Every time an American votes, it is a vote of confidence, and it confirms the US rule of law.
up
2 users have voted.
—
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
When people in a nation stop voting, it signals to the UN and to the rest of the world — in a very public way — that the nation no longer operates with the people's consent and the Democracy has failed. The nation suffers a loss of international credibility and it is labeled as a rogue regime — possibly a military regime.
A shadow falls over the nation's reputation and international confidence in its economy begins to crumble. Its loss of credibility erodes its influence in the world. Its sovereignty can only be restored by becoming a truly representative democracy, where the People have a reason to vote.
By not voting, the people would have a fighting chance to regain their mastery over the state, while voting in current elections merely diminishes their lives and extinguishes their hopes for the future. It can be argued that it is too late for a course correction in the US, and Americans are far too mentally broken and divided from one another to grasp such a strategy. This broken state doomed their ability to contain the pandemic or to enforce climate change in their own nation. The unfortunate consequences of this socio-political paralysis is running headlong toward dystopian devastation. By comparison, an Orwellian outcome would look positively luxurious.
I've watched it descend for a very long time. Individuals have the power to escape their fate through bold, independent action. The window is still open. But the American people, collectively, cannot be saved. They may not be forgiven any time soon for the atrocities they funded. Generations that survive will struggle.
They are both the worst possible ways to make life and death decisions -- except for all the other ways to make life and death decisions.
OJ Simpson, George Zimmerman, ten zillion white murderers of black people since jump -- frustration at juries who acquit defendants that you "know" are guilty is built into the concept of Reasonable Doubt.
I just sampled another "progressive" website and the virtual lynch mobs are working their typing fingers to the bone expressing their disapproval of this decision.
Excuse me while I take a nice nap.
up
9 users have voted.
—
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
The parents of Anthony Huber have issued a statement after the #Rittenhouse verdict: "Today’s verdict means there is no accountability for the person who murdered our son." pic.twitter.com/xTN6E46ITF
I had a different opinion on his guilt at first but that was because of what I read from the mainstream media. They lied about quite a few things that didn’t happen like they said. It was like the Covington kid all over again. He didn’t do what they said he did either. But hopefully the jury got it right. They heard all the facts.
If your opinion about a legal case would be different if the political ideologies of those involved were reversed and all other facts in evidence remained the same, then it's probably best not to pretend your position on the case has anything to do with the facts in evidence.
about Utah law concerning standing your ground and self-defense.
I've stayed away from this issue for all kinds of reasons. But I've respected Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi for calling out the media coverage over the past year.
The article I've linked focuses on the madness of gun rights and gun use in our country, asking the difficult question, even if you have the right to take a gun to a riot in order to protect property, do you have the right to kill someone to protect property?
I know it's not what this trial was about, but it's an interesting question.
Would Kyle Rittenhouse have faced a trial if his case were in Utah? Maybe not. Here’s why
The 1st guy killed chased Kyle and threw a bag at him as Kyle was running away from him. It’s when he got cornered and the guy kept coming at him was when he shot him. That’s all I’ve watched so far. It seems to be self defense tho.
about Utah law concerning standing your ground and self-defense.
I've stayed away from this issue for all kinds of reasons. But I've respected Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi for calling out the media coverage over the past year.
The article I've linked focuses on the madness of gun rights and gun use in our country, asking the difficult question, even if you have the right to take a gun to a riot in order to protect property, do you have the right to kill someone to protect property?
I know it's not what this trial was about, but it's an interesting question.
Would Kyle Rittenhouse have faced a trial if his case were in Utah? Maybe not. Here’s why
I was hoping you would have read the article because I respect your views and I thought there might be some Utah insights others of us might not see.
My position on the Rittenhouse thing is that I'm completely against riots and the destruction of property pretending to somehow speak for social justice, so I somewhat sympathize with anyone wanting to protect private property. That said, I see it as tragically stupid that a 17 year old would bring an automatic weapon to a riot without thinking about what could happen. Did his decision to bring that weapon definitively say he was willing to kill to protect cars? I guess it did.
At the same time, the people who ran at him seem to me to be equally nuts, even if you believe they were trying to protect other people. The whole thing is terrible. We as a country are a danger to ourselves and to others.
The 1st guy killed chased Kyle and threw a bag at him as Kyle was running away from him. It’s when he got cornered and the guy kept coming at him was when he shot him. That’s all I’ve watched so far. It seems to be self defense tho.
I don’t feel good about it and think it has no place in our justice system. I think it would take the place of an evidentiary hearing and it takes place before all the evidence has been gathered.
