Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[BoLevi]

The ex husband was mostly peacefully protesting

[#-3]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

1) I think this discussion should be moved to a different thread as it has literally nothing to do with Rittenhouse

2) I agree totally with your take here. Everyone acted stupidly and someone died because...

3) American gun culture is sick and all pervasive

Actually I think there is a good argument for a causal link. As you clearly demonstrate there are massive loopholes in the governments ability to create and nurture a civil society, by allowing citizens to literally gun each other down in the streets without any recourse or reprimand, then you create scenarios where people are emboldened and/or fearful to the point that more of these scenarios exist.

A civil society needs their government to protect people from this kind of harm, and look to correct the actions of those who create this kind of harm. the Rittenhouse decision pisses in the face of civility and opens the door to this kind of crap happening more often. Even if what he did was legal by the letter of the law anything short of the government immediately fixing those laws is basically cheerleading for more incidents like this to happen again, and again.

There are direct links between a mass shooting not effecting gun laws, and mass shootings increasing. Between acquitting killers of wrong doing, and more people killing people. Between support of vigilantism and the state losing it's monopoly on violence.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by #-3

Actually I think there is a good argument for a causal link. As you clearly demonstrate there are massive loopholes in the governments ability to create and nurture a civil society, by allowing citizens to literally gun each other down in the streets without any recourse or reprimand, then you create scenarios where people are emboldened and/or fearful to the point that more of these scenarios exist.

A civil society needs their government to protect people from this kind of harm, and look to correct the actions of those who create this kind of harm. the Rittenhouse decision pisses in the face of civility and opens the door to this kind of crap happening more often. Even if what he did was legal by the letter of the law anything short of the government immediately fixing those laws is basically cheerleading for more incidents like this to happen again, and again.

There are direct links between a mass shooting not effecting gun laws, and mass shootings increasing. Between acquitting killers of wrong doing, and more people killing people. Between support of vigilantism and the state losing it's monopoly on violence.

What are the direct links?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

What are the direct links?

Personal Opinion. Literally or Figuratively speaking

[#-3]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

What are the direct links?

American creates a society where it is acceptable ney encouraged to put yourself in situations where you are likely to kill people, the tells you it's not your fault when you kill people, then more people feel they are walking into life and death situations and kill eachother.

The chain of causation is very direct, and it's relatively easy to benchmark this logic, with dozens of peer countries where showing up to a protest with a riffle killing people would not make you a hero, it would make you a criminal.

The lack of civic responsibility from the government that was displayed in the Rittenhouse decision was not sufficient but certainly contributes to all future incidents where people who should not be threatening eachother with deadly weapons are threatening eachother. It is very comparable to climate change, driving a km in your car did not cause hurricane x to damage house x, but driving cars does increase the amount of property damage in many hurricanes. So to claim there is no link between the government saying there was no wrong doing and things like that happening more often is to be deliberately obtuse, understanding that a problem has been fostered by bad choices and it will take substantial
and sustained effort to undo the damage is the least we can do.

But instead we've got Bo pretending from the comfort of his dungeon, he would be perfectly happy to live in a place where one could implicitly threaten him with a weapon, because as long as nobody explicitly threatens him, no wrongdoing. It's a very sad state.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by #-3

American creates a society where it is acceptable ney encouraged to put yourself in situations where you are likely to kill people, the tells you it's not your fault when you kill people, then more people feel they are walking into life and death situations and kill eachother.

The chain of causation is very direct, and it's relatively easy to benchmark this logic, with dozens of peer countries where showing up to a protest with a riffle killing people would not make you a hero, it would make you a criminal.

The lack of civic responsibility from the government that was displayed in the Rittenhouse decision was not sufficient but certainly contributes to all future incidents where people who should not be threatening eachother with deadly weapons are threatening eachother. It is very comparable to climate change, driving a km in your car did not cause hurricane x to damage house x, but driving cars does increase the amount of property damage in many hurricanes. So to claim there is no link between the government saying there was no wrong doing and things like that happening more often is to be deliberately obtuse, understanding that a problem has been fostered by bad choices and it will take substantial
and sustained effort to undo the damage is the least we can do.

But instead we've got Bo pretending from the comfort of his dungeon, he would be perfectly happy to live in a place where one could implicitly threaten him with a weapon, because as long as nobody explicitly threatens him, no wrongdoing. It's a very sad state.

Making it illegal for people to defend themselves against assault will not make society a better place.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Making it illegal for people to defend themselves against assault will not make society a better place.

Haha, that’s funny. The US is such a shining example of what an amazing society you could achieve with that kind of logic.

People would rather shoot one another than engage in a brawl. Cool society.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Making it illegal for people to defend themselves against assault will not make society a better place.

Hot take. Mostly ######ed, but a hot take all on its own.

[savemedrzaius]

America just needs to be bring back duels. It would save the legal system over there a lot of time and money.

[photon]

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Haha, that’s funny. The US is such a shining example of what an amazing society you could achieve with that kind of logic.

