Goebbels was the minister of propaganda, no? There is no paradox. Goebbels did not say everything he said was a lie, he just iterated what every good propagandist knows, that if a lie is reiterated long enough, people will eventually believe it. What he thinks about anything is irrelevant. He might have believed them, or he might not. Maybe it shows some sort of relativistic spirit, but that is not necessary. He just indicated that people could be made to believe anything, making him a master of propaganda.

That was my point. I don’t know exact ins and outs and it seems to vary from state to state. — I like sushi

That is correct and such concepts are hard to wrap your head around if you are not from that legal system. I find provocation a very elulusive concept. We do not have it in Dutch law, that expplains it. The theoretical problem for me is that provocation seems to provide an excuse, not a justification. There is a difference between the two. My conduct is understandable, because I am seeing my wife getting raped and that causes a fit of rage or overwhelming desire to free her. I am being rpovoked, and so mentally I am not culpable (no mens rea). Yet, on the objective side my conduct is than still wrong, not justified but excused. I would rather say that in such a situation my conduct is justified, because I fear for the life of my wife. I was in fact acting in lawful defense of others.

The difference in practice is this: if my conduct is merely excused than countervailing force might itself be justified, because my attack is not, it is merely excusable. If I am justified though, then automatically his counter attack is unjustified, because he responds to a lawful attack on my part, by killing me. However, I ffully acknowledge I am no expert when it comes to the rules on provocation. Moreover, US criminal law seems little concerned about the difference between justification and excuse, much to Fletcher's dismay.

The results are often very similar though and the hypothetical I gave isquite paradigmatic for conflicting self defense claims. As saidd, under US law it may also be settled via the felony murder law, every loss of life resulting from a felony is attributable to the one committing the felony (out of my head).

A more accurate scenario would be if you and the X went to a BLM protest, saw Harry, a weird teenage kid wielding an assault rifle, and chased after him in a threatening manner with the intent of disarming him, and perhaps beating him up a bit for good measure.

A weird teenage kid once pulled out a rifle on me when I was a teen. I got the hell out of there because I knew he was stupid enough to use it, regardless of the consequences. — praxis

No, it is not a more accurate scenario because it is a much more muddled situation. I am not passing judgment on the Rittenhouse case, but merely illuminating a point of law about self defense. In between the extremes there is often an area with 50 shades of grey. The point that I was making is that it is not always the case that one may respond with defensive force in a life threatening situation. Not whether in this particular situation the defendent might have responded with defensive force.

First, how does the husband know that his wife is being raped and not a masochist cheating on her husband?

It seems obvious that in the act of committing a violent act, you have no right to defense from others trying to stop your violent act.

The fact that this example is being used in a thread which has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case or circumstances is an example of a red herring. — Harry Hindu

Not at all, you asked a theoretical question (is defending yourself from being killed always justified) and I am giving you a theoretical answer through an excample. It is indeed not always justified.

Moreover, you are changing the hypothetica, in that case it would be putative self defense of the part of the husband, but it is of no concern since that was not the point of the hypothetical.

If the rapist kills the husband I think you can define that as 'provocation' (raping his wife) so claims to self-defense would be very hard to call but I am sure there are some other mitigating circumstances (convoluted even!) that could warrant a claim of 'self-defense' - state depending if we're talking about US in general here. — I like sushi

I would find that very hard to belief. Self defense generally requires defense against an imminent and unlawful attack. Me rescuing my wife is in fact defense of others, his counter reaction therefore is not a response against an unlawful attack. The terminology might be diifferent but unless I see it I hold on what I have learned from Fletcher''Rethinking Criminal Law', a great theorist from whom I learned what I know of anglo/American criminal law and of course from my dear colleague, a US lawyer who taught together with me in Amsterdam .

But well, maybe in the US they construct it through provocation, but with their strict felony murder rule I think you would be hard pressed as a lawyer when you are on the rapist's team.

Then your position is that all rapists deserve to be killed by their victim's (X-)husband? — Harry Hindu

Not al all, nor is that an implication of my position

Strange that you interpret a factual statement as a demand. Maybe the information in this thread is inaccurate, biased, or doesn't take into consideration all facts that have been given. There is no problem in asking questions. You didn't have to answer. — Harry Hindu

That is true. There is useful information though in this thread, also addressing your questions. Well, any information on a philosophy forum, might be inaccurate of biased ;). Anyway sorry if I came off as harsh, but I reacted to not telling anything useful. Of course you may always ask questions, fair enough.

This doesn't tell me anything useful. What are the circumstances in which it is OK to defend yourself vs not being OK to defend yourself?

It seems to me that if you have the right to life, liberty and happiness, then you have the right to defend yourself from others trying to take these things away from you. — Harry Hindu

Well now Harry, think, think.... what could those circumstances be.... Ohh I know. Say you are in the process of brutally raping my wife, choking her (I am divorced by the way, but that's beside the point, it is not a real scenario, but a hypothetical you see) and I come to her rescue wielding a lead pipe. You out of fear for your life stab me in the eye with the long hair pin conveniently located on my wive's night stand. The pin penetrates my eyeball, enters the brain which sibsequently causes my legs to quake and I collapse to the floor.... dead!

