever they are, and see if the evidence they have fits the code; whether other people thought he was an active shooter doesn't mean anything in this context, that's just what can excuse them for their behavior, i.e., when it comes to apprehending in the 2nd incident. The jury agreed that it didn't, and they would have based it on the video evidence. Those that charge people have to go through the same evidence and standards. I did Criminal Justice, and self-defense laws were one of my interests, and here, in my far less liberal country (liberal equaling freedom), self-defense is still met, albeit a weapon conviction would have been copped.

Everyone was lucky there. There was multiple people shooting all over the place.

I'm just seeing what I'm seeing based on my experience when it comes to self-defense law, so yes, I can see the outcome insofar as it applies to less-liberal laws; I can't see the outcome of the jury. "General consensus" doesn't make it so, as that's not Blind Justice.

I don't think anyone should be cheering anyone in this case. When it comes to these matters, there's just various degrees of losers all around. Everyone is a victim.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Dec 2021, 7:44 pm

Dillogic wrote:

It shouldn't have gone to trial insofar as self-defense laws are usually written. I see fleeing, so that meets the duty to retreat, which is often something needed in public spaces.

It may be open and shut if it was a woman walking the street at night who was assaulted by a male and she used a loaded pistol to defend herself. Or alternatively a burglar breaking into a house getting shot by the owner. That's my understanding of what the self-defense law is supposed to uphold. Even in the second scenario just google it and you will see many cases where the home owner has been charged for shooting an intruder. The law isn't as cut and dry as you are assuming.

Kyle entered a volatile environment illegally based on his age/holding a weapon/breaking a curfew. It's impossible to make interpretations of how self-defense laws automatically "kick in" with somebody in this scenario without a trial.

Dillogic wrote:

Cops need to work through the bullet points of the criminal code wherever they are, and see if the evidence they have fits the code; whether other people thought he was an active shooter doesn't mean anything in this context, .

Guess again. If Kyle was Mohammed and black muslim running around with a weapon he would suddenly be transformed into an "active shooter" in the eyes of most republicans. In case you have forgotten terrorism is still a major threat through-out the western world, whether the terrorist be some muslim extremist or a right wing variety (plenty of the latter).

The authorities must test the claim that those who tried to stop Kyle assumed he was an active shooter. Kyle himself is a blue lives matter supporter and therefore as with many in the MAGA camp believe police have the right to shoot unarmed black men if they are perceived as a threat because that's their job.

It seems strange that the same people who interpret fully trained police officers can get it wrong when they interpret a black man with a gun is an "active shooter" (or even unarmed is a "threat") but that a civilian (Huner and Grosskreutz) trying to do their civic duty against an armed individual who was witnessed shooting somebody who was unarmed (Rosenbaum) was a terrorist??

Smacks of double standards and remains a can of worms that your judicial system has to one day open.

But again, my point stands, the evidence overwhelming required there be a trial.

uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,339

14 Dec 2021, 7:50 pm

cyberdad wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

Shouldn't have gone to trial IMO because of the exonerating footage,.

Those cheering for Rittenhouse simply tell themselves that the "victims" were merely looters and arsonists, and if they hadn't been there doing crime, they wouldn't have been "defended against".

As for predicting the right verdict, there's what, three possible outcomes for a trial like this? Guilt, not guilty, and a mistrial. Simply by being a Kyle Fan, and cheering for a not guilty or mistrial, you've got at least a 66% chance of being "right" just from dumb f**king luck. Like playing a shell game where two of the cups have a bead under it. It's hardly an amazing feat to guess that right.

If he had been found guilty of any or all charges, they'd still claim to have been "right" about anything he wasn't found guilty of, and make excuses or cry "injustice!" over anything he was found guilty of.

I can't help but feel there's something wrong with someone who enjoys or otherwise feels good about the act of taking a life, whatever the reason. Even if that life "deserves" it, or doing so was "the right thing" in that situation. If taking a life makes you feel good, if the idea of taking a life makes you feel good, then how do we know you're seeking "justice" or "safety", and not just looking for valid excuses to take a life?

This is why it's supposed to be illegal to go looking for trouble. So trigger-happy sociopaths don't create situations that "justify" using a firearm. Otherwise any attacker could claim "self defense!" the instant their victims fought back.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Dec 2021, 8:09 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:

I can't help but feel there's something wrong with someone who enjoys or otherwise feels good about the act of taking a life, whatever the reason. Even if that life "deserves" it, or doing so was "the right thing" in that situation. If taking a life makes you feel good, if the idea of taking a life makes you feel good, then how do we know you're seeking "justice" or "safety", and not just looking for valid excuses to take a life?

This is why it's supposed to be illegal to go looking for trouble. So trigger-happy sociopaths don't create situations that "justify" using a firearm. Otherwise any attacker could claim "self defense!" the instant their victims fought back.

