[Rancid]

A decent summary from a lawyer

One interesting thing I got out of this is that in an alternate universe, say Kyle was killed. Odds are, his killer (say the guy that pointed a gun at him) would also be able to claim self-defense. In other words, self-defense laws often create a situation where everyone involved can claim self-defense. Basically, the last man standing wins and can get away with it. A pitfall when vigilantism and self-defense laws intersect.

[ckaihatsu]

A decent summary from a lawyer

IR-hhat34LI

One interesting thing I got out of this is that in an alternate universe, say Kyle was killed. Odds are, his killer (say the guy that pointed a gun at him) would also be able to claim self-defense. In other words, self-defense laws often create a situation where the last man standing wins and can get away with it.

Purge Day.

Called it.


= D

[ckaihatsu]

Is this the part where I say 'You're welcome' -- ?


x D

[ckaihatsu]

For now, it does not appear that Brooks knew anyone in the crowd or had any planned intention to drive through the parade. Nor does it appear that the incident was connected to the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, which saw the fascist gunman acquitted on all charges last week.

The events Sunday evening in Waukesha are horrific but by no means unique. Such tragedies are becoming an increasingly normalized part of life in the US. On average, three people are killed by police violence everyday.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/1 ... c-n23.html

[Unthinking Majority]

I just found out Rittenhouse lives right on the state line in Antioch, IL, which is about a 10-min drive (7-8 miles) from Kenosha, where he worked as a lifeguard and where his dad resides and he has friends. It's literally the next town to the east of Antioch. The media sure is full of lies.

[ingliz]

@Unthinking Majority

The law recognises state lines; you are either on one side or t'other.

He was on the other, according to cartographers.

[SpecialOlympian]

I just found out Rittenhouse lives right on the state line in Antioch, IL, which is about a 10-min drive (7-8 miles) from Kenosha, where he worked as a lifeguard and where his dad resides and he has friends. It's literally the next town to the east of Antioch. The media sure is full of lies.

State lines are state lines and I knew this weeks ago because I bothered to do the scantest bit of research into the case. But here's one thing the media isn't lying about: he's a murderer.

[JohnRawls]

State lines are state lines and I knew this weeks ago because I bothered to do the scantest bit of research into the case. But here's one thing the media isn't lying about: he's a murderer.

No he is not. The court decides that and the court said no.

[SpecialOlympian]

Oh so the courts magically ruled that he didn't kill anyone?

[MadMonk]

Oh so the courts magically ruled that he didn't kill anyone?

Technically the court ruled that he was justified in killing people in this instance. Please don't shoot the messenger!

The judges decisions to exclude evidence that would point to premeditation (his association with far-right groups and militias, his stated desire of shooting shoplifters) is what was needed to give it a larger context. Examining only what happened in Kenosha can fall under reasonable doubt.

[JohnRawls]

Oh so the courts magically ruled that he didn't kill anyone?

A murderer is somebody who commits murder. Self-defence invalidate that. The legal term what you are looking for is justifiable homicide or non-criminal homicide. So Kyle Rittenhouse committed justifiable homicide. And that is exactly what the court ruled.

[Drlee]

Oh so the courts magically ruled that he didn't kill anyone?

He definitely did kill them. The courts did not rule that he was innocent. They said he was not guilty of the charges they filed. There is a world of difference.

One thing I am surprised about though and this is playing right into the hands of right wingers. Why is Rittenhouse the focus of our rage? Why are we not ravening for changes in the law that allows his behavior up to the moment of the killings in the first place.

Lost in all of this is:

Possession of an assault rifle.

By a minor.

Allowed to carry a firearm at a demonstration.

Allowed to walk down the street with a loaded assault rifle at all.

The idea that some total stranger could take upon himself the protection of property that is not his. At the point of a gun.

Games that teach kids that shooting more people is worth more points.

Websites that incite children to even want to do what he did. Cop porn.

The lack of even pointing out that the US is just about the only country in the world where this could happen in the first place. That is taking American exceptionalism to an absurd point it seems to me.

That some of our media is for Rittenhouse and some against but none simply reporting the facts without punditry.

That the feds have not moved on this.

That the best remedy seems to be a civil action which will bring the police, Rittenhouse and his mother to some kind of justice.

And finally.

That this boy is all over TV telling his tearful story and that gun advocates and right wingers have given him over two million dollars so far. I imagine the book deal with be at least a couple of a million more. And the movie rights? This kid does not need counseling. He needs a manager and accountant. In a couple of years, absent a wrongful death award, he will be on the beach in the South of France with a handful of some very tantalizing blond's right breast.

[JohnRawls]

He definitely did kill them. The courts did not rule that he was innocent. They said he was not guilty of the charges they filed. There is a world of difference.

One thing I am surprised about though and this is playing right into the hands of right wingers. Why is Rittenhouse the focus of our rage? Why are we not ravening for changes in the law that allows his behavior up to the moment of the killings in the first place.

