17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest

[User.45]

I've read the NYT since the 1940s, and believe that both it and I have evolved somewhat for the better since then. By that I mean not least that both the NYT and I now see phrases like "atom bomb" and "social value" differently.

But in the past 15 years I've started to think that if I do sometime cancel my sub to the Gray Lady, and if they do ask why I'm leaving, my answer will simply be "I'm not in your targeted readership any more and finally realize it."

See I'm not really sure what the hell the Times is going for lately. I seek a paper of record, a chronicler of our times, a paper that still understands that at core we must only seek the truth, even if it not to our liking. It is after all potentially fatal to paint over some disliked ugliness in the human condition with the gloss of a few carefully selected adjectives, or perhaps moving something from page A3 to page A14.

Keats at the wrap of his "Ode to a Grecian Urn" wrote that

​

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all​

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.​

​

But nowadays the Times seems not unlike plenty of other media outlets, offering what it hopes this or that reader will at least for today be content to label for themselves as the beauty of truth in some section... yes, a pleasing echo of one's own thoughts is perfect.

That must be what truth is, eh? Whatever I like best? I like world news, dance and book reviews best.​

And --leaving aside the dwindling print circulation-- the NY Times has over five million digital subscribers and god knows how many kibitzers and glance-in artists who see some of its reporting via discussion in social media. If everyone is to find his bliss in the paper, then god help us all. That's not actually what a newspaper is about. And so I slog through the reporting on politics and the agonies of assorted sports teams. So far our proclivity towards The Big Lie seems to stop a little short of the sports stats, as it's still impossible for every team to win

But in short the godblasted paper seems all over the map to me lately, and not just in its selection of Op-Eds and columnists but in its writing and even selection of items on which to publish news articles. And it has gone mealy-mouthed when covering anything remotely viewable as "controversial" in the political arena. For that approach to migrate off the opinion pages into the hard news section is disappointing to say the least.

Heh, was there a time the paper castigated Trump for having gone on about "good people on both sides" back during the aftermath of Charlottesville? They must have got too close to him while trying to hear his explanations.

On Rittenhouse, well.. there is video so we do get to see what the Times is seeing, and it's hard to tell whether it's the defense, the prosecution, the accused or the judge who is more aware that "the world is watching". I'm not at all sure anyone's seeking the beauty of truth here. The circus is pretty entertaining though, if one can detach from the disappointing humanity of it all. Still waiting for the Times to chronicle that part for us.

NYT screams Ivy League English major verbosity. I have a sub but I don’t have 10minutes to read an article that beyond ornamental wording contains a few sentences worth of information. And I dunno, I’m not a fast reader, but by now i think I mastered the art of processing large amounts of info quickly and what a lot of the NYT articles try to achieve just work better in an investigative TV format.

I've been struggling to find unbiased coverage of this thing as I don't have time for all the play by play but it seems that it's just too polarized. I don't care of it's a defense attorney or a prosecutor on either side of the aisle, I would just like to get unbiased feedback.

Yes, my personal opinions are biased but I always try to look for neutral coverage on anything high profile like this.

Dan Abrams seems to do okay with that but it's really just a segment on the evening news, I'll have to take it for now.

I find this trial crazy too, but again. Someone pointed it out on reddit for a non-American how fucking absurd it is to argue about minute details about a shooting when the guy brought a weapon half his height to a protest. Where i grew up, you couldn’t personally own a gun like that even if you’re SWAT, and it would be a felony on it’s own to walk around with it on your shoulder. So we have baseline insanity.

It also makes me wonder, that all these hot takes and poorly substantiated opinions are the legal version of the misperceptions that people had when they first ever watched medical evidence being generated real-time for CoVid. I don’t know.

 

[yaxomoxay]

It also makes me wonder, that all these hot takes and poorly substantiated opinions are the legal version of the misperceptions that people had when they first ever watched medical evidence being generated real-time for CoVid. I don’t know.

I think that we’re observing the worst of the worst: there are now so many cameras that record every single minute of every single interaction, that immediately go on social media and such, and instead of clarifying things everyone sees what they want to see. Another reason why my love with technology is almost gone.

It’s kind of like blurry UFO videos.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I find this trial crazy too, but again. Someone pointed it out on reddit for a non-American how fucking absurd it is to argue about minute details about a shooting when the guy brought a weapon half his height to a protest.

Ethically, yes it’s a discussion to have. As for this trial, it has nothing to do with it. Not even the prosecution hinted that the possession of the firearm is grounds to the claim that what follows is a crime. Only people that don’t know that basic law try to make this point.

