Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Rittenhouse Trial vs IOS

Rittenhouse Trial vs IOS (Page 2)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2021, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The same instincts that usually strongly favor the prosecution and the police in trials now favor Rittenhouse, because I think the judge sees him as being on the same side as the police. You tend to see similar behavior when cops are on trial.
Ah! I understand.

However, this judge has a reputation of being pro-defense in general.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...123_story.html

“‘For a jury trial, if you get him, you are happy as a defense attorney,’ said Michael Cicchini, a criminal defense lawyer in Kenosha, Wis., who has appeared before Schroeder numerous times…”
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2021, 02:24 PM
 
Can we make the thread title “Rittenhouse v. iOS”?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2021, 05:54 PM
 
Within the next few days, it will be "Rittenhouse Verdict vs iOS".
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2021, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Their self-defense claims would be brought into question because they engaged.
I don’t think so for the last two: one of the big problems of US gun laws and gun culture as I see it is that you have many situations where both sides can legitimately claim they thought they were the good guys. Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend had a legitimate claim that he thought he was defending himself and his gf in his home. (Of course, I reckon if the case hadn’t attracted as much press attention, there is good chance he would have gotten railroaded by the judicial system.)

The whole Rittenhouse story start with the “good guy with a gun” premise, in his mind he went there to protect property and other people. But I think it is very plausible that the last two of Rittenhouse’s victims thought he was a bad guy with a gun who had just shot someone, and they wanted to prevent another mass shooting and protect their neighborhood. That’s the commonly used argument by proponents of laxer gun laws and arming more people in the US. But IMHO that then cuts both ways and should be applied equally. If you don’t give Rittenhouse the “burden of hindsight”, you shouldn’t apply that to the others either.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
T This is the chief difference between Rittenhouse and the second two people he shot. Rittenhouse was retreating, the people he shot were advancing.
You are just looking at this from Rittenhouse’s perspective and not the perspective of the latter two victims: Rittenhouse is retreating from them, but still running towards other people. Forget about the case and think of the following situation: you live in an open carry state and you are armed. You believe in (your interpretation of) the Second Amendment, and you see the last few seconds of an unarmed person being gunned down in your neighborhood in front of your eyes. You don’t understand the situation, but the shooter is running past you. What’s your reaction? Would you be afraid of your life? Would you draw your weapon? How much rational thought would you be able to put into this decision?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2021, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Ah! I understand.

However, this judge has a reputation of being pro-defense in general.
I’ve seen reports that said the opposite. To be honest, that’s not something I feel I can adjudicate. I’d be very cautious with such stories, not least because this judge is now under a microscope and some of the people who have been interviewed for these articles perhaps have to deal with this judge in the future and/or make that judgement how it has impacted them personally.

Anyway, that’s the reason why I think we shouldn’t necessarily applaud judges who in particular cases afford the defendants the rights they should (indeed, must) afford to all defendants.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2021, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But I think it is very plausible that the last two of Rittenhouse’s victims thought he was a bad guy with a gun who had just shot someone, and they wanted to prevent another mass shooting and protect their neighborhood.
That’s not self-defense.

A self-defense argument is nullified by advancing.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2021, 06:05 PM
 
I think you are missing that defense of others is also a legitimate defense that is treated on the similar footing as self-defense. When an armed school guard kills a school shooter who is running away from the guard, I don’t think that school guard has to worry about being convicted.

I think it is entirely reasonable for the last two victims to have thought this was a mass shooting and their lives as well as the lives of other innocent people were at immediate risk.

If you think this is somehow unfair, blame the amount of guns in society, on the the street and the warped gun laws on the books. The over emphasis of the subjective state of mind of the shooter (“I was afraid!”) and not taking other factors like running away into account isn’t a weakness of my argument, it is a flaw in the law and gun culture.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2021, 06:32 PM
 
I didn’t say it was an illegitimate defense, I said it’s not self-defense.

You said they can claim self-defense, to which I pointed out they can’t. My claim still stands.

Would you like to retroactively change your argument to defense of others? We can discuss that instead. Is Rittenhouse any less justified defending himself because the people he shot were also justified?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2021, 07:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Would you like to retroactively change your argument to defense of others? We can discuss that instead.
I thought defense of others is part of the self-defense statutes, so I did not delineate between the two. Perhaps I am wrong, legally speaking. In any case, I thought that was obvious from the context.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is Rittenhouse any less justified defending himself because the people he shot were also justified?
No, and that’s precisely the point I made earlier: current laws lead to many situations where both sides can credibly mount a self-defense/defense of other, well, defense. This is one of those cases. Above I gave the Breonna Taylor shooting as another example where both sides were able to legally justify why they shot at the other side.

