Rittenhouse

[iNow]

You may as well be hoping unicorns carry your invisible dragon to the leprechaun factory. 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere, but maybe we could tighten up laws about what’s allowed at protests and large public gatherings. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/21/americans-do-not-want-guns-protests-this-research-shows/

Quote

First, almost two-thirds of respondents (62 percent) think that bringing guns to protests is “very inappropriate.” This finding is true for Black and White Americans. Only a tiny minority (6 percent) believe that it is “very appropriate” to bring guns to protests. Women (69 percent) more than men (54 percent) found such practices “very inappropriate” (Figure 1).

But where we see the biggest differences in opinion is across party lines: 79 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents think guns in protests are “very inappropriate,” while only a third (34 percent) of Republicans feel the same. Republicans (14 percent) more so than any other grouping believe that it is “very appropriate” to bring guns to protests. To be sure, this is a small percentage of Republicans, but as we witnessed in Wisconsin, it doesn’t take many armed people for tragedy to follow.

 

Responding to this:

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The original Constitution, as written then, belongs in a museum as a curio of US history, just  like our Magna Carta. It should be a document that morphs with the needs of the prevailing times. To me, it's like Islamic fundamentalists demanding people live according to the Koran, as written in 6AD.

 

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

You may as well be hoping unicorns carry your invisible dragon to the leprechaun factory. 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere, but maybe we could tighten up laws about what’s allowed at protests and large public gatherings. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/21/americans-do-not-want-guns-protests-this-research-shows/

 

Responding to this:

 

Yes. As we've said many times before: you can't fix stupid. As you say, the only way to try and fix the consequences is put sticking plasters on it, like you mention.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

A good idea is a good idea, no matter when it was written..

Read it. 

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

They're not all good ideas by a long chalk. Moreover, the Founding fathers knew this better than anyone, which is why they included and amending formula and promised to draft a Bill of Rights, wherein that notorious half-sentence appears.

Quote

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

However, the original text already contained the conditions for such arms-bearing:

Quote

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power....

....To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

in one of those hideous run-on sentences that seem to eat their own tails. e hardly never hear that part from gun lobby, and the yahoos aren't lining up with their assault muskets to get regulated by the federal government.

Because the original was imprecise and imperfect, amendments were made from time to time, in response to changes in the external situation and fixes to original mistakes - as well as a bunch of new rules about functions and funding of government as it grew to meet the increasing demand of a rapidly-expanding polity.  

[iNow]

It’s not a thread about the 2nd amendment, folks. Not hard to remember this, is it?

This is about more than guns. It’s about culture and extremism. 

For example, the father of the boy that Rittenhouse maimed… the boy who survived but is now paralyzed from the waist down… the father of this kid has been getting countless death threats since this all happened.

Death threats. To the father of a boy shot and paralyzed. 

The 2nd amendment and our gun laws didn’t lead to that. 

[StringJunky]

Walking over the same old ground is not going to come up with anything new. Peterkin is relatively new, so I can forgive him.  Everything like that is in the SFN archives to peruse.

[Peterkin]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is about more than guns. It’s about culture and extremism. 

I do understand that. But, as cultures go, it's not so easy to separate the components. People who hold extremist views and advocate extreme actions also idolize their guns and loudly proclaim their patriotism and love of Liberty. Bad laws, that are passed by corrupt or merely craven legislatures, enable that culture of extremism to thrive and arm itself. 

Quote

James Waterman Wise Jr. address, in which he told his audience fascism would not come with a “shirt” or “insignia” but “wrapped up in the American flag and heralded as a plea for liberty and preservation of the constitution.”

  https://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/books/who-really-said-when-fascism-comes-to-america-it-will-be-wrapped-in-the-flag-and-carrying-a-cross-1/

 

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

The 2nd amendment and our gun laws didn’t lead to that. 

Of course not. It's merely one hook on which to hang corruption. one of many. 

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Everything like that is in the SFN archives to peruse.

And does everyone who refers to those documents take the time to peruse them?  I think it's important to put events and the attitudes that lead to events, in some perspective. If attempting to do that is a transgression - ignorance of the law is no excuse! - just add it to my rap-sheet.

[swansont]

18 hours ago, Sensei said:

 

Victims were black/darker skin.. ?

Look up data again to verify it..

 

No, they were at a protest in support of such people. 

And according to the judge, they were not victims. 

[uncool]

54 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s not a thread about the 2nd amendment, folks. Not hard to remember this, is it?

This is about more than guns. It’s about culture and extremism. 

