Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[sad-cafe]

It seems impossible to defend killer kyle without blaming the victims. I guess they did it to themselves.

The guy who was shot multiple times on the ground, then left to die while KR wandered off, should have bounced right back up.

I would just say he shouldn't have attacked an innocent kid.

innocent my fat ass

[Maybenaut]

I recall (vaguely) a line from Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line in which police said of their suspect something like "he almost seemed to be protesting his innocence too much". The film goes on to make a persuasive case that he WAS innocent, and in fact his conviction was ultimately overturned in part due to publicity from that film. It sounds like police, convinced or motivated to believe he was the guy, interpreted this behavior, normal from an innocent person, in the light of their preconception, so that it appeared to them as just more sign of guilt.

In a similar way, I think anyone confidently asserting Rittenhouse's breakdown was fake has given a sure tell that they're prejudiced against him. This because human beings can't reliably tell real from faked emotion, though they think falsely they can. So, all that is going on is that you are revealing what preconceptions you'are projecting into a kind of Rorschach figure. Having convicted him in advance, of course the breakdown shows up for you as mockable fakery. I think one would do better to be agnostic about it and focus on more reliable sources of evidence.

Another detail is that I think many of the people confidently making this assessment don't seem to understand that what was presented was not crying, but a PTSD panic attack, a different sort of thing which might well not produce tears.

So a person’s in-court demeanor isn’t something a jury can consider when making a credibility determination, which is solely within their province to make. And if they make such a determination, they must be biased.

That’s entirely antithetical to our system of justice.

[andersweinstein]

I recall (vaguely) a line from Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line in which police said of their suspect something like "he almost seemed to be protesting his innocence too much". The film goes on to make a persuasive case that he WAS innocent, and in fact his conviction was ultimately overturned in part due to publicity from that film. It sounds like police, convinced or motivated to believe he was the guy, interpreted this behavior, normal from an innocent person, in the light of their preconception, so that it appeared to them as just more sign of guilt.

In a similar way, I think anyone confidently asserting Rittenhouse's breakdown was fake has given a sure tell that they're prejudiced against him. This because human beings can't reliably tell real from faked emotion, though they think falsely they can. So, all that is going on is that you are revealing what preconceptions you'are projecting into a kind of Rorschach figure. Having convicted him in advance, of course the breakdown shows up for you as mockable fakery. I think one would do better to be agnostic about it and focus on more reliable sources of evidence.

Another detail is that I think many of the people confidently making this assessment don't seem to understand that what was presented was not crying, but a PTSD panic attack, a different sort of thing which might well not produce tears.

So a person’s in-court demeanor isn’t something a jury can consider when making a credibility determination, which is solely within their province to make. And if they make such a determination, they must be biased.

That’s entirely antithetical to our system of justice.

That's much more general than my claim, which is specifically about the reliability of human judgement on the genuineness of emotions like that panic attack.

But yeah I think there are ways the jury system can rest on unreliable judgements by jurors. Like folk beliefs in the reliability of eyewitness testimony debunked by psychologists like Elizabeth Loftus.

[Suranis]

... about the reliability of human judgement on the genuineness of emotions...

I think we all have a reliable judgement on the genuineness of emotions here.

[Dave from down under]

Yet you expect that Kyle’s claims to his state of mind are reliable.

That he felt his life was in danger
and
that he felt his only option was to kill and maim.

Remember the first two shot he fired crippled!

Thereafter there was no threat to him.

The next two shots he fired was into a crippled persons back and made sure of the kill.

[Dave from down under]

Additional

You project your prejudices onto people and the situation

And then expect others to respect your fantasies

Phfff

[Maybenaut]

But yeah I think there are ways the jury system can rest on unreliable judgements by jurors. Like folk beliefs in the reliability of eyewitness testimony debunked by psychologists like Elizabeth Loftus.

It cuts both ways. That’s why many people, despite the verdict, will never be convinced that Rittenhouse is innocent.

[pipistrelle]

... about the reliability of human judgement on the genuineness of emotions...

I think we all have a reliable judgement on the genuineness of emotions here.

And the side eye.

[Dave from down under]

Is anybody buying my act??

[andersweinstein]

Yet you expect that Kyle’s claims to his state of mind are reliable.

That he felt his life was in danger
and
that he felt his only option was to kill and maim.

Remember the first two shot he fired crippled!

Thereafter there was no threat to him.

The next two shots he fired was into a crippled persons back and made sure of the kill.

'

We've been over this but: after the fact a medical examiner can retrospectively determine the facts you cite. That doesn't mean Rittenhouse could possibly know any of that in real time under the pressure of an attack. All four shots were squeezed off in 0.74 seconds. He would have to stop shooting after two shots at say second 0.50 and be perfectly sure it was safe to hold up and check to verify that his attacker disabled before firing another shot as a person is lunging toward him.

[Dave from down under]

One or two shots could be self defence
Four was murder

[Dave from down under]

And we just have his self serving testimony that it was self defence and not murder.

So pffff

[raison de arizona]

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[andersweinstein]

But yeah I think there are ways the jury system can rest on unreliable judgements by jurors. Like folk beliefs in the reliability of eyewitness testimony debunked by psychologists like Elizabeth Loftus.

It cuts both ways. That’s why many people, despite the verdict, will never be convinced that Rittenhouse is innocent.

Oh, I know that. I don't expect to convince people he was innocent. I WOULD kind of like it if I could manage to convince people of the meta-thesis that a reasonable jury could easily acquit based on the evidence, not because they nullified, or were racist, or irrational, or had the case skewed by a biased judge, or because the whole legal system is infected with white supremacy, but simply because he had a pretty good self-defense case on the evidence and there really wasn't much evidence introduced inconsistent with it. What I see is partisan blindness to that.

I mean, I can see a rational jury convicting. For me it would be mainly on the judgment call that it was not rational to believe he faced deadly force (death or serious bodily harm) threats in the attacks on him. That's always seemed the weakest point to me.

But I would hope they wouldn't convict because they think anyone who brought a gun as he did must have wanted to shoot people, or was "looking for a fight" when there wasn't other evidence showing this (which would not even necessarily be relevant unless it went to provocation) or because they think they know a real from a fake panic attack. But I know jurors could make those inferences, sure.

[raison de arizona]

There is plenty of evidence that Rittenhouse was looking to use his gun. Not all of it was admissible. Shit happens.

[andersweinstein]

And we just have his self serving testimony that it was self defence and not murder.

So pffff

Not true at all, we have every shooting on video, some from multiple angles, kind of an unusual feature of this case. I would judge he shot out of the motive of self-defense from the video without his testimony, although that by itself is not enough to acquit.

ETA Also, there are ways his testimony is broadly consistent with other evidence, including video evidence, and testimony from other witnesses including prosecution witnesses, and not contradicted by other testimony or video.

[andersweinstein]

There is plenty of evidence that Rittenhouse was looking to use his gun. Not all of it was admissible. Shit happens.

Apart from the inadmissable CVS video, what else are you referring to by "plenty of evidence"?

[andersweinstein]

And the side eye.

The sideways look was toward the judge, not the jury. I would guess he was looking for some kind of help, which the judge granted in the form of a break to let him compose himself. So what?

[Suranis]

That gif wasn't the side eye at the jury people were and are talking about. The Jury was seated to the right of that gif. When he gave the Jury the side eye he looked to his left, and you damn well know it.

And he wasn't looking at the Judge either. The Judge was seated at a higher level to him so he would have been looking upwards. He was looking around the court to see how his blubbering act was going down, not at the Judge.

When people are in high emotion they tend to move their head slowly as their energy and attention is elsewhere, not make quick movements around.

[raison de arizona]

[Uninformed]

Whatever the reasons/excuses/legality, the idea that in a supposedly civilised country an obviously immature seventeen year old (or anyone) can travel to the scene of a civil disturbance/riot carrying a rifle is ridiculous. Thanks to the second amendment and the gun culture that accompanies it two people are dead and one maimed.

(In the UK you would be arrested if you were found to be carrying literally anything that could be used as an offensive weapon - even if you claimed it was for self defense)

[bob]

Your moral compass is way out of kilter. Or you just enjoy trolling? Weird!

"I'm catching flak so I must be over the target!" was a logical fallacy even when it was a popular meme over a decade ago.

[Dave from down under]

Whatever the reasons/excuses/legality, the idea that in a supposedly civilised country an obviously immature seventeen year old (or anyone) can travel to the scene of a civil disturbance/riot carrying a rifle is ridiculous. Thanks to the second amendment and the gun culture that accompanies it two people are dead and one maimed.

(In the UK you would be arrested if you were found to be carrying literally anything that could be used as an offensive weapon - even if you claimed it was for self defense)

Here “self defence” is not a valid lawful reason for obtaining a firearm license.

Open carry down a street here will have you arrested and facing up to 14 years in jail.
(An unsecured firearm is a big no no… and semi automatics are heavily licensed - unfortunately we have unshakable evidence that mass murders go where gun laws are lax)

Self defence must be proportional to threat etc etc

But then I am fortunate not to live is a society that admires murders.

[Baidn]

I could go to a right-wing forum where there'd be an equally unanimous consensus on the other side. Consensus among a partisan group of like-minded thinkers is no sign of truth. Pointlessness ... well ok. But not truth.

Not the strongest of debating points, paraphrased: "I'm not the only crazed right-wing nutter who excuses murder if the victims are from a group I despise and demonize."

Your moral compass is way out of kilter. Or you just enjoy trolling? Weird!

I will point out again that the only reason to exert continuous effort to defend Rittenhouse is because the defender wants the outcome to be normalized. Any defense that ignores his later actions is in bad faith. Those with larger platforms (Or at least formally, crowder, tucker etc) had some success in this as other individuals assumed they could go to a protest with the intent to murder and then argue they were scared. Thankfully they were not as successful at avoiding accountability. I'm sure the Rittenhouse simp will make some weak protest that it's not what he wants but that is clearly untrue. To paraphrase the common sentiment "I am not saying they are a white supremacist, I am saying they want the same thing as white supremacist".

[Slim Cognito]

My apologies if this is tackled upthread but I'm not re-reading.

After this little bastard was acquitted, I remember Gaetz saying he wanted to hire him as one of his interns. Obviously that didn't happen. Anyone know why? Gaetz talking out his ass or the little bastard couldn't get clearance?