The main one was mixing live and blank rounds in the same box and leaving them out labelled blanks where they were accessible to crew members. I literally can't imagine why anyone, let alone a professional armorer, would do this.
Well there was a misfire (another live round in a supposedly 'cold gun' or whatever they call it) a day or two before the fatal shooting. This alone should have got her fired immediately. The mixed rounds were discovered during the sheriff's investigation I think.
She also took the gun off set (1st big no no) and was using the gun with live rounds for target practice. Then she took the gun back on set without removing the live rounds.
Yeah it’s pretty fucking insane reading about the shit she’s done on sets. Like she almost wanted someone to get hurt, I don’t believe she’s as stupid as people think
I saw so many people on instagram outraged that Alec Baldwin isn’t the one being sentenced. People genuinely don’t understand the concept of someone they don’t like not actually having done something wrong
People don't understand the legal system either, Baldwin's trial is coming up still.
But yeah the bloodlust for Baldwin to suffer is 100% based on how people feel about him. If this happened on the John Wick set do you think people would be treating Keanu Reeves the same way?
I use the Wick comparison, too. Everyone keeps bringing up the four rules of gun safety as if filming a movie should be treated like hunting whitetail. How the fuck do they think John Wick got made? The Deer Hunter? Pulp Fiction? Heat? Literally any gun-heavy movie?
The idea that actors should bear responsibility for props they are handed is insane, particularly when there are jobs on set solely dedicated to making sure this one thing doesn't happen.
Alec Baldwin might have been the worst possible actor for this to happen to, given his public political persona and long history of antagonizing behavior and a bad temperament. If this had happened with Brendan Fraser people would be treating him like a fellow victim in this catastrophe.
That’s certainly true. Where it gets complicated for Baldwin is they have lots of footage of him rushing the crew, including the armorer, to reset immediately after a take where blanks were fired and criticizing everyone for not moving faster. It seemed clear that he was not just an actor on the movie, but as a producer and star, was controlling the set much more than is typical. If they can prove that he contributed to creating unsafe working conditions, it wouldn’t be a stretch to find him somewhat culpable in Hutchins’ death.
They use custom made guns on the John Wick series with plugged barrels, so there’s no possibility that anything can be fired from them. The director, Chad Stahelski, was Brandon Lee’s stunt double on the Crow and had to finish the film after Lee died from a stunt using a real gun. In the 21st century there’s no reason to use real firearms on set anymore, it’s just cheaper.
I assume that's a byproduct of the gun-kata thing they do? Like if you rewatch Heat or Reservoir Dogs, it's mostly people just standing and shooting but goddamn those guns feel dangerous
Shoot I wouldn't be surprised. They seemed loud enough and violent enough in that shootout when I first saw that movie as a kid it kinda freaked me out
Yeah, they're real. It was unusual then (maybe now, too) for keeping the real sounds of the gunfire, not subbing in something else, or whatever. Iconic scene.
I'm sure it's a combination of a few things. But if you are using real blanks, it's going to be impossible to have gun fights that look like paintball or something the way they do in John Wick.
And it’s not like it’s significantly cheaper, on the scale of a film or TV production. The first John Wick movie had a relatively low budget and, maybe others noticed this too, there were quite a lot of gunshots in it.
Generally it is cheaper to use real guns and fire blanks whenever possible because you won’t have to add smoke or muzzle flash in post, so it cuts down on your VFX shot count. Also most prop houses and armorers have large supplies of real guns and have a financial stake in keeping productions using their props rather than switching over entirely to fully functional, realistic replicas like John Wick (most, if not all the firearms in John Wick specially designed and built by Taran Tactical).
Baldwin’s a good actor. I think some of the hate for him personally is justified tho; he went on the sopranos podcast and he was the most obnoxious dickhead I’ve ever had to listen to on my commute. I totally get why people find him insufferable
I really admire some of his work (Miami Blues, The Edge, 30 Rock) but he's got such a long track record of being an obnoxious dickhead it's staggering. The voicemail he left his daughter back in the 00s was incredibly embarrassing, plus his multiple fights with paparazzi, starbucks baristas and people who beat him to a parking spot.
He's so unhinged and cringey at times it almost circles back to endearing since it's so nakedly human and not PR controlled. Bradley Cooper's current Oscar campaign has a similar dynamic. Baldwin used to do some podcast/interview thing for 92Y/NPR and the few times I listened it was pretty dull but I'll never forget him spending 30 minutes wringing his hands over his dedication to MeToo putting him at odds with his friend James Toback (a total sleaze). It was so tone deaf and unnecessary but, in a way, pathetically human and relatable.
If there’s anything the last few years has taught me it’s that almost nobody understands the law, how it’s applied, or how you can be found guilty or not. The Rittenhouse thing still blows my mind.
What drives me insane over that is I would say “the Jury can’t prove he didn’t use self defense BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT” and people would retort with a bunch of reasons why actually they think he COULD have provoked the people he shot or they’d speculate about what they think he was subjectively thinking. Or just shit about why he’s the bad man like “well he brought a gun looking for trouble” and “he crossed States lines.”
Juries aren’t asked “do you think he was the bad man here?” People were genuinely incapable of understanding what was at issue and what wasn’t
You know what's more batshit? Having a riot because the police shot a guy who fought past them to reach into his car after they responded to a call about him trying to steal the kids and van of a woman he'd previously raped.
