Iirc the self-defence argument was that R's first victim tried to get his gun off him, and R 'felt' that he'd be shot with it. Which is interesting. If you wish to murder someone, do give them time to try and stop you first, then it's self-defence.

It was good to hear the verdict because the American justice system is usually a woke joke. It’s not surprising that state’s case resembled the media’s narrative, which was so obviously threadbare and unhinged from the start.

It was good to hear the verdict because the American justice system is usually a woke joke. — NOS4A2

Eh?

It’s not surprising that state’s case resembled the media’s narrative, which was so obviously threadbare and unhinged from the start. — NOS4A2

Double eh?

May your life always be attended by immature young men with personality disorders and guns who feel desperately that they need to be near you to protect some property somewhere against whatever might happen.

Amen. George Zimmerman, Kyle Rittenhouse. And there are more. I'd like to see a civil suit against Rittenhouse - I think he'd lose. Anyway, something, anything, because if he and people like him are not wrong, very wrong, then nothing is wrong.

When 17-year-old kids have to stand up to defend the community from violent mobs I think immaturity is the least of your worries.

When 17-year-old kids have to stand up to defend the community — NOS4A2

Indeed, when they do, if ever they do. But Kyle R. was not ever in that position, except in his own fantasies.
Alternatively, fire all the police - all the professionals - and let the psychologically halt, lame, and incompetent guard our lives with guns they barely understand.

And wtf are you about, nos4? Do you think Rittenhouse clean and clear of responsibility in the unnecessary deaths of two and almost a third?

I can only assume you didn’t watch the trail or know much about it. In fact I know this.

He is guilty of being naive but not much more.

Violent mobs were roving around town burning down people’s property and livelihoods. Your “professionals” could do and did do little to stop it.

Rittenhouse was clearly responsible for defending himself against violent attack, exercising his most basic rights.

Rittenhouse was clearly responsible for defending himself against violent attack, exercising his most basic rights. — NOS4A2

In this you are mistaken - plain wrong. For example, you rob a store with a gun, and the clerk, armed, shoots at you. You shoot at him, killing him. You do not get the benefit of a claim of self-defense in that case.

Rittenhouse wielded a dangerous weapon against unarmed people. He was the provocateur. He arguably could have been and perhaps should have been shot down by police. And, "was clearly responsible"? Again wrong. A question of competence.

It appears that all you got is wrong. My sympathies to those around you.

A jury of your peers, the evidence, and the trial all disagree with you. One was armed and then subsequently, quite literally, disarmed. Rittenhouse provoked none of it. The pedophile and other rioters who attacked him should have known better.

That Rittenhouse got off scotch free is bullshit, underage possession of a firearm + reckless endangerment should have been maintained — _db

The Wisconsin law allows a minor to possess a rifle as long as it's a certain length, so he violated no law there.

The first shot fired was by a pursuer and Rittenhouse shot back 2.5 seconds later. It was entirely self defense.

He arguably could have been and perhaps should have been shot down by police. — tim wood

Yes, that's the weird thing. If police encountered an armed man who wouldn't disarm, they'd shoot him, and that would be fine. And R didn't want to be disarmed so shot his disarmer, and that's fine. I guess the ethic is: as long as somebody is shooting somebody.

The first shot fired was by a pursuer and Rittenhouse shot back 2.5 seconds later. It was entirely self defense. — Hanover

That doesn't even match Rittenhouse's testimony.

“When the defendant provokes this incident, he loses the right to self-defense. You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create. ~Thomas Binger, prosecutor of Rittenhouse

https://theconversation.com/rittenhouse-verdict-flies-in-the-face-of-legal-standards-for-self-defense-171908

The same argument, more or less, was included in prosecutor Linda Dunikoski's rebuttal to the specious "self-defense" argument used by Ahmaud Arbery's lynchers. In that case, however, "common sense" which she implored the jury to use, prevailed.

"You can't create the situation and then say that you were defending yourself." ~Linda Dunikoski

I guess the ethic is: as long as somebody is shooting somebody. — Kenosha Kid

I saw once a movie on the recommendation of a female librarian. It was titled "Shoot 'Em Up". I laughed through the whole movie. It appeared that there was no motivation, no plot, no nothing, just senseless shooting up of people into piles. The scene was in America.

Then I watched the same movie the second time. It appeared that there was, after all, a plot; it was not as funny as it was during the first viewing; it was not funny in any way.

"Art lies in the eye of the beholder."

I don't do news these days and I still heard the rallying round this guy like he's a hero.

I think that's the legacy of Trump, that it's ok for all the racists to hang their butts in the wind for everyone to smell.

This is all part of the bigger picture of mob rioting, looting, and smash and grab incidents and the failure of law enforcement to control. Should a responsible citizen simply stand by and observe their car being torched or their store being decimated? Is there any justification of vigilantism? Is there justification of smash and grab? Should one stand by and applaud? Or hide in the basement until all is done?

