• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

Ziggurat said:
Public policy should not be made on the basis of anecdotes.
Click to expand...

Thanks to our federal system, this piece of public policy has been tested in real life and the results are pretty clear.

States that allow open carrying of firearms, especially long guns, have seen armed protest and thinly veiled threats of political violence as a staple of recent protests, and those that do not allow this have had similar protests, including some with violent conflicts, that are not awash in rifles.

Considering concealed carry makes allowances for basically every legitimate "self defense" concern that a responsible person might have, there's really not much to lose, other than pissing off right wingers, to banning the practice of open carrying outside of extremely prescribed activities such as hunting.
 
Last edited:
webfusion said:
Where did the article say anything about that?

The overall tone of the statements of the Governor was that he wants to 'crack down' on violent and disorderly assemblies. The article referred to enhancing criminal penalties for people engaged in in "violent or disorderly assemblies".
Nothing there about shooting.

It would also make blocking traffic a third-degree felony while offering immunity to drivers who unintentionally kill or injure protesters blocking traffic.

In other words, I can drive along on my way, and not worry about hitting people illegally gathered in the street ahead of me. Sounds reasonable, all things considered.
Click to expand...

Again, kudos for coming right out and saying it. Better than the wishy-washy euphemisms we get around here.

Oh, and the law says "unintentionally" hitting one. Your Frogger fantasy above seems to suggest you think you can simply run unknown strangers down (who might, for all you know, be nice white supremacists trying to get the hell out of there).
 
Thermal said:
Not at all. I'm saying that if you place yourself willingly and deliberately, for absolutely no reason, into a fight, then you are a mutual combatant, not some innocent victim.

If you hear about a bar brawl, and race over to jump in, you are a mutual participant, not a doe-eyed victim.
Click to expand...

You frame this as if there were two 'sides' mutually involved in lawbreaking, and Rittenhouse jumped in the middle of it. That's a pretty strange way to present the situation.

Using your own analogy, this wasn't a bar brawl, where two combatants were trying to punch each other out. This is more like ONE customer at the bar who gets angry about something and starts breaking glasses, throwing pool balls at patrons, and flicking matches toward a bar full of alcohol.

And you're berating the other patron who tried to stop the drunken ass from setting the whole place on fire, because he should have know better than to challenge the crazy person with the matches...
 
Thermal said:
Again, kudos for coming right out and saying it. Better than the wishy-washy euphemisms we get around here.

Oh, and the law says "unintentionally" hitting one. Your Frogger fantasy above seems to suggest you think you can simply run unknown strangers down (who might, for all you know, be nice white supremacists trying to get the hell out of there).
Click to expand...

Stay out of the street. Simples.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:boggled: How dare anyone not just step back and let rioters run the town and burn down businesses? The nerve of people opposing mob violence! They ought to know they'll get attacked if they oppose attackers!
Click to expand...

I asked this upthread many times, always unanswered: what exactly should Kyle and the rest of the rifle brigade supposed to do? Should they have shot the property vandals? That was pretty much all they were equipped to do. The kitchen fire extinguisher and box of band-aids Kyle borrowed weren't going to do much. But that $1500 rifle was designed and prepared to do only one thing.

So let's hear it: how was Kyle going to protect Kenosha and its trashed car dealership? What could he legally do, short of vigilantism?
 
Emily's Cat said:
You frame this as if there were two 'sides' mutually involved in lawbreaking, and Rittenhouse jumped in the middle of it. That's a pretty strange way to present the situation.

Using your own analogy, this wasn't a bar brawl, where two combatants were trying to punch each other out. This is more like ONE customer at the bar who gets angry about something and starts breaking glasses, throwing pool balls at patrons, and flicking matches toward a bar full of alcohol.

And you're berating the other patron who tried to stop the drunken ass from setting the whole place on fire, because he should have know better than to challenge the crazy person with the matches...
Click to expand...

Not really. See my question above. What could Kyle legally do to defend the great city of Kenosha in a riot? He had no police powers. You cannot shoot property vandals in Wisconsin. So what exactly was he going to do?

Kyle went there to shoot some hommies, or more likely, pretend he was going to. He got his wish. I cannot paint a halo on him when he had no option to do anything remotely legal by putting himself there in the first place.
 
A gun being carried openly has one obvious purpose ---- LEAVE ME ALONE and DO NOT F WITH ME.

It is an implied threat which indicates to most people: "I will not permit you to get close to me and cause me physical harm by your actions. If you attempt to do so, I will defend myself with this loaded weapon and you might die in your attempt to injure me."

That is what happened. That is why Kyle Rittenhouse was adjudicated as Not Guilty by the jury.

Why are you having such a hard time with this obvious outcome?
 
webfusion said:
A gun being carried openly has one obvious purpose ---- LEAVE ME ALONE and DO NOT F WITH ME.

It is an implied threat which indicates to most people: "I will not permit you to get close to me and cause me physical harm by your actions. If you attempt to do so, I will defend myself with this loaded weapon and you might die in your attempt to injure me."

That is what happened. That is why Kyle Rittenhouse was adjudicated as Not Guilty by the jury.

Why are you having such a hard time with this obvious outcome?
Click to expand...

he was adjudicated not guilty because he was still alive. The obvious lesson of this is that unarmed people should not attempt to confront armed opponents.

Again, in a better universe this trial never would have happened because Gaige wouldn't have hesitated, instead blowing Kyle's brains out when he had the opportunity. Then maybe he could have been on the stand crying crocodile tears.

The way Kyle is going on the fashy media circuit, someone may correct this error after the fact.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Thanks to our federal system, this piece of public policy has been tested in real life and the results are pretty clear.

States that allow open carrying of firearms, especially long guns, have seen armed protest and thinly veiled threats of political violence as a staple of recent protests, and those that do not allow this have had similar protests, including some with violent conflicts, that are not awash in rifles.
Click to expand...

You're admitting that prohibiting open carry doesn't prevent violence, and I bet you can't point to any open carry shootings other than Rittenhouse.

Yes, the results are clear, they just aren't what you want to imply. This is a nothingburger. Open carry is not a significant contributor to gun violence overall, it doesn't correlate with rates of gun violence, and even among political protests it hasn't lead to any significant levels of violence.
 
words and deeds

I would like to return to a comment I made some time ago. We can judge Mr. Grosskruetz both by his words and his actions. He had been to previous protests without incident. He had treated people hit by rubber bullets or affected by pepper spray (unlike Mr. Rittenhouse, he had a degree of expertise). He helped to treat himself: "CJ stammered. In his head, Grosskreutz told himself they could work through it. He gave instructions, showing CJ where to put the tourniquet and repeatedly ordering him to make it tighter." link
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
he was adjudicated not guilty because he was still alive.
Click to expand...

Obviously not, as other trials have shown.

The obvious lesson of this is that unarmed people should not attempt to confront armed opponents.
Click to expand...

In general, that has been obvious to anyone with half a brain since forever.

Again, in a better universe this trial never would have happened because Gaige wouldn't have hesitated, instead blowing Kyle's brains out when he had the opportunity. Then maybe he could have been on the stand crying crocodile tears.

The way Kyle is going on the fashy media circuit, someone may correct this error after the fact.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom