So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?

[Pat]

*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.

That's not correct. Feel free to look up the data yourself, it's unambiguous and one of the largest social developments in the last 40 years or so. The problem is, the reason why crime dropped so precipitously isn't entirely clear. Cops tend to claim it's broken window policing, which is the name for a theory of law enforcement based on going after people for minor crimes, like vandalism, using the argument that small social disruptions lead to a disrespect for the law, and an increase in more serious crimes. The problem with that philosophy is it leads to a fuckload of kids with criminal records for trivial things, which makes it hard for them to get jobs or otherwise not be criminals; and has led to police militarization and huge incarceration rates. Another argument postulated by the Freakonomics guys is that it's due to abortion, because the decline corresponds strongly with the first generation of kids that grew up after Roe v. Wade. The argument here is that unwanted children lead to kids growing up to be criminals. But while there's a correspondence, that's doesn't prove causation, and the argument seems overly facile. It may also be related to better treatments for drugs. I don't know the exact reason, and I suspect it's multi-causal.

Serious violent crimes right now are disproportionately confined to major urban centers, and that was also true for the riots last year. It's worth putting them in context -- 33 people or so were killed across the country in the racist terrorist insurrection, but that's just a a blip on the annual murder rate in a single big city like Chicago, where hundreds of people are killed each year. The perception that violent crime is getting worse is a matter of focus. Remember, that news since the turn of the millennium has been chasing sensationalism, and it's gotten more and more biased and focused on outrage; and we live in an era of 24/7 news cycles instead of just getting one dose a day at 5. When you're bombarded non-stop with horrors, it leads to the impression that it's omnipresent and things have become much worse. But that's not true. It's gotten a little worse lately, but overall it's much, much safer than it was in the 90s. The is a huge country, so people still commit horrible things multiple times a day. But the number of horrible things has unequivocally gone down. We just see more because the news and social media have been relentlessly shining a spotlight on them.

[3catcircus]

*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.

That's not correct. Feel free to look up the data on itself, it's unambiguous and one of the largest social developments in the last 40 years or so. The problem is, the reason why crime dropped so precipitously isn't entirely clear. Cops tend to claim its broken window policing, which is the name for a theory of law enforcement based on going after people for minor crimes, like vandalism, using the argument that small social disruptions lead to a disrespect for the law, and an increase in more serious crimes. The problem with that philosophy is it leads to a fuckload of kids with criminal records for trivial things, which makes it hard for them to get jobs or otherwise not be criminals; and has led to police militarization and huge incarceration rates. Another argument postulated by the Freakonomics guys is that it's due to abortion, because the decline corresponds strongly with the first generation of kids that grew up after Roe v. Wade. The argument here is that unwanted children lead to kids growing up to be criminals. But while there's a correspondence, that's doesn't prove causation, and the argument seems overly facile. It may also be related to better treatments for drugs. I don't know the exact reason, and I suspect it's multi-causal.

Serious violent crimes right now are disproportionately confined to major urban centers, and that was also true for the riots last year. It's worth putting them in context -- 33 people or so were killed across the country in the racist terrorist insurrection, but that's just a a blip on the annual murder rate in a single big city like Chicago, where hundreds of people are killed each year. The perception that violent crime is getting worse is a matter of focus. Remember, that news since the turn of the millennium has been chasing sensationalism, and it's gotten more and more biased and focused on outrage; and we live in an era of 24/7 news cycles instead of just getting one dose a day at 5. When you're bombarded non-stop with horrors, it leads to the impression that it's omnipresent and things have become much worse. But that's not true. It's gotten a little worse lately, but overall it's much, much safer than it was in the 90s. The is a huge country, so people still commit horrible things multiple times a day. But the number of horrible things has unequivocally gone down. We just see more because the news and social media have been relentlessly shining a spotlight on them.

It's actually a combination of things:

1. Broken windows policing.
2. Directing police to *not* arrest people for criminal acts to lower the stats.
3. Charging them with something other than what they actually did so they aren't counted in the stats.
4. Chicago.  Who the fuck knows what the hell their problem is that dozens will be shot on a daily basis there.  The police *know* who the problems are.  We know that the problems are a bunch of animal savages.  Microchip them upon arrest and then when they commit more violent crime, you put them down like dogs.

The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

*That's* the crux of the matter - we're too soft on known crime while being overly aggressive on those who deserve a second chance (or should have never been prosecuted to begin with).

