Thursday Open Thread (Friday This Week)

What's on your mind?

Comments

[wreckinball]

The VC is boring. Start writing some articles based on the cases that are in the news.

[Bored Lawyer]

The number of junk calls, and even outright scam calls,* have been steadily increasing. I thought there was a federal law passed a while ago to deal with this. We are on the DO NOT CALL list, and it does not seem to help.

Anyone notice the same thing? Have any insights as to how to lessen these annoyances?

_______________
*Some of them purport to be federal agents, or the Social Security Administration. I know it's a scam, but I can imagine some nervous people falling for it and giving out their information. This really burns me, and I occassionally dial through and berate them.

[Absaroka]

Cell phone? VOIP? Old school copper?

For cell and (I think voip) there are apps/services that are reputed to help - 'nomorobo' is one.

For copper, you can get wireless systems (a base unit+wireless handsets) that, for non-whitelisted numbers, will say something like 'Press # to ring through'. Most human callers will press #, most spammers won't.

[ah....Clem]

Junk phone solicitations have been pet peeve for me for decades. I genuinely detest telemarketers, but my experience is that technological advances have worked and I'm getting way fewer spam calls, perhaps three or four a week.

Nomorobo on the land line (still need one of those for my freeze alarm), custom ring tones on my cel phone so I know not to bother to answer calls from non-contacts, and the national do-not-call list for whatever that is worth.

I'm reminded what a disaster it would be if the US decided that since phones are a common carrier the phone companies must let every call go through. Yet otherwise serious people are proposing various "must carry" regulations for social media.

[apedad]

I enabled the Silence Unknown Callers on my Iphone (Settings, Phone, Silence Unknown Callers).

If you're not in my Contacts list, then the phone doesn't ring and I just get a message there was a call with the number.

Legit callers will leave a voice mail.

The rest get blocked.

[Life of Brian]

I'm reminded what a disaster it would be if the US decided that since phones are a common carrier the phone companies must let every call go through. Yet otherwise serious people are proposing various "must carry" regulations for social media.

Among other reasons, this strikes me as a very inapt analogy since (1) nobody forces an individual to receive (much less consume) a given social media message; (2) reading a social media message doesn't prevent me from receiving other messages in the meantime; and (3) reading a social media message doesn't obligate me to respond to that message, much less in real time.

In short, you're conflating the power to publish something (generally good) with the power to force a particular person to pay attention to it (generally not good).

[Brett Bellmore]

"Among other reasons, this strikes me as a very inapt analogy since (1) nobody forces an individual to receive (much less consume) a given social media message; "

In fact, FB "pushes" a good deal of unwanted content to users, and routinely alters its software to break user filters intended to block this.

[Life of Brian]

In fact, FB "pushes" a good deal of unwanted content to users, and routinely alters its software to break user filters intended to block this.

Sure, but that's still very different than me (the composer) having the power to force you (the consumer) to receive an arbitrary message, as is the case when I dial your phone number. And even if FB or whatever platform pushes content you don't want, you can just scroll on past it to the content you want rather than reading it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if I get a telemarketer call, I can glance at the caller ID, and if I don't recognize it, never hear what they have to say.

When I was using FB, if Zuckerberg pushed some content to me, it was right there in my timeline, impossible to not see it. Some days I'd have to scroll down past a Zuckerberg mess to find the stuff posted by people I was actually friends with.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"Well, if I get a telemarketer call, I can glance at the caller ID, and if I don't recognize it, never hear what they have to say."

Sometimes they try giving their spiel to your voicemail.

[ah....Clem]

You are correct to point out that phone calls are uniquely invasive or interruptive compared to other methods of nuisance communication. Junk mail only arrives once a day, email doesn't expect you to stop what you're doing to deal with it, and it's certainly possible to use the internet without ever looking at facebook or twitter.

But the point remains that the phone would be unusable without blocking telemarketers, email would be useless without anti-spam measures, and if you want an example of how unmoderated social media devolves into a useless flame war, look at what happened to usenet in the 90s. Content moderation is what makes these services possible at all.

[BillyG]

You are mistaking who decides. With phone calls, the receiver gets to decide who they pick up. Using a blocking service is fully under the end users control. With social media, the companies have significant control.

[John F. Carr]

The Do Not Call list is a list of valid phone numbers belonging to human beings who (want to) answer the phone. Great place to harvest numbers from.

[santamonica811]

John,
Under your theory; people on the Do Not Call list would be receiving far *more* spam/telemarketer calls, right? I don't think this is what has actually happened.

[John F. Carr]

I expect more scam calls and fewer honest calls.

[Life of Brian]

Have any insights as to how to lessen these annoyances?

I know we've all been hearing this for a long time now, but be patient just a bit longer. The telcos are in the process of rolling out (under a FCC mandate) the STIR/SHAKEN framework to prevent caller ID spoofing (or at least warn you it's happening). This is the mechanism that makes some calls display as "Potential Spam" or similar on your cell phone. Eventually most cell/landline/VOIP providers should have the capability of blocking all callers that won't subject themselves to STIR/SHAKEN authorization (generally just nefarious actors). Then things should quiet down a good deal.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"We are on the DO NOT CALL list, and it does not seem to help."

I thought when they first enacted that, that it would just end up being a target list of valid numbers.

[ah....Clem]

While the national do not call list had limited utility, one thing it did accomplish is that you knew that once you signed up for it, any telemarketer who called you is breaking the law, i.e. you could be sure that you were dealing with a criminal enterprise.

My experience is that it helped a bit. But as they say, if telemarketing is outlawed, only outlaws will engage in telemarketing.

[Josh R]

I was surprised but encouraged by this article which claims Douglas Laycock, the godfather of the "most-favored nation" doctrine of religious liberty, said SCOTUS went too far in granting a religious exemption in Tandon and got it right by not granting one in Mills.

[Cal Cetín]

"religious exemptions have already been responsible for measles outbreaks in some states."

The article doesn't seem to explain why COVID is like measles.

[Queen Amalthea]

Are the rules in the relevant cases measles/COVID specific?

[Josh R]

In Mills, healthcare workers were required to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis B, and influenza long before COVID-19 existed.

[Cal Cetín]

It seems they don't like three justices dissenting in the Maine case about vaccinating health care workers.

The dissenters thought it wasn't a neutral law.

There was a secular medical exemption, but it exempted anyone with a doctor's note, and the dissenters believed that "it seems Maine will respect even mere trepidation over vaccination as sufficient, but only so long as it is phrased in medical and not
religious terms."

So I don't know if these three justices know what they're talking about, but I doubt the medical exemption for measles vaccines are so broad and liberal. WebMD lists the typical reasons for giving medical exemptions for measles:

"What are medical exemptions?
Parents can ask for a medical exemption if a vaccine wouldn't be safe for their child. Reasons that children can get an exemption include:

"They have a disease or take medicine that weakens their immune system.

"They have a severe allergy to a vaccine or an ingredient in it.

"They had a serious reaction to a vaccine in the past.

"To get a medical exemption, parents need to have their child's doctor sign a form. Many states ask whether the exemption is temporary or permanent. And almost half of states require doctors to sign a new form every year or so."

https://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/what-are-the-rules-on-vaccine-exemptions

It's perhaps that someone I mentioned above is wrong on the facts, but if in fact the medical exemptions for COVID in Maine are broader and vaguer than the medical exemptions for measles, we're comparing apples and oranges.

(Note that even if the restriction on religion *isn't* neutral, it can still try to pass strict scrutiny)

[arch1]

Medical exemptions are at least arguably based in reason and evidence. Religious exemptions, by contrast, are in the same epistemological category as voodoo, entrail-reading, and spirit channeling. A nation whose government gives the latter anything like the same deference as the former is admitting to people in less benighted times and places (i.e. to most everyone, assuming a long-term, non-apocalyptic perspective) that it still has one foot in the Dark Ages.

[ReaderY]

Unfortunately, we have a very benighted constitution that has a Free Exercise Clause.

I think there is a basis., under the Court’s pre-Smith precedents, for regarding certain medical matters as compelling interests overriding individual rights in certain circumstances.

But there is absolutely no basis for overriding people’s rights because one believes them benighted, superstitious, etc.

[John F. Carr]

Note "reasons include" instead of "reasons are". In California vaccine exemptions could be had from the right doctor as easily as a prescription for "medical" marijuana from the right doctor. As easily as a prescription for opiates could be had in Florida from the right doctor. Some doctors rubber stamp wishes as medical needs. California has since attempted to limit abuse of medical exemptions. You would need to look at the exemptions as applied, which is not too hard for the state to do but very hard for a private plaintiff to do.

[Sidney r finkel]

The extremely concerning aspect of the Rittenhouse case is not the case itself, which is a one-off situation, but the reaction to it. Specifically the endorsement of the use of violence by some Republicans shows that the rule of the gun rather than the rule of law is their preferred method for settling the differences dividing the nation.

Real conservatives, such as myself, believe in institutional solutions to conflicts, to the use of professional law enforcement bodies to serve and protect, rather than armed citizens. This is civilization.

But what if the institutions are not adequate. Again, the conservative response is to make them adequate. But a growing trend is to abandon them and utilize the second amendment to arm the violence driven militias to enforce their idea of how socieity should be governed. That is what the Taylor-Greene's and her ilk are promoting. If successful it could mean the end of the U. S. as a nation.

Rittenhouse was found not guilty of crimes. But no one, absolutely no one who is truly conservative and believes that the U. S. should be governed by laws and not armed thugs should do anything but condemn his actions, not as illegal but something worse, an attack on the norms of the nation.

[Bill Godshall]

Had the Kenosha police done their jobs (instead of being ordered to stand down by Democrat politicians to allow BLM rioters to destroy the city), Rittenhouse probably wouldn't have armed himself, or even gone there that night.

If my neighborhood is being destroyed by violent thugs, and if police don't show up when called, I'll protect my neighbors from harm.

[Cal Cetín]

Yes, I'd like a citation to where "some Republicans" want to have armed citizens roaming around to fight civil disorder *when the police are already doing it.* The dispute arises when the police aren't there or were ordered to stand down, and when the National Guard is nowhere to be seen.

[Queen Amalthea]

Police made hundreds of arrests during the Kenosha riots.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Yeah, there were riots and videos all over the country with some places worse than others…if you’ve ever been to Mardi Gras then you would see in situations like that police have to let some crime occur for fear of making things worse. My takeaway from Kenosha is that everything went as planned except a suicidal pedo just happened to be thrown into the mix and that is why shots were fired and two criminal vagrants were killed.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"Don't interrupt, he's on a roll."

[Cal Cetín]

OK, they weren't in the specific place they were needed to stop those particular rioters.

But apart from police, did they proclaim an emergency and a curfew, and call out the National Guard?

It's not like the National Guard are away in Afghanistan. Anyway, they ought to be close at hand in case of domestic "turbulence."

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Why put National Guardsmen in harm's way when you can get Illinois teenagers for the job?

[Cal Cetín]

I think that's kind of the opposite of my point.

The government ought to be shamed into doing its job when taxpayers (or even future taxpayers) have to provide basic public-order functions which the cops or (if cops can't or won't do the job) the National Guard ought to be doing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

When they ordered the police in Kenosha to stand down, who gave the order, and what exactly did it say?

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the leadership in Kenosha learned from Baltimore, and didn't say the quiet part out loud.

But it's clear that they were permitting a great deal of illegal activity, rioting, arson, looting. You've seen the video of that dumpster on fire and being pushed towards the gas station. Wasn't the fire department that put it out, wasn't the police who stopped the station from going up in flames.

Why wasn't it? Why weren't the National Guard called in? Why were business owners having to defend their own property privately against open criminality?

Why isn't Grosskreutz up on charges? Because a corrupt prosecutor dropped all the easily proven charges against him.

[Absaroka]

According to the Font of All Knowledge the riots started late on Day 1. The Guv activated the guard (opposed by the Wisc. ACLU!), although a fraction of the number requested, on Day 2. It looks like they arrived on Day 3.

By Day 6 there were 1000 NG and 200 feds.

One reading of that article would be 'local police and fire did all they could until help arrived from outside'. My googling didn't turn up evidence of malfeasance by the city government, but I'll admit that anything involving 'Kenosha' is kinda hard to google for right now. If you have credible evidence of malfeasance (as opposed to people assuming there must have been malfeasance w/o presenting evidence, which was all I found) I'd be interested to see it.

I agree with the general sentiment, though, that riots ought to be met with an overwhelming LEO/NG/etc presence, to the point people know better than to riot. People shouldn't need to be Rooftop Koreans, because the police/NG/etc should be there in force enough to protect the stores w/o the owners having to DIY.

1)this isn't police/NG bashing - it's not their fault if they are stretched too thin.
2)in the absence of enough LEOs, if you don't want unorganized militias showing up, one solution would be to have an organized militia.

I recall a story from Katrina where a hospital that was unflooded and had power, and thus desperately needed, was shut down because junkies kept raiding the hospital pharmacy. The police could have collected a dozen septuagenarians from the local rod-n-gun and issued them surplus Garands and they could have stopped that nonsense in its tracks.

[apedad]

Bill, so I guess this guy was in DC on 1/6 to "protect" the Capitol?

Alabama Man Pleads Guilty to Firearms Offenses

Lonnie Leroy Coffman, 71, of Falkville, Alabama, pleaded guilty today to federal and local firearms offenses stemming from the discovery of weapons in his pickup truck parked near the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

According to his plea agreement, Coffman traveled from Alabama to the District of Columbia several days prior to Jan. 6 and parked his red GMC Sierra pickup truck at the 300 block of First Street, SE, on the morning of Jan. 6. Less than half a mile away in the U.S. Capitol Building, a joint session of the U.S. Congress was scheduled to meet in the afternoon to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the presidential election.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/alabama-man-pleads-guilty-firearms-offenses

[Cal Cetín]

"Coffman pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm, a federal offense, regarding the component parts of Molotov cocktails discovered in his pickup truck in Washington, D.C., and at his residence in Alabama. Coffman also pleaded guilty to carrying a pistol without a license, a District of Columbia offense."

Anyway, I don't think even he would claim he was trying to use molotov cocktail ingredients to fight rioters.

[Bob from Ohio]

Despite the incendiary language in the press release, these are both just procedure crimes. Unregistered gasoline/kerosene [aka component parts of Molotov cocktails] and a pistol legally owned in Alabama.

[Queen Amalthea]

By this logic being in the country without the right documents is a procedure crime, right?

[John F. Carr]

Immigration law mixes procedure and substance. Some people are banned from the US regardless of paperwork.

[Queen Amalthea]

OK, just use the analogy for those that aren't.

[Davedave]

"incendiary language"
"component parts of Molotov cocktails"

Oh dear.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Inside the pickup truck were several loaded firearms within arms-reach of the driver’s seat, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and a cooler containing 11 mason jars filled with ignitable ingredients for Molotov cocktail incendiary weapons. Coffman also carried a loaded handgun and a loaded revolver as he walked around the area that day. A search of Coffman’s residence in Alabama later that month led to the discovery of 12 additional mason jars containing ignitable substances, each constituting the component parts of Molotov cocktails.

Coffman did not have a license to carry a pistol in the District of Columbia and had not registered any firearms or destructive devices in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, as required by law."

I'm not particularly offended by possession of an unregistered firearm or ammo, regarding this law as comparable to a law prohibiting possession of unregistered printing presses. "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices" are usually called "magazines", DC and some other left-wing jurisdictions have a weird idea about their normal capacity. I'm also a bit surprised to find out that I'm legally required to register the mason jar of cleaning solvent out in my yard shed. Honestly, it sounds like pretty much everything in his van was perfectly legal in most states.

I'm vaguely curious about the nature of the "ignitable substances" in the mason jars. I've got a mason jar of "ignitable substance" in my liquor cabinet. Cherry flavor! I wonder why they were so vague about the ignitable substances' nature; Didn't want to explain that it was just legal moonshine?

That said, it does sound like he was loaded for bear, or perhaps equipped for a "peaceful but fiery protest". And yet, somehow, didn't harm a soul!

[Davedave]

It's not having one mason jar. It's having a dozen small jars, each with a little gasoline in them. In case you're unaware, one doesn't fill the container - you need headroom for fumes so the thing explodes on impact. So they're pretty unmistakeable.

If they say they found molotov cocktails, they at least found petrol bombs that were ready to light. Or they're just flat-out lying, but obviously they ain't.

[Bob from Ohio]

"they say they found molotov cocktails"

They said they found the "component parts". Its your assumption they were bombs.

[Davedave]

"a cooler containing 11 mason jars filled with ignitable ingredients for Molotov cocktail incendiary weapons"

They found prepared bombs that just needed the lit fuses dropping in, according to the stuff you're quoting.

There is no possible reason for anyone to be carrying this particularly nasty weapon. This psycho had a dozen of the things.

Is this really the hill you're choosing to die on?

Alternatively, if you can't even accept _this_ as an obvious psycho who needs locking up, what would you ever accept?

[Bob from Ohio]

"obvious psycho who needs locking up"

We don't lock up people in prison for mental illness [Kirkland isn't in prison for instance] nor for pre-crimes.

I don't know why he filled these things up. He had plenty of chances to use them, he didn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like I said, I expect he anticipated Antifa and BLM showing up to attack the Trump rally, something that wouldn't exactly be unprecedented. And intended to see to it they had a very bad day if they did.

But they didn't, so all the weapons went unused.

The thing is, I'm cool with the guns, because you can aim guns, they can be used in a defensive manner against only the guilty.

But Molotov cocktails are terror weapons. So, yeah, nail him to the wall on those.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I don't know why he filled these things up. He had plenty of chances to use them, he didn't. "

Be careful, kids -- this level of thinking is how a lawyer can wind up proofreading $27,300 residential deeds in Can't Keep Up, Ohio in his 50s and 60s.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"But Molotov cocktails are terror weapons."

My understanding is that they were originally developed as a poor man's anti-tank weapon in the period between WWI and WWII.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and if the Antifa start rampaging in tanks, I might change my opinion. But as an anti-personnel weapon, they're a terror weapon, and they're widely used for arson purposes.

The damage they do is too indiscriminant until those tanks show up.

[Absaroka]

"And yet, somehow, didn't harm a soul!"

Perhaps that is some combination of:
1)He/his arsenal came to the attention of law enforcement before he did something worse.
2)He is mentally ill (per his family's description if you google his name), and some mentally ill people aren't good at organized planning.

As far as ignitable substances in glass jars, liquor is one of the few exceptions, perhaps, to that being a Bad Idea. If you are stocking gasoline or kerosene in glass containers in your shed or, worse, a vehicle, you should get proper gas cans. What happens when you are in a fender bender and a few quarts of gas slosh around the passenger compartment?

Take the same facts but have the person be someone with Antifa connections caught near the Portland Fed Bldg and somehow I think the line would be 'disaster narrowly averted', not 'eccentric happens to carry spare gas in mason jars'.

[Davedave]

"'eccentric happens to carry spare gas in mason jars'."

'Eccentric happens to carry half a pint of gas as a splash in the bottom of several jars', even.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, it said "ignitable substances", not "gas". Again, I have a mason jar of "ignitable substance" in my liquor cabinet. I'd need a bit more detail before I'd assume he had actual Molotov cocktail components, rather than just something you could McGuiver into Molotov cocktails if you needed to. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that I know the government wouldn't hesitate to claim a case of moonshine was "Molotov cocktail components" if they wanted to screw with somebody.

If I had to guess why he came loaded for bear, firearms wise, and yet hurt nobody, it would be that he was anticipating Antifa showing up and attacking Trump's rally, (I know I did, one of the reasons I wasn't there!) and wanted to be able to see if they could take what they were dishing out.

Typically, if somebody is equipped to perpetrate violence on a mass scale, and yet harms nobody, you can safely assume it's because they didn't want to harm anybody. Because if they'd wanted to, nothing was stopping them.

[Davedave]

https://www.fbi.gov/history/artifact-of-the-month/december-2020-richard-reids-shoes

"if somebody is equipped to perpetrate violence on a mass scale, and yet harms nobody, you can safely assume it's because they didn't want to harm anybody."

Richard Reid is innocent?!

Stop being a complete idiot. If someone is prevented from carrying out their attack, that is another reason why their attack might be unsuccessful.

[Absaroka]

"I'd need a bit more detail before I'd assume he had actual Molotov cocktail components,..."

Fair enough. FWIW:

"Coffman packed a cooler with Mason jars he filled with gasoline and melted plastic foam to produce a dangerous “napalm-like” explosion of sticky, flammable liquid, he admitted in a two-hour plea hearing in Washington."

[Brett Bellmore]

And that's the detail I needed. Fine, nail him to the wall.

[MatthewSlyfield]

I will nit pick the "napalm-like".

Real military grade napalm is a mix of polystyrene (Styrofoam), gasoline, and a stabilizing agent.

He didn't have something "napalm-like" he had homemade napalm.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"large-capacity ammunition feeding devices" are usually called "magazines"

Actually that usage tends to describe drum-magazines or similar.

[Brett Bellmore]

Depends on the state you're in. In some states that's a drum magazine. In others, it's the standard magazine any semi-auto comes with.

[Bob from Ohio]

"weapons in his pickup truck parked"

The horror.

All insurrectionists leave their guns in their truck where they cannot readily access them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"If my neighborhood is being destroyed by violent thugs, and if police don't show up when called, I'll protect my neighbors from harm."

The record indicates that when the police respond to a complaint about a disorderly jerk, Bill Godshall gets put on the ground and does what he is told.

Carry on, Bill Godshall, you bigoted, delusional, all-talk right-wing rube.

[SimonP]

The problem with this justification of vigilantism is the same with the old canard about the Second Amendment protecting a "right to revolution" - who decides when the relevant threshold of tolerated violence is enough to merit individual vigilantism?

I live in New York. During the George Floyd protests, we saw a spate of looting and violence mixed in with the protests. Some neighborhoods got hit pretty hard, others were perfectly peaceful. There were no official "stand down" orders for the NYPD, but anecdotal reports seem to suggest that the NYPD did not generally do much to try to stop the looting. The best explanation would be that it was better for them (and their safety) not to try to fight back against the looting crowds. Alternative explanations being that they were caught flat-footed by the looting, or quietly content to let it spiral out of control.

Anyway, one could imagine a gun-toting teenager from Jersey taking it upon himself to come patrol the luxury shops of the West Village and Tribeca. What is his jurisdiction? What are the rules for his engagement? Who asked him to come? If he comes to protect the clothing stores in Williamsburg, is he entitled to come up to menace the peaceful protests in Greenpoint? Can he shoot just the people making him personally fear for his life, or can he fire at people tossing bricks at storefronts? People picking up bricks? People carrying cans of soup?

You will get no argument from me that we should just tolerate looting and rioting. The looting that happened in the city hit some of the POC neighborhoods the protests were ostensibly about protecting. It was crass, opportunistic destruction. But the way we manage something like that is through police forces that are managed by politically accountable leadership. If your own property is at stake, then maybe you should be entitled to protect it. But deputizing yourself to "keep the peace"? That way leads to chaos and madness.

[Davedave]

"The best explanation would be that it was better for them (and their safety) not to try to fight back against the looting crowds. Alternative explanations being that they were caught flat-footed by the looting, or quietly content to let it spiral out of control."

They're police. As always, the only explanation needed is that it was easier to do nothing, and they're lazy as hell.

[Davedave]

"But deputizing yourself to "keep the peace"? That way leads to chaos and madness."

It isn't 'deputizing yourself to keep the peace'. It's seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government. I can only assume the real federal charges for Rittenhouse are still pending.

[Life of Brian]

It's seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government. I can only assume the real federal charges for Rittenhouse are still pending.

This is so utterly loony-toony I have to think it must be another of your "jokes" as you retreated to downthread. Keep 'em coming....

[Davedave]

There's nothing loony about it. The US is infested with traitorous far-right scum who repeatedly throw violent insurrection parties. It's only because they're utterly ineffective in their attempts at insurrection that their white supremacist mates are able to keep describing things as 'riots'.

The fact is, Rittenhouse took a gun to protest against the US Constitution. That's a federal crime, punishable by life imprisonment.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The fact is, Rittenhouse took a gun to protest against the US Constitution."

Try using [/sarc] in the future. It would stop people from suspecting that you're clinically insane.

[ragebot]

Hey turdface your implication really distorted a faulty analogy between Rittenhouse and an imaginary kid from NJ.

Rittenhouse first encountered a pedo setting fire to a dumpster and pushing it towards his grandfather's gas station in a city where his father still lived and a city where he worked. So if a kid from NJ goes to NYC and shoots 'mostly peaceful rioters' who are lighting dumpsters on fire and pushing them towards a gas station I am all for it; especially if the guy starting the fire is a pedo.

[SimonP]

You're really just helping to illustrate the problem.

Here, you're asserting that Rittenhouse has some kind of (half-remembers, stitched from a vague recollection of right-wing propaganda sites) tenuous claim that he had a personal stake in the protests in Kenosha, as a justification for his decision to get involved there. Whereas my hypothetical New Jerseyian has not such claim. But why does that make the difference? Who decides when the personal stake is enough to justify vigilantism?

You're just some random rightwinger on a blog. Should we defer to your judgment, or people like you? Or should we defer to the emotional impulses of a hormone-driven teenager?

[MatthewSlyfield]

"Here, you're asserting that Rittenhouse has some kind of (half-remembers, stitched from a vague recollection of right-wing propaganda sites) tenuous claim that he had a personal stake in the protests in Kenosha"

There's nothing tenuous about that claim. Rittenhouse's father lives in Kenosha and Rittenhouse worked(don't know if he still has that job) at the Pleasant Prairie Rec Plex. The village of Pleasant Prairie is in Kenosha county, sandwiched between the city of Kenosha and the Wisconsin/Illinois state line.

[SimonP]

I am not at all surprised that the point seems lost on the troggos here.

[Harvey Mosley]

Translation: The only thing that matters is what I think matters.

[SimonP]

There's a point where I have to give up.

I'm not really interested in debating how much of a stake Rittenhouse had in the events occurring in Kenosha, because the point I'm making is that there's no real standard for determining how much of a "stake" is "enough" to justify coming to a protest, fully armed and ready to "defend yourself" against aggression when people reasonably perceive you to be an "active shooter." Would Rittenhouse's defenders change their tune if it turned out that his father had moved away a couple years ago? I don't think so.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's true, I wouldn't.

He had a right to be there, his attackers didn't have a right to attack him. That's all I needed to know. That his attackers were rioting and looting when they weren't attacking him? That's surplus.

The only reason to bring up his connections to the city was to refute claims he had no local connection, but, really, he didn't NEED a local connection. His shooting them was entirely justified by their attacking him, and he needed no justification for being where he had a right to be.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"You're really just helping to illustrate the problem..."

Simon, rather than engaging with someone who opens up their reply with "Hey turdface," the better practice is just muting. I wish this blog would start removing posts with personal insults, and removing commenters who persist. This would be a little less of a cesspool.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The problem with this justification of vigilantism

To what "vigilantism" are you referring? Or are you just demonstrating that you're a graduate of the Lathrop School of Ignorance Regarding the Meaning of "Vigilantism"?

[Bob from Ohio]

A "no true conservative" comment that actually uses the phrase "no one who is truly conservative"

Well done.

[Michael Ejercito]

Which conservatives excused the riots in Kenosha?

[LawTalkingGuy]

A child killing other humans is a tragedy not something to celebrate.

[Davedave]

And yet, that's the least bad thing about the Rittenhouse saga. Congratulations America.

It's ironic that it's the MAGA scum who are responsible for most of the world thinking the US is a terrible place.

[ragebot]

Glad we had a bunch of 17 year olds with guns fighting the NAZIs in WWII; wonder what 'most of the world' thinks about that.

[Davedave]

That it's deeply shaming that two or three generations later you have a bunch of 17 year olds with guns who _are_ the Nazis.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would be deeply shaming if it were true. It's somewhat concerning that a faction on the left are prepared to call anybody who is to their own right a "Nazi", and demand that everybody else accept it.

[SimonP]

I suppose you won't be convinced until they actually start burning books and shooting "liberals," instead of just talking about it.

Well, probably not even then. Because, of course, you're part of the problem with modern political discourse.

[Brett Bellmore]

The people burning books right now are on the left. What do you think cancel culture is, anyway? It's book burning! As Bradbury said,

"There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist/Unitarian, Irish/Italian/Octogenarian/Zen Buddhist, Zionist/Seventh-day Adventist, Women's Lib/Republican, Mattachine/FourSquareGospel feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme."

[Sarcastr0]

OK, dude. That's a pretty bad attempt to equate government-sanctioned book burning with a private entity not letting you post stuff.

Because in VA the reactionary right is calling for books to be burned right now.

[Life of Brian]

Because in VA the reactionary right is calling for books to be burned right now.

Otherwise known as "don't teach that activist smut to my kids." Potayto, potahto.

[Sarcastr0]

Not the same as calling for the books to be burned, chief.

Don't defend fascist impulses.

[Sarcastr0]

A Tennessee chapter of "Moms for Liberty" filed a complaint with the Tennessee Department of Education alleging that assigning 2nd Graders a book about MLK Jr's March on Washington violated the state's new law banning Critical Race Theory.
https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1465364770232705032

Yeah, no censorship or cancelling here at all!

[Absaroka]

"A Tennessee chapter..."

Thanks, I have a thing for banned books so I just ordered a copy.

FWIW, it seems to be a children's book for 'levels 1 to 4'. If that means grades 1-4, there might be something to the criticism down in the twitter thread that it is too graphic.

By, say, the end of high school history classes shouldn't be pulling punches - everyone should see the very graphic photos of liberated concentration camps, for example, in addition to an unvarnished look at slavery and Jim Crow - but I'm not sure early elementary school is the time to get too graphic. I'll be curious to see the actual book.

[ragebot]

Glad we had a bunch of 17 year olds with guns fighting the English/Germans in 1776.

[Commenter_XY]

No, it is not LTG. Kyle Rittenhouse was tried by a jury of peers and found not guilty. The criminal part is over with (for now). The taking of human life is traumatic, regardless of circumstance. He is very young to have to deal with taking another human life. I am quite sure the memories will haunt him for life. I hope that he has access to professionals who can help him through that experience, emotionally.

The coming civil lawsuits are a wholly separate issue.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Who is celebrating that?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump was. With Rittenhouse.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Any evidence to support this, that they were celebrating the killing?

No?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Well, Rittenhouse was an admitted multiple killer. There's that. And Trump was standing right beside him, with a big grin, and his thumb pointed up. Thumb up for Rittenhouse, too.

Rittenhouse got acquitted, which doesn't change that picture even slightly.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, if someone has a thumbs up, they are celebrating something else they did? Without any context?

Sounds like they are celebrating the not guilty verdict to me, not any "killing"

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A child killing other humans is a tragedy not something to celebrate.

