The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: rightleft22 on September 01, 2020, 05:48:35 PM

Title: Militia in the streets
Post by: rightleft22 on September 01, 2020, 05:48:35 PM
Are their any laws about allowing "Militia" in the streets

Who here is in favor of condoning such a thing as Militia on the streets?
Does it depend if they are a white or black militia
What should the minimum age of participants in a militia be?
What kind of training should they have?
How do you hold the Militia accountable?
Does it matter if Militia come from outer state?

How the crap are Militia considered LAW and ORDER????
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on September 01, 2020, 06:27:50 PM
I don't know about outer state, but I definitely am against militia from outer space, which is how I read it the first time.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 01, 2020, 07:13:49 PM
If the police are ordered to pull back, stand down, and let it burn ("give them room to destroy"), what are people supposed to do? If innocent drivers just passing through are getting pulled from their vehicles and beaten nearly to death while the police stick their tails between their legs and run away, are the regular citizens just supposed to curl up into the fetal position and take their beatings? Run away while their businesses get burned to the ground knowing insurance if they even have it may not cover their losses? I mean most of us are Americans here and even those who are not understand America well enough to know that's not the way we're made, that's not how we're built or brought up.

It's kind of like Watchmen's Rorschach in prison.

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you... you're locked in here with me!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTtETj3MtzA

Same thing with the police. It's commonly understood that they are protecting the law abiding citizens from the criminals.

Maybe it's actually the other way around.

We see that in some second world countries too with mob justice. When the police can't or won't do their jobs and the citizens are forced to defend themselves, they will, and the criminals will likely pine for a return to law and order instead of anarchy.

I'm not really for or against it but I recognize reality. People will defend themselves if the police won't. They have no other choice except to let themselves be victims. And that's not the American way.

It does seem a little odd though to insist on cracking down on these so called "militias" while giving rioters free reign to burn, loot, and pillage.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DonaldD on September 01, 2020, 07:51:01 PM
What we also see are witches being burned, Tutsis being macheted, blacks being lynched, and the list goes on.

As an aside, driving 30 miles from out of state in order to carry a gun while putting themselves in the middle of a protest in someone else's city can in no way be characterized as "defending themselves".

Wielding a gun to protect somebody else's used car dealership - how does that work, anyway?  What if those evil hoodlums don't stop smashing the cars when you tell them to?  What if they don't stop when you aim your guns at them?  Do you shoot the for rioters not listening to armed, self-appointed militia telling them what to do?

The United States Today (https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield_(episode))
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 01, 2020, 08:19:59 PM
What we also see are witches being burned, Tutsis being macheted, blacks being lynched, and the list goes on.

As an aside, driving 30 miles from out of state in order to carry a gun while putting themselves in the middle of a protest in someone else's city can in no way be characterized as "defending themselves".

So I guess you're going to condemn all the Vancouver, Washington protesters who turned up in Portland?

For Rittenhouse, Kenosha may have been in another state, but it was the closest "city" to where he was, unless he wanted to go to an even bigger one like Chicago or Milwaukee.

He had friends who lived and worked there, he even worked there by some reports. He lives on/near the state line. You can try to make political hay out of it all you want, but it ignored the reality that Kenosha exists next to the state line.

Quote
Wielding a gun to protect somebody else's used car dealership - how does that work, anyway?  What if those evil hoodlums don't stop smashing the cars when you tell them to?  What if they don't stop when you aim your guns at them?  Do you shoot the for rioters not listening to armed, self-appointed militia telling them what to do?

"Security theater" is a thing. You don't think the rent-a-cop security guys that are authorized to carry a firearm carry it so they can shoot an intruder, are they vigilantes now as well?

They carry the firearm so that the places they protect look unappealing to the would be criminal, so they'll move on to a softer target. ("Not worth getting shot over")

It should also be noted that he was acting to protect property, the dealership and mechanic's shop. He wasn't armed and roving around the streets at random looking for people to threaten with the gun. From the accounts I've heard, the thing he did to "Escalate the situation" with those peaceful protesters was he used a fire extinguisher to put out a dumpster fire they had started. Clearly the act of a nefarious mastermind. As was his providing first aid services to BLM protesters until a few people decided they wanted to rough up the kid carrying a rifle.

Edit: You ignored the twitter feed I posted a few days ago, but maybe you'll pay more attention to the write up form the NYTimes website itself?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 01, 2020, 08:39:01 PM
Also, Antioch, IL is only 20 miles from Kenosha, WI. It also sits directly on the border with Wisconsin. He quite literally lived in Bordertown, IL

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Antioch,+IL+60002/@42.4819791,-88.0983791,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x880f869228f02d1d:0xd59f6b64553c3ce3!8m2!3d42.4772418!4d-88.0956396 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Antioch,+IL+60002/@42.4819791,-88.0983791,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x880f869228f02d1d:0xd59f6b64553c3ce3!8m2!3d42.4772418!4d-88.0956396)
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DonaldD on September 01, 2020, 10:25:54 PM
So you're saying he travelled 20 miles in order to protect himself?  That if he hadn't travelled those 20 miles, he would not have been safe?
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 01, 2020, 11:29:49 PM
So you're saying he travelled 20 miles in order to protect himself?  That if he hadn't travelled those 20 miles, he would not have been safe?

He went to render assistance in a neighboring county. Meanwhile Victim #3 traveled from two counties away to be a participant in his chance "to stop an active shooter" before being shot himself.

Further, Antioch is basically adjacent(SW of Kenosha) to Kenosha, so it also was literally a neighboring community for Rittenhouse. But let's keep impugning him for crossing a state line and running into a group of people who evidently wanted a gunfight.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on September 02, 2020, 12:56:25 AM
Was he at the car dealership he was "defending" when shots got fired? It kind of looks like he was wandering around in a random street. I'm not saying one or the other, because I don't have a google map to find out if he was 20 ft or 2 miles from the spot he was trespassing on.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DonaldD on September 02, 2020, 07:27:08 AM
So you're saying he travelled 20 miles in order to protect himself?  That if he hadn't travelled those 20 miles, he would not have been safe?

He went to render assistance in a neighboring county. Meanwhile Victim #3 traveled from two counties away to be a participant in his chance "to stop an active shooter" before being shot himself.
Cherrypoptart, among others, claimed that "people will defend themselves", to which I responded that travelling from out of state is not actually defending oneself. It's putting oneself in danger.

As to carrying a weapon being a deterrent - I can see that argument.  But putting ammunition in the weapon is not actually required for deterrence.  The only reason to put live ammunition into the weapon is for the purposes of transferring those bits of metal into somebody's body. Of course, in a country with more firearm weapons than actual people, bringing a weapon may simply be seen as a provocation and an escalation.  Does anybody really think that fewer people who attend the protests will go armed, now?  And if Rittenhouse had not been carrying a weapon, would his life ever have been in any significant danger?  Honestly?

And as to the relative distance Rittenhouse and his victims travelled: you are missing the point.  I didn't claim that the victims were there to protect themselves, as cherry was arguing was the case for Rittenhouse.

Of course, the whole fires and chaos thing is being exaggerated for political purposes.  Only a single fire engine has been called for the burning of Portland, if you can believe that.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 02, 2020, 08:08:07 AM
When we send troops over to Afghanistan to take out al-Qaeda, are we not defending ourselves?

This guy went over there and was apparently putting out fires started by arsonists. I'm not talking about just defending ourselves as in personal self-defense, although he did end up doing that too after someone tried to set him on fire.  But I'm also referring to defending our civilization, the one that many of these so called protestors seem to want to burn down and destroy. The one that the police are supposed to be defending but are abandoning under orders. It makes a lot more sense for people to try to defend themselves by helping their neighbors than it does to wait until the fight comes right to your own doorstep at which point your back is up against the wall and all it takes is one person to throw a Molotov cocktail through your window and then what are you going to do? Too late to do much of anything at that point. Worst case you may end up having to stop, drop, and roll.

It's amazing to me how confused we seem to be about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Bad guys set things on fire. Good guys put fires out. Not complicated.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DonaldD on September 02, 2020, 08:16:14 AM
You realize that works both ways right?  Bad people shoot people in the back 7 times: good people protest people who shoot people in the back.  Bad people bring guns to a protest and shoot people in the head.  Good people try to disarm them, sometimes getting shot in the process.  Bad people drive through protests and fire paintballs, marbles and pepper spray into protesters.  Good people stop them from doing so, presumably with other projectile weapons.

When you say "defending our civilization" you are presumably not talking about the civilization of the protesters, but of the people who do not support the protesters.

Simply put, only Americans, it seem, don't understand that bringing firearms to protests is stupid and counterproductive.  They are simply escalations waiting to happen. 
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: yossarian22c on September 02, 2020, 08:23:28 AM
This guy went over there and was apparently putting out fires started by arsonists.
...
It's amazing to me how confused we seem to be about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Bad guys set things on fire. Good guys put fires out. Not complicated.

He put out a dumpster fire, which is good. But put himself in a situation where he was armed with a gun and surrounded by angry people. The killings may well be justified as self defense under the law but "good guys" avoid situations where killing multiple people over a dumpster fire is necessary. Maybe this situation is the opposite of what Trump said in Charlottesville, maybe there weren't "good people" on either side of this disaster.

Good people is in quotes because they could have been good people, but I don't think either side was acting in a good way at the time the shots were fired. Rittenhouse should never have been out on the street alone and armed. He wasn't running to put out a fire at an orphanage, it was literally a dumpster fire just let it burn, putting it out wasn't worth the risk to himself and others there.

Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: rightleft22 on September 02, 2020, 09:27:31 AM
Quote
It does seem a little odd though to insist on cracking down on these so called "militias" while giving rioters free reign to burn, loot, and pillage.

Giving free reign to burn and loot is not acceptable and just another example of a sloppy handling by law reinforcement. A blind eye to militia not being the way to handle things. I image the police "cooperation" or acceptance with a black militia in the same situation opposed to the rioting being quite different.

A law and order President offering up excuses to such militias is setting a precedence which once let out of the bottle could be hard to put back.  It most certainly not a Law and Order position, one in which the slippery slope can only end is Lawlessness and chaos. 

You may want to put your faith in a ungoverned, unaccountable militia protecting you but I believe that's how the rule of 'war lords' starts not law and order.   

It fascinates me that the world the RNC pictures under Biden is the very world they are creating now. The shadow projection is terrifying.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: rightleft22 on September 02, 2020, 09:59:20 AM
Quote
It fascinates me that the world the RNC pictures under Biden is the very world they are creating now. The shadow projection is terrifying.

I take that back.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: NobleHunter on September 02, 2020, 10:14:51 AM
If you can make people afraid of the world you're trying to create and convince them your opponents are the ones responsible, every bit of progress just drives people further on to your side.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 02, 2020, 11:18:55 AM
You may want to put your faith in a ungoverned, unaccountable militia protecting you but I believe that's how the rule of 'war lords' starts not law and order.

Unaccountable militia warlords? Rittenhouse is setting  precedent which says something quite different at present. And incidentally, at least his shootings are being throughly investigated(and has lots of video evidence to help)... Meanwhile, as a counter example, we have the "CHAZ/CHOP Security" guys who shot up a SUV being driven by a black teen and his brother(IIRC), where the crime scene was sufficiently disturbed it seems Seattle PD has all but given up trying to bring anyone to justice on it.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on September 02, 2020, 11:26:24 AM
When we send troops over to Afghanistan to take out al-Qaeda, are we not defending ourselves?

This guy went over there and was apparently putting out fires started by arsonists. I'm not talking about just defending ourselves as in personal self-defense, although he did end up doing that too after someone tried to set him on fire.  But I'm also referring to defending our civilization, the one that many of these so called protestors seem to want to burn down and destroy. The one that the police are supposed to be defending but are abandoning under orders. It makes a lot more sense for people to try to defend themselves by helping their neighbors than it does to wait until the fight comes right to your own doorstep at which point your back is up against the wall and all it takes is one person to throw a Molotov cocktail through your window and then what are you going to do? Too late to do much of anything at that point. Worst case you may end up having to stop, drop, and roll.

It's amazing to me how confused we seem to be about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Bad guys set things on fire. Good guys put fires out. Not complicated.

Better we shoot fifteen rioters dead than to let one car burn, eh? It is complicated, unless you think someone walking in the street next to someone who may or may not try to damage property deserves to die.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: wmLambert on September 02, 2020, 11:55:19 AM
You realize that works both ways right?  Bad people shoot people in the back 7 times: good people protest people who shoot people in the back.  Bad people bring guns to a protest and shoot people in the head.  Good people try to disarm them, sometimes getting shot in the process.  Bad people drive through protests and fire paintballs, marbles and pepper spray into protesters.  Good people stop them from doing so, presumably with other projectile weapons.

No, rationalizing how rioters who burn down buildings and, just as importantly, verbally threaten murder and arson are not the real bad guys is illogical. Once the initial act has occurred, the intent is criminal and ongoing. Police, Feds, National Guard, and vigilantes are all on the side of goodness and light to stop the incipient evil. If the evildoers weren't anticipating being released within an hour of being arrested, and let back out on the street, they might pack up and go home before being arrested. If they weren't paid for their assigned actions to instigate flash mobs via internet, and then urge them on to criminal rioting, it would seem more like protests gone too far. But its not.

Good and bad aren't toys for you to play with. They are immutable concepts that aren't changed by the outcomes created by the bad guys. When I studied Philosophy and Logic as a minor at UM, it was stressed that any purposeful crime is the harbinger of no legal constraints. Anyone who decided the law doesn't pertain to himself has crossed the line. Jaywalking or murder - it doesn't matter. Once the line is crossed, law no longer constrains them - only the necessity to rationalize one's actions by claiming "victimhood." If force is what it takes to stop them, then force is good. As long as law is followed, the force is appropriate. If Rittenhouse was legally allowed to openly carry his weapon, which is open to debate, then his using it in self-defense will win in court.

If the policeman who was trying to prevent what appeared to be a kidnapping shot seven bullets into the man who would not surrender, and fought off two tazers in the process, the good and evil is also evident. As Tyrus said, "Compliance"!

Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DonaldD on September 02, 2020, 12:57:00 PM
No, rationalizing how rioters who burn down buildings and, just as importantly, verbally threaten murder and arson are not the real bad guys is illogical.

Wooosh!

The sound of the point flying right over wmLambert's head.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: msquared on September 02, 2020, 01:03:39 PM
WmLambert

Anyone who decided the law doesn't pertain to himself has crossed the line. Jaywalking or murder - it doesn't matter. Once the line is crossed, law no longer constrains them - only the necessity to rationalize one's actions by claiming "victimhood."

This sounds a lot like Trump doesn't it?
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on September 02, 2020, 01:17:25 PM
No, rationalizing how rioters who burn down buildings and, just as importantly, verbally threaten murder and arson are not the real bad guys is illogical. Once the initial act has occurred, the intent is criminal and ongoing.

Since that's immutable, I'm glad to know you condemn the rioting and looting committed by the Sons of Liberty. Because make no mistake, that is exactly what we are talking about here. A government that has failed its people, relies on force to make people compliant, and turns a deaf ear to those who decry the injustice must inevitably be made right by force of arms if necessary.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Seriati on September 02, 2020, 07:50:49 PM
Are their any laws about allowing "Militia" in the streets

Yes, you can see the Constitutional rights related to bearing arms, free assembly and ultimately to self defense.

Quote
Who here is in favor of condoning such a thing as Militia on the streets?

No one.  We empowered the government to create police departments and passed laws criminalizing certain conduct for a reason.

The problem is that when the government abdicates its responsibility to enforce those laws, which is unarguably what the Democrats endorse, it leaves the citizens no choice but to re-assume the burdens that government was formed to take off their hands.  The Democrats are breaching the social contract by refusing to prosecute violations of law.

Quote
Does it depend if they are a white or black militia

Not in the least.  Black militias are just as welcome to protect against violations of the laws of the country.  They are not however any more welcome to decide to violate the laws in pursuit of higher goals than white militias would be.

All people, black and white, are entitled to self defense.  When defending others all people are subject to the risk that they will be acting wrongfully and be liable to prosecution.

Quote
What should the minimum age of participants in a militia be?

Don't even understand this question.  What is the minimum age to participate in self defense?  Are children allowed to kill attempted rapists if they can?

Quote
What kind of training should they have?

Self defense doesn't require training.  If you want trained law enforcement, we have this group called "police" that could be enforcing our laws instead.

Quote
How do you hold the Militia accountable?

Same way you hold anyone else accountable.  Self defense is a right, defense of others entails a certain amount of risk at law.

Quote
Does it matter if Militia come from outer state?

Not really.  Fighting anarchy is the responsibility of all citizens.

Quote
How the crap are Militia considered LAW and ORDER????

Not sure why you think they are.  Militia is only involved because order has broken down and laws are being violated in ways that threaten the very principles upon which our Constitutional order is based.

Law and order would be the police arresting rioters, arsonists and violence committing protestors, prosecutors filing the applicable charges and courts putting them in jail.  Which is exactly what the local Democratic governments have abdicated with orders to defund the police, force them to let the rioters and looters proceed unchecked and removing any requirements for bail.  Its exactly what the activist prosecutors have been put in place to do, and have done by announcing they will not press or even file charges against criminals arrested in connection with riots unless they were involved in direct violence (which they make no evidence to determine).

Don't whine about a break down in Law and Order when you support exactly the conduct that refuses to apply that law and order.  What did you expect that no one would respond just because the Democrats are able to put in power a handful of elites who refuse to do their duty?

What we also see are witches being burned, Tutsis being macheted, blacks being lynched, and the list goes on.

Really?  Where did you see a witch being burned?  Show where you've seen blacks being lynched.  You're lying, you have not seen any of that.  Reading in a history book about witches being burned has NOTHING to do with modern justice or lack there of.  The results of blacks being lynched was decades of justice reform, civil rights improvement and massive amounts of protective laws being put in place.  All of which is being undermined by these actions today.

You are bearing false witness.

Quote
As an aside, driving 30 miles from out of state in order to carry a gun while putting themselves in the middle of a protest in someone else's city can in no way be characterized as "defending themselves".

Really, and is driving to a protest for black lives then somehow also false if you're doing it in another community?  What makes defending racial justice as a roving partisan different than defending constitutional principles?

Fact is, the damage that the left is doing to the country is nationwide even though the burning, looting and crime are currently localized.  It's every citizens problem when the local government chooses to let mobs violate the rights of its own citizens in pursuit of their own partisan political advantage.

Quote
Wielding a gun to protect somebody else's used car dealership - how does that work, anyway?

Same way as defending it with fists I'd imagine.  Nothing about having a gun for self defense is out of the ordinary in that context.

I note, you didn't choose to respond to the NY Times link.  It looks in that article like the first shots they can identify are coming from someone other than the kid, who fires after he hears shots and is being charged.  According to the link in the second event they heard 16 shots (far more than the kid fired) and one of the people he shot had a pistol in hand.

What about going to a protest means you should be carrying a gun?  really nothing.  Going to a planned riot and session of wanton criminality on the other hand, sure does.

