Prelude to the Apocalypse

A place where you can chat about anything that isn't to do with games!

Iran War. When.

2021
3
6%
2022-2025
15
28%
2026-2030
7
13%
2031-2040
3
6%
2041-2050
0
No votes
Never
25
47%
 
Total votes: 53

User avatar
Mischief Maker
Posts: 4802
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:44 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by Mischief Maker »

The thing that had me spitting mad at the time was the Kenosha cops.

First the cop in the APC giving effusive thanks and throwing water to Rittenhouse, later the cops who let Rittenhouse walk past with a smoking gun in hand.

What were the Kenosha cops in space marine armor driving APCs expecting this fat teenager with an assault rifle and latex gloves to do that they weren't equipped to do?

Or was it they wanted this teen to do what they weren't allowed to do?

(Fuck me, the video of the APC cop handing out water seems to have been scrubbed from the internet more thoroughly than Rush Limbaugh in his Ronald McDonald makeup.)


EDIT: Okay, I had to do some digging, but here it is.
Two working class dudes, one black one white, just baked a tray of ten cookies together.

An oligarch walks in and grabs nine cookies for himself.

Then he says to the white dude "Watch out for that black dude, he wants a piece of your cookie!"
User avatar
BulletMagnet
Posts: 13888
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
Location: Wherever.
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BulletMagnet »

Durandal wrote:but from now on we can expect more people coming to demonstrations armed and ready trying to provoke others into attacking first so they can fire back and claim it was self-defense.
"Be armed, be dangerous, be moral." Which immediately reminded me of the poster on the wall in this old scene.

Of course, as was already noted a page or two back, you really shouldn't shoot lefties, not because it's, y'know, wrong or anything, but because you'd just be giving them what they want.
Rob wrote:justice is driving 40 miles to start fires and lowercase white vigilantism is driving 20 miles (crossing state lines!!) to put them out.
I think it's quite reasonable to question the wisdom - if not the motive - of either such mindset (not to mention that, unlike Rittenhouse's supporters, next to nobody, especially anyone of note, is calling for the people who looted and set fires to be let off scot free, let alone offering them internships); I obviously can't read the mind of someone like Rittenhouse, but I'd love to know just how much "help" he really thought he'd be by marching uninvited, packing an assault weapon, into a veritable war zone. I'd similarly question the wisdom - if not the motive - of the police who openly welcomed unknown and untrained vigilantes like him into their ranks.
User avatar
Stevens
Posts: 3799
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:44 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by Stevens »

Could it be something as simple as a kid who made a series of stupid decisions cause he thought it would be "cool" - "Oh yeah I'm going to go play Cop", "Yeah I should bring my gun too, what could go wrong?"

And then realized he was in over his head?
My lord, I have come for you.
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BIL »

BulletMagnet wrote:I obviously can't read the mind of someone like Rittenhouse, but I'd love to know just how much "help" he really thought he'd be by marching uninvited, packing an assault weapon, into a veritable war zone.
Wisdom is the last thing I'd expect from a teenaged boy participating in Operation: Defend Ultimate Gas Station, which is coincidentally the title of the Contra fangame I'll have completed by 20XX.

From everything I've seen on Rittenhouse, I'm willing to believe he was just a naive kid. He certainly didn't demonstrate the bloodlust that frothier commenters are painting him with. Grosskreutz called him his "would-be murderer" in a post-testimony interview... inviting the question "Why didn't he finish you off?" His fat friend's now-disavowed visions of magdumps to the face presumably not dancing in Rittenhouse's head that fateful night.

(I'm going to enjoy Lefty's antics over the next few months - what a thoroughly unlovable cunt! Image)

Sadly the foolish boy ran into an exceptionally unwell and aggressive adult (to describe Rosenbaum as neutrally as possible). A force-multiplying nexus of fuckery.

A very unfortunate, almost surreal event that might've been avoided entirely if, as MM says, the police would've pulled their fingers out and kept shortsighted youths and simmering manlets well away from one another.

EDIT: What Stevens said.

EDIT2: Gold Jerry, gold! "Armed persons crossing state lines," you say.

Blatant falsehood side... I expect random twitter lunatics to lack the compartmentalisation fundamental to legal analysis. Is this blown-out asshole, too, seriously going to bust his head open on the cold hard facts, just like that creepy Laurel and Hardy prosecution team? :o I do hope so. Image
User avatar
BulletMagnet
Posts: 13888
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
Location: Wherever.
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BulletMagnet »

Stevens wrote:Could it be something as simple as a kid who made a series of stupid decisions cause he thought it would be "cool" - "Oh yeah I'm going to go play Cop", "Yeah I should bring my gun too, what could go wrong?"

And then realized he was in over his head?
It could very well be, but even if that is in fact the case it still prompts two overarching questions:

1) Even if this was just a teenage flight of fancy gone terribly wrong, should there be any consequences for anybody resulting from the fact that it took place, even if out-and-out first-degree murder charges might not be warranted? The jury said no, and a significant chunk of the public agrees, though others (myself included) aren't particularly comfortable with the notion that two people die and another is paralyzed by someone who just kind of "wanted to be there" and the official reaction is "yeah, whoops, gee, that does kinda suck...well, too bad for them, time to move on (and/or celebrate)".

