Jump to content

Rittenhouse


StringJunky
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

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. 

Nor I was saying you did. But since you decided to do nitpicking I must apply my don't-deal-with-internet-trolls policy.

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

For me everything is thinkable, but every think is also dislikable

Edited by Neuron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Neuron said:

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

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

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. 

What he said was prophetic. He clearly saw his weapon as a means to sort his problems out and be more powerful... essentially it extended his immature penis. He was/is a wannabe tough-man. "When you have a hammer, everything is a nail" sort of thinking.

I think this image reinforces the point. Note that he is not under attack.

rittenhouse.PNG.0f497105a649d493d8ce17d096652f85.PNG

Edited by StringJunky
added image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

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.

Killing from a distance, is the aim; it has no impact on the soul...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

.... essentially it extended his immature penis. He was/is a wannabe tough-man. "When you have a hammer, everything is a nail" sort of thinking.

A classic logical phallus-y.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What he said was prophetic. He clearly saw his weapon as a means to sort his problems out and be more powerful... essentially it extended his immature penis. He was/is a wannabe tough-man. "When you have a hammer, everything is a nail" sort of thinking.

Thanks for the explanation

40 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Note that he is not under attack

Why should we note this?

Edited by Neuron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The birth of a dragon, is still a dragon

A 'birth' is an action; a 'dragon' is an object.
They cannot be the same thing.
( IOW, now you're just being annoying )

34 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think this image reinforces the point. Note that he is not under attack.

True, but he is abiding by that other great piece of American law. He is 'standing his ground'. And, if you can walk away, it cannot be labelled 'self defense' ( don't know the details, so I don't know if that also applies to the  Chrystul Kizer case ).

There seem to be a whole lot of laws that need to be changed ( or amended ) in the US. The fact that the Republicans have decided to make Ritterhouse their 'poster boy', is further evidence of the insanity that passes for 'normal' these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Killing from a distance, is the aim; it has no impact on the soul..

Courts of law are not concerned with "the soul". They should, however, be concerned with the aim.

 

14 minutes ago, Neuron said:
45 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Note that he is not under attack

Why should we note this?

Um... coz it might be relevant to the self-defense plea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neuron said:

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

Since you clearly didn't bother to read the article, Kizer was being sex-trafficked by her abductor. What part of that situation do you think poses less than an immediate threat? When you've been abducted and abused, isn't every waking moment an immediate threat? It may take a different thread, but I'd sure like to know how you're justifying your above comments. They seem fairly reprehensible to me, but I'm sure I've misunderstood you. I hope I've misunderstood you. If a white woman shot her black abductor, does it work differently where you live?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Courts of law are not concerned with "the soul". They should, however, be concerned with the aim.

 

Um... coz it might be relevant to the self-defense plea?

No, his motive. New gun... party! As we say here, he's playing the the big "I am...". 

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

A 'birth' is an action; a 'dragon' is an object.
They cannot be the same thing.
( IOW, now you're just being annoying )

True, but he is abiding by that other great piece of American law. He is 'standing his ground'. And, if you can walk away, it cannot be labelled 'self defense' ( don't know the details, so I don't know if that also applies to the  Chrystul Kizer case ).

There seem to be a whole lot of laws that need to be changed ( or amended ) in the US. The fact that the Republicans have decided to make Ritterhouse their 'poster boy', is further evidence of the insanity that passes for 'normal' these days.

He travelled 20 miles into a trouble with a gun and you call it "standing his ground".  

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect MigL was being sarcastic about the standing one's ground.   Wisconsin law,  among its many flaws,  is an "in that moment" interpretation of threat and what created it.  Which means that any negligence and provocation  leading up to a threat situation is somewhat ignorable.   You still get defense points for responding to a credible threat of harm even if you yourself created the threat situation.  It is a horrible festering turd of legislation.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Um... coz it might be relevant to the self-defense plea?

Ok, how?

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Since you clearly didn't bother to read the article, Kizer was being sex-trafficked by her abductor. What part of that situation do you think poses less than an immediate threat? When you've been abducted and abused, isn't every waking moment an immediate threat? It may take a different thread, but I'd sure like to know how you're justifying your above comments. They seem fairly reprehensible to me, but I'm sure I've misunderstood you. I hope I've misunderstood you. If a white woman shot her black abductor, does it work differently where you live?