Quote
What if those evil hoodlums don't stop smashing the cars when you tell them to?

I take it then that smashing cars doesn't justify shooting them to you.  What if they were beating a man with a baseball bat?  Okay then?  What if they are throwing incendiary devices at police officers?  Okay then?  What if say, they're deciding to rape a woman in the middle of the day on a subway platform?  Okay then?

If you can't understand why a situation where people feel entitled to smash and burn cars needs to end, then you're not really advocating for anything but anarchy.  The rule of anarchy is always defend yourself.  Militias are doing exactly that, even when they travel, by trying to stem the sense that there is no consequence to such abusive behavior by looters and rioters.

Quote
What if they don't stop when you aim your guns at them?  Do you shoot the for rioters not listening to armed, self-appointed militia telling them what to do?

No, they get shot for engaging in violent anarchy in direct violation of our laws.  They get shot because complicit politicians seeking partisan advantage refuse to do their sworn duty and enforce the laws - laws that have been there in some cases for our entire history and that no rationale person thinks are the wrong laws, or even in any way racist.  They get shot for being personally culpable in creating a system that is ruled by anarchy and the might makes right precepts of anarchy.  We had a system based on justice, these individuals are facing the consequences of breaking the social constructs that protect them.  They get shot because they'd rather be shot than accept that the police should be enforcing the laws.

The whole situation is created by people who don't believe in the responsibilities of citizenship while they abuse its privileges.

Now what are you going to do when the anarchy stretches into your house and the houses of your friends and family?  I somehow don't believe you're going to roll over and let them do what ever they want to you and yours, but you're perfectly content if they're doing it to someone else.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on September 02, 2020, 08:21:46 PM
Quote
What about going to a protest means you should be carrying a gun?  really nothing.  Going to a planned riot and session of wanton criminality on the other hand, sure does.

The NRA would disagree with you. They believe you should go armed to church, birthday parties, definitely to protests - or did you miss all those armed guys going to down to Unite the Right?
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 03, 2020, 11:08:23 PM
Quote
What about going to a protest means you should be carrying a gun?  really nothing.  Going to a planned riot and session of wanton criminality on the other hand, sure does.

The NRA would disagree with you. They believe you should go armed to church, birthday parties, definitely to protests - or did you miss all those armed guys going to down to Unite the Right?

You do realize the NRA was founded with the goal of arming blacks and training them in the use of firearms so they could defend themselves from the KKK?

You do realize the NRA advocates that law abiding citizens carry at all times so that in the event that a Criminal does strike, a "good guy with a guy" is able to intervene?

At no point has the NRA advocated for criminals to be the only ones carrying guns. Rather they advocate you have a gun because otherwise it will only be the criminals who have guns. Criminals don't need an advocacy group to tell them than being armed helps them in committing many crimes.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DonaldD on September 04, 2020, 07:48:36 AM
You do realize the NRA was founded with the goal of arming blacks and training them in the use of firearms so they could defend themselves from the KKK?
That's pure historical revisionism... especially since the NRA predated the creation of the first klan chapter by several years. Training union soldiers?  Sure.  I suppose you could argue that training Union soldiers defended Blacks from the Confederacy.  But arming and training Blacks to allow them to defend themselves against the non-existent KKK?  No.

Regardless, making a statement about what the NRA was prior to it's redefinition in the 1970s is just silly.  It's like wmLambert making the argument that the Republican party cannot be supported by racists in any way because - Lincoln!!
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on September 04, 2020, 02:09:56 PM
Quote
What about going to a protest means you should be carrying a gun?  really nothing.  Going to a planned riot and session of wanton criminality on the other hand, sure does.

The NRA would disagree with you. They believe you should go armed to church, birthday parties, definitely to protests - or did you miss all those armed guys going to down to Unite the Right?

You do realize the NRA was founded with the goal of arming blacks and training them in the use of firearms so they could defend themselves from the KKK?

You do realize the NRA advocates that law abiding citizens carry at all times so that in the event that a Criminal does strike, a "good guy with a guy" is able to intervene?

At no point has the NRA advocated for criminals to be the only ones carrying guns. Rather they advocate you have a gun because otherwise it will only be the criminals who have guns. Criminals don't need an advocacy group to tell them than being armed helps them in committing many crimes.

I don't know which is worse, that you equate going to a protest with being a criminal, or that you pick and choose which protests fall into that category.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 04, 2020, 02:22:08 PM
I don't know which is worse, that you equate going to a protest with being a criminal, or that you pick and choose which protests fall into that category.

Going to a protest where property destruction occurs, and remaining there while doing nothing to stop it after a "reasonable person standard is crossed," makes you a criminal.

If you go to a protest, but leave once criminal activity starts and you're aware of it, you're golden.

If you go to a protest, and act to stop the criminal activity once you're aware of it, you're golden.

If you go to a protest where "a reasonable person should know" criminal activity probably will happen, while dressed in the same attire as a "reasonable person should know" person likely to be doing criminal things at said event("black block"), and remain present after criminal activity begins. Then yes, you ARE a criminal.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DonaldD on September 04, 2020, 03:14:34 PM
Going to a protest where property destruction occurs, and remaining there while doing nothing to stop it after a "reasonable person standard is crossed," makes you a criminal.
So, going to a protest where your CBP partners assault peaceful protesters, and remaining there while doing nothing to stop it also makes you a criminal? Especially if they go wearing attire that a a "reasonable person should know" will be worn by those likely to assault protesters?

Quote
If you go to a protest where "a reasonable person should know" criminal activity probably will happen, while dressed in the same attire as a "reasonable person should know" person likely to be doing criminal things at said event("black block"), and remain present after criminal activity begins. Then yes, you ARE a criminal.
Let me explain to you why this is silly.  Violent malcontents will gravitate to all large scale protests; this is especially the case where the protest is against violence by the state, and where those responsible for the violence being protested are also tasked with policing the protest.  Your right to peaceably assemble is in no way dependent on what other, completely independent people are doing down the street. Nor is it dependent on your fashion choices.

By your argument, anybody attending a large scale protest is a criminal.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 04, 2020, 03:37:18 PM
Going to a protest where property destruction occurs, and remaining there while doing nothing to stop it after a "reasonable person standard is crossed," makes you a criminal.
So, going to a protest where your CBP partners assault peaceful protesters, and remaining there while doing nothing to stop it also makes you a criminal? Especially if they go wearing attire that a a "reasonable person should know" will be worn by those likely to assault protesters?

Acting in the capacity of a CBP officer changes the situation. They're not protesters, they're there to perform a job.

Their first priority is carrying out their lawful orders. Dealing with the unlawful behavior of their comrade at arms is something best addressed in a manner that does not impede the primary objective. Only after the primary objective is achieved do you then devote time and resources to address the other issue, unless it appears their unlawful behavior is creating other safety hazards which prevent completion of the initial objective.

Now because that action is being taken after everything else was done, and in that specific case, probably once they were back in the federal building and safe from the crowd(which also means they couldn't see what was done). You don't know what they did about that. From comments from Barr on the matter in the past, there are investigations into that by the IG and possibly others as well.

It is entirely likely that trip out was that officers last time being sent out. It's also entirely likely disciplinary actions were initiated and may still be underway.

Quote
Quote
If you go to a protest where "a reasonable person should know" criminal activity probably will happen, while dressed in the same attire as a "reasonable person should know" person likely to be doing criminal things at said event("black block"), and remain present after criminal activity begins. Then yes, you ARE a criminal.
Let me explain to you why this is silly.  Violent malcontents will gravitate to all large scale protests; this is especially the case where the protest is against violence by the state, and where those responsible for the violence being protested are also tasked with policing the protest.  Your right to peaceably assemble is in no way dependent on what other, completely independent people are doing down the street. Nor is it dependent on your fashion choices.

Not true at all, there have actually been a number of BLM protests where the crowd DID police their own ranks, when people acted out, they were caught by the crowd and turned over to police.

They adhered to one of my conditionals, once they saw criminal behavior occur, they stopped it. They were peaceful protesters with a few bad apples they happily and quickly rid themselves of.

But for the crowd that does nothing when it comes to policing their own ranks? Don't get upset when the police start doing so for you. And that isn't going to be pleasant for you. By failing to "put distance" between yourself and the malcontents, you are actively aiding and abetting that malcontent.

So again, you have two choices in such a circumstance. If you are a peaceful protester, you either ensure your group can police itself, of if you determine self-policing won't work, move the peaceful protesters away from the malcontents so the police can take care of them without involving the larger protest.

If the malcontents move with you, rinse and repeat the calculation as needed. Either start policing your ranks and detain them for the police. Or keep moving away from the malcontents, do not give them cover.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DonaldD on September 04, 2020, 03:54:37 PM
Acting in the capacity of a CBP officer changes the situation. They're not protesters, they're there to perform a job.
So are the protesters - they were there very specifically to protest and police the violent tendencies of government paid employees - let's call them unarmed (for the most part) militias.  Kinda like Rittenhouse, but without the head count.

The one difference is the constitution protects the protester's right to peaceably assemble, but constrains the CBP from brutalizing people standing in front of them while talking about honour.

Quote
It is entirely likely that trip out was that officers last time being sent out. It's also entirely likely disciplinary actions were initiated and may still be underway.
Wow, the naïveté is strong in this one. 
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 04, 2020, 04:29:19 PM
Acting in the capacity of a CBP officer changes the situation. They're not protesters, they're there to perform a job.
So are the protesters - they were there very specifically to protest and police the violent tendencies of government paid employees - let's call them unarmed (for the most part) militias.  Kinda like Rittenhouse, but without the head count.

