US Politics: Turkeys Available Here

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Is it ever possible for a person reasonably feel threatened enough to use firearm against else?

In this case absolutely it was the Proud Boys etc. who came deliberately from elsewhere, deliberately planning violence, who were the threat and did the killing -- not those who protested the the white supremacists from elsehweres and objected to them marching through their home city chanting shyte like "Jews will not replace us."  Or did you neglect to notice these facts, and why they are being subject to millions in damages for the damage they caused?

[Mister Smikes]

50 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I don't think anyone here demanded that Rittenhouse get a life sentence.

That's fine.  What sentence do you think he should get, and for what crime?

50 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Imho, the central question in the case wasn't self-defense, but whether someone bringing a weapon to a conflictual situation could be held partly responsible for the circumstances in which he would then have to use the weapon. In other words, whether the right to openly carry firearms is so absolute that the law doesn't see any circumstance where the practice should be deterred.

If I were to run around with a fire-extinguisher during a riot, I would not expect to be able to do so safely, since my actions would outrage the arsonists and rioters.  Hence, I would not want to do it at all, unless I had some means of self defense.

As I said, I would not trust myself with a gun.  But I might run around with that fire extinguisher if I had some armed backup.  And the armed man backing me up would have the right to use that gun to defend me or himself.

I don't agree that ordinary people have any moral obligation to surrender the streets to arsonists and rioters.  They have just as much a right to go out as everyone else.  And they have a thousand times greater right to put out fires than the arsonists and rioters have to start those fires.

50 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If you read DC vs Heller, what is constitutionally protected is to "use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Maybe I'm missing something, but for me it does not follow that it's perfectly ok to bring weapons to protests. Or, to put it differently, that the defense of someone else's property is a "traditionally lawful purpose."

Quibbling over whose property it is, is bizarre to me.   If my neighbor asks me to guard his store at night, I am free to guard his store at night.  How much he pays me, or how distantly we are related, or whose name is on the deed of the store, should be irrelevant and none of Rippounet's business or the State's business.  And depending on how dangerous it is, it might be advisable for me to carry a gun or (in my case since I would not trust myself with a gun) have armed backup, so I have some means of defense if my life is threatened.

It is not as though security guards have not been murdered while guarding stores.

50 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

From my European point of view, the State has a strong interest, if not a duty, to ensure that confrontations between citizens do not escalate.

Sure.  In which case, perhaps they have a duty not to surrender the streets to arsonists and rioters.

50 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Imho, the prosecutor failed dismally because Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges ; he shouldn't have been, because even if it was just a kid being dumb, he should be held accountable for what his choices led to.

Again, what charges should he have been convicted of, and what sentence should he have received?

50 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

This sends a terrible message to any organized groups that want to escalate conflictual situations. It creates the possibility of right-wing nutjobs trying to use this to defend the use of lethal force in conflicts that they deliberately created.

I don't care whether or not conviction is politically useful for your team.  I care about justice for individual defendants.

50 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

They might start thinking they can get away with it, if they use the "Rittenhouse defense."

There is no "Rittenhouse Defense".  It was simple self defense, not some new legal theory.

[Varysblackfyre321]

22 minutes ago, Zorral said:

In this case absolutely it was the Proud Boys etc.

Rittenhouse wasn’t with the proud boys.

23 minutes ago, Zorral said:

who came deliberately from elsewhere, deliberately planning violence,

Who did rittenhouse shoot that hadn’t attacked him?

 

[HoodedCrow]

Yes, Ran, my DH told me that 911 call just said” there is a black guy running” and then he was doomed.

[Zorral]

25 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Rittenhouse wasn’t with the proud boys.

Who did rittenhouse shoot that hadn’t attacked him?

 

 You were complaining about the verdict on the Proud Boyz etc who deliberately brought violence across state lines to a place they don't live. WOTH? Wasn't talking about whatever it is you are determined to make the conversation about.  But I will say this -- Rittenhouse made things worse by being there with a gun.  Those people in Charlottesville made the violence because THEY BROUGHT THE VIOLENCE.  Just like the jerkwaddies who killed Arbery -- well, killed a jogger because they believed it was their right to kill.

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You were complaining about the verdict on the Proud Boyz

No I wasn’t. Where did you get such an idea?

 

[Kalbear]

More of this please.

In the Rittenhouse case, for instance, it would be great to see some of the organizers of the militia who sent out requests get some culpability. 

https://twitter.com/HayleyMasonTV/status/1435605184449851392?t=RedAhnX2jv_1RW6LEzO7MQ&s=19

 

[Fury Resurrected]

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

That's fine.  What sentence do you think he should get, and for what crime?

