Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Nov 21, 2021 01:52 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]Belief is absolutely central to the case. Rittenhouse was known to have killed one person and two people tried to disarm him believing their selfless action would stop him from killing again - he shot both of them believing they were a threat to his safety. After the second and third shooting it seems everyone ran away (not surprisingly) believing this was the best way to stop someone armed with an assault rifle from killing again.
In the context of a black man being shot in the back for trying to get into his car is it (sigh) so unbelievable a black man after killing two people and injuring a third might go to prison - if not simply shot in the street for being black and having a gun? If your point is that nobody cares what black people believe - that's kind of it - Rittenhouse walked free because of what he 'might reasonably' have believed at the time. The GQ spin finished with the militia guy and the black activist seeing the pain and shaking hands - you guys are all American - you can fix this.

That's a lie. Rittenhouse was jogging toward the police when those two accosted him. No active shooter runs toward the police, while refraining from shooting anyone that isn't attacking them. Those two were simply part of the mob, seeking to lynch someone. They were not selflessly protecting anyone, no matter how much they wish to claim so now, to cover their own criminal acts. While one of them did try to take Kyle's gun, neither acted as if they were determined to disarm him, instead prioritizing cowardly hit and run attacks over restraining and disarming.

A black man in the same circumstances would have been working along side other militia men, would have spoken with the police while armed (in an open carry state) earlier in the day, and would have just as much video evidence of his justified self-defense. The black man shot in the back, Jacob Blake, was violating a restraining order by visiting the ex he had already sexually assaulted, was repeatedly told to drop a knife, and was attempting to leave in a car holding his ex's children. Resisting arrest while armed. Due to the rate of black on black crime, most responsible gun owners would love to see more legally armed black people.

(Nov 21, 2021 02:10 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]No, my point is that Rittenhouse was labeled a white supremacist by Biden (and others) and the case evolved into one about race. Rittenhouse’s intentions (why he was at the protest) didn’t seem to be motivated by racism so why are BLM activists pushing that narrative?

BLM, and leftists in general, have a vested interest in ginning up racial outrage, as it gives BLM its reason for existing at all and Democrats more fearmongering to garner black votes. When racism isn't involved, they have to artificially inject it, make up race hoaxes (like poop swastikas, Jussie Smollett, etc..), etc.. Liars gonna lie. Their whole worldview is a lie, and they have to go to delusional lengths to try justifying it.

Cases like this aren't just about the politics, or whatever the verdict is or should be. It should really be about what happened, what can be done to prevent further instances where such things.

To simplify, certain points can be considered (these are from my pov, so probably doesn't mean much to anyone else):

• Limit ammunition to expansive rounds in crowd control environments (That means hollow-points and standard gauge shotgun shells as "lethal", although "less than lethal" ammunition would be actively seeking to de-escalate lethality.)
  
• If you aren't active military, previous military or law enforcement and haven't actively been called upon (contracted), then you are civilian (You're legal rights should be only the defense of yourself, family and your property. It shouldn't extend to actively seeking involvement beyond that, as in those instances you should be "contracted". Contracting I'm refering to having been swarn in legally.)
  
• Guns owners should insure their weapons, much like you need insurance to drive legally. (It's not something that's currently law but it should be. That's insurance against the misuse, damage and injury or death caused by them. To get such insurance should require a local sheriff to make sure you match the criteria, or you'd be uninsurable.) At the very least such insurance should be required to move semiautomatic weapons from/to your property from/to clubs/ranges/hunting areas. semiautomatics rifles shouldn't be carriable on the streets period.
  
• Better communication on what is expected of you in various situations. This means it should be identified by your local municipality that if there is a riot situation, stay in your homes where possible etc. To not actively look for trouble or escalate situations further etc. If there is to be a defensive draft, those people should be under control (namely have a captain) that is either law enforcement or military that can communicate how each group is functioning, and not leave groups to their own decisions. (Such groups wouldn't leave one of their own alone in hostile situations since they could be singled out)
  

In a nutshell there should be a lot of legal changes in regards to weapons, weapons types, education, insurance etc. That however is up to people actually putting the work in though to make those changes happen, it's also up to the people in general to identify if such changes are necessary and how those changes are benefiticial rather than just getting hung up on ideology.

(Nov 21, 2021 08:54 AM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]Cases like this aren't just about the politics, or whatever the verdict is or should be.  It should really be about what happened, what can be done to prevent further instances where such things.

To simplify, certain points can be considered (these are from my pov, so probably doesn't mean much to anyone else):

• Limit ammunition to expansive rounds in crowd control environments (That means hollow-points and standard gauge shotgun shells as "lethal", although "less than lethal" ammunition would be actively seeking to de-escalate lethality.)
  

