IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Kyle Rittenhouse , murder cases

Reply
Old 21st November 2021, 10:22 PM   #2681
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,318
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Rural places might have less absolute firearm violence, but they have more relative.
They are also notoriously bad at reporting incidents, unlike cities, where every gunshot is registered by someone.
Got a cite for your claim?
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 11:49 PM   #2682
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,158
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Or, as in Kyle's case, "kill or, I dunno maybe they might do something but dammit gonna kill him anyway just in case."

The more I think about the Ritrenhouse train wreck, the more I feel like the cops on the street that night did some major league pooch- screwing by encouraging the vigilante boys. They should have taken one look at the play soldiers and said "go home you freaking nitwits before you hurt somebody". If you're a cop during a riot, why in God's name would you want a bunch of unknown yahoos with rifles running around?
Or, in a saner country, the police could have arrested the kids playing soldier for openly carrying weapons in public. But this is the USA, where guns are as sacred as crucifixes and eagle feathers.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 11:57 PM   #2683
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Or, in a saner country, the police could have arrested the kids playing soldier for openly carrying weapons in public. But this is the USA, where guns are as sacred as crucifixes and eagle feathers.
At least crucifixes keep vampires away. Guns seem to attract trouble.


One of the things that drives me nuts about the case is that when it comes to justification for the use of deadly force, it is said that Kyle's attackers could have gotten his gun, so deadly force was justified.

So......maybe not have a gun? They can't take it away if you don't have it.

That doesn't mean I think the jury's verdict was wrong, or that the whole gun confiscation argument is wrong. However, it just illustrates how absurd the situation is. He had a gun, therefore someone could have taken the gun, therefore it's ok to use the gun to shoot the guy who might take your gun.

It's logical, but only if start from the premise that it's ok to wander the streets with a gun.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 12:25 AM   #2684
Dr.Sid
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 3,914
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
At least crucifixes keep vampires away. Guns seem to attract trouble.


One of the things that drives me nuts about the case is that when it comes to justification for the use of deadly force, it is said that Kyle's attackers could have gotten his gun, so deadly force was justified.

So......maybe not have a gun? They can't take it away if you don't have it.

That doesn't mean I think the jury's verdict was wrong, or that the whole gun confiscation argument is wrong. However, it just illustrates how absurd the situation is. He had a gun, therefore someone could have taken the gun, therefore it's ok to use the gun to shoot the guy who might take your gun.

It's logical, but only if start from the premise that it's ok to wander the streets with a gun.
So you're saying if get attacked by angry looting mob, there is just zero chance you'll get killed ? Crippled ? That you will be OK and as for the pain and minor wounds you just have to suck it up ?
There is very few attack you can be reasonably sure that they wont end up in you being seriously harmed, or killed.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 12:49 AM   #2685
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
So you're saying if get attacked by angry looting mob, there is just zero chance you'll get killed ? Crippled ? That you will be OK and as for the pain and minor wounds you just have to suck it up ?
There is very few attack you can be reasonably sure that they wont end up in you being seriously harmed, or killed.
I'm saying it's dumb as hell to allow people to wander the streets with guns.

I'm saying that doing so allows an agrument that you have to kill people just in case they take your gun.

And I'm sayign that if you say anything like what you said above, did you point that out to people makeing the "Rosenbaum might have taken the gun" argument, or is this one of those weird

A: X could have happened.
B: Oh, so if he had just done things differently, then X couldn't have happened.
A: Who cares about X?

In this case it's

Various people: "Kyle's life was in danger because Rosenbaum could have taken his gun."
Meadmaker: "Well, yeah, but isn't it stupid to allow him to have a gun. They couldn't have taken it if he didn't have it."
Sid: "Are you saying you can't be in danger if you don't have a gun?"

