More or less traditional Europeans. — jgill

Yes, and though with differing cultures, sharing a common "alpine heritage". Perhaps the answer to the issue at hand lies in the fact that it involves "more or less traditional Americans", within which population there appear certain psychic idiocyncracies conducive to conflict and irresponsibility. As for Switzerland, it benefitted from the highly responsible mindset of the Swiss Germans (the largest group), which early on had a formative effect in greater Swiss culture.

:up:

Perhaps the answer to the issue at hand lies in the fact that it involves "more or less traditional Americans", within which population there appear certain psychic idiocyncracies conducive to conflict and irresponsibility — Michael Zwingli

A bit heavy-handed, but not without merit. :cool:

Shortly after the initial incident, I saw videos and heard stories. My heart became bad. Very bad. Especially when I heard about the conduct of law enforcement officers who had interactions with the shooter before the shooting.

I decided my thoughts were bad for me, and that I could put it out of my mind, at least temporarily, by honoring the rule of law and awaiting action, if any, from the justice system. Some time went by.

Then the verdict came down, and my heart went bad again.

Lots of couldashouldawoulda went through my mind: actions that might have been different, from onlookers, police, victims, shooter. What I would have done. That all means nothing. Nothing.

I went to bed that night and dreamt "Peace, humility, grace."

Those things are not me. But I decided they would be advisable, and that I should try to change. It is hard. Very hard. For those of you who have these things innate to your character, give thanks.

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. — _db

You have a right to "involve" yourself in any cause you want, wherever it be, but not to use force in so doing. However, one does have the right to use force in defense of one's own family and property, in my opinion. The instant problem, again in my view, involves the fact that R was not in Kenosha in order to defend himself or his wealth.
If on the day in question, instead of R being misplaced, the mob was moving up the street upon which R lives in the town within which R himself has his home, or upon which his family's business is situated, and some of them started fucking with either of those, then to my mind he had a right to "fire for effect", regardless of what the mob's "cause" was. I clearly remember that, in preparation for the arrival of a major hurricane (I forget which), the Cuban business owners of Miami took to the roofs of their businesses with what certainly appeared to be automatic weapons. The message was clear: "just go on and try to loot this store!". As a necessary step to keep the monkeys in control, I agree fully with such a stance, and I believe there was little looting in the wake of that event.

If we do not allow people to protect their own property through the use of deadly force, then how are we to keep people from vandalism of the property of others within our society? To my mind, there are only two ways to address the problem of vandalism by "demonstrators": to give police the power to absolutely disallow demonstration, or to allow the public to use lethal force in the protection of private property. Since the first of those options appears unconstitutional on it's face, the remedy seems clear to me. As it was, R was in the wrong, since he had no personal interest in events in Kenosha. Even so, where the hell were the owners of the properties being damaged? They should have been on the rooftops with weapons. I certainly would have been if I owned one of those buildings being vandalized.

The bigger picture is that Americans in general love "causes" too much, imho, certainly because of the American predilection for glorifying archetypes. So many freaking Americans seem to want to be bloody Ghandi or MLK Jr, that we create more problems than we solve. I live in a nation of goddamned "busybodies" to whom the demonstrative impetus appears overpowering.

Try watching large portions of the actual trial. He was clearly not guilty and the guy he shot (who didn’t die) also said so.

Running away from people and being attacked whilst on the ground is not putting oneself in a position where you wish to use the full force in your possession.

Carrying a weapon (in this case) wasn’t and isn’t provocation in the eyes of the law.

Running away from and trying to deter someone screaming that they wanted to kill you isn’t provocation.

Falling to the ground after being chased and pelted by a mob, hit and kicked in the head and neck isn’t provocation.

Shooting someone who points a gun at you isn’t provocation.

Rittenhouse is guilty of being naive. He is a teenager though so that isn’t exactly shocking. I can only assume you have a vested emotional interest in this case yet cannot believe you actually watched much of the trial when you state ‘not self defence’.

I personally don’t see why a 17 yr old should be allowed to carry a gun around legally. It is insane to push for someone to be sent to prison for following the law instead of looking to change the law.

From what I can tell there is outrage simply because he was white and the police didn’t shoot him. There are clearly too many cases where the police use excess force resulting in the death of people. It would be manslaughter at least if they weren’t police officers.

Without missing the forest for the trees, try thinking through this .

From what I can tell there is outrage simply because he was white and the police didn’t shoot him. — I like sushi

Pretty much. That was the source of my outrage.

Shortly after the initial incident, I saw videos and heard stories. My heart became bad. Very bad. Especially when I heard about the conduct of law enforcement officers who had interactions with the shooter before the shooting.