People would rather shoot one another than engage in a brawl. Cool society.

Why should someone is getting assaulted be obligated to "get in a brawl".

You sound like the one prosecutor: "Sometimes we all have to just take a beating".

[Heavy Jack]

Did you ever hear the term don’t bring a knife to a gun fight? Well the ex husband, whether he was right or wrong for showing up like he did, brought neither a gun or a knife. The guy and his GF could have went inside, locked up and phoned 911 like any reasonable adult would… but everyone and their dog it seems is Chuck ####ing Norris in ‘Merica.

That argument is a joke, not even a brawl was necessary let alone blowing the guy away with a pump action. Lock up, phone the cops, let them make the decisions.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Why should someone is getting assaulted be obligated to "get in a brawl".

You sound like the one prosecutor: "Sometimes we all have to just take a beating".

So the most appropriate and measured response to anything you don’t want to get involved in is simply execution?

[chedder]

Here is America in a nutshell. A 911 dispatcher accidentally shoots another dispatcher at work who is his best friend and cousin. They were trading guns for whatever reason. If it weren't so tragic it would be comedy. Like, do they have to have guns in all places at all times for no reason?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/04/us/ke...ead/index.html

[GGG]

Originally Posted by chedder

Here is America in a nutshell. A 911 dispatcher accidentally shoots another dispatcher at work who is his best friend and cousin. They were trading guns for whatever reason. If it weren't so tragic it would be comedy. Like, do they have to have guns in all places at all times for no reason?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/04/us/ke...ead/index.html

From the article

They grew up together and shared the hobby of casual gun trading.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by chedder

Here is America in a nutshell. A 911 dispatcher accidentally shoots another dispatcher at work who is his best friend and cousin. They were trading guns for whatever reason. If it weren't so tragic it would be comedy. Like, do they have to have guns in all places at all times for no reason?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/04/us/ke...ead/index.html

Spectacles, testicles, wallet, Smith & Wesson.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by chedder

Here is America in a nutshell. A 911 dispatcher accidentally shoots another dispatcher at work who is his best friend and cousin. They were trading guns for whatever reason. If it weren't so tragic it would be comedy. Like, do they have to have guns in all places at all times for no reason?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/04/us/ke...ead/index.html

I'm in several 911 groups online, and a topic of this sort came up recently...should guns be allowed in dispatch centers/should 911 dispatchers carry/does your center allow firearms.

Almost to a one, the Canadian centers were all "No, wtf would you need guns for/no guns in our centers/etc".

The answers for the American ones...well...a lot of dispatchers said that with the current anti-police sentiment, they feel very unsafe. Most centers do not have police in/around them which holds true in Canada, too. We may dispatch police (and fire) but...there are no police AT the dispatch center. If we need police for whatever reason, we need to dispatch them to come to us. A lot of the American dispatchers wanted to be able to protect themselves, until police show up, as they feel they are at more risk due to their association with police OF people showing up (how true that is, I don't know, aside from the purely anecdotal evidence presented in that thread). Several mentioned that they have very small, lightly staffed (2-4 people), remote centers, so they kept at least one firearm around.

I heard stories of dispatchers stating angry folks (for a plethora of reasons) had shown up at dispatch centers in the past. It seemed to me that roughly 3/4 of the American dispatchers who answered...were armed.

Also of note, it seems that the center involved in this does NOT allow non-sworn personnel to have guns on-site, so they were breaking the rules even in the first place.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I'm in several 911 groups online, and a topic of this sort came up recently...should guns be allowed in dispatch centers/should 911 dispatchers carry/does your center allow firearms.

Almost to a one, the Canadian centers were all "No, wtf would you need guns for/no guns in our centers/etc".

The answers for the American ones...well...a lot of dispatchers said that with the current anti-police sentiment, they feel very unsafe. Most centers do not have police in/around them which holds true in Canada, too. We may dispatch police (and fire) but...there are no police AT the dispatch center. If we need police for whatever reason, we need to dispatch them to come to us. A lot of the American dispatchers wanted to be able to protect themselves, until police show up, as they feel they are at more risk due to their association with police OF people showing up (how true that is, I don't know, aside from the purely anecdotal evidence presented in that thread). Several mentioned that they have very small, lightly staffed (2-4 people), remote centres, so they kept at least one firearm around.

I heard stories of dispatchers stating angry folks (for a plethora of reasons) had shown up at dispatch centers in the past. It seemed to me that roughly 3/4 of the American dispatchers who answered...were armed.

Makes sense. Just like firefighters in the states have expressed interest in being armed. Unfortunately, even here, paramedics are wearing vests and firefighters aren't immune from crazies that want to hurt anyone in a uniform.

[chedder]

Sorry to keep derailing this thread but holy crap that country is f@##d. This man is an elected official and has a masters degree from MIT.

Edit omg. It looks like the youngest in the middle has an uzi. Comments are gold though.

And this was trending in politics under 'jesus'

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...5rQcFsSNA&s=19

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Didn’t know where else to put this, but……good.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1479547591121588226