|
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 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante.
What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not.
|
On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself?
Probably not by current law; however, my sense of ethics says he should. Purposely going to a rally with a gun to create a situation where you get to kill people is incredibly unethical and I think should be illegal.
The current interpretation of the law seems to allow people to antagonize others and then murder them if they react to the antagonization. Seems like a blueprint for psychopaths to find a legal loophole to murder people.
I assume you think Gaige Grosskreutz would have been completely correct in shooting and killing Rittenhouse, right? Rittenhouse pointed a gun at Gaige and even fired that gun at Gaige. So shouldn't Gaige have been perfectly within his right to kill him? So is the law simply that whoever shoots and kills first, wins? Or should all parties be culpable for their actions?
I think there needs to be accountability for actions. If you kill someone, you need to pay the price. I personally make exceptions for defending your own property, but not much beyond that. Rittenhouse went out of his way to create the situation and is taking no responsibility for ending peoples lives. Hell, there's a segment that's hailing him as a hero and a moron like him will believe it. He might kill again.
There is one hope though and that's civil court. Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't heard anything about a civil case yet. The families of the deceased should sue him into the ground. Every penny he ever makes should go to them. At least there would be some justice there.
|
On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not.
Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense.
|
On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense.
His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon.
|
On November 20 2021 15:29 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? I assume you think Gaige Grosskreutz would have been completely correct in shooting and killing Rittenhouse, right? Rittenhouse pointed a gun at Gaige and even fired that gun at Gaige. So shouldn't Gaige have been perfectly within his right to kill him? So is the law simply that whoever shoots and kills first, wins? Or should all parties be culpable for their actions?
Kyle was being chased by Gaige, Gaige was chasing Kyle. One was attempting to retreat, the other was actively advancing. This is a significant (though not absolute) signal that Kyle is not a threat to Gaige justifying lethal self-defence. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence.
When Gaige reached Kyle, who was on the ground, Kyle pointed his rifle at Gaige and Gaige raised his hands in surrender and then Kyle lowered his rifle. This is a significant (again, not absolute) signal that Kyle is not a threat to Gaige justifying lethal self-defence. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence.
Immediately after Kyle lowers his rifle Gaige points his handgun at Kyle's head. In response Kyle fires on Gaige. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence.
If Gaige shot Kyle he would have to prove that he had a justifiable belief that Kyle was feigning retreat toward the nearby police line for the purpose of shooting more people. Not impossible if the circumstances were different, but pretty unlikely in this case.
|
On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon.
His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun.
People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people.
|
On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon. His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because they want to, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun. People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people.
Your interpretation of all that is meaningless. He has as much right to be there as anybody else. You have no authority to tell him to stay home or whether he has an acceptable reason to attend. He does not require a stake.
Stop arguing just being there removes his legal right to self-defence when it categorically does not and find something to argue that actually does, like he provoked the attacks or wasn't really attacked.
|
On November 20 2021 16:06 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 15:29 RenSC2 wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? I assume you think Gaige Grosskreutz would have been completely correct in shooting and killing Rittenhouse, right? Rittenhouse pointed a gun at Gaige and even fired that gun at Gaige. So shouldn't Gaige have been perfectly within his right to kill him? So is the law simply that whoever shoots and kills first, wins? Or should all parties be culpable for their actions? Kyle was being chased by Gaige, Gaige was chasing Kyle. One was attempting to retreat, the other was actively advancing. This is a significant (though not absolute) signal that Kyle is not a threat to Gaige justifying lethal self-defence. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence. When Gaige reached Kyle, who was on the ground, Kyle pointed his rifle at Gaige and Gaige raised his hands in surrender and then Kyle lowered his rifle. This is a significant (again, not absolute) signal that Kyle is not a threat to Gaige justifying lethal self-defence. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence. Immediately after Kyle lowers his rifle Gaige points his handgun at Kyle's head. In response Kyle fires on Gaige. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence. If Gaige shot Kyle he would have to prove that he had a justifiable belief that Kyle was feigning retreat toward the nearby police line for the purpose of shooting more people. Not impossible if the circumstances were different, but pretty unlikely in this case.
