The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Reality Check for Progressives on the Rittenhouse Case
The idea that citizens trying to protect a community from rioters are presumptively white supremacist vigilantes doesn't bear scrutiny.
Among the most interesting aspects of the Rittenhouse case has been the reaction of Progressivism, Inc. Judging from social media posts, many progressive commentators believe that Mr. Rittenhouse was clearly a villain even before he shot anyone, because anyone who would come armed to a riot claiming to want to help protect the community from rioters is almost certainly a violent white nationalist using the riot as an excuse for vigilantism. It's not possible that someone like Rittenhouse was motivated by a sense of community responsibility, duty, or other praiseworthy ends.
I have not followed the Rittenhouse case itself very closely, and I have no special insight into what was going on in his mind at the time. But having authored an article on armed self-defense during the riots of summer 2020, I know that the stereotype that many progressives have of those who engaged in such actions is wrong. Consider ground zero of the riots, Minneapolis, where George Floyd was killed (from my article, which has the footnotes):
In the city's Lake Street neighborhood—which was at the heart of recent riots—restauranteur Cesia Baires formed Security Latinos De La Lake, a group of gun-toting locals dedicated to protecting the area's Latino community. Baires' group was one of many armed neighborhood watches that sprung up in the Twin Cities. It's not something that I would want," Baires told MPR, "but . . . we were left alone. . . . There were no cops that would come around. So what are we to do? Just stand there and do nothing?" The local NAACP chapter also organized groups of armed residents to guard local businesses during this summer's wave of rioting. In the city's predominantly-Black Folwell neighborhood, "it became . . . apparent . . . that the police weren't available to help. . . . [w]hen protests and ransacking of businesses erupted" in May. As a result, residents "banded together to protect themselves[,] . . . . sitting outside businesses with guns to make sure outside groups didn't attack." After several Black-owned businesses were destroyed during demonstrations, City Councilman Jeremiah Ellison (son of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison) organized his own group of mostly-Black armed citizens. The group was formed to protect businesses in a neighborhood "considered [to be] the heart of the city's black community." In one incidence of armed self-defense during the rioting in Minneapolis, video footage shows armed volunteers standing outside a tobacco shop to help the storeowners defend the premises against rioters and looters. One gun-toting volunteer explained that while "we definitely don't agree with the looting, but we do agree with the cause for protests."
And in neighboring St. Paul:
When riots erupted in St. Paul, citizens armed themselves and guarded their property from the mobs. Notably, African-American residents were seen protecting local businesses with guns. Various videos taken during the riots show "armed black men standing in front of a store" said to be a black-owned business, as well as a "black gunman" and other "civilians protecting a store."
Or consider Kenosha itself, where the Rittenhouse shootings occurred:
As a wave of riots gripped Kenosha, Wisconsin in late-August, videos surfaced showing armed residents protecting local businesses from rioters and looters. In one such video, an armed man explains, "we're trying to protect the innocent people and . . . the[ir] businesses," while another says, "I'm on your side . . . but you can't burn down your local businesses." Another video shows armed residents protecting a Kenosha car dealership, with one telling rioters, "get the fuck away from these businesses. These people rely on this shit to live." In a third video, an armed citizen tells a journalist, "We're trying to stop [rioters] from hurting their own community."
In these and many other instances, there is not a white nationalist, or a vigilante, in sight. Just people, usually local residents, trying to protect their neighborhoods from chaos and destruction while the police stood down, usually on orders from superiors. Again, I have no especially informed opinion about Rittenhouse. But the notion that only unhinged, violent, white nationalist vigilantes would take to the streets with arms during riots is just false.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bullying people into submission by yelling racism is the idea. Bullying people into submission by burning down the city is also the idea. Bullies generally dont like it whatsoever when people resist.
The progressive position, as far as I can tell, is that if there’s a riot it’s a no go zone– the police are supposed to watch them burn the city to the ground and residents found in the area are supposed to submit to mob violence rathe than defend themselves. When pressed, they’ll offer some variant of, “It’s just stuff!”
A lot of our civilization is dependent on that “just stuff.” We’ve been far too lenient in allowing rioters to pillage our cities. That one of the few people to face serious consequences from the riots is someone who defended himself, quite possibly preventing his own murder, shows how deeply backwards our justice system is.
it is am azing that they are selectively pro-riot.
I have it on good authority that walking through the Capitol without authorization is a violent attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, and should be punished by years in prison.
I have it on good authority that Seamus is a troll who invents strawmen.
How is that not an accurate summation of the left’s reaction to the Jan 6 protest? Doesn’t fit your narrative? Highlights your hypocracy?
Well, it’s not an accurate summation of the left’s reaction to the Jan 6 protest because there was no Jan 6 protest; there was a Jan 6 coup attempt. And the people who should be punished by years in prison are not people who “walked through the Capitol without authorization,” but people who broke into the Capitol, smashed stuff, and tried to lynch members of Congress (and the Vice President).
Assuming that there are such people, Antler-Man isn’t one of them, yet he’s now facing 41 months of hard time. I saw a video of him in the Senate Chamber, listening to a Capitol policeman telling him to be respectful and not damage stuff, and as far as I could see carrying out those instructions.
Coup attempt my ass. If you’re trying to pull off a coup, you don’t just take over the seat of the legislature. (In fact, that’s one of the last places you need to bother with.) You seize the TV and radio stations and the telephone exchanges (and these days I guess you also need to find some way to take over or shut down the internet), immobilize or coopt the heads of the military and the police.
Even if the January 6 chuckleheads had succeeded in seizing and holding the House and Senate Chambers, just what effect do you imagine that would have had? The House and Senate would just have assembled in another location and completed the electoral vote count.
David Nieporent
Technically, it isn’t prison, because they haven’t gone to trial yet. Rather the judges have agreed to waive bond and Speedy Trial, so they languish in pretrial detention.
Antler man has been sentenced to 41 months in the Big House. That sounds like “years in prison” to me.
The prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case literally said that Rittenhouse should not have defended himself from a guy who earlier said he would try to kill him if he was alone because “everyone takes a beating sometimes, don’t they?”
They had a case in Seattle, of all places, about 10 years ago, where a woman got into a verbal altercation on a bus with someone who was swearing loudly, he spit at her and threatened her, then when she got off the bus at the next stop, she saw he was following her off the bus right behind her. She turned at shot him in the chest at point blank range, although I think he survived.
The police took her in for questioning, then let her go, then called her to come down to the station the next day to pick up her gun.
The prosecutor declined to prosecute her, the rationale was that even though the guy was unarmed she had no obligation to see how severe of a beating she was going to get before she decided to shoot him.
I’d say the same rule should apply to a 17 year old dealing with a crazy pedophile.
For years after a disaster riot with arson ad looting, they continue to complain that businesses in the burned out neighborhood don’t want to build back (or more likely are financially ruined and can’t build back).
What was insane to me was a professor arguing that the owner of a burned-out business didn’t really suffer a loss because insurance would pay for it. So burning a business was nonviolent protest.
It is believable that an armed individual could patrol their neighborhood to protect the lives and property of its residents.
It is also believable that an armed individual might travel 20 miles looking for a fight in someone else’s neighborhood.
Deciding which narrative to believe requires engaging with the facts and weighing evidence and the answer will vary from case to case. Bare recitation of the possibilities won’t help with that process.
Trying to pose this as som,e sort of abstract moot court question when we in fact know the details of the case is nothing more than an attempt to protect a narrative from the facts. Rittenhouse lives in a suburb of Kenosha. His job is in Kenosha. His father lives in Kenosha. He went to Kenosha to clean up graffiti, offer medical help, and protect property from rioters. Characterizing him as “an armed individual might travel 20 miles looking for a fight in someone else’s neighborhood” is factually a slur and a lie.
+ Thank you
yw
Is it illegal to travel to someone else’s neighborhood “looking for a fight”? Is it wrong to do that?
Don’t tell the police. Because that’s a lot of what the police do.
Rittenhouse’s father lives in Kenosha.
He worked in Kenosha and his Dad lived there. That was his community. He treated passing rioters with first aid and water while he was protecting a specific business. Rioters took a dumpster from that business pushed it into the street , set it on fire and were trying to push it into a gas station, so he put out the fire. Rosenbaum , fresh out of jail and psych ward, didn’t like that and started threatening Kyle and chased him , the other rioters followed Rosenbaum’s lead. Kyle turns around , Rosenbaum lunges for the barrel making contact, and Kyle fires the gun. Clear cut self-defense has been established, regardless of his reason for being there.
anyone who would come armed to a riot in another state claiming to want to help protect the community from rioters is almost certainly a violent white nationalist using the riot as an excuse for vigilantism.
FIFY
Both Rittenhouse’s town and Kenosha are right by the state border, and iirc Rittenhouse’s dad lives in Kenosha and he had other ties (maybe worked there)? Like I said, I have no special insight into his mind, but what is the significance of crossing a state border?
Rittenhouse testified that his grandmother, aunt, uncle and cousins all live in the city of Kenosha.
In addition the rifle was being kept in Kenosha and the friend who was holding the rifle was living in Kenosha.
Rittenhouse went to Kenosha that morning to work as a lifeguard, and after work he hooked up with his friends, and they went to clean graffiti off a local high school. Eventually they decided to go try to protect the local businesses that night.
Remember also that the guys he shot were from out of state. It is somehow okay for people to come from Arizona to burn the city down in protest but not okay from someone from the next town over to come and try and help defend the business owners there.
Was there any testimony that any of the people he shot were burning anything?
Yes, there is evidence not only that Joshua Rosenberg (the first guy to attack him) was setting dumpster fires, but that he was angry when Kyle Rittenhouse put out a dumpster fire; I forget if there is testimony that it was a dumpster fire Rosenberg set.
Sorry, Joseph Rosenberg; it’s Joshua Ziminski. (The guy who fired the handgun, was apparently coordinating with Rosenberg, and should have been charged with felony murder for Rosenberg’s death.)
Irrelevant because he didn’t go to the city with the intent to shoot those particular people. Briggs’ comment is sufficient if he went to stop other people from burning down the city – and the prior two days of rioting are pretty substantial evidence that was happening.
Yes, tons of it with regards to Rosenbaum. This is know to anyone e with even vague familiarity with the case.
Here is the prosecutor describing what Rosenbaum did before he attacked Rittenhouse that night. IANAL, but it doesn’t strike me as particularly effective.
Rosenbaum had been trying to set fires previously in the evening.
“Ryan Balch…testified that Rosenbaum was “hyperaggressive and acting out in a violent manner,” including trying to set fires and throwing rocks.” https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-george-floyd-kenosha-3b74864f491347cfdd09cfc22ffdf557
I seem to recall that Rittenhouse was involved in stopping a lit dumpster or similar from being used to set a business on fire not too long before the shooting, and that Rosenbaum was at least present at that attempt, but I can’t find the specific testimony right now.
It wasn’t just any business, it was a gas station – presumably with thousands of gallons of gasoline in the underground tanks. Rosenbaum’s gang may have been too stupid to realize this, but what they were trying to do could have blown up the whole neighborhood and put themselves and dozens of others in the hospital or morgue. IMHO, only shooting one of them was remarkable restraint.
any of the people he shot were burning anything?
Has zero relevance.
