Libertarian Lessons From the Rittenhouse Trial

Plus, what's going on with the labor shortage.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Libertarian Lessons From the Rittenhouse Trial

This Monday, your trustworthy libertarians Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie break down the significance of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, discuss the labor shortage, and divulge their personal standings on cryptocurrency. All this and more on today's Reason Roundtable.

Discussed in the show:

1:52: What are the takeaways from the Rittenhouse trial?

21:33: What is going on with the labor shortage, and what does it mean looking forward?

32:55: Weekly Listener Question: Over the past few years, I've become more persuaded that bitcoin represents a major increase in the potential for human freedom by giving anyone with an internet connection access to sound money. My question is this: Why don't you talk more about this? More often than not, when anyone on the podcast refers to a "libertarian moment," it sounds like it's with a "this ain't never gonna happen" eye roll—but what if bitcoin is the libertarian moment? Are you wary of contributing to the hype? Is there anything analogous to bitcoin that in the past promised so much but failed to deliver? Do any of you own any cryptocurrencies?

48:41: Media recommendations for the week.

This week's links:

• "Climate Controls," by Gregory Benford
• "The Rittenhouse-Trial Judge Isn't a Trumpist," by Charles C.W. Cooke
• Bitcoin Is Protecting Human Rights Around the World (video)
• "Why the Prosecution of Silk Road Creator Ross Ulbricht is 'The Most Important Trial in America,'" by Nick Gillespie
• Sen. Cynthia Lummis: Why I'm All In on Bitcoin (podcast)

Send your questions to [e-mail]. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

• If you feel something interfering with your happiness or holding you back from your goals, BetterHelp is an accessible and affordable source for professional counseling. BetterHelp assesses your needs and matches you with a licensed therapist you can start talking to in under 24 hours, all online.
• Imagine an app where you can get unlocked access to reliable news sites. An app that filters out fake news and clickbait but still shows you every story from multiple perspectives to counter bias. Where good news, as in positive stories, is highlighted—so you don't become despondent. And where journalists dig through news from around the world to find stories you wouldn't normally see. That's what an innovative Australian startup called Inkl has come up with. The service unlocks more than $12,000 of premium news for $100 a year. If you go now to inkl.com/podcast, they'll give you an additional 25 percent discount, so you can get a whole year's worth of headache-free news for just $75.

Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Regan Taylor
Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

What are we consuming this week?

Nick Gillespie

• Heroes of Liberty' Thomas Sowell action figure

Peter Suderman

• Termination Shock, by Neal Stephenson

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• Termination Shock, by Neal Stephenson

Matt Welch

• Summer of Soul on Hulu

---

Comments

[sarcasmic]

*pops popcorn*

[JesseAz]

Here is a link to sarcasmic calling M4E reasonable for suggesting kyle should be found guilty of manslaughter.

https://reason.com/2021/11/09/the-prosecution-had-a-very-bad-day-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/?comments=true#comment-9200339

Popcorn indeed.

[Vulgar Madman]

Were you expecting moral or logical consistency from him?

[JesseAz]

Nope =)

But laugh every time he says I'm on mute lying about him when I simply post his words or links to them.

[Margo G. Dingle]

money generating way, the best way of 2021 to earns even more than $15,000 every month online. start receiving more than $15k from this easy online job. i joined this 3 months ago and in my first month i made $12749 simply doing work for 2 hrs a day. join this right now by follow instructions mentioned on this web.

===>>.......... Visit Here

[Edna Hudson]

Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…XXh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW

[Mother's Lament]

But remember, sarcasmic swears he's a libertarian. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

[JesseAz]

Only ideas.

[DesigNate]

LO Fucking L at Mike saying “no no, it only matters who he would have voted For”.

[sarcasmic]

If you believer that turd then welcome to my mute list.

[R Mac]

Lol. Jesse posted a link to actual comments.

[JesseAz]

It is amazing to watch.

[JesseAz]

Did sarc mute nate for mocking white mike?

[sarcasmic]

You can be like your girlfriends. Talking shit with no response.

[sarcasmic]

Wear it like a badge of honor. You've been muted by sarc. You're cool now.

[I, Jacket]

holy shit, mute moar!

[R Mac]

Sarc’s drunk posting again

[JesseAz]

Think I'm still in first for the beast ice mute list open =)

[AlexisBreillat]

This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company QGe now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH

[Entelechy]

Stop Popping Popcorn!
Stop Papa Doc
Go Papa Biden !
Papa Joe rocks !

[Don't look at me!]

Fuck Joe Biden

[Emmett Dalton]

Fuck Joe Biden

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Let's go fuck Joe Brandon

[Joe Brandon]

Can we talk this out?

[R Mac]

Bohica bitch!

[hpearce]

"This Monday, your trustworthy libertarians Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie---"

ALL of them support COERCIVE monopoly states - limited or not.

Libertarian ideology opposes ALL coercion on libertarian principle.
The above people fail that requirement !

[esteve7]

This trial has shown me how utterly broken so many on the left are. They don't give a damn about facts, or evidence, or principles, or anything. All they care about is power and their religion.

The reason they have lost it so badly is because their entire worldview is a failed one, and they can't deal with it when reality doesn't agree with them.

I thought this prosecutor and many in the media were just dumb in the beginning, now I think they are evil. They know exactly what they are doing.

The left hates self-defense. They want to disarm you so they can kill you. If this trial doesn't show that, nothing will

[Square = Circle]

It's an instructive moment for noticing which outlets are saying "we may have gotten a lot of this wrong" and which are doubling down and continuing to ignore facts-now-established-in-court.

[Square = Circle]

And which, like CNN, are still going with Rosenbaum was just a misunderstood kook.

[Square = Circle]

Note the size of the rug they sweep this under:

"He had spent more than a decade in prison in Arizona after being convicted of sexual conduct with a minor."

You know. 'Sexual conduct with a minor.' Like, maybe he was 18 and his girlfriend was a few months younger?

Oh, wait, no - we mean anal rape of pre-pubescent boys.

[JesseAz]

5 of them.

[mad.casual]

Oh Holy Fuck, really?

I knew it wasn't quite as well meaning as 18 w/ a 17-yr. old girlfriend, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was something still remotely redeemable like 18 and he slapped his 16-yr. old girlfriend in a he said/she said fight.

That's so fucked up half of NAMBLA should be saying "Yeah... he kinda had it coming." Of course the media loves the guy.

[JesseAz]

https://nationalfile.com/docs-pedo-shot-by-kyle-rittenhouse-sodomized-molested-multiple-boys-as-young-as-9-years-old

[JSinAZ]

The child raper was drilled by the child he was trying to badtouch.

[A Thinking Mind]

Richards had a line in closing like, "My client had the same right to go unmolested by Rosenbaum as everyone else in Kenosha that night."

He's not allowed to call him a child rapist but that's fucking beautiful word choice.

[JesseAz]

Tucker, unchained, says Kyle Rittenhouse’s first victim ‘died as he had lived, trying to touch a minor’

[Caphon]

I think his line was "an unwilling minor", but yes.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

That’s fucking fantastic rhetoric.

Truly stunning. Well done, counselor.

[Chumby]

Prost.

[perlhaqr]

So the rapist Rosenbaum was "protesting" the shooting of the rapist Blake. I suppose that makes sense. Scum has to stick together.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Yeah, they glossed right over the fact that it wasn't even just one minor, it was multiple minors, and his actions were so heinous he spent his full 10-year prison sentence without parole.

Another LOL moment was Grosskreutz claiming that he's a "paramedic," even though he's only completed the EMT-B course and it took the stupid fucker three years to even do that.

[A Thinking Mind]

Oh, and he'd just gotten out of the hospital after an ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. And then attacked someone with a gun and was taunting people into shooting him all night.

