Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[Ziggurat]

Blah, blah, blah, but thanks for proving me right once again.

Brave sir Robbin.

 

[ponderingturtle]

We just need to get rid of the idea that someone must have violated the law with every shooting, there are lots of exchanges of gunfire that are perfectly legal and no on ever committed a crime, this is one such case.

 

[wareyin]

How are you struggling to understand that Kyle wasn't guilty of any crime here? Black being guilty of something doesn't make Kyle guilty of anything.

An illegal straw purchase is an illegal purchase whether or not charges were filed (they were) and whether or not someone pled down. Kyle was not legally able to buy the firearm. This is not in contention. Kyle convinced his friend to buy the firearm for him with money provided by Kyle. This is also not in contention. This straw purchase was done specifically to bypass a law prohibiting Rittenhouse from acquiring the firearm himself, thus making it an illegally obtained firearm.

 

[ponderingturtle]

An illegal straw purchase is an illegal purchase whether or not charges were filed (they were) and whether or not someone pled down. Kyle was not legally able to buy the firearm. This is not in contention. Kyle convinced his friend to buy the firearm for him with money provided by Kyle. This is also not in contention. This straw purchase was done specifically to bypass a law prohibiting Rittenhouse from acquiring the firearm himself, thus making it an illegally obtained firearm.

But such straw purchases are legal for white people.

 

[Thermal]

You're contradicting yourself.

I'm not, because what we are discussing (in case this somehow got by you) is the rightness and morality and practicality of the law, not if he was found not guilty of breaking the law (Under 18 shall not open carry) because some nitwit botched the wording on the hunting exception. That just shows incompetence at writing laws.

He got off BECAUSE he's NOT guilty, not in spite of being guilty.

Getting off in spite of being guilty is EXACTLY what happened. The "poorly written" hunting exemption led the judge to essentially nullify the force and effect of the plain English "minors shall not open carry" law.

You can blame that on a technicality if you want, but that "technicality" still means he's not guilty.

He got off, yes. That's not in dispute. What we should take away here is that legislators should by watched more closely, because trusting them to be functionally literate backfired so spectacularly in Ritrenhouse's case.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not, because what we are discussing (in case this somehow got by you) is the rightness and morality and practicality of the law

What you mean "we", white man?

I'm not discussing the rightness or morality of gun possession laws. Such laws are malum in prohibitum, not malum in se anyways.

 

[Thermal]

What you mean "we", white man?

I meant what should have been obvious in a "spirit of the post" interpretation- those of us who are pissed that something like this could happen.

I'm not discussing the rightness or morality of gun possession laws. Such laws are malum in prohibitum, not malum in se anyways.

The rest of us are, pretty much. What a Wisconsin judge and jury found that week is of some academic interest, but I'm more interested in how it might change thinking moving forward.

One of my peeves is provocation having little weight as a defense (although it mitigates sentencing, often substantially). I see Rittenhouse armed and "on patrol", in defiance of police orders/curfew, as provocation. You obviously don't.

 

[Ziggurat]

One of my peeves is provocation having little weight as a defense (although it mitigates sentencing, often substantially). I see Rittenhouse armed and "on patrol", in defiance of police orders/curfew, as provocation. You obviously don't.

I don't believe you. I don't believe you actually think "provocation" (whatever you even mean by that) should be an allowed defense for the use of force. I remember what you said in the Daniel Penny case. You were VERY insistent that an imminent and actual threat had to exist, not simply a provocation.

I think you adjust your principles to the situation and the players involved. That seems to be a pattern for you.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In Ziggy-world, if a person picks a fight, starts to lose the fight, pulls out a gun and shoots the person he picked a fight with, it is self-defense. Of course, this rule only works if the person picking the fight is on the "right" (white) side.

 

[wareyin]

We should all be consistent with our principles. We should not say that if a person steals money and commits domestic violence and is a pedophile that they are the worst of the worst, except if they have an "R" next to their name on the ballot.

 

[Ziggurat]

In Ziggy-world, if a person picks a fight, starts to lose the fight, pulls out a gun and shoots the person he picked a fight with, it is self-defense.

Why would you think that? Do you think Kyle picked a fight? He didn't.

You can't argue without straw. You don't know how to.

 

[Ziggurat]

We should all be consistent with our principles. We should not say that if a person steals money and commits domestic violence and is a pedophile that they are the worst of the worst, except if they have an "R" next to their name on the ballot.

Do you believe juries always reach the right verdict?

 

[wareyin]

Do you believe juries always reach the right verdict?

Does your opinion on whether or not the right verdict was reached hinge on how you align politically with the defendant?

 

[Thermal]

I don't believe you. I don't believe you actually think "provocation" (whatever you even mean by that) should be an allowed defense for the use of force. I remember what you said in the Daniel Penny case. You were VERY insistent that an imminent and actual threat had to exist, not simply a provocation.

I think you adjust your principles to the situation and the players involved. That seems to be a pattern for you.

Classic Ziggaraut. Yes I made that distinction in the Penny case, and it aligns perfectly with my meta argument: you don't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ kill unless there is no other option.

I saw plenty of options for Kyle. I saw plenty for Penny. Both of which revolved around "don't start none, won't be none".

Neely wasn't threatening anyone. He was being a homeless guy. No lethal force was called for, especially by someone who can subdue a threat without killing. Kyle also could have *not shot* and simply trotted off. Hell, he did so, returning to get back in range. You morally need to take any and all options prior to taking a life. Yes, I know we disagree on that. You see it as a first and only option, and some unarmed punk running his mouth warrants killing. I don't.

Tl;dr- force does not equal deadly force. The standard is very different, and most jurisdictions agree with my interpretation. See portionality, pro et al.

 

[Ziggurat]

Classic Ziggaraut. Yes I made that distinction in the Penny case, and it aligns perfectly with my meta argument: you don't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ kill unless there is no other option.

Then why the ◊◊◊◊ do you want "provocation" to be a defense?

Because then you can blame Kyle. Your morals are completely conditional.

 

[Thermal]

Then why the ◊◊◊◊ do you want "provocation" to be a defense?

Because then you can blame Kyle. Your morals are completely conditional.

Whatever question, rhetorical or otherwise, you are asking here is cryptic. Could you use your alt right translator? Mine's out of batteries.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whatever question, rhetorical or otherwise, you are asking here is cryptic. Could you use your alt right translator? Mine's out of batteries.

It's really not complicated. Did you just forget what you posted?

One of my peeves is provocation having little weight as a defense (although it mitigates sentencing, often substantially). I see Rittenhouse armed and "on patrol", in defiance of police orders/curfew, as provocation. You obviously don't.

Why do you want provocation to be a valid defense?

 

[Thermal]

It's really not complicated. Did you just forget what you posted?

Why do you want provocation to be a valid defense?

...pretty self explanatory? You pick a fight, you're mutual combatant, not a victim.

Or are you back to "the only conceivable self defense is straight to killing unarmed people?" Cuz I'm not down with that.

 

[Ziggurat]

...pretty self explanatory? You pick a fight, you're mutual combatant, not a victim.

That's... not a defense. That's the opposite of a defense. That's an invalidation of a defense, which contradicts what you just said. Which suggests that you aren't so much hypocritical as just incoherent in how you write.

God, you're bad at this.

 

[plague311]

That's... not a defense. That's the opposite of a defense. That's an invalidation of a defense, which contradicts what you just said. Which suggests that you aren't so much hypocritical as just incoherent in how you write.

God, you're bad at this.

You ever notice that you're constantly telling everyone else it's them? Think, maybe, it might be you?