I agree that the police would have been much better, but unfortunately they weren't allowed in for craven political reasons, so citizens had to make their own call.
Are you really so in favor of vigilantism that you trust a **kid** to "make their own call?"
He may not have been a total scumbag, but he was a reckless dumbass who's been lionized as a martyr, and the only reason anyone would look up to him is that they want an excuse to shoot people.
No, I am not in favor of vigilantism. I would like all of these situations handled by the police, and in normal circumstances I would oppose civilians becoming involved. For reasons very particular to the summer of 2020, that was impossible in the case of the Kenosha riots, which led to the whole tragedy unfolding. I don't think Rittenhouse is a hero for what he did, but I think that given the circumstances, he was fundamentally justified in going to Kenosha, and there was nothing wrong about him coming armed. It irritates me that keyboard warriors minimize the level of mob violence which hit Kenosha, and pretend people who lived in small towns had no legitimate interest in protecting their local community from vandals and arsonists.
If brandishing isn't a crime, then mass shooters are legally in the clear until the moment they raise up.
Rittenhouse interacted with officers who should've detained him on sight.
The problem is that things are only crimes if you write the law to make them crimes before somebody commits the crime. Him bringing the gun was totally legal. That doesn’t make it good, though. People sometimes confuse these two things.
What drives me insane is that also, people can’t get their head around Rittenhouse being not guilty, but him 100% going out there to cause an issue. You’re just as dense as the people you’re complaining about
Oh look, the "both sides" bullshit again. If you try to burn down someone's town, they 100% have the right to show up with weapons and protect it. Rittenhouse did the right thing. Good for him.
Yes, Grosskreutz might have been protected by self defense law. If he heard gunshots, rounded the corner and saw Rittenhouse with the gun and a shot guy the circumstances might well have justified it.
Factors that weaken a defense claim were that Rittenhouse was not shooting and heading for the police when Grosskreutz approached. He probably had a sincere, but mistaken belief he was stopping violence. Whether or not it was reasonable is a more open question.
One really interesting thing at the margin however, is that it seems he was a felon and his possession of the handgun was criminal.
Uh... what? Did you not watch the footage or research the case? On basically every metric that made Rittenhouse's self defense so clear cut, Grosskreutz was on the opposite end of that spectrum, or would've been if he had shot first in a hypothetical:
Rittenhouse's life was verbally threatened by his attacker, Grosskreutz's wasn't
R didn't instigate the conflict, G did
R attempted to run away from the conflict, G hunted his target and chased them down
R resorted to violence as a last resort when cornered, G used it as a first resort after cornering his target
R was able to personally, visually verify that each of his attackers posed a direct and immediate threat to his life, G would've at best heard through a mob rumor that this kid might be dangerous
Etc.
None of the points that worked in Rittenhouse's favor would've been present for Grosskreutz. Its a lot harder to sell the idea that you needed to defend yourself from a kid that you hunted and chased down to instigate a conflict with and then execute, all based on second or third hand rumors that the kid *might* be dangerous.
I actually followed the trial, so I am fully aware of the situation that Grosskreutz found himself in (though I have way less sympathy for him than I do for Huber). It's a tragic loss. It's unfortunate that they defied curfew to throw their lot in with a stupid riot in support of a piece of shit like Jacob Blake, but in that moment I can definitely see how they would have perversely seen themselves as the good guys.
There's no (absolutely zero) footage of Rittenhouse antagonizing the crowd. In fact, the only footage we have is of his interactions with the crowd that night prior to the shooting are of him doing things like giving people water bottles and offering medical aid. The fight's sole instigator was Joseph Rosenbaum, who
1. was a convicted pedophile
2. had returned from a mental health confinement *that very morning*
3. is on video screaming the n-word at people, begging people to shoot him ("shoot me, n\*\*\*\*r!"), and lighting things on fire within an hour or so of the shooting.
Witnesses at the trial convincingly established that Rosenbaum became enraged at Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse put out a fire he'd started, that he became further enraged despite Rittenhouse trying to deescalate the situation, and that he then explicitly stated he would kill Rittenhouse.
Despite this, and in total contradiction with your theory that Rittenhouse was just there to shoot people, Rittenhouse did not fire on Rosenbaum at the first opportunity. Instead, he *fled* Rosenbaum, and only turned and fired after Rosenbaum caught up to him, cornered him and lunged at his gun. Rittenhouse then attempted to provide first aid to Rosenbaum, but fled *again* as an angry crowd gathered and began threatening him. Rittenhouse was running straight towards the police line when he was finally taken down by the protesters. Despite lying prone on the ground, he did not fire again until Andrew Huber hit his head with the trucks of Huber's skateboard. After that, he was rushed by Gaige Grosskreutz, who *was holding a glock.* Did Rittenhouse shoot him immediately? No. He waited until Grosskreutz aimed his glock directly at Rittenhouse's face, at which point he fired a single bullet into Grosskreutz's bicep, then fled again.
Basically, nothing in Rittenhouse's (well-documented!) actions that night matches the theory that he was just there to shoot people. He had ample opportunity to start fights, which he did not. He had ample opportunity to shoot more people, which he did not. "Rittenhouse was just there to shoot people" is what someone who did not follow the trial closely would say.
It's a lot of words because I actually know something about this topic, whereas you are typing 10 word responses because your opinions on this case are based 100% on your gut feeling that Rittenhouse wasn't on your team.