And Gaige had ample opportunity to shoot Kyle, but didn’t. Kyle had that same opportunity not to shoot Gaige, but did.
One man was there to kill, the other seems like he just wanted to stop a killer, but didn’t want to become one himself. He got shot, but you don’t think he should be allowed to return fire in self-defense after being shot?
|
On November 20 2021 16:21 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 16:06 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:29 RenSC2 wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? I assume you think Gaige Grosskreutz would have been completely correct in shooting and killing Rittenhouse, right? Rittenhouse pointed a gun at Gaige and even fired that gun at Gaige. So shouldn't Gaige have been perfectly within his right to kill him? So is the law simply that whoever shoots and kills first, wins? Or should all parties be culpable for their actions? Kyle was being chased by Gaige, Gaige was chasing Kyle. One was attempting to retreat, the other was actively advancing. This is a significant (though not absolute) signal that Kyle is not a threat to Gaige justifying lethal self-defence. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence. When Gaige reached Kyle, who was on the ground, Kyle pointed his rifle at Gaige and Gaige raised his hands in surrender and then Kyle lowered his rifle. This is a significant (again, not absolute) signal that Kyle is not a threat to Gaige justifying lethal self-defence. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence. Immediately after Kyle lowers his rifle Gaige points his handgun at Kyle's head. In response Kyle fires on Gaige. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence. If Gaige shot Kyle he would have to prove that he had a justifiable belief that Kyle was feigning retreat toward the nearby police line for the purpose of shooting more people. Not impossible if the circumstances were different, but pretty unlikely in this case. And Gaige had ample opportunity to shoot Kyle, but didn’t. Kyle had that same opportunity not to shoot Gaige, but did. One man was there to kill, the other seems like he just wanted to stop a killer, but didn’t want to become one himself. He got shot, but you don’t think he should be allowed to return fire in self-defense after being shot?
Both Gaige and Kyle had ample opportunity to shoot many people that night and in their lives. They can both probably acquire a gun right now and go out and shoot some people. Having the opportunity to shoot somebody or each other is meaningless, neither have a natural right to shoot people or each other, not now and not during that night.
Both have a right to self-defence.
Kyle being found to have a justifiable belief that he feared for his life and acted in self-defence doesn't preclude Gaige from making a self-defence argument and he remains entitled to try it. I think it would be more difficult for the reasons I outlined in the post you're replying to.
Would you make the same "he was there to kill" argument of Gaige that you make of Kyle, given he travelled further than Kyle to attend and did so with an illegally concealed gun?
|
On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon. His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because they want to, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun. People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people. Your interpretation of all that is meaningless. He has as much right to be there as anybody else. You have no authority to tell him to stay home or whether he has an acceptable reason to attend. He does not require a stake. Stop arguing just being there removes his legal right to self-defence when it categorically does not and find something to argue that actually does, like he provoked the attacks or wasn't really attacked.
Sure, he can be there, and when he shoots and kills people and tries to claim he did it out of self defense after having said he wants to shoot people then he's going to get called bullshit on because his actions do not line up with the actions of someone whose primary intent is to defend themselves.
You might not understand, self defense is a state of mind, I cannot go to a bank with a glock in each hand after having said I want to kill some bank tellers and then claim afterwards that I was only defending myself after having shot three bank tellers. Even if the tellers saw my guns and said, "Im going to call our armed security to escort you out for coming in here with a bunch of guns," even if the sight of the armed guards make me pee my pants.
In this scenario I clearly did not enter the bank for any real reason other than to shoot the tellers, much like Rittenhouse saying he wants to shoot people and then going to a place to "protect businesses" he has no real connection to.
|
On November 20 2021 12:12 KwarK wrote:
Protestors weren’t on trial so I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant. I’ll condemn them too if you like.
Isn't that also the point? The case against Gaige G. was rock solid. The case against Kyle R. was not. The inverse is the reality of what the prosecutors went after.
On November 20 2021 15:29 RenSC2 wrote:
I think there needs to be accountability for actions. If you kill someone, you need to pay the price. I personally make exceptions for defending your own property, but not much beyond that. Rittenhouse went out of his way to create the situation and is taking no responsibility for ending peoples lives. Hell, there's a segment that's hailing him as a hero and a moron like him will believe it. He might kill again.