Yes, Zimenski(the guy who fired the first shot of the altercation) and the Pedo Rosenbaum had lit a dumpster on fire and were pushing it into a gas station. Sane people would consider this a bad idea. Upon the fire being put out, Zimenski(sp?) and the Pedo Rosenbaum decided to chase after Rittenhouse with Ziminski firing a shot into the air and the Pedo Rosenbaum dying as he lived, attempting to force himself on an unwilling minor.
I have seen that sentiment elsewhere, and confess I just don’t get it. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think it matters?
People sometimes live near boundaries. I live a couple hundred yards from the city limit line. Does that mean I shouldn’t care about what goes on a couple hundred yards in that direction, but should care about what goes on miles away on the other side of the city? Similarly, I live a couple of miles from a state border, on one side of a 300 odd mile wide state. In some ways (like what the legislature does) what goes on in the distant state capitol affects me more that what goes on a couple of miles away in the next state, but for other things – snowstorms, wildfires, pandemics and riots – what is happening a couple of miles across the state line affects me a lot more than what goes on 300 miles away.
If you ask residents of Davenport or Bettendorf (Iowa) or Moline and Rock Island (Illinois) where they live the answer you get is ‘Quad Cities’. If you visit, you’d be hard put to know which city you are in at any given time.
Political boundaries are just that – they aren’t some kind of event horizon where you don’t have any interest in what goes on on the other side of them.
I agree with you. On my way into work this morning I crossed a bridge. The bridge is maybe 1,000 feet long. When crossing that bridge I go through three Counties. I live close enough to the State line that I buy my gasoline there to save about $0.30 per gallon.
Martinned is just channeling those Southern officials who, in the days of the Freedom Riders, complained that things would be just fine if it weren’t for all those “outside agitators” coming in from out of state and stirring up trouble.
I enjoy freedoms in suburban Arapahoe County that I wouldn’t enjoy if I lived in urban Denver County. They provide a few entertainment options that I use occasionally but mostly I don’t care how they’re governed. The state of Colorado government bothers me more because they rule over me, they leave aside the county and city governments. It bothers me most to pay for schools because I don’t have children.
So you’re saying that everyone who opposed apartheid but didn’t then live in South Africa did so illegitimately? That those Americans who joined the RAF before the US entered WW2 were crazed vigilantes? That all the out-of-state protestors who came to every BLM protest were using that as an excuse rather than as a legitimate statement of civic duty? That every non-Louisianan who volunteered to help with the Katrina recovery did so for bad purposes? Do you have any clue how ridiculously hypocritical your double-standards are?
If I remember correctly, Rittenhouse lived less than 10 miles away from the location of the shootings. He went to his job as a lifeguard in Kenosha earlier that day.
Do you imagine that there is some wall or other border control that separates those communities?
Border control? Damn, you’re funny!
I hate to break it to you, but all three people Rittenhouse travelled further than he did: Huber – Twin Lakes WI (just a little further than Rittenhouse), Rosenbaum – Milwaukee WI, Grosskreutz – West Allis WI.
Sure Rittenhouse crossed a state line, but I spent most of my life living within 5 miles of that line (on both sides of it) and it’s silly to pretend that it’s some sort of magical wall.
It was stupid for a 17-year old kid to show up but NONE of them should have been there. They were all violating curfew. If the Governor had sent the Nat Guard numbers that local politicians requested, then the curfew would have been enforced. None of this would have happened.
This was the THIRD night of violence. The first night caught officials by surprise. Maybe – emphasis on maybe – they couldn’t muster sufficient forces in time for the second night. But the third night? The people in charge made a conscious decision to let the chaos and violence continue instead of enforcing the curfew.
The same people who ignore our Mexican border think a state line is very, very, very important.
“n another state”
Plenty of people live in one state and work in another, as he did. Half the people in my hometown worked across the river in another state.
We have a right to travel from state to state as well.
My home is six miles from the Virginia border.
A lot of people I worked with at the Press lived in Virginia.
Driving around town I see a lot of Virginia tags every day.
It’s even worse in Bristol TN/VA.
State Street is literally laid out on the state line.
There are people literally walking across the state line on every corner on State Street like it did not matter.
Martinned’s dream announcement over PA on westbound Orange Line Metrorail train:
“Next station stop: Rosslyn. Now entering the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please have your passports ready.”
He traveled from a suburb into town. The distance he went is about as far as I have to go just to go to the grocery store.
Guess you don’t live anywhere near a state line, where people have to cross back and forth on a daily basis just to get their day to day stuff done.
CA has border controls for agricultural products. I was living in Douglas County, NV, next door to South Lake Tahoe. About the third time through the checkpoint, the guard asked why I was in that lane. He then pointed at the one next to it marked “locals”. Turns out, they could tell from my NV plates that I qualified. If you haven’t seen it – that border is pretty distinct (the immigration station is a couple miles down US 50), because the buildings on the CA side are 1-2 story, while they are substantially taller on the NV side, being mostly casino/hotels catering to Californians.
In the old days, there was supposedly a bar/dance hall that was split down the middle by the state line. When the authorities would visit from either states the customers would just go to the other side of the room, and hence out of the jurisdiction of the visiting authorities. It was said to be a favorite venue of Frank Sinatra.
Most everyone already knows you for the dishonest propaganda-spewing sack of crap you’ve always been when commenting here. There’s no need to run your act into the ground.
“It is also believable that an armed individual might travel 20 miles looking for a fight in someone else’s neighborhood.”
KR’s dad lived in Kenosha, so its not like he was a stranger.
It’s not surprising they push this narrative, though. Liberals have been opposed to the very idea of self defense since the 1960s at least, and they’ve been calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist for just as long.
Weirdly, there is another trial going on that deals with self defense and race that kind of firmly supports the liberal narrative about things…
Actually, it doesn’t. The McMichaels are not as sympathetic as Rittenhouse, but Arbery was a criminal who attacked Travis McMichael in almost exactly the way Rosenbaum tried to attack Rittenhouse.
Wow. And you have the audacity to call me a liar. He was hunted. Arbery was the one defending himself.
Arbery repeatedly committed misdemeanor criminal trespass. Both McMichaels recognized him because of multiple videos of those trespasses on the NO TRESPASSING-posted Larry English property posted to Facebook by the homeowner. Travis McMichael encountered him on the English property on Feb 11, 2020, but withdrew b/c he interpreted Arbery as threatening him with a concealed weapon. (A pistol had been stolen from Travis’ truck.) When they recognized him they chased him in their truck and Greg McMichael demanded he stop to be talked to. Arbery ran off in a different direction so the McMichaels pulled to a stop maybe 100 yards in front of him and Greg McMichael, standing in the bed of the truck called the police. Travis got out with his shotgun, but kept it pointing in the air until Arbery, running directly at him, got wirthin 20 yards or so. Rightly alarmed, TM then pointed his shotgun at Arbery to deter him, but Arbery then ran around the other side of thwe truck and attacked him from that direction, grabbing the shotgun by the barrel and striking TM with his fist. Whereupon TM shot him dead.
I’m not seeing where the McMichaels did anything wrong.
What part of what I said are you alleging is a lie?
I think it is pretty clear that Arbery ran around the other side of the truck to try an avoid the McMichaels.
“I think it is pretty clear that Arbery ran around the other side of the truck to try an avoid the McMichaels.”
Really? Then, once on the right verge, why didn’t Arbery just keep running that way? Why did he veer left across the front of the truck and resume running directly at Travis? That’s a funny, funny way to “avoid” someone.
Your legal analysis is as incompetent as ever. He did no such thing.
There were no no trespassing signs.
You say that with such apparent confidence, but you know this how?
It’s not even plausible that Larry English would suffer an expensive loss of fishing equipment from his boat parked in the carport of the home being remodelled and respond by installing security cameras which caught Arbery trespassing multiple times, and yet not post the property…. but you just can’t help making as ass of yourself.
As it happens, there’s a series of YouTube videos of English’s 911 calls to the police in Nov-Dec 2019 and he says in one of them that the property is posted.
And there was a Daily Mail article in which he said the same thing, and though the text he quoted as being on the sign is not exactly what is written on the sign on the Port-a-Potty that is pictured in the article that could be either because he got irt wrong or because there were multiple signs.
So, there’s no real doubt that the property was posted.
That’s my reasons for saying so. What have YOU got, bunky?
English testified that the property wasn’t posted.
This. And GandyDancer’s “not even plausible” is absurd. Unlike security cameras, which might deter would-be thieves, posting no trespassing signs does not prevent anyone from stealing stuff. It’s entirely plausible that someone would choose the former but not the latter.
You wrote: “…there’s decent evidence that [Rittenhouse] sucker punched an unarmed girl.”
I’ve seen the video. You are a liar. It takes no “audacity” to say so. There was no “sucker punch”. If you don’t want to be called a liar stop lying.
Poor Arbery was just a jogger.
Racist liar says what?
Racist…
Give the cheap virtue signaling a rest, Mr. HandsUpDon’tShoot.
“another trial going on that deals with self defense and race that kind of firmly supports the liberal narrative ”
Then why all the liberal focus on Wisconsin? White guy shooting other whites, not a black involved.
Your media is the one not covering Georgia.
I don’t know, it’s actually a good question. Maybe it’s reactionary to the right wing valorization of Kyle? Maybe it’s because of the gun involved?
Maybe it’s reactionary to the right wing valorization of Kyle? Maybe it’s because of the gun involved?
LOL!
Hell, he’s probably right. Rittenhouse tangentially ties back to the Floyd stuff. And it was horribly reported from day one and politicized by the leftish media. So the righties jump in because they have to oppose the left.
Meanwhile the videos are out there and they clearly show self defense. The charges should never have been brought in the first place, and if Rittenhouse isn’t acquitted it’ll be a huge injustice. The left can’t back off and admit a misjudgment (and instead some are trying to intimidate the jury). Meanwhile the right has made Rittenhouse into a hero when he isn’t one.
On the Arbery case, the shooters look and act like typical southern racist assholes who confronted the guy because he was jogging through a white neighborhood. No evidence that he had done anything criminal (get out of here with misdemeanor trespass). They were in no position to do what they did and have no plausible self defense argument. They need to go down hard.
That was kind of my point. His defense of the media and liberals in general is their bias and disregard for the truth.
Rittenhouse is a hero. Anyone who puts out a fire in a dumpster that two arsonists are trying to convey into a gas station is a hero. That said hero was subsequently forced to defend himself from a pedophile, a wife beater, and a lying sack of shit doesn’t make him less of a hero.
Because pointing fingers at bogeymen is what leftists do now. They almost completely stopped caring about helping anyone a long time ago.
Weirdly, there is another trial going on that deals with self defense and race that kind of firmly supports the liberal narrative about things…
How does two white guys being on trial for murder (among other things) over their killing a black man support the liberal narrative about things, firmly or otherwise?
Uh it supports the idea that there are racists who attack unarmed black men and the law almost allowed them to get away with it. Remember that this was in front of two prosecutors, one of whom wrote a lengthy memo explaining why this was legitimate. The only reason its on trial now is the video they filmed got released and state level law enforcement got involved.
Uh it supports the idea that there are racists who attack unarmed black men
There are also black racists who attack unarmed white people, and incidents of the law actually letting them get away with it. Are you asserting that supports a narrative about how racist and evil black people are, or that the criminal justice system is inherently racist?
They hate independence, whether in self-defense or choosing a charter school. They want everyone dependent on the State, with them in charge.
Exactly. You want to own a gun? Racist!!!
The evidence is so clear in this case, the very best antiRittenhouse rhetoric (including posts by the progs in this thread) all boils down to random side questions that attempt to distract from the core self defense issue. Like him being under age or crossing state lines. As if that gives a blank check to attack someone.
