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 well regulated militia does not represent 'the community' but it represents powerful segments within it. — Tobias

I don't know about powerful. Fascist, yes. But if anything it seems to appeal to the powerless, or those who at least feel powerless.

The child rapist who first attacked Rittenhouse assumed, wrongly, that Rittenhouse wouldn’t defend himself. He said “you won’t do shit” as he attacked him. He wasn’t deterred by the weapon. Boy, was he wrong. — NOS4A2

You like that, don't you? I bet you spank the monkey just thinking about it.

I don’t care how many arms people carry. If they don’t attack each other no one gets shot. — NOS4A2

You mean like Somalia? Or Afghanistan? Everyone carries and few people get shot. Well, except women.

And the picture goes against your race-thinking pundit. Everyone was cool with it. — NOS4A2

No, it does not. And not everyone was cool with it. Nor was that a unite the white right rally, now was it? And if "your side" doesn't riot, why not? Could it be they have nothing to riot about? Well, except maybe the full-frontal assault on Christmas.

Or how about if that couple showed up at the Michigan State House when all the white assholes were taking over? Or how about January 6th at the Capital? How about Ashli Babbitt? Maybe the cop should have stood down and let the left shoot her. Maybe the left should arm up and start confronting these shit-heads.

Here's the deal, NOS: I think you don't fully appreciate how good you have it. Your lack of grace and gratitude have been on display at least since I got here. It smacks of a soft, protected, isolated, dependent, entitled, privileged life that would not last two nano-seconds in a civil war. It's the classic sound of the chicken-hawk, all brave when it's not him or his on the line. God I hope you never have to see the end result of your thinking. Not because I care about you, but because I care about all the people who know better.

I'm a great champion of the Second Amendment, and not for hunting or personal defense against crime. I think the people should provide a substantial, credible threat to government, to keep it honest. But with that right, you don't do stupid shit like R did. That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. In fact, it's a threat to the Second Amendment.

Nor was that a unite the white right rally, now was it — James Riley

Kinda was in the end.

I'm a great champion of the Second Amendment, and not for hunting or personal defense against crime. I think the people should provide a substantial, credible threat to government, to keep it honest. But with that right, you don't do stupid shit like R did. That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. In fact, it's a threat to the Second Amendment. — James Riley

Amen. The real deal. And that gun-nuts could kill the 2d amendment is irony no doubt they are incapable of appreciating. What they need collectively is play-pens and time-out chairs in corners.

Amen. The real deal. And that gun-nuts could kill the 2d amendment is irony no doubt they are incapable of appreciating. What they need collectively is play-pens and time-out chairs in corners. — tim wood

:100: :fire:

Thanks for taking the time to write that.

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. I always bring up this quote of James Madison's because I think it describes the motives of the state perfectly well: "you'll perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the Government".

One needs only look at the Black Panthers to show that the state, both federal and regional, will undermine the militia clause in particular, and the right in general, if it feels threatened by it. All it needs to do is float some frightening contingency to justify violating it. Hoover and Reagan said as much about the Black Panthers, and now no one can open-carry in California because of it. Ironically, people nowadays applaud such “gun control”, even though, in that instance, it was used to undermine a marginalized community’s right to stand up against state tyranny.

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

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

You don't lose rights. Rights are infringed.

One needs only look at the Black Panthers to show that the state, both federal and regional, will undermine the militia clause in particular, and the right in general, if it feels threatened by it. — NOS4A2

But for some curious reason it does not feel threatened by it when white people do it. Well, maybe Ruby Ridge and Waco. But not the Michigan State House, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Bundy's ranch, Unite the Right and Proud Boy rallies, and countless other examples. Hey, just out of curiosity, is this true:



Why is that? Did they say that to the black man and his daughter in the photo you put up?

But for some curious reason it does not feel threatened by it when white people do it. Well, maybe Ruby Ridge and Waco. But not the Michigan State House, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Bundy's ranch, Unite the Right and Proud Boy rallies, and countless other examples.

All those people you mention have been met with state force, as far as I know.

Why is that? Did they say that to the black man and his daughter in the photo you put up?

Why would they say that to the father and daughter? there was no violence or rioting or property damage occurring at the time they were exercising their rights.

The child rapist who first attacked Rittenhouse... — NOS4A2

Just in order to satisfy my lubricious interest, is there any truth to this...any evidence for such a characterization?

All those people you mention have been met with state force, as far as I know. — NOS4A2

As far as I know (with the exceptions mentioned) they have not. On the other hand, they weren't selling cigarettes, sleeping, jogging, playing, or engaged in some other seditious activity, so there's that.

Why would they say that to the father and daughter? there was no violence or rioting or property damage occurring at the time they were exercising their rights. — NOS4A2

Oh, so they deputize kids where there is? Got it.