Now, witness hwat happens in court... You get convicted for manslaughter (non-premeditated murder) or even felony murder. So no, unfortunately Harry you did not have the right of self defense in that situation.

By the way, it is not my duty to tell you anything useful. You frame it as a demand, but normally I get paid to provide legal education. You could have found this information in the thread.

It's not a matter of what someone deserved. It's a matter of do you have the right to defend yourself from being killed? — Harry Hindu

And the answer to that question as offered up so often in this thread is sometimes you have and sometimes you do not.

My apologies for derailing the thread. I should not debate this kind of stuff in the Rittenhouse thread so, by all means go back on topic if you like. I belief that such a discussion with NOS4A2 is something like a broken record on the forums, it is still a bit new for me, but again sorry to derail the thread. I will from now on only answer points of law in this thread.

It was only a criticism of the idea that by paying tax dollars you are somehow working with others, coordinating your defence. That’s not the case, to me. It appears more like ignorance, in the sense of “not knowing”. Since one is unable to follow his tax-dollars to their final destination, so he is unable to say he is coordinating education, a police force, or the toilet paper in a public washrooms. Far from coordination, he is ignorant of it, and has no say in all coordinating aspects of its application. — NOS4A2

Well, that is the case you are working with others. everyone pays taxes so everyone chips in to a pool of resources which are then use to facilitate the creation of public good. It is a simple reduction of transaction costs because if you would have to contract and negotiate with everyone individually it would cost you enormous time and resources. In addition somehow you will have to deal with the problem of free riders, a notorious economic conundrum when it comes to the creation of pubic goods.

Of course, you do not know everything that happens to your tax dollars. However, that is a situation we are in since the onset of modern society. You do not know what happens to your tax dollars, but also not what technology corporations install in your mobilie phones, or god forbid, in coronav accines or in basically everything we use for modern living. It always requires a leap of faith scary though it may be.

Some would rather delegate the responsibilities and the means for their defence on to others, to “professionals”. So in times when defence is required, he has long absolved himself of any responsibility and can let others handle it for him. Far from efficient, it’s laziness. It isn't without irony that we find a dutch John Oliver ridiculing Americans and their guns while benefiting from the liberation and defence of American firepower. — NOS4A2

Well, actually in every naton state we delegate the defense against foreign invasion to professionals. And no that not necessarily absolves you from responsibility as you may be indeed drafted into the army in times of acute crisis. That is another civic duty coordinated by the state and for good reason. If every hamlet had to organise their own defense force and negotiate procedures with every other hamlet, your country would not last long. Yes, the Netherlands has benefitted and still benefits from US firepower and - aside - when the US complains about the Eruopean countries not pulling their fair weight they are right! However that oly goes to show how tenacious the problem of collective action is. As Tin Wood pointed out, it simply has nothing to do with gun laws since the US army would be equally strong if there was no second amendment.

And since they confer their responsibilities to the state, they correspondingly confer it the power to govern their own lives. The monopoly on violence hints at who is serving whom. — NOS4A2

Well in a democratic state we both serve and are being served. That is the reason why democracy demands people having votes and being eligible for political functions. I am not working in the sevice of the Dutch state. Well in some sense I am, but everyone that is employed in education in the Netherlands is. The point is trivial, I could just as well say the state is serving me because it basically pays me to think.

I used legalism in the pejorative sense. I mean that ethics is dismissed in favor of appeals to law and authority. Law shapes the "mindset of the people", rather the other way about. I fear we cannot discuss the ethics of defending oneself from a mob or a right to bear arms without limiting ourselves to state-sanctioned principles, many of which are younger than the disco era. — NOS4A2

Still, I have no idea why you attrribute this view to me. I think the point of view is eminently ethical in as far as it takes the relationships with other people into account. The libertarian ideology, at least in the variation you espouse, seems to do no such thing. Instead it believes in some God given rights. Also it is not the case that law shapes the mindset of the people but comes out of thin air itself. It is actually also shaped by the mindset of the people as well as by other things, like technological development. Law is, here it is again, a social practice. The problem is in your world view there is no accounting for that, therefore law must come out of nowhere. Like your right to bear arms seems to come out of nowhere. Your view though leads to that absurd assumption though, not mine.

The point, anyways, was that in the view of my erroneous ideology I have yet to see anything better on offer. — NOS4A2

Well, NOS, you live in something better, the lord be praised! No society holds on to your ideology as it would revert us back to the stone age. Look around you at all the things tax money got you. Just for one minute comtemplate the traffic light and consider what a boon it is that central planners have limited your freedom and that of everyone else on the intricate system of roads we have...