 

[User.45]

I think that we’re observing the worst of the worst: there are now so many cameras that record every single minute of every single interaction, that immediately go on social media and such, and instead of clarifying things everyone sees what they want to see. Another reason why my love with technology is almost gone.

It’s kind of like blurry UFO videos.

That's a shared sentiment. Though my excitement was in part fueled by the hope of finally being able to see good quality extraterrestrial videos. It turns out, the little green bastards always know where the cameras are!

 

[User.45]

Ethically, yes it’s a discussion to have. As for this trial, it has nothing to do with it. Not even the prosecution hinted that the possession of the firearm is grounds to the claim that what follows is a crime. Only people that don’t know that basic law try to make this point.

You're correct, it's a point that isn't directly about the present governing law. But you're incorrect about it being solely a philosophical discussion. It's a sociology/criminology discussion and how the law may or may not fail at representing the truth or the interests of society.
Reminder figure:

 

[yaxomoxay]

I meant it as that the ethical thing to do is to have the conversation.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Heard the judge crack a joke about Asian food. Which was oddly about the backlog of cargo… seems a little racist and political. But then again, the judge is already treating Rittenhouse as if he’s his favorite son, so I guess no big deal, the fix is already in.

The law is openly supporting white male vigilantes. It doesn’t matter who engages who, if you’re armed, you are free to kill the moment you’re confronted. We’re watching a blueprint for legalized murder play out.

 

[SuperMatt]

Heard the judge crack a joke about Asian food. Which was oddly about the backlog of cargo… seems a little racist and political. But then again, the judge is already treating Rittenhouse as if he’s his favorite son, so I guess no big deal, the fix is already in.

The law is openly supporting white male vigilantes. It doesn’t matter who engages who, if you’re armed, you are free to kill the moment you’re confronted. We’re watching a blueprint for legalized murder play out.

I just read about it. A joke targeting Asian people for sure.

My guess is multiple people on the jury see the protesters as outsiders and Kyle as defending the town from them.

I don’t agree with life in prison (for crimes in general) but the kid needs rehabilitation or IMHO he will re-offend.

 

[GermanSuplex]

I just read about it. A joke targeting Asian people for sure.

My guess is multiple people on the jury see the protesters as outsiders and Kyle as defending the town from them.

I don’t agree with life in prison (for crimes in general) but the kid needs rehabilitation or IMHO he will re-offend.

I’m worried about what it means for copycat killers. The judicial system is laying out blueprints for people who engage in this dangerous behavior to face no consequences.With Zimmerman and now this kid, it shows it doesnt matter who is the aggressor, it only matters who is armed.
Imagine if a looter burned a building down because they “threw a molotov cocktail out of fear”. OK, but what the hell are you doing around a scene of unrest with improvised explosives?

At some point, common sense has to prevail. I guarantee the narrative from the right would be different if
everything was the same, but Rittenhouse was a supporter of BLM and the people he killed were wearing MAGA hats. And I bet the judge would behave different as well.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Imagine if a looter burned a building down because they “threw a molotov cocktail out of fear”. OK, but what the hell are you doing around a scene of unrest with improvised explosives?

While I do share the same perplexities about what the result will do in the future, and while I share many many perplexities about the prosecution, the above case is not similar. Now, is there a scenario in which self defense would be applicable? Yes. If someone is pointing a gun at you, that is seriously threatening you while you just have the bottle in your hand, unlit, you would be more than justified in throwing the Molotov cocktail at that person. The fact that you have an illegal weapon with you is irrelevant if not for character determination (and even here it’s limited). On the same token, if you have a lit bottle and are clearly motioning to throw it at an individual with a gun (legal or illegal), the individual would have the right to shoot you. Granted, we’re talking in generic terms and there are a bazillion things to consider. The bottom line is that a previous act doesn’t automatically imply a duty to die or be injured.

 

[GermanSuplex]

While I do share the same perplexities about what the result will do in the future, and while I share many many perplexities about the prosecution, the above case is not similar. Now, is there a scenario in which self defense would be applicable? Yes. If someone is pointing a gun at you, that is seriously threatening you while you just have the bottle in your hand, unlit, you would be more than justified in throwing the Molotov cocktail at that person. The fact that you have an illegal weapon with you, is irrelevant if not for character determination (and even here it’s limited). On the same token, if you have a lit bottle and are clearly motioning about throwing it at an individual with a gun (legal or illegal), the individual would have the right to shoot you. Granted, we’re talking in generic terms and there are a bazillion things to consider. The bottom line is that a previous act doesn’t automatically imply a duty to die or be injured.