Another tragedy is that so many are either incapable of understanding the difference between celebrating the deaths of some individuals vs celebrating that a young man did not go to prison for justifiable self-defense...or knowing the difference but insisting on being intentionally dishonest about it.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Conservatives were much more likely to see the GA redneKKKs guilty than liberals are to see Rittenhouse guilty…so true conservatives agree with you. I think your view of what happened to Rittenhouse is distorted—Rittenhouse was like Arbery and Trayvon Martin in that he was put in a bad situation due to erratic and threatening behavior by an adult. So Rosenbaum who instigated the altercation was a suicidal pedo most likely attempting suicide by cop.

[BillyG]

Did we even watch the same case? This was pure self defense.

[Ben_]

Why condemn someone defending himself as he is attacked? What is someone holding a weapon supposed to do when attacked?

He tried to get away, but attackers chased him. Having done no wrong, there’s nothing to condemn.

Tragic loss of life is sad. But Joseph Rosenbaum raped children, so not that sad.

[Michael D]

Sorry but I am not seeing this as a problem. Instead, what I am seeing is the lack of concern regarding the actions of the prosecutor. Whether it was ignoring the facts his own witness stated when deciding to prosecute what was clearly a self defense case to the judge’s admonitions of the prosecutor during the trial itself. If there had been any finding of guilt in the case, there were many grounds for appeal. Many of those were based on the misconduct of the prosecutor.

Will there be any review of his possible misconduct to include what might be Brady violations? Will any discipline entail if the investigation finds fault? I will say the likelihood is almost nil.

I can cite links to lists of prosecutorial misconduct that are full of cases. I can cite statistics claiming a certain NOT insignificant number of innocent people are in prison due to prosecutorial misconduct. I can cite specific high-profile cases of prosecutorial misconduct. We all either do, or should, know all that data. No need to repeat it here, hopefully.

The question remains, what is the solution? Are you naive enough to think electing the “right person” is the solution? Personally, I think electing prosecutors is part of the problem. US states are probably the only political entities on the globe that elect prosecutors. That practice is dangerous. Yes…dangerous (see: https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-too-dangerous-to-elect-prosecutors) But I also do not hold any illusions that this is a solution either. So what is?

Among the ideas I have read (Judge Kozinski’s Criminal Law 2.0) include:

1. Requiring open file discovery
2. Adopting standard procedures for disclosure obligations
3. Adding conviction integrity units
4. Establish independent prosecutorial integrity units
5. Abrogate absolute prosecutorial immunity

I am not even sure all these solve the problem but they probably go a long way toward a solution.

[Cal Cetín]

"US states are probably the only political entities on the globe that elect prosecutors."

That doesn't persuade me. What persuades me is the bad record of many of our elected prosecutors.

Have a pool of civil-service criminal lawyers who alternate between prosecution and defense. Maybe their prosecution and defense work can be alternate between different counties to reduce the number of times when they're dealing with the same people from both sides of the fence.

Plus some or all of your reforms.

Perhaps a constitutional amendment or so that you can't be an elected official within _ years of being a prosecutor.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Tell me you're not a lawyer without telling me you're not a lawyer.

[Cal Cetín]

I'm not going to incriminate myself one way or the other.

[Michael D]

Cal, that idea about rotating lawyers is one of the most interesting I have ever heard! And in all honesty, it is truly one of the more simple to implement. After all, prosecutors and public defenders are all working for the same entity.

Regarding the elections of prosecutors, the linked citation deals more with the fact that as election time approaches, prosecutors tend to become “tough on crime” to make a public show of how they perform their jobs. The results are quite negative for actually achieving a just system.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've long thought that every jury should have THREE options available to it.

1) Guilty
2) Innocent
3) Malicious prosecution.

In the event of the third verdict, it's the prosecutor who's penalized, and more than one such conviction results in his being barred from the job for life.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And I thought Cal Cetín's idea was dumb!

[Cal Cetín]

I am unconvinced by your rebuttal, elaborate and detailed though it was.

[Absaroka]

I for one would welcome a discussion of the idea; I have thought about it myself.

It's not unreasonable on its face - if the machine shop and foundry departments are blaming each other for the delays/QC probs/whatever, swapping the managers and letting each of the see if they can do better is a reasonable idea. One could hope that having attorneys work both sides of the fence would let them see things from a different viewpoint.

On the balance, though, I'm not sure it would work. Managing the machine shop and foundry can both be done by the same type of person, but I kinda think being a defense attorney requires a pretty special mindset. We want even the defense atty for a serial killer, who knows that his client is absolutely guilty, to advocate as hard as he can. I'm not sure many people could make that mindset switch very easily.

But I'd be interested to hear what people, especially any prosecutors or defense attorneys think about it.

[not guilty]

A capable advocate should be able to present either side of a particular case with roughly equal facility. I never considered becoming a prosecutor, not because I couldn´t do the work, but because I don´t think I could get used to the stick up the butt.

[Ben_]

Note the rhetorical gamesmanship here: "… condemn his actions …"

Which actions specifically? What specifically was wrong with them?

Nothing specific about either of those questions because the whole post would either sound really dumb because the actions were obvious self-defense or disingenuous because you have to pretend ignorance of the facts to say this stuff without sounding dumb. So the rhetorical game is to just obliquely refer to "actions".

[not guilty]

I agree with the jury verdict in that the prosecution failed to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, but nothing that Rittenhouse did was praiseworthy or noble. He foolishly injected himself into a volatile situation and ratcheted up the danger level to a double fatality.

[Brett Bellmore]

On the contrary, basically everything he did was praiseworthy and noble. Risking your life to defend others, what could be more praiseworthy?

[SimonP]

This is a good illustration of why it's so impossible to have a reasoned debate with sociopaths like you.

None of the claims that Rittenhouse was justified in arming himself and attending the protests are plausible. He was trying to defend a community he claimed to have some personal connection to, after the police for some reason decided not to? No, that's not plausible. We all can understand that he was just some over-excited teenager, spoiling for a fight.

A lot of us lived near to or were connected to places impacted by the George Floyd protests/looting. But most of us didn't think that what was needed, in those situations, was more of us marching around with guns, imposing our own version of the law. There's no reason for some teenager to get involved, even if he's upset by what he's witnessing from afar.

That's perfectly obvious to half the country, and I'll bet it's obvious to most of his defenders here, too - but instead, you insist on having an asinine debate over it.

Which is a problem, because if we could agree that teenagers spoiling for a fight shouldn't show up at political protests, armed and ready to exact justice on anyone stepping out of line, we could move on to admit that, on the facts of Rittenhouse's case, once he found himself at the protests and being attacked, he may have had a fairly good case for acting in his self-defense. I, at any rate, having watched the video and read a bit about the sequence of events, am willing to say that much.

So why can't we reach that point? Why can't we reach a point of agreement where we say, Rittenhouse was an immature idiot, but not a murderer? Why does your ideology require you to valorize the guy, put him on your cable news networks, do a PR tour with all of your worst propagandists, and pretend that he's some kind of goddamn hero, contrary to rational thought?

[Toranth]

As others put it, this Kitty Genovese view of community that you espouse is pretty disturbing to many of us.

If your community needs help, it is a good thing to provide help. If that help is cleaning up graffiti or putting out fires, than that's what good people do.

Your problem is that you have this prejudiced view of Rittenhouse "spoiling for a fight" and trying to "impose his own version of the law". There is zero evidence that this ever happened, but it the heart and core of your angry rant.

The reason people 'valorize' him (stupid word) is because he went in his community where help was needed and helped. Why do people like you need to pretend that his conduct was shameful or wrong, even when you are forced to admit it wasn't illegal?

[SimonP]

You call my view "prejudiced," yet you can't seem to describe what he did without the use of doublespeak and equivocation. Rittenhouse came to Kenosha armed not with brooms, fire extinguishers, or paintbrushes, but with a gun. He claimed to be there to render first aid, but somehow he ended up killing two people. You refer to what he did as "helping," but I doubt that the people at the protest who were terrorized by the events he helped to precipitate would characterize it that way.

Why am I obliged to assign positive moral value to his choices and actions, just because what he did failed to meet the thresholds for criminal sanction? Are we similarly obliged to say that OJ Simpson did nothing wrong? Or Michael Flynn and Oliver North?

It is not unreasonable to want to protect businesses from looting during a series of protests where the protests are apparently being used as cover for the looting. But if you see those situations occurring and it seems to you that you cannot really hope to protect those businesses without fully arming yourself and being prepared to shoot at people, the takeaway should not be to go and do that but rather to get the professionals we've supposedly hired to have a "monopoly of force" to do their jobs for once.

[Absaroka]

" I doubt that the people at the protest who were terrorized by the events he helped to precipitate would characterize it that way. "

OTOH, the owner of the gas station that didn't burn down might be grateful for that.

"...but rather to get the professionals we've supposedly hired to have a "monopoly of force" to do their jobs for once."

And if they are overwhelmed by the scale of the rioting?

I'm not particularly a fan of Rittenhouse, but I think the situation is a bit more nuanced than you propose. For example, look at the Cajun Navy. They went into New Orleans after Katrina (and a number of other floods since) to rescue people when the professionals were grossly overwhelmed. I expect some were armed, because going into New Orleans unarmed in the chaos immediately following Katrina would be risky. Do you condemn them as well?

[Toranth]

Do you know when Rittenhouse first encountered Rosenbaum?
When Rosenbaum was harassing a group of people, including Rittenhouse, as they were cleaning up graffiti.
Do you know why Rosenbaum targeted Rittenhouse, including threatening to kill him? Because Rittenhouse put out a fire that Rosenbaum was trying to use to burn down a gas station.

I did not use euphemisms or doublespeak - I used concrete examples of how Rittenhouse was helping. You use overblown hyperbole and imaginary imputed motives instead of evidence, though.

I have zero sympathy for people "terrorized" by seeing two violent criminals killed. Those same people had just seen buildings set aflame, some with people inside forced to flee or die, and were part of a mob literally screaming for blood. If that violence didn't "terrorize" them (as it might have their victims), then they have no excuse for when justice swings against them.
As it has been said: "Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

And I have no idea why you bring up OJ, Flynn, or North. Were they out helping their communities when they were attacked by a criminal mob? If not, what's the relevance?

[Sarcastr0]

You are doing a great job of showing the issue here. There's a decent amount of people who want broad self defense laws to let them kill liberals for being rude or blocking the road.

Or maybe stealing elections.

Not hard to see where this ends, and why there's all this pushback to the celebrations of this kid's actions.

[Toranth]

Can you quote people that want the right to "kill liberals for being rude"? That's not an opinion I've come across, even from some of the more extreme posters I know of. First Amendment rights are pretty widely supported on the Right these days.

But even so, that's quite the slippery slope you are reaching for there. The Right celebrates the right to self-defense against violent attackers, therefore they also will murder political opponents? Is that seriously the argument you are trying to make?

[Ben_]

"The Right celebrates the right to self-defense against violent attackers, therefore they also will murder political opponents"

Makes sense if "political opponents" intend to be violent attackers in the future. If you planned on some sort of violent authoritarian action you’d be against defenders.

[Sarcastr0]

You mean the people celebrating what Rittenhouse did? Because those people were not doing anything worth the death penalty.

Or the calls for being able to run protesters over when they're blocking the road?

Or what about the calls for a civil war? Lots of those around here, and those are not playing pattycake!

Or Ben: intend to be violent attackers in the future. Nothing like some precrime 'kill them before they attack you in the future' rationalization.

It's not just a slippery slope. There are lots of right wing yahoos right now who want to shoot bad guys, and think leftists are bad guys, and and endorsing vigilantism is how they do that.

There is bloodthirstiness on the right, and it's not a great look.

[Ben_]

Guess you'll just have to avoid violent attacks against armed Americans then, Sarcastr0. Hope that doesn't interfere with your long term plans.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm more worried about people anticipating I'll be violent and preempting with a bit of force.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm more worried about people anticipating I'll be violent and preempting with a bit of force.

Being worried about things that haven't happened and that there's no rational reason to believe will happen...while hand-waving away things that actually HAVE happened...doesn't really paint you in the light you think it does.

[Ben_]

If you’re worried about bogeymen, that’s because you choose to be.

[Ben_]

If we wanted to explore "imputed motives" we might ask why leftists think child-rapist Rosenbaum should be allowed to burn a gas station.

[not guilty]

Rosenbaum was no angel. But decent people don´t celebrate gunshot deaths.

[Ben_]

Those deaths were a year ago. If anything is being celebrated now, it's that the justice system still works and that the truth prevailed against leftists and the news media this time.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Rosenbaum was no angel. But decent people don´t celebrate gunshot deaths.

What kinds of deaths do decent people celebrate? Dying in prison for defending yourself against violent assholes?

[Brett Bellmore]

Toranth put it better than I could.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

This is a good illustration of why it's so impossible to have a reasoned debate with sociopaths like you.

The hypocrisy of that statement being made so close on the heels of this one...

"We all can understand that he was just some over-excited teenager, spoiling for a fight."

...couldn't be clearer. Ditto the stupidity of the 2nd one, because nothing says "spoiling for a fight" like consistently walking/running away from every single attempt by others to pick a fight with you.

[Ben_]

What difference does it make if he "was an immature idiot"? People are free to be immature idiots. It's not rare or noteworthy.

What’s the point of complaining about someone giving Rittenhouse positive attention? Did you know that’s mostly a response to leftists telling lies about him? People are fed up with the incessant lies from leftists and the news media.

[Ben_]

What specific actions of his would you condemn? Or, even if you wouldn’t, then of all his actions, which was the worst or most wrong action? Why?

Why can't you be specific?

[not guilty]

Rittenhouse armed himself with a (straw purchased) deadly weapon because he was willing to shoot somebody, ostensibly in defense of property. That is immoral. He injected himself into a dangerous situation and ratcheted up the danger level. He sought out trouble, and trouble found him. He lacked the maturity and judgment to handle a weapon under those circumstances.

If Rittenhouse had done the sensible thing and stayed home, two more men would be alive.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Rittenhouse armed himself with a (straw purchased) deadly weapon because he was willing to shoot somebody, ostensibly in defense of property."

There's absolutely no evidence of this. Why do so many folks have to inject alternative facts into the story? The facts are pretty clear.

[not guilty]

Did you follow the trial? Rittenhouse was too young to purchase the rifle. He furnished money for an 18 year old friend to make the purchase. His testimony was that he went there to defend a used car lot. Common sense indicates that the purpose or bringing the rifle was to shoot if necessary. Otherwise there was no need to go armed.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Rittenhouse armed himself with a (straw purchased) deadly weapon because he was willing to shoot somebody, ostensibly in defense of property.
...
Common sense indicates that the purpose or bringing the rifle was to shoot if necessary. Otherwise there was no need to go armed.

It's always cringe-worthy when someone uses "common sense" as a euphemism for idiocy of the sort that you're displaying. The purpose of the firearm was self-defense if necessary. There was a great deal of property destruction that went on that night, much of it within the view of Rittenhouse and others who were similarly armed. And yet not ONE person was shot for engaging in that destruction, nor is there any good evidence that anyone was even threatened by those like Rittenhouse. It wasn't until some of the more unhinged and violence-prone rioters opted to chase and assault someone for the unspeakable crime of putting out a fire they'd set that the firearm was brought to bear to defend the carrier's life/limb, not property.

He lacked the maturity and judgment to handle a weapon under those circumstances.

That might be the most stupid comment of all. The evidence shows that he demonstrated more maturity and judgement (not to mention admiral restraint when it was called for) in the handling of his weapon than most adults would have.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

admiral restraint

Er...."admirable".

[Brett Bellmore]

They're following the news, and professional 'journalists' have been inventing and injecting alternative 'facts' into the story all along.