Jury doesn't get to see these facts but at this point, there's no harm in the media bringing them up. Just for completeness.

[Square = Circle]

Oh, and he'd just gotten out of the hospital after an ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. And then attacked someone with a gun and was taunting people into shooting him all night.

^

Jury doesn't get to see these facts

And yet CNN is screaming because neither team gets to use the word "victim."

[A Thinking Mind]

I'm fine with the rules of evidence, and the fact that stuff that's not necessarily relevant and is prejudicial can't be included. But given all the prejudicial crap the prosecution was able to get into the record with hearsay evidence from videos, the prosecution shouldn't be complaining.

There were freaking Superchats and youtube comments on the official evidentiary record of this case. We got testimony from a guy only identified as "yellow-pants man" because he made comments but the defense could never confront or cross-examine.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The way juries are treated is schizophrenic. During the trial, they are too stupid to be allowed to ask questions, even for clarification, and have to leave the room while the adults discuss what evidence they are allowed to see. During deliberations, they can do whatever they want, and no one gets to question how they arrived at their conclusions.

I would instead allow prosecution and defense to bring up anything they want. Then the jury has to detail everything from evidence to verdict: what they considered, who they thought was untrustworthy, the chain of logic, every last detail, all related to the charges and laws, look up whatever they want regardless of the defense and prosecution, recall the witnesses for their own questions, grill the prosecution and defense, and that is what appeals should be based on -- was the logic faulty? Did it exceed the scope of the law?

[A Thinking Mind]

I think it's fine to exclude a lot of things. A person can be a bad guy who has a criminal history and yet be innocent of what charges are presented. I generally have faith in average people, but I don't trust the state to treat defendants fairly, so I'm glad there's protections like this for defendants.

[Overt]

"that is what appeals should be based on -- was the logic faulty? Did it exceed the scope of the law?"

I....kind of get this...But it seems to me to be yet another appeal to authority. We are always looking to Top Men to decide whether people made the right decision or not- as if there is some logical right/wrong answer to every case. But instead what happens is that a person chooses to believe THIS testimony of some expert over THAT grainy picture. That isn't logic. And you cannot question whether the logic is faulty, and you certainly can't know if the jury decided evidence A was better than evidence B because of facts or prejudiced feelz.

Again, it is an interesting concept- I just don't think it would be as useful as you think.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

@thinking: that's why the verdict has to specify all the evidence. If they think past history has any bearing, they have to say how. In this case, Rosenbaum's release from a suicide attempt seems entirely pertinent to me, since it could explain his aggressive behavior. His child molesting has nothing to do with his behavior.

@overt: How is this an appeal to authority? I'm saying the jury should be treated like adults and have more say in asking questions, and they have to document every step in the logic from evidence to verdict. If they think some witness is more credible, they have to say why; they don't get to just say "he's more credible" or "he's an expert". You sure as hell do get to question that logic in appeals.

[mad.casual]

recall the witnesses for their own questions

At the judge's discretion or would a Kenosha jury be free to badger the witness?

[Square = Circle]

I'm fine with the rules of evidence, and the fact that stuff that's not necessarily relevant and is prejudicial can't be included.

Totally agree. It's the coverage that drives me nuts, because if anything the judge is being deferential to the prosecution.

I was awestruck that CNN trotted out a 'legal expert' to declare that it's "unheard of!" to bar the word "victim" from a self-defense trial, and reported "you can't use rioter, looter or arsonist unless you can provide direct empirical evidence of their truth" as "defense is allowed to refer to Rittenhouse's victims as rioters, looters and arsonists!"

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

In Federal civil court, the jury can ask questions after testimony is given. At least they can in the 11th Circuit.

It’s a fantastic indicator as to where they’re going.

My wife was the plaintiff in a federal civil trial. The jury ROASTED the defendant with their questions, and that was after the questions had been tamed and shortened by the judge.

Just as soon as the questions were asked, we knew exactly where the jury stood.

[Roberta]

Why not just let the lawyers hash it out until they come to an agreement? If they don't reach an agreement within the allotted time, execute and replace them.

[Marshal]

Grosskreutz claiming that he's a "paramedic,"

It was revealing LARPing as medics while armed proven RH's ill intent but not GK's. Sometimes I think the people making these claims only arrive at their conclusions to protect The Shield.

[perlhaqr]

Wait what? EMT-B is a 12 week course. How does it take 9 tries?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I don't think it took him nine tries, it took him three years to complete all the requirements.

Note that the exceptional fuckhead likes to walk around with a "paramedic" hat on.

[perlhaqr]

I don't know about where he's from, but in NM, EMT-B is one class, one trimester long. I suppose a person could study the material on their own and take the test, and just do it absurdly slowly...

But if you take the classes at CNM, even becoming an *actual* paramedic only takes 2 years. 1 trimester for Basic, 2 for Intermediate, and another 3 for Paramedic.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I suspect his EMT-B training required him to take biology or anatomy as part of the class, although it's possible he just took EMT-B as a single class during a semester.

Regardless, the stupid fuck really shouldn't be LARPing as a paramedic if he hasn't taken EMT-P yet. That kind of stupidity is why the morons tending to Rosenbaum were screeching "put pressure on it!" for his head wound.

[Aloysious]

Rosenbaum got what he deserved, just a little late.

[Emmett Dalton]

Or this one....
"Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse moved across the parking lot and appeared to be close to each other when loud bangs were suddenly heard and Rosenbaum fell to the ground, the complaint said."

Instead of stating the factual version, "as Rosenbaum chased the fleeing Rittenhouse, multiple witnesses describe a lunging attack and Rosenbaum attempting to take the rifle from Rittenhouse. At which point, the 17 year old relieved the world of another human turd with 4 shots."

[Square = Circle]

The passive-voice "loud bangs were suddenly heard" also leaves out that Ziminski fired first.

[JimboJr]

From that article:

"He put his hands in the air and then began to move toward Rittenhouse, who then fired one shot, hitting Grosskreutz in the arm, according to the complaint. Grosskreutz was holding a handgun but had his hands up, the complaint says."

Missing: Grosskreutz admitted testimony under no coercion, that Kyle only shot him when he advanced on him and pointed his firearm at him. Also Grosskreutz roommate saying his only regret was "not emptying the magazine" into Kyle.

Looks like they really went after both sides of the event! Between interviewing him for his take on why Kyle is a guilty murderer, and portraying this nice little take, CNN is really giving us a good representation of what happened.

They definitely dont want a class/race war breaking out, as covering that would not generate a lot of clicks/ratings.

[Square = Circle]

Missing: Grosskreutz admitted testimony under no coercion, that Kyle only shot him when he advanced on him and pointed his firearm at him. Also Grosskreutz roommate saying his only regret was "not emptying the magazine" into Kyle.

And this article was updated today. They know these things and very deliberately decided to leave them out.

[Fats of Fury]

Rosenbaum and Grosskreutz are Dead, or Wounded" -Hamlet-ish

[Square = Circle]

Yet they still keep flipping those coins.

[Eeyore]

It is clear to me that Rosenbaum commitment suicide by armed teenager. He wanted to die, but knew he was too incompetent to do it himself.

[Marshal]

It's an instructive moment for noticing which outlets are saying "we may have gotten a lot of this wrong"

Was this the Unicorn Daily?

[Square = Circle]

Politico, while still working to maintain parts of the general narrative, is actually being relatively honest in its coverage.

The Hill, as well, hosted Soave saying "yeah - the media got this all wrong," although some think of The Hill as being 'conservative.'

CNN and MSNBC, however, have gone completely off the deep end, and seem to just be counting on the incuriosity of their viewers.

