Trials

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I watched as much as I could of both trials (I get too sucked up in this stuff) and am joyous to say both juries nailed it. For all the rhetoric going around, taunts, threats, hate, etc, American justice, however imperfect, and it's imperfect, is still the best in the world.

My only small amount of uncertainly was the first trial and the extra shots Rosenbaum received on the way down, but that's too easy to second guess when you aren't in that situation which is literally a micro second to analyze and act. But again, for all the heat and name calling that went on, these two juries and American justice prevailed.

Well done and may all involved have a well deserved Thanksgiving.

 

[HalO'Thane]

I watched as much as I could of both trials (I get too sucked up in this stuff) and am joyous to say both juries nailed it. For all the rhetoric going around, taunts, threats, hate, etc, American justice, however imperfect, and it's imperfect, is still the best in the world.

My only small amount of uncertainly was the first trial and the extra shots Rosenbaum received on the way down, but that's too easy to second guess when you aren't in that situation which is literally a micro second to analyze and act. But again, for all the heat and name calling that went on, these two juries and American justice prevailed.

Well done and may all involved have a well deserved Thanksgiving.

I had a chance to serve on jury duty recently. It gave me a newfound respect for our criminal justice system. For all the toxicity and polarization that you hear about in the media, it was refreshing to see firsthand how meticulous and thoughtful the criminal justice process actually is. The jurors that I served with took the process very seriously. It was pretty cool to see people of all walks of life coming together to discuss a serious case rationally and meticulously. FWIW, it was an almost all white jury that acquited a black defendant of some pretty serious charges; and justifiably so. In this particular case at least his race didn’t matter. Just the facts.

 

[MirrorTodd]

What trials? There's at 2 recent ones that I can think of.

 

[coffeebythelake]

What trials? There's at 2 recent ones that I can think of.

I think he is referring to the ones in Kenosha and Georgia. Both were about vigilantism. While I don't agree with the acquittal in the former, the part I did not agree with is he stupidly brought a weapon and created the situation in which he would later claim self defense.

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

Imagine if video weren't available in each case. Very good chance you would have gotten the wrong outcome in both. I don't know what's worse, your killers getting off or you being falsely convicted of murder.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Mr. Bryan was the least culpable of the 3 men but still guilty. I am curious as to how long he will get in Prison. Mr. Bryan did commit a felony and that is why the jury convicted him on felony murder even though he didn't actually kill or participate in the killing of Mr. Arbery. In most other states I would think Mr. Bryan may get a manslaughter charge or murder 3.


Prosecutors have said that they intend to seek life in prison without parole for the three defendants. The date of their sentencing has not yet been scheduled.

3 white men are found guilty of murder in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery

Travis McMichael; his father, Greg; and their neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan all faced nine criminal counts in Georgia state court, including felony murder, aggravated assault and false imprisonment.

www.npr.org

Georgia has a very broad “party to a crime” law. “That means if you aid or abet in any way a person who’s about to commit a homicide, you can be charged as the principal,” Carlson said.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Imagine if video weren't available in each case. Very good chance you would have gotten the wrong outcome in both. I don't know what's worse, your killers getting off or you being falsely convicted of murder.

What is worse is if you use your own cellphone to record the murder and then give it to the police; the prosecutor then uses your video to convict you of murder.

 

[deleted126335]

What is worse is if you use your own cellphone to record the murder and then give it to the police; the prosecutor then uses your video to convict you of murder.

It shows how fundamentally different some people operate and view the world. He probably thought that his actions were reasonable and defensible and that the video would be helpful to establish that. Sobering.

 

[IMGASMD]

I had a chance to serve on jury duty recently. It gave me a newfound respect for our criminal justice system. For all the toxicity and polarization that you hear about in the media, it was refreshing to see firsthand how meticulous and thoughtful the criminal justice process actually is. The jurors that I served with took the process very seriously. It was pretty cool to see people of all walks of life coming together to discuss a serious case rationally and meticulously. FWIW, it was an almost all white jury that acquited a black defendant of some pretty serious charges; and justifiably so. In this particular case at least his race didn’t matter. Just the facts.

I’ve always assumed that most lawyers wouldn’t allow a medical professional, let alone a doctor to sit in a jury. One of our admins was very proud to get off, because she knows the medical experts admins or knows of the doctor in the community.


Been called to a jury a few times, while in med school and residency. Every time was pretty happy to get out of it. I will only assume, by the time they see me or my name, they would just let me off. (100% Asian).

Happy to know that they actually let smart people to sit in a jury.

