My mind plays tricks on me: I originally started to write about how Kyle Rittenhouse is “the new Walter Mitty” except then I realized that I had the name wrong; what I meant was “Bernie Goetz.”
Bernie Goetz was big news back in the 1980s. Briefly: he was a nerdy sort who felt he had been pushed around and threatened in life – which, in my experience, would be a normal part of living in crowded city like 1980’s New York – and comforted himself by carrying a gun. Then, he shot four people. His excuse was that they were scary. Naturally, I have to wonder who was scared of whom. Another aspect of Goetz’ defense was that he had been robbed on the subway three years earlier (in a documented incident) and did not feel that the police handled the robbery effectively – so, he bought a gun and the next time he was scared on the subway, he killed some people. The exact sequence of events was hotly debated and, naturally, nobody really knows exactly what happened. [wik]
At the 14th Street station, Goetz entered the car through the rearmost door, crossed the aisle and took a seat on the long bench across from the door. Canty was across the aisle from him, lying on the long bench just to the right of the door. Allen was seated to Canty’s left, on the short seat on the other side of the door. Ramseur and Cabey were seated across from the door and to Goetz’s right, on the short seat by the conductor’s cab. According to Goetz’s statement to the police approximately ten seconds later Canty asked him, “How are you doing?” Goetz responded, “Fine.” According to Goetz, the group gave signals to each other, and shortly thereafter Canty and Allen rose from their seats and moved over to the left of Goetz, blocking him off from the other passengers in the car. Canty then said, “Give me five dollars.” Goetz subsequently pulled a handgun and fired 5 shots at the four, wounding all. Canty and Ramseur testified at the criminal trial that they were begging, and had only requested the money, not demanded it. Cabey did not testify and Allen took the Fifth Amendment.
Need I mention that the four people Goetz shot were black? Because, of course, that might be relevant. Back at the time, that aspect wasn’t discussed much because it was just assumed that black men are extra scary. It’s not as if they tried to hit Goetz with a skateboard, or something like that – they asked him for $5.
Obviously, there aren’t complete similarities with the Rittenhouse case; what Rittenhouse did was more provocative and more stupid than Goetz. Goetz didn’t exactly put himself in the path of trouble, but when apparent trouble came along, he jumped right up and got into it. Rittenhouse went out of his way to get in trouble, then shot his way out of it. The whole thing is really sad, watching the proto-fascists of America rally behind Rittenhouse, who is hardly an outstanding example of masculinity, toxic, or not. He has that in common with Goetz, too. Both of their defense arguments, that they were scared of bigger healthier men, come from the depths of the same pit of toxic masculinity. They couldn’t even say they were angry, or filled with hate, or whatever – all they could muster was that they were chickenshits who reached for overwhelming force in a moment of confusion.
That, right there, is a metaphor for the US, in general: white chickenshits who just freak out and start dropping bombs or firing artillery at anyone they can convince the audience is “scary.” The entire US empire – the most powerful force that has ever existed on Earth – endlessly replays its manipulation of the population through fear. It’s going on right now; I haven’t written much about it but the warhawks in Washington are floating the idea that a nuclear war with China might be ‘necessary’ because China’s making some scary hypersonic re-entry vehicles, don’t you know? And they might be insane enough to use them, or something. It doesn’t even make sense; if they‘re insane enough to use them, what does that say about us, who have vastly superior weapons? We’re supposed to appreciate that it was legitimate self-defense for a nerdy white guy to shoot four black people with a gun and ignore the fact that a gun is overwhelming power to bring to bear against unarmed people. Or, in Rittenhouse’s case, apparently the way to respond to someone waving a skateboard at you is with rifle fire? It’s absurd, but we absorb this bullshit with our mother’s milk, as it were, in this country. Americans are so stupid that you can convince us that a dictator in Iraq, thousands of miles away, is a “threat” because, um, I dunno. Or that a North Korean dictator who has a few nuclear warheads, mostly enough to ensure that a US response would be genocide, is going to attack US vassals when it’s obvious even to a casual idiot that the North Koreans wanted nuclear weapons to deter the US, which has talked constantly about “regime change”ing them.
Researching this, I re-read Goetz’ testimony about his version of events and one thing jumped out at me: he had polished and prepared his response. He had spent time imagining and re-living exactly how he’d shoot a couple of people, and he was ready to do it the second someone gave him what passed for him as an excuse. He described how he started pulling the trigger of his gun as it came to bear, etc., like he was writing an National Rifle Association ad for how to play in your fantasy murder league. In that sense, I came to realize that Rittenhouse and Goetz were essential Americans because, to them, they were the only people present at the events that re-defined their lives and ended others. Everyone else may as well have been cardboard cut-outs. I did not read through all the testimony of the case but I wonder if anyone asked Goetz, “why didn’t you give the guy $5?” Or, for that matter, since Rittenhouse had gone to be part of a protective posse, why didn’t he just take a hit from the skateboard and have a cool scar to tell his friends about? Remember, we are living in a time when protesters are expected to take night-stick blows from cops, or get pushed down onto concrete, and not resist. Heroism, apparently is to use overwhelming force against unarmed opponents. Ain’t that America? It’s something to see.
That’s the PROSECUTOR in the Rittenhouse case, showing the court that Alec Baldwin isn’t the only person who waves guns around inappropriately.
I’ve been having trouble summoning up the energy to look this reality in the face. The constant performance of politics as theater, and cowardly bluster-violence is a bit much to confront. I can’t even get started thinking about the judge in the Rittenhouse case, or even the prosecutor, whose idea of a summary argument was also to wave an AR-15 around in a courtroom – it’s hard to imagine that this is real reality, and I want to pinch (or punch) myself until I wake up.
If you know guns, take a look at the picture of the dickhead prosecutor waving the rifle. Finger on the trigger, bolt forward and locked. There’s no magazine in it, but there could be a round in the chamber. What the fuck is wrong with people in Wisconsin that they don’t know enough to take the bolt out of the rifle when they’re handing it around, or put a zip-tie through the port and the magazine well so the bolt can’t lock? And what kind of fucking ridiculous dickhead puts his finger on the trigger of a rifle that is in firing configuration in court when pointing it at the jury? I swear, if I was on the jury I’d have turned to one of the cops in the room and said (loudly) “I want to press charges for assault, on that guy – he just pointed a locked weapon at me with his finger on the trigger – that’s assault with a deadly weapon.”
Also: only assholes wear watches anymore. It’s just wealth-signaling now. Oh, and we can clearly see that his suit’s got a custom lining. It’s nice lining but that prosecutor is a joke.
A case closer to home for me (I live in St. Louis) is the McCloskeys waving guns at protesters who were walking past their house. The protesters were heading for the mayor’s house, and the McCloskeys were in no danger. It was only after they freaked out over nothing that they became the story.
In the photo I saw, the husband wasn’t actually pointing his rifle at anyone, and his finger was outside the trigger guard; but the wife was holding a pistol in one hand and waving it around like crazy in the general direction of the protesters with her finger on the trigger. She was a clear and present danger.
Late-breaking news: there’s a move to revoke the McCloskeys’ law licenses. We’ll see how that goes.
When I saw the picture, before reading your text below, I literally stopped breathing for a moment.
Let’s name him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Binger
There’s been a lot of talk since the verdict of Rittenhouse getting his own TV show, running for office etc. from people on the left. I don’t think so. I suspect that once a more attractive, more stereotypically macho young man comes along, and does something the right likes, he’ll be forgotten.
I imagine this would be more fitting for a post than a comment, but what do you think is going to happen in the near future, Marcus?
I don’t have the stomach to lurk on nazi sites, but I’ve heard rumors that they are celebrating this victory and planning on “self defending” at more BLM and left-leaning protests. And I can’t help but think of that asshole nazi terrorist who drove his car into a crowd. And how there was speculation/rumors of a lot of nazi messageboards planning terrorist attacks like that, linked with all the various states passing laws to make it legal to drive into protests…
… “why didn’t you give the guy $5?”
Only the most optimistically naïve would expect to have a wallet to put back in their pocket after taking it out in that situation.
… only assholes wear watches anymore. It’s just wealth-signaling now.
Yeah, my $20 Casio garners stares of envy and avarice everywhere I go.
And yet he’s not even wearing cufflinks, total poseur.
James Kraus, one of the prosecutors actually argued that. He said, “Everybody takes a beating sometimes.”
I dunno… need you mention that Goetz was Jewish? Because you didn’t, although that might be relevant too.
Begging the question – perhaps it was assumed, correctly, that FOUR men are extra scary when there’s only one of you.
That italicised exactly is horrifying. Goetz didn’t even slightly “put himself in the path of trouble”, unless “minding your own business on public transport” counts. He didn’t put on tactical gear and spends his nights travelling back and forth through Harlem trying to get mugged. You could, if you were of a mind, interpret that as “what was this Jew thinking, going where there might be black people?”. I mean, you’re NOT saying that… not exactly.
That shit right there, along with describing Goetz right from the get-go as a “nerdy sort”, is toxic masculinity at its best. If Goetz had been more of a man in appearance maybe he wouldn’t have had to shoot those people – is that your point? Or… maybe if he’d been less of a nerd he could have taken them hand-to-hand, all four of them, instead of reaching for a gun like a coward? Or… I mean, what is your point in impugning Goetz’s masculinity like this? I’m honestly not sure.
WHAT? It’s “toxic masculinity” to be scared when accosted by FOUR people who are bigger than you? How about this: it’s “toxic masculinity” for four teenage convicts to actively plan to rob a video arcade, and then while on the way to do that to decide to work as a pack to accost a small man travelling on his own. It’s toxic masculinity to ridicule said lone man for feeling threatened and not enough of a man to defend himself with his bare hands in one of the most notoriously violent cities in the world, a city where’d he’d already been a victim of crime and as the victim had to spend twice as much time in the police station as his assailant.
If ever, anywhere in history, it would be reasonable to assume that at least one of the large men coordinating to isolate you while one of them accosts you for money is armed, then NYC in 1984 would be it. If Goetz had opened fire between Leicester Square and Covent Garden in 1998 you might possibly have a point, but not here. Right now, I wouldn’t fancy my chances in an enclosed space against four big lads even if I did have a handgun. Which brings me onto…
Well, yes… and that’s a good thing. Consider: if he’d just bought a gun and put it in his pocket, one of the following scenarios would have been more likely:
1. the convicted crim accosts him for money, he pulls out a gun and accidentally shoots a bystander
2. the convicted crim accosts him for money, he tries to pull out a gun and accidentally shoots himself
3. the convicted crim accosts him for money, he pulls out a gun but lacks any conviction or preparation for what happens next, and the criminal or one of his three convicted crim accomplices takes the gun off him and shoots him with it.
He had polished and prepared his response. Good for him. That’s the responsible thing to do if you’re going to carry a gun. A lot of people call it “training”, and encourage it. It’s baffling to see it held up as a bad thing.
Also: you do note that said convicted crim did in fact initiate the encounter voluntarily, rather than minding his own business. If my life had gone badly wrong enough that I’d found myself on a subway train in NYC in 1984 you can be sure as shit I wouldn’t be talking to ANY strangers.
Remind me: whose life did Goetz end?
“Why didn’t you just consent?”, is what you’re asking. Really? REALLY?
