Kyle Rittenhouse and Julius Jones

[Scarlett]

I have been trying to stay out of the news because it is just all so upsetting....but these two cases are really on my mind right now.

I have not closely followed Kyle Rittenhouse and I am sure someone here has....my overview in my mind is that his mother brought him across state lines with a weapon and dropped him off to help protect businesses from the protestors/rioters.  He then got into a confrontation with some of the protestors and/or rioters and ended up killing two. He claims self-defense.....can you claim self defence when you initiate the conflict with a weapon?    He was 17 years old when this happened.  I have really conflicted emotions about it because he is only 17 but a lot of people are convicted of crimes they committed at age 17 and go to jail for a long long time....my main question is Has his mother been charged in any way?  Seems like she should hold some responsibility. 

And the Julius Jones case.  He is going to be executed at 4 today if Gov Stitt does not grant clemency.  My mind is blow by the Gov refusal so far....and also by the victim's family's insistence that Julius is absolutely guilty and deserves to die.  To me there seems to be enough question to justify NOT executing a man that may be innocent. 

That is all.  

[Katy]

The Julius Jones case is terrible.  The innocence project has a brief summary that’s pretty good if anyone wants to understand the problem.

Kyle Rittenhouse… the question is about intent because it’s legal to open carry in Wisconsin. Even if it’s extremely stupid to do so at a protest. And if he’s found guilty there will be an immediate mistrial over prosecutor misconduct. Apparently there’s a video that shows him inciting the initial violence (which would mean it is clearly murder not self-defense) and his attorney was not given a good copy, but a compressed version that lacked so much detail the defense didn’t have the ability to address it. At least this is the way DH explained it to me. He’s interested from a gun rights perspective. The older I get the more I hate guns, so I’m not directly following. 

The whole case makes me sick. I blame a certain news station and the friend’s (that bought him the gun) dad. No matter what there’s no justice in it.  Not in being a stupid kid caught up in mob mentality encouraged by adults who should have known better. Not for the victims. It’s a tragedy all around. No verdict can make it right. 
 

I keep telling my kids protests are stupid and if they want to change something avoid places that are likely to turn violent. Write letters to the editor. Make a YouTube video or write something compelling that convinces people to change their minds. 

[Scarlett]

12 minutes ago, Katy said:

The Julius Jones case is terrible.  The innocence project has a brief summary that’s pretty good if anyone wants to understand the problem.

Kyle Rittenhouse… the question is about intent because it’s legal to open carry in Wisconsin. Even if it’s extremely stupid to do so at a protest. And if he’s found guilty there will be an immediate mistrial over prosecutor misconduct. Apparently there’s a video that shows him inciting the initial violence (which would mean it is clearly murder not self-defense) and his attorney was not given a good copy, but a compressed version that lacked so much detail the defense didn’t have the ability to address it. At least this is the way DH explained it to me. He’s interested from a gun rights perspective. The older I get the more I hate guns, so I’m not directly following. 

The whole case makes me sick. I blame a certain news station and the friend’s (that bought him the gun) dad. No matter what there’s no justice in it.  Not in being a stupid kid caught up in mob mentality encouraged by adults who should have known better. Not for the victims. It’s a tragedy all around. No verdict can make it right. 
 

I keep telling my kids protests are stupid and if they want to change something avoid places that are likely to turn violent. Write letters to the editor. Make a YouTube video or write something compelling that convinces people to change their minds. 

Yes, that is what I am hearing about the KR case....but it sounds like the video will aid the prosecution so if it is retried he will likely be convicted.  But who knows.  Politics seems to be so involved I can't even guess.

And to the bolded yes I agree.  He was failed by the adults in his life.

And the JJ case.  Ugh. I am sickened that Gov Stitt is dragging this out to the last minute.  The parole board recommend clemency....he is just playing games imo.

 

[Katy]

I just don't think anyone under the age of 25 should ever get the death penalty.  Well I don't think anyone should ever get the death penalty, but definitely not 18-24 year olds when the crime was committed.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

I am horrified over the Julius Jones case. I am not pro-death penalty anyway, but especially here.  
 

Kyle Rittenhouse….I actually thought he was guilty of murder until I watched the trial and some of the footage.  Now I can buy an argument for self defense. I have shot AR 15s and don’t have a clue why he’d need one or want one…but it doesn’t appear that he was really in any violation of the Wisconsin weapons laws and he’s not on trial for mere bad judgement. (He shouldnt have been there and what mother drops her 17 year old kid off in that situation with a weapon! What?!) Mostly the prosecutor has just come across as an idiot. He lost me when he started questioning KR about him invoking the 5th Amendement. 

[gardenmom5]

48 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I have been trying to stay out of the news because it is just all so upsetting....but these two cases are really on my mind right now.

