USA Politics (redux)

[greg]

Well, from the very first videos that came out, it was an obvious case of self-defense. So seems it all went on course.

And just another though- to have someone who rapes little boys off of this planet, I don't feel sad about that at all. Good riddance.

[Herman]

O. J. Simpson was found not guilty.

O.J. was rich and famous.

[Que]

I have just heard the Rittenhouse verdict and I am sick 

If Rittenhouse was black or Latino he would have been found guilty.

If he would have been black, killing two white men, they would have fried him on the chair.

So nothing wrong with a minor armed with an assault rifle roaming the streets as a vigilante and then acting "in self defence".

This is a society that persists in its traditional doctrine that violence is not a problem but a solution. Provided of course, that the violence is applied by the "right kind" of people....

[MusicTurner]

For us on the sideline, I noticed that the verdict is final, he can't be charged in relation to the events again, in any way.

[milk]

If he would have been black, killing two white men, they would have fried him on the chair.

So nothing wrong with a minor armed with an assault rifle roaming the streets as a vigilante and then acting "in self defence".

This is a society that persists in its traditional doctrine that violence is not a problem but a solution. Provided of course, that the violence is applied by the "right kind" of people....

I don't know why you assume this or how it helps. The only thing I agree with is that money helps: having quality lawyers is necessary and makes the system unfair. I don't know about this hypothetical but there was really no way to convict Rittenhouse on the evidence. So this was fair. Whether or not some other hypothetical would have been less fair seems well beside the point. The media lies went on and on and left people with the wrong impression (that Rittenhouse's mother drove him (OMG) across state lines (OMG) with a gun., for example. The prosecution went with the "active shooter" theory too - which was unpersuasive. I think it's monumentally stupid to go to a riot zone with a gun. But that applies to the criminal Rittenhouse shot (who had an illegal weapon as well). Rosenberg provoked this as well and he probably should have been in an institution instead of out on the streets.
I'm not on the right but it was obvious to me that Rittenhouse was innocent from a legal standpoint.
Having said all this, I definitely would rather live in a country without guns. I can raise my kids without fear of shootings and gun violence. 

[Que]

I don't know why you assume this or how it helps. The only thing I agree with is that money helps: having quality lawyers is necessary and makes the system unfair. I don't know about this hypothetical but there was really no way to convict Rittenhouse on the evidence. So this was fair. Whether or not some other hypothetical would have been less fair seems well beside the point. The media lies went on and on and left people with the wrong impression (that Rittenhouse's mother drove him (OMG) across state lines (OMG) with a gun., for example. The prosecution went with the "active shooter" theory too - which was unpersuasive. I think it's monumentally stupid to go to a riot zone with a gun. But that applies to the criminal Rittenhouse shot (who had an illegal weapon as well). Rosenberg provoked this as well and he probably should have been in an institution instead of out on the streets.
I'm not on the right but it was obvious to me that Rittenhouse was innocent from a legal standpoint.
Having said all this, I definitely would rather live in a country without guns. I can raise my kids without fear of shootings and gun violence.

Well, I'm not ruling out that he was acquitted in accordance with the law. Ultimately he was attacked, so I'm not surprised by the verdict. And still I think that if he would have been black, an acquittal would have been very unlikely no matter the legalities or circumstances.

But that doesn't mean he was without blame. Why was he there in the first place? With an illegal weapon? Walking around with an assault rifle he might have been seen a threat by those that attacked him.

The whole concept of militia of "upstanding citizens" enforcing justice is fundamentally racist anyway.
Would the police accept groups of armed black or Hispanic "upstanding citizens" roaming the streets during riots? 
I wouldn't be surprised if they would be shot on the spot...

[Fëanor]

Well, I'm not ruling out that he was acquitted in accordance with the law. Ultimately he was attacked, so I'm not surprised by the verdict. And still I think that if he would have been black, an acquittal would have been very unlikely no matter the legalities or circumstances.

But that doesn't mean he was without blame. Why was he there in the first place? With an illegal weapon? Walking around with an assault rifle he might have been seen a threat by those that attacked him.

The whole concept of militia of "upstanding citizens" enforcing justice is fundamentally racist anyway.
Would the police accept groups of armed black or Hispanic "upstanding citizens" roaming the streets during riots? 
I wouldn't be surprised if they would be shot on the spot...

Yes, ultimately he was attacked.  It's not surprising that a person will defend him/herself with the means available.  If his attacker assumed Rittenhouse would not shoot him because he, the attacker, was unarmed, he was foolish

It's given that Rittenhouse was a gaping asshole and should never gone to the demonstration at all, much less with a gun.

