Rittenhouse

[MigL]

23 minutes ago, uncool said:

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).

I doubt it.
A civil 'wrongful death' suit would fail because of the reason you state.
It was accepted as self defense, which is not wrongful death.

Civil cases have a much lower burden of proof, but other factors, unmentionable in criminal court, can be presented, like the felony history of the 'victims'.
And arguing that Ritterhouse went out of his way to insert himself into the situation is a non-starter, as two of the victims' came from further away than he did.

There are plenty of court judgements that I don't like, as this kid is destined for many more stupid things, however, according to current law, this was the correct judgement.

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Laws are drafted according various partial, partisan and selective readings of the Constitution, and the Supeme Court interprets them the same way.   

Yep. Exactly.

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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".

Mea culpa!

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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.

Change the archaic constitution. The old west with Billy the Kid and Wyatt Earp is long dead and buried I would think.

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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.

It's fairly emotive I suggest to the relatives of the two killed in this incident, and I see absolutely no reason for any non military personel to own any semi or automatic weapon.

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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.

  Well that says it all. A God fearing nation that allows ownership of semi and automatic weapons, and votes in these conservatives, deserve what they get. Yet, even the conservatives (at least a large percentage of them) in my country stand critical of your archaic 2nd amendment and your brand of conservatism.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

Change the archaic constitution. The old west with Billy the Kid and Wyatt Earp is long dead and buried I would think.

As I said conservatives generally control the legislatures, so that is not going to happen any time soon.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

It's fairly emotive I suggest to the relatives of the two killed in this incident

Of course it is. And to millions of others, on both sides of the debate.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

I see absolutely no reason for any non military personel to own any semi or automatic weapon.

And I see no reason for anyone to ever need to eat Vegemite again. I'm afraid neither one of our opinions is going to do much to change things.

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

A God fearing nation that allows ownership of semi and automatic weapons, and votes in these conservatives, deserve what they get.

Well, that's a bit harsh. I certainly don't think I deserve to be shot while in school or a movie theater, and neither do the people who voted in the conservatives. I also think people who do illegal drugs don't "deserve" to overdose, and women who gravitate toward 'bad boys' don't "deserve" to get abused on occasion. And certainly Australia, who abused their indigenous peoples, don't deserve a deadly response from said peoples.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, uncool said:

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.

I’m pretty sure they were victims of the shooting.

”a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.”

The question was whether the were victims of a crime.

 

[beecee]

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

There are plenty of court judgements that I don't like, as this kid is destined for many more stupid things, however, according to current law, this was the correct judgement.

Yes, that's exactly what I cannot understand...how and why such a judgement could ever align with the law. 

And worth noting, the strict gun laws in Australia were mostly due to an ex PM named John Howard, the former leader of the Liberal party here, and the equivalent of your Republican party no less. 

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And I see no reason for anyone to ever need to eat Vegemite again. I'm afraid neither one of our opinions is going to do much to change things.

While comparing semi and automatic weapons with Vegemite is hardly sensible to say the least, people's opinions and actions at elections can and do change things. 80 to 90% of Aussies, both left and right of the political spectrum, support our gun laws and the continuing hardening of these laws. eg: the banning of importation in 2015 of the "Adler A110 lever-action shotgun"

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Well, that's a bit harsh. I certainly don't think I deserve to be shot while in school or a movie theater, and neither do the people who voted in the conservatives. I also think people who do illegal drugs don't "deserve" to overdose, and women who gravitate toward 'bad boys' don't "deserve" to get abused on occasion. And certainly Australia, who abused their indigenous peoples, don't deserve a deadly response from said peoples.

And that's incredibly wrong. I was referring to the politicians and law makers as being deserved of what you get after elections. No one elects being shot. Your comment on drugs and "bad boys"  are a result of personal choice, and thankfully I have never taken drugs to ever make that overdose mistake, (other then alcohol, tea, coffee and kava) and while being no angel, respect all people as they deserve, and of either gender. 

