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. — Tobias

It's more that a suggestion that we put aside the rule of law is anathema (if that's not what your were initially doing , I apologize, but it seemed like it).

It's more that a suggestion that we put aside the rule of law is anathema (if that's not what your were initially doing , I apologize, but it seemed like it). — frank

For me, keeping the streets safe from vigilantism is exactly that, upholding the rule of law, it is the rule of law not of man and therefore, it is up to the state to protect the rights of each of us equally :) What you are doing is presupposing one interpretation of the rule of law as 'the rule of law', but no European lawyer would agree with you that that is what the rule of law requires. Here too we see the same anathema, concepts which seem to mean the same are interpreted very differently.

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

That, my friend, is the right question. — Dr. Lanning (I Robot)

For me, keeping the sreets safe from vigilantism is exactly that, upholding the rule of law, it is the rule of law not of man and therefore, it is up to the state to protect the rights of each of us equally :) What you are doing is presupposing one interpretation of the rule of law as 'the rule of law', but no European lawyer would agree with you that that is what the rule of law requires. Here too we see the same anathema, concepts which seem to mean the same are interpreted very differently. — Tobias

There's definitely a rift in outlook here because I don't understand what you're saying.

You can't arrest someone because you think they're about to become a vigilante. You have to wait until they actually have done it.

:up:

Nobody'll waste bullets. Shootings will be more organized: kill two birds with one stone :scream: I think Chris Rock's idea will backfire.

:100:

The child rapist who first attacked Rittenhouse assumed, wrongly, that Rittenhouse wouldn’t defend himself. — NOS4A2

Did Rittenhouse know him?

Do we want kids seeking out such situations, armed with semi-automatics? :down:
We have an example here.
What's gone awry, and what to do about it?

, try yelling " :fire: " there. :D

No, he did not know him. The man was released from a Milwaukee mental hospital following his second suicide attempt on the very day he attacked the kid carrying a rifle. It is possible that this was another attempt at suicide. "Shoot me, n-----!”

You can't arrest someone because you think they're about to become a vigilante. You have to wait until they actually have done it. — frank

No, you do not. In fact that is a very unwise course of action in such a siuation. In the Netherlands a mayor would immediately issue an emergency ordnance prohibiting people carrying fire arms from the city center. The point is a bit moot because obviously the carrying of assault rifles in the city center is forbidden already. However, this is what happens when protests threaten to spiral out of control: groups of protesters that are likely to clash are separated. That is very much in accordance with the rule of law because mayors have such competencies granted by law.

Don't have to make it too complicated. Employ common sense and ban the open carry of assault weapons in public places.

Don't have to make it too complicated. Employ common sense and ban the open carry of assault weapons in public places. — Baden

Toting a shotgun across your back would be equally intimidating. Maybe only allow pearl handled revolvers. Old school shootouts are in order.

I have doubted about posting thss. I am in doubt, because I do not wish to offend anybody and it is annoying if other people make fun of one's country while not being based there, I understand that. It might also come of as arrogance and aloofness. That is not intended. The reason I do like to post it, is not to ridicule, but to show how different the perspectives are. The guy who made this video could be considered the Dutch John Oliver. He learned a lot from him I reckon. So it should be seen in this light, as political satire. It is made a couple of years ago, four I think, so well before the Covid pandemic.

Toting a shotgun across your back would be equally intimidating. — Hanover

Different strokes for different folks. If you have your weapon holstered or slung across your back, I don't even notice it. If you are brandishing it, that get's my attention.

No, you do not. In fact that is a very unwise course of action in such a siuation. In the Netherlands a mayor would immediately issue an emergency ordnance prohibiting people carrying fire arms from the city center. — Tobias

That would make sense. You can see how the failure of local governments to protect life and property shouldn't affect our judgement if Rittenhouse, right?

However, this is what happens when protests threaten to spiral out of control — Tobias

This one didn't threaten. It spiraled. Stores were closed across the US afterward because looting for the fun of it had become a thing.