2) Are there larger, farther-reaching factors at work here that need to be addressed, which allowed this sequence of events to transpire in the first place, namely that a) The kid (and his parents) apparently felt that what he did was a completely warranted, justified and logical course of action, b) He was able to easily obtain a military-style weapon in pursuit of whatever manner of "help" he intended to offer, and c) The authorities both welcomed his arrival and, even after he'd shot three people, allowed him to go home and sleep in his own bed that night. Should we simply accept this state of affairs as it is going forward? Some folks, again including the jury, apparently think so, others not so much.
BIL wrote:Grosskreutz called him his "would-be murderer" in a post-testimony interview... inviting the question "Why didn't he finish you off?"
I'm pretty sure the reason he called him that was that Rittenhouse was obviously shooting with the intent to kill (albeit perhaps not murder, if you want to get technical), whether in self-defense or not; he certainly succeeded to that end with the other two, no follow-ups needed.
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BIL »

BulletMagnet wrote:1) Even if this was just a teenage flight of fancy gone terribly wrong, should there be any consequences for anybody resulting from the fact that it took place, even if out-and-out first-degree murder charges might not be warranted? The jury said no, and a significant chunk of the public agrees, though others (myself included) aren't particularly comfortable with the notion that two people die and another is paralyzed by someone who just kind of "wanted to be there" and the official reaction is "yeah, whoops, gee, that does kinda suck...well, too bad for them, time to move on (and/or celebrate)".
In purely dispassionate legal terms, dead guy #1, dead guy #2, and Lefty are SOL due to several exceptionally strong and well-documented claims of self-defense.

A clearly enraged man chased a fleeing, uncombative Rittenhouse into a corner and tried to wrest his gun away, this amounting to deadly force. Rittenhouse killed him, and attempted to surrender to the authorities. Several other men interrupted him, battering him to the ground and loosing a selection of potentially lethal blows at his head. Rittenhouse scared one away, killed another, and neutralised a third, before the crowd backed off and he, again, attempted to surrender to the authorities.

Without the slightest hint of triumphalism, in the most pragmatic terms possible, I don't think this is a problematic verdict in the least. I don't see how you'd legitimately sanction Rittenhouse for what transpired, outside of peripheral charges relating to curfew, possession and so on - but these all appear to have failed, too.
BIL wrote:Grosskreutz called him his "would-be murderer" in a post-testimony interview... inviting the question "Why didn't he finish you off?"
I'm pretty sure the reason he called him that was that Rittenhouse was obviously shooting with the intent to kill, whether in self-defense or not; he certainly succeeded to that end with the other two.
But if there was intent to kill, why wouldn't he follow up his wounding of Lefty with more shots to the body or head? Lefty was in no condition to do anything about it. Arguably he wasn't really neutralised either; see the photo of him wounded but still holding his gun.

I wouldn't be confident asserting Rittenhouse intended to kill Huber either, considering the latter was shot while in the process of battering him about the head with a skateboard. Huber appears to have drawn the short straw opposite Maurice Freeland, the fabled "Jump Kick Man" who escaped with a near-miss.
User avatar
BulletMagnet
Posts: 13888
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
Location: Wherever.
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BulletMagnet »

BIL wrote:I don't see how you'd legitimately sanction Rittenhouse for what transpired, outside of peripheral charges relating to curfew, possession and so on - but these all appear to have failed, too.
I suppose the lingering issue in my mind is that the trial (what I gleaned of it, at least, I would be lying if I said I was hanging on every detail throughout) focused almost exclusively on what transpired once he showed up in Kenosha (admittedly, to a large extent this was probably inevitable), but almost entirely glossed over what led to him showing up when he had no business (though, again, some people disagree with this, which I frankly find disturbing as hell) inserting himself into the bedlam, armed to the teeth and untouchable in the eyes of the cops at that (i.e. the stuff I listed under "question # 2" in my previous post), as if none of that particularly mattered to the outcome; again, considering the "I felt threatened and had a right to defend myself" angle his lawyers took there probably wasn't much means to avoid it, but I find the the fact that all of that (along with the lesser charges you mention) could be so easily swept under the rug as an unfortunate "oopsie, but that's just the way it is" rather troubling to say the least, especially via the precedent it sets for any other would-be "heroes" like him. Will they all be "oopsies" too?
I wouldn't be confident asserting Rittenhouse intended to kill Huber either, considering the latter was shot while in the process of battering him about the head with a skateboard. Huber appears to have drawn the short straw opposite Maurice Freeland, the fabled "Jump Kick Man" who escaped with a near-miss.
My perspective here would benefit from some clarification as to precisely what kind of training, if any, Rittenhouse had when it came to the rifle he used; if memory serves he wasn't even supposed to have it, legally speaking, so I wonder if he was frankly even particularly capable of "shooting to disarm/disable" or whatever the proper term is, any more than he was qualified as a medic despite identifying himself as one. Off the cuff I'd be surprised if he could do much more than spray and pray...which, again, even if it doesn't technically run afoul of the law as written, doesn't sit particularly well with me.
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by orange808 »

There's no nuance or hidden truth to be found. There are no "I'm a stupid fuck, so feel extra sorry for me" exceptions, so don't bother telling me Rittenhouse is naive and didn't understand he was picking a fight. Of course he's naive; he's a stupid fuck. Stupid fuckers are stupid fuckers by definition.

It's cut and dry. The stupid fuck drove a long way looking for fight, found one, killed people, and walked away with no consequences.

Any person that has no problem with the situation and final outcome isn't worth talking to. The fact that there is debate is embarrassing. It does, however, confirm my general opinion of--and faith in--human beings.
We apologise for the inconvenience
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BIL »

BulletMagnet wrote:
BIL wrote:I don't see how you'd legitimately sanction Rittenhouse for what transpired, outside of peripheral charges relating to curfew, possession and so on - but these all appear to have failed, too.
I suppose the lingering issue in my mind is that the trial (what I gleaned of it, at least, I would be lying if I said I was hanging on every detail throughout) focused almost exclusively on what transpired once he showed up in Kenosha (admittedly, to a large extent this was probably inevitable), but almost entirely glossed over what led to him showing up when he had no business (though, again, some people disagree with this, which I frankly find disturbing as hell)
From what I understand, Rittenhouse's father and grandmother live in Kenosha, and he commuted to his job there regularly. I can understand him seeing it as his neighbourhood, or at the very least having some attachment to it.

