Also in the news

[LCFCCHRIS]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

May I ask why? There's reasonably conclusive evidence that shows the justice system in parts of the US treats people differently based on both wealth and skin colour, from cops to prosecutors to judges - despite the claim of "equality under the law".

 

That's why this whole mess came about in the first place, after all.

Case seemed relatively conclusive based on the evidence and arguments of the defense and prosecution. There's no reason to assume that a jury, including black people iirc would come to another conclusion. You have to remember, based on the laws of that state, having just reasonable doubt that an individual was acting in self defense, means the verdict must be not guilty. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

Case seemed relatively conclusive based on the evidence and arguments of the defense and prosecution. There's no reason to assume that a jury, including black people iirc would come to another conclusion. You have to remember, based on the laws of that state, having just reasonable doubt that an individual was acting in self defense, means the verdict must be not guilty. 

I'm sorry, but this is the other way round:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

 

"A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense. In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

 

"In the United States, self-defense is an affirmative defense that is used to justify the use of force by one person against another person under specific circumstances."

 

In the case of self-defence, the burden of proof lies on the defence, not the prosecution. Evidently the jury were satisfied that Rittenhouse met this burden of proof as per above.

 

There are numerous historical cases of American juries being harsher to people of colour - and even some now - and until Batson v Kentucky (and now even in spite of it) some areas are able to block black people from standing in a jury when the defendant is likewise black.

 

I'm entirely unconvinced that the same jury (with only one person of colour, the other 11 white) would have been certain to reach the same verdict by agreeing that the same burden of proof had been satisfied if Rittenhouse was a person of colour, it being correct in the letter of the law or not.

 

NB. To add to this, a section on Wisconsin law proving it is an affirmative defence there:

 

"A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

 

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48

 

Edited 20 November 2021 by leicsmac

[LCFCCHRIS]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, but this is the other way round:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

 

"A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense. In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

 

"In the United States, self-defense is an affirmative defense that is used to justify the use of force by one person against another person under specific circumstances."

 

In the case of self-defence, the burden of proof lies on the defence, not the prosecution. Evidently the jury were satisfied that Rittenhouse met this burden of proof as per above.

 

There are numerous historical cases of American juries being harsher to people of colour - and even some now - and until Batson v Kentucky (and now even in spite of it) some areas are able to block black people from standing in a jury when the defendant is likewise black.

 

I'm entirely unconvinced that the same jury (with only one person of colour, the other 11 white) would have been certain to reach the same verdict by agreeing that the same burden of proof had been satisfied if Rittenhouse was a person of colour, it being correct in the letter of the law or not.

 

NB. To add to this, a section on Wisconsin law proving it is an affirmative defence there:

 

"A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

 

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48

 

Fair enough. But the point stands clearly for all to see.

 

Not everything is racism.  Let it be clear there were no black people killed, or put on trial here. A few white people were killed, one of which was a convicted child molester (have little sympathy for that particular person).

 

I have no desire to go into depth on these hypothetical scenarios or whataboutism. A man was found not guilty, no people of colour were killed.

 

[Nick]

Obviously the problem here is not murder or self defence or even intent. The problem is willy pullers running round with semi automatic firearms. It’s just a sad and twisted merry go round until somebody removes the ‘rights’ of people to shoot others under whatever perceived threat they feel they have to defend against.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

Fair enough. But the point stands clearly for all to see.

 

Not everything is racism.  Let it be clear there were no black people killed, or put on trial here. A few white people were killed, one of which was a convicted child molester (have little sympathy for that particular person).

 

I have no desire to go into depth on these hypothetical scenarios or whataboutism. A man was found not guilty, no people of colour were killed.

 

Agreed and agreed.

 

However, this protest as a whole and thus Rittenhouse showing up to it in the first place to "defend" was entirely to do with people of colour being killed by the police arbitrarily and without accountability - so I don't think that you can remove the element of race entirely from the situation.

