By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

I find it a bit strange some here are suggesting the result of Rittenhouse case is a somekind of sweeping precedent that there are no laws of engagement. I was discussing this case when it happened, all it took was a quick look on Wisconsins laws and knowledge of justice system to tell he most likely won't/shouldn't be found guilty. The only question was if there was evidence of provocation by Rittenhouse before the shooting.

The idea that you'd now have a right to walk around with a gun and shoot anyone who's aggressive towards you without fear of being convicted is utter nonsense. It's still a case by case thing depending circumstances as a whole. Just because Wisconsin laws were upheld doesn't change it.

And then I read how "seld defence" is no more because this scateboard guy's right of self-defence was disregarded or something bizarre. Well, say he managed to knock out Rittenhouse and subdue him. He could face assault charges of course, for hitting someone with a scateboard. And he would claim it was self-defence because he feared for safety of other people. Then the court would evaluate  whether his actions were justified and he had a reason to fear.

Now it's another discussion if US laws are too accepting of guns and using deadly force to defend yourself. I think they are and it's part of the "culture" why there's so much violence in US. 



Around the Network
EpicRandy said:
NobleTeam360 said:

Justice served for Arbery!

Nearly but not quite I still want to see those who tried to shield the McMichaels from justice being convicted for obstruction at the very least.

Some good news for you https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ahmaud-arbery-prosecutor-jackie-johnson-charged-obstruction/#app

Police department wanted to arrest these fuckers before but this DA shot it down.



IvorEvilen said:
coolbeans said:

Trying to paint this situation WITHOUT acknowledging the riots isn't providing the proper context; stop humoring this "arming up against free assembly" narrative.  And if it still looks that way to many Americans, who're just as able to investigate the evidence themselves, then that's on them for being deliberately ignorant.  Not to mention the protests and riots in Kenosha were heavily influenced by the recent Jacob Blake shooting, which turned out to not be some racially-motivated execution (or whatever hyperbolic stories were initially brought up).

What is this limp-wristed judgment regarding Rosenbaum?  Yeah, "perhaps" you shouldn't make broad death threats towards armed individuals and then subsequently seem like you're looking to carry those out.  It's rather remarkable how your judgment cleanly shifts from half-hearted to resolute in just a couple of sentences.  For sure, there's a greater responsibility on Kyle... and he acted accordingly.  

If this were in a vacuum, maybe you'd have a case.  But there's actually been good compare/contrast scenarios to see how lines are drawn, like the ongoing Arbery case or Michael Reinoehl.  And I'm not sure why you're bringing up Rittenhouse as a "stand your ground type claim" when he was trying to retreat.  Maybe you're reflexively broadening the definition?

Plus, if this court case is anything to go by, any would-be vigilantes would probably think twice considering how dicey this open & shut case appeared:

-your right to due process damaged by a gleefully dishonest media, thereby tainting any prospective jury pool

-a target on your back by a small violent subset of political enemies (likely for years)

-gross prosecutorial malfeasance against you

If these issues (and more) can crop up here, it's an insanely risky gamble to think you'll be acquitted too.

Pure speculation.  Considering some of the other characters that'd still be there (hypothetically), that's a sketchy claim.

[EDIT: Had a misspelled word that was bothering me.

Proper context?  The proper context is that no one else died that night.  Riot or protest be damned.

There were 25 deaths over the course of 6 months during the 2020 protests, and Rittenhouse nearly accounts for 1 in 10.  An estimated 25 million people participated in the protests over the course of half a year.  There were an estimated $1-2 billion in damages from riots associated with the protests.  Most of that damage occurred in hot spots ($50 million in damages in Kenosha alone), and typically occurred during the chaos that would ensue AFTER police cracked down on demonstrations.  This was why the media often called the protests "largely peaceful".  But also, insert obligatory statement on how "property is not people".

I have no intention of defending rioters from legal consequences.  I merely ask that we as a society have a bit more respect for life when going into politically motivated conflicts.  De-escalation through prevention.  Anecdotally, I live in a major US city, and we were more worried about counter protesters coming in from out of town.  For whatever reason, the blue cities were supportive of the protests, and the red rural communities surrounding them were opposed.  And they would come into our streets with their guns... to protect us from ourselves I guess?  The riot narrative was largely overblown and fearmongered by the right-wing media, and I think that fear drove a lot of people to be nutty.

