Rittenhouse Trial Taught Us This

[Seth]

@Terell Kirby
Reprimanded for what exactly?

[Terell Kirby]

3 minutes ago, Seth said:

Reprimanded for what exactly?

What do you mean? He's not on a nationally broadcasted criminal trial for no reason..

[Seth]

@Terell Kirby
It was self-defense. Have you seen the footage? So I ask again. Reprimanded for what?

[Terell Kirby]

7 minutes ago, Seth said:

It was self-defense. 

That's questionable, which is why he's on trial in the first place..

7 minutes ago, Seth said:

Have you seen the footage? 

Yes..why would I comment on something I haven't seen or heard about?

7 minutes ago, Seth said:

So I ask again. Reprimanded for what?

How about being under-aged carrying an assault rifle into a protest? Amongst other things..

If you are a right wing hack, I have no interest in debating you...I simply gave an unbiased high level view of how culture and media plays out in our judicial system. You will not be getting any more responses from me, so please keep your comments to yourself and save your energy.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Terell Kirby

[Consept]

In theory it would be self defense, he didnt randomly shoot people, but of course he shouldnt have been there with an assault rifle. If you go into a heated, protest situation of course walking around with an assault rifle is going to make things worse, theres a reason why you cant just be a vigilante on the street, its bloody dangerous. 

The argument that the protesters shouldnt have been burning things down is completely irrelevant for the same reason that anyone else committing a crime shouldnt be doing it but its not the place of random, untrained people to try and stop them and if they do its obviously going to cause problems which is why you have trained law enforcement in the first place. If you do try and stop someone committing a crime you need to weigh up the risks and accept the dangers, not travel however many miles to specifically put yourself in that danger.   

[Willie]

Excluding active warfare where there is intent to kill people and hunting with intent to kill animals, how many situations are made easier to resolve by bringing a firearm? 

This is a case of a dumb kid thinking he’s the good guy fixing the situation with a rifle. There’s not a big gap between him and a stereotypical gangsta livin dat thug lyfe in da hood. They all think they’re the good guy and justified waving a piece around.

[AdroseAkise]

To be fair to this kid, the three people he shot were running after him aggressively. One (Grosskreutz) had even pointed a handgun at the kid.

[AdroseAkise]

Rittenhouse in the center.

Black Rifle Coffee is this bizarre right wing militarized coffee company. I should try there coffee sometimes though, I hear good things about it. Joe Rogan likes it.

Edited November 17, 2021 by AdroseAkise

[AdroseAkise]

The issue of right wing assault rifle culture is getting more and more serious.

To give you an idea of how serious this issue is becoming, last year these far right people with assault rifles literally stormed the Capital building!

[Mason Riggle]

@AdroseAkise you have to understand that Rittenhouse knowingly put himself in that position. 

I don't think anyone doubts that Rittenhouse did fear for his life, and did what many might do in a similar situation to save his own life (defending himself), but reasonable people don't put themselves in these situations. 

Your 'being fair' is simply disregarding all the circumstances that led to him being in that particular situation of being aggressively chased. 

We could, for example, imagine a scenario where I had just robbed a bank, and on the way out the door of the bank, someone began aggressively chasing me, trying to stop me.. would I be justified in turning and shooting them?  Is 'being aggressively chased' enough information to go on in determining 'self defense'? 

I hope you can see that my behavior prior to being 'aggressivley chased' is hugely important in determining my right to legally defend myself. 

[Yarco]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The real issue is that this trigger-happy right-wing kid needlessly went hunting for conflict

I was starting to think Leo was totally infallible and had no bad opinions lol. Kinda nice in a way to see that even enlightened people have blind spots and biases.

Would you blame BLM protestors for needlessly going out looking for conflict? If we wanna go with the "he shouldn't have been there" argument then it applies equally to the protestors, rioters, and looters. Especially the dude who ran toward Rittenhouse with a pistol in his hand and got his arm blown off as a result when he could have ran the other way. Rittenhouse only shot people who continued pursuing him as he was retreating... one hitting him with a skateboard, another wielding a firearm of their own.

[Danioover9000]

   This is such a messy problem I don't know where to begin to untangle the complexity of it. On the one hand Rittenhouse had no business being in the area, so he's at fault specifically for putting himself in harm's way knowingly, but on the other hand the three BLM degenerates that chose to assault a kid with the assault rifle, one with a gun and the other with a skateboard, that have participated in damaging properties, who where part of the group that attacked an old man, they are at fault too.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Danioover9000

[Mason Riggle]

4 hours ago, Yarco said:

I was starting to think Leo was totally infallible and had no bad opinions lol. 

Would you blame BLM protestors for needlessly going out looking for conflict? If we wanna go with the "he shouldn't have been there" argument then it applies equally to the protestors, rioters, and looters.

