|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 15 2021 00:59 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 00:16 BlackJack wrote:On November 15 2021 00:08 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, how was the second kill selfdefense?
Didn't the second guy hit him with a skateboard and then try to wrestle the gun away from him? Yes, how is this reason to shoot someone? Surely even a state in the US has some rule that limits self defense to a scenario where it is appropriate to the level of threat? Like, treating the attacks on him as threats on his life, where deadly force is the only way out is really weird, considering that the second fight he had resulted directly from him shooting someone. If i manage to be perceived as a threat to the safety of a group of 20 to thirty individuals due to killing one of them, which enables me to be allowed to kill them when they try to neutralize that threat, then this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I killed someone for fearing for my life, so now i am afraid i will get killed for killing someone, so i am now allowed to kill more people. This is mind boggling for me.
I haven't followed this case closely but the thing I find so striking about this commentary is that by your own admission you "can see a case for the first death being self-defense." So essentially you believe that if you shoot someone in self-defense that you're then obligated to let an angry mob "neutralize" you which could mean beating you to death or shooting you with your own gun? Very unusual perspective.
|
|
|
On November 15 2021 09:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 00:59 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 15 2021 00:16 BlackJack wrote:On November 15 2021 00:08 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, how was the second kill selfdefense?
Didn't the second guy hit him with a skateboard and then try to wrestle the gun away from him? Yes, how is this reason to shoot someone? Surely even a state in the US has some rule that limits self defense to a scenario where it is appropriate to the level of threat? Like, treating the attacks on him as threats on his life, where deadly force is the only way out is really weird, considering that the second fight he had resulted directly from him shooting someone. If i manage to be perceived as a threat to the safety of a group of 20 to thirty individuals due to killing one of them, which enables me to be allowed to kill them when they try to neutralize that threat, then this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I killed someone for fearing for my life, so now i am afraid i will get killed for killing someone, so i am now allowed to kill more people. This is mind boggling for me. I haven't followed this case closely but the thing I find so striking about this commentary is that by your own admission you "can see a case for the first death being self-defense." So essentially you believe that if you shoot someone in self-defense that you're then obligated to let an angry mob "neutralize" you which could mean beating you to death or shooting you with your own gun? Very unusual perspective.
No, I think you'll find the position of "I don't think him shooting someone gives him license to continue shooting people" is not that unusual. You're beating around the bush, that consists of Kyle expressing a desire to shoot people, then immediately after taking a gun, looking for trouble, and shooting people just like he said he would.
An AR-15 is not a weapon that is wielded in self-defense. Even I've been in enough of these conversations to know that the intent of having an AR is not to protect yourself against invaders. You not being able to see this for what it is after having all of this laid out for you is the unusual perspective.
|
Northern Ireland24947 Posts
In a wider, cultural sense I think this case exposes a lot of problems. From the ‘good guy with a gun’ narrative to how it actually plays out, to some of sensationalism we’ve seen in actioning individuals to want to go out there and be that ‘good guy with a gun’
Particulars of the case aside, and in both my personal verdict is ‘self defence after willingly introducing yourself into a situation you don’t have the competency for’, the parallels with George Zimmerman are stark.
As much as the myopic left, especially on social media, wanted them both guilty of murder regardless of the particulars, the side defending buy skittles and other ghoulish merchandise off Zimmerman. Personally I think they were guilty of something actionable, not necessarily pre-meditated murder.
The discourse isn’t that it was some tragic self defence, but it was basically fine and he shot some Commies. Just like Zimmerman shot some [deleted word] and let’s buy his merch.
100% can stress this isn’t the discourse on TL, but it sure as fuck is elsewhere. Just look at Rittenhouse in a bar with a ‘free as fuck’ t-shirt on and a bunch of folks buying him beers.
You’re not buying someone beers, or wearing a provocative t-shirt if you feel someone did something regrettable but understandable. You’re doing that if it’s celebratory of the action, see also the ghoulish Zimmerman merch.
If someone wants to argue that it’s some case of principle and people are excited to action, go for it. Given some of the actions we’ve seen outright venerating these actions I don’t think you can make that argument.
