Rittenhouse Volume 2

[MuggsyB]

He's innocent, legally.

He's guilty, morally.

Bigger conversation should be how/why we've reached the point culturally/as a society that this happened at all. Sad.

Well, that's an important conversation and it starts with full transparency.  You can lump in all the scumbags that rioted during the course of the summer of 2020 in this discussion.  They are guilty morally as well.  As are various people threatening to burn down cities and calling for bloodshed.  As are the aholes on Jan 6th.  As is the media for intentionally creating narratives to divide our society from all sides of the political spectrum.  People have had enough of this garbage and the politicization of every freaking situation that can be used to foster division. 

[Uncle Rico]

This is the good stuff.

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

This case was never not going to trial (intentional double negative) and if you can't understand why you are not familiar with the criminal justice system.

He will likely be found NG on the most serious charges. Anyone applauding his actions that night needs to re-examine their perspective on the value of life.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Let's not forget that FD Joe and Worst Governor Evers opined immediately as judge, jury, and executioner, hey?

How has your brain gotten so mushy?  I mean, these aren't even clever nicknames.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Well, that's an important conversation and it starts with full transparency.  You can lump in all the scumbags that rioted during the course of the summer of 2020 in this discussion.  They are guilty morally as well.  As are various people threatening to burn down cities and calling for bloodshed.  As are the aholes on Jan 6th.  As is the media for intentionally creating narratives to divide our society from all sides of the political spectrum.  People have had enough of this garbage and the politicization of every freaking situation that can be used to foster division. 

Are you incapable of having a discussion about the defendant without resorting to "yeah but whatabout...?"

[rocky_warrior]

Are you saying there has been concrete evidence in this trial that this kid should be charged with 1st degree murder? 

Nope.

This case was never not going to trial (intentional double negative) and if you can't understand why you are not familiar with the criminal justice system. 

Yup, that's basically what I was saying.  It had become an echo chamber in this tread the past few pages.

[4everwarriors]

How has your brain gotten so mushy?  I mean, these aren't even clever nicknames.

Old, white, dentist syndrome. I blame 34, hey?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Old, white, dentist syndrome. I blame 34, hey?

What does Eisenhower have to do with it.

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

There doesn't need to be concrete evidence to charge someone with a crime. There needs to be evidence. There is a sufficient amount here to warrant charging him. If not, the judge would have granted a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the prosecution.

[real chili 83]

This thread has not disappointed.

ND sucks.

[MuggsyB]

Are you incapable of having a discussion about the defendant without resorting to "yeah but whatabout...?"

Fluffy, I think you're projecting your disappointment in the facts of this case onto me.  I responded to a statement within the thread  that was perhaps tangential in your opinion.  People do this constantly in all threads btw which is fine.  You can scream "whataboutisn" until you're blue in the face but it generally reads as attacking the messenger.  I'm thick skinned so it doesn't bother me but I think it's a weak and ineffective rebuttal. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Fluffy, I think you're projecting your disappointment in the facts of this case onto me.  I responded to a statement within the thread  that was perhaps tangential in your opinion.  People do this constantly in all threads btw which is fine.  You can scream "whataboutisn" until you're blue in the face but it generally reads as attacking the messenger.  I'm thick skinned so it doesn't bother me but I think it's a weak and ineffective rebuttal. 

What "disappointment in the facts of this case" have I expressed?  I have stated that it seems as though his self-defense is legally justified, but his actions were morally questionable.  It sounds like you are making assumptions instead of reading what I actually wrote.  Very weak.

And I am "attacking the messenger" in the sense that "whataboutism" is generally deployed when one's initial statements are easily swatted away.  You want to change the scope or direction of the topic instead of actually addressing how poor your point was.  Also very weak.

Honestly you admit you aren't following this case much, yet still come here making inaccurate statements, changing topics, etc.  And you wonder why you are called out for it?  LOL.  Ok bud...

[MuggsyB]

What "disappointment in the facts of this case" have I expressed?  I have stated that it seems as though his self-defense is legally justified, but his actions were morally questionable.  It sounds like you are making assumptions instead of reading what I actually wrote.  Very weak.

And I am "attacking the messenger" in the sense that "whataboutism" is generally deployed when one's initial statements are easily swatted away.  You want to change the scope or direction of the topic instead of actually addressing how poor your point was.  Also very weak.

Honestly you admit you aren't following this case much, yet still come here making inaccurate statements, changing topics, etc.  And you wonder why you are called out for it?  LOL.  Ok bud...

Fluffy, the fact is other cases and situations ARE pertinent to this case if you want to have a comprehensive discussion or not.  I wasn't following it much at all until the media became ridiculously obsessed with Rittenhouse as opposed to say the Aubery case.  Whether you are a left,  right, liberatatlrian, or center we should be asking ourselves why Rittenhouse and not Aubery?

Now, I have a theory but I will keep it to myself because I don't want to upset you but think about it Fluffy?  Does this not remind you of what happened in Ferguson with Michael Brown as opposed to Walter Scott in South Carolina?   This is important with regards to this discussion, it's not "whataboutism".  And while I commend you for actually looking at facts in this case, and perhaps I unfairly misrepresented your views, the same cannot be said for much of the general public and major media outlets.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Fluffy, the fact is other cases and situations ARE pertinent to this case if you want to have a comprehensive discussion or not.  I wasn't following it much at all until the media became ridiculously obsessed with Rittenhouse as opposed to say the Aubery case.  Whether you are a left,  right, liberatatlrian, or center we should be asking ourselves why Rittenhouse and not Aubery?

