My Take: Uninformed juries produce incorrect outcomes

[bripat9643]

Article conclusion:

After I plead guilty I had punishment. I had to pay fines and restitution, I was placed on probation, had my drivers license suspended and I had to complete community service in lieu of incarceration. I’m not dismissing the presence of positive value in these features of punitive justice, but to acknowledge that it is incomplete. Rittenhouse will not experience any of those benefits, we can only hope that something else can stimulate healing and accountability.

If the US took restorative justice more seriously there would be considerable benefit to the communities and individuals impacted in these tragedies. These processes can create spaces for real dialog between victims and offenders, which is proven to increase accountability among offenders and empower victims. Making amends can help heal and even grow.

If you do not believe growth is needed, consider the cultural questions being raised in the trial. Prosecuting attorney Binger observed, “I think we can all agree we shouldn’t have 17-year-olds running around the street with AR-15s because this is what happens,” but clearly the alt-right and militia groups did not see it this way.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate and extremism, has sounded alarms for increases in hate crimes and violence in recent years and observes the lionization of Rittenhouse through “not factually based” propaganda.

Restorative processes could significantly help disrupt these cycles. Interrupting dishonest narratives would be a good start. I have personally observed no shortage of people who believe that the shootings were heroic acts of patriotism and whom claim they would like to have the chance to do the same thing.

This reflects great ideological divides — not a melting pot — where difference is a justification for harm and not a source of strength. Each verdict — guilty or not — only makes the need of reconciliation greater.

— Wim Laven, Ph.D.

What part of "not guilty" don't you understand?

 

[bendog]

Only if English isn't your primary language.

irony de jour

 

[westwall]

You have no fucking idea what the word means. The BLM/ANTIFA assholes were taking the law into their own hands by punishing Kyle for going against their street law and that sure as hell was vigilantism.

The Democrat leadership in that town were letting the assholes get away with doing anything they wanted and they thought they were entitled to dish out their own street justice by attacking Kyle.

No, they were rioters, trying to kill kyle because he put out their arson fire.

A VIGILANTE is a person who acts as police, jury, AND judge, to restore the rule of LAW when those entrusted to maintain law and order either are incompetent, or corrupt.

 

[Flash]

No, they were rioters, trying to kill kyle because he put out their arson fire.

A VIGILANTE is a person who acts as police, jury, AND judge, to restore the rule of LAW when those entrusted to maintain law and order either are incompetent, or corrupt.

That was an act of vigilantism and absolutely meets the definition.

 

[bripat9643]

Dude, he was found innocent. How much more do you want?


A jury is supposed to be impartial, so we often don't get what we want, but according to the law it is right.

Apparently Saruda is too fucking stupid to understand what the term "not guilty" means

 

[bripat9643]

That was an act of vigilantism and absolutely meets the definition.

What was an act of vigilantism?

 

[bripat9643]

Did you read the whole article?

continued......

This process focuses on justifying punishment for offenders who have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt, but uninformed juries cannot make informed decisions.

This is not justice, and it does nothing for healing. The families of the victims, the communities, Kyle Rittenhouse, and so on … nothing about the process is intended to help them heal or find closure. Punitive justice serves a role, but there are other options. The verdict only affirms that the US remains committed to its long history of vigilantism, an ugly bloodlust embedded throughout the American mythology promoting white supremacy.

Healing is not the purpose of a jury trial. Establishing whether the defendant broke the law is the purpose. "Not guilty" means Rittenhouse did not break the law. Nothing further is required of the defendant.

 

[Meathead]

Kyle Rittenhouse is the very definition of vigilante. He is not law enforcement, private security, or even trained to help keep the peace. Yes, the third guy he shot was armed. Would you go after a guy with an AR15 who had already shot 2 people WITHOUT a gun? That would be really stupid of you.

Nobody chased Kyle until after pointed his gun at a protestor starting a dumpster fire. At that point Rittenhouse became a danger to the protestors and needed to be disarmed. He shot and killed the first guy who tried to stop him. After that, he was the killer they were trying to take down.

Bizarrely moronic given the obvious and documented facts. Seeing is believing.

 

[hadit]

Kyle Rittenhouse is the very definition of vigilante. He is not law enforcement, private security, or even trained to help keep the peace. Yes, the third guy he shot was armed. Would you go after a guy with an AR15 who had already shot 2 people WITHOUT a gun? That would be really stupid of you.

Nobody chased Kyle until after pointed his gun at a protestor starting a dumpster fire. At that point Rittenhouse became a danger to the protestors and needed to be disarmed. He shot and killed the first guy who tried to stop him. After that, he was the killer they were trying to take down.

IOW, the very definition of vigilante. Instead of allowing Rittenhouse to leave and reporting the shooting to law enforcement, they took matters into their own hands and put him in a situation where he was justified defending himself.

 

[Nostra]

For taking a weapon to a protest, breaking curfew, defying the police and killing two people??????? Are you sure? Why was he drinking with Proud Boys after he made bail? Look at the big picture.

So breaking curfew is all you have?

Self defense isn't a crime. Drinking with anyone isn't a crime. His weapon was legal.

Pathetic.

 

[Flash]

What was an act of vigilantism?

Punishing Kyle for breaking their law of not allowing a street fire.

The thugs thought they had right to be judge, jury and executor because the police had abdicated their duty to protect.

That sure as hell meets the definition of vigilantism.