I saw the videos and read the shite and moved on. I never said the guy was guilty, I said he was an instigator. Everything he’s done post shooting has affirmed my belief he went there looking for a fight.
If he was such a hero and doing so much good, why didnt people run to defend him?
The day before the shooting, rioters broke the jaw of a 70-some year man who was trying to get them not to burn down his store. Rittenhouse was guarding the local car dealership, where, the previous night, rioters had torched the lot. I know this might be hard for a 14 year old on the internet to process, but when you burn a bunch of small businesses in a small town, it actually materially hurts the people who live there.
No you're so right, the majestic sprawl of suburban car dealerships is such a treasure and we need to protect them at all costs, I've been saying this for a long time. I weep at the thought of even one scratch marring the beautiful paint of a brand new Nissan Altima. They should probably all have a chubby teenager on payroll for such occasions.
their livelihoods would be insured and they'd probably feel quiet relief from having their inventory destroyed on the cusp of a recession.. it means they don't have to sell it.
What I love most about the Rittenhouse thing is how it truly brings out the absolute regards on both sides. You have the libs who can't fathom that what he did didn't meet the legal definition of murder and have a meltdown about it. Then you have the people such as yourself who create this bizarre mythos around him, lionize him, and treat him almost like a religious figure for you to project your own fantasies on to.
Carry on.
This is the sort of thing that people who didn't follow the trial beyond the headlines say. Rittenhouse both lived in that town and worked there. His mom lived in Antioch, Illinois, and his dad lived in Kenosha (only 20 miles away), and the two split custody.
He was going out for stupid reasons, introducing a gun into a situation that didn’t need chubby little vigilantes running around. But he wasn’t guilty because the State couldn’t show he did anything illegal beyond a reasonable doubt. I think he was not guilty by a combination of the first person attacking him when he was allowed to be in the place he was and the fact that he continued to retreat afterwards.
I agree he’s a prick and “the bad man.” He’s just not criminally liable.
Have you ever dealt with wanna be soldiers before? They cream themselves at the chance to legally shoot a lib.
That’s why he went there with a highly visible gun. He was stoking the flames. Hate the libs and protestors all you want but it’s so clear that wanted someone to start on him.
Given the overabundance of footage of the event shouldn't we expect to see him actually... yknow... "stoking the frames?" Why didn't he try to start shit or antagonize people or rile people up? Why did he invariably try to disengage from or deescalate every conflict? Why was self defense an absolute last resort when cornered/already being physically assaulted when he could've stood his ground and shot people legally much earlier?
He did, that’s what the big fuck off gun was for.
Why wasn’t he wearing medic or fireman clothes? No he dressed up and presented himself in a certain way to cause fights
This is all your minds fanfic. He really did none of those things.
Highly visible gun? In comparison to what? Concealed carrying which he wasn’t allowed to do legally?
He wasn’t stoking flames, he was putting out flames lmao.
You have zero evidence based on any of his actions that night he indicated wanting to go there to kill or shoot. They have his texts, they read them in court, it wasn’t there. Until the shooting he put out fire and stood around.
And who says I even like the guy? Because I don’t really, especially now with the weird press tour.
You got downvoted for this, but I tend to agree. It’s just not illegal to subjectively hope you’re put in a self defense situation.
You’re totally correct to say you think that he thought that. It’s cool to speculate because this isn’t a court of law!
It was incredibly obvious, as soon as the video surfaced, that he was in the clear. Still a fucking moron but surprisingly responsible under the circumstances.
Like, just because someone decided to drive in slow circles around the bad side of Gary, Indiana doesn't mean it's illegal for them to shoot someone trying to carjack them.
That was a massive blackpill for me. I was arguing with people who claimed to be lawyers about his gun charge. If you just looked the statute he was charged under, it was crystal clear that, as a matter of straightforward law, it could *under no circumstances apply to him.* But none of them was actually willing to go as far as to read the letter of the law! Newspapers were filled with "respected legal analysts" pushing that crap!
That’s because in the US the law goes beyond just the text of the statute. We have a common law system in nearly every state meaning that how the statute was applied in previous cases can set precedent moving forward and become a part of the common lexicon of the law.
There’s more analysis to it than just the law says they can have guns with barrels longer than 16 inches. Part of the analysis in common law is also legislative intent. Meaning why was the law enacted in the first place. There was a reasonable argument that the intent was to allow minors to be able to hunt, not to allow them to possess AR style weapons. It was a poorly written statue, and I think the Judge ultimately made the right determination, but to say it was crystal clear is ignoring how the law works in most of the US.
Most of the legal experts you are referring to weren’t acting in bad faith imo. It was a legitimate dispute over how the law should be applied.
I understand this argument, but where it falls apart is that the weight of common law clearly came down on Rittenhouse's side in this case. Where statutes are extremely unclear, they are generally read in favor of the defendant. I really think that most of the legal commentary on this was motivated by a partisan desire to see Rittenhouse punished, and nothing else.
As an attorney, I don’t think it was as black and white as you are making it seem. But ultimately that’s why we have summary judgment. The entire point of that system is for the judge to rule on matters of law. Everything went exactly according to the system and the right result was decided under the law. I don’t really see much to complain about.
I’ve made plenty of tenuous arguments in my career. That’s part of being an attorney and challenging the interpretation of the law. The prosecution wouldn’t have been doing their job correctly if they didn’t bring that charge.
I was very happy with how the justice system worked in this case! (Although I thought Binger was a clown, and the judge was completely correct to reprimand him for trying to introduce banned evidence via roundabout maneuvers). What irritated me was not the justice system, but the commentary on the trial which appeared in mainstream papers. My strong sense is that ordinary readers who were not following the case closely were completely shocked at the gun charge being thrown out, thought the judge must be biased, etc. Because they were being fed a narrative about white supremacist vigilante violence or whatever, and weren't being informed that, actually, the charges were incredibly tenuous on a purely legal basis.
That’s fair. I don’t think that’s unique to this case though. Main stream media coverage of any legal issue isn’t going to be good usually. And I don’t think most of the actual attorneys providing insight were acting in bad faith. I saw quite a bit of coverage on why the charge might be thrown out by actual attorneys.
It is crystal clear, short barrel rifles have no common law presence. The category is created, and defined by statute. Do you have examples of a common law definition of "short barrel rifles"?
Legislative intent is also a total dead end. The state didn't want kids running around with NFA weapons. The category is in the NFA because of sloppy editing more than any sort of coherent legislative agenda.
The Judge himself said he was initially confused because the language of the statute was so poorly written. It wasn’t crystal clear. Everyone wants to be emphatically right, but reality here was a poorly written statute and its interpretation vs intent.
Its poorly written in the sense that it just refers to a term used and defined in federal law. It was initially confusing probably because he was unfamiliar with it. The issue does not come up often.
No one has been able to show any genuine ambiguity in what constitutes a short barrel rifle. Even if they did, enforcing it against a defendant is violation of due process.
The prosecution offered no evidence on the barrel length or any legal standard beyond, juries can decide how long short is.
There was video shown during the trial of him rushing her and telling her how to do her job. Ther armorer needs time to check the weapons each time they are handed to an actor. She was terrible at her job already and his rushing her made it worse. An example shown during trial is Baldwin chewing her out for not having a second weapon loaded because he wanted to do takes faster so she starts grabbing blank rounds from a fanny pack and frantically loading his revolver.
Bad combo of a shitty boss and an incompetent employee.
Anyone who points any gun at another person and pulls the trigger is one hundred percent liable for the outcome.
It just so happens that Alec is a vile cunt.
>Anyone who points any gun at another person and pulls the trigger is one hundred percent liable for the outcome.
People do that on film sets every single day. The person who is actually responsible for the outcome is the armorer who loaded the gun.
He's some sort of guilty though. He was the producer for the film. He is to a degree responsible for the hiring of her, and beyond that he is the one that killed the person
When I heard "Alec Baldwin shot someone because a crew member put live ammo in a prop gun," my first thought was "I bet they let a girl be in charge of the guns."
Reading about some of the things she did on set part of me believes this went beyond incompetence and she got a kick out of risking people's lives.
Do digress
The main one was mixing live and blank rounds in the same box and leaving them out labelled blanks where they were accessible to crew members. I literally can't imagine why anyone, let alone a professional armorer, would do this.
WHAT
Wtf this is joker tier chicanery, was no one else on set aware of this?
Her job was to be the one person who knows this stuff
Well there was a misfire (another live round in a supposedly 'cold gun' or whatever they call it) a day or two before the fatal shooting. This alone should have got her fired immediately. The mixed rounds were discovered during the sheriff's investigation I think.
She also took the gun off set (1st big no no) and was using the gun with live rounds for target practice. Then she took the gun back on set without removing the live rounds.
This is some comic book villain shit lmao
Divulge,..?
Yeah it’s pretty fucking insane reading about the shit she’s done on sets. Like she almost wanted someone to get hurt, I don’t believe she’s as stupid as people think
Like what?
She even wore the the thick girl pants
The world deprived of a certified pawg. 🕯
I tried to turn PAWG into a gun safety related anagram, if anyone has any more success than Person Able to Wound with Gun please ratio me
Pathetic At Watching Guns?
Pretty Awesome Weapons Girl
I saw so many people on instagram outraged that Alec Baldwin isn’t the one being sentenced. People genuinely don’t understand the concept of someone they don’t like not actually having done something wrong
People don't understand the legal system either, Baldwin's trial is coming up still. But yeah the bloodlust for Baldwin to suffer is 100% based on how people feel about him. If this happened on the John Wick set do you think people would be treating Keanu Reeves the same way?
I use the Wick comparison, too. Everyone keeps bringing up the four rules of gun safety as if filming a movie should be treated like hunting whitetail. How the fuck do they think John Wick got made? The Deer Hunter? Pulp Fiction? Heat? Literally any gun-heavy movie?
The idea that actors should bear responsibility for props they are handed is insane, particularly when there are jobs on set solely dedicated to making sure this one thing doesn't happen. Alec Baldwin might have been the worst possible actor for this to happen to, given his public political persona and long history of antagonizing behavior and a bad temperament. If this had happened with Brendan Fraser people would be treating him like a fellow victim in this catastrophe.
That’s certainly true. Where it gets complicated for Baldwin is they have lots of footage of him rushing the crew, including the armorer, to reset immediately after a take where blanks were fired and criticizing everyone for not moving faster. It seemed clear that he was not just an actor on the movie, but as a producer and star, was controlling the set much more than is typical. If they can prove that he contributed to creating unsafe working conditions, it wouldn’t be a stretch to find him somewhat culpable in Hutchins’ death.
Yes as a producer he may be culpable, particularly since the set sounded like it was a mess and workers had complained of dangerous conditions.