The reason my "judgment cleanly shifts from half-hearted to resolute" is because I was referring to two different details.  I do not want to imply that Rosenbaum is innocent of his involvement in the events that transpired.  But Rittenhouse was the one with the weapon, and the one who killed someone.  Rittenhouse not having a gun would have 100% changed the dynamics of that night, and crucially, would have given Kyle no means of lethal force.  Nor could Kyle have had the fear that his lethal weapon would have been taken and turned in his own direction.

Proper context is dead.  Long live proper context?

The initial framing from your first comment was "gun rights versus political intimidation."  The information you're now posting here literally demonstrates why that was wrong.  Torching private properties within a local community goes beyond intimidating others over ideological differences.  There's a clear dividing line there.  It's sorta like giving credence to corporate media's first volley of bullshit over this incident; as if armed counter-protestors (Kyle included) came out after simply seeing ACAB signs.  It's good fodder for this thread, but for little else.

I sympathize with what you're asking for, but I don't see why a respect for livelihoods wouldn't be in the equation.  Taking away the legal consequences, the notion of expressing this "eh... things happen" response I've seen regarding millions in property damage (over a justified shooting in Kenosha's case) shouldn't really cut it with anyone.  Why should some business (esp. family-owned) get to be target practice after the police are cracking down?  Plus, not often mentioned between deaths or property is general violence against said property owners.  For Kenosha, I believe a furniture store owner was beat up for (surprise, surprise!) protecting his business on Day 2.  I don't see why would-be counter-protestors should be compelled to wait for rioters to tire themselves out and move on - especially when police aren't handling the situation.

You provide a succinct split between city/rural there, because that opposed stance was loud and clear when visiting old family friends in MN.  You're free to characterize right-wing media as "overblowing" it (although the magical threshold for when it wouldn't be fear-mongering is typically kept close to the chest), but it's not as simple to handwave away when you're only a degree (or no degrees) separated from people who cleaned up the smoldering ruins of their establishment.  And just for the sake of re-emphasizing a previous point, one brief police clip stripped of all necessary context was enough to cause millions in property damage.

Right, but limiting the details AND your previous "little regard for life" judgment makes that criticism so myopic.  That's what makes both of your hypotheticals of either Kyle not being there or Kyle not having a gun run into two problems with the same individual.  And bringing up how other armed individuals there didn't kill anyone only highlights the situation Rittenhouse genuinely attempted to avoid in the first place.  Those other armed people didn't have to deal with a mentally-unhinged pedo deliberately charging them nor deal with a flash mob while he was running towards authorities.  To give a hazy "well... I'm not saying there isn't culpability on Rosenbaum either" response just rings as hollow and inconsiderate of the facts (something I've been dealing with in this thread since last year).

[EDIT] Made a couple of grammar & word tweaks.

Last edited by coolbeans - 1 day ago

KiigelHeart said:

I find it a bit strange some here are suggesting the result of Rittenhouse case is a somekind of sweeping precedent that there are no laws of engagement. I was discussing this case when it happened, all it took was a quick look on Wisconsins laws and knowledge of justice system to tell he most likely won't/shouldn't be found guilty. The only question was if there was evidence of provocation by Rittenhouse before the shooting.

The idea that you'd now have a right to walk around with a gun and shoot anyone who's aggressive towards you without fear of being convicted is utter nonsense. It's still a case by case thing depending circumstances as a whole. Just because Wisconsin laws were upheld doesn't change it.

And then I read how "seld defence" is no more because this scateboard guy's right of self-defence was disregarded or something bizarre. Well, say he managed to knock out Rittenhouse and subdue him. He could face assault charges of course, for hitting someone with a scateboard. And he would claim it was self-defence because he feared for safety of other people. Then the court would evaluate  whether his actions were justified and he had a reason to fear.

Now it's another discussion if US laws are too accepting of guns and using deadly force to defend yourself. I think they are and it's part of the "culture" why there's so much violence in US. 

I would agree that Rittenhouse case does not really change anything as far as laws are concerned but it does change temperament.  Meaning, everyone will become armed because this case gives them the green light that as long as you can justify a threat lethal force is approved.

First and foremost, Rittenhouse is just one case of many of exactly that, where people have been shot because someone was aggressive towards them and used the exact same self defense logic.  I do not know if this is the only real case you have ever noticed but there are dozen of them in the US all the time.  People using deadly force for every incident and claim fear for my life.  

The statement I am making is that if you are the killer you get to tell your story, you get to claim whatever you want, the dead hopes there is any video showing something different.  Lets take the Rittenhouse drone footage as an example.  What if the video was very clear that Rittenhouse was walking around pointing his gun at protestors. Wisconsin law still would allow him to claim self defense since he retreated from the scene but even in that part, any cagy person would be able to exploit that line in the law. I can retreat into a kill zone which limits my ability to retreat any further and thus have a reason to use deadly force to protect myself.