I wonder if anyone ever asked any of Harvey Weinstein’s victims “why didn’t you just fuck him?”. How about “because when someone asks you to do something you don’t want to do, you have the right to refuse and defend yourself from them if you feel that refusal will be dangerous”.
You know what’s America? Not being able to reasonably assume your opponent is unarmed.
As far as the lawyer in the picture: as someone who knows guns it caused me to catch my breath. Then I thought “ah, he’ll have done an IA drill before doing that – he’d dropped off the magazine, pulled back the bolt and secured it, checked the chamber was clear and released the catch, all as soon as he picked up the weapon and in front of the jury so they’d know it was safe… so that’s alright then.”
…
Then I thought “nah, he didn’t do that, did he, he’s a fucking idiot.” I’d be happy to be proven wrong by a transcript, but I won’t hold my breath.
And finally:
Oh, please. I happen to like how a Rolex Submariner 116613 looks… so I wear an Invicta 8928 which looks just like it and cost me less than a hundred dollars rather than the ten grand for the Rolex. Do only assholes wear any kind of jewelry? Have tattoos? Drive cars? I mean, owning almost anything “nice” could be wealth-signalling. Can’t I have nice things?
Pierce R. Butler@#5:
Only the most optimistically naïve would expect to have a wallet to put back in their pocket after taking it out in that situation.
By the time the trial and civil litigation was over, Goetz had a $48 million judgement against him, filed for bankruptcy, and was destroyed financially and personally. I don’t know what he might have had in his wallet, but it wasn’t worth ruining his or anyone else’s life over.
sonofrojblake@#8:
Goetz didn’t even slightly “put himself in the path of trouble”, unless “minding your own business on public transport” counts. He didn’t put on tactical gear and spends his nights travelling back and forth through Harlem trying to get mugged.
Concealed carrying an illegal weapon and being prepared to use it is not “minding your business.” It’s something else – for one thing, we know Goetz was committing a crime by simply wandering around with the gun in his jacket, whereas the people who he shot were only maybe committing crimes of their own. That’s one thing I find similar between the Rittenhouse case and the Goetz case – Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t legally possessed or transported, either. The judge decided, rather inappropriately I’d say, that it didn’t matter in Rittenhouse’s case. But it’s a straight up fact that if neither of those people had been carrying illegal guns, there probably wouldn’t have been any deaths. That ought to be sufficient.
I dunno… need you mention that Goetz was Jewish? Because you didn’t, although that might be relevant too.
I didn’t mention it because I don’t see the relevance. Care to fill me in?
In today’s context there is a lot of relevance to the “white folks shooting black people and getting away with it by saying they are scary.” That’s what I was referring to.
It’s “toxic masculinity” to be scared when accosted by FOUR people who are bigger than you?
I didn’t say that. Being scared isn’t the problem; pulling a gun and shooting people is. The “toxic masculinity” element in the situation is the idea that having a gun as an equalizer or moral/emotional prop makes one safer. The final story on Rittenhouse hasn’t been written yet, but I don’t expect he’s done any more than permanently ruin his life as well as ending two others and permanently changing one more. Goetz’s shooting left one man paraplegic and brain damaged. That’s the problem. Both Rittenhouse and Goetz were carrying guns because they felt safer with them or more dangerous – whatever – but that was a completely wrong idea and that’s what I am fingering as “toxic masculinity.”
Right now, I wouldn’t fancy my chances in an enclosed space against four big lads even if I did have a handgun.
Why are you presupposing that violence has to be part of the solution? That seems a bit off, to me.
He had polished and prepared his response. Good for him. That’s the responsible thing to do if you’re going to carry a gun. A lot of people call it “training”, and encourage it. It’s baffling to see it held up as a bad thing.
I note your use of language “convicted crim” – at the time of the incident the only criminal Goetz knew was in that subway car was: committing a felony gun crime – himself.
Remind me: whose life did Goetz end?
Darrell Cabey’s. Cabey was a paraplegic and brain-damaged after Goetz shot him.
“Why didn’t you just consent?”, is what you’re asking. Really? REALLY?
Woooooow, you’re going pretty far with that. What I’m asking is “was $5 worth it?” That’s not an unreasonable question. If you want to analogize with Harvey Weinstein, why don’t you try something a bit more accurate: Weinstein tries to pressure someone in to having sex, so they shoot him dead. It’s not unreasonable in that situation to ask, “was that an appropriate response?” That’s hardly “why didn’t you just consent?” except on bizzaro-world. Maybe yes, maybe no, but I think it’s a good thing to not assume a lethal response is appropriate to all offenses. Or are you trying some sort of reductio ad absurdum argument?
You know what’s America? Not being able to reasonably assume your opponent is unarmed.
I live in rural Pennsylvania. Wanna tell me about that? I’m probably the only person in my neighborhood without a gun in my truck.
But, do you have a point? Because if you want to assume that your opponent is armed, then you’re basically measuring your willingness to get in a gun-fight. I’m not so thrilled about that. So you’re reducing the situation to some kind of mutual assured destruction scenario in which a first strike is marginally better. But that’s illusory. We can make up hypotheticals all day. There are plenty of intermediate scenarios that don’t involve immediately pulling a gun, taking the initiative, and shooting some people.
Then I thought “ah, he’ll have done an IA drill before doing that – he’d dropped off the magazine, pulled back the bolt and secured it, checked the chamber was clear and released the catch, all as soon as he picked up the weapon and in front of the jury so they’d know it was safe… so that’s alright then.