, OK, so "child rapist" was just your slant on it, not related to Rittenhouse's goings-and-doings. (Perhaps even to justify the kill (like a "good riddance" type thing)?)

Old school shootouts are in order. — Hanover

Hey, old-old-school fisticuffs are safer for others. :strong: ;)

I have a shelf of battle-ready swords sitting right over there. :point:
Were I to wield one out on the town, I might just get picked up by the cops.
Maybe not in Wisconsin?

This one didn't threaten. It spiraled. Stores were closed across the US afterward because looting for the fun of it had become a thing. — frank

Certainly! All the more reason not to allow also the presence of counter protesters.

That would make sense. You can see how the failure of local governments to protect life and property shouldn't affect our judgement if Rittenhouse, right? — frank

Those are two different matters. One is about he failure of the authorities and one is about the possible mens rea of the defendent. One could argue in the following way, as was outlined earlier in the thread. The defendent being there with that weapon is not illegal. However, he willingly put himself, armed in a very dangerous situation. When one carries a fire arm to a dangerous situation, it is foreseeable that such a fire arm will need to be used. When it is used, it will result in injury or death. So the defendent acted wantonly when he went there armed with a deadly weapon.

Similarly as I would act wantonly leaving my rat poison on the table unattended while a children's party is taking place. Me having the rat poison is not illegal and if nothing happens in that situation no wrong doing has happened, however when a child eats from it an dies, I am face with a charge of manslaughter (the exact term depends on the state where this takes place). Of course I do not know if US law sanctions such a line of reasoning, but it would not be an unreasonable line for the prosecution to take in many legal systems. Again I am not arguing for or against the Rittenhouse verdict, but again pointing out a theoretical point of law.

Were I to wield one out on the town, I might just get picked up by the cops. — jorndoe

What color are you? That might make a difference.

Negligent homicide in crime, gross negligence in a civil case.

Again I am not arguing for or against the Rittenhouse verdict, but again pointing out a theoretical point of law. — Tobias

So in the Netherlands, they would convict someone of manslaughter for an action that was in direct defense of the defendant's life?

So in the Netherlands, they would convict someone of manslaughter for an action that was in direct defense of the defendant's life? — frank

Georgia, United States, too. More than manslaughter: malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault (with a firearm), false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony.

I kind of agree with the sentiment but it doesn’t seem at all simple.

Someone with a rifle is clearly carrying a rifle whereas someone with a hand gun can conceal it easily enough. There is the imbedded problem of transporting firearms from one place to another without displaying them in any manner. Such nuances make establishing laws like these difficult. For hunting/sports what constitutes ‘public place’.

I think it makes more sense to allow people to bring firearms to protests but NOT to actively carry them during protests unless the police officers around are also armed. That is why I would first suggest police in general to not carry firearms unless they are clearly and visibly distinctive from other officers whom don’t carry firearms.

If such a law can be implemented solely for protests and marches without any need to bring in armed police officers then it could start a steady progression towards something that doesn’t take away rights some wish to protect yet it will reduce the perceived need to carry firearms in other circumstances.

As an aside an interesting trick that reduces the chances of crime is to place cardboard cutouts of police officers in areas of concern. These basically function as a psychological deterrent not because people view the inanimate object as a police simply because it triggers a reminder about what is and isn’t lawful - we’re all just genius apes really so don’t take offence to being so easily manipulated by mere visual prompt.

So in the Netherlands, they would convict someone of manslaughter for an action that was in direct defense of the defendant's life? — frank

It totally depends on the facts of the case of course and the situation is hard to compare because bringing an assault weapon on the scene would be prohibited in the Netherlands anyway. If, resulting from that action, you find yourself in mortal peril, yes then your self defense justification would probably not fly. I think it is also probable in the US though, not in this case perhaps but in others it is. Say a man was raping your wife. You come to her rescue with a lead pipe and the assailant, fearing for his life because of your imminent attack shoots you. Than the asailant is in credible fear of his life, though his justification of self defense will not fly because he acted wrongful in the first place. So indeed not every defense out ot fear of your life being taken is a valid justification.

