Kenosha, Wisconsin: Updated

Avatar

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonderandhome.com

Related Post Roulette

468 Responses

  1. Avatar Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    None of this was EVER going to end well. As noted elsewhere, the police have not yet been incentivized to change. Clearly some armed civilians believe they need to intervene because they apparently don’t like what local authorities are doing. And because Wisconsin is an open carry state the guy wasn’t detained at the time, even for questioning. And now the President, wanting to “look tough’ and reinforce “law and order” is making claims about the Governor and the use of federal forces. We know from Portland how that turns out.

    This will not end well.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      I just watched the police press conference from Kenosha. They’re going to have all the support they need, and the mayor explained that the situation is new to all of them so their initial National Guard deployments were insufficient. As he said, nobody really knew how many might be needed, so he just asked for a figure on the first night. That was insufficient, so he upped it. From the way it sounded, he’s not going to let Kenosha continue to burn like Portland or Seattle. They also seem intent on arresting any agitators coming in from outside who are committing criminal acts. The FBI is on scene, and crossing state lines gets into federal jurisdiction. The video of the conference should still be on Youtube.

      They had no comment on stories that Blake was armed. There’s what looks like a hawk’s bill tactical knife in his hand on a video of the incident, just as he’s walking around the front left bumper of his car. I have my own theory of the case, which is that he was desperately trying to get into his car to hide the knife to avoid facing additional charges. His rap sheet was long enough as it was. Of course the cops would assume that he was trying to get a gun out of the car and kill them all. They utterly failed to physically restrain him before things got to that point, despite attempting to taze him during the earlier struggle.Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        I haven’t seen any video that has enough resolution to make any such call as to what is or is not in his hand.

        I do agree that the cops created the situation by not getting control of things. From my perspective, it very much looks like a case of an officer with three major problems:

        1) He seems unwilling to risk getting his uniform dirty.
        2) A nasty case of “Respect muh authoritah!”
        3) Leading to drawing his gun long before he had any justification to do so. Once that gun was in his hand, he severely limited his options for detaining Blake. You can’t do a take down or an arm bar if one of your hands is holding a gun.Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to Oscar Gordon
          Ignored
          says:

          I would agree with your assessment.

          His partner wasn’t any help, either. He was just tagging along behind like they were playing follow-the-leader. The incident will no doubt get covered in police training videos. Letting Blake get to his car door was a horrible mistake, because at that point the officers had to assume he was going there to get some serious firepower, because nothing else would make much sense in that moment.Report

          • Avatar Philip H in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            Because leaving the scene after the cops showed up to deal with the women fighting call doesn’t make sense?

            Because checking on your kids in the car to make sure they are ok doesn’t make sense?

            Because going back for ID doesn’t make sense?

            Given enough time I can probably come up with a dozen reason that make sense why he went back to his car. But Oscar is right – once that cop drew his gun he was going to shoot blake because he had closed off all his other options. He CHOSE to draw his gun rather then do anything else. He made a CHOICE.

            And the fact that he felt it was his primary and best and first choice IS THE PROBLEM.Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              “We need citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to carry arms, so as to deter an overpowerful gummint.”

              “Well, maybe he didn’t actually have a gun, but he MIGHT have, so the cop was right to shoot him.”Report

            • Avatar George Turner in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              Don’t be silly. He could’ve glanced at his kids through the windows that are all around his car. The cops weren’t demanding his ID, they were trying to arrest him. They’d just tried to taze him.

              He was wanted on a warrant for rape, in case you’ve not checked his extensive criminal record, which includes lots of domestic violence charges on the street in the video. If there was a fight going on, he was likely the one who instigated it.Report

              • Avatar Philip H in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                The report the police were responding to was two white women fighting. So unless he changed his skin color and his gender he was not in any way part of what they came out to investigate.

                And i’m not being silly. You looked at a series of cherry picked facts that fit your priors and decided there was no other “reasonable” conclusion they could draw from the situation. I merely pointed out there were many reasonable alternatives. And if he was wanted on warrants then the officers committed professional misconduct well before shooting him by failing to place him in custody prior to the shooting.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                That report may be in error. Blake’s girlfriend called 911 to get the police to come and deal with him because he was not supposed to be there.

                As they were going around the car, the officers were hollering for him to drop the knife.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Is that like officers hollering for a person to ‘stop resisting’ as they beat them senseless? Or is it more like Castille or Shaver, where the officer was making ridiculous requests of the person, because the officer had lost their shite and the ability to act rationally (or was playing ‘Ash-hole says’) over the fact that someone had a pocket folder.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, wait, new information is here.

                Blake tells officers he has a pocket knife. Officers lose their shite, scream for him to drop the knife, and decide to Taser the guy and go nuts. Blake calmly walks back to his car to put the knife in his car, thus alleviating the officers irrational fears that he may win the gun fight while only armed with a knife (he’s black Batman, doncha know), while also avoiding having the cops confiscate his knife such that he’ll never see it again.

                Blake gets shot in the back for his trouble.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                We have no evidence at this time that the police were aware of who he was or that he had any warrants out. I know a lot of people are saying he was ‘known to the police’, but A) that doesn’t mean those officers knew who the hell he was, and B) from what I saw, he had a couple of dismissed charges and one warrant from an altercation with an ex. I mean, if this guy is so well known to the police, I’d expect more of a record. It’s hardly extensive.

                So before you can make that claim, you have to show more evidence than some shite passing around Twitter.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                I think the better answer is ‘so what if he was?’ A warrant or even a prior conviction of some kind isn’t justification to carry out a death sentence.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                The horror of the situation is how quickly and casually – almost gleefully – the murder of a person can be excused.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                The argument being made is that the police had good reason to consider the guy a serious threat based upon previous history. In order for that to stand, those officers had to know who the guy was AND his reputation.

                If they did know this about the guy, then I fail to see why he was not talking to the officers while sitting on the curb wearing cuffs.

                This is all post hoc justifications for officers being fatally stupid.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh I get it, it’s exactly what Brandon is doing below. Post hoc rationalization where instead of evaluating the actual facts we decide what to believe based on an arbitrary assessment of the character of those involved. Thank God no one besides the armed agents of the state are subject to this standard. We’d be giving out medals when bridges collapse and planes fall out of the sky instead of trying to figure out what went wrong.Report

              • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Given perfect information about the situation leading up to a shooting, the personal history of the involved parties is not relevant. However, that condition is usually not satisfied. In real-world situations, information about personal history and character can be useful.

                Does the police officer have a history of abusing suspects? Is this the fifth guy he’s shot? Or does he have a 15-year record of exemplary behavior? Is the decedent a convicted felon, or have an outstanding warrant for a felony? Or is he a pillar of the community with a spotless record?

                Character evidence isn’t probative, but you should treat it as probabilistic evidence (unless you’re actually on a jury, in which case the rules are different because the stakes are higher). It’s not a coincidence that a wildly disproportionate share of people supposedly unjustly killed by police turn out, on further investigation, to have been kind of (or very) shitty people. That doesn’t necessarily mean they deserve to die, but it does mean that they’re more likely to violently resist arrest, or otherwise act in ways that cause police to perceive a need to shoot.

                The question of whether someone deserves a death sentence for [whatever dirt was dug up on BLM’s current cause célèbre] is not even on the same planet as the point. We not deciding whether to kill Jacob Blake; we’re trying to determine whether the police officer’s decision to shoot was defensible, given the limited information available to him at the time.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s a lot of words to not make a single coherent point.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s my standard. Unless the officer was being shot at, or the officer has body cam (or other) footage of being attacked with a deadly weapon, assume the officer did not have justification for pulling a gun.

                Because those are the only justifications I have for pulling a gun.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                The argument that the officer was responding to some “threat” rests on the ability to expand or contract the word “threat” in arbitrary and capricious ways.

                A man who may, or may not be reaching for a knife is sufficient threat to justify shooting.

                A man holding an AR-15 and pushing past police and ignoring their orders is….not a threat which justifies shooting.

                A man sitting in a car who announces there is a gun legally carried is a threat which justifies shooting.

                A young man holding an AR-15 in the middle of a riot advancing towards officers is… not a threat which justifies shooting.

                The “threat” argument vests the officer with unlimited and unaccountable privilege to decide what is or isn’t a threat. The word can be expanded or contracted post hoc to justify any action.

                We could take each of those actions above and reverse the outcome, and the police would still be equally justified regardless.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Kinda my point. Clearly ‘Threat’ needs to be as defined for a cop as it is for a citizen.

                It’s a good thing that kind of wiggle room doesn’t exist in military ROE.Report

      • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        “I have my own theory of the case…”
        Oh, yeah?Report

  2. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    This crap was inevitable.

    We are going to see more of it.Report

  3. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The police chief has made a statement!

    Report

  4. Avatar Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    The riots are going to continue until the sources of them stop.

    Most people I think don’t appreciate how much anger is required to get people to mobilize into the streets, or how much rage is percolating just below the surface.

    The calls for “toughness” or “law and order” are laughable. The people who are responding to being brutalized by rioting are going to respond to more brutalization by…what, exactly?Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      It requires either a lot of anger or a desire for a free flat screen TV. In Kenosha one “angry protester” was overjoyed at scoring all the iPhone cases from the phone store she was looting. So it’s kind of a joyous anger. Burning things down, assaulting people, and stealing stuff are so much fun that, sadly, we had to make doing those things illegal. We’re such killjoys.

      Maybe Democrats shouldn’t have spent the last four years stoking rage at everything. Now all their constituents are livid, violent, and many of them will soon be in prison for a long long time. Of course if anyone on the right gets even mildly upset about anything, like say the normalization of rampant pedophilia, it just shows they’re part of a tyrannical hate group that should be monitored by the FBI.Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        Poe’s Law is a harsh but fair mistress.Report

      • Avatar The question in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        the protesters know you’re already going to say this is why some of them have been intelligently scroll graffiti that says you have stolen more than we could ever loot and if there is a statement that’s more true than that I can’t think of what it isReport

      • Avatar InMD in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        say the normalization of rampant pedophilia

        Uh…. what?Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          Oh, just the usual goings on in Hollywood. The lastest dust-up is a movie Netflix is advertising called “Cuties”, about 11-year old girls exploring their sexuality by twerking, or some such thing. The trailer is on Youtube, and so far it’s gotten 34,000 up votes and 1,300,000 down votes.

          Netflix first argued that the movie had won an award at Sundance, but the co-founder of Sundance is awaiting sentencing for sexual acts with a 7-year-old and a 9-year old, facing 6 to life, so that didn’t sway anybody. Then some Hollywood stars rushed to defend the movie. That didn’t really sway anyone, either.Report

        • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          George is full on QANON. Why people engage him like he is rational, serious, and not a tankie is a mystery to me.Report

  5. Avatar North
    Ignored
    says:

    what a clusterfish and a bloody shame. It’s a very interesting thing that the victim in this case is still alive. I wonder if it will change the dynamic if he survives and is able to give his side of the story. On the other hand, what competent lawyer would let him just give his version of events?Report

  6. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    The Kenosha PD attack on Mr. Blake indicates how immune and possibly emboldened the cops feel. After months of protests regarding police brutality, they shoot a man 7 times in the back. And now the police chief blames the protestors for the terrorist attack.Report

  7. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Kazzy, over here.

    “I am pro-shooting back” is, indeed, my take on this.

    Was the shooter shooting back? If so, I’d like to defend him and ask you about the mostly peaceful protestors who shot first.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Ah. I have to apologize to Kazzy…Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m not a fan of saying “you can’t shoot back”. Certainly not in a situation where the police have abdicated their role of peacekeepers and/or law enforcement.

        (We got into this in our discussion over Deputy Scot Peterson hiding in the parking lot during the school shooting.)Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      My housemate, the former public defender, watched the video of the rifle shooting incident and said “He’ll walk free.” If you have an obvious rifle, have not been committing some felony, and are chased down and set upon by a mob (who are obviously stupid for chasing down a guy with a rifle), you are allowed to shoot back to defend yourself, which he did.

      One of the legal elements thatalso comes into play, as it did in the Trayvon Martin case, is that even if the attacker isn’t armed with a lethal weapon, they will take your lethal weapon and use it to kill you and perhaps others. This one will get filed under “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

      Some are perhaps confused by all this, thinking the law should punish both sides equally. But it doesn’t. The law punishes criminal behavior, such as assault, rioting, arson, looting, rape, burglary, theft, and murder. It does not prohibit helping people resist those crimes, at least not beyond what a reasonable person would do.

      The question is whether the 17-year-old merely got separated from his group, realized he was isolated and perhaps surrounded and then ran for his life, or whether he’d done something else that’s not on the one video that would constitute a criminal act, which precipitated the pursuit. If that’s the case, he would be in trouble.

      I think that perhaps the BLM/Antifa protesters have got away with so much for so long that their social media feeds are filled with people who think what they’re doing is somehow legal, making it a situation in which stupid criminals are getting their legal advice from other stupid criminals, instead of asking an attorney familiar with criminal procedure for advice.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        The report I am reading indicates the video took place AFTER he had already shot people. At which point… aren’t those pursuing him the ones “striking back”?

        Or are we at a point where (white) people can shoot others and then claim self-defense when they shoot more people who try to stop them from shooting people?Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          Notice how flexible and arbitrary the excuses always are?

          If he shoots , he can be shot by cops or convicted of assault, unless the cops or jury decide he was was standing his ground against a threat.

          If he is simply standing there holding a gun, anybody is legally allowed to shoot him on the grounds that he posed a threat.

          What is a “threat”? Anything a jury says it is.

          But in any case, whether he shoots, or is shot, is arrested or not, convicted or not, the decision is entirely arbitrary and subject to the whims and biases of the authorities.

          Which, for the uninitiated, is called the rule of men, not the rule of law.Report

          • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            Actually it’s not. Each state has statute law and voluminous case law based on what ordinary people have decided was proper behavior regarding forceful encounters. Holding a gun isn’t necessarily posing a threat, as everybody out hunting or at the shooting range can explain. It’s actually pretty intricate and detailed, varying from state to state of course, about when you are and are not justified in taking a particular action, or making a particular escalation.

            Concealed carry courses usually cover the basics pretty well, so that you can stay on the correct side of the law.Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
              Ignored
              says:

              Intricate and detailed = arbitrary and capricious.

              Which is the true purpose; To allow the law to protect some without binding, and bind others without protecting.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Uh no.

                It’s kind of like thoracic surgery. If you don’t know anything about it, you might assume that a doctor just cuts someone open and does a bunch of random and arbitrary stuff to the innards, and then sews them back up.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                You and Chip are both right here. The laws around self defense tend to be pretty clearly laid out in every state.

                That said, almost every self defense claim is a one sided tale. If the police and DA think you and/or your story is credible, and you didn’t do anything to muck it up (like dragging the body back inside your house), you’ll never see the inside of a courtroom. However, if they don’t like you or your story, even if you followed all the rules, they will indict you and do the trial. And that is where it gets arbitrary and capricious, because self defense is an affirmative defense.

                I mean, you killed someone, you broke the law, that isn’t in question. The only question was if you had a good reason to do so, and DAs are totally within their rights to make you stand trial for it and argue your defense to a jury.Report

      • Avatar Philip H in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        He crossed state lines – he was arrested in and live in Illinois – to participate in activities that occurred after the 8PM curfew in Kenosha. Thus he was in fact engaged in criminal activity. The feds are now also involved in the investigation owing to the crossing state lines issue and he was arrested on first degree murder charges, which strongly suggests the prosecutors in Wisconsin have enough evidence to lead them to believe he wasn’t just walking down the street and got lost.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      You didn’t watch the video.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        You’re right, I didn’t. I figure we’re still at least a week from having a real idea of what actually happened after all of the gossip dissipates.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Videos are gossip now?

          The gig is up on your supposed libertarian credentials.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            Again, I haven’t seen the video.

            And I haven’t claimed to be a Libertarian since 2015. (Here’s the essay in which I abandoned my Libertarian Credentials. If that matters.)

            But if you watched the video and you said “I can see how someone, not me, but someone could watch this video and defend the guy who shot the other guy back”, then that’s good enough for me. I believe you.

            If you want to put together the arguments that this other person, not you, but this other person might put together to defend it, lemme know what they are and I’ll help you tighten them up.

            Without watching the video first.Report

            • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m sorry I missed that essay. I’m not sorry you’re full of shit.Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Given that, even after people watch video, they can’t always agree upon the sequence of events, or who shot first or who was provoking the violence, doesn’t it seem ridiculous to defend “shooting back”?

              Who was “shooting” and who was “shooting back”? How would you even know?

              The police defended their decision not to arrest the shooter because um, things were chaotic and they uh, had, ummm, “tunnel vision”, that’s right.

              If the police themselves can’t figure out who was shooting and who was not, why would we encourage citizens to go around as self appointed dispensers of violence?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Given that, even after people watch video, they can’t always agree upon the sequence of events, or who shot first or who was provoking the violence, doesn’t it seem ridiculous to defend “shooting back”?

                Well, my take before the fact is that I am against the argument that says “it is wrong to shoot back”. And certainly in a case where the police have abdicated their roles.

                And I am willing, sight unseen, to apply this maxim.

                Indeed, I am pro shooting back.

                Initiation of force is bad. Retaliation against initiated for?

                Well, maybe “pro” is too strong for my position… let me walk it back to “what did you expect would happen?”

                Who was “shooting” and who was “shooting back”? How would you even know?

                That’s what *I* said! I said “I figure we’re still at least a week from having a real idea of what actually happened after all of the gossip dissipates.”

                And Kazzy asked “Videos are gossip now?”

