This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:56 pm
It's pretty well understood that there were people there to protect property. All you're saying here is that "his gun was drawn." Out of context that doesn't really describe a solid foundation for ultimatums like "if you have a gun drawn then you better be willing to use it," or "-you better be ready for a good samaritan to shoot you in the face in pretty non-specified self defense."
If a person appoints himself to guard "Property" without police training or authorization, he should be immediately arrested. If he's waving a gun around, he should have been disarmed by the police by force or treated as an active shooter threat.
I don't feel that that overrides the context established in the proceeding of the story.
There's a standing issue that his infractions stand as a distinct legal sanctioning, and don't warrant civilians clearly on one side of a known charged hostile situation to become righteously charged in taking him to justice. That's a large conflict of interest right there in just assuming the circumstance of their encounter.
CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:56 am
I mean, to quote Ron Burgondy, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. You don't let people assume the authority of police on the idea they are "protecting property." It also applies in reverse.
The authority of police? In the US, people have the right to protect their own and other people's property.
Quite to the contrary, people don't have the right to kill those carrying deadly weapons in the name of "Life". Charging and killing Rittenhouse because he was carrying around a gun would have been murder.
Exactly what's in those pills you've been taking, CharlesPhipps? I don't think they're good for your reality orientation.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell, 1984
Frustration wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:49 pm
The authority of police? In the US, people have the right to protect their own and other people's property.
Which is why anyone at that protest not only had the right to attack Rittenhouse as an active shooter threat. The spree shooter who got away with it.
Quite to the contrary, people don't have the right to kill those carrying deadly weapons in the name of "Life". Charging and killing Rittenhouse because he was carrying around a gun would have been murder.
So a guy like Rittenhouse can run around killing people to protect property but people can't defend their fucking lives?
Via LE, it's not very clear why the people were chasing Rittenhouse. It's very possible he might have pointed his gun at them. The fact that they chased him for so long is pretty significant too. By the time the guy got as close as he did Rittenhouse's adrenaline would definitely be pretty high. I mean no different by the time he was being chased then on.
Via LE, it's not very clear why the people were chasing Rittenhouse. It's very possible he might have pointed his gun at them. The fact that they chased him for so long is pretty significant too. By the time the guy got as close as he did Rittenhouse's adrenaline would definitely be pretty high. I mean no different by the time he was being chased then on.
Yes, of course it's them chasing the guy who threatened them with a gun. Why are they not the heroes trying to stop a shooter?
Via LE, it's not very clear why the people were chasing Rittenhouse. It's very possible he might have pointed his gun at them. The fact that they chased him for so long is pretty significant too. By the time the guy got as close as he did Rittenhouse's adrenaline would definitely be pretty high. I mean no different by the time he was being chased then on.
Yes, of course it's them chasing the guy who threatened them with a gun. Why are they not the heroes trying to stop a shooter?
For them to be heroes would mean that Rittenhouse was going to harm people, which I've never seen exhibited as evidence at all. If you're just framing this as a matter of optics as a matter of being in the moment, then that's not really what a trial is going to rely on fully. What people had a reasonable assumption of isn't really on camera or testimony, and I'm not sure if it's an assumption by you that he was wholeheartedly provoking them to the point where they felt legitimately threatened. They're quite frankly there to be a mob in the first place. He could have waved the gun around as an intimidating gesture and I wouldn't think the law views that as justifiable provocation to prevent specifically speaking public safety. There's plenty of reason to assume Rittenhouse might be there for any reason considering those were the people he was specifically trying to defend the property against.
Again, Rittenhouse simply having a gun, and the fact that he provoked them, as we know those two separate details, don't necessarily make him the outstanding threat for determination. All we see really is a guy chasing him for a considerable amount of time. By that point there's even more credible belief that he felt he was in danger, as per his testimony.
Rittenhouse killed two people who were nonviolent except in their defense against his heinous evil ass. His defense is he, the armed man, was "defending himself" against people who he killed that were unarmed.
The one person who did have a gun DIDN'T fire.
What would have happened if Rittenhouse hadn't gone there with a gun or threatened anyone? No one would have died.
CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:27 am
Rittenhouse killed two people who were nonviolent except in their defense against his heinous evil ass. His defense is he, the armed man, was "defending himself" against people who he killed that were unarmed.
The one person who did have a gun DIDN'T fire.
What would have happened if Rittenhouse hadn't gone there with a gun or threatened anyone? No one would have died.
I am going to ignore the first part, please do not ask why. And ignore the what if game of the third part.
It is the second part I feel is a ludicrous statement. A person points a gun at you, you have a gun. Do not fire till that person shoots you is the defense you want there? That is a little off.
