Rittenhouse Trial Taught Us This

[Mason Riggle]

5 hours ago, Joel3102 said:

Not to mention there was $50m in property damage from riots in Kenosha. People love to say “it’s just property” which is very privileged position. To some small business owners it’s their livelihood.

What dollar value do you put on a human life?   Nobody should be talking about 'the value of property damage' as any kind of defense for killing someone, and that's why no one is mentioning it (other than you). 

Yes, it's absolutely horrible that people felt justified in rioting and looting and causing all kinds of damage. There is no justification for their behavior. They should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But this is an entirely separate issue.  I don't think anyone here is arguing that the rioters and looters had any right to do what they were doing.  What I do see here, however, is people making the argument that 'because people were rioting and looting', that this somehow bolsters or adds credence to Rittenhouse's self defense claim, or somehow justifies his actions. It does not, and people who bring it up sound like fools. 
 

[Leo Gura]

Destroying property is illegal and people are sentenced and fined for that if caught. Rightly so. Doesn't matter if they are progressives.

Also, many rioters are not progressives, rather they are venting their anger or exploiting a situation. There is not a rioting culture.

[Opo]

1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

What dollar value do you put on a human life?   Nobody should be talking about 'the value of property damage' as any kind of defense for killing someone, and that's why no one is mentioning it (other than you). 

What I do see here, however, is people making the argument that 'because people were rioting and looting', that this somehow bolsters or adds credence to Rittenhouse's self defense claim, or somehow justifies his actions. It does not, and people who bring it up sound like fools. 

Try to read the comment you were responding to again. 

It's not just money. 

[Lyubov]

On 11/16/2021 at 0:00 PM, Leo Gura said:

Is there not a federal law against a 17 year old owning or transporting a firearm?

Hard to believe there isn't.

That's not the real issue though. The real issue is that this trigger-happy right-wing kid needlessly went hunting for conflict and thereby created it.

I believe he is being charged with reckless intent amongst a slew of other charges. Reckless intent is a form of homicide and most severe form of man slaughter. I’m not a lawyer but it basically means putting oneself in a situation where you know you are putting other people at risk of bodily harm. I don’t think it’s possible to really convict him of murder 1 or 2 charges since he didn’t go out specifically to murder people but he put himself in a situation he had no business being in that obviously carried a tremendous risk towards others. I think a case against his guardians would also be suitable. Whoever provided him that assault rifle. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Lyubov

[Lyubov]

5 hours ago, Consept said:

The flip of this is - what would be your opinion if a 17 year old Liberal kid went to protect the capital building from the protesters on Jan 6th and ended killing a couple people in self defense after being attacked? Would you say he had a right to be there or that he had as much right as the stormers, would your view be any different in that case? 

If he was carrying around an assault rifle then absolutely he should be charged. Thing is though leftist don’t carry around high powered assault rifles to intimidate people and bring “law and order” so it’s kinda a ridiculous comparison. 

[Mason Riggle]

58 minutes ago, Opo said:

Try to read the comment you were responding to again. 

It's not just money. 

I'm not sure what you're getting at? We have laws to deal with property damage. 

Are you suggesting that if vandals come destroy my business (my livelihood).. and my neighbor shoots and kills one of the vandals, then the fact that my business was destroyed should have some weight in determining if my neighbor acted in self defense or not? 

If this isn't whats being suggested, please explain why the destruction of my livelihood is relevant to my neighbors 'self defense' case?  (How is what looters and rioters did relevant to Rittenhouses self defense case?)

Edited November 17, 2021 by Mason Riggle

[Danioover9000]

@Fleetinglife

6 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

I hope you were searching for a different term for description but couldn't find a applicable one that you liked. This kind of way of describing them has very negative connotations implied for the person using it and those he is desribing in a judgemental ableist way or a far-right way of describing leftist politics and liberal culture.

   I'm not describing all of BLM peaceful protestors as degenerates. I'm specifically calling out the few that take advantage of the political climate to commit arson, vandalize property, damage property enough to interfere with the livelihood of the business owner/employees, terrorize and disrupt passer bys, assault employees/business owners for defending their property as degenerates. I could go on and give more specific negative labels, but degenerates will have to do. Also, I don't support Rittenhouse's decision to put himself in harms way intentionally, as he isn't related to the people who have their properties destroyed. Both Rittenhouse and the three that gave chase are fools.

[Arcangelo]

Self defense.

What kind of person runs after a guy with an effing riffle?

Guy with a riffle. Oh shit let's run the other way. I mean...

[Arcangelo]

Very messy self defense though. He should have fired warning shots. 

[DnoReally]

On 16.11.2021 at 11:02 AM, Leo Gura said:

There is something wrong when you go hunting for people to shoot and then shoot a couple of them dead.

Rittenhouse was eager to shoot people by his own words. That's the problem with right-wing radicalization.

This is what watching Vaush does to you.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, DnoReally said:

This is what watching Vaush does to you.

[Fleetinglife]

8 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

I could go on and give more specific negative labels, but degenerates will have to do

Yeah you could use something more accurate though like opportunists, vandals etc. degenerates has a strong negative judgemental connotation of someone somehow being behind average humans in terms of moral or mental development, immoral, evil etc It conjures a slew of negative images and connotations or of someone being behind or backward from the rest of humans in society. It is an emotionally loaded term, is what I am trying to say, that impies strong negative feelings and biases of the one that is using it against someone else to uplift himself as being on a higher plane of development and existence than the ones he is deriding and distancing himself from and that is also used more often than not to demonize someone as being lesser or inferior to others or to a standard in society on several value levels - from cognitive, moral to social. But I get where you are coming from with using it in the context you explained as those people degenarating from the goals and aims that BLM has and using it for cover for something else, but I wouldn't apply it personally to those Rittenhouse shot since it would seem that I am distancing myself from them in terms of their humanity and in the possibilty of me in the social circumstances I deemed as demanding some kind of protest or action commiting the same mistake of acting overly foolish, agressive or in an reactive way triggered by the collective intoxication of the self-assurance of power in numbers, mob justice and emotionally charged perceived threat from actors who are seen as unwittng agents of the status quo in defense of a continued injustice and systemic opression and violence in society. I think people that have died by Rittenhouses hand also believed in what BLM at the time advocated but they interpreted it in an emotionally charged selfish, revanshistic and low conscious way as serving as an excuse for doing other things and maybe even persecuting percieved politcal enemies and died tragically as result of being possesed by that affect, overly charged passion and hate.

