|
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 |
United States24578 Posts
On November 21 2021 02:00 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:48 micronesia wrote:On November 21 2021 01:26 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:09 micronesia wrote:On November 21 2021 01:05 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 00:55 micronesia wrote:
I didn't watch the court case, but just to be clear, is there any type of a census on why he was there in the vicinity of the protests, and why he had an AR-15 on his person? Are these two facts part of what is being debated? He was there during the day because that is his local community and he was cleaning graffiti. He was there during the night because he was performing private security for a local business. During this time he was putting out fires and offering first aid. (He was a volunteer firefighter and volunteer lifeguard.) He had an AR-15 on his person because he wanted to and as it's fully legal he simply did. Why he wanted to speaks to his state of mind which is obviously up for debate. Some would say it was for personal safety, others would say it was because he was looking to murder people. That underline is new to me (as someone who didn't follow the issue closely) and raises a few more questions: - Was he officially hired to perform private security?
- If not, did he have explicit permission from the business owner(s) to provide private security?
- In either case, what were his qualifications to competently provide private security, if any?
For the bolded statement, it's impossible for anyone but him to know for sure, but this answer also seems like a bit of a cop out. What was his stated reason (after the event) for carrying his AR-15, at least? 1. No, not at all. 2. This is contested. The owner's son since claimed otherwise, but several witnesses testified they were asked to attend. 3. Police cadet training and weapons training. No specific security services training as far as I know. His stated reason for having the gun was "Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit." Thank you for the additional information. Thinking it about it some more, if he was "running away" leading up to the self defense situations, is it fair to say he was not providing private security as part of the immediate initiating events to the violence encounters? If I'm right, and if we disregard any recorded statements from prior to the day of, then the situation seems to mostly boil down to, "He went into area of likely-violent protests, after curfew, in order to help people with his medical abilities, and to offer a shoulder to an injured citizen as needed, but chose to carry an AR-15 to protect himself as he did this." In that case, I have some reservations about what he did beyond just violating curfew. If your goal is to altruistically help the locals and local businesses, don't open carry an AR-15. He likely wouldn't have been violently attacked if all he was doing was applying first aid and putting out garbage fires next to local businesses. If your goal is to protect yourself, then don't go into that environment as an unsanctioned citizen-vigilante. By trying to have it both ways, the situation ended up with multiple people dead/shot. It could have been him just as easily as the people who did end up getting shot. Just going off of the above, I don't see him as guilty of first or second degree murder, but likely lesser charges if things were just. I don't know the local laws that are applicable where the event occurred, but we really shouldn't encourage everyone to carry AR-15s into charged riots just to "protect themselves, obviously." When you take his earlier statements into account, that might be an argument for increasing the severity of the charges, but I don't see it as changing the fact that criminal behavior, at some level, occurred. Re: Private security. Yes, this is correct, the security had already disbanded and at the time he was walking the streets offering first aid. (You might find this a bit incredulous, but there is very clear video of him walking along shouting "Medical" and offering medical aid.) Okay, thank you for clarifying this.
Re: Open carry. I disagree and I think you might too if you had more of the facts. He wasn't set upon by a random person who saw him open carrying and found it provocative. There were many people armed in the streets. There was a dispute earlier in the night where the person was actively attempting to use a dumpster fire to commit arson at a petrol station and Kyle's group put the fire out. At this point the person threatened that he would kill Kyle if he found him alone. When he later found him alone that is when he attacked Kyle and the shooting happened. I don't think putting out an arson attempt constitutes vigilante justice. Wasn't Kyle singled out by this guy because of the combination of being part of the "put out the fire" group and open-carrying an AR-15? If so, this doesn't really counter what I said above. Kyle was having it both ways, and an (allegedly) evil idiot reacted to that. Kyle shouldn't have been having it both ways. Either he's a hero who's not instigating violence (by not open carrying while helping people in this environment), or he's staying away and keeping safe. Had he been carrying a firearm concealed (if legal), the story might be very different in his favor.
I don't think we should encourage anybody to carry AR-15s into riots at all. But just because I don't encourage it or think it's good doesn't mean I think that if somebody chooses to do so they automatically forfeit their rights.
I think you and I have a different understanding here. What I described above is not really forfeiting your rights. You can kill someone in bona fide self-defense AND also be committing a crime at the same time based on your prior actions and the circumstances of your actions. The crimes however are lesser than murder/etc. This principle is similar to felony murder.
