Rittenhouse trial

[Ivanhoe]

The next big court case is the Ahmad Arbury thing. Nate The Lawyer had a very clear and concise analysis on his YT channel.

[shep854]

Another relevant case is Andrew Coffee of Gifford, FL.  A black convicted felon, he claimed self-defense when he shot back at what was a police raid and killed a deputy and his girlfriend was killed.  He was found NOT GUILTY of murder but convicted for illegal possession of a firearm, since he was a felon.  Kind of blows the 'white supremacist justice system' out of the water...

 

[Coldsteel]

13 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Safe to assume it is known for killing and devouring humans? Not a credible claim about Australian fauna, otherwise.

 

 

Well I've never heard of anyone surviving an attack by one, so ...

[DougRichards]

12 hours ago, rmgill said:

The point is that it WAS established as a penal colony and that there were individual sent there for crimes that if we had a more modern view of legal protections would have been very difficult rows to hoe. 

That others immigrated their of their own free will does not set aside the above in any way shape or fashion. 

Yes, England sent, over a period of 80 years, 164,000 convicts to what later became known as Australia.  One of the reasons for this is that England could no longer send prisoners to North America due to the nasty events of around 1787 or so.

Prior to that, over 52,000 British convicts were sent to North America just between 1718 and 1775.  Previous to this others were also transported.  It has been suggested that up to 120,000 may be the actual total, many covered up by being described as 'servants' when they arrived and were put on the market.

That figure may not include prisoners taken by the English in Scotland and Ireland and sold into indentured labour (essentially slavery) for a period of seven years, but few ever made it back home.

Or perhaps you may accept the phrase that the United States was established by the labour of slaves and therefore the USA was a nation of slaves and slave owners.  That is roughly equivalent to the assertion that Australia is a nation descendant from convicts and gaolers. 

(The last slave ship to the USA illegally landed its cargo in 1859 just nine years before the last convicts were transported to Australia, and it should be remembered that slaves in the US were slaves for life, whereas convicts transported to Australia gained their freedom at the end of their sentences, either 7 or 14 years, or earlier if granted by the Governor).

Maybe you should get used to the idea that Australia and the United States share a common convict past.

 

 

[rmgill]

I am QUITE aware that convicts from the British Isles were sent to the US. I have ancestry that is quite likely from that and the highland clearances. In the US if you have ancestry from settlers in Georgia up through Appalachia it is pretty good odds are you have ancestors sent over during the clearances and such. 

The difference is that we DO remember that the government us run by men and that men are corruptible. Thus they're not to be seen as infallible masters to always bow to. That's why our legal system doesn't place the government figures as our masters and instead them as our representatives with US citizens as THEIR masters. 

[DougRichards]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

I am QUITE aware that convicts from the British Isles were sent to the US. I have ancestry that is quite likely from that and the highland clearances. In the US if you have ancestry from settlers in Georgia up through Appalachia it is pretty good odds are you have ancestors sent over during the clearances and such. 

The difference is that we DO remember that the government us run by men and that men are corruptible. Thus they're not to be seen as infallible masters to always bow to. That's why our legal system doesn't place the government figures as our masters and instead them as our representatives with US citizens as THEIR masters. 

And how is that different from Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, even modern South Africa, Japan, India, France, Germany, most of the EU as well?

Granted, the USA showed the way, but now appears to be stuck in the 1780s and 1790s instead of moving forward.

[Rick]

1 minute ago, DougRichards said:

And how is that different from Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, even modern South Africa, Japan, India, France, Germany, most of the EU as well?

Granted, the USA showed the way, but now appears to be stuck in the 1780s and 1790s instead of moving forward.

Stuck in the 1780's and 1790's ?

[DougRichards]

2 minutes ago, Rick said:

Stuck in the 1780's and 1790's ?

Counties, sheriffs, county jails, courts and laws, overly localised government, as if in this day and age you cannot put legislation on a state wide basis and have state based courts and law enforcement supersede all the local interests.

Sure keep states, but counties are so 1780s, why not call your the senior elected official in your county what they used to be called: 'a Count' or doesn't the count count after all?

 

But if you still want them, so be it.  It is your country / county after all.

Just don't be surprised when much of the democratic world wonders about that system. After all, loyalty to states rather than to the nation was one of the major causes of the ACW. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

I am QUITE aware that convicts from the British Isles were sent to the US. I have ancestry that is quite likely from that and the highland clearances. In the US if you have ancestry from settlers in Georgia up through Appalachia it is pretty good odds are you have ancestors sent over during the clearances and such. 

The difference is that we DO remember that the government us run by men and that men are corruptible. Thus they're not to be seen as infallible masters to always bow to. That's why our legal system doesn't place the government figures as our masters and instead them as our representatives with US citizens as THEIR masters. 

