USA, a fascist state? Confirmed

[Octavious]

That's QAnon levels of paranoia right there . The judge is biased because he has a ringtone with a tune reminiscent of music heard at a few Trump rallies? Seriously?

Not only that, but the judge speaks English and I've been told that some of the noises Trump made in office were occasionally identified as a form of English. Coincidence?!?

[Randomizer]

But why, though? Do you think he just took a shine to him? Judges don't tend to look favourably on young hotheads who walk the streets with rifles

You'd have to ask him. But it appears he was a Trump supporter (his phone rang a couple of times in court, and had a ringtone that was the same song Trump used to walk onto the stage for his rallies).

The judge had everyone applaud a defense witness for being a veteran before he testified. No one recalled that ever happening at any trial.

The judge excluded recent videos from before Kenosha, showing Rittenhouse punch a girl from behind and another where he said if he had his rifle he would have shot possible shoplifters. Examples of his mindset.

Prosecutors did really mess up not cross examining Rittenhouse for being a compulsive liar to press exaggerating his medical experience with false claim he was an EMT and his enrollment in nursing school. The guy was attention seeker trying to make himself seem more than he was.

[orathaic]

To repeat the words of President Biden, who on occasion is still able to make sensible comments, the jury system works and we have to abide by it.

Bit of a non responce from you, which shouldn't really surprise me at this stage.

I asked a direct question, i shouldn't have expected a direct answer.

What about it is a non response? What more than that do you need? The right to be judged by a jury of your peers is central to democracy and human rights, and has been for as long as those concepts have existed. Every trial that is run free from outside influence and agendas is a victory for democracy. The fascist finds a useful scapegoat and hangs them. The civilised man accepts justice regardless of the inconvenience.

See there is an actual answer.

How and ever, those who see the clear injustice will rise up and fight to overturn this failure of a justice system.

If that isn't clear to you, if you are fanatically driven to support the status quo regardless of the morale outrage that it produces, then I'm not sure anything i can say will change your mind.

[orathaic]

If I was looking for evidence that someone had fascist tendencies, then one of the more obvious giveaways would be a contempt for the cornerstones of democracy such as trial by jury.

You can have contempt for the result without being facistic.

The fact that the system is 'working as designed' and this murderer who instigated violence has managed to get off on a self-defence argument is a terrible indictment of the US justice system. Not that trials by jury are a bad idea.

But Oct, are you actually saying this is a victory for democracy and demonstration of the good which trial by jury brings to the US? That seems to be implied from your comment above, but perhaps you can clarify.

How is someone being found not guilty of breaking a law that they did not break an indictment of the US judicial system?

That something is legal does not make it morale. If the system of justice does not infact deliver justice, that is an indictment.

[orathaic]

How and ever, those who see the clear injustice will rise up and fight to overturn this failure of a justice system.

And perhaps i should be clear. I am not calling for violence, i am predicting that a new civil rights movement focused on eliminating white supremacy will march, protest, and attempt to change the world for the better.

I remain surprised by the lack of violence from protestors at this point.

[Octavious]

If that isn't clear to you, if you are fanatically driven to support the status quo regardless of the morale outrage that it produces, then I'm not sure anything i can say will change your mind.

Ha! Mate, the good ship "Ora saying something to change my mind" set sail long ago. It's become increasingly clear over the last few years that you have a world view that you believe in with a faith as unshakable as the most enthusiastic religious zealot or QAnon conspiracy nut. He was found not guilty by a jury of his peers who spent a great deal of time carefully examining the evidence because... he wasn't guilty. The trial was as open to public inspection as it is possible to be, the evidence presented was clear and refreshingly free of grey areas. US law is clear, as was what happened. Where is the failure of justice?

[Jamiet99uk]

...he wasn't guilty.

He illegally transported a deadly weapon he was not entitled to own in the first place, to a scene of ongoing public disorder, and shot and killed two people.

The fact that apparently, in the eyes of American justice, he was a good innocent boy who did nothing wrong, proves what a cesspit America is.

I am glad I don't live in such a horrible country where violence is normalised and shooting other people dead isn't a crime.

[Jamiet99uk]

(Whereas if you're black the police are just allowed to kill you for no reason and that's fine too. What a fucking country.)

[orathaic]

Vigilante violence undermined the justice system, and i am not a weird outlier in saying so: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/com ... ed-protest

And whether legal or not, his actions are morally reprehensible (i would argue his actions we're not self-defence, but he instigated the situation).

[Octavious]

He illegally transported a deadly weapon he was not entitled to own in the first place, to a scene of ongoing public disorder

No he didn't. By all means provide evidence that he did, but my understanding is that the law restricting gun use to minors in that part of the USA does not include long barrel firearms. This is similar in some ways to UK firearms law that allows people aged 14 and above to use a shotgun and ammunition. The court case provided evidence that the gun was not transported in from other states. Even if he had transported an illegal weapon, the law of the land sees this as a misdemeanour with a maximum sentence of less than a year. But he did none of these things.

and shot and killed two people

People who the jury determined, after reviewing in great detail the substantial evidence available, were attacking him.

(Whereas if you're black the police are just allowed to kill you for no reason and that's fine too. What a fucking country.)

This is a particularly obtuse statement given the very well known recent demonstration of this not being true.

[Octavious]

And whether legal or not, his actions are morally reprehensible (i would argue his actions we're not self-defence, but he instigated the situation).

That is, I believe, the argument that the prosecution used. This argument lost.

I am curious, however, why you believe that your judgement, as a person who has witnessed the trail only via media highlights and at a considerable distance, is so superior to that of the American jurists who have lived through the full length of the trial and diligently viewed the entirety of the evidence? Do you really believe Americans are so inferior to you?

[Jamiet99uk]

He illegally transported a deadly weapon he was not entitled to own in the first place, to a scene of ongoing public disorder

No he didn't. By all means provide evidence that he did, but my understanding is that the law restricting gun use to minors in that part of the USA does not include long barrel firearms. This is similar in some ways to UK firearms law that allows people aged 14 and above to use a shotgun and ammunition. The court case provided evidence that the gun was not transported in from other states. Even if he had transported an illegal weapon, the law of the land sees this as a misdemeanour with a maximum sentence of less than a year. But he did none of these things.

and shot and killed two people

People who the jury determined, after reviewing in great detail the substantial evidence available, were attacking him.

(Whereas if you're black the police are just allowed to kill you for no reason and that's fine too. What a fucking country.)

This is a particularly obtuse statement given the very well known recent demonstration of this not being true.

I stand corrected on part of my statement and accept my error.

I said "a deadly weapon he was not entitled to own in the first place". It appears I was mistaken on this element. It appears entirely likely that the weapon was purchased illegally, but technically Dominick Black, Rittenhouse's friend, was the one who purchased it. It appears likely that he broke the law in doing so, since he was buying a powerful firearm for a minor, and he is now facing prosecution for that crime. But technically that is Dominick Black's crime, and not Kyle Rittenhouse's, so I withdraw that remark.

I remain of the opinion that a country where gun ownership abounds, and where gun-toting teenagers can race to the scene of a protest about police brutality against black people, and just start taking shots at people with an assault rifle, is a fucked up country, and I absolutely do not withdraw that remark.

[flash2015]

Been away for a while and just catching up. It really is weird to have a discussion about a murder case in the USA largely driven by three people that don't live here and who quite clearly didn't follow the facts of the case.

On one side we have Octavious who seems oblivious to the concerns about the judges impartiality. If Octavious had followed the case AT ALL, he would have heard about them even if he didn't agree with them. Especially given his ignorance, I would argue that claiming that people that had concerns about the judges impartially are equivalent to people that believe that the USA is run by Satanist cannibalistic pedophiles is quite unhinged.