Outside of this thread, and people’s personal judgements which I 100% don’t think fall in that category, a staggering amount of people aren’t defending him on a stance that he did nothing legally actionable, but that actually he did something good and fuck the law. Except they won’t say that they’ll shroud it in the law.
|
While I can see the parallels, I think there are a couple key differences between the Zimmerman one and the Rittenhouse one.
The first is that Zimmerman was actually patrolling and trying to protect his own neighborhood. Rittenhouse traveled a bit to get to the action.
Secondly, for Zimmerman, I think it is believable that he was ambushed and physically attacked while trying to pursue what he thought was a thief. I'm not so sure that he actually wanted to confront, but instead wanted to follow and keep an eye on Martin before getting ambushed. Rittenhouse seemed to want conflict and confrontation. He had no problem being in the face of people and helping to stir shit up. He had ample opportunity to get away from the situation and simply shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I see Zimmerman as a moron who wanted to be a cop and wanted to do good and failed miserably. I can see letting him off from the murder charges, although it'd be nice to get him on something.
I see Rittenhouse as a wannabe vigilante who wanted to kill. I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't get some serious jail time, although I'm kind of expecting him not to at this point.
|
On November 14 2021 15:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 14:11 PaxViaAtomi wrote:
The argument is that he was acting in self-defense though. No. That was not your argument. You did not mention self-defense, which is why those who replied to your post were talking about your analogy and your argument, as opposed to self-defense.
Yeah, my initial post was not about self defense. We were discussing whether the video in which Rittenhouse said he wanted to shoot a shoplifter was evidence of him having murderous intent. If someone handed him a rifle there and he shot the shoplifter, self defense would have nothing to do with it.
A few people responded that he did in fact later shoot people. My next post was pointing out that the event where he did shoot someone had a different context - that he shot in self defense. The claims were his killings were motivated by his wish to kill and I was saying the argument against that is his killings were motivated by self defense.
|
The claims were his killings were motivated by his wish to kill and I was saying the argument against that is his killings were motivated by self defense.
How is that an argument, thats just an assertion of his intent. The video at least provides context into his mindset with firearms, chiefly that he has vocally stated the desire to shoot people for trivial reasons, leading one to believe he drove across state lines seeking out dangerous situations with a tool made for killing human beings with the intent of killing some human beings.
|
On November 15 2021 07:53 cLutZ wrote:OMG so much misinformation and misunderstanding up the law here. Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 00:59 Broetchenholer wrote:
Yes, how is this reason to shoot someone? Surely even a state in the US has some rule that limits self defense to a scenario where it is appropriate to the level of threat? Like, treating the attacks on him as threats on his life, where deadly force is the only way out is really weird, considering that the second fight he had resulted directly from him shooting someone. If i manage to be perceived as a threat to the safety of a group of 20 to thirty individuals due to killing one of them, which enables me to be allowed to kill them when they try to neutralize that threat, then this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I killed someone for fearing for my life, so now i am afraid i will get killed for killing someone, so i am now allowed to kill more people. This is mind boggling for me. The level of threat he faced, in order, is 1. A guy who had previously threatened to kill him because he was putting out a dumpster fire attacked and tried to wrestle his gun from him. 2. A guy tried to flying dropkick him while he was running away from a pursuing crowd (man still not identified). 3. A guy hit him over the head with a skateboard and tried to disarm him. 4. A guy pointed a handgun at him while yelling something that is unintelligible. Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 02:13 Gorsameth wrote:
The thing is I don't think shooting someone reaching for your gun, in a situation where you shouldn't be waving a gun about, should fall under self defence.
If you don't have a gun out, he can't grab for it and its just as easily to construct it the other way around where someone else is trying to reach for your weapon to prevent you from shooting them as a means of self defence from your deadly weapon.
That's the duality of allowing citizens to openly carrying weapons. Citizen A walking around with a deadly weapon to defend themselves makes citizen B fear for his life because someone is walking around with a deadly weapon so now B has to defend himself from A's deadly weapon, but then A gets to shoot B to defend himself from someone defending himself?
The entire conflict only exists because your allowed to bring deadly weapons into situations where they shouldn't exist.