Edited 20 November 2021 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

Just now, Nick said:

Obviously the problem here is not murder or self defence or even intent. The problem is willy pullers running round with semi automatic firearms. It’s just a sad and twisted merry go round until somebody removes the ‘rights’ of people to shoot others under whatever perceived threat they feel they have to defend against.

...and the gun culture in the US clearly doesn't help much either, yeah.

[leicsmac]

In any case, though the jury reached a verdict that is technically correct, Rittenhouse will still have a life sentence of sorts - one of fear about who might be waiting around the next corner, and, perhaps, in the fullness of time, some guilt.

 

NB. I do hope no one decides to take the law into their own hands in that way, but I can't bring myself to think that a life sentence of the fear of it possibly happening isn't fitting.

Edited 20 November 2021 by leicsmac

[bovril]

53 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

In any case, though the jury reached a verdict that is technically correct, Rittenhouse will still have a life sentence of sorts - one of fear about who might be waiting around the next corner, and, perhaps, in the fullness of time, some guilt.

 

NB. I do hope no one decides to take the law into their own hands in that way, but I can't bring myself to think that a life sentence of the fear of it possibly happening isn't fitting.

This is one of the problems for me. Lots of people get aroused at the thought of the other side living in fear or suffering violence then don't like where it ends up. You saw this in 2016 - lots of American leftists indulged in fantasies of violence towards Trump supporters which contributed to the current climate in the US. 

Edited 20 November 2021 by bovril

[leicsmac]

Just now, bovril said:

This is one of the problems for me. Lots of people get aroused at the thought of the other side living in fear or suffering violence then don't like where it ends up. You saw this a lot in 2016 - lots of American leftists indulged in fantasies of violence towards Trump supporters which contributed to the current climate in the US. 

For me, there's a difference between intent and deed in this way, but I don't disagree that such thoughts do nothing but contribute to the polarisation (and the violence that sometimes results from it) in various places. It's difficult, however, to feel empathy for someone who shows so little or has shown so little themselves.

 

But yes, the effort should probably be made, otherwise there is just a cycle that keeps repeating.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

 

33 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

In any case, though the jury reached a verdict that is technically correct, Rittenhouse will still have a life sentence of sorts - one of fear about who might be waiting around the next corner, and, perhaps, in the fullness of time, some guilt.

 

NB. I do hope no one decides to take the law into their own hands in that way, but I can't bring myself to think that a life sentence of the fear of it possibly happening isn't fitting.

Do you think this might happen more if the demands to "defund the police" are met, and the proposed "community policing" is implemented? I mean, what was this if not "community policing"? When Kenosha was being burnt down (I posted the pictures of the damage earlier but the post was deleted for some reason), the police chose not to get involved and things got out of control. If the police had been willing and able to stop/arrest the rioters and arsonists, I can't believe any of this would have happened.

 

And yes I agree by the way. I think this is why those worried that the non-guilty verdicts somehow encourage this sort of behaviour aren't seeing the bigger picture. Who would look at Rittenhouse and this trial and say yes, I think I'd like that for myself. He has been living with 24-hour security and probably will do the rest of his life, he has PTSD which you could clearly see when he broke down on the stand, and he went through an extremely stressful, high-profile, televised trial which might not have gone his way if it weren't for some invaluable video footage and some pretty awful work from the prosecution. 

 

The principle to me is fairly clear; the state should have a (proportionate and controlled) monopoly on violence, and the police should be well-trained, well-funded, and fair. It might not work like that in practice all the time but that surely has to be the ideal. 