So, Doc. I agree. You are absolutely right. Even without a gun, a person could have been in danger when confronted by violent protestors,. So I expect you to point that out to anyone who says his life was in danger because they could have taken his gun.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 01:02 AM   #2686
Dr.Sid
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 3,914
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, Doc. I agree. You are absolutely right. Even without a gun, a person could have been in danger when confronted by violent protestors,. So I expect you to point that out to anyone who says his life was in danger because they could have taken his gun.
But that's the thing .. if I'm attacked, especially by a group .. I want to have gun. I want to shoot them dead. I want state to allow me to protect myself.
True, concealed carry would be enough. While I don't think open carry is necessarily a provocation, it can be seen as one. I would think reasonable person would not attack someone visibly armed, to risk life to prove a point .. but clearly such people do exist. And they may also be successful in taking the gun away from you.
On the other hand, the most common use of gun in self-defense is displaying it. Someone approaches you, or even attacks you .. you either pull the gun or show you have it .. and in many cases, that's where it stops. But that's also when 'concealed carry' becomes 'open carry', and the situation is basically the same.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 01:38 AM   #2687
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,641
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I'm saying it's dumb as hell to allow people to wander the streets with guns.

I'm saying that doing so allows an agrument that you have to kill people just in case they take your gun.

And I'm sayign that if you say anything like what you said above, did you point that out to people makeing the "Rosenbaum might have taken the gun" argument, or is this one of those weird

A: X could have happened.
B: Oh, so if he had just done things differently, then X couldn't have happened.
A: Who cares about X?

In this case it's

Various people: "Kyle's life was in danger because Rosenbaum could have taken his gun."
Meadmaker: "Well, yeah, but isn't it stupid to allow him to have a gun. They couldn't have taken it if he didn't have it."
Sid: "Are you saying you can't be in danger if you don't have a gun?"

So, Doc. I agree. You are absolutely right. Even without a gun, a person could have been in danger when confronted by violent protestors,. So I expect you to point that out to anyone who says his life was in danger because they could have taken his gun.
All of this... 100%. What happened in Kenosha could not happen here because

1. Even owning AR-15 or anything remotely like the purpose-designed people-killing weapon the murderer had is illegal, and

2. Carrying a gun in an urban/suburban area is forbidden

3. Taking a gun to a protest will result in an AOS callout and you are likely to be shot dead.


The rest of the civilized world sees US gun laws as unadulterated madness - they regard the fact that the USA seems to have learned to live with the highest per-capita death rate from firearms in the world, as gross negligence; and they see fact that they do nothing at all about the high number of spree shooters, as sheer stupidity.

In Australia, ONE mass shooting (Port Arthur - 35 deaths) was enough to bring massive changes to the firearms laws, and in New Zealand, ONE mass shooting (Christchurch Mosques - 51 deaths) was was enough to bring massive changes to the firearms laws here. However, in the USA, after Virginia Tech, Columbine, Parkland, Las Vegas, Boulder, San Jose, El Paso, Orlando, Dayton, Virginia Beach, Thousand Oaks, Pittsburgh, Sutherland Springs, and literally dozens of others, it just business as usual.

Dumb, extremely ******* dumb, and very, very sad!
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 07:18 AM   #2688
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 20,551
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Or, in a saner country, the police could have arrested the kids playing soldier for openly carrying weapons in public. But this is the USA, where guns are as sacred as crucifixes and eagle feathers.
In fairness, in my American State, New Jersey, you would be committing multiple felonies by carrying anything including a freaking BB gun on the street, either open or concealed.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 07:29 AM   #2689
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 20,551
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
...Should he have delayed in defending himself and potentially injured others if the gun goes off in the struggle? Or should he have handed his gun to Rosenbaum so he could then use the gun he just gave away to defend himself?

So he's not allowed to defend himself. Got it. I'd have thought there'd be a better reason than "Thermal doesn't like Rittenhouse", but then I dunno.

Defending himself when he's being attacked isn't right?

Look, I think we all were expecting him to go down for the firearms charge. I know I thought that was the likely option even with how I read the act. What that doesn't do, however, is eliminate his right to defend himself when attacked.
"Defending himself" is a euphemism. He is counterattacking with lethal intent.

That's what a lot of this was about: defense is one thing. Overwhelming counter attack is quite another. Calling it defending sounds so much more righteous, though, doesn't it?