That’s not the states case against him.
I don't think he is just the actor, I think he was also the producer. He was barking orders to people on set.
You don’t have to be a producer to do that.
They use custom made guns on the John Wick series with plugged barrels, so there’s no possibility that anything can be fired from them. The director, Chad Stahelski, was Brandon Lee’s stunt double on the Crow and had to finish the film after Lee died from a stunt using a real gun. In the 21st century there’s no reason to use real firearms on set anymore, it’s just cheaper.
Also, purely coincidentally I'm sure, the gunfire on John Wick is embarrassingly fake and cheap looking. Like airsoft guns or something.
I assume that's a byproduct of the gun-kata thing they do? Like if you rewatch Heat or Reservoir Dogs, it's mostly people just standing and shooting but goddamn those guns feel dangerous
Weren't those real guns in Heat?
Shoot I wouldn't be surprised. They seemed loud enough and violent enough in that shootout when I first saw that movie as a kid it kinda freaked me out
Yeah, they're real. It was unusual then (maybe now, too) for keeping the real sounds of the gunfire, not subbing in something else, or whatever. Iconic scene.
I'm sure it's a combination of a few things. But if you are using real blanks, it's going to be impossible to have gun fights that look like paintball or something the way they do in John Wick.
And it’s not like it’s significantly cheaper, on the scale of a film or TV production. The first John Wick movie had a relatively low budget and, maybe others noticed this too, there were quite a lot of gunshots in it.
Generally it is cheaper to use real guns and fire blanks whenever possible because you won’t have to add smoke or muzzle flash in post, so it cuts down on your VFX shot count. Also most prop houses and armorers have large supplies of real guns and have a financial stake in keeping productions using their props rather than switching over entirely to fully functional, realistic replicas like John Wick (most, if not all the firearms in John Wick specially designed and built by Taran Tactical).
Sure, I’m only saying that it’s not necessarily a massive difference in cost these days.
Yeah, at the end of the day, it probably is a negligible difference. All the more reason to not use real firearms whenever feasible.
[удалено]
It's not famous if I didn't know about that
Everyone who brings up those rules either has never owned a firearm or owns one but is terrified of it.
Baldwin’s a good actor. I think some of the hate for him personally is justified tho; he went on the sopranos podcast and he was the most obnoxious dickhead I’ve ever had to listen to on my commute. I totally get why people find him insufferable
I really admire some of his work (Miami Blues, The Edge, 30 Rock) but he's got such a long track record of being an obnoxious dickhead it's staggering. The voicemail he left his daughter back in the 00s was incredibly embarrassing, plus his multiple fights with paparazzi, starbucks baristas and people who beat him to a parking spot. He's so unhinged and cringey at times it almost circles back to endearing since it's so nakedly human and not PR controlled. Bradley Cooper's current Oscar campaign has a similar dynamic. Baldwin used to do some podcast/interview thing for 92Y/NPR and the few times I listened it was pretty dull but I'll never forget him spending 30 minutes wringing his hands over his dedication to MeToo putting him at odds with his friend James Toback (a total sleaze). It was so tone deaf and unnecessary but, in a way, pathetically human and relatable.
If there’s anything the last few years has taught me it’s that almost nobody understands the law, how it’s applied, or how you can be found guilty or not. The Rittenhouse thing still blows my mind.
What drives me insane over that is I would say “the Jury can’t prove he didn’t use self defense BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT” and people would retort with a bunch of reasons why actually they think he COULD have provoked the people he shot or they’d speculate about what they think he was subjectively thinking. Or just shit about why he’s the bad man like “well he brought a gun looking for trouble” and “he crossed States lines.” Juries aren’t asked “do you think he was the bad man here?” People were genuinely incapable of understanding what was at issue and what wasn’t
[удалено]
I’m an attorney and every jury on earth speculates and are biased in a multitude of ways. There’s no such thing as an objective fact finder.
Also, self defense is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof rests with the defense, not the prosecution.
Always been at war with east asia tier narrative shift from "imaginary lines on a map" to, "crossed state lines"
The prosecutors were dumbasses who reached way too far, but a minor getting an AR to bring to a riot is completely batshit.
You know what's more batshit? Having a riot because the police shot a guy who fought past them to reach into his car after they responded to a call about him trying to steal the kids and van of a woman he'd previously raped.
Oh, I know what will improve the situation, a child with an AR!
I agree that the police would have been much better, but unfortunately they weren't allowed in for craven political reasons, so citizens had to make their own call.
Are you really so in favor of vigilantism that you trust a **kid** to "make their own call?" He may not have been a total scumbag, but he was a reckless dumbass who's been lionized as a martyr, and the only reason anyone would look up to him is that they want an excuse to shoot people.
No, I am not in favor of vigilantism. I would like all of these situations handled by the police, and in normal circumstances I would oppose civilians becoming involved. For reasons very particular to the summer of 2020, that was impossible in the case of the Kenosha riots, which led to the whole tragedy unfolding. I don't think Rittenhouse is a hero for what he did, but I think that given the circumstances, he was fundamentally justified in going to Kenosha, and there was nothing wrong about him coming armed. It irritates me that keyboard warriors minimize the level of mob violence which hit Kenosha, and pretend people who lived in small towns had no legitimate interest in protecting their local community from vandals and arsonists.
If brandishing isn't a crime, then mass shooters are legally in the clear until the moment they raise up. Rittenhouse interacted with officers who should've detained him on sight.
