Cross referencing some of the people who find Rittenhouse to be the hero are also the same folks who find ways to excuse police killing unarmed citizens. As long as the "right people" are being killed then their assailants are going to have their praises sung by sociopaths.
“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X
I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)
If he acted recklessly and put himself in that position, lying about wanting to act as an EMT and instead being there purposefully to intimidate people, then he has no claim to self defense EVEN IF Rosenbaum was running at him. The decisions that Rittenhouse made that put him on that street made him an instigator. He wasn't just a random bystander. He went there to make a statement, to intimidate, and if his intent really was to shoot people who might have been committing property crime then he is absolutely not entitled to a self defense claim. Being put in a "kill or be killed" situation isn't enough to entitle you to getting off on self defense. It's still criminal manslaughter at the very least in this case.
The whole debate on the self defense argument is not "what was Rittenhouse thinking", it is "what would a reasonable person have thought in that situation". So attempting to piece together what Rittenhouse was thinking afterwards based on how you interpret his actions (a dubious exercise already) isn't actually relevant. Edit: I googled it and there's some debate on this: https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/...mental-states/
"Some circuits have indicated, often in dicta, that malice is incompatible with the reasonable fear for one’s safety that is required when acting in self-defense, while other courts have found it consistent for a defendant to possess a preformulated intent to kill another person but also act (and therefore kill) in the moment due to a fear for his or her life or safety."
- - - Updated - - -
Oh my god, he crossed state lines? THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!
Although Rosenbaum also crossed state lines to be part of the protest... so does that effect his rights too?
Do you people not live in the US? There are state lines all over the place, and I know people who cross them to get groceries. He crossed state lines because he lived near a state line and he went home.
- - - Updated - - -
Maybe so. I'm not clear on how "doing something legal but idiotic" before the actual event of the potential crime relates to your right to self defense. He wasn't breaking any laws. Legal experts seem to disagree on that - in the article I linked above one said the case comes down to what happened in three seconds, the other said basically what you did. But maybe it makes him guilty of a much lesser charge. To use a (maybe bad) analogy - let's say you're a terrible skier and you go down a double black diamond, lose control, and knock another skier into a tree - did you just commit manslaughter? Another edit: apparently Colorado sees this as worthy of a 3 month jail sentence: https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94239&page=1.
I was thinking about the difference between Henry Ruggs and Rittenhouse earlier today. Ruggs is obviously guilty, he was driving 158 miles per hour and hit somebody, but the thing he has in common with Rittenhouse is the engaging in risky behavior. The difference between the two is Ruggs was engaging in clearly criminal behavior before the actual confrontation, and Rittenhouse was not (other than the gun charge, which is not relevant to the murder case).
But either way, I'm someone who is not a big believer in long jail sentences, so I posted last week that I don't think it's necessary to put Ruggs in jail for the rest of his life - I'd prefer something like 10 years. I have a similar feeling about Rittenhouse - I have no issue with saying "hey this was reckless, here's a stretch in jail", but I don't think it should be longer than 10 years, and I'd actually put it closer to 5 given the less obviously criminal action.
Last edited by Coniferous; 2021-11-13 at 12:33 PM.
Pretty much, yeah, and now the usual USA politics are riding on the case. Circus, basically.
At this point I am just here to see where the wild ride will stop. Expect protests if he gets acquited, though.
I am sure you are the expert.
And the "right people" tend to be left-wing activists or PoC, I wonder why.
Ofcourse, this is how MAGA and the police react when the roles are reversed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKBN25V0G0
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/90951...=1636808927649
The investigation says it is “highly likely” that this guy shot at the cops (they found a casing in his car consistent with firing out the window, but didn’t find the bullet). There are people on here upset that Rittenhouse didn’t immediately turn himself in… not sure what you think this is evidence of.
No offense, but this teenage twat showed no remorse from the onset. But now, for the first time since it happened, we are supposed to believe his crocodile tears are real. Fuck off with that. This shitheel wanted to shoot looters earlier in the summer and wished he had his rifle then to do so. He went there under false pretenses to shoot somone.
You don't need to be an expert to k ow that crying was just an act.
I just get particularly frustrated seeing violent offenders labeled as "a member of Antifa".
Do you oppose fascism?
Then you're at least sympathetic with Antifa. At best, you might disagree with how far they go.
You can't make the same kind of argument with white supremacist chickenshits like the Proud Boys. There's no moral center, there; they're just cowardly, violent little bigots.
Which just seems like apologism for fascism.
I can oppose antifa's choices when members engage in violence while recognizing that their objectives are completely defensible and laudable.
Not so much the white supremacist neo-fascist terrorists like the Proud Boys, who we know Rittenhouse was buddy-buddy with.
- - - Updated - - -
Killing two people and trying to kill two more and then "going home" is precisely the problem.
"Across state lines" makes it super clear that the Antioch PD he eventually turned himself in to was not remotely the closest or most appropriate one to go to. It doesn't even have jurisdiction. Which is why they had to call Kenosha PD to come get him, once he did. And, somehow, they weren't too busy with the protests to do so.
Like, leaving the scene of the crime is literally the difference between a tragic traffic accident claiming the life of a pedestrian, and a hit-and-run homicide that will likely be treated as manslaughter. Just the act of leaving the scene of the homicide creates criminal liability, by demonstrating mens rea. You could maybe argue that Rittenhouse felt it wasn't safe, but that excuse ends once he's at the police line, and his actions from there are equivalent to a hit-and-run in this.
Nobody's suggesting his crimes were worse because he crossed state lines when he left. They're using that to point out his voluntarily leaving the scene and not turning himself in to police as he was legally obliged to do.
Last edited by Endus; 2021-11-13 at 07:17 PM.