[Sarcastr0]

There were laws in place to keep him from having that gun. They just don't make it illegal for him to possess it.

[Absaroka]

Wait a sec.

The quote under discussion is 'straw purchased'. That's a term of art for a particular illegal act.

Buying a gun and giving it to a minor isn't against federal law. For example, when I was 14 or 15 my parents got me a 22 rifle, including use of it out of their presence. That is actually a pretty common occurrence.

IANAL; I'll leave it to a judge somewhere to decide whether the specific facts of Rittenhouse acquiring the gun are legal under federal and Wisconsin law (it looks iffy to me, but like I said, IANAL). But the fact that the law doesn't allow him to purchase it directly doesn't mean those facts necessarily meet the criteria for 'straw purchase' as a term of art.

[Sarcastr0]

Not my area, but I believe to straw purchase a gun you need to lie on a federal form.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

There were laws in place to keep him from having that gun.

No, there weren't. There were laws in place to prevent him from purchasing it himself, which is quite different.

[Ben_]

Arming yourself and protecting is immoral?

Don’t tell the police that their mission and everything they do to carry out that mission is supposedly "immoral".

"He lacked the maturity and judgment to handle a weapon under those circumstances."

He did as well as any individual with any amount of training and professionalism would do. People attacked him and he defended himself. He didn’t accidentally shoot bystanders or hurt any nonviolent individuals of any individuals who were willing to stand down. And he didn’t let himself get seriously injured. No better outcome was available once he came under attack. No better outcome means "maturity and judgement" would not have helped.

Attackers raise the "danger level". Defenders don’t. Everyone who didn’t want to be in danger from KR had the option of not attacking him.

[not guilty]

Using deadly force in defense of property is damn sure immoral. Decent people don´t celebrate gunshot deaths.

[Ben_]

No, it isn't immoral. And that's not what happened. And there's no reason anyone should care to be judged "decent" by anyone with ideas as alien as yours.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Using deadly force in defense of property is damn sure immoral.

It also isn't what happened in the Rittenhouse case. So...what's your point?

[Armchair Lawyer]

"He foolishly injected himself into a volatile situation and ratcheted up the danger level to a double fatality."

Ah, the blame the victim strategy.

"You see, the girl was clearly looking for trouble. She had a short skirt on and was flaunting herself. It was foolish, and is it any surprise a couple of ex-felons decided to pursue her? Sure, she ran away, but should she have really been armed? Isn't it in some way her fault she needed to shoot those ex-felons who want to give her a good beating? She shouldn't have been there in that short skirt in the first place".

[not guilty]

Rittenhouse is no one´s victim. He is a reckless fool.

[TwelveInchPianist]

He was attacked by three people. Claiming that the girl with the short skirt wasn't a victim because she was asking for it doesn't mean that she isn't really a victim.

[not guilty]

It was reckless foolishness for him to have come to Kenosha in the first place. Granted, he had a right to be there. The wisdom, or lack thereof, of his choices is an entirely different question.

[Absaroka]

If my daughter goes to a dive bar in a short skirt, gets drunk, then walks home through the deserted park and is attacked, I would say she was both foolish *and* a victim, not 'she is no one's victim'.

[Brett Bellmore]

And it's a question with utterly no legal relevance, because he had a right to be there.

The analysis ends there, because he had a right to be there, and the criminals didn't have a right to attack him. So it's ALL on them. Every bit of it.

This whole thing came about because of the rioters and looters, and Kenosha's government not wanting to appropriately deal with them, so that the citizens of Kenosha had to find some way to deal with them themselves.

In the last couple of years this country has suffered many riots. Looting has become endemic in many places. And the authorities have been so passive in the face of it that the perpetrators now think they've got a RIGHT to be doing it, and become violently outraged if anybody opposes them.

And it's going to keep getting worse, the looters and rioters getting more violent, the citizenry getting more violent in response, so long as local governments don't do their job, which was to come down on people like Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz like a ton of bricks before people like Rittenhouse were NEEDED.

The next Kenosha style riot should be met with military force, not prosecutions for locals who defend themselves.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think the discussion is about the law here. At least that's what the word 'foolishly' says to me.

The question is whether what he did was moral. And no, teenage vigilantism is not moral. Those that think it is have discarded rule of law in preference for the law of the man with a gun. Which is in keeping with the increasingly antidemocratic strain in the GOP.

And which ends in blackshirts at the polls making sure no one votes wrong. Well, it doesn't end there, but democracy does.

Regardless of Wisconsin's self defense laws, this strain of bloodthirstiness against liberals for unestablished 'rioting' is dangerous and immoral.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There was no "vigilantism"...unless you consider putting out literal fires to be "vigilantism".

[Sarcastr0]

Except for all the dead people, sure.

[Toranth]

Sarcastro, are you saying that self-defense is "vigilantism"?

Does this apply to everyone, or only to people defending themselves from rioters in the name of Leftwing causes?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Except for all the dead people, sure."

Sigh. The trial clearly established that the dead people were killed by Rittenhouse when they were threatening his life, Sarcastro. So unless you're claiming that protecting your own life is vigilantism, you're just being dishonest.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Rioting is immoral, Sarcastro.
Starting fires is immoral.

So focus on that. I haven't heard anybody talking about the morality of the perps in this case. Rosenbaum, Huber, Grosskreutz, and the other rioters were the immoral ones.

Putting out fires isn't immoral, and carrying a gun in case you're forced to defend yourself from rioters is not immoral.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Regardless of Wisconsin's self defense laws, this strain of bloodthirstiness against liberals for unestablished 'rioting' is dangerous and immoral."

Unestablished 'rioting'?

You filthy fucking liar.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Sigh. Did you miss where he said "I don't think the discussion is about the law here?" Regardless of his right to be there or his right to self-defense, if he hadn't gone to Kenosha with a gun, those people would probably be alive today. There can be a question about the morality of his actions seperate from the legality of his actions.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Sigh. And now you too have descended to name-calling. I used to enjoy your comments here, now I won't see them any more.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Regardless of his right to be there or his right to self-defense, if he hadn't gone to Kenosha with a gun, those people would probably be alive today."

And I addressed that. Going to Kenosha isn't immoral. Carrying a gun in case you are forced to defend yourself isn't immoral.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sigh. And now you too have descended to name-calling."

Lol. I only call him a liar when he lies. And sometimes not even then.

[Ben_]

"vigilantism" is not an act, so it can hardly be described as an immoral or evil act.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Sigh. And now you too have descended to name-calling.

Ah, yes...the old "It's perfectly OK to be a pathological liar, but calling someone on it is just not civil behavior" whine.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

this strain of bloodthirstiness against liberals for unestablished 'rioting' ​is dangerous and immoral.

LOL! Yeah, I mean...who should people believe with regard to whether or not there was rioting going on? The countless videos and still images of "protestors" setting fires, smashing windows, picking fights, assaulting people, etc....or you and CNN?

And you still have the audacity to whine about being told how utterly full of shit you are.

[not guilty]

I agree with the verdict. It is still a tragic situation brought about by Rittenhouse's foolish choice to bring a firearm into a volatile and dangerous situation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The tragic situation was brought about by those who put Rittenhouse in a position where he felt he needed to go to Kenosha to put out fires, where he felt he needed to bring a firearm in case he was forced to defend himself, and where he ultimately was in fact forced to defend himself.

[Sarcastr0]

The first actor was Rittenhouse, going to a fraught situation with a gun.

The fact that you absolve him of all blame says a lot about the kind of world you want to live in.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"The first actor was Rittenhouse, going to a fraught situation with a gun."

The first actor was the one(s) who created that fraught situation.

The shootings by Rittenhouse were on the third day of riots in Kenosha.

[not guilty]

Rittenhouse brought a rifle because he was prepared to shoot. In defense of someone else´s property. That is foolish, dangerous and contrary to public safety, morality and human decency.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Rittenhouse brought a rifle because he was prepared to shoot. In defense of someone else´s property.

What actually happened...or more accurately, what didn't actually happen...suggests that your assertion is without mereit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Being attacked by people makes one a victim.

Rittenhouse defended himself.

[Sarcastr0]

By that pinched definition, everyone he shot was also a victim.

I know the law in question here says the moment he started shooting, anyone who tried to stop him could be killed in self defense, but that doesn't mean it was cool and good what he did.

[Ben_]

It was completely justified and righteous.

[not guilty]

Nothing righteous about it. You are a moral idiot.

[Ben_]

You should look up the literal definition of the word "righteous".

And, again, if someone like you thinks ill of me, that's a nice positive endorsement of my morality and character.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Kid runs away from Child Molester. Child Molester screams that he's going to "kill" the kid, and "Fuck him". Kid is cornered, Child Molester is lunging for him to do...who knows what.

Luckily, the kid is armed and manages to defend himself.

Sarcastro would say a kid protecting himself from a child molester, a child molester who is literally running down the kid and cornering him, a child molester saying he's going to kill him and "fuck him" is "vigilantism" on the part of the kid.

[Ben_]

Maybe they'll say the kid should have stayed home during molesting season.

[Sarcastr0]

Going after the victim doesn't mean anything.

You want child molesters to be killed, advocate for that. It does not make this situation any more moral.

The very fact that you try that defense shows how contingent your morality is.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Those are just the facts Sarcastro. Not a "defense."

Perhaps you'd prefer that child molesters abuse and kill kids, rather than have the kids have the ability to defend themselves. Sounds like it.

[Sarcastr0]

You brought up those facts for a reason, and you know it.

And then you wrote some fiction about me, which is not facts it’s just a personal attack.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"You brought up those facts for a reason, and you know it."
Because they are the facts of the case.

"And then you wrote some fiction about me, which is not facts it’s just a personal attack."

No fiction there. It simply sounds like you'd rather have child molesters attack and kill children, rather than let them have the ability to defend themselves. You're making a very convincing case that you believe that.

But perhaps you'd like to say "No, if a child molester is chasing me down, cornering me, saying he's going to kill me and "Fuck" me, then then yes If that victim has a firearm, they should be able to defend themselves".

I haven't heard anything like that from you though.

[Sarcastr0]

Perhaps you'd prefer that child molesters abuse and kill kids, rather than have the kids have the ability to defend themselves. Sounds like it.

This not productive. You know that's not what I think, and you know child molestation has nothing to do with Rittenhouse.

It's not even a very good attempt to injure me, because it's so ridiculous.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

By that pinched definition, everyone he shot was also a victim.

You're not that stupid. You are that dishonest though...which makes your repeated attempts to lecture others on morality one of the most brazen displays of hypocrisy I've ever witnessed.

I know the law in question here says the moment he started shooting, anyone who tried to stop him could be killed in self defense

Nobody who was shot by Rittenhouse was attempting to "stop him" from doing anything other than getting away from them...you lying sack of shit.

[Ben_]

Heroism is often (and many times correctly) described as reckless and foolish. Since when does "foolish" mean "evil" anyway?

Perhaps you mean his "actions" were bad because they were counterrevolutionary?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps he means his "actions" were "bad" because they resulted in people being killed. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an entirely different discussion than the one about legality.

[Ben_]

Nothing "bad" happened to anyone who didn’t attack Rittenhouse in any of those encounters. Seems like the difference between getting hurt and getting protected is that violent attackers got hurt and the innocent and the civil were protected. Calling that "bad" could reasonably be considered as siding with violent attackers over innocents and protectors.

[Armchair Lawyer]

If Rittenhouse didn't defend himself, would he be dead?

Quite likely.

[Sarcastr0]

If he hadn't brought a gun, would he be dead?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Who knows. That sounds like one of those counterfactuals you're always complaining about.

And if people weren't rioting, would he have brought a gun?

[not guilty]

He brought a gun because he was willing to shoot people. What is so difficult to understand about that? Legal under the circumstances, but reprehensible.

[Armchair Lawyer]

In the situation Rittenhouse was in? Chased by a child molester, who was larger, stronger, and said he wanted to kill Rittenhouse, and ultimately cornered?

Yes, Rittenhouse would be dead without the firearm. You would prefer that, I'm sure.

[Sarcastr0]

1. You don't know that he'd be dead. And if you think you do, you're wrong.

2. The irrelevant the child molester bit again. Because you love victim blaming.

3. not guilty would not prefer Rittenhouse dead, don't be an asshole.

[Absaroka]

"You don't know that he'd be dead"

Sure. And you don't know that he wouldn't be.

If burglars break into my house and swear they won't hurt my family as long as we let them tie us up so we can't call the cops after they leave, they might well be telling the truth. But neither the law, nor my personal morality, requires me to submit to that risk.

To put it another way, there is a tradeoff between the safety of the innocent defender and his attacker. The defender is not required to comport himself in a way that minimizes his safety in order to maximize the safety of his attacker.

[Sarcastr0]

Of course, Abroksa. Though if he didn't go at all, that seems like it would have been for the best.

It's telling you need to switch this scenario to your house, no?

I'm not advocating for an ending of self defense, I just think
1) Rittenhouse was reckless and acted badly, even if legally, and
2) it does not seem a civil legal regime that interprets self defense such that once one person fires a gun, from that point forwards no one in the area goes to jail for using lethal force on anyone, including the initial guy.

I will note that plenty of other states look at the totality of circumstances as part of their self defense analysis.

[Absaroka]

"Though if he didn't go at all, that seems like it would have been for the best."

I tend to agree, although it's a pretty fine line to draw.

For example, I had a friend who was a volunteer guardian ad litem. She would go to people's houses so she could advise the court which felonious relative would be the least bad place for the kids to stay while Mom and Dad served their sentences. One time she got particularly bad vibes from one such client and asked me to drive her and conspicuously set outside in the car waiting, and to call 911 if she didn't come out in 15 minutes. You can say I should have let the professionals handle it, but the fact of the matter is that she wasn't provided with police escorts for these visits. There are gray areas between 'for sure let the cops handle it' and 'handle it yourself'.

I mean, the neighbors went out of town once and their teenage kid hosted a party. The music was still blaring at 3AM. Instead of calling the cops I went all vigilante and knocked on the door and asked them to turn it down. I kind of think that's a neighborly thing to do before calling the cops.

"It's telling you need to switch this scenario to your house, no?"

It's telling you so frequently psychoanalyze other posters 🙂

It's the same situation. This: "To put it another way, there is a tradeoff between the safety of the innocent defender and his attacker. The defender is not required to comport himself in a way that minimizes his safety in order to maximize the safety of his attacker" applies inside and outside your house.

[Armchair Lawyer]

1) "You don't know that he'd be dead"
Oh sure... He could just be bleeding out from his head and arsehole, left for dead. Perhaps the paramedics could've gotten there in time. Maybe.,... I'm sure that's great logic on your part. Don't defend yourself...take the beating and raping...you might survive...

2) "The irrelevant the child molester bit again"
Oh, it's SUPER RELEVEVANT when we consider what the possible consequences were if a kid was caught, cornered, and beaten by a known child molester.

3) Yes, I believe you would rather have Rittenhouse dead.

[Sarcastr0]

AL, you keep writing fan fiction about both the events and what both I and not guilty want.

You should stop, it's a bad look.

Abroska, I'm not saying always let the cops handle it; there's plenty of middle ground between that and randos should bring a long gun to a riot to keep the buildings ungraffitied.

[Toranth]

Sarcastro, why you are so eager to say things would have been fine if Rittenhouse hadn't gone to the riot... without bringing up that things also would have been fine if Rosenbaum hadn't gone to the riots? Or hadn't confronted people? Or hadn't tried to burn down buildings? Or hadn't chased Rittenhouse, thrown stuff at him, and tried to take his gun?