I am of the opinion, with 99% certainty, that if K.R. had been returning home from his job, and his car broke down while being impeded to go home from the riot, and then the same chain of events occurred, the prosecution would not have presented their case any differently.
On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:
His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon.
Exactly. The whole point of this trial is a test case to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. In the end, the prosecution's theory was that possessing a gun is a negation of the right to self defense.
On November 20 2021 16:06 Lachrymose wrote:
Kyle was being chased by Gaige, Gaige was chasing Kyle. One was attempting to retreat, the other was actively advancing. This is a significant (though not absolute) signal that Kyle is not a threat to Gaige justifying lethal self-defence. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence.
When Gaige reached Kyle, who was on the ground, Kyle pointed his rifle at Gaige and Gaige raised his hands in surrender and then Kyle lowered his rifle. This is a significant (again, not absolute) signal that Kyle is not a threat to Gaige justifying lethal self-defence. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence.
Immediately after Kyle lowers his rifle Gaige points his handgun at Kyle's head. In response Kyle fires on Gaige. This would make it harder for Gaige to claim self-defence.
If Gaige shot Kyle he would have to prove that he had a justifiable belief that Kyle was feigning retreat toward the nearby police line for the purpose of shooting more people. Not impossible if the circumstances were different, but pretty unlikely in this case.
This is literally a warcrime by Gaige Grosskreutz if done in another context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy
The fact that he hasn't been charged at all is actually the biggest miscarriage of justice in this case. He is the worst actor of the 4 (5 if you include dropkick man).
|
On November 20 2021 16:45 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote:
Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon. His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because they want to, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun. People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people. Your interpretation of all that is meaningless. He has as much right to be there as anybody else. You have no authority to tell him to stay home or whether he has an acceptable reason to attend. He does not require a stake. Stop arguing just being there removes his legal right to self-defence when it categorically does not and find something to argue that actually does, like he provoked the attacks or wasn't really attacked. Sure, he can be there, and when he shoots and kills people and tries to claim he did it out of self defense after having said he wants to shoot people then he's going to get called bullshit on because his actions do not line up with the actions of someone whose primary intent is to defend themselves. You might not understand, self defense is a state of mind, I cannot go to a bank with a glock in each hand after having said I want to kill some bank tellers and then claim afterwards that I was only defending myself after having shot three bank tellers. Even if the tellers saw my guns and said, "Im going to call our armed security to escort you out for coming in here with a bunch of guns," even if the sight of the armed guards make me pee my pants. In this scenario I clearly did not enter the bank for any real reason other than to shoot the tellers, much like Rittenhouse saying he wants to shoot people and then going to a place to "protect businesses" he has no real connection to.
A bank employee telling you you are going to escorted out of the building by security does not constitute a justifiable belief of a fear for your life and a valid reason to use lethal force, especially against the unarmed bank tellers rather than the armed security. Your self-defence argument would fail for this reason.
Generally you do not have a right to self-defence during the commission of a felony, which brandishing in a bank probably constitutes so your self-defence argument would also fail for this reason.
It would not fail specifically because you attended a bank after at some point claiming to want to kill some bank tellers.
If you said that on video and a bunch of bank tellers saw the video and got mad about it and then jumped you next time you were in a bank and tried to kill you you would still be entitled to self-defence.
|
On November 20 2021 17:05 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 16:45 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
Yup.
This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people.
'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not.
Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same.
Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon. His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because they want to, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun. People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people. Your interpretation of all that is meaningless. He has as much right to be there as anybody else. You have no authority to tell him to stay home or whether he has an acceptable reason to attend. He does not require a stake. Stop arguing just being there removes his legal right to self-defence when it categorically does not and find something to argue that actually does, like he provoked the attacks or wasn't really attacked. Sure, he can be there, and when he shoots and kills people and tries to claim he did it out of self defense after having said he wants to shoot people then he's going to get called bullshit on because his actions do not line up with the actions of someone whose primary intent is to defend themselves. You might not understand, self defense is a state of mind, I cannot go to a bank with a glock in each hand after having said I want to kill some bank tellers and then claim afterwards that I was only defending myself after having shot three bank tellers. Even if the tellers saw my guns and said, "Im going to call our armed security to escort you out for coming in here with a bunch of guns," even if the sight of the armed guards make me pee my pants. In this scenario I clearly did not enter the bank for any real reason other than to shoot the tellers, much like Rittenhouse saying he wants to shoot people and then going to a place to "protect businesses" he has no real connection to. A bank employee telling you you are going to escorted out of the building by security does not constitute a justifiable belief of a fear for your life and a valid reason to use lethal force, especially against the unarmed bank tellers rather than the armed security. Your self-defence argument would fail for this reason. Generally you do not have a right to self-defence during the commission of a felony, which brandishing in a bank probably constitutes so your self-defence argument would also fail for this reason. It would not fail specifically because you attended a bank after at some point claiming to want to kill some bank tellers. If you said that on video and a bunch of bank tellers saw the video and got mad about it and then jumped you next time you were in a bank and tried to kill you you would still be entitled to self-defence.
What is a "justifiable belief of a fear for your life," you seem to be arbitrarily deciding these things as it suits you? Can you tie it to some sort of action? Where in this situation was Rittenhouse the one who had a justifiable belief in a fear for his life that superseded anyone else's?
The first person that Rittenhouse shot was unarmed, and Rittenhouse's first shot was to the pelvis, in case youre unfamiliar with human anatomy, the pelvis is the big bone at the base of your torso, its often referred to as the hip. Now, as you may be aware of, the hips are important to being able to walk, so, having been shot in the pelvis would qualifying as a stopping shot. However, three additional rounds were fired afterwards, lethally, indicating that in the face of an unarmed assailant, Rittenhouse first stopped his assault and then proceeded to murder him.
At this point, Rittenhouse became an active shooter and murderer, the following two gun owners were doing their duty as Good Guys With Guns by trying to stop the active shooter and murderer with their own guns. You wouldn't fear for your life if some nutter with a gun just killed an unarmed person? They were clearly acting in self defense, after all, Rittenhouse was the initial person to open fire, and he had proved he was ready and willing to kill an unarmed person.
The way I'm seeing this is that Rittenhouse murdered someone (presumably you would consider murdering an unarmed person with an AR-15 a disproportionate use of force?) and in doing so became the party you would presumably argue lost his right to an argument of self defense given manslaughter and homicide and the like are felonies.
What I'm saying here is that your argument that Rittenhouse acted in self defense would fail for these reasons.
|
On November 20 2021 17:40 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 17:05 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:45 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself?
Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon. His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because they want to, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun. People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people. Your interpretation of all that is meaningless. He has as much right to be there as anybody else. You have no authority to tell him to stay home or whether he has an acceptable reason to attend. He does not require a stake. Stop arguing just being there removes his legal right to self-defence when it categorically does not and find something to argue that actually does, like he provoked the attacks or wasn't really attacked. Sure, he can be there, and when he shoots and kills people and tries to claim he did it out of self defense after having said he wants to shoot people then he's going to get called bullshit on because his actions do not line up with the actions of someone whose primary intent is to defend themselves. You might not understand, self defense is a state of mind, I cannot go to a bank with a glock in each hand after having said I want to kill some bank tellers and then claim afterwards that I was only defending myself after having shot three bank tellers. Even if the tellers saw my guns and said, "Im going to call our armed security to escort you out for coming in here with a bunch of guns," even if the sight of the armed guards make me pee my pants. In this scenario I clearly did not enter the bank for any real reason other than to shoot the tellers, much like Rittenhouse saying he wants to shoot people and then going to a place to "protect businesses" he has no real connection to. A bank employee telling you you are going to escorted out of the building by security does not constitute a justifiable belief of a fear for your life and a valid reason to use lethal force, especially against the unarmed bank tellers rather than the armed security. Your self-defence argument would fail for this reason. Generally you do not have a right to self-defence during the commission of a felony, which brandishing in a bank probably constitutes so your self-defence argument would also fail for this reason. It would not fail specifically because you attended a bank after at some point claiming to want to kill some bank tellers. If you said that on video and a bunch of bank tellers saw the video and got mad about it and then jumped you next time you were in a bank and tried to kill you you would still be entitled to self-defence. The first person that Rittenhouse shot was unarmed, and Rittenhouse's first shot was to the pelvis, in case youre unfamiliar with human anatomy, the pelvis is the big bone at the base of your torso, its often referred to as the hip. Now, as you may be aware of, the hips are important to being able to walk, so, having been shot in the pelvis would qualifying as a stopping shot. However, three additional rounds were fired afterwards, lethally, indicating that in the face of an unarmed assailant, Rittenhouse first stopped his assault and then proceeded to murder him. At this point, Rittenhouse became an active shooter and murderer, the following two gun owners were doing their duty as Good Guys With Guns by trying to stop the active shooter and murderer with their own guns. You wouldn't fear for your life if some nutter with a gun just killed an unarmed person? They were clearly acting in self defense, after all, Rittenhouse was the initial person to open fire, and he had proved he was ready and willing to kill an unarmed person.