And that is really what it comes down to - morons say that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there that night.  He wouldn't have needed to defend himself if the police (or the guardsmen that the governor refused) had just gone in there and rounded up every last rioter - whether by arresting them peacefully or by giving them doses of wooden shampoo.  I don't *care* about how it looks ,- send in dogs and firehoses if you need to.  Because that's the failing of politicians - they worry about the optics instead of worrying about protecting their citizenry.

[Ghostmaker]

You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.

Ah... So he's now allowed carry a weapon then, and now allowed be there after curfew, etc? So what's all the fuss about in the courts then?? Oh and please point out to where I said that's is 'okay' for rioters to be out and about causing havoc. I'll wait... If your riot police can't take care of their shit then you need to reevaluate your police force and their training.

You also seem to conveniently (like Pat) forget about what I say about attributing a lot of the blame to Rasenbaum (and why it turns into a self-defense situation).

Bottom line here is you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Or like Pat, you're not taking it all in.

First rule of self-defense. If you go to a hostile environment you can expect 'hostility'.

WHAT curfew? You do know that charge was dropped because the state couldn't actually produce any curfew edict for that night, right?

This ties in with a comment I made: when they talk about 'violating curfew', exactly who was establishing and enforcing it? The cops -- or Antifa?

You are continually attempting to tie a question of judgement to a legal issue and you are wrong.

Now stop simping for the pedophile, the felon, and the domestic abuser. It just makes you look like a TBP mod.

[3catcircus]

You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.

Ah... So he's now allowed carry a weapon then, and now allowed be there after curfew, etc? So what's all the fuss about in the courts then?? Oh and please point out to where I said that's is 'okay' for rioters to be out and about causing havoc. I'll wait... If your riot police can't take care of their shit then you need to reevaluate your police force and their training.

You also seem to conveniently (like Pat) forget about what I say about attributing a lot of the blame to Rasenbaum (and why it turns into a self-defense situation).

Bottom line here is you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Or like Pat, you're not taking it all in.

First rule of self-defense. If you go to a hostile environment you can expect 'hostility'.

WHAT curfew? You do know that charge was dropped because the state couldn't actually produce any curfew edict for that night, right?

This ties in with a comment I made: when they talk about 'violating curfew', exactly who was establishing and enforcing it? The cops -- or Antifa?

You are continually attempting to tie a question of judgement to a legal issue and you are wrong.

Now stop simping for the pedophile, the felon, and the domestic abuser. It just makes you look like a TBP mod.

Let's not forget that the pedo was convicted multiple times, as was the wife-beater...  "Model citizens."

[Rob Necronomicon]

Now stop simping for the pedophile, the felon, and the domestic abuser. It just makes you look like a TBP mod.

Well, I've always secretly admired TBP mods... And I just adore pedophiles and domestic abusers. So, I'm happy to simp for them. 

[Ghostmaker]

Here's the thing: H.L. Mencken once commented that if you fight for freedom, you wind up defending a lot of scoundrels, but you have to defend them too.

The prior convictions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz are only relevant in that they demonstrate their motivations, and even then they shouldn't be an issue. Only their ACTIONS that night matter.

And that's where the narrative shits itself and falls over. All three of them attacked or tried to attack Rittenhouse, and got shot for their troubles. Actions have consequences, after all.

[3catcircus]

Here's the thing: H.L. Mencken once commented that if you fight for freedom, you wind up defending a lot of scoundrels, but you have to defend them too.

The prior convictions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz are only relevant in that they demonstrate their motivations, and even then they shouldn't be an issue. Only their ACTIONS that night matter.

And that's where the narrative shits itself and falls over. All three of them attacked or tried to attack Rittenhouse, and got shot for their troubles. Actions have consequences, after all.

Yep.  And all of these social media scholars can't grasp the idea that if, say, three guys who weren't criminally-minded convicted felons had interacted with Rittenhouse, he would have not shot them.  Some of them still think he was some kind of white supremacist hell-bent on killing black people.  In fact, I've seen one of two of them post sentiments that these three wastes of oxygen were killed because they acted black.  WTF?!?!  So child rape, burglary, and domestic abuse are getting a pass if black people do it? It's just part of their culture?!?!

As a rational thinker who watched the testimony, I would *expect* that he'll be found not guilty of all charges.  He might be found guilty of one of the lesser charges because of media pressure to find him guilty of something.  And that's the problem - too many retards and morons serving on juries who are either biased, too stupid to understand the information, or easily swayed.