The Highland clearances were not convicts. They were just cleared off land in preference to sheep rearing, cruelly done, but they were not arrested for it unless they fought back. Its highly likely my people were part of the highland clearances too, they just went to Northern Ireland.

I had a relative whom was transported to Australia for machine wrecking, arrested not half a mile from where I sit. Significantly though, he came back. I suspect a great many did.

Just did a calculation, SS Great Britain carried between 600 and 700 people, so having done 23 trips to Australia she would have taken something like 19000- 22000 people. Rough calculation suggests there is a very significant chunk of the Australian population that can draw ancestry from people on that ship over the next 5 generations.

We rib the Aussies about being a nation of convicts, but we dont really believe it. Its kinda disturbing how many other nations buy into the narrative as if it was the truth.

[Rick]

37 minutes ago, DougRichards said:

Counties, sheriffs, county jails, courts and laws, overly localised government, as if in this day and age you cannot put legislation on a state wide basis and have state based courts and law enforcement supersede all the local interests.

Tradition based on dilution of political power. Having state based courts supersede county issues can be compared, somewhat, to the U.S. Government superseding state issues. 

Sure keep states, but counties are so 1780s, why not call your the senior elected official in your county what they used to be called: 'a Count' or doesn't the count count after all?

A advantage the U.S. has is that it never had the tradition of a monarchy, ie, power starts at the top. The U.S. was blessed to start the tradition of power -- voting -- to start with the population itself.  

But if you still want them, so be it.  It is your country / county after all.

In a way, what you are emphasizing is the top down orders of, using U.S. terms, socialism.

Just don't be surprised when much of the democratic world wonders about that system.

It appears that much of the democratic world is being cursed by the top down structure instead of being blessed by the individual willing to fight such authoritarianism. The world would be a much, much better place if folks would emphasize the Bible as much as they try to emphasize the rule of a man's law.  

After all, loyalty to states rather than to the nation was one of the major causes of the ACW. 

Yes it was. And I thank God that at this time in the U.S. we still have states willing to fight the declining morality and intellect of the federal government!

 

[EchoFiveMike]

Centralization favors the rich, connected and wicked tyrants since there's fewer to subvert, and they are further away from the people, and hence oversight/punishment.

America 2021 is not a nation, it's a police state ruled via deception.  S/F....Ken M     

[R011]

1 hour ago, DougRichards said:

Counties, sheriffs, county jails, courts and laws, overly localised government, as if in this day and age you cannot put legislation on a state wide basis and have state based courts and law enforcement supersede all the local interests.

Sure keep states, but counties are so 1780s, why not call your the senior elected official in your county what they used to be called: 'a Count' or doesn't the count count after all?

 

But if you still want them, so be it.  It is your country / county after all.

Just don't be surprised when much of the democratic world wonders about that system. After all, loyalty to states rather than to the nation was one of the major causes of the ACW. 

Counties like Hertfordshire or Devonshire? Or similar organizations like Durham or Ottawa-Carelton?  Maybe the United States isn't quite as unique as you think or perhaps Australia is?

[R011]

8 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

The next big court case is the Ahmad Arbury thing. Nate The Lawyer had a very clear and concise analysis on his YT channel.

Unlike Kyle, the people involved were chasing the deceased rather than being chased by him and harmed their defence rather than helped it by testifying.  This case will come down to whether they had the authority to try to detain Arbery instead of self defence.  It doesn't look good for them.

[DougRichards]

18 minutes ago, R011 said:

Counties like Hertfordshire or Devonshire? Or similar organizations like Durham or Ottawa-Carelton?  Maybe the United States isn't quite as unique as you think or perhaps Australia is?

Hertfordshire: In 2013, the population was about 1,140,700

Devonshire: do you mean Devon:  population 746,399?

In Australia we have two semi autonomous quasi states , the Australian Capital Territory, population 431,826 and the Northern Territory at 247,023 and then there is Tasmania, a full state, at 541,965 population.

So Hertfordhire and Devon are more akin to states than counties, in terms of population size.

Ottawa-Carelton is harder to research as it has changed a lot over the last 20 years, but has close to a million inhabitants, so not really a tin pot ruled county.

 

[R011]

38 minutes ago, DougRichards said:

Hertfordshire: In 2013, the population was about 1,140,700

Devonshire: do you mean Devon:  population 746,399?

In Australia we have two semi autonomous quasi states , the Australian Capital Territory, population 431,826 and the Northern Territory at 247,023 and then there is Tasmania, a full state, at 541,965 population.

So Hertfordhire and Devon are more akin to states than counties, in terms of population size.

Ottawa-Carelton is harder to research as it has changed a lot over the last 20 years, but has close to a million inhabitants, so not really a tin pot ruled county.

 

As I said, it's Australia that's the outlier, not the US.  You just have big states with tiny populations.