Civilians are not generally authorized to do crowd control, especially with lethal weapons. Rittenhouse was not engaged in crowd control. He was not there to prevent rioting or public disorder in general. He was there to provide aid, deterrence, and protect himself in the process. In legal self-defense, you use what is effective and available. Besides, 5.56/223 rounds, used in an AR-style rifle, have less penetration than typical handgun ammo. It's a mass versus velocity thing.
Less-than-lethal options are not good for self-defense, as they can be too ineffective to stop the threat, especially from someone armed or on drugs.

Quote:

• If you aren't active military, previous military or law enforcement and haven't actively been called upon (contracted), then you are civilian (You're legal rights should be only the defense of yourself, family and your property.  It shouldn't extend to actively seeking involvement beyond that, as in those instances you should be "contracted".  Contracting I'm refering to having been swarn in legally.)
  

You cannot restrict the movement of free citizens in public spaces. It doesn't matter why they are there. Demanding "your papers" to prove they're authorized to be in a public space is not a free country. The local police knew Rittenhouse was there and armed and they even thanked him for what he was doing there, earlier that day. That qualifies as a tacit approval.

Quote:

• Guns owners should insure their weapons, much like you need insurance to drive legally.  (It's not something that's currently law but it should be.  That's insurance against the misuse, damage and injury or death caused by them.  To get such insurance should require a local sheriff to make sure you match the criteria, or you'd be uninsurable.)  At the very least such insurance should be required to move semiautomatic weapons from/to your property from/to clubs/ranges/hunting areas.  semiautomatics rifles shouldn't be carriable on the streets period.
  

There are insurance policies to cover any legal expense stemming from self-defense with a firearm. But requiring them places an undue burden on a fundamental Constitutional right. It would also discriminate against the poor, minorities, etc. by pricing them out of being able to afford self-defense. Any misuse of a firearm is already liable for damages, injury, or death through criminal charges or civil suit. Depending on the state, the local sheriff does perform a background check to issue concealed carry licenses. But since the left has pushed unreasonable gun control, many states have moved to constitutional carry, illuminating that requirement. Transporting a gun doesn't make it more dangerous, and the vast majority of handguns are semiautomatic, although that doesn't make them especially more lethal than revolvers. Depending on the caliber, semiautomatic rifles can be safer in public, as they run a lessor risk of over-penetration and collateral damage. Many innocent victims hit by gang gunfire, even through exterior house walls, is from handguns, which kill vastly more people every year than all types of rifles combined. Being more afraid of a rifle is an irrational response to propaganda, as the reality does not bear that out.

Quote:

• Better communication on what is expected of you in various situations.  This means it should be identified by your local municipality that if there is a riot situation, stay in your homes where possible etc.  To not actively look for trouble or escalate situations further etc.  If there is to be a defensive draft, those people should be under control (namely have a captain) that is either law enforcement or military that can communicate how each group is functioning, and not leave groups to their own decisions.  (Such groups wouldn't leave one of their own alone in hostile situations since they could be singled out) 
  

Rittenhouse didn't escalate anything. Again, free citizens have the right to be in any public space (and protect themselves), even more so than the rioters, looters, arsonists who did escalate, not only the rioting but also the attacks on Rittenhouse. Allowing mobs to control you through fear is giving in to terrorism. Most people cannot afford to just let their livelihood or property/assets be destroyed, and they have a right to enlist private security or other help. This leftist notion that people can only defend themselves when they are under some command structure contradicts the right to self-defense.

Quote:In a nutshell there should be a lot of legal changes in regards to weapons, weapons types, education, insurance etc. That however is up to people actually putting the work in though to make those changes happen, it's also up to the people in general to identify if such changes are necessary and how those changes are benefiticial rather than just getting hung up on ideology.

No, there should be a lot of work to enforce existing laws and stop rioters, looters, and arsonists. You know, criminals. Crime is not an expression of free speech, and if a protest is cover for crime, authorities should act. If authorities are out-manned, that duty falls to citizens. Everything you suggest would price people out of self-defense, making an upper-class of people who can and a lower-class that can be taken advantage of with impunity.

Or are you suggesting the government pay for everyone's firearm education, insurance, etc.?

I still don't get why someone trying to take your gun justifies the use of deadly force. Was his life in danger from this person? No..There was no imminent threat to his life requiring shooting someone. This verdict sets a dangerous precedent imo.

(Nov 21, 2021 07:58 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't get why someone trying to take your gun justifies the use of deadly force. Was his life in danger from this person? No..There was no imminent threat to his life requiring shooting someone. This verdict sets a dangerous precedent imo.

Anyone trying to steal your property is already a criminal. Anyone trying to take your gun could easily turn it against you. You cannot take that chance, especially with people who are already criminals.

If you preferred a 17 year old kid to be murdered in the middle of the street, mere yards from the police, you're an evil piece of shit.

As far as the law is concerned only the circumstances of the first killing actually matter. As Syne points out - after the first shots a shooter can reasonably regard any later attempt to disarm him as having fatal consequences and can continue to shoot until he either runs out of bullets or people to shoot. I'd guess you can't legally shoot a killer 'to save lives' unless your own life is threatened. Among the criminal types out on a night of rioting there seems to have been at least one underage boy carrying an illegally obtained rifle after curfew. It seems possible that although kids over 16 are allowed to carry rifles to hunt Rittenhouse couldn't even legally carry a rifle to hunt because he hadn't completed the safety course.

(Nov 22, 2021 01:03 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the law is concerned only the circumstances of the first killing actually matter. As Syne points out - after the first shots a shooter can reasonably regard any later attempt to disarm him as having fatal consequences and can continue to shoot until he either runs out of bullets or people to shoot. I'd guess you can't legally shoot a killer 'to save lives' unless your own life is threatened.  Among the criminal types out on a night of rioting there seems to have been at least one underage boy carrying an illegally obtained rifle after curfew. It seems possible that although kids over 16 are allowed to carry rifles to hunt  Rittenhouse couldn't even legally carry a rifle to hunt because he hadn't completed the safety course.

Legally, each instance is its own case of self-defense, which is why the prosecution was trying to claim Rittenhouse provoked the first attack. If he actively provoked the first, each subsequent attack could be argued to be a knock-on consequence of his own actions. Although once someone disengages from even a fight they started, there is the possibility of reasserting their claim to self-defense. So if the prosecution proved the first was provoked, that wouldn't have necessarily voided the two later claims of self-defense.

And while Good Samaritan laws, in principle, do allow for the defense of strangers using lethal force, it can be a bit more of a gray area than defense of self, family, or household member. Technically, an active shooter could be rightfully perceived as a threat to anyone present, but active shooters do not stop after one killing and then run to turn themselves into the police, like Kyle was doing. Once a person is no longer a threat, you no longer have the right to assault them or use lethal force, hence those attacking Kyle being legally unjustified...regardless of their ignorance of the law.

As the judge ruled, Rittenhouse had the legal right to be carrying that rifle, it was not illegally obtained, and he could not be faulted for violating the emergency order curfew that also applied to all the rioters and even peaceful protesters. Wisconsin open carry laws do not explicitly bar a 17 year old from carrying a rifle, and Kyle obviously had good gun safety training.

(Nov 21, 2021 10:32 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 21, 2021 08:54 AM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]Cases like this aren't just about the politics, or whatever the verdict is or should be.  It should really be about what happened, what can be done to prevent further instances where such things.

To simplify, certain points can be considered (these are from my pov, so probably doesn't mean much to anyone else):

• Limit ammunition to expansive rounds in crowd control environments (That means hollow-points and standard gauge shotgun shells as "lethal", although "less than lethal" ammunition would be actively seeking to de-escalate lethality.)
  

Civilians are not generally authorized to do crowd control, especially with lethal weapons. Rittenhouse was not engaged in crowd control. He was not there to prevent rioting or public disorder in general. He was there to provide aid, deterrence, and protect himself in the process. In legal self-defense, you use what is effective and available. Besides, 5.56/223 rounds, used in an AR-style rifle, have less penetration than typical handgun ammo. It's a mass versus velocity thing.
Less-than-lethal options are not good for self-defense, as they can be too ineffective to stop the threat, especially from someone armed or on drugs.

Quote:

• If you aren't active military, previous military or law enforcement and haven't actively been called upon (contracted), then you are civilian (You're legal rights should be only the defense of yourself, family and your property.  It shouldn't extend to actively seeking involvement beyond that, as in those instances you should be "contracted".  Contracting I'm refering to having been swarn in legally.)
  

You cannot restrict the movement of free citizens in public spaces. It doesn't matter why they are there. Demanding "your papers" to prove they're authorized to be in a public space is not a free country. The local police knew Rittenhouse was there and armed and they even thanked him for what he was doing there, earlier that day. That qualifies as a tacit approval.

Quote:

• Guns owners should insure their weapons, much like you need insurance to drive legally.  (It's not something that's currently law but it should be.  That's insurance against the misuse, damage and injury or death caused by them.  To get such insurance should require a local sheriff to make sure you match the criteria, or you'd be uninsurable.)  At the very least such insurance should be required to move semiautomatic weapons from/to your property from/to clubs/ranges/hunting areas.  semiautomatics rifles shouldn't be carriable on the streets period.
  

