Racism in America (with data)

[Little Raven]

If the first shooting fits certain crime categories, he could be ineligible to claim self-defense in the second. Otherwise the “bad guy with a gun” would have the right to self-defense after a robbery.

She does address that. In her opinion, Kyle will almost certainly be eligible, because he clearly fleeing at all times. (even at the time of the first shooting) HOWEVER, she does think that if the prosecution can prove that Kyle showed up with the intention of killing someone or displayed a reckless abandon toward human life in his actions, then he may still be found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide even if the jury finds the shootings to be in self defense.

She offers no speculation on how the prosecution might succeed in doing that.

[Unagi]

If the first shooting fits certain crime categories, he could be ineligible to claim self-defense in the second. Otherwise the “bad guy with a gun” would have the right to self-defense after a robbery.

But I am not a criminal defense lawyer.

I thought I heard someone describe it as such:

He couldn't claim self defense against a office of the law that was attempting to stop him (with a gun, etc).... but if a random person came up and started to threaten him, he could ?

[Little Raven]

He couldn't claim self defense against a office of the law that was attempting to stop him (with a gun, etc).... but if a random person came up and started to threaten him, he could ?

You're almost never allowed to claim self-defense against a cop, no matter what happens. That's a whole separate category. If you fight the law, the law will win - in court, anyway.

Zarathud is referring to something else. If I break into your house with a pistol, and then you show up with a shotgun, but I fire first and kill you - I can't claim self-defense....because I was actively committing a crime when I "defended" myself. If (hypothetically, by all the evidence we have, this is NOT what happened) Kyle had executed the first protester in cold blood, and other people rushed him to stop him, and he shot a couple of them....he would not be eligible for a self-defense claim on the latter shootings, because he was aggressor, and other people were merely trying to stop him from committing additional harm.

From the video, Kyle is already running from a crowd by the time of the first shooting, and he always resumes running once people back away from him, so he's probably covered under Wisconsin law, which says (among other things)

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.

The theory being that if the bad guy is running away, you're supposed to call the cops and let them deal with it, not jump in yourself and play hero. They're allowed to do all sorts of things that private citizens are not.

[ImLawBoy]

I'll preface this by stating that I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I suspect a self defense claim goes out the window for a felony murder charge (i.e., a death that is caused by the felon in the course of committing a felony). If he were also committing a felony (and I don't know that he was, but there may be something about his possession of the firearm or transporting it over state lines or something), then I think a prosecutor could go for a felony murder charge.

[LawBeefaroni]

If the first shooting fits certain crime categories, he could be ineligible to claim self-defense in the second. Otherwise the “bad guy with a gun” would have the right to self-defense after a robbery.

But I am not a criminal defense lawyer.

I thought I heard someone describe it as such:

He couldn't claim self defense against a office of the law that was attempting to stop him (with a gun, etc).... but if a random person came up and started to threaten him, he could ?

That's exactly why it's never a good idea to play cop and try to chase/apprehend someone. If they are actively engaged in attacking someone you use your judgement but if they are "getting away" it's best to let them.

[msteelers]

because I was actively committing a crime when I "defended" myself.

If he's found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm, wouldn't his self-defense argument go out the window? He was committing a crime, and someone died.

[Little Raven]

If he's found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm, wouldn't his self-defense argument go out the window? He was committing a crime, and someone died.

No. That's a misdemeanor, not a felony. You're allowed to defend yourself if someone attacks you for, say, playing your radio too loud - even if technically you were in violation of some law somewhere at the time.

[Zarathud]

Yes, there are certain classes of crimes (certain felonies, etc.) which result in presumed intent and prevent arguments of self-defense. But I am not a criminal defense lawyer and not licensed in Wisconsin (or even following all the developments), and cannot guess as to specific charges and how that plays out.

[Blackhawk]

FWIW, when I read the relevant Wisconsin laws, there was a clause that stated (very paraphrased, it's late here) that the claim to self defense became available again if a criminal was fleeing from a confrontation and communicated that to the other party (likely satisfied by the fact that he was fleeing in plain sight.)

In other words, if the robber breaks into your house with a gun, you show up with a shotgun and he shoots you, it's not self defense. But if the robber shouts "I'm gone!" and flees the house and you pursue him down the street to with the shotgun, it may* become self-defense for him to shoot you then.

*This is where the case gets murky again. Was he still a threat to the pursuers, or to other bystanders? It seems like most of the pursuers were just making sure that the police knew he was the shooter and weren't trying to stop him themselves, but the ones who attacked him when he was down may have given him back his right to self defense.

