Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[Emily's Cat]

To clarify: is it OK for rioters to damage property that belongs to police?

Personally, I'm against it, but I would find it at least more reasonable for people to defend as justified and righteous.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And the city, and the state, and the federal government. They're all intertwined with the police who have decided that they're playing a game of Judge Dread rather than actually doing their jobs.

I can understand private property being off limits, but the people FUND all the public property in the government. They should have the rights to do with it what they please. If the system is going to support murder with impunity, I see no problem with torching the system.

The system IS the people after all.

Disagree?

Yes, I do disagree.

Your logic amounts to "It's okay to torch the people", with which I (being a people) rather strongly disagree.

 

[johnny karate]

I honestly cannot even begin to wrap my mind around the idea of anyone thinking Rittenhouse did anything remotely wrong.

Then you should probably familiarize yourself with Wisconsin open carry law and how it applies to minors.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It’s funny how we get into the specificity of what the law dictates not at the point where illegally armed white vigilantes are roaming the streets, but rather at the point that said illegally armed white vigilante has killed multiple people and we’re judging the merits of his self-defense claim.

On the other hand, if you’re black, shut up and do everything the police tell you to do, or face possible execution.

I think that the vast majority of people in this thread do NOT hold that view.

 

[johnny karate]

I think that the vast majority of people in this thread do NOT hold that view.

Good for you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And when black people shoot white people (especially cops) we don't.

In fact, when black people shoot white people there is no discussion at all. Maybe pointing put the black attacker was an unpleasant person or some such.

You know, I don't think this is true. At least not for the vast majority of people involved in these discussions.

The last thread in which a black person shooting at white cops was brought up was the one where Breonna Taylor died. And I am pretty sure that nearly everyone in that thread felt that the guy in the house who shot at the cops breaking in unannounced in the middle of the night was fully within his rights to do so, and that he was acting in self defense, and that him being arrested was a seriously bad call.

 

[thaiboxerken]

AG Barr: Streets safer without ‘violent agitator’ Reinoehl

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/...7cgoxcZXF7uuQiSDCAnZaQVIuSaXxXATaRHt3EFSQT5IA


Now I'm convinced the police executed the man.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know, I don't think this is true. At least not for the vast majority of people involved in these discussions.

The last thread in which a black person shooting at white cops was brought up was the one where Breonna Taylor died. And I am pretty sure that nearly everyone in that thread felt that the guy in the house who shot at the cops breaking in unannounced in the middle of the night was fully within his rights to do so, and that he was acting in self defense, and that him being arrested was a seriously bad call.

Yes. I am one of the people who thought he was justified in shooting at what he reasonably thought were home invaders. We had the exact kind of discussion that Joe claims nobody has. It didn't take up pages and pages because pretty much everyone was in agreement that the black man who shot at white cops was in the right. Strange, that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think his juvenile status, and the fact that it makes certain of his actions criminal, plays any role in his self defense claims.

That is correct. Breaking the law can sometimes invalidate claims of self defense (see, for example, felony murder). But this isn't one of those cases. The carry violation charge is independent of the murder charges. He could be innocent on the former and guilty on the latter, or guilty on the former and innocent on the latter.

 

[Bogative]

They probably were. The FBI certainly think so according to reports, investigations and warnings that they have been issuing for years.

The FBI has been reporting for years that some African-American men are murderers. Do you assume all African-American men are murderers? Or does your logic only apply to cops?

 

[Bogative]

If you hear that the cops shot someone dead, do you believe that the facts and circumstances are irrelevant?

In other words, have you made up your mind already about whether the killing was justified?


However, I would like more facts before I come to that conclusion. Do you not agree?

Yes, I do.
No, I hadn't.
Yes.

What I was responding to is what was posted in response to his death based on no known facts.

"That's what you get for killing one of the cops' buddies, summary execution."
"You misspelled assassination."
"Probably still too busy trying to come up with some story that'll at least vaguely resemble the facts as they come out."

 

[Bogative]

Oh let's ask Breonna Taylor how that worked out for her.

Since you're going to bring up people other than Jacob Blake, now do Maggie Brooks and Rhogena Nicholas.

ETA: Hannah Fizer, also.

 

[uke2se]

Aren't the streets also safer without violent agitator Aaron Danielson? I'd say so.