Yes it applies equally to the protesters. Unless permitted to demonstrate peacefully, they should not have been there, and had any of them killed anyone, they would be charged with homicide. If they went there looking for conflict, and found it, they can and should be charged, just like Kyle. (In fact the prosecutor of Rittenhouse is also prosecuting people who lit dumpsters on fire that day for arson). But keep in mind, it's entirely possible for both parties in a court case to be guilty of crimes. The guilt of one party does not equal the innocence of the other. (This is exactly why this whole riot situation began... some people in the US do not understand that 'they were breaking the law' is not a legal defense for murdering someone, not even for police officers) 

This particular court case, is weighing charges levied against Kyle Rittenhouse.  Other people who were caught engaging in illegal activity that day will get their day in court. (Well, not the two people Rittenhouse killed.) 

Is this really that hard to understand??

 

 

 

[Joel3102]

5 hours ago, Yarco said:

Would you blame BLM protestors for needlessly going out looking for conflict? If we wanna go with the "he shouldn't have been there" argument then it applies equally to the protestors, rioters, and looters. 

Not to mention there was $50m in property damage from riots in Kenosha. People love to say “it’s just property” which is very privileged position. To some small business owners it’s their livelihood.

I’m a supporter of BLM generally speaking, and early on its public support was very high however it plummeted once the riots started.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Joel3102

[ZenRising]

22 hours ago, Joel3102 said:

...as a non American your gun culture is looked at as insane by everyone else

 

Echo that... as a European who has lived in the US for some years, the gun culture in the US is just bananas... there are, of course, historical roots to it all, but the basic principle of the state's monopoly on justifiable use of violence is something most countries recognise as a basic principle of democracy... 

[Consept]

The flip of this is - what would be your opinion if a 17 year old Liberal kid went to protect the capital building from the protesters on Jan 6th and ended killing a couple people in self defense after being attacked? Would you say he had a right to be there or that he had as much right as the stormers, would your view be any different in that case? 

[Fleetinglife]

6 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

BLM degenerates

I hope you were searching for a different term for description but couldn't find a applicable one that you liked. This kind of way of describing them has very negative connotations implied for the person using it and those he is desribing in a judgemental ableist way or a far-right way of describing leftist politics and liberal culture.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Fleetinglife]

37 minutes ago, Consept said:

a 17 year old Liberal kid went to protect the capital building from the protesters on Jan 6th

Tbh this sounds as a whataboutism - how many liberal kids have a vigilante impulse in them to go out and take their supposed guns that they own with them in order to protect the democratic institutions of the state to protect them from the rightists. No, this a right-wing culture  thingin the U.S. to form groups, orgs. and take matters in your own hands on the basis that you can't trust or rely on the government and it's employees to do it themselves, liberals were raised mostly in a culture and enviroment where there is no such impulse or need to do such a thing since their belief system doesn't revolve around anti-government paranoia and distrust but trusting in the public institutions to have plenty enough manpower and resources to handle it themselves.

But if we take this hypothetical as possible of occuring in some scenario, it would be different in the sense that in the case of those protestors that they violently wanted to storm and take over the capital to cancel certifying the election outcome thus they directly engaged in an attack on a shared public institution but nevertheless the hypothetical liberal kid has no business being there, taking the matter in his own hands and trying to do the job of federal employees, the principle of non-interference remains the same. He should get almost the same sentence, apart from the sentence mitigatory circumstances that he was enganging in the defense of a public institution that he has a constituional right to as an American citizen, if he killed someone as a vigilante because he has no bussiness being there and taking the enforcing of the law in his own hands. The principle should be simple and the line should be clearly drawn - you have no right to LARP as a vigilante taking the matter of enforcing the law in exclusively in your own hands as you see fit and trying to get away scott free of any responsibilty if things go awry in your interpretation of the actions that you can take that you see as legal and jusitfiable in your own narrow, uneducated or unenlightened view of what enforcing the law lets you get away with and allows you to do if the federal, state, county or local employess are already doing that job - vigilante help shoudln't be needed, they should get that out of the federal law.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, Fleetinglife said:

Tbh this sounds as a whataboutism

lol It really isnt, its just a thought experiment for both sides to look from a different perspective, if it was whataboutism I would have to say an actual thing that happened. 

But thanks for your reply though, i mostly agree 

[Fleetinglife]

12 minutes ago, Consept said:

its just a thought experiment for both sides to look from a different perspective, if it was whataboutism I would have to say an actual thing that happened. 

Sorry, I have interpreted the question in the wrong way and have interpreted the usage of that term in this context in an incorrect way (you could say that it was a hypothetical question). Sorry, I get now where you were coming from with that question mb 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Fleetinglife