Call it what it is. The ability to kill on the street and go home for dinner.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 07:45 AM   #2690
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,158
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
In fairness, in my American State, New Jersey, you would be committing multiple felonies by carrying anything including a freaking BB gun on the street, either open or concealed.
Good to know. There are 50 states in the USA, plus the District of Columbia and various territories, and thus a multitude of different regulations.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 08:07 AM   #2691
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sorth Dakonsin
Posts: 27,235
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
How long until we see Kyle posing for a smiling selfie with someone else holding a gun? Maybe while wearing a t-shirt with a pithy comment. I say, tomorrow night.
As far as I know, this did not happen. But I neither was I aware of the embedded video crew for the story to be shown on Tucker Carlson's show tonight. I certainly won't watch it.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 08:07 AM   #2692
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,277
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
In fairness, in my American State, New Jersey, you would be committing multiple felonies by carrying anything including a freaking BB gun on the street, either open or concealed.
Yeah, in New Jersey a Brown Bess Musket was considered an Assault Rifle by state law for several years, meanwhile, in neighboring Pennsylvania it isn't even considered a firearm until used in the commission of a felony.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 08:36 AM   #2693
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,277
Hmm, will this hamper Kyle's open invite to CPAC?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1961899.html
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 08:58 AM   #2694
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,404
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
In fairness, in my American State, New Jersey, you would be committing multiple felonies by carrying anything including a freaking BB gun on the street, either open or concealed.
Well... no? Open carry of long guns is allowed by NJ law. You're likely to raise suspicion, and get questioned about it, but it's legal and not a felony. Either open or concealed carry of a handgun is legal with a permit, which is apparently difficult to obtain.

Most states in the US allow open carry of long guns... because a lot of people hunt. Open carry of a long gun in an urban environment (except for Anchorage) is likely to arouse police suspicions though.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 22nd November 2021 at 09:00 AM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 09:25 AM   #2695
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 20,551
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Well... no? Open carry of long guns is allowed by NJ law. You're likely to raise suspicion, and get questioned about it, but it's legal and not a felony. Either open or concealed carry of a handgun is legal with a permit, which is apparently difficult to obtain.

Most states in the US allow open carry of long guns... because a lot of people hunt. Open carry of a long gun in an urban environment (except for Anchorage) is likely to arouse police suspicions though.
Long gun carry is technically allowed...till you get into the laws regarding firearms within 500 feet of a residence, 1000 from schools (the most densely populated State in the country) and others that make it practically non-feasable to carry. Never saw a gun open carried in my beloved Garden State in my lifetime here (cops/some security excepted).

It's not difficult for a regular citizen to obtain a handgun carry permit; it is impossible, barring some wild outlier situation.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 22nd November 2021 at 09:27 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 09:43 AM   #2696
Dr.Sid
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 3,914
Here in Czech Republic conceal carry with license is possible. Self-defense laws are similar to those used in Rittenhouse case.
Gun license specifically forbids you to carry gun to public gatherings though, so you'd be at great disadvantage in front of the court.
AFAIK there was no case where somebody would protect property against public gathering (mob).
Using gun to protect property, like jewelry store being robbed, is self-defense, as long as the attack is happening (ie. you can't shoot the robber if he's running). There were 2 cases recently IIRC, same verdict.
Rittenhouse case would be borderline in this aspect, I mean if it was with concealed carry. Hard to say how it would flip. I think the right to defend yourself would stand higher than gun license. I guess it would end up in some kind of compromise. Self-defense ok, but this and that, pat on the hand, license lost, probation at max.
In general even in cases with overstepped self-defense, and it's clear you didn't plan to kill the guy from the start, or provoke him .. it wouldn't be a murder, just killing .. and without prior you can get probation.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 09:43 AM   #2697
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,974
deleted.

Last edited by Bob001; 22nd November 2021 at 10:00 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 09:45 AM   #2698
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,974
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
If killing a person is considered "imposing one's will" on another person - then Black people "impose their will" on other Black people far more often than White people "impose their will" on Black people in the United States.
.....
We're not talking about street crime here, and I'm pretty sure you know the difference. The McMichaels weren't chasing Arbery for his wallet. And if they had been, nobody would claim they were justified.

Last edited by Bob001; 22nd November 2021 at 10:05 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 10:15 AM   #2699
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,009
https://plus61j.net.au/wp-content/up...S61J-53-15.png

--Golda Meir--
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 11:47 AM   #2700
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,974
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
But that's the thing .. if I'm attacked, especially by a group .. I want to have gun. I want to shoot them dead. I want state to allow me to protect myself.
.....
But Rittenhouse was attacked because he was carrying a rifle. Otherwise he would just have been another guy on the street. That fact is a central part of the equation.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 12:09 PM   #2701
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 51,788
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
"Defending himself" is a euphemism. He is counterattacking with lethal intent.