I have not closely followed Kyle Rittenhouse and I am sure someone here has....my overview in my mind is that his mother brought him across state lines with a weapon and dropped him off to help protect businesses from the protestors/rioters.  He then got into a confrontation with some of the protestors and/or rioters and ended up killing two. He claims self-defense.....can you claim self defence when you initiate the conflict with a weapon?    He was 17 years old when this happened.  I have really conflicted emotions about it because he is only 17 but a lot of people are convicted of crimes they committed at age 17 and go to jail for a long long time....my main question is Has his mother been charged in any way?  Seems like she should hold some responsibility. 

And the Julius Jones case.  He is going to be executed at 4 today if Gov Stitt does not grant clemency.  My mind is blow by the Gov refusal so far....and also by the victim's family's insistence that Julius is absolutely guilty and deserves to die.  To me there seems to be enough question to justify NOT executing a man that may be innocent. 

That is all.  

Kyle lived 20 minutes away.  17 is legal to have a rifle. (that's why the judge dismissed the gun charge.)

The then nine year old daughter of the victim was in the same room when her father was shot in the head - she testified she saw Julius Jones pull the trigger.

[fairfarmhand]

22 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

The whole case makes me sick. I blame a certain news station and the friend’s (that bought him the gun) dad. No matter what there’s no justice in it.  Not in being a stupid kid caught up in mob mentality encouraged by adults who should have known better. Not for the victims. It’s a tragedy all around. No verdict can make it right. 
 

I keep telling my kids protests are stupid and if they want to change something avoid places that are likely to turn violent. Write letters to the editor. Make a YouTube video or write something compelling that convinces people to change their minds. 

This 

[Katy]

He lost me when he pointed the gun at the jury and put his finger on the trigger.

[teachermom2834]

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial is so upsetting. The whole situation. 

I think he never should have been there. I wouldn’t want my teen boys hanging out with him. I’m pretty sure if I knew him in real life I’d not be a fan. But I think he is not guilty of murder. 

But that doesn’t seem to be a reasonable opinion. Apparently the only options here are that KR is a murderer or he is a hero. The men he shot apparently are either attempted murderers or heros. 
 

I actually think they are all bad actors. But I also think KR should be found not guilty. But I would hardly glorify him! 
 

I don’t think anyone in this situation is an angel fighting for justice or a hero. Why are those the only options? 
 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by teachermom2834

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

Kyle lived 20 minutes away.  17 is legal to have a rifle. (that's why the judge dismissed the gun charge.)

The then nine year old daughter of the victim was in the same room when her father was shot in the head - she testified she saw Julius Jones pull the trigger.

I think you have the JJ case confused.  He was killed in his vehicle. 

[ealp2009]

According to testimony, KR’s mother didn’t bring him there and didn’t know he was there and he didn’t have the rifle until he got there.   

Maybe there are better news outlets on this but this gives a basic outline. 
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, ealp2009 said:

According to testimony, KR’s mother didn’t bring him there and didn’t know he was there and he didn’t have the rifle until he got there.   

Maybe there are better news outlets on this but this gives a basic outline. 
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/

Ok, well that makes me feel  a little  better for some reason.  I had read she drove him to the protests.  (This is why I posted to y'all----you always know the story)

[fairfarmhand]

30 minutes ago, teachermom2834 said:

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial is so upsetting. The whole situation. 

I think he never should have been there. I wouldn’t want my teen boys hanging out with him. I’m pretty sure if I knew him in real life I’d not be a fan. But I think he is not guilty of murder. 

But that doesn’t seem to be a reasonable opinion. Apparently the only options here are that KR is a murderer or he is a hero. The men he shot apparently are either attempted murderers or heros. 
 

I actually think they are all bad actors. But I also think KR should be found not guilty. But I would hardly glorify him! 
 

I don’t think anyone in this situation is an angel fighting for justice or a hero. Why are those the only options? 
 

 

YES! This was such a stupid stupid thing. The protestors were being stupid, KR was stupid for being there, friend's parent was stupid for getting the weapon to him. This did not have to happen. 

[Syllieann]

It was really misguided for KR to be there, but I'm going to be pretty upset if he is found guilty of murder, particularly Rosenbaum.  I'm surprised though, that they don't have some lesser charges going. 

*deleted*

The drone footage in question shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse.  The part the prosecution is interested in is that right before being shot he lowered his head and was hit in a prone position.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Syllieann

[Farrar]

This quote about the Julius Jones case from a Republican state rep really sums up for me why the whole "law and order" stuff in executing an innocent man is so wrong. And why it's so hard for people on the other side to take conservatives seriously when they say this stuff - they don't practice what they preach in far too many cases.

Quote

“If we believe, as conservatives, in law and order and the criminal justice system, then we have to make sure the system is getting it right,” Talley said.

[Lady Florida.]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

  To me there seems to be enough question to justify NOT executing a man that may be innocent. 

 

This is why I'm anti death penalty. If one innocent person is executed then the death penalty fails. And we know that innocent people are executed. It doesn't happen often but that doesn't matter. If it only happens once that's too many times. 

I've mentioned before on WTM that I knew Margaret Bowman, one of the women killed by Ted Bundy at FSU. Her sorority house was two doors down from mine and we hung out together for 2 years before the attacks happened. I wanted Bundy dead. I was teaching when his execution finally came and as it turned out I had first period planning (he was executed at 7am). I sat in my car and listened live on the radio. After it was over I felt no sense of relief or justice. He was without a doubt guilty of the crimes he was executed for but his victims were still dead. If he spent the rest of his life in prison he wouldn't be able to kill again and his punishment would have been longer.

It was after Bundy's execution that I started changing my view on the death penalty - I was pro before that. Even though he was guilty I began thinking of innocent victims of the death penalty. If the ethical arguments aren't convincing the financial reality is that life without parole costs taxpayers less than the death penalty.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Lady Florida.

[WildflowerMom]

Re: Julius Jones.   Idk enough at all to decide if he was guilty.   But I am anti death penalty, so really it wouldn't matter to me anyway.   (I am  anti death penalty, but for the sake of transparency, that view ends when we're talking about child se* crimes.  I really don't give a rat's as* what happens to them.  I'm just trying to be honest and up-front.).

Re: Kyle R.  That case is such a clusterf on so many levels.   When does the Kenosha alderman who requested armed people go help get tried and convicted.  When does the militia leader (if they can prove Kyle was in with them) get tried and convicted for child endangerment for putting a minor in harms way and inciting violence?    I can't stand KR and would lose my crap if my kid ever hung around idiots like him, but this didn't happen in a bubble.   I think more people need to be on trial.   I don't know what kind of punishment K needs.    I just don't know.  

[*****]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

Kyle Rittenhouse… the question is about intent because it’s legal to open carry in Wisconsin. Even if it’s extremely stupid to do so at a protest.

When is common sense going to return to trials in the US?   Legal to open carry...ok I get that, hunting rifles they mean, but not an AR15  IMO. If I saw someone in town with one of those, I would not think he was there for any good reason and I would get the heck out of town. 

I have tried to catch some of the news on him, but the whole thing angers me.  He shot in 'self-defense'.  Why does no one realize that the best self-defense would have been to turn on his heels and walk away?  No one was holding him there-that is the main thing.  No one had a hand on him, dragging him in there or pointing a gun at him to pressure him into doing anything. 

23 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

The drone footage in question shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse

Was Rosenbaum pointing a gun at Rittenhouse or even have one? Just asking, Idk.  

 

[Spryte]

27 minutes ago, Katy said:

I keep telling my kids protests are stupid and if they want to change something avoid places that are likely to turn violent. Write letters to the editor. Make a YouTube video or write something compelling that convinces people to change their minds. 

Kind of a tangent, maybe I should do a s/o, but that is an interesting perspective, that protests are stupid. I’m not sure I’m reading you right, on this.

Do you view protests and marches as equivalent? Would a march be the same, in your view? 

We avoid places that are likely to become violent, too, and there are some protests/marches we would not attend for that reason, even if we care deeply about the issue. I am angry and saddened when we here about peaceful protests and marches that turn violent. It’s tragic, frightening, and counterproductive.

But—my kids have all been to big, organized marches and some smaller, local organized protests. The rules are so strict about what we can carry—and what we do carry usually needs to be in a clear bag—I have never felt unsafe. We  have a safety plan that we use any place that’s big and crowded, we follow the rules, and we leave before curfew.

There is a great feeling in being with so many people energized by the same issue, and my kids have some deeply held issues, so seeing other kids and meeting other people was an affirming experience. This might be a function of the area where we live and the marches we choose to attend. We also have not attended anything like this since Covid, and with the rise in polarization and anger around here, I’d use caution deciding whether to attend anything now.

Still, I think my kids have benefited from understanding that they have the opportunity to gather peacefully, to speak out, have their voices heard (they have all been interviewed etc, at marches, so they definitely felt their voices were heard). 

I completely understand not attending because one doesn’t like crowds, or worry that it might turn violent if it’s an issue with a history of that. But I’ve never heard anyone say that they are stupid, and we should just write letters and make videos, and I wonder if I’m following you? I do think large, peaceful gatherings of like-minded people have a power, an energy, that can create motion toward change. And I am heartbroken to see so many people apparently thinking that those gatherings are just excuses for violence, and gatherings should be stopped. It would make me sad to lose this part of our cultural history. (To be clear, again, I’m not condoning violence, only the value of peaceful gathering!)

 

 

[WildflowerMom]

Yeah, I don't think protests and marches are the problem.   I'm all for them.   The problem is there are a few people who are violent, but they're violent regardless of whether there's a protest or not.   We don't quit having protest or marches (or concerts, gatherings, or whatever else) just because a very small number of people are stupid.  Stupid people are everywhere, everyday.   
 

[GoodnightMoogle]

This isn’t necessarily directed at you Scarlett, but just in general so please don’t take this as an attack, but I really wish people wouldn’t post opinions about a court case if they haven’t actually followed the court case (or even watched the video of the incident, in regards to Rittenhause). 
 

If you get all your info from headlines, five minute news sound-bits, and hearsay, your opinion can’t be informed. Ultimately, you just end up spreading even more information which leads to more mob mentality about a case.

For example, I just saw a tweet of a person condemning defense of Rittenhause, along the lines of “It wouldn’t even be a question of murder if the boys he had shot were white!!”

Yeaaah..every person involved was white. But you see how hearsay has already warped the topic in the minds of many. Headlines like “traveled over state lines,” while technically true, leave you with a different impression than if you actually research how very close Kyle lived to the place. It’s just frustrating that so many people who don’t follow the case are shouting “innocent!” Or “Guilty!” When they couldn’t even tell you what happened 

[Katy]

22 minutes ago, Spryte said:

Kind of a tangent, maybe I should do a s/o, but that is an interesting perspective, that protests are stupid. I’m not sure I’m reading you right, on this.

Do you view protests and marches as equivalent? Would a march be the same, in your view? 

We avoid places that are likely to become violent, too, and there are some protests/marches we would not attend for that reason, even if we care deeply about the issue. I am angry and saddened when we here about peaceful protests and marches that turn violent. It’s tragic, frightening, and counterproductive.

But—my kids have all been to big, organized marches and some smaller, local organized protests. The rules are so strict about what we can carry—and what we do carry usually needs to be in a clear bag—I have never felt unsafe. We  have a safety plan that we use any place that’s big and crowded, we follow the rules, and we leave before curfew.

There is a great feeling in being with so many people energized by the same issue, and my kids have some deeply held issues, so seeing other kids and meeting other people was an affirming experience. This might be a function of the area where we live and the marches we choose to attend. We also have not attended anything like this since Covid, and with the rise in polarization and anger around here, I’d use caution deciding whether to attend anything now.

Still, I think my kids have benefited from understanding that they have the opportunity to gather peacefully, to speak out, have their voices heard (they have all been interviewed etc, at marches, so they definitely felt their voices were heard). 

I completely understand not attending because one doesn’t like crowds, or worry that it might turn violent if it’s an issue with a history of that. But I’ve never heard anyone say that they are stupid, and we should just write letters and make videos, and I wonder if I’m following you? I do think large, peaceful gatherings of like-minded people have a power, an energy, that can create motion toward change. And I am heartbroken to see so many people apparently thinking that those gatherings are just excuses for violence, and gatherings should be stopped. It would make me sad to lose this part of our cultural history. (To be clear, again, I’m not condoning violence, only the value of peaceful gathering!)

 

 

I don’t think marches are as stupid, because they are far less likely to become violent.  But I also don’t think they are effective. A march feels great, like a religious experience.  But feeling great, getting a rush from being surrounded by like minded people isn’t the same thing as making change. I don’t think they should be stopped any more than freedom of speech should be stopped, but I do think there are many more effective ways of changing things. 

I interned for a Senator in college.  IME getting a letter to the editor published in a major daily or the largest newspapers in your state are far more effective than marching.  In terms of how much politicians listen, a march is the equivalent of a bunch of toddlers throwing a tantrum. Literally no one pays attention until it becomes front page news, and even then people in power are more likely to shake their heads or roll their eyes than actually advocate for changing policy. But they all watch letters to the editor and what’s trending on Twitter. 

If you want something to change, a novel or movie might be the most effective thing short of journalism. For morals to change, the zeitgeist must change. 
 

ETA:  actually I’m not sure how much Trump changed that. Both sides used to enjoy a sense of being an intellectual elite who somewhat catered to other elites.  I am no longer at all sure that it hasn’t in some ways flipped to be less predictable. But I doubt protests suddenly became a more valued piece of the decision making process. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Katy

[Syllieann]

36 minutes ago, ***** said:

When is common sense going to return to trials in the US?   Legal to open carry...ok I get that, hunting rifles they mean, but not an AR15  IMO. If I saw someone in town with one of those, I would not think he was there for any good reason and I would get the heck out of town. 

I have tried to catch some of the news on him, but the whole thing angers me.  He shot in 'self-defense'.  Why does no one realize that the best self-defense would have been to turn on his heels and walk away?  No one was holding him there-that is the main thing.  No one had a hand on him, dragging him in there or pointing a gun at him to pressure him into doing anything. 

Was Rosenbaum pointing a gun at Rittenhouse or even have one? Just asking, Idk.  

 

He was trying to take Rittenhouses gun according to both Rittenhouse and the reporter who witnessed it.  Another protester nearby (from a position that was behind Rosenbaum from Rittenhouses pov) fired a gun into the air right before Rittenhouse turned and Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun.  There are plenty of videos of it that you can watch it you're interested.

[Spryte]

Thanks, Katy, it’s good to hear your thoughts. Yes, I agree that there are more effective, direct ways to make change, but I see the value of a well planned protest/march. Its value is different, but still important, IME. I would say that participation in some have spurred my kids on to understanding that they *can* effect change, and taught them also that it takes a lot of work beyond a march, too. Our kids participate in a lot of other activities that  create change—and have seen the fruits of their labor. (Hello getting actual legislation passed! And hopefully some here will benefit from the hard work that so many of us put in. Our family certainly will, starting on Jan 1. I am glad they participated in effecting a change that they can see, is tangible, and will benefit them and others. I’m proud of them.) So I see value in both, and don’t view exercising a peaceful gathering to be equivalent to a toddler tantrumming. It’s fascinating to hear that others do, though. I wonder if some of the differences are regional. Completely possible. 

 

 

[Catwoman]

26 minutes ago, GoodnightMoogle said:

This isn’t necessarily directed at you Scarlett, but just in general so please don’t take this as an attack, but I really wish people wouldn’t post opinions about a court case if they haven’t actually followed the court case (or even watched the video of the incident, in regards to Rittenhause). 
 

If you get all your info from headlines, five minute news sound-bits, and hearsay, your opinion can’t be informed. Ultimately, you just end up spreading even more information which leads to more mob mentality about a case.

For example, I just saw a tweet of a person condemning defense of Rittenhause, along the lines of “It wouldn’t even be a question of murder if the boys he had shot were white!!”

Yeaaah..every person involved was white. But you see how hearsay has already warped the topic in the minds of many. Headlines like “traveled over state lines,” while technically true, leave you with a different impression than if you actually research how very close Kyle lived to the place. It’s just frustrating that so many people who don’t follow the case are shouting “innocent!” Or “Guilty!” When they couldn’t even tell you what happened 

 

I know you said you weren't necessarily picking on @Scarlett here, but if that's the case, I'm not sure why you mentioned her at all. While I agree that it's annoying when people pass judgments and develop their opinions without any real knowledge of a case or situation, Scarlett wasn't doing what you are complaining about; she was looking for more information. She specifically said:

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I have not closely followed Kyle Rittenhouse and I am sure someone here has....

and...

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

(This is why I posted to y'all----you always know the story)

 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Catwoman
My usual stupid typos!

[Katy]

It’s possible it’s regional.  Some politicians assume most everyone is politically naive and ignore public opinions. That type has staff write letters thanking them for contacting them, but they don’t even get a tally of how many people contacted them with a certain opinion. Others really do rely on polls and public contacts to make up their minds. 

[Lady Florida.]

46 minutes ago, Katy said:

I don’t think marches are as stupid, because they are far less likely to become violent.  But I also don’t think they are effective. A march feels great, like a religious experience.  But feeling great, getting a rush from being surrounded by like minded people isn’t the same thing as making change. I don’t think they should be stopped any more than freedom of speech should be stopped, but I do think there are many more effective ways of changing things. 

I interned for a Senator in college.  IME getting a letter to the editor published in a major daily or the largest newspapers in your state are far more effective than marching.  In terms of how much politicians listen, a march is the equivalent of a bunch of toddlers throwing a tantrum. Literally no one pays attention until it becomes front page news, and even then people in power are more likely to shake their heads or roll their eyes than actually advocate for changing policy. But they all watch letters to the editor and what’s trending on Twitter. 

 

I'm curious. Do you think marches have evolved to the point where they're not effective or that they never were? Do you believe Civil Rights marches of the 1960s and anti-Vietnam War marches of the 1960s and 1970s were ineffective? I ask because I'm old enough to have lived through those marches and they most certainly seemed to change public opinion, which in turn changed the opinions of politicians (or voted out those who didn't change) which in turn caused them to change policies.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Lady Florida.

[Spryte]

11 minutes ago, Katy said:

It’s possible it’s regional.  Some politicians assume most everyone is politically naive and ignore public opinions. That type has staff write letters thanking them for contacting them, but they don’t even get a tally of how many people contacted them with a certain opinion. Others really do rely on polls and public contacts to make up their minds. 

Yes, I think perhaps it’s partly regional. I’ve spent most of my life in a very politically aware area. Lots of contact with people from the Hill, etc, on personal levels. I spent high school years writing some of those letters you reference, as favors. And addressing gobs of envelopes. And even without those contacts, that keen awareness is just in the air. I often think it would be refreshing to move to another part of the country where it’s not always so in-your-face. 🤣 My years living elsewhere were, umm, relaxing in that respect.

