Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 381: Attack On Rittenhouse

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean come on, the law has nothing to do with it. It's still fucked up you can legally put yourself in a contrived situation and get away with murder. That's why any verdict here would feel totally meaningless.

---

I mean if anything the complaining should go to Rosenbaum. The dude left a hospital and went to riot. Not protest, he doesn't give a damn about the protests. He just wanted to fuck shit up and attacked what he thought was an easy mark.

---

This does not appear to be similar to the George Zimmerman case.

---

I mean in fairness all complaints are being redirected to the graveyard since the dude paid THE ULTIMATE PRICE for his actions that night already.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I mean if someone threatens to murder you if they get you alone and then they get you alone and are aggressive...!

If the context that leads to this situation is me taking a rifle and open carrying it through a neighborhood that is experiencing violent civil unrest until this situation arises? Yes I stand by my take.

I know the law currently does not care which is why the result was objectively the correct one given the circumstances as they exist. But for me personally context matters.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

If the context that leads to this situation is me taking a rifle and open carrying it through a neighborhood that is experiencing violent civil unrest until this situation arises? Yes I stand by my take.

I know the law currently does not care which is why the result was objectively the correct one given the circumstances as they exist. But for me personally context matters.

Look, here's the thing. I don't like Rittenhouse as a person. But if you can one or two things and instead of a white kid he was a black kid and he was there protecting a business and someone threatened to kill him and he shot the same white person I'd want that kid to walk too based off the law.

There may be some laws you can draft so what he did is not completely legal. I can entertain that, and fair enough, but a lot of people are missing the mark that we would have to wildly re-arrange how laws work and in a very bad way to this kid to be guilty of anything serious.

I am going to try to avoid a lot of news on this though, as I am sure the right wing grift machine is going to have a fucking field day with this.

---

Kinglicious posted...

I mean if anything the complaining should go to Rosenbaum. The dude left a hospital and went to riot. Not protest, he doesn't give a damn about the protests. He just wanted to fuck shit up and attacked what he thought was an easy mark.

Maybe a hot take but I think shooting people to prevent riots is itself a bad outcome so nah

---

That is the objectively correct result based upon the system and laws as they currently exist.

This also continues to be true:

It's nice to know that if you want to kill people you can still just illegally put yourself in bad positions until the opportunity arises.

Well, unfortunately, this isn't something that can be changed by laws necessarily. It is currently illegal, as far as I know, to cause a death through acting recklessly. The problem is that the definition of "reckless" in a jury trial can only be defined by what society considers reckless. As sad as it is, we as a country, have determined that the actions taken by Rittenhouse and Zimmerman (on which I agree with others, that it is more egregious) are reasonable responses and not at all reckless. It is the symptom of a sick, violent, angry, fearful society.

---

I used to work in criminal defense.
I've been lurking in here.

This verdict is a fucking joke, and not only should the prosecutor be disbarred, but the judge should have his head examined (or possibly be audited, because what the fuck. What. The fuck.

Mistrial without prejudice was probably the correct call, and they fucking did this.

Having any empathy at all hurts nowadays.

---

Literally not a single person on my timeline talking about anything other than "the judge being corrupt" and how he and the defense were in cahootz.

I'm so happy for this play by play because I would be completely in the dark about the reality of this trial otherwise. Absolutely NOBODY talking about the horrible prosecution, no dissent on the corruption narrative at all.

---

Isquen posted...

I used to work in criminal defense.
I've been lurking in here.

This verdict is a fucking joke, and not only should the prosecutor be disbarred, but the judge should have his head examined (or possibly be audited, because what the fuck. What. The fuck.

Mistrial without prejudice was probably the correct call, and they fucking did this.

Having any empathy at all hurts nowadays.

I don't think the prosecution should be able to decide they are losing, and then commit misconduct to trigger a mistrial without prejudice. From what I've been gathering from this topic, the judge could wait for a verdict and then grant the motion for mistrial if it was a guilty verdict (since it would be based on prosecution misconduct).

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Literally not a single person on my timeline talking about anything other than "the judge being corrupt" and how he and the defense were in cahootz.

I'm so happy for this play by play because I would be completely in the dark about the reality of this trial otherwise. Absolutely NOBODY talking about the horrible prosecution, no dissent on the corruption narrative at all.

Sadly I'm not surprised. Glad people here at least got my take of things to understand a little better.

And if anyone doesn't believe any of it, you can always go back and watch it for yourself. I don't think I made any unreasonable assertions about what happened in the court room in this topic.

---

I wonder how many lives the people attacking this proto-mass shooter saved.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

I wonder how many lives the people attacking this proto-mass shooter saved.

Based on the case, negative 2.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I don't think the prosecution should be able to decide they are losing, and then commit misconduct to trigger a mistrial without prejudice. From what I've been gathering from this topic, the judge could wait for a verdict and then grant the motion for mistrial if it was a guilty verdict (since it would be based on prosecution misconduct).

This is also true. I think the Judge would have to grant the mistrial if he was found guilty on any accounts. I don't think any of the Prosecution's conduct was to purposefully trigger a mistrial though.

Binger and Kraus are VERY lucky at this point that they don't have to get on the stand and answer many questions about their investigation and acquisition of evidence.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Maybe a hot take but I think shooting people to prevent riots is itself a bad outcome so nah

He shot to protect himself from a guy who was chasing him, trying to take his gun, and threatened to kill him.

Like yeah that's a complaint to the grave but the issue there then becomes why Rosenbaum wanted to just literally burn shit to the ground and why he had no outlet. Technically that can be solved by saying kid diddlers deserve more punishment too I guess but hey, all 4 people who attacked Kyle have violent felonies on them so uh... Just one at a time.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Look, here's the thing. I don't like Rittenhouse as a person. But if you can one or two things and instead of a white kid he was a black kid and he was there protecting a business and someone threatened to kill him and he shot the same white person I'd want that kid to walk too based off the law.

There may be some laws you can draft so what he did is not completely legal. I can entertain that, and fair enough, but a lot of people are missing the mark that we would have to wildly re-arrange how laws work and in a very bad way to this kid to be guilty of anything serious.

I am going to try to avoid a lot of news on this though, as I am sure the right wing grift machine is going to have a fucking field day with this.

Again, based upon the current laws I absolutely agree with the verdict. There could be no other verdict based upon the situation as it unfolded.

But someone crossing state lines to play Rambo for the purpose of protecting a used car dealership is a large part of what caused this specific situation to unfold.

I feel perfectly justified in agreeing that the law was followed while personally believing that there should be laws changed to prevent this kind of overt vigilantism from happening with such impunity.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Based on the case, negative 2.

Plus it would probably not have the kind of narrative it's getting if it had just been Rosenbaum that died.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Again, based upon the current laws I absolutely agree with the verdict. There could be no other verdict based upon the situation as it unfolded.

But someone crossing state lines to play Rambo for the purpose of protecting a used car dealership is a large part of what caused this specific situation to unfold.

I feel perfectly justified in agreeing that the law was followed while personally believing that there should be laws changed to prevent this kind of overt vigilantism from happening with such impunity.

Honestly? Kid may have talked shit but his actions didn't back up anything rambo-like, man. He shot two people who were a threat to him. That's not rambo.

What law would you craft?

---

There should be a law preventing me from driving to Detroit and patrolling the worst neighborhoods while carrying a rifle until someone tries to kill me resulting in me being allowed to kill them.

Because apparently I could just go do that if I wanted and as often as I wanted until I ended up the one dead in the exchange.

Edit: And I'm not saying shooting someone was the point of his visit (although even if it were you could never prove intent so it's still legal), but the upside is that an already damaged used car dealership is protected and the tradeoff is putting yourself in a position with a rifle that you could reasonably expect to be forced to use.

---

:)

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Literally not a single person on my timeline talking about anything other than "the judge being corrupt" and how he and the defense were in cahootz.

I'm so happy for this play by play because I would be completely in the dark about the reality of this trial otherwise. Absolutely NOBODY talking about the horrible prosecution, no dissent on the corruption narrative at all.

Yeah I feel like I would have been expecting a Guilty verdict myself if I hadnt been following this topic.
Dont really care for what happens to Rittenhouse after this, I just hope the defense, jury and judges will make it out alright.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

There should be a law preventing me from driving to Detroit and patrolling the worst neighborhoods while carrying a rifle until someone tries to kill me resulting in me being allowed to kill them.

Because apparently I could just go do that if I wanted and as often as I wanted until I ended up the one dead in the exchange.

Well, I can agree with that but then you'd have to define what are the 'worst' neighborhoods are and also you'd have to repeal the second amendment probably which I am all for but <_<

---

Yeah I'm not getting where rambo comes from.

He only fired after being attacked, each time. Before that he was literally putting out fires and asking it anyone needed a medic. There's literally zero evidence showing or implying that he wanted to use the gun and all of it said he only used it as a last option. That's not being a vigilante, that's having something to protect yourself.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...
Look, here's the thing. I don't like Rittenhouse as a person. But if you can one or two things and instead of a white kid he was a black kid and he was there protecting a business and someone threatened to kill him and he shot the same white person I'd want that kid to walk too based off the law.

Ok I believe you work in the legal system so I get where you're coming from but this is a truly weird take to me, a normie.

First of all I have no faith this precedent will be applied equally, so let's get that out of the way. This is a matter of faith in the legal system and there's not really anything to be discussed here but it's an important disclaimer.

Second of all of you just swap the race and nothing else it would still be fuck this kid. The fucked up part isn't anyone's race, it's that an alt-right militia mobilized for an opportunity to shoot people protesting a cop shooting and advocating for racial justice. If you're changing more of the context you maybe have more of an argument, but then you are changing the situation significantly. Context matters, but morality is subjective.

The law is supposed to be objective and applied equally, and can only consider context to a certain extent. I understand why it has to be this way. But that inherently divorces it from subjective morality, and then you add in the fact that laws aren't actually objective and are subject to interpretation constantly, and thus aren't applied equally, and well. Maybe you can see why I think this doesn't matter. I think this is a problem inherently unsolvable by the legal system.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Well, I can agree with that but then you'd have to define what are the 'worst' neighborhoods are and also you'd have to repeal the second amendment probably which I am all for but <_<

For the sake of this argument "Worst" = neighborhoods with the highest incident per capita of gun and/or gang violence.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

There should be a law preventing me from driving to Detroit and patrolling the worst neighborhoods while carrying a rifle until someone tries to kill me resulting in me being allowed to kill them.

Because apparently I could just go do that if I wanted and as often as I wanted until I ended up the one dead in the exchange.

This is basically the plot of the movie Death Wish (The Charles Bronson version, not the Bruce Willis version)

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

There should be a law preventing me from driving to Detroit and patrolling the worst neighborhoods while carrying a rifle until someone tries to kill me resulting in me being allowed to kill them.

Because apparently I could just go do that if I wanted and as often as I wanted until I ended up the one dead in the exchange.

I think you assuming he was waiting around for someone to kill him so he could shoot people is extremely wrong. His actions that night do not show he was looking for trouble or anything or to use his gun at all. If he wanted to instigate anything, he had many, many, many times he could have escalated the situation. His actions align with him using the gun as a deterrent in a very dangerous place where everyone was armed, after he was invited to watch over that car lot. He didn't cross state lines or any of that nonsense.

Yes, he shouldn't have been there at the protests and riots that night, but nobody should have been. And nobody should have been there trying to kill anyone either. Rosenbaum did want to kill someone. The other people there were using force that could have crippled Rittenhouse. And Grosskreutz fakes a surrender to try shooting him while he was on the ground.

The only thing I would change with the laws are any open carry gun laws. I wouldn't want anyone else to be in this sort of situation and go to jail for defending themselves like this.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Ok I believe you work in the legal system so I get where you're coming from but this is a truly weird take to me, a normie.

First of all I have no faith this precedent will be applied equally, so let's get that out of the way. This is a matter of faith in the legal system and there's not really anything to be discussed here but it's an important disclaimer.

Second of all of you just swap the race and nothing else it would still be fuck this kid. The fucked up part isn't anyone's race, it's that an alt-right militia mobilized for an opportunity to shoot people protesting a cop shooting and advocating for racial justice. If you're changing more of the context you maybe have more of an argument, but then you are changing the situation significantly. Context matters, but morality is subjective.

The law is supposed to be objective and applied equally, and can only consider context to a certain extent. I understand why it has to be this way. But that inherently divorces it from subjective morality, and then you add in the fact that laws aren't actually objective and are subject to interpretation constantly, and thus aren't applied equally, and well. Maybe you can see why I think this doesn't matter. I think this a problem inherently unsolvable by the legal system.

I do not work in the legal system however it is a recreational activity for me. The law has always interested me! You may have confused me with Biscuit since him and I have been discussing this in similar tones for awhile now.

The legal system is rigged and bad, you are correct. Secondly I don't feel like the events that night back up what you are saying. I have stated multiple times I think Rittenhouse is fairly shitty, but also judging him based off the actions of that night it seems to me like he was all talk about being that gun blazing type of guy. He says a lot of shit, a lot of really bad shit, but that night he acted from my point of view based on the evidence... about as properly as I would expect someone to behave themselves. He said some shit, but the way he carried himself... frankly he showed more restraint than a lot of cops I've seen shoot people. Yes, that's not a defense of Rittenhouse but just so we're clear.

The thing about subjective morality is often times the people who have been in charge of this country have been heinous. This is a case where the correct verdict was reached, and I'd be interested in seeing the past cases by this DA brought up because he did a lot of shady shit.

The problem, which you malign correctly, is that justice is often not served as it was today.

My broader political opinion on this is I don't want 'the left' to fall victim to what the right does - which is bullshit. The right is pure bullshit in our country. I want us to be outraged that the kid went there, and hammer people who prop him up... but also realize this is the law. I am comfortable meeting on the grounds of 'should it be this way' or 'outcomes aren't equal.'

