Kyle Rittenhouse Trial.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I was surprised slightly that some didn't see my post as humor in part. Anyway, when I was doing research, I read the extensive professional legal and behavioral literature on appearance issues and it is convincing that appearance can have powerful effects. Some in the 'gun' world deny that with the good shoot mantra that implies the 'facts' will clearly acquit them. Findings that exposure to guns could be detrimental to the defendant was demonstrated. Some findings were counterintuitive to naive gun folks. Knowledgeable jurors might have negative opinions of various type of guns as indicating 'blood' lust. Gender had an effect if the female was seen as acting in variance to female stereotypes. There's lots of stuff out there.

There are scholarly texts on jury factors that are well worth the read for serious folks. Here's one Jury text.

Decision Making: The State of the Science (Psychology and Crime, 8)
by Dennis J. Devine | Aug 6, 2012

Just for an anecdote. Watched a case on CourtTV. Officer shoots a deaf or developmentally challenged young man with a garden tool who won't follow commands. He is charged. Now at the time of the incident, he has white side walls and a militaristic hairdo. At trial, he has a nicely grown out head of hair, is wearing a professional looking three piece suit and when he is on the stand, has some professional looking reading glasses. Very nice appearance - why is that?

BTW, there are different models of jury decision making. Some are linear sums of facts and other mathematical models. The one that is most popular (at least from what I read), is that the side that gets its narrative of events first and most compelling wins. The juror that buys that narrative then engages in selective information processing to attend to facts in accord with that narrative and discards ones that disagree and/or does not attend to them.

[beenalongtime]

Is it normal for the prosecuting attorney and the defendent to have the same hair cut?

LOL, brought back memories of Helmut.


Neighborhood barber as a kid, no matter what you wanted, everyone got the same, 1950's duckbill haircut. Barber in the front, taxidermy in the back, fake ears at the barber station, because a kid "squirmed".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Total aside, as a kid with very curly hair that style did not work for me. The alternative was to go baldy, close shaven which I found aesthetically offensive. So I go my hair chemically straightened which burned the crap out of my scalp as other folks who straightened their hair complained about. Later, giant puffy curly hippy hair was acceptable and the way to go in college and grad school. Got some funny pictures of those times.

Now, genetic and time have reduced hair problems. I look like my Uncle Moses whose shining pate I used to laugh at.

Did grow the beard to compensate for the scalp and indulge in being lazy. Being a curly haired type, I suffered from ingrown beard hairs when shaving as do other folks, so I sympathized with those protested shaving requirements. My mother hated my beard and thought I was a Communist. My Dad was ok with it.

[joshs]

I was surprised slightly that some didn't see my post as humor in part.

I definitely got it, but felt that it's always good to point out that appearance matters in court. Especially to the guy who's well known in the gun world for making everyone sad with his research that shows gun appearance matters . . .

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Wasn't talking about you, Josh! I'm sorry I made someone sad! I recall getting yelled at as an anti at the local gun club dinner. My buddy asked me to tell my tale and one guy flipped out as me trying to ban his gun. Like I wasn't at the matches with my AR all the time. He didn't get the point. A federal officer and local LEO had to try to explain legal things to him.

I'm still annoyed that I had to sell my TX AR for my NY compliant Mini - even though it's a nice gun. I don't shoot it enough as no IDPA style carbine matches around here. USPSA and Steel for the Ruger PCC 9mm but the winter will shut that down soon enough. Competition moves indoor.

[Tensaw]

Do you really want to use hairdo to evaluate people? Does it trump other criteria?

Well,... this being the internet and all,... YES. Except for neck tats. Neck tats trump everything.

[Ed L]

I was surprised slightly that some didn't see my post as humor in part. Anyway, when I was doing research, I read the extensive professional legal and behavioral literature on appearance issues and it is convincing that appearance can have powerful effects. Some in the 'gun' world deny that with the good shoot mantra that implies the 'facts' will clearly acquit them. Findings that exposure to guns could be detrimental to the defendant was demonstrated. Some findings were counterintuitive to naive gun folks. Knowledgeable jurors might have negative opinions of various type of guns as indicating 'blood' lust. Gender had an effect if the female was seen as acting in variance to female stereotypes. There's lots of stuff out there.

This is a perfect example of importance of the effectiveness of a certain type of modern firearms dwarfing possible stigma issues. The first role of the gun is to stop the attacker(s) and let you survive the situation.