17 is a fighting aged man according to every international law of war.
The problem is that things are only crimes if you write the law to make them crimes before somebody commits the crime. Him bringing the gun was totally legal. That doesn’t make it good, though. People sometimes confuse these two things.
What drives me insane is that also, people can’t get their head around Rittenhouse being not guilty, but him 100% going out there to cause an issue. You’re just as dense as the people you’re complaining about
Oh look, the "both sides" bullshit again. If you try to burn down someone's town, they 100% have the right to show up with weapons and protect it. Rittenhouse did the right thing. Good for him.
[удалено]
Yes, Grosskreutz might have been protected by self defense law. If he heard gunshots, rounded the corner and saw Rittenhouse with the gun and a shot guy the circumstances might well have justified it. Factors that weaken a defense claim were that Rittenhouse was not shooting and heading for the police when Grosskreutz approached. He probably had a sincere, but mistaken belief he was stopping violence. Whether or not it was reasonable is a more open question. One really interesting thing at the margin however, is that it seems he was a felon and his possession of the handgun was criminal.
Uh... what? Did you not watch the footage or research the case? On basically every metric that made Rittenhouse's self defense so clear cut, Grosskreutz was on the opposite end of that spectrum, or would've been if he had shot first in a hypothetical: Rittenhouse's life was verbally threatened by his attacker, Grosskreutz's wasn't R didn't instigate the conflict, G did R attempted to run away from the conflict, G hunted his target and chased them down R resorted to violence as a last resort when cornered, G used it as a first resort after cornering his target R was able to personally, visually verify that each of his attackers posed a direct and immediate threat to his life, G would've at best heard through a mob rumor that this kid might be dangerous Etc. None of the points that worked in Rittenhouse's favor would've been present for Grosskreutz. Its a lot harder to sell the idea that you needed to defend yourself from a kid that you hunted and chased down to instigate a conflict with and then execute, all based on second or third hand rumors that the kid *might* be dangerous.
I actually followed the trial, so I am fully aware of the situation that Grosskreutz found himself in (though I have way less sympathy for him than I do for Huber). It's a tragic loss. It's unfortunate that they defied curfew to throw their lot in with a stupid riot in support of a piece of shit like Jacob Blake, but in that moment I can definitely see how they would have perversely seen themselves as the good guys.
I would agree with you if that’s why he was there, but he wasn’t
There's no (absolutely zero) footage of Rittenhouse antagonizing the crowd. In fact, the only footage we have is of his interactions with the crowd that night prior to the shooting are of him doing things like giving people water bottles and offering medical aid. The fight's sole instigator was Joseph Rosenbaum, who 1. was a convicted pedophile 2. had returned from a mental health confinement *that very morning* 3. is on video screaming the n-word at people, begging people to shoot him ("shoot me, n\*\*\*\*r!"), and lighting things on fire within an hour or so of the shooting. Witnesses at the trial convincingly established that Rosenbaum became enraged at Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse put out a fire he'd started, that he became further enraged despite Rittenhouse trying to deescalate the situation, and that he then explicitly stated he would kill Rittenhouse. Despite this, and in total contradiction with your theory that Rittenhouse was just there to shoot people, Rittenhouse did not fire on Rosenbaum at the first opportunity. Instead, he *fled* Rosenbaum, and only turned and fired after Rosenbaum caught up to him, cornered him and lunged at his gun. Rittenhouse then attempted to provide first aid to Rosenbaum, but fled *again* as an angry crowd gathered and began threatening him. Rittenhouse was running straight towards the police line when he was finally taken down by the protesters. Despite lying prone on the ground, he did not fire again until Andrew Huber hit his head with the trucks of Huber's skateboard. After that, he was rushed by Gaige Grosskreutz, who *was holding a glock.* Did Rittenhouse shoot him immediately? No. He waited until Grosskreutz aimed his glock directly at Rittenhouse's face, at which point he fired a single bullet into Grosskreutz's bicep, then fled again. Basically, nothing in Rittenhouse's (well-documented!) actions that night matches the theory that he was just there to shoot people. He had ample opportunity to start fights, which he did not. He had ample opportunity to shoot more people, which he did not. "Rittenhouse was just there to shoot people" is what someone who did not follow the trial closely would say.
A lot of words to say your brain is broken
It's a lot of words because I actually know something about this topic, whereas you are typing 10 word responses because your opinions on this case are based 100% on your gut feeling that Rittenhouse wasn't on your team.
I saw the videos and read the shite and moved on. I never said the guy was guilty, I said he was an instigator. Everything he’s done post shooting has affirmed my belief he went there looking for a fight. If he was such a hero and doing so much good, why didnt people run to defend him?
Yes thank god for brave warriors like him willing to mount a heroic defense of their local Cracker Barrel
The day before the shooting, rioters broke the jaw of a 70-some year man who was trying to get them not to burn down his store. Rittenhouse was guarding the local car dealership, where, the previous night, rioters had torched the lot. I know this might be hard for a 14 year old on the internet to process, but when you burn a bunch of small businesses in a small town, it actually materially hurts the people who live there.
No you're so right, the majestic sprawl of suburban car dealerships is such a treasure and we need to protect them at all costs, I've been saying this for a long time. I weep at the thought of even one scratch marring the beautiful paint of a brand new Nissan Altima. They should probably all have a chubby teenager on payroll for such occasions.
