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.More or less traditional Europeans. — jgill
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
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.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
From what I can tell there is outrage simply because he was white and the police didn’t shoot him. — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
Pretty much. That was the source of my outrage. — James Riley
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
If the police were there it would have been different. They weren’t. — I like sushi
I’m sure given the circumstances the police were extremely mindful and trying to avoid such a thing — I like sushi
I wouldn’t just assume they’d shoot someone black on that night for carrying a gun. Arrested? Very likely. — I like sushi
Yeah, because he was white. That's the point. — James Riley
I meant if they were there during the shooting. — I like sushi
You missed my point. — I like sushi
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?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
Absolutely, this plays its part.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
You sound emotional so I’ll stop. — I like sushi
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'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
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?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
Had they done their fucking job there would not have been any shooting. There were only three people shot that night. — James Riley
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 andintimidatequell 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
1. Did R defend himself with his AR-15?
Yes — 180 Proof
2. All but one of his victims were unarmed?
Yes. — 180 Proof
3. Did R go well out of his way to unjustifiably put himself in harm's way?
Yes. — 180 Proof
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.