Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[dirtywick]

Kyle Rittenhouse got off in court, and that's shameful, but he didn't
by any means get off cleanly; in truth, cleanliness will never be associated
with him, not for years or decades, not for the remainder of his wretched life.
No decent person will ever hear his name without feeling -- and expressing! --
revulsion and contempt. Whenever he's recognized, he'll immediately be in
physical danger. He's going to live a rather fugitive existence, quite as if
he'd been found guilty.

He can never make amends. No matter what expressions of remorse
he may utter, no one will respond with anything but scorn. And disbelief,
because the capacity to feel shame is so obviously beyond him.

He'll always have at least a few defenders, and people who notice -- not many as
time goes on -- will judge little Kyle by his friends, and retreat from the odor.

So you see? Even cases like this can sometimes result in some
measure of justice.

well, he did something horrible. that people feel compelled to justify his actions 5 years later is insane to me.

all that stuff that happened that year broke a lot of people’s brains

 

[Trausti]

Topic: Minor-child prevents child molester from attacking him.

well, he did something horrible.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whenever he's recognized, he'll immediately be in
physical danger.

The left claims to abhor violence, but this is a facade. They tried to kill Kyle for trying to stop vandalism, and they want him dead even now for having the audacity to defend himself. Violence is at the heart of progressive politics. It is intrinsic, and can never be removed. And nothing so offends progressives than someone who defends himself against their violence.

 

[Ziggurat]

well, he did something horrible.

Indeed. You're supposed to just accept leftist violence against you, not defend yourself. The left wants no Kyle Rittenhouses, only Iryna Zarutskas.

all that stuff that happened that year broke a lot of people’s brains

That much is true.

 

[Thermal]

Don't be upset that he had good lawyers.

I don't recall being upset with his lawyers, nor do I think they were particularly good. They didn't come up with a thing that the armchair arguers on this forum didn't argue, and we did it much faster, and idly, in our spare moments.

If you or someone you cared about were in the same predicament, you'd want the same.

Please don't insult me or the people I care about. There's not a sniveling coward among us.

 

[Thermal]

The judge, who knows a lot more about Wisconsin law than you do, disagrees. But you can't accept that. You can't accept reality. Reality offends you, so it must be denied.

Why do you play dumb like this? It's annoying.

What the jury found is what the jury found. It's dull to say 'whelp, that's what happened". This is a discussion forum, and we give our opinions and state our reasons for disagreement, debating the ideas along the way. "Whelp, that's the law" is dull as ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dirty dishwater.

 

[sackett]

The Irish, after they'd been Chritianized for a while (6th & 7th centuries? dunno,
I'm not well schooled in things religious), sometimes declared holy men saints
during their lifetimes. This was sainthood ad populum, according to the Church.
(The Church will always hurry to keep up with the spirit of the tithing faithful.)
Nothing unreasonable about living saints, seems to me, ravening progressive though
I am.

So:
Saint Kyle of the AR, Defender of Capital Goods! Patron of the Manufacturer.
the Wholesaler, the Retailer, and the Humble Consumer! He worketh miracles
even in his youth, he bringeth low the indignant, and raiseth up high -- higher, good saint!
high as the lamposts! the sneakers after righeousnessedlyism or whatever.

Blessings of Our Father Trumpolini upon the good saint. Amen. Selah. Begorrah. Bejabbers.

Bedad? Hell, why not?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you play dumb like this? It's annoying.

What the jury found is what the jury found.

We were talking about a finding of law, which the judge settles, not a finding of fact, which the jury settles. The jury had nothing to do with the possession charge being thrown out.

Playing dumb indeed.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Irish, after they'd been Chritianized for a while (6th & 7th centuries? dunno,
I'm not well schooled in things religious)

That's quite apparent.

Nothing unreasonable about living saints, seems to me, ravening progressive though
I am.

Tell me you don't understand religion without telling me you don't understand religion.

Saint Kyle of the AR

If I don't think he's a murderer, that means I think he's a saint?

No, it doesn't work that way. You may not be religious, but you certainly have the zealotry down pat.

 

[Thermal]

We were talking about a finding of law, which the judge settles, not a finding of fact, which the jury settles. The jury had nothing to do with the possession charge being thrown out.

Playing dumb indeed.

We were talking about several things concurrently, with you waxing about reality.

{eta: yes, in that part of the exchange, we were talking about the judge's infallibility, as you seem to think. The criticism is valid in the meta anyway}.