I don’t think both claims have equal merit in this situation, though, even though I think lawyers can make good faith arguments for both. (Rittenhouse came to protect property with his AR15 whereas his last two victims saw him shoot an unarmed man.)

PS It goes without saying that just because I think an argument seems legally sound to me, doesn’t mean that this is how it ought to be according to me.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2021, 10:11 PM
 
Do you think Rittenhouse should be found guilty on the homicide charges?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2021, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do you think Rittenhouse should be found guilty on the homicide charges?
In what way are you asking the question?
Are you asking me whether he should be found guilty based on the current laws and precedents? Or whether she should be found guilty according to laws I find just he should be found guilty?

PS Feel free to ask the bonus question if in a world where Rittenhouse would have been killed by one of the his last two victims, whether they would be and whether they ought to be sentenced.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2021, 10:27 PM
 
Under current law is the primary question. Add as many secondary answers as you see fit.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2021, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Under current law is the primary question. Add as many secondary answers as you see fit.
I don't think it should count as self-defense, because in my mind he was acting like a hooligan, knowingly meeting up for a fight after a soccer game — with a firearm. A hooligan also cannot claim self-defense if he shows up to the post-game brawl, no matter who throws the first punch. I think he was there to protect property, and knowingly put himself in a position where he would have to use his firearm.

However, I also think he should be tried and sentenced as a minor, because he was. (To be honest, I haven't checked whether he is tried as a minor or not.) I cannot tell you whether this should count as a lower-degree murder or manslaughter, I'm not a lawyer. He should serve time in jail, but because he was a minor, the jail sentence should not be too long.

To add to that: in a hypothetical the last two victims should not be found guilty under current laws, because I think they would have had a legitimate reason to think that Rittenhouse was a mass shooter. However, I think if I could change the laws and precedents also they should have been found guilty as well for pretty much the same reasons as I gave above. (I reckon you weren't expecting that.)

I could explain why, but that'd be a longer affair about what I think gun laws should be, especially for minors, that getting an open or concealed carry license should be like getting a pilot's license, and that in almost all circumstances the state should have the monopoly on violence.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2021, 11:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think it should count as self-defense, because in my mind he was acting like a hooligan, knowingly meeting up for a fight after a soccer game — with a firearm. A hooligan also cannot claim self-defense if he shows up to the post-game brawl, no matter who throws the first punch. I think he was there to protect property, and knowingly put himself in a position where he would have to use his firearm.
Is the argument here the group of armed people Rittenhouse was with aimed to do the same thing, they just didn’t get “lucky”, or is Rittenhouse the sole hooligan.

Whatever the answer, in a rough form, how would you go about proving this to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? Sounds like a tough sell past “possible”.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2021, 11:39 PM
 
The other members of both groups got lucky in two ways: they didn’t kill anyone else or were killed, and they weren’t arrested. But that wouldn’t be an argument to not punish the hooligans who had been arrested.

As a juror, I would base my judgement in large part on Rittenhouse’s statements. The main facts do not seem in dispute. The facts seem clear cut. I believe 100 % that Rittenhouse got scared shitless once shit got real. I believe him killing 2 and severely injuring 1 has had a severe impact on him. Real life isn’t a video game. But I also think he needs to take responsibility for showing up armed that day, knowing what could happen. It was reckless and immature, and cost two lives and impacted directly two more lives.

If you want to know what kind of manslaughter or murder I would convict him of, I’ll have to pass. I think that’d really depend on the minutiae of the law and the case.

Let me add a broader point: not convicting Rittenhouse will broaden the scope of killings that are beyond reach of the law where both sides can legitimately claim self defense or defense of others. That is bad, no matter how you slice it. Also the weird barrel length loophole in the gun law should be adressed.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Nov 19, 2021 at 12:51 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 12:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
As a juror, I would base my judgement in large part on Rittenhouse’s statements.
Which statements? The only one I’m familiar with was a statement Rittenhouse made about shoplifters, which IIUC, was not considered admissible.

