Totally agree that according to the LOL LAW he was not guilty of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH weeeeeeeeeeeeeee
This entire trial is just more evidence that we as a society have allowed ourselves to be governed by the bad faith arguments of lawyers for way too damn long.
1 Like
whoops wrong thread nm
All fair but it’s also totally understandable that people are frustrated with the inequities in America’s justice system. I think a lot of frustration about the way things are “thrown out on technicalities” arises in large part because they seem to have such a damned hard time finding those technicalities when the accused isn’t a white man.
The coverage of this trial from left leaning media has been shameful start to finish imo. There were legitimate grievances about the judge, especially the Veterans Day thing, but it’s been 95% people getting angry that a defendant’s rights are being protected in totally standard ways, and people straight up lying about the events that night, knowing that nobody who is on their team will ever correct them on the facts.
Even the dumb thing about “adding pixels” when you zoom in… like, the judge is correct that that’s what happens! And he’s obviously correct that rather than having the lawyers and judge put their heads together to figure it out, they should hear from an expert who can explain whatever algorithm your iPad uses to take an 800x600 slice of a picture and display it full screen on a 1200x1080 screen (substitute numbers that make sense here). The question was important enough that apparently there is case law in Wisconsin deciding the issue (in favor of allowing zooming in) - although the prosecutor, from what I can tell from the coverage, did not cite to that case law and the judge apparently was unfamiliar with it.
This kid should not have been there that night, and his family, friends, teachers, etc have all obviously failed him. I’m interested in potential fixes for self defense law that accounts for “you brought a gun to a tense situation and killed someone that would not have otherwise been a threat”, but like… that is an extraordinarily difficult needle to thread in a country where you’re basically allowed to carry a gun anywhere you want. It’s been clear from day one that as the law is currently written he did not commit a crime, and beyond “don’t go to the protest with your gun”, I’m not really sure how people who have read the witness testimony think he should have acted differently that night.
6 Likes
I think I see the part that needs fixing.
2 Likes
Counterpoint - American society desperately needs for white fascists (any of them! even just one!) to be held accountable for the damage they cause. It’s hard to plead for due process and protection of the accused when cops kick in doors and gun down black people in their homes and handcuff black children for kicks.
I acknowledge this is not necessarily logically consistent, I am conflating two things, but boy oh boy I am sympathetic to the “throw the book at him” crowd. The whole system kicks down decent people unjustly all the time. Maybe the country should fix that before tut tutting people for wanting some “goes around comes around” frontier justice for once.
People on the left might start wondering if the legal system is the only way to hold people accountable…
1 Like
Jesus Christ stfu
When did we go back to advocating political violence is cool?
3 Likes
rox off
Law and Order is right up there with West Wing in rotting the “liberal” political brain.
1 Like
For the record, this is not what I think. I think the letter of the law is bonkers.
2 Likes
What’s the difference between this and Zimmerman? In both you have an armed guy taking it upon himself to patrol the streets. A confrontation ensues between them and someone unarmed. As soon as the armed man feels “threatened” he shoots to kill. Is there a distinction I’m missing? Here we even have the bonus of the dude actually pointing his assault rifle at the target before the final altercation occurs.
Those who support the system desire stability and want cops and a legal system that preserve order. They can be forced to bargain if you bring about conditions so that the status quo leads to social unrest. They can and probably will crack down, but the goal should be sustained resistance so that the cost of oppression becomes greater than the cost of giving in and making a deal.
How is it making it worse when we both agree that the cops do what they want anyway? Cops just straight up execute leftists in similar situations so what’s the slippery slope when we are already at rock bottom?:
1 Like
Not a ton. I guess you could toss in that the white kid is on video some days prior pining away about his desire to shoot some folks.
Mostly people are raging at the laws that got Zimmerman and now Rittenhouse off.
Personally I think everyone absolutely and especially including cops should have a duty to retreat where safe and minimize violence. That is obviously not how it works now.
I’m not a lawyer and I’m genuinely disgusted with both the laws and the lawyers as a group.
Rittenhouse retreated from each person he shot before shooting. He was chased and/or attacked by all 3.
1 Like