As to your last statement, that is the exact issue.  This is just another case that gives the green light to deadly force to resolve just about everything.  So that means in order for me to come out on top if I find myself in any type of jeopardy, I must be armed and ready to shoot first and ask questions later.

So what we are going to see is protestors being armed and anti protestors being armed and then those idiots in between who would love to strike that match and see both sides go to town.  Then we have people on the GOP front in congress telling their constituents to be armed and dangerous keeping that fire nice and lit.



Machiavellian said:

I would agree that Rittenhouse case does not really change anything as far as laws are concerned but it does change temperament.  Meaning, everyone will become armed because this case gives them the green light that as long as you can justify a threat lethal force is approved.

First and foremost, Rittenhouse is just one case of many of exactly that, where people have been shot because someone was aggressive towards them and used the exact same self defense logic.  I do not know if this is the only real case you have ever noticed but there are dozen of them in the US all the time.  People using deadly force for every incident and claim fear for my life.  

The statement I am making is that if you are the killer you get to tell your story, you get to claim whatever you want, the dead hopes there is any video showing something different.  Lets take the Rittenhouse drone footage as an example.  What if the video was very clear that Rittenhouse was walking around pointing his gun at protestors. Wisconsin law still would allow him to claim self defense since he retreated from the scene but even in that part, any cagy person would be able to exploit that line in the law. I can retreat into a kill zone which limits my ability to retreat any further and thus have a reason to use deadly force to protect myself.

It isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be and never was. Naturally many defentants will claim self-defence and naturally many of them are still found guilty of murder. Pre-trial investigation and courtroom are there even though you can't hear both sides of the story. And both could be lying anyway. People trying to cover up their crimes in various ways isn't anything new you know.

Not sure even in Wisconsin simply retreating would be enough to claim self-defence if you are the one provocing the situation to begin with. Had Rittenhouse been pointing his gun or threatening to kill someone I'd say he'd been convicted. Don't know what difference this makes now as there was no evidence of him doing it. That maniac was assaulting him while Rittenhouse was retreating. 

Machiavellian said:

As to your last statement, that is the exact issue.  This is just another case that gives the green light to deadly force to resolve just about everything.  So that means in order for me to come out on top if I find myself in any type of jeopardy, I must be armed and ready to shoot first and ask questions later.

So what we are going to see is protestors being armed and anti protestors being armed and then those idiots in between who would love to strike that match and see both sides go to town.  Then we have people on the GOP front in congress telling their constituents to be armed and dangerous keeping that fire nice and lit.

No it doesn't give green light to resolve everything with deadly force. And if you find yourself in jeopardy, use extreme means only if you feel your life is immediate danger and there's no other options to exhaust. You don't have to live your life thinking you could've done something differently or risk a life in prison. In US I bet there's thousands of conflicts and fights resolved every day without deadly force.

So if a kid charges you with a fork, don't shoot him :P even if already existing law was upheld in Rittenhouse case.

As for your last statement, way ahead of you. I called this would happen when rioting started and people turned on police not wanting them to do their job. It's not like this was the first time there's armed people shooting at protests either. 

Last edited by KiigelHeart - 3 days ago

Around the Network

Oh one more question @Machiavellian

Just to be clear, are you critizizing/worried about your current laws of self-defence or the outcome of Ritterhouse trial? If it's the former then yeah, I can somewhat see where you're coming from but if it's the latter, I'm not sure what you wanted to happen. This guy to spend his life in prison even though there wasn't enough evidence to deem him act against the law, just because someone uninformed tool might think this'll be a loophole to kill people without consequences?



KiigelHeart said:

Oh one more question @Machiavellian

Just to be clear, are you critizizing/worried about your current laws of self-defence or the outcome of Ritterhouse trial? If it's the former then yeah, I can somewhat see where you're coming from but if it's the latter, I'm not sure what you wanted to happen. This guy to spend his life in prison even though there wasn't enough evidence to deem him act against the law, just because someone uninformed tool might think this'll be a loophole to kill people without consequences?

Just saying, I've been critical about Rittenhouse, but I don't believe he should be spending his entire life behind bars. One or two years would likely be enough for me. 

In general, sentencing should be much more forward looking than backwards looking, in my opinion. There is little reason to assume that Rittenhouse will be a significant danger to the public so there is no need to keep him behind bars for a huge portion of his life.



