|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 20 2021 07:45 Mohdoo wrote:
That’s fascinating. That’s literally not possible in modern day. Do you think that will change? It’s essentially totally fake at this point.
The modern jury system is actually very different from the jury system at the founding. I guess its time for another story time on why the law is what it is.
Juries used to be pretty knowledgeable about a case going in. This was expected, because the prosecutor and police forces didn't have manpower for gathering up all sorts of evidence. And communities were small. So a person sitting on a jury would undoubtedly know, or know of the defendant and the crime. Their role was much more expansive, and would know extensive character traits of all the parties involved. So they would know, in this instance, that Kyle was a 17 year old who wanted to be in law enforcement, and would have known that the three people he shot were pretty bad dudes.
And, in general, a lot of jury verdicts were based on these preconceived notions + the facts as known by jury members and respected people testifying.
In the original progressive era a few things happened. 1) More professional prosecutors. 2) More professional defense attorneys. 3) Professional (Usually Progressive) attorneys started agitating against this "informed jury" model. They wanted more ability to shape the outcomes of trials. The testimony of a well respected village elder was also becoming less useful as communities got too large.
This mostly got totally wrapped into the system we have know with public defenders/professional attorneys in every case around the 50s/60s as those sets of courts made the system even more professionalized. Moreover, informed juries were even more on the outs as being informed was recast as "having bias", which was often true with respect to race, but was probably taken too far in other respects.
So now we have this system which emphasizes an almost impossible amount of ignorance in jury selection. But, as, my fiance was telling her doctor today, the media is woefully bad at reporting on legal rulings and cases, including jury selection processes.
On November 20 2021 07:36 farvacola wrote:
Nah, it would by no means be a slam dunk, but the evidence showing that Rittenhouse had previously stated that he would do what he did underlying the charges, use his gun to kill people, is categorically incomparable with those victim backgrounds, bringing in a victim's character evidence under 404(a) and an accused's prior statement showing intent under 404(b) are treated differently for a reason.
Just because they are under different subsections, doesn't mean the presumption to exclude isn't the same. You'd have to argue specifics. The leading 404(b) case in the 7th I think is U.S v. Miller that overturned a case where a previous conviction was admitted under 404(b). 404(b) evidence is pretty strictly admitted only if it satisfies all the elements of the test, and almost always is applied for evidence of *specific* intent, rather than a generalized statement, and usually involves direct action taken in preparation for the specific crime alleged. For example, casing Rosenbaum's residence would have been admissible.
|
On November 20 2021 06:58 ChristianS wrote:
My relatively uninformed understanding (IANAL, etc.) is that it is fairly normal in cases like this for federal charges to still drop, and for the feds to really stack the charges pretty high to force you to plead. It looks like the feds are not doing this (so far, at least?), despite often going that route against protestors associated with lesser crimes, especially in the last year.
I’m not gonna root for the feds to threaten him into pleading to something like that, though. That’s a fucked up justice system and I’m not gonna sign onto using it here or anywhere.
I think more important to me than what actually happens to Rittenhouse is the emboldening of would-be right-wing violent street activists and vigilantes. We’re trending toward political violence and the signal here (intended or not) is that either the justice system isn’t going to get involved in punishing political violence, or it’s going to only intervene on the right’s behalf. I think a Nazi gunning down peaceful protesters would probably still get prosecuted and convicted, but I think Nazis out there will interpret this verdict as license to engage in violence more liberally.
That doesn’t directly indicate a guilty verdict would have been correct. I haven’t followed the trial and don’t know how self-defense is or should be judged anyway. But it is a reason that, even if you thought Rittenhouse was innocent, the verdict still maybe shouldn’t thrill you too much.
The larger thing that emboldens the vigilantes is when the police lose control of the streets and it becomes a free-for-all for looting, arson, and chaos. We saw the same thing in LA in the 90s after the Rodney King verdict. Koreans had 100x the manpower/firepower that Rittenhouse had, they just lacked the "white supremacist" narrative. There are a lot of people that will agree that buildings/property are not worth as much as lives but there's always going to be a certain percentage of people that are not going to sit idly while their city is destroyed.
|
Northern Ireland27350 Posts
On November 20 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 06:58 ChristianS wrote:
My relatively uninformed understanding (IANAL, etc.) is that it is fairly normal in cases like this for federal charges to still drop, and for the feds to really stack the charges pretty high to force you to plead. It looks like the feds are not doing this (so far, at least?), despite often going that route against protestors associated with lesser crimes, especially in the last year.
