The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The focus on the legal technicalities in the Rittenhouse trial deflects from the fact that it is simply morally wrong for citizen vigilantes to go to protest rallies and murder citizens with guns.

The same moral logic applies to people who drive their cars and trucks into crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters.

This kind of vehicular homicide is now legal in some red states, but who among us really believes that it is morally right?

 

The jury in the case isn't being asked to determine the moral ramifications of going to protests with guns. That is an issue with local and state laws that is taken up in different venues, not the trial of Rittenhouse. That's not a "technicality". Anyone suggesting that the larger issues circling the Rittenhouse trial should be considered when determining his guilt or innocence, while understandable, is subscribing to vigilantism themselves while clothing it in righteousness. 

As outrageous as his behavior was, the victims weren't lily-white roses walking their sweethearts home from Sunday School when they happened into him. They were all there illegally, in one way or the other, and although that in itself doesn't justify the use of deadly force the protesters don't have carte blanche to destroy property or confront strangers with guns either. By all appearances every one of the shooting victims could have walked away. I don't know that but that's my impression.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

The jury in the case isn't being asked to determine the moral ramifications of going to protests with guns. That is an issue with local and state laws that is taken up in different venues, not the trial of Rittenhouse. That's not a "technicality". Anyone suggesting that the larger issues circling the Rittenhouse trial should be considered when determining his guilt or innocence, while understandable, is subscribing to vigilantism themselves while clothing it in righteousness. 

As outrageous as his behavior was, the victims weren't lily-white roses walking their sweethearts home from Sunday School when they happened into him. They were all there illegally, in one way or the other, and although that in itself doesn't justify the use of deadly force the protesters don't have carte blanche to destroy property or confront strangers with guns either. By all appearances every one of the shooting victims could have walked away. I don't know that but that's my impression.

Bob,

     Framing these three Rittenhouse murders as a technical legal issue of self defense misses the larger issue.

     To wit, it should be the job of the police and the courts to enforce our laws, not teenage vigilantes with AR-15s.

     Rittenhouse set himself up as Khmer Rouge style judge, jury, and executioner of three American citizens.

     Even if they were malefactors-- rather than civil rights protesters-- they didn't deserve a Rittenhouse death penalty.

    

    

[David Andrews]

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

My point is David that the jury didn't make a finding like that. They're not reading papers or watching TV to determine the facts of the case. Neither you or I have been presented with the evidence and considered it in detail to the extent the jury has. In my experience they usually get it right and in this case it appears the jury seriously considered the circumstances. 

OK, Bob, sorry.

It's too bad the prosecution couldn't defer to a change of venue:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/civil-rights-attorney-says-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-with-a-different-jury-you-would-have-a-very-different-outcome/ar-AAQY6X1?ocid=Peregrine

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Once any public event becomes a media narrative...truth goes out the window.  Framing the event is king. 

Think of the narratives post-JFKA, 9/11, 1/6. In the latter days of Afghanistan, the M$M media narrative was that the US and Afghan allies were fighting for gay and women's rights. 

The left-right, blue-red, Donk-'Phants are going at it on Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old boy at the time of his crime.

You know, some events are just ugly and squalid, although the narrative-hounds even more so. 

 

 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bob,

     Framing these three Rittenhouse murders as a technical legal issue of self defense misses the larger issue.

     To wit, it should be the job of the police and the courts to enforce our laws, not teenage vigilantes with AR-15s.

     Rittenhouse set himself up as Khmer Rouge style judge, jury, and executioner of three American citizens.

     Even if they were malefactors-- rather than civil rights protesters-- they didn't deserve a Rittenhouse death penalty.

    

    

I completely agree but that wasn't what the trial was about. The issue was whether he could be found guilty for the charges the prosecutor came up with. The trial had nothing to do with vigilantes, teenagers or even AR-15s. Juries are carefully instructed about the legal issues involved and are asked to consider facts involving very specific circumstances. Drunk driving kills many people every year and untold tragedies among the families and so on but that has nothing to do with a specific DUI claim against Joe Schmoe.

The jury in this case carefully considered the specific facts that could be ascertained during the event and could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know it for a fact (I wasn't there) but it seems they did their job like they were supposed to.

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

OK, Bob, sorry.

It's too bad the prosecution couldn't defer to a change of venue:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/civil-rights-attorney-says-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-with-a-different-jury-you-would-have-a-very-different-outcome/ar-AAQY6X1?ocid=Peregrine

 

Change of venues aren't very common in criminal cases. I've been involved in more than a few criminal cases that were publicly controversial but haven't seen a venue change yet. I'll give it a read but the opinion of a civil rights attorney versus a criminal defense attorney is about the same as asking a gun lobbyist their opinion. I'm afraid I'll run into the same static I hear from other attorneys who have never tried a criminal case in their lives. The uproar about a lot of this stuff that is actually fairly routine (judges yelling at lawyers, exclusion of evidence etc) and speaks more to the attention the press wants to get than anything else IMO.

Keep in mind I'm not defending KH or his actions. What I'm saying is that the system works pretty good and most likely rendered the proper decision, and from what I can see deliberated earnestly.

[David Andrews]

2 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Change of venues aren't very common in criminal cases. I've been involved in more than a few criminal cases that were publicly controversial but haven't seen a venue change yet. I'll give it a read but the opinion of a civil rights attorney versus a criminal defense attorney is about the same as asking a gun lobbyist their opinion. I'm afraid I'll run into the same static I hear from other attorneys who have never tried a criminal case in their lives. The uproar about a lot of this stuff that is actually fairly routine (judges yelling at lawyers, exclusion of evidence etc) and speaks more to the attention the press wants to get than anything else IMO.

Keep in mind I'm not defending KH or his actions. What I'm saying is that the system works pretty good and most likely rendered the proper decision, and from what I can see deliberated earnestly.

I'm not sure a county prosecutor would request a change of venue within a state - seems like bad form, and a slur on local judges.

[W. Niederhut]

47 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

I completely agree but that wasn't what the trial was about. The issue was whether he could be found guilty for the charges the prosecutor came up with. The trial had nothing to do with vigilantes, teenagers or even AR-15s. Juries are carefully instructed about the legal issues involved and are asked to consider facts involving very specific circumstances. Drunk driving kills many people every year and untold tragedies among the families and so on but that has nothing to do with a specific DUI claim against Joe Schmoe.

The jury in this case carefully considered the specific facts that could be ascertained during the event and could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know it for a fact (I wasn't there) but it seems they did their job like they were supposed to.

Bob,

       I understand that the trial wasn't about vigilantes attending protest rallies with AR-15s, but my point is that the national conversation should be.

       The focus on the technical details of the trial, and the absurd notion that Rittenhouse is "innocent," detracts from the larger issue-- that American laws should be enforced by the police and the due process of the courts, not by armed vigilantes.

       In contrast, Donald Trump, Fox News, and many conservatives are lionizing Rittenhouse's reckless vigilantism, as if it were appropriate and laudable.

      What message is that sending to America's Boogaloo Boys?

       

Edited November 22, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I'm not sure a county prosecutor would request a change of venue within a state - seems like bad form, and a slur on local judges.

There are a lot of reasons a change a venue is problematic on top of those. Travel distances, alternate venue location, blah blah blah. It's beyond me frankly but I know it's a heavy lift.

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Bob,

       I understand that the trial wasn't about vigilantes attending protest rallies with AR-15s, but my point is that the national conversation should be.

       The focus on the technical details of the trial, and the absurd notion that Rittenhouse is "innocent," detracts from the larger issue-- that American laws should be enforced by the police and the due process of the courts, not by armed vigilantes.

       In contrast, Donald Trump, Fox News, and many conservatives are lionizing Rittenhouse's reckless vigilantism, as if it were appropriate and laudable.