There are no easy answers.

It's important to analyze all events and the timeline of events through a color-blind and non-sensationalized lens. This is not a trial to determine if racial biases are present in court or one or more systems that make up the justice system, that is an independent issue that must be addressed later. The key item at hand was which (if any) discharging of a firearm by a citizen towards another citizen with intent were justified at the time of discharge.

You got a young kid openly carrying an assault weapon, barely legally, at an American demonstration. This is not illegal per local laws. Nor is this a privilege restricted to any one group of people, all 17 year old citizens present could, as a result, have done the same and perhaps outnumbered him and told their own version of events. That's what people don't understand about this case, you don't have to be a certain color to open carry an assault weapon at a protest. Do I think this is wise? Not necessarily. Nevertheless, this is codified law. You can change the law, but to do so you first must abide by it and allow others to.

Before getting to the "first" physically aggressive action, the assault and attempted battery on Rittenhouse by the first deceased person, you must recognize there are two states a weapon can be in when one carries one on their person. Rest state and "ready state". A rifle slung on your back or pointed downward is not "ready state". Carrying it with both hands and your finger on or near the trigger, and obviously as well as pointing the barrel at a person where if fired would either strike them or nearby them, is "ready state". This is a very important factor in determining if one is reasonable in assuming they would soon be shot in an environment where guns are present and therefore not automatically a threat to life and limb.

You have two "groups" (though what's important to realize is the individual nature of offenses) utilizing their right to protest and publicly assemble, while yes, being armed. Free speech and provocative speech is generally allowed but there are exceptions that are (usually) made on a case-by-case basis. Inciting a riot, fire in a theater, etc. these are all vaguely defined and largely depend on the circumstances and reasonably assumable intentions of the defendant. If, and only if the Kyle Rittenhouse did not engage in assault (threatening, menacing, etc.) before himself becoming assaulted and nearly battered, the discharge of a weapon on a person who literally just got done assaulting and attempting to batter you before chasing you is not such a stretch from a justified homicide in an inherently chaotic and violent setting. Not one to speak ill of the dead but the guy shot has a record, not just criminally but mental health concerns as well. That doesn't look good for character or legal defense. I'm not saying it's right that he's no longer here or that he decided to fire upon him I'm saying a 17 year old does not have the ability to perform a mental health analysis and diagnosis whilst being attacked by unknown projectiles in an unfamiliar environment. When attacked, it is not a citizen's job to play psychiatrist or doctor in the heat of a moment assault when your life is threatened. It's a tragedy, perhaps a failure of the mental health or criminal justice system, nothing more. It's not so much about the degradation of the deceased's character more so about the circumstances and environment both men created leading up to the moment the weapon was discharged. Sure you could say since the guy was hospitalized for trying to kill himself, it only makes sense that if he doesn't value his own life, how could or why would he value the life of others, basically suggesting he tried to cause severe bodily harm to Rittenhouse by throwing a plastic bag of unknown items which could have been anything. Rocks, frozen water bottles, etc. if you're struck at the right spot at the right velocity you could end up unconscious, perhaps in a coma, fatal bleeding, TBI if you fall and your head stikes a rock, etc.

Huber's is a lot more complicated. Will expand on him and the third later but essentially it's like if a mob of people says an undercover/plain clothes cop just shot someone and he's a "mass shooter" with a fake badge. Who's really at fault. The people who believe they are acting in the scope of the law and the interests of the nation who fatally subdue him, or those who in turn let him go when he turns out to actually be a mass shooter and 50 people get killed at a nearby school. None of this is simple really.

In short, mistakes were made.

This is all part of the bigger picture of mob rioting, looting, and smash and grab incidents and the failure of law enforcement to control. Should a responsible citizen simply stand by and observe their car being torched or their store being decimated? Is there any justification of vigilantism? Is there justification of smash and grab? Should one stand by and applaud? Or hide in the basement until all is done?

There are no easy answers. — jgill

Rittenhouse was 17, lived in another state, and came to Kenosha with a gun knowing that things were gonna get ugly. I've felt since last year that he acted in self-defense, but he certainly wasn't wise in getting involved in the first place.

Kyle R. was not ever in that position, except in his own fantasies.
Alternatively, fire all the police - all the professionals - and let the psychologically halt, lame, and incompetent guard our lives with guns they barely understand. — tim wood

I have mixed feelings about this point. R shouldn't have involved himself in this situation, as it was not in his own community, but rather in a foreign city, and involved no property of his own family. If the circumstances were such, however... (?) I am not of the mind that we should be utterly dependent upon the police for our safety and security, as it involves a transfer of too much personal authority to the state. Each individual is primarily responsible for his own safety and the protection of his property. Let me ask this: if it was the owners of the various buildings being damaged who had stood on the roof of their buildings and treated the mob as the ducks in a shooting gallery when their building was attacked, would you feel differently?

Not self-defense. :shade:

Delete post.

Peace. Humility. Grace.

The key item at hand was which (if any) discharging of a firearm by a citizen towards another citizen with intent were justified at the time of discharge. — Outlander

Well said.

You got a young kid openly carrying an assault weapon, barely legally, at an American demonstration. — Outlander

And again, you succinctly state the two issues of malfeasance in this case. The goddamned kid should have been at home attending to the business of his own life, which at age 17 should be trying to gain acceptance to the highest tier college that you can, given your HS record. In like manner, the goddamned demonstrators should have been at home attending to the important business of their own lives, instead of being out in the streets of a city not their own, stirring up trouble. From my perspective, I wonder what the hell is wrong with my culture, within which the need for confrontation takes such precedence over what should be personally important. Why can we not be more sensible in this country, more like....well, more like the Swiss, who know well enough to avoid conflict and to focus on their own prosperity? I think the answer has to do with the mass glorification of archetypes, particularly of "culture warrior" archetypes, within American culture, which appears as a theme. Not a theme worth getting killed for, was it?

Why can we not be more sensible in this country, more like....well, more like the Swiss, who know well enough to avoid conflict and to focus on their own prosperity? — Michael Zwingli

Well said, Michael. But my impression has been that the Swiss have or had a very homogeneous population. Perhaps that has changed. And homogeneity may be simplistic.

It was good to hear the verdict because the American justice system is usually a woke joke. — NOS4A2

Dog brain

I am not an expert on law in my state (Massachusetts, USA). But in my state, if you can retreat, you must. This seems a burden on those attacked, but I believe it's solid wisdom. In other states there are so-called "stand your ground" laws. Someone attacks you, wherever you are, shoot them down. And as sexy as this may sound to some fools, in practice it often does not work. People are shot who are not attacking, or are shot in the back.

A famous example from several years ago, in the US state of Florida or Louisiana. A Japanese boy, a high school exchange student, went up on a porch to trick-or-treat for Halloween. The occupant blew him away through the door - he thought he was under attack. And either not charged, or charged and acquitted. I think he was not charged. Near as I can tell, in much of the US, guns turn many people's judgment to mush.

I think you're Swiss, yes? And I am thinking - subject to correction - the Swiss have liberal but harsh and rigid gun laws. Many people can apply to own a gun, yes?, but with the gun comes a whole barge-ful of responsibilities, requirements, and obligations which the gun-owner had better not transgress. Is that about right?

And it appears to be much about education. The US state of Vermont has approximately zero gun laws, but also has almost zero gun trouble. And everywhere standards of education are relatively high, relatively less gun trouble. I am persuaded that for many, a gun is compensation for a penis they don't know how to use, and with many corporate and political panderers to keep up their "interest."

...my impression has been that the Swiss have or had a very homogeneous population. — jgill

How can a mixture of Germans, Frenchmen, Italians and Romansch be considered homogeneous? These cultures are like potatoes, croissants, cannolis and Red's super hot sauce...not very congenial ingredients for one's casserole.

How can a mixture of Germans, Frenchmen, Italians and Romansch be considered homogeneous? — Michael Zwingli

More or less traditional Europeans. Middle Eastern and African refugees bring in different cultures, religions, etc. I could easily be wrong. I haven't traveled in Europe in the last fifteen years.

Rittenhouse was 17, lived in another state, and came to Kenosha with a gun knowing that things were gonna get ugly. — Mr Bee

I'm not sure if anyone can really make any absolute statement about Rittenhouse's state of mind at the time, but just suppositions based on his behavior. But here is the sense I got: from videos of him earlier of the night of the killings, one can see that he had a swaggery, self-important personality that is common in boys his age who are anxious to prove themselves and want to be a hero. He wanted to become a cop and he probably just couldn't wait to get out there with a gun and intimidate people, so he went LARPing across town, where there was a riot and he could be a badass. Things got ugly, reality shattered his stupid fantasy, then he killed people and almost got himself killed. He's a stupid kid with delusions of grandeur who got himself into a bad situation, and is now celebrated as a national hero by the right because it technically was self-defense, and the left just can't deal with it.

I have mixed feelings about this point. R shouldn't have involved himself in this situation, as it was not in his own community. If it was, however... (?) — Michael Zwingli

I don't think there's any reason to limit personal action to your own community. If there is some cause that you deeply believe in, and you think it is important to involve yourself in this cause, then it doesn't matter if that involvement happens in your backyard or halfway across the world.

Rittenhouse is a stupid asshole, but in all fairness he has a right to participate in things that he believes in. As I see it, the problem isn't that Rittenhouse got acquitted, but that not everyone would have gotten the same treatment, i.e. black people. If Rittenhouse had been black, he probably would have been shot in the street that night by the cops, or if he reached the courtroom, would have gotten convicted.