Alec Baldwin was also sure that the gun he was pointing was safe. As someone who knows guns, I wouldn’t do what the prosecutor was doing and I don’t know any firearms instructor who wouldn’t tell him to take the bolt out of the fucking thing. Maybe you’re willing to conclude that jackass was safe but I don’t like having guns pointed around a room I’m in by someone who clearly doesn’t know what they’re doing (because, QED, the bolt would be out of the gun, if they did)
Can’t I have nice things?
/me pats you on the head, “yes, dear.”
@sonofrojblake #8:
I think you overlooked something. Don’t worry, I’ll keep this short. The devil isn’t really in the details here, this one is simple.
Picture this: You’re male and you’re near a woman. You physically have an advantage over her if you chose to act like a thug. Or maybe you have a friend with you and the both of you clearly have a physical advantage if you work together. You’re in any sort of enclosed public space. Subway, bus, waiting room, elevator, it doesn’t really matter. You don’t know her situation. You only have a few clues to follow up on to determine whether she’s someone who’s been beaten down her whole life, perhaps literally, or if she’s very well adjusted and confident. Maybe some penis-carrying asshole threw acid in her face to try to scar her for life. If she was very lucky and treated quickly enough you might never know.
You are shot. Because she was afraid and she decided you looked threatening. By your reasoning, you can only expect this to happen and you wouldn’t have much to complain about. You don’t have any way to predict this. You aren’t her imaginary friend so you don’t live in her head. She just… reasonably decided you were scary and she reacted to that fear in a way you’ve already attempted to justify.
I would respectfully suggest this is problematic at best. Also, try not to glorify being afraid and shooting people. And try not to get shot. Have a good day.
I’m wondering if the prosecutor thought that Rittenhouse should get off. He seems to have done a pretty bad job of it, and i assume he isn’t that bad at his job (although privileged white dude who is bad at his job is common).
Although maybe this is the correct legal decision and he knew that.
@10
How do you see the judge deciding inappropriately? There is a lot of evidence that he did not transport the weapon across state lines and none that he did. And the illegal possession of a weapon that he was charged with just does not apply. It was a stupidly written law. That is not the judges fault. Am I missing something?
marner@#13:
How do you see the judge deciding inappropriately? There is a lot of evidence that he did not transport the weapon across state lines and none that he did. And the illegal possession of a weapon that he was charged with just does not apply. It was a stupidly written law.
That’s an interesting way to put it. There’s plenty of evidence that he used a “straw purchase” to obtain the gun, which he could not legally own at the time. And he didn’t take it across state lines because the buddy he got to buy it for him kept it in the state where the buddy lived, and left it unsecured in his garage so Rittenhouse could take it for his night on the town. The buddy is now looking at charges and is probably going to regret his involvement in maneuvering around the minimal gun control laws that exist in the US.
I suppose that it makes sense not to waste time going after Rittenhouse for a misdemeanor when he was facing more serious charges. But as you say – the law is an ass. I’m inclined to think the judge was, too. Basically, the message appears to be “go ahead and conspire to bypass our stupid gun control laws.” I know that’s how it’s done in Pennsylvania, too: a parent will buy a gun for their kid, keep it in the gun safe (if they have a safe) and give the kid the combination. It’s not as if we have a problem in this country with kids doing mass shootings, or anything – may as well keep messaging that status quo and all the thoughts and prayers that go with it.
@ Marcus
Completely off topic, but how’s relining the forge coming along?
Jazzlet@#15:
how’s relining the forge coming along?
1 step forward, 1 step back for a while, now. I have the form(s) built for casting the refractory, and have all the plumbing (which is a lot!) for the gas/air feeds. I need to do a posting about all that, but it’s so frustrating… And, now, the “holy days” are upon us, and the feast of “we fooled the native Americans!” and the Wallow of Crass Commercialism. Those are distractions that are unavoidable – I need to visit my loco parentis, etc. I feel endlessly frustrated. My bandsaw crapped out on me just when I needed it to make the cement forms, etc., and I still have to figure out the wiring for the gas solenoid and whatnot. Too much to do and not enough motivation. On the good news front tomorrow Mark’s coming out and we’re going to spend 2 days knocking out the wiring in the shed. So that’ll be one more item down. To be honest, the time the whole thing is taking is becoming a bit of an embarrassment.
Equally unrelated, I seem to recall you like ash wood and are a baker. I recently came into possession of some 3x3x24″ ash blocks one of which would probably lathe out to a pretty nice rolling pin. Interested?
lochaber@#4:
I imagine this would be more fitting for a post than a comment, but what do you think is going to happen in the near future, Marcus?
I’ve got a bunch of stuff going on the next couple days and then there’s gluttony day, etc., so I may be quiet for a while. But that’s a good question and I’ll see if I can post some thoughts.
mjr#10
And yet Goetz didn’t shoot anyone else on the subway, only the people in the group who physically isolated and accosted him – who initiated the encounter. I accept that Goetz wasn’t carrying the gun legally, obviously, and deserved the appropriate punishment for that.
The accusation of anti-semitism is a more toxic label than any other kind of racism, so there’s a tendency in the media to walk on eggshells around the Jewish community or outright support them even in clearly unsupportable cases, e.g. passing laws to make supporting BDS illegal (i.e. limiting the freedom of political expression of US citizens to serve another state).
Goetz was accosted by four men and walked away uninjured. I’d say he was kept safe by his gun, at least in the immediate situation.
Because I don’t live in fucking Utopia, I live in the real world where I’ve been mugged. People who tell you to give them money after physically isolating you with superior number don’t tend to just go “oh, OK” when you refuse. Your experience may differ, but if I’d had a handgun on a night out in Salford in 1988 I’d still have the watch my late uncle bought me for my eighteenth birthday and four scrotes one of whom knocked me unconscious would be dead or crippled, and fuck them.
Disabled = life ended? Duly noted.
Neither am I. But I have the privilege of living in a civilised country where it’s not reasonable to assume someone’s armed. If I live in 80s NYC I would feel differently, especially as a past victim of violent robbery.
And as PRB noted at #5, you’re being depressingly obtuse if you think that they’d have settled for $5. Never been robbed?
And here’s a thing: if a wealthy white woman – Rose McGowan, say – HAD shot Weinstein “in self defence”, do you think there’s a court in the land that would have convicted her? Because you can guarantee that with him dead ALL the accusers would have stepped up and said “he did the same to me, good riddance” before the door was closed on the cop car picking her up.
No, he was not, because he hadn’t done his IA drill. IF you’re properly trained, you know you don’t take someone’s word for it. Even if someone hands you a weapon and says “trust me, it’s not loaded” or “cold gun” or ANYTHING – you do your IA drill and clear the chamber YOURSELF. Baldwin didn’t do that, because if he had he’d have unloaded the gun and nobody would have been hurt.
I’m not. I’m saying there’s a way that photograph COULD HAVE been captured safely, but that I don’t believe for a second until contradicted by evidence that it was. You don’t have to dismantle a gun to make it safe.
@lanir, 11:
You missed out the bit where I initiate verbal contact with her and demand money – an omission that makes your analogy look ridiculous. Goetz didn’t just open fire on some people standing near him because he privately feared them for their appearance. He shot men who had deliberately physically isolated him and then initiated a verbal encounter and then demanded money. Mark MacYoung calls this “interviewing the victim” and it’s a well recognised behaviour among violent street criminals.
And I do try not to get shot. Did you miss the bit where I said:
If Cabey had followed that advice on the way to rob a video arcade, he’d be alive today. Oh, hang on, he is. I mean – he’d not be paraplegic and brain-damaged. I wonder if he’s ever regretted sticking his nose into Goetz’s life?
It seems like I’ll actually have to watch all of the Rittenhouse videos myself. I’ve been led to believe that Rittenhouse was retreating, and he was hit with a skateboard, and he was being attacked by 3 men in response to little provocation, and then one of the three attackers pointed a gun at Rittenhouse, and only then did Rittenhouse shoot back. I could easily be entirely mistaken about this timeline, but this is the timeline that I’ve seen presented online. If this timeline is accurate – and again I make no assertion that it is – then Rittenhouse is IMAO entirely innocent of all of the charges against him relating to the use of force (barring technicalities like whether illegally carrying a weapon voids a right to self defense, which I also think is rather ludicrous). So long as the second amendment is a thing, along with the individual State’s statutory laws that also protect open carrying in a large protest (as fucking stupid as that is), then it’s not a crime to open carry. If three people, one of them armed with a gun, are attacking you, and have already hit you with a skateboard, and one draws a gun on you, assuming no prior provocation, I see absolutely nothing wrong with shooting them. Does this mean that I’m in favor of gun rights? Not really. Does this mean that I’m in favor in particular regarding the right to open carry (or carry at all) during a large protest. No.
Because I know some asshat is going to purposefully misinterpret what I said, let me clarify:
I see nothing wrong with shooting them in the moment as part of legal self defense.
Correction: Here’s the timeline, and the timeline that I gave above is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Sequence_of_events
Assuming that Wikipedia description is accurate, which is assuming a lot, and which also relies on Rittenhouse’s own testimony (Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Rittenhouse), then it still looks like a pretty clearcut case of self defense to me on the part of Rittenhouse and not on Rosenbaum especially because it’s not a stand-your-ground state.
And my gods – this clearly demonstrates how fucked it is to rely on randos to stop an active shooter in the crowd. Instead, everyone assumes everyone else is an active shooter. Shit’s so stupid.
Regarding the safety of the gun in the courtroom, here’s the video of closing arguments by the prosecutor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2zwdAPnZM0
At 11:50, while a video of the scene is being shown, in the background we hear somebody say, “Guys, check the gun. Make sure it’s empty.”
At 12:33, we hear the prosecutor say, “We have the gun. It is in evidence as exhibit number 28. I’m having detectives check the gun to make sure that it is safe.”
I’ll leave it to others to decide if that is sufficient.
Marcus@#14
This was not something that was ruled on by the judge.
But forgot all that. More importantly, if Jazzlet doesn’t want it, that ash rolling pin would make a great fundraiser assuming you haven’t paid off all the legal bills.
@ahcuah, 23: here’s what I say to that: you can’t get someone else to check the gun is safe for you to handle. That’s what Alec Baldwin did, and look where it got him. They’re called immediate action drills because they’re what you do, YOURSELF, immediately on handling a firearm, regardless of who handled it before you or what they told you about the state it’s in (exception: when they tell you it’s loaded).
And if you can’t perform an immediate action drill and satisfy yourself that the gun is safe, you have no business handling the thing. The way I see it, it really is that simple, so as I suspected the lawyer is a privileged moron doing theatrics he’s not qualified for and he should be, as stated in the OP, arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, because he didn’t know that gun was safe – not to any standard of gun safety I’ve ever been trained in.
What it clearly demonstrates is how fucked it is to allow randos to walk around carrying guns that were bought legally. “Active shooter” ffs – like you need a term for it because it happens every day.
Not sure of the laws anywhere else, but in Oregon, you can only use deadly force to respond to deadly force or to stop someone from committing a felony. The threat of a gun being pointed at you or being threatened to be assaulted with a skateboard is not an example of deadly force being used against you. While both acts are dangerous and could result in you being harmed, until they actually assault you or shoot at you you are not allowed to shoot them in Oregon.