Under a new state law that took effect in May, a claim of self-defense allows a person charged with a crime involving the unlawful use of force to request a justification hearing in front of a judge up to 28 days before a case goes to trial. The law shifts the decision about whether someone acted in self-defense from a jury to a judge, who might have to rule based on limited pretrial evidence.
In the hearing, prosecutors must prove with clear and convincing evidence — a high legal bar — that the person did not act in self-defense or was not justified in the use of force. If prosecutors are not able to meet that burden of proof, the judge must dismiss the charges with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled.
“What you’re saying is, ‘Judge, the self-defense here is so overwhelming, it shouldn’t even get in front of a jury,’” he said. “It’s no-lose for the defense. It gives you two bites of the apple.”
Shocking that for once I agree with Gill:
In some cases, Gill said the process could lead to charges being dropped as evidence is still being gathered.
It was a riot and many protesters committed arson
My position on the Rittenhouse thing is that I'm completely against riots and the destruction of property pretending to somehow speak for social justice, so I somewhat sympathize with anyone wanting to protect private property. That said, I see it as tragically stupid that a 17 year old would bring an automatic weapon to a riot without thinking about what could happen. Did his decision to bring that weapon definitively say he was willing to kill to protect cars? I guess it did.
Kyle is a paramedic and he also helped with 1st aid. He wasn’t protecting a car when he shot. But I don’t see any reason why citizens should have been armed to help the police because that’s not their job. Cops should have told them to go home instead of welcoming their help. Lots of bad decisions all around I think.
As for what a person quoted in the article he apparently doesn’t know the facts of the case. Kyle wasn’t defending a car lot when he shot the 1st guy. That guy chased Kyle and cornered him and that was why Kyle shot. In another part of the video the guy that got shot in the arm was pointing his gun at Kyle.
The prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse provoked his first victim, 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum. Videotapes show the opposite, that Rosenbaum clearly pursued Rittenhouse. Casual trial observers would be unaware that Rosenbaum was a convicted sex offender who witnesses described as threatening to kill Rittenhouse.
By misrepresenting and not reporting key facts, media increased the likelihood that the acquittal will be read as confirmation of a racist trial in a racist justice system. That fuels the type of rioting that we saw in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob Blake in a scuffling with police. Ironically, that case was also widely misrepresented in much of the media.
The growing disconnect between actual crimes and their coverage is unlikely to change in our age of rage. Rittenhouse had to be convicted to fulfill the narrative and any acquittal had to be evidence of a racist jury picked to carryout racist justice.
That is what occurred in the Rittenhouse trial. The jury stood between a mob and a defendant to see that objective justice was done.
Did anyone watch the video and come to a different conclusion? Lots of people made up their minds to his being guilty just because of what they read and unfortunately the media made up lots of facts to suit their narrative. I know I was guilty of that until I read more from other sources and watched the video. I still think some people are making up facts about the case because of what they think they know. The jury got all the facts and saw the evidence and it’s why they came back with not guilty. But as Gulfgal said, not innocent.
Protests on the verdict turned violent last night in Portland and lots of damage to buildings were done. How does that help? Lots of buildings and cars burned all summer long. Weird how we haven’t heard much about the trials on the people arrested for those crimes. Also weird how cops are still killing black men, but there doesn’t seem to be many protests against it anymore.
I was hoping you would have read the article because I respect your views and I thought there might be some Utah insights others of us might not see.
My position on the Rittenhouse thing is that I'm completely against riots and the destruction of property pretending to somehow speak for social justice, so I somewhat sympathize with anyone wanting to protect private property. That said, I see it as tragically stupid that a 17 year old would bring an automatic weapon to a riot without thinking about what could happen. Did his decision to bring that weapon definitively say he was willing to kill to protect cars? I guess it did.
At the same time, the people who ran at him seem to me to be equally nuts, even if you believe they were trying to protect other people. The whole thing is terrible. We as a country are a danger to ourselves and to others.
up
2 users have voted.
—
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I am not sure if I am the only person here to have sat on a jury for a first degree murder trial, but I am going to speak from my personal experience of having done so.
What we may believe is moral and just is not what a jury is supposed to decide. What a jury is supposed to decide is whether or not the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the charges with which the defendant was charged. In the case of jury I sat on, our verdicts reflected that ideal, not what we believed about the defendants (4 in our case), including one whom every juror I sat with believed was the trigger man, but it was not proven.
Being found not guilty is not being found innocent. However most people believe that not guilty is equal to being innocent and therein lies the real problem we face down the road. From what I understand, Wisconsin is an open carry state. And despite the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was underage to be carrying an automatic weapon, the prosecution dropped that charge against him. The message that will be perceived by the majority of the public is that the state is condoning vigilantism. This is a horrible precedent set by this decision simply because of what people are going to believe.