Here in Canada, assuming no actual shots fired, Rittenhouse would have been immediately charged with the illegal transportation of a prohibited weapon, (assault-style rifle), and flagrant misuse of a firearm.  On that account alone he would be facing at least a couple years in the slammer.  Unfortunately state-side the 2nd Amendment and the hodge-podge of ridiculous state laws give Rittenhouse a pass.

[milk]

Well, I'm not ruling out that he was acquitted in accordance with the law. Ultimately he was attacked, so I'm not surprised by the verdict. And still I think that if he would have been black, an acquittal would have been very unlikely no matter the legalities or circumstances.

But that doesn't mean he was without blame. Why was he there in the first place? With an illegal weapon? Walking around with an assault rifle he might have been seen a threat by those that attacked him.

The whole concept of militia of "upstanding citizens" enforcing justice is fundamentally racist anyway.
Would the police accept groups of armed black or Hispanic "upstanding citizens" roaming the streets during riots? 
I wouldn't be surprised if they would be shot on the spot...

I agree that groups of armed black people would be treated differently by the police. On the other hand, all this postulating gets tricky. I think it should be very illegal to have these guns outside of hunting or perhaps home protection. And there should be more rules IMO.  And society still has a ways to go on issues of race. Of course I did watch people of all backgrounds destroy Minneapolis and Kenosha and do lots of crazy stuff in places like Evergreen university. And I still think the evidence of police killing black people is flimsy at best. A very small number of people are killed each year and a fraction of those are black and a very small fraction aren't in possession of weapons. So the premise of these protests was terrible. The original flame was lit over Blake who was treated as a hero by Biden but is a criminal who pretty much created his destiny.
Still, Rittenhouse got fair treatment especially because he had expensive representation. As far as the racism charge, maybe yes the police wouldn't have reacted the same but you can hardly say Rittenhouse did'n't suffer from a relentless rush to judgement and distortion of facts. There's a case to be made that the media would have been much fairer if the situation was different and the narrative was more favorable to left-wing sensibilities. Lots of details in the case were interpreted by pundits and the mob in very stupid ways. The whole hullabaloo about the judge disallowing the term "victim" is one example of biased media and liberal hypocrisy. So, yes to possible racism if things were different and yes to prejudice all along against Rittenhouse here.

[Karl Henning]

Well, I'm not ruling out that he was acquitted in accordance with the law. Ultimately he was attacked, so I'm not surprised by the verdict. And still I think that if he would have been black, an acquittal would have been very unlikely no matter the legalities or circumstances.

All good sense (alas!) esp. in the case of the hypothetical black defendant.

Hard as it seems, the Rittenhouse verdict provides common ground for a divided America

By Dennis Aftergut Updated November 19, 2021, 6:16 p.m.

It's easy to see why Americans are divided about the acquittal of 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse. There is understandable outrage among the millions of Americans, Black and white, who feel that Rittenhouse was, by bringing an AR-15 style [weapon] to a volatile situation in Kenosha, Wis., a provocateur who got away with murder. Many also feel that the judge in the case tilted the playing field too steeply in favor of Rittenhouse's defense.

There are two things on which all sides should agree. First, deep sympathy for the families of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, whom Kyle Rittenhouse killed, and demonstrator Gaige Grosskreutz, now 28, whom he wounded, during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha.

Second, once emotions subside, everyone might step back and appreciate this incontrovertible demonstration of a fundamental precept of American justice. By design, the government, with its enormous resources, is meant to face an onerous burden when it attempts to convict anyone of a crime and take away a person's most precious asset, their liberty. As the18th-century legal authority Sir William Blackstone memorably put it, "The law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer."

Thus, good criminal defense lawyers, like the ones here, serve all of us by testing the government's proof. That's what this former federal prosecutor, who never defended a person accused of crime, believes.

The real injustice is that the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has not regularly been a feature of criminal justice when the defendant is a person of color, particularly Black. Thursday's commutation of Julius Darius Jones's death sentence is Exhibit A in that case. The governor of Oklahoma acted after the state's Pardon and Parole Board recommended that he commute Jones' sentence, and after "[ s ]everal members of the panel said they doubted the evidence that led to Jones' conviction." But he was denied any possibility of parole after 20 years in prison for a crime where the burden of proof appears not to have been met. So now he has no immediate opportunity to demonstrate his innocence in a fatal shooting during a carjacking in 1999.

