:up:

:clap:

He was trying to get R's gun off him after R had just threatened a crowd and shot a man, yes. R's defense was that he fel — Kenosha Kid

"KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) — The first man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse on the streets of Kenosha was “hyperaggressive” that night, threatened to kill Rittenhouse and later lunged for his rifle just before the 17-year-old fired, witnesses testified Thursday.

The testimony at Rittenhouse’s murder trial came from two witnesses who had been called to the stand by the prosecution but gave accounts often more favorable to the defense in the politically polarizing case."
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-george-floyd-kenosha-3b74864f491347cfdd09cfc22ffdf557

These witnesses were prosecution witnesses. This evidence is not in controversy.

It's entirely possible to admit that there are serious problems with the US judicial system as it pertains to racial disparity AND acknowledge the Rittenhouse trial isn't evidence of it.

This conversation would be more meaningful if you read the facts. Instead it's just a continual correction of your factual errors. — Hanover

?

Reminder:

Yes, I shot an unarmed man, but only because I was worried he'd take the gun I brought to threaten him with off me and shoot me with it."
— Kenosha Kid

Bullets has just been fired, so your insistence that R just opened fire on a peaceful civil rights crowd doesn't reference this case.
— Hanover

Where in my text you've quoted did I say R fired into a peaceful civil rights crowd? I was talking about his second victim. — Kenosha Kid

This conversation would be more meaningful if you read — Hanover

:up:

What data do you have that the Kenosha protest was mostly black? — Hanover

That he took a machine gun to a protest against police murdering black people? That the group he approached with said gun was largely black? — Kenosha Kid

This conversation would be more meaningful if you read — Hanover

:up:

It wasn't a machine gun. — Hanover

Fine, I'm pleased to report I don't know jack shit about guns.

Where in my text you've quoted did I say R fired into a peaceful civil rights crowd? I was talking about his second victim. — Kenosha Kid

He was trying to get R's gun off him after R had just threatened a crowd and shot a man, yes. R's defense was that he fel
— Kenosha Kid

"KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) — The first man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse on the streets of Kenosha was “hyperaggressive” that night, threatened to kill Rittenhouse and later lunged for his rifle just before the 17-year-old fired, witnesses testified Thursday. — Hanover

This conversation would be more meaningful if you read — Hanover

:up:

I say don't be so/too quick to judge.

Did you know that human offspring require, comparatively, the most care if they're to "make it" in an evolutionary sense? Last I checked, human babies are more helpless than a fawn in the midst of famished lions. The care infants need seems to extend, as per existing social theories/norms, up to the 18th year.

The assumption here is that in the 18 formative years, parents, family, friends, society at large, will actually deliver good mentorship; an assumption that's been blown clear out of the water by studies. A double-edged sword, it is.

You're right in that social structures that were once tailored to bringing up children (in the right way) have collapsed and society, by and large, is tending towards a child-unfriendly milieu. I guess this is the point at which philosophers step in and develop pediatric philosophy for there is such a thing as flourishing (eudaimonia) in children too and we need to find out how it is that we adults may render our assistance towards that end.

However, laissez-faire (leave children alone, let 'em do their thing) doesn't seem like a bad idea at all. Economies, at least within current paradigms, are described as having "matured"; minds & bodies may too.

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. — James Riley

"Race" (another word I hate) may or may not have played a role in the police actions; this is largely dependent upon the individual cops involved. We should not, however, unadvisedly state that it did with any degree of certainty, since we cannot know that. I note that in discussing this aspect of the incident, we are remiss if we do not include the fact that the three who were shot by R were all "white" guys. To not make that overt while insinuating that "race" played a role in the police behavior tends to tacitly suggest to the uninformed that the three who were shot were "black" people, and that therefore the cops didn't give a fuck...a horrible accusation even if only implied.

:roll:

"Race" [denial] may or may not have played a role in the police actions ... — Michael Zwingli

Gotcha. :shade:

I note that in discussing this aspect of the incident, we are remiss if we do not include the fact that the three who were shot by R were all "white" guys. — Michael Zwingli

Correct. Rittenhouse may or may not have acted in self-defense (though this seems to have been the case).

But it is beyond dispute that the guys he shot (Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz) were all white, NOT black.

So, I fail to see how anyone can construe Rittenhouse's actions as "racially motivated" or responsible for the wider "racial injustice" in society.