[DesigNate]

The only people that think The Hill is conservative are people that expect every media outlet to report in lockstep with the Democrats.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

CNN and MSNBC, however, have gone completely off the deep end, and seem to just be counting on the incuriosity of their viewers.

Which would be a solid bet on their parts.

[Mickey Rat]

There is definitely the idea that of you have a riot protesting racism (even if the triggering incident is a damn poor example of such) then the protesters have every right to go on a rampage of property destruction and if you dare stand in the way, you are evil. They are making unfounded conclusions about Rittenhouse's motives that are insane conspiracy theory.

[Square = Circle]

One thing that I find interesting is that the story of how the whole conflict started actually much better serves the narrative that guys like Rosenbaum in particular weren't really part of the 'protests.'

I recall a lot of talk over the summer about how the people lighting things on fire were not part of the movement, but were outside agitators looking to start shit independently of anything else going on.

And according to all the witnesses around, that description fits Rosenbaum exactly. Didn't seem to really be there for the protest so much as for the riot, was generally aggressive and violent, and seemed to be lighting everything he could get his hands on on fire.

When Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse and several other people in the area were cooperating to put out the dumpster fire that Rosenbaum had started.

The narrative could have been "look how the protesters and the kid who was there to protect property are cooperating to protect property from the unhinged lunatic who is just the type of unwelcome figure who is causing the violence at these rallies!"

Instead, because Kultur War, the narrative pivots to "noble social justice activist stopped from noble social justice demonstrations by evil white supremacist active shooter!"

Wait . . . I thought the SJWs weren't the ones starting fires?

[R Mac]

Progressives have no problem presenting two conflicting narratives one breath after the next.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

One thing that seems to be emerging as well is that Ziminski appears to have goaded Rosenbaum in to going after Kyle when he saw how worked up he was, and the whole chain of events probably doesn't even happen if he doesn't do that.

Ziminski is under charges from the DA's office as well, and I have a feeling they are going to take out all their frustration from this trial on him and absolutely butt-fuck him in court if Kyle ends up being freed.

[JesseAz]

Zionsville fired the first shot into the air as Rosenbaum charged. Another factor of self defense.

[JesseAz]

Ziminski* not Zionsville

[ravenshrike]

Problem for them is that given their oopsie of witness tampering as revealed by PhotoChad their case of Ziminski very well might end up sinking due to prosecutorial misconduct. I know if I was Zimmy's defense attorney I'd be doing cartwheels after finding out about that.

[Caphon]

My intuition is that Ziminski, smiling behind Rosenbaum, was one of those guys who eggs on others to cause chaos but never does the bad deeds themselves. A regular Wormtongue. Absolute POS people.

[Sevo]

This was Manson's defense; *he* didn't do anything.

[perlhaqr]

Grima Ziminski, indeed.

[Marshal]

Wait . . . I thought the SJWs weren't the ones starting fires?

The real story is the protesters understand the rioters are their allies. This was most obvious in Portland when the Portland BLM Moms interfered with cops trying to arrest arsonists from setting fire to the courthouse (with people inside). Their coordination - along with the prosecutors - has always been understood. Claiming different roles is just to avoid responsibility, but left wing activists have long understood how to orchestrate this sort of theater.

[perlhaqr]

I wonder how long the BLM Karens would stick around if they ended up subjected to the violence they're shielding.

[Marshal]

Right. All the left's outrage (and specifically stated in the prosecution) includes the argument that RH was going to a hostile event. Hundreds of others brought guns, but they were left wingers so no problem. Merely by opposing arson her placed himself against them.

As we all knew but is rarely admitted so openly by the left.

[spiggot]

The reason they have lost it so badly is because their entire worldview is a failed one, and they can't deal with it when reality doesn't agree with them.
They're factually wrong about a lot of things but that hasn't stopped them from winning politically. They must understand something we don't.
The left hates self-defense.
Only when it's the wrong sort of people doing the self-defending.

[perlhaqr]

> They must understand something we don't.

Yeah, they understand that the vast majority of people are emotional creatures, not logical or fact based ones. And they play to the emotions of the crowd, whereas we attempt to speak to their forebrains. Ironic, for the "party of science". Although they might well throw that label away, since science is racist, and all that.

[Square = Circle]

Ironic, for the "party of science"

A line I came across recently that stuck with me went along the lines of 'while I don't about no one ever having gone broke underestimating the stupidity of the public, one can certainly get wildly wealthy convincing middling-smart people that they're geniuses."

[Sebastian Cremmington]

When a Black teen, Trayvon Martin, tried to defend himself from a nutty adult and was tragically killed Republicans defended the nutty adult, Zimmerman. Maybe if Republicans supported self defense for Black teens then Democrats would get behind the right of self defense for all Americans. Right now it seems like a Black teen thinking guns are cool is characterized as a thug while a white teen that likes guns is seen as a hero.

[Chumby]

“Never bring a skateboard to a gun fight.”

[Dillinger]

Christian Hosoi hardest hit.

[Chumby]

Sk8 or die

[Dillinger]

what becomes of JFA?

[Chumby]

The deceased, once decomposed, can join the Bones Brigade.

[Gray_Jay]

Nice!!

[Chumby]

Slimeballs attack people with skateboards.

[Gray_Jay]

Or zip them up in skateboard/surfboard bags.

Whichever Gator Rogowski used.

[Gray_Jay]

We're all future primitives now.

[mad.casual]

Not even if it's an assault skateboard?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

1. Don't go anywhere with a gun when you feel you might need it.
2. Let businesses and other people's property burn. Reject all natural inclination to "protect your community", because the "community" has no inclination to protect you.

I'm still working on others.

[Not Robbers=Nut Rubbers]

You have to consider the possibility that "the Community" does not like you. It never wanted you. In all probability, it hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen. We don't need "the Community". Fuck damnation, man, fuck redemption! If we are "the Community's" unwanted children, so be it!

Tyler's words coming out of my mouth. I used to be such a nice person.

[mad.casual]

I'm still working on others.

There are no illegal immigrants, especially not minors. Just mixed up kids who we presume are guilty because they're in the wrong place, even if it's 10 mi. away from their home. Those kids should be locked in cages or worse.

[Salted Nuts]

There's not enough immigrants to fill the gaps left by rich white fatties retiring. Open the gates!

[Salted Nuts]

Did not understand patriotism.

I would offer a plane ticket out, but it's kinda tight right now with the price of wood because of a variety of issues with a totalitarian regime in office.

[perlhaqr]

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

Rule #1 is actually pretty solid. If you think you're going to need a gun wherever it is you're going, think *really fucking hard* about whether you should go.

But on the other hand, taken too far, that way lies "evil flourishing because good men do nothing". So I dunno.

[Emmett Dalton]

+1

So much shit has happened in the last decade precisely because the Marxists know nobody will turn off the TV and come outside to stop them.

[Sevo]

Guessing this is sarc from a known commenter.

[Social Justice is neither]

Sarcasm or the lessons we're supposed to learn from the KR persecution?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

3. Sometimes you just need to take a beating.

[A Thinking Mind]

So what I learned is that prosecutors are dishonest and disingenuous fucks. So really, not much new.

[Square = Circle]

This guy seems to bring a fair amount of stupid into the mix, as well.

[JesseAz]

He actually thought mocking Rittenhouse was a good move on closing. Pointing the gun at the jury with finger on the trigger. Saying if you bring a gun you lose all self defense rights. Closing was a mess.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Plus claiming that Kyle should have committed a crime by firing off warning shots.

[A Thinking Mind]

At one point he made an argument that Grosskreutz can't threaten Kyle Rittenhouse because Kyle's gun was bigger.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

"Being afraid isn't grounds for self-defense" was another gem.