 

There has been another big case going on at the moment; three men on trial for the death of Ahmaud Arbery, which has some parallels with the Rittenhouse case. I haven't been able to keep up to date with it because to be honest I was absolutely gripped by the Rittenhouse case. But from what I can tell, the judge has more or less directed a guilty verdict by ruling the defence's argument that the 3 were making a "citizen's arrest" of Arbery as totally unsupported by Georgian law. It hinged on the contemporaneity of the alleged criminal act and the citizen's arrest, and as those two things were 11 days apart, they were precluded from justifying their pursuit of Arbery as an attempt at making a citizen's arrest. Arbery reached for the gun in that case too, but the 3 defendants were deemed to be already in the commission of an illegal act by pursuing Arbery with a weapon, so they lost their right to self-defence. I think this does shine a light on why the Rittenhouse case went a different way; Rittenhouse was legally able to carry the firearm and was deemed to not be in the commission of an illegal act (in fact he himself was being pursued as he attempted to flee). 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

Do you think this might happen more if the demands to "defund the police" are met, and the proposed "community policing" is implemented? I mean, what was this if not "community policing"? When Kenosha was being burnt down (I posted the pictures of the damage earlier but the post was deleted for some reason), the police chose not to get involved and things got out of control. If the police had been willing and able to stop/arrest the rioters and arsonists, I can't believe any of this would have happened.

 

And yes I agree by the way. I think this is why those worried that the non-guilty verdicts somehow encourage this sort of behaviour aren't seeing the bigger picture. Who would look at Rittenhouse and this trial and say yes, I think I'd like that for myself. He has been living with 24-hour security and probably will do the rest of his life, he has PTSD which you could clearly see when he broke down on the stand, and he went through an extremely stressful, high-profile, televised trial which might not have gone his way if it weren't for some invaluable video footage and some pretty awful work from the prosecution. 

 

The principle to me is fairly clear; the state should have a (proportionate and controlled) monopoly on violence, and the police should be well-trained, well-funded, and fair. It might not work like that in practice all the time but that surely has to be the ideal. 

 

There has been another big case going on at the moment; three men on trial for the death of Ahmaud Arbery, which has some parallels with the Rittenhouse case. I haven't been able to keep up to date with it because to be honest I was absolutely gripped by the Rittenhouse case. But from what I can tell, the judge has more or less directed a guilty verdict by ruling the defence's argument that the 3 were making a "citizen's arrest" of Arbery as totally unsupported by Georgian law. It hinged on the contemporaneity of the alleged criminal act and the citizen's arrest, and as those two things were 11 days apart, they were precluded from justifying their pursuit of Arbery as an attempt at making a citizen's arrest. Arbery reached for the gun in that case too, but the 3 defendants were deemed to be already in the commission of an illegal act by pursuing Arbery with a weapon, so they lost their right to self-defence. I think this does shine a light on why the Rittenhouse case went a different way; Rittenhouse was legally able to carry the firearm and was deemed to not be in the commission of an illegal act (in fact he himself was being pursued as he attempted to flee). 

With all due respect, you speak as if the "rioters and arsonists" suddenly appeared in Kenosha out of nowhere and for no reason at all. They had a very clear reason for being there, a reason that wasn't being handled through any kind of more peaceful channels, a reason that you seem to overlook as unimportant again and again. Why?

 

And yep, I think you describe Rittenhouses mental state pretty well. As far as I'm concerned, however, that is just a part of the consequences of his own actions. If he were to show a little empathy rather than looking for sympathy, then perhaps some might be delivered in return.

 

WRT the Arbery case, it's an interesting legal distinction you make there, and I've no reason to doubt it. I do hope that they are found guilty.

 

 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

For me, there's a difference between intent and deed in this way, but I don't disagree that such thoughts do nothing but contribute to the polarisation (and the violence that sometimes results from it) in various places. It's difficult, however, to feel empathy for someone who shows so little or has shown so little themselves.

 

But yes, the effort should probably be made, otherwise there is just a cycle that keeps repeating.

I think this is a big problem with the major political divides in Western societies generally. How can empathy be conditional? I feel sick when I see someone even get punched, I hate it, even if I can't stand the person. I couldn't take pleasure in watching Rosenbaum get shot, for example, even though I knew he was undoubtedly a despicable person who had been found guilty of the absolute worst crimes imaginable. I remember watching the Saddam Hussein hanging and feeling awful even though he was about as evil as it's possible for a human being to be. The death penalty is an abomination to me, I genuinely cannot understand how countries like the USA still have it and I squirm at the idea of someone being electrocuted or frothing at the mouth after an injection, even if they have done some horrible things to get to that point.

