Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[ADigitalArtist]

I doubt burning down other people's property addresses anything. More likely than not, it just escalates until we get more vigilantes going about shooting people.
Peaceful protest, absolutely. Destruction of property cannot be tolerated. Preferably through non-lethal means.

It was the riots that got the civil rights bill drafted, not the peaceful protest. Very rarely has peaceful protest actually done anything but look nice in retrospect with rose colored glasses omission of the violent resistance.

People fondly remember the sufferagets but forgot that they stabbed people, set off bombs, and tossed police officers into razorwire concealed in flower pots when they tried to break up their meets.

As even MLK said: riots are the language of the unheard. I think escalation is inevitable at this point. I just hope something good comes out of it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Perhaps people will learn that we need to enact some laws regarding demonstrations. I predicted that he was going to be found not guilty. The defense made a very good argument. Personally I do not think the he should have been there in the first place. But then I also thought that the rioters should have been stopped a long time ago.

To protect peaceful protest we need to clamp down a bit on rioting. Rioting harms the ability to protest peacefully. Most of the protesters were peaceful in almost all of the protests out there. The troubles arise when the police are too afraid to react when a protest turns violent. When protest turn to riots we have this sort of reaction against the violent rioters.

But you know, this is really, really difficult.

I think we agree that dissent and protest against what are seen to be injustices are right and necessary. I also think we agree that wanton destruction of property (other than your own) or harm to life are unwarranted -- that basically brings us to "peaceful protest."

The problem comes, it sometimes seems to me, when protest appears weak (because it doesn't "hurt" in some way or another) and is thus safely ignored by those in power, or when it becomes to strong, and is seen to be merely destructive.

How do people with legitimate beefs find the balance? I was part of demonstrations here in Toronto in the 1980's over gay rights. I do, actually, think we found the right balance then -- we were "loud and proud" but didn't attack people or buildings. But we were persistent -- we weren't going to go away, we weren't going to stop protesting because we got tired.

I think that's something along the lines of what MLK accomplished, and other black leaders in the US.

The other part of that, by the way, is that those who don't share the ideology of the protesters will often "stand up and fight back." And that may be part of where things start to go wrong. I even suspect that may be part of what went into Rittenhouse's thinking.

But that thinking can, if you think about it, come to be seen as a denial of the right to protest -- and in the case in Kenosha, what was being protested was (yet another) shooting of an unarmed black male, ostensibly for the crime of being a black male - Jacob Blake.

I'd ask anybody on the forums -- who could be bothered to get through my long post -- what is the "proper level" of protest for such a thing?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It was the riots that got the civil rights bill drafted, not the peaceful protest. Very rarely has peaceful protest actually done anything but look nice in retrospect with rose colored glasses omission of the violent resistance.

People fondly remember the sufferagets but forgot that they stabbed people, set off bombs, and tossed police officers into razorwire concealed in flower pots when they tried to break up their meets.

As even MLK said: riots are the language of the unheard. I think escalation is inevitable at this point. I just hope something good comes out of it.

You were writing while I was, but it looks like we were in much the same head-space...

 

[Lain]

Honestly I'm not sure yet. I think the system is so corrupt, with so much predatory gerrymandering, voter suppression and oligarchic tendency that voting is one of the least feasible avenues for change. But what ends up being the thing that changes things could be anything from revolution (by which I mean any sort of major restructuring that doesn't happen via vote) to the status quo retiring and being replaced by a very different new generation of politicians (not holding my breath on that one but it could happen.)

I'd bet more on some sort of revolution honestly. I kind of think that'll happen, and a new Constitution formed if it goes well. If it goes badly... welp. Many empires have fallen in the past. Nothing new under the Sun.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point isn't that the judges were wrong; I'm not familiar with the case enough to conclude such a thing. What I'm saying is that the verdict isn't necessarily just or correct merely because 12 judges voted for it. If you lived in almost any third-world country, you would be better off keeping in mind that judges are as prone to being corrupt, biased, and unreasonable as everyone else.

The main things needed to uphold justice, in my opinion, are a sound legal system and constituton, and it seems to me that the United States' gun laws gravely miss the mark in both of these areas.

There was only one judge in this case and twelve jurors. And I am sorry, but I conflated you with another for a moment. I have followed this case and I did not go into it with the preconceptions that some have. I could see that the defense was making very good arguments and that the prosecutor was often shooting himself in the foot. Some of the best witnesses for the defense came from the prosecutor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It wasn't 12 judges, but 12 everyday Americans pulled at random from the community the alleged crime was in.

Well, not totally at random. That was the original draw, but then both sides got to question the jurors and could eliminate those that appeared to be prejudiced about the case in either direction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given that he has an acquittal, and the massive amount of evidence supporting him, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to win a lawsuit against him.

Is the pedophile who threatened to kill him and then attacked him going to be a winnable civil suit?
Or the domestic abuser who strangles women, who took it on himself to attack Kyle twice, while Kyle was running to the police, with a deadly weapon going to be it?
Or the burglar who said on stand that he was afraid for Kyle's life and that he wasn't shot until he had pointed a gun at Kyle's head?
No. None of them have a case.

However, I expect a flurry of lawsuits by Rittenhouse soon for the blatant and correctable lies several media outlets produced and are still producing. He won't have as easy a case as Sandmann, but it's possible he ultimately walks away with 9 figures just the same.

The pedophile that threatened him and then attacked him is not going to win any lawsuits. He was the first one that Rittenhouse shot. By the way, that was the sort of evidence not allowed for the jury to hear. They could not hear about Rosenbaum's criminal past. And since he was not there to testify there was no way for it to come up.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No property is worth someone's life, let alone by a teenage vigilante. I'm also a bit jaded on police because I was there when protestors were relabeled 'violent rioters' after throwing resignation letters folded into airplanes over police lines in Portland.