I’m not gonna root for the feds to threaten him into pleading to something like that, though. That’s a fucked up justice system and I’m not gonna sign onto using it here or anywhere.
I think more important to me than what actually happens to Rittenhouse is the emboldening of would-be right-wing violent street activists and vigilantes. We’re trending toward political violence and the signal here (intended or not) is that either the justice system isn’t going to get involved in punishing political violence, or it’s going to only intervene on the right’s behalf. I think a Nazi gunning down peaceful protesters would probably still get prosecuted and convicted, but I think Nazis out there will interpret this verdict as license to engage in violence more liberally.
That doesn’t directly indicate a guilty verdict would have been correct. I haven’t followed the trial and don’t know how self-defense is or should be judged anyway. But it is a reason that, even if you thought Rittenhouse was innocent, the verdict still maybe shouldn’t thrill you too much. The larger thing that emboldens the vigilantes is when the police lose control of the streets and it becomes a free-for-all for looting, arson, and chaos. We saw the same thing in LA in the 90s after the Rodney King verdict. Koreans had 100x the manpower/firepower that Rittenhouse had, they just lacked the "white supremacist" narrative. There are a lot of people that will agree that buildings/property are not worth as much as lives but there's always going to be a certain percentage of people that are not going to sit idly while their city is destroyed.
The legendary ‘Rooftop Koreans’ were also defending their actual property, and at least to my knowledge didn’t shoot many people dead. I may stand to be corrected on that.
I think they are largely admired across the political spectrum for fronting up in a complete clusterfuck and not losing their cool, in a scenario where the legitimate authorities had lost control.
As opposed to Rittenhouse who expressed a desire to shoot some folks, shot some folks and had a rather considerable amount of folks cheer him for said shootings.
|
On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup.
This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people.
'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not.
Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same.
Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick.
|
You murder the right people you’re a hero, that’s an American brand conservative type of mindset.
|
Yes, the American far right is becoming increasingly more openly violent. I don't know what can be done to check this, but the Democrats certainly aren't doing it. In my fantasy the conservative states would secede and form their own country like they say they want to. They can have their Christian theocracy led by Donald Trump and sink into miserable poverty when no longer subsidized by states that don't have stone age ideals of governance.
|
Northern Ireland27350 Posts
On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick.
It’s awful, but hey it’s not surprising.
People buy signed packets of skittles off George Zimmerman, but hey they’re just champions of due process, they’re absolutely not ghoulishly celebrating that some (insert racial epithet) got shot.
They’re not doing that at all, even though it very much looks like they’re doing that.
It’s tucking disgusting and fuck right off with that, and fuck doubly right off trying to say that’s not what one is doing.
You don’t like scary Marxist BLM and them there protests you’re doing, and you’re quite happy some nice, white minor shot 3 of them
To be absolutely, crystal clear, from my layman’s understanding of the law, I felt both that Rittenhouse should be acquitted, and absolutely should not be acquitted by where the law should lie, I am not attacking anyone who thinks he was innocent of the charges, as I am on that page.
On the other hand, these are your bedfellows, so maybe have a think about that, and if that’s a place you’re comfortable inhabiting.
|
On November 20 2021 11:26 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. It’s awful, but hey it’s not surprising. People buy signed packets of skittles off George Zimmerman, but hey they’re just champions of due process, they’re absolutely not ghoulishly celebrating that some (insert racial epithet) got shot. They’re not doing that at all, even though it very much looks like they’re doing that. It’s tucking disgusting and fuck right off with that, and fuck doubly right off trying to say that’s not what one is doing. You don’t like scary Marxist BLM and them there protests you’re doing, and you’re quite happy some nice, white minor shot 3 of them To be absolutely, crystal clear, from my layman’s understanding of the law, I felt both that Rittenhouse should be acquitted, and absolutely should not be acquitted by where the law should lie, I am not attacking anyone who thinks he was innocent of the charges, as I am on that page. On the other hand, these are your bedfellows, so maybe have a think about that, and if that’s a place you’re comfortable inhabiting.