They know they are in the wrong. They are fully aware that Kyle is innocent. But they are still intentionally working in bad faith to destroy this young man. Thats how evil these people are.
I find what’s evil is the celebratory attitude the right has towards him and killing other humans. He may be legally innocent, but valorizing killing and dehumanizing the dead is pretty gross and evil. And this kid is going to be celebrated and praised for it the rest of his life. That’s what’s actually going to destroy him: his soul is going to be corrupted forever by thinking he did society some service instead of the acknowledging the painful reality: killing is bad and you should feel really bad about it.
To reiterate AmosArch’s point:
“The evidence is so clear in this case, the very best anti Rittenhouse rhetoric (including posts by the progs in this thread) all boils down to random side questions that attempt to distract from the core self defense issue.”
The morality of killing and our attitude to it isn’t a “side question” it’s actually super important.
Tell you what. How about I give you a firearm. Then I jump and stomp on your face. Or hit you repeatedly in the head with a skateboard. Or point a gun at your head.
Then let’s talk about morality.
And if I killed you I’d feel horrible about it. It would be soul corrupting and haunt me forever.
And if I killed you I’d feel horrible about it. It would be soul corrupting and haunt me forever.
Then perhaps you should be doing your finger-wagging routine (which is based on a bullshit attempt to convince yourself that you’re morally superior to those with whom you disagree) at those on your side who castigated Rittenhouse for becoming so emotional while recounting the confrontation with Rosenbaum that started all this.
And Rittenhouse apparently “feels horrible” about it too. That doesn’t detract either from his legal claims nor from the fact he probably even made the right choices in the instants they happened. When someone attacks you and it’s you or them, feeling terrible about it afterwards really is the best option.
(Quibble. You can feel terrible, but you can’t feel horrible.)
Ever work on a capital murder case? I have, and let me tell you, being involved in the machinery of legalized killing, even for a really bad dude, is a morally devastating and soul-corrupting experience. And that’s a pretty attenuated experience given how long it takes until someone is executed. So being up close and personal to killing probably isn’t going to make me feel like some sort of amazing hero who did something super awesome.
Ever been shot at and had to shoot back? Been there done that. It was confirmed that I hit what I aimed at. Am I sorry that I killed people? A bit, then I remember that they were trying to kill me and the other people in the aircraft. If they wouldn’t have fired, I wouldn’t have known that they were there.
Pretty much the same thing here. If they wouldn’t have come after Rittenhouse, they would still be alive. Makes me wonder about the first two. Rittenhouse’s weapon was in plain sight, what made them think that they could just come and take it? My guess would be the same thing that is on trial here besides Rittenhouse. Our right to self-defense. I’m betting that they thought that he wouldn’t shoot because of the possibility of going to jail.
One last thing. Why do Liberals always believe that the person with the weapon is to blame? Again if they had left Rittenhouse alone they wouldn’t have gotten shot.
“Am I sorry that I killed people? A bit.”
Then I have no quarrel with you. That’s my point. You feel bad about it and that’s a good thing.
And that’s the thing. If I were the actual shooter I’d be devastated. As a mere interested observer I can take a more philosophic distance and say that eliminating out of control rioters is probably good for society as a whole for the message that the community won’t tolerate this unopposed.
I think that analysis may fit Rosenbaum killing (except for the kill shot in the back). But after that Rittenhouse was fleeing the scene of a potential crime.
The “shot in the back” is effectively a lie. As Rosenbaum grabbed for his gun KR shot him four times in rapid succession. The last shot entered thr top rear of Rosenbaum’s shoulder and traveled down through Rosenbaum’s body, ending up in the area of his kidney or liver, I forget which. “Shot in the back” of course implies that Rosenbaum wa facing away from Rittenhouse and/or retreating from him. Not true.
…and hiow is valid self defense a “potential crime”?
“But after that Rittenhouse was fleeing the scene of a potential crime.”
Which means that they were not legally privileged to oppose his retreat with deadly force. In many states, the police are privileged to shot escaping dangerous felons (such as Big Mike Brown – except that case two was self defense). But they weren’t police, and thus were not so privileged. Which means that Rittenhouse was very likely the one legally privileged to use deadly force in his own defense.
Besides, he was trying to run towards where the police were at the time. Moreover, at least 3 of the 4 he shot at had criminal records. Lefty, the third guy he actually shot, had been illegally carrying the Glock 43 he pointed at Rittenhouse. Contrasted to the bogus gun charge against Rittenhouse, that never made it to the jury, the law in WI is clear – you need a CCL to carry concealed (but not openly, like Rittenhouse), and if he had applied for one, he most likely would have been turned down based on his criminal record. Wouldn’t be surprised if that was one of the charges dismissed by the prosecution the week before trial in trade for his testimony against Rittenhouse.
I thought Grossskreuz was not actually convicted, merely charged, and that he claimed to have a CC permit.
Resuming pointing the gun at KR is anyway adequate justification to get shot no matter whether he had a CC permit or not, but you might want to check this out before repeating something that may not be correct.
Recent identification of Jump Kick Guy, which the prosecution had and failed to share with defense, makes it four out of four.
“The morality of killing and our attitude to it isn’t a “side question” it’s actually super important.”
It’s a side question when the topic is the trial. I’m sure Rittenhouse can go speak with a priest or a therapist or something and get himself straightened out.
Yes, and unless you’re a pacifist you recognize the morality of using deadly force in the defense of yourself or others.
Valorizing self-defense is what you are dodging by only calling it “killing”. One can applaud self-defense without glorifying the killing. The third rioter, for instance, was not killed, and I haven’t seen any articles which treat this third self-defense shooting as not worth applauding.
It is killing. People are dead. They had lives and families and friends and people who cared about them. This isn’t good. Don’t praise it as something good.
Well, it’s good that Rittenhouse isn’t dead. Given the options, this isn’t a bad outcome.
It is good he isn’t dad. It’s still a bad outcome because a good outcome isn’t possible in this scenario.
*dead.
That’s right. A good outcome wasn’t possible because Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz shut off the option of such an outcome, by chasing Rittenhouse and causing him to reasonably fear that his use of deadly force was necessary to avert an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Exactly. Nobody made them come after him. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
It’s still a bad outcome because a good outcome isn’t possible in this scenario.
Then what the hell are you whining about?
“ It is killing. People are dead. They had lives and families and friends and people who cared about them. This isn’t good. Don’t praise it as something good.”
Rittenhouse sure didn’t believe that it was good that he had to shoot three people, two fatally, to save his own life. That was obvious when he broke down on the stand. But in the end, it was their decisions to attack Rittenhouse with deadly force that cost two of them their lives, and the third, Lefty, full use of his right arm.
He DID do society a service by killing rioters who attacked him. Bravo!
Hey Michael P, the liar, here’s some valorization.
Lol, this is classic, regular Michael P.
“No one is saying”
Next comment says it.
Are you an oral rape enthusiast like the irReverent Kirkland?
Maybe you should take a lesson from the fact that I require more than one pseudonymous Internet commenter before attributing an opinion to a broad group of people.
I favor the liberal-libertarian mainstream shoving even more progress down the throats of whining, bigoted clingers.
I do not understand the ‘oral rape’ comments, except to the extent they indicate right-wingers are flailing — aiming any slur they can find against their betters — as the culture war stomps their ugly, stale thinking into irrelevance in modern America.
It is more than disingenuous when the anguish he displayed on the stand was portrayed a crocodile tears. He can’t win. Had he maintained composure he’d have been portrayed as a cold blooded killer. Since he broke down it’s characterized as an Oscar winning performance.
It’s not evil but it’s distasteful. I hope he’ll have enough sense to walk away from this, but I suspect I’ll be disappointed.
Meanwhile the left is making martyrs out of the three guys that were shot, despite the undeniable fact that they initiated the violence. Like Rittenhouse they came looking for trouble and like him they found it. Not worthy of sympathy just because they misjudged their victim. Wonder how much damage they had done the first two nights.
I haven’t seen any mainstream conservative site ‘celebrating’ the death of the rioters. The vast majority of attention on both sides has been on Rittenhouse. But even if they did thats irrelevant to the core self defense issue like I said you are trying to distract people.
Okay, but hanging out with the Proud Boys kind of does make you at least white supremacist adjacent.
Also: there’s decent evidence that he sucker punched an unarmed girl. Not a person to celebrate.
Apparently, you would rather celebrate the kind of people who try to stab cops or rape pre-teens.
Yup. It’s pretty disgusting that the left is celebrating the rioters.
And it’s disgusting the right celebrates killing. Everyone is disgusting and depraved, agreed?
Just like everybody that celebrates rioting, sure.
Funny how enthusiastically you both change the subject.
But you’re not really – a lot of the valorizing of Rittenhouse has to do with who he shot.
Part and parcel with the posters here super into running protesters over as well.
Some of ya’ll are really bad at not liking something without wanting it dead.
Some of you are really bad at understanding when it’s good that someone is dead.
It is never good when someone is dead. It’s actually bad. Thinking it is good makes you a bad person.
“It is never good when someone is dead.”
That is certainly not true. Dead bad people is often a good thing, it depends on the circumstances.
It is true. Sometimes it is the least bad outcome for certain people to be dead, but it is still bad overall.
If I’ve picked the least-bad outcome, I’m going to lose precisely no sleep over that decision.
I say that as someone who has been in that situation. Yes, moral dilemmas are hard. Yes, some people who kill are crippled by their decision to pull the trigger. Evaluating your decision and coming to the honest conclusion that it was the least-bad outcome is one of the ways to get over that trauma.
Acknowledging that this was the least-bad outcome for him given the decisions and actions of others who instigated the confrontation(s) is a far cry from “celebrating” killing.
Bob loves killing almost as much as he loves Zygotes.
What kind of zygote? Human? Skunk?
Give it a few years and Bob will celebrate it’s killing.
Still dodging my question.
It is never good when someone is dead. It’s actually bad.
So preventing someone from committing mass murder by killing them before they can carry it out…thus saving numerous innocent lives…is bad.
He himself hath said it.
One of the worst comments I’ve seen on here. You celebrate two people dead.
I bet you consider yourself to be religious, huh? If you truly were, you’d understand that it’s never good when someone is dead. No celebration should occur.
Like every leftist I’ve met, you cannot understand that choices are trade-off and sometimes you’re looking for the least bad of bad choices. Multiple violent criminals attacked a young man and each time he defended himself. Better choice would be all the rioters stay home so he’d have no reason to be out, but they didn’t then they followed that up by attacking someone and came out of the confrontation poorly.
LOL that you think bevis the lumberjack is a leftist.
Protesters are jerks in general so you shouldn’t be too surprised at reactions to protesters’ hostile antisocial behavior.
Where did I celebrate them? I’m just acknowledging their humanity. That’s not celebrating. You won’t find a post of mine anywhere where I celebrate rioters or other criminals. So please retract your lie about me and apologize, thank you very much.
I didn’t say you did. I said the left is celebrating the rioters. Which is just as true as the claim that the right is valorizing Rittenhouse.
Michael P did. He is a liar and owes me an apology.
You’ve been very disingenuous in asserting that the right “valorized” or “celebrate(s)” Rittenhouse for shooting and killing rioters and arsonists who had threatened him with death and were attacking him. You haven’t pointed to anyone relevant actually doing so. And you don’t want to own the fact that your political allies were, in fact, celebrating the kind of people I identified.
Jesse Kelley praised him for having “pelts” he has a huge following. JD Vance did a video about how great he is. Fox News hosts have praised him as a little boy defending his community. Etc
So again. Apologize for your lie about me, please.
I have no idea who Jesse Kelley is. I assume the JD Vance video is similar to what you describe Fox News saying — that or was good that he was defending his community. That’s an absolutely true statement. Somebody needed to step up and defend that community from the rioters, looters and arsonists; the police were ordered to stand down.
I am not going to apologize to someone who conflates expressing that defending a community is good with valorizing a killing. You earned what I wrote, and you have confirmed that in your responses.
“That’s an absolutely true statement. Somebody needed to step up and defend that community from the rioters, looters and arsonists; the police were ordered to stand down.”
This is a valorization of his act of violence. You are doing it right now.
“I am not going to apologize to someone who conflates expressing that defending a community is good with valorizing a killing. You earned what I wrote, and you have confirmed that in your responses.”
I did not earn a lie about celebrating rioters. You completely made that up and had no evidence to back up the assertion. You lied. You said I was celebrating the rioters when I did no such thing. You do owe me an apology.
No. I valorize him standing with the other people to defend the businesses, and him working to extinguish fires, and him helping those who needed first aid — including rioters. Him shooting people who attacked him was a sad but legal instance of self-defense.
That kind of misrepresentation and distortion is how you earned what I wrote.
No. You lied. Admit it.
What’s with these ten-dollar words like “valorize”? Are supply chain disruptions so severe that ordinary words like “celebrate” and “applaud” aren’t on the shelves in LawTalkingGuy’s neighborhood?
But leaving aside the vocabulary, I can only infer that he deplores the “valorization” of people like Sgt. York or Audie Murphy, who got Medals of Honor for killing lots of Germans. (The citation for Murphy’s Medal of Honor crowed about how he “Murphy continued to direct artillery fire which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry,” “his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver,” and “he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank.” It went on to say that “His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50.”) York’s and Murphy’s victims, many of them probably young men whose lives had hardly begin, had families who loved them back home but who would never again get the opportunity to give or receive a kind word from them, eat a holiday dinner with them, or watch them grow old.
That night in Kenosha was not the moral equivalent of war, whether against Nazis or anyone else. Different standards apply about what is valorous conduct. It was a civil protest that predictably turned violent, with the normal legal authorities standing down to allow violent and destructive behavior by the rioters. Protecting people and their livelihood was good. Putting out fires was good. Threatening to catch a teenager alone and kill him was bad.
LawTalkingGuy didn’t distinguish between killing in war and what Rittenhouse did. He complained about “valorizing a killing”, plain and simple. If he wants to explain how valorizing one kind of killing is fine but the other kind is deplorable, he’s welcome to do so. But when he does, he needs to explain why it doesn’t matter that the German boys killed by Sgt. York and Audie Murphy “had lives and families and friends and people who cared about them,” just like Rosenbaum and Huber.
Also, you failed to understand what I wrote earlier. You are so entrenched in your bias against Rittenhouse that you WOULD rather celebrate the people I mentioned than celebrate him. Own your bigotry!
No I understood perfectly. You think I celebrate rioters. This is a lie. Apologize.
I didn’t say that, and I don’t think that. I mean what I wrote, and your lying about it amplifies that what I wrote is true.
“Apparently, you would rather celebrate the kind of people who try to stab cops or rape pre-teens.”
This is what you wrote. It is a lie. Apologize. You calling me a liar just makes you worse in this situation.
No, you have made it pretty clear that you would rather celebrate Rosenbaum or Blake than Rittenbaum, because you hate the idea that someone might shoot rioters who threatened him with imminent death or severe bodily injury.
*than Rittenhouse
“No, you have made it pretty clear that you would rather celebrate Rosenbaum or Blake than Rittenbaum (sic)”
I am not celebrating Blake or Rosenabum you lying jackass.
Michael. Stop lying. Please for the good of your own soul, stop this lie right now and apologize.
Is Michael’s walkback here a moonwalk? You decide!
It only looks like a walk back if you can’t read.
That this is thriller
Thriller night
Lol.
Dinesh D’Souza tweeted today that he was annoyed that the jury could only say “Guilty” or “Not guilty” when they should be allowed to award Rittenhouse a medal.
Dunno what you think “decent evidence” is, but I’ve seen the video and there is no “sucker punch”.
And the “Proud Boys” are not “white supremacist”.
Can’t you ever not lie?
“white supremacist adjacent. ”
Details, schemtails, says our Tiny Dancer!
Can’t he ever not lie?
Saying “Okay, but hanging out with the Proud Boys kind of does make you at least white supremacist adjacent…” suggests that the Proud Boys are white supremacist.
Can our Queen ever not lie?
Adjacent, how does it work?
12″ really wants to know!
If the Proud Boys are white-supremacy-adjacent, and Rittenhouse was hanging out with them, I’d say that makes him white-supremacy-adjacent-adjacent.
I’m starting to think our Queen might be a little slow.
The best available evidence says no, she cannot stop lying.
Apparently we are going seven degrees of Kevin Bacon here.
On the contrary, Queenie Jackass, you and your ilk are the ones making up fake facts (“details”, like, e.g., the nonexistant “sucker punch” and rthe claim that the Proud Boys are “white nationalists”).
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/15/no-the-proud-boys-are-not-white-supremacists/
I mean, that phrase has kind of been diluted of all meaning by leftists at this point, but they kinda are.
Ipse dixit won’t cut it. As the article I linked to (but didn’t bother reading all the proofs) shows, they deny any such thing. Indeed, as I recall the head of the organization ISN’T WHITE. This is like calling Larry Elder “the black face of white racism”. The one draining the accusation of all meaning is YOU.
“Okay, but hanging out with the Proud Boys kind of does make you at least white supremacist adjacent…”
White supremacist adjacent doesn’t mean anything.
Sure it means something. Antifa has often been white supremacist adjacent. They seem proud of that fact.
Link?
Any time they try to “punch a Nazi”, such as https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/26/14369388/richard-spencer-punched-alt-right-trump, requires them to be adjacent to their intended target.
It just shows how broad the meaning of “white supremacist adjacent” is — which is by design.
Leftists love vague guilt-by-association.
Can’t actually make a case based on facts? Switch to innuendo and guilt-by-association! Bonus points if the association is super-vague or guilt is transferred by association only to be transferred again.
Tarring an 18-year-old (?) with such a label based on very vague indirect association is what The Good Guys do.
You think that’s crazy? All during the 2020 riots the local Twin Cities media (and maybe national media too, I am not sure) kept talking about the rioters being “white nationalists.” They must think people are stupid…
People who still rely on the big media for honest news ARE that stupid. Everyone else knows better by now.
I have not watched enough of the trial to have formed a firm opinion as to whether Mr. Rittenhouse should be convicted. The real problem here, though, is tribalism. The trend is that if you support BLM and the protesters (the ones who actually were non-violent), then you think he should be convicted; if you don’t, then you tend to think he should be acquitted. Same with George Zimmerman. Ultimately, we’ve reached the point where facts don’t matter because everything is tribal.
And, whatever the jury does, whichever side is disappointed will never believe anything other than that it was a big fix. The idea that a jury might honestly examine the evidence and reach a conclusion contrary the one’s tribe’s position will not be considered as a possibility.
I HAVE examined the evidence and Rittenhouse is only huilty of defending himself. Any jury that comes to any other conclusion is a bunch of jackasses.
Or have been intimidated by fear of retaliation.
OK, Gandydancer, prove it — by giving us the prosecution’s best argument. Lay out for us the best evidence the prosecution has, and do so honestly. Tell us every reason why he could or should be convicted. That way, we’ll know for sure that you actually have looked at the evidence — both sides of it — rather than just done an exercise in confirmation bias.
The prosecution’s best argument apparently relies on repeated misconduct, resulting in serial dressings-down by the judge, and Alex Baldwin levels of firearm safety. That is pretty telling.
You think the prosecutor did the best possible job a prosecutor could do with this case?
I don’t think even you believe that.
The prosecutor didn’t have a case. Or a “best argument”, as Krychek would have it. I can’t grow a tree from a seedless turd, and neither could he.
Krychek_2: “I have not watched enough of the trial to have formed a firm opinion as to whether Mr. Rittenhouse should be convicted.”
Saying “I HAVE examined the evidence” is a perfectly appropriate response to that.
Have you? Make an argument, then, Queenie Dumbass. Your attempted snark isn’t cutting it this time, either.
Gandy, I have not examined the evidence in this specific case, but I’ve had enough experience with prosecutor’s offices over the years to know that they are stretched pretty thin and don’t generally devote resources to seedless turds, as you call them. Since I haven’t looked at it I’m willing to consider that this may be an exception. But I’ve seen prosecutors decline to prosecute perfectly good cases because they had to make decisions about resource allocation.
And for you to just sweepingly declare, without offering factual support, that they have no case, makes me question just how closely you have looked at the evidence.
Gandy, I have not examined the evidence in this specific case, but I’ve had enough experience with prosecutor’s offices over the years to know that they are stretched pretty thin and don’t generally devote resources to seedless turds, as you call them.
Now narrow that experience down to the seedless turds for which there is overwhelming political and public pressure for prosecutors to pursue regardless of the merits of the case (like this one, the Zimmerman case, etc).
You really are a witless fool.
“You really are a witless fool.” No, Wuz, I am not related to you. For one thing, I don’t look at all like the rear half as a horse. How lucky for you, you can go to any Halloween party as a horse’s rear end without even having to buy a costume.
You mean like all the cases in which the prosecutors declined to charge police officers in the first place, including some in which the victim was unarmed, despite heavy political pressure to bring charges, and in some of which the decision not to bring charges resulted in riots? Trust me on this one; I have far more experience with prosecutors than you do. This would have been a very easy case to not bring charges in, for several reasons: Resource allocation, likelihood of an acquittal, just to name two.
Your handle notwithstanding, maybe you could acquire some real world experience in how trials actually work before telling those of us who do trials for a living. But nah, why should you go to the trouble when you already know everything?
You mean like all the cases in which the prosecutors declined to charge police officers in the first place, including some in which the victim was unarmed, despite heavy political pressure to bring charges, and in some of which the decision not to bring charges resulted in riots?
So what you’re saying is that prosecutorial decisions are often based on public/political pressure rather than the facts of the case. Gee, if only I’d said that. Oh, wait….
Trust me on this one; I have far more experience with prosecutors than you do.
LOL! That’s as funny now as it was when you tried to pull it while simultaneously demonstrating your complete and utter abject ignorance of why your “if a fetus is a person then it’s committing the civil tort of trespass against the person” stupidy was such an embarrassing (were you capable of that) crock.
Actually, that’s the opposite of what you said, Wuz. Apparently you can’t even keep your own comments straight. (And did you notice that the actual lawyers around here didn’t disagree over whether it’s a technical trespass; the disagreements with me were over whether the fetus had a privilege that overcame the trespass. But glad to know I rattled your chain to the point that you can’t stop talking about it weeks later.)
Wuz, your bottom line is that you know everything about everything. When your doctor gives you a rectal exam to try to find your head, you probably try to supervise. Well, all right, since you know everything about everything, you must know that this conversation has gone well beyond diminishing returns, so I’m going to go find some useful work to do.
Actually, that’s the opposite of what you said, Wuz.