I’ll just say that there is a fine line between efficiency on the one hand and laziness and ignorance on the other. — NOS4A2

Well, what woudl be an indicator of ignorance? Hard to pick, but say, literacy rates. And lo and behold, you are right there literacy levels or so much higher in the US than in the Netherlands. Ohh... they aren't? Could have fooled me. Ohh that is right because we use tax money to fund education.

Compare these two reports:
https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Country%20note%20-%20United%20States.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Country%20note%20-%20Netherlands.pdf

You would rather delegate the right to bear arms and to defend yourself to other people. — NOS4A2

One does not have a right to bear arms granted by nature. And yes, I think allocating the defense of my rights to others is indeed practical. Just like I delegate my right to bake bread to others and my right to search for clean drinking water.

You don’t know where your tax money is spent—out of sight, out of mind—but are confident authority will spend it on some “public good”. — NOS4A2

Well, not always. We have our problems with the tax service. However we also have reasonably transparent instritutions and a judicial system that is in general open. The Netherlands is a rather pleasurable country to live in, our infrastructure is not crumbling, so indeed, I think it is reasonably well spent most of the time. What is true is that most of our European defense is borrowed from the US which is an Achilles heel. In general though yes the distribution of public goods is of a high quality.

Your sense of justice has been reduced to strict legalism. — NOS4A2

Huh? Where does that come from? Can someone explain to me what NOS means? In any case, if not I just point out the non-sequitur and let it rest.

In short, Tobias, your ideology is servile and unjust and immoral. — NOS4A2

Who am I serving? I feel the creation of public goods is not servile. It is called working together. And yes, working together is usually more efficient when coordinated through the media of well ordered institutions, with democratic checks and balances. I thought that was what countries were ideally made of. To what standard of justice is that ideology unjust or immoral?

It’s true, high murder rates are not a good thing, but neither is a monopoly on violence, the inability to equalize force, the inability to defend one’s property, an so on. At each step, from the shooting of Jason Blake onward, the professionals failed in Wisconsin. Frankly, I would much rather take my chances. — NOS4A2

Of course a monopoly on violence is a good thing. The ability to equalize force... as if that's gonna happen. A bunch of trained professionals will always outgun the untrained masses wielding AR rifles, not to mention their access to truly heavy weaponry such as tanks and armored vehicles. Defending one's own property... nahh, ridiculously inefficient. A. Most people do not even have property worth defending B. Allowing everyone guns just ups the ante because also your attackers will be armed as well. and C. isn't defense of public order and property not a public good? We pay something called taxes (maybe you should look up the concept) and pay it to the government in order to arrange for cetralized property defense. Much more efficient then everyone trying to build their own little fortress and with less chances for error. "Ohhh golly, I thought he was tresspassing, I did not know he sold bibles! sorry for the holes in your head".

Really NOS you are not a stupid guy, but your ideology is so incredibly erroneous, down from its metaphysics up to its practical results, You must be a masochist to defend it. Libertarians are just hopeless romantics I guess.

Our idea is that everybody requires strict parental supervision when handling such weaponry, or at least has some kind of permit, attesting to their mental health, professional capacity etc. As I pointed out to you the murder rate in the US is at least 5 times of that in the Netherlands. And no NOS, that is not a good thing. In general yes, we think indeed assault rifles are safest in the hands of professionals. Actually we think the same about law...

edit: the last remark was a snipe at the jury system, not anyone at the forum.

Goths unite...

A key difference is that, in your analogy, an actual crime is being committed by the rapist, whereas the attempts to disarm R were to mitigate the threat of a crime, one which, in the end, R would be found not guilty of anyway due to staggering and wilful cognitive dissonance. — Kenosha Kid

Well, in the scenario I outline (of which I do not know whether it was the prosecutors take) all hangs on whether the defendant had a right to be there at that point with that weapon. A rapist does not, so far is clear. I think it is found in the R. case that he had. If that was the case than an attempt at disarming r. is unlawful and constitutes an attack on his person from which he has the right to defend himself.

Therefore all hangs on the qualification of his behaviour prior to the shooting, i.e., being there with that weapon. The first job of the prosecutors would be, in the strat. I put forward to argue he provoked the attack by hsi wanton behaviour, or if recklessness is the category, that he acted reckless by being there with that weapon at that time. That would be known under Dutch law as 'culpa in causa', being guilty of having a hand in the tragic situaton occurring. I do agree with some of the others that the prosecutor's job is a hard one. We can not look in the defendent's mind and his political views do not matter in a court of law. We only know something about the outward manifestation of his state of mind. It being legal in Wisconsin to carry fire arms, even those kinds, to scene's of conflict does not make it easier.

Another strat. indeed would be to argue that the protesters acted in legitimate self defense. If they did than the defendent's claim would not fly. However, it is not easy I guess to make that claim because one would have to prove that they faced an iminent unlawful attack. So the defendent's behaviour must make it credible that he was about to shoot the protesters.