I mean, a rational and honest person would realize that a confrontation between the two could have been prevented by either person not being there - especially the one that initiated the confrontation - but you seem to only mention one person. Why is that?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Perhaps he means his "actions" were "bad" because they resulted in people being killed.

So people defending themselves against attackers is "bad" if those attackers end up dead as a result of their unjustified aggression?

I can't imagine how screwed up one needs to be in order to arrive at those sorts of positions.

[Ben_]

How to end up there:

1. Start with a prejudice
2. Don't let facts influence you

And you're there.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a moral question, Ben. Invoking prejudice and facts shows you have no idea what you're even arguing about!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This is a moral question, Ben. Invoking prejudice and facts shows you have no idea what you're even arguing about!"

You don't think facts and prejudice come into play when analyzing moral questions? How unsurprising.

[Sarcastr0]

The question of whether bringing deadly force to protect property is good seems fact independent, the question of vigilantes being a moral good is the same.

Moreover, Ben has not objected to any of the facts here, he's just waiving his arms and insisting there's a factual issue here.

[Absaroka]

"bringing deadly force to protect property"

I'm picking on you, lots of people here have said similar things. I want to make sure I understand precisely where you're coming from.

Bob runs a business - construction, junkyard, whatever, that stores stuff outdoors. People keep cutting the fence at night and stealing Bob's stuff. On one hand, it's just stuff, OTOH it's a low margin business and if the thefts continue Bob won't be able to pay for groceries. What are Bob's options?

1)He talks to the police. They say they'll run a car by once a night, but that doesn't prove sufficient to stop the thefts.
2)It's outside, so alarms aren't really practical.
3)He could get some Dobermans, but that at least raises the risk of bodily harm to the thieves (or neighborhood kids if the thieves cut the fence and the dogs get out).

So Bob decides to start sleeping at work. I presume you're OK with that? I mean, if he runs out with a flashlight and tells the thieves to leave because he's calling 911, no objection, as long as he is unarmed when he does so?

Now here's what I don't understand. Bob is worried that if he accosts the thieves like that, or even if they just notice him calling 911, that they might be willing to use force to stop him from calling the police, so Bob takes his gun when he sleeps over. Do you find that objectionable? And if the thieves do notice him calling 911 and attack him, do you object to him using the gun to defend himself?

To be clear, we're not talking about Bob setting on the roof with a deer rifle and sniping thieves as they come over the fence. That's pretty universally illegal, and it's not what happened in Kenosha. The question is whether you can morally take any action to deter lawbreakers while being armed, knowing that there is a risk the lawbreakers will escalate the situation into one where deadly force is needed. Because you seem to be objecting to that.

[Sarcastr0]

Again, as above, you change the scenario so that the shooter owns the property. That Rittenhouse is a deadly-force wielding *volunteer* is a big part of why I'm troubled.

But your question was actually about a separate moral issue - the use of force to protect property and how bringing a gun when protecting property may not imply that. But your scenario (and I take and accepted all the other ways to deal with this that don't include armed night watchmanning) ends early. How does the armed Bob and the thieves act in this confrontation? Because that's where the hard linedrawing on protecting property versus self defense occurs. Plus a handgun seems not the same kind of force as a semi-auto rifle.

Finally, there are folks on this website who absolutely think deadly force to protect property is fine full stop. That is libertarian claptrap.

[Absaroka]

"That Rittenhouse is a deadly-force wielding *volunteer* is a big part of why I'm troubled"

So how about the Cajun Navy? They are volunteers who go in harms way, many of them armed (and justifiably, googling finds instances of the being assaulted). You can argue that they are saving lives, not property, but I'm not sure that, say, preventing arson is particularly less noble than saving lives.

(and to repeat myself from an earlier thread, an organized militia would solve the self-selection problem)

"Plus a handgun seems not the same kind of force as a semi-auto rifle."

????? That seems way off to me.

"Finally, there are folks on this website who absolutely think..."

The tails of the distribution are full of whackos, on both ends of the distribution.

[Ben_]

Yeah, it seems pretty clear that everyone objecting to defense of property is prejudiced in favor of the rioters and against anyone taking any anti-riot measures.

Defense of property has always happened, and will always happen as long as there's anything of value to defend. Even animals defend their burrows. And defense of anything turns deadly depending on attackers.

Prejudice is the most obvious reason to pretend to think defense is immoral in this case.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben, you left out the *lethal* in use of force, there. Just an oversight, I'm sure.
And the issue here is that we are not mere animals. That is, one might argue, the whole issue here.

Absaroka - what was Rittenhouse volunteering to do with not much else than his gun? An armed anti-arson group patrolling the streets would also worry me, wouldn't it you?

A handgun is not as conducing to a mass casualty incident as a semi-auto rifle, that's all.

[Absaroka]

" what was Rittenhouse volunteering to do with not much else than his gun?"

I haven't followed the case closely, because A)I hired a jury to do that for me and B)I'm less interested in a specific instance than the overall principle. That said, wasn't the testimony that he was part of a group intending to keep a car dealership from getting torched, and left that to prevent Rosenbaum from torching a gas station?

"An armed anti-arson group patrolling the streets would also worry me, wouldn't it you?"

That depends entirely on the specifics. I read a number of accounts over the last year of people setting up neighborhood watches - and I mean armed ones - to make sure their neighborhoods weren't torched. I don't think most of those made headlines, because the rioters went off looking for easier pickings.

Read "The Deacons for Defense", "A Man Called White", "Letters From Mississippi", and "Negroes and the Gun". I don't have a problem with the local impromptu militia patrolling to keep the Klan from torching things.

It's like CPR. I'd much rather have a trained ER doc there for medical emergencies than half trained me, but sometimes you can't wait for the trained professionals and amateur hour is the best you can do. It sucks, but sometimes life deals you bad cards.

[Ben_]

"Lethal" force is what you get in any situation where attackers persist in their attacks after other available defenses are employed.

In KR's case, he was alone and had no armor or fortifications, so his non-lethal defenses were never available. Attackers persisted, so that left only “lethal" force.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Specifically the endorsement of the use of violence by some Republicans shows that the rule of the gun rather than the rule of law is their preferred method for settling the differences dividing the nation."

Who has endorsed the use of violence other than in situations were it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Who has endorsed the use of violence other than in situations were it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm?

Everyone who understands that Rittenhouse went out of his way to arrive at the harm. Rittenhouse was not attacked at home. He was not attacked at his dad's home. He was not attacked in the neighborhood in which he lived. Unless someone has information I missed, he was not attacked defending property any named person asked him to defend. He was attacked after he armed himself, went to Kenosha, and put himself in a position to be attacked—which seems to have been his point.

On the basis of what they say here, many of the pro-gun commenters here want to defend much more than armed self defense. They want to defend the notion of armed initiative to defend the entire nation against people the gun advocates regard as enemies—characterized that way because gun advocates want to characterize their would-be enemies—whether armed or not, whether violent or not—as inherently violent, or at least at such high risk of violence that it makes gun bearing against mere contingency a good idea. What too many gun advocates want is apparent—they want an enduring predicate for private initiative using armed violence. They want that to be normative everywhere. They want it institutionalized.

[Harvey Mosley]

Is setting a dumpster on fire and sending it rolling toward a gas station violent? Is hitting someone in the head and neck with a skateboard violent? Is kicking someone violent?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Rittenhouse was not attacked at home..."

He was attacked at a place where he had a right to be, doing something he had a right to do. Your disgusting victim-blaming approach has you second-guessing the actions of victims and deciding whether you personally think their actions are wise.

Was she dressed prevocalically, she should have known what to expect at the frat party, she shouldn't have been walking alone after dark in that area, etc.

[Sarcastr0]

This is not about dressing in some way.

Under the law having a firearm is salient to whether people fear for their lives and are allowed to use deadly force in self defense. A gun invokes deadly force in a concrete way that a short skirt does not invoke sexual force.

[Toranth]

Going for "The Cowards Veto" argument?
No, the mere presence of guns does not mean a rational person would be in fear of their life.
The behavior of someone with a gun (or gun-like object) could do that, though. Wearing a gun-like object on a sling, or in a holster, is a safe behavior. If someone was pointing this object at people on the street, though, that would be a threatening behavior.

If that happened, I would expect the police to be called, and if this person - let's say a 6' tall 180 lb male - was stupid enough to point the gun at the police when they arrived, I would expect them to get shot.

Do you disagree with this? Or are you persisting in the claim that a gun in a holster is "invoking deadly force"?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I've always known you (and several others here making the same psychotic arguments as you are) were a taco shy of a blue plate special, but I can't even imagine the level of batshit craziness required to assert that the fault for what transpired in Kenosha lies with a 17 year-old kid who didn't do anything to anyone (and in fact had spent much of his time cleaning graffiti, offering first aid to anyone who needed/wanted it, etc) and who was assaulted for putting out a fire set by a violent, sociopathic, child-raping piece of shit...rather than that aforementioned sociopathic, child-raping piece of shit's decision to threaten the kid's life for putting out that fire and then chasing that kid...who tried to get away from the aforementioned psycho...in order to assault him and likely make good on his threat. Oh...and also the other dipshits who actually attempted to engage in vigilantism (you know, that practice you keep pretending to think is such an awful thing) by assaulting that kid when he was attempting to get to a police line to turn himself in, and not threatening anyone at all along the way.

You and the others asserting this very argument are in more need of psychiatric help than anyone I know.

[Cal Cetín]

If the police were defunded, wouldn't the practical effect be *more* Rittenhouses protecting against rioters?

I know that "defund the police" was picked up by political cynics for election purposes and probably won't be heard from again until the next sequence of "protests," but supposing (hypothetically) that in some city the authorities weren't prosecuting "low level property crimes"? Wouldn't shopkeepers rely on private security? Also, it would avoid the "he wasn't invited" problem because the shopkeepers most definitely *would* invite private guards (or maybe moonlighting cops) to defend their property.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I keep getting calls, ring, ring:

"We have a one question poll. Democrats say we should defund the police. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?"

[Ben_]

If police are ineffective for any reason the result will be policing by citizens. This has been true everywhere throughout history and it is perhaps the most important reason to have police.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Or a result will be that better citizens will put a leash on abusive police officers, abusive policing, and the obsolete right-wing jerks who support abusive policing (ideally aim at Blacks, from the Republican perspective).

[iowatwo]

Real conservatives, such as myself, believe in institutional solutions to conflicts, to the use of professional law enforcement bodies to serve and protect, rather than armed citizens. This is civilization.
Until the government refuses to serve and protect. Exactly the circumstances the citizens of Kenosho found themselves.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Real conservatives, such as myself, believe in institutional solutions to conflicts...."
"But what if the institutions are not adequate. Again, the conservative response is to make them adequate..."

Right, there's nothing a conservative believes in more than institutional solutions to problems and conflicts. They're first response to any issue is "We need more government!".

[arch1]

Medical exemptions are at least arguably based in reason and evidence. Religious exemptions, by contrast, are in the same epistemological category as voodoo, entrail-reading, and spirit channeling. A nation whose government gives the latter anything like the same deference as the former is admitting to people in less benighted times and places (i.e. to most everyone, assuming a long-term, non-apocalyptic perspective) that it still has one foot in the Dark Ages.

[ah....Clem]

Are homeowner associations "government" or "private"? I'm thinking about Bay View Michigan, which until recently only allowed Christians to own property or become members. (They still require a majority Christian board).

Clearly, if they are a government, this is unconstitutional and an ongoing lawsuit is claiming just that. They have roads and street signs and a police force, so it would seem that they are a de-facto government entity.

OTOH, one can make the argument that as a private association the government has no business telling them what they can and cannot do. One could further argue that since they were founded as a Christian camp, requiring them to admit non-Christians would violate their 1A rights.

Curious to see what the libertarian take on this is.

Background info at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View,_Michigan#Controversy

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Curious to see what the libertarian take on this is. "

Unless Prof. Somin sees that comment and responds, you're at the wrong blog.

[Davedave]

The 'libertarian take' is very straightforward: people are allowed to use their property rights to do all kinds of downright scummy things, as long as they don't affect the neighbors, so why not that?

Personally I think their stance is unlikely to achieve what they want it to achieve, but that's an entirely separate matter. Of course you can run a small community, resort, etc on private land without being a government.

[ah....Clem]

"The 'libertarian take' is very straightforward: people are allowed to use their property rights to do all kinds of downright scummy things, as long as they don't affect the neighbors, so why not that?"

Let's say I own property there. Can I sell it to a Jew? Not until very recently. So an entity that is acting a lot like a local government would be preventing me from exercising my property rights (i.e. to sell it to whomever I want).

[Gasman]

"So an entity that is acting a lot like a local government would be preventing me from exercising my property rights (i.e. to sell it to whomever I want)."

But you bought the property at the 'non-jew' pricing. That might have increased or decreased the price you paid, and over time that may adversely or beneficially affect sale price. As for the doing what you want with the property, it is an encumbrance that you knew of at the outset; you are doing what you-the-younger did want. If you-the-elder-and-wiser wish to do differently, that is a problem that must be taken up with you-the-younger.
The HOA can add or detract value for various potential purchasers. Whether you like or hate picket fences, then there is a HOA out there to suit your taste.

[santamonica811]

An excellent summary of both the libertarian position and the what-this-means-in-real-world-situations position.

[Davedave]

I think the key is really the size of the place. It's a small private resort, not a township, and the whole thing is private property - AFAIK. You can never buy property there outright - again AFAIK. It's all owned by one organisation, which 'sells' cottages in very restricted ways.

It plainly isn't a government or a 'state' enterprise, so that's that.

[ah....Clem]

"It plainly isn't a government or a 'state' enterprise, so that's that."

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit were seeking a ruling to classify the association as a governmental entity, which would have prevented it from providing Christian programs and activity under the First Amendment. This did not get adjudicated since the association settled, fearing an adverse ruling. It's been a while since I read the pleading, but it was fairly compelling in explaining how the locale walked, swam, and quacked like a government entity. It certainly seems to have been compelling enough to get the association to settle.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2019/07/christian-requirement-at-northern-michigan-resort-illegal-federal-government-says.html

[Davedave]

I didn't mean that in the sense of US law, but as a libertarian answer. It is plainly and obviously not a mini-state.

[ah....Clem]

Well, they have police who can place you under arrest and imprison you for up to 30 days upon conviction. For breaking their rules, not necessarily state, county, township, or federal law.

Does that change things?

BTW, the complaint is here: https://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/29_first_amended_complaint_02.23.18.pdf

[Davedave]

Interesting. It's not quite as clear-cut as I though, going by the complaint.

I'd still say everything mentioned there is the stuff that goes with running a small private resort, or a mall, or something of that nature, rather than an arm of the government or a micro-state.

Except... somehow, thrown in with all that perfectly normal stuff, there's the power to imprison for the parking-offences and so-on that they are allowed to regulate. That's just bizarre, and surely any imprisonment attempted would be so obviously unconstitutional that it would be a slam-dunk lawsuit against the officials in question?

Really, it's deeply odd. Everything goes from completely ordinary to batshit insane in one swell foop there.

[David Nieporent]

Presumably if you own property there, you first entered into a contractual commitment not to sell to non-goyim, so you don't have the property right to do so.

[ah....Clem]

IANAL, but my understanding is that clauses like that are unenforceable.

But if you're saying the libertarian take is that it any agreement between two parties is their business not the government's, maybe we don't disagree here.

[David Nieporent]

Yes; I was addressing his question purely from a libertarian perspective, not a legal one.