 

[HalO'Thane]

I’ve always assumed that most lawyers wouldn’t allow a medical professional, let alone a doctor to sit in a jury. One of our admins was very proud to get off, because she knows the medical experts admins or knows of the doctor in the community.


Been called to a jury a few times, while in med school and residency. Every time was pretty happy to get out of it. I will only assume, by the time they see me or my name, they would just let me off. (100% Asian).

Happy to know that they actually let smart people to sit in a jury.

Although I was the only doctor on the jury I was pretty impressed by the intelligence of everyone I served with. Maybe I just got lucky? Not sure about doctors being exempt unless it is a medically related case.

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

It shows how fundamentally different some people operate and view the world. He probably thought that his actions were reasonable and defensible and that the video would be helpful to establish that. Sobering.

That was exactly his reasoning. Greg McMichael thought the video would clear them. He expected it to put an end to all the talk and rumors going around and in a positive way. Man was he way off.

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

The part I did not agree with is he stupidly brought a weapon and created the situation in which he would later claim self defense.

I wouldn't have gone there, I wouldn't carry an AR, and I do think it was a bit "stupid" despite what were obviously good intentions by the kid. I'm also not 17 and "stupid," though once was.

But stupid is not against the law, and you also can't convict someone because he broke laws that don't exist but some may wish did (ie, open carry of AR15 in a riot zone).

All the anarchy and legal but maybe dumb choices made aside, do you have the lawful right to defend yourself after retreating has failed against four bums with extensive criminal records that unprovoked are out to seriously hurt you and probably kill you? That's a sad day in America if we ever lose that right.

 

[DoctwoB]

This case illustrates the difference between legal and moral/right. The jury made the right decision with acquittal under the law. It is also reprehensible to arm yourself to the teeth and place yourself unnecessarily in a situation where violence is likely. This is also why control of guns/high capacity semi automatics is important. I fully agree that guns don’t kill people, people do. But guns allow for escalation of many situations that otherwise need not have escalated.

 

[DazedWanderer]

I think he is referring to the ones in Kenosha and Georgia. Both were about vigilantism. While I don't agree with the acquittal in the former, the part I did not agree with is he stupidly brought a weapon and created the situation in which he would later claim self defense.

Doing something foolish and dangerous does not necessarily make it illegal. It is completely legal to open carry an AR-15 at a protest in Wisconsin. Kid was an absolute fool to not foresee something like this potentially happening, but ultimately he broke no laws and there was no time where he provoked or threatened anyone before being attacked first. You can argue all you want that carrying a rifle at a protest SHOULD be illegal, but it isn't. It is however, totally illegal to attack and attempt to disarm someone simply because they are carrying a rifle at a protest. Jury got this one right from a legal standpoint. Again, what you think should or should not be legal with regard to open carry is completely irrelevant to what IS legal.

 

[deleted875186]

Doing something foolish and dangerous does not necessarily make it illegal. It is completely legal to open carry an AR-15 at a protest in Wisconsin. Kid was an absolute fool to not foresee something like this potentially happening, but ultimately he broke no laws and there was no time where he provoked or threatened anyone before being attacked first. You can argue all you want that carrying a rifle at a protest SHOULD be illegal, but it isn't. It is however, totally illegal to attack and attempt to disarm someone simply because they are carrying a rifle at a protest. Jury got this one right from a legal standpoint. Again, what you think should or should not be legal with regard to open carry is completely irrelevant to what IS legal.

I think the self defense law needs to be updated. Even if we accept that it is legal to carry a rifle in public like he did, you should not be able to claim self defense when you helped create the dangerous situation. He stated he was afraid they would take his gun and kill him, his gun was the danger in the situation, this is in no way self defense. Should at least be manslaughter.

I also think half the country applauding the kid as a hero is insulting, disgusting, and totally unethical. Makes me want to move to another country.

 

[deleted87051]

I think the self defense law needs to be updated. Even if we accept that it is legal to carry a rifle in public like he did, you should not be able to claim self defense when you helped create the dangerous situation. He stated he was afraid they would take his gun and kill him, his gun was the danger in the situation, this is in no way self defense. Should at least be manslaughter.

I also think half the country applauding the kid as a hero is insulting, disgusting, and totally unethical. Makes me want to move to another country.

I think Rittenhouse was a ******* for even being there. But if you watch the video, Rittenhouse was retreating and Rosenbaum was advancing on him in a threatening manner. It’s too bad that a mentally ill man was killed but in that moment a plausible argument could be made for self defense.

 

[deleted875186]

I think Rittenhouse was a ******* for even being there. But if you watch the video, Rittenhouse was retreating and Rosenbaum was advancing on him in a threatening manner. It’s too bad that a mentally ill man was killed but in that moment a plausible argument could be made for self defense.