I'm undeniably being charitable to him again, but as far as they can be discerned, I don't find his motives suggestive of much more than a wannabe cop. (earlier crack he made about wishing he had a gun on him to stop some looters)
especially via the precedent it sets for any other would-be "heroes" like him. Will they all be "oopsies" too?
If future riots are to feature less armed teenagers, that'd seem to be a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary. For better or worse, I think the principles of self-defense at the heart of this case have to be left alone.

It really is a comically extreme test case. An enraged manlet chasing an armed kid across the parking lot of The Ultimate Gas Station doesn't sound real. It sounds like something a connoisseur of gas station explosion videos, like me, would make up.
orange808 wrote:It's cut and dry. The stupid fuck drove a long way looking for fight, found one, killed people, and walked away with no consequences.
This is the kind of emotive hyperventilation that's reaped a mountain of entertainment for assclowns like me, so I'm not complaining.

That said - as far as I know, he lives on the border, and Kenosha was his daily commute. I know I'd get a good laugh if anyone described my business or my old man's house as "a long way off" at twenty miles, particularly if there was a good chance they'd be burned down that night.

Lefty drove twice as far, with a gun. Was he looking for a fight? He certainly tried to kill Rittenhouse, then and only then being shot.

And fleeing assailants at every turn is an interesting way of looking for a fight. Or was that all just a series of cunning feints? Lure 'em in, then blast 'em from the ground? Asphalt reduces recoil, improves accuracy?
The fact that there is debate is embarrassing. It does, however, confirm my general opinion of--and faith in--human beings.
Humans are some bad shit, it's why we have all these laws in a futile attempt to stave off the good ol' Hobbesian Jungle. Making the best of a bad lot mirite Image
Last edited by BIL on Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BulletMagnet
Posts: 13888
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
Location: Wherever.
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BulletMagnet »

BIL wrote:I'm undeniably being charitable to him again, but I don't think his motives matters much either way.
His motives absolutely matter from a legal perspective (i.e. it's the difference between murder and manslaughter, among many other things), though you are correct in saying that it's impossible to know them for sure, let alone how they might have been very quickly realigned in the heat of the moment; in any event, as I've already said I'm far more concerned with what led him to think that acting on those motivations in the first place, whatever they might have been, in the way that he did was perfectly okay, and for him and many others to still think so - if not outright encourage further such action - in the aftermath.
If future riots are to feature less armed teenagers, that'd seem to be a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.
In terms of permanent fixes, yes, though I don't think it's beyond the scope of the courts to say "even if we're not the ones to fix this, this definitely needs fixing". It's certainly done so countless times in the past; again, what sticks in my craw is that so many people don't think that anything about what happened here needs to be changed, except for the fact that they tried to prosecute Rittenhouse at all.
For better or worse, I think the principles of self-defense at the heart of this case have to be left alone.
To build on what you said earlier about not knowing one's truer motivations, the "I felt threatened, so my actions were justified" baseline at work here (and in many other parts of the country) strikes me as eminently abusable; I mean, how can you ever prove that someone didn't feel that way? It's a lot closer to a "get out of jail free" card than I'm personally comfortable with, though when discussing these sorts of things with you I always have to remind myself that you live in a country far less awash in firearms than mine.
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BIL »

BulletMagnet wrote:
BIL wrote:I'm undeniably being charitable to him again, but I don't think his motives matters much either way.
His motives absolutely matter from a legal perspective (i.e. it's the difference between murder and manslaughter, among many other things)
Rittenhouse could've arrived in Kenosha full of bloodlust, intent on killing until he was out of ammo, then using whatever was at hand to kill some more. His claims of self defense wouldn't budge one iota. An aggressor wrenching his fleeing target's weapon away, or a strapping man delivering a hard kick to the skull, or a somewhat less strapping man swinging a skateboard likewise, or a bullet aimed at the head after a feigned surrender to reach close range. Those are hard components to work with.

Provocation could jeopardise a claim of self-defense, but there seems to be no evidence of this whatsoever.
though you are correct in saying that it's impossible to know them for sure, let alone how they might have been very quickly realigned in the heat of the moment; in any event, as I've already said I'm far more concerned with what led him to think that acting on those motivations in the first place, whatever they might have been, in the way that he did was perfectly okay, and for him and many others to still think so - if not outright encourage further such action - in the aftermath.
In the heat of the moment I doubt he was thinking much at all. He narrowly fought off one enraged assailant, got sent to the ground by a similarly incensed mob, and fought off three excellent attempts on his life in rapid succession.

This situation went from "uneasy" to "absolutely fucked" with remarkable velocity. My biggest issue with the Kenosha police ignoring Rittenhouse's surrender, certainly if he were my kid, was the very real possiblity of the mob taking another crack at him, maybe via Ziminski or someone else with a gun. Fortunately he promptly got the fuck out, and we have less dead and wounded to consider.
In terms of permanent fixes, yes, though I don't think it's beyond the scope of the courts to say "even if we're not the ones to fix this, this definitely needs fixing". It's certainly done so countless times in the past; again, what sticks in my craw is that so many people don't think that anything about what happened here needs to be changed, except for the fact that they tried to prosecute Rittenhouse at all.
What would you change or fix, though? Genuinely curious... given this particular case, and this case alone, all I could see nailing Rittenhouse on might be some lesser charge of reckless endangerment owing to his arriving armed. Unfortunately WI law precludes this.
To build on what you said earlier about not knowing one's truer motivations, the "I felt threatened, so my actions were justified" baseline at work here (and in many other parts of the country) strikes me as eminently abusable; I mean, how can you ever prove that someone didn't feel that way? It's a lot closer to a "get out of jail free" card than I'm personally comfortable with, though when discussing these sorts of things with you I always have to remind myself that you live in a country far less awash in firearms than mine.
We have less guns back home, but I'm sad to say our per capita rates of murder, rape, robbery and other violent crimes are world-leading. Kingston, Colombia, Chechnya went the old league table, though it's shifted a bit since the 90s. I've a particular interest in matters of self-defense largely for this.

If I crush up a paper cup and hurl it at you with all my might, and you respond by blowing my head off with a shotgun, do you have a claim? This was my bread and butter for many years. Image
Last edited by BIL on Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by orange808 »

BIL wrote:
This is the kind of emotive hyperventilation that's reaped a mountain of entertainment for sickos like me, so I'm not complaining.
No hyperventilating. Just stating the obvious. In audible delivery, that comes out in casual, even rhythm, monotone with a hand wave. I'm stating the obvious, after all. It's not as if I'm genuinely surprised. I knew how this would end.
BIL wrote: That said - as far as I know, he lives on the border, and Kenosha was his daily commute. I know I'd get a good laugh if anyone described my business as "a long way off," particularly if there was a good chance it'd be burnt down in a riot.
If it's not near your front door, then you're leaving home to go there. We've all had daily commutes that are well outside of walking distance. Many of us have found new jobs because of it. So what? You're purposefully trying to move goalposts here. He didn't wander out his front door into the situation. He was well beyond the driving distance for shopping and running errands. As I already said, he went out of his way specifically looking for trouble.
BIL wrote: Lefty drove twice as far, also armed. Was he looking for a fight?
Now, you're getting the spirit, BIL. And, little dumb shit Rittenhouse went running into that grain silo with a lighter. The rest of us "not stupid fucks" know there will be unhinged people in a mob. That's why you don't go round pointing guns and yelling at mobs. No new or novel information, there.

If someone else had started a gun fight, you honestly believe I would feel differently? Fuck. Seriously? ?

I'm certain you didn't notice, but I mocked "defund the police" quite viciously in this thread. People can't be trusted. The last thing I need is a bunch of crazies "defending themselves" in nightly gun fights.

And, what sort of naive fuck believes that only one "side" of any argument will take advantage of legalized murder? That doesn't align with history. It's perfectly logical to assume that some "lefty" will point the gun first next time and be the first to fire. The survivor probably shoots first, so it makes sense. Although, it's difficult for to process a "lefty" with a gun. Unlike the wingnut right and their open embrace of Timothy McVeigh's entire manifesto, world view, and approach--"no guns" is part of my core values. Can't stand next to me with a gun in your hand.
BIL wrote: He certainly tried to kill Rittenhouse.
That's an endless rabbit hole, BIL. I didn't say anything about who tried to kill who, did I?

Here's how it went down: ​The stupid fuck drove a long way looking for fight, found one, killed people, and walked away with no consequences.

I assume you agree that he went looking for a fight and found one? Great. Glad we cleared that up. Not sure why you mentioned it at all, but glad we agree. :-)
We apologise for the inconvenience
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BIL »

Impressive prediction! I was surprised he got the full acquittal - if only for half the internet and several prominent talking heads claiming he'd flown in from Tibet to fire sixty rounds and kill three black people.

If I thought my grandma was at risk of having her house burned down, I'd happily join a murder squad. To say nothing of when I was a kid. Image Having established his family and job in the area, psychoanalysing the defendant to this extreme calls for more material. I can't be arsed to trawl his fuckbook, or whatever the kids use these days.
orange808 wrote:Now, you're getting the spirit, BIL. And, little dumb shit Rittenhouse went running into that grain silo with a lighter. The rest of us "not stupid fucks" know there will be unhinged people in a mob. That's why you don't go round pointing guns and yelling at mobs. No new or novel information, there.
This is an adult perspective, exactly what I'd expect a 17y/o boy to lack (I'd similarly not expect a teenager to know that suspended dust and naked flame is a mortal combination). Even without the benefit of his medical and criminal history, the likes of Rosenbaum is wearily familiar to adult eyes - the simmering, bitter, easily-enraged manlet eager for a face to self-righteously smash in.

(Lorne plug)

I've no doubt he was so far outside of Rittenhouse's highschooler frame of reference as to seem fictitious, even when he was charging full-tilt at him looking like something birthed from a Klansman and an Oompa-Loompa fucking without contraception.
If someone else had started a gun fight, you honestly believe I would feel differently? Fuck. Seriously? ?

I'm certain you didn't notice, but I mocked "defund the police" quite viciously in this thread. People can't be trusted. The last thing I need is a bunch of crazies "defending themselves" in nightly gun fights.
I'm sorry bud, I've lost the plot around here. Do I think you'd feel differently if someone else had shot first? Sure, you seem reasonable enough.

However, I'm of the opinion that the first shots were fired in self-defense, so we're probably never going to agree on who lit the fuse here.

I don't recall Defund The Police discussion on here, I've taken a step back from the politicking tbh. It has to be a real howler of a story, like this one, to draw me back. Image
And, what sort of naive fuck believes that only "side" of any argument will take advantage of legalized murder? That doesn't align with history. It's perfectly logical to assume that some "lefty" will point the gun first next time and be the first to fire. The survivor probably shoots first, so it makes sense. Although, it's difficult for to process a "lefty" with a gun. Unlike the wingnut right and their open embrace of Timothy McVeigh's entire manifesto, world view, and approach--"no guns" is part of my core values. Can't stand next to me with a gun in your hand.
Whoops, didn't even register the Left/Right thing. Gaige "Lefty" Grosskreutz is endearingly referred to as such (by me) because his right arm was asploderated that night, leading to much good-natured ribbing about the loss of his fapping hand. I'm old enough to know atrocity comes flying in from all corners of the political spectrum.
That's an endless rabbit hole, BIL. I didn't say anything about who tried to kill who, did I?

Here's how it went down: ​The stupid fuck drove a long way looking for fight, found one, killed people, and walked away with no consequences.
Even the stupidest of stupid fucks enjoy the full protection of the law. Image
I assume you agree that he went looking for a fight and found one? Great. Glad we cleared that up. Not sure why you mentioned it at all, but glad we agree. :smile:
Haha, no no no - my favourite aspect of this whole shitshow is the kid persistently running away, like one of those "whack 'em before they scurry off!" bonus critters you occasionally see in FromSoft games.
User avatar
BulletMagnet
Posts: 13888
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
Location: Wherever.
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BulletMagnet »

BIL wrote:Provocation could jeopardise a claim of self-defense, but there seems to be no evidence of this whatsoever.
I imagine someone could get very deep into the weeds here if they wanted, i.e. when Rittenhouse marched into a riot openly packing heat, what kind of reaction was he (and, might I re-emphasize, the parents who supported him in this) seriously expecting to get, dumb teenager or not? Did he honestly think that just the sight of him would be enough to send everyone fleeing home to immediately start ironing their best clothes for church the next morning?

To be sure this goes farther into "inscrutable mindset" territory than would likely have held up in court, but it's worth keeping in mind that many of the same people who would insist that Rittenhouse's (armed) presence alone shouldn't have been enough to "provoke" anybody will also rigorously insist that the mere (unarmed) presence of Ahmaud Arbury in that neighborhood was more than enough "provocation" to justify chasing him down and eventually shooting him when he resisted upon being caught.
Fortunately he promptly got the fuck out, and we have less dead and wounded to consider.
That's just the thing, though: if he had never shown up there would have been zero dead or wounded to consider at his hands. Again, I understand that this probably dips a bit too deep into "what if" territory to be particularly applicable under the law, but I don't think you need to use your imagination that much to reasonably infer that his presence there that night, fueled at the very least by grossly unrealistic expectations of how he thought his grand night out would go, led directly to deaths and injuries that would not have occurred otherwise. And even if you acknowledge that the possibility, however plausible, of such an alternative scenario couldn't be allowed to influence the verdict, it's still infuriating to have lurking there in the background, especially with the added insult of people who consider him a hero for having done what he did.
What would you change or fix, though? Genuinely curious...
In terms of stuff I've already mentioned off the cuff, it'd be 1) Allowing what a defendant says he "felt" to play such an outsize role in determining a verdict, 2) The ready availability of military-style weaponry, and 3) The ability of law enforcement to so readily welcome and encourage vigilantism when they think it suits them. Again, that's just what comes most immediately to my non-legal mind.
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by orange808 »

BIL wrote:Impressive prediction! I was surprised he got the full acquittal - if only for half the internet and several prominent talking heads claiming he'd flown in from Tibet to fire sixty rounds and kill three black people.
It's America. But, seriously, plenty of reputable people said he had a good legal case to defend himself. Not that shocking, really. The laws were crafted to allow use of guns, after all. Although, legal doesn't mean correct, productive, or healthy for society.
BIL wrote: If I thought my grandma was at risk of having her house burned down, I'd happily join a murder squad.

Well, that's so you, isn't it? Of course, our favorite untrained prodigy EMT/GI Joe wasn't standing in grandma's lawn, was he now? I can't find a way to place your statement anywhere near this situation or conversation. Grans didn't live in a dumpster downtown, right? :-)
BIL wrote: This is an adult perspective, exactly what I'd expect a 17y/o boy to lack (I'd similarly not expect a teenager to know that suspended dust and naked flame is a mortal combination). Even without the benefit of his medical and criminal history, the likes of Rosenbaum is wearily familiar to adult eyes - the simmering, bitter, easily-enraged manlet eager for a face to self-righteously smash in.
As I said before, I don't believe in "I'm a dumbfuck" exceptions. Sorry he's stupid. Doesn't make it okay. Rather or not what's okay is encoded into law is beside the point.
BIL wrote: However, I'm of the opinion that the first shots were fired in self-defense, so we're probably never going to agree on who lit the fuse here.
I didn't ask who started it and I'm not interested in who "deserved" whatever. There is no nuance here. "The stupid fuck drove a long way looking for a fight, found one, killed people, and walked away with no consequences." I didn't mention who lit the fuse, now did I? :-)
BIL wrote: Even the stupidest of stupid fucks enjoy the full protection of the law.
Some more than others, of course. Same as it ever was and always shall be. :D
We apologise for the inconvenience
User avatar
Sengoku Strider
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:21 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by Sengoku Strider »

"willingly conscious of it or not" Rittenhouse has become a Neo-Nazi icon.

Warning, contains literal naziism:
Spoiler
Image
'Racial Consciousness' seems like a safe kind of person to be around.
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by orange808 »

Sengoku Strider wrote:"willingly conscious of it or not" Rittenhouse has become a Neo-Nazi icon.