I decided my thoughts were bad for me, and that I could put it out of my mind, at least temporarily, by honoring the rule of law and awaiting action, if any, from the justice system. Some time went by.

Then the verdict came down, and my heart went bad again. — James Riley

If you interested/concerned then why not watch the trial and put your mind at rest rather than listening to stories? It looked crazy to me so I watched large portions of the trial. I still think it’s weird that a 17 yr old, or anyone, can walk around with a gun. That said, he clearly acted in self defence.

Done that already. Did you watch any of the trial? I assume you maybe caught some media snippets and not much more by your reaction.

If you interested/concerned then why not watch the trial and put your mind at rest rather than listening to stories? It looked crazy to me so I watched large portions of the trial. I still think it’s weird that a 17 yr old, or anyone, can walk around with a gun. That said, he clearly acted in self defence. — I like sushi

You see, that the thing about video. I saw the cops all butt-hole buddy with him before the shoot. That's my outrage. Had he been black, he would have been on his face, or shot down like a dog.

I know about heat of the moment. That's not the source of my chagrin.

Pretty much. That was the source of my outrage. — James Riley

If the police were there it would have been different. They weren’t. That was one failing but they were literally pushed out. The incident that sparked the protests and riot should be the focus not Rittenhouse - I don’t see the use in framing Rittenhouse as hero or villain (just a naive teenager).

You see, that the thing about video. I saw the cops all butt-hole buddy with him before the shoot. That's my outrage. Had he been black, he would have been on his face, or shot down like a dog. — James Riley

Maybe, maybe not. I’m sure given the circumstances the police were extremely mindful and trying to avoid such a thing though so I wouldn’t just assume they’d shoot someone black on that night for carrying a gun. Arrested? Very likely.

If the police were there it would have been different. They weren’t. — I like sushi

Bullshit. They were there and they did shit. Apparently it's you that didn't watch what was going on. Maybe the judge ruled the cops interaction with the shooter as inadmissible and thus, you, like the jury, didn't see it. Because, you know, you watched the trial. Don't know. Anyway, as an apparent lay-person on the law, maybe you should learn to distinguish between the trial and and the facts.

I’m sure given the circumstances the police were extremely mindful and trying to avoid such a thing — I like sushi

Yeah, because he was white. That's the point.

I wouldn’t just assume they’d shoot someone black on that night for carrying a gun. Arrested? Very likely. — I like sushi

I'd laugh, but it's not funny.

Anyway, I'm going to leave you with the floor. I'm done.

I meant if they were there during the shooting.

:up:

I ass-u-me ... — I like sushi

:roll:

Yeah, because he was white. That's the point. — James Riley

You missed my point. I meant in respect to someone black carrying gun because that is what I said. You sound emotional so I’ll stop.

I meant if they were there during the shooting. — I like sushi

Had they done their fucking job there would not have been any shooting. There were only three people shot that night.

:100:

You missed my point. — I like sushi

No, I got your point. I just snipped your response where you should have stopped.

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. — tim wood

Yes, I remember that...in Louisiana, I think. But, surely you recognize that the fellow was too quick to the trigger because of a mental problem...probably a paranoia of some kind. This should not mean that a person whose life, health, property, or wealth is actually under attack should be without recourse to forcefully violent opposition, should it?

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. — tim wood

Absolutely, this plays its part.

You sound emotional so I’ll stop. — I like sushi

I am. Thank you for putting me back on track.

@i like sushi

1. Did R defend himself with his AR-15?

Yes

2. All but one of his victims were unarmed?

Yes.

3. Did R go well out of his way to unjustifiably put himself in harm's way?

Yes.

4. Was R's three casualties the only three persons shot during the entire, heavily policed pro-BLM demonstration that night in Kenosha?

Yes.

5. Weren't (mostly) unarmed demonstrators, exercising their constitutional right to protest (and the moral principle of civil disobedience), more justified defending themselves against R brandishing his AR-15 than R was against them?

Yes.

Ergo .

This should not mean that a person whose life, health, property, or wealth is under attack should be without recourse to forcefully violent opposition, should it? — Michael Zwingli

I'll argue, but these are only my points and no one else's. Laws are made for the greater good of the community, supposedly. The question arises as to who can use lethal force and under what circumstances. Do we agree that generally that power should be reserved to the police, it being essentially a police power? And supposedly the police are trained to a professional standard of competence in its use.

Exceptions? Sure, self-defense and defense of others. And I am sure that most states trouble to define with some care what constitutes a need for self-defense. Clearly I cannot shoot someone who sticks out his tongue at me, or curses or is otherwise merely unpleasant. So there is an issue of judgment - a judgment probably 95% of people are incompetent to make.