Gotcha — 180 Proof

Many seem to take for granted that if R had been Atrican-American, that the cops present would simply have shot him dead, because what...all cops are prejudiced against African-Americans? However, is not the statement that "the cops who were present would have shot R if he had been a 'black' guy" not a prejudicial statement by definition? We have no basis to make such a judgement, since we do not know the minds of said particular cops.

We have no basis to make such a judgement, since we do not know the minds of said particular cops. — Michael Zwingli

This after your speech about how stupid and thuggish police officers are?

I never said "cops are stupid", I suggested that civil servants (not only cops) are on average "not as smart as your average professional man", by which "professional" I mean: medical doctors, lawyers, executives, engineers, stockbrokers, etc. (the 'professions'). I stand by that suggestion, and think it obvious. My other suggestion was that with the rise of militarized policing, alot of military guys who like the military ethos find police work an attractive extension of their military careers. Besides that, I don't think it a secret that law enforcement tends to attract a certain type of domineering personality, though this is by no means universal within the ranks. Your average milquetoast would not seem to find police work attractive, would he?

That having been said, I do not see any necessary connection between either intelligence level or a dominant persona and racial prejudice, do you?

I stand by that suggestion, and think it obvious. — Michael Zwingli

I don't. Intelligence, to start with, isn't one thing, and certainly isn't the same thing as academic success.

Besides that, I don't think it a secret that law enforcement tends to attract a certain type of domineering personality, though this is by no means universal within the ranks. — Michael Zwingli

More armchair sociology. I think there are some studies about "type A" being overrepresented in the military, but there are a lot of subcultures in the military. Mostly they're ordinary people.

I do not see any necessary connection between either intelligence level or a dominant persona and racial prejudice, do you? — Michael Zwingli

I just wondered why you were so comfortable sketching out the psychology of the typical citizen in uniform (not too bright, likely a bully) but suddenly felt a pang of intellectual conscience at attributing racial bias without some very specific sort of evidence (statistics showing disproportionate use of force, for instance, don't count, it seems). Why so skittish just on this point?

Many seem to take for granted that if R had been Atrican-American, that the cops present would simply have shot him dead, because what...all cops are prejudiced against African-Americans? However, is not the statement that "the cops who were present would have shot R if he had been a 'black' guy" not a prejudicial statement by definition? We have no basis to make such a judgement, since we do not know the minds of said particular cops. — Michael Zwingli

A juror is specifically called upon to use his subjective life experience in finding facts. However, the scope of the juror's review is limited by law (in this case, the so-called "judge"). The scope of review was limited to three separate time frames, which were the moments immediately preceding, up to, and including the pulling of his trigger by the defendant. The question: what was in his mind?

I'm not talking about that, and never have. Nor am I talking about what the shooter was thinking that brought him there. I can apply my subjective life experience to answer that question. And so can you. We all know what brought him there. He's a little POS.

No, I'm talking about the irrelevancy of those questions to the problem at hand.

I'm concerned with the law enforcement failure to act. You see, when you seek to control the battlespace, the last thing you want is a wild-card moving around, un-controlled, with an AR. This is a threat to you, your fellow law enforcement officers, innocent third parties, the shooter himself, and other players. Granted, law enforcement cannot control everything, but it is a gross violation of protocol to fail to take action when you have plenty of time to do so. They had plenty of time to take the shooter out of the equation. Peacefully, even. But they also could have thrown-down on him, placed his face in the asphalt and disarmed him, or they could have shot him if he were to resist.

Now I, and you, can utilize your subjective life experience to find as a matter of fact why those law enforcement officers did not do what their training taught them to do, and what we all know they would have done had the shooter been black. But those were not questions before the jury. The so-called "law" ignored those questions and, in doing so, they taught us all a lesson:

1. Do NOT attack a person with an AR.
2. Always have an AR if you do not want to be attacked.
3. Always have an AR.

Those are the lessons. And, hopefully, they will be learned. At least until such time as the so-called "law" decides that is NOT the lesson the law wants to teach. If it wants to teach a different lesson, then it will have to address what the little POS was thinking *before* and *as* he placed himself in the position he placed himself in. And the law can address why the cops did shit about him, before hand, when it was perfectly safe to do so.

So, those pretending to some superior, objective ignorance about what was going on in the mind of the cops are FOS. We all know why they let that little POS run around with his AR. Our subjective life experience tells us why. And that is emphatically the province of, and solely in the preview of us. If you disagree, then you do not have the subjective life experience that most people have.