On the other side we have Jamiet and orathaic, who appear to have paid attention to the concerns about the judge, but don't appear to have followed the facts of the case...like the testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz who admitted that Kyle didn't shoot until he pointed his gun at him...or the testimony of Richard McGinniss, a bystander and state witness, that helped make the case for the defense with regards to Joseph Rosenbaum. e.g.:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/states ... 021-11-19/

At least for the main murder charges, the evidence just wasn't there to convict and any potential opinions/biases of the judge were largely irrelevant for this.

I can understand the frustration with the result. I am not a gun fan. Kyle Rittenhouse should NOT have been there with the AR-15. Vigilantism should NOT be encouraged. But the judge and jury need to judge the case based on the current laws, not the laws we wish were there. The judicial system in the US is already WAY, WAY, WAY too political. We shouldn't be encouraging it to become even more so.

On a general note, I get frustrated by the binary nature of the discussion. On one side we have people that believe that there is no police issue with minorities...and on the other we have people that wildly exaggerate the issue but then ignore the genuine concerns about property destruction (that only a small percentage of protesters were involved in this doesn't make it OK). When we don't listen to the genuine concerns on either side, we give the power to the extremists. I really don't know how the US digs itself out of this.

There is another case in Georgia which should be soon decided (the Ahmaud Arbery case). IANAL but at least from my understanding of the case so far the facts seem far more clear cut in favour of the prosecution. I would be surprised if we don't see some significant gaol time for the perpetrators there.

[Octavious]

On one side we have Octavious who seems oblivious to the concerns about the judges impartiality. If Octavious had followed the case AT ALL, he would have heard about them even if he didn't agree with them. Especially given his ignorance, I would argue that claiming that people that had concerns about the judges impartially are equivalent to people that believe that the USA is run by Satanist cannibalistic pedophiles is quite unhinged.

Consider for a small moment, flash, the possibility that media coverage of the trial may differ wildly from country to country. Very little has been made about the judge's impartiality in the reports I have seen in the UK, other than a bit on the BBC that said various left wingers had raised it as an issue, but

"legal analysts have generally concluded that Judge Schroeder's rulings have been within the norms for such proceedings"

As no one has presented any evidence of bias other than the possibility that he has a ringtone with music that some Republicans may like I have no worries whatsoever about dismissing it as a load of bunkum. Do you have any evidence of bias, flash? Any at all?

[orathaic]

On the other side we have Jamiet and orathaic, who appear to have paid attention to the concerns about the judge, but don't appear to have followed the facts of the case...like the testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz who admitted that Kyle didn't shoot until he pointed his gun at him...

You are right about several things. I haven't followed the facts of the case, however that would include the death of the concerns about the judge, which as Oct mentioned was not reported anywhere i have seen.

I made specific claims about vigilantism being bad, about a legal system which defends this kind of behaviour as immoral. So yes, i am willing to concede that the facts may support a technical innocent verdict. How and Ever, when you bring a gun to a protest in order to shoot people, you are actively choosing violence. That is not self-defence. The right to peaceful protest is an important part of freedom of speech, and the idea that some fascists in the US will now see it as legal and heroic to go to political protests to 'protect property' in order to become a hero just like Kyle, is not a good thing for freedom of speech, or democracy.

Yes, there are concerns that property will be damaged when peaceful protests get large enough (and the police decide to let them...). But property can be rebuilt, life's lost can not be replaced. And if you want to live in a democracy, the anger felt which underlies these protests must be addressed. That anger, whether you think it is justified or not, is the cause of any property damage. And simply 'not shooting black kids' seems like a great place to start in de-escalating the situation.

[Octavious]

How and Ever, when you bring a gun to a protest in order to shoot people, you are actively choosing violence. That is not self-defence

And here you have the problem with your argument. Your culture is alien to the defendant and the community where the incident took place. In the US guns are indeed considered to legitimate tools of self defence. In Western Europe to have a gun with the purpose of using it against another human is culturally abhorrent outside of the military or police. In the US, rightly or wrongly, the right to use one for self defence is in many places accepted.