The first person Kyle was Joseph Rosenbaum.
Earlier in the evening Rosenbaum threatened Kyle that if he found him alone he would kill him.
Immediately prior to the shooting Rosenbaum yelled "Let's get him!" and "Get him, get him, get him!" while another nearby person yelled "You won't do shit motherfucker" at Kyle. Kyle yelled "Friendly, friendly, friendly!" in return.
Kyle runs away and Rosenbaum gives chase. Rosenbaum quickly catches Kyle and yells "Fuck you!" as he lunges at him. Kyle fires all four rounds in one volley, there is no initial round that removes the threat followed by a deliberate three round execution as you imply.
None of this relies on testimony or interpretation and anybody can verify these events for themselves by watching the video evidence.
|
The first person that Rittenhouse shot was unarmed, and Rittenhouse's first shot was to the pelvis, in case youre unfamiliar with human anatomy, the pelvis is the big bone at the base of your torso, its often referred to as the hip. Now, as you may be aware of, the hips are important to being able to walk, so, having been shot in the pelvis would qualifying as a stopping shot. However, three additional rounds were fired afterwards, lethally, indicating that in the face of an unarmed assailant, Rittenhouse first stopped his assault and then proceeded to murder him.
Have you actually watched the footage?
What a ridiculous take.
|
On November 20 2021 17:40 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 17:05 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:45 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself?
Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon. His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because they want to, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun. People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people. Your interpretation of all that is meaningless. He has as much right to be there as anybody else. You have no authority to tell him to stay home or whether he has an acceptable reason to attend. He does not require a stake. Stop arguing just being there removes his legal right to self-defence when it categorically does not and find something to argue that actually does, like he provoked the attacks or wasn't really attacked. Sure, he can be there, and when he shoots and kills people and tries to claim he did it out of self defense after having said he wants to shoot people then he's going to get called bullshit on because his actions do not line up with the actions of someone whose primary intent is to defend themselves. You might not understand, self defense is a state of mind, I cannot go to a bank with a glock in each hand after having said I want to kill some bank tellers and then claim afterwards that I was only defending myself after having shot three bank tellers. Even if the tellers saw my guns and said, "Im going to call our armed security to escort you out for coming in here with a bunch of guns," even if the sight of the armed guards make me pee my pants. In this scenario I clearly did not enter the bank for any real reason other than to shoot the tellers, much like Rittenhouse saying he wants to shoot people and then going to a place to "protect businesses" he has no real connection to. A bank employee telling you you are going to escorted out of the building by security does not constitute a justifiable belief of a fear for your life and a valid reason to use lethal force, especially against the unarmed bank tellers rather than the armed security. Your self-defence argument would fail for this reason. Generally you do not have a right to self-defence during the commission of a felony, which brandishing in a bank probably constitutes so your self-defence argument would also fail for this reason. It would not fail specifically because you attended a bank after at some point claiming to want to kill some bank tellers. If you said that on video and a bunch of bank tellers saw the video and got mad about it and then jumped you next time you were in a bank and tried to kill you you would still be entitled to self-defence. What is a "justifiable belief of a fear for your life," you seem to be arbitrarily deciding these things as it suits you? Can you tie it to some sort of action? Where in this situation was Rittenhouse the one who had a justifiable belief in a fear for his life that superseded anyone else's?