I don't think it's illegal or pseudo-illegal just because I don't think it's a good idea. I agree, "that's not a good idea" by itself is not sufficient justification to find someone guilty of something in a court of law.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 21 2021 02:07 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:43 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 01:42 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:39 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 01:37 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:29 KwarK wrote:
You have to be really bad at first aid if you're using a gun during it. Knife, sure, maybe, if you're using it to cut off clothes or something but a gun? That's not generally part of the kit EMTs bring. Either Kyle is on the cutting edge of first aid and knows something all EMTs don't or the justification doesn't hold water. Remember when you were criticising about bad faith arguments? You don't believe the implication of that quote is that the AR-15 is for medical care. So what was it for? "to protect myself" Are you selectively losing your ability to read? If his goal was self preservation then why was he there? Just try to follow his logic through for a second. He was there to help anyone who got hurt but in the likely scenario that he needed the ability to hurt people he needed to bring his hurty stick with him. If he thought that him needing to hurt people was very unlikely then he didn’t need to bring the tool for hurting people. If he thought it was likely then he’s actively planning to make the situation worse and increase the number of people hurt. The only rational choice would be to stay home. “I’m here because I want to make things better but I’ve come prepared to make them a lot worse” "I'm here because I want to make things better, but I've come prepared in case somebody else wants to make them a lot worse."
Are you arguing that someone else shot those people and that Kyle was there to shoot that guy?
|
Kyle was singled out because of the altercation. As I said, there were many guns and gunshots that night, there is nothing outwardly unique about Kyle having a gun. The problem was him being outed as anti-riot by putting out a fire/directly opposing Rosenbaum. If Rosenbaum perceived him as a riot supporter open carrying and offering medical assistance I don't think there is any reason to believe he would have attacked him.
If simply having a gun constituted provoking violence then a gun would be useless for self defence because any time you had one you would also count as provoking and lose your right to self defence.
The law obviously does not and can not function like that.
You need to brandish your gun for that kind of thing.
You can be committing other crimes for sure, but the issue is whether or not you carried out an illegal killing. If it was self defence you did not by definition, even if there were other crimes. If there was no illegal killing there is not only no murder but no manslaughter or anything else either. Breaking curfew, J-walking, removing the tag from your mattress -- whatever the crime, if it doesn't invalidate your self defence argument then no illegal killing crime applies. Other crimes can invalidate your self defence and if it does there's no reason murder isn't back on the table if it applies. It's not a case of degrees of self defence, it either is or it isn't.
It also sounds like you have the legal standing of concealed and open carry backwards. Concealed is way, way more restricted. Open carry is legally the much more permissible one. The concern of intimidation of open carry is nowhere near as serious as the concern of secret guns.
|
On November 21 2021 02:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 02:07 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:43 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 01:42 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:39 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 01:37 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:29 KwarK wrote:
You have to be really bad at first aid if you're using a gun during it. Knife, sure, maybe, if you're using it to cut off clothes or something but a gun? That's not generally part of the kit EMTs bring. Either Kyle is on the cutting edge of first aid and knows something all EMTs don't or the justification doesn't hold water. Remember when you were criticising about bad faith arguments? You don't believe the implication of that quote is that the AR-15 is for medical care. So what was it for? "to protect myself" Are you selectively losing your ability to read? If his goal was self preservation then why was he there? Just try to follow his logic through for a second. He was there to help anyone who got hurt but in the likely scenario that he needed the ability to hurt people he needed to bring his hurty stick with him. If he thought that him needing to hurt people was very unlikely then he didn’t need to bring the tool for hurting people. If he thought it was likely then he’s actively planning to make the situation worse and increase the number of people hurt. The only rational choice would be to stay home. “I’m here because I want to make things better but I’ve come prepared to make them a lot worse” "I'm here because I want to make things better, but I've come prepared in case somebody else wants to make them a lot worse." Are you arguing that someone else shot those people and that Kyle was there to shoot that guy?
No, I'm implying Kyle's rationale was that if somebody cut their hand he would have a medical kit to provide medical aid. If somebody tried to shoot Kyle while he was providing medical aid he would have a gun to protect himself and the person to whom he was supplying medical aid.
|
|
|
United States24578 Posts
On November 21 2021 02:24 Lachrymose wrote:
Kyle was singled out because of the altercation. As I said, there were many guns and gunshots that night, there is nothing outwardly unique about Kyle having a gun. The problem was him being outed as anti-riot by putting out a fire/directly opposing Rosenbaum. If Rosenbaum perceived him as a riot supporter open carrying and offering medical assistance I don't think there is any reason to believe he would have attacked him.
If simply having a gun constituted provoking violence then a gun would be useless for self defence because any time you had one you would also count as provoking and lose your right to self defence. Having a gun does not necessarily provoke violence since many can be concealed (concealed vs open carry further down). Displaying a large gun in a violent setting definitely does potentially provoke violence, so if you have one, you better have a good reason for being there with a long-gun. If not, get away quickly. As Kwark was explaining, you don't need a long-gun to administer first aid and put out fires, so you shouldn't be carrying a long gun. If you are a trained, hired security guard for a business, then guarding the business with the long-gun may make sense. Outside of these extreme types of situations, if open-carry is allowed, then fine, open carry if you want. I'm not a fan of such strange "modern" laws, but I won't claim they don't exist.
The law obviously does not and can not function like that.
You need to brandish your gun for that kind of thing. You brandish a gun either to use it, or to intimidate.
You can be committing other crimes for sure, but the issue is whether or not you carried out an illegal killing. If it was self defence you did not by definition, even if there were other crimes. If there was no illegal killing there is not only no murder but no manslaughter or anything else either. Breaking curfew, J-walking, removing the tag from your mattress -- whatever the crime, if it doesn't invalidate your self defence argument then no illegal killing crime applies. Other crimes can invalidate your self defence and if it does there's no reason murder isn't back on the table if it applies. It's not a case of degrees of self defence, it either is or it isn't. I disagree with the bolded first sentence and the last few words so the rest of your explanation in the middle really goes in a different direction as far as applicability. If you recklessly create a high risk of needing to defend yourself, then you might get away with it if you get lucky and don't end up needing to defend yourself. If you recklessly create a high risk of needing to defend yourself, and then do via defensive killing, you could be criminally guilty of creating a high risk of needing to defend yourself leading to death. You legally defended yourself because there really was someone charging at you with the intent to kill. However, the moment you used lethal force against the other person, your previous actions became criminal. Therefore, the mere act of self-defense can lead to lesser crimes even if it was determined to be a valid self-defense while disregarding other factors. Your all or nothing approach to this issue is not how I think the law works or should work.
It also sounds like you have the legal standing of concealed and open carry backwards. Concealed is way, way more restricted. Open carry is legally the much more permissible one. The concern of intimidation of open carry is nowhere near as serious as the concern of secret guns. I think you are conflating two different things. I'm not talking about which is easier to get permission to do: concealed or open carry. I'm saying, assuming both are legal for the individual, choosing to open carry is more provocative in a riot environment. Had Kyle wanted to provide first aid and put out fires but still felt a need to protect himself, while I'd encourage him to just not go, if he had a concealed legal handgun, I wouldn't really object if he pulled it out when cornered and shot the person who was about to kill him. Once in the battle environment, this increases personal risk for Kyle since it's easier to fight off an aggressor with an AR-15, but if Kyle feels he needs that AR-15 to defend himself, given the escalation that causes, he shouldn't go into the riot environment to begin with then.
|
Wow fun times in Wisconsin lately, the GOP there are trying to take full control of elections by abolishing (and possibly prosecuting members of) their bipartisan elections agency.
Republicans in Wisconsin are engaged in an all-out assault on the state’s election system, building off their attempts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential race by pressing to give themselves full control over voting in the state.
The Republican effort — broader and more forceful than that in any other state where allies of former President Donald J. Trump are trying to overhaul elections — takes direct aim at the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission, an agency Republicans created half a decade ago that has been under attack since the chaotic aftermath of last year’s election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/politics/wisconsin-republicans-decertify-election.html
|
On November 21 2021 02:45 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 02:24 Lachrymose wrote:
Kyle was singled out because of the altercation. As I said, there were many guns and gunshots that night, there is nothing outwardly unique about Kyle having a gun. The problem was him being outed as anti-riot by putting out a fire/directly opposing Rosenbaum. If Rosenbaum perceived him as a riot supporter open carrying and offering medical assistance I don't think there is any reason to believe he would have attacked him.