Kyle Rittenhouse was not the only open carry civilian at the protest, but he was the only person to kill two people and severely injure a third. What does that say about the state of his mind and his lack of maturity for being able to carry a weapon capable of killing another human being? Our open carry laws and the lack of enforcement of underage persons arming themselves with automatic weapons set in motion this tragedy. Also we must remember that Kyle Rittenhouse and others he was marching with were encouraged and congratulated by local law enforcement for showing up armed to this protest. This country needs to look real deep into what we have created with our out of control police state and the vigilantes that they have encouraged.
One last thing. A victim IS a victim, even if that victim has done bad things in the past. It is not up to vigilantes or the cops to act as judge, jury and executioners. It is up to our justice system to decide the punishment.
I am willing to bet that this will not be the last we hear of Kyle Rittenhouse and it will not be in a good way in the future. He was a power hungry kid who came looking for trouble and as a result two people are dead and one permanently injured for the rest of his life.
up
6 users have voted.
—
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
What does that say about the state of his mind and his lack of maturity for being able to carry a weapon capable of killing another human being?
Thanks for a great comment.
I am not sure if I am the only person here to have sat on a jury for a first degree murder trial, but I am going to speak from my personal experience of having done so.
What we may believe is moral and just is not what a jury is supposed to decide. What a jury is supposed to decide is whether or not the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the charges with which the defendant was charged. In the case of jury I sat on, our verdicts reflected that ideal, not what we believed about the defendants (4 in our case), including one whom every juror I sat with believed was the trigger man, but it was not proven.
Being found not guilty is not being found innocent. However most people believe that not guilty is equal to being innocent and therein lies the real problem we face down the road. From what I understand, Wisconsin is an open carry state. And despite the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was underage to be carrying an automatic weapon, the prosecution dropped that charge against him. The message that will be perceived by the majority of the public is that the state is condoning vigilantism. This is a horrible precedent set by this decision simply because of what people are going to believe.
Kyle Rittenhouse was not the only open carry civilian at the protest, but he was the only person to kill two people and severely injure a third. What does that say about the state of his mind and his lack of maturity for being able to carry a weapon capable of killing another human being? Our open carry laws and the lack of enforcement of underage persons arming themselves with automatic weapons set in motion this tragedy. Also we must remember that Kyle Rittenhouse and others he was marching with were encouraged and congratulated by local law enforcement for showing up armed to this protest. This country needs to look real deep into what we have created with our out of control police state and the vigilantes that they have encouraged.
One last thing. A victim IS a victim, even if that victim has done bad things in the past. It is not up to vigilantes or the cops to act as judge, jury and executioners. It is up to our justice system to decide the punishment.
I am willing to bet that this will not be the last we hear of Kyle Rittenhouse and it will not be in a good way in the future. He was a power hungry kid who came looking for trouble and as a result two people are dead and one permanently injured for the rest of his life.
@gulfgal98
and the legal standards you mention are correct.
Self-dense, indicating you are in fear for your safety, or even the safety of some other person, is a winning defense.
Shooting someone to protect property, even yours, is not defensible. Property has no right of protection, unless it is government buildings, etc...
Being put in fear for your safety gets complicated when you are visibly armed with a weapon capable of shooting 10 to 30 times in rapid succession. The guy that got killed after he chased and hit Rittenhouse on the head with a skateboard did the same or similar act that I would have done, in hopes I knocked the kid out, got that weapon from him. Of course, he is dead, so we never get to hear what he was thinking.
Killing an evil person violates the same law as killing a preacher.
There was lots of hype about racism, about property destruction, but none at all about the precedent this sets for future protests. They will be murderous in the future. Count me out, thank you very much.
The second Amendment has taken the lead, putting behind the right to assemble, and the First Amendment.
I expect Rittenhouse to become a cop or, a security guard.
I didn't read much about the trial, had no idea about the protests and the participants. I was just gobsmacked about the stated purpose of protecting property and willingly displaying a gun that, at any time, you are prepared to fire.
I am not sure if I am the only person here to have sat on a jury for a first degree murder trial, but I am going to speak from my personal experience of having done so.
What we may believe is moral and just is not what a jury is supposed to decide. What a jury is supposed to decide is whether or not the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the charges with which the defendant was charged. In the case of jury I sat on, our verdicts reflected that ideal, not what we believed about the defendants (4 in our case), including one whom every juror I sat with believed was the trigger man, but it was not proven.