I own a 49 dollar Timex wrist watch. I dont own a cell phone so have no other means to find out what time it is when Im away from home. Anyone who thinks that is flaunting my wealth or that it somehow makes me an asshole, well, I will just have to resist the urge to tell them which part of my anatomy they may feel free to kiss.
Your description is lacking. If someone threatens to kill you, and then you run away, and the person and a friend start chasing you, and then they catch you, one hits you with a skateboard, and one tries to take your gun – I think that’s about the right time where deadly force is acceptable. I am not an expert on Oregon law, but I confident that this would be acceptable self defense in Oregon, and that you are wrong.
Marcus @# 16
Sorry it isn’t going smoothly, we have a saying in our household “it shold have beeen a simple job. but …” with which we start the tale of why a simplee job took all day/week/whatever. A lot of the time it is because in order to do the simple job you have to do half a dozen other things first. I hope your time with Mark is productive.
Yes I love ash, and yes I would love a long rolling pin, the one I have is too short for many jobs. One of the things my father disposed of after my mother died was her long rolling pin, not as sorely missed as some of the recipes, but still.
Do you like marmalade?
If someone threatens to kill you, and then you run away, and the person and a friend start chasing you, and then they catch you, one hits you with a skateboard, and one tries to take your gun – I think that’s about the right time where deadly force is acceptable.
You’re conveniently omitting the fact that, in this particular case, the “you” in question came to the scene with a gun of his own, which means the people “threatening” him were, in fact, acting in response to a rather obvious threat posed by some stranger with a gun and no apparent police authority.
GoTS>
Do you actually read anything you are arguing against, or do you just scan for keywords and copy/paste prepared walls of text?
Raging Bee
He had the right to open carry a gun. Therefore, the mere act of open carrying is not a threat for the purposes of justifying lawful self defense. Further, again, Rosembaum chased Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him, therefore making it inarguable that Rosembaum was engaged in self defense. Chasing someone down and trying to take their gun is not self defense.
Raging Bee
Also, from the cop on duty:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/14/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-takeaways.html
Your prejudiced view of reality does not conform to actual reality. Apparently there were a lot of people caring guns, and only this one seemed to provoke this so-called “self defense” action which includes death threats and chasing a retreating person.
lochaber
I read. Sometimes I read too quickly and misread. My apologies. I should be better. I try.
@GOTS :
Isn’t it? Why? If they have opened fire and already killed other people and you think they’re likely to use it on you too then it may be a desperate form of self-defence but surely also justifiable.
You mean the Kenosha multiple murderer? Only he was a White Supremacist terrorist there intent on murdering others.
Ever thought of taking your own advice here?.
@ Marner : It was a stupidly written law. That is not the judges fault. Am I missing something?
Yes, yes you are.
Apart from the emotional intelligence and common sense to understand that the Kenosha multiple murderer very obviously should NOT have been there in the first place you have the failure of this so-called Judge to recuse himself given his very evident political and racial biases in favour of the White Supremacist terrorist killer here.
Recall / know that :
https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-phone-rang-lee-greenwood-donald-trump-1648958
&
https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-bruce-schroeders-six-most-shocking-moments-at-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial
Incl.
Note there the lack of the use of the word, person or individual or African-American..
https://www.wisn.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-what-we-know-about-20-jurors-selected-to-hear-case/38135570
That POC being Hispanic for therecord. In a racially charged case over murders committed by a White Supremacist at an protest saying Black Lives Matter, you really think that jury is a fair and unbiased one? I don’t.
@sonofrojblake #18:
You’re real hung up on those details. They don’t matter. When you put the details all together you’ve said that because they were big guys, sat nearby and one of them asked for money that all adds up to being ok to shoot. None of those actions constitutes an attack. So why pull a gun and shoot someone at that particular moment? Because that was when the person with a gun was afraid enough to use it. Which is exactly what I was getting at above. You needn’t be demanding money to get shot in my example (although I notice you’re completely ignoring that this version of events is disputed). Any interaction that can be viewed in a threatening light by someone already looking for threats is enough.
The problem with these sorts of disagreements is they all end up with strawmen getting beaten while some very real problems are ignored. For example you’ve suggested a criminal record helped justify actions but that’s completely irrelevant. That data is not present when the decision to fire is made so it’s little more than a flimsy excuse after the fact. But you brought it up anyway. Why is that exactly? In matters with life and death consequences for other people isn’t it reasonable to expect a decision making process that’s a little bit more sturdy? That doesn’t require excuses after the fact to prop it up?
You seem to have missed the point I was making so I’ll spell it out. The shooter isn’t alone in these situations. There are other people there and they’re not props or part of the scenery. They have their own viewpoints and we don’t need to uncritically accept the viewpoint of the shooter every time. Also, the shooter will NEVER have perfect situational awareness nor will their gun grant them mind reading powers. Misunderstandings between people happen normally and adding a firearm to the situation does not improve them. From here you can follow the logic. People carry guns because they’re afraid of other people with weapons or people who can overpower them physically. But having a gun doesn’t stop someone from doing any of those things, it just lets you shoot them first. And there’s the additional danger of someone who can physically overpower you gaining access to your gun.
We live in a generally safe society. It’s pretty rare to get robbed or beaten up on your way to the grocery store. So if you’re looking for threats all around, you’re going to see a lot of false positives.
A useful discussion around this would probably be around when and how you should respond to threats you perceive. It’s especially important when firearms are involved because they tend to limit what responses are reasonable no matter who has them. We certainly can’t trust the laws to sort it out for us. But we can’t have that discussion because we’re still going back and forth about whether it’s okay to murder people just because you’re afraid of them.
Do you want to discuss a counterfactual?
Regarding the actual case:
Rosebaum was chasing Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse was retreating from Rosenbaum, before the first shots were fired.
