Jump to content

Rittenhouse


StringJunky
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, MigL said:

You openly carry a gun, legal or not, in Canada, get into an altercation, and shoot someone, it is murder.
The fact you were carrying the gun is intent.

Agreed, as do a sizable portion of my fellow citizens. Sadly, another sizable portion is right now celebrating this kid as some sort of hero. 
 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's the only part I disagree with. Owning an assault rifle is illegal. Carrying it is illegal. Both are indictable offenses, but neither, by itself, constitutes intent to kill or wound a person. Interpreting law is more about context than any other single factor

A fair point, which is why it’s so important to consider other evidence like that which the judge threw out. Weeks before he fatally shot and maimed these people in Wisconsin, Rittenhouse was recorded saying he wished he 'had my f---ing AR' to shoot at people leaving CVS. Full quote below. It shows his state of mind and reminds us that it’s not appropriate to claim self defense over an escalation of violence that your own actions provoked.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/kyle-rittenhouse-recorded-weeks-kenosha-192829155.html

Quote

The 29-second video, which has been published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, does not show Rittenhouse's face. The video was apparently filmed across the street from a CVS Pharmacy, where several hooded people could be seen rushing out and clutching items.

A voice that sounds like Rittenhouse's can be heard saying, "Bro, I wish I had my f—ing AR. I'd start shooting rounds at them."

 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Neuron said:

I think it's the right verdict. Not guilty

He was certainly guilty of shooting 3 people, he was certainly guilty of going somewhere he didn't need to go, with an assault rifle he didn't need to carry, he was certainly guilty of being a spoilt little kid acting out his fantasy's. 

But apparently that's OK, you can actively seek out situations where your probably going to be threatened and stand your ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

He was certainly guilty of shooting 3 people, he was certainly guilty of going somewhere he didn't need to go, with an assault rifle he didn't need to carry, he was certainly guilty of being a spoilt little kid acting out his fantasy's. 

But apparently that's OK, you can actively seek out situations where your probably going to be threatened and stand your ground.

That's not OK. But again, he has been found not guilty because apparently he is not guilty according to law.

It's stupid to wanting a person convicted just because he has done what the second amendment allowed him to do. U.S. people should instead work on changing the law if that law is not OK for them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our OP has clearly asked that this thread not become (yet another) debate on guns in the US. I know the ability to show respect online is in short supply these days, but perhaps folks could at least attempt to respect this reasonable request. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Our OP has clearly asked that this thread not become (yet another) debate on guns in the US. I know the ability to show respect online is in short supply these days, but perhaps folks could at least attempt to respect this reasonable request. 

Let's take the root cause off the table, and discuss around the periphery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's take the root cause off the table, and discuss around the periphery?

It's not the root cause though, he could just as easily, do the same damage with a knife or a big stick he picked up on the way there. 

What causes a peasant to pick up his pitchfork and march on the Manor House?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Our OP has clearly asked that this thread not become (yet another) debate on guns in the US. I know the ability to show respect online is in short supply these days, but perhaps folks could at least attempt to respect this reasonable request. 

I take my responsibility in this. I was misleaded by your previous post about the AR

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not the root cause though, he could just as easily, do the same damage with a knife or a big stick he picked up on the way there. 

In my country it's illegal to carry a knife in public if you don't have a valid reason. I think if rittenhouse used a knife it will also have fallen under gun control policy.

Anyway guns aside, I don't think there is much more in this story... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Neuron said:

But again, he has been found not guilty because apparently he is not guilty according to law.

That’s a generous interpretation, because black defendants aren’t treated the same way. Chrystul Kizer was convicted when she killed her abductor/sex trafficker. Same part of the country. I daresay if someone who is armed with an AR-15 can be in fear for their safety such that they can use deadly force, just about anybody can make the same argument, and it would likely be a better justification. Somebody, say, “wielding” a skateboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MigL said:

Is that a rebuttal or agreement ?

 

This may be a Canuck v USA slang issue.   "Ya think, " in US parlance indicates agreement,  with an undertone of "seems pretty obvious!"  Which was in response to your saying something like "having ideological people carry open firearms" to such an event was a bad idea.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iNow said:

 

... It shows his state of mind and reminds us that it’s not appropriate to claim self defense over an escalation of violence that your own actions provoked.

 

Bingo.   And this observation was the core of the Huber family's statement on the verdict. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Neuron said:

I was misleaded by your previous post about the AR

I know reading is hard for some, but you seem to be confusing me with someone else 

Doesn’t quite matter, though. The focus here isn’t guns. It’s asymmetric Justice in US courts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this morning's AP:

Quote

Nov 19 (Reuters) - Under the laws of self-defense in Wisconsin, prosecutors in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse faced a tricky legal challenge: proving a negative.

Rittenhouse's testimony that he acted in self defense when he killed two men and wounded another during a chaotic night of protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year required the state to convince a jury that the then-17-year-old did not have a reasonable belief his life was in danger, legal experts said.

"It's one thing to affirmatively prove an element. It's another to prove the nonexistence of something, which is what the prosecutors had to show," said former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske, now a law professor.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rittenhouse-prosecution-faced-difficult-task-proving-negative-2021-11-19/

Yes, @iNow, asymmetric justice is what's causing much of this backlash. The guns and 2nd Amendment are aggravating factors that  precipitated the ethnic inequity... the law is not colour-blind, as it should be. I couldn't believe the cops drove right by him with a rifle in his hands and arms up.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s a generous interpretation, because black defendants aren’t treated the same way. Chrystul Kizer was convicted when she killed her abductor/sex trafficker.