Yes, I think we all agree that murder is too harsh given what happened, but some lesser charge would have been justice.

 

[pgg]

Yes, I think we all agree that murder is too harsh given what happened, but some lesser charge would have been justice.

Like what?

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

I think Rittenhouse was a ******* for even being there. But if you watch the video, Rittenhouse was retreating and Rosenbaum was advancing on him in a threatening manner. It’s too bad that a mentally ill man was killed but in that moment a plausible argument could be made for self defense.

I agree with you, but also feel the bigger a******s are the politicians that don't allow police and national guard to do their job of protecting people and property so citizens won't take this upon themselves. This let's do away with law enforcement and rely on people's self responsibility isn't working out very well.

 

[deleted875186]

Like what?

Manslaughter

Like what?

i don’t know, manslaughter, something. What is the step down from murder?

 

[pgg]

Manslaughter

i don’t know, manslaughter, something. What is the step down from murder?

The problem is that as dumb as KR was, he didn't actually commit any crimes.

Bad judgment, sure. Anyone who puts himself in the vicinity of a mob, whether he's part of the mob, sympathetic to it, or opposed to it, is dumb. Being dumb isn't a crime though.

He was obviously going to be acquitted from the start, once a defense was presented in a courtroom with rules. The entire prosecution was a farce.

 

[deleted126335]

He was obviously going to be acquitted from the start, once a defense was presented in a courtroom with rules.

That’s what I was expecting. But, there were a large number of people who were truly surprised this happened.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

That’s what I was expecting. But, there were a large number of people who were truly surprised this happened.

As cooler heads and those being logical in terms of the law in the jury prevailed, legally this was not guilty. But I really thought you’d get one (or more?) holdouts on the jury that said “how can this be self defense if he went into an unsafe environment with a gun and arguably make the situation more volatile?” I thought that would lead to a hung jury.

 

[ChiDO]

As cooler heads and those being logical in terms of the law in the jury prevailed, legally this was not guilty. But I really thought you’d get one (or more?) holdouts on the jury that said “how can this be self defense if he went into an unsafe environment with a gun and arguably make the situation more volatile?” I thought that would lead to a hung jury.

But that's not against the law. Was it a completely dumb situation.. Yes. But what happened was not illegal.

Correct verdict in both cases. KR is about to become a rich man after all the lawsuits he wins.

 

[MirrorTodd]

I didn't follow it too closely, but was under the impression that he crossed state lines with a firearm that he didn't own. Is that not illegal? Or maybe there was more to the story? I remember driving up from bama to Maryland with my guns in the back of the uhaul and assumed I'd be arrested if I was ever stopped and searched for any reason.

 

[deleted875186]

I didn't follow it too closely, but was under the impression that he crossed state lines with a firearm that he didn't own. Is that not illegal? Or maybe there was more to the story? I remember driving up from bama to Maryland with my guns in the back of the uhaul and assumed I'd be arrested if I was ever stopped and searched for any reason.

Apparently the guy who gave him the gun brought it across state lines. And apparently the underage possession of a gun charge was thrown out because of a technicality of how long the rifle barrel was.

 

[deleted875186]

But that's not against the law. Was it a completely dumb situation.. Yes. But what happened was not illegal.

Correct verdict in both cases. KR is about to become a rich man after all the lawsuits he wins.

What lawsuit are we talking about? His bail money?

 

[deleted126335]

But that's not against the law. Was it a completely dumb situation.. Yes. But what happened was not illegal.

Correct verdict in both cases. KR is about to become a rich man after all the lawsuits he wins.

Doubtful. He will also be facing civil lawsuits from the person that he wounded and the families of the people that he killed. The standard for civil trials is quite different. Ask OJ or Bernard Goetz.

 

[pgg]

Doubtful. He will also be facing civil lawsuits from the person that he wounded and the families of the people that he killed. The standard for civil trials is quite different. Ask OJ or Bernard Goetz.

KR is going to be just fine, at least until the next dumb thing he does catches up to him, Zimmerman style. I suspect we haven't seen the last of him.

So far it looks like the family members' strategy might be to sue the city and the police, not KR. I'd still expect them to sue him, but maybe they won't.

Although the standard for civil suits is different than in criminal trials, it's undeniable that a "not guilty" verdict is a favorable starting point for him. It's different than the OJ case too, since everyone with an even number of chromosomes knew he killed Ron and Nicole in a fit of spiteful hateful rage, and that he got away with it. That's worlds different than a defendant who can just say "yeah I shot three people who were trying to kill me" ... especially since in a civil suit they'll get to talk about what kind of model citizens the deceased and bicep-deficient people in this story aren't.