Yes, which is sort analogous to Kenosha. Race protestors had a reasonable assumption of harm done to them when a civilian arrives threatening them with an automatic rifle. R may have shot for fear of his life, but if he feared for his life then not threatening an angry crowd with said weapon was an obviously more efficacious self-defence strategy.

A key difference is that, in your analogy, an actual crime is being committed by the rapist, whereas the attempts to disarm R were to mitigate the threat of a crime, one which, in the end, R would be found not guilty of anyway due to staggering and wilful cognitive dissonance.

A key difference is that, in your analogy, an actual crime is being committed by the rapist, whereas the attempts to disarm R were to mitigate the threat of a crime, one which, in the end, R would be found not guilty of anyway due to staggering and wilful cognitive dissonance. — Kenosha Kid

Well, in the scenario I outline (of which I do not know whether it was the prosecutors take) all hangs on whether the defendant had a right to be there at that point with that weapon. A rapist does not, so far is clear. I think it is found in the R. case that he had. If that was the case than an attempt at disarming r. is unlawful and constitutes an attack on his person from which he has the right to defend himself.

Therefore all hangs on the qualification of his behaviour prior to the shooting, i.e., being there with that weapon. The first job of the prosecutors would be, in the strat. I put forward to argue he provoked the attack by hsi wanton behaviour, or if recklessness is the category, that he acted reckless by being there with that weapon at that time. That would be known under Dutch law as 'culpa in causa', being guilty of having a hand in the tragic situaton occurring. I do agree with some of the others that the prosecutor's job is a hard one. We can not look in the defendent's mind and his political views do not matter in a court of law. We only know something about the outward manifestation of his state of mind. It being legal in Wisconsin to carry fire arms, even those kinds, to scene's of conflict does not make it easier.

Another strat. indeed would be to argue that the protesters acted in legitimate self defense. If they did than the defendent's claim would not fly. However, it is not easy I guess to make that claim because one would have to prove that they faced an iminent unlawful attack. So the defendent's behaviour must make it credible that he was about to shoot the protesters.

Another line would be to argue the proportionality of the violence. Was he much heavier armed than the protesters and could he have avoided the situation with lesser means. these are known as the proportionality and subsidiarity principles under Dutch criminal doctrine. Self defense has to be proportionate to be justified. I.e., being threated with a potato peeler doed not justify emptying your revolver and there must not be other means available, including flight. Since it was not difficult for him not to be there in the first place, his self defense claim would already run into potential difficulties there. However I gather the law of the state of Wisconsin is different.

Another strat. indeed would be to argue that the protesters acted in legitimate self defense. If they did than the defendent's claim would not fly. — Tobias

Precisely the cognitive dissonance at play. R's third victim was a paramedic trying to attend to R's second victim. The paramedic was armed, believed (rightly) R to be an active shooter, and had good reason to draw his gun faced with a still-armed shooter. R's involvement was voluntary, both the general danger he put himself in by confronting a race protest with an automatic rifle and the specific danger he put himself in by shooting those who attempted to disarm him when peaceful alternatives were available.

However the judge instructed the jury to consider only R's testimony about the danger he was in, and not that he put himself in that danger, or the very real and terminal danger he put others in first.

We can not look in the defendent's mind and his political views do not matter in a court of law. We only know something about the outward manifestation of his state of mind — Tobias

Expressed views do influence the interpretation of the outward manifestation of someone's state of mind.

The paramedic was armed, believed (rightly) R to be an active shooter, and had good reason to draw his gun faced with a still-armed shooter. — Kenosha Kid

So the paramedic was just like Rittenhouse. He wasn't supposed to be armed and he shouldn't have gone in to give aid until the scene was secured. That's basic paramedic procedure.

He had also asked Rittenhouse where he was going and Rittenhouse told him he was going to the police.

The paramedic?

So the paramedic was just like Rittenhouse. — frank

If R had only pointed his weapon at an active shooter and was there to give medical aid, yeah exactly the same.