I continue to find the Graber and Wengrow book delightful. Anthropologists know so many fascinating facts about groups of people I have never heard of, and just about any social arrangement you can imagine turns out to have been instantiated many times. Let me give just one example among many. On page 219, writing about societies in which women rather than men ruled, the authors say “even strong Queens like Elizabeth I of England, the Dowager Empress of China, or Ranavalona I of Madagascar are…”
This is simply delicious. We all have heard of Queen
Elizabeth I and we can easily imagine that there was a Dowager Empress of China
even though we cannot actually identify her or say which century she ruled in.
But Ranavalona I of Madagascar? The authors throw these names at us in a slyly
malicious fashion, in effect daring us to reveal our ignorance by blurting out “Who?”
Perhaps my delight simply reflects the characteristic
failing of philosophers, who, although they may be very smart in a rather
narrow way, typically do not know much of anything. In this book it is all
tricked out with 93 pages of notes and a bibliography that stretches another 62
pages. And to think that the authors are anarchists!
40 comments:
Another sign of the utter moral decay in our country - Rittenhouse, who shot and killed two unarmed men with an AR-15, acquitted of all charges!! Disgraceful and pathetic!!
The trial judge in the Rittenhouse trial, Bruce Schroeder, screwed up the jury instructions. There was a major charge of homicide, with several lesser included charges. Rittenhouse's defense as to all of the charges was that he acted in self-defense. The judge mistakenly instructed the jury that if they found that self-defense applied to the homicide charge, that the self-defense thereafter applied to all of the lesser charges. The prosecution argued against that instruction, but the trial judge rejected their correct argument. The jury should have been instructed that they had to evaluate the defense of self-defense independently for each of the charges. Throughout the trial, the trial judge was critical of the prosecution. He should be censured by the Wisconsin Judicial Tenure Commission.
Dear Another Anonymous and everyone else
By my take the bias of the jury doomed the prosecution. Simply put, they bought the self defense claim because the protesters act of protesting amounted to a criminal act and provocation and yes they are probably tacitly racist and the jurors empathized with Rittenhouse because they would fear for their lives in his situation and they might even view him as a brave young man and patriot.
Agreed it is a travesty and an injustice, and maybe we'll find out from subsequent interviews- to me their bias is very very obvious
I would seek a jury of people who did not vote for Trump but that isn't in the cards
Howard,
Let me just point out that one of the members of the jury was Black. I am assuming (but who knows these days) that he iw/was not a Trump supporter. He could have held out and caused a hung jury. I suspect that the judge's erroneous jury instruction on self-defense muddied the waters, even for the black juror.
The DE Cixi was part of the drama around a young Herbert Hoover's rise as a mining engineer as well as the beginnings of his wealth. Quite a story.
Quick reaction to the original post (the part about the narrowness of philosophers): Philosophical intelligence does seem different from scientific intelligence, and it's interesting to see how people try to account the difference. A couple examples I like:
"Two Chinamen visiting Europe went to the theatre for the first time. One of them occupied himself with trying to understand the theatrical machinery, which he succeeded in doing. The other, despite his ignorance of the language, sought to unravel the meaning of the play. The former is like the astronomer, the latter the philosopher." - Schopenhauer
"[T]he truth of the thoughts communicated here seems to me unassailable and definitive. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the problems [of philosophy] have in essentials been finally solved. And if I am not mistaken in this, then the value of this work...consists in the fact that it shows how little has been done when these problems have been solved." - Wittgenstein, preface to Tractatus
(I especially like the part that says "how little has been done" - it isn't often that I feel myself to have "learned something" from reading a philosophy book!)
Hi thank you
There is peer pressure, and group dynamics, that African American was probably selected to be open to the defense argument, for instance screened for views on BLM and so on- I just can't help feeling that the jurors felt they would be scared too if they were at the protest. The thing is Rittenhouse was genuinely scared because he is a dumb kid who thought that he'd just show up and be a hero- and even if you're a trained professional, you lose your head in the mix- high heart rate and so on- things got out of control and it wasn't exactly that he was acting in self defense but rather that he was over his head and scared to death- because he was a presumably dumb or rather naive kid and he lost his head- but being scared and acting in self defense ain't the same thing
That's my read and I'm sticking to it
Hoeie,
You are correct - being scared and acting in self-defense are not the same thing. And he is the one who put himself in that vulnerable position, as a result of which two people are dead, and another was seriously wounded.
The Rittenhouse verdict seems to have taken over here, so a little guiltily I’ll play along.
I was actually surprised to find I responded quite positively to Claire Potter’s pre-verdict comment, perhaps because it ties into my penchant to try to look deeper (I usually fail):
https://publicseminar.org/essays/what-kyle-rittenhouse-teaches-us/
I was also surprised, given what I’d been hearing said about him in various places, to learn that the judge was very much a Democrat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schroeder
Frustrated the token black on the jury didn't do what was expected of him? Doesn't get much more racist than that.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FElshmEWYA4Fnwd?format=jpg&name=medium
The comments here, including those of Biden and numerous other legal/political types, may also be of use/interest:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/nov/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-not-guilty-kenosha-shooting-latest
Anonymous,
My comment that I would have expected a Black juror to vote against acquittal of a Caucasian self-appointed vigilante who killed two unarmed Caucasian Black Lives Matters protesters is “a racist as you can get?” What b.s.
A racist comment is one which is derogatory and demeaning about an individual based on stereotypes related to the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or gender. My comment about the Black juror is neither derogatory nor demeaning.
And your link to a joke about this tragic event, defining a “Rittenhouse” as a beer followed by two “chaser” shots of whiskey is the sign of a sick s.o.b.
Correction:
"followed by three 'chaser' shots of whiskey," referring to the three unarmed individuals "chasing" Rittenhouse, whom he shot. Actually, there was a total of five shots, since he shot Joseph Rosenbaum three times, one shot which disabled him, and two more shots as Rosenbaum lay on the ground, helpless. Self defense my ass.
I didn't follow this trial with the attention that most of the commenters above did, but wasn't the jury given the possiblity to find the defendent guilty of manslaughter rather than homicide? He obviously killed two unarmed people and so it wasn't self-defense, even if given the situation, he was scared shitless and did not commit meditated murder.
s. wallerstein,
The charges are summarized in the below link.
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-kenosha-3febaa501c57a6b54e168353fe0b2a26
There were 7 charges in total, applied to 4 different individuals (one of whom Rittenhouse shot at, but missed).
While self-defense may have been sufficient for acquittal of the first charge relating to Rosenbaum (First Degree Reckless Homicide), it was not sufficient for the second, lesser included charge of First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety. The problem was that the judge instructed that if the jury concluded that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense for greater charge, it applied automatically to the lesser charges as well. This was a grossly erroneous statement of the law, which the prosecution argued against.
In point of fact, Rosenbaum, who was Rittenhouse’s first victim, was shot four times. The prosecution offered the testimony of a forensic pathologist (https://www.wuwm.com/2021-11-10/forensic-pathologist-testifies-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-joseph-rosenbaum-at-close-range), who testified that Rosenbaum’s autopsy report indicated that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum at close range, the last shot to Rosenbaum’s head as he lay on the ground and which was the shot that killed him. Under no circumstances - in any state - could shooting an individual in the head while he lay on the ground constitute self-defense.
How could a jury discount the pathologist’s testimony? I blame the judge for giving erroneous jury instructions which misled the jury regarding the scope of the self-defense doctrine.
Another,
Thanks. No, shotting someone on the ground in the head is clearly not self-defense.
I suppose the prosecution can appeal.
No, the prosecution cannot appeal. Under the Constitution, once a criminal defendant is acquitted, that's the end of the story.
The only alternative is if the U.S. Department of Justice determines that the defendant also violated a federal law which allows a prosecution in federal court without violating the defendant's 5th Amendment right against double jeopardy. Such prosecutions do occur, but here there is no evidence that Rittenhouse shot anyone based on their race or gender. The only possibility I can see for a federal prosecution is if Rittenhouse crossed state lines and brought the rile into Wisconsin in violation of federal law. However, there is apparently some dispute whether the rifle was already present at a home in Wisconsin before Rittenhouse traveled from Illinois to Wisconsin.
Another,
Thanks once again for the legal details.
For example, in Chile you can appeal a criminal verdict. There is no trial by jury by the way.
To S. Wallerstein:
I have read that Wisconsin law has no manslaughter provision.
Odd... but if true, it hamstrung an already beleaguered prosecution.
David Zimmerman,
Thanks.
I don't see how a legal system can function without a manslaughter provision or the equivalent with another name.
I have no statistics on this, but I imagine that more people are killed by freaked-out kids (or adults) with a weapon in their hands in situations they have no control over and in which they never should have gotten into in the first place than by Mafia hit-men or by rightwing terrorist militias.
https://www.traceywood.com/wisconsin-manslaughter-laws/:
“Wisconsin Manslaughter Laws
Wisconsin has a number of homicide statues, with varying degrees of severity. Felony murder (or first degree intentional homicide) is considered to be the most serious homicide charge, while manslaughter is classified as a lesser offense.
Manslaughter Charges
Technically, Wisconsin doesn’t have a manslaughter statute on the books; when the laws were rewritten, manslaughter was replaced with second degree intentional homicide. Although these are essentially the same offenses, the new criminal sentence is much harsher.
While first degree intentional homicide involves elements such as intent and premeditation, second degree homicide does not involve premeditation and often includes mitigation circumstances, which means that—while the factors do not excuse the crime—they are considered out of mercy or fairness. For example, a murder that takes place in the heat of passion may be classified as a second degree intentional homicide.
Second degree intentional homicide is a Class B felony, which is punishable by up to 60 years in prison along with expensive fines. In addition to the criminal sentence, convicted felons can face consequences in their personal and professional lives. Those with a felony on their record are barred from owning a gun, voting, or even working in certain professions (such as education or government).”
The prosecution did not charge Rittenhouse with either of the above. Instead, they charged him with First Degree Reckless Homicide, Use Of A Dangerous Weapon and First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, in order not to have to prove intentional homicide. Either of these charges would have been sufficient to withstand a proper instruction for self-defense, particularly with regard to Rittenhouse’s shooting Rosenbaum in the head while he lay prostate on the ground, face down.
The problem is that the judge screwed up the self-defense instruction.
This sobering account sums it up:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/20/us/angry-white-men-trials-blake-cec/index.html
There's nothing more frightening in America today than an angry White man
Another,
Thanks once again for the legal information.
The guy should go to jail. I tend not to be very punitive about jailing people, but he should spend a couple of years behind bars as a signal and above all, be barred for life from owning or carrying or even touching a firearm because he lacks the emotional balance needed to
be around dangerous weapons.
Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse and was chasing him relentlessly. Rittenhouse shot him in the head at close range because he was trying to grab his gun. Sorry, but if someone who intends to kill you is trying to grab your AR-15, you're entitled to defend yourself with deadly force.
After the Rosenbaum shooting, Rittenhouse was chased down the street by a furious mob, some of whom could be heard saying things like, "Get him!" and "Get that dude!" Rittenhouse tripped and fell, seconds after which Huber tried to smash his head in with a skateboard (and arguably did strike him at least once; it's difficult to tell from the video) and Grosskreutz aimed his loaded Glock at his head. Grosskreutz admitted on cross-examination that Rittenhouse shot him only after he aimed his gun at Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse was a fool for being there in the first place, but if you consider the totality of the circumstances, it's by no means obvious that he didn't act in self-defence. The jury's doubt that he committed murder (or manslaughter, or whatever) was reasonable.
GJ,
And how, pray tell, was Rosenbaum, who was unarmed, except for an empty plastic bag which he threw at Rittenhouse, threatening Rittenhouse's life by reaching out to push Rittenhouse's rifle away from aiming at him, which was strapped to Rittenhose's body. And when Rosenbuam was lying on the ground, with his face down, did he continue to present a thereat to Rittenhouse, as Rittenhouse continued to shoot him in his head and back?? It is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about and have swallowed the defense's ludicrous claim of self-defense hook, line and sinker.
AA,
No, you've swallowed the prosecution's asinine "active shooter" theory, or their equally asinine "provocation" theory.
Rosenbaum wasn't reaching out to "push Rittenhouse's rifle away from aiming at him." Really?! He was trying to grab it, as I said (learn to read); and if he had grabbed it and managed to take it from Rittenhouse, he would have killed him with it--which, and clue in here, he intended to do. That's how he was threatening Rittenhouse. There's nothing arcane or tricky about this.
You seem not to understand the concept of reasonable doubt in criminal law. You seem also not to understand that a particular act of self-defence need not, in law, be the *only* act available to the agent. The question is whether a particular act of self-defence is reasonable in the circumstances. So, sure, Rittenhouse could have acted differently, say by fighting with Rosenbaum, but it doesn't follow that his act of shooting Rosenbaum wasn't justified.
"And when Rosenbuam [sic] was lying on the ground, with his face down, did he continue to present a thereat [sic] to Rittenhouse, as Rittenhouse continued to shoot him in his head and back?? [sic]"
This is misleading. The entire incident happened in less than a second. And the forensic pathologist agreed on cross-examination that Rosenbaum's position at the time he was shot was consistent with being in a "forward lunging position." The jury's doubt was, again, reasonable.
Really. Then how did Rittenhouse manage to shoot Rosenbaum in the back, as the forensic pathologist testified? The first two shots, at Rosenbaum's pelvis and hand, were when Roenbaum was lunging at Rittenhouse as he aimed at Rosenbaum at close range. The last two shots were when Rosenbaum was already on the ground and presented no threat to Rittenhouse. Again, you and your fellow idiot apologists for Rittenhouse do not know what you are talking about.
AA , the whole jury disagreed with you. Give it up and move on to the next outrage. It is quite clear you are the one who has no idea what you’re talking about.
Anyone who has followed the U.S. criminal justice system even very casually for a while must come away with the impression that juries, while many of them are no doubt composed of conscientious citizens, ultimately can't be much better than the process as a whole. There is no other way, really, to explain how juries over the years have convicted quite a few innocent people who might not have had the benefit of competent, energetic counsel or were otherwise disadvantaged.
Juries don't deliberate in a vacuum. The quality of the lawyers, the way they choose to present their cases, the legal strategies chosen, the rulings of the judge, all necessarily influence juries. A criminal trial is not a pristine, mechanical thing in which the facts, the law, and the reasonable doubt standard lead inexorably to a given conclusion. "Beyond a reasonable doubt," like every other legal concept that uses the notion of reasonableness, is a rather elastic notion, because there is no objective definition of what constitutes a "reasonable doubt."
I didn't follow the Rittenhouse trial closely and I'm not expressing a view on it. But juries can and do get things wrong. Again, the innocent people convicted in U.S. courtrooms of crimes they didn't commit, some freed, if they're lucky, after decades in prison, is proof of that.
Anonymous,
Tell me, in how many criminal trials have you served as a defense attorney and makes you an expert on reasonable doubt?
I have tried several, and I know what the concept of reasonable doubt entails. Rittenhouse's shooting Rosenbaum in the head and back did not, under any proper definition of reasonable doubt, constitute self-defense. Crawl back into the cave of ignorance from which you have emerged.
"The last two shots were when Rosenbaum was already on the ground and presented no threat to Rittenhouse."
Your comments, AA, betray frightening levels of ignorance for a lawyer, but at least you're willing to admit that Rosenbaum lunged at Rittenhouse. There's much more, though: (1) Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse (in an intensely hostile environment); (2) Rosenbaum intended to kill Rittenhouse (Rosenbaum said so); and (3) when Rittenhouse turned around and realized that Rosenbaum was lunging at him, he had a nanosecond to react.
In the circumstances, there is no meaningful distinction between two and four shots, especially given the brevity of the encounter. If, as he did, Rittenhouse genuinely feared for his life, begrudging him an extra squeeze of the trigger in that timeframe is beyond stupid, both in law and common sense.
I've argued cases before experienced judges who can't seem to grasp the concept of reasonable doubt, so it's unsurprising that you don't. But it's evident that you don't.
GJ,
This will be last rebuttal to your asinine defense of Mr. Rittenhouse.
The question is whether, as Mr. Rosenblum lay prostate on the ground after having already been shot twice by Rittenhouse - in the pelvis and the hand - whether Rittenhouse had a reasonable belied that Rosenbaum was in a position to turn on him and kill him. As he lay prostrate on the ground, with his face to the ground, no reasonable person could conclude that Rosenbaum presented a threat to Rittenhouse's life. That is the only issue material to the question of whether in firing the last two shots at Rosenbaum - to his head and back - Rittenhouse had a reasonable belief that he was acting in self-defense. By the way, the forensic pathologist's testimony that the last two shots were fired at Rosenbaum to his head and his back, as he lay prone on the ground, was unrebutted by the defense. The claim that because Rittenhouse was using an automatic AR-15 which fires shots in succession, and therefore Rittenhouse could not stop shooting (even assuming this is true) after the first two shots, is irrelevant to the question whether the last two shots - which are the shots which killed Rosenbaum - were fired with a reasonable belief of self-defense. They were not, regardless of the speed within which they were fired. This is precisely why you do not want people - especially teenage punks like Rittenhouse - walking around public streets with AK-15s - because they are difficult to control once the firing starts. The fact that Wisconsin is an open carry state is also not a defense to Rittenhouse's stupid decision to show up in Kenosha with an AR-15. He made that choice, and is responsible for the consequences of that stupid decision. the shots which killed Rosenbaum were made when he was defenseless, and were not made with a reasonable belief that Rosenbaum presented a thereat to Rittnehosue's life - period. I am thankful that you have encountered judges who have rejected your asinine notions of self-defense and reasonable doubt. Hopefully, the people whom you claim to have defended are safely behind bars where they cannot threaten the lives of innocent people as Rittnehouse did.
Lol @ AA revealing himself to be another uninformed anti-gun moron who believes that AR-15s are uncontrollable automatic weapons. Nope, those are illegal without a special permit. A standard AR-15 sold to civilians is semiautomatic and is highly accurate and controllable with minimal training, hence the popularity of the firearm. The fact that they couldn’t even make the gun charge stick to Rittenhouse again demonstrates your stupidity here.