I didn’t get too far into the weeds in my example, but the larger point is actions should have consequences. Maybe the men would be alive had they not confronted Rittenhouse. They’d also be alive if Rittenhouse hadn’t illegally armed himself and headed to a different town that was full of civil unrest.

Many people are rotting in prison for acts less egregious than those of Rittenhouse. Many of them simply for being with someone who did something heinous and not partaking in the act itself… the judicial punishment for “well,
you shouldn’t have been hanging with them in the first place”.

I don’t know what the 100% proper outcome should be, but there should be serious repercussions for his actions.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I didn’t get too far into the weeds in my example, but the larger point is actions should have consequences. Maybe the men would be alive had they not confronted Rittenhouse. They’d also be alive if Rittenhouse hadn’t illegally armed himself and headed to a different town that was full of civil unrest.

Many people are rotting in prison for acts less egregious than those of Rittenhouse. Many of them simply for being with someone who did something heinous and not partaking in the act itself… the judicial punishment for “well,
you shouldn’t have been hanging with them in the first place”.

I don’t know what the 100% proper outcome should be, but there should be serious repercussions for his actions.

And I have no desire - or even a need - to push back to your evaluation of the situation and what’s going to happen after the outcome of the trial (for the record, I do share some concern with you) whatever it will be.

However it’s important to make sure we’re all clear that - generically speaking - the act of carrying a weapon illegally doesn’t automatically eliminate self defense rights as some people claim. I see lots of confusion about this claim online, which is very basic law. That’s my simple, repetitive and boring point.

 

[GermanSuplex]

And I have no desire - or even a need - to push back to your evaluation of the situation and what’s going to happen after the outcome of the trial (for the record, I do share some concern with you) whatever it will be.

However it’s important to make sure we’re all clear that - generically speaking - the act of carrying a weapon illegally doesn’t automatically eliminate self defense rights as some people claim. I see lots of confusion about this claim online, which is very basic law. That’s my simple, repetitive and boring point.

We’re mostly on the same page. I’m aware him being illegally armed doesn’t automatically make him guilty should he fire the weapon, or even kill. Which is why I’m upset at the judge for not allowing a “big picture” view of the case. The circumstances matter, And we’ve seen cases where the aggressor is also the armed one, and they still get off too (Zimmerman). And I’m aware there’s nuances in differences between state laws, what jury you get, competency of the judges, etc.

But we really need to do something about these vigilantes handing out their own brand of justice. Being illegally armed may not automatically override his right to self-defense (and I don’t believe it should), but it shouldn’t also guarantee it as it seemingly is doing in this trial. His prior words and actions, as well as him interjecting himself into a scene of unrest, should play a role.

If he gets off, and it looks like he will, he should be sued civilly by the families of those he killed for millions, and the courts should seize any money he makes from the right who will continue to treat this guy like a hero.

It’s reckless conduct with a dangerous, lethal weapon, and that should matter and have consequences. The charges matter too, and while I personally don’t think the prosecutors overcharged, they haven’t done a good job of proving the case. The judge is largely to blame for that too. I won’t blame the jury for acquitting Rittenhouse, but it’s another miscarriage of justice if he avoids prison.

 

[yaxomoxay]

But we really need to do something about these vigilantes handing out their own brand of justice.

I am with you 100% on this.

Being illegally armed may not automatically override his right to self-defense (and I don’t believe it should), but it shouldn’t also guarantee it as it seemingly is doing in this trial.

Again, 100% agreed. As for this trial, the prosecution is just failing, miserably, at making any claim other than self defense. A question I have is: did they overcharge him? With all the footage and testimonies, they have no case (or, at least they’re awful at presenting it) for murder. So why did they go for those high charges?

His prior words and actions, as well as him interjecting himself into a scene of unrest, should play a role.

It does play a role, but it’s difficult to say that in an area without police an individual has no right to self defense. What a mess. What a mess.

If he gets off, and it looks like he will, he should be sued civilly by the families of those he killed for millions,

Agreed.

and the courts should seize any money he makes from the right who will continue to treat this guy like a hero.

Bit more difficult but I understand the feeling.

It’s reckless conduct with a dangerous, lethal weapon, and that should matter and have consequences.

Well, that’s what the court will decide. If he was my son I’d slap him so hard he’d ask the jury to be sent to Guantanamo. Legally, he might be in the right.

The charges matter too, and while I personally don’t think the prosecutors overcharged, they haven’t done a good job of proving the case.