If simply having a gun constituted provoking violence then a gun would be useless for self defence because any time you had one you would also count as provoking and lose your right to self defence. Having a gun does not necessarily provoke violence since many can be concealed (concealed vs open carry further down). Displaying a large gun in a violent setting definitely does potentially provoke violence, so if you have one, you better have a good reason for being there with a long-gun. If not, get away quickly. This I absolutely can not agree with and I think is a permanent sticking point in our discussion. Open carrying can never legally constitute provocation. If it is your legal right to carry a gun you absolutely do not need a good reason to be anywhere with it or have a duty remove yourself from public with it. It's legal. It's not technically or provisionally or kinda legal. It's legal. Your legal right can not be revoked for no reason.
As Kwark was explaining, you don't need a long-gun to administer first aid and put out fires, so you shouldn't be carrying a long gun. You do not need to justify your legal right to keep or bear arms as based on administering first aid or putting out fires. He had a gun for personal safety which he is entitled to do with no reservations whatsoever, regardless of how you, me or anybody else felt about it.
If you are a trained, hired security guard for a business, then guarding the business with the long-gun may make sense. I strongly disagree with this. As a security guard you absolutely should not use a long-gun or any gun to defend property. A gun is for personal safety only. (In this context, obviously hunting, etc.) Defending property should be done only with your presence and with calling law enforcement. Guarding property is absolutely not a better reason to shoot somebody than guarding your own life and I'm frankly puzzled you accept this as a use case.
Outside of these extreme types of situations, if open-carry is allowed, then fine, open carry if you want. I'm not a fan of such strange "modern" laws, but I won't claim they don't exist. The right to own and carry guns is as old as guns. Maybe you want to change it but it hasn't been changed yet and as such Kyle was within his rights to carry a gun and not subject to some future law forbidding or restricting it.
Show nested quote +The law obviously does not and can not function like that.
You need to brandish your gun for that kind of thing. You brandish a gun either to use it, or to intimidate.
Re: illegal killing: That is how it works. An illegal killing has many levels of culpability, from premeditated murder down to involuntary manslaughter. Self defence isn't an illegal killing and has no levels of culpability. Either Kyle had a justifiable belief that he had to fire to save his life or he didn't. You need to be fully justified. There is no half-justified that's only half-murder. That's just murder. The court found that he did and as such the killing was wholly legal. I understand you aren't comfortable with that, but there is no viable alternative that doesn't get into "shoot to wound" nonsense. The court did not find that Kyle legally provoked in any way and you have to recognise your extra-legal 'practically speaking open carrying is provocation' can't be admissible in a court. So even if you feel like he was provoking you know legally he wasn't and the court's hands are tied.
Re: open vs concealed: Kyle could not legally conceal a handgun. This was his only option for personal defence and like it or not, it proved to be necessary.
You can say practically he 'shouldn't go in', but there is no legal basis for that. (Other than breaking curfew which I think we all agree everyone was doing wrong but isn't material to whether or not he can legally defend himself?) That is only your personal feelings on the matter and they are shared by many, myself included.
|
United States24578 Posts
On November 21 2021 03:22 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 02:45 micronesia wrote:On November 21 2021 02:24 Lachrymose wrote:
Kyle was singled out because of the altercation. As I said, there were many guns and gunshots that night, there is nothing outwardly unique about Kyle having a gun. The problem was him being outed as anti-riot by putting out a fire/directly opposing Rosenbaum. If Rosenbaum perceived him as a riot supporter open carrying and offering medical assistance I don't think there is any reason to believe he would have attacked him.