Now, I have a theory but I will keep it to myself because I don't want to upset you but think about it Fluffy?  Does this not remind you of what happened in Ferguson with Michael Brown as opposed to Walter Scott in South Carolina?   This is important with regards to this discussion, it's not "whataboutism".  And while I commend you for actually looking at facts in this case, and perhaps I unfairly misrepresented your views, the same cannot be said for much of the general public and major media outlets.

So your counter to those who point out the inadequacies of your statements about the Rittenhouse case is to not only bring up those who rioted in Kenosha in 2020, but also a bunch of other cases, all of which have their unique facts that aren't terribly relevant to the Rittenhouse case.

Taking whataboutism to a new level.  Stick to the topic at hand if you can.

And believe me, nothing you can say about this is going to "upset" me because you are so over the place with your statements and questions, that at this point it just words with no context.

[MuggsyB]

So your counter to those who point out the inadequacies of your statements about the Rittenhouse case is to not only bring up those who rioted in Kenosha in 2020, but also a bunch of other cases, all of which have their unique facts that aren't terribly relevant to the Rittenhouse case.

Taking whataboutism to a new level.  Stick to the topic at hand if you can.

And believe me, nothing you can say about this is going to "upset" me because you are so over the place with your statements and questions, that at this point it just words with no context.

You don't attack anyone but me Fluff when a thread (in your mind) goes off topic.  It's no biggie but I'm just responding to various points of view.  And I disagree that the media coverage and overall obsession with Rittenhouse, which leads to a more comprehensive discussion, is off topic.

[Hards Alumni]

Fluffy, the fact is other cases and situations ARE pertinent to this case if you want to have a comprehensive discussion or not.  I wasn't following it much at all until the media became ridiculously obsessed with Rittenhouse as opposed to say the Aubery case.  Whether you are a left,  right, liberatatlrian, or center we should be asking ourselves why Rittenhouse and not Aubery?

Now, I have a theory but I will keep it to myself because I don't want to upset you but think about it Fluffy?  Does this not remind you of what happened in Ferguson with Michael Brown as opposed to Walter Scott in South Carolina?   This is important with regards to this discussion, it's not "whataboutism".  And while I commend you for actually looking at facts in this case, and perhaps I unfairly misrepresented your views, the same cannot be said for much of the general public and major media outlets.

Oh Jesus Christ.

[JWags85]

He's innocent, legally.

He's guilty, morally.

Bigger conversation should be how/why we've reached the point culturally/as a society that this happened at all. Sad.

I don't disagree, but one could argue that riots and violence well beyond the cause/catalyst related to them have been going on for far longer than just recent history and current climate.  Its just a different digital age.

But its still incredible concerning, even if its been going on for 10/20/50 years.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

He's innocent, legally.

He's guilty, morally.

Bigger conversation should be how/why we've reached the point culturally/as a society that this happened at all. Sad.

   So it is immoral to shoot someone who is trying to do you bodily harm?
   asking for a friend.

[Pakuni]

   So it is immoral to shoot someone who is trying to do you bodily harm?
   asking for a friend.

Maybe.
Perhaps legally as well.

[StillAWarrior]

The judge dismissed the gun charge. I had read an article/column or two last week suggesting that this was a possibility. The statute was poorly written with a section that appears to limit it to cut-off guns (i.e., 948.60(c)(3)). Personally, I think the "spirit" of the statute would absolutely include regular length rifles and shotguns, but the text definitely can be interpreted to not include those. Crazy since brass knuckles or nunchucks are clearly a violation of the statute, but arguably not a rifle.

I also heard that the Judge is planning to instruct the jury that they may consider whether Rittenhouse provoked one of the victims (Huber) and also consider lesser charges in that one. At least one report that I read suggested that this instruction breathes some life into the prosecutor's case that seemed hopeless before.

[#UnleashSean]

The judge dismissed the gun charge. I had read an article/column or two last week suggesting that this was a possibility. The statute was poorly written with a section that appears to limit it to cut-off guns (i.e., 948.60(c)(3)). Personally, I think the "spirit" of the statute would absolutely include regular length rifles and shotguns, but the text definitely can be interpreted to not include those. Crazy since brass knuckles or nunchucks are clearly a violation of the statute, but arguably not a rifle.

I also heard that the Judge is planning to instruct the jury that they may consider whether Rittenhouse provoked one of the victims (Huber) and also consider lesser charges in that one. At least one report that I read suggested that this instruction breathes some life into the prosecutor's case that seemed hopeless before.

Read the same article. Seems to be a loophole that would allow children to use hunting rifles. Definitely against the spirit of the law.

[jficke13]

It's times like these I have to remind myself that most people don't do statutory analysis on the regular.

So... there's this thing about state legislatures. They write statutes... right? Just, uh... look at a state legislature and the typical legislator when you have a moment. Doing that will put a reaction of "that's not a very well-worded statute" into perspective.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It's times like these I have to remind myself that most people don't do statutory analysis on the regular.

So... there's this thing about state legislatures. They write statutes... right? Just, uh... look at a state legislature and the typical legislator when you have a moment. Doing that will put a reaction of "that's not a very well-worded statute" into perspective.

To be honest, they likely cobble together statues copied from other states, special interest groups, etc. and pass it off as their own.

[jficke13]

To be honest, they likely cobble together statues copied from other states, special interest groups, etc. and pass it off as their own.

If they're lucky. People love to gripe about ALEC writing legislation, but that actually tends (not always, but tends) to put into effect the thing it's actually designed to do. More often you get this:

"We *tried* to ban dangerous weapons in the hands of minors, but we also know that hunting is okay, so we *tried* to create a carveout that would allow minors to still hunt, but we just weren't very specific and so read in its totality this kinda sorta excludes long guns from the statute. Who coulda seen it coming? Classic whoospiedoops."

[lawdog77]

To be honest, they likely cobble together statues copied from other states, special interest groups, etc. and pass it off as their own.

Kind of like this?