Kyle Rittenhouse & Lynch Mob Justice

Started by Shiranu, November 20, 2021, 02:21:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shiranu




Figured it's probably better for it to have it's own thread rather than continue using a relax-thread for it.


One thing that has really stuck out to me in this case and made me far more aware of how common it is, is how many people think the legal system should be based on lynch mob justice rather than evidence-based justice.



This was a pretty clear-cut case of self-defense, with the evidence showing it being exactly that, and yet the amount of people who essentially out-right admitted they didn't care about the evidence (or never even watched it, they just very strongly believe he is guilty) is disturbing... particularly both in how passionate they are about his guilt and the fact that many political leaders, from Congresswomen, to mayors, to the bloody president of the United States believe either justice was not served or that the justice system is broken and this is proof of it.



Another disturbing trend is, "If he was black, he wouldn't have gotten away with." as an excuse to find him guilty; I don't inherently disagree with the premise, but the conclusion is moronic. "The answer to racism is... more racism!".



Despite the court coming to the right decision, I am feeling more disillusioned with America than I have in awhile. The GOP want the law to be based upon their religious moralities, the DNC want the law to be based on their emotion-based group-think, and the rest of the country seems to be indifferent to which one takes power.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Biffster

I don’t think it’s typical for someone who was only going there to assist with first aid to bring an illegally obtained AR-15 across state lines with him. Just saying’. The point of bringing a gun like that is to use it, which he did. The self-defence line is pretty sus IMHO.

Shiranu

Quote from: Biffster on November 20, 2021, 04:39:17 AM
I don’t think it’s typical for someone who was only going there to assist with first aid to bring an illegally obtained AR-15 across state lines with him. Just saying’. The point of bringing a gun like that is to use it, which he did. The self-defence line is pretty sus IMHO.

A. It wasn't illegally obtained or possessed.
B. He picked it up in Wisconsin, he didn't take it across state lines.
C. Even assuming A and B aren't true, that only is grounds for illegal possession of a firearm, which does not negate self-defense as far as I am aware.

The only person unlawfully in possession was the felon burglar and domestic abuser (assault of his grandmother), Gaige Grosskreutz, who drove twice the distance Rittenhouse did from Milwaukee and pointed a pistol at him.

If assault with a blunt weapon from behind to the back the head, and then having a pistol pulled on you isn't grounds for self-defense, I really cannot fathom what is.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

GSOgymrat

"It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on this law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse’s actions. Much of the conservative media and the Republican Party, however, don’t see the killings as “wrongful” in any sense, instead elevating Rittenhouse as the manifestation of retributive violence against their political enemies. ... Right-wing gun culture is not unlike the wellness industry, in that it requires the cultivation of a sustained insecurity in its audience, in order to facilitate the endless purchase of its products. You can never be too skinny, and you can never have too many guns to stop the impending communist takeover." - Adam Serwer




Biffster

Quote from: Shiranu on November 20, 2021, 04:53:03 AM
A. It wasn't illegally obtained or possessed.
B. He picked it up in Wisconsin, he didn't take it across state lines.
C. Even assuming A and B aren't true, that only is grounds for illegal possession of a firearm, which does not negate self-defense as far as I am aware.

The only person unlawfully in possession was the felon burglar and domestic abuser (assault of his grandmother), Gaige Grosskreutz, who drove twice the distance Rittenhouse did from Milwaukee and pointed a pistol at him.

If assault with a blunt weapon from behind to the back the head, and then having a pistol pulled on you isn't grounds for self-defense, I really cannot fathom what is.
17 year olds are legally allowed to purchase and use firearms?

Shiranu

He didn't purchase it,  and yes they are allowed to use them under Wisconsin law ; the minimum age was like 13 or 14.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Shiranu

#6
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 20, 2021, 08:07:39 AM
"It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on this law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse’s actions. Much of the conservative media and the Republican Party, however, don’t see the killings as “wrongful” in any sense, instead elevating Rittenhouse as the manifestation of retributive violence against their political enemies. ... Right-wing gun culture is not unlike the wellness industry, in that it requires the cultivation of a sustained insecurity in its audience, in order to facilitate the endless purchase of its products. You can never be too skinny, and you can never have too many guns to stop the impending communist takeover." - Adam Serwer





On this I agree.

I think he is a fucking dumbass,  and probably a right wing dumbass,  but what I think is irrelevant when neither of those are crimes. My opinion on someone is not, and should not,  dictate how the law treats them.
But anyone who thinks he is a hero clearly has some other motive than just upholding the law.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Biffster

Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 20, 2021, 08:07:39 AM
"It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on this law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse’s actions. Much of the conservative media and the Republican Party, however, don’t see the killings as “wrongful” in any sense, instead elevating Rittenhouse as the manifestation of retributive violence against their political enemies. ... Right-wing gun culture is not unlike the wellness industry, in that it requires the cultivation of a sustained insecurity in its audience, in order to facilitate the endless purchase of its products. You can never be too skinny, and you can never have too many guns to stop the impending communist takeover." - Adam Serwer
Exactement, as the French would say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: Shiranu on November 20, 2021, 02:21:13 AM
To the bloody president of the United States

I thought biden said he stood by what the jury had concluded, tbh.

"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Shiranu

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 20, 2021, 02:02:13 PM
I thought biden said he stood by what the jury had concluded, tbh.



He's also said he is angry and saddened that he wasn't found guilty. I do respect that unlike other politicians he isn't throwing more fuel on the flame though.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

aitm

The reality…..IMO…..the boy went there specifically to shoot his self some darkies…shit went sideways….he found himself surprised that some white folk were on the darkies side…ended up shooting them….probably a win win for him.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Shiranu

#11
Quote from: aitm on November 20, 2021, 08:12:19 PM
The reality…..IMO…..the boy went there specifically to shoot his self some darkies…shit went sideways….he found himself surprised that some white folk were on the darkies side…ended up shooting them….probably a win win for him.

Which is perfectly fine to think, and probably not horribly far off of how I seem him, but unless you can legally prove that he has to be found innocent.

We cant start demanding that our courts find people guilty because solely because they are guilty in the eyes of the mob. I don't think I need to stress how dangerous that is.


Edit: And thats what the crux of my OP was about, that the idea the court should be based on opinions rather than facts is becoming far too common, even amongst elected officials.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

GodFree

Question: If Ahmaud Arbery had a weapon with him on the day he was shot, would he have been justified to use it to defend himself?
Life-long atheist, (freethinker, agnostic, never believed also apply)

Shiranu

Quote from: GodFree on November 21, 2021, 12:04:31 AM
Question: If Ahmaud Arbery had a weapon with him on the day he was shot, would he have been justified to use it to defend himself?

Yes.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

GodFree

Of course I agree, (given that I only know a little, but at this point I'm struck by the similarities with the Rittenhouse story)
1. Appears both young men were not violating any law, and had every right to be where they were.
2. both were attacked - unfortunately only one was able to defend himself.
3. The attackers were ruled by emotion not rational thought
From what limited knowledge I have. I believe the result of the Arbery case will be a conviction for all defendants.

I'm interested to hear from atheists who would not support the right to self defense in one case and not the other, if there are any here.
Life-long atheist, (freethinker, agnostic, never believed also apply)