[Ghostmaker]

Here's the thing: H.L. Mencken once commented that if you fight for freedom, you wind up defending a lot of scoundrels, but you have to defend them too.

The prior convictions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz are only relevant in that they demonstrate their motivations, and even then they shouldn't be an issue. Only their ACTIONS that night matter.

And that's where the narrative shits itself and falls over. All three of them attacked or tried to attack Rittenhouse, and got shot for their troubles. Actions have consequences, after all.

Yep.  And all of these social media scholars can't grasp the idea that if, say, three guys who weren't criminally-minded convicted felons had interacted with Rittenhouse, he would have not shot them.  Some of them still think he was some kind of white supremacist hell-bent on killing black people.  In fact, I've seen one of two of them post sentiments that these three wastes of oxygen were killed because they acted black.  WTF?!?!  So child rape, burglary, and domestic abuse are getting a pass if black people do it? It's just part of their culture?!?!

As a rational thinker who watched the testimony, I would *expect* that he'll be found not guilty of all charges.  He might be found guilty of one of the lesser charges because of media pressure to find him guilty of something.  And that's the problem - too many retards and morons serving on juries who are either biased, too stupid to understand the information, or easily swayed.

The weapons charge is a big maybe, because the relevant statute isn't written well. It seems to (at least by my reading) waive the 18+ requirement for rifles and shotguns and only requires the bearer to be 16+. That's my opinion, but hey, not a lawyer.

The rest of it? If Kyle had grabbed up a brick, caved in Rosenbaum's skull when he lunged, used it to smash in Huber's face when he tried to brain him with a skateboard, and then broken and crippled Grosskreutz's arm when he drew a gun, would we be having this discussion?

So yeah. It's political. And it's bullshit. And the prosecution should be sanctioned (they won't).

[Pat]

The weapons charge is a big maybe, because the relevant statute isn't written well. It seems to (at least by my reading) waive the 18+ requirement for rifles and shotguns and only requires the bearer to be 16+. That's my opinion, but hey, not a lawyer.

One additional wrinkle is the Wisconsin jury instructions just reference the clause that says carrying a deadly weapon when you're under 18 a misdemeanor, and not the additional clauses that carve out an exception. The judge could alter the jury instructions to correctly reflect the law, but judges tend to be very reluctant to do so because this often results in cases being overturned in appeals. While the judge has been reluctant to do so, one way to cut that Gordian knot is to just throw out the charge.

[3catcircus]

The weapons charge is a big maybe, because the relevant statute isn't written well. It seems to (at least by my reading) waive the 18+ requirement for rifles and shotguns and only requires the bearer to be 16+. That's my opinion, but hey, not a lawyer.

One additional wrinkle is the Wisconsin jury instructions just reference the clause that says carrying a deadly weapon when you're under 18 a misdemeanor, and not the additional clauses that carve out an exception. The judge could alter the jury instructions to correctly reflect the law, but judges tend to be very reluctant to do so because this often results in cases being overturned in appeals. While the judge has been reluctant to do so, one way to cut that Gordian knot is to just throw out the charge.

I do find it troubling that prosecutors have been allowed to dictate which sections of the law they want juries to not be allowed to look at.  Bottom line - if it requires a lawyer to make some twisted logic argument, then the law needs to be written more clearly.

In this case, there is no ambiguity in the law as written.  We know what the intent may have been.  Doesn't change the fact that the law as written carves out an exception for 17 year old carrying rifles or shotguns that are long enough to prevent concealment.  And that's the thing - you have to judge the law as written.  There is always the option for jury nullification - but I've never heard of reverse nullification.

Even then, the defense more than established reasonable doubt.  The video of a kid being chased, smashed in the head with a skateboard, and having a gun pointed at his head are all provocations with use of deadly force that any reasonable person would conclude required and allowed him the need to neutralize the threat to his life.  The fact that they continued to chase him even though they knew he was armed just speaks to their own reckless behavior. The only thing missing from his testimony is a statement that by merely having his rifle, he believed it would be a deterrent - the better to have and not need rather than need and not have.

[jhkim]

That's not correct. Feel free to look up the data on itself, it's unambiguous and one of the largest social developments in the last 40 years or so. The problem is, the reason why crime dropped so precipitously isn't entirely clear.