 

I'm sure I'm not the first one to notice that often those who say they are fighting for compassion, fairness, equality etc can be quite ruthless with who they choose to have compassion for. Either all human beings have rights and basic dignity or we don't. I can't set conditions on it and say well I am empathetic towards you unless you're of this political persuasion/race/gender etc. I believe this is why there is a growing pushback to "wokeness"; it feels like a massive step towards conditional empathy, where you have to say/do/be the right things in order to qualify for what we should already have simply by virtue of being a human being.

[Raj]

Says it all about that country where an obviously  simpleton can wander around like a skinny Rambo with a semi auto rifle pretending to "protect the community"

(Where he doesn't  even live!!!!).

So hes been running around "protecting" with his semi auto, and gets involved in alterations with other like minded "civilians" and shoits 2 dead!!!

His baby tears and sobbing were so theatrical I cant believe the just fell for it.

If that WAS a black guy he would have gone down 100%

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I think this is a big problem with the major political divides in Western societies generally. How can empathy be conditional? I feel sick when I see someone even get punched, I hate it, even if I can't stand the person. I couldn't take pleasure in watching Rosenbaum get shot, for example, even though I knew he was undoubtedly a despicable person who had been found guilty of the absolute worst crimes imaginable. I remember watching the Saddam Hussein hanging and feeling awful even though he was about as evil as it's possible for a human being to be. The death penalty is an abomination to me, I genuinely cannot understand how countries like the USA still have it and I squirm at the idea of someone being electrocuted or frothing at the mouth after an injection, even if they have done some horrible things to get to that point.

 

I'm sure I'm not the first one to notice that often those who say they are fighting for compassion, fairness, equality etc can be quite ruthless with who they choose to have compassion for. Either all human beings have rights and basic dignity or we don't. I can't set conditions on it and say well I am empathetic towards you unless you're of this political persuasion/race/gender etc. I believe this is why there is a growing pushback to "wokeness"; it feels like a massive step towards conditional empathy, where you have to say/do/be the right things in order to qualify for what we should already have simply by virtue of being a human being.

I'm kind of curious as to where your empathy is for the people in Kenosha that night peacefully protesting (there were some) and concerned about police violence against people of colour then, as well as those same people of colour who are subjected to it?

 

Because I'm not seeing any, only an unwillingness to address their concerns.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With all due respect, you speak as if the "rioters and arsonists" suddenly appeared in Kenosha out of nowhere and for no reason at all. They had a very clear reason for being there, a reason that wasn't being handled through any kind of more peaceful channels, a reason that you seem to overlook as unimportant again and again. Why?

 

And yep, I think you describe Rittenhouses mental state pretty well. As far as I'm concerned, however, that is just a part of the consequences of his own actions. If he were to show a little empathy rather than looking for sympathy, then perhaps some might be delivered in return.

 

WRT the Arbery case, it's an interesting legal distinction you make there, and I've no reason to doubt it. I do hope that they are found guilty.

 

 

I don't believe that smashing up random people's businesses, setting fire to buildings and cars, and looting is a legitimate remedy to that problem. You have a right to protest, vote, blog about it, publish videos, write petitions etc. You don't have the right to burn down people's property and destroy their livelihoods because you're unhappy about the outcome of a legal case. It's infantilising to those involved to absolve them of responsibility and say of course they were doing that, they had no choice. That's a cop-out. You can be upset about something, you can believe that you or the people you are speaking on behalf of are part of a downtrodden underclass who are being oppressed by an institutionally racist society, but you can't just smash everything up and set the place ablaze because of that.

 

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm kind of curious as to where your empathy is for the people in Kenosha that night peacefully protesting (there were some) and concerned about police violence against people of colour then, as well as those same people of colour who are subjected to it?

 

Because I'm not seeing any, only an unwillingness to address their concerns.

