Yet he only killed white people. — Hanover

I'm sure Rittenhouse was very sad about that fact.

I'm sure Rittenhouse was very sad about that fact. — Benkei

What evidence do you have of that?

Jesus man. The kid is a fucking racist. Just like all the Proud Boys and Boogaloo dicks he's been hanging with before and after.

From the evidence I heard, Ritten

Jesus man. The kid is a fucking racist. Just like all the Proud Boys and Boogaloo dicks he's been hanging with before and after. — Benkei

I have no idea what the guy really thinks about black people, but I don't think he's a psychotic murderer. From what I saw and heard, he had an inflated sense of importance and thought he might go down to ground zero and protect the streets with his bad ass weapon, only to end up seeing real action and shooting some people and dealing with the legal and emotional consequences.

If he wanted to go out and shoot black people, he would have just gone out and shot black people. He's not a sociopath and he's not some evil genius who figured out a way to kill and be acquitted. He's a stupid kid and now he's a symbol for whatever side wants to use him, either as a racist vigilante and resurrected civil war solider or as a freedom fighter taking back "our" streets.

The only question of the trial was whether he was guilty and he wasn't. If a guilty verdict would have better served societal interests and helped bridge the gap between the races or if it would have taught a racist not to be racist, that would still have not changed the fact that a not guilty person should be found not guilty.

If he's not guilty (of anything) maybe you should revisit your laws as the precedent of allowing heavily armed self-styled militia onto the streets to kill people in conflicts they themselves provoke through the threat of their presence seems a bad one.

If he's not guilty (of anything) maybe you should revisit your laws as the precedent of allowing heavily armed self-styled militia onto the streets to kill people in conflicts they themselves provoke through the threat of their presence seems a bad one. — Baden

Provocation through presence alone is a problematic concept, and it's probably the defense Rittenhouse would have used to justified his killings if it were available to him. That is, he'd have said he was provoked to shoot by the disruptions in the streets and the advocacy of positions he disagreed with.

Entering into a volatile situation and advocating a position counter to the overwhelming majority is a dangerous idea, but it can't be criminalized unless you're willing to do it uniformly, as would require, for example, the arresting of BLM protestors at a volatile Klan rally.

The bottom line here is that Rittenhouse stands in opposition to what you believe in, but that doesn't make him a criminal. It makes him a piece of shit.

I have no idea what the guy really thinks about black people, but I don't think he's a psychotic murderer. — Hanover

Holy shit! A voice of reason! (And just when I thought that species was extinct!)

Jesus man. The kid is a fucking racist. — Benkei

Now I, being a misanthrope, take only a cursory interest in this matter, so I am, as I've noted, not aware of, or even concerned with the details of this case. My interest in it is only as a diversion. I am, however, concerned with the type of thought being evinced in this forum. (I joined up here to improve my thimking, not to have it worsened.) To declare someone a racist without providing evidence for the claim is to make a libellous statement. As a moderator, I would think you should understand that, and so provide evidence along with any defamatory statements that you make on here. Why are we to consider R to be a racist? Beyond that, what human being is not a "racist* in some way or fashion? I myself am not particularly prejudiced against what are commonly called "black people", but I hold and cherish some very strong prejudices of other types, nonetheless. What is there to suggest that R is any more "racist" than anybody else?

Provocation through presence alone is a problematic concept... — Hanover

I'm not fully with you here. I do not think that R went into this with the hope of murdering or even killing anyone, but it seems fairly clear that he entered the situation desirous of conflict. To enter such a situation, having such an obvious intent, armed as he was at least shows hoirble judgement, and may be construed to show intent to harm constructively.

The bottom line here is that Rittenhouse stands in opposition to what you believe in — Hanover

I'm abstracting that out. I don't think heavily armed BLM members should be allowed police Trump (or Klan) rallies either. Their presence would also likely be considered a threat and provoke violence. End result the same. You can't do that where I come from. Be like us.

I myself am not particularly prejudiced against what are commonly called "black people", but I hold and cherish some very strong prejudices of other types, nonetheless. — Michael Zwingli

Who don't you like, Jews? Arabs? Homosexuals? The Dutch?