The finding of law was that in the poorly worded Wisconsin laws, the benefit went to the defendant. That's normal- the benefit of doubt in an ambiguiusly worded contract often is summarily given to the party who did not write the contract.

My argument was that in the plain English of the law, there was little if any ambiguity, beyond an oppressively anal retentive interpretation. Minors were flatly prohibited from open carrying. There was a hunting exemption. That would apply only to hunting, in a sane interpretation, and I'd venture that Kyle didn't give a fat rat's ass if he was in compliance or not, and such indifference should have been weighed more heavily than the assumption that Kyle had previously interpreted his actions under Wisconsin hunting regulations.

 

[Trausti]

Please don't insult me or the people I care about. There's not a sniveling coward among us.

Oh, come on. You'd want your lawyer to out-lawyer the other lawyer. Save us the self-righteousness.

 

[dirtywick]

Indeed. You're supposed to just accept leftist violence against you, not defend yourself. The left wants no Kyle Rittenhouses, only Iryna Zarutskas.

That much is true.

tell me kyle did nothing wrong

 

[Ziggurat]

tell me kyle did nothing wrong

Why would I do that? That has never been my claim. My claim is that he acted legally in defending himself.

 

[dirtywick]

Why would I do that? That has never been my claim. My claim is that he acted legally in defending himself.

first of all, i don’t care what your claim is. i didn’t quote you to dispute any of your claims, you had a problem with what i said.

my claim was that he did something horrible, you seem to have a problem with that statement.

so if we agree he did something wrong, you can stop quoting me. but you don’t seem willing to do that.

 

[Ziggurat]

my claim was that he did something horrible, you seem to have a problem with that statement.

There's a large gap between doing something horrible and doing something wrong. You're trying to move the goalpost by conflating the two.

And you never specified what you think he did that was horrible. Shooting people who were attacking him? Nope, not horrible. It was a horrible outcome, sure, but responsibility lies with his attackers, not with him for legally defending himself.

 

[dirtywick]

There's a large gap between doing something horrible and doing something wrong. You're trying to move the goalpost by conflating the two.

And you never specified what you think he did that was horrible. Shooting people who were attacking him? Nope, not horrible. It was a horrible outcome, sure, but responsibility lies with his attackers, not with him for legally defending himself.

you don’t seem to think he did anything wrong or horrible though

 

[Thermal]

My claim is that he acted legally in defending himself.

And everyone else is opining on how wrong and cowardly it is to be found legal.

 

[Ziggurat]

you don’t seem to think he did anything wrong or horrible though

I don't think he did anything horrible. What exactly do you think he did that was horrible?

It was unwise of him to get himself into that situation, in the same way it's unwise for a young attractive woman to wander dark alleys at night. But moral culpability doesn't lie with the person who mistakenly exposes themself to risk of harm from another. I think he was naive about what could happen if things went sideways, as they did. And you could say that was wrong of him if you like. But horrible? No, that wasn't horrible. Foolish? Sure. But that wasn't your claim.

 

[Ziggurat]

And everyone else is opining on how wrong and cowardly it is to be found legal.

Everyone else? No, not everyone else. A number of people on this thread are of that opinion. But they are wrong. The law was correctly applied here. And not only was his self defense legal, it should be legal. To have the law operate otherwise is to expose everyone to the violent whims of the mob without recourse.

But that appears to be the desired outcome of many here who assume the mob will always be on their side. It will not.

 

[Thermal]

Everyone else? No, not everyone else. A number of people on this thread are of that opinion. But they are wrong. The law was correctly applied here. And not only was his self defense legal, it should be legal. To have the law operate otherwise is to expose everyone to the violent whims of the mob without recourse.

But that appears to be the desired outcome of many here who assume the mob will always be on their side. It will not.

No idea what train you've hopped a ride on.

What the majority are arguing here is the standard for the use of deadly self defense. Whether it is legal in Wisconsin is only a jumping off point to show why some standards are inadequate/counterproductive. It's got nothing to do with 'the mob'. I doubt seriously that many here would consider rioters burning random car dealerships to be 'on their side', despite the strawman misrepresentation.

The issues a lot of us have revolve around provocation and duty to retreat. If you pick a fight, you don't get to claim victimhood, any more than if you deliberately step directly in front of a fast moving car, can you claim 'he hit me'. You had choices, and you chose to put yourself where you knew full and well you shouldn't have been. It makes no logical sense to create the conditions that you think you will be able to kill someone, then throw your hands up saying you had no choice.