Juxtapose the image of Kyle drinking and celebrating his release on bail with the Proud Boys with his claim that he felt justified in shooting three men. Regardless of his intentions, the message it sends sociopathic vigilantes is that you can use a weapon against left wing protestors and come out a hero to half the county and get employed by the republican party.

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

14 Dec 2021, 8:31 pm

cyberdad wrote:

uncommondenominator wrote:

You mean "sociopathic vigilantes" like Timothy Simpkins?

Quote:

A Texas teen who allegedly opened fire at his high school on Wednesday, wounding two students and a teacher, reportedly had a party after being released on bond a day later.

The Sun reported that videos posted to social media showed Timothy Simpkins, 18, in his family’s kitchen, holding a baby and hugging others. A day earlier, Simpkins allegedly shot two classmates at Timberview High School, including a 15-year-old boy he was fighting with, and teacher Calvin Pettitt, 25.

According to The Dallas Morning News, a fight between Simpkins and the 15-year-old student was broken up before Simpkins retrieved a firearm from his backpack and opened fire, wounding the student he was fighting and Pettit, who had broken up the altercation.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram 15-year-old shooting victim was shot four times and is in a medically-induced coma in the ICU. Police said one of the bullets grazed a female student, while Pettitt, who was reportedly shot in the back, is in good condition.

Source: https://www.crimeonline.com/2021/10/08/texas-school-shooter-had-welcome-home-party-as-classmate-remains-in-icu-report/

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

14 Dec 2021, 8:54 pm

cyberdad,

The circumstances surrounding a claim to self-defense are almost always those that I mentioned (at least in English speaking countries); duty to retreat (often needed in public), appropriate use of force (if excessive, manslaughter tends to be on the table at least), and the individual fears there's an imminent threat to their life/or thinks they're in threat of serious bodily harm (it can also be there for others). The main one that nullifies it is if the individual that's claiming self-defense provoked that encounter and it then escalates out of control. Though, this is often a fluid event, so if the person that initially provokes it disengages from the thing he/she provoked, they can then reclaim self-defense after whatever the law deems is sufficient to show they are no longer provoking anything. Self-defense laws are written in that they can apply to any circumstance where someone's life is in danger/in threat of serious bodily harm. It's held up quite well for hundreds of years and the precedents have been set long ago. There's been numerous cases just like this one that people haven't heard about as they never made it to the news; the reason so many people likely care about this one is because media coverage and "sides".

Green shirt would have been just as justified to be out there as anyone else, which is the impartial view. The same as say a prostitute wearing "inappropriate" attire who is attacked by some men and she defends herself with an illegal handgun in a dark alley; she's doing two illegal things, but they don't take away her right to self-defense. That's the beauty of blind justice, even if it tends to be walked all over by political activists from any side.

Whether green shirt was black, blue, purple, Buddhist, racist, an alien of some kind, autistic, the reincarnation and amalgamation of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao or anyone else: he/she/it should be treated exactly the same when it comes to self-defense. I don't care about political bickering and "sides", just impartiality and equality. Everyone should be treated the same.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Dec 2021, 8:59 pm

Brictoria wrote:

cyberdad wrote:

uncommondenominator wrote:

You mean "sociopathic vigilantes" like Timothy Simpkins?

Quote:

Source: https://www.crimeonline.com/2021/10/08/texas-school-shooter-had-welcome-home-party-as-classmate-remains-in-icu-report/

He was attending a welcome-home with his family, Not having a beer with the local chapter of BLM.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Dec 2021, 9:07 pm

Dillogic wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with the interpretation of the self-defense laws as it stands in the US Dillogic. I think even Biden accepted the jury's finding. I think I posted elsewhere that the castle laws have been extended in the US beyond one's home to basically become "stand your ground" anywhere. This quite different to Australian law where even home owners can be sued by a burglar if they trip over and break their ankle.

What I am saying is there were elements of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident that demanded a trial. This isn't to simply placate the families of the victims or to appease BLM as some on the right have suggested. There were questions over Kyle's intent and this required full examination of all the available evidence including video footage of the event because the testimony of witnesses and that of Kyle never matched up.

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,892
Location: Long Island, New York

14 Dec 2021, 10:01 pm

Off Topic

DW_a_mom wrote:

ASPartOfMe wrote:

goldfish21 wrote:

Pepe wrote:

I just watched a news report about the consequence of "defunding the police" movement.

People are frightened about the lack of police protection, after the what happened in the BLM riots.
Police have less involvement with the community, these days.
The result is that more people are buying guns to protect themselves.

The Rittenhouse case was mentioned in the article and because of the violent rioting, the gun sales has boomed.
If people want to defund the police, they have to deal with the consequences.

It seems you’ve filled your head with some very biased reporting on the topic.