A 'belief that your life is in danger or being threatened' is a general requirement for killing in self-defence in most or all self-defence laws. In addition to this, this belief needs to be 'justifiable', which means that it needs to be supported by a rationale that a reasonable person would understand or agree with, or something like that. For example, somebody pointing a gun at you could make you believe your life was in danger and a reasonable person would understand and agree. You could argue somebody offering you a cup of tea made you believe your life was in danger, but it would not reach bounds of a justified belief.
On November 20 2021 17:40 Zambrah wrote:
The first person that Rittenhouse shot was unarmed,
You are implying here that being unarmed means Rosenbaum could not be a threat to Kyle or Kyle could not believe Rosenbaum was a threat. Neither of these are true or legally valid. An unarmed person can absolutely be a threat.
On November 20 2021 17:40 Zambrah wrote:
and Rittenhouse's first shot was to the pelvis, [...] having been shot in the pelvis would qualifying as a stopping shot. However, three additional rounds were fired afterwards, lethally, indicating that in the face of an unarmed assailant, Rittenhouse first stopped his assault and then proceeded to murder him.
You are implying here that Kyle has a legal duty to wound and reassess until the threat is resolved. This is not true or legally valid. You are also claiming that Kyle did reassess and then executed Rosenbaum, which is either dishonest or incorrect. The four rounds were fired together as one action in response to the actions of Rosenbaum I detailed in my previous post.
|
Does self defense not mean minimum necessary force in the US? If it does, then yes, i would say that if you shoot someone, you have a duty to check if you need to keep shooting them, or if the threat has been stopped.
But all of this is misdirection. If you bring a gun to a protest, you are at fault if people get shot. You could simply not bring the gun.
If you record a video that you would like to shoot people at a protest, then bring a gun to a protest and shoot people, it is utterly absurd to claim that that is self defense.
|
On November 20 2021 19:01 Simberto wrote:
Does self defense not mean minimum necessary force in the US? If it does, then yes, i would say that if you shoot someone, you have a duty to check if you need to keep shooting them, or if the threat has been stopped.
But all of this is misdirection. If you bring a gun to a protest, you are at fault if people get shot. You could simply not bring the gun.
If you record a video that you would like to shoot people at a protest, then bring a gun to a protest and shoot people, it is utterly absurd to claim that that is self defense.
You are not allowed to shoot to wound under any circumstances, nor "just shoot the gun out of their hand" or anything like that. If you shoot at somebody you have to be justified in killing them. If there were situations where you could legally shoot to wound but not kill then "I only meant to hit him in the leg oops" becomes a kettle of fish nobody wants to open. This is before even considering all gunshot wounds are potentially deadly, especially to the legs. As soon as Kyle was justified in shooting then whether it was one lethal round or four lethal rounds makes no real difference. If he fired one non-lethal round and then returned to the scene later and fired three lethal rounds when there was no threat it would become illegal and be murder.
You can have your opinion about firearms but as of right now they are legal both locally and federally in Kenosha and having one does not diminish your legal rights. Not bringing a gun was also an option for Gaige (probably a good one as he wasn't even legally in possession of his gun), do you also consider it his fault people got shot?
If you attack someone that has a gun and then complain when they defend themselves with that gun all you're doing is trying to circumvent the legality of firearms. Guns are legal and self-defence is legal. Self-defence with guns is legal.
|
We are going around in circles a bit here.
I think that most posters here would agree that, if you ignore context and only look at the events during the riot, kyle was justified in using his AR in self-defence under current US law.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this.
|
On November 20 2021 21:05 EnDeR_ wrote:
We are going around in circles a bit here.
I think that most posters here would agree that, if you ignore context and only look at the events during the riot, kyle was justified in using his AR in self-defence under current US law.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this.
The alternative is much, much worse. The idea that you can argue Kyle was 'asking for it' and therefore not entitled to defend himself would lead to much worse outcomes.
Nobody was forced to attack Kyle and it's not his fault if they did, regardless of his politics.
If you show up to counter-protest at a KKK rally are you still a vigilante who is looking for trouble and therefore not entitled to defend yourself or are you just a counter-protester who still has your legal rights? For me, if you do that and the facts come out that you didn't provoke or threaten and only defended yourself then you absolutely have a right to be there and defend yourself same as Kyle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
