3 ms·

Another example - Kyle Rittenhouse - is out on bail and he travelled from another state with a gun then killed 2 people in Kenosha. He's not yet been tried (or

by smcl 6y ago

Another example - Kyle Rittenhouse - is out on bail and he travelled from another state with a gun then killed 2 people in Kenosha. He's not yet been tried (or found guilty, but ... come on) but I think we all know he's not going to serve anything like 68 years in prison.

ciupicri 6y ago
There's a difference between a bail and being declared not guilty. Anyway he was supposedly defending himself, while Ligon was robbing and assaulting people, so the cases are different.
dionidium 6y ago
These aren’t even remotely similar cases and mentioning the Rittenhouse case here is an unnecessary and unhelpful distraction.
- smcl 6y ago
  Why? We are discussing that one kid got 68 years for not killing someone, and another kid is probably not going to get anything close to that for killing two. Now, I know there are more things involved in crime and sentencing than whether someone killed anyone but it should be crystal clear that these are very worthy of comparison. On the other hand you are right in one respect - they're not remotely similar in that one boy was white and the other black. I know we're not going to "solve" racism in the comments section of HN but I think it's important to confront the fact that race is an overwhelming factor in how these cases play out.
  - marvin 6y ago
    The question in the Rittenhouse case isn’t what sentence people get for murder. It’s whether he committed murder at all, or killed in self-defense after having the horrible (and probably ethically unsound) judgement to travel armed to an obviously violent event. It’s not an example of what’s being discussed. There’s more than enough cases that legitimately make the case for racial sentencing discrimination. Quoting this ridiculously politicized case will only harm the cause by providing ammunition to the other side. I mean, I personally think that 68 years in prison for almost anything is a horribly abusive practice. Acceptable for some few instances of violent crime. But since I also believe that killing in self-defense can sometimes be justified with no punishment, it’s not a very good point to use for discussing.
    - 40four 6y ago
      This is way off topic, but I’m very curious to the outcome of the Rittenhouse trial. There is no doubt he killed those people. There are multiple videos of it. Whether or not the court finds it falls under ‘reasonable’ self defense according to Wisconsin law will be interesting. They will have to decide that he A) He used only the force necessary to prevent or terminate interference with his person. And B) He reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
      - smcl 6y ago
        I don't think it is offtopic or if it is then my mention of Rittenhouse in the first place was. I am very curious too. I have a pretty bad feeling that he will get off extremely lightly and that as a result the US will see renewed unrest. Given the original topic that kicked off this thread, the unrest will be entirely justified.
      - marvin 6y ago
        My guess at this point would be that he gets convicted for having violated firearms laws, but not for murder. It's an interesting case, but the political climate surrounding it spans much more than just the shooting, and is (seen with international eyes and an attempt at staying impartial) completely bonkers. He shouldn't have been there in the first place, and there shouldn't have been any incentive for anyone else to be either. The fact that there was a remotely plausible rationale for a vigilante policing force in the first place is just insane. That the police didn't roll up and say "go home, this is our job" is ridiculous. Then, of course, pouring fuel on the fire, the whole situation attracts a lot of people who want to commit violence - maybe including Rittenhouse himself. None of this should happen in a first-world country, and it's not something that will be solved with a murder trial. Regardless of its outcome. There seem to be deep and persistent currents in American society that form the basis for events like these, and every honest assessment and candid dialouge attempting to fix them is a good thing. It might be off topic to a degree, but people getting life sentences willy-nilly is definitely part of the same web of causal relationships.
    - sdenton4 6y ago
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Just because a person is killed does not mean that a crime has been committed. There are lawful reasons, such as self defense, defense of a third person, etc.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
jeswin 6y ago
Not American, but the Wikipedia entry on the incident suggests that the two aren't in any way comparable. At the same time, sentencing a 15-year old kid (who hasn't even committed murder) to life in prison and not reconsidering it so far into the 21st century - that's cruel and unusual punishment. Boggles my mind.
- smcl 6y ago
  I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with this one. But let's try it this way - switch the positions of the 17 year old white kid and the 15 year old black kid. Do you believe the outcomes would be the same? Do you think the black kid would get bailed after killing two people and then have (in addition to support among various gun rights groups) numerous people on HN hand-wringing and explaining that technically killing someone is actually not a crime in every circumstance? No, we'd see pics of the black kid presented as menacing, everyone would talk about him as a "young man" instead of "a little boy", any and all indiscretions he'd committed would be dug out and published everywhere and ultimately used against him. Of course we're dealing with hypotheticals so people will play dumb and either pretend I'm being absurd or just say they'd treat both the same because that's the easy way out. But I think deep down we all know the truth.

by smcl 6y ago

ciupicri 6y ago

There's a difference between a bail and being declared not guilty. Anyway he was supposedly defending himself, while Ligon was robbing and assaulting people, so the cases are different.

dionidium 6y ago

These aren’t even remotely similar cases and mentioning the Rittenhouse case here is an unnecessary and unhelpful distraction.

smcl 6y ago
Why? We are discussing that one kid got 68 years for not killing someone, and another kid is probably not going to get anything close to that for killing two. Now, I know there are more things involved in crime and sentencing than whether someone killed anyone but it should be crystal clear that these are very worthy of comparison. On the other hand you are right in one respect - they're not remotely similar in that one boy was white and the other black. I know we're not going to "solve" racism in the comments section of HN but I think it's important to confront the fact that race is an overwhelming factor in how these cases play out.
- marvin 6y ago
  The question in the Rittenhouse case isn’t what sentence people get for murder. It’s whether he committed murder at all, or killed in self-defense after having the horrible (and probably ethically unsound) judgement to travel armed to an obviously violent event. It’s not an example of what’s being discussed. There’s more than enough cases that legitimately make the case for racial sentencing discrimination. Quoting this ridiculously politicized case will only harm the cause by providing ammunition to the other side. I mean, I personally think that 68 years in prison for almost anything is a horribly abusive practice. Acceptable for some few instances of violent crime. But since I also believe that killing in self-defense can sometimes be justified with no punishment, it’s not a very good point to use for discussing.
  - 40four 6y ago
    This is way off topic, but I’m very curious to the outcome of the Rittenhouse trial. There is no doubt he killed those people. There are multiple videos of it. Whether or not the court finds it falls under ‘reasonable’ self defense according to Wisconsin law will be interesting. They will have to decide that he A) He used only the force necessary to prevent or terminate interference with his person. And B) He reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
    - smcl 6y ago
      I don't think it is offtopic or if it is then my mention of Rittenhouse in the first place was. I am very curious too. I have a pretty bad feeling that he will get off extremely lightly and that as a result the US will see renewed unrest. Given the original topic that kicked off this thread, the unrest will be entirely justified.
    - marvin 6y ago
      My guess at this point would be that he gets convicted for having violated firearms laws, but not for murder. It's an interesting case, but the political climate surrounding it spans much more than just the shooting, and is (seen with international eyes and an attempt at staying impartial) completely bonkers. He shouldn't have been there in the first place, and there shouldn't have been any incentive for anyone else to be either. The fact that there was a remotely plausible rationale for a vigilante policing force in the first place is just insane. That the police didn't roll up and say "go home, this is our job" is ridiculous. Then, of course, pouring fuel on the fire, the whole situation attracts a lot of people who want to commit violence - maybe including Rittenhouse himself. None of this should happen in a first-world country, and it's not something that will be solved with a murder trial. Regardless of its outcome. There seem to be deep and persistent currents in American society that form the basis for events like these, and every honest assessment and candid dialouge attempting to fix them is a good thing. It might be off topic to a degree, but people getting life sentences willy-nilly is definitely part of the same web of causal relationships.
  - sdenton4 6y ago
- giantg2 6y ago
  Just because a person is killed does not mean that a crime has been committed. There are lawful reasons, such as self defense, defense of a third person, etc.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

jeswin 6y ago

Not American, but the Wikipedia entry on the incident suggests that the two aren't in any way comparable. At the same time, sentencing a 15-year old kid (who hasn't even committed murder) to life in prison and not reconsidering it so far into the 21st century - that's cruel and unusual punishment. Boggles my mind.

smcl 6y ago
I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with this one. But let's try it this way - switch the positions of the 17 year old white kid and the 15 year old black kid. Do you believe the outcomes would be the same? Do you think the black kid would get bailed after killing two people and then have (in addition to support among various gun rights groups) numerous people on HN hand-wringing and explaining that technically killing someone is actually not a crime in every circumstance? No, we'd see pics of the black kid presented as menacing, everyone would talk about him as a "young man" instead of "a little boy", any and all indiscretions he'd committed would be dug out and published everywhere and ultimately used against him. Of course we're dealing with hypotheticals so people will play dumb and either pretend I'm being absurd or just say they'd treat both the same because that's the easy way out. But I think deep down we all know the truth.