                Tell him! Not me!

                If the police themselves can’t figure out who was shooting and who was not, why would we encourage citizens to go around as self appointed dispensers of violence?

                Imagine what’ll happen after the police are abolished.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You’ve spoken a number of times here about Divorce or War, and proposed that people arm themselves, and now you are here advocating people become vigilantes.

                In your mind’s eye, when you envision this sort of thing happening, is it you yourself that is walking down the streets of Colorado Springs holding a gun, or are you just encouraging other people to do it?

                When you imagine this person raising the gun, who is he looking at through the gunsight?
                Who is this person who needs to be killed and why? What is being defended, or attacked with deadly force?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, is it your opinion that Kenneth Walker should be arrested for shooting at the police who killed Breonna Taylor?

                If your answer is “no, of course not!”, then you may have insight into my position.

                My argument is, and has been: we cannot rely on the police. They have no duty to protect you.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Again…are you yourself planning to go out armed and enforce the law since the police cannot protect you?

                How would this make you any different than those armed vigilantes in CHOP/CHAZ?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                No.

                But I do believe in self-defense.

                I have no illusions about whether my household would survive in a “GET HIM!” situation where we were home.

                But I can make it pricey for the first guy through the door.

                (Do you think that Kenneth Walker should be charged?)Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                If your neighbors took your advice, you might wake up one day to see them patrolling your neighborhood and setting up roadblocks, like as happened in CHAZ.

                But, you seemed to take a rather dim view of those guys.

                I’m not sure how your logic is supposed to work here.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, for one thing, I live in Colorado Springs. I’m likely one of the least well-armed people in my neighborhood.

                By the time that Colorado Springs starts having this happen, I should have moved. Like, to Montana or something.

                But if it happens in my neighborhood, do you think I’d be better off armed? Or better off unarmed?

                (Do you think that Kenneth Walker should be charged?)Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I honestly don’t know much about Kenneth Walker, but I in cases where people shoot, the presumption should be that using deadly force is a last resort after other have been exhausted.
                So depending on the facts, I could be persuaded either way.

                I just came back from walking the dog.

                Outside a bunch of Revolutionary Communists were marching and calling for a people’s overthrow of the government.

                Which seems a lot like your position here, a sort of half thought out idea whose consequences are left dangling. A cosplay of war and revolution and vigilantism.

                You posit a world where the police can’t be trusted so everyone becomes a law unto themselves and deals out death as they see fit.

                Yet…somehow, you are able to travel freely to another state and buy land in a binding contract whose provisions are enforced by…um, hold on. ..enforced by, well something its not quite clear.

                Like the RevComs, you’re imagining a world where everything you dislike is swept away, but somehow all the parts you like are left intact.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You posit a world where the police can’t be trusted so everyone becomes a law unto themselves and deals out death as they see fit.

                I would like to point out that we live in a world where the police can’t be trusted.

                And the options are “be armed” vs. “don’t be armed”.

                Or did I make a bad assumption there and you still trust the police?

                (Do you have an opinion on Breonna Taylor?)Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You refuse to accept any other options between warlords and tyranny?

                You remember how in one of our very first interactions I whipped out the “if you’re a libertarian you should go live in Somalia” and you ridiculed it (and rightly so!).

                But…here you are, advocating a Somalia type warlord state.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Options? I believe my options are limited to:

                1. Move
                2. Don’t Move

                and

                A. Be Armed
                B. Don’t Be Armed

                Do you see something else?

                Is it something like “why can’t we live in a society where everybody trusts each other?”

                (Do you have an opinion on Breonna Taylor?)Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Living in a society of trust seems so hard for you to imagine?
                If that’s your perspective, you’re entitled to it.
                Just seems a bit dark to my way of thinking.

                I also know very little about Breonna Taylor other than she was shot by cops in her apartment. My opinion being hard to imagine any way that was justified.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I think that living in a society with High Trust and Collaboration is possible if you do a handful of things.

                If you do things that lower Trust, you’re going to lower Collaboration.

                We’ve talked about this before. You want some links?Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Isn’t there an option between warlords and tyranny where Sally Struthers shows up?Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Strangely enough, being an armed vigilante is legal in most places. In the absence of law enforcement, it’s sometimes encouraged. We pay the police to do our jobs for us, but seeing that laws are enforced is still our responsibility.

                In the Kenosha press conference, a reporter asked about deputizing regular people, but with the National Guard and federal forces there, the leaders don’t think that’ll be necessary.

                If you defund the police, you do get private or state militias and private security companies. Even Swedes adopted such a system in the wake of recent crime spikes by refugees that kept regular officers tied up. People are going to guard their property and protect their folks. If you think police procedures need reform due to the occasional screw up, wait until you see the “law enforcement” delivered by 17-year-olds who got most of their training playing Call of Duty.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You were the first person to mention shooting back. Absent any evidence to support the claim he was shooting back. When presented with video and reports of a white man shooting Black folks, you defaulted to an assumption he was shooting back. When asked if you defend shooting people, you reframed as saying you defend shooting back.

                You twisted yourself into unsubstantiated knots because more than anything you want to defend this monster and are now acting as if you are the one true voice of rationale and reason.

                You’re not. You’re talking out of your ass because you are desperate to defend this guy. That’s on you. No one else.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “You were the first person to mention shooting back.”

                Kazzy,

                You’re coming at this as though the guy had a moral obligation to let himself be beaten to death by a mob.

                Maybe you should address that.

                “well he shouldn’t’ve been there in the first place” you’re right, but how does that go on to “and therefore he should have let himself be beaten to death by a mob”?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, lets talk about why the mob was chasing him.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m actually coming at this from a “Why did the cops ignore the guy with a gun who people fingered as the shooter while they were responding to shots fired?”

                That’s the real issue to me. WTF were the cops doing?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Kazzy, you offered me this choice (and I’m copying/pasting this):

                Pick a side: pro shooting people or anti shooting people

                And I picked “I’m pro-shooting back”.

                Now if you want to argue that it was morally bad for the kid to shoot back, I think that that might be an interesting conversation… but he was shooting back.

                If you want to argue that citizens have a moral obligation to get shot, well… I’m not sure that the BLM argument would be the best place to have that sub-argument.

                But I’m willing to have it if you are.

                I’m not a “you have a moral obligation to get shot” person, myself. I’m pro-shooting back.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “… but he was shooting back.”

                Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence. Was he shot at? Do you have evidence he was shot at? The NYT piece mentioned a shot fired in the air, with photographic/video evidence to support that.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                The shot was fired from close range, and the only people around are those trying to chase him down and possibly kill him. Since it occurred behind him, he was perfectly justified in assuming the shots were being fired at him.Report

  8. Avatar Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m reminded of my message I posted in my neighborhood about privileged white men cosplaying Che Guevara.Report

  9. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/kenosha-police-chief-daniel-miskinis-blames-protesters-for-own-deaths.html

    The police chief’s statements are worse than alluded to in the tweet. They are a full fascist.Report

  10. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Important to note that the actions from NBA and MLB players are not boycotts but wildcat strikes.Report

  11. Avatar George Turner
    Ignored
    says:

    This just in. Wisconsin DOJ: Jacob Blake had a knife on the floorboard of his car when he was shot. “Blake admitted to having the knife during the investigation.”Report

  12. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Someone who works at the NYT seems to have put together a dispassionate timeline of events.

    Without watching the videos, just reading the text, I could see a jury finding for the defendant.Report

    • Avatar Philip H in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Well sure, so long as they overlook the curfew violation, crossing state lines while armed, and being below the legal age in both Wisconsin and Illinois to open carry.Report

    • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Why were people chasing him?Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        Ehh, you’re missing the point, Chip. The problem (at least I think it’s a problem) is that the way our laws are currently written and enforced, a guy who legally owns a rifle in an open carry state can show up in a public space (where he has a legitimate right to be) and use that weapon in the event he “legitimately fears for his life”, regardless of motivations, intent, stupidity, normal morality, pragmatics, politics. The arguments will mirror Zimmerman’s in that *regardless* of who the antagonist was, the shots fired were a legitimate use of force for self-defense. “I sincerely believed in that moment he was going to kill me, your honor.”Report

        • Avatar InMD in reply to Stillwater
          Ignored
          says:

          That’s the Florida situation but per a quick google* Wisconsin does not have a ‘Stand Your Ground’ statute and is in fact a Castle Doctrine state. Based on reported facts this is going to be messy from both a criminal and civil analysis.

          *Oscar or someone with more info on the state by state distinctions can feel free to correct me. Florida IIRC is unusual even among Stand Your Ground states in the way it handles armed people instigating confrontations. I don’t agree with the Stand Your Ground approach to the law but I believe most statutes expressly do not protect people who instigate a fight then shoot a person when they fight back.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Zimmerman’s defense didn’t rely on the specific SYG statutes, though. It was based on the more general self-defense provisions. On the other hand, Mark T mentioned that Florida’s self-defense provisions were some of the more (what’s the word…) robust (??) laws in the country at the time.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Most states do not permit a person to claim self defense when they instigate a confrontation unless they can show that they obviously attempted to disengage and walk away.

            I don’t know enough about the Rittenhouse thing to form an opinion.Report

            • Avatar InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon
              Ignored
              says:

              That’s what I thought.

              Admittedly this is the area where I go all namby pamby on my normally robust 2A stances. I just don’t have a lot of sympathy for people packing heat to pack heat then somehow happening to find themselves in a situation where they kill someone, even if it is statistically a very rare occurrence.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon
              Ignored
              says:

              This is from the twitter thread above:

              Taking it at face value (which, I’m willing to not do, but I’d need to see an alternate explanation first), it says that the guy was disengaging (“running away”) and the other guy fired the first shot.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                But why were they chasing him?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t know. Is the argument that they could have been justified to chase him?

                If they caught him, what would they have been justified to do to him?

                If you have a handful of arguments for why it might be okay to chase someone and, perhaps, commit violence against him once you catch him, I’m not sure we disagree about the meta-issues here, Chip.

                It just depends on the context.

                If we’re okay with going by the twitter thread, it says that it’s “unclear”.

                Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                There’s a video clip in a PJM story that shows the first person who got shot earlier that night. He’s extremely aggressive and confrontational.

                “I filmed him earlier in the night taunting the armed civilians, saying, “Shoot me, n***a.”

                Well, they eventually did! It’s reported by witnesses that he was pursing Rittenhouse and throwing things at him.

                The local police leader says he thinks Rittenhouse was part of a group that asked to be deputized. That makes the case against Rittenhouse even tougher, because juries generally like that kind of thing.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                It depends on the context is exactly what I’m saying.

                If Rittenhouse pointed a gun at someone, were they allowed to defend themselves by shooting at him, or throwing something at him?

                If, after threatening to kill someone, he fled, were the citizens allowed to pursue a fleeing criminal and apprehend him? (Because as you point out, the police are not reliable).

                Is a fleeing criminal allowed to gun down his pursuers?

                If, after raising his rifle to shoot at his pursuers, could one of them “shoot back” at him?

                See, the logic error here is that you are proposing a Rule of Engagement that is so loose and flexible it can be used to justify shooting nearly anyone, at any time, for nearly any reason.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure. But if we’re using legal stuff like “you have a duty to retreat and must only engage in self-defense if that doesn’t work”, we have evidence of him retreating.

                So now what?

                “It doesn’t matter that he was retreating!”?

                You want to run with that? Establish it as a rule?

                There are going to be more riots tomorrow.

                And, at some point, the authorities will start to crack down on the mostly peaceful protestors.

                And some of them will try to retreat.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “So now what” is we discard the absurd logic of “I have a right to shoot anybody who I deem a threat”.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Does this mean that we abandon Castle doctrine?

                If so, I’m going to argue that your suggestion of discarding it is also absurd.

                (The argument I assume you want to reach for here is Amber Guyger.)Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The argument I’m reaching for is we establish a principle that deadly force is to be used only after all other reasonable avenues have been exhausted.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                If we’re willing to use words like “reasonable”, can we point to how it sure as hell looks like the guy was running away and being chased?

                Or are we going to point out that maybe it was reasonable for the mob to chase the kid and how we just don’t know?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                As with every other case in the world, those are facts to be discovered and determined by a jury.

                It could be that he threatened them with deadly force, and became a fleeing criminal.
                It could be he was innocently walking along and a mob just decided to attack him.

                We don’t really know any of that right now.

                Which is why its not a good idea to go with “I can see why a jury would acquit him.”

                Its an even better idea to drop the whole “Hey, lets all carry guns everywhere, all the time and shoot anyone we think might possibly perhaps sometime become a threat!”Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, I’m not arguing that he shouldn’t have been arrested.

                But, knowing what little we know so far (and as has been described in the twitter thread), I can see why a jury would acquit.

                “MAYBE DAMNING EVIDENCE WILL COME OUT!!!”

                Sure, maybe it will.

                Given the evidence we have so far… I can see why a jury would acquit.

                And I’m very interested in the arguments for the justifications of violence on the part of the mob you’re offering. Would you be willing to put those into rules we could apply in other situations?

                We’ve got a lot of mostly peaceful protests that are going to happen in the future and I’m sure that those rules will come in handy.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not justifying the mob chasing him because, as I’ve pointed out several times now, no one knows what started all this.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                no one knows what started all this.

                We could very easily have lots of starts.

                The boy made a bad move by being there.
                Something stupid happened for him to be alone.
                Angry mobs are stupid and very good at “starting” things in general.

                The mob might have been chasing him because he was running away.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                You touch on a good point, that there is almost never a clear “start” to interactions.

                It is always a continuum of engagements and interactions each leading one to another.

                Everyone who hits, will insist they were simply “hitting back”.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Serious question, and maybe the answer is ‘no’ but I’ll ask it anyway. Is there a way to thread the needle in a way allowing us to conclude all of the following?

                -Rittenhouse has a right to self-defense
                -his alleged assailants assumed the risk of what happened to them, assuming they were the ones shot
                -you don’t get to voluntarily put yourself in a volatile, confrontational situation, then walk away with clean hands when things predictably go topsy turvy

                Keeping it hypothetical since we will doubtlessly learn more as the facts come out.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I would agree with all three of those points.

                (I would probably say something about point #3 being universal.)Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Well at least I’m not taking crazy pills then. But it seems like we’ve got a lot of people who agree with 1 and 2 but not 3 or who agree with 3 but are at best really wishy washy/silent on 1 and 2.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I am 100% down with putting all of that out there.

                More and more information is coming out about this and the governments (local and otherwise) have a whole bunch of very bad choices before them.

                Do they crack down on the Mostly Peaceful Protestors?

                Do they crack down on the Mostly Peaceful Community Security Forces?

                An election is coming up, after all.

                What’s the Party Line, again?Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You linked to your post yesterday about how you ended up no longer calling yourself a libertarian. I re-read the essay and the comments. Most relevant I think is the discussion on using our freedoms effectively rather than frivolously or in immoral ways. Seems to me like we should all be thinking long and hard about that as individuals with our own agency. Not that we will of course.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s when I started gaming stuff out that I saw “divorce or war”.

                Still haven’t changed my mind about that.

                The stuff I think will actually resolve stuff (Police Reform, Ending the War on Drugs, Fewer Laws in general, that sort of thing) doesn’t get much play on the left or right.

                I mean, the *IDEA* does… but make any concrete suggestion and no, QI isn’t the problem. Police Unions are good because Unions are good. We have treaties with other countries preventing the end of the WOD. Fewer laws? Why, people will sell loosies on the sidewalk!

                It’s going to get worse.

                It’s not going to be as good as it is now for a while.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The problem with your vision is you are stuck between strawmanning your opponents or just plain not listening.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I used to think the ‘divorce or war’ thing was hyperbolic. I’ve started to find it less so over the last few months.Report

              • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I have to be honest and say that at this time, over these issues, I see no way that “divorce” could work.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Hmmm. Maybe you’re just trying to smooth over what you see as escalating tensions … but I think the argument is that if 3 applies, then 1 is negated, and conversely if 1 applies, then 3 is negated.

                Remember, the thing between Kazzy and Jaybird started because Jaybird said he’s “pro shooting back”, which implies something about his views on 3. He’s presumably walking that back now, I guess. Sort of.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m pretty sure that I agree with all of those.

                I’m not arguing that the kid shouldn’t have been arrested. He should be tried by a jury of his peers.

                But I can totally see how the jury might not find for Homicide.

                I mean, given the information we have now.

                We might get new info tomorrow.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I was attempting to challenge Jaybird with bullet 3 because up until his answer I was unclear on his stance on that issue.

                As for my own position I don’t think this quandary lends itself to simple math where one of these factors obviously outweighs the other. My suspicion is that most people picking 1 or 3 are doing so based more on political sympathies than logic. I’m no more interested in letting Rittenhouse off the hook for his conduct than I am a any member of a violent mob.

