Kyle Rittenhouse goes to trial

[Neutraligon]

So, we'd all like this to be true, but there is an unfortunate tendency to "age up" black kids and "age down" white kids in the common parlance.

I agree with you that's how it should be, but not likely how it would be.

That's just another reason why courts should not be able to fudge who gets tried as a juvenile and who gets tried as an adult. If you have a definite rule based on age, that leaves one less place for racial bias to creep into the system.

Agreed. If the current system does not work because people think a 17 year old and a 10 year old should be treated differently, then why not make a second legal status? They would not be treated as adults because they are not adults, but the would not be treated as young children either.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

That's just another reason why courts should not be able to fudge who gets tried as a juvenile and who gets tried as an adult. If you have a definite rule based on age, that leaves one less place for racial bias to creep into the system.

Agreed. If the current system does not work because people think a 17 year old and a 10 year old should be treated differently, then why not make a second legal status? They would not be treated as adults because they are not adults, but the would not be treated as young children either.

That would force supporters to defend the "distinction" between teenagers and adults, a distinction at odds with history yet that is popular among parents who want to cling to their infantilization just a little longer.

And I'm all for it. Force the issue. Bring it out in the open. But if they know they won't win this one, you know they won't want to draw attention to it by creating a third category.

A better idea yet might be to create a continuous spectrum, to ensure that no incentive to get one's crime in while one's young will be created in the first place.

[Galloism]

Agreed. If the current system does not work because people think a 17 year old and a 10 year old should be treated differently, then why not make a second legal status? They would not be treated as adults because they are not adults, but the would not be treated as young children either.

That would force supporters to defend the "distinction" between teenagers and adults, a distinction at odds with history yet that is popular among parents who want to cling to their infantilization just a little longer.

And I'm all for it. Force the issue. Bring it out in the open. But if they know they won't win this one, you know they won't want to draw attention to it by creating a third category.

A better idea yet might be to create a continuous spectrum, to ensure that no incentive to get one's crime in while one's young will be created in the first place.

Tbh, based on biology, we shouldn't consider people full adults until 25 or so.

[Neutraligon]

That would force supporters to defend the "distinction" between teenagers and adults, a distinction at odds with history yet that is popular among parents who want to cling to their infantilization just a little longer.

And I'm all for it. Force the issue. Bring it out in the open. But if they know they won't win this one, you know they won't want to draw attention to it by creating a third category.

A better idea yet might be to create a continuous spectrum, to ensure that no incentive to get one's crime in while one's young will be created in the first place.

Tbh, based on biology, we shouldn't consider people full adults until 25 or so.

True, that is when the pre-frontal cortex is supposed to have finished developing. That said the US wants soldiers....

[Ifreann]

Quite aside from the obvious problems of trying to use a gas based weapon from a giant fan, what would it even achieve to drop tear gas behind rioters? The whole point of using tear gas is to disperse a crowd, to make it intolerable to stay where they are and thus force them to leave. Why are you trying to trap them in the one spot?

Low passes can crash your helicopter. People riot most often in cities and towns, not in open fields.

That's what Little Birds were designed for.

Flying into electricity wires?

Plus attacking from multiple fronts will disorganize the rioters. The idea Is to disperse them and contain them in a closed area for arrest.

Dispersing people and containing them in a closed area are literally opposite things. You cannot do both.

[Galloism]

Tbh, based on biology, we shouldn't consider people full adults until 25 or so.

True, that is when the pre-frontal cortex is supposed to have finished developing. That said the US wants soldiers....

It actually causes a lot of practical problems outside the military too, as fertility (for women) starts dropping off around then as well, and although every person should have the choice of whether and when to become a parent, socially it causes problems if your birth rate isn't near replacement rate (see: Japan).

[Neutraligon]

True, that is when the pre-frontal cortex is supposed to have finished developing. That said the US wants soldiers....

It actually causes a lot of practical problems outside the military too, as fertility (for women) starts dropping off around then as well, and although every person should have the choice of whether and when to become a parent, socially it causes problems if your birth rate isn't near replacement rate (see: Japan).

I don't really see it as an issue for leaving it at around 18. I think that of the states that have set a low end of criminal responsibility the range is 7 years to 10 years. The federal government according to wiki has it set at 11 years. It seems somewhere between 14-16 we start seeing children as more responsible for their actions. So basically until say 10 years old children are not criminally responsible 10-15 there is a second status. And 15-18 there is a third status. Finally, at 18 they are considered fully responsible for their actions. This would change if a child was emancipated.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

True, that is when the pre-frontal cortex is supposed to have finished developing. That said the US wants soldiers....

It actually causes a lot of practical problems outside the military too, as fertility (for women) starts dropping off around then as well, and although every person should have the choice of whether and when to become a parent, socially it causes problems if your birth rate isn't near replacement rate (see: Japan).

Bah, Japan's mistake is being too stubborn to let in enough immigrants to replace the kids they aren't having. The rest of the developed world is more open to migration, with the exception of a few especially stubborn holdouts within it who whine about immigrants taking their jobs. (Every time I catch myself pitying them, I remind myself how little pity they had for those who lost their jobs for other reasons.)

These "pro-natalist" types spent the 00s telling antinatalists to kill themselves, as if seeing humanity as a whole as bad for the environment required seeing themselves; as people who might offset their carbon footprint with activism that reduces everyone else's; the same way. Or as if they saw it as just as bad to end someone's life as to not start it in the first place. Only now that Arabs are at the gates of Europe are these people admitting they never really wanted immigration in the first place. Too bad, so sad, tell them to stick to their real reasoning for their beliefs next time.

As for the prefrontal cortex... why is that, of all things, the only thing that counts? There are so many changes between actual!childhood and being 25 that it seems odd to single out one specific aspect of biology as the most meaningful.

But yeah, this middle ground we've picked now conforms neither to the prefrontal cortex standard nor the norms throughout history. Nor does it conform to how we treat Arab teenagers, Hispanic teenagers, or black teenagers, to this day.

[Neutraligon]

It actually causes a lot of practical problems outside the military too, as fertility (for women) starts dropping off around then as well, and although every person should have the choice of whether and when to become a parent, socially it causes problems if your birth rate isn't near replacement rate (see: Japan).

Bah, Japan's mistake is being too stubborn to let in enough immigrants to replace the kids they aren't having. The rest of the developed world is more open to migration, with the exception of a few especially stubborn holdouts within it who whine about immigrants taking their jobs. (Every time I catch myself pitying them, I remind myself how little pity they had for those who lost their jobs for other reasons.)

These "pro-natalist" types spent the 00s telling antinatalists to kill themselves, as if seeing humanity as a whole as bad for the environment required seeing themselves; as people who might offset their carbon footprint with activism that reduces everyone else's; the same way. Or as if they saw it as just as bad to end someone's life as to not start it in the first place. Only now that Arabs are at the gates of Europe are these people admitting they never really wanted immigration in the first place. Too bad, so sad, tell them to stick to their real reasoning for their beliefs next time.

As for the prefrontal cortex... why is that, of all things, the only thing that counts? There are so many changes between actual!childhood and being 25 that it seems odd to single out one specific aspect of biology as the most meaningful.

But yeah, this middle ground we've picked now conforms neither to the prefrontal cortex standard nor the norms throughout history. Nor does it conform to how we treat Arab teenagers, Hispanic teenagers, or black teenagers, to this day.

Because the prefrontal- cortex is one of the major players in decision making in the brain.

[Galloism]

It actually causes a lot of practical problems outside the military too, as fertility (for women) starts dropping off around then as well, and although every person should have the choice of whether and when to become a parent, socially it causes problems if your birth rate isn't near replacement rate (see: Japan).

Bah, Japan's mistake is being too stubborn to let in enough immigrants to replace the kids they aren't having. The rest of the developed world is more open to migration, with the exception of a few especially stubborn holdouts within it who whine about immigrants taking their jobs. (Every time I catch myself pitying them, I remind myself how little pity they had for those who lost their jobs for other reasons.)

These "pro-natalist" types spent the 00s telling antinatalists to kill themselves, as if seeing humanity as a whole as bad for the environment required seeing themselves; as people who might offset their carbon footprint with activism that reduces everyone else's; the same way. Or as if they saw it as just as bad to end someone's life as to not start it in the first place. Only now that Arabs are at the gates of Europe are these people admitting they never really wanted immigration in the first place. Too bad, so sad, tell them to stick to their real reasoning for their beliefs next time.

As for the prefrontal cortex... why is that, of all things, the only thing that counts? There are so many changes between actual!childhood and being 25 that it seems odd to single out one specific aspect of biology as the most meaningful.

But yeah, this middle ground we've picked now conforms neither to the prefrontal cortex standard nor the norms throughout history. Nor does it conform to how we treat Arab teenagers, Hispanic teenagers, or black teenagers, to this day.

I'm leaving most of this post aside because it doesn't matter, but as to why the prefrontal cortex matters, it's the structure of the brain responsible for long term decision making and long term consequence recognition.

It's one of the reasons that the army loves 18 year olds. You can send them straight into hell and they'll have few doubts or considerations about the fact they could get killed or injured for the rest of their lives until later when the prefrontal cortex develops.

[United Socialist Laborers]

Id bet hes getting off all charges but wish that was not the case.

[Suriyanakhon]

Id bet hes getting off all charges but wish that was not the case.