8 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

as he isn't related to the people who have their properties destroyed.

The problem is in someone seeing the need of assisting the job of local cops and national guard troopers with a gun as a vigilante in the first place - the sheer quantity of gun ownership in the country serves as an excuse for some people to LARP as civilian vigilantes, especially gun touting preadolscent gamer kids to be allowed and encouraged to get an idea to do such a thing in the first place by their enviroment and parents - it reeks of ignorance of the vast capability and resources of the American state and its appartuses put in place exactly for the purpose to deal with such scenarios.

 

8 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Both Rittenhouse and the three that gave chase are fools.

.There is greater fool and stupidity in every equation that ends in such a tragedy, they can't be easily equated as the same in their foolishness in my opinion since doing so would just sound like a bothsideism distancing and moral and epistemic non-investment argument of the truth and who was more ethical, moral and right in the given situation, it namely it falls on the one that has the greater responsibility of openly and visibly carrying a lethal firearm into a group of a strangers that stokes fear and uncertainty in his motives and intentions to be more cool headed, convincing and rational, as the actor who visibly has more lethal power in the given sitaution, and less prone to react agressively, fearfully, trigger happy and stupidly as he is the one who first brought the threat of visible danger of harm, injury and lethality into the equation by openly carrying a firearm on full display so the greater responsibilty falls on him to ensure the people around him that he is not a physical or lethal threat to them and to be more convincing in his motives. Arson, property damage should not be a warrant for a death sentence, without at least an attempt for incapacitating, first and careful consideration for human life and humanity of the other should be more valuable than mindlessly and reactively in affect defending property and preventing property damage at any cost of even anothers life when its not life threatening - a person should not die for the sin of damaging anothers property whatever the reason or intent behind it.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Leo Gura]

It is not so unreasonable for people to try to bum-rush an apparent active shooter.

This is the problem with open-carry when we have active shooter situations every week around the country.

If it was up to me, I would design the laws so that if a civilian was seen carrying a firearm in a public setting, police would shoot him on the spot. If a civilian is going to transport a firearm it should be in a locked container. Civilians should not be allowed to walk public streets with rifles. This is ridiculous from a security perspective.

[Joel3102]

the subsequent people rushing him may have genuinely thought he was shooting people unprovoked which would be justified from their point of view

Edited November 18, 2021 by Joel3102

[Opo]

16 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

We have laws to deal with property damage. 

Hey we got laws to deal with killings. 

So what's the problem here? 

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Opo said:

Hey we got laws to deal with killings. 

So what's the problem here? 

Apparently in this case we really don't have a law against being trigger happy and killing people.

It's not hard for a trigger happy right-wing gun-nut to go to public places with a rifle and spark a "self-defense" situation.

And our gun laws are questionable.

[Rilles]

Its quite interesting... If someone in my city would show up with a rifle in the middle of the square everyone would freak out and run, in the US its so common noone would care. Lol.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Rilles

[Joel3102]

They’re two seperate questions.

The gun laws should be changed and I don’t know why America feels the need to have so many guns.

But in the context of the existing laws, what happened was self defence, he was literally chased down as he was running away and someone tried to take his gun off him. What do you expect is gonna happen? 

[Opo]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Apparently in this case we really don't have a law against being trigger happy and killing people.

It's not hard for a trigger happy right-wing gun-nut to go to public places with a rifle and spark a "self-defense" situation.

And our gun laws are questionable.

Sry I was trolling mason, didn't mean to get you involved. 

I agree with everything you say I would just add that it's also too easy to destroy property. 

Maybe strict policy of no protesting at night. 

Also I'm suprised why do people so easily attack people with weapons be it that antifa guy or kyle. I don't know if it's America but I think in Europe if we saw a guy with a gun we would take the situation a lot more seriously. 

17 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at? We have laws to deal with property damage. 

When Joel said it's not just property he meant that some people feed their children through their business. 

They don't trust those laws because if the laws worked their businesses wouldn't be freely looted. 

And some of those places are still boarded up.. 

This is privilege, assuming that you can call the insurance the next day and that they will solve everything. 

It sadly doesn't work like that. 

[Joel3102]

 

5 minutes ago, Opo said:

This is privilege, assuming that you can call the insurance the next day and that they will solve everything. 

It sadly doesn't work like that. 

Exactly, that is pure privilege, the whole 'insurance will cover it' argument. It can take a lot of time, effort, emotional toll as well as lost business income and excess premiums, or they just aren't well covered in the first place. 

In the LA riots in Koreatown the Korean business owners were defending their property with guns because they had no other choice. 

See this thread from longtime Democratic donor.  Rather than being a right wing white nationalist etc, I think he was just a misguided kid with an inflated sense of duty for the community and self importance. He was an EMT and fireman in training and was cleaning up graffiti etc beforehand. You don't have to like him, or the lax gun laws that allow this situation in the first place, but I think this case is a good litmus test for how well you can look past ideology and see the facts of the actual case