No one is promoting anarchy. Defund the police = stop treating everything as a criminal matter & sending police in with guns. Everything looks like a nail when all you’ve got is a hammer.. the concept is to reduce police budgets and spend the money on social workers, psych nurses, job programs etc in order to improve society instead of just shooting people or jailing survivors.

The USA has a disproportionate % of the world’s incarcerated due to treating the prison system as a business. The whole thing is backwards and continued to prove itself ineffective. That’s why people are calling for change.

Black Lives Matter Activist: Abolishing The Police '100%' Means Just That

Quote:

Noor has been on the streets of Minneapolis every day since Floyd was killed. All four police officers involved in Floyd’s death have been charged, and now protesters have their eye on a larger goal — defunding, and eventually abolishing, the police.

When activists say they want to abolish the police, they “100%” mean they want no more police, Noor says.

“What we're saying is that whatever it is that we're envisioning together to move toward is much safer than what currently exists,” she says, “because what currently exists is a police system that is entrenched in and comes from slave catching and union busting and that is incapable of keeping so many of us in mostly marginalized communities safe.”

Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police
Whether it is abolishing the police or BLM being Marxist influenced and Communist Sympathisers we are told over and over they don't really mean it, it is bluster, not everybody agrees yada, yada, yada.

But when Trump talked about "fine people on both sides", "s**thole countries", explanations by his supporters that it is just bluster are not exactly accepted. I never accepted Trump literally meant there are fine people on both sides and don't believe BLM is just about ending racism.

In Trump’s world view, anyone who supports him is “fine people” so, yes, I think he meant it exactly as said. He was not going to risk censoring what he knew was part of loyal base.

BLM organizational leadership is not the BLM movement, and the MOVEMENT IS about ending racism AND helping the black community achieve economic parity. The opportunity for the later was LITERALLY stolen from them over and over and over again in the 150 years since the civil war, and during slavery before that, as well. People like me may not have done the stealing, but we have enjoyed the benefits. So, yes, there is a little bit more, but can you blame them? Read up on the recent return of Bruce’s Beach in Southern California. Or the once thriving businesses district in Tulsa. I can understand wanting some form of justice for these crimes. Right now lawyers are looking at more Bruce Beach situations to see if more wrongs can be fixed as relatively easily and peacefully; it’s an appropriate process. The concept of reparations is much stickier and perhaps too broad, but some thefts can be made right. And should be.

Defunding the police similarly has no single meaning. The strongest advocates don’t eliminate all law and order, but believe the current policing systems are still too tainted by their historically racist/classist origins to ever overcome the systemic injustices they impose. They would replace it with something different, likely more community based. Others believe we can keep the existing policing departments by changing training and culture, and adding social service experts and healthcare professionals so police officers don’t have to try to be one-size-fits-all. I think these are important conversations to have, and should not be just tossed because of one quote from one leader.

The movement is about ending racism through revolution ie replacing or radically changing key institutions, language and culture. Sure not everybody protesting under the BLM is with the leaders on all things but when protesters continue aping Critical Race Theory slogans it is what it is. If BLM members do not like what the leadership does they can replace the leadership or start a new civil rights organization otherwise they are complicit or agree with them but is BS'ing us(or maybe themselves). How many times can they say what they want in how many ways before they are believed?

January 6th was a "mostly peaceful protest" in that most of those protesting were standing peaceably outside the capital in the cold and many of the protesters thought they were defending the constitution not trying to overthrow it. Most of us rightly don't call it "a mostly peaceful protest" and excuse them for good intent, but with BLM so many in so many influential places do, they certainly do.

_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

14 Dec 2021, 10:17 pm

cyberdad wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

Setting aside the big difference between "self defence" (criminal law) and being sued if a burglar trips and injures themself (civil law), let's test this in an Australian context...

Quote:

What is self-defence?

Section 322K of the Crimes Act provides:

A person is not guilty of an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.
A person carries out conduct in self-defence if –
The believes that the conduct is necessary in self-defence; and
The conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as the person perceives them.

Belief in necessity

The requirement for the accused to have believed their actions were necessary is taken from the 1987 decision of Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions. This test is subjective, meaning the court must be satisfied that the accused believed what he or she did was necessary in self-defence. It does not involve a consideration of what a “reasonable person” would have believed to have been necessary. If the accused genuinely believed their conduct was necessary, it does not matter if that belief was mistaken (R v McKay [1957] VR 560.

[...]

Reasonable response

If the court is satisfied that the accused believed their actions were necessary in self-defence, it must then consider whether those actions were reasonable in the circumstances. This is an objective test, but it must be determined in light of the circumstances as the accused perceived them.