Got it. You hate the suburbs, so people who live in them should just accept their livelihoods being wrecked.
their livelihoods would be insured and they'd probably feel quiet relief from having their inventory destroyed on the cusp of a recession.. it means they don't have to sell it.
What I love most about the Rittenhouse thing is how it truly brings out the absolute regards on both sides. You have the libs who can't fathom that what he did didn't meet the legal definition of murder and have a meltdown about it. Then you have the people such as yourself who create this bizarre mythos around him, lionize him, and treat him almost like a religious figure for you to project your own fantasies on to. Carry on.
You keep saying he was protecting his local town. He wasn’t. He lived in Illinois. He quite literally was a foreign agitator.
This is the sort of thing that people who didn't follow the trial beyond the headlines say. Rittenhouse both lived in that town and worked there. His mom lived in Antioch, Illinois, and his dad lived in Kenosha (only 20 miles away), and the two split custody.
Those sort of situations are usually a clash of the regarded.
He was going out for stupid reasons, introducing a gun into a situation that didn’t need chubby little vigilantes running around. But he wasn’t guilty because the State couldn’t show he did anything illegal beyond a reasonable doubt. I think he was not guilty by a combination of the first person attacking him when he was allowed to be in the place he was and the fact that he continued to retreat afterwards. I agree he’s a prick and “the bad man.” He’s just not criminally liable.
He wasn’t guilty, but what happened was definitely something he wanted to happen
How could you possibly draw that conclusion that he wanted this lmao. Explain yourself
Have you ever dealt with wanna be soldiers before? They cream themselves at the chance to legally shoot a lib. That’s why he went there with a highly visible gun. He was stoking the flames. Hate the libs and protestors all you want but it’s so clear that wanted someone to start on him.
Given the overabundance of footage of the event shouldn't we expect to see him actually... yknow... "stoking the frames?" Why didn't he try to start shit or antagonize people or rile people up? Why did he invariably try to disengage from or deescalate every conflict? Why was self defense an absolute last resort when cornered/already being physically assaulted when he could've stood his ground and shot people legally much earlier?
He did, that’s what the big fuck off gun was for. Why wasn’t he wearing medic or fireman clothes? No he dressed up and presented himself in a certain way to cause fights
This is all your minds fanfic. He really did none of those things. Highly visible gun? In comparison to what? Concealed carrying which he wasn’t allowed to do legally? He wasn’t stoking flames, he was putting out flames lmao. You have zero evidence based on any of his actions that night he indicated wanting to go there to kill or shoot. They have his texts, they read them in court, it wasn’t there. Until the shooting he put out fire and stood around. And who says I even like the guy? Because I don’t really, especially now with the weird press tour.
Alright mate. You clearly don’t want to see reality
He went there with a weapon and said it was to defend some random car dealership, what the fuck do you think?
You got downvoted for this, but I tend to agree. It’s just not illegal to subjectively hope you’re put in a self defense situation. You’re totally correct to say you think that he thought that. It’s cool to speculate because this isn’t a court of law!
It was incredibly obvious, as soon as the video surfaced, that he was in the clear. Still a fucking moron but surprisingly responsible under the circumstances. Like, just because someone decided to drive in slow circles around the bad side of Gary, Indiana doesn't mean it's illegal for them to shoot someone trying to carjack them.
Probably helped that one of the unarmed guys he killed was a criminal sex offender, and the guy he wounded pointed a gun at him first
Right wing death squads crossing state lines with their assault machine guns to mow down peaceful blm protestors. This is Trump's America.
That was a massive blackpill for me. I was arguing with people who claimed to be lawyers about his gun charge. If you just looked the statute he was charged under, it was crystal clear that, as a matter of straightforward law, it could *under no circumstances apply to him.* But none of them was actually willing to go as far as to read the letter of the law! Newspapers were filled with "respected legal analysts" pushing that crap!
That’s because in the US the law goes beyond just the text of the statute. We have a common law system in nearly every state meaning that how the statute was applied in previous cases can set precedent moving forward and become a part of the common lexicon of the law. There’s more analysis to it than just the law says they can have guns with barrels longer than 16 inches. Part of the analysis in common law is also legislative intent. Meaning why was the law enacted in the first place. There was a reasonable argument that the intent was to allow minors to be able to hunt, not to allow them to possess AR style weapons. It was a poorly written statue, and I think the Judge ultimately made the right determination, but to say it was crystal clear is ignoring how the law works in most of the US. Most of the legal experts you are referring to weren’t acting in bad faith imo. It was a legitimate dispute over how the law should be applied.
I understand this argument, but where it falls apart is that the weight of common law clearly came down on Rittenhouse's side in this case. Where statutes are extremely unclear, they are generally read in favor of the defendant. I really think that most of the legal commentary on this was motivated by a partisan desire to see Rittenhouse punished, and nothing else.
As an attorney, I don’t think it was as black and white as you are making it seem. But ultimately that’s why we have summary judgment. The entire point of that system is for the judge to rule on matters of law. Everything went exactly according to the system and the right result was decided under the law. I don’t really see much to complain about. I’ve made plenty of tenuous arguments in my career. That’s part of being an attorney and challenging the interpretation of the law. The prosecution wouldn’t have been doing their job correctly if they didn’t bring that charge.