Another line would be to argue the proportionality of the violence. Was he much heavier armed than the protesters and could he have avoided the situation with lesser means. these are known as the proportionality and subsidiarity principles under Dutch criminal doctrine. Self defense has to be proportionate to be justified. I.e., being threated with a potato peeler doed not justify emptying your revolver and there must not be other means available, including flight. Since it was not difficult for him not to be there in the first place, his self defense claim would already run into potential difficulties there. However I gather the law of the state of Wisconsin is different.

So in the Netherlands, they would convict someone of manslaughter for an action that was in direct defense of the defendant's life? — frank

It totally depends on the facts of the case of course and the situation is hard to compare because bringing an assault weapon on the scene would be prohibited in the Netherlands anyway. If, resulting from that action, you find yourself in mortal peril, yes then your self defense justification would probably not fly. I think it is also probable in the US though, not in this case perhaps but in others it is. Say a man was raping your wife. You come to her rescue with a lead pipe and the assailant, fearing for his life because of your imminent attack shoots you. Than the asailant is in credible fear of his life, though his justification of self defense will not fly because he acted wrongful in the first place. So indeed not every defense out ot fear of your life being taken is a valid justification.

This one didn't threaten. It spiraled. Stores were closed across the US afterward because looting for the fun of it had become a thing. — frank

Certainly! All the more reason not to allow also the presence of counter protesters.

That would make sense. You can see how the failure of local governments to protect life and property shouldn't affect our judgement if Rittenhouse, right? — frank

Those are two different matters. One is about he failure of the authorities and one is about the possible mens rea of the defendent. One could argue in the following way, as was outlined earlier in the thread. The defendent being there with that weapon is not illegal. However, he willingly put himself, armed in a very dangerous situation. When one carries a fire arm to a dangerous situation, it is foreseeable that such a fire arm will need to be used. When it is used, it will result in injury or death. So the defendent acted wantonly when he went there armed with a deadly weapon.

Similarly as I would act wantonly leaving my rat poison on the table unattended while a children's party is taking place. Me having the rat poison is not illegal and if nothing happens in that situation no wrong doing has happened, however when a child eats from it an dies, I am face with a charge of manslaughter (the exact term depends on the state where this takes place). Of course I do not know if US law sanctions such a line of reasoning, but it would not be an unreasonable line for the prosecution to take in many legal systems. Again I am not arguing for or against the Rittenhouse verdict, but again pointing out a theoretical point of law.

I have doubted about posting thss. I am in doubt, because I do not wish to offend anybody and it is annoying if other people make fun of one's country while not being based there, I understand that. It might also come of as arrogance and aloofness. That is not intended. The reason I do like to post it, is not to ridicule, but to show how different the perspectives are. The guy who made this video could be considered the Dutch John Oliver. He learned a lot from him I reckon. So it should be seen in this light, as political satire. It is made a couple of years ago, four I think, so well before the Covid pandemic.

You can't arrest someone because you think they're about to become a vigilante. You have to wait until they actually have done it. — frank

No, you do not. In fact that is a very unwise course of action in such a siuation. In the Netherlands a mayor would immediately issue an emergency ordnance prohibiting people carrying fire arms from the city center. The point is a bit moot because obviously the carrying of assault rifles in the city center is forbidden already. However, this is what happens when protests threaten to spiral out of control: groups of protesters that are likely to clash are separated. That is very much in accordance with the rule of law because mayors have such competencies granted by law.

It's more that a suggestion that we put aside the rule of law is anathema (if that's not what your were initially doing , I apologize, but it seemed like it). — frank

For me, keeping the streets safe from vigilantism is exactly that, upholding the rule of law, it is the rule of law not of man and therefore, it is up to the state to protect the rights of each of us equally :) What you are doing is presupposing one interpretation of the rule of law as 'the rule of law', but no European lawyer would agree with you that that is what the rule of law requires. Here too we see the same anathema, concepts which seem to mean the same are interpreted very differently.

Wait, what? I thought America was the center of the universe and everyone everywhere hung on every word and video that came from America. Are you telling me there are other people out there, with intelligence, and lives, and countries that matter? :gasp: — James Riley

Nahh, I would not dare to tell you such herisy! ;) I lectured on principles of law for international students and principles of criminal law, also for international students. I also lecture Dutch law students and it is remarkable that no Dutch law student becomes acquainted with international cases. Well, in one course, one or two US cases are studied, but that is about it. No US student of law would read a European case, I gather. It is funny because of of course, like you say the judicial interpretation displays well articulated arguments that hold sway in society and signals how things ought to be. Yet we hardly ever study the arguments of the others, each of us trying to find our own pearls of wisdom and taking them for granted as the only way things should be.

They are usually (not always) heavy on the philosophy, and well thought-out. Especially when it comes to the right to protest, seek redress, mingle, travel, etc. — James Riley

I lectured on snyder v. Phelps, among others, but I am the first to admit that not being American is a hindrance. My co-lecturer was an American native criminal lawyer and we would have endless discussions... :) miss those times! Just aside...

Entering into a volatile situation and advocating a position counter to the overwhelming majority is a dangerous idea, but it can't be criminalized unless you're willing to do it uniformly, as would require, for example, the arresting of BLM protestors at a volatile Klan rally. — Hanover

Not unreasonable no, when BLM protesters wield attack rifles. It is funny how law does shape the mindset of the people. For the posters from the US, arresting armed protesters near rallies of the opposing partes is anathema, a clear violation of rights of protest and arguable the second amendment. Not arresting them is anathema though to the posters from Europe.

We had riots in the streets of major cities against covid-19 policies. I am just imagining the looks on the faces of the mayors when they were notified a contingent of civilians armed with assault rifles are about to arrive on the scene to 'restore the peace'... :lol: "Fuck, NOOOOOO" would be a mild reaction and then immediately a call to whatever division of the police would still be out there in order to block the entrance to the city...

It is interesting for me to see that even though we post in the same language (sort of for us non-native speakers) and there are many topics that are easy to discuss, our like mindedness runs into limits quite unexpectedly. I am not saying any system is better. With law it is the same thing as with driving and with prowess in the bedroom, everyone things they do it satisfactorily. Two cultures, similar in a lot of ways might have such a clash over such a fundamental principle as to how to construct a well ordered society.

So instead there must be a circumstance breaking that causality, eg. a supervening event. The jury must have found that in the way Rittenhouse was approached — Benkei

Perhaps. Though if the wanton disregard rests in bringing that gun to a situation of conflict, than an approach such as occurred would not be out of the bounds of foreseeabiity. In fact, it is precisely because such an event might occur, that he might have been said to act wantonly. I guess actually the jury did not find bringing the gun a wanton action, as per Sushi's remarks.

To say anything more specifically legalese I should study the whole verdict.

In the Netherlans we have a comedian, Tim Franssen, who does philosophical stand up comedy, mixing in both deep ideas with black humour and sometimes very unexpected vulgar jokes. I saw his show about Kantian morality on stage and it was really good.

During the first waves of the corona pandemic he recogded a series of podcasts, called "Civilisation, the Aftertoughts". The dutch word is is 'nabeschouwing' which is unfortunately hard to translate but it is what sports analysts do when they comment on a game after it has been played. He also acts like that a little, giving commentary on the game.

I think it is a good combination actually. humour helps us cope in practice with the absurdity of existence and jokes confront us with missmatches between our idealized world of aims, ideas and endeavours and the every day stumbling and fooling around we engage in in practice.

I think you're right that a state legal order would see the open-carrying of weapons as reckless. It is a threat to its monopoly on violence. — NOS4A2

Just a slight correction: I am not saying that free carrying of arms is reckless (though one might argue that), but recklessness is a specific form of intent under US law (as far as I know). It might be reckless to bring a gun to a riot just as it may be reckless to leave a jar of rat poison easily present to hand at a children's party.

Curious question: do you know why the Dutch lost their right to bear arms? Have they ever had it? — NOS4A2

Interesting question. As far as I know there was never an explicit right the bear arms. Under Napoleonic law, in force since the beginning of the 19th century regular citizen's were forbidden to bear arms. It was not forbidden though to own a fire arm. During a short period in the late 19th century guns were free but have been restricted again since 1890 Especially during the period after the abolution of the Napoleonic codes there were parliamentary debates whether citizens should not have the right to own and bear arms for self defense.

In 1919 apparently it became forbidden to deliver fire arms to people without a permit. Therefore it was not criminalized to own a fire arm, but they could not be bought or sold to people without a permit. Possible the restrictions on fire arms were to quell the threat of revolution after the first worl war. So yes, it had to do with the state increasing its grasp on the citizens, out of fear of socialism ironically.

But your question about whether his carrying a weapon into a riot should contribute to his blameworthiness is interesting. I say it does not. He has the right to open-carry that weapon in that state (I’m not sure about carrying concealed weapons). He wasn’t out there committing crimes. His attackers are aware he is carrying it. And he used it to defend himself from attack. Why would a legal system ascribe more blame to this scenario? — NOS4A2

Well, one theoretical argument I could think of is that it is very reckless to bring such a weapon to an already very tense situation, adding fuel to the fire so to speak. It is not a pocket knife but a weapon which is meant to cause severe injuries. If you bring that, it is foreseeable that it might be used. Using such a weapon quite foreseeably leads to deaths. A legal order might well react to this reckless behaviour, just as it might react to me having rat poison open on the table when there is a children's party at my house. Rat poinson is legal, but if the child eats it and dies I might well face charges of manslaughter. In any case culpable death, different states use different terminologies here. This is a theoretical argument right. I know such duties of care are far less prevalent in US jurisdictions than they are in European ones.

A second theoretical argument centers around the monopoly of violence by the state. Unless in matters of self defense the use of violence in most jurisdictions lays at the level of the state. It is actually an issue of internal sovereignty. The state should be able to guarantee the peace, that is why most jurisdictions, including as far as I know the US, outlaw vigilantism. That would give a justification for prosecution because it amounts to a threat to public order to increase the possible potential for violence.