I've avoided talking about the case and the outcome of said case too much, because I really dont' know enough about US law to say whether he should have been found guilty or not. He wasn't, and i wouldn't complain about that in this case.
The reaction on the internet however, seems to fail to draw the line between 'he should be legally allowed to defend himself' and 'he deserves our support for his actions', and the only explanation i can come up with is that this is for purely political reasons.
|
Northern Ireland27350 Posts
On November 20 2021 11:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 11:26 WombaT wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. It’s awful, but hey it’s not surprising. People buy signed packets of skittles off George Zimmerman, but hey they’re just champions of due process, they’re absolutely not ghoulishly celebrating that some (insert racial epithet) got shot. They’re not doing that at all, even though it very much looks like they’re doing that. It’s tucking disgusting and fuck right off with that, and fuck doubly right off trying to say that’s not what one is doing. You don’t like scary Marxist BLM and them there protests you’re doing, and you’re quite happy some nice, white minor shot 3 of them To be absolutely, crystal clear, from my layman’s understanding of the law, I felt both that Rittenhouse should be acquitted, and absolutely should not be acquitted by where the law should lie, I am not attacking anyone who thinks he was innocent of the charges, as I am on that page. On the other hand, these are your bedfellows, so maybe have a think about that, and if that’s a place you’re comfortable inhabiting. I've avoided talking about the case and the outcome of said case too much, because I really dont' know enough about US law to say whether he should have been found guilty or not. He wasn't, and i wouldn't complain about that in this case. The reaction on the internet however, seems to fail to draw the line between 'he should be legally allowed to defend himself' and 'he deserves our support for his actions', and the only explanation i can come up with is that this is for purely political reasons.
Scary lefties should be shot, in the crudest possible framing
As I said I think, based on my limited understanding of relevant law acquittal isn’t hugely egregious, but there’s a big gap between cheering justice being done, and cheering justice being avoided because you like the thing that was done.
And enough are doing the latter for me to find it worrying.
|
United States44286 Posts
On November 20 2021 05:01 killa_robot wrote:
Did you guys really not watch the trial? Protestors did bring their own guns. Two of the guys he shot literally had their own pistols and pulled them on him before being shot.
Protestors weren’t on trial so I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant. I’ll condemn them too if you like.
|
United States44286 Posts
The verdict was a forgone conclusion the moment the judge decided to prevent the jury from seeing evidence of his murderous intent. Nobody is surprised by the result of this show trial, but nobody should be pleased by it either. Even the people insisting that it was self defence should recognize the need to hold vigilantes accountable.
|
On November 20 2021 12:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 05:01 killa_robot wrote:
Did you guys really not watch the trial? Protestors did bring their own guns. Two of the guys he shot literally had their own pistols and pulled them on him before being shot. Protestors weren’t on trial so I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant. I’ll condemn them too if you like.
Anybody who takes a gun to a protest is a moron imo.
People act differently in these situations. The sense of anonymity people have in big crowds means things get out of control very easily. It only takes 10 idiots to start acting violently and suddenly everyone gets sucked into it. Guns are the last thing that need throwing in to that mix.
|
On November 20 2021 11:19 Starlightsun wrote:
Yes, the American far right is becoming increasingly more openly violent. I don't know what can be done to check this, but the Democrats certainly aren't doing it. In my fantasy the conservative states would secede and form their own country like they say they want to. They can have their Christian theocracy led by Donald Trump and sink into miserable poverty when no longer subsidized by states that don't have stone age ideals of governance.
I believe that it's less an issue of the far right being more openly violent and more that society has been brought to a point where being violent is more appealing, and the far right offer an easy avenue to that.
If people weren't fucked over in so many ways since Reagan, could get an education without being saddled with colossal debt, could afford property, had a good wages (I mean fuck look how controversial it is to get something as basic as a LIVING wage from Democrats or Republicans? Not even a wage that lets people thrive, just a minimum wage thats livable is too much to ask from these people) and could go to the doctors there'd probably be less of that cultural desperation that leads to people finding violence appealing/necessary.
|
On November 20 2021 12:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 05:01 killa_robot wrote:
Did you guys really not watch the trial? Protestors did bring their own guns. Two of the guys he shot literally had their own pistols and pulled them on him before being shot. Protestors weren’t on trial so I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant. I’ll condemn them too if you like.