If simply having a gun constituted provoking violence then a gun would be useless for self defence because any time you had one you would also count as provoking and lose your right to self defence. Having a gun does not necessarily provoke violence since many can be concealed (concealed vs open carry further down). Displaying a large gun in a violent setting definitely does potentially provoke violence, so if you have one, you better have a good reason for being there with a long-gun. If not, get away quickly. This I absolutely can not agree with and I think is a permanent sticking point in our discussion. Open carrying can never legally constitute provocation. If it is your legal right to carry a gun you absolutely do not need a good reason to be anywhere with it or have a duty remove yourself from public with it. It's legal. It's not technically or provisionally or kinda legal. It's legal. Your legal right can not be revoked for no reason. I'd agree with you for 95+% of the time, but there are definitely cases where opening carrying is not okay, even in states with explicit open carry provisions. Regarding the bolded above, do you need a good reason to be carrying an AR-15 while watching the school play at the local elementary school? Do you need a good reason to be carrying an AR-15 while going on a tour of the local government offices? Do you need a good reason to be carrying an AR-15 while entering the local police station to interview for a job? Do you need a good reason to carry your AR-15 into my house when I invite you over for drinks, see you carrying an AR-15, and say "holy crap no guns in my house please"? Do you and five of your closest friends need a good reason to carry half a dozen AR-15s while entering the local prison to have a chat with your friend who was incarcerated there for major crimes? Do you need a good reason to carry your AR-15 to voluntarily attend a violent post-curfew riot, even after people have been threatening your life and you chose to stick around despite having no formal reason to do so? I would argue that the bolded statement is not correct 100% of the time. I'm sure we could come up with many more counterexamples if we tried.
Show nested quote +As Kwark was explaining, you don't need a long-gun to administer first aid and put out fires, so you shouldn't be carrying a long gun. You do not need to justify your legal right to keep or bear arms as based on administering first aid or putting out fires. He had a gun for personal safety which he is entitled to do with no reservations whatsoever, regardless of how you, me or anybody else felt about it.
Show nested quote +If you are a trained, hired security guard for a business, then guarding the business with the long-gun may make sense. I strongly disagree with this. As a security guard you absolutely should not use a long-gun or any gun to defend property. A gun is for personal safety only. (In this context, obviously hunting, etc.) Defending property should be done only with your presence and with calling law enforcement. Guarding property is absolutely not a better reason to shoot somebody than guarding your own life and I'm frankly puzzled you accept this as a use case.
In some cases what you are saying is true, in others it is not. Note I did say "may" rather than "always". Many privately owned facilities are guarded with very advanced weaponry wielded by trained security. Some businesses should have zero armed guards and just call the police if there's a problem... they run the gamut. This really is an aside, though.
Show nested quote +Outside of these extreme types of situations, if open-carry is allowed, then fine, open carry if you want. I'm not a fan of such strange "modern" laws, but I won't claim they don't exist. The right to own and carry guns is as old as guns. Maybe you want to change it but it hasn't been changed yet and as such Kyle was within his rights to carry a gun and not subject to some future law forbidding or restricting it.
Show nested quote +The law obviously does not and can not function like that.
You need to brandish your gun for that kind of thing. You brandish a gun either to use it, or to intimidate. Yes, there is a misunderstanding here. I am saying brandishing is generally illegal and may void your right to self defence. Brandishing is not the same thing as open carrying. I am saying "You need to brandish your weapon for it to count as provocation, not simply have it."
Re: illegal killing: That is how it works. An illegal killing has many levels of culpability, from premeditated murder down to involuntary manslaughter. Self defence isn't an illegal killing and has no levels of culpability. Either Kyle had a justifiable belief that he had to fire to save his life or he didn't. You need to be fully justified. There is no half-justified that's only half-murder. That's just murder. The court found that he did and as such the killing was wholly legal. I understand you aren't comfortable with that, but there is no viable alternative that doesn't get into "shoot to wound" nonsense. The court did not find that Kyle legally provoked in any way and you have to recognise your extra-legal 'practically speaking open carrying is provocation' can't be admissible in a court. So even if you feel like he was provoking you know legally he wasn't and the court's hands are tied. For the record, I don't agree with shoot to wound nonsense either. I don't think you really took on my logic earlier regarding why it could be a crime (albeit a lesser one) to shoot in legit self-defense. Even if you do, I feel like we will both tell the other "that's not how it works or how it should work" and get no further, so feel free to just move on if you like.
Re: open vs concealed: Kyle could not legally conceal a handgun. This was his only option for personal defence and like it or not, it proved to be necessary. Thank you for confirming this fact which I wasn't sure of. It's hard to say the AR-15 to defend himself was or was not necessary. Setting aside the fact he could have not gone somewhere where he believed he needed an AR-15 to defend himself if his only reason for going was to "help", if he didn't have it he may not have been attacked. We'll never know. I think everyone who brings an AR-15, after curfew, into a violent riot, and doesn't immediately try to retreat away when they realize what's going, should be charged with a lesser crime (akin to recklessness), and it can go up from there depending on evidence of intent, how many people got killed as a result, etc.