To ask my last question in a different way, did the group Rittenhouse was with intend to get into a fight (as you allege Rittenhouse did) and fail, or did they not intend to get into a fight in the first place?

Does the fact Rittenhouse didn’t shoot the two people chasing after him with lethal intent until he tripped give any insight to his state of mind? Rather restrained response from a hooligan, no?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 12:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which statements? The only one I’m familiar with was a statement Rittenhouse made about shoplifters, which IIUC, was not considered admissible.
I try not to get distracted by pointless details. Rittenhouse confirmed that he shot 3 people and killed 2, this is not in dispute. He admitted going to the venue, armed with an AR-15. AFAIK none of these facts (including the testimony) is in dispute or inadmissible. The whole case rests on whether self-defense applies or not.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To ask my last question in a different way, did the group Rittenhouse was with intend to get into a fight (as you allege Rittenhouse did) and fail, or did they not intend to get into a fight in the first place?
I don't want to get into a state of mind discussion, because I don't think it is necessary, you just need to look at what happened. I think Rittenhouse (and the group he was with) wanted to be provocative and some, including Rittenhouse, were armed, in part to intimidate others. I don't know whether they specifically intended to start a fight, but their actions tell me that they took the risk of starting/being involved in one. It should go without saying: the protestors who engaged with them are equally to blame.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Does the fact Rittenhouse didn’t shoot the two people chasing after him with lethal intent until he tripped give any insight to his state of mind? Rather restrained response from a hooligan, no?
No, it is a consequence of him being there, armed.
In my mind, the way you phrase the question indicates to me you are skipping over what I'd consider Rittenhouse's mistake.

Let me give you a different example: do you remember the Tamir Rice shooting? From the top of my head, an African-American boy played with a toy gun in a park and was gunned down by two police officers who mistakenly thought he had a real gun. One of the crucial bits is that the police officers rushed to the location where Tamir Rice was, and stopped just short of it. I believe there were only seconds between the police car stopping right in front of Rice and Rice being shot. If you start the analysis only the moment the car stops, you can quite easily defend the action of the police officers. My point is that this is too late, they are professionals, they should have known better than to put them in a situation that gave them no time and opportunity to calmly investigate the situation and then approach Rice. By the time they stopped the car, they had already made the crucial mistake (in my mind) — the cops put unnecessarily put themselves in a situation where they could not calmly come to a conclusion what is going on and then take appropriate action.

The same is true here: everything that happened is a consequence of Rittenhouse's mistake to show up armed and not be mature enough to read the situation correctly. If the two groups of hooligans get into a brawl and you are on the receiving end, you also don't suddenly become the victim. You still put yourself in that situation.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 01:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
As a juror, I would base my judgement in large part on Rittenhouse’s statements.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Which statements?
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I try not to get distracted by pointless details.


Which statement(s) by Rittenhouse demonstrate(s) he was a hooligan, or am I misunderstanding the hooligan allegation is based on his statements?

If I am, what is the hooligan claim based on?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 01:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post


Which statement(s) by Rittenhouse shows self-defense does not apply?
I stated explicitly what would be important to me: what happened was not in dispute, only whether it counts as self-defense. The essential facts to me are: Rittenhouse decided to go to the protest with his AR-15 and shot 3 people, killing 2. I say facts, because these facts have been corroborated by Rittenhouse's testimony as well as other types of evidence, and AFAIK are not in dispute.

And to me the thing that decides the issue against self-defense for me is that Rittenhouse showed up, armed, in the first place — like a soccer hooligan showing up, ready to fight.

Is that clear enough?
(I don't expect you to agree with my reasoning, I just want to know whether you understand how I arrived at my conclusion.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 01:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Is that clear enough?
(I don't expect you to agree with my reasoning, I just want to know whether you understand how I arrived at my conclusion.)
I’m working up a response, but I wanted to note it is much clearer. Thank you for accommodating my lack of understanding!

I thought you meant there was something about the tenor of his statements which led you to the conclusion.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m working up a response, but I wanted to note it is much clearer. Thank you for accommodating my lack of understanding!
No problem.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I thought you meant there was something about the tenor of his statements which led you to the conclusion.
Not really. I find that it usually helps to zoom out and forget about the details for a moment. Usually that does away with a lot of noise and a clearer picture emerges for me.

