If you think you tire irons are as dangerous as AR-15s then you are not qualified to comment on the matter.
I’d love to conduct a poll to see what if anything, a pacifist considers justifiable homicide
If a large man approached a petite woman in a parking garage, slapped her in the face, and tugged at her purse and she pulled out a concealed gun and shot him dead would that be justified? Or do we say, hey it’s only a slap in the face and just a purse, so it wasn’t a proportional response
I don’t want to derail this thread any further than it is, but I’d seriously like to know
I think think the actual verdict is the least infuriating part of this.
More infuriating:
- The gun culture in this country. No one should have a goddamn assault rifle, certainly not a kid. What the fuck.
- Everything that happened to Rittenhouse, from carrying around the gun to not getting shot by the cops to how he was treated during the trial to the verdict itself, would have been far different if he was black.
- How he’s now lionized as some kind of hero by the batshit crazies.
6 Likes
Try applying your own Conservative Logic to this and see if you can figure it out.
Those people Rittenhouse shot deserved to die because they were dumb enough to challenge someone with an AR-15.
That woman deserved to get robbed by the Large Man because she was dumb enough to go into a parking lot where the Large Man was.
Oh no! 404 Error! Desired outcome not found!
5 Likes
^^^^^^^^
1 Like
Proportionality is the underpinning of every modern Western (and most Eastern) legal systems and has been for hundreds and hundreds of years. Your views are regressive in the extreme.
10 Likes
But my flat screen TV. Ain’t no Urban Thug gonna come in MY HOUSE and steal MY TV!
Cactus,
If Grosskreutz (who pointed a gun at Rittenhouse after observing Rittenhouse shoot two other people) had instead shot and killed Rittenhouse, would Grosskreutz have committed a crime in your view?
Insuring against unrest specifically seems like it would be hard/prohibitively expensive.
Surely you understand that Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz can each have mutually consistent, valid self defense claims. And that Grosskreutz’s valid self defense claim doesn’t necessarily diminish Rittenhouse’s self defense claim.
I can’t keep all of the incidents straight
1 Like
total amount of damages submitted by seattle business amounted to $2m, with half of it in the form of economic loss from closures. it’s well within reason to insure for 10x that. the seattle pd budget is >$400m in 2021.
Surely you can see a problem with a system of laws that is set up such that people can just execute each other with no consequences because they each decided to arm themselves with guns.
2 Likes
OK, I see what you are saying, the police as insurer. Sort of sets up some weird incentives.
The one thing I can understand is women carrying a gun in case of a rape attempt. I would totally be ok with only women being allowed to conceal carry.
It was the one where there was needless death because of American gun culture.
exactly, we need public discourse from experts on how this can be implemented as intended. knowing human nature, unscrupulous politicians will exploit this to some corrupt or oppressive effects, and probably just funnel money back into militarizing. but it could be well worth it, if it allows peaceful protests to occur without antagonizing the “small business community” and prevents even a single additional death or injury occurring during an escalating riot.
Ah yeah that one
They literally brought those charges and he was found not guilty on both counts.
2 Likes
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that all charges brought were in the first degree, which requires planning, foresight, or specific intention to kill. The lesser charge of second degree murder could still contain malice, but every attorney I’ve talked to says a conviction would’ve been very likely. First degree is purposely very hard to gain a conviction. The court isn’t like this place where you can play fast and loose with words