Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

 

 

yeah - This wouldn't be the 1st time that transient public outrage led to an overcharge which led to an acquittal. You might think "Reckless Endangerment" or the like would have punished him for his stupidity without denying his right to defend his life. Some charge that would have been successful would at least have served the socially useful end of discouraging people from taking weapons into places were neither they nor the weapons were helpful.

Not that I know the contours all that well, but isn't the past allegory Bernhard Goetz?

Edited November 19, 2021 by mtutiger

[Tiger337]

33 minutes ago, buddha said:

yes, thank goodness for those early 90s crime bills!  lol.  

around here, crime was up in 2016, and then down in 2017-2019, then up again in 2020 and 2021.

still, nothing like the crack era in major cities around the late 80s, early 90s.  although i would bet that the murder rate in chicago would be a lot higher now if we still had early 90s level medical treatments.  

Chicago isn't the United States!

[Edman85]

33 minutes ago, buddha said:

yes, thank goodness for those early 90s crime bills!  lol.  

around here, crime was up in 2016, and then down in 2017-2019, then up again in 2020 and 2021.

still, nothing like the crack era in major cities around the late 80s, early 90s.  although i would bet that the murder rate in chicago would be a lot higher now if we still had early 90s level medical treatments.  

What if I told you RVW  played a larger role?

[Tiger337]

8 hours ago, buddha said:

i still have a hard time with this guy looking for trouble and running around with an assault weapon and then claiming self-defense when he gets beat up.

i dont think you dont get to instigate and then claim self defense, but i havent been following it close enough to say.

the fact that the jury has been out for three days is interesting.  im not sure who that benefits.  its obvious there is a lot of dissension in the jury room.

This is how I feel too.  I don't know what he should be guilty of legally, but it seems he was looking for trouble and found it.  We have not heard the end of him.  He'll probably get a right talk show or something now.  

[gehringer_2]

24 minutes ago, buddha said:

i didnt really follow the rittenhouse thing.  what it points out to me is that all americans should get the same "reasonable doubt" that rittenhouse got.  and that doesnt happen, and it especially doesnt happen to a lot of black americans.

I think it's also interesting how we are moving away from 'consequence' punishments in criminal law. In MI we used to have a 'felony' murder charge. It went right to the idea that if you start out doing something stupidly felonious and someone dies - you are a murderer - regardless of whether the actions that led to the death might be judged murder in a different context. I don't know how long that had been on the books but it had been a while when was repealed in 1980. But that is the kind of legal thinking that certainly would have held Rittenhouse accountable. But we seem to be moving away from the 'fruit of tree' reasoning wrt people creating their own trouble. On a somewhat logically related line, as I understand it we have had similar legal shifts/arguments about the degree to which 'impairment' is a defense as opposed to actually being an aggravating circumstance. As a young person we were drilled that if you got blitzed and something happened because you didn't have control of your faculties that was your tough luck, the law was going to make no allowance. I think we still see that with drunk driving cases, but I wonder how much anymore in other areas.

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

What if I told you RVW  played a larger role?

That is an interesting theory.  Forcing people to have children they didn't want probably would have led to a significant number of not so good citizens.  Regardless, I don't see any evidence of lack of law and order now versus then.   

[Edman85]

31 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

That is an interesting theory.  Forcing people to have children they didn't want probably would have led to a significant number of not so good citizens.  Regardless, I don't see any evidence of lack of law and order now versus then.   

Read Feakonomics. The first chapter was mindblowing. The crime rate dropped right as kids who would have been born then were hitting peak crime age. States that legalized sooner saw earlier drops.

[buddha]

19 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Read Feakonomics. The first chapter was mindblowing. The crime rate dropped right as kids who would have been born then were hitting peak crime age. States that legalized sooner saw earlier drops.

there are a lot of problems with that chapter in freakonomics.

[buddha]

56 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think it's also interesting how we are moving away from 'consequence' punishments in criminal law. In MI we used to have a 'felony' murder charge. It went right to the idea that if you start out doing something stupidly felonious and someone dies - you are a murderer - regardless of whether the actions that led to the death might be judged murder in a different context. I don't know how long that had been on the books but it had been a while when was repealed in 1980. But that is the kind of legal thinking that certainly would have held Rittenhouse accountable. But we seem to be moving away from the 'fruit of tree' reasoning wrt people creating their own trouble. On a somewhat logically related line, as I understand it we have had similar legal shifts/arguments about the degree to which 'impairment' is a defense as opposed to actually being an aggravating circumstance. As a young person we were drilled that if you got blitzed and something happened because you didn't have control of your faculties that was your tough luck, the law was going to make no allowance. I think we still see that with drunk driving cases, but I wonder how much anymore in other areas.

well, i can give you a big long talk on people not finding individuals personally responsible for their own actions anymore.  just take a look at any jury verdict reporter.

[Archie]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

If he didn’t go where he didn’t belong in the first place, threatening people with a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a city in another state, no one would have gotten shot by him!

I don’t know how you or anyone else could think otherwise. 

Why didn't he belong there anymore than any of the protestors?  His father lived Kenosha.  A lot of the violent protestors didn't have ties to Kenosha so why is Rittenhouse any different?  The whole case is a lot of what ifs.    What if the people would have protested peacefully?  What if the rioters didn't attack Rittenhouse?  What if the police and National Guard would have done a better job of keeping the peace?  For some reason rioters get special privledge.    