The US would be a lot safer without violent agitator Trump. Should the cops shoot him too?

 

[Elagabalus]

AG Barr: Streets safer without ‘violent agitator’ Reinoehl

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/...7cgoxcZXF7uuQiSDCAnZaQVIuSaXxXATaRHt3EFSQT5IA


Now I'm convinced the police executed the man.

First, you aren't paying attention. His lawyer has said he got the rifle in-state. Nobody has provided evidence he brought the gun from home. I pointed this out in the post you responded to, and you just ignored it. Don't do that.

Second, I don't agree that it was illegal for him to open carry. I've seen both arguments made, for example:

Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.​

So was it a crime for him to carry? I don't know, but I don't assume it was. If it was a crime, he will probably get convicted on that charge. If it wasn't, he probably won't be. I'm content to let the process play out on that front.

I suppose we'll know more in a few days.

 

[angrysoba]

*Very slowly*

Then what purpose did the "Oh but what about his state of mind? Oh the jury is suuuuurly going to be interested in that" question serve?

*Very, very slowly*

Because that is what the jury is going to consider.

Nobody cares what a jury is going to think about a black guy's state of mind when they kill a cop, and nobody brings it up. Ever.

Speak for yourself and/or be the change you want to see in the world.

Everytime a white person kills a black person, what the "jury" is going to think suddenly becomes super important yet never does when black people kill white people.

I was talking about Rittenhouse. All the people he shot were white. If you looked into it you would know that, but you have argued that looking into the facts of the case is racist.

 

[angrysoba]

First, you aren't paying attention. His lawyer has said he got the rifle in-state. Nobody has provided evidence he brought the gun from home. I pointed this out in the post you responded to, and you just ignored it. Don't do that.

I don't have to take him at his word. Presumably this will be investigated.

Second, I don't agree that it was illegal for him to open carry. I've seen both arguments made, for example:

Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.​

So was it a crime for him to carry? I don't know, but I don't assume it was. If it was a crime, he will probably get convicted on that charge. If it wasn't, he probably won't be. I'm content to let the process play out on that front.

Looks like a Hail Mary pass to me. If that doesn't work, maybe he can claim to be a Freeman on the Land.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't have to take him at his word.

True. But neither should you take the word of people who have no knowledge of it. Which is what people were doing by repeating the unsubstantiated and unsourced claim that the rifle was carried across state lines.

Presumably this will be investigated.

I'm sure it will be. That's part of why I suspect he's telling the truth: it won't be hard for prosecutors to find out, and it will be worse for him if he lied than if he had said nothing about that.

Looks like a Hail Mary pass to me.

Doesn't sound that unlikely to me. But that charge is really the least of his concerns. If he succeeds with the self defense claims but fails with the carry charge, that's not such a bad outcome for him.

 

[angrysoba]

True. But neither should you take the word of people who have no knowledge of it. Which is what people were doing by repeating the unsubstantiated and unsourced claim that the rifle was carried across state lines.



I'm sure it will be. That's part of why I suspect he's telling the truth: it won't be hard for prosecutors to find out, and it will be worse for him if he lied than if he had said nothing about that.



Doesn't sound that unlikely to me. But that charge is really the least of his concerns. If he succeeds with the self defense claims but fails with the carry charge, that's not such a bad outcome for him.

If we then assumed the gun was bought in Wisconsin and not brought from his home across the state border, then that, to me at least, raises questions of how he acquired it and was storing this gun?

Or was he issued it by an organization? He seemed to be part of some group, but how is there a legal entity that allows and arms 17-year olds (other than, say, the Army or the National Guard) and which has the legal authority to be patrolling the streets?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You are pulling that out of your ass. Rittenhouse himself crossed state lines (not illegal). According to his lawyer, he acquired the gun legally in-state, not out of state. No evidence has been presented yet to contradict this claim. You are simply parroting the assumptions of others.

The rest of your post is just attempted mind reading.

He is 17.
He is.not allowed to carry that weapon in public.

What about"illegal" is hard to understand?

 

[thaiboxerken]

He is 17.
He is.not allowed to carry that weapon in public.

What about"illegal" is hard to understand?

Just because it's against the law doesn't mean it wasn't legal...