I have empathy for peaceful protestors whose protest was hijacked by the career criminals who set fire to buildings, threw projectiles at police, and chased Kyle Rittenhouse. I feel empathy towards anyone who is subject to violence, as I quite clearly said - I can't switch that off just because I don't like the person.

 

RE violence against POC, we can continue after the game if you like.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I don't believe that smashing up random people's businesses, setting fire to buildings and cars, and looting is a legitimate remedy to that problem. You have a right to protest, vote, blog about it, publish videos, write petitions etc. You don't have the right to burn down people's property and destroy their livelihoods because you're unhappy about the outcome of a legal case. It's infantilising to those involved to absolve them of responsibility and say of course they were doing that, they had no choice. That's a cop-out. You can be upset about something, you can believe that you or the people you are speaking on behalf of are part of a downtrodden underclass who are being oppressed by an institutionally racist society, but you can't just smash everything up and set the place ablaze because of that.

 

I have empathy for peaceful protestors whose protest was hijacked by the career criminals who set fire to buildings, threw projectiles at police, and chased Kyle Rittenhouse. I feel empathy towards anyone who is subject to violence, as I quite clearly said - I can't switch that off just because I don't like the person.

 

RE violence against POC, we can continue after the game if you like.

And if every other single course of action including all you describe have not worked, as they clearly have not?

Suits me. See you then.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

we can continue after the game if you like.

On second thoughts, are you sure?

 

I'm not sure about you but I might need some time to process how depressing that was.

[LCFCCHRIS]

2 hours ago, Raj said:

Says it all about that country where an obviously  simpleton can wander around like a skinny Rambo with a semi auto rifle pretending to "protect the community"

(Where he doesn't  even live!!!!).

So hes been running around "protecting" with his semi auto, and gets involved in alterations with other like minded "civilians" and shoits 2 dead!!!

His baby tears and sobbing were so theatrical I cant believe the just fell for it.

If that WAS a black guy he would have gone down 100%

You can say with 100% certainty? Can I have next week's lottery numbers please oh great one?

 

But if he was a black guy at a MAGA riot, in a reversed situation, would you have wanted him to go down for it? Hmmm 🤔

Edited 20 November 2021 by LCFCCHRIS

[Raj]

4 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

You can say with 100% certainty? Can I have next week's lottery numbers please oh great one?

 

But if he was a black guy at a MAGA riot, in a reversed situation, would you have wanted him to go down for it? Hmmm 🤔

A Black guy shooting 3 white blokes and 2 dead would have gone down.

If you doubt that, theres no changing your mind.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

On second thoughts, are you sure?

 

I'm not sure about you but I might need some time to process how depressing that was.

You read my mind 😅

[LCFCCHRIS]

16 minutes ago, Raj said:

A Black guy shooting 3 white blokes and 2 dead would have gone down.

If you doubt that, theres no changing your mind.

He would have the same legal arguments from the defense in his favour regardless of colour.

 

Again, 

 

Would you want him to go down if he were black and had shot people at a MAGA riot? 

 

 

[Raj]

15 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

He would have the same legal arguments from the defense in his favour regardless of colour.

 

Again, 

 

Would you want him to go down if he were black and had shot people at a MAGA riot? 

 

 

It's clear no matter what anyone thinks on this you dont think theres an issue or problem, so I'll leave you to it. I cant really be arsed.

[LCFCCHRIS]

Just now, Raj said:

It's clear no matter what anyone thinks on this you dont think theres an issue or problem, so I'll leave you to it. I cant really be arsed.

I think it's more a case that the verdict went against what you wanted so you're projecting. Fair enough! Have a good night. 

[LiberalFox]

Generally in the US black people don't have the same ability in practice to access guns for self defence that white people do. Would a black guy be able to turn up to a protest with a rifle and be cordial with police? I think it's crazy that people can turn up to a volatile situation with a rifle in the US regardless of colour. 

[doverfox]

What happened to DAVID DORN is what may have happened to Kyle if he had not shot. We will never know. I think we can agree that crazy things happen at times of tension, 25 deaths in the protests since George Floyd's murder, so much for peaceful protests.