                I’m starting to go down the rabbit hole here with assumed facts so I’ll stop there until we are out of ‘developing story’ status.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Fair enough, and well done!Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I posted this on FB a few weeks back:

                Any gun dood at this point looking at rioting and NFAC crap and thinking they’re gonna head down there and show them anteefa commies what’s what and that Americans won’t put up with their crap, I think deep down apparently wants to get in a gunfight.
                Being anywhere near any of the protesting and rioting violates a minimum of three of the Rules of Stupid. You are in a Stupid place (the nexus of a protest right now is all stupid), among a plethora of stupid people, and absolutely doing stupid things, often at stupid times.
                You might say it’s the principle of the thing, that you’re a free American and have a right to be there. So, in exercising your rights AT others, you violate all the rules of stupid. It’s basically “wishing a motherfucker would”, and in an amped up angry crowd that large the chance of finding one who is willing is larger than you want it to be.
                The calculus also assumes you’ll win the gunfight. The problem is that I teach enough students to know how poorly most shoot (those who come to class get better!), and how much they’ll endanger random bystanders more than ward off the angry horde. And if you lose the gunfight, you win the Grand Prize of Stupid of being dead unnecessarily.
                Guarantee the guy who had to shoot the AK wielding dude the other day has his life changed forever, and not in a good way.
                Guarantee every single person who has used their car to run over protesters/rioters has had their life changed forever, and not in a good way.
                Guarantee both the dude in the truck and the dude outside of the truck pointing guns at each other have their lives changed forever, and probably not in a good way.
                We use violence only as a tool of last resort. Only when there are no other options to protect ourselves and our loved ones. To think otherwise is foolhardy and poor risk management.
                Think, friends. Use your brain to calculate risk and reward. Stay as far away from that crap as you can.
                -John P Correia

                Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Well put.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                -you don’t get to voluntarily put yourself in a volatile, confrontational situation, then walk away with clean hands when things predictably go topsy turvy

                Is this directed at the young man openly carrying the gun or the “protestors” chasing him?

                For that matter, “volatile, confrontational situation” applies to just joining an angry mob.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Read my response to Stillwater and you will have your answer.Report

          • Avatar George Turner in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Unless the video shows that Rittenhouse started the confrontation, which is unlikely, we have him observing his “duty to retreat” like no other, fleeing from a violent mob who were intent on getting him. In the second incident, he fell, so he’s not even trying to stand his ground, he’s getting physically attacked (thwacked by skateboard guy), and only then opened fire at two direct attackers, and didn’t fire on all the ones who put their hands up or backed off.

            The odds of a jury finding him guilty him of anything serious on that part of the incident are zero. One handy rule of thumb is that if jurors think “Yeah, I’d probably have done the same in that situation”, you’re very unlikely to get a conviction.

            The prosecutors best hope is to paint Rittenhouse as a crazed and dangerous killer, but prior videos of him showing his concern for his community and the safety of his neighbors, and cleaning BLM graffiti off buildings in his own hometown, make him look like a civic-minded Eagle scout who wanted to do all he could to help keep people safe.Report

            • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
              Ignored
              says:

              Everyone should notice here, the arbitrary expansion and contraction of the definition of “threat”.

              A few days ago I was talking about how the law allows me to chase and violently subdue a fleeing robber.

              Here, a man who confronted people with a gun is chased and…the threat magically shrinks to nothing unless we have video of him shooting someone first.

              In the case of Jacob Blake, the mere fact that he had a knife somewhere in the car, expands the word “threat” to justify shooting him 7 times in the back.

              We could just as arbitrarily say that since Rittenhouse was walking through the crowd with a gun, they justifiably saw him as a deadly threat and gave pursuit.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re not getting how this works. Sheskey likely didn’t shooting Blake because he had a knife. Both officers knew he had a knife in his hand while Sheskey had his gun drawn, when he was following Blake and ordering him to “drop the knife”. Blake would not comply.

                Had Blake started to turn around, Sheskey would be justified in dropping him in his tracks before he got anywhere near the car door. Cops do that all the time when anyone violent approaches them with a knife with what appears to be bad intent. They don’t have to let themselves get stabbed in the heart or get their throats slit before they defend themselves by terminating the threat.

                But given that Blake already had a knife in his hand, yet was intent on getting to his car, what was he doing? Perhaps (to the officers) he didn’t feel the knife was sufficient to kill both cops, so he was going to his driver’s side car seat where lots of criminals keep the serious firepower.

                At that point, to keep Blake from popping up with whatever he may have had, Sheskey opened fire, and as long as Blake was still reaching for something, Sheskey was going to keep firing. Then both officers switched to life-saving measures to save Blake and get him to the hospital.

                This is a borderline gray area case between “failure to comply” and “attempted suicide by cop.” But in response, the usual folks started a spree of violence, assault, arson, and looting, resulting in two dead so far.

                In Milwaukee, another “usual suspect” murdered someone and then shot himself while running from police, so of course the usual folks looted the mall in protest.

                If a group of people think they’re justified in committing assault, arson, and looting every time some idiot with a mile-long rap sheet screws up while committing a crime, Democrat cities, at whatever level of civilization, will not long endure.

                Appeasement won’t work because there will always be some idiot perp who manages to get shot or shoot himself, and CNN will always be there to show a ten year out-of-date childhood photo of the little angel who got shot. Social media will be there to get all the facts wrong, and another mall will go up in flames and a half-dozen more people will get killed in the ensuing violence.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Yep. This is the cycle we are engaged in, and police reform, though necessary, is in no way sufficient to get us out. There will always be video footage of some idiot involved in violent altercations with cops. If half of such numbskulls are black, we will have enough fodder to burn down and loot every city block a hundred times over.Report

            • Avatar InMD in reply to George Turner
              Ignored
              says:

              George, you’re beclowning yourself with this. Whether he’s guilty of murder or not will be up to a jury to decide, and for all I know the people he allegedly shot won a very stupid prize after playing a very stupid game.

              But I’m not going to sit here and defend some dumb underage kid taking a firearm to defend third party property with no obligation to do so, again, assuming that’s what happened. Only a fool would defend such a course of action no matter the politics of it.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                But it’s not illegal to take a firearm to defend third party property. Half the jury might be made up of people who may have done just that. My housemate, a public defender for a couple decades, looked at the video and immediately concluded that the not-guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion. It’s a trivial case for the defense.

                In a murder trial, you don’t have to establish that your client made the best decision at each and every point in his life. He was never obligated to. You just have to establish that the facts of the case do not fit the legal requirements for murder, given his defenses.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Would you let your 17 year old son do this, legal or not?Report

              • Avatar Philip H in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                In Wisconsin and Illinois it is illegal to openly carry at 17. Once he crossed that threshold – driven by his mom no less – he ceased to be an innocent and naive victim. He both had no legal obligation to be in Kenosha, nor the right to be armed in Kenosha. Whether or not he can be convicted of murder none of the rest of that stuff applies.

                Me thinks either your roommate sucked as a public defender, or you aren’t actually listening.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Maybe a good place to remind everyone that Tamir Rice was shot to death at the age of 12 simply for holding a TOY gun.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Perhaps you are confusing “open-carry” with pistols. It’s pretty hard to shove an AR-15 down your pants leg.

                It’s legal for a 17-year old to carry a rifle, in both Illinois and Wisconsin, with adult supervision – which was everywhere that night, including, apparently, his mom’s. In Wisconsin the age for carrying a long gun like that is 16 and older, as long as it’s for lawful purposes, which includes crazy stuff that might happens where a kid needs to step up.

                And under-age possession is a rather toothless charge unless you’re trying to get the parent on a misdemeanor. More relevant is Wisconsin law on the use of lethal force in these kinds of situations.

                https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48#:~:text=939.48%20(1)%20a%20person%20is,2002%20WI%20101%2C%20255%20Wis.>Relevant Wisconsin legal section

                Even if we assert that the kid’s actions, at some point in the night, were “criminal” (perhaps he knocked over a bank first), the legal trail will still come down to elements of this:

                939.45  Privilege. The fact that the actor’s conduct is privileged, although otherwise criminal, is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. The defense of privilege can be claimed under any of the following circumstances:

                (2) When the actor’s conduct is in defense of persons or property under any of the circumstances described in s. 939.48 or 939.49;

                Those provisions are

                939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
                939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.

                The entire text is at the link provided.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        I don’t know. Didn’t watch the video.

        According to the text, it’s unknown why they were chasing him.

        What’s the narrative for why they were and why they were justified in doing so and continuing to do so after he appears to be retreating?Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Well, before you decide that he has a case for exoneration, wouldn’t it be prudent to find out?Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          You seem weirdly insistent on not watching the video. What a weird hill to die on.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            {{I noticed that too.}}Report

          • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            You seem weirdly insistent that watching a video of a mob chasing a teenager is an incontrovertibly strong argument that the teenager had a moral obligation to let himself be beaten to death by a mob.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m not sure I need to.

            You seem to be arguing that someone who watched it would see that he was shooting back and, since I’ve already argued that I’m okay with shooting back, then I don’t need to watch it?

            We just have to argue theory.

            My argument is that if he was shooting back, then, at the very least, you’re going to have to go after him for something like “HE WAS VIOLATING CURFEW!”

            Which, while true, is one of those things that I don’t find to be interesting. I mean… wasn’t everyone there violating curfew? That seems like the least interesting thing out there.

            So what’s the argument. You’ve watched the video, you’ve concluded that he was shooting back.

            You don’t need me to see the video to argue that shooting back is okay.

            I’m sure that, even if you don’t agree with the idea that shooting back is okay, you understand how someone else could hold that viewpoint.

            Right? You understand how someone could argue that, right?Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              I think Kazzy’s theory here is that innocent people don’t run from the mobs.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                If we’re gonna roll in that direction, which group was the mob, the protestors or the armed vigilantes?Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                My theory is that this person shot someone in the middle of the street with a rifle, got up, and walked down the street in the direction of police. People around him yelled that he was the shooter. The cops went in the direction of the gunfire (his and other shots that rang out) and seemed to ignore the white kid walking around with a rifle hanging from his neck immediately after shots were fired and while people pointed and said, “He’s the shooter!”

                I can’t and won’t speak to what happened before the video. But I can say that it seems rather odd that cops would walk past someone carrying a gun while they’re responding to gunfire.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                …so what exactly are we supposed to be getting from that video, then?Report

            • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Then the question was what led up to him shooting back? Did he instigate the entire incident then shoot back? Did he shoot someone, then get mobbed leading to him shooting back? Would that be fine and dandy? That would seem to be important.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                So you’re seeing the mob chasing him and thinking “well, we don’t know what the guy they’re chasing did”?

                Does noticing that you’re thinking that help you understand those who instinctively side with the police shooting a person better?

                “While it’s true that he shot the guy in the back seven times, we don’t know what the guy did!”

                Hey, Greg. He had a knife in his car.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So you are defending the cop shooting Blake? Strong work. Are you even coherent here?

                We don’t really have a good story of what started the rittenhouse altercation or do we? Without knowing that it’s hard to understand everything that came after. Sure you are fine with him shooting back w/o knowing what started it, but that seems a bit thin.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                No, Greg. I’m not defending the Blake shooting.

                By defending the people chasing the kid and saying “we don’t know what the kid did!”, aren’t you defending the Blake shooting?Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                No. Again are you even coherent? Both cases need to be fully investigated. There are very different standards of behavior for cops and 17 year olds. We have a lot more video of the blake incident than the rittenhouse one. Maybe i’ve missed it, but have we even heard from people who saw the start of the incident? That would seem to be important. We are really lacking a ton of info in the Rittenhouse situation so even being pro shooting back is jumping way ahead of the evidence unless i’ve missed a bunch of new facts.Report

            • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              “You seem to be arguing that someone who watched it would see that he was shooting back…”

              Where in the hell did I argue that?

              What I’m saying is that the video shows some of what happened so rather than say, “Well, how could anyone know what happened?” you could look at the video and say, “Well, that shows some of what happened and here is the conclusion I may draw from that.”

              Even if we draw different conclusions. You are weirdly trying to tell us what conclusions we ought to draw from a video you’ve repeatedly admitted you haven’t watched.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                ” you could look at the video and say, “Well, that shows some of what happened and here is the conclusion I may draw from that.””

                …what conclusion is Jaybird supposed to be drawing that’s different from the one he’s already done?Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                That the guy shot someone in the middle of the street and strolled right by the police who seemed to be responding to the shooter and they didn’t even acknowledge the guy with the large gun.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I’d say they were driving towards a location where they’d heard shots fired, and they didn’t think it was important to take time out to hassle some guy walking along by himself not committing an obvious crime and not acting in a threatening manner.

                Unless you think the cops should be going after dudes who Look Like Suspicious Characters.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                17 year old boy with a gun…”Not Threatening- Do Not Shoot”

                12 year old boy sitting on a swingset holding a toy gun..”Threatening- Shoot”.

                I bet there is a logic test that explains these different results.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Indeed there is, and right there in your summary. The word you’re looking for is “threatening”.

                A simple test is “did your blood pressure spike as your body reacted with a fight or flight response?” That doesn’t mean you’re response is justified, just that there’s a big difference between seeing an armed kid pointing a gun at you in a threatening manner and walking past an old man with a rifle at a gun show.

                You’re not going to find some convoluted “white racist” deconstructionist narrative that will explain things that are trivially simple to normal people.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                By your logic, any one of the BLM protesters could have shot both Mr. and Mrs. McClosky dead.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Nope. They were trespassing. You see, for centuries we’ve had to deal with “incidents” where person A shoots person B, and the juries have figured out a handy set of rules that need to apply.

                If you think that the people engaged in violent criminal acts have the same rights to use force as the homeowners, you are badly confused. We set up those laws so mobs of criminals didn’t rampage through town, raping, killing, and robbing ma, pa, and little junior.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                So was Rittenhouse (He was going thru a private parking lot, you see).

                So anyone could have defended the property by shooting the trespasser who was an obvious threat.

                See how easy this is? Anyone can shoot anyone, anytime.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You don’t get to just make stuff up. You see, when a jewelry store or convenient store is getting robbed, there could be multiple armed people in the store. But those of use with common sense (who sit on juries), easily distinguish between the guy whose pointing a gun in the clerk’s face demanding money, and other people in the store who aren’t part of the robbery, and who then take actions to eliminate the threat to the clerk.

                Rittenhouse, unlike the BLM folks, wasn’t there to burn car lots, he was there to prevent the car lots from being burned, kind of like a bank security guard who has a gun – in a bank – yet isn’t shot as a bank robber.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                “Rittenhouse wasn’t there to create disorder, he was there to preserve disorder.”Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re thinking of Democrat cops run by Democrat mayors whose cities are being burned by Democrats.
                Rittenhouse was there to help stop all the arson and looting that resulted when an armed guy who raped a 14-year-old resisted arrest and got shot.

                Everyone Rittenhouse shot, of course, also had extensive criminal records. That seems to be a feature of the current crisis, as if all the worst elements of society, the gangs, sociopaths, rapists, and burglars have come together as an army like they do in a typical Batman movie.

                This is not lost on the voting public, who will weigh in on it in November.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                And there is certainly nothing in this logic which is subjective or arbitrary!Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                This comes back to my constant refrain, that the CJ system (and the law, far too often) expects a consistency of threat recognition and response from untrained citizens that it refuses to demand of highly trained and experienced police. If a citizen had shot Tamir Rice for waving a toy gun around, there would be a better than even chance he’d be convicted.

                But the cops aren’t even indicted.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                A man walking with a gun, whom people are pointing at and yelling, “He’s the shooter!” shouldn’t draw suspicion when cops are responding to gunfire in their immediate vicinity?

                This isn’t rocket science. We have Black guys being shot because cops THOUGHT they had a gun and THOUGHT they might use it to shoot.

                Here we have a guy who DEFINITELY had a gun and in the immediate vicinity where people were DEFINITELY using guns and the police response was to… look away?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                This reminds me of a video I saw where a business owner called the cops to report that some guys were trying to break into his store to loot it, and when the cops showed up they cuffed the store owner (he was black) and let the vandals walk away (they were white).Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Can’t take any chances.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                It reminds me of another case where a 17 year old boy was being chased through the streets in fear for his life.

                Unfortunately he didn’t have a gun, but George Zimmerman did.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                If memory serves, after the 17 year old successfully got away, he called a friend and told her he felt disrespected and he was going to go beat up the guy who had been following him.

                Zimmerman shot him because the innocent 17 year old was pounding Zimmerman’s head into the pavement.

                There is a serious disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Which is different than traveling from a state away carrying a rifle specifically for the purpose of confronting protesters?

                According to your own logic, both teens were looking for a confrontation and were eligible to be shot.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Uh, no. It’s legal to show up to defend property from rioters, arsonists, and looters. In fact, governments generally encourage that because it keeps things from getting out of hand when resources are stretched thin, such as occurs after natural disasters. There’s a reason everybody is in the militia. It’s to band together to defend everything that some other group might want to take or burn, including the government that BLM and Antifa are intending to overthrow through violent means.

                The objective of people like the police, the National Guard, and Rittenhouse is to prevent crimes like rioting, arson, looting, and rape. Why is it so impossible for you grasp the basics that everyone else in civilization, at least since ancient Babylon or Egypt, has found to be completely obvious?

                What’s apparent is that people who cannot for the life of them understand civilization and how to maintain it, can skate by for a while, but once they start enabling its destruction, they should probably be kicked out of the “we have nice stuff” club.

                We’re likely going to have to have a major resorting of society, and it’s not going to be at all pretty.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “Looking for a confrontation” is not “eligible to be shot”.

                “Carrying a gun” is not “eligible to be shot”.

                Actively trying to kill someone is “eligible to be shot”. That describes Martin. That probably also describes “angry mob chasing someone”.

                In the later case the situation is still unclear because there are things that would justify “angry mob chasing someone”.

                Note, “the police killing someone several days ago” doesn’t even come close to “justification for trying to chase down and beat to death some random white guy”.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Was Martin the aggressor, or merely defending himself “Shooting back” to use Jaybird’s phrase?

                We have no way of knowing.

                Which is the point.

                The rules of engagement for firearms is so loose and arbitrary they can justify either Martin or Zimmerman shooting the other.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Was Martin the aggressor, or merely defending himself “Shooting back” to use Jaybird’s phrase? We have no way of knowing.