You can say practically he 'shouldn't go in', but there is no legal basis for that. (Other than breaking curfew which I think we all agree everyone was doing wrong but isn't material to whether or not he can legally defend himself?) That is only your personal feelings on the matter and they are shared by many, myself included.
I consider carrying an AR-15 into a post-curfew riot environment similar to carrying an AR-15 into another place where you are not allowed to bring it, even in an open-carry State/city. The supreme court has ruled on many issues, guns included, that even directly stated rates are not absolute and the context must be considered.
If what Kyle did (as described above) is legally okay, then I expect we are going to see a lot more of people killing each other with no way to limit it. Everybody on both sides in open-carry locations will carry their long-guns into charged environments because there are "no limits" on their rights to carry, things will escalate, and lots of people will die. It's actually pretty remarkable there haven't been even more stories like this so far, in my opinion.
|
I am specifically talking about places where open carry is legal. It's not legal to open carry on school grounds and many other places. You don't have to let me in your home for any reason gun or not. It's legal to open carry in the street where Kyle was. It's not my business to decide in which places it's legal, illegal or legal-but-I-don't-like-it-so-I'm-going-to-act-like-it-doesn't-count.
I don't expect to see really any changes in behaviour. It's pretty hard to use Kyle's case to justify firearm aggression given it was absolutely clear cut self defence in plain video and still such a big deal was made out of it. If you want to do what he did you better run like crazy, shoot only at the last possible moment and hope somebody gets it all on video from multiple angles because clearly people don't like it and will want you convicted regardless.
The argument he could've left or gone somewhere else has no merit. Ultimately you're free to hide in your basement for the rest of your life and as such an dangerous situation is always optional. This is just a backhanded way to ban guns by proxy.
Andrew Coffee IV was found not guilty by way of self defence today/yesterday firing on a SWAT team because he claimed they didn't identify themselves during a raid. You hear about it when you hear about it and you don't when you don't, it has nothing to do with whether or not it happens. Self defence is fair and hopefully not going away any time soon.
|
United States24578 Posts
On November 21 2021 04:15 Lachrymose wrote:
I am specifically talking about places where open carry is legal. It's not legal to open carry on school grounds and many other places. You don't have to let me in your home for any reason gun or not. It's legal to open carry in the street where Kyle was. It's not my business to decide in which places it's legal, illegal or legal-but-I-don't-like-it-so-I'm-going-to-act-like-it-doesn't-count. Is it legal to open carry in a place that you are legally not allowed to be? ...Like when you are violating curfew...? I agree that 10 days prior, walking around outside in that area with an AR-15 was probably legal based on what you said earlier, but that's not the case we are talking about. If there was no curfew but someone brought an AR-15 into a violent riot, that one is more gray in my eyes and I won't try to argue it, but it's not really relevant for the case that's been discussed.
The argument he could've left or gone somewhere else has no merit. Ultimately you're free to hide in your basement for the rest of your life and as such an dangerous situation is always optional. This is just a backhanded way to ban guns by proxy. The merit of this argument depends on the result of the previous one. They are connected.
Andrew Coffee IV was found not guilty by way of self defence today/yesterday firing on a SWAT team because he claimed they didn't identify themselves during a raid. You hear about it when you hear about it and you don't when you don't, it has nothing to do with whether or not it happens. Self defence is fair and hopefully not going away any time soon. From the little bit of detail you shared this doesn't sound like the wrong verdict, to me.
|
Kyle is about to receive the hero treatment www.theguardian.com in Tucker's show.
Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager acquitted of murdering two men during anti-racism protests, is set to appear next week on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson show amid fears that the not guilty verdict in the Kenosha killings might encourage militia violence.