My exact quote, you lying sack of air-headed shit:
“Now narrow that experience down to the seedless turds for which there is overwhelming political and public pressure for prosecutors to pursue regardless of the merits of the case (like this one, the Zimmerman case, etc).”
So, making a decision on whether or not to prosecute (in this case, to prosecute…because that’s the decision under discussion) based on political and public pressure rather than the merits of the case.
And did you notice that the actual lawyers around here didn’t disagree over whether it’s a technical trespass; the disagreements with me were over whether the fetus had a privilege that overcame the trespass.
LOL! You’re more full of shit than the NYC sewer system the day after Thanksgiving.
Wuz, if you’re going to insult people try to be witty. I at least come up with creative insults; you just hurl poo.
I at least come up with creative insults
I did better…I backed them up with proof that they’re accurate.
I at least come up with creative insults
That you think grade school retorts of the “I know you are but what am I?” variety are creative is not surprising.
And for you to just sweepingly declare, without offering factual support, that they have no case, makes me question just how closely you have looked at the evidence.
Has it occurred to you that nobody is obligated to recount weeks of trial evidence and proceedings in order to convince someone who hasn’t even bothered to follow those himself of anything, and yet feels the need to interject ignorance-based commentary on the subject anyway? (Of course it hasn’t…you’re not bright enough for that).
Has it occurred to you that someone who actually has looked at the evidence without confirmation bias should be able to write two or three concise sentences summing up the prosecution’s best case?
I’m still agnostic on the question of whether Rittenhouse should be convicted. But that doesn’t preclude me from calling bullshit when someone who claims to have looked at the evidence can’t give any facts in support of his position.
OK, I did. Look upthread.
…actually, immediately below, now. It begins, “You have never, ever, been involed in a case like this.”
when someone who claims to have looked at the evidence can’t give any facts in support of his position
You really are a hoot.
You have never, ever, been involed in a case like this. That youi think the prosecution is reource-bound is proof positive that have no clue.
You want evidence that the prosecution has no case? What’s wrong with noticing that KR only shot someone (a) who had threatened to kill him, chased him, and grabbed for his gun, then (b) fired at a guy who, after he fell to the ground, took a flying kick at his head, (c) shot a third pursuer who hit him, still on the ground, with a skateboard, and (d) pointed his rifle at a guy advancing on him with a drawn gun, relented when this fourth guy raised his hands, and only shot him when he again advanced and pointed the gun at KR’s head. What do you WANT?
And then for utter prosecutor corruption, look at the bogus gun charge, The law he was charged under (“Possession of Dangerous Weapons by Someone under 18”, iirc) containd a SPECIFIC EXEMPTION for long guns, ignored by the prosecution until the judge finally got around to throwing it out.
This is the biggest, most political, prosecution since the George Zimmerman case. Stop bloviating w/o actual knowledge and inform yourself.
Gandy, my question was not why the prosecutor has a *bad* case, but what you think is the prosecution’s *best* case. That you still can’t answer that question is a pretty good indication that it’s your confirmation bias talking.
There are many, many legal positions that I flatly disagree with, but if asked, I could still articulate the arguments in favor of them. That you seem not to be able to articulate the arguments *in favor* of the prosecution strongly suggests you don’t understand them.
Prosecution: Grosskreutz never threatened Rittenhouse with his gun. After Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz, Grosskreutz’ gun was briefly pointed at Rittenhouse because being shot caused Grosskreutz to lose control of his arm.
Defense: Grosskreutz was in the process of pointing his gun at Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot him.
Gandydancer: Grosskreutz was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz.
If you can’t defend Rittenhouse without inventing facts that even Rittenhouse’s own lawyers don’t assert, your defense of Rittenhouse is pretty much worthless.
If you can’t defend Rittenhouse without inventing facts that even Rittenhouse’s own lawyers don’t assert, your defense of Rittenhouse is pretty much worthless.
Uh, the one inventing facts…as well as ignoring those that are inconvenient….is you. Grosskreutz’s testimony under cross by the defense:
COREY CHIRAFISI: “When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?”
GAIGE GROSSKREUTZ: “Correct.”
COREY CHIRAFISI: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun – now your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?”
GAIGE GROSSKREUTZ: “Correct.”
Oh, and there’s the video and still image evidence supporting that as well. Try again.
Kenneth Almquist: {crickets}
If the prosecution wanted to see justice done, the best job they could have done was to refuse to file charges. But they apparently wanted to get a conviction instead, and they did pretty close to the best they could have, even to the point of apparently trying to get a mistrial here while coming up just short of getting all charges dismissed with prejudice.
“You think the prosecutor did the best possible job a prosecutor could do with this case?”
Of course not. A better prosecutor wouldn’t have brought the case.
Tell us every reason why he could or should be convicted.
Could be? A clueless/hopelessly biased jury.
Should be? None at all.
You’d know both of these things if you’d bother to learn the facts of the case you’re so pointlessly jabbering about and demanding that others explain to you.
Oh, I’ll humor you Krychek.
The Prosecution’s best argument is “provocation”. I’ll summarize it with a couple examples.
Imagine you’re in a dark parking lot, but armed, for whatever reason. I step out, unarmed, but say “I’m going to kill you!”. You run, I chase you, I throw items at you, and ultimately corner you. You turn around with your gun, and I lunge at you and at the gun, in an attempt to wrestle it away from you. You have no option but to shoot.
That would be self defense, and roughly analogous to the case at hand.
Now, imagine instead, we’re in that dark parking lot. But then, you step out and point your gun at me, saying “I going to shoot you”. I can’t run fast enough, so instead, I lunge for the gun trying to stop you. You shoot me in response to my lunging for the gun. You can’t claim self defense here. You’ve provoked the situation.
That’s the prosecution’s best argument. They have some “very” grainy footage that may imply Kyle pointed the rifle at someone. And that would be provocation presumably, that would remove Kyle’s rights to self defense.
They have some “very” grainy footage that may imply Kyle pointed the rifle at someone.
That’s an understatement. I’ve seen images purporting to be of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and alien spacecraft that were orders of magnitude clearer.
Very grainy footage that was only introduced on the last day of the trial, so the defense would have no opportunity to examine it and get their own expert analysis. It should have been excluded. And then, _once the jury deliberations started_, the prosecution discovered a higher-resolution version existed… If the jury convicts, there’s no way it won’t be overturned on appeal; it’s not just the dubious surprise video, but the prosecution repeatedly lying about both the law and the facts, even in the final minutes of the trial.
Most likely, what the prosecution was claiming was Kyle’s hand was just a light reflection off a fender behind him.
“I HAVE examined the evidence ”
He also stayed in a
“I HAVE examined the evidence ”
He also stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!
Armchair quarterbacking is a mainstay of the Right these days.
Said by the armchair quarterback for the other team.
Not exactly your most convincing argument.
From earlier in this sub-thread, I understand that we can — and perhaps should — discount what she says unless she makes the best possible argument (from the best possible of all worlds?) about why the position she opposes is actually right.
Here’s a counter-example: Andrew Branca, who’s been following the Rittenhouse trial on Legal Insurrection and who hosts the blog, The Law of Self Defense, is certain that Rittenhouse has a solid claim of self-defense and should be acquitted. He also believes that the shooting of Ashli Babbitt was a legitimate exercise of deadly force in defense of others (or at least that it would be impossible to convict Lt. Byrd an a homicide charge, because the government would not be able to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Byrd was legitimately exercising deadly force in that instance).
https://lawofselfdefense.com/capital-hill-shooting-of-ashli-babbit-murder-or-justified/
“Sorry this material has been restricted to certain levels of LOSD membership. If you are a member click here to log in (and then refresh this page). To try our membership program for 14 days click here. (Membership is as little as 33¢ a day)”
That’s anyway a nutty claim. I’m not ruling out that some kritarch can be found who would ignore the fact that Byrd had no remotely plausible reason to believe that the small unarmed Babbitt posed any threat to anyone when, perched precariously in a broken window and still on the other side of the furniture barricade, he shot her in the neck. But facts is facts. Branca’s whole business model is defending shooters, ansd he’a apparently never going to find a shooting he doesn’t like,
The complaints about the Babbitt killing aren’t that convicting Byrd would be easy. Trigger-happy police are bad even when they’re not clearly guilty and easy to convict. They’re supposed to be professionals and protectors, not yahoos or gangbangers or on-call assassins.
If the prosecution in the Scott Peterson case was only a third as inept or corrupt, he would be cheating on his third wife today!
I don’t know what Rittenhouse was thinking either. Whether or not the other labels apply, what he did was vigilantism, and vigilantism ought to be deterred with a criminal conviction. Nobody besides a cop should be using guns to defend a store from rioters. If the cops won’t do it, then the owner should get the hell out of there, let the rioters do what they will, and when the dust settles the owner can file an insurance claim and use the money to rebuild their life however they want. Standing in front of a store with guns risks lives, and that is never worth it.
Nonsense. Everyone has a right (and arguably duty) to defend society with lethal force against the animals when the cops won’t or aren’t allowed to do it.
WOLVERINES!
That seems random.
Queen is attempting to parody your comment with a reference to the 1984 version of Red Dawn in which a group of high school students (whose mascot is a wolverine) successfully fight off a Soviet invasion despite the (never quite explained) failure of the professional military to do so.
Beyond the obvious “it’s fiction”, Queen’s attempt falls flat because even in the movie, the students a) are no younger than most recruits in professional militaries, b) are about as well trained as the conscripts used by most countries and c) in the movie are further trained and led by professional military who did in fact survive the initial invasion. Vietnam and Afghanistan are both replete with examples of small, self-trained units successfully holding off much larger professional military forces.
in which a group of high school students (whose mascot is a wolverine) successfully fight off a Soviet invasion despite the (never quite explained) failure of the professional military to do so
To be fair to the writers, the “Wolverines” did not fight off an invasion. They engaged in a series of successful guerilla attacks/raids on one small group of invaders occupying their small town in Wyoming, with the overall invasion actually being eventually fought off by the professional military.
Ah, ok. I’ve never seen that movie, so the reference was lost on me.
It’s a good reaction even if you had seen it. Cultural references aren’t arguments. Every time someone tries using a cultural reference as a substitute for saying anything substantive, pretend you have no clue WTF they’re getting at.
Now apply that logic to your house and your livelihood.
Insurance isn’t free. When a city devolves into lawlessness, people there pay for that for many years.
Insurance also has deductibles and maybe the payment is too low to re-build.
And persons have often lost their coverage for simply making a claim; a claim based on damage by a riot would seem to be good cause for an insurance company to drop you.
Especially when local leadership has signaled their full support for the rioters and destruction.
No harm like speculative harm!
I think the real harm comes when the Chinese wizards summon leftism elementals.
You know how you deter vigilantism? By having the cops do their damn job!
BACK THE BLUE!
Tomorrow Ed: I sure hope Clarence Thomas stops qualified immunity!
Saying that the cops need to be required to do their job doesn’t remotely imply support for “qualified immunity” when they don’t.
Your attempted snark is just pathetic.
“Tomorrow Ed: I sure hope Clarence Thomas stops qualified immunity!”
I’m not sure what this means. Are you familiar with the Justices’ positions on qualified immunity?
To protect one’s property and livelihood, vs. running away; relying on the authorities or institutions [including insurance] to cover for you does not always work. You do have a right to protect what is yours, and you are often your own first line of defense.
I suppose this is one of those things that divides us. Tell you what, you go ahead and high tail it out of Dodge at the first sign of trouble, and I will stick around to protect what is mine.