Being found not guilty is not being found innocent. However most people believe that not guilty is equal to being innocent and therein lies the real problem we face down the road. From what I understand, Wisconsin is an open carry state. And despite the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was underage to be carrying an automatic weapon, the prosecution dropped that charge against him. The message that will be perceived by the majority of the public is that the state is condoning vigilantism. This is a horrible precedent set by this decision simply because of what people are going to believe.
Kyle Rittenhouse was not the only open carry civilian at the protest, but he was the only person to kill two people and severely injure a third. What does that say about the state of his mind and his lack of maturity for being able to carry a weapon capable of killing another human being? Our open carry laws and the lack of enforcement of underage persons arming themselves with automatic weapons set in motion this tragedy. Also we must remember that Kyle Rittenhouse and others he was marching with were encouraged and congratulated by local law enforcement for showing up armed to this protest. This country needs to look real deep into what we have created with our out of control police state and the vigilantes that they have encouraged.
One last thing. A victim IS a victim, even if that victim has done bad things in the past. It is not up to vigilantes or the cops to act as judge, jury and executioners. It is up to our justice system to decide the punishment.
I am willing to bet that this will not be the last we hear of Kyle Rittenhouse and it will not be in a good way in the future. He was a power hungry kid who came looking for trouble and as a result two people are dead and one permanently injured for the rest of his life.
up
6 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
the recent Texas anti abortion law calling on citizens to enforce the law, both as vigilante rule. But of course IANAL, while you are. I do think TPTB are happy to see us at each other’s throats and vigilantes would serve very well. It could just be that I am seeing what isn’t there.
#10 and the legal standards you mention are correct.
Self-dense, indicating you are in fear for your safety, or even the safety of some other person, is a winning defense.
Shooting someone to protect property, even yours, is not defensible. Property has no right of protection, unless it is government buildings, etc...
Being put in fear for your safety gets complicated when you are visibly armed with a weapon capable of shooting 10 to 30 times in rapid succession. The guy that got killed after he chased and hit Rittenhouse on the head with a skateboard did the same or similar act that I would have done, in hopes I knocked the kid out, got that weapon from him. Of course, he is dead, so we never get to hear what he was thinking.
Killing an evil person violates the same law as killing a preacher.
There was lots of hype about racism, about property destruction, but none at all about the precedent this sets for future protests. They will be murderous in the future. Count me out, thank you very much.
The second Amendment has taken the lead, putting behind the right to assemble, and the First Amendment.
I expect Rittenhouse to become a cop or, a security guard.
I didn't read much about the trial, had no idea about the protests and the participants. I was just gobsmacked about the stated purpose of protecting property and willingly displaying a gun that, at any time, you are prepared to fire.
up
6 users have voted.
—
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
@Lily O Lady
The Texas law gives any vigilant observer of an abortion standing to sue one or more of the participants in the procedure. Heretofore, nobody had standing as a plaintiff unless it was the purported father, or family members injured emotionally by the abortion. That has been flipped on its' head.
The magic vigilante law in Texas has nothing to do with guns or violence.
the recent Texas anti abortion law calling on citizens to enforce the law, both as vigilante rule. But of course IANAL, while you are. I do think TPTB are happy to see us at each other’s throats and vigilantes would serve very well. It could just be that I am seeing what isn’t there.
up
2 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
with guns and violence, but it does encourage private citizens to enforce the law. IMO private citizens aren’t properly equipped for law enforcement even as civil litigants. It just seems to have us messing in one another’s business, which seems to be a bad direction.
#10.2.1 The Texas law gives any vigilant observer of an abortion standing to sue one or more of the participants in the procedure. Heretofore, nobody had standing as a plaintiff unless it was the purported father, or family members injured emotionally by the abortion. That has been flipped on its' head.
The magic vigilante law in Texas has nothing to do with guns or violence.
up
4 users have voted.
—
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
with guns and violence, but it does encourage private citizens to enforce the law. IMO private citizens aren’t properly equipped for law enforcement even as civil litigants. It just seems to have us messing in one another’s business, which seems to be a bad direction.
up
2 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
to take the gun from him just because he had one? Is that what you are saying?
I’d like to hear your opinion on the article Linda posted. Isn’t that what evidentiary hearings are for?
#10 and the legal standards you mention are correct.
Self-dense, indicating you are in fear for your safety, or even the safety of some other person, is a winning defense.
Shooting someone to protect property, even yours, is not defensible. Property has no right of protection, unless it is government buildings, etc...