Source: https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/vic/defence-of-self-defence/

Off Topic

This law hasn't changed much (it is now more "friendly" towards those claiming it) from my days in the security industry (where it was a required area of knowledge), regarding the use of the defence for cases of Assault... This was an area we had to know well in order to receive security and crowd control licences - I believe it is covered under https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/CPPSEC2106 as part of the requirements for a security licence at present.

Under this law (in Victoria), there is no "duty to retreat", and so "stand your ground" is possible... Although at no time during the events around Mr Rittenhouse would "stand your ground" have even been a consideration - each act of self defence came as a result of pursuit, or where further retreat was not possible - so I'm not sure why you continually allude to it (or "castle laws" which have no connection to, nor bearing on, the case).

As a side note, Self defence is also available in Victoria when defending property:

Quote:

2 The circumstances in which a person may carry out conduct in self-defence include—

• the defence of the person or another person;

• the prevention or termination of the unlawful deprivation of the liberty of the person or another person;

• the protection of property.

Source: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s322k.html

cyberdad wrote:

What I am saying is there were elements of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident that demanded a trial. This isn't to simply placate the families of the victims or to appease BLM as some on the right have suggested. There were questions over Kyle's intent and this required full examination of all the available evidence including video footage of the event because the testimony of witnesses and that of Kyle never matched up.

And here we see further evidence that you have no understanding of the relevent laws or facts in this case (particulalry those known at/around the time of the events which occurred)...

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

14 Dec 2021, 10:38 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:

Trump wanted to maintain his power—at all costs.

He wanted to stifle any criticism of him by the press….like any good, red-blooded dictator would.

Hyperbole noted.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

14 Dec 2021, 10:50 pm

Dillogic wrote:

Quickly watching the videos: looks like clear self-defense to me as there's enough footage of before, during and after both incidents. Shouldn't have gone to trial IMO because of the exonerating footage, as the best you could probably argue for is manslaughter on the 1st guy due to excessive force (firearm versus fisticuffs is often seen as such, but considering the context and what looks like almost contact range shots meaning grappling range, it'd be justified here), but it's unlikely a jury would convict for manslaughter there. To me, it looks like the first guy tried to and succeeded in committing suicide via rifle; I wouldn't be surprised if he was mentally ill and had a history of suicide attempts. His mannerisms and behavior show such a thing; I doubt he intended to actually kill green shirt, and getting killed, taking the rifle and using it on himself or suicide by cops was the goal. Second incident looks like mob mentality with apprehension of the shooter and/or revenge being the motive, but was unwise as green shirt wasn't actively engaging anyone on his way out and was in shoot-no shoot mode. You see green shirt meet up with another green shirt soon after he flees the 1st incident. The crowd seemed to be fine with this 2nd green shirt, so it appears "sides" really weren't much of a factor here. There's also a more stocky looking guy with a rifle and body armor that is yelling at green shirt to come his way after the 2nd incident.

Lots of gunshots going on in the background. I counted at least 30 overall that weren't connected to green shirt's rifle. Some sounded directed at green shirt as he disengaged from the second incident and he failed to notice its direction (he hears it, but looks the wrong way), and it was a handgun being fired close to the cameraman. Just no hits. When fighting starts, shooting happens with intent and it's almost always directed at someone else. I'm assuming they chose not to investigate any of that, even though they likely have drone/FLIR footage of all the muzzle flashes and would have tracked the shooters back to their cars since I saw the FBI footage of the 1st incident with such.

The guy firing the 1st shot into the air is quite odd, as that'll just make green shirt have a heightened threat level if he thought it was directed at him, and it would have made green shirt more afraid when it comes to the context of shirtless chasing him.

Quite an odd encounter overall. Reality tends to be odd.

I don't see the big deal over this case though, but not everyone sees the same things when looking at the same...things.

Green shirt probably is going to have some PTSD from this one. The handgun guy from the 2nd incident will too. No winners in these things.

Yup.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

14 Dec 2021, 10:54 pm

cyberdad wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

Shouldn't have gone to trial IMO because of the exonerating footage,.

In hindsight, with all the facts available, it *was* a klear case of self-defence.
Justice prevailed.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Dec 2021, 11:00 pm

Brictoria wrote:

And here we see further evidence that you have no understanding of the relevent laws or facts in this case (particulalry those known at/around the time of the events which occurred)...

You are right, a burglar suing a homeowner is a civil case which is different. But if a homeowner in Australia shoots a burglar then self-defense does not automatically kick in as with US law.

My point I was making to Dillogic was that there were grounds for a trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Dec 2021, 11:01 pm

Pepe wrote:

cyberdad wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

Shouldn't have gone to trial IMO because of the exonerating footage,.

In hindsight, with all the facts available, it *was* a klear case of self-defence.
Justice prevailed.

Yay! which is all great. But it still needed to go to trial.

Page 55 of 60 [ 954 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 ... 60 Next

Jump to:

Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial Post Reply New Topic

Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial