Affine Madness

Linear Independence Day

"Jewish Voice for Peace is an American Jewish anti-Zionist and left-wing advocacy organization. It is critical of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, and supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign" -Wikipedia. Jews, yes, but not at all defending views they disagree with.

My mistake, not a productive interlocutor to engage with.

Imagine a case of someone who you would *agree* killed an attacker in self-defense. Would you call that person a "murderer"? It would be true they committed a homicide.

And that blog doesn't even go into the concept of justifiable homicide, which is the type Rittenhouse claimed to have committed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifi...

Every murder is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder Do you use the words homicide and murder as if they mean the same thing here in the United States? Many people make this mistake. In legal terms, the two words mean different things. The definition of...

You seem committed to trampling over standard distinctions in law and even everyday language. Here's one explanation, among a million you could turn up.

www.zswlaw.com/blog/2017/02...

There are many fine points about different types of homicide I was glossing over. But he was not charged under the Felony Murder rule. Rather than point to the specific statutes he was charged under (easily found online), just look at the jury instructions.

int.nyt.com/data/documen...

That is how the law defines murder.

I personally think the videos provide strong support that he acted out of the motive of self-defense. He is manifestly trying to flee attackers, only shoots at the last moment, because he didn't shoot people who held up, didn't shoot others he could have if that were his aim.

The only thing the videos show is that he killed people. Not all killing is murder. Some killings are justifiable homicides. Whether it is murder depends on intent.

My opinion is on the evidential relevance of the fact that a jury of 12 agreed unanimously to acquit after days of deliberation. I think that fact ought to lead you to question your belief that KR is a murderer. In part because the jury was likely better informed about the evidence.

He overstated a bit. What *I* think: the fact that a jury of 12 carefully deliberated over the evidence and unanimously agreed on a verdict of not guilty should be strong, though not 100% conclusive, evidence for the idea that he acted in self-defense and against the idea that he murdered anyone.

Anyone is free to believe the jury got it wrong. My question would be whether one has an *informed* opinion about just where the jury got it wrong, or is simply positing some form of jury malfeasance or irrationality to protect one's beliefs from falsification by contrary evidence.

The Rittenhouse Verdict Shouldn’t Have Been a Surprise Rittenhouse was no hero. But the failure of the media helps explain why so many people expected him to be convicted.

This is true, but strikes me as a somewhat weak technical objection. I was arguing it is reasonable to believe the jury found merit in his self-defense claim. It is something that is highly probable, though we can't know it for a certainty.
See also:
www.persuasion.community/p/the-ritten...

It's always possible the jury had no good reasons. Given the details of the case these seem far-fetched and implausible to me. And we do know a little bit about the way the jury deliberations carefully unfolded, resolving each count in turn, which don't fit this pattern.

That isn't the same as positively concluding he acted in self-defense. It could be a more agnostic attitude of "maybe he acted in self-defense, maybe he didn't, but prosecution didn't prove the latter beyond reasonable doubt".

Strictly, if self-defense is raised, prosecution has the burden of *dis*proving some element of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. So, more precisely, the jury must have unanimously agreed that his self-defense claims were not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence presented.

It's true we don't know how the jury reasoned. But he didn't dispute that he shot and killed two people. His defense against the murder charge was that this was justified in reasonable self-defense against attackers. Since the jury acquitted, it is reasonable to believe they found merit in this.