Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think one side acting in self-defense or defense of others excludes the other party of acting in self-defense. I can see why Rittenhouse's self-defense argument worked from a legal stand point, but I also think removing an assault weapon from a kid at a riot was a reasonable action. These don't have to be mutually excusive concepts.

The real issue is the gun culture that exists in the first place.

Gun culture - agree but that is a total separate giant battle.

But based on the law Rittenhouse had the legal right to carry that firearm. There were dozens of others armed - on both sides - with a whole host of guns. Just seeing a gun doesn't mean you have to stop the person (maybe in Canada, but this is the states) - and simply having an AR-15 isn't "provocative" in the sense of the law, he would need to be doing something that incites "an immediate and forceful response" - (ie drawing it on someone else unprovoked). Carrying it alone isn't provocative in a legal sense. You have no right to "remove an assault weapon" from someone. (Not even going to touch the 'assault' weapon term, again, a whole other argument we don't need to delve into)

[Ducay]

And for anyone still arguing this is some kind of bad verdict - Just watch the damn incident uncut itself (linked vid excludes first shooting that was earlier) and judge for yourself. I challenge anyone to watch it and say it is anything besides self-defense. Judge the scenario yourself


slightly NSFW link obv due to shootings

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Only because a few scumbags are being absolute pieces of #### by pretending wearing a skirt in public is similar to carrying an assault rifle around a public place.

Pardon my language.

You guys are either completely idiotic trying to pretend open-carrying an assault rifle is as innocent as a standard piece of women’s clothing, or you are misogynist pricks. I’m not actually curious which it is, but this is a really stupid and ignorant analogy and it’s getting tiring having you bring it back up again and again.

It just seems they want that rewarding moment they 'flip the script' and label the opposition victim blamers. Oh my stars, were WE the rapists all along?

No, just another lazy analogy morphed into a 'gotcha' over an argument nobody has really made. It seems we're all on the same page that judiciously this was the inevitable outcome, but we can question the ethical and social implications of a citizen carrying a rifle into a violent riot where 2 people were killed as a result and zero legal responsibility is placed on that citizen.

Which, for the last time, is not the same as a person being raped for merely being present in the world.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Only because a few scumbags are being absolute pieces of #### by pretending wearing a skirt in public is similar to carrying an assault rifle around a public place.

Pardon my language.

You guys are either completely idiotic trying to pretend open-carrying an assault rifle is as innocent as a standard piece of women’s clothing, or you are misogynist pricks. I’m not actually curious which it is, but this is a really stupid and ignorant analogy and it’s getting tiring having you bring it back up again and again.

It's not similar. It's identical.

You have a right to not be assaulted. Any attempt to rationalize away this right is, as you say, "idiotic".

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

because they're not on his team

Lazy.

Read my posts in this thread and tell me all about my bias for my team.

Calling Weiss being fair about media bias is like posting David staples and claiming he's fair and unbiased when writing about the Oilers.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Ducay

And for anyone still arguing this is some kind of bad verdict - Just watch the damn incident uncut itself (linked vid excludes first shooting that was earlier) and judge for yourself. I challenge anyone to watch it and say it is anything besides self-defense. Judge the scenario yourself


slightly NSFW link obv due to shootings

Is literally anyone saying it's a bad verdict?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's not similar. It's identical.

You have a right to not be assaulted. Any attempt to rationalize away this right is, as you say, "idiotic".

This is just the same kind of thinking you used arguing BLM was invalid because you, personally, had never heard someone say Black people don’t matter. You’re either smart enough to know better, or too dumb to be worth convincing.

I think most people can recognise that despite your right not to be assaulted remaining, there is a difference between saying “Hello!” to a stranger and “#### you, you ######” to a stranger. Just like there’s a difference between wearing a dress and open-carrying an assault rifle. We know pretty clearly they aren’t identical. Doesn’t mean you can assault someone, but don’t be an idiotic and claim they’re identical. Again, it’s either dumb or misogynist. You don’t need to add the latter to already being a racist.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is just the same kind of thinking you used arguing BLM was invalid because you, personally, had never heard someone say Black people don’t matter. You’re either smart enough to know better, or too dumb to be worth convincing.

I think most people can recognise that despite your right not to be assaulted remaining, there is a difference between saying “Hello!” to a stranger and “#### you, you ######” to a stranger. Just like there’s a difference between wearing a dress and open-carrying an assault rifle. We know pretty clearly they aren’t identical. Doesn’t mean you can assault someone, but don’t be an idiotic and claim they’re identical. Again, it’s either dumb or misogynist. You don’t need to add the latter to already being a racist.