Apparently the weight of these argument does not carry much weight in the Wisconsin court room. It is speculative, but I think interesting speculation to answer the question why it does not. I think in the US the notion of standing your ground is more ingrained in the mentality of the people and the sense of what 'law abiding' means. The US is shaped by frontier communities, on which the 'law of the land' did not always have firm grip. I think it might have a more decentralised ideal, valuing the settling of scores outside of legal means, people needing to 'stand up for themselves'.

The state as a centralising force, claiming the power of the sword for itself, might also be much more mistrusted in the US then in Europe. There the second amendment comes in. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now it is questionable what 'well regulated militia', means but I can follow the originalist interpretation that it means that citizens should be able to form an armed, countervailing force against the state. It is therefore an explicit check on the monopoly of violence of the state. That too might mean that the self defense justification is more weighty than in other legal systems. The state does not claim as much sovereignty and therefore does not give the concomittant guarantee of enforcing the law, meaning one should have more room for self defense.

There is however something funny with that right. I can see the well regulated militia, but it does also seem to idnicate a check on the right to bear arms. One has it in the service of a well regulated militia, so within an organisation that can keep order. Lone wolfs carrying semi-automatic weapons seem to be out of the bounds of a well regulated militia.

Now I find these theoretical diversions interesting, without passing judgment. I am just trying to understand. Practically there seem to be arguments for more strongly enforced gun control. I see such an argument of 'stand your ground' and well ordered miltias working in societies of free and equal people. In such a scoiety, all have equal opportunities to join this militia, all have property to defend and so detererence might indeed work. If you tressass my land I may shoot, just as you may shoot is I tresspass yours.

In a society though with marginalised classes, it becomes problematic. The well regulated militia does not represent 'the community' but it represents powerful segments within it. The militia does not become a counterveiling force of the people against the state, but a force extending the power of the state over groups this militia may find suspicious or troublesome. People with nothing to lose might form militias of their own and the question becomes why one is outlawed the other is not. In such a situation the self defense claim becomes more questionable. If I do not have property to defen, I have no basis for a self defense claim, but for me the state is not 'free'. Justified or not it leads to claims that one group will always walk free and the other is criminalized. In such a scenario the 'well organised militia' does not help to constitute a bond between the citizenry, but to disrupt it.

The Dutch system is probably a fine legal system, but completely irrelevant in both jurisdiction and rights. I’m not sure why we’d compare them. — NOS4A2

You raised the question of desirability, not me. I just find it interesting to see whether Benkei's take holds or does not hold under US law. Sushi pointed out it does not. That makes comparison interesting. Comparative law is an interesting subject in and of itself. I at least find it of significance whether a legal system accounts for culpa in causa or does not. The question would than be what would explain this difference, is there a theoretical argument for valuing one over the other, or is there not, what are the societal consequences of this difference, etc. Those are the interesting questions to ask form a legal philosophical or socio-legal point of view.

The verdict itself does not belong on a philosophy forum without any theoretical point. I am also not arguing the acquital, I do not feel in the position to judge the case, nor should I. I just feel an interesting point of law is at issue.

My point was that deterrence and self-defence is the most likely intent to open-carrying a weapon. — NOS4A2

I am also not arguing that. In fact I belief in the case at hand the defendent said as much, namely that he wanted to protect the property from rioters. The question is, should his carrying of that weapon than and there, knowing what danger it could present, weigh into the level of blameworhiness we ascribe to his actions. Under Dutch law it would be a factor, under US law it would not (apparently).

I don’t know about you, but my own common sense dictates that I would not go near anyone carrying an AR. Even so, it obviously did not deter the attackers. — NOS4A2

Auto self refutation, I love it when that happens.

Nobody but the Dutch particularly care about the Dutch attitude toward the Rittenhouse verdict. — frank

Similarly, nobody but you cares about your take on the Rittenhouse verdict. In fact you probably never spoken a word or wrote a sentence anybody should care about.

Thank god it is not up to Dutch law, then. — NOS4A2

Last time I checked a perfectly fine legal system in well ordered society.

The US has the 2nd amendment, and in Wisconsin a man can bear arms for security. In other words, a man can carry a gun with the intent to protect himself. — NOS4A2

And such a relief it is one has that right and certainly that others have this right too, makes me feel so much safer

“Simply being armed” is not only a deterrent but an effective means to defend one’s life from violence. — NOS4A2

Ohh... Perhaps the people from Columbine feel different... And of course you have facts and figures to back this claim up? According to our world in data the homicide rates in the US were on 6.1 per 100.000 people whereas those in the Netherlands are at 0.9. As a US resident the chances to falling victim to homicide is 7 x higher. Of these homicides, half were committed in the US by fire arms while in the Netherlands this was one in five.

Of course there are fluctuations especially given that the Netherlands is a small country. Anyway, being armed seldom deters. In times past when the state did not have the means to enforce its monopoly on violence the level of violence was much higher than it is now.

