Violent Vigilantes Require Our Vigilence

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
8,030
The Kyle Rittenhouse verdict. The Ahmaud Arbery case. Legislatures passing no training requirements for conceal and carry gun toters. Road rage shootings on the rise. Discuss it all here.
 

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
8,030
I don't really understand the dismissal of the curfew charge. Apparently the dismissal of the weapons charge had to do with antiquated law and him being in WI rather than IL with the weapon (??)
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,311
Vigilante vigilance? Or vigilante violence?

Some of this is about the assumption of the right to carry weapons everywhere and at any time. I think the purpose of that is intimidation and even if it does not escalate to violence it is highly alarming.
I wanted to get this down before I forgot - A guy on CNN said the self defense defense (huh?) is going to cause a nightmare going forward because if you have a carjacker and the person being carjacked pulls a gun on him, the carjacker can shoot his victim because he was threatened and can claim self defense - this part is mine: like that smarmy little jerk just got away with.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,156
I wanted to get this down before I forgot - A guy on CNN said the self defense defense (huh?) is going to cause a nightmare going forward because if you have a carjacker and the person being carjacked pulls a gun on him, the carjacker can shoot his victim because he was threatened and can claim self defense - this part is mine: like that smarmy little jerk just got away with.
yes it becomes the wild west free for all where you better shoot first or you won't survive.

It has to change.
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,762
I wanted to get this down before I forgot - A guy on CNN said the self defense defense (huh?) is going to cause a nightmare going forward because if you have a carjacker and the person being carjacked pulls a gun on him, the carjacker can shoot his victim because he was threatened and can claim self defense - this part is mine: like that smarmy little jerk just got away with.
From the article I posted in the other thread, with respect to the law in Wisconsin:
If you engage “in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack,” then you can’t kill the attackers whom your unlawful actions provoked. (Though even here there is some ambiguity, as Wisconsin’s statute appears to directly contradict itself.)
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,156
But Rittenhouse did engage in unlawful conduct when he carried a gun he did not have a legal right to possess. The question then is whether it was unlawful conduct likely to provoke the other. Its not considered so I guess in Rittenhouse's case, not like the carjacker's conduct. But I submit based on 200 years or so of US history that had Rittenhouse been black it would have been considered so.

You can't keep citing the law and ignoring race, @MsZem, you are leaving out the single most important factor. For instance, on the radio this morning the speaker said that the Rittenhouse trial turned on the day Rittenhouse testified, tearfully. The jury is human and its human in an American cultural context. A tearful white boy will get a different interpretation of the fine point of the law by a jury in America than a Black man or a Black woman.

This article spells out how that works. It says that the legal issue was "under Wisconsin’s self-defense statutes, Rittenhouse was allowed to use deadly force, even if he provoked the 25 August attack, if he “reasonably believed” it was necessary to prevent his own death." The author then discusses the meaning of "reasonably believed" in a country with the history that the US has.

“A belief may be reasonable even though mistaken,” the jury instructions read. “In determining whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the standard is what a person of ordinate intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant’s position.”

Before former Kenosha alderman Kevin Mathewson summoned “patriots willing to take up arms and defend our city from the evil thugs”, no one else had died during the unrest in his city. Before Rittenhouse killed two people and wounded another, no one else had been shot. So, why is it reasonable to believe Rittenhouse needed a killing machine to protect himself against the “evil thugs” who were not shooting and killing people?

Because all of our opinions are shaped and colored by our experiences, “reasonable” is a subjective notion. Only white people’s perceptions are made into a reality that everyone else must abide by. Think about how much privilege one must have for their feelings to become an actual law that governs the actions of people everywhere.

While there is no doubt about the value of the white lives Rittenhouse snuffed out, there’s also no doubt that Rittenhouse was venturing into one of the scariest, most dangerous situations those white jurors could imagine: a Black Lives Matter protest. It is easy to see how, for Rittenhouse and jurors, the victims were part of the frightening mob of “evil thugs”.

The entire trial is shaped by US history and culture. It is not just a matter of dry letters written in law.

 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
44,450
But Rittenhouse did engage in unlawful conduct when he carried a gun he did not have a legal right to possess. The question then is whether it was unlawful conduct likely to provoke the other
He also shot someone. He did shoot first and, after that, it was people trying to stop an active shooter. The same people who are calling Rittenhouse a hero are the same people who will tell you that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But when the good guys tried to stop an active shooter, they became the bad guys to these people and, yes, it has everything to do with race.
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,762
You can't keep citing the law and ignoring race, @MsZem, you are leaving out the single most important factor. For instance, on the radio this morning the speaker said that the Rittenhouse trial turned on the day Rittenhouse testified, tearfully. The jury is human and its human in an American cultural context. A tearful white boy will get a different interpretation of the fine point of the law by a jury in America than a Black man or a Black woman.
I don't think it's fair to expect me to take the same perspective or focus on the same things that you do, regardless of the topic of discussion.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,156
He also shot someone. He did shoot first and, after that, it was people trying to stop an active shooter. The same people who are calling Rittenhouse a hero are the same people who will tell you that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But when the good guys tried to stop an active shooter, they became the bad guys to these people and, yes, it has everything to do with race.
Apparently for the law, once he had been so afraid of an erratically behaving unarmed man and shot him, he was then justified in his fears that the others would try to stop him even if they had to act violently (the third man had a gun) so he could shoot with impunity. So the key is to prove that you have a right to feel threatened in the first circumstances even by an unarmed person, and that turns on it being related to Black Lives Matter and therefore dangerous in the minds of whites.
 

michalle

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,644
I think the carjacker situation would be felony murder on the part of the carjacker - I don't know that self-defense is even relevant in that situation. I'm not sure though. Felony murder is a whole other discussion in and of itself, because its use in the US is over broad imo. But it's not an issue I'm super up to date on so this is a superficial impression to be fair.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,156
There is a reason for the rightwing attack on schools teaching about the history and cultural prevalence of racism. You can see it in the importance of what is in the minds of juries when they judge cases like this, or of police officers who shoot unarmed Black men, or judge Black defendants.

Keep whites in general from understanding the context in which they live in this society and they will be pliable to acquit whites when called on to do so. To keep white supremacy the rule of the land.

This is why the fight in the schools is so important. And fighting to change the understanding of race in this country to one that enables equal justice under the law is what the protests last summer were in large part about. We can change things, but we are up against powerful and intransigent forces who want to maintain things as they have been.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
59,156
I thought he was underage when he illegally purchased it?
I thought it was not legal for him to possess it and issue is that the judge decided to throw out that charge and not have it considered. I think because he said he didn't like the particular law? Check me on that though.
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,762
I thought it was determined he did have the legal right to possess and carry that gun?

I thought he was underage when he illegally purchased it?
His friend purchased it, and the gun charge was dismissed by the trial judge:
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,911
If someone attacks you with fists or skateboard you are allowed to shoot them in self defense. Just because the other person doesn’t have a gun or knife doesn’t mean they can’t have a deadly weapon. At that point the gun holder just has the advantage. The attacker with the skateboard just chose the wrong person
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
44,450
I still don't see why he wasn't charged with violating curfew (as stupid as I think those laws are).
 

MacMadame

Doing all the things
Messages
44,450
If someone attacks you with fists or skateboard you are allowed to shoot them in self defense. Just because the other person doesn’t have a gun or knife doesn’t mean they can’t have a deadly weapon. At that point the gun holder just has the advantage. The attacker with the skateboard just chose the wrong person
They were attacking him because he was an active shooter. Isn't that what you guys say people should do? I guess not when the shooter is a white supremacist and the people trying to keep him from shooting anyone else are protesting how this country treats Black people.

He was charged. The charge was dismissed on grounds the prosecution did not enter evidence that a curfew was in effect. This was an error on the prosecution's part.
Sometimes the law has no common sense.
 

nylynnr

Well-Known Member
Messages
907
Sometimes the law has no common sense.
I disagree on this; prosecution had to present proof that there was a curfew, not rely on the testimony of police. The other lesser charge, for possessing a firearm, was dismissed, and I would agree that was because Wisconsin law is poorly worded. But the error meant there was no lesser charge Rittenhouse could be convicted of, and that's why he went free.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information