[ragebot]

As a condo owner governed by an HOA who has had a lawyer take legal action against the HOA (not to mention my legal education) I have some insight about the laws in Florida.

HOA rules and a Declaration of Condominium have the force of law AS LONG AS THEY DON'T CONFLICT WITH LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS.

Of course there is the question of what happens when local, state, or federal laws conflict with each other like the 1A stuff mentioned earlier. But in general an HOA is a quasi government organization for lots of purposes.

[ReaderY]

It’s an example of a revival camp, a retreat center for people to go to for the purpose of getting away for the city into an idyllic setting during the summer and hearing sermons preached and doing a lot of praying.

Surely you’re not suggesting that people would want to go there for any other purpose?

Revival campgrounds, a longstanding American tradition, are an obvious free exercise of religion.

Of course a revival isn’t a government action. And of course church leaders can be limited to members of tbe religion.

[VT Samizdat]

...and this week, in dispatches from Portland...
The City announced the location of their second Facilitated Transient Camp, FTC#2, will be sited at the Sgt Jerome Sears Reserve Center in Multnomah Village. Soon to be renamed the Sgt Jerome Sears Open Air Drug Emporium and Shooting Gallery. Residents of Multnomah Village were surprised to learn of the shoehorning of a homeless camp into their village without their knowledge, but the City and Commissioner Dan Ryan assured us to trust them. We probably shouldn't based on the inability of his "Outreach" coordinator to answer basic questions.

"Nov 23, 2021, 11:24 AM (3 days ago)
Hi Patrick,
I attached our community engagement plan. As stated in there, we do not start the community engagement process until we have certainty around a site, legal and otherwise. It is part of our lessons learned and our own due diligence.
The community engagement team will be in contact with your neighborhood soon and we look forward to hearing your questions, comments, and concerns.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Cashman
Nov 23, 2021, 11:36 AM (3 days ago)
to Commissioner
New conditional uses in EG2 require a Type III review procedure, to include pre-application conference. When is your pre-application conference? I would hate to miss the opportunity to use that mandated forum for its purpose; for neighbors to raise their objections directly and force BDS to make rulings publicly.
When is your pre-application conference?

Safe Rest Villages
Nov 23, 2021, 11:38 AM (3 days ago)

Do you have any idea what he is referring to?

LP

Patrick Cashman
Nov 23, 2021, 11:41 AM (3 days ago)
to Safe

Well yes, but I asked the question so..."

[mulched]

Damned Reply All button strikes again

[apedad]

Justice Department Sues to Block U.S. Sugar’s Proposed Acquisition of Imperial Sugar

"The Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today to stop United States Sugar Corporation (U.S. Sugar) from acquiring its rival, Imperial Sugar Company (Imperial Sugar). The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleges that the transaction would leave an overwhelming majority of refined sugar sales across the Southeast in the hands of only two producers. As a result, American businesses and consumers would pay more for refined sugar, a significant input for many foods and beverages."

So, for the folks who think Facebook is too powerful and should be broken up, I'm guessing you agree with this action too then.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-block-us-sugar-s-proposed-acquisition-imperial-sugar

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'm guessing you agree with this action too then"

Sure, but control of political speech is kinda more important than sugar [in only one part of the country at that].

[Queen Amalthea]

We're all anti-trusters now.

[BillyG]

Correct. I agree with blocking that merger.

[Armchair Lawyer]

It's classic antitrust. Sure, seems reasonable to block it from the facts given.

[ah....Clem]

A new word: it comes from a recent Harper's cryptic crossword puzzle. Here's the clue:

18A Picky, in a way, goes wearily off to get quiet (9)

And from the instructions: "; 18A is not officially a word but
should be."

I'll post the answer tomorrow.

("Help" with solving cryptic clues can be found here https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/may/03/how-to-solve-cryptic-crossword)

[ah....Clem]

No nibbles on this little puzzle, and probably for good reason. I had to get most of the crossing letters to figure it out.

The answer is LAWYERISH.

Not a word, but should be.

"Picky, in a way" is the definition part. The secondary clue gives "goes wearily off" which means rearrange the letters in wearily to get LAWYERI, then it gets "quiet" or SH to from LAWYERISH.

Bonus points for anyone who uses it in the comments section here.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I knew it had to be a word for picky, in way, but I just couldn't find the anagram. I never would have figured out sh from quiet, that's pretty tricky.

[Queen Amalthea]

I really haven't kept up much with the case, but what was the word as to why no charges came re Rittenhouse being underage and traveling across state lines with the firearm he used?

[Davedave]

"what was the word as to why no charges came re Rittenhouse being underage and traveling across state lines with the firearm he used?"

He was white - same reason they didn't kill him at the scene.

[Queen Amalthea]

OK, maybe I guess, but what was the stated reason?

[Bob from Ohio]

"stated reason"

The reason, not just the "stated reason " is the rifle was in Wisconsin all the time.

Funny how libs who think the US border is meaningless get all hot about a "state line".

[Brett Bellmore]

As Bob says, he didn't travel across state lines with the gun, and the judge concluded that the law that maybe barred him from carrying it was so confusing as to be void for vagueness as applied to him, and dismissed that charge.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Actually, as I understand it: The Judge concluded that the law in question was not overly vague and only applied to short barreled rifles and shotguns. And the prosecution failed to present any evidence that the rifle Rittenhouse had qualified as short barreled, and the judge concluded that Rittenhouse's rifle wasn't covered by that law.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Rittenhouse was in compliance with the statute under which he was charged being 17 and because the rifle was not short barreled. The section also referred to a required class to obtain a hunting license, which I would guess was the vague part because Rittenhouse was not hunting. Nothing in the statute prohibited Rittenhouse from openly carrying the rifle, which other similar WI statutes do prohibit (for example those under 16 cannot openly carry).

[Bob from Ohio]

"He was white - same reason they didn't kill him at the scene."

Exactly, just like this guy wasn't killed at the scene.

https://news.yahoo.com/jury-acquits-gifford-man-claimed-195415308.html

Shooting at deputies and lived! Must have been white.

[Davedave]

That just proves the police can't shoot. And that you can't spot a joke when it's falling out of a christmas cracker.

[Bob from Ohio]

Based on your comments on this thread, it was no joke, its what you believe.

[Davedave]

It can be a joke about what any reasonable person believes, and still be a joke.

[Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)]

Is it really a joke if nobody else considers it funny?

[Kazinski]

The reason they didn't kill Kyle wasn't because he was white, it's because he shot the assholes first.

That's why the jury let him off, if you weren't paying attention.

[Life of Brian]

what was the word as to why no charges came re Rittenhouse being underage and traveling across state lines with the firearm he used?

Even if you could crystalize that poignant-sounding meme into an actual federal crime, the primary reason there were and will be no charges is that Rittenhouse actually didn't cross state lines with the firearm he used. This was common knowledge days ago.

[Michael P]

That fact was widely published more than a year ago, even: https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/10/14/923643265/kyle-rittenhouse-accused-kenosha-killer-wont-face-gun-charges-in-illinois

[Life of Brian]

Wow, and from the notorious alt-right organization NPR. That makes the dogged misreporting by the other big-box outlets even more reprehensible. Good find.

[BillyG]

I bet QA also thinks all three people who attacked Rittenhouse were Black.

[Michael P]

Three? There were at least four assailants. "Jump Kick Guy", apparently one Maurice Freeland, attacked Rittenhouse just before Huber landed the blow with his skateboard. (Rittenhouse fired twice at "Jump Kick Guy", but missed both times.) Before that, someone sucker-punched Rittenhouse from behind; I believe that was a fifth attacker.

Maurice Freeland is definitely Black, and has a significant rap sheet of his own. But even if he is "Jump Kick Guy", 20-25% is not a passing grade in today's schools.

[BillyG]

What you're seeing is how bad the news is on the Left. The CNN narative was that Rittenhouse literally chased down peaceful protesters to kill them. Hopefully this trial will help them realize the news lies all the time.

[Michael P]

As mentioned above, Rittenhouse didn't cross state lines with the rifle. The "underage" gun possession charge was dismissed by the judge because the law was too vague to give people fair warning about what was forbidden.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Wrong on why the possession charge was dismissed.

The law in question was clear. It only applied to short barreled rifles and shotguns.

The prosecution presented no evidence as to the length of Rittenhouse's rifle.

The judge concluded as a matter of fact that Rittenhouse's rifle didn't fall under the prohibition of the law in question.

[Michael P]

No, the law very clearly addressed other things than just short-barreled firearms. For example, it prohibited Rittenhouse from possessing a pistol -- leading to his testimony where the prosecutor apparently did not know that, and Rittenhouse said the reason he didn't have a pistol was because that was definitely illegal.

The law has a set of rules for possession of any long gun by children under 16, for example. But there are exceptions to exceptions in the law, and some of those were badly drafted, with the result that the meaning is unclear for someone in Rittenhouse's position -- either 16 or 17, with a long gun that is not a short-barreled shotgun or SBR, and not seeking a hunting license. The only part of the law that was clear enough to sustain prosecution in this case was the ban on short-barreled long guns.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What crime do you think he should have been charged with?

[not guilty]

On these facts, it is a pity that aggravated dumbassery is not a crime.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"is a pity that aggravated dumbassery is not a crime."

You sure about that? As people pointed out when Jeffrey Toobin made the same point, a lot of us would be in jail.

[Michael D]

I see you are still listening to false narratives. Exactly what age do you suppose is “underage” for long-guns?

[ragebot]

Hey Queen are you really that stupid. The weapon never left the city, it was kept by Rittenhouse's friend in the city and only given to Rittenhouse once he was inside the city limits.

I know you have always had problems with the truth but even your hero Biden said we must choose 'truth over facts'.

[Michael P]

When Biden said that, he meant that he wants us to accept "lived truth" over pesky facts, and rely on emotion while rejecting observation.

[David Nieporent]

1) He did not in fact travel across state lines with the firearm.
2) He was not "underage" under any relevant law; it was legal for him to bear a non-short barrel rifle.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What was the word as to why no charges came re Rittenhouse being underage and traveling across state lines with the firearm he used?"

Because it didn't happen.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Because he didn't travel across state lines with the firearm.

[Kazinski]

It also seems that Ryan's friend that provided him with the weapon is negotiating with the DA to either plead down the charge or perhaps drop it

While Ryan gave him the money to buy the weapon, Ryan didn't have either custody or unfettered access to it. The friend's father kept it locked up, and they had to ask him to give them the gun so they could shoot it. According to testimony the friends father took it out of the gun safe so it would be readily accessible in response to the riots, and that's how Ryan had access to the gun that night.

Wisconsin law is a little convoluted so it appears that the same exception that allows a 17 year old to possess a long gun, allows someone to provide access to a long gun. In hunting state like Wisconsin that makes sense.

[Queen Amalthea]

Also, I think the Georgia case, AFAIK, demonstrates that an easier route to getting justice in a case like that is to downplay any racial angles (that's what the prosecutor reportedly did). I think a lot of white persons are very sensitive to that kind of thing and if racial justice (or whatever) advocates want to make real headway in more cases rather than appear righteous they should heed that knowledge (with the caveat that I haven't had to put up with what POC have, so it's of course difficult to know how, well, difficult that is).

[MatthewSlyfield]

" I think the Georgia case, AFAIK, demonstrates that an easier route to getting justice in a case like that is to downplay any racial angles (that's what the prosecutor reportedly did)."

From what I saw of that trial, the defense tried to play up the racial angle and an all white jury wasn't buying it.

[Ed Grinberg]

Here's a hint, QA:
There's no such thing as "racial justice." There is just plain old justice . . . and then there's its opposite. If the plain old doesn't do it for you, then maybe what you're after isn't justice at all. Think about it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Our remaining racists tend to be simpletons. That reflects well on modern American society . . . and poorly for conservatives' political prospects in an improving America.

[Queen Amalthea]

A belated Thanksgiving thought (for a belated Thursday thread): I get that turkey has been a mainstay for celebrating Thanksgiving because the early Americans relied on it as food. But why isn't venison served on our tables on that day? Wasn't it also an important source of food for early Americans (and for that matter, why not oysters, I thought I've read early Americans gobbled them up).

[Life of Brian]

It's an interesting question -- my gut reaction was that it would be challenging to commercially raise deer in a cost-effective manner compared to other livestock, but articles like this one suggest otherwise. Could just boil down to turkey (and ham, the other primary mainstay) generally satisfying a much broader range of palates.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd say so. I mean, I like venison, but I'd say turkey is more widely favored. Much better feed conversion efficiency, too.

While it's possible to raise venison commercially, it's always going to be more expensive than beef. And most people just don't prefer it to beef enough to pay that premium.

[Davedave]

Deer are also found in Europe. Turkeys and maize are symbolic of the New World.

Venison is also somewhat more challenging to many modern palates, depending on how it's prepared; I don't know whether that was also true a century ago, when hanging meat for a week or two was less uncommon, but these days most people consider well-hung venison to be a rotten mess rather than ready to eat.

[Brett Bellmore]

My impression is that most people who eat venison don't consider well-hung venison to be a rotten mess. I've had it fresh and aged, and I might marginally prefer aged.

[Davedave]

Yes, most people don't eat venison. Those who are willing to try would probably give a bit of fresh venison a go, but would be put off by the smell, let alone gamy taste, of aged meat.

And even those who like gamy meat generally find 18th century 'well-hanged' to be weeks too long, and actually rotten.

[Davedave]

Ack, did I just write 'well-hanged'?

[ah....Clem]

Hmmm... most beef is aged for a few days and sometimes for weeks. That doesn't seem to put most people off. Is venison really that different, assuming the aging process is the same?

[Davedave]

Dry ageing of beef is a bit of a fad. Mostly more than a few days starts to get detrimental in many ways, as people are starting to realise. But unless you age it for so long it starts going moldy, it doesn't really smell much different to unaged beef.

Aged venison, on the other hand, smells strongly of gaminess. People who aren't used to it tend to find it an extremely offputting smell.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe you're aging your venison at too high a temperature, or in an unsanitary manner?

[Jerry B.]

Yep. If you're hunting, you gut it where it fell, clean out the body cavity, get it home as soon as possible, hang it somewhere that it's no more than 40 degrees. Let it hang for three or four days, then skin and quarter. Then butcher, and wrap or vacuum seal, and freeze. Tastes fine.

If you can't get it home quick, skin and quarter then put in an ice chest with something between the meat and the ice, and it'll age there for a few days.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

When my kids were little, my brothers-in-law brought back a deer, removed the swings from the swing set, and hung the deer there. My kids thought it was hilarious, and it was too cold to swing anyway. The venison was excellent.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Davedave, animals can be badly shot and/or badly field dressed. If the guts and bladder are not intact, you can get a mess on the meat. Unsurprisingly, that results in bad tastes and bad smells.

[ah....Clem]

Eels. They ate lots of eels.

Mmmmmmm. Eels.

https://biodiversity.utexas.edu/news/entry/eel-for-thanksgiving

[Jerry B.]

We generally have rack of lamb for Thanksgiving.

[John F. Carr]

To ship meat across state lines it needs to meet federal rules including passing federal inspection. Some meat can't be sold interstate because the federal government chooses not to inspect it. It may be illegal to sell wild-caught meat.

We need more deer hunting in the Boston suburbs, where manicured lawns butt up against forests destroyed by deer overpopulation. We tend to have a mix of mature trees with no leaves below browsing height and invasives that present an unfamiliar taste to deer. A few blueberry bushes survive, and in my area more young white pines than I've seen in my life.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I know EV has a case coming up there, so I’m not surprised he hasn’t commented on this one, but there is some controversy over a recent Ohio Supreme Court disciplinary decision. They suspended an attorney for one year with six months stayed (ie six month suspension) for attacking the integrity of the Supreme Court in a filing before them. Basically in his brief he claimed that the justices decided a case about property valuation for tax purposes incorrectly due to political reasons. It included calling some justices out by name, including the Chief whom he accused of holding up the decision to get more favorable justices on the court after the election.