Last, given that a sizeable chunk of the country is supportive of KR's actions, even to the point of viewing him in hero terms, I suspect that even if he's found liable in civil court his attorney fees and any award will be paid for him.


Maybe the lesson here is simpler - don't chase after, assault, and swing skateboards at a guy with a rifle, regardless of why the guy is there. I'm having trouble getting emotionally worked up over either the outcome of the altercation in Kenosha or this trial. Stupid games, stupid prizes.

Gary Larsen printed some educational materials on this a few decades ago ...

That's Kyle standing on the corner there.

 

[deleted875186]

KR is going to be just fine, at least until the next dumb thing he does catches up to him, Zimmerman style. I suspect we haven't seen the last of him.

So far it looks like the family members' strategy might be to sue the city and the police, not KR. I'd still expect them to sue him, but maybe they won't.

Although the standard for civil suits is different than in criminal trials, it's undeniable that a "not guilty" verdict is a favorable starting point for him. It's different than the OJ case too, since everyone with an even number of chromosomes knew he killed Ron and Nicole in a fit of spiteful hateful rage, and that he got away with it. That's worlds different than a defendant who can just say "yeah I shot three people who were trying to kill me" ... especially since in a civil suit they'll get to talk about what kind of model citizens the deceased and bicep-deficient people in this story aren't.

Last, given that a sizeable chunk of the country is supportive of KR's actions, even to the point of viewing him in hero terms, I suspect that even if he's found liable in civil court his attorney fees and any award will be paid for him.


Maybe the lesson here is simpler - don't chase after, assault, and swing skateboards at a guy with a rifle, regardless of why the guy is there. I'm having trouble getting emotionally worked up over either the outcome of the altercation in Kenosha or this trial. Stupid games, stupid prizes.

Gary Larsen printed some educational materials on this a few decades ago ...

That's Kyle standing on the corner there.

How can the outcome of the KR case not upset you.

If someone brings a gun to a protest, regardless of the reason, and some altercation happens and the person shoots another person, even if we accept it was in self defense. Now some other protesters attack him because they think he’s an active shooter, they think he’s goin got kill them. The shooter starts shooting because he’s being attacked. Both parties can claim self defense. You would like to live in a world were this dangerous scenario is allowed to play out, both parties have a legal right to kill the other, all because we think some idiot can carry an assault rifle around trying to intimidate other people.

Context matters, even if the legal system refuses to consider it with regards to the stand your ground law.

 

[drmwvr]

KR is going to be just fine, at least until the next dumb thing he does catches up to him, Zimmerman style. I suspect we haven't seen the last of him.

So far it looks like the family members' strategy might be to sue the city and the police, not KR. I'd still expect them to sue him, but maybe they won't.

Although the standard for civil suits is different than in criminal trials, it's undeniable that a "not guilty" verdict is a favorable starting point for him. It's different than the OJ case too, since everyone with an even number of chromosomes knew he killed Ron and Nicole in a fit of spiteful hateful rage, and that he got away with it. That's worlds different than a defendant who can just say "yeah I shot three people who were trying to kill me" ... especially since in a civil suit they'll get to talk about what kind of model citizens the deceased and bicep-deficient people in this story aren't.

Last, given that a sizeable chunk of the country is supportive of KR's actions, even to the point of viewing him in hero terms, I suspect that even if he's found liable in civil court his attorney fees and any award will be paid for him.


Maybe the lesson here is simpler - don't chase after, assault, and swing skateboards at a guy with a rifle, regardless of why the guy is there. I'm having trouble getting emotionally worked up over either the outcome of the altercation in Kenosha or this trial. Stupid games, stupid prizes.

Gary Larsen printed some educational materials on this a few decades ago ...

That's Kyle standing on the corner there.

There was a case in an Idaho shopping mall recently where a guy was 'open carrying' (legal there) and an unarmed mall security agent confronted him about it...the agent and two others ended up dead....the cartoon brought that to mind.

 

[pgg]

How can the outcome of the KR case not upset you.

If someone brings a gun to a protest, regardless of the reason, and some altercation happens and the person shoots another person, even if we accept it was in self defense. Now some other protesters attack him because they think he’s an active shooter, they think he’s goin got kill them. The shooter starts shooting because he’s being attacked. Both parties can claim self defense. You would like to live in a world were this dangerous scenario is allowed to play out, both parties have a legal right to kill the other, all because we think some idiot can carry an assault rifle around trying to intimidate other people.

Context matters, even if the legal system refuses to consider it with regards to the stand your ground law.