I read that part. What I was saying is that making comparisons between different cases is not so easy as "he is white and has been found not guilty, she is black and has been found guilty, so it must be the race that have made the different". There are many differences. Also I would like to point out that I already condemned what rittenhouse did and now I will also say that yes Kizer has done the right thing to protect herself. But court processes must be based on law and you can't say the two cases are equal under law.

I just don't get why people need to put racism everywhere. I live in a country (Italy) where racism is not a big thing as it is in the U.S. so maybe it's just this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Neuron said:

What I was saying is that making comparisons between different cases is not so easy as "he is white and has been found not guilty, she is black and has been found guilty, so it must be the race that have made the different". There are many differences.

Really? I didn't see any. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Neuron said:

Ok, how?

Usually, one credibly defends oneself from an attack or threat of attack, or at the very least plausible fear of attack; in the absence of either, or any visible sign of fearfulness, it's hard to see how one might be believed when claiming self-defense.

However, I understand now just how high disbelief can be suspended, where there's a will.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Neuron said:

I just don't get why people need to put racism everywhere. I live in a country (Italy) where racism is not a big thing as it is in the U.S. so maybe it's just this

oh sure.
Then why toss bananas on the field when M Balotelli and M Kean are playing ?

BTW,  'Benvenuto paesano'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Really? I didn't see any. Perhaps you can elaborate?

For example what about witnesses? Also I already pointed out a difference in a previous post but you missed apparently

21 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Usually, one credibly defends oneself from an attack or threat of attack, or at the very least plausible fear of attack; in the absence of either, or any visible sign of fearfulness, it's hard to see how one might be believed when claiming self-defense.

So a picture describes everything that happened that evening. If 5 minute before getting attacked I don't have fear it is not self-defense then?

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

oh sure.
Then why toss bananas on the field when M Balotelli and M Kean are playing ?

BTW,  'Benvenuto paesano'.

It's not about tossing bananas it's about giving my opinion as an Italian and trying to get your opinions, specifically from those who live there. Or maybe I should leave this thread letting you guys keep exchanging your already approved ideas

Edited by Neuron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Neuron said:

For example what about witnesses? Also I already pointed out a difference in a previous post but you missed apparently

So a picture describes everything that happened that evening. If 5 minute before getting attacked I don't have fear it is not self-defense then?

It's not about tossing bananas it's about giving my opinion as an Italian and trying to get your opinions, specifically from those who live there. Or maybe I should live this thread letting you guys keep exchanging your already approved ideas

You need to stay here a bit longer, we don't agree on everything. Your snapshot of the members  positions is too short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just responded to your claim that racism is not a big deal in Italy as it is in the US.

I certainly don't want to censor your opinion.
And this is the first time I've been accused of being in an echo chamber and repeating 'already approved ideas'.
Usually I'm on the other end of the accusation.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

I just responded to your claim that racism is not a big deal in Italy as it is in the US.

You made me reconsider my position. Maybe it's better to say Italian racism shows up in different ways. Also it's probably a less perceived problem (for the italians) since the smaller size of the discriminated communities who difficultly can raise awareness as in other countries

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

And this is the first time I've been accused of being in an echo chamber and repeating 'already approved ideas'.

I just wanted to share my perception that the members of this forum are not equally distributed across political areas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neuron said:

So a picture describes everything that happened that evening.

The picture illustrates one aspect of what happened. There are also numerous videos, eye witness reports and previous dispatches from the accused.

1 hour ago, Neuron said:

If 5 minute before getting attacked I don't have fear it is not self-defense then?

It's an indicator of state of mind. Guy comes all the way from another state with an illegal weapon to guard something he wasn't asked to protect against possible property damage by unnamed persons, marching along, unthreatened and apparently unconcerned, with his gun at the ready. Ready for what? It's not self-defence then, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Neuron said:

 

I just wanted to share my perception that the members of this forum are not equally distributed across political areas

We are aware of that...but we share the idea that we are personally almost always right...and the others not quite so much...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neuron said:

I read that part. What I was saying is that making comparisons between different cases is not so easy as "he is white and has been found not guilty, she is black and has been found guilty, so it must be the race that have made the different". There are many differences.