Being put in fear for your safety gets complicated when you are visibly armed with a weapon capable of shooting 10 to 30 times in rapid succession. The guy that got killed after he chased and hit Rittenhouse on the head with a skateboard did the same or similar act that I would have done, in hopes I knocked the kid out, got that weapon from him. Of course, he is dead, so we never get to hear what he was thinking.
Killing an evil person violates the same law as killing a preacher.
There was lots of hype about racism, about property destruction, but none at all about the precedent this sets for future protests. They will be murderous in the future. Count me out, thank you very much.
The second Amendment has taken the lead, putting behind the right to assemble, and the First Amendment.
I expect Rittenhouse to become a cop or, a security guard.
I didn't read much about the trial, had no idea about the protests and the participants. I was just gobsmacked about the stated purpose of protecting property and willingly displaying a gun that, at any time, you are prepared to fire.
up
3 users have voted.
—
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
once disarmed a damn FBI agent who was near killing a friend. Thank God, my Dad had a choke hold on him. Dad and I intervened to save the cop's intended target. I warned the cop if he made any move towards me or another person, I would shoot.
So, it is legal to take an action to prevent the likelihood of someone's imminent death or harm, including using physical force, as I have done
I have never been charged. 2 family members shot an armed man who was shooting at another family member's direction. He was injured, not killed, because my 2 shooting family guys were expert marksmen. They shot the gun he was pointing an another out of his hand, injuring his hand and shoulder. He was reaching for his gun when a cop arrived, put their boot on it. Nobody was charged but the injured guy.
That is the kind of steps that ought to be taken if it can be done as safely as you can make it.
So, yes, I would have taken his head off with a baseball bat, from behind, to keep me and others from getting killed. I would not hesitate.
You’d be brought up on charges. I don’t think it’s legal to attack someone just because they are carrying a gun. Did you watch any of the video?
#10.2.2#10.2.2 once disarmed a damn FBI agent who was near killing a friend. Thank God, my Dad had a choke hold on him. Dad and I intervened to save the cop's intended target. I warned the cop if he made any move towards me or another person, I would shoot.
So, it is legal to take an action to prevent the likelihood of someone's imminent death or harm, including using physical force, as I have done
I have never been charged. 2 family members shot an armed man who was shooting at another family member's direction. He was injured, not killed, because my 2 shooting family guys were expert marksmen. They shot the gun he was pointing an another out of his hand, injuring his hand and shoulder. He was reaching for his gun when a cop arrived, put their boot on it. Nobody was charged but the injured guy.
That is the kind of steps that ought to be taken if it can be done as safely as you can make it.
So, yes, I would have taken his head off with a baseball bat, from behind, to keep me and others from getting killed. I would not hesitate.
up
1 user has voted.
—
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@snoopydawg
Why would I give a shit about this case? I didn't then, and don't now. It is just another case to me.
I was content to let the jury see it. The media was proven to be a propaganda machine by the verdict. I fully accept the verdict, have no problem with it, as it pertains to that case.
In Texas, it would have been legal, not worthy of being killed, if the jury had decided the skate board guy was trying to prevent someone getting shot.
Why anybody thinks I am taking the media's side on this, when I didn't know why people were protesting until after the verdict, is beyond me. I read virtually nothing.
The ONLY issue I have is ANYBODY going to a protest armed to the hilt. It brings violence and death, in no way prevents it.
@snoopydawg
It happens early, pre-indictment.
The burden for the state is very low, and it is done before a justice of the peace or whatever judge set the bond.
I have never heard of any case where a Defense won, but it is an excellent way to gather evidence for the defense, if any exists at that moment, and helps prepare you for the trial down the road.
While I love to see anything helpful for a Defendant, this law in Utah has some consequences that the general public, over time, will come to hate.
Not sure what the impetus for it was for the state legislature to do that. Try to remember any time government pushed a law that favored a criminal defendant, anywhere, in any state.
It is officially open season on protesters, I will no longer be attending protests.
I can get dead by gun violence in my own home, when the cops turn up to SWAT a neighbor. I don’t need to go out and expose myself to vigilantes. And, in an open-carry state, they are everywhere.
I do not own a gun. But there will be more gunfire, now. Count on it. I hope that it does not cause anyone any inconvenience.
because Wisconsin is a state in which it is legal to bring a semi-automatic weapon to a riot. I agree with you that this is an insane situation. But it didn't happen suddenly as a result of this verdict. The verdict was reached because in Wisconsin it is legal for him to carry that weapon and to use it if he felt seriously threatened.
I completely identify with you by saying my husband and I no longer go to peace marches because of Antifa violence from a few years ago, violence involving baseball bats and other other weapons used to inflict serious, potentially fatal harm to demonstrators they disagreed with. If I'm carrying a sign saying LEFTIST FOR FREE SPEECH, I'm liable to get clocked by both sides. So, yeah, I agree with you. It's not safe out there.