To declare someone a racist without providing evidence for the claim is to make a libellous statement. — Michael Zwingli

For all of you people who don't know shit about America's current political division, how we got here and how virtually everything is related to it, you need to crawl out from under the rock and do yourself a little research. The only foolish thing is to try and view this incident as some isolated incident involving a child who made some bad mistakes. The evidence of what he was up to and thinking was plastered all over everywhere *except* the trial.

Just one of many:



Yeah, he's just flashing an "okay" sign. :roll: I stand by my previous assessment for which you took me to task. The truth has a liberal bias and I'll not run from that in an effort to appear "objective." Did you know Adolph Hitler didn't smoke, drink or cheat on his wife. He was actually just an innocent kid caught up on the moment. :roll:

Don't think there's much point in trying to analyze Rittenhouse's psychology as if somehow we could find what he truly believes in his heart of hearts (probably he doesn't even know himself; most likely he's just a dumb kid with a gun and a distaste for lefties, one of many millions).

There aren't any lefties in the US.

What about "lefties". Got any of them?

most likely he's just a dumb kid with a gun and a distaste for lefties, one of many millions). — Baden

Which brings up another issue (maybe for another thread). It seems that 17 year old girls are "victims" of exploitation when they get all wrapped up in their own sexual exploitation. We go like rabid dogs after the adults who exploit them. Where were the adults in the Rittenhouse case?

If I were to be consistent, should I view him as a victim, or should I start viewing the girls as little tramps who now have regrets about decisions they made? Or is this apples and oranges?

Who's the Epstein in the Rittenhouse case?

What about "lefties". Got any of them? — Baden

Left-handed people? Yes.

Ah yeah, got it.



If the dominant resident of Rittenhouse's skull is a bunch of contradictory trash he doesn't even understand himself then maybe we need to go a level up to get to a problem that can actually be addressed. Doesn't make him a victim, a hero, or a villian. Maybe he's just not worth talking about.

Maybe he's just not worth talking about. — Baden

We sweep the likes of him under the rug at our peril. We should either deal with him or those who abused this poor boy.

I have a rather intriguing "solution" to the gun problem in USA.

A long time back, I bought a Gillette razor, it came with the a blade attached and two extra. I was particularly happy with the purchase, it was well within the reach of my meager income.

A month went by, I'd used all the blades. "Time to get new blades," I thought to myself and went back to the same store. I picked up a pack of blades, took them to the counter. What happened next was one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life. The pack of blades was nearly twice the price of the razor! :gasp:

Guns, keep 'em cheap, no problemo, but bullets should have a price tag that'll make people think twice before they dig into their pockets for some. :joke:

Who don't you like, Jews? Arabs? Homosexuals? The Dutch? — Baden

The Jews? The people I most admire.Their culture and identity has proved to be unequalled in it's durability, against all odds.

I will not create nor entertain an off-topic tangent from this, but since you ask, I am an unrepentant misogynist. For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous. Apart from that, there is a certain European ethnicity, that of my asshole father (and no, my name is not "Michael", and my name is not "Zwingli" any more than yours is "Baden" or you are "Willy Wonka"), which I hold deep and intensely felt prejudice against. Never mind which, and never mind why.

I have no idea what the guy really thinks about black people, but I don't think he's a psychotic murderer. — Hanover

I never said he's psychotic, I said he's a racist and he went out of his way to travel to an area nobody asked him to defend, in the hopes of catching one of the protesters, who were predominantly black, to give him a reason to pull the trigger. This is clear as day for anyone who looks into his Facebook history and his "proud boy oops-it-really-just-means-ok" sign, blue lives matter white-privileged racist skit.

He wasn't stupid, he knew exactly why he went there.

For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous — Michael Zwingli

I wasn't expecting that tbh, so therefore it wasn't entrapment. Banned.

Entering into a volatile situation and advocating a position counter to the overwhelming majority is a dangerous idea, but it can't be criminalized unless you're willing to do it uniformly, as would require, for example, the arresting of BLM protestors at a volatile Klan rally. — Hanover

Not unreasonable no, when BLM protesters wield attack rifles. It is funny how law does shape the mindset of the people. For the posters from the US, arresting armed protesters near rallies of the opposing partes is anathema, a clear violation of rights of protest and arguable the second amendment. Not arresting them is anathema though to the posters from Europe.