It doesn't upset me because he didn't break any laws, and there's no evidence that he provoked or even attempted to intimidate anyone, beyond merely being present, picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, and standing around (foolishly) with a rifle.


If you want to argue that open carry of firearms at peaceable assemblies of people seeking redress from their government shouldn't be allowed, we can have that conversation and maybe find some common ground, maybe.

If you want to argue that a 17 year old shouldn't be able to carry a firearm in public, outside of adult-supervised hunting, competition, training, or recreational shooting scenarios, we could find even more common ground.

We could also maybe discuss just how peaceful this assembly was or wasn't in the minutes/hours immediately preceding the shooting, but I suspect we'd find less common ground there.

Your hypothetical world in which "both parties have a legal right to kill the other" is also incongruent with what actually happened; three individuals were clearly the aggressors with no right to kill anyone, and one individual repeatedly attempted to disengage and leave, eventually firing only enough to stop his attackers. I think KR made a dumb decision to be there, but his trigger discipline was arguably excellent. And a jury agreed.


Context matters? It sure does. It doesn't upset me because the people who chased and assaulted him were a trio of violent felons.

• Rosenbaum (deceased), a convicted sex offender who raped five boys between the ages of 9 and 11, who wasn't exactly a model prisoner (42 infractions while incarcerated, mostly for assaulting staff). Still had an open case for bail jumping, and a pair of open domestic abuse cases.
• Huber (deceased), convicted of domestic violence, use of a dangerous weapon, strangulation, suffocation, false imprisonment ... then after release, while on probation, another conviction of domestic abuse, disorderly conduct, and battery. At least ten periods of incarceration in Wisconsin.
• Grosskreutz (minus a bicep), a felon illegally carrying a gun, previously convicted of felony burglary, criminal trespass, among other charges. Had at least one felony conviction expunged from his record.

The context here is that these three deplorable human beings went looking for a fight, and they found one. I'm totally not upset at all with these guys getting shot while assaulting someone.

 

[pgg]

There was a case in an Idaho shopping mall recently where a guy was 'open carrying' (legal there) and an unarmed mall security agent confronted him about it...the agent and two others ended up dead....the cartoon brought that to mind.

I'd actually agree that open carry of firearms, especially semi-auto black rifles, is unwise under most circumstances. I often carry a concealed handgun, but even in places where open carry is legal, I do not and would not open carry. It draws attention, and I'm not an attention seeker. It would alert potential aggressors that I'm armed, and perhaps make me a target, which is the opposite of what a sane person wants.

The Constitution clearly protects a right to carry a weapon. Historically, this has generally meant open carry, though as the times have changed and culture has changed, it could be argued that concealed carry is the wiser way to exercise that right. SCOTUS just heard oral arguments in NYSRPA vs Bruen, so we'll probably get a ruling on open & concealed carry rights around the end of the term (June 2022).

 

[POW16]

Ah I thought this was another thread about the REGAIN trial.

 

[deleted875186]

It doesn't upset me because he didn't break any laws, and there's no evidence that he provoked or even attempted to intimidate anyone, beyond merely being present, picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, and standing around (foolishly) with a rifle.


If you want to argue that open carry of firearms at peaceable assemblies of people seeking redress from their government, we can have that conversation and maybe find some common ground, maybe.

If you want to argue that a 17 year old shouldn't be able to carry a firearm in public, outside of adult-supervised hunting, competition, training, or recreational shooting scenarios, we could find even more common ground.

We could also maybe discuss just how peaceful this assembly was or wasn't in the minutes/hours immediately preceding the shooting, but I suspect we'd find less common ground there.

Your hypothetical world in which "both parties have a legal right to kill the other" is also incongruent with what actually happened; three individuals were clearly the aggressors with no right to kill anyone, and one individual repeatedly attempted to disengage and leave, eventually firing only enough to stop his attackers. I think KR made a dumb decision to be there, but his trigger discipline was arguably excellent. And a jury agreed.


Context matters? It sure does. It doesn't upset me because the people who chased and assaulted him were a trio of violent felons.

• Rosenbaum (deceased), a convicted sex offender who raped five boys between the ages of 9 and 11, who wasn't exactly a model prisoner (42 infractions while incarcerated, mostly for assaulting staff). Still had an open case for bail jumping, and a pair of open domestic abuse cases.
• Huber (deceased), convicted of domestic violence, use of a dangerous weapon, strangulation, suffocation, false imprisonment ... then after release, while on probation, another conviction of domestic abuse, disorderly conduct, and battery. At least ten periods of incarceration in Wisconsin.
• Grosskreutz (minus a bicep), a felon illegally carrying a gun, previously convicted of felony burglary, criminal trespass, among other charges. Had at least one felony conviction expunged from his record.