It's actually a combination of things:

1. Broken windows policing.
2. Directing police to *not* arrest people for criminal acts to lower the stats.
3. Charging them with something other than what they actually did so they aren't counted in the stats.
4. Chicago.  Who the fuck knows what the hell their problem is that dozens will be shot on a daily basis there. The police *know* who the problems are.  We know that the problems are a bunch of animal savages.

Regarding manipulation of arrest stats (your #2) -- The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) was established in 1972 during Richard Nixon's administration specifically to address local police departments manipulating statistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey

It is run by the Census Bureau independently of police and serves as a cross-check on the arrest numbers collected by the FBI/DOJ. Households are directly surveyed about what crimes they have experienced, regardless of what the police have done about it. It is less exact because it is a random sampling, but it shows exactly the same general trend over the past 30 years.

Also, while Chicago has major problems, it isn't an outlier. The reason why it stands out is mainly that its population is so high. Out of the top 100 most populous cities, it is #10 in murder rate and #17 in violent crime rate. In 2019, the cities with the highest murder rate were St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Kansas City, Cleveland, Memphis, and Newark. But Chicago's population is more than the top six cities combined, so its statistics stand out a lot more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

[SHARK]

*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.

That's not correct. Feel free to look up the data yourself, it's unambiguous and one of the largest social developments in the last 40 years or so. The problem is, the reason why crime dropped so precipitously isn't entirely clear. Cops tend to claim it's broken window policing, which is the name for a theory of law enforcement based on going after people for minor crimes, like vandalism, using the argument that small social disruptions lead to a disrespect for the law, and an increase in more serious crimes. The problem with that philosophy is it leads to a fuckload of kids with criminal records for trivial things, which makes it hard for them to get jobs or otherwise not be criminals; and has led to police militarization and huge incarceration rates. Another argument postulated by the Freakonomics guys is that it's due to abortion, because the decline corresponds strongly with the first generation of kids that grew up after Roe v. Wade. The argument here is that unwanted children lead to kids growing up to be criminals. But while there's a correspondence, that's doesn't prove causation, and the argument seems overly facile. It may also be related to better treatments for drugs. I don't know the exact reason, and I suspect it's multi-causal.

Serious violent crimes right now are disproportionately confined to major urban centers, and that was also true for the riots last year. It's worth putting them in context -- 33 people or so were killed across the country in the racist terrorist insurrection, but that's just a a blip on the annual murder rate in a single big city like Chicago, where hundreds of people are killed each year. The perception that violent crime is getting worse is a matter of focus. Remember, that news since the turn of the millennium has been chasing sensationalism, and it's gotten more and more biased and focused on outrage; and we live in an era of 24/7 news cycles instead of just getting one dose a day at 5. When you're bombarded non-stop with horrors, it leads to the impression that it's omnipresent and things have become much worse. But that's not true. It's gotten a little worse lately, but overall it's much, much safer than it was in the 90s. The is a huge country, so people still commit horrible things multiple times a day. But the number of horrible things has unequivocally gone down. We just see more because the news and social media have been relentlessly shining a spotlight on them.

Greetings!

Ok, Pat. So, when Ben Shapiro or Dan Bongino discuss the huge increases in crime--crime has gone up 30% over last year, murder rates have hugely increased, and they show the charts and quotes from the police departments and the FBI--all of that is just bullshit and sensationalism?

The quoted newspaper articles describing rioting, rapes, burnings, and mayhem from the east cost to the west coast, in Los Angeles, in Portland, Oregon, *every day* for months, the news showing 10, 20, 30 people murdered in just ONE WEEKEND in Chicago. These things actually happened, Pat. It isn't like I'm imagining them happening, right?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

Ok, Pat. So, when Ben Shapiro or Dan Bongino discuss the huge increases in crime--crime has gone up 30% over last year, murder rates have hugely increased, and they show the charts and quotes from the police departments and the FBI--all of that is just bullshit and sensationalism?

The quoted newspaper articles describing rioting, rapes, burnings, and mayhem from the east cost to the west coast, in Los Angeles, in Portland, Oregon, *every day* for months, the news showing 10, 20, 30 people murdered in just ONE WEEKEND in Chicago. These things actually happened, Pat. It isn't like I'm imagining them happening, right?