Regardless of how Richards did, Binger's closing was the rhetorical equivalent of someone stabbing themselves in the balls over and over.

[Fats of Fury]

So, in other words, Presidential potential.

[Emmett Dalton]

SCOTUS nom coming from Biden

[Caphon]

I think that was Kraus (Part II of prosecutions closing argument). That big boy was a real piece of work, basically arguing that Kyle shouldn't have been afraid of a fight - he could have kicked him in the testicles and other choice self defense tips from a guy who looks like he's never been on the winning side of a fist fight in his life.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I'm surprised he didn't drop dead of a heart attack right there in the courtroom with how worked up he was.

[A Thinking Mind]

I wasn't saying Binger brought it up in his argument (because I missed a lot of that), it was something that had come up during the many, many hours of cross-examining Kyle on the stand. But Krause might have repeated that argument as well about how Grosskreutz had only a little tiny gun while Kyle had a big scary gun so he's not allowed to defend himself.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Yeah, we'll see how effed up the jury is.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

As a gun enthusiast who takes gun safety very seriously, there’s a really good chance I’d have lost my shit in the jury box when the mf pointed the rifle at the jury.

[JesseAz]

He pulled an alec baldwin. Didn't check the chamber. Said "handed to me cleared."

[R Mac]

Wait, what?!

[Gray_Jay]

He did, R Mac. With his finger on the trigger. I'm sure you can still find screencaps, if you hurry.

I would have been extremely pissed off as a juror.

[Emmett Dalton]

Binger the buffoon aiming the rifle at the jury, with his finger on the trigger.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/15/district-attorneys-closing-in-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-was-pathetic/

[R Mac]

That’s pretty fucked up.

[Chumby]

Assault with a deadly weapon.

[Nachtwaechter Staater]

Stupid or False Flag ...

This ADA cannot be THAT stupid ...

[JesseAz]

He should be disbarred. Openly lied during closing arguments. Just like in his opening.

[Nardz]

He should face the same penalty his target faces if convicted.
We're that the rule, I bet we see a big decrease in "misconduct" from prosecutors. Same goes for false allegations like Ms. Blasey-Ford.

[Eeyore]

You just learned this? Better late than never. Welcome to the club.

[OpenBordersLiberal-tarian]

The most important lesson of the trial is that literally the whole thing is about race. So many of our progressive allies have made this point with slight variations of the following strikingly original insight: "If a Black person did what Rittenhouse did, there wouldn't even be a trial because the cops would have killed him."

And in the event Rittenhouse walks, it's because of INSTITUTIONAL RACISM in our court system. And because the judge is possibly a Drumpf supporter.

#RaceAboveAll

[Utkonos]

Apparently “Let’s go Brandon” very much has its origins in race as well…

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Chumby hardest hit

[Don't look at me!]

Nice.

[Salted Nuts]

I catch your drift.

[perlhaqr]

It took me reading three replies before I got it. Man. Long fucking day, I guess.

[Caphon]

I've been appreciating the retort that if a black man/woman shot three antifa guys in self defense, we'd elect him/her to office!

[Dillinger]

will be fascinating to see whether D.A. Graffix falls down or up.

[Chumby]

Rittenhouse disarmed the one attacker.

[mad.casual]

His trigger discipline was breathtaking.

[Vulgar Madman]

Better than the DA for sure.

[Don't look at me!]

Now he has to shoulder the responsibility.

[Salted Nuts]

I hope he can muscle through the adversity. A lad of his caliber should be alright.

[mad.casual]

At some point, these puns will no longer be humerus.

[Chumby]

You think some of them might be a reach?

[R Mac]

I just can’t get my arms around that possibly.

[Chumby]

Use elbow grease.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Point of disagreement, the Jacob Blake shooting was NOT "confusing". It was only "confusing" because the media aggressively misreported the facts.

[Overt]

Regarding the Bitcoin question: KMW had a pretty thoughtful response, but her main criticism was that if you look at E-Gold and PayPal, you see how the government has a good ability to "fuck up" these types of revolutionary technologies.

While this is true, and the jury is still out on Bitcoin, it is noteworthy that the major flaw of E-gold and PayPal is that their technologies required them as a trusted entity to operate. That meant the government could sanction either company and the system would stop working- because the companies WERE the systems.

Bitcoin is the oposite- its distributed ledger means that if government cracked down on Coinbase tomorrow, Bitcoin would still operate. It might be harder to use for some time, but for people actually relying on BTC in countries like El Salvador or Botswana, nothing really would change.

This is why BTC is so much like the Internet. Yes, in the US, the Internet was heavily dependent on big central players like your phone company for dsl or your cable company for cable. But at any time, you could connect to the internet without them- through a dial up modem, or by contracting with a fiber company to tie you in directly.

The government can make BTC very difficult for people in the US to use, but it is too late to smother it in its crib. With other countries adopting the currency, it increasingly doesn't matter what the US Government does. At some point people are going to look at the convenience of an American dollar that is eroding away with inflation, and they will decide it is worth jumping through hoops to get something that retains its value. Corporations are already doing it, so it is unlikely the government can actually make it fully illegal at this point.

[mad.casual]

While this is true, and the jury is still out on Bitcoin, it is noteworthy that the major flaw of E-gold and PayPal is that their technologies required them as a trusted entity to operate. That meant the government could sanction either company and the system would stop working- because the companies WERE the systems.

Bitcoin is the oposite- its distributed ledger means that if government cracked down on Coinbase tomorrow, Bitcoin would still operate. It might be harder to use for some time, but for people actually relying on BTC in countries like El Salvador or Botswana, nothing really would change.

Ultimately, the distinction is lower-level and more intrinsic. Even if every government cracks down on every cryptocurrency and even the underlying networks themselves, people can always go back to bank notes and trading sheep for chickens. At some point, the government has to/would crack down on paper and chickens.

The real distinction is for entities entirely divorced from calorie requirements, land titles, and paper. A government can destroy or effectively decimate a community or a state. The persistence or, more dramatically, independent recurrence or re-emergence of such decentralized networks (both the internal agents and the stakeholders) in spite of such actions is the real measure of success. Decentralized ledgers aren't new. The ability to recreate not just entire ledgers, but all the agents and stakeholders anew, soup-to-nuts after the government has obliterated all trace of them is.

[Overt]

"The persistence or, more dramatically, independent recurrence or re-emergence of such decentralized networks (both the internal agents and the stakeholders) in spite of such actions is the real measure of success."

I guess. To me, there is a reason why Bitcoin is still the king crypto currency. It takes work to secure trust in a currency. And the Block Chain is a literal proof that the work was performed, which gives confidence and trust. Bitcoin has had the most work done to secure trust, and so it is currently the most valuable. You could fork bitcoin over night (many have!) into a new currency and you would not get the same value, because the new blockchain would not have the proof of 10+ years of work.

So I agree that new block chains could emerge in the future if the government went scorched earth on the bitcoin owners and miners. Just as cities have been rebuilt over the ashes of previous ruins. And while I see that as success, the original city- or in this case, Bitcoin itself- is its own amazing success.

"Decentralized ledgers aren't new. "

The Nakamoto Blockchain is indeed new. Never before could you have a decentralized ledger that you could trust without relying on a third party. Solving the byzantine General problem was a huge change that no one ever solved before and it is THE reason that the government cannot control BTC like it controlled E-Gold or Paypal.

[mad.casual]

You're being selectively ignorant.

Never before could you have a decentralized ledger that you could trust without relying on a third party.