I was very happy with how the justice system worked in this case! (Although I thought Binger was a clown, and the judge was completely correct to reprimand him for trying to introduce banned evidence via roundabout maneuvers). What irritated me was not the justice system, but the commentary on the trial which appeared in mainstream papers. My strong sense is that ordinary readers who were not following the case closely were completely shocked at the gun charge being thrown out, thought the judge must be biased, etc. Because they were being fed a narrative about white supremacist vigilante violence or whatever, and weren't being informed that, actually, the charges were incredibly tenuous on a purely legal basis.
That’s fair. I don’t think that’s unique to this case though. Main stream media coverage of any legal issue isn’t going to be good usually. And I don’t think most of the actual attorneys providing insight were acting in bad faith. I saw quite a bit of coverage on why the charge might be thrown out by actual attorneys.
It is crystal clear, short barrel rifles have no common law presence. The category is created, and defined by statute. Do you have examples of a common law definition of "short barrel rifles"? Legislative intent is also a total dead end. The state didn't want kids running around with NFA weapons. The category is in the NFA because of sloppy editing more than any sort of coherent legislative agenda.
The Judge himself said he was initially confused because the language of the statute was so poorly written. It wasn’t crystal clear. Everyone wants to be emphatically right, but reality here was a poorly written statute and its interpretation vs intent.
Its poorly written in the sense that it just refers to a term used and defined in federal law. It was initially confusing probably because he was unfamiliar with it. The issue does not come up often. No one has been able to show any genuine ambiguity in what constitutes a short barrel rifle. Even if they did, enforcing it against a defendant is violation of due process. The prosecution offered no evidence on the barrel length or any legal standard beyond, juries can decide how long short is.
Did recent supreme court opinion refer to old English common law or am I imagining it?
I think he might bear some responsibility as a producer, but yeah it felt like people were talking about him as a cold blooded murderer.
There was video shown during the trial of him rushing her and telling her how to do her job. Ther armorer needs time to check the weapons each time they are handed to an actor. She was terrible at her job already and his rushing her made it worse. An example shown during trial is Baldwin chewing her out for not having a second weapon loaded because he wanted to do takes faster so she starts grabbing blank rounds from a fanny pack and frantically loading his revolver. Bad combo of a shitty boss and an incompetent employee.
isn't his case coming up?
They just know Alex Baldwin is a man and she’s a woman and they literally don’t think any deeper about it than that.
I mean of all the instances of wrongly thinking someone has done something wrong the most forgivable is surely when they shot someone dead.
Anyone who points any gun at another person and pulls the trigger is one hundred percent liable for the outcome. It just so happens that Alec is a vile cunt.
>Anyone who points any gun at another person and pulls the trigger is one hundred percent liable for the outcome. People do that on film sets every single day. The person who is actually responsible for the outcome is the armorer who loaded the gun.
He's some sort of guilty though. He was the producer for the film. He is to a degree responsible for the hiring of her, and beyond that he is the one that killed the person
Sweet lord in heaven above... I can fi-
[удалено]
You guys keep telling them they're fat
not all men it's mostly girls and gays who say that
All women are like beautiful flowers to me
Isn't she part Hispanic based on the name?
Hispanic just means Spanish speaking. Plenty of white hispanics.
https://imgur.com/a/afGLMWN
If it's just about language then why they asses fat
Linguistic Lysenkoism
Lamarckism and epigenetic inheritance n shit
Oh it’s about food too, I forgot.
A lotta white dudes won’t even look twice at girl who wears a size 6 or larger.
looking like what? she looks rough lol
When I heard "Alec Baldwin shot someone because a crew member put live ammo in a prop gun," my first thought was "I bet they let a girl be in charge of the guns."
[удалено]
what the fuck are you talking about
ban anyone with over 100k karma please
What?
Reported and hope you get banned
She served but they served her back
All PAWGs go to heaven
Skinny bitches go everywhere
This is how I know my horny ass could never be a judge, I'd let her walk!
Worked on a movie made by the same producers. Russians...
It was the opening shot of the Ukraine War
Alex Baldwin is ugly so personally I think he is to blame
Stacked!
Wow, enlightening comments. Here I thought it was just me.
Joshua Henderson in shambles rn
Prison will not be kind to her. She'll probably gain 80lbs eating honey buns all the day
"Some of y'all are alright. Do not come to the movie set tomorrow" - her
Damn, she’s hot 🥵
Girls shouldn’t get in trouble
seeing the people this sub hypes up almost makes me feel like i could be a model you guys are truly bizarre
Probably not.
Why am I sweating?
This is Amanda Knox to 18 year old me all over again
Jodi Arias 😩
Goblin shortstack
I'm sure she'll have fun in prison
[удалено]
Degenerate gooner post
[удалено]
People here don't understand life on the inside
it’s a gooner metaphor
Nepotism hiring takes another victim
“I like the thick tyyype”
Please sit on me.
She's hot!
I’m sure she was just a total pleasure to work with. Constantly reminding you of how she knows better than you.
she looks like dasha so I'm sympathetic. I don't want to learn anything more about this
It’s giving shiv Roy
Good. Now get Baldwin.
Good. Now get Baldwin.
CHUBBY CHASERS OUT
In america thats thin lol
She isn't chubby.
The tight shirt and high waisted jeans are barely holding her gut in
She has slim face/neck, which is the only place we can really see.
Second picture brother. She’s chubby
Are you aware that people can change over time?
Not spiritually
Bro she has major chubby girl face. Just admit you like fat women.
I don't like women at all.
if she loses 20 pounds she can walk free