We can hash out the details later, when the lessons we have been taught are finally learned, there is an all-out battle on the streets, law enforcement and BLM and Proud Boy bodies are stacked deeps, people are crying, and we're all wondering why it happened.

Then the civil war will be on, and "law enforcement" and "the judges" can all wring their hands and ask "what happened to us?"

We have no basis to make such a judgement, since we do not know the minds of said particular cops. — Michael Zwingli

:rofl:

or every single thing he did that night was heroic — Miller

:rofl:

Trolls come out of the woodwork for this stuff, don’t they?

we agree that the cops shouldn't have let the kid run around there with the gun. Again, these are just cops, and municipal cops at that, not FBI agents, and certainly not "rocket scientists". We can only expect so much wisdom from them, as has been demonstrated time and again. The facet of this discussion with which I take umbrage, and it is a peripheral issue at best, is the clear hypocrisy of faulting someone for assumed prejudice when that assumption is itself grounded in prejudice.

I don't. Intelligence, to start with, isn't one thing, and certainly isn't the same thing as academic success. — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed it isn't, but there is an obvious correlation nonetheless. If you wanted to do the research, I am confident that you would find that the mean high school and college GPAs as well as standardized test scores and scores on intelligence tests are all much higher among, say, electrical engineers than among police officers or firefighters. Do you doubt that at all? Do you in any way imagine that your average cop has the intellect to handle a med school curriculum?

If you wanted to do the research, I am confident that you would find — Michael Zwingli

Not only would such “research” not be probative — you’re telling me you haven’t even done it? You haven’t even googled to support this spurious point?

We’re way off topic now, so that’s a good excuse for me to be done here.

The facet of this discussion with which I take umbrage, and it is a peripheral issue at best, is the clear hypocrisy of faulting someone for assumed prejudice when that assumption is itself grounded in prejudice. — Michael Zwingli

It's called push-back, not hypocrisy. Those cops were not Barny Fife. You and I both know what went on there and what would have happened if the shooter would have been black. If you deny that, then you're either in denial or you're a liar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPodw7efhfc

If you wanted to do the research, I am confident that you would find that the mean high school and college GPAs as well as standardized test scores and scores on intelligence tests are all much higher among, say, electrical engineers than among police officers or firefighters. — Michael Zwingli

It might be true, especially when you are comparing a group who may not need college level training, and another group who needs at least a BA, and maybe an MA.

If you collect the relevant statistics and display them in rank order, low scores to high scores across the board, there probably will be more high scores among engineers and doctors than among police officers and firemen. But... so what?

Training for even professional jobs is at least partly on-the-job. Just because your engineer has higher scores, doesn't mean that he or she would have the ability to function as a police officer, and just because the police officer doesn't have a BA, doesn't mean that he wouldn't have the wherewithal to earn one, even in engineering.

I dont know who you're posting that video for, its not going to register to anyone who disagrees with it as has been clearly demonstrated on every other clear headed, rational offering from you and others on this topic.
The level of blind, dogmatic fantasy on display here is the worst Ive seen on on this forum. Lost cause Sushi, anyone who is thinking rationally on this topic already agrees with the video.

You and I both know what went on there and what would have happened if the shooter would have been black. If you deny that, then you're either in denial or you're a liar. — James Riley

Look, I feel ya. I do not for a minute deny the status mundi of which I, as has nearly every other teenaged white American dude probably including yourself, have been a beneficiary. You know, the minor infractions: drunk and disorderly, minor vandalism (drinking a case with your buddies and then tearin' shit up), DUI (though probably not that anymore), etc, which would have probably gotten a young black guy a short bid, but got me a "continued without a finding" so that I would develop a positive criminal record. Been there, done that, and ain't never been sad about it (in fact, I thank my lucky stars). We all know about the double standards which have existed in our society...the privileges which dictate that for young "black" dudes "we must penalize such pathological behavior", while for young *white" dudes "boys will be boys".

I agree that it is obvious that if R had been "black" (and we will never eliminate the double standards until we cease using such stupid terms for people as "black" and "white", which themselves perpetuate the problem) that there is a higher probability he would have been shot by the police. Probability is not certainty, though, which is my first issue with this, since the angry expression of certainty only prompts "pushback" from defenders of the status quo, and then what ensues is a pissing contest.