Warning, contains literal naziism:
Spoiler
Image
'Racial Consciousness' seems like a safe kind of person to be around.
No shortage of crazies, it seems. Let's give them carte blanche with guns. What could go wrong?
We apologise for the inconvenience
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BIL »

BulletMagnet wrote:
BIL wrote:Provocation could jeopardise a claim of self-defense, but there seems to be no evidence of this whatsoever.
I imagine someone could get very deep into the weeds here if they wanted, i.e. when Rittenhouse marched into a riot openly packing heat, what kind of reaction was he (and, might I re-emphasize, the parents who supported him in this) seriously expecting to get, dumb teenager or not? Did he honestly think that just the sight of him would be enough to send everyone fleeing home to immediately start ironing their best clothes for church the next morning?

To be sure this goes farther into "inscrutable mindset" territory than would likely have held up in court, but it's worth keeping in mind that many of the same people who would insist that Rittenhouse's (armed) presence alone shouldn't have been enough to "provoke" anybody will also rigorously insist that the mere (unarmed) presence of Ahmaud Arbury in that neighborhood was more than enough "provocation" to justify chasing him down and eventually shooting him when he resisted upon being caught.]
Fortunately he promptly got the fuck out, and we have less dead and wounded to consider.
That's just the thing, though: if he had never shown up there would have been zero dead or wounded to consider at his hands. Again, I understand that this probably dips a bit too deep into "what if" territory to be particularly applicable under the law, but I don't think you need to use your imagination that much to reasonably infer that his presence there that night, fueled at the very least by grossly unrealistic expectations of how he thought his grand night out would go, led directly to deaths and injuries that would not have occurred otherwise. And even if you acknowledge that the possibility, however plausible, of such an alternative scenario couldn't be allowed to influence the verdict, it's still infuriating to have lurking there in the background, especially with the added insult of people who consider him a hero for having done what he did.
I do see where you're coming from, RE heavily armed goobers rolling up to riot zones. It's not good, particularly with Rittenhouse's level of restraint and accuracy being (according to the rave reviews of countless firearms enthusiasts) not at all common.

There's an unfortunate tension here, between peaceful protest, and a citizenry's right to lawfully defend their property. I probably come down more on the latter's side, having seen people helped into early graves by the "just claim insurance" meme (sadly familiar scenes in your worst-hit areas, post-Floyd). But a terrorised citizenry is no better than a riotous one.

It's an ugly case, sat on several of Western society's major fault lines. I don't blame anyone for having strong feelings either way.
BIL wrote:What would you change or fix, though? Genuinely curious...
In terms of stuff I've already mentioned off the cuff, it'd be 1) Allowing what a defendant says he "felt" to play such an outsize role in determining a verdict,
As far as I know (not trained in US law, let alone Wisconsin law; just a passing observer), any self-defense claim must meet an objective standard, IE: Would a reasonable person have been in fear for their life, in the defendant's circumstances?

This is why I don't believe this verdict is as portentous as some make it out to be. This law professor titles his article with the promise of revealing some legal paradigm shift... then outlines why this was a run-of-the-mill self-defense acquittal.

I'd hope, had Rosenbaum restrained himself to harsh language at reasonable distance only to meet an identical end, Rittenhouse's antics would've been perceived very differently. I certainly wouldn't waste my time on him, just like I didn't follow the January 6th assclownery. Maybe I'm wrong, or just naive.
orange808 wrote:It's America. But, seriously, plenty of reputable people said he had a good legal case to defend himself. Not that shocking, really. The laws were crafted to allow use of guns, after all. Although, legal doesn't mean correct, productive, or healthy for society.
I guess I'm more of a pessimist than I thought, haha. I have to say I was stunned at the prosecutorial incompetence, never mind the willful malevolence. Some small mercy that it didn't appear to stick.
Well, that's so you, isn't it? Of course, our favorite untrained prodigy EMT/GI Joe wasn't standing in grandma's lawn, was he now? I can't find a way to place your statement anywhere near this situation or conversation. Grans didn't live in a dumpster downtown, right? :-)
Given what's known of him (aspirations to work in fire/police departments, lifeguarding, currently training to be a nurse IIRC?) I could see him thinking he was doing his grandma and everyone else's a solid by defending Ultimate Gas Station. I think it's cute tbh.
As I said before, I don't believe in "I'm a dumbfuck" exceptions. Sorry he's stupid. Doesn't make it okay. Rather or not what's okay is encoded into law is beside the point.
Rittenhouse getting spooked by Rosenbaum's yelling, shooting him in the leg to scare him off and hitting his femoral artery would be dumb. Or Rittenhouse firing a warning salvo at a distant Huber, Jumpkick Man and Lefty down the street, variously maiming and killing them.

I've no doubt the jury would've regarded these scenarios poorly. Why? Because it's clear they don't believe in "I'm a dumbfuck" exceptions either! Hence acquitting Rittenhouse after Rosenbaum chased him down and tried to steal his gun only to get shot in self-defense. Image
I didn't ask who started it and I'm not interested in who "deserved" whatever. There is no nuance here. "The stupid fuck drove a long way looking for a fight, found one, killed people, and walked away with no consequences." I didn't mention who lit the fuse, now did I? :-)
You spoil me with your "Drove a long way" "Looking for a fight" and "Found one," so richly flawed and dare I say nuanced Image
User avatar
Sengoku Strider
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:21 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by Sengoku Strider »

orange808 wrote:No shortage of crazies, it seems. Let's give them carte blanche with guns. What could go wrong?
They could follow the secret Vice-President's orders about Star Trek nanotechnology bitcoin mining big pharma Microsoft patented super soldiers and begin the carnage:

Image
User avatar
emphatic
Posts: 7917
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:47 pm
Location: Alingsås, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by emphatic »

orange808 wrote:and walked away with no consequences.
How about PTSD, being unjustly portrayed in the media as a white supremacist etc? Very real consequences for a kid.
Image | My games - http://www.emphatic.se | (Click) I have YEN stickers for sale
RegalSin wrote:Street Fighters. We need to aviod them when we activate time accellerator.
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by orange808 »

BIL wrote: You spoil me with your "Drove a long way" "Looking for a fight" and "Found one," so rich flawed and dare I say nuanced
Oh, I don't spoil you, dearest edgelord. You have a right to be wrong and carry on. :-)

Your schtick only goes so deep and we've hit bottom. ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯
We apologise for the inconvenience
User avatar
BulletMagnet
Posts: 13888
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
Location: Wherever.
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BulletMagnet »

BIL wrote:There's an unfortunate tension here, between peaceful protest, and a citizenry's right to lawfully defend their property.
As I said in an earlier post, I make no excuses for protestors who loot, set fires or menace otherwise-uninvolved citizens (albeit, I will also repeat, with much less support among both the populace and the political elite than the Rittenhouses of the world), but as you say there's a line to be crossed, wherein it's no longer about "defending my property" but something else entirely, and I can't help but imagine that, even if you believe that Rittenhouse didn't quite cross it, the verdict he received will be most eagerly taken to heart by those who are nothing short of giddy to do precisely that, and the fact that he himself (with plenty of backup) doesn't seem to grasp (or at least admit) what he's unleashed here doesn't make that prospect any easier to swallow.
As far as I know (not trained in US law, let alone Wisconsin law; just a passing observer), any self-defense claim must meet an objective standard, IE: Would a reasonable person have been in fear for their life, in the defendant's circumstances?
The last paragraph of the article you link sticks out to me:

The prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not reasonably in fear for his safety. This represents a high bar for the prosecution. They were unable to surmount it.

i.e., when a defendant claims they felt threatened, they don't have to do anything else to prove that, it's the prosecution who has to disprove it, and as the professor notes that's a tough row to hoe; again, I'm no lawyer, but I imagine you'd need absolutely overwhelming evidence that speaks directly against what the defendant claims he felt to convince every person on a jury that said defendant didn't feel something that could ostensibly and "reasonably" justify his actions. And as the prof also points out, this was in a state without "stand your ground" laws, which give the defendant even more leeway.

Speaking only for myself, I find it difficult to be particularly comfortable with this state of affairs when the folks who rioted at the Capitol are being vigorously defended, if not lionized, including by some of the people who were in the Capitol at the time, because they "felt very strongly" about what they were doing. If those feelings can be considered "reasonable" enough to justify that, I'm not sure what can't.
emphatic wrote:How about PTSD, being unjustly portrayed in the media as a white supremacist etc? Very real consequences for a kid.
Sorry, but that's very weak tea, especially considering how many doors this will surely (and depressingly) open for him, as The Onion rather fittingly put it.
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by orange808 »

emphatic wrote:
orange808 wrote:and walked away with no consequences.
How about PTSD, being unjustly portrayed in the media as a white supremacist etc? Very real consequences for a kid.
Call the media and complain. Got nothing to do with me or what I said. You're off topic if you're responding to me. Those aren't consequences for murder, I'm not involved with the media, and you randomly chimed in saying I should feel bad for him. None of that has jack shit to do with my original post.

Call CNN customer service, mate.
We apologise for the inconvenience
User avatar
emphatic
Posts: 7917
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:47 pm
Location: Alingsås, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by emphatic »

orange808 wrote:Those aren't consequences for murder
Not for murder, but for self defence, "mate".
Image | My games - http://www.emphatic.se | (Click) I have YEN stickers for sale
RegalSin wrote:Street Fighters. We need to aviod them when we activate time accellerator.
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by orange808 »

emphatic wrote:
orange808 wrote:Those aren't consequences for murder
Not for murder, but for self defence, "mate".
Very American of you, "dude".
We apologise for the inconvenience
User avatar
emphatic
Posts: 7917
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:47 pm
Location: Alingsås, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by emphatic »

orange808 wrote:Very American of you, "dude".
I'm Swedish, so don't waste your best material on me, it'd be pearls before swine. This is your best stuff, right?
Image | My games - http://www.emphatic.se | (Click) I have YEN stickers for sale
RegalSin wrote:Street Fighters. We need to aviod them when we activate time accellerator.
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by orange808 »

emphatic wrote:
orange808 wrote:Very American of you, "dude".
I'm Swedish, so don't waste your best material on me, it'd be pearls before swine. This is your best stuff, right?
Your assertion being I prepared material beforehand for a debate regarding Wisconsin's gun laws with Europeans that carry an oddly American outlook? I'm embarrassed to report I'm not that well prepared. :oops:
We apologise for the inconvenience
User avatar
BulletMagnet
Posts: 13888
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
Location: Wherever.
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BulletMagnet »

Back on topic, please.
User avatar
BIL
Posts: 18989
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: COLONY

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BIL »

"They can hit they target w/precision! While on the ground, prone! Backin' up! Crawlin' away! Fightin' for his life! Precisely hit your dome!" Image Image

"Did you gentlemen know that the guy he shot was a CHOW-MOW?" Image
orange808 wrote:
BIL wrote: You spoil me with your "Drove a long way" "Looking for a fight" and "Found one," so rich flawed and dare I say nuanced
Oh, I don't spoil you, dearest edgelord. You have a right to be wrong and carry on. :-)

Your schtick only goes so deep and we've hit bottom. ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯
You are too modest, your puerile trash is my treasure. Image This huffy, feelsy tantruming with all the depth and substance of a burning oil slick may be worthless to discourse (and worthless in practice, as BingBing and Fatboy so risibly demonstrated), but it's first-rate craicy catnip to inveterate spergwatchers like me!