Bottom line - to make this brief - someone is stealing your TV; you don't get to shoot him. And if you can safely get away, you don't get to shoot him. There is no right to execute someone for a crime; only the state has that right/power. But you do get to defend yourself if you have to. And imho, this way is best. It disqualifies vigilantism. It preserves the community from having to deal with fools who feel they know the law, feel they know how to impose it or enforce it, and kill people who should not be killed.

Rittenhouse put himself into a position of being an executioner and killed two people and nearly a third. He was carrying a tool he did not understand. His community has endorsed his action. Professional police must be disgusted.

Or another way: if everyone, especially children, has guns do you feel safer? If Rittenhouse appeared on your street rifle in hand to defend you, would you feel safer?

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. — _db

My guess based on his profile is that he just wanted to pull a political stunt more than anything, and fortunately for him he got just what he wanted out of all of this. If this were an anti-vax riot or a men's right riot then I don't see him going out of his way to "help" in the same way as he did here.

The question arises as to who can use lethal force and under what circumstances...supposedly the police are trained to a professional standard of competence in its use. — tim wood

Haha...methinks you suppose too much, although the IBPO would have us believe that line of shit, I am sure. I do not share your seemingly unqualified confidence in coppers. Is it not the unwarranted police shootings of "black" (hate that term) citizens which precipitates such situations as this in the first place?

I would think that your average professional man has better personal judgement than your average copper. You are certainly old enough to remember that, back in the day, the high school students who were tracked and encouraged towards civil service jobs...firefighting and coppery...were those who scored too poorly on the ASVAB to recommend them for "the professions". Of course, today, in the age of militarized policing, the ranks of departments are filled by those ETSing from the military who want a career with a pension which will allow them to continue "playing soldier", and has the added benefit of allowing them to "throw their weight around" in general, on a daily basis (believe me, I know many of my fellow vets, and how they think).

My guess based on his profile is that he just — Mr Bee

It is the profile of at best someone who should never have had a gun. Apparently he was part of a police cadet program. Shame on them for not making him as potentially dangerous.

Had they done their fucking job there would not have been any shooting. There were only three people shot that night. — James Riley

The job of the police is to provide security for citizens in that anyone, regardless of race or religion or any other nonsense we've come to distinguish and identify ourselves with has freedom of movement across any national territory, unimpeded and free from threat of bodily harm or other grievance per specific constitution. Sometimes the police do their job, and it results in grievous bodily harm whether it be being pelted with rocks, frozen water bottles, or bottles filled with volatile bodily fluids. If the local police force cannot perform this duty due to civil unrest the state is to call a "state of emergency" and send in the "national guard" which is actually a misnomer as it is a state agency to enforce law and order. They are essentially trained using the same mindset of the national military. Only in the event several states and their enforcers cannot maintain order is when they call "martial law" which suspends every citizen's constitutional rights entirely and essentially is civil war which means, nothing is accounted for or "on the books" as it were. As to why a minority group would wish this to occur seeing as there is absolutely zero chance of coming out on top is not only a mystery to me but frankly makes me think there's something else afoot. As in, those who wish for the destruction of minority groups want them to push for this seeing as, like i said, absolutely zero chance of coming out on top. It would be a purge or ethnic cleansing if enough people are indoctrinated to believe this "ghetto mentality" of, despite the law codifying you as equal, and yes many others who are actually simply in violation of this law and subject to removal and/or prosecution, stand in your way and abuse this law, your sole solution is to fight law and equality itself when in fact it's what you seek. It's sad. So many fall victim to this trap.

So basically, had "they done their fucking job" lots of people may have been harmed or killed. Believe me, there would have been plenty of shooting. Assault is threatening another citizen. Battery is striking one with your fists or an object. That's illegal. If you assault a cop, you are going down. If you have friends who also pose a threat, so are they. In no light mood or sentiment, that's a lot of bullets and a tremendous waste of life. Capital murder usually carries the death penalty, attempted (which is what they usually try to spin battering a cop as, or shooting, which is understandable) doesn't come far behind.

And for the record I'm the first to admit there are plenty of pieces of shite that wear the uniform, traitorously take the oath (the punishment for treason is still death btw, that has never changed), then hide behind the badge. And even more who look the other way. But there are also plenty of citizens and non-officers who do the same, those who kill and wreck havoc on the lives of law-abiding citizens. There's no easy solution. Not really, anyway.