[Unagi]

If his crime (or perceived threat to others) was that he was willing to shoot into crowds... I could see how just running away from one group wouldn't convince anyone that the 'bad guy' was not just running to another group... and they could feel compelled to actually stop him, not just pass the buck to the next block over.

[malchior]

Rittenhouse's lawyer certainly seems to have a strategy for getting attention/funding.

[LawBeefaroni]

Who is the tyrant? Something tells me they don't mean the executive in charge.

[Holman]

Pleading treason is certainly an interesting strategy.

[Isgrimnur]

Pleading treason is certainly an interesting strategy.

Him and whose army?

[Kurth]

Rittenhouse's lawyer certainly seems to have a strategy for getting attention/funding.

This line of "defense" is not surprising in the least coming from John Pierce and his law firm. They are right-wing ideologues who care more about their right wing causes than they do about this stupid Rittenhouse kid.

[Little Raven]

When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
When the law is on your side, pound the law.
When neither is on your side, pound the table.

As far as I can tell, both the facts and the law are pretty well on Kyle's side when it comes to the more serious charges, so the fact that his lawyer is pounding the table so hard is interesting. I can think of two reasons:

• Kurth is correct, and his lawyer is pushing an agenda much larger than the actual case
• This is an attempt to get Kyle off the hook for the weapon possession charge, where both the facts and the law are very much NOT on his side

Possibly a combination of both. Either way, it is not what I would do in Kyle's place.

[malchior]

Does anyone else smell heaping piles of BS here? Barr apparently has really amped up his service levels providing a thin veneer of legitimacy to justify Trump's insane babbling.

[Grifman]

I guess this goes here as much as anywhere - we have another African American wannabe:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/03/us/jessi ... index.html

A professor of African and Latin American studies who portrayed herself as Black has now revealed she has been lying.

Jessica A. Krug, an associate professor at George Washington University, has written extensively about Africa, Latin America, the diaspora and identity, all while claiming her own Black and Latina heritage. But in an article published on Medium.com on Thursday, Krug revealed the truth: She is White.

"To an escalating degree over my adult life, I have eschewed my lived experience as a white Jewish child in suburban Kansas City under various assumed identities within a Blackness that I had no right to claim: first North African Blackness, then US rooted Blackness, then Caribbean rooted Bronx Blackness," she wrote.

Krug acknowledged in her post that she had no right to claim these identities, saying that "doing so is the very epitome of violence, of thievery and appropriation, of the myriad ways in which non-Black people continue to use and abuse Black identities and cultures."

She apologized for what she calls her "continued appropriation of a Black Caribbean identity," saying she was wrong, unethical, immoral, anti-Black and colonial.

"I am not a culture vulture," she wrote. "I am a culture leech."

[Grifman]

Just so everyone knows, looting is ok:

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch ... of-looting

It also attacks the very way in which food and things are distributed. It attacks the idea of property, and it attacks the idea that in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things that people just like them somewhere else in the world had to make under the same conditions. It points to the way in which that's unjust. And the reason that the world is organized that way, obviously, is for the profit of the people who own the stores and the factories.

My favorite quote:

So you get to the heart of that property relation, and demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free.

Yeah, we can have things for "free" if the police just get out of the way. I just knew that "stealing' was never really a thing.

Thankfully, there's been a lot of common sense pushback:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ng/615925/

[noxiousdog]

Just so everyone knows, looting is ok:

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch ... of-looting

It also attacks the very way in which food and things are distributed. It attacks the idea of property, and it attacks the idea that in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things that people just like them somewhere else in the world had to make under the same conditions. It points to the way in which that's unjust. And the reason that the world is organized that way, obviously, is for the profit of the people who own the stores and the factories.

My favorite quote:

So you get to the heart of that property relation, and demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free.

Yeah, we can have things for "free" if the police just get out of the way. I just knew that "stealing' was never really a thing.

Thankfully, there's been a lot of common sense pushback:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ng/615925/

It's looting when it's your house. It's stealing when it's my house.

[LawBeefaroni]

Just so everyone knows, looting is ok:

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch ... of-looting

It also attacks the very way in which food and things are distributed. It attacks the idea of property, and it attacks the idea that in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things that people just like them somewhere else in the world had to make under the same conditions. It points to the way in which that's unjust. And the reason that the world is organized that way, obviously, is for the profit of the people who own the stores and the factories.

My favorite quote:

So you get to the heart of that property relation, and demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free.

Yeah, we can have things for "free" if the police just get out of the way. I just knew that "stealing' was never really a thing.

Thankfully, there's been a lot of common sense pushback:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ng/615925/

Posted in another thread but it fits here too.

[Little Raven]

NPR admits it screwed up with that interview.

NPR Public Editor Kelly McBride said in a newsletter Thursday that the interview “did not serve NPR’s audience” and was “wrong about recent events.”

“Publishing false information leaves the audience misinformed. On top of that, news consumers are watching closely to see who is challenged and who isn’t. In this case a book author with a radical point of view far to the left was allowed to spread false information,” McBride wrote.

The author of the new book, Vicky Osterweil, made many statements without fact-checking, or push back from journalist Natalie Escobar, who was interviewing her.

[El Guapo]

NPR admits it screwed up with that interview.

NPR Public Editor Kelly McBride said in a newsletter Thursday that the interview “did not serve NPR’s audience” and was “wrong about recent events.”

“Publishing false information leaves the audience misinformed. On top of that, news consumers are watching closely to see who is challenged and who isn’t. In this case a book author with a radical point of view far to the left was allowed to spread false information,” McBride wrote.

The author of the new book, Vicky Osterweil, made many statements without fact-checking, or push back from journalist Natalie Escobar, who was interviewing her.

I dunno, I don't love it when there's blowback over interviews with controversial people. I'm glad that NPR did the interview - there's been a lot of quasi-defense of looting that's been done in kind of an anti-anti-looting framework. So I'm glad that they put out a pro-looting argument so that it can be openly dissected.

Should the NPR interview have pushed back more? Probably. But I think the interview was worth doing anyway.

[Little Raven]

I dunno, I don't love it when there's blowback over interviews with controversial people. I'm glad that NPR did the interview - there's been a lot of quasi-defense of looting that's been done in kind of an anti-anti-looting framework.

NPR isn't apologizing for interviewing Vicky Osterweil, they're apologizing for how that interview was conducted. It's perfectly fine to interview controversial people - it's less fine when you allow controversial people to state their (insane) opinions as if they were facts.

[Grifman]

"I am a racist"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... -town-hall

This reminds me of a cult meeting, where everyone had to go around confessing their sins, whether they were guilty of them or not. Racism is real but this kind of political correctness and coercion is plain stupid.

[Little Raven]

This reminds me of a cult meeting, where everyone had to go around confessing their sins, whether they were guilty of them or not. Racism is real but this kind of political correctness and coercion is plain stupid.

Someone hasn't done his homework.

This stuff is White Fragility 101. For better or worse.

[Skinypupy]

The White House has banned racial sensitivity training as "un-American propaganda"

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reportedly directed federal agencies to cancel employee racial sensitivity training that may be "divisive" and "un-American," according to multiple reports.

A memo obtained by The Post and first reported by Real Clear Politics specifically instructs federal agencies to cancel contracts that teach employees America is an "inherently racist or evil country."

In the memo, OMB Director Russell Vought says President Trump specifically instructed him to cut millions in taxpayer dollars used on contracts with racial sensitivity training. The memo specifically notes training sessions that discuss "white privilege" or "critical race theory" and orders all contracts that can be legally canceled to be ended.

“The President has directed me to ensure that federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions,” the memo reads.

First off,

Secondly, this makes me really nervous what it could do to my business, 90% of which is unconscious bias training in federal agencies. While we don't delve deeply into race theory or privilege in our program, discussion of bias could potentially be lumped under the same umbrella and tossed out.

[Holman]

The White House has banned racial sensitivity training as "un-American propaganda"

"and also doubleplusungood crimethink."

[LawBeefaroni]

Kenosha.

Two Missouri men face federal charges that they attempted to travel to Kenosha, Wis., to "pick people off" with firearms they weren't legally allowed to possess, the Justice Department said.

...

The Kenosha Police Department said it received word from a law enforcement agency in Iowa that Karmo and Smith planned to travel from Missouri to Kenosha "to loot and possibly 'pick people off,'" according to a criminal complaint Thursday.

Using cellphone data, the FBI tracked the two men to the hotel, where agents said they found an Armory AR-15 assault rifle, a Mossberg 500 AB 12-gauge shotgun, two handguns, a silencer, ammunition, body armor and a drone.

After questioning, agents determined that Karmo had a prior felony conviction, and Smith had a prior misdemeanor domestic battery conviction, making both prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition.