There is so much nuance you're glossing over and going to otherwise try to compare apples to oranges on with that statement, it isn't worth breaking down.

Quote
The one difference is the constitution protects the protester's right to peaceably assemble, but constrains the CBP from brutalizing people standing in front of them while talking about honour.

But the constitution does not grant someone the right to disobey a lawful order, peaceful protester or not, that is issued in response to unlawful behavior.

He did not have the right to continue to remain standing where he was, now that likewise did not grant the LEO the right to do what he did, so both sides were in the wrong on that.

Quote
Quote
It is entirely likely that trip out was that officers last time being sent out. It's also entirely likely disciplinary actions were initiated and may still be underway.
Wow, the naïveté is strong in this one.

Not really, I fully acknowledge the extent of the "disciplinary action" may have been getting yelled at and a piece of paper placed in his service file saying he'd been duly informed that such conduct is not "appropriate" and they considered the matter settled pending further conclusions from the IG.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on September 04, 2020, 05:33:04 PM
Well according to you people should expect violent consequences if they disobey an unlawful order as well?
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2020, 12:13:20 AM
Well according to you people should expect violent consequences if they disobey an unlawful order as well?

When it comes to LEO's best practice is to comply with their demands, legal or not, and take up the issue of the legality of their commands after the fact.

And I'm foggy on the scenario where I said that was possible, care to refresh my memory on that with context rather than the selective hat pull you just did?

As the track record of late on people keeping my comments in their proper context seems to be rather poor.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on September 05, 2020, 12:33:06 PM
Well according to you people should expect violent consequences if they disobey an unlawful order as well?

When it comes to LEO's best practice is to comply with their demands, legal or not, and take up the issue of the legality of their commands after the fact.

And I'm foggy on the scenario where I said that was possible, care to refresh my memory on that with context rather than the selective hat pull you just did?

As the track record of late on people keeping my comments in their proper context seems to be rather poor.

It was an impression, thus the question mark. But you just confimed my guess. The problem with bringing it up after the fact, is that most complaints go in the favor of the officer.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2020, 01:09:41 PM
Well according to you people should expect violent consequences if they disobey an unlawful order as well?

When it comes to LEO's best practice is to comply with their demands, legal or not, and take up the issue of the legality of their commands after the fact.

And I'm foggy on the scenario where I said that was possible, care to refresh my memory on that with context rather than the selective hat pull you just did?

As the track record of late on people keeping my comments in their proper context seems to be rather poor.

It was an impression, thus the question mark. But you just confimed my guess. The problem with bringing it up after the fact, is that most complaints go in the favor of the officer.

Better to be alive and healthy, albeit very unhappy(but with a political recourse available if inclined, after legal options failed), than dead or disabled.

As a vet, I fully understand the idea that some things are worth dying for, but I'm also with Patton on the idea of making the other guy die for his country(or ideas) rather than volunteering myself to be the dead guy. I'd choose to live to fight another day.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DJQuag on September 05, 2020, 04:15:27 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=The%2bCool%2bZone&amp=true

By all means. Keep on talking about how the people lucky enough to have the spare time to go mug at the camera for Fox News means so much. When the true revolution comes...the only question will be why did you sit back and do nothing. Why did you only profit.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2020, 06:25:31 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=The%2bCool%2bZone&amp=true

By all means. Keep on talking about how the people lucky enough to have the spare time to go mug at the camera for Fox News means so much. When the true revolution comes...the only question will be why did you sit back and do nothing. Why did you only profit.

The "revolution" the socialists and communists want to start in America isn't going to go very far. It certainly has enough support to meet enough of the right conditions to trigger a civil war primed and ready. But it has no influence among the groups it would need in order to achieve what its goals are.

Further, the areas it will desperately need to control in order to succeed exist in predominately "Red" conservative areas. Which means the Republicans get to play defense. And given the backgrounds of a very huge swath of those guys, that's not the game you want them to be playing. And it's the one they will be playing.

I weep for the country if it happens, it will be a meat grinder for the history books. Even worse for the rest of the world, is what China may get up to while "the United States" are fighting each other.

But while I loathe the crony capitalism system currently in play in the United States, the Democrats aren't offering fixes for that, they want to make it worse(the GOP are not angels on that front either). But maybe after few million Democratic voters kill themselves trying to assault a proverbial red wall(sadly taking many others with them along the way), saner heads will prevail.

But I have doubts. I'd prefer to remain under the constitutional government we have, although there certainly are some things that need tweaked. I'm currently not certain it would be able to survive the strain of this particular encounter regardless of which side prevails, as they'll likely fix "other things" that should not be touched along the way. In any case, while one side may " prevail," it certainly won't be a "win."
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: wmLambert on September 05, 2020, 08:17:29 PM
... It's like wmLambert making the argument that the Republican party cannot be supported by racists in any way because - Lincoln!!

You have no credibility at all, do you? You took the challenge to avoid the debate fallacy of "Laughter by Intimidation" to double down on it, proving your lack of integrity and intelligence. Too bad you have no real answers to simple common sense and factual data.

The reason Democrats are so easily derided for immoral political stances, is their own history and legacy. The word "projection" may raise your hackles, but that is your problem. You cannot honorably compare the beginning of the NRA with the beginning of the KKK. I can speak about the history of the KKK being bad and connected with the Democrats, and you have to make up insinuations that the NRA was started to be evil. Please explain away this deflection of yours.

Now AntiFa, BLM, and Occupy Wall Street are subsets of the Democrat Party, just like the KKK was. The leaders of BLM are avowed Communists, with a factual history, and quite quote-worthy, even though the MSM, tries to ignore them. BLM, AntiFa, and Occupy Wall Street brag about how much "Soros money" they get, yet if anyone mentions their own braggadocio, the brags are ignored. The White Nationalists come from the Democrat side. They always have - even after the Dems pretended they "went over" to the GOP with a provably ficticious Nixon "Southern Strategy." There are a few idiot-morons who are are bigots and racists, who actually swallowed the line that the GOP accepts them, when they don't.

Farrakhan is a bigot and a racist, yet the Dems accept him as one of their own. No GOP accepts David Duke, who was a protegé of George Wallace, another Democrat racist.

Why not spend your time asking your own Democrat Governors and Mayors to stop enabling rioters and looters, calling them a "summer of love?" Why not fight these big-city Dems to make them stop releasing criminals and rioters back into the street? Why lay it on Trump, when he has been on the side of goodness and light from the beginning? You did see both conventions, didn't you? Why accept Biden's ads complaining that Trump has no plan for Coronavirus, when he has followed the scientists from day one? The only plan Biden has put forward is to plagiarize Trump's words and actions, call them his own - and claim that Trump has no plan.

Biden adopted the Green New Deal to try to draw the Bernie supporters, then tells everyone, "You know me, I'm middle of the road." ...Just after he said he is the most progressive candidate ever. The man is not like Trump, who honors his pledges. Unlike normal politicians, when Trump makes a campaign promise, he keeps it. Biden is only words. He can't remember the words, but it doesn't keep him from spouting nonsense. I read his official website and all his words there are just reprints of speeches that change from day to day. What he says one day is forgotten the next.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: wmLambert on September 05, 2020, 08:52:05 PM
...I'd prefer to remain under the constitutional government we have, although there certainly are some things that need tweaked.

No, the Constitution needs to be followed rather than be ignored. Woodrow Wilson was a self-proclaimed cerebral genius educator. He wrote the handbook of treating the Constitution as a suggestion that needs to be reinterpreted by "great thinkers." John Dewey designed our educational system to create illogical "followers" who cannot follow logic and decide things for themselves. He was hoodwinked by the Engels-Marxist rhetoric, and admitted what he proposed, and why he wanted drones, instead of citizens. The Constitution can set both errors to right. But we need to get rid of the Wilsonian progressives to do so.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2020, 09:34:47 PM
...I'd prefer to remain under the constitutional government we have, although there certainly are some things that need tweaked.

No, the Constitution needs to be followed rather than be ignored. Woodrow Wilson was a self-proclaimed cerebral genius educator. He wrote the handbook of treating the Constitution as a suggestion that needs to be reinterpreted by "great thinkers." John Dewey designed our educational system to create illogical "followers" who cannot follow logic and decide things for themselves. He was hoodwinked by the Engels-Marxist rhetoric, and admitted what he proposed, and why he wanted drones, instead of citizens. The Constitution can set both errors to right. But we need to get rid of the Wilsonian progressives to do so.

Well, a Balanced Budget Amendment would be a very good thing going forward. It permanently kills any attempt to propose something as insane as the "Green New Deal" going forward unless they can find a way to pay for it that won't cause the voters to toss them out of office.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on September 06, 2020, 12:32:32 AM
...I'd prefer to remain under the constitutional government we have, although there certainly are some things that need tweaked.

No, the Constitution needs to be followed rather than be ignored. Woodrow Wilson was a self-proclaimed cerebral genius educator. He wrote the handbook of treating the Constitution as a suggestion that needs to be reinterpreted by "great thinkers." John Dewey designed our educational system to create illogical "followers" who cannot follow logic and decide things for themselves. He was hoodwinked by the Engels-Marxist rhetoric, and admitted what he proposed, and why he wanted drones, instead of citizens. The Constitution can set both errors to right. But we need to get rid of the Wilsonian progressives to do so.

Well, a Balanced Budget Amendment would be a very good thing going forward. It permanently kills any attempt to propose something as insane as the "Green New Deal" going forward unless they can find a way to pay for it that won't cause the voters to toss them out of office.