(And again, Yes American law may label this as self defence, but it shouldn't) Never was there gun waving, there was existing with a gun. In your scenario Citizen B is a suicidal paranoid. We cannot base societal rules along the lines of mollifying their most paranoid delusions. Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 03:46 KwarK wrote:
My recollection is that the first confrontation was initiated by Kyle, who is by his own admission a wannabe mass shooter, pointing his gun at people. The crowd confronting him was acting in self defence at that point, though they should have just retreated and none of them should have been there in the first place. Plenty of blame all around but Kyle definitely deserves a lot of it. The crowd confronting him was never acting in self defense. None of the people shot are known to have even been witnesses to the first shooting. Kyle had never pointed a gun at any of them and was running from the scene to the police. At least one (the guy who's arm got shot) had spoken to Kyle and had been explicitly told that Rittenhouse was traveling towards the police barricade to turn himself in WRT the initial shoot.
So, in your book, when someone gets into a brawl with a gun holder, they forfeit their life? You make it sound like he was the defending himself from a vicious mob out for blood. If I go to a bar in the US, get insulted by some guy throw a punch hitting him and get shot dead, is my killer acting in self defense? That poor boy had to shoot two people dead, because he got hit once with a skateboard. If that is the threshold for deadly force in the US, why hasn't he killed more people? Guns are turning Americans into pussies so afraid of the world that they would rather take lives then lose control for a second.
|
On November 15 2021 09:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 00:59 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 15 2021 00:16 BlackJack wrote:On November 15 2021 00:08 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, how was the second kill selfdefense?
Didn't the second guy hit him with a skateboard and then try to wrestle the gun away from him? Yes, how is this reason to shoot someone? Surely even a state in the US has some rule that limits self defense to a scenario where it is appropriate to the level of threat? Like, treating the attacks on him as threats on his life, where deadly force is the only way out is really weird, considering that the second fight he had resulted directly from him shooting someone. If i manage to be perceived as a threat to the safety of a group of 20 to thirty individuals due to killing one of them, which enables me to be allowed to kill them when they try to neutralize that threat, then this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I killed someone for fearing for my life, so now i am afraid i will get killed for killing someone, so i am now allowed to kill more people. This is mind boggling for me. I haven't followed this case closely but the thing I find so striking about this commentary is that by your own admission you "can see a case for the first death being self-defense." So essentially you believe that if you shoot someone in self-defense that you're then obligated to let an angry mob "neutralize" you which could mean beating you to death or shooting you with your own gun? Very unusual perspective.
How is that an unusual perspective. I can see how an inexperienced person might not yet realize the gravity of the situation and shoot at the first attacker. Not intending to kill someone, realizing that exactly that happened. Now I expect any human of the age of 17 to finally realize he should not shoot at other humans, even if he feels threatened. Just drop the fucking gun! You are not in the middle of a drug heist. How can you have so much empathy for that moronic pussy, and none for the people around?
|
It's just a wonderfull example of the horrible gun culture and everything that comes with it in the US.
Half the country seems to see the moron as some kind of hero vigilante while the other half wants to paint him as a murderer. Imho he is just a very misguided kid that got led down this path by his parents, the people around him and the whole culture. Kid basically wanted to go play hero.
From what i gathered about the US law it probably will be seen as self defense and he will get off very lightly
|
@jimmic "He was "defending" a mosque while a large group of stop the steal protestors were walking by."
If he was defending property and they were breaking his things, he has no right to shoot anyone however if they were aggressing on him and he feels his life is threatened then he may employ deadly force to stop the threat. He will very likely now have to prove in court that it was indeed self defense, And now we've arrived at the kyle rittenhouse case loosley.
BTW this is going to be different in different states obviously say he was in a state with castle doctrine and he was living at said mosque then maybe he would have a right to defend his property ect. Out of my depth here but maybe someone like farva can elaborate if you wish to query him.
Also I'm unsure why you thought it necessary to bring up race or religion why it would matter at all, self defense is self defense no matter what race or religion you are.
|
On November 15 2021 18:05 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 09:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 15 2021 00:59 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 15 2021 00:16 BlackJack wrote:On November 15 2021 00:08 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, how was the second kill selfdefense?