It is officially open season on protesters, I will no longer be attending protests.
I can get dead by gun violence in my own home, when the cops turn up to SWAT a neighbor. I don’t need to go out and expose myself to vigilantes. And, in an open-carry state, they are everywhere.
I do not own a gun. But there will be more gunfire, now. Count on it. I hope that it does not cause anyone any inconvenience.
Comments
Rittenhouse what?
Got exonerated for killing two people.
That's just not right.
Self defense, just like the nervous cops.
White justice.
Let us never forget that this is
.... the United States of America. 'Nuff said.
Every time an American votes, it is a vote of confidence, and it confirms the US rule of law.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Sadly
so does abstention. Can’t win for losing.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Here is the strategy:
When people in a nation stop voting, it signals to the UN and to the rest of the world — in a very public way — that the nation no longer operates with the people's consent and the Democracy has failed. The nation suffers a loss of international credibility and it is labeled as a rogue regime — possibly a military regime.
A shadow falls over the nation's reputation and international confidence in its economy begins to crumble. Its loss of credibility erodes its influence in the world. Its sovereignty can only be restored by becoming a truly representative democracy, where the People have a reason to vote.
By not voting, the people would have a fighting chance to regain their mastery over the state, while voting in current elections merely diminishes their lives and extinguishes their hopes for the future. It can be argued that it is too late for a course correction in the US, and Americans are far too mentally broken and divided from one another to grasp such a strategy. This broken state doomed their ability to contain the pandemic or to enforce climate change in their own nation. The unfortunate consequences of this socio-political paralysis is running headlong toward dystopian devastation. By comparison, an Orwellian outcome would look positively luxurious.
I've watched it descend for a very long time. Individuals have the power to escape their fate through bold, independent action. The window is still open. But the American people, collectively, cannot be saved. They may not be forgiven any time soon for the atrocities they funded. Generations that survive will struggle.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
@QMS All of the parties
All of the parties involved, the "victims", and everyone else, sans one jury member was "white".
Where's the Beef?
just a title?
NYCVG
beef
I figured there'd be enough beef to spoken. Not much.
I'm going with
Greenwald and Taibbi on this one.
Under current rules of law it was self defense. Stupid yes. Crime no.
It most certainly was not a racist act.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-on-all?token...
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-rittenhouse-verdict-is-only-shocking?r...
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Jury Trials Are Just Like Democracy
They are both the worst possible ways to make life and death decisions -- except for all the other ways to make life and death decisions.
OJ Simpson, George Zimmerman, ten zillion white murderers of black people since jump -- frustration at juries who acquit defendants that you "know" are guilty is built into the concept of Reasonable Doubt.
I just sampled another "progressive" website and the virtual lynch mobs are working their typing fingers to the bone expressing their disapproval of this decision.
Excuse me while I take a nice nap.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
The prosecutors need to be
The prosecutors need to be disbarred.
The parents of one of the victims.
Watch the videos of the events as they unfolded
There's a bit of backstory, and Rosenbaum was hardly the innocent protestor.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-SKkvH_AUc]
I wonder how many people know the facts about the case?
I had a different opinion on his guilt at first but that was because of what I read from the mainstream media. They lied about quite a few things that didn’t happen like they said. It was like the Covington kid all over again. He didn’t do what they said he did either. But hopefully the jury got it right. They heard all the facts.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.
Here's an article
about Utah law concerning standing your ground and self-defense.
I've stayed away from this issue for all kinds of reasons. But I've respected Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi for calling out the media coverage over the past year.
The article I've linked focuses on the madness of gun rights and gun use in our country, asking the difficult question, even if you have the right to take a gun to a riot in order to protect property, do you have the right to kill someone to protect property?
I know it's not what this trial was about, but it's an interesting question.
I read that earlier
One way around it is for the defense to collect as much information they can before bringing charges against people.
FWIW here’s a video on the events of that night.
The 1st guy killed chased Kyle and threw a bag at him as Kyle was running away from him. It’s when he got cornered and the guy kept coming at him was when he shot him. That’s all I’ve watched so far. It seems to be self defense tho.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.
Thank you for responding.
I was hoping you would have read the article because I respect your views and I thought there might be some Utah insights others of us might not see.
My position on the Rittenhouse thing is that I'm completely against riots and the destruction of property pretending to somehow speak for social justice, so I somewhat sympathize with anyone wanting to protect private property. That said, I see it as tragically stupid that a 17 year old would bring an automatic weapon to a riot without thinking about what could happen. Did his decision to bring that weapon definitively say he was willing to kill to protect cars? I guess it did.