Lost in all of this is:

Possession of an assault rifle.

By a minor.

Allowed to carry a firearm at a demonstration.

Allowed to walk down the street with a loaded assault rifle at all.

The idea that some total stranger could take upon himself the protection of property that is not his. At the point of a gun.

Games that teach kids that shooting more people is worth more points.

Websites that incite children to even want to do what he did. Cop porn.

The lack of even pointing out that the US is just about the only country in the world where this could happen in the first place. That is taking American exceptionalism to an absurd point it seems to me.

That some of our media is for Rittenhouse and some against but none simply reporting the facts without punditry.

That the feds have not moved on this.

That the best remedy seems to be a civil action which will bring the police, Rittenhouse and his mother to some kind of justice.

And finally.

That this boy is all over TV telling his tearful story and that gun advocates and right wingers have given him over two million dollars so far. I imagine the book deal with be at least a couple of a million more. And the movie rights? This kid does not need counseling. He needs a manager and accountant. In a couple of years, absent a wrongful death award, he will be on the beach in the South of France with a handful of some very tantalizing blond's right breast.

Pretty much. Change the laws and stop complaining about the ruling if you want to have any lasting effect. The judge did what he was prescribed by the laws and precedents. Judge did nothing wrong here. It is literally his job and the courts job to uphold the laws.

[Rancid]

No he is not. The court decides that and the court said no.

Ignoring this particular case. In general, that's not true. This is the reason you are found "not guilty" instead of being found "innocent" when you go to court. The implication of being found "not guilty" say's that the jury could not call you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, you could still actually be guilty, but the circumstances simply make it hard to be sure of that.

This is exactly how it is taught in American civics courses that you take in middle school. Seriously, anyone that has gone to school in the US and paid attention, would know this.

In short, yes, you can still be a murderer and be found not guilty at the same time. Happens all the time.

Going back to OJ. Him being found not guilty, does not mean he's not a murderer. Even in the eyes of the law. It just means there wasn't enough there to be sure of it and therefore should not be punished.

[JohnRawls]

Ignoring this particular case. In general, that's not true. This is the reason you are found "not guilty" instead of being found "innocent" when you go to court. The implication of being found "not guilty" say's that the jury could not call you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, you could still actually be guilty, but the circumstances simply make it hard to be sure of that.

This is exactly how it is taught in American civics courses that you take in middle school. Seriously, anyone that has gone to school in the US and paid attention, would know this.

In short, yes, you can still be a murderer and be found not guilty at the same time. Happens all the time.

Going back to OJ. Him being found not guilty, does not mean he's not a murderer. Even in the eyes of the law. It just means there wasn't enough there to be sure of it and therefore should not be punished.

Wasn't the ruling that due to self-defence he was not guilty. There are clear legal concepts regarding this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

[Rancid]

Wasn't the ruling that due to self-defence he was not guilty. There are clear legal concepts regarding this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

Sure, still, "not guilty" is an intentional phrase used within the justice system. We don't prove innocence, we just prove guilt, and if we can't prove it, it does not necessarily mean you are innocent of crime.

Hence the idea what we are "innocent" until proven guilty. We just assume innocence, that doesn't mean you actually are.

It's a concept that probably doesn't matter to any individual case, but it sets up a certain set of ideas and principles for how a justice system should operate.

[ckaihatsu]

Rittenhouse was *officially* not-guilty, but everyone knows that Kyle did dirty-work service for Kenosha that the cops could not themselves do *professionally* / officially, and so Rittenhouse was of-course let off from any liability, and also rewarded by the private sector.

Prosecutors had a very high bar to overcome Rittenhouse's self-defense claim

In Wisconsin, once a defendant has made a self-defense claim, prosecutors must then disprove it "beyond a reasonable doubt," experts explained.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/10574223 ... -to-acquit

---

The vigilantes claimed that Arbery was a “burglary suspect” and that they had shot him in “self-defense” while attempting to carry out a “citizen’s arrest.” Notwithstanding these claims of self-defense, Arbery’s killers currently face multiple charges, including murder and aggravated assault.

In the same way, if anyone had a right to self-defense in the Rittenhouse case, it was protesters who collectively confronted a far-right youth illegally carrying and brandishing an assault rifle and pointing it at them. Simply by carrying the rifle to the protest as an associate of a far-right militia, Rittenhouse’s conduct constituted an implicit death threat and a reckless and extreme provocation. Having recklessly provoked a violent confrontation, Rittenhouse cannot legally claim to have acted in self-defense in the confrontation that he provoked.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/1 ... t-n13.html

[SpecialOlympian]

At least those shitheads in the Arbery case are all going away.

[ckaihatsu]

At least those shitheads in the Arbery case are all going away.

Not soon enough.

[ckaihatsu]

He needs a manager and accountant.

They're going to *clone* him to fill the barracks -- (!)


= /