But everyone’s a “badass vigilante” who ‘stands their ground,’ though.
Eventually Zimmerman will run across someone even worse than himself.
10 Likes
That depends on the state Felony Murder statute. Not all states even have one (and this is a uniquely American legal abomination, FYI). Wisconsin does have Felony Murder, but only for a few things- armed robbery, kidnapping, arson, and rape, pretty much. IANAL but it doesn’t appear that Rittenhouse’s felony would invoke Felony Murder.
6 Likes
According to the evidence, he was assaulted, but that assault could have been Martin acting in self defense. At any rate, how much danger he was actually in or not, the point is he used that as justification for his actions. But Zimmerman never should have been in that situation in the first place. He put himself there.
I agree. They put themselves in the middle of something and later claimed self defense.
Zimmerman never should have taken it upon himself to confront anyone.
Rittenhouse should have stayed home and never taken it upon himself to defend some random business.
And yes Zimmerman, from everything I’ve seen, is a massive piece of shit who has learned nothing.
2 Likes
Thank you for that! I didn’t know. I learn something new every day, especially when I hang out here. 
6 Likes
If someone is stalking you, how do you expect people to react? Zimmerman stalked and murdered the kid. Pure and simple. Zimmerman (and the neighborhood) was not in danger, and the fact that he got off is a massive miscarriage of justice that reveals just how racist our systems are.
It’s really not “assault” if you’re genuinely in fear for your life, which given that some strange adult is following him around, Martin must have been.
Zimmerman is plain and simple, a racist piece of shit who should have been convicted of murdering a child. He can fuck right off.
16 Likes
“he hit me first”
“he shoved me”
“he bumped into me”
“he looked at me funny”
if you offer assholes a loophole, they will use it
8 Likes
Felony Murder rules allow the states to charge marginally involved accomplices with murder. Suppose Alice decides to burglarize a store, and she asks Bob; to act as a driver, or a lookout. Unbeknowst to Bob, Alice runs into a guard, and ends up stabbing the guard (Eve). Bob can be charged with Eve’s murder, even though he had no idea that Alice was even armed.
Getting rid of the “felony murder” rule wouldn’t affect Alice’s criminal liability-- it would just diminish Bob’s liability,
If Wisconsin felony murder rule were extended to all felonies, Rittenhouse’s dealer could be charged with murder-- and not just crimes like selling guns to a minor. That strikes me as a massive overreach.
2 Likes
In case it wasn’t clear by my referring to felony murder as a “uniquely American legal abomination”, I am strongly opposed to it. It’s much like California’s Three Strikes Law, wherein it sounds good to scared suburban white people in campaign ads, but the primary effect of it is to lock up black people for their entire lives for minor crimes.
10 Likes
You can certainly come up with scenarios that break a laws intention or makes it hard to discern who is the real victim here. The laws should be crafted to prevent bad faith actors, like the examples mentioned above, from getting away with murder.
But you can also come up with scenarios where it is clear who the victim is. Those people should be able to defend themselves with out fear of legal consequences.
I am not sure why this is that controversial. I am saying we should have laws that makes it clear what Rittenhouse did was wrong with out the possibility of legal wiggle room.
1 Like
In the case of both of these men, it IS clear who the real victims were. Any attempts to muddy the waters on that is pure white supremacist fantasy.
And it was NOT Zimmerman and Rittenhouse. There are people out there trying to claim otherwise, but they are not acting in good faith. They WANT a white supremacist society where shooting Black people and their allies is perfectly legal. Let’s not forget the governor of FL wants to expand the stand your ground laws to include shooting “looters and rioters”, which people will be allowed to define however they see fit.
9 Likes
I am not attempting to muddy the waters. Zimmerman was acquitted so the waters were already muddy. I can agree what he did was murder, that isn’t what the legal system or part of society agrees on. It’s bullshit, I agree on that.
Rittenhouse seems to be more likely to be convicted, but I wouldn’t bet money on it because it is possible he could wheedle out of this or at the least be convicted of lesser crimes with a light sentence and not murder.
I agree. I am completely on the same page. I tried to spell that out and I am not sure if you think I am suggesting they are, but I have tried to say that each and every time.