For example, the father of the boy that Rittenhouse maimed… the boy who survived but is now paralyzed from the waist down… the father of this kid has been getting countless death threats since this all happened.

Death threats. To the father of a boy shot and paralyzed. 

The 2nd amendment and our gun laws didn’t lead to that. 

Um.

If you mean Jacob Blake, then Rittenhouse didn't shoot or harm him. That was by police, and was the subject of the protest itself.

Otherwise, none of the 4 people Rittenhouse shot at were paralyzed. He killed 2 (Rosenbaum and Huber), hit and "vaporized" the bicep of 1 (Grosskruetz), and missed 1 ("Jumpkick man", who was not identified during the trial).

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, they were at a protest in support of such people. 

And according to the judge, they were not victims. 

Not quite. According to the judge, the prosecution was not allowed to refer to them as victims, as that was the question the trial itself was answering.

Edited November 21, 2021 by uncool

[TheVat]

Given that the Constitution only asserts a right to peaceful assembly for the redress of grievances, it poses no obstacle to banning firearms (or other weapons) at public demonstrations. In fact,  six US states already do so.   It may be seven now,  as IIRC Washington recently passed a new law on this.   Several other states allow their cities to ban weapons at demonstrations within their jurisdiction.  This should be a trend,  given the polling results posted earlier. 

[uncool]

On 11/20/2021 at 7:26 AM, dimreepr said:

He was certainly guilty of shooting 3 people, he was certainly guilty of going somewhere he didn't need to go, with an assault rifle he didn't need to carry, he was certainly guilty of being a spoilt little kid acting out his fantasy's. 

But apparently that's OK, you can actively seek out situations where your probably going to be threatened and stand your ground.

Yes, you can actively seek out situations where you are probably going to be threatened. This is a good thing; it is the basis, for example, for the Civil Rights marches, or for counterprotests at e.g. racist rallies. And in doing so, you do not lose the right to self-defense - whether with a firearm or otherwise. In Wisconsin, at least, you only lose your right to self-defense when you actively provoke an attack.

Additionally: "stand your ground" is specifically about the duty to retreat. Kyle Rittenhouse did retreat, several times. Whether he did so enough may be up for debate. Further, Wisconsin does not have a stand-your-ground law.

[TheVat]

I think the duty to retreat,  as part of a larger ethos of not provoking violence,  can be warped in various ways.   An example would be someone carrying an assault style weapon and then taunting people in a crowd.  Rittenhouse appeared to be carrying a weapon in part to intimidate, and to provoke,  so it is worth asking in what sense his retreats reflected an overall good faith attempt to avoid violence.   It seems plausible that had he opted not to bring a gun,  and confined himself to verbal acts,  there would have been fewer corpses at the end of the day.   Wisconsin's law,  of course, is an inept one in dealing with the larger picture of what provokes violence.   Its purview is too much in the moment. 

[Peterkin]

How far is retreat even applicable, when carrying a weapon with a 600 yard range?

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

How far is retreat even applicable, when carrying a weapon with a 600 yard range?

Um, I don't think anyone will be intimidated by someone with a gun at 600 yards in a place milling with loads of people.... maybe on somewhere like Salt Lake flats with few people around.

[uncool]

For Wisconsin, the statutory requirement with the assumption of provocation is:

"A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant."

with the caveat:

"A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Edited November 21, 2021 by uncool

[Peterkin]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

m, I don't think anyone will be intimidated by someone with a gun at 600 yards in a place milling with loads of people.... maybe on somewhere like Salt Lake flats with few people around.

Are you sure? I'd be shaking in boots! People milling about never protected one another from a mass shooting.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/22/fact-check-post-missing-context-ar-15-rifles-and-mass-shootings/7039204002/

 

[MigL]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

18 hours ago, MigL said:

.Just don't allow any idiots carrying weapons to attend.

How do you sort out the idiots  from reasonable thinking people.

Simple, the idiots are carrying guns.
( and I 'm guilty of electing Trudeau, not Trump )

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Mig's  Italian-Canuck.

I prefer Canuck of Italian descent.

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Are you sure? I'd be shaking in boots! People milling about never protected one another from a mass shooting.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/22/fact-check-post-missing-context-ar-15-rifles-and-mass-shootings/7039204002/

 

You are moving the goalposts, intimidation with the sight of a gun, not actually shooting people was the focus there... it's not relevant.

[Peterkin]

44 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are moving the goalposts, intimidation with the sight of a gun, not actually shooting people was the focus there... it's not relevant.