Image Image Image Image

Your delivering thus direct to my comfy shumps couch is nothing short of palm frond-fanning indulgence Image Image
BulletMagnet wrote:As I said in an earlier post, I make no excuses for protestors who loot, set fires or menace otherwise-uninvolved citizens (albeit, I will also repeat, with much less support among both the populace and the political elite than the Rittenhouses of the world)
Oh no, I didn't think you were. Just setting out the extremes of the spectrum for rhetorical purposes. :wink:
BIL wrote:As far as I know (not trained in US law, let alone Wisconsin law; just a passing observer), any self-defense claim must meet an objective standard, IE: Would a reasonable person have been in fear for their life, in the defendant's circumstances?
The last paragraph of the article you link sticks out to me:

The prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not reasonably in fear for his safety. This represents a high bar for the prosecution. They were unable to surmount it.

i.e., when a defendant claims they felt threatened, they don't have to do anything else to prove that, it's the prosecution who has to disprove it, and as the professor notes that's a tough row to hoe; again, I'm no lawyer, but I imagine you'd need absolutely overwhelming evidence that speaks directly against what the defendant claims he felt to convince every person on a jury that said defendant didn't feel something that could ostensibly and "reasonably" justify his actions.
I don't know the precise meaning of the author's words there (I might end up paraphrasing him), but I wouldn't call the objective standard itself the high bar - there's plenty of good US case law where self-defense claims have failed. The ongoing Matthew Dolloff case is one I'm following with interest (Dolloff arguably being on the opposite end of the political battlefield from Rittenhouse... which is unfortunate, in these hyper-polarised times, but the case itself is interesting).

Rather, I think this was just an unusually stark, downright freakishly well-documented claim. Time will tell if it really has an impact beyond its very specific parameters. I certainly see the scope for copycats, of even less sympathetic bent than Rittenhouse's heavily-armed boy scout, though whether they'll be treated kindly by the courts is another matter.

EDIT: I could swear I heard Rittenhouse's legal team wanted to plead him out on manslaughter, early on, but the state insisted on the most severe charges available to them. I have to confirm though, might just be hearsay or my faulty memory.

At any rate, had he gotten five years thus - I'd still be forced to object, on the facts of the case, but I'd understand it from a deterrence standpoint, and he'd at least retain a chance of becoming a functional adult. Calls to lock him up until he's in his forties or beyond, I'd hope most would recognise as unproductive, if nothing else (not that I get the impression you or anyone else ITT wants him caged thus).
Last edited by BIL on Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BulletMagnet
Posts: 13888
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
Location: Wherever.
Contact:

Re: Prelude to the Apocalypse

Post by BulletMagnet »

BIL wrote:I don't know the precise meaning of the author's words there (I might end up paraphrasing him), but I wouldn't call the objective standard itself the high bar - there's plenty of good US case law where self-defense claims have failed.
You could be right that I'm being overly apprehensive here, but I still find it difficult to be terribly hopeful considering both the blitzkrieg of blatantly partisan (and sometimes blatantly unqualified) judicial appointments of the past few years (to say nothing of the ongoing loosening of gun regulations), and my aforementioned musing over what's considered "reasonable" by much of the population these days. As you say, time will tell one way or the other.
The ongoing Matthew Dolloff case is one I'm following with interest
I had to look this one up as it hasn't gotten as much national coverage as the Rittenhouse case, but yeesh, what a mess...a sub-sub-subcontracted security guard working without a license...but DID have a valid concealed carry permit...shooting a guy who was confronting the person he was hired to protect...BUT only used fists and pepper spray...BUT other weapons WERE present at the scene...BUT evidence collected there was initially mislabeled...any threads I missed in this particular knot?
I could swear I heard Rittenhouse's legal team wanted to plead him out on manslaughter, early on, but the state insisted on the most severe charges available to them. I have to confirm though, might just be hearsay or my faulty memory.
It certainly wouldn't surprise me to hear it; it could be argued that the prosecution similarly undermined itself to some degree during Trump's impeachments, and appears primed to do much the same when it comes to the Capitol riot.

Speaking of which, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but concerning the misdemeanor charges against Rittenhouse, specifically the weapons charge, did I read correctly that the judge basically said "I personally don't like that statute, so I'm just going to dismiss that charge"? If this is the case, I can only wonder what the usual screaming mimis who constantly freak out over "judicial activism" might have to say about it...if they weren't all hiding.
Calls to lock him up until he's in his forties or beyond, I'd hope most would recognise as unproductive, if nothing else (not that I get the impression you or anyone else ITT wants him caged thus).
I honestly hesitate to even attempt to propose what a "just" sentence might look like in this case, since there are so many contrary factors to weigh against each other (he did something really stupid...but he's a minor; he shot three people...but he was being assaulted, etc.), but as I've already said, putting specifics aside, what concerns me more than anything else is that so many people think that Rittenhouse did literally nothing wrong, and moreover that anyone who dares suggest otherwise is more of a "threat" than out-of-their-league armed vigilantes like him. Even if he had been convicted in some fashion, that sentiment would still remain, and it would still bother the living hell out of me.
Post Reply