I point you to the testimony of the police officer that I gave above which describes how incredibly commonplace it was for people at the scene to be openly and heavily armed. In that context, merely open-carrying a rifle cannot be reasonably construed as a threat worthy of attempting to chase down, tackle, and wrestle the gun away – not ethically, legally, or otherwise.
The term “self defense” as a legal term might (?) include defense of others. However, in common parlance, “self defense” does not include “defense of others”. Rittenhouse was retreating from Rosenbaum, and Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, before the first shots were fired. This is not self defense. If you want to say that he’s engaged in defense of others, or citizen’s arrest, then please be more clear with your words. This is definitely not self defense, and it does not seem like reasonable defense of others. Rather, this seems like a simple unprovoked attack by Rosenbaum on Rittenhouse.
You’re simply not engaging with the actual reality.
If you want to present a counterfactual, I’ll be happy to discuss it, but I’m going to need more details about your counterfactual.
Ironic. Projection.
I was seventeen when Goetz was in the news, so like you he was the first that came to mind of someone looking for an opportunity to shoot and murder people. And like you I agree that Goetz had the prior experience of a violent assault. But I immediately saw Rittenhouse as a schoolyard shooter, who sought out another place to shoot people.
But Rittenhouse’s actions more closely remind me a white supremacist trash tactic in the 1990s, to claim “self-defence” while perpetrating violence: They would physically harass and assault a target (e.g. grabbing and throwing away items, tripping/pushing/shoving people, hitting the back of the head, etc.). Then when their intended victim lashed out in any way, the white trash would beat, punch, kick and in other ways hurt the person. Rittenhouse sought out such an opportunity, claiming “self-defence” in a situation where he knew he was in absolutely no danger.
Rosenbaum threated Rittenhouse with death, and then Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, and then Rosenbaum tried to wrestle the gun away from Rittenhouse. That’s all before the first shots. Rittenhouse was in “absolutely no danger”? Nonsense. Did Rittenhouse put himself into the situation? Partially yes.
Rosenbaum threated Rittenhouse with death…
Was that before or after Rittenhoiuse showed up with a gun?
He had the right to open carry a gun.
Having a right to do something, doesn’t make it the right or appropriate thing to do; nor does it mean no one has any right to question your actions or motives; nor does it mean no one has a right to think you might be a threat and treat you accordingly.
What about the people who were pointing guns at Rittenhouse? Do they not also have the right to open carry? And WHY would anyone want to open carry, except to deal with someone else who is armed and may be a threat to their lives?
And make no mistake: given our history of KKK terrorism and pogroms such as Tulsa and Elaine, there is absolutely no reason to assume that white civilians bringing guns into nonwhite neighborhoods are acting with benign intent..
Raging Bee
Let’s have that conversation too. It’s an important one to have. I probably agree with you on it. There probably should be laws against open carrying (or perhaps carrying of any kind) during a large protest. However, that conversation is not relevant when it comes to a separate conversation: what was the proper verdict at trial? Regarding the proper verdict at trial, it seems pretty clear that Rosenbaum unlawfully attacked Rittenhouse, and that Rittenhouse acted in lawful self defense against Rosenbaum. I hope you can keep this distinction clear between these two conversations.
First, the “proper verdict” SHOULD have been that Rittenhouse deliberately put himself in that dangerous situation, therefore he can’t claim “self-defense.” Just like a cop-killer can’t claim “self-defense” if the cop he shot was pointing a gun at him.
And second, it’s kinda silly to talk about an “unlawful attack” in the middle of a fluid, chaotic, relatively lawless and violent situation. Neither of those two people were behaving lawfully at the time, and the truly lawful response — call the police and let them sort it out — wasn’t really available at the time. And Rosenbaum quite likely had no reason to think the dumbass kid with a gun and no clue was going to behave rationally.
If Rittenhouse could validly claim “self-defense,” then so could everyone else who saw him waving that gun around.
Attending a protest while merely exercising your constitutionally protected right and state-law protected right of merely open carrying does not and cannot legally invalidate all future self defense claims.
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1358325-a-man-for-all-seasons
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Just because something is legal doesn’t make it moral.
Yeah, maybe the court decided Rittenhouse acted in a legal manner, that doesn’t mean he acted in a moral and correct manner.
As has been pointed out too many times to mention, in the past it was legal to own people, or for a husband to rape his wife. Regardless of how they may have been legal at some point in time, they were never morally acceptable.
And, there is a difference twixt carrying a weapon, and threatening people with it. Rittenhouse threatened numerous people with his assault rifle, and for some reason that wasn’t considered acceptable reason for people to attack him. But someone merely drawing a handgun (which doesn’t even compare to a rifle), was considered legal grounds for Rittenhouse to shoot him. Can’t you see how this doesn’t quite make sense? If possessing a handgun is grounds for using lethal force, than why not possessing a rifle, let alone aiming the rifle at people? None of this makes sense, it’s a tortuous exercise in eliminating context and trying to justify lethal force based on a half-second of footage, while ignoring everything that led up to it.
Yeah, lots of people were open carrying, but in the video footage I watched, Rittenhouse was the only one pointing a weapon at people. But for some reason, that doesn’t matter…
I’ve been saying that repeatedly too.
According to this source:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/rittenhouse-jury-verdict-self-defense-legal-analysis.html
According to Wisconsin law, if one provokes an attack, but then attempts to flee the attack, and is chased, then one regains the lawful right of self defense. So, given that Rittenhouse chose to flee after any possible initial provocation, it is irrelevant whether there was any initial provocation w.r.t. Rittenhouse’s self defense claim.