If anything, Rittenhouse's reaction is consistent with what I would have expected: the shooting was clearly very traumatic for him, no matter where you stand on the issue of self-defense. I don't think he's a monster, just an immature young man who made a fateful mistake. I feel for him to some degree. But you still need to take responsibility for your actions. (We should not forget about the victims and their relatives here.)

Also, in a broader discussion I'd have to include his parents, I mean even if it wasn't illegal-for-some-barrel-length-loophole, having a minor take an AR-15 with him unsupervised, to a protest no less, seems very irresponsible to me. It seems to me that they did not stick to and teach him responsible gun handling. (And I don't mean to imply criminal liability here, just a moral failing.) I don't think minors should be allowed to handle firearms outside of their homes without adult supervision, e. g. by a guardian or a firearms instructor. Anyway, that's a different discussion, probably.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
And to me the thing that decides the issue against self-defense for me is that Rittenhouse showed up, armed, in the first place — like a soccer hooligan showing up, ready to fight.
By being an open carry state, isn’t Wisconsin implicitly saying the state does not consider showing up armed as an act of provocation?

Aren’t gun people inclined to believe being visibly armed is a deterrent to crime?

Is it possible being visibly armed actually is a deterrent to crime?

How often do people armed with assault rifles at protests (who aren’t cops) end up shooting someone versus how often do soccer hooligans look for a brawl and find one?
( Last edited by subego; Nov 19, 2021 at 10:02 AM. )
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Aren’t gun people inclined to believe being visibly armed is a deterrent to crime?
It may well be, but my impression is that politics was being substituted for crime.

Conservatives saw BLM protests that they did not like. The reasons for those protests were not in serious dispute - excessive use of force against minorities, police engagement upon minorities after only minor suspicions, etc. The law is supposed to be blind, but (predominantly white) conservatives receive unequal treatment to their benefit, and are OK with that. ie - correcting the unequal treatment would be to their detriment. At least in a relative sense.

Anyway, the conservatives showing up with (sometimes) military-grade weapons to carry around in groups. In a state not their own. My impression is deterring vandalism, etc, was a minor factor. They were there to deter "crime" - ie, liberal protests they disapproved of. They were mostly present to suppress the right-to-assemble of groups they vote against.

If anyone argues against their armed presence, they cite the 2nd Amendment, their own rights to assemble, how they're helping the cops, and of course, deterring crime. Much like the current conservative movement about "election integrity". Where each proposed fix mostly impacts groups that vote against them. Their official reasons, while potentially valid, are cited mostly to hide the real motivation: To suppress the political rights of their opponents.

So Rittenhouse (the minor) was probably there because his parents strongly disapprove of the protests. He lacked any credible training, because he wasn't supposed to shoot anyone. He was there to walk around armed, be photographed, and hopefully deter those liberal protesters into going away. Get them to stop rocking the boat, and allow the status quo to remain as it is.

But he screwed up. Got into an actual altercation, and the lack of training made everything worse. Since children are basically the property of their parents until they come of age, and seldom develop strong political opinions of their own until later, the parents were mostly responsible for creating the situation. While the teen is mostly responsible for the actual shots.

I'd prefer to try the parents beside him. Not sure how to handle the politics, but I do believe they are key. Rittenhouse was there to suppress BLM protests, with actual crime deterrence as a cover story. If he'd been there to handle law enforcement, he'd need training in the law and proper enforcement techniques. It seems the parents felt such training was unneeded. If the protestor deterrence had worked, the missing training would not have mattered. Walk around, scare the BLM people back underground, everything good.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 06:01 PM
 
@subego
Before answering, your questions will lead to a discussion of what I think the laws ought to be rather than what I would decide as a juror based on current law and precedent. Is that ok?

Like I wrote before, e. g. my take on the hypothetical scenario where Rittenhouse got shot will change. And there was a no chance that Rittenhouse would be able to claim self-defense. I think the discussion should be interesting, but we’d definitely leave the trial behind us.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Is that ok?
Of course!

I’d be interested in both what you think they should be in general, and if you’re interested, what you think they should be if the status quo of Supreme Court precedent is maintained.
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 06:48 PM
 
So, apparently if you’re a white kid, you can illegally purchase a semi-automatic weapon, take it across state lines, and kill black people, as long as you claim self-defense. It’s all good.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 07:07 PM
 
I thought he killed white people.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
By being an open carry state, isn’t Wisconsin implicitly saying the state does not consider showing up armed as an act of provocation?
Like reader50 wrote, showing up armed is an act of intimidation and provocation.

