A Political Thread pt. 2

[Reiser99]

I haven't read up on the exact details so if I'm wrong on anything let me know.

However for me, someone taking a semi-automatic to a protest that I believe he had to travel quite far to (across state lines?), so any kind of argument that it is self-defence is already dubious as he was clearly looking for trouble. Further if someone has pulled a gun on him, it's only after he has started shooting himself. In that situation surely he is the aggressor and the others are defending themselves.

Simply for me, morally he is completely in the wrong and would be legally in most countries that actually have sensible gun laws. However, the key issue for me is that this still highlights the institutional racism in America. Would he have been treated like this if he were black? No. You can be sure the judge would have called white people victims. There is no way a 17 year old black boy would be able to go to a protest of white people with a semi automatic and not instantly be shot by the police. All this trial shows is that there is one rule for white people in America, another rule for everyone else.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

In that situation surely he is the aggressor and the others are defending themselves.

To play devils advocate: The issue with that is that he was being chased (after the initial shooting) - you could say they were chasing to restrain until law enforcement could have arrived etc. but I imagine it's hard to argue self defence if you chase the guy down the road until he trips and then you hit him with a skateboard

 

[Reiser99]

To play devils advocate: The issue with that is that he was being chased (after the initial shooting) - you could say they were chasing to restrain until law enforcement could have arrived etc. but I imagine it's hard to argue self defence if you chase the guy down the road until he trips and then you hit him with a skateboard

On the flip side, pretty sure if a school shooter started shooting and then ran away, if others started chasing him and he shot at them again it wouldn't be called self-defence.

"Sure I shot 10 people first, but the other 5 were chasing me, so those count as self-defence."

For me he can't start shooting and then when people try to stop him claim self-defence. How do the others know he won't keep shooting? Also isn't the best way to stop a shooter supposedly a 'good guy with a gun'. Most people would be called heroes if they chased down someone who started shooting first. This again is the main point, if he was black or if there had been white victims, this trial would be very different.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Gonna be found not guilty of most ****. Get a tiny sentence that will prob be suspended
Riots gonna happen and just repeat

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

People saying it's too cold to riot. Sounds like a reason to set things on fire to me.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

On the flip side, pretty sure if a school shooter started shooting and then ran away, if others started chasing him and he shot at them again it wouldn't be called self-defence.

"Sure I shot 10 people first, but the other 5 were chasing me, so those count as self-defence."

For me he can't start shooting and then when people try to stop him claim self-defence. How do the others know he won't keep shooting? Also isn't the best way to stop a shooter supposedly a 'good guy with a gun'. Most people would be called heroes if they chased down someone who started shooting first. This again is the main point, if he was black or if there had been white victims, this trial would be very different.

Don't disagree at all,
It's a very murky situation with regards to the law (and even then each state has it's own laws situations you can justifiably shoot people)
As I mentioned in my first post about it, I don't know how much is taken into account/whether it's viewed as a chain of events or three separate shooting incidents all judges on their own merit etc.

I don't think it's as clearcut, in either direction, as the left/right say.
It's not clearly pre-mediated murder (as the left are trying to paint it) but he's not some hero/innocent kid who was simply defending himself (as the right want people to think)

 

[Bada-Bing!]

From a non legal POV:
Only in America could you carry a semi automatic weapon as a minor, cross into another state/town and claim that you were there on the basis that you are protecting someone else's property; then end up killing 3 people and claim It was self-defence.

 

[Reiser99]

Don't disagree at all,
It's a very murky situation with regards to the law (and even then each state has it's own laws situations you can justifiably shoot people)
As I mentioned in my first post about it, I don't know how much is taken into account/whether it's viewed as a chain of events or three separate shooting incidents all judges on their own merit etc.

I don't think it's as clearcut, in either direction, as the left/right say.
It's not clearly pre-mediated murder (as the left are trying to paint it) but he's not some hero/innocent kid who was simply defending himself (as the right want people to think)

I think it comes back to what is legal isn't always moral, though as I've already said I think what is legal would be different if he wasn't a white person shooting black people.

I remember hearing a quote once, not guilty doesn't mean the same as innocent. He may be found not guilty, but he is still responsible for those people's deaths.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

I haven't read up on the exact details so if I'm wrong on anything let me know.

However for me, someone taking a semi-automatic to a protest that I believe he had to travel quite far to (across state lines?), so any kind of argument that it is self-defence is already dubious as he was clearly looking for trouble. Further if someone has pulled a gun on him, it's only after he has started shooting himself. In that situation surely he is the aggressor and the others are defending themselves.

Simply for me, morally he is completely in the wrong and would be legally in most countries that actually have sensible gun laws. However, the key issue for me is that this still highlights the institutional racism in America. Would he have been treated like this if he were black? No. You can be sure the judge would have called white people victims. There is no way a 17 year old black boy would be able to go to a protest of white people with a semi automatic and not instantly be shot by the police. All this trial shows is that there is one rule for white people in America, another rule for everyone else.

16 miles and about 20 minute drive - technically across straight lines but really not very far at all tbf

 

[Reiser99]

16 miles and about 20 minute drive - technically across straight lines but really not very far at all tbf

Yeah because he was in so much danger from a protest 16 miles away. I'm amazed because you actually ignore the main point of my posts not to correct something that is incorrect, but to quibble over whether 16 miles is very far or not. Personally I think travelling 16 miles with a semi-automatic to a protest around black lives matters is too far unless you are looking for trouble.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Did he drive there himself? Not that it matters but it seems mental to us but probably less so to your average American.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I only ask as I was told his mum drove him there which is absolutely mental if true. She should be on trial for being an unfit mother. A unreliable mate told me this, though, so not sure if it's true.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Did he drive there himself? Not that it matters but it seems mental to us but probably less so to your average American.

Yeah it was his mum I believe - pretty shitty parenting tbh

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Yeah because he was in so much danger from a protest 16 miles away. I'm amazed because you actually ignore the main point of my posts not to correct something that is incorrect, but to quibble over whether 16 miles is very far or not. Personally I think travelling 16 miles with a semi-automatic to a protest around black lives matters is too far unless you are looking for trouble.

You said you didn't know the exact details so was just trying to be constructive - "across state lines" sounds like a hell of a lot further than it is when you live on a state border so it's an important distinction imo.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

This is the Kid's "mom".

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

You're going to get into a legal quagmire very fast if you start considering legal actions as intent to commit a crime. Legally being in possession of a firearm in a public place just can't be intent, from my understanding of US law he would have needed to do something at the protest to incite violence.

It's just another blatantly obvious example of massive reform that's needed over there. As pointed out earlier, law enforcement allowed him to do this and the law will protect him, reverse the races and the kid gets nowhere near the protest. Race and gun law issues all thrown into a hugely public case... Good luck with that.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Yeah it was his mum I believe - pretty shitty parenting tbh

I wonder what the chat was like on that drive?

Mum: "sooooooo, you looking forward to the riot, son?

Son: yeah, it's gunna be lit

Mum: Have you got your AK?

Son: Yep

Mum: Ammo?

Son: Locked and loaded

Mum: Ok, well here we are, have fun, make sure your safety is off. Byyyyyeeeee

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Tbf the testimony gives him an obvious reason to be there - even if it is really **** parenting imo

* Around 10 p.m. video shows Rittenhouse with a rifle standing with other armed men near a used-car dealership. Rittenhouse testified he was asked to help guard the business due to the threat of looting and arson. He brought a medical kit and says his objective was to provide aid to anyone injured.

* Around 10:45 p.m., another video shows Rittenhouse asking police officers for water. One officer says: "We appreciate you guys. We really do."


From Reuters fyi if people want to have a read - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ho...eaning-graffiti-shooting-3-people-2021-11-11/

 

[TRF_Olyy]

* Around 10 p.m. video shows Rittenhouse with a rifle standing with other armed men near a used-car dealership. Rittenhouse testified he was asked to help guard the business due to the threat of looting and arson. He brought a medical kit and says his objective was to provide aid to anyone injured.

Didn't the car dealership testify that this wasn't the case?

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Didn't the car dealership testify that this wasn't the case?

They said that they hadn't asked them too but that they were there guarding it. They've got a picture with them and everything - that whole thing is kinda odd because it's specific and defo happened but it's not clear (as far as I'm aware) who actually organised it