By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KLAMarine on 05 September 2020
the-pi-guy said:
I think the thing that bothers me the most about this Rittenhouse stuff is how people are viewing a 17 year old having to kill two people in self defense as being heroic.

Even if you come to the conclusion that he was acting in self defense and he did nothing wrong, how in the hell do you view that situation as heroic instead of tragic?

This is precisely why people are protesting. Because so many of our lives (black lives in particular) are considered worthless. So many have a lack of empathy for anyone we deem to be beneath us. It's apparently so easy to justify someone's death.

"He was walking away"
"He didn't comply with the officer"
"He was being rude"
"He committed a crime 20 years ago."
"He had detention in 5th grade".

It would be nice if for one instance, that instead of justifying a shooting or calling the shooter a hero, if we stopped and asked ourselves what more could have been done to avoid a situation like this.

It would be nice if the same people, who just a few months ago attacked Greta Thunberg for being a child getting involved in a "politically divisive topic", would stop making a hero out of a child who decided to get involved in a "politically divisive topic" with a gun.

"This is precisely why people are protesting."

>These protests have done the best job in bringing this very lack of empathy out for all to see.

As for the Rittenhouse situation, it can be both heroic and tragic.



Around the Network
KLAMarine on 05 September 2020
the-pi-guy said:
I think the thing that bothers me the most about this Rittenhouse stuff is how people are viewing a 17 year old having to kill two people in self defense as being heroic.

Even if you come to the conclusion that he was acting in self defense and he did nothing wrong, how in the hell do you view that situation as heroic instead of tragic?

This is precisely why people are protesting. Because so many of our lives (black lives in particular) are considered worthless. So many have a lack of empathy for anyone we deem to be beneath us. It's apparently so easy to justify someone's death.

"He was walking away"
"He didn't comply with the officer"
"He was being rude"
"He committed a crime 20 years ago."
"He had detention in 5th grade".

It would be nice if for one instance, that instead of justifying a shooting or calling the shooter a hero, if we stopped and asked ourselves what more could have been done to avoid a situation like this.

It would be nice if the same people, who just a few months ago attacked Greta Thunberg for being a child getting involved in a "politically divisive topic", would stop making a hero out of a child who decided to get involved in a "politically divisive topic" with a gun.

Do you think this breeds more empathy or less empathy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8QESv_t2Lk



KLAMarine on 05 September 2020
sundin13 said:
KiigelHeart said:

Imagine being attacked and you lawfuly (jury is still out in this case) defend yourself and flee,  then you should be expected to submit to possibly being killed or injured, because the people chasing you might be trying to lawfully attack you.. does this sound right to you?

You shouldn't flee the scene of a self-defense shooting unless absolutely necessary. As far as I am aware, after the initial shooting, there was no one posing any imminent danger to Rittenhouse. He was given no reason to flee. If you were to flee with your firearm in your hands, you are making every single person around you reasonably afraid for their life. That does not mean that you can never reclaim a right to self defense, but it would require a lot more than what happened in this case. Further, in my opinion, there is no reason to assume that individuals chasing you after you committed a homicide would kill you or do great bodily harm unless you take action to further put them in danger. You cannot make the assumption that someone is going to kill you without really good evidence and them attempting to disarm you does not suffice when you just shot someone. 

Do you consider attacks targeting the head to be a case of 'great bodily harm'? Can a kick to the head cause 'great bodily harm'?

I remind you that the head houses the brain, a key body organ.



KLAMarine on 05 September 2020
Ka-pi96 said:

Question to those defending the gun-weilding psycho...

Would you be defending him if he were a muslim jihadist that had walked into a church with an assault rifle who then shot people "defending" himself when they chased him? Because it's pretty much the same situation as that...

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't walking into any building. He was out in public and running away from his attackers when he opened fire.



KLAMarine on 05 September 2020
Ka-pi96 said:
KLAMarine said:

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't walking into any building. He was out in public and running away from his attackers when he opened fire.