Why? It's pretty clear that Rittenhouse was defending himself, and frankly it's hard to feel bad for Rosenbaum.

[Vassenor]

Id bet hes getting off all charges but wish that was not the case.

Why? It's pretty clear that Rittenhouse was defending himself, and frankly it's hard to feel bad for Rosenbaum.

#NoAngel

[Vlad Tepes Stan Account]

Id bet hes getting off all charges but wish that was not the case.

Why? It's pretty clear that Rittenhouse was defending himself, and frankly it's hard to feel bad for Rosenbaum.

Huber as well by the sound of things. Who threatens to gut their brother with a messy room and also threatens to burn their entire family alive?

[Galloism]

Why? It's pretty clear that Rittenhouse was defending himself, and frankly it's hard to feel bad for Rosenbaum.

#NoAngel

I mean, he was the one who attacked someone in the street Vassenor.

[Suriyanakhon]

Why? It's pretty clear that Rittenhouse was defending himself, and frankly it's hard to feel bad for Rosenbaum.

Huber as well by the sound of things. Who threatens to gut their brother with a messy room and also threatens to burn their entire family alive?

A psychopath.

We should be more relieved that Rittenhouse turned up safe than anything.

[Galloism]

Huber as well by the sound of things. Who threatens to gut their brother with a messy room and also threatens to burn their entire family alive?

A psychopath.

We should be more relieved that Rittenhouse turned up safe than anything.

Tbh it’s bad character evidence, which has no place in a trial at all really.

But it was in response to the prosecution trying to introduce character evidence on Huber, and stating they have the right to rebut that.

Really, evidence of huber’s character or state of mind is entirely irrelevant to the case. He could be in line for literal sainthood or literal Hitler and it doesn’t matter. Huber isn’t on trial, Rittenhouse is, and it’s his perceptions and actions in the moment and whether or not they were reasonable in the moment in those circumstances that matters.

[Ifreann]

Huber as well by the sound of things. Who threatens to gut their brother with a messy room and also threatens to burn their entire family alive?

A psychopath.

We should be more relieved that Rittenhouse turned up safe than anything.

Turned up safe? When was he ever missing?

[The Black Forrest]

A psychopath.

We should be more relieved that Rittenhouse turned up safe than anything.

Tbh it’s bad character evidence, which has no place in a trial at all really.

True. Problem is character assassination is a common tactic of people in general. We see that here all the time. Raise a question which doesn’t embrace the a view and you are a monster. Are not the three victims characters on review and commented?

[Galloism]

Tbh it’s bad character evidence, which has no place in a trial at all really.

True. Problem is character assassination is a common tactic of people in general. We see that here all the time. Raise a question which doesn’t embrace the a view and you are a monster. Are not the three victims characters on review and commented?

Well, first, I think the term “victims” is incorrect given the circumstances. All evidence the prosecution has currently presented points to Rittenhouse being the victim from a legal standpoint.

But yes, the character comments of the individuals shot (whom I would refer to as “the attackers”) and the shooter is entirely irrelevant to the case. Some of those details are pretty horrific kind you, but they have nothing to do with the justification or lack thereof of the shootings.

What does matter is what happened that night. Who was the aggressor? Did the shooter attempt to flee and deescalate? Would a reasonable person believe they were faced with imminent threat of death or great bodily harm in the circumstances he was in at the time he fired?

These are the important questions.

[USS Monitor]

Tbh, based on biology, we shouldn't consider people full adults until 25 or so.

True, that is when the pre-frontal cortex is supposed to have finished developing. That said the US wants soldiers....

Aye. My guns don't load themselves!

[Neanderthaland]

True, that is when the pre-frontal cortex is supposed to have finished developing. That said the US wants soldiers....

Aye. My guns don't load themselves!

I bet if you were a Swiss warship they would.

[USS Monitor]

Aye. My guns don't load themselves!

I bet if you were a Swiss warship they would.

I don't think Switzerland needs my services. I am not good with land, especially hilly terrain.

[Neanderthaland]

I bet if you were a Swiss warship they would.

I don't think Switzerland needs my services. I am not good with land, especially hilly terrain.

That's exactly why no one would see it coming.

Well, that, and you have a very low profile...

[Des-Bal]

Tbh it’s bad character evidence, which has no place in a trial at all really.

But it was in response to the prosecution trying to introduce character evidence on Huber, and stating they have the right to rebut that.

Really, evidence of huber’s character or state of mind is entirely irrelevant to the case. He could be in line for literal sainthood or literal Hitler and it doesn’t matter. Huber isn’t on trial, Rittenhouse is, and it’s his perceptions and actions in the moment and whether or not they were reasonable in the moment in those circumstances that matters.

Alleged victim's propensity for violence is relevant when the claim is self defense and good character evidence. Federally at least, most states are pretty close to the FRE.