It would also stop things like Trump's tax cuts. You still in?
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 06, 2020, 01:07:25 AM
Well, a Balanced Budget Amendment would be a very good thing going forward. It permanently kills any attempt to propose something as insane as the "Green New Deal" going forward unless they can find a way to pay for it that won't cause the voters to toss them out of office.

It would also stop things like Trump's tax cuts. You still in?

Which ones? :)

Honestly, I'm indifferent on them in general. So sure?

But... Contingencies for "emergency situations" would need to be included for obvious reasons. And the current situation with Covid19 would likely meet that criteria, so he'd probably be able to slip in a short-term(We'll say no more than 1 to 2 years) tax cut by way of that.

That is admittedly the most difficult problem with a Balaced Budget Amendment, is how you can codify the criteria for where it won't apply that cannot be abused by either Congress or PotUS, if not both. Or else we end up in a never ending string of "emergencies" or more annoying, a declared war against the island Nation of Tahingi, population: 5 that never gets resolved for obvious reasons... So long as they're in a declared war, the balanced budget requirements don't apply.

Sure putting in a super-majority requirement to "recertify" the emergency status sounds great as another way to address it, but could instead be used as an excuse to generate more pork, not less.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DJQuag on September 06, 2020, 04:47:10 PM
That revolution may or may not go so far. It's usually depended on 1/3 unforced class. Believe it or not, but at that level of society with that level of desperation that's when shut starts to adjust.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DJQuag on September 06, 2020, 04:49:55 PM
That revolution may or may not go so far. It's usually depended on 1/3 unforced class. Believe it or not, but at that level of society with that level of desperation that's when shut starts to adjust.

The funniest thing for me is when you all keep on trying to take in the expectations or *censored* you a clock. Who gives a *censored*.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 06, 2020, 07:55:18 PM
That revolution may or may not go so far. It's usually depended on 1/3 unforced class. Believe it or not, but at that level of society with that level of desperation that's when shut starts to adjust.

By all metrics except population age demographics, we're "primed and ready to go" if it does go anywhere, it's going to involve the oldest cohort of revolutionaries seen to date. But we'll see.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: wmLambert on September 07, 2020, 02:52:00 PM
There are basically four groups of people who are part of a revolution. Firstly, are the idiot-morons who are clueless, but willing to become cannon fodder for the other groups. These are the people, when interviewed, who are shown to be clueless, repeating empty clichés and hollow phrases, but don't know any history nor current events.

Secondly, are the insular activists who clamor for personal power and wealth, by following marching orders and payment for their services. They are enabled by similar peers who are as jaded and dishonorable as themselves. They only look for anything that supports their intentions, and ignore any self-education.

Thirdly, are the sensible observers, who don't volunteer to be activists, but get drawn into others' distractions and disturbances. They can see a path to decency and responsible living. They become targets of the activists and cannon-fodder, and in the process of being maligned, become active opponents of what they see as evil. They become counter-protestors.

Lastly, is everyone else, who shake their heads and dismiss the stupidity. They get drawn in, kicking and screaming all the way, but don't want to be there.

Notice, there is no group of honest philosophers who follow sanity. These people stopped wearing MGA hats when wearers became targets, so joined the last group. When innocents become targets, there are no fence-sitters, no more innocents. They still won't answer polls accurately, but don't do it for any reason but self-preservation.

You can't segregate groups by age or demographics - it revolves more about education and peer-pressure. ...And authority figures. It gets complicated when authority figures spout fake news, and lie about others.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on September 07, 2020, 09:09:26 PM
And then one of my more distant relatives on facebook shared a post which reminds me of the other reason why I don't fear the left as a serious existential threat to the country.

So many of them think food comes from the grocery store, and have no concept at all of the larger supply chain that is involved in making that food "appear" at the grocery store. (The comment they shared, from elsewhere, was basically. "I'm not sure why farmers bother growing crops, most people buy their groceries at Albertson's or Kroger's.")

Wars are won on logistics. The Conservatives understand this to varying degrees. Your typical urban liberal? They have no idea of where to even begin. But you can be certain that if it does come to war, the first things to get removed from the board for liberal communities is the logistics support needed to sustain their population. Something they're actually doing a half-way decent job of doing to themselves right now with the rioting.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: wmLambert on September 07, 2020, 10:39:25 PM
...the most difficult problem with a Balanced Budget Amendment, is how you can codify the criteria for where it won't apply that cannot be abused by either Congress or PotUS, if not both. Or else we end up in a never ending string of "emergencies" or more annoying, a declared war against the island Nation of Tahingi, population: 5 that never gets resolved for obvious reasons... So long as they're in a declared war, the balanced budget requirements don't apply.

Sure putting in a super-majority requirement to "recertify" the emergency status sounds great as another way to address it, but could instead be used as an excuse to generate more pork, not less.

Funny, but take a step back. For years, the Dems ran the budget committees with Keynesian economics that the American Economics Association disallowed as invalid and wrong. They make budgets that start at where it left off, not at zero-baseline budgeting. Any budgeting that stopped automatic increases was considered cuts.

Balanced budgeting is good, but make accounting accountable. Use the Laffer-curve to stop runaway taxing that brings in less revenue. Stop over regulation that kills all positive cultural norms. Forget the French economist Frédéric Bastiat's "broken window fallacy." Remember that most of our debt is owed to ourselves, and not to China. There are many things that impact our economy, and being righteously clever for a change would be nice. I like the Trump order that for any new regulation, several old ones must be deleted. I like the penny plan: for every on-budget dollar the federal government spent, it spends one penny less for the next five years (at which point balance is reached), with spending then growing at one percent thereafter.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: DonaldD on September 08, 2020, 10:09:00 AM
Of course, the usual mistake when referring to the Laffer curve is to assume one is on the upside or the downside of the curve, and tax cutters always assume that tax increases will reduce tax revenue. There is no evidence that is the case.

As well, the Laffer curve does not take into account differences in types of taxes, and assumes they all have the same effect.  Basing this oversimplified curve on a single variable ('average' tax rate) is of course ridiculous.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on November 08, 2021, 08:23:19 PM
Evidence provided by the State Prosecution in the Kyle Rittenhouse case:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-3-states-own-witnesses-damage-prosecution-reinforce-self-defense-narrative/

Quote
When Binger asked Balch for his impression of Kyle that night, Balch replied that Kyle seemed like a young and impressionable kid, interested in other people and a life guard, seeking to provide medical care to anyone who might be injured.  He also described Kyle as presenting as vulnerable, as someone who protestors might identify as a target and attack.

In contrast, when Binger asked Balch for his impression of Joseph Rosenbaum that night, Balch replied that every time he encountered Rosenbaum he was being hyper-aggressive and acting out in a violent manner, always having to be restrained from violence by others. Indeed, Balch said he was approached by other protestors who wanted to ensure him that Rosenbaum was not one of them, not a member of their group. These other protestors wanted no misunderstanding that there might be an association with the hyper-aggressive Rosenbaum and themselves.

The ultimate high point, however, came—and again, I feel obliged to remind you, this is while the STATE is engaged in direct questioning of THEIR OWN WITNESS—when ADA Binger asked Balch to describe an encounter between Kyle and Balch, on the one hand, and Rosenbaum on the other, that took place shortly after Kyle had put out a dumpster fire started by Rosenbaum.

Balch testified that Rosenbaum came right up to the pair, “got right in my face,” yelling and screaming, and murderously pledged “if I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I’m going to f’ing kill you!”

The earlier ADA (Binger) exchange with McGinnis is pretty good in this context as well.

Quote
Now on re-direct, Binger rather heatedly challenged his own witness:  You can’t read Rosenbaum’s mind, right? You can’t know what he was actually thinking, right? Your interpretation of his intent is nothing but complete guesswork, isn’t that right?

McGinnis paused a moment, and replied:  “Well, he said “F-you, and then he reached for the weapon.”  So, maybe not entirely guesswork.

But to rewind things a bit further on the McGinnis testimony:
Quote
At some point, McGinnis and Kyle had become somewhat separated. Then McGinnis saw the now-familiar Kyle run by with a fire extinguisher, and decided to follow to see what was going on.

As it happens Kyle was running down Sheridan to put out a fire reportedly occurring in a Car Source parking lot down the street.  As Kyle approached the lot, he also happened to be gaining ground on Joseph Rosenbaum, who was ahead up the street. Rosenbaum was accompanied by Joshua Ziminsky and his wife, Mrs. Ziminsky, with whom he was apparently friends.

Joshua Ziminsky was carrying a Glock pistol which he would shortly fire into the air, thus triggering subsequent events resulting in the death of Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and the maiming of Gaige Grosskreutz.

As Kyle reached the edge of the Car Source lot, Rosenbaum concealed himself among four cars, then emerged behind Kyle and initiated his charge of Kyle.  McGinnis was still running down Sheridan to catch up with Kyle, and so ended up behind Rosenbaum as events proceeded.  Also roughly behind Kyle and Rosenbaum was Joshua Ziminsky, who was on the sidewalk near the group of four cars that Rosenbaum had been hiding in.

As Rosenbaum chased the isolated Kyle across the lot, Joshua Ziminsky raised his pistol and fired a shot in the air.  The fleeing Kyle, hearing the shot behind him, turned to look in that direction, and saw Rosenbaum charging at him, screaming “F-YOU!” at the top of his lungs.

Much of this was confirmed both by the observational testimony of McGinnis, as well as by various video recordings, including the FBI aerial infrared video recording, and so the events are effectively indisputable.

McGinnis personally observed the charge of Rosenbaum on Kyle, and described the attack in some great detail.  Rosenbaum was in a hunched forward running position, as one would be running as fast as one could.  Kyle was desperately fleeing towards the far side of the Car Source lot—and was shouting “friendly, friendly, friendly!” while doing so.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on November 09, 2021, 10:47:22 AM
Also from Monday's portion of the trial.