[MiloMorai]

1 hour ago, DougRichards said:

Ottawa-Carelton is harder to research as it has changed a lot over the last 20 years, but has close to a million inhabitants, so not really a tin pot ruled county.

That would be Ottawa-Carleton. Better known as the National Capital Region and includes Gatineau.

Unlike capital districts in some other federal countries, such as the District of Columbia in the United States or the Australian Capital Territory in Australia, the National Capital Region is not a separate political or administrative entity. Its component parts are within the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

[Ssnake]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We rib the Aussies about being a nation of convicts, but we dont really believe it. Its kinda disturbing how many other nations buy into the narrative as if it was the truth.

I saw it in a documentary, so it must be true.

 

[Ivanhoe]

6 hours ago, DougRichards said:

Counties, sheriffs, county jails, courts and laws, overly localised government, as if in this day and age you cannot put legislation on a state wide basis and have state based courts and law enforcement supersede all the local interests.

What makes you think states cannot override local legislation?

[DKTanker]

4 hours ago, R011 said:

Unlike Kyle, the people involved were chasing the deceased rather than being chased by him and harmed their defence rather than helped it by testifying.  This case will come down to whether they had the authority to try to detain Arbery instead of self defence.  It doesn't look good for them.

Nate the Lawyer said yesterday that the defense conceded the "citizens arrest" was an illegal act, therefore all that follows is criminal.  Nate then showed the proceedings which had the defense essentially asking for a deal for what is implicitly a directed verdict for the other charges.

[Ivanhoe]

1 minute ago, DKTanker said:

Nate the Lawyer said yesterday that the defense conceded the "citizens arrest" was an illegal act, therefore all that follows is criminal.  Nate then showed the proceedings which had the defense essentially asking for a deal for what is implicitly a directed verdict for the other charges.

Did you watch the clip of the courtroom that was in Nate's video? It looked a little strange to me, like the judge was on his game but both prosecution and defense counsel were total newbies.

 

[Yama]

On 11/18/2021 at 2:54 AM, R011 said:

So the little slut was just asking for it by wearing a short skirt?  Obviously their fault.  Had their been another person who enraged Rosenbaum by existing before he came across Rittenhouse this would have been a different case.  

When you carry a deadly weapon, you must assume a basic responsibility for it. It is not 'blaming the victim' any more than asking whether you left your car keys on, or if you had locked your front door. It's just basic common sense and taking responsibility.

Again, you are repeating the line that it was 100% coincidence that one person who was underaged and not trained to handle this kind of situations was the one who was forced to pull the trigger, not once but multiple times. Your point might have more weight had the week of rioting seen multiple people getting into deadly incidents, but Rittenhouse was the only one. I concede that it cannot be COMPLETELY ruled out it all was just a luck of the die, but I like my odds much more than yours.

If you have nothing more to say than to repeat this extremely weak position of yours, I see no need to reply to you any further.

On 11/18/2021 at 2:54 AM, R011 said:

Had Rosenbaum been a saint fresh off saving a busload of orphans, he wouldn't have been trying to beat down people.  His criminal history points to him being criminally aggressive and no loss.

Well that was I said, wasn't it? However, why bother repeating the line that it was somehow more justifiable because he had some 20 year old convictions (were there any newer ones, or was that just a sample?) Rittenhouse couldn't have known any of that so it doesn't make his decision to fire any more or less defensible. Same goes to other direction, Rosenbaum's GF apparently said that he was depressed and off his meds (ironically, he was not getting his meds due to riots). I don't know if it is actually true, but it would explain his seemingly death wishing behaviour. But even if it was true, again, Rittenhouse could not have known it.

Any way, regarding the end result, I am not too surprised especially after carrying the deadly weapon charge was dismissed. I have only argued that he was dumb to get into situation like that, but being dumb is not illegal per se, most of the time anyway.

[R011]

4 minutes ago, Yama said:

When you carry a deadly weapon, you must assume a basic responsibility for it. It is not 'blaming the victim' any more than asking whether you left your car keys on, or if you had locked your front door. It's just basic common sense and taking responsibility.

Again, you are repeating the line that it was 100% coincidence that one person who was underaged and not trained to handle this kind of situations was the one who was forced to pull the trigger, not once but multiple times. Your point might have more weight had the week of rioting seen multiple people getting into deadly incidents, but Rittenhouse was the only one. I concede that it cannot be COMPLETELY ruled out it all was just a luck of the die, but I like my odds much more than yours.

If you have nothing more to say than to repeat this extremely weak position of yours, I see no need to reply to you any further.