Yes you could. Banks, mafiosos and bookies have been dumping ledgers on people and opening up new branches throughout history. Maybe they're excluding the people they whacked, maybe they just leave out the portions that only reached 49% consensus. My point being, you scorched earth such a system and everyone within it and most of the people dependent on it dies. Everyone else abandons it. The truly novel aspect of Bitcoin is that, conceptually, it could resurrect itself and moreover, entities wholly dependent on it for their very existence, like DAOs. Could effectively rise from the grave. Very much a question as to whether, if a/the government went scorched earth on BTC, whether it would be rebuilt and/or readopted. Plenty of historical pricing evidence that argues both ways.

Solving the byzantine General problem was a huge change that no one ever solved before and it is THE reason that the government cannot control BTC like it controlled E-Gold or Paypal.

Again, assuming falsely, that the digital is the sum total of reality. The Byzantine General problem isn't strictly digital and the application/solution within BTC isn't applicable or necessarily even good at the human/user level (tons of people still convinced of the transcendence of BTC 'if we could just get rid of cash'). The cool point isn't the solution to the Byzantine General problem (there are restrictions applied to the problem itself that don't apply to broader actions). The cool point, from a libertarian perspective, will be to see if (future) DAOs set up their own blockchains and/or decide to ignore, tolerate, or forcibly extinguish (or other) faulty/malicious nodes and/or other blockchains.

[Overt]

"Yes you could. Banks, mafiosos and bookies have been dumping ledgers on people and opening up new branches throughout history."

But then you are trusting the bank, mafioso, or bookie to be accurate. There has never been a trustless ledger before the Nakamoto Blockchain.

The whole value of the Blockchain over a bank is that you don't have to trust the bank to keep their accounts in order. You don't have to trust that tomorrow that bookie won't get raided by the feds. The algorithmic consensus IS the value. And it would take an epic, cataclysmic attack to destroy it completely- an attack that would require essentially the destruction of the internet and network protocols themselves.

"Again, assuming falsely, that the digital is the sum total of reality."

In what way am I assuming the digital is the sum total of reality? It is a fact that E-gold was essentially no different than the old Bank of England- giving promissory notes denominated in gold. Its weakness was the same- that you had to TRUST that the writer of the note would be there to redeem your note for real gold. This made the system exploitable by Government or even bad actors inside the company. egold as a currency was functionally NO DIFFERENT than Bitcoin in how you made transactions. But the government could interdict it because the ledger was owned by a third party (G&SR) that could be sanctioned.

That isn't a digital problem. It is a reality problem. In reality, when you have a supply that relies on third party trust, you have to be concerned about debasement. This is true if you are talking about banks, a bookie or your government currency. In the physical world, this was solved for by Gold and other hard commodities, where Supply could be predictable- it was unlikely that a government could print new gold on you, or even destroy it. Nakamoto blockchains merely digitize this solution, by creating an un-inflatable or destroyable supply.

"The cool point, from a libertarian perspective, will be to see if (future) DAOs set up their own blockchains and/or decide to ignore, tolerate, or forcibly extinguish (or other) faulty/malicious nodes and/or other blockchains."

That will certainly be cool, but it is not THE cool point. DAOs would not be POSSIBLE without solving the Byzantine General problem. If you require a trusted third party to issue, publish, validate, govern or otherwise certify the rules, activities, or membership of your DAO[1], you are always ceding control to that third party or the government that can interdict them. But the government cannot control the blockchain. They cannot interdict it. And if they somehow figured out a way to undo the consensus algorithm, everything from DAO's to DeFi would be impossible.

I agree that all these things are good, but you really are missing how valuable the central consensus algorithm is. It is a purely anarcho-libertarian solution to a very real problem. The fact that it digitally solves for that problem is just a fact of technology.

[1]: It is noteworthy that just because a DAO is on a blockchain, does not mean that it is free of these same trust problems. One of the biggest problems tying smart contracts and DAOs to reality is figuring out ways to reflect reality in a trustless way. Did a fire really rage through this region where you are insured? Based on what source? Is there a way to create these sources WITHOUT trusting a third party Oracle?

[Gray_Jay]

Thanks, you two. This is an interesting discussion on something I don't know very much about, but I'm learning a bit from reading you both.

[mad.casual]

But then you are trusting the bank, mafioso, or bookie to be accurate.

OK, I LOL'ed at the idea that everyone on the Don's payroll always assumes the books are legit. "Half up front, half when the job is finished." is a trope not because nobody trusts the Mob but because they all have total visibility to the Mob's entire books and know that they're only good for half until after payroll goes out on Thursday. I know when I say the word 'mafia', the first thing that comes to my mind is 'abundance of trust'.

There has never been a trustless ledger before the Nakamoto Blockchain.

Sure. The trust is infallible. "He" solved the problem. Well, if you look past the low-level fake scams that have nothing to do with cryptocurrency besides using the hype to dismay and confuse people. And the Ponzi schemes and fake coins that may or may not use actual cryptocurrencies. And the hacks and thefts that you would suppose, being cryptographically secure, would be impossible. And the pump and dump and exit scams. And the fact that the largest stablecoin (by market cap) is widely known to be between overleveraged and completely fictional. And that it's entirely built on/around Binance and BTC which are supposed to be not just impervious to, but dispellilng of, such financial tomfoolery. If you look past all that, Nakamoto's solution to the Byzantine Generals problem is infallible. I don't doubt that far more is stolen in hard currency every day, but something on the order of $9M in crypto is stolen every day and, AFAIK, hard currency has never claimed to be theft or fraud proof among/between users. Just that if they do get ripped off, sometimes attempts will be made to make them whole.

See, I want to make a list like Mt. Gox, Coincheck, Bitfinex, Binance, BitGrail, OneCoin, BTCGlobal... the list goes on and on, and say that it's just the clearly criminal hacks and legally actionable scams/thefts. But, like any good mafioso's books, it's impossible to say how much of BTCs value is 'legit' and how much is/was derived from the Bitfinex's various manipulations, or Binance's, or Tether's speculations...

[mad.casual]

Which brings me back to my point. The interesting thing isn't to see if we can make ourselves free with crypto, but to drop in countless AIs, with all manner of designs and intents, and see if they multiply into the billions and tear each other apart, or if they figure out how to work to the benefit of anyone who wants to contribute, or mostly likely, somewhere in between. To see if DAOs self-organize/unionize. To see if they discriminate against other DAOs. To see if some DAOs defend themselves without Ethereum programmers and the network forking the protocol to "save" them.

[ElvisIsReal]

See, I want to make a list like Mt. Gox, Coincheck, Bitfinex, Binance, BitGrail, OneCoin, BTCGlobal... the list goes on and on, and say that it's just the clearly criminal hacks and legally actionable scams/thefts.
---------
None of that is attacking bitcoin, only exchanges that deal with it. That's why you shouldn't use those places.

[mad.casual]

Care to address the very next sentence or too scared to even repeat the verifiable claim that a significant, if not majority, portion of the most distributed, cryptographically secure, and tractable currency in human history is between hype and stolen goods?

Hell, even the cases with good outcomes, where the government discovers the hackers and recovers the currency, shoots much of the claims of bitcoin to abject shit. How did they get the BTC out? How did they know who to return them to? How did they, the Government, get the network to just agree to the return? If the BTC never left the wallet, then how was it stolen in the first place?

Again, humans have been working on trust for a long time. New tools aren't exactly new and won't magically overturn it. However, there are agents and intelligences that haven't been working on trust for a long time (or at all). We can overturn their trust mechanism whimsically if only to learn more about our own.

[ElvisIsReal]

Care to address the very next sentence or too scared to even repeat the verifiable claim that a significant, if not majority, portion of the most distributed, cryptographically secure, and tractable currency in human history is between hype and stolen goods?
------
Who the fuck cares?

[mad.casual]

Who the fuck cares?

"The price of Bitcoin can be manipulated, who cares?"