But let me back up: gun laws over the years have become laxer and laxer. One way to measure this is to look at how many states were allowing open carry or were even “shall issue” open carry license states. Another way to measure this is how the notion of self-defense has expanded over the years (e. g. that the Castle Doctrine also applies to your car in some states and the like).

There has been a string of victories at e. g. the Supreme Court when it comes to gun control legislation. Despite that, the GOP has been using the Second Amendment and hypothetical gun control legislation to rile up their base, even though gun control has become laxer and gun sales have spiked. The biggest problem of arms manufacturers during the pandemic was that they couldn’t make ammo fast enough, it seems. At the same time, while gun laws become laxer, in practice minorities don’t have the same freedoms as white people.

However, while gun laws have become laxer, so have the standards on gun owners. There is less and less responsibility attached. Responsible gun ownership was replaced with gun ownership, period. People want all of the rights, but none of the burdens and responsibilities that come with it. Rittenhouse’s parents were incredibly negligent when they allowed their son to take a rifle with him to a protest. In “shall issue” states people who want to concealed or open carry permits are not required to take extensive and regular training classes necessary to remain proficient and know how to handle themselves.

You also see this with people who don’t want to get vaccinated: they want to have the freedom to not be forced to be vaccinated, fine, but they are unwilling to accept any of the consequences of their decision. They want to be able to fly, visit businesses, etc. They are cut from the same cloth.

While protection is often a purported reason, few people really want to take responsibility for that and follow expert advice. AFAIK if you buy a gun for self-protection, open carry is a dumb way to go about it, because you force the hand of the other person (they will also have to use lethal force if they know you can, too). And most forgo training. They also ignore that in many situations that running away is your best option, at least that’s what that wimpy/former Navy Seal Jocko Willink suggests. But that doesn’t make you feel very strong, it makes you feel like a coward, no?

That shows me that people like Rittenhouse or those who insist on shouldering their AR-15s inside a Chipotle guns are just a mean to make themselves feel stronger, better and bigger. A penis extension. They like that it intimidates others, that it makes others uncomfortable. Those people want to be able to buy guns like I buy vacuum cleaners: you go to the store, pick what you want and leave.

And this has eroded the state’s monopoly of violence: people don’t leave protection to the police. Other groups do not trust the police for good or bad reasons. One outgrowth of this is that there are cases of gang shootings that seemingly go unpunished, because each participant can claim self-defense. Part of the problem is that revised self-defense laws become ever more lax and some seem to reverse the burden of proof (i. e. the prosecution has to prove it was not self-defense). The firefight between Rittenhouse and his last two victims is part an parcel of that: I think under current law the victims should be found not guilty, because they create circumstances where criminal law no longer applies. Being afraid seems to be much more important than behaving responsibly.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Aren’t gun people inclined to believe being visibly armed is a deterrent to crime?

Is it possible being visibly armed actually is a deterrent to crime?
What people believe is different from what is true.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How often do people armed with assault rifles at protests (who aren’t cops) end up shooting someone versus how often do soccer hooligans look for a brawl and find one?
When did the last hooligan die during a brawl? Altercations “for fun” (which as far as I understand is how hooligans see it) are fun, because the stakes are lower. Yes, you might get hurt, get some bruises, perhaps a concussion or a broken bone, but I don’t think people have to fear for their lives. (I clearly do not condone this, it is stupid IMHO.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2021, 09:27 PM
 