I am saying the laws should be spelled out that there isn’t any confusion to this. ZImmerman shouldn’t have been acquitted, and Rittenhouse should be convicted. They both went out actively looking for trouble until they found it and then were “forced” to react. That isn’t self defense. The laws should be enumerated in such a way that this is made clear.
I don’t support expanding the laws to “looters and rioters”, as that sounds more or less like vigilante justice.
1 Like
I did not say YOU are, I’m saying that there are people attempting to do so, for a very specific reason.
Our legal system is deeply racist and is in intense need of reform.
That’s the muddying waters folks I’m talking about here.
Good. Cause it was.
Entirely possible.
That’s precisely the goal.
The law should NOT exist at all. It’s clear it was created specifically to aid and abet white people shooting Black people, as that’s how it’s been used. When a Black woman attempted to defend herself from an abusive partner by shooting into the floor, she got 25 years. 
These laws almost always benefit the people who they were written for, which is the white establishment. Time to rethink a good deal of our legal system to stop doing that, and make us all equal before the law.
11 Likes
OK, thank you for the clarification. I agree.
Which complete, infuriating bullshit and the sort of thing I want to avoid. Same with people like Kenneth Walker who was initially charged and still has the possibility looming over him, but would have a chance of fighting any charges thanks to Kentucky’s self defense laws.
Rethinking the law is what sparked this - where I said we should enumerate the difference between defense and acting in bad faith looking for conflict.
I agree “These laws almost always benefit the people who they were written for, which is the white establishment.” We can say that about all of the laws. From self defense to parking tickets to zoning laws. If the law is meant to protect, it won’t be applied to them. If there is a law that can be used against them, it will.
Law are only good if they are applied and enforced properly. Justice is supposed to be blind, but the people in the system are not.
1 Like
It would not. You have the basic gist of felony murder statutes. They are limited in what felonies can invoke it. Typically it is robbery, burglary, and arson.
2 Likes
You’re looking for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Self defense is already a thing. What are you looking for in a law, that isn’t covered by self-defense?
Edited for clarity
4 Likes
The long arm of the law is intended for those people, and not for creatures of privilege.
1 Like
There’s something similar in the UK, used unsurprisingly by the police to persecute young BAME men primarily.
It’s called the Joint Enterprise Law
1 Like
I wasn’t so sure about this half an hour in, but I was glad I finished it.
1 Like
I think the question of Rittenhouse’s innocence or guilt is beside the point with regard to why Ricky Schroeder and the My Pillow Guy (along with a variety of others) posted his bail. In fact, I think they are expecting, and hoping, he will be found guilty.
Conservatives have been trying for years to expand “2nd Amendment Rights” and nullify States’ Rights with respect to requiring one state to recognize and honor the gun rights of other states. California doesn’t allow conceal and carry? Just apply for an online Florida license and you are all set.
In their minds, Kyle Rittenhouse is an attractive poster boy for getting these laws passed in Congress, or getting State laws overturned by the Supreme Court. A community minded young man took it upon himself to defend the property of upstanding businesses persons in Kenosha, was assaulted by evil BLM and Antifa supporters, stood his ground, and now will (hopefully) be found guilty by a liberal court system that wants to “strip honest Americans of their ‘God given’ 2nd Amendment rights.”
Biden’s election puts the legislative path on hold, but they still have a conservative Supreme Court they can appeal to. For their strategy of getting a conviction based on WI gun laws overturned, and restrictive gun laws effectively nullified by the Supreme Court, Rittenhouse needs to be found guilty. For them to win in the court of public opinion, they need to keep him in the news, and the $2 million bail was a god send to them.
I hope I am being paranoid, but I just can’t figure out why anyone would care enough to lay out that kind of cash for a kid so obviously LARPing Resident Evil and hoping to put a couple notches in his rifle butt.
4 Likes
Except his community doesn’t include people who he deems worthy of death. WTF, conservatives?
You are sadly not. They want the ability to kill people they deem “unAmerican” with no consequences. They want to expand what the police already do to vigilantes.
7 Likes