Grosskreutz, the only person of the three people Rittenhouse shot and is still living, was called to the stand to testify by the prosecution.

In cross-examination, Grosskreutz admitted to pointed his gun at Rittenhouse(making Rittenhouse shooting him self-defense), and Grosskreutz's testimony in relation to Huber hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard had him "concerned as an EMT" about serious harm to Rittenhouse --bosltering the self-defense position for Rittenhouse on shooting Huber.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 09, 2021, 12:20:25 PM
And the Defense hasn't even started their defense yet.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 10, 2021, 04:30:08 PM
It is absurd that the video that shows him stating

Quote
“Bro I wish I had my (expletive) AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them.”

https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce

isn't admissible to impeach his response to the Defenses question,

Quote
Richards asked if Rittenhouse if he came "looking for trouble" in Kenosha on August 25, 2020.

"No," Rittenhouse responded.

https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-live-updates-defense-calls-rittenhouse-stand-1647945

It is absurd that a judge has the power to exclude such relevant evidence and that Rittenhouse's testimony, that is clearly contradicted by evidence be allowed to stand.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on November 10, 2021, 06:07:22 PM
I haven't read the judges ruling, but from your article LR:

Quote
Prosecutors say that the video shows Rittenhouse watching some men exiting a CVS store and then commenting that he wishes he had his rifle so he could shoot them. It was filmed 15 days before the Kenosha shootings.

A voice that sounds like Rittenhouse says one of the men coming out of the store appears to be armed, the Journal Sentinel reported. Then, he says, “Bro I wish I had my (expletive) AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them.”

In an affidavit accompanying the motion, Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger said his office obtained the video last week. It does not say how or from whom.

There's more than enough about that I find questionable. This video only just showed up? From where? Rittenhouse isn't on the video saying this, its just someone who sounds like Rittenhouse?

Another article:

Quote
Rittenhouse is not visible in the video, nor is the person with him. The brief video, shot from across a busy street at night, shows a group of people leaving a CVS carrying bags and loading them into the trunk of a car. “It looks like one of them has a weapon,” the person prosecutors identify as Rittenhouse states. The CVS, which is neighbored by what appears to be a multistory office building, does not appear to be in the Kenosha area.

Setting that aside, I don't know that his feelings toward other random people does much. If a person threatens to stab one individual two weeks before stabbing someone entirely different, does that really establish a pattern? Likewise with them not being able to show that he had fleeting contact with the Proud Boys.

Even a racist hothead is allowed to defend themselves, if they are not the aggressor. All that matters was whether he was being aggressive on that night, not whether he was generally an aggressive person. That's setting aside how serious he might have been in a tiny clip with no context obtained in a shady manner. This could be on the level of an O'Keefe video - taken wildly out of the conversation that led to the comment.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 10, 2021, 06:33:57 PM
Setting that aside, I don't know that his feelings toward other random people does much. If a person threatens to stab one individual two weeks before stabbing someone entirely different, does that really establish a pattern? Likewise with them not being able to show that he had fleeting contact with the Proud Boys.

I think it is evidence that he was in fact 'looking for trouble'.

Quote
Even a racist hothead is allowed to defend themselves, if they are not the aggressor.

So let's assume for the moment that Rittenhouse might be willing to lie to avoid going to jail - just as he was willing to lie about being an EMT.  He is on recording admitting he pointed his gun at someone (he claimed on the stand that he was lying when he admitted it).  He is on the surveillance video following Rosenbaum and then Rosenbaum appears to try and hide in the cars then  runs after Rittenhouse and is shot.

1) If Rittenhouse points the gun at Rosenbaum - he commits assault with a deadly weapon - then Rosenbaum would have a reasonable fear for his life, and being unarmed might reasonably try to disarm the person who threatened him.  Then trying to disarm Rittenhouse is self-defense and Rittenhouse is the aggressor.

2) Then all of the deaths that follow are not self-defense.  Instead we have someone who was threatened with a gun trying to disarm the person with the gun, who is shot, and then the shooter shoots additional people who try to disarm him.

Quote
All that matters was whether he was being aggressive on that night, not whether he was generally an aggressive person.

We have an audio recording that he admits is him, where he affirms that he pointed his gun at someone, it is only now that he is being prosecuted that he claims he lied about engaging in that crime.  People generally don't lie when the admit to a crime, it is when they are being investigated for crimes they are likely to lie.

Generally speaking deaths that are a direct action of a prior crime are murders and not self defense even if it would normally be self defense (ie you rob a bank, the bank guard pulls his gun and you shoot him - it is murder, even though if the guard had done so without your bank robbery it would be self defense).  (But not if they are indirectly related - so illegal possession of a firearm for instance wouldn't negate self defense).
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on November 10, 2021, 07:24:03 PM
1) If Rittenhouse points the gun at Rosenbaum - he commits assault with a deadly weapon - then Rosenbaum would have a reasonable fear for his life, and being unarmed might reasonably try to disarm the person who threatened him.  Then trying to disarm Rittenhouse is self-defense and Rittenhouse is the aggressor.

Problem with this is that the guy who fired the shot into the air that triggered all of this? He was a good friend of Rosenbaum's, and had been moving around through the riots together up until that point.

Rosenbaum may have been unarmed, but his friend was.

Quote
We have an audio recording that he admits is him, where he affirms that he pointed his gun at someone, it is only now that he is being prosecuted that he claims he lied about engaging in that crime.  People generally don't lie when the admit to a crime, it is when they are being investigated for crimes they are likely to lie.

People will lie about carrying out crimes they didn't commit. Criminals have done it before.

Quote
Generally speaking deaths that are a direct action of a prior crime are murders and not self defense even if it would normally be self defense (ie you rob a bank, the bank guard pulls his gun and you shoot him - it is murder, even though if the guard had done so without your bank robbery it would be self defense).  (But not if they are indirectly related - so illegal possession of a firearm for instance wouldn't negate self defense).

It isn't actually that clear cut in law. As I've had someone with legal background point out that jurisprudence on that gets to be "weird" when the criminal starts running away.

Once they begin to flee, the threat is gone, and the bank guard can no longer claim self-defense on his end.

If the guard continues to pursue the criminal and then puts the criminal in what the criminal feels to be a "life or death" situation, the criminal can kill the guard in self-defense and have it stand up in court.

The criminal is only legally obligated to stop if a police officer tells them to, not Joe Security guard.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: wmLambert on November 10, 2021, 07:37:43 PM
One of the worst bits of disinformation is the current idea that the wild west was a time of gun-slingers and criminality. In fact, it was the most peaceful of times, because everyone carried (largely to protect against snakes and other wild animals, and armed citizens ensured peace.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on November 11, 2021, 12:35:44 PM
Well, I guess I'll have to make sure that none of my acquaintances has a firearm in future, if their stupidity means it's open season on me, the adjacent unarmed guy.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: yossarian22c on November 11, 2021, 01:01:24 PM
One of the worst bits of disinformation is the current idea that the wild west was a time of gun-slingers and criminality. In fact, it was the most peaceful of times, because everyone carried (largely to protect against snakes and other wild animals, and armed citizens ensured peace.

They had a relatively low population density and sometimes very strict gun laws about carrying in town. When everyone knows each other crime tends to be lower. The last person shot had a handgun. Pretty sure he would be in his rights to have shot Rittenhouse as well. Rittenhouse had just killed two people and pointed his rifle at him. Mutual self defense claims are somewhat justified. Sorry I don't want to live in a society where the occasional shootout happens and we just shrug and say self defense.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 11, 2021, 02:21:56 PM
It isn't actually that clear cut in law. As I've had someone with legal background point out that jurisprudence on that gets to be "weird" when the criminal starts running away.

Once they begin to flee, the threat is gone, and the bank guard can no longer claim self-defense on his end.

The guard can't shoot a fleeing criminal (which is what your acquaintance with a legal background was likely trying to convey) but they can pursue and point their gun at the fleeing criminal (jurisdiction dependent, but generally true).  If the fleeing criminal then shoots the guard, they still murdered the guard and it isn't self defense - the death is a result of a continuation of their initial criminal act.

Quote
If the guard continues to pursue the criminal and then puts the criminal in what the criminal feels to be a "life or death" situation, the criminal can kill the guard in self-defense and have it stand up in court.

See above.  I think you misunderstood what your acquaintance was telling you.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Grant on November 15, 2021, 06:33:21 PM
... But pacifists between the sheets.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 16, 2021, 01:01:56 PM
Quote
He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.” Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away.

“I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. “I made no bones about that from the beginning. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81186071

So I was trying to remain objective throughout the case, trying to offer the most generous interpretations of prior claims of bias or improper action by the judge.

I think that stance is now impossible to maintain in light of this.  I think it is clear that he waited till minutes before closing arguments to issue the ruling to prevent the court of appeals hearing it appealed.  It is a deliberate sabotage of the prosecution.  I think this judge needs to be severely sanctioned, a mistrial declared, and a new trial.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 16, 2021, 01:14:11 PM
"I think this judge needs to be severely sanctioned, a mistrial declared, and a new trial."

There were some theories that the prosecution was intentionally engaging in provocative conduct hoping to get a mistrial too. I guess you're not supposed to make a big deal in front of the jury about a defendant exercising their right to remain silent after arrest and the prosecutor did it anyway.