Given that both the deceased attacked him and tried to grab his weapon, it appears that’s what Rittenhouse did, and we need not construct any intent beyond that. — NOS4A2

Well that's the question innit Saul? Should putting oneself situation in which one has to use lethal violence weigh into the blameworthiness of it? Here apparently Dutch and US legal systems part ways. But perhaps the legal subtleties are beyond you. whether this case is self defense does not interest me. It is a theoretical point of law.

It is not intent simply to be armed. There is a case where someone got involved in a fight walked out to his car, took out his gun and then proceeded to shoot his attacker. — I like sushi

No, but intent is constructed when you go to a conflict situation, armed with an assault rife (mind you not something to hunt deer with) and you state you want to protect property from rioters. You are not 'simply being armed' like I am simply carrying a notebook around, You are armed in order to be armed at that time and place. We can never look into the mind of someone else, so always in law the mindset of the defendent has to be constructed, based on the outward characteristics of his actions.

Carrying a gun (in and of itself) in Rittenhouse's instance is not viewed as intent to cause harm or to act in conflict. Sounds kind of crazy in the situation he was involved in but that is the law. — I like sushi

He is not carrying a gun 'in and off itself'. If I am carrying a power drill to my neighbour's house who needs a painting to be hung or a tap to be fixed, I am carrying the power drill in order to drill a hole.

I of course do believe you if you tell me that the law of the state of Wisconsin on self defense does not take into account teh recklessness of bringing deadly weapons to a scene of conflict. Benkei pointed out that in such cases applying Dutch law would lead to a different outcome. The fact that fire arms are forbidden in the Netherlands does not matter that much. The case would also be prosecuted if I brought a meat cleaver to a fist fight, even if my intentions of separating the fighting parties would be in itself not blameworthy.

I am not condoning the law just stating what it is. That is why I suggested an outline for an alternative law regarding protests that would shift away from armed conflicts. — I like sushi

I know, we are also not in substantial disagreement. There are a few points of law which are interesting. Firstly the construction of intent. I think the construction of intent is not the problem here. Secondly I do think Dutch and US law differ in the case of justifications for self defense. We have the notion of 'culpa in causa', which occurs if one has had a hand in creating the situation in which you have to resort to self defense. Then there is the issue of proportionality, the level of violence matching the level of threat.

You argue that a self defense plea is so obviously warranted that prosecution is unjustified. You may be right, but what Benkei did was to point out that in many legal systems that is not a likely position. I would want to know what the arguments for the prosecution were actually.

Intent to look for conflict based purely on your opinion. That wouldn't stand in any court I know of. — I like sushi

Opinion based in fact. When you move to an area of conflict carrying an semi-automatic firearm you are not going to sing Kumbayla now are you? Besides, didn't he admit to wanting to protect the property there? I think that is what Benkei meant with 'looking for conflict'. Tthere may still be a justification, namele preventing a direct and imminent attack on the goods of others. His intent though, was to play a role in the conflict and he brought the means to do so. That the defendent put himself in the position in which he might need to shoot, is I think clear as day. That is all Benkei needs.

Such public cases are also a difficult thing to handle. There doesn't appear to be a good legal reason to have accused him with murder in the first place. This is the power of public opinion as there was clearly evidence that he acted in self-defense from the footage instantly available so without a clear cause to accuse someone of murder the chargers were brought forward prematurely - which neither protects the accused's rights nor helps the prosecution as they've had little time to reward anything. He may have been charged and arrested simply for his own personal safety too given the atmosphere at the time and what was happening. — I like sushi

It depends on the legal system. Perhaps under US law the case is clear cut, I do not know, yet I am also not confident to say it is. As Benkei pointed out, him bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a conflictuous situation might, in some jurisdictions, offset a self defense justification. I will not speculate on the case itself, however self defense laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the US they might well differ from state to state. Under Dutch law such a situation will certainly be prosecuted. What the verdict would be I will not comment on because it depends on the exact facts of the case and I generally refrain from commentng on such issues directly.

The event was given political priority as it looked to suit different narratives that were and are highly politically charged at a highly politically charged time. These things are difficult. — I like sushi

Two people slain, one severely injured, that is a big deal legally independent of politics.

The legal merits of the case are different from the political ones. They are of course mixed, in practice, but can be treated independently, I think that is what Benkei was doing.

"Ey, sevda kusanip, yollara dusen, bilesin bu yollar daglar dolanir"
"He who embarks on the road wrapped in love, should know those roads wind along mountains"

Hmmm, Zizek says it all while he figets with his shirt... The rationalty of love is redeemed by its falling into unreason, because only the fall presents to us a glimpse of what is real. Love negates reason, but it is reasonable that it does so... Our avoidance of the fall makes us unreasonable, wanting to have our cake and eat it too...

