4 ms·

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
    Dude kills two people while wearing a certain color hat matching other people he's spending a lot of time with... Most of the time under those circumstances, the question of self defense isn't going to enter into the following discussion.
    - dionidium 6y ago
      Why would you invent a detail about an event that was captured on video and so easily refuted? He was wearing a white hat.
      - smcl 6y ago
        It sounds like the "color of hat" is a metaphor here
        dionidium 6y ago
        It very clearly was not, but I hope I can at least rest my case on what a pointless distraction this subthread was destined to be.
        smcl 6y ago
        You seemed pretty keen to take part in the more pointless parts - like talking about the colour of someone’s hat - so I’m not sure you get to play that card.
- 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]

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
  Dude kills two people while wearing a certain color hat matching other people he's spending a lot of time with... Most of the time under those circumstances, the question of self defense isn't going to enter into the following discussion.
  - dionidium 6y ago
    Why would you invent a detail about an event that was captured on video and so easily refuted? He was wearing a white hat.
    - smcl 6y ago
      It sounds like the "color of hat" is a metaphor here
      - dionidium 6y ago
        It very clearly was not, but I hope I can at least rest my case on what a pointless distraction this subthread was destined to be.
        smcl 6y ago
        You seemed pretty keen to take part in the more pointless parts - like talking about the colour of someone’s hat - so I’m not sure you get to play that card.
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]