Didn't the second guy hit him with a skateboard and then try to wrestle the gun away from him? Yes, how is this reason to shoot someone? Surely even a state in the US has some rule that limits self defense to a scenario where it is appropriate to the level of threat? Like, treating the attacks on him as threats on his life, where deadly force is the only way out is really weird, considering that the second fight he had resulted directly from him shooting someone. If i manage to be perceived as a threat to the safety of a group of 20 to thirty individuals due to killing one of them, which enables me to be allowed to kill them when they try to neutralize that threat, then this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I killed someone for fearing for my life, so now i am afraid i will get killed for killing someone, so i am now allowed to kill more people. This is mind boggling for me. I haven't followed this case closely but the thing I find so striking about this commentary is that by your own admission you "can see a case for the first death being self-defense." So essentially you believe that if you shoot someone in self-defense that you're then obligated to let an angry mob "neutralize" you which could mean beating you to death or shooting you with your own gun? Very unusual perspective. How is that an unusual perspective. I can see how an inexperienced person might not yet realize the gravity of the situation and shoot at the first attacker. Not intending to kill someone, realizing that exactly that happened. Now I expect any human of the age of 17 to finally realize he should not shoot at other humans, even if he feels threatened. Just drop the fucking gun! You are not in the middle of a drug heist. How can you have so much empathy for that moronic pussy, and none for the people around?
Yeah, kid, just throw yourself at the mercy of an angry mob and maybe get beaten to death, what's the big deal?! Stop being a pussy!
I really can't believe you actually think this is a reasonable take but I get the sense from your post that you're just a hardcore pacifist and you think it's better to allow yourself to be murdered than to kill another human.
|
|
|
On November 15 2021 21:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 18:05 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 15 2021 09:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 15 2021 00:59 Broetchenholer wrote:On November 15 2021 00:16 BlackJack wrote:On November 15 2021 00:08 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, how was the second kill selfdefense?
Didn't the second guy hit him with a skateboard and then try to wrestle the gun away from him? Yes, how is this reason to shoot someone? Surely even a state in the US has some rule that limits self defense to a scenario where it is appropriate to the level of threat? Like, treating the attacks on him as threats on his life, where deadly force is the only way out is really weird, considering that the second fight he had resulted directly from him shooting someone. If i manage to be perceived as a threat to the safety of a group of 20 to thirty individuals due to killing one of them, which enables me to be allowed to kill them when they try to neutralize that threat, then this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I killed someone for fearing for my life, so now i am afraid i will get killed for killing someone, so i am now allowed to kill more people. This is mind boggling for me. I haven't followed this case closely but the thing I find so striking about this commentary is that by your own admission you "can see a case for the first death being self-defense." So essentially you believe that if you shoot someone in self-defense that you're then obligated to let an angry mob "neutralize" you which could mean beating you to death or shooting you with your own gun? Very unusual perspective. How is that an unusual perspective. I can see how an inexperienced person might not yet realize the gravity of the situation and shoot at the first attacker. Not intending to kill someone, realizing that exactly that happened. Now I expect any human of the age of 17 to finally realize he should not shoot at other humans, even if he feels threatened. Just drop the fucking gun! You are not in the middle of a drug heist. How can you have so much empathy for that moronic pussy, and none for the people around? Yeah, kid, just throw yourself at the mercy of an angry mob and maybe get beaten to death, what's the big deal?! Stop being a pussy! I really can't believe you actually think this is a reasonable take but I get the sense from your post that you're just a hardcore pacifist and you think it's better to allow yourself to be murdered than to kill another human.
You think a wizard just snapped their fingers and Kyle Rittenhouse just found himself at the mercy of an angry mob? This is a very weird framing of the issue, and the first I've heard of Kyle just being on the scene with a gun and no context about how he got there.
|
Also no, outside the US it's not a normal response to almost any situation to say you should be able to shoot someone, or take a life. That's very much a US thing.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24947 Posts
On November 15 2021 11:39 RenSC2 wrote:
While I can see the parallels, I think there are a couple key differences between the Zimmerman one and the Rittenhouse one.
The first is that Zimmerman was actually patrolling and trying to protect his own neighborhood. Rittenhouse traveled a bit to get to the action.
