In The News Today...

Quote: SOOPOO

Touché!!!! Sadly, the law was not equipped to convict him. The moment he shot those guys to me he was acting in self defense. Clearly. Unequivocally. But I’ve thought about what I think is a reasonable analogy. A KKK member in full garb goes to an African American neighborhood and uses a bullhorn to spout racist N word containing diatribes. As he is about to have the shit kicked out of him he takes his concealed firearm and mows down those approaching with violent intent. Assume those approaching all had weapons. The KKK guy was acting in self defense, but I think (and so did the Rittenhouse prosecutors) that the law needs to figure out some crime to convict Mr. KKK guy of.

Once a protest has devolved into a riot, lawful citizens should go to their homes or businesses in the area if they live there and stay there. That's actually what every law enforcement agency wants to happen.

Last thing you want is people who don't need to be out there mixing in with the rioters or looters. I think it's okay to defend your home or business, but that doesn't mean running around in the streets. You want all the violent trouble makers to be exposed out there alone.

I don't have any problem with the passive protests. Where people refuse to move from a spot, but don't fight back. They're going to be arrested eventually and taken away also though.

Quote: SOOPOO

But I’ve thought about what I think is a reasonable analogy. A KKK member in full garb goes to an African American neighborhood and uses a bullhorn to spout racist N word containing diatribes. As he is about to have the shit kicked out of him he takes his concealed firearm and mows down those approaching with violent intent. Assume those approaching all had weapons. The KKK guy was acting in self defense, but I think (and so did the Rittenhouse prosecutors) that the law needs to figure out some crime to convict Mr. KKK guy of.

How is that a reasonable analogy? In this case liberal groups were already rioting and looting. Rittenhouse did not instigate them, he came to help restore order. Left-wing rioters then threatened his life. How does that equate to a KKK member going to a black neighborhood?

Quote: SOOPOO

Touché!!!! Sadly, the law was not equipped to convict him. The moment he shot those guys to me he was acting in self defense. Clearly. Unequivocally. But I’ve thought about what I think is a reasonable analogy. A KKK member in full garb goes to an African American neighborhood and uses a bullhorn to spout racist N word containing diatribes. As he is about to have the shit kicked out of him he takes his concealed firearm and mows down those approaching with violent intent. Assume those approaching all had weapons. The KKK guy was acting in self defense, but I think (and so did the Rittenhouse prosecutors) that the law needs to figure out some crime to convict Mr. KKK guy of.

There is so much wrong in this analogy.

For one Rittenhouse was open carrying a legal weapon (unlike the person that attacked him with a gun). This is an important distinction because most of the Rittenhouse bashing was that he should not have had a weapon in the first place. (Also, concealed carry is legally very different than open carry in many states including there and the requirements are different). In many States you do not need any kind of carry permit to open carry a rifle or shotgun (now you can argue that this is intended for hunting and camping, and not city streets, but the law does not make a distinction).

He was not inciting violence. In fact it would be hard to be more neutral than he was. There is video of almost that whole night, can you point to one instance where he incited the protesters? We just had a multiple week long trial where the prosecutor was hyper focusing on everything he ever said. Do you think he would not be showing such statements that could be incitement if they existed?

Also, you are continuing the narrative that he was some random person from out of State that had no ties to Kenosha. He did (he father and family lived there, and he worked there, and he was hired by a local business to provide support that night). And, even if he did not its irrelevant. (By that logic no protestor should be allowed to protest in any City that they do not live). But, he was not a protestor.

The only way the law failed was allowing the protests to expand into riots for multiple days to such a point that business felt the need to hire private security (which was mostly just people like Rittehouse, random people who agreed to show up with guns and patrol between the businesses). If the police did their job in Kenosha none of this would be an issue in the first place.

Equating him to a KKK member who goes into a random black neighborhood, not during a protest, but just to disrupt normal life is disingenuous. In your example using a bullhorn would be illegal alone (on a residential street not during an event), and he would be arrested for that by itself. Now if a KKK person showed up to a protest (IE a public event) to counter protest, it would be protected speech (they would be a moron, but if they acted in the bounds of the law they have the right to protest any public event in any costume that they want, and even defend themselves if somebody physically attacked them without provocation, this is also well established).

If someone punches you and gives you a gives you a bloody nose, you can't shoot him if he retreats afterwards. But if you shoot as he begins to attack, you can kill him as long as you convince people you thought you were in danger of serious injury or death even if he was only going to give you a bloody nose.