 

[Flash]

IOW, the very definition of vigilante. Instead of allowing Rittenhouse to leave and reporting the shooting to law enforcement, they took matters into their own hands and put him in a situation where he was justified defending himself.

The (street) law that Kyle violated was helping to put out a fire that the assholes started. The BLM/ANTIFA decided to punish Kyle for it. Pure mob vigilantism.

 

[Nostra]

In this case, it was the fault of the judge who refused to allow any of that evidence to be raised in court. "Prejudicial" to tell the jury he hung out with the Proud Boys. Prejudicial that he told people in the CV that he wished he had his gun to shoot protestors. Prejudicial that he punched a girl in the face.

Last but not least, in Wisconsin, if you plead self-defense in a murder trial, the prosecution has an obligation to prove you weren't defending yourself and that you intended to kill your victims. Wait. The prosecutor can't call the people he shot "victims". That's prejudicial. Call them "rioters" and "looters" instead.

The jury remained uninformed because the judge wouldn't not have anything revealed to the jury about Kyle that might inform the jury as to the character and intentions of the accused.

In this case, it was the fault of the judge who refused to allow any of that evidence to be raised in court.

The prosecution put forth a ton of what they thought was evidence. Too bad all of it made them look like idiots, and proved he acted in self defense. Hard to argue with all the videos they played, Stupid.

 

[Nostra]

Kyle Rittenhouse is the very definition of vigilante. He is not law enforcement, private security, or even trained to help keep the peace. Yes, the third guy he shot was armed. Would you go after a guy with an AR15 who had already shot 2 people WITHOUT a gun? That would be really stupid of you.

Nobody chased Kyle until after pointed his gun at a protestor starting a dumpster fire. At that point Rittenhouse became a danger to the protestors and needed to be disarmed. He shot and killed the first guy who tried to stop him. After that, he was the killer they were trying to take down.

Kyle Rittenhouse is the very definition of vigilante.

Once again you demonstrate what a ginormous moron you are when it comes to the American justice system. It was self defense.

You have no clue what "vigilante" means, moron.

 

[Nostra]

How do you know that Sandmann got anything? Lin Wood - the same idiot Rittenhouse fired, was Sandmann's lawyer. The settlement is private and sealed.

I don't think he got any money at all because he didn't have a case. The case was tossed the first time, and the second time wasn't going any better. I'll bet Lin Wood got a lot more money than Sandmann ever saw.

Why would CNN make him sign an NDA if they didn't pay him, you blithering idiot?

 

[DBA]

I am law abiding and so are my family.. Breaking curfew is serious IMO.

So is trespassing, which is what illegals are doing when they enter the country. I don't hear much from you on prosecuting them.

 

[marvin martian]

Did you read the whole article?

continued......

This process focuses on justifying punishment for offenders who have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt, but uninformed juries cannot make informed decisions.

This is not justice, and it does nothing for healing. The families of the victims, the communities, Kyle Rittenhouse, and so on … nothing about the process is intended to help them heal or find closure. Punitive justice serves a role, but there are other options. The verdict only affirms that the US remains committed to its long history of vigilantism, an ugly bloodlust embedded throughout the American mythology promoting white supremacy.

What about the black man who was also exonerated in his own self-defense case the same day as Rittenhouse? Also "white supremacy"? Come on, tell us it is!

You've never heard of this case, have you, bubble boy?

Black man who claimed self-defense while shooting a gun found not guilty on same day as Rittenhouse verdict - Washington Examiner

After the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict was rendered, seemingly every leftist, liberal, and Democrat went on the attack to label him, inexplicably, as a white supremacist. Despite the victims being white and the trial having absolutely nothing at all to do with race, these radical, toxic agitators...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

LOL!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Taking a weapon to prevent looting -- not only legal, honorable

Gross. Go back to your century.

 

[Dragonlady]

Bizarrely moronic given the obvious and documented facts. Seeing is believing.

Rittenhouse admitted on the stand that he pointed his gun at a protestor, which is when the frivolities started. Rittenhouse admitted he did it, and he said he shouldn't have done it. It was then that the first guy tried to take his gun away from him. Rittenhouse was running away, and he turned and fired. I saw NOTHING in that video that would lead me to believe he was in any danger.

I watch ALL of his testimony. Everything he said confirmed that he really wasn't in any danger, and people didn't come after him until he illegal pointed his weapon at another protestor.

 

[AZrailwhale]

For taking a weapon to a protest, breaking curfew, defying the police and killing two people??????? Are you sure? Why was he drinking with Proud Boys after he made bail? Look at the big picture.

So who should he have been drinking with? Liberals who wanted his scalp on a wall? Or conservatives who supported him. The Proud Boys haven’t been proven racists, it’s a multi-racial group that is pro-American. Taking a weapon to a riot, not a protest, A RIOT, that had been going on for the better part of three days and nights is a wise move. The police certainly had no problem with him breaking curfew, even the prosecution never tried to charge him with that. What exact police orders did he defy? None that I am aware of.

It’s you who aren't looking at the big picture, you are looking for any tiny thing to offset the verdict of the jury. You need to grow up, if three thugs, and by any standard that’s what they were, hadn’t decided to attack Rittenhouse, you and I would never have heard his name. If Rittenhouse hadn’t been armed, we would have been as familiar as we are with the name of Reginald Denny, an innocent truck driver pulled from his truck and beaten to death by a mob just like the one that attacked Rittenhouse.