The context here is that these three deplorable human beings went looking for a fight, and they found one. I'm totally not upset at all with these guys getting shot while assaulting someone.

Tell me, what is the purpose of carrying a large rifle in public like this? It is only to intimidate and impose fear in other people. No reasonable person could argue it’s for protection. Just like all the other insane people carrying rifles at voting lines, protests, etc, it’s only to intimidate.

If he hadn’t brought a rifle all these people would be alive. Can’t change facts. Just because the self defense law doesn’t allow the jury to take into account any facts other than what the person was thinking in that moment when he killed the person, doesn’t mean what he did was ok.

Just because he didn’t do anything illegal prior to the shooting doesn’t make it ok, it’s just a technicality in the way the self defense law is written.

 

[deleted87051]

It doesn't upset me because he didn't break any laws, and there's no evidence that he provoked or even attempted to intimidate anyone, beyond merely being present, picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, and standing around (foolishly) with a rifle.


If you want to argue that open carry of firearms at peaceable assemblies of people seeking redress from their government shouldn't be allowed, we can have that conversation and maybe find some common ground, maybe.

If you want to argue that a 17 year old shouldn't be able to carry a firearm in public, outside of adult-supervised hunting, competition, training, or recreational shooting scenarios, we could find even more common ground.

We could also maybe discuss just how peaceful this assembly was or wasn't in the minutes/hours immediately preceding the shooting, but I suspect we'd find less common ground there.

Your hypothetical world in which "both parties have a legal right to kill the other" is also incongruent with what actually happened; three individuals were clearly the aggressors with no right to kill anyone, and one individual repeatedly attempted to disengage and leave, eventually firing only enough to stop his attackers. I think KR made a dumb decision to be there, but his trigger discipline was arguably excellent. And a jury agreed.


Context matters? It sure does. It doesn't upset me because the people who chased and assaulted him were a trio of violent felons.

• Rosenbaum (deceased), a convicted sex offender who raped five boys between the ages of 9 and 11, who wasn't exactly a model prisoner (42 infractions while incarcerated, mostly for assaulting staff). Still had an open case for bail jumping, and a pair of open domestic abuse cases.
• Huber (deceased), convicted of domestic violence, use of a dangerous weapon, strangulation, suffocation, false imprisonment ... then after release, while on probation, another conviction of domestic abuse, disorderly conduct, and battery. At least ten periods of incarceration in Wisconsin.
• Grosskreutz (minus a bicep), a felon illegally carrying a gun, previously convicted of felony burglary, criminal trespass, among other charges. Had at least one felony conviction expunged from his record.

The context here is that these three deplorable human beings went looking for a fight, and they found one. I'm totally not upset at all with these guys getting shot while assaulting someone.

I don’t even care about their backgrounds. I’m sad that 2 people were killed and another was injured. But if someone whacks you with a skateboard or points a gun at you, you have a right not to get killed. Rittenhouse only had a few bad options after he was attacked.

 

[pgg]

Tell me, what is the purpose of carrying a large rifle in public like this? It is only to intimidate and impose fear in other people.

You're pretending that deterrence isn't a legal and morally justifiable purpose. Especially in the context 😉 of a place where there have been ongoing riots, vandalism, and property damage.

If one's right to armed self defense somehow doesn't apply in such a place, it doesn't apply anywhere.

No reasonable person could argue it’s for protection.

I would argue EXACTLY that.

Just like all the other insane people carrying rifles at voting lines, protests, etc, it’s only to intimidate.

Totally agree with you here. There's a reason we have laws that prohibit even mostly-benign stuff like handing out pamphlets or refreshments at polling stations. Clearly there's no security issue there, and those things are done specifically to influence or intimidate voters.

If KR had been open carrying a rifle outside a polling station on election day, we'd be having a different conversation. Or perhaps no conversation at all, because the police would've come and arrested him for that crime, and it never would've hit the news.

If he hadn’t brought a rifle all these people would be alive. Can’t change facts.

There are so, so many variations of the "IF game" we could play ...

If they hadn't assaulted him, they'd be alive.

If he hadn't brought a rifle, maybe he would be getting discharged to a SNF about now to start the next phase of his rehab after his curb-stomping TBI.

If he hadn't been there at all, maybe the Molotov cocktail that was thrown at him would've been thrown at a building instead, and someone would've lost a business to arson.

If if if if if ...

Again, let's remember who the players are here: three violent convicted felons and a dumb 17 year old with no criminal record who was there in a (however foolish and misguided) attempt to deter property damage.