The Rittenhouse jury agreed unanimously that the prosecution failed in meeting that burden. Whatever we might feel about the judge, or about the ability of a then-17-year-old to carry a gun to a protest, we have to appreciate that the jury's unanimous agreement on that point is difficult to ignore when the jury knew that two people are dead and another was wounded as a result of Rittenhouse's actions.

Some say that 3½ days of deliberations was long. In fact, the time taken demonstrates a level of consciousness in wrestling with an extraordinarily difficult decision. It would have helped Americans' trust in the verdict if there had been more than one Black juror in a pool of 20, even acknowledging that Kenosha is only 12 percent Black.

The jury obviously believed that at least the evidence created a reasonable doubt, including testimony that the survivor whom Rittenhouse had shot pointed a gun at him. We can blame the prosecutors or judge all we want, but that stubborn fact was almost surely insurmountable in a self-defense case.

The jury also watched Rittenhouse lose control on the witness stand. While the cynical prosecutor in me wondered how carefully Rittenhouse had been prepared, it's hard to dispute that he felt remorse for the deaths he caused.

Remorse is not a legal defense to crime, but jurors are human beings who cannot be expected to put aside their feelings. It's a very hard thing for jurors to know that their guilty verdict can subject a young person to a lifetime in prison.

We must allow for those hurt and offended by the verdict to experience their loss and anger, and to demonstrate it peacefully for as long as their grief lasts. Ultimately though, Americans need reasons to come together. Holding up together the ideal of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt should be common ground for all of us.

Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor.

[JBS]

For us on the sideline, I noticed that the verdict is final, he can't be charged in relation to the events again, in any way.

It is possible a federal prosecutor might look for a way to charge him with a federal crime, and/or one or more of the people he shot might file a civil suit. But I don't think either possibility is likely to succeed.

[Que]

I think it it is understandable that the focus of the debate is on whether Rittenhouse should or shouldn't have been convicted.

But I think it pointless. The real issue here is that without the toxic cocktail produced by American society: a socio-economical divide unprececented in the Western world, racial tensions, high level of violence, private gun ownership and allowing civic militias, none of this would have happened.

Most of you are not going to like it, but I will say it anyway: the US is looking more and more like a South American country.

[MusicTurner]

It is possible a federal prosecutor might look for a way to charge him with a federal crime, and/or one or more of the people he shot might file a civil suit. But I don't think either possibility is likely to succeed.

That's not an option that reports here consider possible, but I can't tell if you're right.

[Que]

I agree that groups of armed black people would be treated differently by the police

I think it is a bit more than that: in real life US society applies double standards to the so much revered "constitutional right" to bear arms and the right of self defense.... As in: those rights are meant for whites only.

And I still think the evidence of police killing black people is flimsy at best. A very small number of people are killed each year and a fraction of those are black and a very small fraction aren't in possession of weapons. So the premise of these protests was terrible. The original flame was lit over Blake who was treated as a hero by Biden but is a criminal who pretty much created his destiny.

I think mulling over the question whether the black minority is disproportionately affected by police brutality,  is again missing the real issue. I think it is fair to say that for a democratic society, the conduct of US police is generally quite violent and brutal. And because police mostly deals with the socio-economic disadvantaged, black people will be at the wrong end of the stick more often than others... But why is the police so heavy handed? Because of the ample availability of guns and the high level of acceptance of violence. Which is not to say there is no racial bias. Just ask any regular black man, leading the life of an "upstanding citizen" how often he has been stopped by the police. I'm sure you'll figure it out...

Still, Rittenhouse got fair treatment especially because he had expensive representation. As far as the racism charge, maybe yes the police wouldn't have reacted the same but you can hardly say Rittenhouse did'n't suffer from a relentless rush to judgement and distortion of facts. There's a case to be made that the media would have been much fairer if the situation was different and the narrative was more favorable to left-wing sensibilities. Lots of details in the case were interpreted by pundits and the mob in very stupid ways. The whole hullabaloo about the judge disallowing the term "victim" is one example of biased media and liberal hypocrisy. So, yes to possible racism if things were different and yes to prejudice all along against Rittenhouse here.

So he became the focus point of societal polarisation and political bias. Considering the circumstances, I really don't feel sorry for him...

[greg]

So shouldn't the person most responsible be whoever gave the order for the police to not interfere with the riots? Shouldn't they be prosecuted for this?
Because when the police aren't doing their job, they should assume that vigilantes will pop up- whether you agree or disagree whether they should, it's inevitable it will happen. And then retarded shit like this will happen.

Most of you are not going to like it, but I will say it anyway: the US is looking more and more like a South American country.