While that may be true, a couple of posts earlier I mentioned one or two studies that demonstrated that specifically the application of stand your ground laws show quantifiable racial bias. It does not mean it happens in every specific case, but on average black folks are disproportionately disadvantaged when it comes to these issues. This includes either being the shooter claiming self-defence as in the above indicated example or being the victim of a stand your ground shooter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

It's an indicator of state of mind. Guy comes all the way from another state with an illegal weapon to guard something he wasn't asked to protect against possible property damage by unnamed persons, marching along, unthreatened and apparently unconcerned, with his gun at the ready. Ready for what? It's not self-defence then, no.

So basically he is the first attacker now. The fact that he went armed makes him the one who started the fight, right? What if he didn't manage to protect himself? Would the activists be the murderers, or were the activists the ones practicing self-defense because their threat was him armed?

You find his actions wrong and me too. The difference is that you are trying to misinterpret the law to make him guilty of murdering

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

While that may be true, a couple of posts earlier I mentioned one or two studies that demonstrated that specifically the application of stand your ground laws show quantifiable racial bias. It does not mean it happens in every specific case, but on average black folks are disproportionately disadvantaged when it comes to these issues. This includes either being the shooter claiming self-defence as in the above indicated example or being the victim of a stand your ground shooter.

Thanks for posting statistical data. I have no intentions to deny racism. But I keep my idea about comparisons between cases. It makes no sense to compare. There are too many variables. Also what about cherry picking in doing that and choosing what to compare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I used this young punk as an example in the "what is justice" thread, where we had the equivalent of crocodile tears being spilt for similar perpetrators rather then the vicitm, along with that other bare breasted turkey with the horns that took over the White House. 

A couple of questions...this happened in the reign of Trump, correct? Did we get any criticism from the White House on that? How was the jury selected? Were there any African Americans in that jury? 

What I did find was https://people.com/crime/why-was-kyle-rittenhouse-found-not-guilty-of-2-fatal-shootings-during-2020-black-lives-matter-protest/  "he answered a citizen militia's call on social media to protect Kenosha businesses from protesters". "The shootings by Rittenhouse quickly inflamed the debate about vigilantism and attracted pro-gun activists and allies to his side, including then-President Donald Trump, who chose not to denounce his actions. Politicians and activists on both the left and the right have invoked the Rittenhouse case in appeals to energize supporters, with Congressional Republicans celebrating the outcome and Democrats lamenting it, reports"

Then I found this crazy example of American law....https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit  

"But the law of self-defense in Wisconsin allows someone to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

"And if so, he's allowed to use essentially as much force as he thinks is reasonably necessary to stop the threat," said Kim.

Rosenbaum, the first person Rittenhouse shot, had acted belligerently throughout the night, according to video evidence and witness testimony. Later, he chased Rittenhouse through a used-car lot. Rittenhouse and another witness both testified that Rosenbaum had reached for Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse shot four times within a second, killing him".

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Jesus Christ almighty, I mean wtf!!! I am staggered that it seems this little punk seemed to have acted within his rights, according to the law in that state. Can't Biden under some federal jurisitiction, get that nonsense scrapped? I mean being able to buy and carry guns willy nilly in America is crazy enough, but when you have laws such as that, it beggars belief! Are Americans still fixed in there old wild west days of the likes of Billy the Kid, and Wyatt Earp? The little punk should be locked up and the keys thrown away, but he has been found not guilty instead. 

Why are Americans so intransigent in not changing their constitutuion that is what, 250 years old now? That's as old as Australia is as a nation!

The USA is known as the leader of the free world, and has given us great men and examples of leaders...Washington, JFK, numerous scientists such as Feynman, Oppenheimer, Sagan, Edison, Vera Rubin etc etc etc, and the list goes on and on...orginizations such as NASA, Smithsonian Institute etc. It deserves that position and should be respected for that position. But this sort of nonsense has its enemies and potential enemies, as well as allies and friends, seeing this great nation as a backwood society, driven by religious fanatics and rednecks. One can only wonder!!! Ahh well. Perhaps another "great"may emerge to lead your nation. Personally and I don't know a terrible lot about her, but I do like your vice President Kamala Harris.

Edited by beecee
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.