That's what a lot of this was about: defense is one thing. Overwhelming counter attack is quite another. Calling it defending sounds so much more righteous, though, doesn't it?

Call it what it is. The ability to kill on the street and go home for dinner.
Really?

If only there were a properly constituted court case to decide if he was actually defending himself…..
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 12:11 PM   #2702
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 13,362
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Really?

If only there were a properly constituted court case to decide if he was actually defending himself…..
We all know, I'm sure it's the exact same way in Australia, that cases have never been decided incorrectly by a jury, right? I mean, amiright? Every jury case and every trial has been legit. That's why we don't have any appeals courts...er wait.
__________________
“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 01:27 PM   #2703
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 18,301
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Really?

If only there were a properly constituted court case to decide if he was actually defending himself…..
Which case that was not properly constituted are you referring to?
__________________
‘Trust in Allah but tie up your camel.’
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 01:35 PM   #2704
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 20,551
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Really?

If only there were a properly constituted court case to decide if he was actually defending himself…..
The question is never "was he defending himself". The question is always "was his killing excused by claiming self defense".

It's fine if you cheer for killing people. Just don't start mealy-mousing around with sugar-coating it. Own that ****.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 02:31 PM   #2705
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,817
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But Rittenhouse was attacked because he was carrying a rifle. Otherwise he would just have been another guy on the street. That fact is a central part of the equation.
The felon he shot was carrying a gun. Why wasn't he attacked?
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 02:34 PM   #2706
stanfr
Master Poster
 
stanfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,259
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
The felon he shot was carrying a gun. Why wasn't he attacked?
Because he wasn't waving it around like a giant compensatory penis.
stanfr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 02:36 PM   #2707
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 13,362
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
The felon he shot was carrying a gun. Why wasn't he attacked?
If you're referring to Gaige it's because Gaige wasn't openly carrying it strung across his chest. Did this really need to be explained? Was it not exceedingly obvious?

Gaige pulled the gun well after the shooting. Hell, he caught up and talked to Kyle without the gun in his hand. Do you guys seriously not watch these trials?

ETA: Also, I'm a ******* felon myself. Should I be shot? If you just want to throw the word felon in there because you think it justifies Gaige being shot, then I'm extremely ******* happy that you aren't in any position of authority in my area. Like, really happy. If all it takes is a previous conviction for you to justify someone being shot then that's a ****** up way to look at life.

ETA:

Originally Posted by stanfr View Post
Because he wasn't waving it around like a giant compensatory penis.
Yeah, that.
__________________
“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 22nd November 2021 at 02:39 PM.
plague311 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 02:48 PM   #2708
TomB
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,341
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But Rittenhouse was attacked because he was carrying a rifle. Otherwise he would just have been another guy on the street. That fact is a central part of the equation.
I agree that Rittenhouse should not have been there with a rifle. It's a shame that there have not been more serious consequences for that.

But I'm reading in an implication that you think that, because he had the rifle, it was acceptable for Rosenbaum to attack him or at least that the presence of the rifle excuses Rosenbaum's doing so.

I disagree. I think Rittenhouse did the wrong thing in bringing a gun, but I also think Rosenbaum did the wrong thing by attacking him. I think it's more complicated than "good guys" and "bad guys" here.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 03:22 PM   #2709
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,974
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
I agree that Rittenhouse should not have been there with a rifle. It's a shame that there have not been more serious consequences for that.

But I'm reading in an implication that you think that, because he had the rifle, it was acceptable for Rosenbaum to attack him or at least that the presence of the rifle excuses Rosenbaum's doing so.
.....
I was responding to someone who said he wanted to have a gun when the mob attacks. My point was that there wouldn't have been an attack without the gun.

An explanation is not an excuse. We can agree that nobody should ever be robbed. We can also agree that it would be really stupid to walk into a dark alley with $100 bills pasted to your forehead. The consequences follow the act.