If I were to run around with a fire-extinguisher during a riot, I would not expect to be able to do so safely, since my actions would outrage the arsonists and rioters.  Hence, I would not want to do it at all, unless I had some means of self defense.

As I said, I would not trust myself with a gun.  But I might run around with that fire extinguisher if I had some armed backup.  And the armed man backing me up would have the right to use that gun to defend me or himself.

I don't agree that ordinary people have any moral obligation to surrender the streets to arsonists and rioters.  They have just as much a right to go out as everyone else.  And they have a thousand times greater right to put out fires than the arsonists and rioters have to start those fires.

Quibbling over whose property it is, is bizarre to me.   If my neighbor asks me to guard his store at night, I am free to guard his store at night.  How much he pays me, or how distantly we are related, or whose name is on the deed of the store, should be irrelevant and none of Rippounet's business or the State's business.  And depending on how dangerous it is, it might be advisable for me to carry a gun or (in my case since I would not trust myself with a gun) have armed backup, so I have some means of defense if my life is threatened.

It is not as though security guards have not been murdered while guarding stores.

Sure.  In which case, perhaps they have a duty not to surrender the streets to arsonists and rioters.

Again, what charges should he have been convicted of, and what sentence should he have received?

I don't care whether or not conviction is politically useful for your team.  I care about justice for individual defendants.

There is no "Rittenhouse Defense".  It was simple self defense, not some new legal theory.

Have you ever been present for a riot? I live in Minneapolis and there were unarmed people with fire extinguishers about that we’re perfectly safe. I took a gas can away from some would be arsonists and was perfectly safe. If you think these are things where you need to have armed backup you are exactly the type of person who, like Rittenhouse, is too jumpy to be carrying.

[Mister Smikes]

12 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Have you ever been present for a riot? I live in Minneapolis and there were unarmed people with fire extinguishers about that we’re perfectly safe. I took a gas can away from some would be arsonists and was perfectly safe. If you think these are things where you need to have armed backup you are exactly the type of person who, like Rittenhouse, is too jumpy to be carrying.

Since arson is a crime that by its nature involves indifference to human life, I would not want to confront a gang of arsonists alone (I note that you did not claim you were alone or even outnumbered when you confronted your arsonist).  Might you get away with it?  Sure.  Most people who accidentally run red lights get away with it too, but that does not make it "perfectly safe".

Who in society should or should not have guns is ultimately an issue of policy and judgment that can be debated.  It is not for me to say exactly when having a gun makes you less safe or more safe.  But at some point there comes a time when good guys have to stand up to the bad guys, and even situations when the good guys will need guns.  

Rittenhouse seems to have encountered such a situation. Are such situations rare?  I would certainly hope so.  But this is national news in a nation of hundreds of millions of people.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

24 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Have you ever been present for a riot? I live in Minneapolis and there were unarmed people with fire extinguishers about that we’re perfectly safe.

And there have been plenty of unarmed people beaten or even killed in such riots.

25 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I took a gas can away from some would be arsonists and was perfectly safe.

I think you just got lucky with the particular people privy to burning things weren’t so ready to do you harm.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I note that you did not claim you were alone or even outnumbered when you confronted your arsonis

She also didn’t state whether she wore a funny hat.

I think it’s unfair to think not explicitly including a detail in a situation as a sign of bad faith.

[JGP]

28 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

But at some point there comes a time when good guys have to stand up to the bad guys, and even situations when the good guys will need guns.  

Rittenhouse seems to have encountered such a situation. 

[wipes eyes]

Aaaaah... Excuse me. Had quite the laugh there.

 

23 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And there have been plenty of unarmed people beaten or even killed in such riots.

Sure, but as Ran likes to say why don't we stick to the facts, eh?

In this case, Rittenhouse was initially charged by one dude [there's video, don't dispute it] whom he had at least a 50 lbs weight advantage on. If Kyle actually knew how to defend himself beyond carrying a fucking AR around, a few things would've happened. One, he likely wouldn't have been targeted by Rosenbaum. Two, even if he was, he could've crossbared him with the rifle or KOd him with the butt. Firing the thing, 4 times, absolutely wasn't necessary. And of course, once he killed Rosenbaum, it was game on for anyone who saw or immediately heard about it. 

You can argue all you want, you're WRONG.