The best thing would have been that everyone should have stayed home instead of destroying a city over an issue before it was even investigated to find out what really happened.    

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, Archie said:

 

The best thing would have been that everyone should have stayed home instead of destroying a city over an issue before it was even investigated to find out what really happened.    

There may some truth to that, but somehow only Rittenhouse managed to invite death to follow in his wake.

[Tiger337]

7 minutes ago, Archie said:

Why didn't he belong there anymore than any of the protestors?  His father lived Kenosha.  A lot of the violent protestors didn't have ties to Kenosha so why is Rittenhouse any different?  The whole case is a lot of what ifs.    What if the people would have protested peacefully?  What if the rioters didn't attack Rittenhouse?  What if the police and National Guard would have done a better job of keeping the peace?  For some reason rioters get special privledge.    

The best thing would have been that everyone should have stayed home instead of destroying a city over an issue before it was even investigated to find out what really happened.    

The violent protestors shouldn't have been there either.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  

[Motown Bombers]

I'm guessing Trumpers aren't saying Ashli Babbitt should have stayed home. 

[Tigeraholic1]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

i didnt really follow the rittenhouse thing.  what it points out to me is that all americans should get the same "reasonable doubt" that rittenhouse got.  and that doesnt happen, and it especially doesnt happen to a lot of black americans.

They key to this trial was the video evidence and the guy admitting that Kyle did not shoot until he aimed his gun at him. Wisconsin is not synonymous with these laws, many states have similar.

[SkyBlue]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

If he didn’t go where he didn’t belong in the first place, threatening people with a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a city in another state, no one would have gotten shot by him!

I don’t know how you or anyone else could think otherwise. 

Doesn't belong there?

His dad lives there, grandparents live there, aunt uncle and cousins live there, explain why in your opinion he "doesn't belong there"?

[ewsieg]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

If he didn’t go where he didn’t belong in the first place, threatening people with a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of a city in another state, no one would have gotten shot by him!

I don’t know how you or anyone else could think otherwise. 

It’s not a threat to legally carry a gun in Kenosha.  Also, why doesn’t he belong there?  To me, it’s stupid.  I wouldn’t let my 17 year old do what Rittenhouse did. But guilty of being stupid is not a crime.  
 

 

[Tigeraholic1]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

there are a lot of problems with that chapter in freakonomics.

Yes, very third reich. Scary it’s used as a positive point.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, SkyBlue said:

Doesn't belong there?

His dad lives there, grandparents live there, aunt uncle and cousins live there, explain why in your opinion he "doesn't belong there"?

Regardless of how many relatives he has in Wisconsin, he didn’t belong on a street in a city his mother had to drive him an hour to get to brandishing a semiautomatic weapon and being an obvious menace to people. He went there looking to make trouble. Simple as it gets.

Edited November 20, 2021 by chasfh

[Tigeraholic1]

34 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Regardless of how many relatives he has in Wisconsin, he didn’t belong on a street in a city his mother had to drive him an hour to get to brandishing a semiautomatic weapon and being an obvious menace to people. He went there looking to make trouble. Simple as it gets.

That is untrue. His mother did NOT drive him there. It amazes me how uneducated the public was on this trial, just parroting the media instead of looking for facts.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Tigeraholic1

[CMRivdogs]

 

[SkyBlue]

58 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Regardless of how many relatives he has in Wisconsin, he didn’t belong on a street in a city his mother had to drive him an hour to get to brandishing a semiautomatic weapon and being an obvious menace to people. He went there looking to make trouble. Simple as it gets.

Yea, you may want to research that a little more, I get its the narrative the media has been feeding for a year.  The same media that will be paying a fortune in defamation suits in the near future ala Sandman.

But don't let truth get in the way of your narrative.

[SkyBlue]

16 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

Predictable MSNBC tripe, there was definitely rot exposed and they are another example of it.

Edited November 20, 2021 by SkyBlue

[Edman85]

7 hours ago, buddha said:

i didnt really follow the rittenhouse thing.  what it points out to me is that all americans should get the same "reasonable doubt" that rittenhouse got.  and that doesnt happen, and it especially doesnt happen to a lot of black americans.

What is funny is the most infamous example of a person getting away with murder of the last 30 years is black.

Makes me think money is the key more than race.

 

Speaking of, did anybody check OJ's Twitter to see if he had any thoughts about the verdict?

[mtutiger]

9 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Yes, very third reich. 

Actually agree with both you and Buddha on the general point, but do we really have to throw Nazi comparisons around so loosely?

Edited November 20, 2021 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

My immediate reaction, without following the case closely, is that people need to be a little more discerning about the law in these particular high profile cases and whether it was ultimately broken, as well as the quality of the case made.

We have this tendency to turn these cases into big things where wrongs have to be righted regardless of whether the facts ultimately fall on one's side (I've been guilty on this front as well in the past). But that's not how the justice system works; its a prosecution that makes a case, a jury of peers that renders a verdict, etc. And from what I gather, the result matches the combination of facts plus the quality of the prosecution.

I dont love what Rittenhouse did. He really didn't have to be there that night. But I really can't argue with the ultimate result here. And my takeaway is a lot like Buddha's in that the real travesty isn't this ruling, its that it reinforces that there is an unevenness to reasonable doubt and how it is afforded to certain Americans.

Edited November 20, 2021 by mtutiger