There may be similarities (especially if your only exposure to the US is the news, which is always mostly negative), but still, the demand from immigration doesn't lie. Quite a difference from a typical South American country- people really want to live here more, so despite some of the issues, it can't be that bad. I've known many immigrants and the consensus is that they like it here.

[SimonNZ]

Would the police accept groups of armed black or Hispanic "upstanding citizens" roaming the streets during riots? 

You dont have to wonder. Open carry laws were very quickly changed in California when the Black Panthers started doing it - and being very careful to do it within the limits of the law.

And who was the then governor who pushed through this liberty-curtailing, second amendment-hating legislation that, I assume, made him a pariah to conservatives?

[Karl Henning]

Spotsylvania comes to its senses and rescinds order banning books in school libraries

[Karl Henning]

Dana Milbank:

To the extent McCarthy had a theme, it was that he was very, very angry — about everything, and it's all Democrats' fault. Part Donald Trump and part Howard Beale, McCarthy seemed to think that what Republicans crave is rage — partisan, purposeless, inchoate and ungrammatical rage.

When one Democrat gave him the (standard) admonition to address his remarks to the speaker, McCarthy flew into a fury. "I can look anywhere I want, Mr. Speaker! ... They now want to dictate to a member of the floor of where I can look! Are you afraid of the basis of the information in the bill?! Sir, I'm gladly to look at you, Mr. Speaker!"

He misquoted the Gettysburg Address. He delivered messages from Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. "I'd love to debate Jim Crow one day," he remarked. He mentioned Hitler, Mussolini, Jimmy Carter's sweater and the provenance of baby carrots. He extolled the freedoms enjoyed by the Chinese people: "I promise you this. China is not adding 87,000 IRS agents to go after their people." He asked the House: "You know what Taiwan is?"

How could such a high official in the United States sound so barking mad?

Approaching the midway point, McCarthy offered a clue about his state of mind. "Madam Speaker, today I got my booster shot," he reported. "I got a little headache now."

Research shows that for some people, a side effect of the coronavirus vaccine is irritability. In the most extreme cases, the effect is so bad they even get angry at fact-checkers.

[arpeggio]

O. J. Simpson was found not guilty. Casey Anthony was found not guilty.  We know they did it, but the justice system doesn't always work in favor of emotional feeling but rather the evidence of the case. Were the jury members in the Rttenhouse case bought off? Were there any Black or Hispanic people in this particular jury? I didn't see the jury members, so I'm not sure, but I don't think race was the issue here.

It is so easy to check out the make up of the jury.  I did.

Look it up for yourselves.

And comparing this case to OJ is a false equivalency.

[arpeggio]

Many years ago I served on a jury that decided a case where there was and altercation where the defendant almost killed a man.

We do not have a stand your ground law in Virginia and we did not have one back then.

The defendant claimed self-defense.

We found him guilty of a lessor charge that did not result in jail time (It was over thirty years ago so I can not remember all of the details).  We felt that the defendant could have avoided the situation.  He had an argument with the victim in a bar.  He followed him to the parking lot where they continued that argument which resulted in the altercation where he almost killed the other man.  For the record they were both white.

To this day I think we made the right decision.

[Que]

Many years ago I served on a jury that decided a case where there was and altercation where the defendant almost killed a man.

We do not have a stand your ground law in Virginia and we did not have one back then.

The defendant claimed self-defense.

We found him guilty of a lessor charge that did not result in jail time (It was over thirty years ago so I can not remember all of the details).  We felt that the defendant could have avoided the situation.  He had an argument with the victim in a bar.  He followed him to the parking lot where they continued that argument which resulted in the altercation where he almost killed the other man.  For the record they were both white.

To this day I think we made the right decision.

Thanks for that. Quite an experience and it must have made a big impression. And it does seem you made a fair decision.

Under Dutch law, to invoke self defense for a full acquittal several strict conditions have to be met.
Amongst which the condition that the defendant had not some blaim in the confrontation, was not seeking it, didn't provoke the attack and had no reasonable option to avoid it. Next conditions are that the threat was immediate and that the violence used as defence was necessary and proportionate.

There may be similarities (especially if your only exposure to the US is the news, which is always mostly negative),

My exposure to the US is not limited to the news.

but still, the demand from immigration doesn't lie. Quite a difference from a typical South American country- people really want to live here more, so despite some of the issues, it can't be that bad. I've known many immigrants and the consensus is that they like it here.

So the main difference is that the US is very rich and most Latin American countries are poor?
Well, that is very true indeed. And I'm sure that the millions in the US that are living below the poverty line will be relieved to hear that good news.