“vs. running away”
OMG, such a manly MAN!
…compared with a tranny like you appearing that way is not remotely difficult. All that is required is normalcy.
Do you really think you could live with yourself if you killed some teenager over some broken glass and stolen TVs or whatever? If so, you are a monster. If not, your notion of “protecting what is yours” is meaningless.
TutorFrank: You limit your observation to protecting a store. I’m curious whether you think the same is true of one’s residence, i.e. if there is a riot, is it ever morally acceptable to use force to defend one’s home, or is your view that the only morally acceptable path is to let rioters have their way with it and collect the insurance later?
To be clear, I’m asking about the moral dimensions, not the practical question of whether the risk is justified. Which raises the additional question – if it is immoral for you to use force to protect your house (or business), is it also immoral for you to use force-by-proxy, i.e. the police, to accomplish the same end?
This was not his residence.
That’s what makes it vigilantism.
And that’s why your hypothetical tries to elide that bit.
Were the Roof Koreans defending stores in 1992 LA riots vigilantes?
This was not his residence.
Or his store.
“Or his store”
It doesn’t matter Bernard, because it was Kyle’s BODY.
Kyle literally ran away, as he was chased by Rosenbaum, and Rosenbaum said, loudly, “I’m going to kill you” and lunged to try to take the gun away. Why Kyle was in that parking lot largely doesn’t matter. You don’t give up your right to self defense by being in a parking lot.
I am not aware of any definition of vigilantism that restricts it to protection of one’s own property or to residences.
Vigilantism is to police as first aid is to EMTs. It is a volunteer doing work normally associated with paid employees of the state. Nothing more – or less.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with vigilantism when the cause is right and the authorities (if any) non-functional.
Indeed, objecting to vigilantism when the police have been ordered to stand down, is insisting that the government’s decision to leave people defenseless must be respected.
Vigilantism is the *bad thing* you yutz.
“This was not his residence.
That’s what makes it vigilantism…”
Huh? How is shooting someone who has threatened to kill you and is physically attacking you vigilantism, whether it’s your residence or not?
Nonsense, vigilantism is private parties punishing people for committing a crime (or perceived crime), that is, enforcing the law *after* a crime has been committed. That’s rather different than protecting something, whether its yours or not. Your goal is the protection of the thing in question, not the punishment of a suspect.
Are private security ‘vigilantes’? Of course not.
Vigilantism isn’t just about punishment after the fact.
So private security is vigilantism in your world?
No, because I know how contracts work.
Do you think Rittenhouse was indistinguishable from private security?
There is no “contract” to be a vigilante. That’s illegal.
So protecting property isn’t vigilantism then, right?
Please define vigilantism. You keep using this word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
This was not his residence.
That’s what makes it vigilantism.
LOL! And you have a law degree? Did you get it via the same send-in-two-boxtops-and-50-cents offer that Krychek got his from?
“This was not his residence.
That’s what makes it vigilantism.
And that’s why your hypothetical tries to elide that bit.”
???????
I find people’s views of morality interesting. TutorFrank seems to make a moral argument that using force to protect a store is universally wrong. That made me want to explore the boundaries as he sees them (but I’m interested in your views as well!). So I’m curious (assuming one agrees with TutorFrank that using force to protect your store is wrong):
1)Does it matter if it is your house instead of a store? Some people view them differently – I’m curious whether TutorFrank/you do, and if so why.
2)TutorFrank mentions insurance. If you don’t have insurance for either a store or residence, does that, in your view, change the moral calculus? (I have known people who let their homeowner’s policy lapse when money as tight, and I think there are policies that have riot exclusions. In fact, I think mine (USAA) does).
3)I’m curious to understand whether TutorFrank/anyone else thinks it is immoral for me to use force, but not immoral for me to have the police (or professional security guards??) use force on my behalf, and if so what the underlying logic is.
You seem to be discussing the specifics of Kenosha; I’m not interested in that, but am interested in exploring TutorFrank’s (or others!) view of the nuances of using force to defend property.
“This was not his residence. That’s what makes it vigilantism.”
Only in your imagined, private definition of vigilantism. Vigilantism requires a usurpation of the entire process: legislative, enforcement, and judicial. Defending oneself or one’s property, and defending another or their property, in lieu of immediate police protection is NOT vigilantism; and especially not when the police have been ordered to stand down by their superiors.
Applying a label to something is not an argument for or against it
Incorrect. Your definition of vigilantism would make security guards illegal. Which is illogical.
Security guards don’t freelance grab a gun and go where there’s chaos to *ahem* ‘enforce the law.’
Actually, Security guards almost always DO go to where there’s “Chaos”…or a higher likely hood of crime and vandalism occurring. Because that’s where they are needed.
They don’t “enforce the law.” They don’t investigate crimes, arrest people, and go knockdown people’s doors to bring them to justice. But they do act to prevent vandalism and crime. They are preventative, not proactive. And sometimes they’re armed to defend themselves.
All Kyle did in this case was DEFEND HIMSELF. He wasn’t seeking to “bring Rosenbaum to justice”. He was actively running away…until he was cornered by a man who said he was “going to kill” Kyle, and was lunging for Kyle’s gun.
This isn’t “vigilantism.” This is simple self defense from a kid, who was being chased by a child molestor felon who sought to kill Kyle.
Absaroka, let’s start with the question, did the trouble come to you, or did you come to the trouble? There is a moral watershed in that question.
Also? You are not the police. Even if you have law enforcement experience, if you are not acting in a formal law enforcement capacity, your efforts risk more danger to the public than those of a police force. You are not publicly accountable. You are not in a position to get help sufficient to overwhelm resistance with minimal violence. You are not subject to policy about where to apply force, or how much force to apply. You are as likely to be acting at cross purposes with law enforcement as you are to be acting in support of their purposes. Like so many here, you may decide to act with deadly force in defiance of law enforcement policy, simply because you don’t like the policy. Your armed presence may as a practical matter provoke deadly violence which would otherwise not have happened.
Since when are police “publicly accountable”?
Actually, you *are* publicly accountable. If you use deadly force, without having some legal excuse or justification (such as self-defense or defense of others), then you will answer criminally and civilly (without any “qualified immunity” protection). Hell, you may answer criminally even if you *do* have a legal justification, if the prosecutor is determined to railroad you and he can get a jury to buy his bullshit about how anyone who brings a gun to a dangerous location forfeits the right to self-defense.
Problem is Seamus, you are one of the many arguing that Rittenhouse should not be held accountable. So please cut the crap.
I get that it is a comfort to gun advocates to expand the notion of self-defense into an unlimited power to inflict violence, and call that public service. But it is neither wise nor logical to think that way. And it would be crazy public policy to encourage it.
What that leaves out is evidence of experience—that armed violence is inherently contagious. As independent, self-appointed gun wielders become more active, other independent, self-appointed purveyors of violence respond in kind, or with other kinds of violence, such as arson. Please note, it is no moral counter-argument to point out that the contagion also works the other way round, with vigilantes provoked to act by rioters. That just reinforces the moral observation that armed violence is contagious.
Right now, as the Rittenhouse jury deliberates, public resources are of necessity being mobilized to suppress by more armed force a contagion of further violence—violence his gun-activist idiocy invited. Every self-appointed vigilante inflicts that public risk.
But of course, risk is not certainty. Sometimes armed mobs of self-appointed enforcers overwhelm resistance—a result which many commenting here would cheer for heedlessly—without troubling themselves to reflect on the baleful lessons of Wilmington, NC, or Tulsa, OK.
And down that road lies public policy marching in lockstep (and often in direct cooperation with vigilantist provocations), toward 8 decades of lynch law, and the depravity of genocidal campaigns against American Indians. Marching under a banner of moral triumphalism, by the way.
None of that had anything to do with legitimate self-defense.
You want to make a moral case for armed vigilantism? Go ahead. Just be sure to embrace moral responsibility for the atrocities it has demonstrably delivered.
“As independent, self-appointed gun wielders become more active, other independent, self-appointed purveyors of violence respond in kind…”
So the old ‘blood in the streets’ argument? This doesn’t and hasn’t played out in any state that has enacted the laws allowing citizenry to carry without government control over it. Multiple states have enacted carry laws that don’t require a permit within the state, opponents decrying that there will be blood in the streets and yet….nothing.
Please, either provide evidence of such or stop with the poorly crafted argument.
Leftists can’t learn from events. When faced with events that don’t confirm their assumptions, they make up a story that confirms their assumptions and decide to believe the story instead of any mundane, unsatisfying reality.
As independent, self-appointed gun wielders become more active, other independent, self-appointed purveyors of violence respond in kind…
You have the most screwed up notion of cause-and-effect I’ve ever heard.
Your armed presence may as a practical matter provoke deadly violence which would otherwise not have happened.
Ah, the old “She wouldn’t have been raped had she not worn gone to that frat party in that short skirt” argument.
See, Kyle provoked the attack by being a white dude who put out fires started by a pedo who spent a supermajority of his adult life in prison. And then he allowed himself to be chased and caught by said pedo. This invalidates Kyle’s self-defense claim. It’s perfectly obvious!
You are not publicly accountable.
That’s kind of an odd comment to be made in a thread about someone who is awaiting a possible life sentence for something you’re claiming he isn’t publicly accountable for.
Let’s take that diatribe apart.
– “you are not acting in a formal law enforcement capacity” – Obviously. That’s part of the definition of vigilantism.
– “your efforts risk more danger to the public than those of a police force” – No evidence provided. On the other hand, the difference between criminal conviction rates of concealed carry holders and police suggests the opposite. So does the history of the very abuses that triggered these riots in the first place.
– “You are not publicly accountable” and “You are not subject to [a use of force] policy” – Both false as evidenced by this very trial.
– “You are not in a position to get help sufficient …” – How so?
– “You are as likely to be acting at cross purposes with law enforcement…” – Possible but no more so than the tensions between any two conventional arms of law enforcement.
– “you may decide to act with deadly force in defiance of law enforcement policy, simply because you don’t like the policy” – You are conflating use of force policy with other policies, some of which may not in fact be defensible.
– “Your armed presence may as a practical matter provoke deadly violence which would otherwise not have happened. – And we close with blaming the victim. That’s as despicable as accusing a rape victim of “provoking” her attacker. Mere presence cannot be a provocation. What you legally wear or carry cannot be a provocation.
This is a good, concise exposition of your view of self defense. You are adamantly opposed to it. Got it, thank you. Might come in handy in future discussions.
In contradiction to your view, let me just say, that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Second, note that in Kenosha, and in many of the cities where this violence has occurred in the past year and a half, the police have stood down, declined to do their duty to protect people and property.
” did the trouble come to you, or did you come to the trouble? ” In this case the video evidence shows clearly that KR retreated from trouble, so trouble came to him.
Prior to the instance of Rosenbaum charging after KR, is there any evidence that KR made any threats or threatening moves toward anyone?
Second, your attempt to rephrase the “He shouldn’t have been there.” as some kind of legal maneuvering that because he had no ‘legal’ right to be there he is there for acting illegally and everything he does after that is there by illegal fails because everyone else who was there was also acting illegally and there for everything they also did was illegal. Meaning NONE of them have any defense for what they did. If we’re going to go that route, every person involved should be charged with accessory to murder for the deaths.
Lastly, your supposition about one’s capability in this kind of situation is just that: supposition and maneuvering to propose your viewpoint. That because one might not, one IS not. Almost all (but not all) of your last paragraph could be positioned against each of the persons shot that night and would have the same legitimacy.
It’s all hypothetical shenanigans to make it seem like if KR wasn’t there then none of this would have happened. But we’ll never know because we can’t explore a made up past. Others were armed there, and others were inciting violence of all kinds.
3ducerist, I am not writing in support of the others. See my reply to Seamus above. I have no trouble taking a position against riots and rioters.
Others were armed there, and others were inciting violence of all kinds.
Rittenhouse gets heightened responsibility, because among all the violent people there, including the armed people, he is the only one who shot and killed. After incapacitating one (possibly) would-be unarmed attacker, and ending any potential threat, Rittenhouse shot him again, killing him. Rittenhouse is a murderer.
Your use of qualifiers like ‘possibly’ and ‘maybe’ is just a method of hiding behind your armchair quarterbacking of hypothetical situations to push your narrative that KR ‘is a murderer.’
By definition if you kill someone you are a murderer. KR however appears by all the video footage I’ve seen and testimony heard to have acted not as a cold blooded killer, but as a person in over their head. So while technically correct, you’re just playing semantics to push your dissonance.
On a side note, if you grab a hold of a weapon regardless of the amount of control you actually have, you are considered armed. If Rosenbaum grabbed the barrel of the rifle then he was considered armed at that point. If someone had done to me what Rosenbaum did to KR I would absolutely consider that person a threat to life and limb. Even more so having grabbed a hold of the weapon.
As for the number of shots on Rosenbaum, I think your knowledge of how things happen when in a heightened stress situation is lacking. You insinuate without information that KR shot purposely and with intent at Rosenbaum after he knew Rosenbaum was no longer a threat. I believe you to be wrong on that matter.
Do a little research on how it all works and you’ll find even trained and experienced police officers have trouble detailing how many shots they fired under those high stress situations. I know specifically of one example where the officer who was an experienced combat sniper thought he fired 6 when he emptied the magazine of his pistol.
I can’t remember if the skateboarder tried to grab the rifle either, it’s been a while since I watched the videos. Even so not a shot was fired until KR was attacked. Maybe look up disparity of force as well for good measure. It certainly applies here to every situation in which KR actually used the rifle as a weapon. As for Grosskreutz, his testimony is pretty hard to overcome specifically as a self defense move on the part of KR.
The problem is you’re dismissing or using sleight of hand about facts to shift the blame. It’s obvious at this point that you don’t care what the facts actually are, you’ve already decided what you’re going to believe and not believe. Welcome to the margins of the zealots on the left and right who revel in their cognitive dissonance to embrace their viewpoint regardless of reality.
3ducerist, I hear you.
Gun guy at rest is a master of all things gun. His knowledge and prowess are boundless, his physical state ideal and unimpaired, and his judgment unimpeachable.
Gun guy in action is a hot mess, full of terror, with zero judgment for which he can be held practically accountable. Worse, his tendency toward action will be inversely proportionate to the quality of his judgment.
That is pretty much what I have been saying all along, to make the case that to arm yourself against mere contingency is unwise personal policy. Encouraging everyone to do that is public policy fraught with trouble.
Do you see anything in the Rittenhouse case to suggest I am wrong about that?
All of it.
You’re still playing word games, using extremes as the only possibility for the point being made. I said neither of those things.
And arming ones self against what you call ‘mere contingency’ being unwise is a personal opinion not a legal fact. Else why would anyone ever have a fire extinguisher or even a smoke detector in their home?
There is also a difference between allowing anyone who wishes, and ‘encouraging everyone’.
Nice attempt at straw man arguments.
And just for the sake of clarity:
I do not think KR is a hero of any kind, just an idiot who tried to do something he thought was right, got in over his head and some people took advantage of that vulnerability when they saw it. None of it should have happened in the first place, including KR being there, carrying a rifle, and all the rest of the events.
I do think the actions of those who attempted to stop KR were in their own way heroic. I don’t think the people who did that knew the entire situation, only that people were saying KR shot someone and they wanted to ensure that more wouldn’t be shot. Unfortunately with the chaos of the situation, that isn’t the reality of what actually happened and this is the result.
After incapacitating one (possibly) would-be unarmed attacker, and ending any potential threat, Rittenhouse shot him again, killing him. Rittenhouse is a murderer.
You’re a liar and a moron. Rittenhouse didn’t make any decision to shoot anyone after they were incapacitated. The 4 shots at/into Rosenbaum were all in rapid succession, happening in less than a half a second. It’s not like he went to the ground after the first one and then Rittenhouse pumped 3 more into him.
So, to reiterate…you’re a liar and a moron.
Lathrop, please let me know when all others involved in the events that night are charged with accessory to the charges against KR. Your reasoning if sound would apply to all of them, and we must have justice!
Radical pacifism is a legitimate philosophy. The Quakers would agree with you, Tutor. However, that puts you in a very tiny minority of the population. The rest of us think that’s just stupid. That’s an utter abdication of your responsibility to defend yourself and others.
Are you equally ready to abdicate your responsibility to provide first aid just because society has EMTs and firemen? Are you equally willing to sacrifice your profits (through higher insurance premiums) because others won’t install sprinklers or higher night watchmen? Should we extend that logic to pacifism at the international level? Do you believe the US was wrong to enter WW2? Will you be equally pacifistic when the rioters have invaded your home and are threatening to rape and kill your children?
I respect that you may be sincere in your beliefs but I think you are deeply, deeply wrong.
“Radical pacifism is a legitimate philosophy.”
Not really. Its morally suspect
George Orwell: “Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist.”
Orwell apparently backtracked that.
https://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_28-2009_07_04.shtml#1246464903
It also makes no sense. An anti-violence philosophy cannot be “pro” towards a philosophy that explicitly celebrates and encourages violence.
But a philosophy which claimed to be anti-violence could be, if in practice it only attacked defensive violence. Like an anti-war movement secretly organized by the opposing side in a war.
“It also makes no sense.”
If you fail to oppose Hitler, then what happens? He just has second thoughts?
Hitler was beat by force of arms. As it was, we barely rescued any European Jews. Pacifism would have killed all of them. Its morally repugnant.
Don’t like Orwell. Here is another English writer, fiction but accurate
“The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them.”
― Eowyn The Two Towers
ADA Binger more or less said that Rittenhouse had no business putting out fires or offering first aid if he wasn’t a trained and certified EMT. He really hates the idea of citizens taking care of themselves and each other.
It’s a hit TV series for sure. High concept: EMTs with ARs.
My sister, the legal aid attorney/EMT in Alaska, was all for helping citizens take care of themselves and each other. For some reason, she never needed to carry a gun to do it.
For some reason, she never needed to carry a gun to do it.
How many riots full of armed, violent criminals did she work in Alaska?
“vigilantism ought to be deterred ”
Depends. The law here was intentionally completely absent, not even trying to enforce order. In that case, vigilantism might be justified.
This isn’t even vigilantism.
Nobody besides a cop should be using guns to defend a store from rioters. If the cops won’t do it, then the owner should get the hell out of there, let the rioters do what they will, and when the dust settles the owner can file an insurance claim and use the money to rebuild their life however they want.
Your ignorance with regard to how much (or rather, how little) insurance claims serve to make someone whole after such losses, as well as all of the other significant collateral negative effects of such things, is noted.
Cops don’t defend things. They investigate crimes after they occur, and arrest suspects persuant to those investigations. The cops have no duty to protect you or your things – that’s your duty.
Nonsense, Squirrelloid. Cops have a duty to protect you and your things, and they do it pretty well. Absent their presence, you would have little chance to succeed at self-protection.
You conflate duty, which cops have, with legal obligation, which they don’t. Legal obligation would put them under penalty if their efforts at protection ever failed, making it impossible to do their duty.
Nonsense, Squirrelloid. Cops have a duty to protect you and your things
I know that you’ve been here more than long enough about to know about Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, and therefor also know that your claim above is 100% weapons-grade bullshit. And you made it anyway.
Whether Rittenhouse did anything right or wrong, I cannot sign on to your overall position. Your property may not be worth anyone’s lives to you, but my property is worth people’s lives to me.
No matter what you think, Nieporent, whether my property is worth people’s lives to you is not a decision I leave to you. You don’t get to appropriate my property as justification for your would-be violence.
Nieporent didn’t express how much he valued your property, or TutorFrank’s. Nieporent said his own property was worth other people’s lives to him.
Of course. What’s your point? Pretty sure Nieporent got that my comment responded to other claims, about arguments that Rittenhouse was defending my property.
Rittenhouse was there at the invitation of the property owners. Did you invite him or his friends to defend your property?
Or did you just miss the part of the trial where that was demonstrated?
Michael P, I heard about it. I did miss the part of the trial where the evidence was introduced.
I am keenly interested in that evidence. Which property owners? Owners or tenants? How many? Did they testify? Any legal requirements for armed security guards? What kind of property owner invites (but does not pay) an underage, armed security guard, who of course lacks insurance? What do the property owners’ liability carriers think about that? If those questions were not answered by the evidence, would a person be a sucker to believe that actually happened? Who broke what laws if it did happen? How much lying was involved in that testimony? Was all that covered in the trial? Tell me about it.
Pretty sure Nieporent got that my comment responded to other claims
Yes, clearly…
“No matter what you think, Nieporent, whether my property is worth people’s lives to you is not a decision I leave to you. You don’t get to appropriate my property as justification for your would-be violence.”
…was aimed at people not named “Nieporent”.
If you just insist on continuing to be a pathological liar, could you at least put a modicum of effort into being good at it?
Then you are a monster.
Property is life, because property is the result of the effort of your life. To say that it’s not worth defending your property is to say that the life you’ve lived isn’t worth defending. And that position is what’s truly monstrous.
Effort != life. That’s libertarian claptrap.
That requires thinking of any time spent working as not spent living. Which is nonsense.
That requires thinking of any time spent working as not spent living. Which is nonsense.
Only for the most simple-mindedly pedantic interpretations of what “not spent living” means in that context.
You’re not making any sense. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises.
It’s the writing of effort out of life that considers time spent working as not life. By denigrating property, you denigrate the effort that led to that ownership.
I’m explicitly including time spent working as part of life, because I’m including the fruits of that labor as part of that life.
If the main output of your life is property, then you have lived a very sad life indeed.
“Then you are a monster.”
This is in response to “my property is worth people’s lives to me”?
If so, consider the scene where an armored truck, from Brinks or whatever other company pulls up to the supermarket and an armed guard carries a bag of cash in/out of the store. Those guards are presumably, like Mr. Nieporent, willing to use force in defense of property. Are they also monsters?
Absaroka, I read somewhere that those armed guards are trained if someone threatens them with a gun to hand over the money. If not, then their employers are monsters. I was astonished to read how low the wages were.
“I read somewhere that those armed guards are trained if someone threatens them with a gun to hand over the money.”
I dunno. Their company rents the range and has them practice shooting.
“I was astonished to read how low the wages were”
Indeed.
“If not, then their employers are monsters.”
Ditto, I suppose, for off duty cops in bank lobbies?
And if that’s true, I suppose that on duty cops responding to a bank robbery, or arresting the robbers afterwards, are also monsters? Morally, it’s the same thing, using force to protect property, wouldn’t you say?
Absaroka, I read somewhere that those armed guards are trained if someone threatens them with a gun to hand over the money. If not, then their employers are monsters. I was astonished to read how low the wages were.
Yes, they’re provided with firearms and trained in their use because they’re expected to never use them in the performance of their jobs. Your logic is unassailable.