                We don’t know everything, but we know far from nothing.

                Martin was physically superior to Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s story and beating match Martin’s MMA skills. Martin’s friend’s recount of their phone conversation suggests he was fairly pissed off and intended to physically confront Zimmerman.

                If Martin had killed Zimmerman, it’s a lot harder to make a self defense case if you’re starting with, “I felt disrespected but while I was beating him we ended up fighting over his gun and I killed him”.

                The rules of engagement for firearms is so loose and arbitrary they can justify either Martin or Zimmerman shooting the other.

                In the real world no, but let’s move to a slightly different universe where Martin kills Zimmerman and his friend doesn’t tell her story.

                Martin claims he was stalked and never broke contact. He confronted Zimmerman verbally. Z pulled the gun, they fought over it. The 911 operator says she told Z to go away and thought he was being stupid. Z’s dojo’s master doesn’t have good things to say.

                Martin making a self-defense case is harder but he might be able to do it.

                I don’t understand why this is a bad thing. The bar for putting someone in prison is pretty high. Both Zimmerman and Martin were idiots and did stupid things.

                I struggle to see good alternatives here. I doubt we want to always imprison the shooter even if it’s self-defense.

                However the cause of justice is certainly NOT served by pretending the Martin was a thin 14-year-old child and not able to do what he did.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                The good alternative is to establish laws (like Stillwater posted) which take into account the fact that all human interactions are complex and the nuances of who retreated or advanced, who disengaged or didn’t, are tremendously important.

                The good outcome of this would be a world where people understand that they have a duty to disengage and de-escalate and don’t feel license to act out vigilante fantasies.

                The argument of “I can shoot anyone who I believe is a threat” is what I keep attacking here.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The good outcome of this would be a world where people understand that they have a duty to disengage and de-escalate and don’t feel license to act out vigilante fantasies.

                I have mixed feelings about this. It seems like a reasonable idea, but I’m not sure I trust the law to be able to tell the difference between “vigilante fantasies” and “the police aren’t supplying enough order”.

                Odds are very good that this kid and Zimmerman were/are idiots… but they’re idiots with a point. The protesters are burning stuff, Zimmerman’s area had crime problems. Laws which insist that the police have control when the police don’t have control are asking the law abiding to become victims.

                I also expect any laws which insist on a duty to de-escalate will instantly be used against the protesters.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                But TTBOMK, there are no laws, outside of maybe Texas, that say that.

                In every state, self defense is an affirmative defense, you have to meet a reasonable standard that you were truly in danger of serious injury or death.

                SYG laws and Castle Doctrine merely remove the duty to retreat. And the reason those laws were passed was because those legislatures did a crap job of defining the limits of that duty, which allowed DAs to impose arbitrary and capricious limits on what they felt the duty required.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Not being a lawyer, I’m mostly responding to the arguments made here and elsewhere that use this logic.

                For example, the McCloskys, who actually pointed guns at people, threatening them with deadly force.

                There isn’t any reasonable case that they feared for their lives or that any sort of engagement had even happened.
                Yet the idea that they had a right to use deadly force is so attractive to so many people that they are now stars of the right.

                The love of gun violence is deeply embedded in our culture, and its adherents are constantly working to find ways to justify it.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                They feared for their lives. A violent mob had just broken through the gate, destroying it. You can’t argue that the mobs aren’t violent after months of videos showing them hurling Molotov cocktails at police, assaulting bystanders, and burning down businesses.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                STRRRRRETTTTCH that definition wide!Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The governor and state AG intervened. Trump had the couple speak at the RNC convention (the same convention where violent mobs of protesters physically attacked Rand Paul and many others, and started chanting about burning down a Catholic church last night).

                The local DA may be in serious trouble for telling police forensics to make Mrs. McCloskey’s gun able to fire (it was a non-working courtroom prop) to justify charges against her. A prosecutor manufacturing false evidence is a very serious offense.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m old enough to remember when the conservative ideal of masculinity and independence was that if you found someone f***ing with you, like stalking you, you confronted them and kicked their ass if the didn’t stop.

                Now the conservative ideal is that if you confront someone who’s f***ing with you, you deserve to get shot.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Zimmerman shot him because the innocent 17 year old was pounding Zimmerman’s head into the pavement.

                Deliberate distortions of reality like this are we can’t have nice things.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s what the jury found. I’m sure CNN’s narrative was different, just like the “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” and the “mostly unarmed” Jacob Blake.

                They’ve been gas lighting the left for quite a while now.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Dark Matter: Zimmerman shot him because the innocent 17 year old was pounding Zimmerman’s head into the pavement.

                Stillwater: Deliberate distortions of reality like this are we can’t have nice things.

                What are you talking about? Zimmerman’s claim to self defense was exactly this and he had injuries on his head to back that up.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Christ listening to you defend that guy is embarrassing, Dark. He stalked the kid because was black, the kid responded. Zimmerman got his ass kicked and pulled a gun. He shouldn’t have f***ed with the kid.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                We’ve since found out that the testimony provided by Martin’s “girlfriend” was completely false. She and Martin’s family’s lawyers made it all up, including the relationship.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                He stalked the kid because was black, the kid responded. Zimmerman got his ass kicked and pulled a gun.

                What you just said doesn’t disagree with what I said.

                Further, if you’re going to stress de-escalation and so forth, it’s odd to skip that Martin had totally eluded Zimmerman and then went back to kick his ass.

                There’s also the issue on whether or not Zimmerman’s actions rose to the point of justifying getting his ass kicked.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                There’s also the issue on whether or not Zimmerman’s actions rose to the point of justifying getting his ass kicked.

                jfcReport

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Assume Z didn’t have a gun and Martin beat him up but stopped with that. The police had been called, they grab everyone. What happens then?

                Does Martin have justification for breaking Zimmerman’s nose and whatever else?

                Zimmerman said nothing to Martin. They were on a public road. Z racially profiled Martin as a violent thug and was following him because of that. The duration of the following was a few minutes.

                Did I miss anything? Because I’d think from what’s on the table that Martin doesn’t have legal justification for beating up Z.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re embarrassing yourself Dark.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                So no answer.

                After we strip away the emotion, Zimmerman didn’t deserve to have violence inflicted on him.

                Martin was breaking the law by putting his hands on him. Zimmerman was not breaking the law by following him around and reporting him to the police as someone he’s not familiar with.Report

              • Avatar greginak in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Dude. If Z doesn’t have a gun then why would he even go near Martin. Z just calls the police, sits in his car and sips coffee. Z doesn’t do anything to put himself or Martin in danger. Z just stays the F away. Boom…or actually no boom….nobody dead…nobody beat up.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to greginak
                Ignored
                says:

                Z had such extreme delusions of competency that I’m not sure his actions change even without the gun.

                And I think he started doing CC after this sort of thing became a lifestyle and not before it did. Martin was the 29th person he’d reported. Z had been doing this for years.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                https://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856

                SANFORD, Fla. July 2, 2013 — — A medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman’s injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain’s wounds “insignificant” and “non-life threatening.”

                You might recall that Zimmermann never testified under oath. “Pounding his head on the pavement” was something he said during interviews that is not backed up by medical evidence.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t think you get it. It shows that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman’s head into the pavement or Zimmerman wouldn’t have had head injuries to photograph. Those injuries don’t have to be “life-threatening” to establish that a little more head pounding could be life threatening. And of course the point was just to knock Zimmerman out and then beat him to death or shoot him.

                It’s kind of like when a policemen takes a round through his calf or the top of his ear and returns fire. The fact that none of his injuries are life-threatening does not imply that his life wasn’t under threat.

                ABC, of course, assumes it’s viewers are stupid. They are perhaps largely correct about that.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                “Pounding his head on the pavement” was something he said during interviews that is not backed up by medical evidence.

                Your own link has the examiner claim the number of head-on-pavement encounters might have been as few as one, i.e. that you can get two injuries on the back of your head from one slam.

                There is a world of difference between saying “the one head on pavement thing that happened wasn’t life threatening” and “he never had his head slammed against the pavement”.

                “Backed up by medical evidence” is a good way to describe what we do have.

                The real point you could make is “Martin was just trying to kick his ass and not kill him”. That is a possibility… but how many times do we require someone’s head be slammed into the pavement before they’re allowed to think it’s serious?Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Also no evidence his head was slammed on pavement. He could have tripped and fallen. He could have hit his head on something after a shove. There’s no telling, since Zimmerman’s statements were wildly inconsistent and he killed the only other person who would know the true story.

                But the story that Zimmerman was having his head pounded into the pavement repeatedly is so entrenched now, there’s almost no purpose in pointing out that it’s BS.

                Zimmerman also had many stories about Martin and the gun again, none of them told under oath. The only physical evidence is that there’s none Martin ever went neat it.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                He could have tripped and fallen.

                (wiki) following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek.[167]

                The police photos show this too. While it’s possible he tripped and fell several times right before meeting Martin, that’s not the way to bet.

                The only physical evidence is that there’s none Martin ever went neat it.

                An FDLE analysis of Martin’s body and clothes described the distance as “a contact shot”.

                As for Z’s statements, I seriously doubt he could tell the same story twice and he’s clearly not a calm, neutral observer.

                Our knowledge of what happened is far from perfect, but Martin getting shot while in the process of beating up Zimmerman seems to be reasonably well established. We have the physical condition of both men, both of their statements (Martin’s to his friend before he died), and the calls for help recorded by 911.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I know folks have strong opinions about Martin & Zimmerman, but there is no value in constantly re-litigating it. Zimmerman had his day in court & was acquitted.

                At this point, no one is changing their min, so let’s let it drop.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                I am not sure I agree with that Oscar. The re-litigating, not that no one has changed their minds.

                The essential problem with the Zimmerman case is that is rather neatly splits two competing narratives of life in the modern US. Is it about a mano, f any race, being cautious about his neighborhood? Or about how a [white] man accosted a black man?

                At this point, it has nothing to do with the findings of the court. Until there is a reckoning about which story best represents the country and its history, the argument will always be recurring.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Martin was never chased. He charged and attacked Zimmerman, knocked him down, started slamming Zimmerman’s head into the concrete, and tried to take Zimmerman’s gun, which he hadn’t known Zimmerman even had on him up to that point. That’s when Zimmerman beat Martin to the gun and fired. There was a court case about it an everything.

                You seem to be horribly confused by all this, as are many tens of thousands of people who are sitting in prison. You’re trying to make it much harder than it is.

                Do you do this when you watch movies, too? Wouldn’t that make the plot completely mystifying?Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                The Martin/Zimmerman conversation ended up getting one of the masthead writers banned from the site so maybe we shouldn’t have it again.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “Here we have a guy who DEFINITELY had a gun and in the immediate vicinity where people were DEFINITELY using guns and the police response was to… look away?”

                …yes?

                You got really really mad at Jaybird because he said he didn’t watch the video, and it turns out that what you wanted us to learn from watching the video was that…the cops didn’t hassle a white dude? Like, that’s it?Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re not bothered by what you saw in the video?Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “You’re not bothered by what you saw in the video?”

                I ask again, again again, what you think this video should mean to Jaybird.

                I mean, if you want to say “anyone who looks bad on video obviously should have been arrested by the cops,” well, hello Karen, the manager is right over there.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                I think we should be scrutinizing cops who behaved as the ones in the video did. Instead we’re focused on whether Rittenhouse shot first or second. It’s a Star Wars debate. And meaningless.

                Again, Rittenhouse is the coldsore. Those cops are the virus. Why does everyone want to focus on the coldsore? I dare say because they may be okay with the virus.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “I think we should be scrutinizing cops who behaved as the ones in the video did. Instead we’re focused on whether Rittenhouse shot first or second.”

                The whole discussion is about what Rittenhouse did. You brought up the video in a way that suggested it said something about Rittenhouse.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                I brought up the video and immediately mentioned the cops, then fell into Jaybird’s trap. I’m done with that now.

                I want to talk about the cops. Do you? If not, why engage me?Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Again…

                Initial exchange re: the video

                Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                August 26, 2020 at 9:40 am
                https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/26/kenosha-shooting-2-dead-1-injured-jacob-blake-protest-police-blm/

                Here is the video.

                Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                August 26, 2020 at 9:59 am
                This made me wonder… is Kenosha a college town?

                Yep. It is.

                Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                August 26, 2020 at 10:24 am
                Can you elaborate?

                The image of the shooter walking by the cops, gun hanging from his neck, and them not responding is… well… something.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                What’s weird is if I were to watch the video, I’d probably pay attention to the parts where there was action and not the parts where there wasn’t action.

                But if I watched the video where the kid walked past the cops…

                Would that lead me to a conclusion that I couldn’t see why a jury wouldn’t find for Homicide?

                I mean, if the main argument were that “this video is evidence that society is totally effed up!”, well…

                I agree.

                I think we’re on a course toward divorce or war.

                And as has been pointed out, divorce doesn’t seem to be on the table either.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The cops response — or lackthereof — was action.

                Rittenhouse’s actions are the coldsore.
                The police’s are the virus that causes the coldsore.

                We can debate what Rittenhouse did or didn’t do and what happened before and what can be proven. I fell into your trap of going there (because I’m pretty confident you DID watch the video and are playing your usual games to manipulate the discussion) but I won’t further.

                I don’t care about Rittenhouse. I care about those cops who decided that a man with a gun amidst chaos and gunfire was a “Nothing to see here” moment. That is far, far worse than anything Rittenhouse did.

                THAT is why we are heading towards divorce or war.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Nope, I didn’t watch the video.

                But I did say “I’m pro-shooting back” and you immediately took that to say that I’m defending the kid.

                Which tells me that you looked at the video and you would describe the kid as “shooting back” which, given what I said, means that I’m pro-what the kid did.

                That right there tells me that there’s a lot of stuff going on in the video and reading the text descriptions of what’s happening in the video leads me to the conclusion that… yeah. I can see the kid not getting found guilty for homicide.

                If you want to discuss the cops…

                Hey. I am fully for Police Reform. Up to and including discussing disbanding the current one and rebuilding a new one from the ground up. (Maybe without a police union this time.)

                The cops aren’t doing their jobs or, if they are, they’ve been deceiving the public as to what their jobs “really” consist of.

                The cops do not have a duty to protect.

                We saw in the CHAZ/CHOP what happened when the cops abdicated their roles.

                Kenosha is another example of such.

                But, for some reason, the police protestors spend more time setting businesses on fire than police stations.

                For the record: I oppose, 100%, setting unrelated businesses on fire in response to a police shooting.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll sit this game out. You have fun though.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, if you want to see a post that isn’t playing around, Oscar wrote a great one about what police reform will likely need to entail:

                Check it out.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Why would cops think a man with a gun was “something” to see here? They’d been talking to the kid earlier. He’s a very nice kid who supports the blue, and was there with scads of other like-minded individuals and business owners who don’t want to see Kenosha burn to the ground. He’s not the one throwing bricks at police officers, he’s one of the people who were getting things thrown at them – by the mob who throws bricks at police officers.

                The anrgy mobs of violent criminals know no restraint. They even attacked the Kenosha Dinosaur Discovery Museum. What kind of inhuman vermin would do something like that?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Maybe they saw a kindred spirit:

                White supremacists and militias have infiltrated police across US, report says

                https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/white-supremacists-militias-infiltrate-us-police-reportReport

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Does that information make you wonder about the motivations of the people who support Police Unions?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                It would, if I didn’t also know that the set of of “people who support Police Unions” contains nearly everyone in America, from every political persuasion.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird: There’s no way Chip can wriggle outa *this* jam.

                Chip unconvincingly easily wriggles out of the jam.

                Ahhh, well….Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s weird where the associations in the Guilt-By-Association always tend to stop.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s the part I don’t get:

                Presumably, Chip posted that bit about white supremacists infiltrating police departments and unions for *persuasive* purposes, to incline people to view the police in a certain way. But when someone *did* take the bait and draw the obvious conclusion, he backtracked to defending police unions with empty platitudes about their popular support.

                But here’s the thing: there’s nothing *benign* about cop unions being infiltrated by white supremacists unless you think white supremacy is itself benign. Chip doesn’t think that.

                So rather than agree with *hisownself*, Chip tried to wriggled outa that *jam* by implying that white supremacists support cop unions too, so the fact that they’re being infiltrated by white supremacists is okey dokey cuz representative democracy or something.

                100% stone cold bizarre.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t know why we keep circling back to the assumption that there is a big disagreement among us about police unions.

                I thought it was pretty much agreed, by us lefty types here on OT, that we are OK with stripping police unions of their control of discipline, while leaving them free to collectively bargain over pay and benefits.

                That’s my stated position at least.

                So a response to the charge of being infiltrated by white supremacists with “whaddabout unions” just seem strange.

                There seems to be a determined effort to make police unions a binary all or nothing proposition, when we’ve repeated shown that isn’t the case.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                when we’ve repeated shown that isn’t the case.

                Akshully, I cited (and linked to a study) showing that it *is* the case. Remember? It’s the one you said you couldn’t comment on.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not talking about a study, I’m stating my position that police unions SHOULD be stripped of their control over discipline and still retain collective bargaining rights over pay and benefits.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                wriggle wriggle

                Seriously Chip, you should read the study I linked to way back when. It shows that everything you’ve said on this thread is wrong.

                Now, granted, it’s only *one* study ….Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m wrong…about my own viewpoint?

                You keep inviting me to an disagreement, to which I keep politely declining.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I thought it was that we still haven’t seen any evidence that Police Unions contribute to toxicity and that any reports that people might dig up that demonstrate Police Unions contributing to toxicity are too complicated to really get on board with so Intellectual Humility demands that we not reach any conclusions.

                But, okay, maybe we should not let Police Unions continue to control discipline.

                What do you have against Unions anyway? Did a policeman kill one of your best friends while she was in police custody?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve heard it said that the REAL police union isn’t the formal one that gets certified by the NLRB, but the informal one that is the deep sense of solidarity among police officers, even the ones who aren’t represented by a union.

                That the sense of solidarity of the Thin Blue Line is what makes them believe that they are unanswerable and alienated from the people they ostensibly serve.

                Therefore, this argument goes, even if the police no longer have collective bargaining rights, they will still have this union, this sense of being occupiers in a hostile land.

                I’m partial to this argument, but agree is a debatable point. I can see how some people might think that if only we decertify the police unions, they will be more effectively disciplined.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I can see how some people might think that if only we decertify the police unions, they will be more effectively disciplined.

                Bizarre.

                I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m super happy you’re beginning to see the light on this issue. Welcome aboard, and all that.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, it’s not a magic bullet.

                But it is a pre-req.

                And people who argue for the importance of unions in the face of people who want to start doing the pre-reqs of reform are not only preventing reform, they’re preventing the pre-reqs of reform.

                If you want a list of reforms that I’m on board with, I can link you to a post.

                But it’s weird how any one of the things that gets pointed out in the *LIST* gets a “oh, so you think that item #3 is a magic bullet?”Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The weakness of the pre-req argument is that unionization doesn’t seem to be a defining variable.

                There are plenty of nonunion police departments around the country that we can study. Are they more well disciplined? Have fewer complaints about brutality?

                Not that I can see.

                Secondly, it ignores the idea I propose, of limiting collective bargaining to just pay and benefits. What is the objection to this?

                Which is why I am partial to the “solidarity” theory, which stresses the role of the informal sense of belonging as the operative variable.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                There are plenty of nonunion police departments around the country that we can study. Are they more well disciplined? Have fewer complaints about brutality? Not that I can see.

                GILLEZEAU: We found that after officers gained access to collective bargaining rights that there was a substantial increase in killings of civilians.

                https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/876293261/the-link-between-disproportionate-police-brutality-and-police-unions

                The Washington post also has statements along this line but they’re behind a paywall.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                We also linked to a study showing increased toxicity in Police Unions and the argument was that Intellectual Humility demanded that we not reach any conclusions. Here’s when we discussed Police Unions in 2018. Here’s when we discussed that discussion back in May.

                Which allows us, a month later, to say stuff like “I *STILL* haven’t seen any evidence for your assertions!”Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                And here’s what I said at the time:

                I said I have no way of independently assessing the study and I still don’t. Because, y’know, I’m not a sociologist and don’t have the expertise to dig into the weeds of the study.
                And I doubt anyone else here does either.
                So I could just as easily post a link and say “This study by Professor Smart E. Pantz says the first study is bogus” and no one here would have any way to refute it.

                But look, if you want to say that the strength of police unions gives a tremendous boost to the legal defense of police officers, sure that’s a valid point.

                So if someone wants to restrict police unions to just bargaining over pay and conditions, I wouldn’t have much problem with that.

                The link Dark Matter posted is a snippet of a conversation where the link between collective bargaining rights and killing was an assertion from an unpublished and un-peer reviewed paper.

                Look, my support of police unions here is pretty soft, limited to solely collective bargaining on pay.

                It is possible that you are right that simply having collective bargaining by itself makes them less accountable, even if it is just limited to pay.I just don’t think the case has been proven yet.

                The white supremacy problem seems to go much deeper than mere discipline.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Look, my support of police unions here is pretty soft, limited to solely collective bargaining on pay.

                So, let’s suppose that unions won’t permit the rollback on its power and uses leverage – strikes and so on – to prevent it from happening. Does your “soft support” shift to anti-cop union at that point?

                Cuz we all know that cops won’t allow a rollback of their power without extorting city government to prevent it from happening.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree with your comment to Swami, that there is really only one police reform movement on the table and from the rumblings I see around the lefty-sphere, collective bargaining for cops may likely be collateral damage along the way.

                My nuanced proposal sounds great to me, but I recognize that in the heat of battle, nuance and subtlety often get lost.

                So yeah, if they turn it into an all or nothing proposition, then they lose my support entirely.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It seems weird to bang on “I haven’t seen any evidence for X” when you’re so willing to run to “I’m not a sociologist” when presented with academic studies on X.

                It comes across as “I haven’t seen any evidence for X (and I don’t intend to).”Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What is it you’re hoping for?

                “Hey, this paper which no one has read or reviewed says X, so that’s good enough for me”?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’d settle for “I’ve seen evidence for police unions creating toxicity (or, at least, allowing it to fester).”

                Maybe then give a short speech about your own biography. “As a good member of the left, I know that unions are important and, seriously, I wish that all Americans had access to a union.”

                And then, from there, talk about why you’d want to keep police unions around despite the toxicity (“as a member of the left, I can’t bring myself to call for a union, even a police union, to be abolished”). And *THEN* talk about how you’ve changed your mind from a full-throated defense of Police Unions in particular (like, you don’t want anyone to think that you’re against any other union out there) to a belief that Police Unions should be limited in scope.

                Instead of saying “I haven’t seen evidence for X” and then, when presented with evidence for X, pointing out that you aren’t going to look at the evidence for X, given a lack of training at looking at evidence.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure, I’m happy to say I’ve seen some evidence. And I’m happy to grant that the case for police unions is open, and not as closed as I once thought.

                Whether this evidence grows to “convincingly against collective bargaining for police” is still an ongoing question.

                Because academic papers are one bit of evidence, but can never be conclusive all on their own.

                As with climate science or any other science, they need to be corroborated by real world demonstrations, like massive glacial melt.

                In this case, we would need to test the theory and see what happens when police unions are either broken entirely or just stripped of power over discipline.

                If misconduct goes down, the theory is corroborated. If not, it isn’t.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s a tweet from your beloved NYPD union Chip. I’ll bungle the link, of course, but they’re demanding DeBlaso resign because he said Trump is afraid of diversity.

                We need to hear you RESIGNED as Mayor of NYC. We are WAITING. Only a few hours left until sundown. Give 8 million people a gift & quit. You ruined NYC, Save the City and step down. @NYCMayor @NYCPBA @NYCPDDEA @realDonaldTrump @DonaldJTrumpJr @FoxNews @NY1 @TLMDPR @wpix @lbanypd https://t.co/avnqk6HbnQ— SBA (@SBANYPD) August 28, 2020

                https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsReport

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Awesome.

                For the record, you should read about Camden, New Jersey if you want to see what “abolish the police” has looked like in practice, at least in one place.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                It worked great, too. The key was that by putting in a strong Republican governor and working with conservatives to bypass powerful Democratic machinery, real reform achieved. Other troubled cities should follow suit if they want to chart a way out of their current conflagration.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, we should study Camden.
                https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/16/camden-nj-police-reboot-is-being-misused-debate-over-police-reform/

                Tl;DR is that after drconian budget cuts, the city disbanded the city force and created a countywide force.

                The new [nonunion] force actually made things worse, not better, with skyrocketing levels of de minimis arrests and excessive force complaints.

                It was only after local activists forced the police to agree to re-write their use of force policy emphasizing de-escalation instead of suppression, that things began to get better.

                Which seems to validate the approach of changing police culture, as much as their structure.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Wait. You cited a WaPo opinion piece as source material? Oh, Chip. {sigh}

                Try these, literally the first two links that came up on google:

                https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/disband-police-camden-new-jersey-trnd/index.html

                https://www.marketplace.org/2020/06/17/camden-new-jersey-community-policing/Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Thanks.
                Both of these links pretty much align with both the WaPo piece and the Politico piece, in that they stress the “Community Oriented Policing” model.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Wait. You cited a WaPo opinion piece as source material? Oh, Chip. {sigh}Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                The original link was to Politico, which had essentially the same information, reaching the same conclusion, that changing the culture, in addition to changing the structure was key to making improvements.

                Are there contradictory accounts? Feel free to post them.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Were there any pre-reqs to changing the culture?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, in this case breaking the union.

                And then having a police chief and city government that took reform seriously.
                And a local activist group to pressure them.
                And a financial crisis that offered no other options.

                As with all things, there are plenty of pre-reqs.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                And decreasing the number of officers from 250 down to 400.

                Oh, wait…Report

              • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Has anyone looked into what may/may not have happened in Jacksonville (granted, a long time ago) when the county went bankrupt and the city absorbed them?Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Which seems to validate the approach of changing police culture, as much as their structure.

                And that this is one HECK of a lot easier without a union working to prevent change and accountability.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                African-American and Hispanic gangs appear more likely to engage in deliberate
                attempts to infiltrate law enforcement and correctional agencies, while White supremacist
                groups and outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs) appear to more commonly exploit their
                family, friends, and associates’ civilian employment with law enforcement.

                https://publicintelligence.net/ules-ngic-gangs-infiltrating-law-enforcement-and-correctional-agencies/

                I know you see White Supremecy(tm) under every bed and in every mirror, but it seems this problem is not confined to one racial group, no matter the panic du jour.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                They don’t mention Asians, but you just know the big problem is infiltration by ninjas. I’m sure people like Chip would see ninjas everywhere – if they could see ninjas, which they can’t. But take my word for it, they’re freakin’ everywhere.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                They attempt it, but does the link say they are more successful than white supremacists?
                [no, it does not]

                But we do have plenty of documented cases of white supremacists, Klan member and Neo-Nazis serving as active duty police officers.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Uhm… That is some nice reading comprehension there Lou…

                Yes, it does say that both are problems and doesn’t handwave either of them away like you are trying to do.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                I wasn’t aware that there is a big problem with Black and Hispanic gang infiltration in police departments.

                Got any sources for where they have been found?

                Because there’s like a dozen sources showing a lot of white supremacist, Klan and militia types in law enforcement.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Unreal.

                Since you didn’t read it, I will help:

                Several Latin King gang members and associates have served as police
                officers in Union County, New Jersey, according to law enforcement reporting

                and

                Several street gang members have successfully infiltrated law enforcement and
                government agencies. The Latin Kings have infiltrated and have made several attempts to
                infiltrate law enforcement agencies in New Jersey, New York, and Florida.

                and

                Several Latin King gang members and associates have served as police
                officers in Union County, New Jersey, according to law enforcement reporting.

                and those are just a few from the precis you get straight from the link, there is much more in the actual download. It even talks about the problem in places as far apart as Mexico and New Zealand, surely bastions of the KKK…

                Unreal.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                Hey, I said I wasn’t aware.

                So since there are now plenty of documented cases of both street gang and white supremacists infiltrating law enforcement, lets agree that the new administration should do something serious about it.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, I have known about the issue going back at least to the eighties, so I bet the current admin will have as much success rooting it out as the last five, D’s and R’s alike.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                Biden praises the good old days – when the entirety of law enforcement in his beloved Democrat South was made up of white supremacists. So how can it be a problem?Report

        • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          What’s the narrative for why they were and why they were justified in doing so and continuing to do so after he appears to be retreating?

          According to wiki: There was an arrest warrant against Blake for criminal trespass, domestic abuse, and sexual assault.[5][6][7][8] During the encounter, Blake was tasered and scuffled with officers.[9] He was shot as he opened the driver’s door to his SUV and leaned in.Report

    • Avatar Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      God help that city if this happens.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Slade the Leveller
        Ignored
        says:

        Kenosha has to survive some tests in advance of that one, though. If the DA decides that, upon a careful and considered review of the evidence, there will be no charges filed against officer Sheskey, that city will light up.Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
          Ignored
          says:

          Well, that’s also going to happen, so they might as well prepare for it. Most police might not have let Blake get to his car door, but once it opened, I think most would make the same choice that Sheskey did, lest the guy pull out an Uzi or something.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            You do see the problem here, right? The police screwed up keeping control of the situation (they lost control of themselves, and thus the situation), and thus a man was shot.

            Both cops should never be cops again, at the very least. You can’t train that kind of cool under crisis into someone.Report

          • Avatar Swami in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            If I was playing the odds, I would say this cop is more likely to be commended for his actions than convicted of any wrong doing. I am betting on at least one major riot per month until progressives change their black-victimology narrative (or it snows in hell, whichever comes first)

            It is so weird just sitting here and watching people spin themselves into chaos. You can try and explain the ramifications of their framing, but it doesn’t matter. They are committed to their narrative and they will watch the world burn as it plays out.Report

            • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Swami
              Ignored
              says:

              If I was playing the odds, I would say this cop is more likely to be commended for his actions than convicted of any wrong doing.

              No commendations because before very long the City of Kenosha’s lawyers and insurance companies are going to tell them there are going to be some lean years when the civil suit settlements come down.

              Just as idle speculation, I wonder if Wisconsin had a law like Colorado’s new one — which puts the officer on the hook for a portion of any civil settlements in excess force cases — if the officer would have shot anyone in the back seven times. Or if he would have left the force.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                Jacob Blake’s ex-girlfriend’s aunt is very angry that the officer shot him in the back seven times – and not fifty times. However, I don’t think she has any grounds for a civil suit against him on that count.Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      …carrying a military-style semi-automatic rifle …

      Wow, they got that right.Report

  13. Avatar Aaron David
    Ignored
    says:

    Man, I gotta say, there is a whoooooooole lotta Monday morning quarterbacking goin’ on in this thread.Report

  14. Avatar Swami
    Ignored
    says:

    These types of clashes are inevitable as I have been arguing for months now. If the police are not empowered to thoroughly squelch rioters and looters and unless they are able to enforce curfews, then citizens are going to take matters in their own (probably even more incompetent) hands.

    And if Trump loses (very likely) there is nothing to stop conservatives from encouraging people to fight back against left wing rioters. This is going to get real bad real fast.

    The solution is to get behind our cops in restoring law and order and repressing every riot while also pursuing police reform. Yes, we need to do both at the same time.

    Police abuse of power is the initial cause.
    Left wing “whitewashing” of rioting and the desire to “emasculate” the effectiveness of our police is the amplifying catalyst.

    Let’s chew gum and walk. Let’s get behind our cops to restore civility while demanding that they also reform.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
      Ignored
      says:

      These types of clashes are inevitable as I have been arguing for months now.

      There is nothing inevitable about a cop shooting a black man in the back 7 times. It’s a choice on that cops part. There is no necessity compelling his actions.

      The solution is to get behind our cops in restoring law and order

      lol it’s like you don’t even know what people are protestingReport

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stillwater
        Ignored
        says:

        Another lol at “our cops”. “My team, yay!”Report

      • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
        Ignored
        says:

        LOL, it is like you can’t even read.

        Read the part about holding cops accountable, that applies to abuses of police power.

        The term “inevitable” was applied to clashes between rioters and people who are against riots in the absence of the cops doing their job.

        My team, if there was one, would be called “the rule of law.” And I will repeat that it requires both reform and robust support of law and order.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
          Ignored
          says:

          My team, if there was one, would be called “the rule of law.”

          ROFLOLOLOL!

          Right now, it’s effectively *legal* for cops to shoot unarmed people in the back 7 times. Are you seriously this dense, Swami? The protests in Minneapolis began in earnest *after* the city DA said he wasn’t going to press charges against Chauvin.Report

          • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
            Ignored
            says:

            Nobody is objecting to protests. My comment clearly and repeatedly objected to riots. Do you get the difference?

            It is not appropriate to burn down things and loot stores and attack people because you disagree with how the DA performed his job. This is pretty much by definition the abandonment of the rule of law.

            My guess is there is very little likelihood Chauvin gets convicted of murder. Manslaughter maybe. So we will get more riots.

            Will you join me in making an unequivocal stand against riots, looting and mob violence?

            Will you stand with me in demanding justice through the system, not outside of it?

            I am truly interested in your answers.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
              Ignored
              says:

              Will you join me in making an unequivocal stand against riots, looting and mob violence?

              What does it mean to take an unequivocal stand against riots? Do I have to show up in Kenosha with a rifle to defend a used car lot?Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                No, that is exactly what I argued against. Reread the rule of law, work within the system part, smarty pants.

                Can you answer the questions? Are you against riots and looting? Do you support the police firmly and decisively squelching riots in a professional yet incrementally more forceful way? If not, why not?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll give a bit of a nuanced answer here, Swami, because I think you’re being sincere in asking.

                I’m opposed to rioting and looting for the reasons you say, but also because in general it’s counterproductive. Given that, I’m *especially* opposed to rioting and looting from white people who aren’t directly affected by the practices people are protesting. I think they’re opportunitsts, cynical idiots, self-interested hell-raisers.

                The one exception to the general rule *I* have would be if black people, pushed beyond the breaking point, engaged in that type of violent action. I wouldn’t condone it, but I would very much understand it. As it is, the vast VAST majority of mob-related violence I hear about and see on videos is perpetrated by angry white people, most likely in express contradiction of the will of black community leaders.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Okay, Honest and direct answer. Thanks.

                I am against all rioting and looting. I believe blacks are, like every race, lucky to be born in this country at this time. We are among the luckiest one tenth of one percent of people to have ever lived, and we need to appreciate it at the risk that we lose it.

                If anyone wants to make this country even better, I wholly support them as long as they do so legally or within the system. If I was to make a suggestion of where to start I would say to look at culture. Following the line of reasoning Deirdre McCloskey uses, I would go even further and suggest that before we can change culture we need to change our framing and narrative of the situation.Report

            • Avatar Philip H in reply to Swami
              Ignored
              says:

              In the extremely unlikely event he’s convicted of manslaughter there will be rejoicing because a cop went to jail for killing an innocent man.

              In the VERY likely event he is exonerated then, yes, there will be rioting. And frankly the city and the police will have brought it on themselves.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, that’s just it, seems to me. The quickest, most effective way to end the rioting would be for the Kenosha DA to charge Sheskey with murder one (book him Danno). Only then would the Kenosha CJ system have the legitimate authority to crack down on the rioters, looters and (what was Swami’s third thing?) mob violence.

                As it is, the politicians are trying to tap dance their way through a mine field rather than just disarming the explosives.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Wouldn’t the DA have to kill Jacob Blake to make a manslaughter or homicide charge stick?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                He also wouldn’t say “book him Danno”.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I hope you are right, but I am less optimistic. I think the mobs will be infuriated if he beats the murder rap. They are convinced it was intentional murder, not some accidental complication.

                By the way, what does, “killing an innocent man” line mean? Obviously he wasn’t a convicted man yet, as that isn’t how the system works. What he was was a suspected criminal who was freaking out on drugs and resisting arrest in the process of overdosing on illegal substances.

                If placing ones knee on the neck of a man having a borderline psychotic episode is standard operating procedure, I would agree that Minneapolis brought it on themselves. But to the extent this is operating procedure (I frankly have no idea) then Chauvin’s lawyer will use this as a defense, thus increasing the likelihood of acquittal, and again we get angry mobs.

                I am asking all people who care about their country to stand with me and stop trying to incite or excuse riots and mob violence.Report

    • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Swami
      Ignored
      says:

      Everyone, most especially the protesters, wants “Law and Order”.

      The point of the protests is that black people are the victims of lawless disorder.

      They want a law that protects them. They want an order that defends their rights and freedoms.Report

      • Avatar Swami in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        Poppycock. As I have stressed for three months now, the disparities in treatment between blacks and whites at the hands of cops is primarily a factor of 10x levels of violent crime committed by a dysfunctional subculture amplified by a dishonest media trying to sell a bogus narrative.

        Half of all police abuses are going to happen, statistically, to the 3 percent of the population committing half the violent crime. Full stop.

        Absent huge revisions in criminality, the stats on confrontations, won’t change, regardless of how much reform we do (and much is needed).

        Every time the police appear to abuse their power, the appropriate response is to seek accountability. The absurd response is to pretend it is racism even when there is no indication that this is the case. That just inflames people and is the path to total fishing chaos.

        Let me repeat. Half of all stupid confrontations will occur to that tiny sub pop committing half of all violent crime. It’s a numbers thing. Even if we reduce police abuse a hundredfold, we will still get at least one video a week of abuse, played 24\7 to inflame the masses.

        It is time we act like mature, responsible adults. Or we watch this experiment in liberal democracy go down the tubes and watch our loved ones buried in mass graves, as we wait our turn. But sometimes I think that is exactly what some people want.Report

        • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Swami
          Ignored
          says:

          You have a remarkable degree of confidence in describing a world you have never experienced.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
          Ignored
          says:

          The argument BLM makes re: police practices as they apply to black communities isn’t limited to cops murdering them, Swami. It’s about an entire culture of institutional racism exhibited by police departments across the country. The death-rate is only one data point on the continuum. You’ve denied that there is systemic racism in policing practices. I’ve provided studies demonstrating that there is. Studies which you concede constitute evidence of institutional racism. Given that, I can only assume that you’re being willfully ignorant of the deeper issues in play in service of some other agenda which, personally speaking, I don’t understand.

          Eg, you’ve criticized BLM for framing the issue of police misconduct as motivated by racial animus, yet you concede that DOJ studies have established that differential policing in departments across the country is caused, in part, by racial animus.

          I just don’t get how you square that obvious inconsistency in your own head.Report

          • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
            Ignored
            says:

            Key word in my opening sentence above is “primarily.” I put it there for a reason and considered highlighting it.

            I agree that racism exists in this world. I agree with you that it was probably a factor in general in Ferguson. I am sure it will be found in other places too. But it is a minor part of the issue, and until we get violence rates comparable between demographic subset events, we can expect confrontations with the police will be wildly disproportionate.

            Racism — a form of tribalism — is, like flatulence, theft, and the will to dominate others, a sad part of human nature which is unlikely to ever be completely eradicated. I would strongly warn against tearing down the system based upon our inevitable imperfections. Reforms, yes. Riots and looting and defunding the police. No. Absolutely not.

            From the first day, I have stressed that framing general police abuse as systemic racism is a recipe for disaster. Really bad, people-shooting-each-other-in-the-streets levels of disaster.

            This will not be the last. It is just the start until the narrative changes. Hopefully Biden can change the narrative. I can only pray. Conversations with you and Chip certainly don’t make me feel optimistic, though.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
              Ignored
              says:

              This will not be the last. It is just the start until the narrative changes.

              The narrative won’t change until police practices change, Swami. Here’s one way for the narrative to become less polarizing: people like you (deniers, if you will) agree that it’s an accurate description.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                With the current narrative it will not be sufficient for police practices to change. Let us unrealistically assume that the police become perfect angels and we never get another example of “true” abuse. We will still have a weekly video of “apparent” abuse where video is taken out of context or gives a misleading view. Net result…riots!

                And even if there were no more videos taken, we still have the inconvenient truth that half of all arrests for violent crimes are blacks. That is just as easily spun into a need to burn down the system. And your team will indeed have a field day spinning it this way. Footage at 11.

                Police practices do indeed need to change. But blacks also need to extinguish their subculture of violence, And the left needs to drop this narrative of the Biggest problem Blacks face is our justice system. The biggest problem they face is a dysfunctional and subculture which promotes violence, crime, and irresponsibility.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                ” We will still have a weekly video of “apparent” abuse where video is taken out of context or gives a misleading view. Net result …Riots.”

                Well, since we can’t stop the riots why don’t we focus on changing the cop’s hehavior?Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Wasn’t that my first recommendation?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                So you agree with BLM then. Great!Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Re: Agreeing with BLM.

                To what extent do we want to say that the Mostly Peaceful Protests are in alignment with BLM?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                My own view is that the rioters and looters aren’t BLM.

                But let’s suppose that they are. Let’s also suppose that the set of reforms they proposed *perfectly* matched Swami’s ideal reform package.

                Should he *not* support BLM’s reform efforts because some of them are rioters/looters?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                My own view is that the rioters and looters aren’t BLM.

                I’d tend to agree… they are, for the most part, orthogonal to BLM.

                But criticism of the rioters and looters tends to get responses of the importance of Freedom of Assembly (“did you leave a word out?”) tends to get conflated with opposition to BLM for some reason.

                Riots being the voice of the unheard and all that.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Don’t be daft. I do however support the general focus of this group. As far as I know they are not a Marxist front group Calling for a disbanding of the American family among a sub population destroyed by absentee fathers.

                https://www.joincampaignzero.org/Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                Swami, there’s only one police reform game in town right now, and BLM is playing it. You have a better chance of getting your preferred reforms by hitching yourself to their wagon than not.

                I understand the allure of making the perfect the enemy of the good though.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                BLM has destroyed any chance at police reform. On May 29th everybody had their checkbooks out, ready to pay whatever it would take to fix the police. And then the riots and looting started, and more and ore people put their wallet back in their pocket.

                The anti-Vietnam war protests drove support for the war up. It’s not the cause, it’s the behavior of the people pushing the cause.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                “The anti-Vietnam war protests drove support for the war up. ”

                And ironically, it was the incoherent lying of the generals and the nightly videos of the hapless soldiers brutalizing civilians that drove support for the war down.

                Food for thought!Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Gee, it’s like voters don’t like mindless violence and lying politicians, either.

                With the BLM/Antifa riots, you have a trifecta of everything that causes massive November storms.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                But once Donald Trump becomes president, all this chaos and disorder will come to an end!Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Indeed. As he says, he can shut it down in a couple of days if the governors or mayors will request his assistance. He’s threatened to just invoke his authority to step in and stop the chaos, and the Democrats freaked out and screamed about tyranny.

                All you have to do is arrest the rioters and send them to prison for rioting, which is illegal. My city took that approach, jailing dozens when they stepped past a bicycle rack, and it’s been as calm as can be ever since.

                You see, most people don’t like spending months, years, or decades in prison. It can serve as a strong disincentive to throwing explosives at people. Do you find it odd that the left seems to agree that this will work, but only against Rittenhouse or members of law enforcement?Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Honestly, I am starting to think some of the far left actually want a race war. Everything they do is aimed in that direction.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                Which side would you be on Swami?Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                As I have been clearly arguing, the side rejecting civil war. My family is multiracial, you a*$hole.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                “Race War/ Civil War” is just the rightwing version of “Come The Revolution”.

                That is, it is a half threat, half fantasy, half thought out idea whereby the speaker just waves a hand in the air and says “Bomb ’em into the Stone Age” then goes on to think of something else that isn’t so vexing.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                No, I would describe it more as a bit of hyperbole to get across the point that you guys are stirring up civil unrest which is going to continue to escalate.

                More riots.

                More vigilantes.

                More clashes between looters and property owners.

                More black males resisting arrest

                Fewer people focusing on the real problems in inner city black neighborhoods.

                Better ratings for news media

                More animosity, more violence, less good will and trust.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                The riots only happen after a Black man gets shot.
                Maybe the police can control that variable?

                The exchange and links about Camden were very enlightening.

                The demographic composition of Camden hasn’t changed, the people are still the same, yet shootings and violence are down significantly, and most significantly, the people don’t take to the streets in fury after each arrest.
                The people have much higher level of trust in the police and legal system than before.

                There is, as it turns out, a vast middle ground between accepting brutal repression, and bloodshed in the streets.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                And half the people getting shot aren’t black and the proportion of people getting shot or killed is exactly as expected based upon violent crime and resisting arrest. There is zero evidence that either of these two examples of police abuse has anything to do with race. There is ample evidence that both examples involve violent a-holes who should have not resisted arrest. The police reform issue is real, the racism narrative thrown on top is destructive, spin.

                Maybe the BLM organization can make a stand against resisting arrest? I won’t be holding my breath.

                I have probably written a dozen comments in this post on the need for police reform. My initial comment was about chewing gum and walking, and chewing gum was police reform. But you and SW glaze over it every time because it doesn’t support your narrative. When have I argued against Camden’s reforms?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                No, I would describe it more as a bit of hyperbole to get across the point that you guys are stirring up civil unrest which is going to continue to escalate.

                So here’s a statement of fact: multiple DOJ studies have concluded that police practices in departments across the country enact practices which are motivated by racial animus against black people.

                Your contention is that folks who merely *point out that fact* are fomenting a race war.

                Seems to me the better way to prevent a race war is to change the facts on the ground, and institute reforms which resolve the disparity in race-based policing practices, or at a minimum institute fully general reforms which have the same effect.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                And obviously the best way to change the facts on the ground is to vote Republican. You see, what’s happened is that the Democrat machines in these cities have basically set up as family-run businesses. They employ all their kin to process all the fines they levy on the riffraff, who vote for them, while other kinfolks work in all the city programs providing government services to all the riffraff that are stuck in poverty because of all the fines. They’re farming poor blacks like a crop.

                The Democrat machines are never going to change that because it would mean firing their own kin. It will have to be changed by people outside the machine.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                And obviously the best way to change the facts on the ground is to vote Republican.

                Amazing.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                The violence is in Democrat cities, not Republican ones. What are you folks doing, running minority oppression camps?

                As has been noted in the aftermath of Baltimore controversies and the skyrocketing poverty and murder there, Republican cities aren’t heavily segregated along racial lines like Democrat cities. Blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Asians are all intermixed, living as neighbors. Cities like Baltimore are divided up almost like a pie chart, with an Asian slice, a white slice, a black slice, etc. The different slices are then pitted against each other.

                This of course keeps the disadvantaged minorities in the poor areas where they can’t accumulate wealth via real estate like the white areas, and keeps the poor kids in the wrong schools so they’ll provide a future source of revenue for the courts and city service workers.

                In Republican cities, minorities are treated as adults, just like everyone else, instead of being infantilized and pandered to, while getting slapped with tickets and fines for even existing.

                Of course not all Democrat cities are like that, many are like Portland and San Francisco, where their policy was to just run out all the black people, who just aren’t compatible with liberaltopia. There’s a recent award-winning movie called “The Last Black Man in San Francisco” about the last remaining stubborn black native facing the decision to leave.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                No. There are some studies that show that some departments out of tens of thousand nationwide have unfairly targeted blacks, the Ferguson example is one. I would be amazed if we found there were absolutely no examples of racism among human beings on this planet. As I have already stressed, it does exist, and should be neutered by appropriate institutional measures.

                There are also various studies that dishonestly imply that disparate outcomes is proof of “racial animus” , when closer study reveals that blacks nationwide are as likely or less likely than other races to be abused by police relative to their share of violent crime. When you commit 10x the rate of murders, you are going to experience 10x levels of difficult confrontations with cops. Anything reducing the numerator without changing the denominator will result in more crime, and more black deaths, not less.

                The WSJ editorial by Heather McDonald explained this in detail, and I am unaware of anything substantively contradicting it. Nobody on your pro-race-war side of the debate has offered any contradictory evidence, other than Chip who suggests without any evidence that the data is cooked and thus we should believe (grossly biased) anecdotes.

                As for these two particular cases, pointing out the facts would involve arguing that in the Floyd and the Blake cases that X, Y and Z happened. There is nothing factual at all indicating that these are caused by “racial animus.” This is spin, and yes, it is the type of spin that is leading to rioting, looting, and risks deteriorating and Escalating into the destruction of our country.

                Stop mongering for civic unrest and racial violence. It is wrong under any reasonable system of morality.

                Let me attempt to bow out of this and all future arguments with you two by clearly restating my case one last time.

                We need to improve police accountability and reform.
                We need to do so in ways which do not unfairly and dishonestly fan the flames of “racial animus.” Failure to do this second part, will create more problems than it solves. See Seattle, Portland, the Miracle Mile, and Kenosha for examples.

                That said, you guys are committed to this course. Ranting about racism gets you guys off. As such I predict that things will go from bad to substantially worse.

                I’ve said all I need to say.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Why do you believe they are the only game in town? Is it because they are the only one you are familiar with? Because it is the only one getting publicity?

                My guess is that the general issue of police reform is coming from a thousand directions, with city councils, unions, police departments, town halls, state legislatures, mayors, etc all exploring how to address the situation. As I should have made clear by now, BLM is both a distraction to the real reform and more likely to lead to making the situation worse, not better.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                Why do you believe they are the only game in town?

                Leverage. BLM has it*, no one else does.

                *Some. Not much.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Adding: Anyone who’s serious about police reform should be backing their play right now, and be trying to get a seat at the negotiating table to institute their preferred reforms.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                There is no negotiating table. Pelosi and her ilk are determined to block reforms so they can milk the issue till November. Support for “defund the police” has dropped to 16% as of mid-August, and is probably even lower now. The blue cities that might take crazy actions, like LA, Portland, Seattle, and New York, have fallen into chaos. There, the pendulum is going to swing hard the other way, and elsewhere nobody is going to do anything because they’re wanting even more police in case the violent communists descend on their own quiet little towns, demanding money, burning stores, and making threats.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                They are in no way serious about either police reform or improving the lives of any American. They are about victimology and making everything about race, when it isn’t. They are much more part of the problem than the cure. If BLM is the only game in town then we are in big trouble and we can expect a lot more young black kids to come to bad endings.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                This not only the least charitable understanding of what they’re doing, it’s so disconnected from reality it reads like right wing propaganda.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                So the entire left is running around screaming about white supremacists for what reason? It’s like they’re seeing witches, or ninjas, or Jews, behind every rock and tree. Unless they’ve been dropping acid, they certainly didn’t think that all up themselves. No, they were spoon fed anger and hatred for years by a particular party pushing a racist agenda, and that’s what turned them into violent, delusional lunatics.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                BLM had some leverage in the beginning, and then quickly squandered it by maintaining the violence, which so far has gotten 32 people killed, and injured countless more.

                Now they’re out attacking senators, state legislators, and threatening to burn down Catholic churches, using the violence they direct to gather in hundreds of millions in donations. Those are probably going straight to numbered Swiss bank accounts, because that money is certainly not going to poor black neighborhoods, except perhaps to pay people to commit arson and assault.

                Some Congressmen have been encouraging the DoJ to go after them under RICO statutes, and that may be how things proceed. It is a well-organized criminal enterprise, and it’s run via social messaging, make it easy to build airtight cases of extortion (they have demanded “protection money” from business owners), intimidation, assault, robbery, arson, and other criminal offenses.

                One of the founders was already arrested for running a human trafficking ring (slavery is bad, but only when the wrong people do it!), so we’ll see if the wheels of justice grind slowly but finely on the rest of them.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                You left out cannibalism, and pedophilia and Zionist bankers.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Only someone on the left would equate being a Zionist with being a cannibal or pedophile.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                “When you commit 10x the rate of murders, you are going to experience 10x levels of difficult confrontations with cops. ”

                No. This logic is flawed.

                1. Your logic assumes that the group of “Black People Who Murder” is evenly distributed within the group of “Black People”. They aren’t.

                Most violent crime is concentrated among a very small percentage of the population. Even in the worst most crime ridden neighborhoods, the vast majority of people living there are peaceful and law abiding. (This is why support for police abolition is low among the people who live there; They want protection, not anarchy).

                2. Your logic assumes that “difficult encounters with police” is somehow connected to murder investigations or violent crime. They aren’t.

                We see that de minimis crimes account for a lot of the”difficult encounters”; selling loosies, traffic stops, jaywalking or simply being a “suspicious person”. Most murder investigations end with nonviolent arrests.

                In addition to being completely at odds with empirical reality, your statistics just don’t tell the story you want them to.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s a question for you. American Indians and Alaska Natives are four times more likely (per 100,000) to be killed by police than Asians and Pacific Islanders. Where in police class do they teach the officers how to almost instantly make a racial distinction between a Samoan and a Cherokee, even in the dark, and where can the rest of us sign up for that class?Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                There is nothing in my argument that assumes even distribution of criminality within communities. I do agree that many of the altercations don’t stem from violent crime — Floyd and Blake are cases in point. If you watch McDonald’s video she also mentions a fact which I have been reluctant to repeat without seeing the source of the data, namely that black males are three times as likely to resist arrest than everyone else. Assuming this is true, it would also contribute to the perceived imbalance of altercations.

                Here is my suggestions to reform of the BLM agenda. Their first recommendation should be for everyone to stop resisting arrest and initiating violent altercations with cops.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                If you knew that the police are in the habit of arresting people in your neighborhood, and holding them for the max time allowed before letting them go, or get in front of a judge, even when the police have nothing more than a vague suspicion of guilt of something, I’m betting folks in your neighborhood would stop being complacent about arrest, especially when it means cars get impounded, kids gets get put in foster care, and jobs get lost.Report

              • Avatar Swami in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                And now you are for emasculating the police AND excusing resisting arrest. This is going to turn out well.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Swami
                Ignored
                says:

                “emasculating the police”

                What a time to be alive!Report

        • Avatar Slade the Leveller in reply to Swami
          Ignored
          says:

          What gets ignored here, even if we accept your premise about the disparity in treatment, is that every single person the police encounter is, at that time, constitutionally not guilty of a crime. It is never incumbent upon the police to render a verdict in the street.Report

          • Avatar Swami in reply to Slade the Leveller
            Ignored
            says:

            I don’t understand your point. Who is arguing that the police are responsible for rendering a verdict? The police are responsible for keeping the peace. In the Floyd case that involved getting the obviously delusional wack- job into their car. He resisted arrest, and they apparently used excessive force in detaining him. While using excessive force he appears to have OD’d.

            In the Kenosha case, we seem to have someone again violently resisting arrest, this time while allegedly holding a knife AND reaching for a gun in a car full of kids. The opinions from cops on the case that I have heard is that the shooting officer is more deserving of a medal than being charged with any misconduct (let alone a crime). I will defer to their judgment.

            I am all for police reform. Very much so.

            I am also all for recommending f’ing idiots to stop violently resisting arrest. When you violently resist arrest, you are opening yourself to negative repercussions both intended and unintended.

            The progressive media and the progressives on this site all have giant boners over their delight that they can spin various examples of jerks-resisting-arrest-gone-bad into a narrative that blacks are Innocent victims of a racist white society.

            This is the most cancerous narrative imaginable. It is wrong and it risks leading to civil war.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Swami
      Ignored
      says:

      “These types of clashes are inevitable as I have been arguing for months now. If the police are not empowered to thoroughly squelch rioters and looters and unless they are able to enforce curfews, then citizens are going to take matters in their own (probably even more incompetent) hands.”

      I realize you are describing a “what is” and not necessarily “what ought to be”.

      But does it matter at all that this “citizen” wasn’t a citizen of the town where this was happening or even the state? I want to leave aside all that transpired around Rittenhouse since it seems unclear exactly what actions instigated what reactions once he was already on the scene.

      I want to talk about his being at the scene in the first place.

      If we want to say, “Look… it was inevitable that people would defend their property if we disempowered cops to do so on their behalf,” I would probably agree with you.

      But was it inevitable that people would travel into an area to defend someone else’s property without any request that they do so and with no apparent threat to their own property?

      I mean, it strikes me from what I’ve read of his behavior on this night and his social media presence that this kid was on a collision course with shooting people. Which means the reason THIS particular incident happened has less to do with the surrounding context and more about someone who is fucked up or just awful or both.Report

      • Avatar Swami in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        I think that it is both inevitable that people will defend their property, and that conservatives will rise up in arms against the rioters to preserve law and order (forgive the obvious contradiction in terms, as I am explaining it from their view). My biggest shock is that it has been so rare so far. I am amazed militias have not driven to Portland to take the streets back or driven to the South to protect statues.

        Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a terrible thing and could lead to the death spiral of the rule of law. But the expected reaction to a lawless, angry, rioting left will be a lawless, angry, trigger-happy right.

        People tend to punch back when they don’t believe in the system to defend them. The left wing nutcases are punching back because they are convinced (wrongly) that the system is broken. The right wing nutcases will then punch back. This leads to a cycle of violence. I already explained the way off this cycle.Report

        • Avatar Swami in reply to Swami
          Ignored
          says:

          In reviewing my comment, I correct it to say the system is broken, but they are wrong to in how they view it is broken, and in how they should go about fixing it. The correction system is not working.Report

  15. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    The mom drove Rittenhouse to Wisconsin “to protect property.”

    https://www.instagram.com/p/CEZBZXPhr5D/?igshid=hu8dl3r0yp3hReport

  16. Avatar Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    Initial exchange re: the video

    Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
    August 26, 2020 at 9:40 am
    https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/26/kenosha-shooting-2-dead-1-injured-jacob-blake-protest-police-blm/

    Here is the video.

    Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
    August 26, 2020 at 9:59 am
    This made me wonder… is Kenosha a college town?

    Yep. It is.

    Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
    August 26, 2020 at 10:24 am
    Can you elaborate?

    The image of the shooter walking by the cops, gun hanging from his neck, and them not responding is… well… something.Report

  17. Avatar George Turner
    Ignored
    says:

    Watch: Residents fire warning shots as rioters move into residential neighborhoods in Kenosha

    The warning-shot stage won’t last very long. Homeowners will just start shooting the “peaceful protesters” when they show up in any numbers after dark.

    And the clock tracking the epic civil war moves closer to midnight.Report

  18. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    An interesting thread on Kenosha and Postmodernism.

    Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Quite a lot of Democrats and media figures are describing Rittenhouse as a “white supremacist” when they know for a fact he’s not. He’ll likely be contacted by Nick Sandman’s lawyer and end up richer than Leonardo DiCaprio. 🙂Report

  19. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The Criminal Complaint has been released:

    Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) — Prosecutors file 2 homicide charges, attempted homicide count against 17-year-old accused in Wisconsin protest shooting.

      Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Then it comes down to Rittenhouse having to show that Rosenbaum was somehow attacking him in a manner which would cause a reasonable man to be in fear of his life, and that Rittenhouse was not the instigator of whatever confrontation got the whole ball rolling.

      If the DA can provide evidence showing that Rittenhouse came to Kenosha with some kind of hope of getting into a confrontation, his defense is going to have a tough time making that case.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
        (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
        (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

        This reads to me (NAL!) like the Florida statutes.Report

        • Avatar InMD in reply to Stillwater
          Ignored
          says:

          It is consistent with common law principles and other statutes I have seen. And it makes sense. On the one hand a person shouldn’t get the benefit of self-defense in a fight that person provoked. On the other hand, a provoked person should not have license to do whatever they want to another person legitimately retreating, just because the person retreating started it.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Yes?

            The statute outlines the conditions under which the provoker retains the right to use lethal force in self-defense. (The purpose of my posting it was narrow, a response to Oscar’s suggestion that Rittenhouse couldn’t invoke a self-defense defense if he was the provoker.)Report

            • Avatar InMD in reply to Stillwater
              Ignored
              says:

              Just noting that the approach itself is not an outlier in light of our earlier discussion about Florida/Zimmerman.Report

            • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Stillwater
              Ignored
              says:

              He can invoke self defense, but he has to show that the deceased was not only attacking him, but also a lethal threat.

              If the deceased was not attacking him, but someone else was (and the DA can produce evidence of that), then you have a stray shot problem, and the defense has a tougher hill to climb (in most states, it’s understandable that you might injure an uninvolved third party while defending yourself, but if you did so through reckless action, your claim is weaker).

              If the deceased was attacking him, but no reasonable person could think that their life was in obvious danger* (e.g. fit 17 year old versus arthritic 82 year old), then the claim is weaker.

              *Note this is a big part of the reforms I’d make to police use of force. I can’t shoot someone because I think they are going for a weapon, I have to wait until I see the actual weapon and have a reasonable belief that they are going to use it against me.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            I’ve seen it floated (maybe here? maybe elsewhere?) that this situation falls into the “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes” bucket. And that tends to be aimed at the protestors. Hey, what did you expect when you tried to confront or attack a guy with a gun?

            But shouldn’t that swing both ways? Like, what did you expect to happen when you shot people?

            Seems like both/all parties might have been acting stupidly. Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there with a gun. The protestors shouldn’t have confronted/attacked him. The protestors got shot. Rittenhouse goes to jail.

            Only… wait… somehow that last part might not happen. I guess to the victor goes the spoils.

            The protestors don’t get to claim “self-defense” and be healed of their wounds. They don’t get to escape accountability for their actions.
            Why should Rittenhouse? They all played the same stupid game. Shouldn’t they all get whatever prize came their way?Report

            • Avatar InMD in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              I’ve made it pretty clear in my comments that I think his role in putting himself in the situation ought to weigh heavily against him, even if the use of force is deemed lawful. Subject always to full investigation of the facts of course.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes yes… not disagreeing with you. Riffing off you, as the kids say.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                his role in putting himself in the situation ought to weigh heavily against him,

                Very likely yes.

                Having said that, there are potential not stupid reasons for him to be there, and it’s also easy to think he might want to have a gun if the police lose control over the “non-violent protesters”.

                Has he made any kind of statement on what he thought he was doing?Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                There are video interviews he gave before the shootings of why he was there. I haven’t watched them. They may be in the NYT link Jaybird shared.Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              “They all played the same stupid game. Shouldn’t they all get whatever prize came their way?”

              I’m sure that’s what the cops thought when they put holes in Jacob Blake. “He was askin’, now he’s gettin’, if he doesn’t like the taste then he shouldn’ta ordered the meal.”Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            Yes, another example of the law being filled with “it depends” caveats, in that it creates incentives to de-escalate and disengage, and punishes provocation and incitement.

            Which seems contrary to a lot of the “stand your ground” and “Castle Doctrine” arguments I see online, where people imagine some sort of legal framework that indulges their desire for maximum intransigence and hair-trigger retaliation.Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
          Ignored
          says:

          What the defense will argue will likely be along these lines:

          Rosenbaum was in hot pursuit of Rittenhouse, as seen in a video. Not far behind Rosenbaum is another BLM activist with an AR-15 (who quickly checks Rosenbaum after Rosenbaum is shot). The video doesn’t show what transpired once both men had run between the vehicles in the car lot, but Rittenhouse was fleeing and Rosenbaum was definitely in pursuit. The “right to pursue” is very limited, and usually only covers recovery of stolen property or an immediate need to stop a crazed criminal who is running amok, which does not apply in this case.

          As an aside, anyone who charges a person armed with a gun can be considered “extremely dangerous” by the person with the gun, just given the fact that they’re so intent on an action that they’re willing to risk their own life.

          Second, when being pursued by an armed mob, the right to self defense isn’t limited to just the armed attackers, since they are a group, and it can apply to anyone willfully impeding a person’s flight to safety. For example, if one of them is holding you by the pant leg while the spear wielding phalanx is coming to finish you off, you can shoot the unarmed person holding you by the pants to make him let go.

          This would apply to the subsequent attack by the guy with the skateboard. A skateboard does not have to be a lethal weapon, because the wielder is using it to assault Rittenhouse and keep him on the ground while another assailant, armed with a pistol in his hand, is approaching. Rittenhouse shot both, got up, and continued his escape, while pointedly not firing at any other potential assailants who had suddenly stopped their pursuit or put their hands in the air to show they were unarmed.

          Rittenhouse then fled toward the police with his hands in the air. He’d tried to disengage multiple times and never charged his attackers (that we can see), and did not shoot at anyone who wasn’t actively attacking him, so far as anyone can determine.

          The law is likely going to be on his side.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            I stopped reading after the first sentence. The defense is going to argue that Rittenhouse took every reasonable measure to retreat from and avoid conflict but after continuing to be pursued he legitimately feared for his life.

            He’ll even say those words: “Your honor, members of the jury, distinguished members of the press, I only shot because I legitimately feared for my life.”Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater
              Ignored
              says:

              From what I understand, he shouldn’t take the stand.

              Will the backgrounds of those he shot be admissible?Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Will the backgrounds of those he shot be admissible?

                The answer varies from state to state, and I don’t know Wisconsin evidence law. It would not be admissible in NY unless the shooter knew the characters for violence of the persons he shot.
                Any Wisconsin criminal lawyers out there?Report

            • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Stillwater
              Ignored
              says:

              He’ll even say those words: “Your honor, members of the jury, distinguished members of the press, I only shot because I legitimately feared for my life.”

              The prosecution’s response, of course, is “Members of the jury, he crossed a state line, carrying a firearm, and proceeded on foot into Kenosha in violation of the curfew, then killed people.” I may be wrong, but at this point I trust the suburban/urban Kenosha jury.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                Is he charged with carrying across state lines as a minor?Report

              • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                That would be a federal crime, tried in federal court. I understand that the state of Illinois is being asked to extradite him on charges of murder one under Wisconsin state law.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                OK, you’re not talking about the kid being charged with those actions, just that it paints a picture of intent and so on which the jury might gobble up.

                I’d say that, at least based on my reading of the statute, the legality, morality, motivation, of the kids actions prior to the event drop out of consideration *if* the conditions for the use of lethal force for the provoker have been met. Which is what I’m sure the defense attorney will say in response to the prosecutor.Report

              • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah. The prosecutor puts up this picture

                17 miles from home, across a state line, in violation of the same curfew the local police keep hammering on, with no request by officials for civilian assistance. Maybe the Midwest has changed this much since I was a kid there. It’s been a long time.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                with no request by officials for civilian assistance

                There’s video of the cops saying something like “we’re glad your here, we appreciate the help” though!

                Michael, all I can say is that I hope you’re right.Report

              • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                That can’t last. I’m sure that at least the people higher up in local police departments realize that if their officers are going to let people who look like this roam free, it is only a matter of time before the extreme anti-cop element realize there’s an easy way to get close enough to kill many officers.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                He can’t be, because that’s not illegal.

                Federal law does not restrict individuals from transporting legally acquired firearms across state lines for lawful purposes except those explicitly prohibited by federal law to include convicted felons; persons under indictment for felonies; adjudicated “mental defectives” or those who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions; illegal drug users; illegal aliens and most non-immigrant aliens; dishonorably discharged veterans; those who have renounced their U.S. citizenship; fugitives from justice; persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence; and persons subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders. Therefore, no federal permit is required (or available) for the interstate transportation of firearms.

                At the time his mom undoubtedly drove him home, he wasn’t wanted for anything, and thus wasn’t a fugitive.Report

          • Avatar InMD in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            That is certainly what his attorney is likely to argue, and who knows, he may well prevail.

            But you never answered my question above. Would you send your 17 year old out to do this? Guard some random person’s used car lot with a rifle in the midst of civil unrest that has nothing to do with you, possibly committing some firearm infractions along the way? Why so quick to, in the words of the self-defense instructor Oscar referenced, go out and violate the Rule of Stupid?Report

            • Avatar George Turner in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              Oh heck yeah. What do you think the tens of millions of parents of military members did? Heck, their kids sailed over and ended up guarding some random Frenchman’s car lot from German panzers. ^_^

              They also committed rampant firearms infractions. In Italy my dad fished with hand grenades, in violation of numerous fish and wildlife laws. In France he fired a bazooka round into some Frenchman’s chimney without pulling the arming pin on it, using a water trough and a battery to fire it, just because he’d found a live bazooka round. It probably later irritated the Frenchman, who wasn’t home at the time.
              He fired tens of thousands of rounds of German ammunition just for fun – and to kill the boredom. Defending an American business 20 minutes up the road? That’s a no-brainer.

              And further undermining the prosecutions case is witness testimony that Rittenhouse treated many members of BLM for injuries, as Rittenhouse is an EMT. He also gave them water bottles and such, which they probably later threw at him. That completely undercuts the narrative that he was only there to cause trouble.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                In the video from before the shooting, Rittenhouse identifies himself as an EMT, shouting, “Medical, EMS right here, I’m an EMT.” But the department said he was only enrolled in their explorer program for less than a year.

                No, he’s not an EMT. At best he has some advanced First Aid training. If that qualifies one as an EMT, then I am an EMT.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to George Turner
                Ignored
                says:

                Ah hes, Wisconsin the war zone. And I’m sure all the Euro types clapped after all of those hilarious hijinks.Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Stillwater
          Ignored
          says:

          “(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.”

          There’s video evidence of Rittenhouse fleeing from the fight and Rosenbaum pursuing him. The court case will take six months to pick a jury, who will hear one day of evidence and deliberate for five minutes, and find Rittenhouse not guilty.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m currently wondering about bail and whether it’ll be set.Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Twitter post that goes back to Andy Ngo.

          GRAPHIC: A friend of the man who rushed at the #Kenosha teen with a pistol and was shot in the arm has posted an update about his status. Doctors were able to save Gaige Grosskreutz’s right arm. The friend says Gaige regrets not being able to kill the teen.