Just because the self defense law doesn’t allow the jury to take into account any facts other than what the person was thinking in that moment when he killed the person, doesn’t mean what he did was ok.

Just because he didn’t do anything illegal prior to the shooting doesn’t make it ok, it’s just a technicality in the way the self defense law is written.

Au contraire, shooting those guys after they attacked him was absolutely OK. A jury of 12 even agreed in unanimous fashion after listening to a vigorous argument from the prosecution.

If you want to say that every death is a tragedy, sure, I'll go along with that. I won't disagree that those three led tragic lives.

 

[pgg]

I don’t even care about their backgrounds. I’m sad that 2 people were killed and another was injured. But if someone whacks you with a skateboard or points a gun at you, you have a right not to get killed. Rittenhouse only had a few bad options after he was attacked.

I'm sad in a sort of abstract way, in that on a certain level, all violent deaths are tragic in some way. I wish those three people had just been peaceful protestors, who'd reformed their wayward ways, learned from their mistakes, paid their debts to society, and become born-again good citizens. I wish they'd chosen not to continue their chosen paths through life, committing the additional violent felonies that led to their deaths and injury.

I care very much about their backgrounds, not from a place of victim-blaming, but because it speaks volumes about who they were, why they were there, and why they did the things that led to their deaths. Some people like to wring their hands about "senseless" deaths. I prefer to understand them, and there's no understanding a person's death if you pretend they didn't live a life up until that death.

 

[drmwvr]

I'd actually agree that open carry of firearms, especially semi-auto black rifles, is unwise under most circumstances. I often carry a concealed handgun, but even in places where open carry is legal, I do not and would not open carry. It draws attention, and I'm not an attention seeker. It would alert potential aggressors that I'm armed, and perhaps make me a target, which is the opposite of what a sane person wants.

Well, that was certainly the case with the open carrier...he ended up dead too.

 

[DazedWanderer]

I think the self defense law needs to be updated. Even if we accept that it is legal to carry a rifle in public like he did, you should not be able to claim self defense when you helped create the dangerous situation. He stated he was afraid they would take his gun and kill him, his gun was the danger in the situation, this is in no way self defense. Should at least be manslaughter.

I also think half the country applauding the kid as a hero is insulting, disgusting, and totally unethical. Makes me want to move to another country.

How did he help create the dangerous situation? By simply arming himself at a protest? It's already been established that merely open-carrying a rifle, including at a protest, does not constitute incitement, provocation, or any other crime under current Wisconsin law. Everyone carrying guns around inherently creates dangerous situations, yes. But in many places in America it is totally legal to do so, and thus you can't argue that merely exercising your right to carry a gun makes you culpable of "creating a dangerous situation" from a legal standpoint. You might want this sort of thing to be illegal, and I know many people do. And in basically every other country it is illegal. But in Wisconsin it isn't. And therefore you cannot ask for a guilty verdict. Wanting someone to be jailed *regardless* of them having not broken any laws is called mob justice, and it's the kind of thinking that brought us witch trials and lynch mobs. If you don't like the outcome here you should be advocating for the laws to be changed, not to find him guilty and thrown in jail despite not breaking the law.

 

[LivetoTell]

Watch the full video.

Horrifying moment gun-wielding Texas man shoots dead partner's ex

The incident in Lubbock, Texas on November 5 centred around a custody dispute over the children of Chad Read and his ex-wife Christina Read.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

KR is about to become a rich man after all the lawsuits he wins.

A very very rich man. I think we can even throw them W word around (ie, Wealthy). Dozens and dozens of dopes and organizations throwing around white supremacy recklessly and relentlessly without even a shread of evidence.

Rittenhouse will make Nicholas Sandmann look poor.

 

[pgg]

Watch the full video.

Horrifying moment gun-wielding Texas man shoots dead partner's ex

The incident in Lubbock, Texas on November 5 centred around a custody dispute over the children of Chad Read and his ex-wife Christina Read.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I don't know about Texas, but in most states, Carruth probably doesn't have much of a defense. He broke contact, went into the house. No imminent threat or danger at that point. Then he came back outside with the gun. That's going to be a hard sell as self-defense, since he was safe until he chose to go back outside to escalate the argument again.

Also, he fired a warning shot into the ground. Warning shots are legally lethal force; if employed it suggests the shooter didn't really feel like he was in imminent danger.

Plenty of stupid to go around in that video. Most places I'd put money on him getting convicted. But, Texas.

 

[deleted875186]

I don't know about Texas, but in most states, Carruth probably doesn't have much of a defense. He broke contact, went into the house. No imminent threat or danger at that point. Then he came back outside with the gun. That's going to be a hard sell as self-defense, since he was safe until he chose to go back outside to escalate the argument again.