You dodge the question, I see. The specific location or building doesn't matter. The intent is the exact same. The response is pretty much the exact same. There are only 2 possible responses to a murderous terrorist scumbag, you either get away from them ASAP or you try and prevent them from murdering you or anybody else.

The only difference is that you defend the white guy murdering black people, but don't even consider defending the muslim guy murdering people. Why is that?

Fill me in on more details. What happened when this Muslim jihadist entered this church?

"Would you be defending him if he were a muslim jihadist that had walked into a church with an assault rifle who then shot people "defending" himself when they chased him? Because it's pretty much the same situation as that..."



Around the Network
KLAMarine on 05 September 2020
Hiku said:
KLAMarine said:

Do you think this breeds more empathy or less empathy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8QESv_t2Lk

I'd ask the same about things like this, but you know what the difference is for the 'few bad apples' argument when it comes to police?

This is their job. They're getting paid to do this. Selected few individuals entrusted to keep us safe, armed with deadly weapons.
And their crimes are protected by the system.

KLAMarine said:

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't walking into any building. He was out in public and running away from his attackers when he opened fire.

"His attckers" being the people that tried to grab the gun from a shooter when he fell over to prevent him from killing anyone else?
Or the unarmed guy that threw a plastic bag at him (and missed) that the killer shot in the back according to the Milwaukee’s Medical Examiner's autopsy report?

"Dr. P. Douglas Kelley of the Milwaukee Medical Examiner’s office determined that Rosenbaum suffered one gunshot to the groin that fractured his pelvis, another to the back which perforated his right lung and liver, another to the left hand, a superficial gunshot wound to his lateral left thigh, and a graze wound to the right side his forehead."

"I'd ask the same about things like this"

>And the answer is 'it breeds less empathy'. Now answer my question.

"but you know what the difference is for the 'few bad apples' argument when it comes to police?"

>A principle that can apply to non-police just the same.

""His attckers" being the people that tried to grab the gun from a shooter when he fell over"

>Why do you fail to mention the kick at Rittenhouse's head? Or the attack with a skateboard?

The principle of retreat applies to Rittenhouse just the same as it does to Rittenhouse's attackers. Rittenhouse's attackers, the kicker/skateboard/hand gun individuals cannot claim self defense when they make no attempt to run away from Rittenhouse: on the contrary, they were very much pursuing him, it was Rittenhouse who was now running away after shooting his first victim, evidence of his intent of running away from the situation. He only opens fire AFTER falling to the ground which can be considered an instance of his being cornered.

"to prevent him from killing anyone else?"

>Or to kill Rittenhouse with said weapon? How do you establish intent here?



sundin13 on 05 September 2020
KiigelHeart said:

Even if we'd say a reasonable person would assault an armed individual fleeing a police scene (which I don't agree with anyway), there's absolutely no way for Rittenhouse to know if he's being pursued by a reasonable person. 

The "reasonable person" standard relates to how a hypothetical individual would understand a situation, not how they act. Unless an individual is acting unlawfully, it doesn't matter if you deem their actions to be reasonable. 

In the middle of a hypothetical active shooter situation, a "reasonable" person would typically hide. That doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong or illegal for confronting or attempting to disarm the shooter. 

Similarly, in this situation, it doesn't matter if you don't believe the individuals following the shooter are acting as a "reasonable person" would. What matters is if a reasonable person would interpret danger to themselves or others from a person running from a shooting. I believe that a reasonable person would see enough danger to attempt to stop and disarm that individual, however not enough to use lethal force (which none of them used). They are entirely within their rights to attempt to disarm him.

On the other hand, I don't believe the interpretation of "I just shot someone and am now running away. These people chasing me must be trying to murder me" is anywhere in the ballpark of reasonable. I believe that a reasonable person would see that as people trying to stop someone who just shot someone. Because the fear of death or great bodily harm is not reasonable, lethal force is not justified in this situation. Again, you cannot assume the possibility of great bodily harm or death without damn good evidence. 