          And with that, Rittenhouse’s defense attorney started doing the Snoopy dance.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        Oscar,

        Because Jaybird mentioned your post on police reform, I’m curious how you would have like to see the police respond in the moment.

        https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/26/kenosha-shooting-2-dead-1-injured-jacob-blake-protest-police-blm/Report

        • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          @Kazzy

          Which moment, there be a wealth of them to choose from in Kenosha?Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Oscar Gordon
            Ignored
            says:

            The moment where Rittenhouse walked past and then towards police cars/officers, hands raised, gun hanging from a strap around his neck, immediately after gunfire occurred in the direct vicinity.

            I’ve heard he was attempting to turn himself in and admitted to shooting someone, which it does sort of look like he’s doing but I didn’t hear that on the video so will not say that the cops ignored his “confession.”

            It is the last portion of the video I linked to.Report

            • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              At the very least, he should have been detained for questioning and his weapon checked for recent firing.

              If I am being critical (and when am I not when it comes to police), the reason he wasn’t is (IMHO) two fold:

              1) He visually coded as not a protester, either becuase he was recognized from earlier, or because he’s white, etc.

              2) Officers seemingly pathological need to be able to claim they were in the thick of it, so we get a version of the bystander problem (everyone assumes someone else will take care of it).Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Point #1 is an interesting one, because if true it makes clear that the police were on “a side”. They weren’t there to keep the peace. They were there to police the protestors and ONLY the protestors.

                Patrick Cahalan posted a photo on FaceBook yesterday that showed protestors and counter-protestors in LA. They were standing on opposite sides of a street. The police were all on one side of the street — the protestors — all facing that direction.

                So, if we want to use Jaybird’s framing device of “divorce or war”, then we need to recognize that the cops have not only seemingly chosen “war” but they’ve chosen their side.Report

              • Avatar George Turner in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, kind of like the Russian Army eventually chose a side in WW-II, after noticing that the German troops seemed intent on killing them in encounter after encounter.

                The “protesters” constantly chant “death to pigs” and things like that, throw rocks and explosives at them, throw Molotov cocktails at them, blind them with lasers, etc. Cops notice things like that.

                Last night In Kenosha a bus and a van full of Seattle protesters showed up. The police put them under surveillance and the interlopers started handing out gasoline containers, so the cops swept in and arrested all of them. We’ll see if they get hit with federal charges, or just state.

                They’ve already very likely to have handed Trump a landslide in Wisconsin. Large numbers of Democrats there say they’re flipping to Trump because they don’t feel a bit safe, and don’t feel their local leaders are intent on quelling the violence, while the governor seems to be actively instigating it. Worse, the violence never even got mentioned at the DNC convention.

                Michigan and Minnesota will probably likewise shift dramatically as the unrest continues, as may several other states. When people don’t feel safe going shopping downtown, and when they worry that their entire neighborhood might be invaded and burned, they rethink who they’ve been supporting. This is likely especially true for women.

                Continued violence will push the election into a choice not between the parties as they were, but between pro-BLM/Antifa riots and anti-BLM/Antifa riots.Report

  20. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    And now you are for emasculating the police AND excusing resisting arrest. This is going to turn out well.

    First off, you need to get over the idea that somehow reducing the power and legal protections of the police, or removing the tools they most often abuse, is somehow emasculating them. It’s not. Almost everything I have suggested police stop doing or give up is something that is relatively recent, and more often than not a direct result of the drug war or the GWOT, i.e. it’s not something they historically needed to do their day to day jobs. In most cases, it’s something that was supposed to be reserved for when shite went biblically pear shaped, and has instead become something used in the most inane circumstances.

    That’s not emasculation, it’s telling them to pull on their big girl panties and stop relying on violence as a crutch. The military can somehow manage to respect tight ROEs, but ask cops to do the same, and suddenly they can’t bother doing their jobs anymore.

    As for resisting arrest, I don’t recommend it, but I do understand it. In my perfect world, an officer would pay a price for arresting a person for something the DA refuses to prosecute for. Maybe it’s just lost pay for wasting everybody’s time, or maybe it’s that the officer has to go around and explain to bosses and social workers and the impound lot that it was all a mistake and could they do him a solid and make the person whole again. Hooking someone up for ‘Contempt of Cop’ or whatever crap they feel like should have consequences, significant ones. The fact that SCOTUS has long deluded itself into thinking that getting locked up for a weekend has minimal consequences and is a small price to pay for an abundance of caution tells me that we need to stop picking judges from HYPS.Report

    • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon
      Ignored
      says:

      Are you claiming the police of yesteryear were less brutal, more professional, and more respectful of civil rights?Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Dark Matter
        Ignored
        says:

        Hell no, there are still officers who see it as a duty to harass and beat the poor and dispossessed, but they didn’t have QI, or patrol rifles, or APCs, or CAF, or no-knock warrants, or “Officers Bill of Rights”, or seem to be prone* to panic shooting citizens because they live in a self imposed culture of fear.

        *AFAIK officers were less prone to panic shootings. I could be wrong, maybe they’ve always been a jittery bunch. We don’t have anything close to good stats on officer involved shootings even today, much less back in the Jim Crow or Civil Rights eras.Report

        • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon
          Ignored
          says:

          First, I went looking for numbers for arrests to see if they suggest what you’re talking about is a significant issue. I found the following: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/08/26/arrests-report/

          You can read that either way so it didn’t answer my question but it is interesting in that it suggests mental health is a big issue here.

          2nd, I’m extremely hard pressed to think we’d look back at the Jim Crow era and say we’d want their police tactics. My expectation is that while they didn’t have QI and the rest, it didn’t matter. QI and these others are ways to avoid police reform… but even the idea wasn’t much of a thing back in the day.Report

          • Avatar George Turner in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            “Impunity, not immunity!”

            I’m puttin’ that on a sign. 🙂Report

          • Avatar InMD in reply to Dark Matter
            Ignored
            says:

            We wouldn’t want the racist aspects of their culture that were the norm of the era. But it is useful to remind ourselves that some of these policies treated as sacrosanct by LEOs are pretty recent. The kinds of things Oscar is talking about really only ramped up in the 70s as a reaction to urban blight then intensified through the 80s crack epidemic. That’s when we got mass criminalization, the war footing, the quotas, the warrior mentality, etc.Report

            • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to InMD
              Ignored
              says:

              it is useful to remind ourselves that some of these policies treated as sacrosanct by LEOs are pretty recent.

              It’s probably also useful to keep in mind that these “recent” inventions were the replacements for practices that were serious vile by modern standards.

              In the 1930’s the Supremes ruled that “A confession extracted through police violence cannot be entered as evidence”. That’s as opposed to simply outlawing beating a confession out of someone which apparently was still fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Mississippi

              The South’s police started as the “slave patrol” and one of their jobs was to terrorize slaves, after slavery ended their job became to enforce Jim Crow, i.e. terrorize minorities.

              We went to the “military” model to encourage police professionalism. The push for increasing police professionalism in the 1950’s led to the police creating unions in the 60’s and 70’s which was a “resistance to increasing charges of police brutality, corruption and other forms of misconduct”.

              https://plsonline.eku.edu/sites/plsonline.eku.edu/files/the-history-of-policing-in-us.pdf

              The police have NEVER been run the way you want. As far as I can tell, if we ignore individual practices and just look at brutality, as we go back in time the level of brutality increases and ditto the expected lack of professionalism.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree they’ve never been the way I would want them run, but then where did I say they had?

                The rest of your response addresses none of the actual accountability problems that are at issue. Yea, 100 years ago there were places where the police looked more like glorified neighborhood watches and informal posses and carried out their work accordingly. Crime was also of course a lot lower (with an exception for prohibition) and professional police forces weren’t widespread outside of the largest cities.

                All of that is besides the point being made which is that our policy decisions are just that, decisions, many of them relatively recent.
                Contra the police line they can be revisited without the world ending. Maybe someone here is arguing they should be revisited in a way that makes them less professional rather than more but if so I’m not seeing it.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                We went to the “military” model to encourage police professionalism. The push for increasing police professionalism in the 1950’s led to the police creating unions in the 60’s and 70’s which was a “resistance to increasing charges of police brutality, corruption and other forms of misconduct”.

                Yea, that was a mistake without put them under the UCMJ, or something similar.

                However, you are making my point for me. Removing power, and/or protections, from the police, is not emasculating them (in the sense of making them weaker or less effective). What I aim to do is to align the power the police wield with the responsibility/accountability appropriate to it*.

                A no-knock warrant served on a house that has a weak connection to the target of an investigation should have penalties akin to a home invasion. Or at the very least, if we are going to treat the warrant as a shield from that, then every officer who participated in the raid should be facing perjury charges** for lying on the warrant (or the judge should be facing charges for signing a weak warrant).

                The police wield incredible power with very little in the way of responsibility/accountability for how it is used***.

                That is what really needs to change.

                And if the police are not comfortable with the increased responsibility/accountability, then the power they wield needs to be curtailed to what they are comfortable with.

                *Police are civilians, they should be held to a similar standard with regard to the violence they can employ.

                **Since the police do not have a command and control structure that is as strict as the military, then every officer is accountable for their own actions. They can not claim they were following what they believed to be a lawful order.

                ***Remember, the military operates under such constraints and still gets the job done, and they do it for far less pay and social benefit.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                I generally agree with your recommendations and ideas, feeling that they would be a good step forward to a more accountable and better working police idea. But, and this is very important, many of the issues we are having stem from changes we (via our elected representatives) consciously made in the way these issues were handled.

                QI arose out of the need to protect officers who were doing what was perceived as legitimate aspects of the job, and yet departments were being sued left and right. Often for frivolous reasons. It didn’t just pop up out of thin air, it came about due to judicial needs and opinions.

                Likewise, all the tactics that arouse from the drug war. We often voted for direct laws to account for this or elected officials who talked about the need to fight this. And in many cases, the people pushing hardest for these laws are now the people being hardest hit by them.

                Every bit of “non-lethal” methods and tools has the potential to become lethal at the drop of a hat, and until this is stressed, we will continue to be shocked and amazed that these actions did not work as desired. When I was a kid, LA’s chokehold was one of the most common of these tactics, but people did die, so it was switched to the clubbing that Rodney King was videotaped receiving. And that is one step on the path that leads to a tazor death, or George Floyd being choked.

                All of that to say that any changes we make should be very cautious, lest they do greater harm down the line. And no, this isn’t a call to make zero changes but to be careful, lest we cause additional damage.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                Ya know, while I support the protests, I remain firm in my belief that the people doing the protesting are not really thinking about any of this. They are people reacting to pain, without thinking about why the pain is occurring (Why does a joint lock hurt? Because you are reactively trying to pull out of the lock.). That is why the demands are so vague or all over the map.

                You can’t just say, “Stop killing us!” without first coming to grips with why that is happening and how we got to this place.

                I mean, of the proposals, things like ending (or even just seriously relaxing) the drug war, and NOT sending police to respond to obvious mental health or vagrancy calls would go a long way towards ending the violence. And ending, or severely restricting*, no-knock warrants would also help a whole lot.

                But yeah, it is very important to understand how we got here, why QI exists* in it’s imperfect state, etc. It’s not simply that ACAB. We created a system that attracts the B*stards to the profession, we need to own that.

                *Consistent use of Body Cams should alleviate the need for QI, to be honest. I also recommend (as I did in my post some months ago) that each squad car have a camera drone that is tagged to an officer. Have it dock to the top of the squad car or something. Officer leaves the car, drone automatically deploys and starts recording on a 360 camera. We literally have this technology right now, people use it to record themselves doing crazy stunts on ski slopes and base jumping off of mountains.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                90 days ago, I would have agreed with you 100% about the protests, now I am not so sure. But, that is neither here nor there. I think the fundamental problem is one of what the police are for, and how do they achieve that is what is up in the air, and that is what leads to much of the problems we are encountering. As with much of society in general.

                The original role of police, urban or rural, north or south, was to keep the peace. And that is a very nebulous description. It includes everything from slave catching to keeping bikes off the freeway, riot control to traffic control. And not all of it strictly legal as the police are neither judges nor juries, the final arbiters of the law.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                QI arose out of the need to protect officers who were doing what was perceived as legitimate aspects of the job, and yet departments were being sued left and right. Often for frivolous reasons. It didn’t just pop up out of thin air, it came about due to judicial needs and opinions.

                The problem is that the police don’t (only) use QI to defend themselves against tough calls.

                They also use it to defend against, for example, cops stealing from someone. (Em wrote a great essay about that.)

                If it was used for a rough judgment call? We could have people arguing both sides and each side would have good points for what they’re arguing.

                Hospitals has a list of things that are called “Never Events”. You know, operating on Jonathan Smythe instead of John Smith, doing surgery on the right arm instead of on the left arm (of the right guy, this time), leaving a clamp or a scalpel instead of a patient…

                They’re not “everybody makes mistakes” events. They’re Never Events. They’re stuff that everybody agrees should never happen. Ever.

                If QI was used to defend stuff that required a judgment call… well, you have to understand…

                But it’s used to protect against Never Events.

                That’s not what QI is for.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I am not disagreeing with that analysis in the slightest, and it isn’t really what I am talking about. But what you are showing is how what looks like a standard, normal legal point can get turned on its head and used to defend anything.

                And surgeons actually call those Never Events, which would be analogous to the police actions that happen again and again, Normative Faults. As in the specific action, egregious as it is, is a norm for that person.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                Hospitals have a lot of those “never events”, basically because “never” is a very long time and stack up mistakes happen once every whatever.

                Everyone agrees the surgeon should never leave a sponge in a patent. It happens extremely rarely, any specific surgeon may never see it over the course of his practice.

                When it does happen, if not caught right away, it kills or maims the patent.

                The problem is if it happens once every 10 thousand times, we have more than 120 million surgeries a year. That suggests 12k never events just from this.

                Note that’s more than 10x as often as the police killing someone.Report

              • Avatar Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                ***Remember, the military operates under such constraints and still gets the job done, and they do it for far less pay and social benefit.

                I’m not going to say you’re wrong about any of this (you have a lot of very sane suggestions), but these are complex systems and I’m not sure we know what we’re doing.

                For example, there are a lot of dead innocent people in countries where our military is doing their thing. A few are because we’re killing them, far more because of side effects.

                Change “the job” to no innocents can be killed and they’re also responsible for stopping everyone else, then I’m not sure that’s workable even with the military’s higher standards.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                War is a messy business, innocents will die.

                The thing is, if you are a Marine, and you are going door to door looking for someone, and your ROE is ‘Do not fire unless fired upon or you have definitively identified a weapon pointed at your or your team mate’, and some kids gets a bullet for whipping out a cell phone to record you, you absolutely will face an Article 31 hearing, and possibly a court martial, and JAG or CID will not cut you some slack just because you are a Marine.

                But at the same time, Marines train nearly constantly so that they don’t make that mistake. Which is a problem for the police, because we don’t demand the same of them. The public doesn’t understand that those are perishable skills.

                We could, but we are all too busy having them conduct revenue generation, or do welfare/mental health checks, or harass homeless people, etc.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                As I recall it, the switch to the military model of policing coincided with the Nixon era “War On Crime”, which also coincided with the public image of urban areas as lawless chaotic war zones.

                Which is to say, there was a shift in thinking, where the residents of urban areas were increasingly seen as an alien hostile enemy to be suppressed rather than civilians to be protected.

                Which continues to this day.
                Overall, the police don’t see us as fellow citizens but as enemies.Report

              • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                There were a lot of relevant things going on at that time. States were hemming cities in with, for example, amendments that stopped the cities from annexing (in Colorado, the Poundstone Amendment). There was flight to the suburbs — not just the well-known “white flight” over schools, but big companies were pulling back-office white-collar work out of the urban core at a high rate*, creating a variety of employment mismatches, poverty, etc. The predecessors of the drug gangs/cartels were organizing and there was now a lot of cheap space in those areas. The gangs were heavily armed for fighting with each other. When law enforcement encountered them, the police were frequently outgunned. Militarization was not an unlikely outcome.

                * Consider the case of Bell Telephone Laboratories, one of the greatest industrial labs of all time, where I knew people who lived through the following. Until WWII, Bell Labs was located in Manhattan. When they needed to expand, new space in the city was hideously expensive and they built in Murray Hill, NJ. Then they needed on the order of a square mile to test microwave stuff, and they went farther south to Holmdel, NJ**. When they added thousands of coders for switching systems, they put them in the outer reaches of the Chicago suburbs near where the sprawling assembly plant was. Suppliers of high-end services for the Labs followed. Garreau’s Edge Cities has dozens of other examples from across the country.

                ** Factoid: Rain absolutely kills microwave signals. The Holmdel location was chosen after a bunch of secret research because it sits in a strange local weather anomaly and gets several inches more rain per year than surrounding areas, which was useful for testing.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                The problem is if it happens once every 10 thousand times, we have more than 120 million surgeries a year. That suggests 12k never events just from this.

                Note that’s more than 10x as often as the police killing someone.

                This is part of the problem, right here.

                It is not, nor has it EVER been, ‘The police can never kill a person’. No one gets outraged when someone charges a cop with a knife in their hand, or starts shooting at a cop with a gun, and they get dead because of it.

                And hell, no one is honestly expecting that the police will never kill an innocent person.

                Seriously, all of you doing it, STOP laying that out as if it’s a real argument, It’s unrealistic BS.

                It’s about the police refusing to seriously take responsibility for their mistakes.

                When a surgeon screws up and leaves a sponge inside a person, the hospital or the surgeon A) probably hands the person affected a check, or at the very least, doesn’t charge them for the screw up, and B) conducts a critical review of what went wrong and