Retreat was the proximate subject. How far you would have to retreat with that gun to stop posing a threat or visibly end a confrontation. Intimidation was his overt purpose in bringing the weapon. Mass shooting might have been his underlying, unstated purpose. He said he meant to climb onto the roof a car showroom, which would have made a dandy position for a mass shooter - and he did actually shoot people. Which part of that is not relevant to how he was perceived at the time by the protestors who felt menaced?

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

( and I 'm guilty of electing Trudeau, not Trump )

I was directing that at our US friends, not particularly you btw.

I'm really at a loss here to understand how anyone needs or should be able to bring any weapon to any demonstration, irrespective of intent, and irrespective if it is a semi automatic rifle or a small handgun that can be hidden. And I fail to understand the debate about the legalities and letter of the law regarding allowing such a scenario, that is so clear cut plainly wrong, at least in my country and probably others also.

 

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

And I fail to understand the debate about the legalities and letter of the law regarding allowing such a scenario, that is so clear cut plainly wrong, at least in my country and probably others also.

It is because in the US, as well as your country and probably others, being "wrong" has no criminal consequences. You must violate the legalities and letter of the law to be held accountable.

Edited November 21, 2021 by zapatos

[uncool]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because in the US, as well as your country and probably others, being "wrong" has no criminal consequences. You must violate the legalities and letter of the law to be held accountable.

To be held criminally accountable.

Rittenhouse may still be held civilly accountable to the estates of the deceased and to the injured (although self-defense is sure to play a role there, too). The general public can also freely choose whether it wants to associate with Rittenhouse or not.

Edited November 21, 2021 by uncool

[zapatos]

On 11/19/2021 at 12:58 PM, StringJunky said:

I was wondering what you guys over the pond think of today's judgement? 

I think it was the correct judgement, and feel that it is more important to show integrity within our legal system than to slap the living shit out of some pissant who so desperately needs it.

I'm also confident that we will take no action to create a more sensible and safe environment due to the slavish worship of the Second Amendment.

6 minutes ago, uncool said:

To be held criminally accountable.

 

Yes, that is why I said "being "wrong" has no criminal consequences."

 

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It is because in the US, as well as your country and probably others, being "wrong" has no criminal consequences. You must violate the legalities and letter of the law to be held accountable.

My "not understanding" is with regards to why having/carrying guns at any demonstration is not in violation of any law. My "not understanding" is why any country can not see the crazy results in your constitution, that allows ownership of any semi or automatic weapon period, and the general laxity in your laws with any Tom Dick or Harry, being able to own a firearm for some fabricated reason involving 'self defence". My "not understanding" is why in the US with so many mass killings/massacres, that your democratic party, and non redneck Republicans, cannot stand up to your NRA and tell them its time for reasonable gun laws.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

My "not understanding" is with regards to why having/carrying guns at any demonstration is not in violation of any law. My "not understanding" is why any country can not see the crazy results in your constitution, that allows ownership of any semi or automatic weapon period, and the general laxity in your laws with any Tom Dick or Harry, being able to own a firearm for some fabricated reason involving 'self defence". My "not understanding" is why in the US with so many mass killings/massacres, that your democratic party, and non redneck Republicans, cannot stand up to your NRA and tell them its time for reasonable gun laws.

Then you should have said that, instead of saying your "not understanding" had to do with "the debate about the legalities and letter of the law".

As far as why carrying guns at any demonstration is not in violation of any law, it is because the Second Amendment is a right within our constitution, and as such it trumps laws that would infringe on that right. Unless the Supreme Court changes their mind on that issue or the constitution changes, that is the way it is here.

As far as why "any country can not see the crazy results in your constitution, that allows ownership of any semi or automatic weapon period, and the general laxity in your laws with any Tom Dick or Harry, being able to own a firearm for some fabricated reason involving 'self defence".", it is because just like you did here, people tend to argue that point with emotion rather than reason.

And finally, as to why "in the US with so many mass killings/massacres, that your democratic party, and non redneck Republicans, cannot stand up to your NRA and tell them its time for reasonable gun laws.", it is because conservatives generally control the legislatures and the courts.

[Peterkin]

Half of the second amendment. The first half of the second amendment is not applied, and neither is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to regulate militias, while the states totally abdicate theirs. Laws are drafted according various partial, partisan and selective readings of the Constitution, and the Supeme Court interprets them the same way.   

And the culture has always, from Frontier days, favoured the lone gunman. 

It's an American icon to which young boys aspire.