      What message is that sending to America's Boogaloo Boys?

       

But my original comment regarding this was about the trial and verdict. I don't disagree with the outrage over the events themselves and what's transpired after. I'm not keen on "protesters" running around burning down businesses and vandalizing people's property either. The innocent people who have to rebuild their lives because of the acts of vandals are left out of the conversation and although people can say "Well you didn't get shot 7 times in the back" it's small consolation to them.

The fact remains there isn't a person in the world more dangerous than somebody who's "right".

[Ron Bulman]

It has yet to produce anything.  Yet worth 10 Billion.  Just another scam?

This Huge Secret About Donald Trump’s Finances Just Got Out—This Can’t Be Real! (msn.com)

[W. Niederhut]

10 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

But my original comment regarding this was about the trial and verdict. I don't disagree with the outrage over the events themselves and what's transpired after. I'm not keen on "protesters" running around burning down businesses and vandalizing people's property either. The innocent people who have to rebuild their lives because of the acts of vandals are left out of the conversation and although people can say "Well you didn't get shot 7 times in the back" it's small consolation to them.

The fact remains there isn't a person in the world more dangerous than somebody who's "right".

 

That depends on whether they are, in fact, "right"-- e.g., rational, informed, just, ethical, etc.

There's an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to that subject in relation to social ethics.

From the perspective of social ethics, the most dangerous people in the world are those who are "wrong"-- e.g., murderers, oppressors, thieves, jackboots, polluters, etc.

Rittenhouse verdict celebrated on right-wing social media as green light for killing protesters

 

 

[Bob Ness]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

That depends on whether they are, in fact, "right"-- e.g., rational, informed, just, ethical, etc.

There's an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to that subject in relation to social ethics.

From the perspective of social ethics, the most dangerous people in the world are those who are "wrong"-- e.g., murderers, oppressors, thieves, jackboots, polluters, etc.

Rittenhouse verdict celebrated on right-wing social media as green light for killing protesters

 

 

Haha good pic. Yeah that's sarcasm font I was using. "Right".

[Steve Thomas]

I keep thinking about the title of this thread. Fintan O'Toole described our current state of affairs as, "outlandish idiocy:" He wasn't far off.

Over 100 QAnon believers show up in Dallas waiting for JFK Jr -- who never arrives

by Brad Reed November 22, 2021

https://www.rawstory.com/qanon-dallas-jfk-jr-2655776684/

“Over 100 believers in the QAnon conspiracy theory gathered in Dealey Plaza in Dallas on Monday morning in anticipation of the late John F. Kennedy Jr. coming back from the dead and declaring former President Donald Trump to be America's true president.

Much to their disappointment, however, the late son of former President John Kennedy never arrived, never proclaimed Trump the true president, and never revealed himself as Trump's new vice president.”

JFK-obsessed QAnon cultists set off alarms with ominous chatter: 'We have to experience physical death'

by Travis Gettys November 22, 2021

https://www.rawstory.com/michael-brian-protzman-2655776085/

“Online conspiracist Michael Brian Protzman drew his followers, who call him Negative48, to Dallas last month to await the return of John F. Kennedy and his son John F. Kennedy Jr., but the tone of his comments turned morbid over the weekend in a video chat participants openly discussed their own deaths as part of a journey toward some unknowable truth, reported Vice.

"Ultimately," said one participant, "we have to experience that physical death ... let go ... come out on the other side."

An administrator for Protzman's Telegram channel posted an ominous screenshot hours later that showed the destination on a navigation app as Waco, Texas, where a months-long standoff between law enforcement and the Branch Davidian religious sect ended in the fiery deaths of 76 people, including 25 children. “

Is the past, prologue?

Steve Thomas

[Richard Price]

16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

It has yet to produce anything.  Yet worth 10 Billion.  Just another scam?

Just goes to show, P. T. Barnum was right (over a hundred years ago).  There's a sucker born every minute!  Although in today's world I believe it may be more like every second.