You're making irrelevant distinctions.

You have a right to not be assaulted.

Trying to create a menu of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours before you somehow earn that right is an appalling position to argue.

[Wormius]

Let’s pretend he didn’t have to shoot those people in self-defence. What was he going to eventually do with that gun? How could he use that to fulfill whatever mandate he tasked himself with?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You're making irrelevant distinctions.

You have a right to not be assaulted.

Trying to create a menu of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours before you somehow earn that right is an appalling position to argue.

I don’t think anyone has said he doesn’t have that right. I think the argument is that Rittenhouse’s own actions played a large contribution in the outcome whereas a rape victims do not.

So again in one case blaming the victim is disgusting and the other reasonable.

But I shouldn’t expect you to be able to see the difference when you are unable to distinguish linear and exponential growth.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t think anyone has said he doesn’t have that right. I think the argument is that Rittenhouse’s own actions played a large contribution in the outcome whereas a rape victims do not.

So again in one case blaming the victim is disgusting and the other reasonable.

I think we've made progress: you're now being open about your victim blaming. It's a morally reprehensible position, of course, but at least you're owning it.

Of course, your position is not that you have a right to the safety of your person but rather than you have to earn that privilege. Presumably you are the best person to determine, in your infinite wisdom, the variety of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I admittedly haven't followed this case that closely. Mostly skimming this thread.

Here's what I've gathered, but obviously could be mistaken on some facts.

17 year old crossed state lines because he said he wanted to protect his friend's dad's business.

By crossing state lines, he basically lived in a suburb of the city which happened to be in another state. Would be kind of like living on the Saskatchewan side of Lloydminster, and going to a protest in the Alberta side. Techincally crossing provincial lines, but it'd be so common you wouldn't really think about it.

I'm curious where the adults in this kid's life were. My mom would hang me by the ears if I thought it'd be a good idea to go into a potential riot zone to "protect my buddy's dad's business". I'm twice as old at Rittenhouse. As a business owner do you really think "yeah, yeah I'm gonna have my kid's friend comes with an assault rifle to protect my business... that makes more sense than having insurance!" None of this paragraph absolves anyone, nor do I mean it to blame anyone, it's just a WTF!? If these are the adult influences in this kid's life, I do feel bad for him.

I'm unclear on how everything started. Who was the 'aggressor'? And from my cursory reading of this thread, it could have been both. Someone has an assault riftle and and you feel threatened, to you they're the aggressor. And you know what, they kind of are. The civil standard of assult is the jonestly belief of a threat of harm.

The converse is true. Rittenhouse may have had the same belief. Random people are coming at me.

All parties are acting in self-defense.

To me, and I'm open to having my mind changed on this: The fact a 17 year old could be carrying an assault rifle in these circumsntaces is insanity. A clear contributing factor, but perfectly legal.

I waiver on my opinion on Rittenhouse even being there. I'd like to know more about the relationship with the business, was the business owner there, was he the only one protecting the business?

Part of me thinks of it this way:

If someone walked into the parking lot of a Hells Angels clubhouse in Wisconsin, with an assault rifle and wearing Outlaws colours, does that person get to claim self-defense when they feel like the Hells Angels are going to harm them?

Following the Rittenhouse verdict the answer would likely be yes; but... should it be? At what point are you considered an aggressor, even if what you're doing is 'legal'?

If you put yourself in the position to require self-defence, should it be available? And if so, to what extent? Should the standard be? Should someone be able to shoot someone if their attacker is unarmed? What if their attacker is larger than them? Smaller? Multiple attackers? If it's one attacker and you have multiple defenders?

My uneducated hypothesis at this point is that Rittenhouse is techincally not-guilty, but due to some pretty insane laws that really doesn't seem to jive with what some of us think they should be.

But again, I'm not only open to having my mind changed, I'd argue it's not even made up.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You're making irrelevant distinctions.

You have a right to not be assaulted.

Trying to create a menu of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours before you somehow earn that right is an appalling position to argue.

No, I’m using common sense and looking at it like a human being. You can call whatever you want appalling, but in your time here you’ve said plenty of your share, so it’s meaningless drivel from a hand waving moron.

A civilian carrying an assault rifle far away from the hunting range: threatening, disturbing, or discomforting.

A woman wearing a skirt: completely normal.

Last I checked, skirts weren’t used to kill a bunch of kids at Sandy Hook. Skirts weren’t used to kill a bunch of people in Las Vegas. No one wears a skirt to say “mess with me and I’ll kill you.” No one kills deer with a skirt. No one protects a building with just the act of wearing a skirt. Why do you think that is?