@reader50
Very astute observations.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
If anyone argues against their armed presence, they cite the 2nd Amendment, their own rights to assemble, how they're helping the cops, and of course, deterring crime. Much like the current conservative movement about "election integrity". Where each proposed fix mostly impacts groups that vote against them. Their official reasons, while potentially valid, are cited mostly to hide the real motivation: To suppress the political rights of their opponents.
It is as if freedom is only important as long it allows people to behave like assholes or morons. We are given freedom so we can decide for ourselves what it means to act responsibly. Bringing guns to a tense situation is the opposite of that, even if “you can” or if it is “legal” as if legal means smart.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
But he screwed up. Got into an actual altercation, and the lack of training made everything worse. Since children are basically the property of their parents until they come of age, and seldom develop strong political opinions of their own until later, the parents were mostly responsible for creating the situation. While the teen is mostly responsible for the actual shots.
Rittenhouse is the product of a culture where it feels cool to be armed, where pretending you are in an active war zone rather than Wisconsin or Iowa or Wyoming makes you feel cool and strong. You can feel like you are the super soldier, the special forces badass — forgetting you have none of the training and take none of the actual risks. The AR-15 was just a paraphernalia in his super hero fantasy.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'd prefer to try the parents beside him. Not sure how to handle the politics, but I do believe they are key. Rittenhouse was there to suppress BLM protests, with actual crime deterrence as a cover story. If he'd been there to handle law enforcement, he'd need training in the law and proper enforcement techniques. It seems the parents felt such training was unneeded. If the protestor deterrence had worked, the missing training would not have mattered. Walk around, scare the BLM people back underground, everything good.
Sure, the politics here are key. Rittenhouse felt secure since he felt he was allied with police. And the way police conducted themselves after the shooting was astounding, too. That likely continued with the judge IMHO.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
My impression is deterring vandalism, etc, was a minor factor. They were there to deter "crime" - ie, liberal protests they disapproved of. They were mostly present to suppress the right-to-assemble of groups they vote against.
What’s the basis of this impression?

If I’m being asked to condemn a whole swath of people based on it, I need to know more about the source.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
In a state not their own.
As an aside, the town Rittenhouse is from is on the border.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
What people believe is different from what is true.
If I believe being visibly armed will deter people from picking a fight with me, then I can’t be accused of going armed with the intent of provoking a fight.

I will be motivated by what I believe, even if what I believe is untrue.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
People want all of the rights, but none of the burdens and responsibilities that come with it.
The price of freedom is people will be irresponsible with it.

If I am required to use a right responsibly, it is not a right.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What’s the basis of this impression?

If I’m being asked to condemn a whole swath of people based on it, I need to know more about the source.
Not sure if I'm asking you to condemn a swath of people. I thought I was stating my own opinions.

Still - I've seen violence happen in many places over time. Via TV in the past, more often in online video today. In my observations, right-wing enforcers only show up when it's liberal protests taking place. (not counting rallys)

When law and order break down in a minority neighborhood - I can't recall a single instance of conservatives with AK-47s showing up to patrol the streets, and protect the local stores. Or guard the nearest Wal-mart. Or even line up to guard pubs.

I'm paying attention to what they do, rather than what they say. What they do, is show up heavily armed, during liberal protests. So the motivation is political. And the discrepancy between actions and words is traditionally called "lying".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 03:59 PM
 
Maybe I’m missing something, but conservatives don’t usually live in minority neighborhoods.

Kenosha’s kinda red, and kinda white.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Not sure if I'm asking you to condemn a swath of people. I thought I was stating my own opinions.
I assume you consider your own opinion to be correct, and by implication, I should share it if I wish to be correct myself.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 04:25 PM
 
Hmm ... if you do become convinced to share my insights, perhaps we should discuss credit references and licensing fees. This is sounding more interesting.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 04:33 PM
 
I’ve found very little profit in being correct. Being incorrect is where the money’s at.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If I believe being visibly armed will deter people from picking a fight with me, then I can’t be accused of going armed with the intent of provoking a fight.
That does not follow: just because you believe something to be true doesn’t make it true. Nor does it absolve you of responsibility.

Just because you believe having a weapon at the ready will de-escalate the situation, does not mean it will. Just because you believe brandishing a weapon is not provocative, does not mean that others will perceive it as not see it as a provocation.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Maybe I’m missing something, but conservatives don’t usually live in minority neighborhoods.
Rittenhouse did not live in Kenosha either.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Kenosha’s kinda red, and kinda white.
That’s precisely @reader’s point, Rittenhouse and the others who were with him were protecting people that they saw as their own.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'm paying attention to what they do, rather than what they say.
I think this is one of the more important life lessons.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
What they do, is show up heavily armed, during liberal protests. So the motivation is political. And the discrepancy between actions and words is traditionally called "lying".
And the intimidation is meant to suppress viewpoints they don’t like.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That does not follow: just because you believe something to be true doesn’t make it true. Nor does it absolve you of responsibility.
The operative word in my statement was “intent”

If I believe being visibly armed deters someone from picking a fight with me, you can’t say my intent is to pick a fight.