I will stop hijacking the thread now.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Spryte

[ealp2009]

It appears Jones’ sentence was commuted. 
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/us/julius-jones-oklahoma-execution-decision/index.html

[Pam in CT]

re standing of imperfect human judicial system to effect the death penalty

1 hour ago, Lady Florida. said:

This is why I'm anti death penalty. If one innocent person is executed then the death penalty fails. And we know that innocent people are executed. It doesn't happen often but that doesn't matter. If it only happens once that's too many times. 

I've mentioned before on WTM that I knew Margaret Bowman, one of the women killed by Ted Bundy at FSU. Her sorority house was two doors down from mine and we hung out together for 2 years before the attacks happened. I wanted Bundy dead. I was teaching when his execution finally came and as it turned out I had first period planning (he was executed at 7am). I sat in my car and listened live on the radio. After it was over I felt no sense of relief or justice. He was without a doubt guilty of the crimes he was executed for but his victims were still dead. If he spent the rest of his life in prison he wouldn't be able to kill again and his punishment would have been longer.

It was after Bundy's execution that I started changing my view on the death penalty - I was pro before that. Even though he was guilty I began thinking of innocent victims of the death penalty. If the ethical arguments aren't convincing the financial reality is that life without parole costs taxpayers less than the death penalty.

My own views went through a similar evolution along more or less these lines.

We *know* the judicial system gets it wrong sometimes. 

Even if we manage to correct the many systemic ways along the process that we know the system favors wealthier > poorer, better connected > less so, white > minority... it will STILL, inevitably, get it wrong sometimes because we are human. Humans make errors.

[Fritz]

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-medias-verdict-on-kyle-rittenhouse

And yes, it is written by Bari Weiss.

[Sneezyone]

35 minutes ago, ealp2009 said:

It appears Jones’ sentence was commuted. 
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/us/julius-jones-oklahoma-execution-decision/index.html

Oh, thank God!

[Syllieann]

Here is the compressed drone video in the Rittenhouse case.  The guy following Rosenbaum is the reporter.  The freakishly tall guy on the far right next to the girl with the backpack is the one who fired into the air right before Rittenhouse turned.  No muzzle flash is seen on this video but other videos have confirmed it.  

 

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, GoodnightMoogle said:

This isn’t necessarily directed at you Scarlett, but just in general so please don’t take this as an attack, but I really wish people wouldn’t post opinions about a court case if they haven’t actually followed the court case (or even watched the video of the incident, in regards to Rittenhause). 
 

If you get all your info from headlines, five minute news sound-bits, and hearsay, your opinion can’t be informed. Ultimately, you just end up spreading even more information which leads to more mob mentality about a case.

For example, I just saw a tweet of a person condemning defense of Rittenhause, along the lines of “It wouldn’t even be a question of murder if the boys he had shot were white!!”

Yeaaah..every person involved was white. But you see how hearsay has already warped the topic in the minds of many. Headlines like “traveled over state lines,” while technically true, leave you with a different impression than if you actually research how very close Kyle lived to the place. It’s just frustrating that so many people who don’t follow the case are shouting “innocent!” Or “Guilty!” When they couldn’t even tell you what happened 

Yes I agree with you.....I was reading headlines like that and FB posts and thus why I went looking for some real info... .I know you said this wasn't directed at me, but I did just want to say that I thought I was pretty clear in my OP that I didn't even know fully what to think.

I have had this happen with cases that I have followed VERY very closely....people spouting off  'facts' that I knew were not and forming opinions based on misinformation or outright lies.

[Katy]

40 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

I'm curious. Do you think marches have evolved to the point where they're not effective or that they never were? Do you believe Civil Rights marches of the 1960s and anti-Vietnam War marches of the 1960s and 1970s were ineffective? I ask because I'm old enough to have lived through those marches and they most certainly seemed to change public opinion, which in turn changed the opinions of politicians (or voted out those who didn't change) which in turn caused them to change policies.

I think I am too young to know the answer to that.  And my dad did 3 tours in Vietnam and was the police chief of my town by the time I was 10, so I'm absolutely certain my particular family wasn't a politically neutral place to grow up, even if there was a lot of nuance.  Though come to think of it some of my dislike of protests were that in my hometown there were several occasions where young jerks would do things like drive to school waving a confederate flag just to incite violence, call it a protest, and then protest police when they got arrested for inciting violence, fighting, and driving at school with the dumb flag. Very similar to KR's buffoonery. It wasn't really a protest, it was a testosterone-fulled reason to fight.  The cops didn't even want to arrest them, they just wanted them to go home.

I had a political science professor in college whose opinion was that it in the 1960's it wasn't as much the protests and marches as it was the journalism.  Even journalism about the protests.  It's hard to see violence against peaceful protesters and not think the cops are wrong.  And the same with war.  Since forever the horrors of war were limited to the men who went.  TV changed all of that. You can't see videos of war and not change your understanding of war from something heroic to something sickening that displays the worst parts of humanity.

I guess I think the opinions would have changed anyway, even though the innocent protestors of the 1960's being assaulted made the change faster.  Most people want to think of themselves as good people.  If they see videos of atrocities, they will recoil. When protesters are being beat up, they will take the side of protesters. When people they generally agree with turn into rioters, they will recoil.  No protest or riot changed public opinion as much as the video of George Floyd's death.

Social media is more powerful than any protest.

[Faith-manor]

5 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I am horrified over the Julius Jones case. I am not pro-death penalty anyway, but especially here.  
 

Kyle Rittenhouse….I actually thought he was guilty of murder until I watched the trial and some of the footage.  Now I can buy an argument for self defense. I have shot AR 15s and don’t have a clue why he’d need one or want one…but it doesn’t appear that he was really in any violation of the Wisconsin weapons laws and he’s not on trial for mere bad judgement. (He shouldnt have been there and what mother drops her 17 year old kid off in that situation with a weapon! What?!) Mostly the prosecutor has just come across as an idiot. He lost me when he started questioning KR about him invoking the 5th Amendement. 

 

Gun culture has changed so much in this nation. I am against anything but good old fashioned hunting guns anymore. My dad grew up in a time when every boy brought their gear and rifles to school, left them in the backseat, changed as soon as the bell rang, went hunting, went home, and no one got shot, no one solved their grievances with guns (sometimes fists, but not weaponry), and their guns were never stolen. Look where we are now!

Edited November 18, 2021 by Faith-manor

[City Mouse]

What ever the legal outcome of the KR case, I think the kid made a stupid decision that will haunt him for the rest of his life even if he is found not guilty. For the rest of his life, Every prospective employer will be able to Google his name and see what happened. I would imagine that a prospective employer would have a hard time hiring KR if there are other equally qualified applicants without all the baggage. He will attract a certain part of society that may use him as a poster boy.

Many teenagers make stupid decisions that are illegal, but they don’t do it on camera so the don’t have it follow them forever or at least not follow in such an easy manner.

I am not trying to down play what happened. I don’t know any of the laws in that state so I have no guess as to how it will turn out, but I feel that the adults in his life really let him down in this instance.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

5 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I always thought is should be his mother on trial! She is unfit, and is really the reason this kid is in the mess he is in. 17 is not old enough to be sporting a rifle in a volatile situation with no military training. He should have been at home. I swear she is absolutely nuts

Gun culture has changed so much in this nation. I am against anything but good old fashioned hunting guns anymore. My dad grew up in a time when every boy brought their gear and rifles to school, left them in the backseat, changed as soon as the bell rang, went hunting, went home, and no one got shot, no one solved their grievances with guns (sometimes fists, but not weaponry), and their guns were never stolen. Look where we are now!

Apparently I was wrong—his mother didn’t drive him to Kenosha and didnt know he was there. She was in Illinois getting a documented Covid test.  The weapon was kept at a friend’s house and never crossed state lines. 
his mother did take him to the police station to turn himself in once he told her what had happened.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/rittenhouse-testified-he-drove-himself-to-kenosha-without-weapon/

Edited November 18, 2021 by Mrs Tiggywinkle

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Apparently I was wrong—his mother didn’t drive him to Kenosha and didnt know he was there. She was in Illinois getting a documented Covid test.  The weapon was kept at a friend’s house and never crossed state lines. 
his mother did take him to the police station to turn himself in once he told her what had happened.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/rittenhouse-testified-he-drove-himself-to-kenosha-without-weapon/

Yes I was glad to hear that.  Makes me feel better about her.  

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Apparently I was wrong—his mother didn’t drive him to Kenosha and didnt know he was there. She was in Illinois getting a documented Covid test.  The weapon was kept at a friend’s house and never crossed state lines. 
his mother did take him to the police station to turn himself in once he told her what had happened.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/rittenhouse-testified-he-drove-himself-to-kenosha-without-weapon/

Okay, that is better. Everything in our local media/tv news said that she gave him the gun AND drove him to Kenosha. So wow. They have it wrong in a very big way! I will edit my comments.

[katilac]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

 I guess I think the opinions would have changed anyway, even though the innocent protestors of the 1960's being assaulted made the change faster.  

But how long should people be willing to wait? "Faster" is a very worthy goal, imo. 

Some things changed in the 1960s, absolutely. Was it partially due to media coverage? Absolutely. But the end of the 60s was over 50 years ago, and things haven't changed enough even now. 

This MLK quote is very apt, and it applies broadly to every battle for fairness, equal and decent treatment, civil rights, etc:  “For years now, I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”

 

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

 Gun culture has changed so much in this nation. I am against anything but good old fashioned hunting guns anymore. My dad grew up in a time when every boy brought their gear and rifles to school, left them in the backseat, changed as soon as the bell rang, went hunting, went home, and no one got shot, no one solved their grievances with guns (sometimes fists, but not weaponry), and their guns were never stolen. Look where we are now!