The prosecution should know the laws and none of the facts about the type of gun used or his age have ever been in question. If it wasn't against the law they shouldn't have brought the charge in the first place. Going for a mistrial when it looks like the prosecution lost hoping for a different result next time hardly seems like justice. It may delay the expected riots for a while though which are probably the biggest factor in the case and the harshest "evidence" against the defendant insofar as it's the most likely thing to get him declared guilty. I don't think anyone can dispute that in cases like these we're living under the threat of mob justice.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 16, 2021, 01:18:24 PM
The prosecution should know the laws and none of the facts about the type of gun used or his age have ever been in question. If it wasn't against the law they shouldn't have brought the charge in the first place.

It was and is against the law.  The judge is claiming that the statute is 'unclear'.  The statute is very clear, and had the judge  ruled earlier, it would have been appealed and the judges ruling found incorrect.  Hence his waiting till the last second and his smug comment.

Quote
" And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.”

That "I guess that's not fair for me because I was sitting on it" - he delayed ruling on it so there would be no chance for appeal.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 16, 2021, 03:11:53 PM
I'm pretty sure you can't appeal a Judge's decision until after the trial is over.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on November 16, 2021, 03:42:12 PM
I think that stance is now impossible to maintain in light of this.  I think it is clear that he waited till minutes before closing arguments to issue the ruling to prevent the court of appeals hearing it appealed.  It is a deliberate sabotage of the prosecution.  I think this judge needs to be severely sanctioned, a mistrial declared, and a new trial.

It doesn't work that way for the prosecution. If the jury renders a verdict, and it is "not guilty" then it is done. Only the defense can pursue a mistrial claim, which for obvious reasons would require a guilty verdict.

The Judge could likely be sanctioned by the Bar Association and maybe his fellow judges, but for Kyle Rittenhouse, it would be over one way or another.

I'm not so clear on what happens in the event of a directed verdict by the Judge, but I think Kyle would still be in the clear unless they can prove criminal behavior on the part of the Judge. But even then, you'd have to link Kyle to the Judge's behavior and charge him for that, not the initial crime more likely than not.

The Federal Government could potentially try to insert itself in the process, but so far as the state itself is concerned, it'll likely be over very soon.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 16, 2021, 03:59:45 PM
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/experts-say-gun-charge-dropped-rittenhouse-trial-was-result-poorly-worded-law-2021-11-15/

Quote
This is going to touch a nerve for some people," said John Gross, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. "But this is not an unreasonable reading of this statute by this judge

Quote
Gross said the Wisconsin law concerning underage possession of a dangerous weapon - which covers everything from guns to brass knuckles - is written in a way that it seems to apply restrictions on gun possession only when the person is carrying a short-barreled weapon such as a sawed-off shotgun, less than 12 inches. That is what Rittenhouse's lawyers argued.

Quote
What the legislature did in its writing of the law was to "accidentally carve out a rule that says somebody under the age of 18 can legally have a rifle or shotgun as long as the barrel is of sufficient length," Gross said. "It's just a legislative blunder and it should be fixed."
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 16, 2021, 04:50:14 PM
My view that he acted unethically is not the substance of the ruling, but that he sprung it right before closing arguments so that the prosecutions closing argument would have to be changed and so that it could not be appealed.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 16, 2021, 04:51:53 PM
It doesn't work that way for the prosecution. If the jury renders a verdict, and it is "not guilty" then it is done. Only the defense can pursue a mistrial claim, which for obvious reasons would require a guilty verdict.

You can seek a mistrial prior to the rendering of a jury verdict.  As long as the jury hasn't rendered a verdict then a mistrial can still be declared.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 16, 2021, 04:55:36 PM
He made it pretty clear in the pre trial hearings that this was a possible outcome.  They could have appealed at any time. Also, the prosecution could have stopped the proceedings to appeal.  In any case, given the other charges on the table, why does anybody even care about the gun charge.  Bicep guy admitted on the stand that he was carrying concealed pistol illegally, nobody charged him with anything.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 16, 2021, 05:51:38 PM
He made it pretty clear in the pre trial hearings that this was a possible outcome. They could have appealed at any time.

No they couldn't have.  They can't appeal till there is a ruling.  The judge even stated so in the quote I provided.

Quote
Also, the prosecution could have stopped the proceedings to appeal.

What is your source for this?  It isn't clear that a prosecutor can 'stop the proceedings'.

Quote
  In any case, given the other charges on the table, why does anybody even care about the gun charge.  Bicep guy admitted on the stand that he was carrying concealed pistol illegally, nobody charged him with anything.

Grosskreutz permit was expired though I can't find when (some sources seem to suggest the day of which seems unlikely), I'd be ok with such charges.  He could legally possess a gun, and there appears to be no reason why he couldn't have renewed his concealed carry.  I'm curious why he hadn't and when exactly it expired.  He claims he though at the time it was still valid, so the expiration date may have been at or around that time.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 16, 2021, 06:06:57 PM
I watched Bicep boy's testimony live.  He admitted on the stand that his permit was expired on that day.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Fenring on November 16, 2021, 06:24:12 PM
Some of you seem to be arguing that it was too late in the trial for an appeal while others are saying it was too late to sue for a mistrial. Which is it? You're all not even having the same conversation at the moment.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Grant on November 16, 2021, 06:51:27 PM
Some of you seem to be arguing that it was too late in the trial for an appeal while others are saying it was too late to sue for a mistrial. Which is it? You're all not even having the same conversation at the moment.

I just want to know if it is too late for someone to demand trial by combat, with the champions being David Hogg vs the reanimated corpse of Charleston Heston, both armed with flails. 
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 16, 2021, 07:07:03 PM
I watched Bicep boy's testimony live.  He admitted on the stand that his permit was expired on that day.

No one is stating it wasn't "expired on that day" - the question is, did it expire that day ie as of that morning, or had it expired weeks or months, or years prior.  To me it makes a difference as to whether his lack of knowledge that it was expired claim is credible and what charges - if any - would be most appropriate.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 16, 2021, 07:13:36 PM
Some of you seem to be arguing that it was too late in the trial for an appeal while others are saying it was too late to sue for a mistrial. Which is it? You're all not even having the same conversation at the moment.

The judge stated it was too late to appeal the ruling that he had just issued.  I'm assuming his statement is correct.  Mistrial can be declared prior to the jury coming back with a verdict.  The judge has also indicated that he might rule a mistrial if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.  It is unclear if the prosecutor has grounds or means to seek a mistrial.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2021, 09:38:02 PM
Re: stop the proceedings

Lr, this is your own article that you cited

Quote
Prosecutors could immediately ask the court of appeals to stop the proceedings pending a ruling on the charge's validity, but there was no indication Monday that they planned to do so.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Fenring on November 16, 2021, 10:45:05 PM
The judge has also indicated that he might rule a mistrial if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.  It is unclear if the prosecutor has grounds or means to seek a mistrial.

Heh, how about the fact of the judge claiming he can override a jury nullification? The entire point of having a jury is that their decision supersedes the judge and the law.

Now, on the other hand afaik jury nullification seems to most likely be applied in cases where the jury votes not guilty when the law technically states that the defendant is guilty. Not sure if it's still jury nullification of the same type of they vote to convict when the judge believes the evidence to be insufficient (or the charges to be invalid). Is the jury allowed to disregard the law in the direction of a vote to convict?
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on November 17, 2021, 12:37:39 AM
The judge has also indicated that he might rule a mistrial if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.  It is unclear if the prosecutor has grounds or means to seek a mistrial.

Heh, how about the fact of the judge claiming he can override a jury nullification? The entire point of having a jury is that their decision supersedes the judge and the law.

Now, on the other hand afaik jury nullification seems to most likely be applied in cases where the jury votes not guilty when the law technically states that the defendant is guilty. Not sure if it's still jury nullification of the same type of they vote to convict when the judge believes the evidence to be insufficient (or the charges to be invalid). Is the jury allowed to disregard the law in the direction of a vote to convict?

That isn't over-riding a jury nullification in this case. A "jury nullification" would be a not-guilty verdict (in circumstances that don't apply to this case), which wouldn't be possible to invalidate once it happens under US law.

To be clear, a "jury nullification" is when the Jury agrees that the law was violated, but refuses to convict because they rejected(nullified) the relevant law.

Anything involving a guilty verdict or hung jury is going to have plenty of chances to be appealed and overturned. That's how the American Justice system is setup. "The sovereign" only gets to convict(*) you once, but you get many attempts to try to clear your name. If your legal defense wins once, it's over.

If the prosecution wants a mistrial, they need to act, and get a higher court to intervene, prior to the Jury rendering a not-guilty verdict.

The judge can over-turn a guilty verdict rendered by the Jury because he's also the first stop, out of many, in the appeals process where just about every Judge involved in that process is capable of over-turning a guilty verdict from the Jury. This isn't new, this is how things have worked for centuries at this point. It just happens to be unusual for a Judge to overturn a verdict rendered in a proceeding they presided over.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 17, 2021, 01:24:14 AM
"Fenring

"Not sure if it's still jury nullification of the same type of they vote to convict when the judge believes the evidence to be insufficient (or the charges to be invalid). Is the jury allowed to disregard the law in the direction of a vote to convict?"

I agree with TheDeamon, that wouldn't be jury nullification because instead of nullifying a law they are either ignoring the evidence to convict based on the laws that exist or they are paying careful attention to the evidence to convict based on laws they think should exist but don't. Maybe we need a new word for it. The best I'm coming up with is jury induction.

We may see the latter in the Arbery case in which the jury may convict based not on the citizen's arrest law at the time but on what they think should have been the law at the time which may in fact be the current law since the old law was scrapped.

We complain about judges writing laws from the bench but in this case with a jury conviction that is the opposite of jury nullification it may instead be by the jury writing laws from the jury box, for instance by telling themselves that it should have been illegal for Rittenhouse to have that gun and he should have just stayed home like a good little unracist sheeple so they're going to convict regardless of the law and the evidence. Neither were against the law but they should have been. Part of that will also be a calculation factoring in the loss of life and property that will result if they decide according to the law. Of course in their minds they won't see it this way. They'll tell themselves that if he wasn't guilty then it wouldn't even make any sense for the prosecution to be up there saying anything about this in the first place. All they have to do for rationalization is tell themselves that they agree with the prosecutor and with the violent mob and all their supporters on the woke left and they'll be able to sleep just fine at night, not realizing what role their subconscious played in the decision making process.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Fenring on November 17, 2021, 01:52:07 AM
I see, so nullification is only in the direction of not-guilty. So what the judge is saying appears to mean that the chances for the prosecution to try to argue for mistrial has been timed out on purpose, i.e. that the judge is so adamant that the defendant is not guilty that he won't even 'allow' a mistrial to be declared?
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 17, 2021, 05:11:55 AM
I watched Bicep boy's testimony live.  He admitted on the stand that his permit was expired on that day.

No one is stating it wasn't "expired on that day" - the question is, did it expire that day ie as of that morning, or had it expired weeks or months, or years prior.  To me it makes a difference as to whether his lack of knowledge that it was expired claim is credible and what charges - if any - would be most appropriate.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1457771875849818123
Listen for your self.

Prosecutor:  Did you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon?
Grosskreutz: I did.
Prosecutor:  Was it in effect on August 25th 2020?
Grosskreutz: It was not.
Prosecutor:  Had it expired?
Grosskreutz: It had.
Prosecutor:  And you had not renewed it?
Grosskreutz: I had not.

Nobody asked him when it expired. Why?  If it had expired that day I'm sure the prosecution would want that on the record.

Maybe its because of his prior gun related conviction which the defense was not allowed to bring up in the trial?

Now, Why isn't he being charged?



 
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: yossarian22c on November 17, 2021, 09:40:41 AM
I see, so nullification is only in the direction of not-guilty. So what the judge is saying appears to mean that the chances for the prosecution to try to argue for mistrial has been timed out on purpose, i.e. that the judge is so adamant that the defendant is not guilty that he won't even 'allow' a mistrial to be declared?

If the judge feels the case hasn't been made I am pretty sure in most jurisdictions the judge can dismiss the charges with prejudice. If the judge really thinks Rittenhouse is not guilty he can say so and have the trial be over. That's different from a mistrial which could lead to another trial. 
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on November 17, 2021, 10:25:57 AM
I see, so nullification is only in the direction of not-guilty.

Yes, the Jury can only convict on the basis of laws that were on the books at the time the alleged crime took place. Juries cannot create new laws, or really create new interpretations of laws(that's the domain of the judge and the lawyers presenting the case). They can "nullify" existing laws in theory, but the "in practice" portion of that is on very uncertain legal ground beyond the context of that specific trial.

But basic understanding of "grandfathered" legal provisions should point you to why Juries have no ability to "create law" on their own. Unless you live in China or a very short list of other nations, you are not to be held legally liable for something which wasn't illegal at the time you did it.

Quote
So what the judge is saying appears to mean that the chances for the prosecution to try to argue for mistrial has been timed out on purpose, i.e. that the judge is so adamant that the defendant is not guilty that he won't even 'allow' a mistrial to be declared?

I haven't watched the video of the judge making the comment. It is possible it wasn't deliberate(and another poster indicated that the judge clearly signaled his inclinations in pre-trial), and what you saw was basically a "stream of consciousness" statement from the judge. He said something, then thought on it as he was speaking, and self-corrected. In this case, he was initially remembering the pre-trial comments as being more extensive than they were, then thought back on what he said at that time, and corrected himself on the matter.

Or it could in fact be a very clever legal defense for him should the Prosecutor try to pursue misconduct allegations against him. He's now setup for a "I remembered doing A, but realized I'd done B instead."
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on November 17, 2021, 10:31:14 AM
I watched Bicep boy's testimony live.  He admitted on the stand that his permit was expired on that day.

No one is stating it wasn't "expired on that day" - the question is, did it expire that day ie as of that morning, or had it expired weeks or months, or years prior.  To me it makes a difference as to whether his lack of knowledge that it was expired claim is credible and what charges - if any - would be most appropriate.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1457771875849818123
Listen for your self.

Prosecutor:  Did you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon?
Grosskreutz: I did.
Prosecutor:  Was it in effect on August 25th 2020?
Grosskreutz: It was not.
Prosecutor:  Had it expired?
Grosskreutz: It had.
Prosecutor:  And you had not renewed it?
Grosskreutz: I had not.

Nobody asked him when it expired. Why?  If it had expired that day I'm sure the prosecution would want that on the record.

Maybe its because of his prior gun related conviction which the defense was not allowed to bring up in the trial?

It wasn't allowed because further detail on the legal status of his concealed-carry permit has no bearing on the self-defense case before the court. Really, I think a case could have been made to even deny the jury knowledge of the permit being expired in the first place.

Quote
Now, Why isn't he being charged?

Probably in part because he never fired a shot at anyone to my understanding. His getting his bicep blown off was considered punishment enough. That certain activists/troublemakers might get upset about his being charged might also be a consideration, but I'd suspect it is well down the list.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Fenring on November 17, 2021, 10:38:39 AM
If the judge feels the case hasn't been made I am pretty sure in most jurisdictions the judge can dismiss the charges with prejudice. If the judge really thinks Rittenhouse is not guilty he can say so and have the trial be over. That's different from a mistrial which could lead to another trial.

Ok, but what if (let's say) a judge is corrupt and has been bribed to let someone off even though the evidence is compelling. In this case the prosecution can appeal a not guilty verdict?
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: yossarian22c on November 17, 2021, 10:46:04 AM
If the judge feels the case hasn't been made I am pretty sure in most jurisdictions the judge can dismiss the charges with prejudice. If the judge really thinks Rittenhouse is not guilty he can say so and have the trial be over. That's different from a mistrial which could lead to another trial.

Ok, but what if (let's say) a judge is corrupt and has been bribed to let someone off even though the evidence is compelling. In this case the prosecution can appeal a not guilty verdict?

I don't know about the dismissed case. I know both the judge and individual can be charged with bribery/corruption. Maybe some of our more legally minded posters will know the particulars if a judges conduct can be so egregious or corrupt as to allow for a new trial. But my inclination is that a new trial would be impossible unless the judges behavior rises to the level of illegality and even then I don't know if its possible to have a new trial.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on November 17, 2021, 12:37:06 PM
If the judge feels the case hasn't been made I am pretty sure in most jurisdictions the judge can dismiss the charges with prejudice. If the judge really thinks Rittenhouse is not guilty he can say so and have the trial be over. That's different from a mistrial which could lead to another trial.

Ok, but what if (let's say) a judge is corrupt and has been bribed to let someone off even though the evidence is compelling. In this case the prosecution can appeal a not guilty verdict?

I don't know about the dismissed case. I know both the judge and individual can be charged with bribery/corruption. Maybe some of our more legally minded posters will know the particulars if a judges conduct can be so egregious or corrupt as to allow for a new trial. But my inclination is that a new trial would be impossible unless the judges behavior rises to the level of illegality and even then I don't know if its possible to have a new trial.

My understanding is that if it was dismissed "with prejudice," or otherwise resulted in a "not guilty" ruling, they cannot bring the charges forward again. Not sure about simple "dismissal" instances on if they can be brought around again. (It's also possible the "with prejudice" might be able to floated again, not sure how those land on the jurisprudence scale of what can be done again by the prosecution.)

But especially where a "not guilty" ruling is made, so far as the United States is concerned, it is done. Even if the judge and jury were found to be as corrupt as could be.

Your only recourse at that point is to bring forward charges for the newly discovered crimes.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: LetterRip on November 19, 2021, 05:22:27 PM
Note that I've changed my opinion of the law on 'possession of a deadly weapon by a minor' and that it was rightfully dismissed due to poor wording.  I still think he deliberately held off on ruling to the last second to prevent an appeal, and feel that was unethical, but the ruling itself I now think would have been probably upheld on appeal.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDeamon on November 20, 2021, 09:52:30 PM
So there are claims (and screen grabs to back it up, for what they're worth) that The Independent in the UK ran with a byline saying Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all charges connected to his "shooting of 3 black men with a rifle." When the verdict initially came out. Obviously, they correct the error quickly enough, but that that the error was made in the first place at this point in things...

Well, he certainly was not guilty of what that byline suggested, he was on trial for shooting three white guys.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rutheday99/status/1461784059319836681
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: Grant on November 21, 2021, 09:07:50 AM
So there are claims (and screen grabs to back it up, for what they're worth) that The Independent in the UK ran with a byline saying Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all charges connected to his "shooting of 3 black men with a rifle." When the verdict initially came out. Obviously, they correct the error quickly enough, but that that the error was made in the first place at this point in things...

Was it Trent Crimm?  I hear he's a jerk.
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: TheDrake on November 21, 2021, 09:30:11 AM
This is a problem with tweets in general, but especially from news organizations. I think part of it may stem from BLM misperception that it is primarily people of color at the protests. Or because most news footage will find the black people in the crowd to illustrate the narrative. Still no excuse for badly inaccurate reporting, and why social media is a dangerous place to get your news from. How many thousands of people blindly retweeted this error without reading or understanding anything about the trial?
Title: Re: Militia in the streets
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 21, 2021, 10:58:36 AM
They were probably astonished to find out the victims weren't black because it's hard to understand what all the fuss is about otherwise.