The preceding comments to mine (including yours) were all commenting on how bringing a gun was a bad idea, that it was evidence he was there intending to shoot innocent people, and that it would encourage more people to bring guns to riots now, to defend themselves from people like him.
Said people already had brought guns (2 of the 3 did at least), so people were either ignorant of that or ignored it because it didn't help their narrative. By your own logic the only difference between Rittenhouse and these protestors with guns is that he made a video prior to going there saying he intended to be violent, and even that's weak because the first guy he shot was on camera threatening others and encouraging violence.
So, the complaints here seem to all be less about the actual context and case and more about how this is yet another example of how white people with guns and can just get away with whatever. Made the more obvious by people like yourself saying this was the obvious result of the case, independent of the trial and evidence presented in it.
It's just such a weird mentality to me. People create their own viewpoint and then rally around something they feel represents it even after its proven not to. It reminds me of when Eric Garner was killed and yet rather than rallying around that very obvious case of wrongful death and rightfully getting pissed at that, MUCH more attention was given to Michael Brown, which by comparison was a much weaker case and similar to this one just flat out ended up having a bunch of people lying to try to get that cop punished.
|
Said people already had brought guns (2 of the 3 did at least), so people were either ignorant of that or ignored it because it didn't help their narrative. By your own logic the only difference between Rittenhouse and these protestors with guns is that he made a video prior to going there saying he intended to be violent, and even that's weak because the first guy he shot was on camera threatening others and encouraging violence.
I mean, the first guy who got shot was unarmed, shot four times, the first time in the pelvis (aka he's not going to be doing a lot of running around) and then three more times after being effectively stopped. He was also in the middle of a mental health episode. This first murder is already egregious given the armed vs. unarmed status and the clear intent to shoot to kill instead of shooting to stop.
Which means theres an active shooter who has killed someone, I mean I'd imagine conservatives would be cheering for guy 2 and guy 3 for trying to be the Good Guys With Guns trying to stop the guy who just shot and killed someone? Self defense for me but not for thee?
They aren't getting as much attention because they didnt fucking kill people, obviously. People are clearly readily willing to condemn them for bringing guns to a protest, what more do you want?
EDIT: 6000th post well spent, I guess. I'm an Archon bitches, the Ultimate Communist Unit.
|
|
|
On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick.
If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself?
|
So I decided to actually watch some of the court proceedings since it's going around and I hadn't seen anything. Quick thoughts:
1. That prosecution made a better case for the defense than the defense did. It's impressive that they managed to be so bad.
2. Everyone involved in the situation seems like some brand of shitty. Mentally unstable, vigilante, thrill-chaser, or violent crook, every one of them. Hard to feel sympathetic for the dead, the victims, or any of the witnesses because they all suck.
3. Based on what I see, I'd probably vote for not guilty on all charges as well. With great reluctance, but I'd still be so inclined.
|
United States44286 Posts
On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself?
Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante.
|
On November 20 2021 14:52 LegalLord wrote:
So I decided to actually watch some of the court proceedings since it's going around and I hadn't seen anything. Quick thoughts:
1. That prosecution made a better case for the defense than the defense did. It's impressive that they managed to be so bad.
2. Everyone involved in the situation seems like some brand of shitty. Mentally unstable, vigilante, thrill-chaser, or violent crook, every one of them. Hard to feel sympathetic for the dead, the victims, or any of the witnesses because they all suck.
3. Based on what I see, I'd probably vote for not guilty on all charges as well. With great reluctance, but I'd still be so inclined.
I think your 2nd point goes without saying. I doubt there's anyone out there that night that's married with a couple kids, a stable job and a mortgage payment. They're all nuts. I watched some of the videos a couple weeks ago and I now think about "jump kick man" every single day. You get 1 life to live and you're going to try to jump kick a guy with an AR-15 that just blew somebody away? That just blows my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