I do think gun culture has changed, and that some of it reaches cult-like status now. But I always have to point out that people always did solve grievances with guns and other weaponry, guns were stolen, and of course people did get shot, both accidentally and on purpose. It may not have happened within a specific time frame in the town where your dad grew up, but it happened in the generic good old days for sure. There was never a time where people didn't turn to guns in anger. There was never a time when young people (and heck, old people) were so well trained and responsible that terrible and lethal accidents didn't occur. 

[Katy]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

But how long should people be willing to wait? "Faster" is a very worthy goal, imo. 

Some things changed in the 1960s, absolutely. Was it partially due to media coverage? Absolutely. But the end of the 60s was over 50 years ago, and things haven't changed enough even now. 

This MLK quote is very apt, and it applies broadly to every battle for fairness, equal and decent treatment, civil rights, etc:  “For years now, I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”

I'm not arguing that people in the 1960's shouldn't have protested.  I'm telling my children it's more effective to create change with social media and by changing opinions than by attending protests and riots today.  Not when their grandparents were kids.

If they happen on violence, one person should call authorities first, but then someone should probably be recording something from a safe place.  Cameras preserve the truth in a way memories do not.

[Sneezyone]

 

7 minutes ago, Katy said:

I'm not arguing that people in the 1960's shouldn't have protested.  I'm telling my children it's more effective to create change with social media and by changing opinions than by attending protests and riots today.  Not when their grandparents were kids.

If they happen on violence, one person should call authorities first, but then someone should probably be recording something from a safe place.  Cameras preserve the truth in a way memories do not.

Do you really think SM is more powerful? Maybe. It definitely has greater NATIONAL reach but, locally, in terms of  municipalities, I'm not totally convinced. I'm open to this notion tho. On-the-ground, nationally-televised protests were the SM of the day.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

 

Do you really think SM is more powerful? Maybe. It definitely has greater NATIONAL reach but, locally, in terms of  municipalities, I'm not totally convinced. I'm open to this notion tho. On-the ground, nationally-televised protests were the SM of the day.

Yes.  The videos of cops perpetuating violence is the only thing I've ever seen make my friends' retired cop dads take the sides of victims and not police, but instead repeatedly post things like, "There's nothing a good cop hates more than a bad cop."  To the point that most of them no longer post on controversial cases at all anymore, and if you ask they say, "There's not enough information, let's wait and see."  That's a huge change from 2 years ago.

[Faith-manor]

25 minutes ago, katilac said:

 

 

I do think gun culture has changed, and that some of it reaches cult-like status now. But I always have to point out that people always did solve grievances with guns and other weaponry, guns were stolen, and of course people did get shot, both accidentally and on purpose. It may not have happened within a specific time frame in the town where your dad grew up, but it happened in the generic good old days for sure. There was never a time where people didn't turn to guns in anger. There was never a time when young people (and heck, old people) were so well trained and responsible that terrible and lethal accidents didn't occur. 

I agree. I should have been more specific. Gun culture around minors. We have gone from school shootings not really being a regular thing, to an epidemic of them, from teens who respected firearms, hunted, and didn't think they should shoot up the school, to an incredible level of gun violence among teens, and specifically ones not in gangs. It has been a big change.

Add in practical fetishism about guns, and it is mind boggling.

[Melissa Louise]

3 hours ago, Fritz said:

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-medias-verdict-on-kyle-rittenhouse

And yes, it is written by Bari Weiss.

You know no-one will read Bari! 😂

There are a few good non-Bari articles out there. 

Lots of misinfo floating around. 

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

Okay, that is better. Everything in our local media/tv news said that she gave him the gun AND drove him to Kenosha. So wow. They have it wrong in a very big way! I will edit my comments.

That is what I believed too, but I watched a lot of the trial recordings today.   Honestly it’s all very different from what I’d been led to believe.  I’m at the point where I don’t feel I can have opinions based on media reports anymore.

[Carol in Cal.]

6 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

That is what I believed too, but I watched a lot of the trial recordings today.   Honestly it’s all very different from what I’d been led to believe.  I’m at the point where I don’t feel I can have opinions based on media reports anymore.

We have no fourth estate anymore.  It’s quite troubling.

[Melissa Louise]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/magazine/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-wisconsin.amp.html

One of the better articles. 

 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

Yes.  The videos of cops perpetuating violence is the only thing I've ever seen make my friends' retired cop dads take the sides of victims and not police, but instead repeatedly post things like, "There's nothing a good cop hates more than a bad cop."  To the point that most of them no longer post on controversial cases at all anymore, and if you ask they say, "There's not enough information, let's wait and see."  That's a huge change from 2 years ago.

Interesting. I will have to give this some thought. There is no substitute for in-person WRT activating young people but, next time, I will have my kids live-stream/publicize our attendance.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Sneezyone