Also, as best as I can determine from extensive searching, no witness claims and no video shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at someone before being chased by Rosenbaum. If I am wrong, I would love to be corrected on this. What I can find are many sources that say merely exercising his right to open-carry was the menacing. This leads me to believe that this is the best that “they” have, meaning that Rittenhouse almost certainly wasn’t actually legally threatening, menacing, or brandishing before being chased by Rosenbaum.
Also also, context matters. Remember that couple who were pointing their guns at protestors on the street near their house? That’s dangerous, and it’s illegal, and the gun owners should be punished, but neither should this rise to the level of immediate physical danger sufficient to justify someone on the street drawing a gun and shooting the couple near their house. By contrast, put yourself in Rittenhouse’s place. He was just attacked by Rosenbaum who threatened to kill him, with others in the crowd yelling stuff like “get him”, and a third person hits you with a skateboard, and then a fourth person draws a gun on you. These two situations that you try to equate cannot be equated – they are vastly different.
What we have here is, as far as I can tell, a vast left-wing echo chamber which is so zealously anti-gun that they are making shit up to justify their prejudices rather than engage with what’s actually there. AFAIK, Rittenhouse is clearly innocent – legally. It also seems pretty likely that Rittenhouse was “looking for trouble” and is a racist asshat. It’s also true that it’s really fucked up that it’s legal to open-carry during a large protest IMO.
Sorry, hit send early.
Do you have this video, and does this video show Rittenhouse pointing a gun at someone before the moment where Rosenbaum chased him and got shot? Because I can’t find it, although my google-fu skills could be weak. Everything I can find suggests that there is no such video.
GoTS @47
Well, I agree your google-fu skills suck, because I posted a link in comment #23 above. It’s what the prosecutor was discussing when he picked up and pointed the gun in the courtroom. Start at 9:30:
ahcuah
Are you talking about after Rosenbaum already started his attack, e.g. charging at Rittenhouse? Oh come on. The supposed provocation by Rittenhouse to justify action by Rosenbaum cannot come *after* the attack that it supposedly provoked. You have the order all wrong. The attack came first, and then Rittenhouse pointed his gun to try to dissuade the attack.
No, one sec. I’m a bad reader. One sec. Watching more.
Sorry. What? I don’t see this. Where does this happen in the video? I’ve watched it several times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2zwdAPnZM0
Reply starts around 10:05.
The first thing that I see is Rittenhouse running away and Rosenbaum chasing, and Rosenbaum throws the bag, and Rittenhouse turns to point without shooting, and then turns away again and continues retreating.
Where is this video evidence of Rittenhouse provoking the chase by pointing the gun? Is it in one of the first frames where I have to zoom in really closely?
Ok. So they zoom in, and they claim he’s pointing the gun at people. I don’t see it.
PS: Even if true, Rittenhouse still acted in lawful self defense. Rosenbaum had no justification for continuing the attack when Rittenhouse was retreating and no longer a threat.
GoTS @52:
TBH, neither do I. However, the prosecutor also says that an assistant is pointing it out to the jurors on a big screen they have in the courtroom. On the other hand, it is extremely unlikely that the prosecutor is lying about it in open court.
>On the other hand, it is extremely unlikely that the prosecutor is lying about it in open court.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, please. That indicts you for ignorance more than anything else.
Tu quoque if you don’t think that prosecutors are among the slimiest scum-sucking least-trustworthy people alive. They’re worse than police by a mile.
Regarding this prosecutor, in just this case alone, he had at least several cases of severe misconduct. In my world, he’d be on the inside of a prison cell serving a couple days at least for contempt. But that literally *never happens*. Prosecutors never go to jail for misconduct on the job. They’re more untouchable than presidents. More presidents have been impeached than US prosecutors who have seen the inside of a jail cell for misconduct on the job. Researchers have looked into it, and IIRC, there has been exactly one US prosecutor who has ever gone to jail for misconduct on the job, and it was for a sentence of 1 day. So, either you think that prosecutors are the most ethical and moral profession ever, or you reach the inevitable conclusion that prosecutors are above the law, moreso than anyone else, including judges and even presidents.
Like I said, you’ve indicted yourself for ignorance. Quite specifically, in the instance I was discussing, in the open courtroom, where he would have been immediately called on it if he were lying, he had his assistant point out for the jury exactly where on the drone footage Rittenhouse pointed his gun. That is the point under discussion regarding whether he was lying.
And your response is to try to muddy the waters by bringing up crap totally irrelevant to this specific situation. Nice try.
BTW, as you might have noticed, he was immediately called out by the defense about where Rittenhouse was aiming.
What do you mean by “immediately”? Like immediately immediately? Like someone interrupting him in the middle of his closing arguments? I don’t think so. Or do you mean an hour later during the defense’s closing arguments? Sure. I don’t think “over an hour later” qualifies as “immediately”.
Me:
GoTS:
You utter and complete moron. 13:10 on the video I referenced in comment #23.
Ok. I stand corrected. Weird. My apologies. I guess objections during closing arguments for such things is acceptable in some courtrooms. I’m surprised.
However, doesn’t this also undercut your earlier claim? Didn’t you say that if the prosecutor was lying, then the defense would interrupt? Well, the defense did interrupt.
@Marner:
There are only three possibilities about Rittenhouse’s gun. Keep in mind however that, in ALL THREE cases, Rittenhouse wasn’t allowed to carry that rifle, and therefore he was an illegal shooter.
1) He got the rifle in Illinois and carried it with him in Wisconsin. He transported an illegal weapon across state lines.
2) He got the rifle in Wisconsin from a friend – and the friend willingly gave it to Rittenhouse. The friend is Rittenhouse’s accomplice in this case, and shares responsibility.
3) He got the rifle in Wisconsin from a friend – but the friend didn’t know that Rittenhouse got that rifle; Rittenhouse stole it.
@Tizio
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031