At the same time, the people who ran at him seem to me to be equally nuts, even if you believe they were trying to protect other people. The whole thing is terrible. We as a country are a danger to ourselves and to others.
I hope that gets changed somehow
I don’t feel good about it and think it has no place in our justice system. I think it would take the place of an evidentiary hearing and it takes place before all the evidence has been gathered.
Shocking that for once I agree with Gill:
It was a riot and many protesters committed arson
Kyle is a paramedic and he also helped with 1st aid. He wasn’t protecting a car when he shot. But I don’t see any reason why citizens should have been armed to help the police because that’s not their job. Cops should have told them to go home instead of welcoming their help. Lots of bad decisions all around I think.
As for what a person quoted in the article he apparently doesn’t know the facts of the case. Kyle wasn’t defending a car lot when he shot the 1st guy. That guy chased Kyle and cornered him and that was why Kyle shot. In another part of the video the guy that got shot in the arm was pointing his gun at Kyle.
Turley writes about the trial here.
Did anyone watch the video and come to a different conclusion? Lots of people made up their minds to his being guilty just because of what they read and unfortunately the media made up lots of facts to suit their narrative. I know I was guilty of that until I read more from other sources and watched the video. I still think some people are making up facts about the case because of what they think they know. The jury got all the facts and saw the evidence and it’s why they came back with not guilty. But as Gulfgal said, not innocent.
Protests on the verdict turned violent last night in Portland and lots of damage to buildings were done. How does that help? Lots of buildings and cars burned all summer long. Weird how we haven’t heard much about the trials on the people arrested for those crimes. Also weird how cops are still killing black men, but there doesn’t seem to be many protests against it anymore.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.
Weighing in
I am not sure if I am the only person here to have sat on a jury for a first degree murder trial, but I am going to speak from my personal experience of having done so.
What we may believe is moral and just is not what a jury is supposed to decide. What a jury is supposed to decide is whether or not the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the charges with which the defendant was charged. In the case of jury I sat on, our verdicts reflected that ideal, not what we believed about the defendants (4 in our case), including one whom every juror I sat with believed was the trigger man, but it was not proven.
Being found not guilty is not being found innocent. However most people believe that not guilty is equal to being innocent and therein lies the real problem we face down the road. From what I understand, Wisconsin is an open carry state. And despite the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was underage to be carrying an automatic weapon, the prosecution dropped that charge against him. The message that will be perceived by the majority of the public is that the state is condoning vigilantism. This is a horrible precedent set by this decision simply because of what people are going to believe.
Kyle Rittenhouse was not the only open carry civilian at the protest, but he was the only person to kill two people and severely injure a third. What does that say about the state of his mind and his lack of maturity for being able to carry a weapon capable of killing another human being? Our open carry laws and the lack of enforcement of underage persons arming themselves with automatic weapons set in motion this tragedy. Also we must remember that Kyle Rittenhouse and others he was marching with were encouraged and congratulated by local law enforcement for showing up armed to this protest. This country needs to look real deep into what we have created with our out of control police state and the vigilantes that they have encouraged.
One last thing. A victim IS a victim, even if that victim has done bad things in the past. It is not up to vigilantes or the cops to act as judge, jury and executioners. It is up to our justice system to decide the punishment.
I am willing to bet that this will not be the last we hear of Kyle Rittenhouse and it will not be in a good way in the future. He was a power hungry kid who came looking for trouble and as a result two people are dead and one permanently injured for the rest of his life.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
What does this say about the mind and lack of maturity
of the whole nation?
Thanks for a great comment.
I have presented murder cases to juries,
and the legal standards you mention are correct.
Self-dense, indicating you are in fear for your safety, or even the safety of some other person, is a winning defense.
Shooting someone to protect property, even yours, is not defensible. Property has no right of protection, unless it is government buildings, etc...
Being put in fear for your safety gets complicated when you are visibly armed with a weapon capable of shooting 10 to 30 times in rapid succession. The guy that got killed after he chased and hit Rittenhouse on the head with a skateboard did the same or similar act that I would have done, in hopes I knocked the kid out, got that weapon from him. Of course, he is dead, so we never get to hear what he was thinking.
Killing an evil person violates the same law as killing a preacher.
There was lots of hype about racism, about property destruction, but none at all about the precedent this sets for future protests. They will be murderous in the future. Count me out, thank you very much.
The second Amendment has taken the lead, putting behind the right to assemble, and the First Amendment.
I expect Rittenhouse to become a cop or, a security guard.
I didn't read much about the trial, had no idea about the protests and the participants. I was just gobsmacked about the stated purpose of protecting property and willingly displaying a gun that, at any time, you are prepared to fire.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I see the verdict as in keeping with
the recent Texas anti abortion law calling on citizens to enforce the law, both as vigilante rule. But of course IANAL, while you are. I do think TPTB are happy to see us at each other’s throats and vigilantes would serve very well. It could just be that I am seeing what isn’t there.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Apple and Orange.
The Texas law gives any vigilant observer of an abortion standing to sue one or more of the participants in the procedure. Heretofore, nobody had standing as a plaintiff unless it was the purported father, or family members injured emotionally by the abortion. That has been flipped on its' head.
The magic vigilante law in Texas has nothing to do with guns or violence.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
True the Texas law I mentioned has nothing to do
with guns and violence, but it does encourage private citizens to enforce the law. IMO private citizens aren’t properly equipped for law enforcement even as civil litigants. It just seems to have us messing in one another’s business, which seems to be a bad direction.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Agreed.
n/t
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
So it was okay that guy attacked Kyle with a skateboard
to take the gun from him just because he had one? Is that what you are saying?
I’d like to hear your opinion on the article Linda posted. Isn’t that what evidentiary hearings are for?
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.
I have intervened in several potentially deadly fights,
once disarmed a damn FBI agent who was near killing a friend. Thank God, my Dad had a choke hold on him. Dad and I intervened to save the cop's intended target. I warned the cop if he made any move towards me or another person, I would shoot.
So, it is legal to take an action to prevent the likelihood of someone's imminent death or harm, including using physical force, as I have done
I have never been charged. 2 family members shot an armed man who was shooting at another family member's direction. He was injured, not killed, because my 2 shooting family guys were expert marksmen. They shot the gun he was pointing an another out of his hand, injuring his hand and shoulder. He was reaching for his gun when a cop arrived, put their boot on it. Nobody was charged but the injured guy.
That is the kind of steps that ought to be taken if it can be done as safely as you can make it.
So, yes, I would have taken his head off with a baseball bat, from behind, to keep me and others from getting killed. I would not hesitate.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Pretty sure if you did that
You’d be brought up on charges. I don’t think it’s legal to attack someone just because they are carrying a gun. Did you watch any of the video?
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.
I get paid to watch videos of murders and violence.
Why would I give a shit about this case? I didn't then, and don't now. It is just another case to me.
I was content to let the jury see it. The media was proven to be a propaganda machine by the verdict. I fully accept the verdict, have no problem with it, as it pertains to that case.
In Texas, it would have been legal, not worthy of being killed, if the jury had decided the skate board guy was trying to prevent someone getting shot.
Why anybody thinks I am taking the media's side on this, when I didn't know why people were protesting until after the verdict, is beyond me. I read virtually nothing.
The ONLY issue I have is ANYBODY going to a protest armed to the hilt. It brings violence and death, in no way prevents it.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
We have in Texas what is called an examining trial.
It happens early, pre-indictment.
The burden for the state is very low, and it is done before a justice of the peace or whatever judge set the bond.
I have never heard of any case where a Defense won, but it is an excellent way to gather evidence for the defense, if any exists at that moment, and helps prepare you for the trial down the road.
While I love to see anything helpful for a Defendant, this law in Utah has some consequences that the general public, over time, will come to hate.
Not sure what the impetus for it was for the state legislature to do that. Try to remember any time government pushed a law that favored a criminal defendant, anywhere, in any state.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Well, now that
It is officially open season on protesters, I will no longer be attending protests.
I can get dead by gun violence in my own home, when the cops turn up to SWAT a neighbor. I don’t need to go out and expose myself to vigilantes. And, in an open-carry state, they are everywhere.
I do not own a gun. But there will be more gunfire, now. Count on it. I hope that it does not cause anyone any inconvenience.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
It was already open season
because Wisconsin is a state in which it is legal to bring a semi-automatic weapon to a riot. I agree with you that this is an insane situation. But it didn't happen suddenly as a result of this verdict. The verdict was reached because in Wisconsin it is legal for him to carry that weapon and to use it if he felt seriously threatened.
I completely identify with you by saying my husband and I no longer go to peace marches because of Antifa violence from a few years ago, violence involving baseball bats and other other weapons used to inflict serious, potentially fatal harm to demonstrators they disagreed with. If I'm carrying a sign saying LEFTIST FOR FREE SPEECH, I'm liable to get clocked by both sides. So, yeah, I agree with you. It's not safe out there.