If Kyle had been carrying something that might've been a bit more court friendly — like say a pump action shotgun-- he would not have been able to get off the shots from the ground that he did with one hand at those angles with people attacking him in a swarm from multiple directions, and he would have been beaten to death by the crowd. He also might not of been able to get off more than one shot with the first attacker who was trying to grab his gun. In the initial dynamic fray Kyle was being chased by a hyper violent individual, heard a gunshot, turned and the pursuing attacker lunged to grab Kyle's gun. I don't know at that point if Kyle had one or two hands on the gun, but the AR's ergonomics and design allowed Kyle to get multiple shots into the attacker. With a pump action shotgun he might have gotten one, assuming he was carrying it with a round in the chamber when the chase started. One shotgun round might have ended it, but given the dynamics of the chase and angles of the struggle, if it was a miss or a peripheral hit with a pump action shotgun, Kyle would not have been able to get off another round and the violent psychopath who had done 10+ years in jail for raping little boys and had violently attacked 10 different guards while imprisoned might have gotten himself another victim the way he threatened to do earlier.

Hell, if Kyle Rittenhouse had been armed with a 28" barrelled shotgun--even if it was a friendly looking wood stocked semi-auto, he would have probably have gotten the barrel grabbed and disarmed before he could have used it to save his own life.

I agree with the many people that Kyle should have been there in the first place, but without the AR type firearm I don't think he would have survived to be tried in court, or wound up in a vegetative state.

That basic AR configuration with the small red dot was exactly what Kyle needed to survive that particular violent event.

[TGS]

Well,... this being the internet and all,... YES. Except for neck tats. Neck tats trump everything.

Well....not everything, apparently.....

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ed has given a great analysis of the utility of the firearm. Unfortunately, a segment of the population and the antigun political world doesn't see the usage as legitimate. In the abstract, there is a good deserve for a justice based society with the law being instantiated by the government. People should not have to use force. If they do, it is limited to personal self-defense as compared to organized citizen groups with heavier weaponry. In a way, that leads to the SD focus in court cases and Heller - leading to gun and mag type limitations being legitimate. In lower court cases, the arguments for EBRs or large mags were dismissed as not being needed. They were mocked in congressional hearings. Their usage, if demonstrated, was seen as aberrant and the small number of usage counterbalanced by their potential for large causality events. In the gun world, some mocked the guns and owners as weapons of war and the owners as blood lusted. 5 is enough is a common discussion point, even here. Now, having a limited capacity gun when dress or convenience leads to it, makes sense. However, that is different from the 5 is enough crowd (or now the limited capacity shotgun load out) calling the folks who do more as nuts. As an Australian friend told me after their ban, American gun folks are 'nutters'.

The higher capacity guns, more fitting for urban disturbances, acknowledge that a justice society is failing (a reasonable point as current city and state authorities in many places have accepted politically correct urban destruction). So the guns must be opposed as we cannot acknowledge this or in fact, accept the civil destruction as justified and righteous.

Also, the implicit usage of the guns to oppose tyranny is not acceptable. Even though it was in the past. One cannot forget liberal Senator Humbert Humphrey from MN making the defense against tyranny case quite strongly. That is not there. Also, the defense against tyranny case is being made by folks on the left side and across the racial divide as they seen some law enforcement and extreme right as tyrannical and oppressive threats. This is a problem for the some gun rights organizations such as the NRA that adopted a right oriented identity and played that card in their marketing.

Kyle shouldn't have been there as a stupid personal decision. However, his and similar actions are indicative of a perceived failure to maintain a civil society. We will see more of such actions if destructive civil disruptions are not controlled. It will be more apparent if such actions occur outside of central downtowns or unfortunately racially segmented area.

I hope that Scotus takes a case that realizes that the gun and mag bans are unconstitutional and reaches beyond simple, OMG - two dudes in the house SD - to support gun rights. I don't expect free purchase of fully auto, explosive devices, we should have private nukes - but things like the SAFE acts, the AWB silliness, etc. should be gone. I'm probably going to age out before that.

[UNK]

I expect a shit show of epic proportions if (likely when) Kyle only gets convicted of he unlawful possession, and nothing more.

Much like George Zimmerman, Kyle put himself in a stupid situation and got in over his head. But that does not mean he has no right to prevent his own own agg assault/murder.

As always, "avoid stupid places, filled with stupid people, doing stupid things." that advice alone would save so many folks so much headache.

What exactly did Zimmerman do that was so wrong?