Maybe I can help make the topic more philosophical.
Is love really a form of going crazy? Or, is love an altered state of consciousness?
If everyone were rational, would there be no love in society? — Yohan

Love I think is eminently rational. The mind wishes for a relationship to the world. If it would be otherwise, it would run up against the limits of itself, and solipsistically (or narcisisitacally) would olnly be confronted by itself vis a vis a meaningless world. It finds this relationship in another in which it recognises itself as a similar mind, looking for similar things. It bridges the world as 'other' and hence strange, and makes it 'an other alike oneself'.

A short edit. We do not all act rational in love, but that simply shows that our relatonshio to the world is not one of ratio, but of intimacy, desire. Love is rational in so far as the feeling is comprehensible as a structural feature of our world.

So, God can make himself ignorant of something and thereby it will cease to be justified. God's will determines what is and isn't justified. Thus, God can be ignorant 'and' omniscient, for by making himself ignorant he reduces the domain of knowledge. — Bartricks

He just knows all there is to know. The choices that people will make is something to know. therefore God knows them.

I do not follow you. Yes, God could create another God. God can do anything, so he can do that. — Bartricks

God is causa sui, meaning cause of himself. Read all of scholastic philosophy up to Spinoza. A God that is created is not a God, because he has a cause outside of himself. By necessity it follows that God might create another God, but that other God is identical to itself in every aspect.

Yes, and yes, God does exist in time. God creates time. And God is in time. I created a jersey. And I am in the jersey. God creates time. God is in time. — Bartricks

Yes but you created that Jersey in time. God did not create time in time because if he did he would not have created time, time would already be there. Therefore his creation is timeless.

Why are there sinful beings? Well, God didn't create them - being omnipotent does not essentially involve having created everything. And free will seems to require being uncreated. So as we have free will, it is reasonable to conclude that we are uncreated. — Bartricks

Well there goes God the creator of everything... God did create all things, or they must have been created from nothing which is impossible.

Why is there wrongdoing? Because God values people having free will and exercising it. But he doesn't allow anyone to visit harm on an innocent. Why would he? He can prevent that. So it is reasonable to suppose he does. And has. — Bartricks

Interesting: God in all his wisdom and benevolence, values something done by something infinitesmally minute in comparison. And god quite frequently seems to allow har inflicted upon and innocent... Of course it might be that these babies that get hurt in famine and war are in some sense guilty, but that reasoning is circular. It becomes a simple article of faith and not logic anymore. The whole point of the theodicy is to find a logical philosophically sound answer to the problem of evil.

God doesn't allow harm to befall innocents. Harm befalls us. We are not innocent. — Bartricks

Everything gets harmed, so everything by article of faith must be guilty. The whole notion of innocence and guilt becomes meaningless.

So nature has no bearing on our freedom? I believe Schopenhauer said something to the effect that we had no choice on the matter of what type/kind of personality we are. Benevolence or goodness is God's nature is it not? — TheMadFool

God is a different being than man. Man as created being is determined by something outside of himself. God as creating being is determined only by himself. Therefore he most of necessity be free, otherwise he would be determined by something outside of himself. Therefore he determines himself as benevolent, which is fitting because evil, in this scheme is the lack of goodness. God being perfectly fulfilled is therefore perfectly good.

But why think God would know how we'd exercise our free will? God can make himself ignorant of anything he wants to. And it seems positively disrespectful to pry into the private thoughts and desires of free agents. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to think that God doesn't know how free agents will exercise their free will. Not becasue he 'can't' know, but because he doesn't want to. — Bartricks

God is defined as an omniscient being. The moment God turns himself into an non-omniscient being he would no longer be God. The question is similar to the question whether God can create another God. Also you seem to think God exists in time similar to the way human's do and that he pries in the same way as humans pry in private affars. However God does not exist in time similar to humans as he would than be under the rule of time and hence limited. God though is an unlimited being.

We are left with an unlimited omnisicent being, qua the definition of God.

Now of course God can limit himself. He became men in the Christian vision, but he did not lose the qualities of God as God. That is why he is three in one. (trinity).

One of the main reasons why we doubt our free will is our nature - our preferences not something we chose.

God is seen as having a nature viz. benevolence, in fact God's omnibenevolent. No free will!

However, God's also omnipotent i.e. he can defy his nature. Free will!

The paradox: God has free will (omnipotent) & God doesn't have free will (omnibenevolent) — TheMadFool

Omnibenevolence does not stand in the way of free will. He can act otherwise, but he does not, he only acts in benevolent ways. This does bring the theodicy to the fore of course. Why are there sinful things in a creation of a benevolent being?

Well, in his created world how did things become pious and sinful? — Vanbrainstorm

I do not know. There are two possibilities. A. He created pious and sinful things. B. Things became pious and sinful through the choices they made. A. is problematic because why would an all good creator create sinful things? B. however, begs the question though. If they made choices that made them sinful God would know before hand and God knows its creation has the potentiality to be sinful. Therefore God created sinful things. However, how you deduce from that that God is programmed is beyond me.

Ahh well, anyone who has a soft spot for Collingwood gets the benefit of the doubt from me. And I admit not having read the previous discussion. That is a flaw, even though I really could not read as much as I would like to :). Happy travels all!