There are insurance policies to cover any legal expense stemming from self-defense with a firearm. But requiring them places an undue burden on a fundamental Constitutional right. It would also discriminate against the poor, minorities, etc. by pricing them out of being able to afford self-defense. Any misuse of a firearm is already liable for damages, injury, or death through criminal charges or civil suit. Depending on the state, the local sheriff does perform a background check to issue concealed carry licenses. But since the left has pushed unreasonable gun control, many states have moved to constitutional carry, illuminating that requirement. Transporting a gun doesn't make it more dangerous, and the vast majority of handguns are semiautomatic, although that doesn't make them especially more lethal than revolvers. Depending on the caliber, semiautomatic rifles can be safer in public, as they run a lessor risk of over-penetration and collateral damage. Many innocent victims hit by gang gunfire, even through exterior house walls, is from handguns, which kill vastly more people every year than all types of rifles combined. Being more afraid of a rifle is an irrational response to propaganda, as the reality does not bear that out.

Quote:

• Better communication on what is expected of you in various situations.  This means it should be identified by your local municipality that if there is a riot situation, stay in your homes where possible etc.  To not actively look for trouble or escalate situations further etc.  If there is to be a defensive draft, those people should be under control (namely have a captain) that is either law enforcement or military that can communicate how each group is functioning, and not leave groups to their own decisions.  (Such groups wouldn't leave one of their own alone in hostile situations since they could be singled out) 
  

Rittenhouse didn't escalate anything. Again, free citizens have the right to be in any public space (and protect themselves), even more so than the rioters, looters, arsonists who did escalate, not only the rioting but also the attacks on Rittenhouse. Allowing mobs to control you through fear is giving in to terrorism. Most people cannot afford to just let their livelihood or property/assets be destroyed, and they have a right to enlist private security or other help. This leftist notion that people can only defend themselves when they are under some command structure contradicts the right to self-defense.

Quote:In a nutshell there should be a lot of legal changes in regards to weapons, weapons types, education, insurance etc. That however is up to people actually putting the work in though to make those changes happen, it's also up to the people in general to identify if such changes are necessary and how those changes are benefiticial rather than just getting hung up on ideology.

No, there should be a lot of work to enforce existing laws and stop rioters, looters, and arsonists. You know, criminals. Crime is not an expression of free speech, and if a protest is cover for crime, authorities should act. If authorities are out-manned, that duty falls to citizens. Everything you suggest would price people out of self-defense, making an upper-class of people who can and a lower-class that can be taken advantage of with impunity.

Or are you suggesting the government pay for everyone's firearm education, insurance, etc.?

I didn't look into the full details of the case because to be honest it's alien to me. (That's why I only touched on pov points as opposed to assessing things) for instance one perspective is that those that Rittenhouse ended up in confrontation with could very well have been their own vigilante group. That's the problem with having people operate outside of legal obligations, they can both be out with the intension of being "heroes" and both end up being "villains".

There is also points like why was Rittenhouse on his own, if you are part of a collective protecting somewhere then that means you stay as apart of the group. You don't break off as that can lead to being singled out. (Of course these are rhetorical questions, probably answered during the trial and it really makes no difference now as to why situations played out like they did, people are still dead etc)

(Nov 23, 2021 06:25 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't look into the full details of the case because to be honest it's alien to me. (That's why I only touched on pov points as opposed to assessing things) for instance one perspective is that those that Rittenhouse ended up in confrontation with could very well have been their own vigilante group.  That's the problem with having people operate outside of legal obligations, they can both be out with the intension of being "heroes" and both end up being "villains".

There is also points like why was Rittenhouse on his own, if you are part of a collective protecting somewhere then that means you stay as apart of the group.  You don't break off as that can lead to being singled out.  (Of course these are rhetorical questions, probably answered during the trial and it really makes no difference now as to why situations played out like they did, people are still dead etc)

All free people have a legal right to self-defense, but that is contingent upon an immediate threat of severe bodily harm or death. Rittenhouse faced that threat from each of his attackers, but those attackers never faced that threat from Rittenhouse, except as a response to their own initiation of violence. As cut and dried as you could ever hope for. Even if those rioters believed he might have been an active spree shooter, they would have needed an ongoing, immediate threat to justify their violence. For any actual spree shooter, they would have been dead before getting the chance.

Unless both sides were already engaged in criminal action, both sides could not end up being "villains." While those who assaulted Rittenhouse could have been acting as vigilantes, at no point did Rittenhouse, as all his actions were in response to threats from others. That's self-defense, not vigilantism.

Rittenhouse went to a convenience store. Coming back, the police had blocked off his route, forcing him to detour through more of the protesters. It was no fault of his own. He was prepared to defend himself, and those moron protesters didn't have the good sense to avoid endangering their own lives. Law-abiding citizens are free to move about any public space, alone or not. Trying to excuse the violence of criminals by blaming the victim for his legal actions is sick.