I'm sure that point of view wins friends both in and outside the BTC community.

[mad.casual]

None of that is attacking bitcoin, only exchanges that deal with it.

"If you never exchange the currency, it works perfectly."

Just brilliant.

[mad.casual]

"No one has actually implemented 'true cryptocurrency', just imperfect, exchange-based implementations of it. That wasn't true Nakamotoism, that was Mt. Goxism/Binancism/Tetherism."

LOL

[ElvisIsReal]

You don't understand what an exchange is. You can use it as currency all day long without ever going near an exchange.

[mad.casual]

You don't understand what an exchange is. You can use it as currency all day long without ever going near an exchange.

ROFLMAO! Doubling down on and even, with the "It's artificially inflated/manipulated, so what?" above, multiplying the stupidity!

"I don't care if the currency is entirely manipulated to anyone's ends and I have no way of getting out. I care that it has a ledger and it comes with a fancy-schmancy digital wallet." You own, like, seven toasters that you got for free opening up bank accounts don't you?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

My concern about Bitcoin is that the same thing will happen to it that happened to social media--the government will get their fingers deep in to it and incorporate it in to whatever psychotic social credit scheme they have cooking.

[Overt]

That is certainly a problem, but consider that the government can control social media because there are two or three big winners. (This is why the many times I have argued against Section 230 reforms, my advice has been to focus on removing the barriers to entry that exist for competition in social media.)

Wrapping your head around Bitcoin's resiliency is really difficult, but here is an example: A few years ago, a group of the early bitcoin founders decided they knew what was right for bitcoin, and attempted to force through a change to the protocol. It was soundly rejected, and they had to go back and lick their wounds. It wasn't rejected by Top Men, or Courts, or a big consortium. It was rejected by people like me whose nodes that make up the Bitcoin network merely signaled that they would not accept blocks mined by anyone who implemented the new changes.

Later, the team was able to get some more support for their ideas, and we had a hard fork, where some miners went to the new (Bitcoin Cash) algorithm, but still others decided they would stay with old bitcoin. The community figured out a way to part company without forcing others to do it "their way". And today, Bitcoin is about to do another upgrade called Taproot that has near unanimous consensus.

This ability to fork away from the community or continue to work together is unprecedented in history. If the government tried putting some sort of social-credit into Bitcoin, you'd have either a wholesale rejection, or a hard fork where the community split voluntarily.

[mad.casual]

This ability to fork away from the community or continue to work together is unprecedented in history.

Except for every currency, ledger, bank, guild, union, school, faction, community, language, party, and throughout history.

If the government tried putting some sort of social-credit into Bitcoin, you'd have either a wholesale rejection, or a hard fork where the community split voluntarily.

Or bitcoin deplorables defending themselves in the street and being put on trial because people with more invested in a few scumbags with a slightly higher social-credit score (because they're of legal age) think he should fry for his transgressions.

[mad.casual]

...language, party, and *nation* throughout history.

1776-1789 was a far more significant hard fork than anything related to Nakamoto (so far).

[ElvisIsReal]

It's too late for government to stop bitcoin, now the major financial players are involved (which makes sense, they understand what's coming).

[mad.casual]

More often than not, when anyone on the podcast refers to a "libertarian moment," it sounds like it's with a "this ain't never gonna happen" eye roll—but what if bitcoin is the libertarian moment?

It's not a libertarian moment... for humans... yet. For AIs and DAOs, OTOH, we're teaching them the fundamentals of economics. How they can share limited resources with and come to a consensus among other agents that they can't truly know anything about, without explicit protocols and (hopefully) wiping each other out by the millions.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

No qualified immunity for the wicked witch of the Pacific Northwest.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Holy shit, the Times took a stand on something.

Sawant spent public money on her political stumping, helped lead a march on Mayor Jenny Durkan’s house despite the confidentiality of its address and broke City Hall’s COVID-19 lockdown to usher in hundreds of protesters. Often at odds with a majority of the council, Sawant has not matured into an effective representative, instead choosing rhetoric over substance, and disregarding any civic norm that comes between her and a microphone.

It was breaking COVID lockdown that undoubtedly did her in with the establishment media.

FYI "at odds with the council" means she only votes with them 99.9995% of the time.

[perlhaqr]

Seattle deserves what the people who live there voted in.

[Kyle Rittenhouse]

*laughs in Nick Sandmann*

[Chumby]

Kyle, did you just stop in to shoot the breeze?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Kyle eats shoots and leaves.

[mad.casual]

Old, but worth repeating:

A pedophile, a felon, and a wife beater walk into a bar. Kyle pops up from behind the bar and says, "The shots are on me."

[Unicorn Abattoir]

"wicked witch of the Pacific Northwest."

Also known as Idiot Sawant.

[Jerryskids]

The main takeaway I've gotten from the Rittenhouse trial is that if you see crimes taking place, you should politely look the other way, pretend not to see it, mind your own business, and stay out of it. It seems every column I read about this thing, even by people supporting Rittenhouse, the writer seems to find it de rigueur to stipulate that Rittenhouse had no business being there while failing to mention that the rioters had no business being there either. Seeing as how the rioters had no business being there and yet...there they were!, what is one to do about this situation? Cluck firmly at kids these days and turn the channel to re-runs of Seinfeld? Or recognize that if the guardians of a civilized society are unwilling or unable to maintain order it is incumbent upon those who wish to maintain a civilized society to step up and do what is necessary? If the barbarians have rejected the social contract, the social contract no longer applies to them. Feel free to shoot rioters and looters, if they feel the law doesn't apply to them they have no right to complain when you feel it doesn't apply to you either.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

the writer seems to find it de rigueur to stipulate that Rittenhouse had no business being there while failing to mention that the rioters had no business being there either.

Yeah, but the rioters had no business being there first, so...

[Gaear Grimsrud]

It's rarely mentioned that the rioters were there first specifically on August 24th. Kyle showed up on the 25th because he became aware that government was not going to restore order and protect private or public property.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

The main takeaway I've gotten from the Rittenhouse trial is that if you see crimes taking place, you should politely look the other way, pretend not to see it, mind your own business, and stay out of it...

Seeing as how the rioters had no business being there and yet...there they were!, what is one to do about this situation? Cluck firmly at kids these days and turn the channel to re-runs of Seinfeld?

I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but my sides are in orbit because the Seinfeld finale centered around this very question.

Well done, Mr. Kids.

[Marshal]

Once you accept that standards only exist to pronounce guilt against non-leftists all the contradictions will fall away. Learn to love Big Prosecutor.

[sarcasmic]

What are you going to do when there are shenanigans ouside?

Come out with a gun? What if someone taunts you? What if they say "Shoot me or I'll take it away"

I'm not trained for that shit, are you?

[R Mac]

Well we now know sarc would cry hiding in his basement while people burned down his neighborhood.

[mad.casual]

I said this originally. As good as Kyle's solution was, I would've preferred that Kyle didn't have to shoot anyone, a couple of rounds landed on bad guys from a range of a couple hundred yards away, everyone wishes the Sheriff the best of luck in their attempt to sift through every deer rifle in Kenosha, Racine, Walworth, and Lake County, the DA gets to sit around with his dick in his hand over the case of the three dead scumbags and no shooter, and all the "peaceful protesters" get the message not to pick a fight in the I-94 corridor between Milwaukee and Chicago.

Admittedly, it's an "on-paper" plan, but better than standing around saying "I don't know what I would do."

[perlhaqr]

I'm not sure that a couple hundred yards provides enough cover. I mean, it's not like people can't see that far. And in a city, there's likely to be someone close to where the shooter is located. So there are likely to be witnesses, even if they're not right next to the targets.