Do laws figure into what you think “ought to be deterred with a criminal conviction” in any way?
Or do you think criminal convictions should be parceled out based on whatever random bystanders think “ought” to have happened?
“what he did was vigilantism, and vigilantism ought to be deterred with a criminal conviction.”
What EXACTLY did he do that was “Vigilantism”?
1) Put out fires?
2) Want to help people with a medical kit?
3) Defend himself when he was threatened with death?
That word “Vigiliantism” is thrown around a lot. And you make it seem like Kyle was out there with his assault rifle, hunting down rioters. But…he wasn’t.
He was putting out literal fires. But when the rioters objected, and attacked him, he defended himself.
Those were the fires of the revolution, so putting them out was counterrevolutionary. You’re supposed to celebrate the revolutionary fires as the harbinger of a new socialist paradise.
Nothing he did could be considered vigilanteism. He at no point threatened anyone, attempted to arrest anyone, or shoot anyone not an immediate and obvious threat to himself. That you make that contention at all proves you to be either an ignoramus who refused to familiarize themselves with the facts of the case, or a lying sack of shit.
Why did he show up in the first place?
It doesn’t matter why he was there or not. You don’t give up your right to self defense because you’re in a parking lot.
Oh, never mind – I see from other comments you’re a bloodthirsty nutter.
I think we may possibly be working with different definitions of vigilantism. I would say that any attempt to use violence, or the threat of violence, to uphold the law, by a person who is not a law enforcement officer, is vigilantism. I’d say intentionally going to a place where you expect crimes to be committed, with a gun, clearly counts. Everything that unfolded was an easily predictable consequence of that decision.
Letting rioters set fire to a gas station also risks lives. Do you think there’s no large quantity of gasoline there just because the tanks are invisible underground?
I don’t know enough about how gas stations work to have an informed opinion there, but I trust law enforcement to address any safety risk there, as Rittenhouse should have.
I bring this up because the Volokh community seems unaware of it:
For the whole week-plus of the trial, the podcast RekietaLaw.locals.com has been running a well educated and very thorough live play-by-play of the entire trial, the commenters being as many as ten attorneys at a time, from all over the US. The podcast has some paid content but these shows are still up and are free to watch. About 20,000 people have been watching it live.
It might also be on rumble. I’ve been watching Viva Frei/Robert Barnes there to avoud YouTube’s intrusive monitization and automatic autostarts.
Buit YouTube has suddenly gotten less rapacious, in my experience. I dunno what’s up with that.
When a few years ago I offered an argument that pro-vigilantism was a notable part of pro-gun advocacy, all I got was denials. Now it’s out in the open and proudly asserted. This is a downward spiral, folks.
So sad to see the wolves disappointed in the sheep.
I recall that load of bullshit from you rather well, with the most significant issues being not only your asinine definition for “vigilantism” including simple, basic self-defense…but your later attempt to lie your sorry ass off about having defined it that way.
Is “vigilantism” illegal? What’s your complaint about whatever you think “vigilantism” is?
Ben_, for a partial answer, see my replies to Absaroka and Nieporent.
Seems like a lot of wishing something might be different and blaming whomever is convenient when your wishes don’t come true.
I don’t see any vigilanteism here. Self-defense is not vigilanteism.
Vigilanteism is usurping the role of the cops – investigating crimes and arresting (or otherwise punishing) their perpetrators. Defense is not the proper role of cops, although they may occasionally do it by accident or serendipity. (As per SCOTUS, cops have no duty to protect).
To take a comic book example, Batman is a vigilante not because he carries weapons (at least sometimes), and not because he defends himself when attacked, but because he actively pursues and attacks criminals.
KR wasn’t hunting down criminals to punish. He was attacked and defended himself. That’s not vigilanteism, and pretending it is makes you sound like an idiot.
These comments from Volokh Conspiracy fans — cheering a downscale minor (disaffected dropout, role-playing wannabe) who had a friend hold a gun for him until it was time to head to Kenosha for some enhanced role-playing, then shot some people before starting to hang out with White supremacists and becoming clinger royalty — demonstrate why UCLA wishes it had never hired Eugene Volokh, and why no strong law school should want to hire a movement conservative for a faculty position.
Association of UCLA with this White, male, bigot-friendly blog constitutes a foul misappropriation of a public school’s otherwise legitimate franchise. Georgetown, Berkeley, and another school or two have been stained, too, to some degree, but nothing like UCLA.
(Those who adore gun nuts, White nationalists and other racists, gay-bashers, misogynists, wall-building immigrant-haters, religious zealots, and other clingers will see it differently, of course. Those readers — and there are plenty of them here — will applaud UCLA for its ties to a blog that regularly publishes vile racial slurs, engages in partisan censorship, and attracts the kind of right-wingers who threaten to place liberals face-down in landfills; to send liberals to Zyklon showers, to shoot liberals in the face upon opening front doors; and to mass-gas liberals.)
Kirkland: As usual, you are confused or lying on every fact and making utterly ridiculous assertions otherwise. I am muting you. It’s not worth time reading such crap.
What about the photos of Rittenhouse with others flashing white supremacist signals? https://gray-wbay-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/W0TXSReoh-81RIBVSGu-CDjEB5c=/1200×675/smart/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/72GP5YPLVRDOLHFXXRB5AHJZUA.jpg
It’s not just an assumption that this vigilante in particular may harbor white supremacist tendencies. It’s been all over the news and mentioned in the court proceedings. A bit disingenuous to write this post and leave out that information, instead claim that you have no idea about it.
“white supremacist signals?”
Its an ok sign.
Here more white supremacists using this signal:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=obama+image+using+ok+sign&qpvt=obama+image+using+ok+sign&form=IGRE&first=1&tsc=ImageBasicHover
3 point shooters in the NBA are the worst white supremacists in the world. God these leftists are so smug, stupid and gullible it makes my sides hurt.
Signals change over time. Swastikas used to be a symbol of peace. These days people would not interpret it this way now. Coded language must constantly adapt. If I asked 4 years ago what is meant by “let’s go Brandon” would it have anything to do with Biden?
To quote Jerry Seinfeld: “Shouldn’t you be out on a ledge somewhere?”
So, this white gut shot the orther white guys to express his racism?
Maybe they were fashing “OK” signs tio make fun of the likes of you, but even if Rittenhouse were a secret Klansman what happened would still be self defense.
No, you may not be aware, but our society has decided that Klansmen have no right to self-defense, that if righteous woke citizens choose to smack Klansmen upside the head with a skateboard, or even pull a Glock and shoot them, the Klansmen have no right to do anything but say, “Thank you, sir. May I have another.”
Who pulled the gun first in this case?
Who pulled the gun first in this case?
Rosenbaum tried to…pull on the barrel, at least.
But your question is, not surprisingly, both stupid and disingenuous. The meaningful, honest question is: Who assaulted who first?
Even better…who fired the first shot in this case? Hint: It wasn’t Rittenhouse.
Well, at least you chose your pseudonym well.
Maybe society should be less concerned about the people protecting life and property and more concerned about the rabble running around causing violence and mayhem. The Biden talking puppet suggested that Rittenhouse was there for absolutely no reason completely ignoring the fact that there was an ongoing RIOT causing the reaction.
Also, when are the real criminals going to be charged with crimes in this entire case. We have a guy who was illegally carrying a gun and also several people who confessed to arson while testifying. Time for the wheels of justice to roll over their way.
Rosenbaum and Huber Huber are dead, and the charges against Grosskreutz were dismissed a week or so before trial so that he could testify against Rittenhouse as their key witness. Of course, the prosecutors, in their rush to prepare for trial, conveniently forgot to inform the defense of that so that they could use it to impeach him…
The same prosecutors who gave the defense a compressed copy of the video that they claimed showed Rittenhouse threatening his attackers with his gun. They then played the uncompressed version, with 4x the resolution, during their closing arguments to try to show provocation. Funny thing was, that their alleged provocations (the basis for their attack on Rittenhouse’s claims of self defense) by Rittenhouse only showed up, possibly, in the uncompressed version that the defense didn’t get from them until after the evidence for both sides was closed.
When the time comes there will be many who must answer for their crimes against humanity.
Remember when you insisted I was misinterpreting you when I called you out for posting paeans to political violence?
Mask off, eh?
Glad to see your cowardice continues to overwhelm your desire to kill the libs.
Wow, what a substantive post on a legal topic… oh wait, nevermind! It’s just more baiting bullshit from Volokh’s moron-in-residency, Bernstein. Imagine having this dipshit as one of your professors.
At least the first two letter of your nickname are correct.
So you think I’m not a lawyer because I find Bernstein to be moronic? What sound logic!
No, I think you are mostly here to piss all over threads.
Look at you, lapping it up.
Less nausia-inducing than encountering you on a regular basis is, that’s for sure.
RE: “…Another video shows armed residents protecting a…”
RESIDENTS. Hmmmm.
(A medical person might call Kyle Rittenhouse an attending, but hardly a resident.)
And it matters? Why?
That’s an odd response to a quote that did not mention Rittenhouse specifically. Perhaps you jumped the gun a bit when choosing your pseudonym…or at least the first word of it.
I just read read the defense’s motion to dismiss with prejudice on the basis of several incidents of egregious prosecutorial misconduct (with a new one that might get added to an amended motion). It’s pretty strong. If granted I predict rioting and a lot of screaming by media talking heads who will go out of their way to leave out the facts and misrepresent the substance of the motion beyond recognition.
I do not think deadly force should be used to defend property.
Well, it wasn’t. It was used to defend life and limb. Do you have any other irrelevant beliefs you’d like to share?
Considering deadly force wasn’t used until the individual was personally threatened, it’s all good.
It wasn’t. It was used to defend Kyle’s life.
In defense of starlord’s position, he (and many others) went armed originally to protect property from the rioters regardless of what subsequently happened.
Where I will challenge starlord is in the consistency of that principle. If you truly believe that lethal force is never authorized in defense of property, then you should hold to that position whether the force is presented directly or by proxy. That means police may not use force to defend property either. So anyone who wants your stuff (and is less scrupulous than you) can just walk up and take it. Your life savings. The groceries you need to feed your kids. The money for your elderly mother’s operation. Your very home itself.
Note that non-lethal force is a fiction since resistance to the police’s non-lethal “requests” can quickly escalate to lethality.
As I noted in a comment above, pacifism is a recognized philosophy. The Quakers, for example, would agree with your position. But you are in a very tiny minority to hold this position. It’s also worth noting that historically, NO society has held that position broadly. Communities like the Quakers are able to survive only because they free-ride on the protections and use of force exerted by the rest of the surrounding society.
<he (and many others) went armed originally to protect property from the rioters regardless of what subsequently happened.
That presumes that those individuals intended to simply open fire on anyone who threatened said property, rather than the firearms being a means of self-defense in the event that they (those doing the protecting) intervened to ward off such threats only to have the perpetrator(s) of those threats become hostile to the defenders. Take, for instance, the hypothetical example of some rioters setting a dumpster on fire and propelling that flaming dumpster towards some fuel pumps at a gas station. If someone put out that fire the would-be arsonists might become enraged and attack whoever put out their fire.
MSNBC banned from Rittenhouse trial court after one of its New York-based producers allegedly instructed a freelancer to follow the jury bus for undisclosed purposes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/18/rittenhouse-trial-msnbc/
Not guilty on all counts. Can you hear the sound of left-wing propagandists’ heads exploding?