The more significant problem with the statement "R would have been shot" is that it suggests that "R should have been shot", or "I wish that R had been killed", which is a pretty fucked up way to feel, as if the two wrongs could possibly "make a right". For the record: no, it's never a good thing for a person to be killed, period. In retrospect, any killing of R was clearly not necessary. Why the fuck would anybody wish R to have been killed, then? He is as much a victim of his faulty thinking as is anybody. It is obvious that R should have paid a stiff juridicial price for his actions, that justice has not been served, but to feel, rather than to think, that it would be a better world if R had been killed by the police seems vaguely sociopathic. The best outcome would have been achieved if the cops had simply confiscated R's weapon at first sight, and (since he was yet a minor under Wisconsin law) either called his mother to have her retrieve him, or if that could not be accomplished, detain him in a holding cell. There seems to reason to wish the kid had been killed, though.

Another problem with the speculation about what the outcome might have been if R had been "black" is that it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which appears to be whether justice was served by the trial. It is simply an extraneous expression of what seems to me an unwarranted level of anger over problems not my own, and a clear expression of "bloodlust", which is never helpful. Anyone who allows themselves to indulge in bloodlust seems equally as sociopathic as does R.

You and I both know what went on there and what would have happened if the shooter would have been black. If you deny that, then you're either in denial or you're a liar. — James Riley

:up:

The level of blind, dogmatic fantasy on display here is the worst Ive seen on on this forum. — DingoJones

Absolutely, people fuckin' lose their minds over these politically oriented topics, and then start accusing fellow members whose social values and political opinions differ from their own, of trolling, serving Satan, and all kind of other stupid shit, and the level of discourse goes down the drain. Guys who in more philosophically oriented threads exhibit wide reading and deep understanding often completely lose their objectivity over these topics. Herein, they exhibit an absolute inability to discuss topics in light of differing ethics, and then insinuate that those whose personal ethics differ from their own are either stupid or deluded. Ridiculous. What was it that my grandaddy said about politics and religion?

You and I both know what went on there and what would have happened if the shooter would have been black. If you deny that, then you're either in denial or you're a liar. — James Riley

Agreed.

reckless endangerment should have been maintained. That kid was stupid for role-playing the hero with a deadly weapon, and now he's a celebrity. This will set a precedent for young male vigilantes, if it did not already exist. — _db

I totally agree with you, and perhaps we want to explore if our society played a role in this? I am horrified by public broadcasting shows for children where the children are acting like adults. I think that sends a very bad message to children! That is besides all the violence of TV that appeals to young males and is paid for by commercials designed to get us to buy things.

On the other hand, playing that is an imitation of adults is very important to good social development, but we have been destroying childhood in many ways. As the 1958 National Defense Education Act continues to control education, we are pressed to stimulate our children to be as geniuses and the pressure is for them to perform as college students as soon as they are school age. There is no playtime that is not structured by an adult to achieve a specific goal that is dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex and our need to be competitive! God forbid that a child is not a top competitor and can not get into the best colleges, because that could mean being one of those dirty homeless people. I keep holding my breath hoping someday we figure out what the change in education has to do with social, economic, and political changes. So we get Rittenhouse who is far from being an adult, playing a superhero as you said. A very poor connection with reality!

But then we have the father and son who were found guilty of murdering Arbery and many breathe a sigh of relief knowing if these two were not found guilty, there would be rioting! People of color have gained more power than they ever had, and so have women gained power, and this is also a result of the change in education. The change is not all bad, but our lack of awareness is not good.

I think its more specific than politics, its race. As you observed, even normally astute, academic types lose their shit as soon as someone says “black”. Fact after fact after fact unanswered, they just shift to a different attack vector and completely dismiss how they were just uncontroversially shown to be wrong. Its emotionally driven fantasy.
It would be nice to have a real discussion about any of it but as has been shown quite clearly in this thread you just can’t. You might say something that contradicts the dogmatic narrative and then there is no chance at an honest discussion.

This will set a precedent for young male vigilantes, if it did not already exist. — _db

Self help is the predictable consequence of failed law enforcement. The decision of law enforcement to respond to street violence (whether justified protests or not) in a passive way, has to gain acceptance in all communities or some will feel justified to take the law into their own hands.

Busting heads and taking names won't stop looting and violent protests, nor will it stop the counter protestors. Big problems need big leadership, which we didn't see from Trumo and not seeing from Biden.