---

Wisconsin gun laws, and those of the US in general, are lax as fuck, pathetic, for weak ass people-- but when dead children at schools all across the country won't motivate US lawmakers to look after KIDS, I guess you got a lot of tragedy to look forward to. 

I'd be fucking ashamed to be an American. 

[TrueMetis]

49 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And there have been plenty of unarmed people beaten or even killed in such riots.

I think you just got lucky with the particular people privy to burning things weren’t so ready to do you harm.

 

And a not insignificant number of them were killed by Rittenhouse.

This says at least 25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_United_States_racial_unrest

So Rittenhouse is responsible for 8% of the known killings.

And a couple others I'm aware of were killed by exactly the kind of stupidity that Rittenhouse engaged in. So the question becomes, how much of the danger of the riots is due to the riots themselves, and how much of it is due to the response to the riots?

Cause if you were beaten during a riot, it was probably the cops. If you were shot? Probably cops. If you were seriously injured? Probably the cops. (I know of three different people that lost fucking eyes because of the cops use of "less lethal" munitions)

[Mister Smikes]

59 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

She also didn’t state whether she wore a funny hat.

I think it’s unfair to think not explicitly including a detail in a situation as a sign of bad faith.

I had no intent to imply bad faith.    The only thing I meant to imply is that every situation is different, and I don't know enough about his situation to say how dangerous it was.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

So Rittenhouse is responsible for 8% of the known killings.

Huh maybe should given up his life to ensure a lower number?

6 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Cause if you were beaten during a riot, it was probably the cops

Or rioters or right-wing extremists or Antifa etc etc.

7 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

If you were shot? Probably cops.

Or a rioter. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

45 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

In this case, Rittenhouse was initially charged by one dude

A man saying he’d kill him and who tried to take his firearm. 
 

 

45 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

whom he had at least a 50 lbs weight advantage on.

Sure. 

45 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

If Kyle actually knew how to defend himself beyond carrying a fucking AR around, a few things would've happened. One, he likely wouldn't have been targeted by Rosenbaum. Two, even if he was, he could've crossbared him with the rifle or KOd him with the butt.

Tell me you’re understanding of fighting or self-defense comes from movies without telling me you’re understanding comes from movies.

Why do you think it’s unreasonable for an armed person to fear for their life when encountering someone saying they’ll kill them and tries to wrestle their gun away from them?

[Mister Smikes]

44 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

In this case, Rittenhouse was initially charged by one dude [there's video, don't dispute it] whom he had at least a 50 lbs weight advantage on.

That ONE dude was apparently acting in concert with at least one other dude who had a gun and who fired a shot while Rittenhouse was fleeing.  A 50 lb advantage does not matter much when you are outnumbered, and when bullets start flying.  And there was a small crowd of rioters in that lot who were probably not on Rittenhouse's side.

44 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

If Kyle actually knew how to defend himself beyond carrying a fucking AR around, a few things would've happened. One, he likely wouldn't have been targeted by Rosenbaum. Two, even if he was, he could've crossbared him with the rifle or KOd him with the butt.

Who knows what would have happened?  Maybe Ziminski would have shot Rittenhouse in the head while Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse were struggling for the rifle.

[JGP]

A man saying he’d kill him

lol Have you never been in a fight? Common pugilist parlance 

 

who tried to take his firearm

Going for the gun is what an unarmed facing an armed opponent would do, yeah-- I've done it

 

Tell me you’re understanding of fighting or self-defense comes from movies without telling me you’re understanding comes from movies.

 

You're telling everyone you're a talker every time you open your cheesepipe, dude lol

[Fury Resurrected]

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

Since arson is a crime that by its nature involves indifference to human life, I would not want to confront a gang of arsonists alone (I note that you did not claim you were alone or even outnumbered when you confronted your arsonist).  Might you get away with it?  Sure.  Most people who accidentally run red lights get away with it too, but that does not make it "perfectly safe".

Who in society should or should not have guns is ultimately an issue of policy and judgment that can be debated.  It is not for me to say exactly when having a gun makes you less safe or more safe.  But at some point there comes a time when good guys have to stand up to the bad guys, and even situations when the good guys will need guns.  

Rittenhouse seems to have encountered such a situation. Are such situations rare?  I would certainly hope so.  But this is national news in a nation of hundreds of millions of people.

 

Oh I was alone. Like I said- Some people don’t have the temperament to be trusted with weapons.

[Mister Smikes]

4 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Oh I was alone. Like I said- Some people don’t have the temperament to be trusted with weapons.

Well good for you then.  But I cannot agree that your situation involved no danger whatsoever.