Last edited by sundin13 - on 05 September 2020

KiigelHeart on 05 September 2020
the-pi-guy said:
KiigelHeart said:
Who is considering Rittenhouse's actions as heroic? The whole situation is a tragedy. What could have done to avoid it? Maybe let the police do their job of arresting riotets and disperse crowds if there's unrest among protesters. Politicians could condemn riots and not let them go on for months. Media could stop polarizing everything to breed hate. But the way things are going, it'll only get worse.


And your examples of justify someone's death are misleading to say the least. Try "violently resisted arrest while armed" or "had an open warrant for sexually assaulting the mother of his children and then causing disturbance in her home" and stuff like that, no?

Your whole post comes off as a giant strawman.

>Your whole post comes off as a giant strawman.

It comes off as a strawman because you think this is a direct argument towards the discussion.  Which it isn't.  It's an emotional response to arguments I've seen on various places on the internet. Most notably Facebook, reddit.  

Every one of those examples of justifications I posted were ones I've actually seen. 

Yes people are calling him a hero:

https://medium.com/@tgof137/kyle-rittenhouse-is-an-american-hero-who-defended-himself-from-antifa-terrorists-ebf9d8bf8d24

>Media could stop polarizing everything to breed hate. 

What this tells me is that you have no real clue why these riots and protests exist. 

So you just had an epiphany that Internet is full of fucked up opinions. Just wait until you figure out there's people who see Hitler or Breivik as a hero. And people who celebrate dead cops and so on.

You should've maybe mention that you're talking about stuff outside this discussion then, surely you can see how your post made it seem like us who discuss the legal justification of his actions don't see this thing as a tragedy. 

And I didn't say media is a reason why people are protesting. You asked what could be done to avoid these tragedies and I gave some answers. Do explain if you think polarization and hate help the situation.

Ka-pi96 said:

Question to those defending the gun-weilding psycho...

Would you be defending him if he were a muslim jihadist that had walked into a church with an assault rifle who then shot people "defending" himself when they chased him? Because it's pretty much the same situation as that...

No, and do I really need to point out how it's not a similar situation..?



sundin13 on 05 September 2020
Hiku said:
KLAMarine said:
Rittenhouse's attackers, the kicker/skateboard/hand gun individuals cannot claim self defense when they make no attempt to run away from Rittenhouse

I didn't say self defense, but that hey were seemingly trying to stop the killer.
They were yelling "He killed someone!"

Also, Wisconsin does not have a statutory Duty to Retreat so that claim by KLA is nonsense no matter how you slice it. 



KLAMarine on 05 September 2020
Ka-pi96 said:
KLAMarine said:

Fill me in on more details. What happened when this Muslim jihadist entered this church?

"Would you be defending him if he were a muslim jihadist that had walked into a church with an assault rifle who then shot people "defending" himself when they chased him? Because it's pretty much the same situation as that..."

Why does it even matter?

To me the mere fact that he's walking around with a gun automatically makes him the aggressor. To even see a cop walking around with a gun would be a matter of serious concern to me, so a random civilian, with an assault rifle no less, sets off massive alarm bells.

I was just presenting a very similar situation that I highly doubt a single right wing American (since I expect anyone defending this to be part of that group) would be comfortable with. The point being that you shouldn't defend evil individuals just because they're somewhat affiliated with your "side".

Very similar situation but NOT the same.

Hiku said:
KLAMarine said:

"but you know what the difference is for the 'few bad apples' argument when it comes to police?"

>A principle that can apply to non-police just the same.

It's not the same when they're paid to do it for a living, and their crimes are swept under the rug because they're police. That is if you're even able to press charges at all when they're protected by qualified immunity and cover up their badges and faces.

KLAMarine said:
Why do you fail to mention the kick at Rittenhouse's head? Or the attack with a skateboard?

Because that was after he shot and killed someone (in the back even). What kind of physical contact do you deem acceptable when trying to get an AR-15 away from a killer? They're at a huge risk of becoming his next victims. And they did. 