Well that was I said, wasn't it? However, why bother repeating the line that it was somehow more justifiable because he had some 20 year old convictions (were there any newer ones, or was that just a sample?) Rittenhouse couldn't have known any of that so it doesn't make his decision to fire any more or less defensible. Same goes to other direction, Rosenbaum's GF apparently said that he was depressed and off his meds (ironically, he was not getting his meds due to riots). I don't know if it is actually true, but it would explain his seemingly death wishing behaviour. But even if it was true, again, Rittenhouse could not have known it.

Any way, regarding the end result, I am not too surprised especially after carrying the deadly weapon charge was dismissed. I have only argued that he was dumb to get into situation like that, but being dumb is not illegal per se, most of the time anyway.

You have been unable to point to any specific act by Kyle that precipitated this event save that he showed up.  Nothing to indicate his claimed inexperience or lack of training contributed to the events beyond the happenstance he got separated from others and ran into a violent lunatic.  This no more his fault than it is the fault of any other victim of violent crime who were about their lawful business when mugged or sexually assaulted.

 

You also assert, wrongly, that it is said the shootings were justifiable because those shot were criminals.  No.  They're justified because Kyle was an innocent victim.  They aren't regretted because they were criminals; criminals who were committing a crime when shot.

[Detonable]

On 11/20/2021 at 1:49 PM, BansheeOne said:

No, that would be an example of the state going after its citizens. The Nazis tried to pass it off as angry mobs rising up spontaneously over the killing of the German ambassador to France by a Jew, which would indeed have been somewhat akin to the BLM riots. In truth it was a well-organized affair using party militia which had become state organizations in a one-party state, with official agencies like police and firefighters told to, in the words of a recent US president, stand down and stand by.

In fact if we absolutely must have a Nazi comparison (which usually are terribly misplaced), various Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and similar descending upon the Capitol upon encouragement of aforementioned president for some extralegal expression of righteous popular outrage is a much better analogue to Kristallnacht. Meanwhile the best Third Reich example for militias politically aligned with the national government "helping out" a police allegedly overwhelmed by violent insurgents is the use of "auxiliary police" in 1933.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilfspolizei

 Rubbish. No one in the Trump administration forbade the Capitol Police or DC police from arresting trespassers and rioters.  
 

 The Democratic controlled governments repeatedly allow mobs to attack those who have differing opinions than those sanctioned by the Democratic Party. Police are told to stay away, and District Attorneys refuse to prosecute violent rioters.  The area near the White House was a no go zone for non-leftists, with many people attacked and injured. Many Democratic politicians have contributed to funds to bail out the few rioters arrested. 

[rmgill]

59 minutes ago, Yama said:

When you carry a deadly weapon, you must assume a basic responsibility for it. It is not 'blaming the victim' any more than asking whether you left your car keys on, or if you had locked your front door. It's just basic common sense and taking responsibility.

And part of that responsibility is keeping it out of the hands of people who would misuse it. People who are already trying to set fires to businesses, have no business taking a firearm from anyone by force. 

This is common sense. That the person is found out to be, after the fact, a multi-count child molester with mental illness issues, well, doubly so that he should never have tried to take the gun and that deadly force was warranted in stopping him. 
 

59 minutes ago, Yama said:

Again, you are repeating the line that it was 100% coincidence that one person who was underaged and not trained to handle this kind of situations was the one who was forced to pull the trigger, not once but multiple times.

This is where delving into the mind of the child molester is necessary. Why did he pick young boys? He probably figured that Rittenhouse was an easy target because Rittenhouse was NOT being assertive back. 

There's one aspect of dealing with predators in that averting your eyes from them and not asserting a certain level of resistance increases their attitude that you are helpless. 

59 minutes ago, Yama said:

Your point might have more weight had the week of rioting seen multiple people getting into deadly incidents, but Rittenhouse was the only one.

After the one, the rioters were probably on notice. 

I'm still trying to figure out how a 17 yo boy is responsible for the actions of 4 felons. 
 

[DKTanker]

46 minutes ago, Yama said:

Any way, regarding the end result, I am not too surprised especially after carrying the deadly weapon charge was dismissed. I have only argued that he was dumb to get into situation like that, but being dumb is not illegal per se, most of the time anyway.

He was never charged with carrying a deadly weapon, he was wrongly charged with carrying a short length rifle while under the age of 18.  First the rifle wasn't illegally short, 2nd, there is an exception for carrying long arms of standard length while under the age of 18.  16 and 17 year olds are exempt from the law.  He was also wrongly charged with breaking curfew, a charge that was dismissed from the beginning of his trial.

If protecting one's community when the duly sworn agencies have abdicated their duty is dumb, we need a lot more dump people in the world to defend against those that would terrorize and destroy their communities.

By the way, side note.  Apparently the civil authorities of Kenosha and Wisconsin have figured out that having police and national guard powers available to put down Leftist terrorism is a good thing.  Kenosha remained calm over the weekend, the same can't be said of NYC, Chicago, Portland, Oakland, and San Francisco.