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 quell people willing to harm other citizens and property as is all citizens oaths in the Constitution, to combat enemies foreign and domestic, so he went LARPing across town, where there was a riot and he could be a badass. — _db

Up until the probably, nowhere is any law violated. Yet, if you continue reading between the lines and the italicized text, nowhere is any law violated.

1. Did R defend himself with his AR-15?

Yes — 180 Proof

Perhaps we can go through these one at a time?

Starting with number 1 I don’t think ‘Yes’ is sufficient. How do you know he defended himself rather than attacked someone? When we ‘defend myself’ what do we mean?

It could be proposed that he in fact went out with the intent to shoot someone and looked for conflict. If so what evidence could there be that would back up this position and is the evidence strong enough to warrant us to take it seriously?

2. All but one of his victims were unarmed?

Yes. — 180 Proof

The judge in this case did not allow the people you refer to to be called ‘victims’. The one that was armed was moving towards Rittenhouse and pointing his gun at him when he was shot (he also said that Rittenhouse acted in self defence).

The other two involved circumstances where they were actively lunging at Rittenhouse. Were they merely trying to disarm him? In the first shooting this doesn’t seem to be so as there were threats to kill Rittenhouse. In the second instance Rittenhouse was on the ground after being attacked by several people. The second person shot was trying to take his gun from him during this attack on Rittenhouse. I don’t see how it isn’t a reasonable threat under the circumstances.

3. Did R go well out of his way to unjustifiably put himself in harm's way?

Yes. — 180 Proof

This is what I would call an unclear statement without any attempt to mark out what is meant by ‘unjustifiably put himself in harm’s way’. Where is the line between justified and unjustified? To say he went ‘well out of his way’ is unclear.

If you meant geographically that doesn’t really hold up given that he had relatives living in the area. This may be assumed when you hear people talking about him ‘crossing state lines’ which sounds like a long long way away, but he couldn’t hand himself into the police in Kenosha.

That aside, it was foolish and naive of him to go alone. He did state in the trial that he was cut off from his original group and the police wouldn’t allow him through. He should’ve realised that things were getting heated maybe? Whether he was aware or not of the danger he was in he did go out alone to apparently deal with a fire in a car. This was stupid. Would I call this going ‘well out of his way’ to ‘put himself in harm’s way’? Going well out of his way is at best a stretch, but putting himself in harm’s way was clearly the case given what happened. He reported trying to make his way back to the group he had found himself with but the way was blocked by those who then proceeded to chase him and threaten him.

What part of this, or other points reported in the trial, lead you to the ‘Yes’ answer?

4. Was R's three casualties the only one's shot during the entire, heavily policed pro-BLM demonstration that night in Kenosha?

Yes. — 180 Proof

Heavily policed yet there were no police around during the shootings. Rittenhouse was not going to ‘get away’ and he was moving towards the police yet people were attacking him with violent intent (ie. hitting him about the head or trying to stamp on his head). If you watched enough of the trial you would know already that he didn’t simply shoot the first person who threw a rock at him.

Other than you maybe trying to portray that the police were all around I don’t see much relevance to this point.

5. Weren't (mostly) unarmed demonstrators, exercising their constitutional right to protest (and the moral principle of civil disobedience), more justified defending themselves against R brandishing his AR-15 than R was against them?

Yes. — 180 Proof

If they were attacked by Rittenhouse. They were not attacked by him though. If someone with a gun is running away from you and trying to avoid conflict you are absolutely not justified in any violent action against them and any serious violent action against them could be framed as ‘wantonly and unjustifiably putting yourself into harm’s way’ more so than someone having a weapon and offering medical aid to people.

I don’t agree with the gun laws in the US and I think he is guilty of being naive. He clearly understood the situation was potentially dangerous but he almost certainly underestimated how dangerous. I hope this instance will bring a change to the laws. I see no good reason why anyone, let a alone a teenager, should be allowed to walk around openly displaying a firearm of any kind - and I would include the police in this too unless it was special forces police. I think any change in the law will be quite difficult as I see no reason to disallow members of the public from owning firearms. The problem becomes how and why weapons are carried and to regulate their use. Also, not having regular police armed is problematic in the US too due to the proliferation of firearms. It is easy to idealise what should be but it is difficult to transition sometimes.

More focus on the incidents that led to the protests and how police are trained and recruited is better all round for everyone. Politics and media don’t seem to be helping the situation so more protests and demonstrations are something I would actively encourage even though they will inevitably be used to bolster this or that political agenda, or as media content for the sake of increasing revenues for media outlets.

I’ve said it before though. I don’t see the US surviving as one unit into the next century so I’m just looking at how nations may split up with minimal conflict and how they such splits can be used to make things better rather than assuming such historical moments have to involve violence and death.