The mass murder of 6 innocent people in Waukesha Wisconsin is so sad. People out in an Xmas parade trying to just have a good time, 50 of which were injured by someone driving though the parade in an SUV, who shouldn't have been. That may not be clear based on most of the coverage though.

Media blasted for referring to Waukesha parade attack as 'crash' | Fox News

I've seen the Ford Escape meme, and it's one of the few times I couldn't even laugh due to the sad circumstances. Hopefully justice can somewhat help heal some wounds for this community.



Dulfite said:
Valdney said:

@Dulfite


This is a rather insightful post. I had never looked at it from that angle. There are really no solutions to anything, only trade offs. 

Now, let me ask you this about the senate : don’t you think that enacting the 17th was a bad trade off? 

I actually do wish Senators were still appointed by Governors, rather than elected by people. The Senate is all about achieving the best of the best, and Americans are too excitable to reliably vote for literally the best people for it. But I wouldn't stop there, if I could.

I wish the only election we, as people, voted in was local representation. Then those local representatives get together to vote for who should go to the state house, then those state house members vote who goes to the state senate (if your state is bicameral). Then those state senators elect state-held positions like Lt. Gov and Governor. Then the governor appoints for the for the federal House, but he/she has to appoint based on a district's political leaning, (so in my State both KC and STL would still have liberal representatives, for example, under a Republican governor within the system I described above). Then the Federal House group for each state would get together to nominate and vote on who should fill (whether re-election of the current Senator or election of one of those representatives, those are the only options) any open Senate seats for their state. If they elect one of their group to be the new Senator, then the Governor has to appoint a new representative federally.

Which makes me need to clear something up. Each level higher up can only appoint from the level below them, so no outsiders:

Local voted by people.

State House chosen by local leaders from among them.

State Senate chosen by State House from among their group. 

And so on...

Then the Senate votes for who will be in all federal positions (President/Vice President, Secretaries of whatever, Ambassadors, etc).

We do it this way with the goal of getting the best, smartest person available who works with other people well and can represent us well. Then we avoid people electing bad leaders based on stupid things like speeches, good burns, the color of their skin, their gender, or any other non relevant detail and instead have leaders elected by their peers for their abilities of the mind and nothing else.

What you’re describing here is essentially the electoral system of the Soviet Union or the PRC 😄.

The flaw with that system is that you will end up with a more elitist government than the current US one and a far more authoritarian executive office. 



Leadified said:
Dulfite said:

I actually do wish Senators were still appointed by Governors, rather than elected by people. The Senate is all about achieving the best of the best, and Americans are too excitable to reliably vote for literally the best people for it. But I wouldn't stop there, if I could.

I wish the only election we, as people, voted in was local representation. Then those local representatives get together to vote for who should go to the state house, then those state house members vote who goes to the state senate (if your state is bicameral). Then those state senators elect state-held positions like Lt. Gov and Governor. Then the governor appoints for the for the federal House, but he/she has to appoint based on a district's political leaning, (so in my State both KC and STL would still have liberal representatives, for example, under a Republican governor within the system I described above). Then the Federal House group for each state would get together to nominate and vote on who should fill (whether re-election of the current Senator or election of one of those representatives, those are the only options) any open Senate seats for their state. If they elect one of their group to be the new Senator, then the Governor has to appoint a new representative federally.

Which makes me need to clear something up. Each level higher up can only appoint from the level below them, so no outsiders:

Local voted by people.

State House chosen by local leaders from among them.

State Senate chosen by State House from among their group. 

And so on...

Then the Senate votes for who will be in all federal positions (President/Vice President, Secretaries of whatever, Ambassadors, etc).

We do it this way with the goal of getting the best, smartest person available who works with other people well and can represent us well. Then we avoid people electing bad leaders based on stupid things like speeches, good burns, the color of their skin, their gender, or any other non relevant detail and instead have leaders elected by their peers for their abilities of the mind and nothing else.

What you’re describing here is essentially the electoral system of the Soviet Union or the PRC 😄.

The flaw with that system is that you will end up with a more elitist government than the current US one and a far more authoritarian executive office. 

They would still be bound by the Constitution and amendments, which are nearly impossible to amend. And yes, I'm aware that binding is only as good as the courts enforces it to be, so I'm being idealistic that we'd have strict constitutionalist justices. They wouldn't be able to get away with all the stuff USSR got away with, plus you'd still have a minority party with at least 45% control more than likely in today's climate, so unless both parties went full deep state we wouldn't have to really worry about a full on authoritarian government since they'd be fighting each other often. The difference being that the fights would be far more respectful and intellectual than they have been.