Rittenhouse may reasonably have felt in fear for his life. That's what the jury found. But he didn't have to be there in the first place, in violation of the curfew; having decided to be there, he didn't have to carry his illegally acquired rifle; and having decided to carry his rifle, he could have joined others to "protect" the car dealership or whatever he thought he was doing, rather than wandering around on his own. Two deaths weren't inevitable.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 04:36 PM   #2710
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
 
Graham2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,626
The ACLU has issued their Official Statement on the verdict...


Quote:
KENOSHA, Wis. — The American Civil Liberties Union released the following statement after a jury decided that Kyle Rittenhouse was not guilty of the fatal shooting of two protestors and injuring of another in last year’s demonstrations following the shooting of Jacob Blake by a Kenosha Police Department officer last year:



Shaadie Ali, interim executive director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, stated:


“Despite Kyle Rittenhouse’s conscious decision to take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police, he was not held responsible for his actions, something that is not surprising. But Kyle Rittenhouse isn’t the only one responsible for the deaths that night. The events in Kenosha stem from the deep roots of white supremacy in our society’s institutions. They underscore that the police do not protect communities of color in the same way they do white people.

https://www.aclu-wi.org/en/news/aclu...ttenhouse-case
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!"
'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail

Everybody gets it wrong sometimes...
Graham2001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 04:40 PM   #2711
Lurch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,284
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
All of this... 100%. What happened in Kenosha could not happen here because

1. Even owning AR-15 or anything remotely like the purpose-designed people-killing weapon the murderer had is illegal, and

2. Carrying a gun in an urban/suburban area is forbidden

3. Taking a gun to a protest will result in an AOS callout and you are likely to be shot dead.


The rest of the civilized world sees US gun laws as unadulterated madness - they regard the fact that the USA seems to have learned to live with the highest per-capita death rate from firearms in the world, as gross negligence; and they see fact that they do nothing at all about the high number of spree shooters, as sheer stupidity.

In Australia, ONE mass shooting (Port Arthur - 35 deaths) was enough to bring massive changes to the firearms laws, and in New Zealand, ONE mass shooting (Christchurch Mosques - 51 deaths) was was enough to bring massive changes to the firearms laws here. However, in the USA, after Virginia Tech, Columbine, Parkland, Las Vegas, Boulder, San Jose, El Paso, Orlando, Dayton, Virginia Beach, Thousand Oaks, Pittsburgh, Sutherland Springs, and literally dozens of others, it just business as usual.

Dumb, extremely ******* dumb, and very, very sad!
You omitted the one that, above all, should have brought about at least a milligram of introspection and common sense:

Sandy Hook.

But no. There arose the foaming idiocy of the 'crisis actor' CT. Just insanity on a national scale.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 07:04 PM   #2712
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,698
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I'm saying it's dumb as hell to allow people to wander the streets with guns.

I'm saying that doing so allows an agrument that you have to kill people just in case they take your gun.

And I'm sayign that if you say anything like what you said above, did you point that out to people makeing the "Rosenbaum might have taken the gun" argument, or is this one of those weird

A: X could have happened.
B: Oh, so if he had just done things differently, then X couldn't have happened.
A: Who cares about X?

In this case it's

Various people: "Kyle's life was in danger because Rosenbaum could have taken his gun."
Meadmaker: "Well, yeah, but isn't it stupid to allow him to have a gun. They couldn't have taken it if he didn't have it."
Sid: "Are you saying you can't be in danger if you don't have a gun?"

So, Doc. I agree. You are absolutely right. Even without a gun, a person could have been in danger when confronted by violent protestors,. So I expect you to point that out to anyone who says his life was in danger because they could have taken his gun.

Why should anyone be limiting the scenarios to just one: someone taking the gun from Rittenhouse?

The more obvious scenario was that Rittenhouse was going to be very severely beaten up - maybe by a mob, once the first attacker had got him to the ground.

It's important to understand what happened in Rittenhouse's trial, and why it happened that way. The starting point to gaining a proper understanding is to realise that what Rittenhouse was doing that day - walking around the town in the midst of civil disobedience, carrying a long gun - is (for better or worse - it matters not though) not illegal in Wisconsin law*.