See my perplexity above.

 

[Herdfan]

Again, 100% agreed. As for this trial, the prosecution is just failing, miserably, at making any claim other than self defense. A question I have is: did they overcharge him? With all the footage and testimonies, they have no case (or, at least they’re awful at presenting it) for murder. So why did they go for those high charges?

Read just a bit ago that the prosecution and defense are arguing over whether to allow additional lesser charges to be added.

I didn't think you could do this in the middle of the trial. Prosecution must know they are about to lose on the higher ones.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Read just a bit ago that the prosecution and defense are arguing over whether to allow additional lesser charges to be added.

I didn't think you could do this in the middle of the trial. Prosecution must know they are about to lose on the higher ones.

My imperfect understanding: They can add them but they have to be directly linked to the major charges that started the trial.

Man, it’s a tough one. I am glad I am not part of that jury.

 

[GermanSuplex]

My imperfect understanding: They can add them but they have to be directly linked to the major charges that started the trial.

Man, it’s a tough one. I am glad I am not part of that jury.

And I just see on the news the judge has denied the prosecution’s request to allow the jury to consider lesser charges. This after him also kneecapping them on evidence and language. And his “Asian food” joke. And his Trump-campaign song for s ringtone. As mentioned, any of his decisions in and of themselves can be explained away, but as a whole, he sure does look biased in favor of the defendant.

 

[yaxomoxay]

And I just see on the news the judge has denied the prosecution’s request to allow the jury to consider lesser charges.

Not really. He denied some, he accepted some. Mr Rittenhouse agreed with his counsel too in accepting the lesser charges even if - as the judge explained - it means higher chance of conviction.

This after him also kneecapping them on evidence and language.

Today the judge accepted all of the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the now famous blurry video. By the way during the request for the acceptance of the evidence the prosecution messed up multiple times, but the judge allowed it because it’s part of the jury duty to see that type of evidence and decide if it’s reliable. This is major because according to the prosecution it invites the idea that Mr Rittenhouse provoked first.

And his “Asian food” joke. And his Trump-campaign song for s ringtone. As mentioned, any of his decisions in and of themselves can be explained away, but as a whole, he sure does look biased in favor of the defendant.

That’s not a “trump campaign song”. It’s a song that was used by trump and precedes Trump by many years. Same way of YMCA by the Village People which was used ad nauseam by Trump among other songs. Personally I’d add a constitutional amendment (!!!!) stating that political candidates can’t use popular song that have not been produced by the campaign itself. I hate to be identified as supporting a candidate simply because I might be listening to a song.

 

[SuperMatt]

And I just see on the news the judge has denied the prosecution’s request to allow the jury to consider lesser charges. This after him also kneecapping them on evidence and language. And his “Asian food” joke. And his Trump-campaign song for s ringtone. As mentioned, any of his decisions in and of themselves can be explained away, but as a whole, he sure does look biased in favor of the defendant.

As somebody who has to regularly perform Lee Greenwood’s famous song, I’m a bit sad to hear that it is being associated with Trump. It is a bit nationalistic, but is from the 80s and I thought it was supposed to be a song for all Americans. It’s always been popular with military audiences in my experience.

As for the rest of the judge’s conduct, it is appalling.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Not really. He denied some, he accepted some. Mr Rittenhouse agreed with his counsel too in accepting the lesser charges even if - as the judge explained - it means higher chance of conviction.


Today the judge accepted all of the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the now famous blurry video. By the way during the request for the acceptance of the evidence the prosecution messed up multiple times, but the judge allowed it because it’s part of the jury duty to see that type of evidence and decide if it’s reliable. This is major because according to the prosecution it invites the idea that Mr Rittenhouse provoked first.



That’s not a “trump campaign song”. It’s a song that was used by trump and precedes Trump by many years. Same way of YMCA by the Village People which was used ad nauseam by Trump among other songs. Personally I’d add a constitutional amendment (!!!!) stating that political candidates can’t use popular song that have not been produced by the campaign itself. I hate to be identified as supporting a candidate simply because I might be listening to a song.

I know the song is a popular song and I’ve heard it long before Trump, but it goes back to what I said about any one incident being able to be explained away, but taken as a whole it paints a picture.

I’m glad the judge did allow some counts to have lesser charges considered; I originally was under the impression it was denied for all counts.

I think it’s important here for the jury to be allowed lesser charges because these all or nothing verdicts in these crimes with gray areas give legal precedent for others to commit copycat crimes in the future, and I definitely don’t want Rittenhouse’s actions giving anyone else any crazy ideas.