We had riots in the streets of major cities against covid-19 policies. I am just imagining the looks on the faces of the mayors when they were notified a contingent of civilians armed with assault rifles are about to arrive on the scene to 'restore the peace'... :lol: "Fuck, NOOOOOO" would be a mild reaction and then immediately a call to whatever division of the police would still be out there in order to block the entrance to the city...

It is interesting for me to see that even though we post in the same language (sort of for us non-native speakers) and there are many topics that are easy to discuss, our like mindedness runs into limits quite unexpectedly. I am not saying any system is better. With law it is the same thing as with driving and with prowess in the bedroom, everyone things they do it satisfactorily. Two cultures, similar in a lot of ways might have such a clash over such a fundamental principle as to how to construct a well ordered society.

It is funny how law does shape the mindset of the people. — Tobias

I feel remiss in not citing more of it. And when I say "it" I don't mean statutory or Constitutional, but judicial interpretations thereof. They are usually (not always) heavy on the philosophy, and well thought-out. Especially when it comes to the right to protest, seek redress, mingle, travel, etc. I only note this as a PSA for those who want to take a deeper dive into some good reading and philosophy about the actual location where the rubber meets the road. It gets better at the Federal Appellate and SCOTUS level.

How in hell are you going to fight the War on Christmas if you can't afford the ammo?

They are usually (not always) heavy on the philosophy, and well thought-out. Especially when it comes to the right to protest, seek redress, mingle, travel, etc. — James Riley

I lectured on snyder v. Phelps, among others, but I am the first to admit that not being American is a hindrance. My co-lecturer was an American native criminal lawyer and we would have endless discussions... :) miss those times! Just aside...

not being American is a hindrance. — Tobias

Wait, what? I thought America was the center of the universe and everyone everywhere hung on every word and video that came from America. Are you telling me there are other people out there, with intelligence, and lives, and countries that matter? :gasp:

Guns, keep 'em cheap, no problemo, but bullets should have a price tag that'll make people think twice before they dig into their pockets for some. :joke: — TheMadFool

Chris Rock suggested this maaaaaany years ago. "Make a bullet cost $10,000 and you'll have a lot less innocent bystanders."

It's an idea. How much is whatever you think you're protecting worth to you? A bullet costs half of that. If you ever need to use it, it's a bargain. If you just want to use it, on your bank balance be it. Of course, it would rather split the paranoid between the haves and the have nots.

Did you know Adolph Hitler didn't smoke, drink or cheat on his wife. — James Riley

Loved dogs too. I love dogs. We'd probably have gotten along until he found out I was part Jew.

Wait, what? I thought America was the center of the universe and everyone everywhere hung on every word and video that came from America. Are you telling me there are other people out there, with intelligence, and lives, and countries that matter? :gasp: — James Riley

Nahh, I would not dare to tell you such herisy! ;) I lectured on principles of law for international students and principles of criminal law, also for international students. I also lecture Dutch law students and it is remarkable that no Dutch law student becomes acquainted with international cases. Well, in one course, one or two US cases are studied, but that is about it. No US student of law would read a European case, I gather. It is funny because of of course, like you say the judicial interpretation displays well articulated arguments that hold sway in society and signals how things ought to be. Yet we hardly ever study the arguments of the others, each of us trying to find our own pearls of wisdom and taking them for granted as the only way things should be.

I'm abstracting that out. I don't think heavily armed BLM members should be allowed police Trump (or Klan) rallies either. Their presence would also likely be considered a threat and provoke violence. End result the same. You can't do that where I come from. Be like us. — Baden

Your argument that society would be less violent if we disarmed our citizenry sounds hopelessly unamerican.

We're probably fairly closely aligned in what gun control measures need to be instituted, but this really isn't a gun control debate. The laws as written were not violated and so he was properly acquitted. Keep in mind as well that of his assailants, there were two other handguns. One guy shot in the air offering a wise warning shot to the man with the assault rifle and the other pointed the gun at R's head. So, no angels on either side, and I'm not sure any involved in the fray stood for peace, love, and harmony.

But, should guns become illegal in our streets, and should someone have one, I still have a problem with anyone trying to disarm him by smacking him with a skateboard. That just seems like an assumption of risk, sort of like complaining that you were bitten when you jumped into a snake pit.