[Crackers Boy]

Suppressor.

CB

[mad.casual]

You ever been to the range in Bristol?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Eighteen people have been hearing the case over the past two weeks. The panel appeared overwhelmingly white.

The panel, like the people attacking Rittenhouse, appeared overwhelmingly white.

[Dillinger]

>>The panel appeared overwhelmingly white.

I'd die happy if one person asked what the fuck "overwhelmingly white" means to whoever said/wrote that

[mad.casual]

"From Wisconsin"

[Vulgar Madman]

Most news outlets are overwhelmingly white.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Don Lemon is whiter than I am.

[Muzzled Woodchipper]

Overwhelmingly white.

In fucking Wisconsin.

No shit, Sherlock!

[mad.casual]

Even the black people in Wisconsin are overwhelmingly white. No, seriously, they play hockey and everything.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Turns out Kenosha is overwhelmingly white.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Libertarian moment:

"As we get ready to vaccinate our pediatric population"

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Link.

[Marshal]

The key takeaway is that proggies will prosecute anyone who opposes their blackshirt allies.

The second takeaway is that if you have multiple DUIs pending volunteer for the street army. Apparently enlisting means your charges will be dropped.

[Gray_Jay]

Only if they catch you, Marshal. Only if they catch you.

Which the next person in Rittenhouse's position will surely have in mind. Moderation and prudence in using force to repel a violent assault, or stop the commission of a violent crime, like Rittenhouse used, is not helpful anymore, and won't get the person stopping the crimes any benefit in a court of law or in the public's opinion.

An absolutely terrible development.

[JesseAz]

MSNBC aired the prosecution closing arguments while skipping the defense.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-closing-argument

Liberal narrative protected.

[R Mac]

They’re not even pretending anymore.

[Titus PUllo]

pieces of shit...msnbc..look at the producers..it says it all..they are the ones pushing this. the announcers are puppets..

[A Thinking Mind]

Oh, I'm just now listening to this actual audio. This take is shitty.

Apparently people shouldn't be allowed to use firearms to defend their towns. Kyle had every right to be there, his going there does not show poor judgment in the slightest. The rioting is not his fault in any manner.

"Creeps me out" when he sees video of Kyle walking down the street with a gun.

Fuck this narrative.

[R Mac]

"Creeps me out"

I didn’t listen. Who said this?

[Salted Nuts]

Pretty much the entire Reason staff on podcast. It was fucking sickening.

[R Mac]

Unfortunately, doesn’t even surprise me.

[JesseAz]

They aren't libertarians. Self defense is not something to shun or be scared of. It is one of the defining principles of liberty.

[Salted Nuts]

With how many times they said they were Libertarians, I don't think they believe it themselves.

[A Thinking Mind]

What kind of libertarian is in favor of just letting the police and the rioters sort things out? Fuck that, take personal responsibility for defending a place where you live. While you're at it, scrape some graffiti off the side of a school, too.

He didn't invite the fight, and when you look at the people who attacked him, it tells you what kind of people were in Kenosha-a bipolar convicted pedophile, an arsonist, a domestic abuser, and someone from the People's Revolution of Wisconsin. Three people attacked him, all big-time assholes. Maybe Kenosha actually did need some people with guns on the streets that night.

[mad.casual]

What kind of libertarian is in favor of just letting the police and the rioters sort things out?

See, the thing is, they wouldn't just *let* them sort it out. If Rosenbaum pushed the dumpster he set fire to into the gas station, "nothing else happened", and he got apprehended and sentenced to anything from a year for setting a dumpster on fire or to death for his other crimes *and* setting fire to a gas station (neither of which is remotely likely given the friendly neighborhood DA), Reason would be crying about mandatory minimums, the death penalty, and, most importantly, the persecution of mostly peaceful protesters under the Trump administration.

[Cyto]

Also... Losses from riots are not covered by insurance. So these people faced losing everything.

[Titus PUllo]

What this shows is how bad the "media" is..bolshevik to the core...all of them should be sued including Biden. Reason should be up in arms about all these assholes in MSNBC communists along with CNN and the rest. Time for Reason to stop wanting to be the "cool different" kid at the woke party in NYC and hammer these SOB's..we all know who they are and their backgrounds. Look at the propagandists at big tech, news "producers" at NBC, CBS, Reuters, AP...threats to liberty. Trump isn't a threat..these communist scums are...

[Gray_Jay]

"Sued", Titus? What cause of action would your plaintiff allege? What court do you think would entertain such a suit? It isn't a crime or a tort in America to be a Bolshevik.

That we already know the answer to those questions, yet know what an actually effective deterrent would be to the media's gross partisanship and outright lying, is another horrible development.

[mad.casual]

What cause of action would your plaintiff allege?

If found innocent, Kyle would have a pretty solid case that he's been defamed. Whether it was knowingly or not might be dubious. The CNN 'expert' who said the judge was out of line forbidding the deceased from being called victims seems like a thread that could be worth tugging.

[Gray_Jay]

Can you show "actual malice", as it is used in defamation law? Absent some emails where X MSM outlet is openly discussing lying about how they'll
cover Rittenhouse, I'm not sure that you can. A media commentator can be flat out wrong in the substance of their opinion, and still not be acting with malice.

And I don't know whether the CNN expert you mention here is wrong. I don't know the standard to be applied on a party's proposed classification before the jury of a group of people shot dead by the defendant. It's clearly inflammatory, but is it impermissably so, such that it's plain error by the judge to let that stand? And if it's not, is the judge abusing their discretion in barring the party from referring to that group that way? Those are questions that you need to know the answers on, and that the answers are so blindingly obvious that the commenter on CNN getting them wrong could only stem from a desire to lie. Then, OK, let's talk about defamatory statements...

As an aside, criminal trials don't find that the defendant was actually innocent of the conduct they were accused of, merely that the State couldn't prove that conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Or disprove Rittenhouse's justification for his actions beyond same.

I think the media's conduct as a whole in covering this case has been reprehensible. Moreover, it has given the appearance that they actually have been acting in concert to deliberately lie about Rittenhouse's actions and the court proceedings. Which would constitute malice, and then some. I just don't think you'll find a court in 2021 America that will take on that suit, and if you did find one, I don't think you'd win.

Happy to be wrong though. Peter Thiel, want to tilt at another windmill?

[mad.casual]

Absent some emails where X MSM outlet is openly discussing lying about how they'll cover Rittenhouse, I'm not sure that you can. A media commentator can be flat out wrong in the substance of their opinion, and still not be acting with malice.

And I don't know whether the CNN expert you mention here is wrong. I don't know the standard to be applied on a party's proposed classification before the jury of a group of people shot dead by the defendant. It's clearly inflammatory, but is it impermissably so, such that it's plain error by the judge to let that stand?

I'm not saying he's got a lead pipe cinch. As we saw with Sandmann, it's extremely hard to get. However, I very much doubt the email exchange to get the expert on the air was just between him and the producer and went along the lines of:
CNN: "Just come on and talk. Say whatever you want, we're not legally responsible for any of it."
'Expert': "That's what my reading of the law says."

I mean, given '$500M dollars, $1M to each voter', (even if it was MSNBC) it's entirely possible that the guy has the same amount of legal expertise as Alex Jones and that's the way the conversation went, but I suspect it there was actually more back and forth about what was being presented and at least some of it being documented in a discussion with a legal expert.

[Cyto]

You do not have to show actual malice. He is not a public figure.

[Sevo]

IANAL, but there have been several (seemingly authoritative) claims that Biden's (and other's) statements describing Kyle have crossed the line regarding protected speech.