Once that's taken properly into account, one then has to examine what Rittenhouse did (and didn't do), and examine the veracity of his defence (self-defence). And in that respect, it's functionally impossible to conclude that Rittenhouse didn't feel in clear & present danger - even mortal danger - in the three incidents where he fired his weapon. Thus his claims of self-defence could not be disproved, and thus he was (correctly) acquitted.

I hate US gun laws, and there are other things on the US Federal statute book (and various State statute books) that I dislike as well. But it is what it is - until & unless there are fairly radical changes in legislation.


* Yes, of course it's tempting to assert that Rittenhouse was in effect courting an attack on him on account of carrying around a long gun in the street. But that's not how the law in Wisconsin sees it. As a (loose) comparator (with an obvious nod to current affairs in another part of Wisconsin), my car is a potential deadly weapon whenever I'm driving through the main streets in my vicinity. I could hit and kill people at will, if I so chose. And Wisconsin law follows a broadly similar doctrine: a gun does not become a deadly threat until its owner at the very least raises the gun to a firing position and aims directly at a person or group of people.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 22nd November 2021 at 07:13 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 07:08 PM   #2713
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 5,159
Originally Posted by Graham2001 View Post
The ACLU has issued their Official Statement on the verdict...
Silly, as expected.
__________________
I don't like that man. I must get to know him better. --Abraham Lincoln
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 07:17 PM   #2714
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,698
Originally Posted by Graham2001 View Post
The ACLU has issued their Official Statement on the verdict...





https://www.aclu-wi.org/en/news/aclu...ttenhouse-case

Uhhhh.... well that's an extremely distorted and ignorant assessment of what happened in the trial, and of how/why Rittenhouse was acquitted. The local ACLU rep who issued that statement has (IMO) substantially dented the credibility of their organisation.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 08:24 PM   #2715
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,009
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Uhhhh.... well that's an extremely distorted and ignorant assessment of what happened in the trial, and of how/why Rittenhouse was acquitted. The local ACLU rep who issued that statement has (IMO) substantially dented the credibility of their organization.
I was thinking the same thing.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 08:43 PM   #2716
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,626
Originally Posted by Graham2001 View Post
The ACLU has issued their Official Statement on the verdict...

https://www.aclu-wi.org/en/news/aclu...ttenhouse-case
That statement is correct, in a way.

Police will allow BLM riots to destroy poor black neighborhoods. They will not allow BLM riots to destroy rich white neighborhoods.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 08:53 PM   #2717
MinnesotaBrant
Philosopher
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,177
They had an interesting article about the fight brewing over who gets the 2m bond that was posted for Rittenberg. Rittenberg wants it but his first lawyer has already sued saying that he should get it.
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 09:15 PM   #2718
HoverBoarder
Graduate Poster
 
HoverBoarder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,667
Originally Posted by Graham2001 View Post
The ACLU has issued their Official Statement on the verdict...

https://www.aclu-wi.org/en/news/aclu...ttenhouse-case
I am surprised that there is not more discussion about the reason that the shooting happened in the first place.

Whomever decided that they should allow rioters free reign to attack business and burn down people's livelihoods created this violent situation. They are far more at fault for the shooting deaths than Kyle Rittenhouse or the people who attacked him.

Does anyone know who is responsible for that decision? The shooting victims families should definitely be sueing the city of Kenosha for knowingly setting up the situation that encouraged the violent encounters that happened.
HoverBoarder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 11:07 PM   #2719
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 5,159
Originally Posted by HoverBoarder View Post
I am surprised that there is not more discussion about the reason that the shooting happened in the first place.

Whomever decided that they should allow rioters free reign to attack business and burn down people's livelihoods created this violent situation. They are far more at fault for the shooting deaths than Kyle Rittenhouse or the people who attacked him.

Does anyone know who is responsible for that decision? The shooting victims families should definitely be sueing the city of Kenosha for knowingly setting up the situation that encouraged the violent encounters that happened.
This is a good question, but I think a better one is why were there riots in the first place. What is it that caused 4 days of riots after a guy violating a restraining order, with a felony warrant for assault, fighting with cops, with a knife in his possession ended up getting shot?
__________________
I don't like that man. I must get to know him better. --Abraham Lincoln
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 05:24 AM   #2720
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,626
Originally Posted by stanfr View Post
Because he wasn't waving it around like a giant compensatory penis.
But Ziminski was. In fact, he fired the first shot.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.