Does this change anybody's mind about their feelings on the outcome of the trial?
|
I think it's wild to not expect a change in behavior after this. The court has clearly signaled that the last person alive between two people with guns will go free. Anyone who sees someone else with a gun out and they're holding a gun themselves is now told to kill the other person with the knowledge they will not face repercussion from it.
|
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening.
|
On November 21 2021 04:39 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 04:15 Lachrymose wrote:
I am specifically talking about places where open carry is legal. It's not legal to open carry on school grounds and many other places. You don't have to let me in your home for any reason gun or not. It's legal to open carry in the street where Kyle was. It's not my business to decide in which places it's legal, illegal or legal-but-I-don't-like-it-so-I'm-going-to-act-like-it-doesn't-count. Is it legal to open carry in a place that you are legally not allowed to be? ...Like when you are violating curfew...? I agree that 10 days prior, walking around outside in that area with an AR-15 was probably legal based on what you said earlier, but that's not the case we are talking about. If there was no curfew but someone brought an AR-15 into a violent riot, that one is more gray in my eyes and I won't try to argue it, but it's not really relevant for the case that's been discussed. Show nested quote +The argument he could've left or gone somewhere else has no merit. Ultimately you're free to hide in your basement for the rest of your life and as such an dangerous situation is always optional. This is just a backhanded way to ban guns by proxy. The merit of this argument depends on the result of the previous one. They are connected. Show nested quote +Andrew Coffee IV was found not guilty by way of self defence today/yesterday firing on a SWAT team because he claimed they didn't identify themselves during a raid. You hear about it when you hear about it and you don't when you don't, it has nothing to do with whether or not it happens. Self defence is fair and hopefully not going away any time soon. From the little bit of detail you shared this doesn't sound like the wrong verdict, to me.
Turns out the violation of curfew charge was dropped since the prosecution could not present any evidence there was a curfew in place. I guess that was more misinformation.
If you can't bring an AR-15 into a violent riot where can you bring it? Surely it's more appropriate for a dangerous place than a safe place?
|
On November 21 2021 06:32 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 04:39 micronesia wrote:On November 21 2021 04:15 Lachrymose wrote:
I am specifically talking about places where open carry is legal. It's not legal to open carry on school grounds and many other places. You don't have to let me in your home for any reason gun or not. It's legal to open carry in the street where Kyle was. It's not my business to decide in which places it's legal, illegal or legal-but-I-don't-like-it-so-I'm-going-to-act-like-it-doesn't-count. Is it legal to open carry in a place that you are legally not allowed to be? ...Like when you are violating curfew...? I agree that 10 days prior, walking around outside in that area with an AR-15 was probably legal based on what you said earlier, but that's not the case we are talking about. If there was no curfew but someone brought an AR-15 into a violent riot, that one is more gray in my eyes and I won't try to argue it, but it's not really relevant for the case that's been discussed. The argument he could've left or gone somewhere else has no merit. Ultimately you're free to hide in your basement for the rest of your life and as such an dangerous situation is always optional. This is just a backhanded way to ban guns by proxy. The merit of this argument depends on the result of the previous one. They are connected. Andrew Coffee IV was found not guilty by way of self defence today/yesterday firing on a SWAT team because he claimed they didn't identify themselves during a raid. You hear about it when you hear about it and you don't when you don't, it has nothing to do with whether or not it happens. Self defence is fair and hopefully not going away any time soon. From the little bit of detail you shared this doesn't sound like the wrong verdict, to me. Turns out the violation of curfew charge was dropped since the prosecution could not present any evidence there was a curfew in place. I guess that was more misinformation. If you can't bring an AR-15 into a violent riot where can you bring it? Surely it's more appropriate for a dangerous place than a safe place?
I think if you're telling everyone in this discussion that you'd encourage a 17 year-old to acquire an AR-15 and travel to a violent protest with it, you honestly have bigger problems than whether a handful of people disagree with you on the internet. When I was 17 I was worrying about my SAT's and lamenting the fact that I didn't have a girlfriend. I wasn't shooting people dead.
|
On November 21 2021 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening.
Would you have the same concerns of emboldening violence if it were Kyle who were killed by rioters? Would you be worried that rioters felt emboldened to kill people?
"As long as they have any credible argument for self-defence whatsoever" is such a fucking lie. He literally ran for his life until he couldn't run anymore and even respected the feigned surrender of a man who pulled a gun on him. And it's all on video for the world to see. That is not itching to kill, that's doing everything possible to avoid it.
"Because you feel like it" let's just ignore that small matter of the guy threatening to kill you and chasing you down and trying to assault you.
Literally the only thing you have is a totally non-legal argument that you feel like he shouldn't have been there. Well he was. Does that me he deserved to die? Would that make you happy?
|
On November 21 2021 06:08 Sermokala wrote:
I think it's wild to not expect a change in behavior after this. The court has clearly signaled that the last person alive between two people with guns will go free. Anyone who sees someone else with a gun out and they're holding a gun themselves is now told to kill the other person with the knowledge they will not face repercussion from it.