Both men were charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, and Smith faces additional charges of aiding and abetting a felon in possession of firearms. Each of the charges carries up to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000.[/quote

[RunningMn9]

No mention of their political affiliation. Odd. (At least in what you quoted, I didn’t bother to click the link )

[LawBeefaroni]

No mention of their political affiliation. Odd. (At least in what you quoted, I didn’t bother to click the link )

From FOX news:

The pair arrived in the city Tuesday to participate in a rally to support President Trump, who toured the city and met with local officials. They went to a local high school where Trump was speaking and brought handguns, but locked them in a car, Karmo allegedly told investigators.

[Holman]

TPM: DHS Indicates White Supremacists Pose Gravest Terror Threat

The documents indicate that “lone offenders” and “small cells of individuals” are increasingly joining up with people who share their ideologies and “will pose the primary terrorist threat to the United States.”

“Among these groups, we assess that white supremacist extremists – who increasingly are networking with likeminded persons abroad – will pose the most persistent and lethal threat,” the report indicates.

Later drafts of the report refer to “Domestic Violent Extremists” –– shifting away from the terminology “white supremacist extremists” –– as “the most persistent and lethal threat.”

The threat of these groups in all three reports is ranked above the immediate danger posed by foreign terrorist groups.

And apparently even the right-wing DHS can't dig up enough evidence to cast antifa or BLM as domestic terror threats:

According to Politico, none of the drafts indicated a threat from Antifa, who President Donald Trump and White House officials have suggested are invading American cities to cause chaos by looting and initiating violent riots. Two drafts of the report suggest that extremists have tried to exploit the “social grievances” that have proliferated protests around the country.

“Among DVEs [Domestic Violent Extremists], we judge that white supremacist extremists (WSEs) will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland through 2021,” all three versions of the report state.

The two later drafts of the report suggest that “simple tactics – such as vehicle ramming, small arms, edged weapons, arson, and rudimentary improvised explosive devices – probably will be most common.”

The report also weighed in on foreign threats, indicating that in fact Russia will probably be “the primary covert foreign influence actor and purveyor of disinformation and misinformation in the Homeland.”

[Little Raven]

Kenosha.

Good. The veneer of civilization can crumble quickly in the face of political violence. It should be stopped as quickly as possible.

[Skinypupy]

Judging by the endless parade of retweets of white faces claiming that banning diversity training will “save America”, I’m guessing Stephen Miller is running Trump’s Twitter account this morning.

Somehow, the racist bullhorn is even more vomit-inducing than usual today.

[$iljanus]

Judging by the endless parade of retweets of white faces claiming that banning diversity training will “save America”, I’m guessing Stephen Miller is running Trump’s Twitter account this morning.

Somehow, the racist bullhorn is even more vomit-inducing than usual today.

There's America and there's White America. I think I know which America Trump wants to save.

[malchior]

93% of BLM protests have been peaceful.

The vast majority of Black Lives Matter protests—more than 93%—have been peaceful, according to a new report published Thursday by a nonprofit that researches political violence and protests across the world.

The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) analyzed more than 7,750 Black Lives Matter demonstrations in all 50 states and Washington D.C. that took place in the wake of George Floyd’s death between May 26 and August 22.

Their report states that more than 2,400 locations reported peaceful protests, while fewer than 220 reported “violent demonstrations.” The authors define violent demonstrations as including “acts targeting other individuals, property, businesses, other rioting groups or armed actors.” Their definition includes anything from “fighting back against police” to vandalism, property destruction looting, road-blocking using barricades, burning tires or other materials. In cities where protests did turn violent—these demonstrations are “largely confined to specific blocks,” the report says.

[Holman]

The White House has banned racial sensitivity training as "un-American propaganda"

...

First off,

Secondly, this makes me really nervous what it could do to my business, 90% of which is unconscious bias training in federal agencies. While we don't delve deeply into race theory or privilege in our program, discussion of bias could potentially be lumped under the same umbrella and tossed out.

Also this:



If you squint hard, you can see a pattern.

[LawBeefaroni]

NFAC Louisville, anyone?

[stimpy]

Must have attended the Red Ryder School of Gun Safety

[LawBeefaroni]

Must have attended the Red Ryder School of Gun Safety

Likely they're from the self defense school. Very different than the march-around-with-guns-school. Self defense says always carry hot, for good reason. Military and hunting safety rules say safety on, no round in the chamber, also for good reason.


Just another reason why open carry, especially with non-holsterable guns, is a dumb idea.