It’s not a menu of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. It’s the basic reality of how human beings work. We’re contextual animals, we process things differently in different situations. Bring an AR-15 out to hunt game with the boys? Nobody blinks an eye. Bring an AR-15 into a school unannounced? You bet there’s going to be people on edge.

So let’s stop the silly games alright? Nobody is buying it. Nobody is saying Rittenhouse deserved what happened, but at a certain point, you have to stop feigning surprise that it did. As Cliff pointed out, everyone there was breaking the law. Everyone there was acting foolish and willingly entering a dangerous situation. Everyone. Full stop. Even your boy.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t think anyone has said he doesn’t have that right. I think the argument is that Rittenhouse’s own actions played a large contribution in the outcome whereas a rape victims do not.

So again in one case blaming the victim is disgusting and the other reasonable.

But I shouldn’t expect you to be able to see the difference when you are unable to distinguish linear and exponential growth.

And also Rittenhouse isn't a victim, so blaming him for the situation he created shouldn't be controversial.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Gun culture - agree but that is a total separate giant battle.

But based on the law Rittenhouse had the legal right to carry that firearm. There were dozens of others armed - on both sides - with a whole host of guns. Just seeing a gun doesn't mean you have to stop the person (maybe in Canada, but this is the states) - and simply having an AR-15 isn't "provocative" in the sense of the law, he would need to be doing something that incites "an immediate and forceful response" - (ie drawing it on someone else unprovoked). Carrying it alone isn't provocative in a legal sense. You have no right to "remove an assault weapon" from someone. (Not even going to touch the 'assault' weapon term, again, a whole other argument we don't need to delve into)

I demonstrated that there seems to be scenarios where if the public feels someone's presence is threatening and their bearing of arms is grossly inappropriate, albeit legal; they can disarm the person and it is legal. The same example also showed that it is illegal (albeit only a misdemeanor) to exercise those rights as an attempt to intimidate, incite fear or panic in a crowd. The man who disarmed him was not charged with anything. So there does seem to be some latitude for the public to take proactive actions against a perceived threat. When and where I guess is debatable and there does not appear to be clear lines.


Basically what happened was after the El Paso shooting, a man decided to do a "social experiment" to see if his right to bear arms would be respected. He walked into a Wal-mart armed and was recording himself walking around to get reactions. Multiple people called 911, the manager pulled the fire alarm, and a member of the public got sick of the dick swinging display and disarmed him. What he was doing was technically legal but it was deemed that the public was justified in seeing him as a threat. It was right after that when Wal-mart banned open carry in their stores.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Nobody is saying Rittenhouse deserved what happened,

People are saying he is responsible for the assaults on him. If there is a distinction between that and saying he deserved it, it's not an important one.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

People are saying he is responsible for the assaults on him. If there is a distinction between that and saying he deserved it, it's not an important one.

No people are saying he has moral culpability in those people being dead.

[Yamer]

Katie hears about a place called Todd's Rape & Steak Shack, located on the poorly lit side of the airport. Now, it's true that Todd's serves some pretty mean steaks, maybe the best in the state, but if you go you can expect a fair bit of raping. Certainly more so than the Denny's over on Wishart Ave.

Katie is aware that rape isn't necessarily guaranteed, but it's highly possible. It's a complaint littering the Yelp reviews. However, she's famished, feels like steak, and by God it's her given right to get a steak whenever and wherever she wants. Besides, she's only going there for the steak; maybe some mashed and gravy as she only really knows how to cook it from a few basic cooking courses.

Again, she's heard about all that rape going on, so to be safe she straps an AR15 over her shoulder and heads for the grill (Todd's has a clear open carry policy). She's seated, but it's a bit crowded in her area so she's asked to move to a different table. Sure enough, as soon as she gets out of the booth she is set upon by not one, not two, but three glassy-eyed rapists who are dead set on their favorite hobby. In the ensuing melee as she's trying to prevent a rape, she kills two of the assailants and wounds the other with her trusty AR.

She has the right to not be raped, even at good old Todd's. Even so, I would think even the most radical feminist is going to raise an eyebrow with some simple questions. I'm not going to put the entire onus on Katie for nearly getting raped, but in this highly relevant context I'm going to question her decision making and culpability on this particular incident of attempted rape.

I'm just being silly because I'm bored, but Rittenhouse knew he was going to Todd's. Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes. In fact, it's the primary reason he brought a rifle. If he had settled for Denny's there wouldn't be another Yelp review about rape.

[btimbit]

.... I have no idea what's even going on in here anymore

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by btimbit

.... I have no idea what's even going on in here anymore

people are turning themselves into knots trying to justify their own internal contradictions.