But so many people acting as if, by the law, this was horrific... leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

---

also off topic but AOC saying "I did" when McCarthy said no one voted for Biden so he could be FDR.

I love AOC so, so fucking much.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

He didn't cross state lines or any of that nonsense.

Illinois and Wisconsin are two different states.

I'm fairly certain of this.

And fine, change my hypothetical situation to "I know someone in Detroit who invited me to patrol their neighborhood with a rifle".

---

I mean what you are saying would likely take major gun reform.

Which I am down for, but also is not likely to happen any time soon.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I mean what you are saying would likely take major gun reform.

Good?

I'm not sure what part of my position you feel the need to object to. I've said from the off that the correct verdict was reached and that it's the fact that these situations can be legal that I have a problem with.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Illinois and Wisconsin are two different states.

I'm fairly certain of this.

And fine, change my hypothetical situation to "I know someone in Detroit who invited me to patrol their neighborhood with a rifle".

Dude he was there that morning doing his job. And then he hung out with his best friend who lives there. And then he stayed and was there that night because a pair of morons asked him to watch over their car lot.

And who even cares if he crossed borders? What difference does that make? You can spit on where he lives from Kenosha. I used to live in Wheeling, West Virginia where I was a 2 minute drive from Ohio and 12 minutes away from Pennsylvania. And I had friends in both states. Would you make a big deal of me crossing state lines if I drove 2 minutes to Ohio?

---

I don't know why you believe that was an objection?

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I mean if someone threatens to murder you if they get you alone and then they get you alone and are aggressive...!

I registered this response to my original post as a form of objection. Perhaps I was mistaken.

---

I am always for gun laws in general.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

And who even cares if he crossed borders? What difference does that make?

I mean, regardless of it affects the severity of the context he did cross state borders so your response of "he didn't cross state lines" was incorrect.

---

He didn't cross state lines just to be there that night. He crossed state lines to go to his job and hang out with his friend.

---

mmm pedantry, always the sign you're losing an argument

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Dude he was there that morning doing his job. And then he hung out with his best friend who lives there. And then he stayed and was there that night because a pair of morons asked him to watch over their car lot.

And who even cares if he crossed borders? What difference does that make? You can spit on where he lives from Kenosha. I used to live in Wheeling, West Virginia where I was a 2 minute drive from Ohio and 12 minutes away from Pennsylvania. And I had friends in both states. Would you make a big deal of me crossing state lines if I drove 2 minutes to Ohio?

For the record, the pair of morons testified that they did not ask him to guard their car lot, and the only evidence to the contrary if that is Rittenhouse texting one of them asking if they needed him and them not answering.


---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Look, here's the thing. I don't like Rittenhouse as a person. But if you can one or two things and instead of a white kid he was a black kid and he was there protecting a business and someone threatened to kill him and he shot the same white person I'd want that kid to walk too based off the law.

I think its clear that if Rittenhouse was black he would be found guilty, and thats where some chunk of the outrage stems from

But the solution is not two wrongs to make a right


---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Literally not a single person on my timeline talking about anything other than "the judge being corrupt" and how he and the defense were in cahootz.

I'm so happy for this play by play because I would be completely in the dark about the reality of this trial otherwise. Absolutely NOBODY talking about the horrible prosecution, no dissent on the corruption narrative at all.

I mean, tbh Biscuit's write-ups have changed my opinion on this trial but I still absolutely feel like the judge is corrupt (if obviously less than the prosecution). That and the actual verdict are separate issues.

---

Not sure biscuit is being clear but basically anytime it's mentioned that he crossed state lines it comes in two ways: that he had a gun and crossed state lines or with the implication that it's a foreign location.

The former has been repeated a lot. Shit, de Blasio did it after the verdict in a tweet. https://mobile.twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1461761720939167745

And it's factually wrong.
The second is what got biscuit reacting. State lines don't mean anything if it's baby, you're a local in it, and it's where you have family. "He went to his dad's home city," to where he works," "to a city 30m away" all carry different from "he crossed state lines," which devolved from the fake gun accusations.

---

Kenri posted...

I mean, tbh Biscuit's write-ups have changed my opinion on this trial but I still absolutely feel like the judge is corrupt (if obviously less than the prosecution). That and the actual verdict are separate issues.

What makes you think that? What has he done that you feel is corrupt?

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

He didn't cross state lines just to be there that night. He crossed state lines to go to his job and hang out with his friend.

Fine he illegally crossed state lines the day before to drive to work without a driver's license. You win.

How does this affect my assertion that he was putting himself in an unnecessary position where he could reasonably expect to be forced to use "his" firearm that his friend purchased for him because he wasn't old enough to own yet?

---