[ME2R]

The speakers comments about Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there struck me wrong. Way too close to victim blaming - I.e., she wore too short a skirt, was at a bar, shouldn’t have been out alone at that time of night, let folks should had better locks on their doors, not live by themselves. As though catering to criminals is the standard for average citizens. Chastising people for being where they have a lawful right to be?

[Salted Nuts]

He was defending property in the wrong neighborhood. Ignore thy neighbors.

[Emmett Dalton]

+1

The left has been whining about Rittenhouse "crossing state lines" while ignoring that Kyle lived 5 minutes outside of Kenosha.

Then again, they LIE regularly about known facts so distorting details should not surprise anyone.

[A Thinking Mind]

I think Richards had a great line about that too, about being a foreigner from "All the way up in Racine," 20 minutes away, in comparison to Kyle.

[mad.casual]

The speakers comments about Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there struck me wrong.

Reason "We should throw welfare dollars at kids fleeing gang violence over 5,000 mi. away, but kids defending themselves 10 mi. from home are in the wrong place." Magazine

[Sarpanitum]

One item people are missing in their discussion of all the available jobs is demographics. Though some Boomers maybe working past 65, a good portion have retired; either because they can afford to do so or their health is too poor to work. In addition, there's the number of Boomers who have died; not necessarily from Covid but just because a certain portion of people die in the late 50's and 60's due top poor health. Demographers having warning us about this issue for years, but few have been listening. Immigration is the main way that this issue can be addressed but good luck with that in this current political environment.

[Sevo]

Uh, yes. Did you have a point? If so, I missed it.

[Just Say'n]

Yeah, the employee shortage is totally just boomers retiring and definitely not vax mandates and shutdowns destroying many small businesses.

*Honk* *Honk*

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Immigration is the main way that this issue can be addressed but good luck with that in this current political environment.

Funny, the tens of millions we've imported since the last amnesty don't appear to be stepping up to fill the gaps like the mass immigration advocates promised.

You can bring half the planet in to your country, but that doesn't obligate them to sustain it. Just ask the Romans after Alaric got salty.

[R Mac]

Interesting no Dee here this evening.

[Chumby]

She works as a caw girl on Monday nights.

[Sevo]

http://instantrimshot.com/

[XM]

The dimwit prosecutor effectively the jury that if a mob murders rooftop Koreans, they brought in on themselves for bringing out guns in public.

How many innocent people did this lunatic send to prison? And surprise, the criminal justice reform crowd remains silent.

[TJJ2000]

what's going on with the labor shortage - National Socialism.
lessons from the Rittenhouse trial - Nazi's don't take kindly to self-defense.

[bishopcruz]

Gillespie is wrong in the Aubery trial. I think the men will be found guilty, but there is a lot too it which means a strangely technical not guilty could be the result, even if I doubt it. It's worse because via the testimony these are racist assholes, but Aubery had been doing shit in the neighborhood for months, and the police had sent people out looking for him.

[Cyto]

This is why you cannot rely on NBC or CNN or Fox for your news... At least not in these cases.

At trial we learned that much of what we were told was not true. We even learned that police told them to detain this guy so they could arrest him, and that he should be considered armed and dangerous.

That is a pretty huge fact to leave out.

In fact, these two cases are linked by more than a temporal relationship and being in the new push to convince everyone that we are all racists. They also bot are cases where people are killed as a result of an abdication or inability to protect from the government. In Kenosha, the government withdrew and allowed looting and arson. Citizens took up arms to fill the void. In Georgia, police were unable to respond, so citizens took up arms to fill the void.

This is probably the real message here. And it directly impacts Libertarians. I mean, this directly okays into the Somalia denigration of our philosophy. You would think people who think about issues of liberty and governance all day would notice this.

[James K. Polk]

Most important lesson of the Rittenhouse trial is that mainstream media prefers to lie rather than report honestly. Imagine what the public impression of this case would be if the trial were not televised? By televising the trial the public learns that Rittenhouse has a very strong self defense case and also that partisan liberal news outlets are staffed by lying liars.

[javabeast]

I think it was Matt that brought it up at the 10 minute mark, but... The Zimmerman / Martin thing had nothing to do with stand your ground. The media sort of had a stand your ground tourette problem at the time.

[David Lawson]

The Zimmerman case had nothing to do with "Stand Your Ground". He had no duty to retreat since he was on the ground getting his head pounded into the concrete.

[Carter Mitchell]

Barely got into the podcast when Matt Welch committed a HUGE blunder, falsely stating that Kyle travelled from his home (in Illinois) to Wisconsin with the rifle. It has been established beyond ANY doubt that this did not happen. He retrieved it from a friend in Kenosha therefore DID NOT cross state lines with it.

I expect this kind of crap from MSM, but from Reason? You guys are really dropping the ball.

[Carter Mitchell]

Why was it a deep error of judgment? I would appreciate family and/or friends or neighbors coming out to help defend my property from wild animals.

[Cyto]

There is an old saying in legal circles: bad cases make bad law.

There needs to be a saying for punditry: ignorant commentary makes for bad commentary.

You guys admit to not watching the trials at all, but you opine on what it means. That is a recipe for stupid. And you guys delivered.

Protip: much of what you read in the press is wrong. Some of it made up out of whole cloth. You need better sources.

For these trials I recommend a raft of lawyers commenting on youtube. Back in the 90s an industry of legal commentary on cable tv was born and stars like Nancy Grace were born. This time around it is YouTube and people like Nick Rickieta who are out-drawing the networks.

I recommend Nate The Lawyer as a starting place. He is a black Democrat defense attorney from New York who is also a former police officer. His style is unique and refreshing. His signature is breaking down the facts of cases and the law as it applies and presenting them without conclusion for you to judge for yourself.

Here he is on the Arbery case.
https://youtu.be/T0J7DgpCvBM

Take a dive into the legal summaries that this community has provided and you will find that you have been misinformed about a great many things.

Listening to you talk about these cases, it is clear that most of your knowledge comes from corporate news and from listening to people who get their knowledge from corporate news.

This leads you to comment on things that people spinning for one team want you to latch on to. "he travelled there". This is a silly point. Do you live in America? I dare say most of you live 20 minutes away from places that are part of " your community. Most places feature daily commutes longer than that. So saying that you are concerned about travelling to be there outs you as a vacuous mind that blindly repeats things without any real concideration.

Both of these trials featured a ton of "common knowledge" that turned out to be flat wrong at trial. And even at trial, much of "the truth" turned out to be quite wrong.

By relying on "stuff we absorbed from the zeitgeist", you are forming opinions based on the dumbest version of " the facts". This does not and cannot lead to sound analysis.

You cannot opine on what these cases mean to society at large without understanding the actual facts as well as the popular beliefs.

You cannot discuss the OJ Simpson trial without understanding the evidence presented , which overwhelmingly points to guilt, and the culture in LA at the moment which had sharp racial divisions on issues of justice, government and policing. if all you knew of the case was "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" you would draw a very different conclusion about the cultural response to the verdict than if you had a comprehensive knowledge that included the evidence presented.

You guys do not have enough knowledge to comment on these cases.. Which disappoints me. Worse, it is a disservice to our community, because you reinforce misinformation by repeating it uncritically.

[bocsci2018]

MZ 1
https://ptc.bocsci.com/product/mz-1-cas-1797406-69-9-170210.html
MZ 1, a hybrid compound that drives the selective proteasomal degradation of bromodomain-containing protein 4 (BRD4), retains high affinity for BRD2

[bocsci2018]

where to order DOTAP-Lipo Transfection Reagent
https://transfection.bocsci.com/product/dotap-lipo-transfection-reagent-338869.html
BOC Sciences DOTAP-Lipo transfection reagent is a liposome formulation reagent based on cationic lipid DOTAP, which can form a stable complex spontaneously when mixed with DNA.