Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[wareyin]

Probably not. So what? What do you think that proves?

If Kyle's mom hadn't gotten pregnant with him, then Rosenbaum would probably still be alive. There's all sorts of "but for" causes one can find, but that doesn't suffice for imbuing them with responsibility for the outcome.

As you keep attempting to fall back on the law: in law, the chain of responsibility begins with the first intentional illegal action, in this case the unauthorized acquisition of a firearm and bringing this illegally obtained firearm to a conflict. This is how the legal system establishes accountability all the time.

The law does not care about his mother's pregnancy; it only cares that Kyle intentionally violated the law and created a deadly scenario.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nope. I'm quite consistent about being in favor of everyone's right to self defense.

And everyone's right to buy illegal firearms.

 

[Ziggurat]

Taking a gun away from someone who points it at you isn't self defense?

Who did he point his gun at?

 

[Ziggurat]

Look, Zig. When the laws are down and reckless people are on the prod, not everyone
wants to stay away, much less run. Many of us (including you, I'll bet) will think of acting
in a dire situation, not hot-headely but with purpose.

Sounds like the sort of speech that recruited Kyle to got to Kenosha.

 

[Ziggurat]

As you keep attempting to fall back on the law: in law, the chain of responsibility begins with the first intentional illegal action, in this case the unauthorized acquisition of a firearm and bringing this illegally obtained firearm to a conflict.

No, actually, it doesn't. That act is legally irrelevant, because time and distance made it far removed from the events of the night.

The first intentional illegal action in the actual shooting was Rosenbaum's assault of Kyle.

 

[wareyin]

You have done nothing of the sort.

I said "we" Kemosabe. That's because you have already done so as I showed in the sentence that followed.

Nobody who attacked Kyle was being threatened by him when they attacked. Nor did they attack him in defense of anyone else. You're appealing to hypothetical defense that you think could have happened, but none of that is what actually happened.

You demonstrate it again by denying that an armed idiot, who had just shot one person and was waving a rifle, did not constitute a reasonable threat to the general public, allowing no right of defense.

 

[wareyin]

No, actually, it doesn't. That act is legally irrelevant, because time and distance made it far removed from the events of the night.

The first intentional illegal action in the actual shooting was Rosenbaum's assault of Kyle.

Your argument about time and distance is a flimsy attempt to absolve Kyle of agency.

The first intentional illegal action in the causal chain was not Rosenbaum’s assault, but Kyle Rittenhouse’s intentional, illegal acquisition of the firearm. That original criminal act was necessary for Kyle to be armed at all.

The time and distance between the purchase and the shooting only prove that Kyle had ample time to reflect on his illegal actions and repeatedly chose to use that unlawfully obtained weapon to insert himself into a conflict. Agency starts with the choices Kyle made, not the choices his victims made.

 

[Ziggurat]

You demonstrate it again by denying that an armed idiot, who had just shot one person and was waving a rifle, did not constitute a reasonable threat to the general public, allowing no right of defense..

Are you trying to use Rosenbaum's shooting as justification for why Rosenbaum had a right to attack Kyle? Because that requires time travel.

And since shooting Rosenbaum was justified, Kyle did not forfeit his continued right to self defense after that shooting. That remains true even if anyone else could reasonably interpret Kyle as a deadly force threat.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your argument about time and distance is a flimsy attempt to absolve Kyle of agency.

You want to argue the law, then get the law correct. Time and distance are absolutely relevant, to every aspect of this case.

 

[wareyin]

Are you trying to use Rosenbaum's shooting as justification for why Rosenbaum had a right to attack Kyle? Because that requires time travel.

Are you pretending that you are so obtuse that you are unaware more people than Rosenbaum were threatened? Or is this genuine and not an act?

And since shooting Rosenbaum was justified, Kyle did not forfeit his continued right to self defense after that shooting. That remains true even if anyone else could reasonably interpret Kyle as a deadly force threat.

Are you now saying that Huber, Grosskreutz, and the rest of the crowd did have a right to defend themselves and others against Kyle?

 

[wareyin]

You want to argue the law, then get the law correct. Time and distance are absolutely relevant, to every aspect of this case.

Ok, then we agree that Kyle's choice to take a rifle he had illegally obtained to a conflict that police had mandated he stay away from was the first illegal activity in the chain of events that led to Kyle killing multiple people. Great.

 

[AmyStrange]

Are you pretending that you are so obtuse that you are unaware more people than Rosenbaum were threatened? Or is this genuine and not an act?

People who are obtuse don't know they're obtuse, because their humongous egos won't let them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you now saying that Huber, Grosskreutz, and the rest of the crowd did have a right to defend themselves and others against Kyle?

I'm saying that question is actually irrelevant to whether or not Kyle could defend himself.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, then we agree that Kyle's choice to take a rifle he had illegally obtained to a conflict that police had mandated he stay away from was the first illegal activity in the chain of events that led to Kyle killing multiple people. Great.

Is it your contention that violating curfew deprives a person of the right to defend themselves? That would be a very interesting claim.

 

[wareyin]

Is it your contention that violating curfew deprives a person of the right to defend themselves? That would be a very interesting claim.

However do you get that from what I wrote? Is this more of that feigned obtuseness, or a genuine reading comprehension problem you have?

 

[AmyStrange]

What do you expect from a maroon?

 

[wareyin]

I'm saying that question is actually irrelevant to whether or not Kyle could defend himself.

Oh, we know that as a conservative, you think Kyle has the right to defend himself with deadly force during conflicts he sought out and initiated with a weapon he illegally obtained.

What I am trying to ascertain is whether you believe people who are not conservatives and who are genuinely reacting to an idiot with an illegally purchased weapon who just shot someone have the right to defend themselves against him?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is it your contention that violating curfew deprives a person of the right to defend themselves? That would be a very interesting claim.

Not really, committing crimes does that all the time. Break into someone's home and just try to use self defense as a justification then.

 

[plague311]

Probably not. So what? What do you think that proves?

It proves that the gun was the problem, and holding it at the ready while walking through a crowd should absolutely be concerning to those in that crowd. The illegally obtained gun was the problem and, by your own admission, had he not illegally obtained that gun and carried it around there wouldn't have been a problem. Wareyin is essentially making the same point.

If Kyle's mom hadn't gotten pregnant with him, then Rosenbaum would probably still be alive. There's all sorts of "but for" causes one can find, but that doesn't suffice for imbuing them with responsibility for the outcome.

Is this you?

time and distance made it far removed from the events of the night.

You're talking about time and distancing but make some ridiculous reference to his birth? Seriously, the ◊◊◊◊ does that have to do with anything? Kyle brought the gun that night, in real-time. I'm not referring to some decade old decision. This disingenuous nonsense is lame, really lame.

 

[Ziggurat]

It proves that the gun was the problem

No it doesn't. As I said, there are lots of "but for" factors here.

You're talking about time and distancing but make some ridiculous reference to his birth?

Yes. To DEMONSTRATE that. According to your logic, his birth led to these events. Which is true on one level, but time and distance suggest it's not relevant to evaluating the events.

Kyle brought the gun that night, in real-time.

But the gun wasn't bought that night. You want to place a lot of importance on the purchase, but the purchase is far removed.