So, in this particular location, what the defendant did was to bring a tool of self defence to a place where there was a significant risk to his person. This is no more a crime than a student placing a personal attack alarm in their pocket. Indeed, one of the people he shot, Grosskreutz, had done exactly the same thing and was also armed with a gun. In Europe both of these men would be criminals looking at gaol time. In the US, they are not.

[orathaic]

So, in this particular location, what the defendant did was to bring a tool of self defence to a place where there was a significant risk to his person.

You seem to he missing my point.

The point isn't that he had a gun, the point is he intention ally decided to go somewhere to use the gun to shoot people, and then shoot at people, and then claimed it was self-defence.

That is not what self-defence is about. And i love how you completely ignore the consequences for freedom of speech, political protest and a healthy democracy, despite claims that you care about these things.

[Octavious]

So, in this particular location, what the defendant did was to bring a tool of self defence to a place where there was a significant risk to his person.

You seem to he missing my point.

The point isn't that he had a gun, the point is he intention ally decided to go somewhere to use the gun to shoot people, and then shoot at people, and then claimed it was self-defence.

That is not what self-defence is about. And i love how you completely ignore the consequences for freedom of speech, political protest and a healthy democracy, despite claims that you care about these things.

I am not missing your point. I am explaining to you that your point is wrong and that in the US the act of him carrying a gun is not evidence that he had decided to go somewhere and shoot people. It is only evidence that where he decided to go he considered himself to be at risk, and it turns out that this was an accurate assessment due to the fact that whilst there he was attacked.

As for your final paragraph, I don't understand your point at all. You believe that these would benefit from justice not being carried out? From people being locked away not because a jury found them guilty but because it is politically convenient? That is what justice looks like in Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia. I assure you that healthy democracy does not flourish there.

[bo_sox48]

You can have contempt for the result without being facistic.

The fact that the system is 'working as designed' and this murderer who instigated violence has managed to get off on a self-defence argument is a terrible indictment of the US justice system. Not that trials by jury are a bad idea.

But Oct, are you actually saying this is a victory for democracy and demonstration of the good which trial by jury brings to the US? That seems to be implied from your comment above, but perhaps you can clarify.

How is someone being found not guilty of breaking a law that they did not break an indictment of the US judicial system?

That something is legal does not make it morale. If the system of justice does not infact deliver justice, that is an indictment.

Why do people always say this shit?

The US government is composed of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch is meant to execute the law - proposing budgets, handling the military, being a face of the nation, etc. The legislative branch legislates the law, writing it and passing it or dismissing it with the understanding that they are bound by the Constitution. The judicial branch judges whether those two branches are within the bounds of the Constitution and, in more practical terms, judges individuals based on the laws that are legislated and executed, not based on their own subjective opinions. It’s not complicated, and if this is familiar to you then I don’t know why you said what you said, so I assume this is all brand new.

Each state replicates this system underneath the federal umbrella. The state of Wisconsin is the state in question, and their laws are what you have to worry about, not the United States. You can look up Wisconsin laws on murder. You’ll find that what Rittenhouse did was not murder - he was defending himself; whether or not his rifle instigated those who attacked him or not is irrelevant for murder charges - and you’ll find that Wisconsin does not have a manslaughter category to work with. In my opinion, negligent homicide covers what Rittenhouse did. He instigated others through his own reckless (but not criminal in Wisconsin) actions, could have avoided the situation, and people are dead as a result. He would be in jail for a long time if that is what he was charged with. Double jeopardy laws at the federal level protect him from being retried on a lesser charge.

Judges don’t get to exact their own views. Those that try to don’t remain judges for long. If the murder laws of Wisconsin aren’t good enough for you, attack those who wrote them, not those who uphold them.

[bo_sox48]

...he wasn't guilty.

He illegally transported a deadly weapon he was not entitled to own in the first place, to a scene of ongoing public disorder, and shot and killed two people.

The fact that apparently, in the eyes of American justice, he was a good innocent boy who did nothing wrong, proves what a cesspit America is.

I am glad I don't live in such a horrible country where violence is normalised and shooting other people dead isn't a crime.

It is a crime!