Yes, it is largely sensationalism using selective stats and language. There have *always* been hundreds of violent crimes every day in the U.S., given a population of over 300 million people. So it's always possible to fill the news 24/7 with new horrendous crimes. Given dozens of types of crimes, fifty states and hundreds of cities and different time ranges, there are many selective ways to say that things are getting worse. But that's not the bigger picture for the whole country over decades.

The stats that I have been showing are directly from the FBI. I would encourage you to try out the crime stat explorer yourself to look at trends.

https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

For example, one selective stat is that there *was* a sharp increase specifically in the murder rate in 2020. Here's the graph for murder rate from 1985 to 2020.



You can see a sharp uptick from 2019 to 2020. And that is a lot of murders. But it is still much lower than the peak murder rate in 1991. Also, as seen in the graphs I posted previously, other crime types don't see the same sharp uptick.

[Pat]

*Laughing* Slight increase in violent crime? Pfft. Sorry, Jhkim, but whoever made that graph is high on something, or the data has been cooked, or skewed.

Anyone actually *conscious* during the last five years can perceive that our society is fucking unraveling at the seams, with unprecedented violence, rioting, and mayhem virtually everywhere. Haven't you seen the news? The endless video footage? The constant reports of people being beaten, robbed, murdered, and raped en masse? Horrible crimes being committed...over a disute over a parking space. Rioting, arson, and on and on, man.

I was alive throughout the Reagan and Bush years. America was a lot saner, safer, and less violent then.

That's not correct. Feel free to look up the data yourself, it's unambiguous and one of the largest social developments in the last 40 years or so. The problem is, the reason why crime dropped so precipitously isn't entirely clear. Cops tend to claim it's broken window policing, which is the name for a theory of law enforcement based on going after people for minor crimes, like vandalism, using the argument that small social disruptions lead to a disrespect for the law, and an increase in more serious crimes. The problem with that philosophy is it leads to a fuckload of kids with criminal records for trivial things, which makes it hard for them to get jobs or otherwise not be criminals; and has led to police militarization and huge incarceration rates. Another argument postulated by the Freakonomics guys is that it's due to abortion, because the decline corresponds strongly with the first generation of kids that grew up after Roe v. Wade. The argument here is that unwanted children lead to kids growing up to be criminals. But while there's a correspondence, that's doesn't prove causation, and the argument seems overly facile. It may also be related to better treatments for drugs. I don't know the exact reason, and I suspect it's multi-causal.

Serious violent crimes right now are disproportionately confined to major urban centers, and that was also true for the riots last year. It's worth putting them in context -- 33 people or so were killed across the country in the racist terrorist insurrection, but that's just a a blip on the annual murder rate in a single big city like Chicago, where hundreds of people are killed each year. The perception that violent crime is getting worse is a matter of focus. Remember, that news since the turn of the millennium has been chasing sensationalism, and it's gotten more and more biased and focused on outrage; and we live in an era of 24/7 news cycles instead of just getting one dose a day at 5. When you're bombarded non-stop with horrors, it leads to the impression that it's omnipresent and things have become much worse. But that's not true. It's gotten a little worse lately, but overall it's much, much safer than it was in the 90s. The is a huge country, so people still commit horrible things multiple times a day. But the number of horrible things has unequivocally gone down. We just see more because the news and social media have been relentlessly shining a spotlight on them.

Greetings!

Ok, Pat. So, when Ben Shapiro or Dan Bongino discuss the huge increases in crime--crime has gone up 30% over last year, murder rates have hugely increased, and they show the charts and quotes from the police departments and the FBI--all of that is just bullshit and sensationalism?

The quoted newspaper articles describing rioting, rapes, burnings, and mayhem from the east cost to the west coast, in Los Angeles, in Portland, Oregon, *every day* for months, the news showing 10, 20, 30 people murdered in just ONE WEEKEND in Chicago. These things actually happened, Pat. It isn't like I'm imagining them happening, right?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

None of that conflicts with what I just said. There has been a striking rise in many types of crime in the last year. But there was an even more striking drop since the 1990s.

[Shasarak]

The feds are absolutely complicit in crime because they refuse to enforce the border while many crimes are the result of criminal gangs such as MS-13 infiltrating the US, not to mention cartels.  They know who these people are - instead of trying to "gather more Intel," arrest them on the spot and/or kill them.  Better yet - not that I want war - invade Mexico and kill every last cartel member that exists, even if it runs the country out of body bags.

Can you just wait, I dont know, 6 months before starting a new war after losing the last one?