Yes there is. Read them at your own peril.

Just in order to satisfy my lubricious interest, is there any truth to this...any evidence for such a characterization? — Michael Zwingli

I don't know, but you might ask Matt Gaetz.

I don't know, but you might ask Matt Gaetz. — James Riley

Is that the referent's name? I'm not so well versed on the details here.

Yes there is. Read them at your own peril. — NOS4A2

Peril?? Not sure what you mean. If you will provide a link to 'em, I'll go ahead and read 'em, though. Where did you read this?

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.

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.

In such scenarios, I might want something heavier.
Especially for defending my home, but also a deterrent in general.
Don't think 20mm will do. Grenades, too, definitely.
Yes yes, that's escalation, but I have a god-given right to defend myself. Against all of them.
Do you know how many heavily armed gangs are out there? And dangerous lunatics?
And, for proven deterrent, I'd want setups with mutually assured destruction.
That's safety. Then there will be peace. One way or other.

Peril?? Not sure what you mean. If you will provide a link to 'em, I'll go ahead and read 'em, though. Where did you read this? — Michael Zwingli

Yeah, Rosenbaum had bipolar disorder which led to a... colourful history, including a stint in prison for a sex offence against a minor. So I guess he deserved to be shot. Not sure what sins the paramedic was being punished for.

Don't think 20mm will do. Grenades, too, definitely.
Yes yes, that's escalation, but I have a god-given right to defend myself. Against all of them.
Do you know how many heavily armed gangs are out there? And dangerous lunatics?
And, for proven deterrent, I'd want setups with mutually assured destruction.
That's safety. Then there will be peace. One way or other. — jorndoe

Is this serious or meant to provoke?

I didn't see the accompanying picture...

Is that the referent's name? I'm not so well versed on the details here. — Michael Zwingli

He's an alleged child rapist. Like Trump is an alleged rapist. The only difference is, they are privileged, rich, politicians who made it on daddy's money, and have not and will not be convicted in a court of law.

Is this serious or meant to provoke? — Cartuna

Call it satire. Or something.

, does this direct link work? Or this? It display normally here.

The link works. Same picture. The first one. I check the second. Both same picture. Great one, by the way!

So I guess he deserved to be shot. — Kenosha Kid

Ah, c'mon K! That's not worthy...I know you're smarter and better than that! If you were not, I wouldn't expect you to be participating on this site. I hope that was said tongue-in-cheek.
Because of the way the dialogue has denigrated in this thread, what with Riley repeatedly calling R a "little piece of shit", and NOS4A2 repeatedly calling that guy a "child rapist", I couldn't be sure that he was 'serious'...that he was speaking in actuality. All in all, it seems that any true value which might have derived from this thread has been utterly stripped away by misplaced emotion, leaving only the value of spectacle in it's stead.

I wasn't chastising you. I was questioning NOS' purpose in bringing up his criminal record without bringing up his medical record.

that's reassuring. We definitely don't need any more sectarian kookiness than we already have.

Acting wantonly requires the defendant to be aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Presumably, he should then have been aware of the risk of shooting an innocent at the moment he decided to go there. But he brought a gun precisely because he wanted to shoot someone. Proving awareness and conscious disregard with respect to that seems possible despite the remoteness between the decision to go there with a gun and the actual shooting.

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.

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.

I started reading up a bit more and just stopped. Rittenhouse was acquitted from carrying an AR. Noice!

Minors are prohibited from possessing firearms except for hunting in Wisconsin. But I get, I get. He was hunting black people!

19 white jurors and 1 Hispanic. Based on demopgraphics alone at least 1 juror should've been black.

Anyone who doesn't think this wasn't about race again is just looking for excuses to not see the forest for the trees.

He was hunting black people! — Benkei

Yet he only killed white people.

Rittenhouse was acquitted from carrying an AR. Noice! — Benkei

The judge threw the charge out before it got to the jury because the law didn't apply to the facts. The State makes the laws. It could have written it however it wanted, but it chose to write it how it did.

19 white jurors and 1 Hispanic. Based on demopgraphics alone at least 1 juror should've been black. — Benkei

Do you have any facts supportive of a juror being excused on the basis of race or are suggesting that there be a quota system where they disqualify a jury if they can't get exact statistical correlation to the population in general?

Anyone who doesn't think this wasn't about race again is just looking for excuses to not see the forest for the trees. — Benkei

The protestors were rallying as part of the Black Lives Matter movement, so that part dealt with race. His acquittal had nothing to do with his being white that I can see, unless you've seen some evidence I haven't. I don't see how the facts as presented, and they really weren't contested, could have led to a conviction.