|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 19:37:48 GMT
I'm no lawyer but it does surprise me that deliberately and unnecessarily inserting yourself into a situation that results in you "having to" defend yourself with lethal force in a premeditated fashion, isn't materially different from simply using lethal force in a premeditated fashion. It's just contrived. tbh thats a pretty Anglo-centric view. In the US, armed citizen militias are not unusual. And the idea of premeditated insertion into a situation where you 'have to' defend yourself, absolving your attackers of blame, is utter nonsense. The simple fact is - in all 3 shootings, Rittenhouse was attacked first. That is the fundamental basis of the self-defence argument, and the Jury agreed with this.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361 
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Nov 20, 2021 19:45:41 GMT
Presumably the jury made their decision in the context of a country where carrying arms in many counties is routine. I can't think of any circumstances in which a 17 year old carrying an assault rifle is a good idea. A lot of Americans disagree. Their country, their culture, their choice.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 6,015
|
Post by registerme on Nov 20, 2021 19:57:36 GMT
@eurasian69 - Yup, I agree that it's an Anglo-centric view. If he'd sat on his sofa and played with his Xbox nobody would have died. hazellend - agreed, and it's tragic  . |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 20:00:37 GMT
If he'd sat on his sofa and played with his Xbox nobody would have died. And if 3 people hadn't attacked a minor, they wouldn't have been shot. Isn't whataboutery fun.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,618
Likes: 4,191
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 20, 2021 20:03:41 GMT
I think part of the problem is that the court case only looked at the specific issues of the shootings. It didn't look at whether he should have been there and what his motives were.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Nov 20, 2021 20:03:54 GMT
I can't help wondering if a black guy had turned up with a semi-automatic to a Good Old Boys demonstration and had killed a few that he "felt threatened by", whether he would have got off 'not guilty'.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Nov 20, 2021 20:06:19 GMT
I can't help wondering if a black guy had turned up with a semi-automatic to a Good Old Boys demonstration and had killed a few that he "felt threatened by", whether he would have got off 'not guilty'. Depends if there was clear video evidence of what actually happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Nov 20, 2021 20:32:32 GMT
I can't help wondering if a black guy had turned up with a semi-automatic to a Good Old Boys demonstration and had killed a few that he "felt threatened by", whether he would have got off 'not guilty'. Depends if there was clear video evidence of what actually happened? I imagine the answer is, if a black guy turned up anywhere holding any type of gun, he would be shot dead by police in 0.1 seconds.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,618
Likes: 4,191
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 20, 2021 20:36:25 GMT
Several Republican lawmakers said they would like to offer a congressional internship to Mr Rittenhouse.
There really is no hope for them
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 20, 2021 20:56:02 GMT
To me it was more that he came to a riot armed with a rifle 'to defend people', in the end it might have been self defence but he arrived there with an intention to 'defend' at any cost. I would hope that would at least come out as manslaughter in the UK.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 6,015
|
Post by registerme on Nov 20, 2021 20:59:10 GMT
If he'd sat on his sofa and played with his Xbox nobody would have died. And if 3 people hadn't attacked a minor, they wouldn't have been shot. Isn't whataboutery fun. Please believe me when I say I am being sincere here - I get the feeling that you're angry with me, or perhaps frustrated with what I've written in this thread (above and beyond disagreement). If so I don't understand why. I'd like to. I do think that the fact that Rittenhouse is a minor is of relevance when it comes to his carrying an AR-15. By definition a child / young adult is not mature enough to be considered an adult. Along with that goes an idea (varying, by jurisdiction and age), that their capacity for both reason and responsibility is limited. Such a person should not be carrying an automatic weapon. A more mature individual would have been far less likely to put themselves in a situation like that in the first place. In contrast I think the fact that he's a minor is of absolutely zero relevance when considering what he (feared he?) faced. To the people he encountered the assault rifle is of overwhelming significance. His age / status as a minor of no import at all. A young teenager is physically capable of shooting an assault rifle, and hitting what they're aiming at (fwiw I shot target rifle for the London Junior shooting team, at his age I could certainly have hit what I aimed at). Soldiers and police men and women have been trained. Firstly they're adults (ok, a few exceptions at the very youngest end of the curve in the case of the armed forces population). Secondly, because of their training, they'd be far less likely to put themselves in such an exposed position where they might have to resort to the use of weapons to defend themselves. Thirdly, because of their training, and their maturity, they are far more likely to make better judgements about the use of force when they are scared. Fear is an extremely powerful emotion. Learning to manage it takes training and experience. Rittenhouse had neither. He was an idiot. Two people have paid for it with their lives. And he'll, regardless of whether he is legally sanctioned, be carrying this for the rest of his life as well. The whole thing is an unnecessary tragedy .
