Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:11 pm
Where was Rittenhouse working that it made it more convenient to travel to Kenosha? His furloughed YMCA job was in Lindenhurst IL.
Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
The New Yorker piece said he had just started a new life guarding job, but didn’t say where.Uninformed wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:11 pm Where was Rittenhouse working that it made it more convenient to travel to Kenosha? His furloughed YMCA job was in Lindenhurst IL.
Yet:andersweinstein wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:55 pm I am not *speculating* about what is true and presenting my speculation as evidence.
Oh, the irony.Someone from a nearby border town could *easily* have more connection to Kenosha than someone else who traveled to Kenosha from within WI.
And heaven forbid someone uses rhetoric like "cross a state line" to convey that concept. Glad you're here to adjudicate everyone's rhetoric.I think nothing about his motives is rendered more probable by the fact that he happened to cross a state line a mile from his house. If you say he traveled a long way, that could be relevant.
A summer job and a singular buddy is an odd motive to assign yourself a "job" that the property owner didn't want.In point of fact, there is evidence he had connections to nearby Kenosha. He worked a job there. He had the buddy, Dominic Black, whom he knew well enough to stay over with.
I don't think it is well established that the property owner didn't want them there. There are conflicting statements from different parties, making the details of how they came to that gig very murky. It is understandable the property owner would want to disavow asking for their help in the wake of the shootings. But both Black and Rittenhouse gave statements to the police he did and also that he said he appreciated their help. They also mentioned the gig being coordinated through one Nick Smith who reportedly had worked for the owner. And the men were able to get on the roof and inside the shop. They have not been charged with trespassing or breaking and entering, so I think there is some suggestion they must have had the backing of someone in charge of the shop.bob wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:27 amA summer job and a singular buddy is an odd motive to assign yourself a "job" that the property owner didn't want.In point of fact, there is evidence he had connections to nearby Kenosha. He worked a job there. He had the buddy, Dominic Black, whom he knew well enough to stay over with.
A Kenosha News story says it was at the Pleasant Prairie RecPlex in Kenosha County. It says he had been employed there for only 20 days before the event. That is a detail I only just learned. That weakens one support for a claim to Kenosha connection that I have mentioned, so I will not put weight on that point in the future.Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:32 pmThe New Yorker piece said he had just started a new life guarding job, but didn’t say where.Uninformed wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:11 pm Where was Rittenhouse working that it made it more convenient to travel to Kenosha? His furloughed YMCA job was in Lindenhurst IL.
That's how I see it.Dave from down under wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:17 pm Criminal with illegal gun deliberately shoots people.
The end.
See, this is what I don’t get. Why are you putting any weight on any of this stuff now? As you say, the facts are going to come out at trial. The jury is going to be limited to considering the evidence that actually gets introduced. And they will decide whether the state proved every element of every offense beyond a reasonable doubt.andersweinstein wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:51 amA Kenosha News story says it was at the Pleasant Prairie RecPlex in Kenosha County. It says he had been employed there for only 20 days before the event. That is a detail I only just learned. That weakens one support for a claim to Kenosha connection that I have mentioned, so I will not put weight on that point in the future.Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:32 pmThe New Yorker piece said he had just started a new life guarding job, but didn’t say where.Uninformed wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:11 pm Where was Rittenhouse working that it made it more convenient to travel to Kenosha? His furloughed YMCA job was in Lindenhurst IL.
On the other hand, in the course of reporting on problems the new occupant faced, news reports identified his old home as in Anita Terrace apartments in Antioch. Google maps places his job an 18 minute drive from his home. It would take longer to get to downtown Kenosha. But again, per Washington Post video above, he didn't "journey" from home to the protests. Rather from Dominic Black's step-father's place somewhere within Kenosha.
Mysterious "different parties" ... other than Rittenhouse, Black, the property owner, and the police:andersweinstein wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:16 amI don't think it is well established that the property owner didn't want them there. There are conflicting statements from different parties, making the details of how they came to that gig very murky.
Rittenhouse also said he believed it was a paid gig. And also also said he was there to cosplay medic. Jurors love inconsistent explanations.UPI wrote:Rittenhouse and Black both told police they volunteered to provide security for a business called Car Source. The owner told police he never asked them to guard his business.
Yet more unsubstantiated speculation to support your preferred narrative.It is understandable the property owner would want to disavow asking for their help in the wake of the shootings.
Exactly (although "seem" seems to be exceedingly polite).
It is safe to say you aren't the only person with these observations and frustrations.I personally find that frustrating because the result shouldn’t matter.
Having tried a few lawsuits during my career, I have often found that the actual evidence at trial often contradicts earlier expectations. What you said may be true, but it may (repeat, may) turn out to be not so cut-and-dried.Foggy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:01 amThat's how I see it.Dave from down under wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:17 pm Criminal with illegal gun deliberately shoots people.
The end.
Well, I’ve been told that people only resort to using “clearly” or “obviously” to “cover the fact that they have no argument.”
OK. I went down a rabbit-hole of viewing videos and published reports and came away convinced that KR is not what most people think. I think he has a self-defense case with a decent chance of success. I find it a very interesting self-defense case in certain respects. I'm interested in discussing the issues about it as such.Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:30 pmSee, this is what I don’t get. Why are you putting any weight on any of this stuff now? As you say, the facts are going to come out at trial. The jury is going to be limited to considering the evidence that actually gets introduced. And they will decide whether the state proved every element of every offense beyond a reasonable doubt.andersweinstein wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:51 amA Kenosha News story says it was at the Pleasant Prairie RecPlex in Kenosha County. It says he had been employed there for only 20 days before the event. That is a detail I only just learned. That weakens one support for a claim to Kenosha connection that I have mentioned, so I will not put weight on that point in the future.
Don’t get me wrong, I think some of the issues in this case are interesting to talk about. ...
But you seem to be focused on the result rather than the process. I personally find that frustrating because the result shouldn’t matter. If Rittenhouse gets acquitted after a fair trial, great, the system worked. If he gets convicted, he’ll get an appeal. If the appellate court overturns the conviction, great, the system worked. If they affirm the conviction, great, the system worked.
Four-alarm fire at the irony-meter factory.andersweinstein wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:15 pmI can't get there as long as so many people have prejudged the facts.
I’m not left wing.. or right wing.. my politics don’t matter..andersweinstein wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:15 pm
BTW the prejudice itself and the problems it poses for him also is interesting to me in its own right. We talk about the right-wing bubble or "epistemic closure" (inability to have views changed by evidence). But views of Rittenhouse look to me like an example of left-wing bubble think, epistemic closure of its own form.
Really? I’m curious. Did you feel the same way about Derek Chauvin? As I’ve said before, I personally hope that Proud Boys evidence stays out. I think it’s relevant, but I think it’s overly prejudicial (in the military the test is whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice - I assume it’s the same in WI, but I could be wrong). And I want Rittenhouse to get a fair trial.andersweinstein wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:15 pm [
OK. I went down a rabbit-hole of viewing videos and published reports and came away convinced that KR is not what most people think. I think he has a self-defense case with a decent chance of success. I find it a very interesting self-defense case in certain respects. I'm interested in discussing the issues about it as such.
* * *
So I fall into being a kind of devil's advocate for his self-defense case to oppose that.
I, today, right now, might have an opinion about whether Rittenhouse does or does not have a viable self-defense claim, but it’s pointless to express it here because it relies too much on inferences that may or may not be drawn be drawn from evidence that might or might not ever get admitted at trial. I mean, it’s such a fact-intensive thing that it’s pointless to speculate about it.
Do you think it is never appropriate to bring in facts and argue about what they support in this forum because a jury will ultimately decide?
Well, not never appropriate. But it’s pretty clear that you think Rittenhouse was justified in killing two people and injuring a third. I mean, that’s what self-defense is, right? So it shouldn’t be terribly surprising that such a position is going to generate some push-back. Particularly when you criticize an experienced prosecutor for doing what experienced prosecutors routinely do.
So, yeah, it’s OK to bring in facts to try to generate some discussion about what those facts might mean. But don’t expect people here to assume you’re not arguing from a particular point of view, because it’s pretty obvious that you are. And some here might not agree with you.
I mean, if people are thinking it's pointful to describe KR as arming himself for the journey to a state he didn't even live in to attend the protest, is it inappropriate to point out he has this or that response (lived near the border, didn't drive far, had this or that connection, didn't cross state line for that purpose)? But then people dispute me over that, I get sucked into responding, and off we go.
That’s a pretty good example of what I’ve just described.
BTW the prejudice itself and the problems it poses for him also is interesting to me in its own right. We talk about the right-wing bubble or "epistemic closure" (inability to have views changed by evidence). But views of Rittenhouse look to me like an example of left-wing bubble think, epistemic closure of its own form.
FYI a couple of profs did an empirical study! Abstract of their paper "Clearly, Using Intensifiers is Very Bad - Or is it?" :
I see one of the researchers co-authored a book on the Science Behind the Art of Legal Writing. with stuff like this.Although scholars have generally found that overusing intensifiers (words such as clearly, obviously, and very) negatively affects the persuasiveness or credibility of a legal argument, no one has studied actual appellate briefs to determine whether there is a relationship between intensifier use and the outcome of an appeal. This article describes two empirical studies of appellate briefs, which show that the frequent use of intensifiers in appellate briefs (particularly by an appellant) is usually associated with a statistically significant increase in adverse outcomes for an offending party. But - and this was an unexpected result - if an appellate opinion uses a high rate of intensifiers, an appellant's brief written for that appeal that also uses a high rate of intensifiers is associated with a statistically significant increase in favorable outcomes. Additionally, when a dissenting opinion is written, judges use significantly more intensifiers in both the majority and dissenting opinions. In other words, as things become less clear, judges tend to use clearly and obviously more often.
These results could be interpreted several ways. It could be that overusing intensifiers actually renders a brief suspect and subject to increased skepticism by appellate court judges. Alternatively, it could be that the overuse of intensifiers is accompanied by violations of other writing conventions that further affect the credibility of the brief. Or, it could simply be that appellants or appellees with difficult arguments (arguments that they believe they are likely to lose) tend to lapse into an intensifier-rich mode of writing in an attempt to bolster the perceived weaknesses of an argument. All of these factors may combine to produce the result. Of course, since no causal relationship is shown, it could be a yet unidentified factor.