Doesn't seem exactly right to me, but there you go.

Quote: rxwine

If someone punches you and gives you a gives you a bloody nose, you can't shoot him if he retreats afterwards. But if you shoot as he begins to attack, you can kill him as long as you convince people you thought you were in danger of serious injury or death even if he was only going to give you a bloody nose.

Doesn't seem exactly right to me, but there you go.

And how do you determine he only plans on breaking your nose? What a pointless post.

Quote: kenarman

And how do you determine he only plans on breaking your nose? What a pointless post.

If you look at a all the people killed in the Kenoshaw riots, turns out Rittenhouse was the only killer. Second of all, odds of even being assaulted are low unless you're a clueless idiot who does a lot clueless things or unless you live in violent environment.

To get in actual 1 to 1 chance of being killed you'd need to experience 45 assaults in your lifetime.

Quote: rxwine

If someone punches you and gives you a gives you a bloody nose, you can't shoot him if he retreats afterwards. But if you shoot as he begins to attack, you can kill him as long as you convince people you thought you were in danger of serious injury or death even if he was only going to give you a bloody nose.

Doesn't seem exactly right to me, but there you go.

So maybe if you do not want to get shot just do not attack people?

Quote: rxwine

If you look at a all the people killed in the Kenoshaw riots, turns out Rittenhouse was the only killer. Second of all, odds of even being assaulted are low unless you're a clueless idiot who does a lot clueless things or unless you live in violent environment.

To get in actual 1 to 1 chance of being killed you'd need to experience 45 assaults in your lifetime.

So...I'm going to take it for granted that the people who are taking over police stations, burning businesses to the ground and looting and rioting are going to stop at breaking my nose if they see me go to the ground rather than, I don't know, outnumbering me and beating me to death?

Have you been to a mass protest or riot before? Crowds are a weird thing. When you look at assaults, if I have some sort of one-on-one situation in a bar, for example, then I feel a little more comfortable that the other guy's aim is not to try to kill me...in a riot, though?

Reportedly, the first guy to charge Rittenhouse (Rosenbaum) was being verbally encouraged to kill him...why he'd bring his fists to a gun fight I have no idea. The guy that Rittenhouse shot at and missed tried to jump kick him in the head (that can kill you, by the way) while he was on the ground...the second guy to get shot grabbed his skateboard and swung for the fences, which can definitely kill someone and the third person drew down on Rittenhouse, specifically, aiming at his head.

So, when you talk about that 1 in 45 average, it's not like we're talking about a Roulette wheel here...I'd say those odds move more to one side or the other side depending on the specific situation.

And, to be clear, I'm not defending the fact that Rittenhouse was there and armed in the first place. He certainly had a legal right to be there, as decided by the judge...so the question of legal or not is settled. I don't even know that he was specifically looking for trouble, but he sure didn't seem to mind if he found some.

Quote: Mission146

So...I'm going to take it for granted that the people who are taking over police stations, burning businesses to the ground and looting and rioting are going to stop at breaking my nose if they see me go to the ground rather than, I don't know, outnumbering me and beating me to death?

Have you been to a mass protest or riot before? Crowds are a weird thing. When you look at assaults, if I have some sort of one-on-one situation in a bar, for example, then I feel a little more comfortable that the other guy's aim is not to try to kill me...in a riot, though?

Reportedly, the first guy to charge Rittenhouse (Rosenbaum) was being verbally encouraged to kill him...why he'd bring his fists to a gun fight I have no idea. The guy that Rittenhouse shot at and missed tried to jump kick him in the head (that can kill you, by the way) while he was on the ground...the second guy to get shot grabbed his skateboard and swung for the fences, which can definitely kill someone and the third person drew down on Rittenhouse, specifically, aiming at his head.

So, when you talk about that 1 in 45 average, it's not like we're talking about a Roulette wheel here...I'd say those odds move more to one side or the other side depending on the specific situation.

Mentioning roulette was good thing, because it really is about odds. Not much reason to have snake anti-venom available in a casino. One of those automatic defibrillators is far more reasonable even if it is used rarely. Even more so, some other things. Like a first aid kit. And so on and so forth.

I lived my whole life without carrying a gun. I think it's reasonable to believe that when someone carries a gun, they will actually be more likely to expose themselves to more volatile situations than they would normally, because they have that "Insurance". In my opinion, that doesn't make someone act smarter though.