Secondly, for Zimmerman, I think it is believable that he was ambushed and physically attacked while trying to pursue what he thought was a thief. I'm not so sure that he actually wanted to confront, but instead wanted to follow and keep an eye on Martin before getting ambushed. Rittenhouse seemed to want conflict and confrontation. He had no problem being in the face of people and helping to stir shit up. He had ample opportunity to get away from the situation and simply shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I see Zimmerman as a moron who wanted to be a cop and wanted to do good and failed miserably. I can see letting him off from the murder charges, although it'd be nice to get him on something.
I see Rittenhouse as a wannabe vigilante who wanted to kill. I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't get some serious jail time, although I'm kind of expecting him not to at this point.
The parallels I was drawing were more, around the status afforded to the players in each case, by differing segments of society. Which, have been touched on at times but are really quite disturbing to me, perhaps thought them worth injecting for discussion.
Outside of this thread, which is largely more sober I think I’ve been savaged by both wings of the spectrum.
I basically had the same reading of Zimmerman as you did actually, albeit I think he was as much motivated by wanting to wield that cop-like power over his fellow man as wanting to do genuine good.
Rittenhouse likewise, but even more recklessly, with less justification and packing more heat.
I could see if one felt Rittenhouse was harshly treated by the media, also in a rough situation (regardless of guilt/innocence he’s in a shit place), maybe buying him a beer, wanting to talk to the kid. But no it’s a full celebratory thing, with him sporting a rather unsavoury T-shirt slogan considering the circumstances.
Or a Zimmerman where racists buy signed packets of skittles off the man. I’m unsure what the in-joke is, perhaps Trayvon Martin had a packet on him when he was killed, it’s something in that domain.
There’s a world of difference between on the balance of facts thinking both these folks are innocent of the charges, and genuinely celebrating their actions.
My point was more outside reaction to the cases seem very similar. In many quarters although I must stress not in here so much.
|
On November 15 2021 21:36 NewSunshine wrote:
Also no, outside the US it's not a normal response to almost any situation to say you should be able to shoot someone, or take a life. That's very much a US thing.
But if the description in one of above posts is accurate he might have been accuited even in Poland and we have ridiculously high bar set for self defense gun discharge. I mean if he really:
1)Tried to get away but was chased
2)Was verbally threatend
3)Warned them he will use gun in self defense
4)Was physically attacked afterwards
5)Had resonable fear that he might loose his life or be seriously injured
then i think, chances are, he might have been accuited even in many European countries (or convicted of something less then murder). Lets dont act like self defense is not a thing in EU. It is.
Now I am not saying he is not a scumbag, But even scumbags have right to self defense.
|
|
|
On November 15 2021 22:19 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 21:36 NewSunshine wrote:
Also no, outside the US it's not a normal response to almost any situation to say you should be able to shoot someone, or take a life. That's very much a US thing. But if the description in one of above posts is accurate he might have been accuited even in Poland and we have ridiculously high bar set for self defense gun discharge. I mean if he really: 1)Tried to get away but was chased 2)Was verbally threatend 3)Warned them he will use gun in self defense 4)Was physically attacked afterwards 5)Had resonable fear that he might loose his life or be seriously injured then i think, chances are, he might have been accuited even in many European countries (or convicted of something less then murder). Lets dont act like self defense is not a thing in EU. It is. Now I am not saying he is not a scumbag, But even scumbags have right to self defense.
The real question is what constitutes self-defense. I say this knowing I go well above the low bar we set for it here in the US, but I don't think expressing a desire to shoot people, grabbing an AR, crossing state lines, and starting shit with people who threatened him (who could obviously see his large rifle) places him or anyone else in a situation that constitutes self-defense. What is he defending? His right to travel to protests he disagrees with for the express purpose of threatening violence? That's what he did. That's what landed him in hot shit. The only reason anyone said anything to him was because he was brandishing a fucking rifle.
I also tend to think that shooting someone is an escalation of the situation, far more often than it is self-defense. If Kyle's position is that he wasn't looking for trouble and didn't want to hurt someone or get hurt himself, then his behavior of expressing a desire to hurt people, grabbing a weapon that is terrible for self-defense but great for being an attacker, and traveling to a situation where he could instigate violence, so that he could then instigate violence, is rather strange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