He went there looking for an excuse. And he was given one by the court.

And I was there when police actually beat the crap out of somebody -- because they could. That somebody was me.

And I tried to get legal redress, but alas, in the 1970s, that was as likely as snow in August.

I still know the names of the officers, though since both are now dead, I will never reveal them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

50 million dollars in property damage.
While you are right, these businesses are people's livelihoods, their future. Folks are bound to get upset when their property gets destroyed and take action to protect it.

These riots should not have happen any more than Rittenhouse should have been out their with a semiautomatic.

Quite right, we all have to agree -- except that you offer no remedy for anyone. What goes unaddressed is very likely to be repeated. It's a brutally tough question, but how do ordinary folk protect themselves from those with power -- and a willingness to use it -- if they are not allowed to use any sort of "power" themselves?

That really is a question I'd love to see answered.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Given that he has an acquittal, and the massive amount of evidence supporting him, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to win a lawsuit against him.

Is the pedophile who threatened to kill him and then attacked him going to be a winnable civil suit?
Or the domestic abuser who strangles women, who took it on himself to attack Kyle twice, while Kyle was running to the police, with a deadly weapon going to be it?
Or the burglar who said on stand that he was afraid for Kyle's life and that he wasn't shot until he had pointed a gun at Kyle's head?
No. None of them have a case.

However, I expect a flurry of lawsuits by Rittenhouse soon for the blatant and correctable lies several media outlets produced and are still producing. He won't have as easy a case as Sandmann, but it's possible he ultimately walks away with 9 figures just the same.

Was that the guy Rittenhouse shot in the back?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If anything the last election is evidence against your claim. I was hoping for a blue wave, but it did not appear and quite a few analysts put the blame on the BLM riots. Not the BLM portests. People were too afraid to vote too many Republicans out of office due to how those situations were handled.

An interesting perspective! Something I think that every protester might want to keep in mind.

It's amazing how often our actions get results we didn't intend, because we couldn't foresee how those impacted by our actions might react.

 

[Mister Emu]

The pedophile that threatened him and then attacked him is not going to win any lawsuits. He was the first one that Rittenhouse shot. By the way, that was the sort of evidence not allowed for the jury to hear. They could not hear about Rosenbaum's criminal past. And since he was not there to testify there was no way for it to come up.

None of them provide successful grounds for claims made by surviving family. I doubt you're going to see any suits filed against him.

Was that the guy Rittenhouse shot in the back?

Colloquially, we usually don't characterize shooting someone who is lunging at you as "in the back". But, the edit: *child molester* is the one who had a round enter the back on a somewhat lateral plane.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Given that he has an acquittal, and the massive amount of evidence supporting him, it is unlikely that anyone would be able to win a lawsuit against him.

Is the pedophile who threatened to kill him and then attacked him going to be a winnable civil suit?
Or the domestic abuser who strangles women, who took it on himself to attack Kyle twice, while Kyle was running to the police, with a deadly weapon going to be it?
Or the burglar who said on stand that he was afraid for Kyle's life and that he wasn't shot until he had pointed a gun at Kyle's head?
No. None of them have a case.

However, I expect a flurry of lawsuits by Rittenhouse soon for the blatant and correctable lies several media outlets produced and are still producing. He won't have as easy a case as Sandmann, but it's possible he ultimately walks away with 9 figures just the same.

So...I take it you're for taking the blindfold off Lady Justice?

 

[Subduction Zone]

An interesting perspective! Something I think that every protester might want to keep in mind.

It's amazing how often our actions get results we didn't intend, because we couldn't foresee how those impacted by our actions might react.

When I was watching the BLM riots, not the protests, I was worried about this. And i am far from being wrong in my analysis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of them provide successful grounds for claims made by surviving family. I doubt you're going to see any suits filed against him.


Colloquially, we usually don't characterize shooting someone who is lunging at you as "in the back". But, the edit: *child molester* is the one who had a round enter the back on a somewhat lateral plane.

I do not personally think that the surviving family members have any grounds either. I do not know if Rosenbaum has any family that would sue for him. Though when money is the issue you will find family members coming out of the blue sometimes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So...I take it you're for taking the blindfold off Lady Justice?

I do not think that suing after the fact would be about justice. That is more about revenge. Justice was done in court, even though many do not like the verdict. To me it looked like a legal attempt at lynching.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I do not think that suing after the fact would be about justice. That is more about revenge. Justice was done in court, even though many do not like the verdict. To me it looked like a legal attempt at lynching.

I was referring to the emotional appeal of labeling the victims based on their criminal past.

 

[Mister Emu]

So...I take it you're for taking the blindfold off Lady Justice?

I'm not providing justice.

I don't think in discussing the situation, that we should dismiss that what we have is three evil people attacking a minor who was running away or had been hit to the ground in every interaction.

 

[Kooky]

I'm not providing justice.

I don't think in discussing the situation, that we should dismiss that what we have is three evil people attacking a minor who was running away or had been hit to the ground in every interaction.

Do you believe that killing people is morally justified when the victims are sufficiently "evil"?

 

[Lain]

I'm not providing justice.

I don't think in discussing the situation, that we should dismiss that what we have is three evil people attacking a minor who was running away or had been hit to the ground in every interaction.

How is it being dismissed? If it's self-defense it's self-defense even if they were previously the curers of cancer and possessed every virtue under the Sun, and if it isn't self-defense they were unjustly murdered even if they were Hitler triplets (Godwin), so either way it seems irrelevant. I don't think it's dismissed as much as it is irrelevant to everything.