Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If a pedestrian gives a driver the finger, is the driver justified in running him over? Because that is exactly what you are arguing.The operator, whether it is of a car or a gun, bears the sole responsibility to ensure he does not harm other people with it. It does not matter one iota if he is provoked.
In fact, if he cannot operate safely under pressure, then he is not qualified to be licensed in the first place. And in this particular case, it was illegal for him to even possess that firearm in the first place.
Hell, he was not even legally permitted to be there. But for his preceding illegal actions, none of this would have happened, regardless of whether you think he was justified.
Bad analogy.
A better one is if a driver tries to run someone down and gets shot.
No offense, but Rob, Whirly, and yourself keep ignoring the reality that this wasn't Kyle's fight to choose. The fight came to him.
Kyle wisely attempted to flee, and was chased down and cornered.
That isn't speculation, and it isn't a strawman. It's what happened, as supported by the video evidence.
You don't really seem to care, and in fact act like Kyle was acting like Rambo looking for a fight at the scene (I could care less what he said before hand, his actions on the scene are what he's on trial for)
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It actually unlawful to shoot someone who is fleeing, because he is no longer a threat.
Which is pretty much what happened here, except Rittenhouse was the one fleeing...
Anyway, this should be wrapped up soon, I expect he'll be acquitted from the murder charges at the least. But we will see.
Originally posted by cdtm
No offense, but Rob, Whirly, and yourself keep ignoring the reality that this wasn't Kyle's fight to choose. The fight [b]came to him.
[/B]
Depends on what context you consider valid.
Sure, if you take the shooting in isolation you have a point.
But to argue that the fight "came to him" when he chose to travel to an area where he expected violence to occur (which he clearly did as he went armed) and that he was quoted as saying before the shooting that it was "his job to protect businesses" when it wasn't then you can argue that he went to the fight rather than the fight coming to him.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Depends on what context you consider valid.Sure, if you take the shooting in isolation you have a point.
But to argue that the fight "came to him" when he chose to travel to an area where he expected violence to occur (which he clearly did as he went armed) and that he was quoted as saying before the shooting that it was "his job to protect businesses" when it wasn't then you can argue that he went to the fight rather than the fight coming to him.
Isn't that an unfair burden on him, while excusing the demonstrators though?
In the court of public opinion, why does a 17 year old kid get condemned for trying to play hero, while Black Lives Matter get the benefit of the doubt?
I mean, ideally we'd be criticising Kyle and condemning the looting and such, and instead of end up with this mess of partisan mud slinging. Rob as much called Kyle a symbol of the alt-right, which says a lot about his mind set.
The Democrats and Republicans did a good job of amassing armies of unpaid advocacy groups, I'll give them that much.
Originally posted by cdtm
Isn't that an unfair burden on him, while excusing the demonstrators though?In the court of public opinion, why does a 17 year old kid get condemned for trying to play hero, while Black Lives Matter get the benefit of the doubt?
I mean, ideally we'd be criticising Kyle and condemning the looting and such, and instead of end up with this mess of partisan mud slinging. Rob as much called Kyle a symbol of the alt-right, which says a lot about his mind set.
The Democrats and Republicans did a good job of amassing armies of unpaid advocacy groups, I'll give them that much.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. Sure you can say it's an unfair burden on him if you argue that he was just a naive kid who made a bad decision to put himself in that situation but if you advocate for personal responsibility then that also includes dumb decisions as well as good ones. The same applies to the people he shot. They made dumb decisions to put themselves in that situation and they've paid the ultimate price for those decisions.
I also don't think the court of public opinion is as one sided as you make it out to be. Seems both Rittenhouse and the people he shot are equally lauded and criticised by their respective "sides". Although I can't speak to how that comes across in the US media as I don't watch US news broadcasters. (I should note that the trial is getting almost zero coverage over here)
As for the alt-right thing. If the images of him smiling for people wanting to take photos with him are anything to go by he's not doing himself any favours playing up to people who consider his actions as something to be idolised. He hasn't showed any contrition for his actions. Again though, you can understand a young boy being hailed a hero or role model by a group of older men who are treating him as some sort of respect worthy celebrity would be hard for someone his age to show resistance to when it happens. Playing up to it is just another bad judgement call. Again, though, he still has to take personal responsibility for those decisions.
Whether he gets found guilty or innocent will ultimately come down to technicalities of legal definitions. The prosecution put forward that he should be able to be tried for 2nd degree definitions of his charges should the 1st degree proof threshold not be met but, iirc, the judge did not allow it for the 2 homicide charges or the attempted homicide charge (I might be wrong. It might only be 2 of the 3. Can't be arsed reading it again). We'll find out soon enough.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
iirc, the judge did not allow it for the 2 homicide charges or the attempted homicide charge (I might be wrong. It might only be 2 of the 3. Can't be arsed reading it again). We'll find out soon enough.
Seems like the judge is trying to force the jury to either pick completely innocent or Rittenhouse specifically planned to murder people that night, which the later is nigh impossible to prove.
Hmmm
So anybody wanna take a guess at how long the jury will be in deliberation?
I'm guessing not long since this is so clearly a case of self-defense and the evidence supporting that is overwhelming. Shouldn't take them too long.
But then, there are also all those lesser charges they have to consider so it could end up being longer than expected.
Originally posted by Robtard
Seems like the judge is trying to force the jury to either pick completely innocent or Rittenhouse specifically planned to murder people that night, which the later is nigh impossible to prove.Hmmm
Just like he refused to rule on whether he would permit the possession charge until closing arguments. It is almost like he wanted to handicap the prosecution by announcing he would not permit the charge until there was nothing they could do about it. His conduct is going to ensure the result will be challenged and likely vacated.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The minor in possession charge only applies to short barrelled rifles and shotguns. Rittenhouse's weapon didn't fall under the restriction.
Huh.
I know certain weapons don't require a pernit for home defense, but assumed there was a universal age requirement for ANY deadly weapon.
I mean, even a baseball bat is considered a weapon if not accompanied by a glove in some areas.
That, and the fact he was carrying around the thing in public. You'd think a law applied somewhere.
Originally posted by ares834
There is. He met them. I believe the law states that the age requirement is 16.Of course, the law isn't so completely clear cut. Initially it appears that the requirement is 18 but there are some exceptions which Kyle met which allowed him to meet the lower age requirement.
I like how the media didn't research this at all and just assumed he was breaking a law by carrying a gun.
The media tries to sensationalize everything. And, of course, they have their own narrative to push.
I think more worrying is the fact that some of the supposed fact checkers were completely incorrect.
Even now they refuse to correct it. It really casts a shadow on these attempts by social media to police misinformation.