Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

johnny karate said:
Your argument from incredulity aside, it seems strange that you feel comfortable drawing conclusions from a place of professed ignorance.
Click to expand...
I'm comfortable drawing conclusions with the evidence currently available. Always willing to change my mind, though.



You don’t think waiting until all the evidence is available would serve you better?
Click to expand...
Uh, no. The service being provided here is discussion, if that's the standard you demand, not much would be discussed.


I guess I’m just not clear on why this particular criminal has your support.
Click to expand...
I felt that he wasn't getting a fair shake.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Stop the boat for a second.

What does LARPing mean, again? Back in the day it referred to Nordic teens running around in costumes in the woods, playing a kind of improv Dungeons&Dragons. Then it seems to be applied as a kind of defense of the more slimy and despicable conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, as in, "oh, they're just creating this fantasy world for themselves, they don't actually mean what they say", as if they made up horrible lies about victims of terrorist attacks and school shootings just to pass the time wih their buddies, like when teens in the woods pretended to be elves hunting trolls.

Now you're apparently "Live-action role-playing" [if you] shoot black people in the streets.

Did you mean to use the term very sarcastically/satirically, or is there some other meaning here I don't get? I take it my interpretation above is completely wrong?
Click to expand...

I've been calling them "cosplay commandos" to keep them separate from kids in parks yelling, "Lightning bolt!"
 
Bogative said:
I'm not sure, but I have a hard time imagining anything that would justify a 36-year-old man chasing a 17-year-old up a street and across the parking lot. Maybe the 17-year-old stole his wallet???
Or maybe Rosenbaum was still seeking the fight he was looking for earlier.
Click to expand...

When you're in that situation you're not going around asking for IDs before you decide someone is chase-able. The way you frame that is a bit ridiculous. Granted it wasn't the smartest thing to do. I'm sure Rittenhouse was never in a situation like that in his life.
 
William Parcher said:
Soldier vs. soldier.

Anyone who brings weapons to the scene is a soldier. Full stop.

Even so for weapons brought for the purpose of self-defense. You are automatically a soldier. Full stop.
Click to expand...

They aren't soldiers, full stop.

However, taking your assertions for the sake of argument and your previous statement of the 'militia' being effective at 'dealing with' the protestors (no evidence of that) would help Trump, then it would follow that you would think it acceptable and good tactics for the protestors/rioters/DNC/whatever to start killing the militia members.

But of course it wouldn't be for many reasons, the primary being that the general US public still holds black people and their allies to a higher standard than police, militias, and elected Republicans. Any real violence from them would be seen as them 'starting it' despite, you know, the police and the racists and their allies having been actually killing people, not just lately, but for decades.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
As a matter of the law, there's a real question on whether Kyle can even claim self defense regardless. It's unlawful for a 17 year old to be carrying a rifle in the streets like this.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure about this. I think it might vary by state. IIRC, in WA it was legal for someone age 16 to own a long-gun, and it's legal to open carry a long gun in most places. I don't know if that's the case there or not. Mostly, it might not be reasonable to assume that it was illegal to have the rifle.
 
Bogative said:
I'm comfortable drawing conclusions with the evidence currently available. Always willing to change my mind, though.

Uh, no. The service being provided here is discussion, if that's the standard you demand, not much would be discussed.
Click to expand...

It damages your credibility in these discussions to draw conclusions based on ignorance and limited evidence.

If discussion is your goal - honest discussion - that should concern you.

I felt that he wasn't getting a fair shake.
Click to expand...

He’s a criminal who was openly engaged in criminal activity. Why are you concerned with him in particular while displaying a lack of concern for other criminals who have faced much harsher consequences for their actions?

You’ve decisively written off the people he shot and killed.

How can you be certain that they got a “fair shake”?
 
Emily's Cat said:
i'm not sure about this. I think it might vary by state. IIRC, in WA it was legal for someone age 16 to own a long-gun, and it's legal to open carry a long gun in most places. I don't know if that's the case there or not. Mostly, it might not be reasonable to assume that it was illegal to have the rifle.
Click to expand...

What makes you think it’s an assumption?
 
johnny karate said:
What makes you think it’s an assumption?
Click to expand...

Lack of a cite to relevant laws. Nothing posted thus far has indicated that it's a definitive fact, and it gives the impression of it being an assumption.

But feel free to provide supporting material :)

ETA: dammit, I think I missed the cue. This is where I was supposed to say something like "What makes you think it's not?" and blow raspberries at you, right?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Lack of a cite to relevant laws. Nothing posted thus far has indicated that it's a definitive fact, and it gives the impression of it being an assumption.

But feel free to provide supporting material :)

ETA: dammit, I think I missed the cue. This is where I was supposed to say something like "What makes you think it's not?" and blow raspberries at you, right?
Click to expand...

Here you go:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
 
johnny karate said:
Here you go:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
Click to expand...

That seems to be where some of the gray area comes in.

From your link
Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
...
This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
Click to expand...

Section 941.28:
Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle
Click to expand...
Section 29.304:
Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age
Click to expand...
Section 29.593:
Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval
Click to expand...

He has a rifle, it's not a short-barreled rifle, he's not under 16... so does he have hunting approval?

I'd say he's very likely to be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, dependent on that last item in the list.
 
Emily's Cat said:
That seems to be where some of the gray area comes in.

From your link


Section 941.28:

Section 29.304:

Section 29.593:


He has a rifle, it's not a short-barreled rifle, he's not under 16... so does he have hunting approval?

I'd say he's very likely to be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, dependent on that last item in the list.
Click to expand...

Plus he did a bit more than just idly open carry. I think there is a scope of intent issue there too
 
Emily's Cat said:
True. I don't know how this is going to go.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it really matters. If him carrying was a misdemeanor, that may not make any difference to any legal claim to self defense. There is a concept of felony murder, where if someone is killed during your commission of certain felony crimes, then you can be charged with murder even if absent that felony you would not be liable. But that doesn't apply to misdemeanors. If him carrying was a misdemeanor crime, I don't think that eliminates his right to self defense. He could be both guilty of carrying and innocent in shooting.
 
Interesting how, to some people, it's perfectly reasonable for a white 17-year old to take a high-powered rifle across state lines in order to shoot and kill black people and their white allies - that's self defense.

But an unarmed black 17 year old on a snack run, who defended himself from a racist stranger that decided to chase and attack him because he was black - well, that 17 year old was a "thug" who "got what he deserved".

Not even thinly veiled.
 
Mumbles said:
Interesting how, to some people, it's perfectly reasonable for a white 17-year old to take a high-powered rifle across state lines in order to shoot and kill black people and their white allies - that's self defense.
Click to expand...

The only people Kyle Rottenhouse shot were white. If his intent was to shoot and kill black people, he done ****** up. But then, you haven't shown his intent was to shoot anyone. The fact that he was attempting retreat when the shootings happened suggests it wasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom