Not racist. Supports BLM!
3 Likes
Is Kyle on the spectrum?
Ok I’ll stop. Those pics are pretty damning. I haven’t seen them before
5 Likes
So apparently the jury decided on acquittal for all the counts but the first shooting of Rosenbaum on the first day of deliberations and then spent the next two and a half days deciding on the initial shooting. Which is kind of crazy because that’s the exact opposite of what you’d think they’d have to do: if Rittenhouse’s initial shooting of Rosenbaum was not justified then every subsequent act isn’t either. Although the jury could have said that he had retreated from the first shooting and so things kind of reset and he regains his right of self defense, which is apparently a thing. Which he clearly literally did retreat after shooting Rosenbaum, but it’s not clear he met that standard legally and it wasn’t really argued for or against by either lawyer in the closing arguments.
Then added to that is that they could have been deciding on imperfect self defense with Rosenbaum, where Rittenhouse actually thought that his action was justified and reasonable but the jury is saying that it wasn’t reasonable. That the force was not proportional, I guess? Any lawyers here know how an imperfect self defense finding would effect the self defense claim on subsequent actions?
I’ve thought for years that as a not so well socially-adjusted young man if you reduced the quality of my parents by some percent (not to mention the chances to fail that them being fairly well-off provided me) I could’ve easily fallen down the anti-SJW rabbit hole.* Add to that I grew up almost exclusively around white kids and children of H1B immigrants (I couldn’t have even told you what area of Portland has a sizable black population) so racial strife was not anything I was exposed to etc…
Point being is I, like many of us here certainly, can empathize with a 17 year-old having very ugly views of the world.
To answer your question: No. Just no. Not even close.
What exactly was going through Rittenhouse’s mind and to what extent he was well-meaning we cannot know. We do have plenty of evidence, however, to surmise that he absolutely was out to be a badass rather than someone out there looking to deescalate the situation to protect life and property.
*I was fortunate enough that this just manifested itself in me being a dipshit libertarian contrarian for a few years who just desperately wanted the (overwhelmingly liberal) kids I grew up with to be wrong.
3 Likes
Are you taking into account that juries aren’t trained lawyers and aren’t going to parse the application of law like this? As often as not, they will have feelings about what the outcome should be and then work backwards through the law to look for a path to justify it.
You think it is debatable whether it is ok to shoot someone for damaging property?
So to be clear, you think it is ok to use deadly force to defend property?
Yeah, this. Holy shit on the disregard for the value of human life.
Sure, of course. As I noted above, the jury instructions were 36 pages long. Which, if the jury was composed entirely of lawyers they’d spend three weeks just discussing those sentence by sentence before they even got started on discussing the facts of the case. 36 pages is a lot! I just thought it was interesting that they decided things in that order and wondered if anyone knew how a finding of imperfect self defense on the first count would effect the other counts from a legal perspective. But of course the jury can just do whatever they want.
1 Like
The idea that you should kill people to protect property is absolutely disgusting and devoid of any morals.
Maybe back in the day when you had to worry about a bunch of bad guys show up to your ranch with guns to steal your entire livelihood thats something you could argue. These days it’s just having zero empathy and being a piece of shit
9 Likes
But my flat screen TV.
1 Like
I think maybe you could make an argument if it’s an intruder in your home, and your fear is based on the possibility of being killed or badly hurt. In the instance of a social justice protest though, its never (I hope) going to be debatable that shooting a thief or a vandal is justified. Even Kyle admitted on the witness stand that he could not shoot people just for stealing or vandalizing.
1 Like
I agree with this. Intruder in my home is getting a faceful of pepper gel spray (I don’t own guns). People robbing the Macy’s? Shooting is definitely not justified.
Though I’d be all for replacing all guns with pepper spray.
1 Like
This is not a disconnect between “gun owners” and everyone else. This is a disconnect between “evil pieces of shit who don’t understand the value of human life,” and everyone else. Being ok with executing someone for property damage is fucking evil. Try some self-introspection. I was a gun owner for many years, but I still knew that.
7 Likes
The only people who I ever see clamoring for a chance to shoot looters are deplorable cops and firefighters.
1 Like
Star Trek for me. And I’ve been one.
I use plenty of words with just a rough understanding. It’s supprising how far you can go to tracking down a meaning sometimes. It’s like everything is connected. Anyway, it seemed like an odd word choice. Maybe not.
1 Like
Not only that, he’s saying that in regards to defending someone else’s property! It’s good to know that if someone steals something out of my car, Cactus will have my back and pop out of the bushes with an AK.
3 Likes
Yeah, for the record, @cactus, if you come upon someone breaking the windows of my Honda… Don’t kill them please. I’d rather they not die and my windows be broken. I’ve got insurance. Thanks.
Regards,
—jman220
2 Likes
Insurance is for cucks.
4 Likes