Also, he fired a warning shot into the ground. Warning shots are legally lethal force; if employed it suggests the shooter didn't really feel like he was in imminent danger.

Plenty of stupid to go around in that video. Most places I'd put money on him getting convicted. But, Texas.

Perhaps I don’t quite understand, but based on our conversation of the KR situation, sounds like this guy had a right to carry a rifle out to the front porch, after all he didn’t expect to shoot anyone, and everyone seems to think anyone can carry a gun into any situation because it’s legal. He could even say he thought the other guy was going to come attack him in his house? He shot the guy only after they got into a physical alteration, he could say the same thing as KR, he thought his gun was going to get taken away from him. From my understanding of the Wisconsin stand your ground bulls**t, the jury cannot consider past events that led up to the conflict unless the person was doing something unlawful. It’s the exact same situation as the KR trial, just looks worse because there is no violent protesters.

If you argue that KR could bring a gun into a protest because he has a right to defend himself, then by the same arguement this guy has a right to carry the gun to his front porch.

To me, both people should have the foresight to know that bringing the gun is only putting themselves in more danger.

 

[pgg]

Perhaps I don’t quite understand, but based on our conversation of the KR situation, sounds like this guy had a right to carry a rifle out to the front porch, after all he didn’t expect to shoot anyone, and everyone seems to think anyone can carry a gun into any situation because it’s legal. He could even say he thought the other guy was going to come attack him in his house? He shot the guy only after they got into a physical alteration, he could say the same thing as KR, he thought his gun was going to get taken away from him. From my understanding of the Wisconsin stand your ground bulls**t, the jury cannot consider past events that led up to the conflict unless the person was doing something unlawful. It’s the exact same situation as the KR trial, just looks worse because there is no violent protesters.

If you argue that KR could bring a gun into a protest because he has a right to defend himself, then by the same arguement this guy has a right to carry the gun to his front porch.

The difference - and this is crucial - is that the clown in Texas was engaged in an altercation, left to get a weapon, came back from a place of safety, and then shot the guy.

That is fundamentally not the same, and completely indefensible. KR fleeing attackers and only shooting them after he couldn't get away and they assaulted him, is completely different.

To me, both people should have the foresight to know that bringing the gun is only putting themselves in more danger.

We agree that they're both dumb. One was not committing a crime though, and one probably is. Texas is weird, but in most states this is would be a slam dunk not-a-self-defense prosecution. Maybe in Texas there's some law that permits you to shoot someone if you tell them to get off your property and they don't.

But every single self defense and concealed carry course instructor I've ever encountered made a point of teaching that when you've safely removed yourself from a confrontation, you don't return with a weapon, or you're going to prison. This isn't a gray area. If you return to a fight after retrieving a weapon, you are the aggressor, full stop.

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

Maybe in Texas there's some law that permits you to shoot someone if you tell them to get off your property and they don't.

😂 😂
I can only laugh because being Texas I'm not going to wager against that!

 

[BLADEMDA]

1. The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or they had removed or were attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

As can be seen, section (1) covers conditions when someone is entering or attempting to enter your castle or is removing or attempting to remove you or someone else from your castle; section (2) further requires that you knew this was happening or had reason to know it happened.

If you meet these two requirements, you qualify for Castle Doctrine protection, which is a powerful legal tool for any person who is accused of a crime and claiming justification. The presumption will be further enhanced by having no duty to retreat.

 

[DoctwoB]

A very very rich man. I think we can even throw them W word around (ie, Wealthy). Dozens and dozens of dopes and organizations throwing around white supremacy recklessly and relentlessly without even a shread of evidence.

Rittenhouse will make Nicholas Sandmann look poor.

I’m not sure I see the liability here. The bar to prove defamation or libel is quite high, especially for a public or famous figure which KR became. People writing articles or commenting that he is a murderer, white supremacist etc isn’t enough unless it is demonstrable they knew it to be false.

Now he can choose to be a conservative mascot and make some money on the speaking circuit, but he also has some potential civil liability as mentioned above.

 

[deleted875186]

I’m not sure I see the liability here. The bar to prove defamation or libel is quite high, especially for a public or famous figure which KR became. People writing articles or commenting that he is a murderer, white supremacist etc isn’t enough unless it is demonstrable they knew it to be false.

Now he can choose to be a conservative mascot and make some money on the speaking circuit, but he also has some potential civil liability as mentioned above.

I think he could make some money, but it would be in his best interest to try and get out of the spotlight, I think his life is pretty much ruined from all the coverage.

I don’t think he could win any defamation suits.