This prompted some heated disagreement with 2 written dissents and a concurrence by the Chief. The dissents said the decision was out of line with the disciplinary rules and the first amendment. The concurrence said the integrity of the Court was at stake and the first amendment was a red herring and that the dissenters were accusing the majority of being vindictive.

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2021/2021-Ohio-4095.pdf

My observations:

1. The two dissenters were two of the justices called
out by name. I found them way more persuasive.

2. I’m glad DeWine in particular dissented, because it shows he has some self-awareness. Of all the Justices who definitely shouldn’t have a thin skin, it’s DeWine who is currently committing one of the most flagrant ethical violations anyone has ever seen. (He’s staying on the redistricting cases where his dad is a named defendant and key witness)

3. DeWine dissent also points out this is the Streisand effect (without using those words). No one would notice the filing except the court staff. No one filed a grievance, but the disciplinary counsel sua sponte investigated. The Court could have just kind of ignored it or at most done a public reprimand, but there was not only a suspension but a whiny concurrence. Now a lot more people think the majority is a bunch of thin skinned whiners.

4. But the most salient issue for me, is the length of the discipline: 1 years with 6 months stayed (Justice Stewart in the majority would have stayed the whole thing.) He had no prior discipline.

This needs to be read in context of other more egregious things, things that really harm clients and the courts, that get similar or lighter punishments: stealing from your law partner, screwing up a multitude of cases by over promising under delivering, sex with clients, lying to disciplinary authorities, etc.

When viewed against this background and the attorney’s complete lack of prior disciplinary history, it’s really hard to see this as anything other than petty and vindictive. If discipline could be legally imposed, a public reprimand should be the remedy at most. An actual suspension is absurd.

[Davedave]

A lawyer who rejects the rule of law should be permanently debarred. Your link doesn't work (right now, for me), so I don't know what the idiot said, but your summary suggests the sanction is far too light, not 'absurd'.

The US is far too protective of professional qualifications and certifications. There are plenty of things people can do that should mean, bang, that's it, career over in one moment of stupidity. There's no need for a second chance here. No-one who is fit to be a lawyer would do this even once. End of story, end of career, thanks for playing, please don't come back.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He didn’t reject the rule of law, he said the Court did. I don’t see how that’s rejecting the rule of law if you say a court misapplied legal principles for political reasons. Even if he’s wrong He’s criticizing the Court and they got mad and suspended him. They think they’re above criticism. I don’t think you understand the issues at play here.

[Commenter_XY]

LTG, was it a great violation of decorum by the lawyer, in your estimation? And is violating decorum something serious enough to warrant financial (or career) loss?

[LawTalkingGuy]

It was dumb advocacy and maybe a breach of norms/decorum but not close to warranting this level of reaction from the Court.

[Kazinski]

"it’s DeWine who is currently committing one of the most flagrant ethical violations anyone has ever seen. (He’s staying on the redistricting cases where his dad is a named defendant and key witness)"

I'm no expert but isn't it generally not considered a reason for recusal when the relationship is to a person who is being sued as an officer performing an official act. Neither of the DeWines has any financial stake in the outcome nor is there any possible criminal repercussions.

[LawTalkingGuy]

No that’s not a reason. The rule under Canon 2.11
is: “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

(a) A party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party;
(b) Acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) Has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;
(d) Likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.”

Gov DeWine is a named defendant in the case as part of the suits, because he was on the redistricting committee.

Gov DeWine has more than a de minimus interest because he has an interest in the maps he drew and approved being successful. “Interests in the outcome is not limited to financial gain. “ De minimis,” in the context of interests pertaining to disqualification of a judge, means an insignificant interest that could not raise a reasonable question regarding the judge’s impartiality.” If your dad’s political goals are on the line I think a reasonable person would question the judge’s integrity.

But most importantly: he is a a material witness in the case subject to discovery including depositions. He was deposed in this case. You can’t have a judge making credibility determinations about their parent in a court proceedings.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The world chess championship is underway in Dubai. Defending champ Magnus Carlsen of Norway against the challenger, Ian Nepomniachtchi, who is Russian but isn't playing under the Russian flag because of sanctions against the Russian sports federation for systemic doping. Game one today with Nepo playing white ended in a draw. 14 games under classical time controls, followed by rapid and blitz tie-breakers, if necessary. A number of sites do offer live video with commentary, if you are nerdy enough to enjoy such things.

[ragebot]

I have always worried about chess players 'systemic doping'.

[Cal Cetín]

Does this mean there are performance-enhancing drugs for chess?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

It is a strange situation, but I guess the sanctions against the Russian Sports Federation applies to all its activities, including chess, even though the doping allegations didn't involve Russian chess players. Although with the Putin government, who the hell knows! If there is a possibility some drugs improve chess performance, you can be sure pro players have tried it. I'm not really sure what the rules are about that in professional chess.

[Life of Brian]

If there is a possibility some drugs improve chess performance, you can be sure pro players have tried it.

Provigil and Ritalin, according to this article. They measured +13 and +15% increases in performance while dosed -- not exactly chickenscratch for that sort of environment.

[ah....Clem]

Exactly. Although many people probably wouldn't think so, concentrating that hard for that long is physically exhausting and a "pick me up" at a crucial juncture can make a lot of difference. So, as with any other competitive endeavor doping is disallowed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Working out probably helps with chess, too. So, who knows, more conventional 'doping' might help.

[perlhaqr]

I could see that. Having a higher red blood cell count could let you move more oxygen to the brain.

But I would definitely believe the provigil and ritalin bump.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Almost all chess players at that level are in pretty good physical shape, for that very reason. I don't know about the doping. In this match, Nepomniachtchi drinks coffee from a thermos during the game, but Carlsen just drinks water.

[Kazinski]

Nicotine can provide a mental edge and I don't think it's banned, and microdosing lsd would be an interesting experiment. I used to play chess on acid in the 70's and I even won a few games once in a while. It never made me feel quite as infallible as alcohol did, but I got better results.

[bernard11]

Caffeine, I imagine. I know it helps with bridge.

[jdgalt1]

I kind of jumped the gun by posting here.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Comment threads having nothing to do with the OP seem to be the norm here.

[Don Nico]

Any comments on B.1.1.529?

[Commenter_XY]

Watch and wait. What else can we realistically do?

[Life of Brian]

Given that this appears to be based on a relative handful of cases in South Africa (barely above last year's background levels) and the WHO's actual comments I see so far after drilling down through bloodbath headlines about virulence, severity, and vaccine-resistance are peppered with weasel language like "may" and "suggests," I'm going to wait a bit before heading for the underground bunker.

[Kazinski]

I fled the US to avoid the coming 4th wave, after doing some research I came to the conclusion that the safest place was where natural immunity was the highest with minimal vaccination rates, so I'm in the Balkans which had the highest deaths per 100k of any region in the world (4 of the top 5 after Peru).

The mutations on the spike protein may elude protection from vaccines that specifically targeted the spike protein, but I think populations exposed to the whole virus should retain herd immunity.

So far so good.

[Life of Brian]

Well, the blood sure is flowing in the streets like a river, according to the boots-on-the-ground report here:

The new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease, without prominent syndromes, Angelique Coetzee, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association, told Sputnik on Saturday.
* * *
"It presents mild disease with symptoms being sore muscles and tiredness for a day or two not feeling well. So far, we have detected that those infected do not suffer loss of taste or smell. They might have a slight cough. There are no prominent symptoms. Of those infected some are currently being treated at home," Coetzee said.
* * *
"We will only know this after two weeks. Yes, it is transmissible, but for now, as medical practitioners, we do not know why so much hype is being driven as we are still looking into it. We will only know after two to three weeks as there are some patients admitted and these are young people aged 40 and younger," Coetzee added.

WHO's on first?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Read on the news last week that a BLM supporter shot a white guy who used the n-word at a BLM protest and got off on self defense.

Shocking.

[iowatwo]

I stopped by here to see what Ilya Somin had to say about Bidens racists travel ban concerning Africa.

[Don Nico]

It is very interesting that the news concerning the new variant all seem to say that little is known about its clinical characteristics and that will take weeks to learn. So "follow the science" government leaders instantly assumed the worst and banned travel. Yet the US travel ban does not apply to US citizen. How is that?
The B.1.1.529 variant was designated a "variant of concern in record time, even though only 70 cases were confirmed in South Africa.
The South African epidemic statistics show the reproduction number for all COVID-19 rising sharply above 1.0 along with an increase in case fatality rate to ~6% about 2 weeks ago. However at that time the number total COVID-19 cases per 1 million was less than 4.5; hence statistic regarding infections must be regarded as noisy with large statistical errors. Belgium and Israel which have also seen some case show no systematic changes in infection statistics.
What the decision process tinged with racism? People will have to judge for themselves.

[Commenter_XY]

Perhaps the computational biologists know something that we do not, Don Nico. We will simply have to wait and see.

The track record by governments to date in addressing covid-19 does not inspire confidence.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" The track record by governments to date in addressing covid-19 does not inspire confidence. "

It is far better than the track record of a meaningful minority of our citizens.

Our disaffected, superstitious, virus-flouting, belligerently ignorant, lethally reckless, backward, antisocial citizens.

And the Republicans who appease those gullible, ignorant, obsolete, contrarian misfits.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Yet the US travel ban does not apply to US citizen. How is that?"

Maybe US citizens have "rights" with respect to US border crossing that non-citizens don't have?

Anyway, the number of identified cases here is so low that we don't really know if we should be concerned yet.

[Michael P]

No "maybe" about that. Citizens have a right of return under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory.

[Don Nico]

Michael,
Not really applicable to such a travel ban.
You missed the "eventually" (or if you'd like the "not while") part.
Such as
but not while s/he is infectious with a highly communicable disease or but not while s/he is a passenger on a plane flying from South Africa or "but not until s/he is out of a strict, monitored quarantine.
BTW, who is going to enforce that right in a timely fashion?

[Michael P]

The right of return absolutely is relevant to such a travel ban. It's a big reason that Trump's travel bans early last year did not apply to US citizens. Citizens can be told to quarantine after returning, but not blocked at the border.

It's well-established law, to the point that the Supreme Court has made few rulings on it, so courts would probably enforce it through a preliminary injunction quickly.

[Don Nico]

" It's a big reason that Trump's travel bans early last year did not apply to US citizens."
Do you care to cite the part of a relevant opinion to that effect?
And do you not think a person could be held in quarantine before entry by the CBP?

[Don Nico]

I an skeptical that you can substantiate that any citizen can exercise that right at any TIME and in any MANNER that they may chose.

[Brett Bellmore]

As he said, the government could demand that you quarantine on entry, they just can't demand that you NOT enter, if you're a citizen. As a citizen you have an essentially absolute right to be in the US. Not to enter in any manner you desire, not to the accommodations you want once you enter, but to enter? Absolutely.

Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)

"Congress is well within its authority in refusing, absent proof of at least the opportunity for the development of a relationship between citizen parent and child, to commit this country to embracing a child as a citizen entitled as of birth to the full protection of the United States, to the absolute right to enter its borders, and to full participation in the political process. "

[Michael P]

Who said "any manner"? There are a lot of rules about entering the country, even as a citizen: you need a valid passport (but the government is compelled to provide one, unless it's trying to keep you from leaving the country), you have to enter at a port of entry and be inspected, you can't bring contraband in.

On the other hand, violating those rules is "merely" criminal, rather than basis to prevent entry.

https://www.afar.com/magazine/can-trump-keep-us-citizens-with-coronavirus-out-of-the-country discusses the legal roadblocks when Trump considered blocking return of US citizens. From the NYT story linked there:

Officials said there were no current rules that would allow American citizens and legal residents to be prohibited from returning to the United States for a period of time because of concerns about a communicable disease.
[....]
“Barring American citizens from the United States is unconstitutional,” said Omar Jadwat, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Now your turn: Can you find statutory authority for banning the re-entry of citizens?

[Don Nico]

I never claimed that citizens could be or were banned indefinitely, but they can be barred from passing the CBP check points for indefinite periods
Even your quote admits so much: "there were no current rules that would allow... " So there could be such rules.
Moreover, if there are no flights allowed in, de facto a citizen is prevented from returning from southern Africa

But back to my original response in answer to Iowatwo:
The present travel ban was based only on fear of the unknown coming out of Africa.

[Don Nico]

Right now there are any identified cases in the US, at least none that have been reported. Even in South Africa the number of cases is very small.
But it has many "worrying mutations." In other words because WHO is afraid of screwing up again.

[Kazinski]

I remember when the Democrats tried to argue that Trump didn't really put in a China travel ban because it exempted American citizens and Green card holders.

I wax in Asia at the time so it was of more than just academic interest to me.

[JasonT20]

The Sweden-based International Institute for Electoral Assistance listed the U.S. as a "backsliding" democracy in its annual report released recently. This is more concerning to me than any government policy at the moment. You'd think that the basics of our form of government would be more important than partisanship or ideology or specific policy goals, but that isn't true for far too many people here.

[Davedave]

I keep pointing out that the US has a particularly problem with people who claim to be nationalists of various stripes but are actually traitors. It's so entrenched that things are written off as 'riots' and 'protests' which are actually (generally ineffective, idiotic) armed insurrections.

There have been multiple armed revolts this year which attempted to overthrow the Federal system. But the US would rather focus on whether Kyle Rittenhouse could claim self-defense than on the fact that he and his friends were there attempting to overthrow the government by force.

[Cal Cetín]

...which is a crime, so why didn't those do-nothing prosecutors charge him with it?

[perlhaqr]

Congratulations on having the single most insane take on the Rittenhouse case I've seen thus far. I truly applaud your efforts to go above and beyond.

[Don Nico]

He can't help it as his eyes are blinded by ideology.

[Kazinski]

They certainly overthrew the Kenosha Prosecutors office, the entire media establishment, and the Whitehouse.

So I guess you have a point.

And now they are powerless to retaliate, so don't keep bringing attention to it, because it just makes it worse.

[Brett Bellmore]

They seem to be a bit scant on the details of this "backsliding". As near as I can tell, it consists of allowing a candidate with the initials "DJT" to be elected, and run a second time. [/sarc]

No, seriously, the 'backsliding' seems to consist of Democrats not getting all the campaign regulations they want, and legislatures taking exception to their election laws being violated by election administrators.

[JasonT20]

Read some of the actual report, and you'll get more detail on what they mean by "backsliding". For instance,

Democratic backsliding is also linked to increasing levels of societal and political polarization and low levels of support for democracy. Countries with deep political divides and embittered political controversies, as well as low levels of public support for democracy, are more prone to experiencing democratic backsliding. This is then exacerbated by political parties that use hate speech or disseminate false information in their campaigning. Declines in public support for democracy could be linked to governments’ perceived inability to respond to social demands and perceptions about poor governmental performance in tackling the effects of economic crisis, corruption and inequalities, or more adversarial political conflicts undermining the credibility of democratic institutions.

They also note how populism, economic struggles, mimicking the successes of illiberal authorities in other countries, and balancing freedom of expression and assembly with public safety can pose challenges to democracy. Does any of this seem familiar?

[Cal Cetín]

"economic crisis, corruption and inequalities"

Well, those things will be solved as soon as the Democrats close ranks and bring Manchin and Sinema into the fold with more denunciatory articles.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty general remarks there. When I went looking for the specific charges in regards to the US, it really did come down to the Democrats not getting their way on everything election related.

Elections not being conducted in exactly the manner Democrats want.

Things Democrats disagree with not being censored.

People actually daring to notice that their elected officials are corrupt, and trying to do something about it by electing non-establishment challengers.

[Michael P]

Yes, Democrats are pushing autocracy rather than democracy, instituting illiberal policies, and perpetrating counterfactual propaganda, such as the Russia and Rittenhouse hoaxes and the 1619 Project. They arbitrarily and illegally change the rules for democratic institutions like elections and public hearings, undermining the integrity of those processes and confidence in them. Democratic backsliding is a significant threat to US progress and government.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your dementia is showing again.

Who was pronouncing that the election was going to be rigged months before the lost the election? Who spent the last year of his presidency trying to undermine our elections and overthrow the results?

Fuck you, and people like you. You don't deserve citizenship.

[Michael P]

Democrats were pronouncing that the election was at risk of being rigged before the election. Liberal press outlets were warning about the hazards of trusting Dominion Voting Systems, among others: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/politics/georgia-voting-machines.html

Polish those jackboots, dude, you know they're expected in your marches.

[Sarcastr0]

Risks, dude.

And yours is the side who wants to overturn elections and go full vigilante. Historically, that's the ones that go autocratic. Though generally under the banner of preserving freedom against *those guys* who want to take it from you.

You're in good form, to be a bag guy.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

So you're too stupid to differentiate between the news reporting on the concerns of others, versus the news stating their own opinions on the matter?

"As Georgia elections officials prepared to roll out an over $100 million high-tech voting system last year, good-government groups, a federal judge and election-security experts warned of its perils. The new system, they argued, was too convoluted, too expensive, too big — and was still insecure."

"Good-government groups"
"A federal judge."
"Election security experts."

Which of those is a "liberal press outlet?"

And how the fuck do you think your red herring somehow nullifies the behavior of Trump and his fellow traitors?

That's right. You just don't care what Trump did, because you're a partisan jackass who doesn't care about the rule of law, provided that "your guy" wins in the end.

[JasonT20]

No, seriously, the 'backsliding' seems to consist of Democrats not getting all the campaign regulations they want...

Yeah, it's terrible that Democrats want to restore the Voting Rights Act to what it was before Shelby County. I mean, the 2006 renewal of the VRA only passed the Senate unanimously (98-0). Some Southern Republicans objected to the pre-clearance applying mostly to their states (though it also applied to some jurisdictions elsewhere, such as some boroughs of NYC), but most Republicans at the time touted their support for its renewal as part of trying to appeal to minorities. How times change, huh?

...and legislatures taking exception to their election laws being violated by election administrators.

Right. And the legislatures respond by making it a criminal offense, a felony even, I believe, to mail someone an application to vote by mail if they didn't specifically request one. And legislatures want to be sure to protect the ability of poll workers to go to church on Sunday, so they have to limit Sunday early voting. Oh wait, that was a typo. If minorities people want to vote so badly, they'll jump through whatever hoops we put in their way, amirite?

And they want more say in deciding the outcomes of elections, such as the ones that put them in office. After all, 143 members of Congress had to vote to object to 2020 results that they doubted after having just taken their seats a couple days earlier because of that same election. (4 new Senators and 139 Representatives). That is especially galling for the Representatives of the states that were being disputed. They should have had the courage of their convictions and refused to be seated if they doubted the results of their states. But nope. They only objected to the presidential vote, even though those were on the same ballots that they were. What they really want now, is to not have to risk another Jan. 6. They probably just want to be able to toss the presidential results if they don't like them in key states where they control the state legislature and appoint Electors directly.

[Michael P]

Please, won't anyone think about all the poor, innocent, unrelated whatabouts?

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're confirming that the backsliding really did consist of Democrats not getting their way on voting laws.

"If minorities people want to vote so badly, they'll jump through whatever hoops we put in their way, amirite?"

Some "obstacle", having to actually ask for a ballot. And only having weeks in which to fill it and mail it in.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Your ability to fail at making appropriate conclusions is as strong as ever, Brett.

"After all, 143 members of Congress had to vote to object to 2020 results that they doubted after having just taken their seats a couple days earlier because of that same election. (4 new Senators and 139 Representatives). That is especially galling for the Representatives of the states that were being disputed. They should have had the courage of their convictions and refused to be seated if they doubted the results of their states. But nope. They only objected to the presidential vote, even though those were on the same ballots that they were. What they really want now, is to not have to risk another Jan. 6. They probably just want to be able to toss the presidential results if they don't like them in key states where they control the state legislature and appoint Electors directly."

Take a wild fucking guess what the political affiliation of those 143 members was, and tell us all again how it's the evil Democrats.

[iowatwo]

Right. And the legislatures respond by making it a criminal offense, a felony even, I believe, to mail someone an application to vote by mail if they didn't specifically request one.

Only in those situations that the Legislature did not pass such a law and the Governor did not sign such laws.
According to you "backsliding" consists of requiring election changes be debated and decided by the legislative branch, and then signed by the Governor.

[not guilty]

Shelby County is this century´s Korematsu.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Having to present an ID to vote is comparable to getting sent to concentration camps.

[not guilty]

Have you read the Fifteenth Amendment? Section 2 provides ¨The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.¨ The Roberts Court grafted on an asterisk providing in essence ¨Except when five justices don´t like what Congress has done.¨

Possibly the most result-oriented and intellectually dishonest opinion of my lifetime (although Bush v. Gore comes close).

[Brett Bellmore]

Or, rather, they didn't toss the "appropriate".

[Sarcastr0]

If you can't see how that's judicial supremacy, you're willfully blind.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you think the "appropriate" should be void? That Congress can enact any legislation they want, and so long as they claim it's to enforce the 15th amendment, it's good to go?

It's a blank check?

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one that things appropriate is a blank check, if it lets the judiciary invalidate a law based their own take of the facts on the ground.

There was no doctrine here of appropriateness, there was no limiting logic; This wasn't City of Borne. This was just the court saying 'nah.'

[Sarcastr0]

If anything is congruent with the 15A, it's the Voting Rights Act. Reading some kind of time limit is *absolutely* judicial legislation if anything is.

Not to mention there was no precedential predicate. Which I know you don't care about, but I do. This came out of basically nowhere. So not like Obergefell, or if they overturn Roe, or Heller.

[JasonT20]

Roberts wanted to gut the VRA back when he worked in the Reagan administration in the 80s. He finally got his wish with Shelby on Section 5 (preclearance), and is working to neuter Section 2 as well. Conservative Republicans would have plaintiffs prove that voting laws and regulations were intended to discriminate against them, not just that they have a negative impact. In other words, just don't say the quiet part out loud, and you're good to go for reducing minority turnout.

So, yes, Brett, the VRA is "appropriate" legislation that the Roberts Court is working to kill.

[not guilty]

Appropriateness is a question for the Congress. Shelby County was cut from whole cloth in service of the Republican Party political fortunes.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How would the 15th be different if "appropriate" were left out?

[Sarcastr0]

In is-land, that seems clear - Roberts would not have this hook to hang his nonsense on.

In ought-land, check out City of Boerne v. Flores for an actual doctrine based on 'appropriate' and how it does not involve secret time limits on parts of legislation.

[Toranth]

How anyone could have read Obergefell and think it is other than result-oriented and intellectully dishonest while condemning Shelby County and Bush v Gore, I do not understand.

[Sarcastr0]

Or you don't know how precedents work.

[not guilty]

Obergefell is a straightforward equal protection and substantive due process case.

[JasonT20]

Having to present an ID to vote is comparable to getting sent to concentration camps.

If there is one thing that Americans are supposed to agree on, regardless of political ideology or partisanship, it is the right to vote. I'm sure you wouldn't accept your right to vote being limited or having unnecessary hurdles put in your way to the ballot box. Why should anyone else?

Republicans have been talking a lot about voters needing to have "confidence" in elections over the last year, but let's look at what that means. I see three things being required to have confidence that elections are free and fair.

1) Elected offices are open to anyone that meets minimal basic and neutral qualifications. (Age, citizenship, residency for some state and local offices, etc.)
2) Elections are administered in a neutral, transparent, and accurate manner.
3) All eligible voters have equal access to the ballot.

Republicans have only been making noise about 2), and only one aspect of it, at that, with all of the claims of fraud and the need for "election security". They are actually attacking the neutrality of election administration, with Trump loyalists looking to unseat Republicans that didn't go along with the "Stop the Steal" "bullshit" (William Barr's word, not just mine).

But this is a three legged stool. You can't have confidence that elections are free and fair with only one or two of those requirements being secured. If you're willing to sacrifice one to secure what you think is deficient in one of the others, then you would end up destabilizing the whole thing. It looks to me like most on the right don't care about elections actually being fair and free. They just want to win.

[Toranth]

Yeah, well, there's a huge issue with your points (especially #3) - the subjective terms like "eligible".
As long as they get to define the terms, I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle would disagree with your three points.

The problem is that different groups have different standards for what constitutes "neutral, transparent, and accurate" or "eligible".

Can you have a fair and free election if "eligible" is defined in a way to exclude large swathes of people that should be allowed to vote? Can you have a fair and free election if it is defined to include swathes of people that shouldn't?

Can you have a fair and free election if the rules regarding ballot custody, witnessing, or provenance are routinely ignored? What about when rules are changed arbitrarily and outside the legal process?

There is a lot of debate over those terms you slide so lightly over, which is why these are contentious issues in the first place.

[JasonT20]

"Yeah, well, there's a huge issue with your points (especially #3) - the subjective terms like "eligible"."

Eligible voters are pretty simply defined, in my view. There may be some room for debate about felons and people declared mentally incompetent to care for themselves. Other than that, being an adult citizen makes one eligible. I can't think of any other constitutional reason for someone to be considered ineligible to vote, can you?

Your point about other things I listed being subjective isn't a strong point. There's always some subjectivity in where to draw lines and what regulations to make regarding any law or policy, not just whether elections are "neutral, transparent, and accurate". But there would be rational and non-subjective criteria to apply those regulations, once determined.

What about when rules are changed arbitrarily and outside the legal process?

Were rules were changed "outside the legal process" in 2020 or before? The officials and offices running elections operate under state and federal laws. If someone thinks that they aren't following the laws correctly, they may have standing to sue over that in court. Courts making decisions about those cases is certainly part of the "legal process", even if some would disagree with those decisions.

[Don Nico]

While we're at it, one should note that in most Eu countries, the head of government is not elected directly by the citizens and in some s/he does not even have to stand for election anywhere in the country.
Lest we forget, that was how Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.

[JasonT20]

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the delegates debated whether to have the President chosen by Congress. They ended up with the compromise of the Electoral College. So, technically, the President is not elected directly by the citizens in the U.S. either. The popular vote total of the whole country isn't a deciding factor at all. Just how the votes come out in each state separately.

As a history reminder, there was one presidential election where the Republican won the popular vote total after 1988 - in 2004. George W. Bush won 50.7% to John Kerry's 48.3% (a 3 million vote margin). But 120,000 more votes by Kerry in Ohio would have flipped it, and there were allegations of large disparities in wait times between heavily GOP vs. Dem. areas, that some thought were deliberately set up that way to discourage Democratic Party voters.

[Don Nico]

Yup, Jason I know all that. But the fellow's name is on the ballot, unlike Draghi in Italy of the President of the European Commission who is a two removes from any election.

The EU and Sweden have a lot of nerve to criticize when they have all of the "flaws" that they ascribe to the US.

[Sarcastr0]

Eh, that's semantics. Same as 'we're a republic not a democracy.'

Parliamentary systems are just as democratic as our own.

[JasonT20]

"Consent of the governed" means that voters have the opportunity to change the government if they don't like what it is doing. What we are seeing from Republicans is a manipulation of who gets to vote and in what districts in order to make their voters matter more than those that want someone different in power. And everything that led to Jan 6th was about disregarding the fact that the consent of the voters of the United States for Donald Trump to govern had been withdrawn.

[Don Nico]

Let's be serious about the EU view of "backsliding.

EU countries
(1) Require voter ID
(2) Don't allow early voting weeks before election days
(3) Consider vote harvesting illegal

[Sarcastr0]

The also generally provide said ID for free, and oftentimes have election day as a federal holiday. And they tend to have broad in-country vote by mail rights.

Your comparisons are tendentious.

[Don Nico]

No they are true.
People are very used to have long waits and only some provide what you call broad mail rights. And vote harvesting is NOT allowed.
What you refer to as a holiday, the D's want to extend over months.
Said ID might be free, but it also must be produced on demand.
And the "for free" claim is certainly tendentious. Inner city residents and everybody else have no problem getting them when they want a phone contract, a small bank account, service at a health clinic, a social security account or virtually any other requirement of modern life.

[Sarcastr0]

True, but irrelevant due to the different environment I laid out. Who cares about ballot collection if mail in is broadly allowed, and it's easy to get to the polls because it's a day off?

Same with early voting.

You're not comparing like with like.

I won't get into your 'ID's don't need to be free because inner city people can get them but are lazy' morass.

[Don Nico]

Sweden?
Isn't that the country where a PM could not even last 24 hours?
Talk about back-sliding!

[Brett Bellmore]

I feel the urge to make a PMS joke, but can't think what word starting with "S" to use...

[Don Nico]

Brett,
This article may be of keen interest to you:
"New Clues to Delta Variant’s Spread in Studies of Virus-Like Particles – NIH Director's Blog"
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/11/18/new-clues-to-delta-variants-spread-in-studies-of-virus-like-particles/

[Brett Bellmore]

Interesting.

And, for you, some possible good news: https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/south-african-medical-association-omicron-variant-causes-mild-disease-latest-omicron-variant-news-updates-coronavirus-pandemic-new-cases-747054#

[Don Nico]

Thank you, Brett

[Jimmy the Dane]

And woke libs wonder why they are losing elections.

CNN just last week went with the ultra-racist headline that White men are the greatest evil to society. These people have been stuck in their woke echo chambers so long they don't even realize what they are doing....

[Cal Cetín]

Is this the one?

"There's nothing more frightening in America today than an angry White man"

"It's not the "radical Islamic terrorist" that I fear the most. Nor is it the brown immigrant or the fiery Black Lives Matter protester, or whatever the latest bogeyman is that some politician tells me I should dread.

"It's encountering an armed White man in public who has been inspired by the White men on trial in these three cases [Rittenhouse, Arbery, Charlottesville}....

"There is nothing inherently violent about White men, or any human being.

"But recent events have convinced me it's time to put another character on trial: A vision of White masculinity that allows some White men to feel as if they "can rule and brutalize without consequence."

"This angry White man has been a major character throughout US history. He gave the country slavery, the slaughter of Native Americans, and Jim Crow laws. His anger also helped fuel the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol."

...and so on.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/20/us/angry-white-men-trials-blake-cec/index.html

[Cal Cetín]

...and of course

"these trials represent something bigger than questions of individual guilt or innocence. They offer a disturbing vision of the future, and a choice about what kind of country we want to live in." etc. etc.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Oh yeah that is the one.

Got to love this quote too:

"whatever the latest bogeyman is that some politician..."

Then writer goes on to use White men as latest bogeyman....

[Cal Cetín]

And anyway, the proper term is "bogeypersons."

[Jimmy the Dane]

Also loving the complaining from left wingers that Rittenhouse has changed "activism culture" forever. Guess it is no fun "punching up" assaulting people, committing arson, and enjoying de facto prosecutorial immunity when one of your victims shoots back. What a shame!