The court has signalled nothing other than they won't ignore a mountain of evidence of self defence to satisfy the public's lust for a guilty verdict.
If you shoot somebody on sight solely because they have a gun you are going to go to prison whether you want to pretend otherwise or not. I don't recommend you try it.
|
On November 21 2021 06:41 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening. Would you have the same concerns of emboldening violence if it were Kyle who were killed by rioters? Would you be worried that rioters felt emboldened to kill people? "As long as they have any credible argument for self-defence whatsoever" is such a fucking lie. He literally ran for his life until he couldn't run anymore and even respected the feigned surrender of a man who pulled a gun on him. And it's all on video for the world to see. That is not itching to kill, that's doing everything possible to avoid it. "Because you feel like it" let's just ignore that small matter of the guy threatening to kill you and chasing you down and trying to assault you. Literally the only thing you have is a totally non-legal argument that you feel like he shouldn't have been there. Well he was. Does that me he deserved to die? Would that make you happy?
I'm going to respond to you one more time until you slow your fucking roll, dude.
I prefer that no one died. I prefer that no one had to get shot. I don't think the people who threatened Kyle are innocent. If they were the aggressors who hurt someone I'd want to see them taken to task for it. But you know what? This situation was entirely avoidable. Kyle knew the kind of shit he was placing himself in, that's why he brought the gun. He didn't bring himself with a gun to a protest because of any emergent or immediate threat to himself or anyone he loved, he went there because he felt like it.
Know what's even better? He was literally talking about wanting to shoot people, and wishing he could get in a situation where he got to shoot people, right before actually fucking doing it. You're zooming in to the 5-second sequence of events that preceded Kyle shooting 2 people, I'm looking at the big picture and why Kyle was there in the first place. It's not like he had no idea he might find himself in trouble. He brought the gun that he expressed a desire to shoot people with, and he shot people. If he stayed home because he didn't want to shoot other people to death like a normal fucking 17 year old then perhaps no one would have died.
Don't bother responding to me if it's just going to be to rehash yourself to me. I won't read it.
On November 21 2021 06:34 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 06:32 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 04:39 micronesia wrote:On November 21 2021 04:15 Lachrymose wrote:
I am specifically talking about places where open carry is legal. It's not legal to open carry on school grounds and many other places. You don't have to let me in your home for any reason gun or not. It's legal to open carry in the street where Kyle was. It's not my business to decide in which places it's legal, illegal or legal-but-I-don't-like-it-so-I'm-going-to-act-like-it-doesn't-count. Is it legal to open carry in a place that you are legally not allowed to be? ...Like when you are violating curfew...? I agree that 10 days prior, walking around outside in that area with an AR-15 was probably legal based on what you said earlier, but that's not the case we are talking about. If there was no curfew but someone brought an AR-15 into a violent riot, that one is more gray in my eyes and I won't try to argue it, but it's not really relevant for the case that's been discussed. The argument he could've left or gone somewhere else has no merit. Ultimately you're free to hide in your basement for the rest of your life and as such an dangerous situation is always optional. This is just a backhanded way to ban guns by proxy. The merit of this argument depends on the result of the previous one. They are connected. Andrew Coffee IV was found not guilty by way of self defence today/yesterday firing on a SWAT team because he claimed they didn't identify themselves during a raid. You hear about it when you hear about it and you don't when you don't, it has nothing to do with whether or not it happens. Self defence is fair and hopefully not going away any time soon. From the little bit of detail you shared this doesn't sound like the wrong verdict, to me. Turns out the violation of curfew charge was dropped since the prosecution could not present any evidence there was a curfew in place. I guess that was more misinformation. If you can't bring an AR-15 into a violent riot where can you bring it? Surely it's more appropriate for a dangerous place than a safe place? I think if you're telling everyone in this discussion that you'd encourage a 17 year-old to acquire an AR-15 and travel to a violent protest with it, you honestly have bigger problems than whether a handful of people disagree with you on the internet. When I was 17 I was worrying about my SAT's and lamenting the fact that I didn't have a girlfriend. I wasn't shooting people dead.
|
The court ruling sets a dangerous precedent where people might be discouraged to chase/attack a fleeing person with a gun now that the court has clarified they are allowed to use the gun to defend themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