More interesting is that one of those people chasing him as he fell down held a gun, but never fired at the shooter in the video, even after the shooter fell over. Instead, the person with the gun seemingly got shot in the arm instead.

Seems to show a huge difference in regard, or disregard, for other people's lives between the killer and the people chasing him.

KLAMarine said:
Rittenhouse's attackers, the kicker/skateboard/hand gun individuals cannot claim self defense when they make no attempt to run away from Rittenhouse

I didn't say self defense, but that hey were seemingly trying to stop the killer.
They were yelling "He killed someone!"

KLAMarine said:
He only opens fire AFTER falling to the ground which can be considered an instance of his being cornered."

I've been cornered by people without killing them. You can't kill someone and claim self defense unless they tried to kill you, or you reasonably believed they would. Although after you murder someone (and he is charged with first degree murder), I'm not sure how viable that defense claim would be even in the 'best case' scenario.

KLAMarine said:
"to prevent him from killing anyone else?">Or to kill Rittenhouse with said weapon? How do you establish intent here?

Aside from being one of the dumbest plans I've ever heard (because that would make them murderers of an unarmed person), one of them had a gun and didn't shoot even once during the duration of the video. Even after the killer fell over and was a sitting duck just a step in front of him. If they wanted him dead, he would be dead.

"They were yelling "He killed someone!""

>Per the article you yourself linked ( https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/08/27/criminal-complaint-against-kyle-rittenhouse-details-prosecutors-version-of-events-in-kenosha-shooting-that-killed-2-wounded-1/ ), someone also yelled “Beat him up!”

We can certainly establish intent here, the intent of Rittenhouse's attackers. If I were Kyle and I heard this, I wouldn't assume my pursuers simply meant to disarm me. The punch and kick to my head proves all the more convincing that my attackers meant to do me great bodily harm.

sundin13 said:
Hiku said:
KLAMarine said:
Rittenhouse's attackers, the kicker/skateboard/hand gun individuals cannot claim self defense when they make no attempt to run away from Rittenhouse

I didn't say self defense, but that hey were seemingly trying to stop the killer.
They were yelling "He killed someone!"

Also, Wisconsin does not have a statutory Duty to Retreat so that claim by KLA is nonsense no matter how you slice it. 

https://www.wicriminaldefense.com/blog/2018/november/wisconsin-self-defense-laws/

"While Wisconsin doesn’t impose a duty to retreat, juries are still allowed to consider whether a defendant had an opportunity to retreat to determine whether or not it was necessary to use deadly force in self-defense."

>Jury in Rittenhouse's case can still take it into consideration. Rittenhouse was the one being chased.

the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

Do you think this breeds more empathy or less empathy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8QESv_t2Lk

Of course it doesn't breed more empathy.  

People have been peacefully asking not to be shot for years. At some point you lose your patience when people continue saying we aren't going to change anything. 

KiigelHeart said:

So you just had an epiphany that Internet is full of fucked up opinions. Just wait until you figure out there's people who see Hitler or Breivik as a hero. And people who celebrate dead cops and so on.

You should've maybe mention that you're talking about stuff outside this discussion then, surely you can see how your post made it seem like us who discuss the legal justification of his actions don't see this thing as a tragedy. 

And I didn't say media is a reason why people are protesting. You asked what could be done to avoid these tragedies and I gave some answers. Do explain if you think polarization and hate help the situation.

No, and do I really need to point out how it's not a similar situation..?

>So you just had an epiphany that Internet is full of fucked up opinions.

Funny guy.

>Do explain if you think polarization and hate help the situation.

Of course it doesn't. Which is why I'm frustrated with Fox News and company making "let's not shoot black people" into a hateful, polarizing position.  

"People have been peacefully asking not to be shot for years. At some point you lose your patience when people continue saying we aren't going to change anything."

>I still don't see how lashing out at a neutral party does nothing else besides hurt your cause rather than advance it.