In which way is Chrystul Kizer case related to that of rittenhouse? Seriously asking because I don't know much about the former

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm guessing you're not feeling persecuted

Don't know why I should but yeah I don't feel persecuted

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

but enabled to persecute

And now you are making this bold accusation that require at least an explanation

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

I know reading is hard for some, but you seem to be confusing me with someone else 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Weeks before he fatally shot and maimed these people in Wisconsin, Rittenhouse was recorded saying he wished he 'had my f---ing AR' to shoot at people leaving CVS

It may also "Doesn’t quite matter" but I supposed you were old enough to play hide and seek like children

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

Chrystul Kizer was convicted when she killed her abductor/sex trafficker. Same part of the country.

Thanks for this reminder. I'm going to try to focus on possible positive outcomes from this travesty of justice, and fixing more travesties is a worthy goal.

https://meaww.com/chrystul-kizer-what-happened-internet-calls-teens-acquittal-rittenhouse-verdict

Quote

For those unfamiliar with the case, Kizer was 17 years old when she was charged with first-degree intentional homicide for the shooting death of a Kenosha man named, Volar in 2018, who had been filming sex with underage girls, including Kizer. After shooting Volar, Kizer set his Kenosha home on fire and fled to Milwaukee in his car. At the time, Volar, 34, had been under investigation by Kenosha Police for child sex trafficking. Had he not been killed, Volar would likely have been charged with child sex assault the week he died.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Neuron said:

In which way is Chrystul Kizer case related to that of rittenhouse? Seriously asking because I don't know much about the former

Black, life arguably in danger, convicted of killing her abductor/trafficker 

edit: xpost; details above 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Neuron said:

In which way is Chrystul Kizer case related to that of rittenhouse? Seriously asking because I don't know much about the former

Don't know why I should but yeah I don't feel persecuted

And now you are making this bold accusation that require at least an explanation

It may also "Doesn’t quite matter" but I supposed you were old enough to play hide and seek like children

Bit coincidental that his comments bore fruit. On a side note, I'm glad we didn't pick up this subject until now, after the trial. There would have been endless speculation. We can do a cleaner, more productive autopsy.  :)

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It's not the root cause though, he could just as easily, do the same damage with a knife or a big stick he picked up on the way there. 

What causes a peasant to pick up his pitchfork and march on the Manor House?

I don't think so. He could have done the same damage, but it would have been much harder.

This is why laws restricting the carrying of given types and levels of weapons, and when and where, are vital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Neuron said:
29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm guessing you're not feeling persecuted

Don't know why I should but yeah I don't feel persecuted

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

but enabled to persecute

And now you are making this bold accusation that require at least an explanation

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem... 😉

 

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't think so. He could have done the same damage, but it would have been much harder.

Depending on the size of the stick... 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Black, life arguably in danger, convicted of killing her abductor/trafficker 

The only difference you noted is that she is black? I don't know how the concept of self-defense is in your country but here, if you are not responding to an immediate threat, you can't call it self-defense. Please let me know if things work different where you live

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Bit coincidental that his comments bore fruit. On a side note, I'm glad we didn't pick up this subject until now, after the trial. There would have been endless speculation. We can do a cleaner, more productive autopsy.  :)

Probably my english is not good enough but I didn't get what you wrote.

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem... 😉

I don't like that this site hides who gives a reaction to a post. Thus for the sake of transparency I let you know it was me who put a dislike because you actually called me a persecutor just because I'm not persecuted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

the law is not colour-blind, as it should be. I couldn't believe the cops drove right by him with a rifle in his hands and arms up.

Worse than this. AFTER he’d shot dead others in the street in a state where he didn’t live… and while being out after the curfew they’d imposed to limit violence… several police officers actually pulled him aside and counseled him to hurry up and head home, to leave the scene so he’d be safe and avoid consequence. 

This whole situation neatly encapsulates why so many people were there protesting for BLM in the first place. 

Anyway, now that he’s been exonerated, several GOP members of Congress are offering him internships in their offices in DC right now. Fascinating, right?

I mean, how do they even know this kid is Republican? Has he written essays on tax policy and the role of government, or is it maybe something else? We may never know!

37 minutes ago, Neuron said:

I supposed you were old enough to play hide and seek like children

Again, apparently reading comprehension is hard for you. The reference to the AR was a direct quote from Rittenhouse describing his state of mind. I was not discussing either gun policy in the US or the feelings about this modular rifle in particular. If you’re gonna take a shot at me, don’t miss. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Neuron said:

I don't like that this site hides who gives a reaction to a post. Thus for the sake of transparency I let you know it was me who put a dislike because you actually called me a persecutor just because I'm not persecuted. 

I don't care, I'm just daring to think what you think is unthinkable, neg me all you want...

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What optimal size of stick should one take into a crowd wielding AR 15s?

A bigger one???

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Depending on the size of the stick..

No, it doesn't, at all. Knives, sticks, baseball bats, tire irons can all do damage. But only to one person at a time, and at very close quarters, so that the victim - unless you sneak up on him from behind, has a chance to defend himself and bystanders have a chance to disarm the attacker. The carrying of such weapons may be interpreted as defensive.

Projectile weapons kill from a distance, unexpectedly. A pistol may be carried for the purpose of self-defense - plausibly by someone who expects to be robbed or attacked. A rifle is useless at close quarters, or when one fears a possible attack from an unknown direction. A rifle is a hunting weapon; an assault rifle is an attack weapon. The carrying of a long gun can be interpreted as defensive only by the most prejudiced and purblind of judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.