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 20, 2021 21:05:09 GMT
And if 3 people hadn't attacked a minor, they wouldn't have been shot. Isn't whataboutery fun. Please believe me when I say I am being sincere here - I get the feeling that you're angry with me, or perhaps frustrated with what I've written in this thread (above and beyond disagreement). If so I don't understand why. I'd like to. I do think that the fact that Rittenhouse is a minor is of relevance when it comes to his carrying an AR-15. By definition a child / young adult is not mature enough to be considered an adult. Along with that goes an idea (varying, by jurisdiction and age), that their capacity for both reason and responsibility is limited. Such a person should not be carrying an automatic weapon. A more mature individual would have been far less likely to put themselves in a situation like that in the first place. In contrast I think the fact that he's a minor is of absolutely zero relevance when considering what he (feared he?) faced. To the people he encountered the assault rifle is of overwhelming significance. His age / status as a minor of no import at all. A young teenager is physically capable of shooting an assault rifle, and hitting what they're aiming at (fwiw I shot target rifle for the London Junior shooting team, at his age I could certainly have hit what I aimed at). Soldiers and police men and women have been trained. Firstly they're adults (ok, a few exceptions at the very youngest end of the curve in the case of the armed forces population). Secondly, because of their training, they'd be far less likely to put themselves in such an exposed position where they might have to resort to the use of weapons to defend themselves. Thirdly, because of their training, and their maturity, they are far more likely to make better judgements about the use of force when they are scared. Fear is an extremely powerful emotion. Learning to manage it takes training and experience. Rittenhouse had neither. He was an idiot. Two people have paid for it with their lives. And he'll, regardless of whether he is legally sanctioned, be carrying this for the rest of his life as well. The whole thing is an unnecessary tragedy . I don't think so, because so many gun people are telling him he is some sort of hero.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 21:05:47 GMT
Please believe me when I say I am being sincere here - I get the feeling that you're angry with me, or perhaps frustrated with what I've written in this thread (above and beyond disagreement). If so I don't understand why. I'd like to. I'm not angry at all. Why would I be? I agree with the legal outcome in this case. Note however that I said LEGAL outcome. I actually think the kid is a moron. That has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. As for the comment about being a minor, I was simply responding to one silly irrelevant comment with another. In the true spirit of whataboutery.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 6,015
|
Post by registerme on Nov 20, 2021 21:08:54 GMT
I'm not angry at all. Why would I be? I agree with the legal outcome in this case. Note however that I said LEGAL outcome. I actually think the kid is a moron. That has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. OK, good  . I think we're on pretty much the same page there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 21:17:41 GMT
To me it was more that he came to a riot armed with a rifle 'to defend people', in the end it might have been self defence but he arrived there with an intention to 'defend' at any cost. I would hope that would at least come out as manslaughter in the UK. So if you question his 'motivation' for being there, you also have to question the 'motivation' of the rioters who attacked him. I'm not sure that balance ends up going in the prosecutions favour, when there are threats being made against the kids life. The cold, hard fact is that the kid was there LEGALLY, and he was entitled to defend himself against those attacks.
|
|
.
. I think we're on pretty much the same page there.