Not believing it will start a fight absolved me from intending to have a fight. What absolves me of intent to pick a fight is not having that intent.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Rittenhouse did not live in Kenosha either.
Is it unusual for rural-ish Americans to have connections with neighboring communities?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The operative word in my statement was “intent”

If I believe being visibly armed deters someone from picking a fight with me, you can’t say my intent is to pick a fight.

Not believing it will start a fight absolved me from intending to have a fight. What absolves me of intent to pick a fight is not having that intent.
No, you claiming you did not intend to do what happened does not absolve you. What matters most is what you do, not what you think. And it'd make any crime you base on that standard essentially unprosecutable.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2021, 09:35 PM
 
If I did not intend to do X, I am not guilty of intending to do X.

I stand by this statement.

This does not make me unprosecutable unless intent to do X is a requirement of the charge.


Edit: is not the foundation of your argument “Rittenhouse loses his claim of self-defense due to his intent to get in a fight”?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2021, 03:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Edit: is not the foundation of your argument “Rittenhouse loses his claim of self-defense due to his intent to get in a fight”?
No. I never said he was intent to get into a fight. I wrote that he took the risk of getting into a fight by congregating armed.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2021, 12:47 PM
 
The analogy “like a soccer hooligan showing up to a brawl” implies intent. If no intent is to be implied, this analogy is not suitable, or needs to be qualified.


Going back to my original statement, if I did not intend to start a fight, then I am not guilty of intending to start a fight. This does not mean I am not guilty of starting a fight, it means I am not guilty of intending to start a fight.

Starting a fight is not equal to intending to start a fight.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2021, 06:02 PM
 
You are presuming to know intent. What he says, and what was allowed in court, could be different than reality.

What was disallowed from evidence: recording of him saying, watching video of vandalism, "Brah, I wish I had my f—ing AR. l'd start shooting rounds at them,"

https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/kyle-r...kenosha-video/

And before anyone says that was just talk and not intent, then perhaps the same logic could be applied to the first guy who rittenhouse killed. Saying "i'm going to kill you" is just a turn of phrase right?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2021, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
You are presuming to know intent. What he says, and what was allowed in court, could be different than reality.
I don’t know his intent, nor am I claiming to.

I feel others are by insisting he showed up ready for a fight. I’m merely offering an alternate hypothesis which fits the facts.

In other words, if there are multiple hypotheses which match the facts, we cannot say which hypothesis is correct without additional facts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2021, 06:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
And before anyone says that was just talk and not intent, then perhaps the same logic could be applied to the first guy who rittenhouse killed. Saying "i'm going to kill you" is just a turn of phrase right?
Absolutely, and IIUC, does not meet the standard for use of lethal force.

What does is him lunging for the gun… and I can’t say his “turn of phrase” helps the argument he wasn’t a danger. Same with lighting fires, throwing rocks, and behaving “hyperaggressively”.

Same with his rather horrifying criminal record, though this was barred from evidence.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2021, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The analogy “like a soccer hooligan showing up to a brawl” implies intent. If no intent is to be implied, this analogy is not suitable, or needs to be qualified.
I realize you don’t know how soccer hooligans behave and what happens, and that’s ultimately my fault.
Hooligans don’t get into brawls every game. Most of the time the police is there to keep them apart. And they sometimes do do other dangerous things like setting off fireworks during the game and often get wasted. Not all hooligans are eager for a fight either.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Going back to my original statement, if I did not intend to start a fight, then I am not guilty of intending to start a fight.
But you like you wrote, you could still be guilty of starting a fight. Actions are more important than intentions. Ditto for stupidity, lots of criminal actions are the result of stupidity. For example, there was a controversial case in German court where two 20-somethings raced their high-horsepower cars. In the middle of the city. In the middle of the day. One of them ended up killing a cyclist. The controversy was not whether or not the driver was guilty, but whether it was murder or not. I haven’t thought too carefully about this to have a definitive opinion (mostly, because it involves legal questions, and I don’t feel qualified), but one of the main points in this case was about intent, and how to judge recklessness and stupidity. Recklessness and stupidity (e. g. the inability to foresee the consequences of one’s actions) are not defenses against punishment. (That is literally a German proverb: “Stupidity does not shield you from punishment.” or “Dummheit schützt vor Strafe nicht.”)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:55 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,