Anonymous,
I am well aware that an AR-15 is an semi-automatic weapon, rather than an automatic weapon, and therefore requires successive applications of pressure on the trigger to continue shooting. I was responding to GJ's assertion that the shooting of Rosenbaum occurred "in seconds" to state that, even if the AR-15 was an automatic weapon which continues to fire as long as the finger in on the trigger, this would not mean that the last two shots fired constituted self-defense.
the fact that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon makes Rittenhouse's guilt even more irrebuttable. In order to fire the last two shots, which killed Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had to choose to re-apply pressure to the trigger in order to fire those shots. He had time to stop. In the following thread, I offer the alternative of Rittenhouse showing up not with an AR-15, but with a knife. After stabbing Rosenbaum twice as Rosenbaum lunged at him, he would not then have the right to deliver two more lethal stab wounds to Roeenbaums's head and back, as Roenbaum lay helpless on the ground, face down. Under these circumstances, a claim of self-defense regarding the last two stab wounds would not be reasonable. There is not difference between using knife to deliver the last two lethal blows, versus using a semi-automatic rifle to deliver the last two lethal shots.
In closing, it is obvious that you are a right-wing, zealous Second Amendment advocate and an ass-hole.
Your post, AA, is so tortured I can only leave it to Amnesty International to investigate. You must have been blotto when you wrote it.
What is one to make of claims like this: "By the way, the forensic pathologist's testimony that the last two shots were fired at Rosenbaum to his head and his back, as he lay prone on the ground, was unrebutted by the defense."
I explained why there was no need for them to rebut it.
And this: "The fact that Wisconsin is an open carry state is also not a defense to Rittenhouse's stupid decision to show up in Kenosha with an AR-15. He made that choice, and is responsible for the consequences of that stupid decision."
Nobody's defending Rittenhouse's decision to show up in Kenosha. Good grief.
Look, I get it. Rittenhouse is your bogeyman. To admit that he acted in self-defence, or even that his self-defence defence had an air of reality, is to align yourself, on this issue anyway, with the likes of Tucker Carlson; and we can't have that! Oh no. So you dig in, ignore, confound, trot out red herrings and non-sequiturs, and label those with whom you disagree assholes and idiots, because doing so eases your anxiety. You won't welcome that characterization, I expect, but that's what's happening.
GJ,
Assuming that you are a lawyer in Wisconsin, you do not even know the law of self-defense in your own state:
Wis. Stat. § 940.01
Current through Acts 2021-2022, ch. 91
Section 940.01 - First-degree intentional homicide(1) OFFENSES.(a) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony.(b) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of an unborn child with intent to kill that unborn child, kill the woman who is pregnant with that unborn child or kill another is guilty of a Class A felony.(2) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. The following are affirmative defenses to prosecution under this section which mitigate the offense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide under s. 940.05:(a)Adequate provocation. Death was caused under the influence of adequate provocation as defined in s. 939.44.(b)Unnecessary defensive force. Death was caused because the actor believed he or she or another was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the force used was necessary to defend the endangered person, if either belief was unreasonable.(c)Prevention of felony. Death was caused because the actor believed that the force used was necessary in the exercise of the privilege to prevent or terminate the commission of a felony, if that belief was unreasonable.(d)Coercion; necessity. Death was caused in the exercise of a privilege under s. 939.45(1).(3) BURDEN OF PROOF. When the existence of an affirmative defense under sub. (2) has been placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts constituting the defense did not exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt under sub. (1).
Wis. Stat. § 940.01
1987 a. 399; 1997 a. 295.
Under the express terms of the Wisconsin statute, “Unnecessary defensive force. Death was caused because the actor believed he or she or another was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the force used was necessary to defend the endangered person, if either belief was unreasonable[.]” Rittenhouse’s belief that Rosenbaum still presented a threat to him as he lay face down on the ground – regardless how long he was laying face down, even if only for a nanosecond – rendered that belief unreasonable beyond a reasonable doubt, and no longer constituted self-defense. And your hyperbolic efforts at sarcasm do not change this.
As I opined:
"And Kyle Rittenhouse, whom a jury acquitted Friday of all charges connected with the shooting deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz, is fighting with the “Fightback Foundation” organized by “Stop the Steal” lawyer Lin Wood over the $2 million bail posted for Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse’s lawyers say the money was raised for their client and thus should be his; Wood contends that he raised the money (although apparently not all of it) and thus it should go to his organization."
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/
Post a Comment