And of course no one ever said Australia was perfect in the treament of its indigenous peoples, and on that I have commented in the past in appropriate threads. Perhaps you are misconstruing what I am saying. This isn't an America bashing exercise by me, simply comments on facts regarding your archaic gun laws, your archaic constitution, and the amount of far right rednecks that "seem" to control your nation at this time.

Perhaps you missed my previous comments in this thread.

On 11/21/2021 at 7:53 AM, beecee said:

The USA is known as the leader of the free world, and has given us great men and examples of leaders...Washington, JFK, numerous scientists such as Feynman, Oppenheimer, Sagan, Edison, Vera Rubin etc etc etc, and the list goes on and on...orginizations such as NASA, Smithsonian Institute etc. It deserves that position and should be respected for that position. But this sort of nonsense has its enemies and potential enemies, as well as allies and friends, seeing this great nation as a backwood society, driven by religious fanatics and rednecks. One can only wonder!!! Ahh well. Perhaps another "great"may emerge to lead your nation. Personally and I don't know a terrible lot about her, but I do like your vice President Kamala Harris.

 

[zapatos]

58 minutes ago, beecee said:

While comparing semi and automatic weapons with Vegemite is hardly sensible to say the least,

My comparison was that you had an opinion and I had an opinion, neither of which are germane to the Rittenhouse trial or the laws that decided the case.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And that's incredibly wrong. I was referring to the politicians and law makers as being deserved of what you get after elections.

Thanks for the clarification as that is not what you said when I posted my comment. You said "A God fearing nation... deserve what they get." Perhaps you can understand why I misunderstood you.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The old west with Billy the Kid and Wyatt Earp is long dead and buried I would think.

Very, very far from it! That cult goes back to Davy Crockett and Dan'l Boone and has never entirely been out of the national consciousness. Moreover, there seem to have been almost as many such folk heroes on the wrong side of the law as on the right . That's why the pudgy kid with the big gun is so popular with certain elements - and to another segment of society looks like the archetypal school shooter

Regardless that the criminals were, in fact, quite un-Robin Hood-like and some of the lawmen were not much better then their adversaries and mass shooters actually come in all shapes, shades and ages. Pop cults are not deeply concerned with facts or reality; they're more about image. 

[iNow]

5 hours ago, uncool said:

If you mean Jacob Blake, then Rittenhouse didn't shoot or harm him. That was by police

Thank you. I did present that inaccurately and appreciate your correction. 

My point with that post, however, was that the father has been receiving death threats for over a year. That’s not a problem created by either our 2nd amendment or our gun laws. 

[beecee]

36 minutes ago, zapatos said:

My comparison was that you had an opinion and I had an opinion, neither of which are germane to the Rittenhouse trial or the laws that decided the case.

Of course we both have opinions, but again your analogy/comparisons was poor...why not just compare US gun laws and Australia's gun laws, and whether one is advantagious over the other or not. Vegemite by the way is great for making gravy, as well as on a slice of toast. And it won't kill you.

43 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Thanks for the clarification as that is not what you said when I posted my comment. You said "A God fearing nation... deserve what they get." Perhaps you can understand why I misunderstood you.

The full gist of what I said was......

2 hours ago, beecee said:

  Well that says it all. A God fearing nation that allows ownership of semi and automatic weapons, and votes in these conservatives, deserve what they get. Yet, even the conservatives (at least a large percentage of them) in my country stand critical of your archaic 2nd amendment and your brand of conservatism.

 

[Peterkin]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

My point with that post, however, was that the father has been receiving death threats for over a year. That’s not a problem created by either our 2nd amendment or our gun laws. 

Neither situation is a creation of the other; they are parts of the same fringe culture - a fringe that has been growing wider and denser over the last few decades. The gun laws that so many administrations have tried to change cannot be changed because of that culture; the threats of violence, attempted violence and actual violence (against public figures, medical personnel, media personalities, whistle-blowers, reformers, climate activists, people in the news for any reason) are facilitated by social media and enabled by easy access to deadly projectile weapons, that anyone can use from a safe distance. The situations don't create each other, but they do feed on each other.

[beecee]

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Very, very far from it! That cult goes back to Davy Crockett and Dan'l Boone and has never entirely been out of the national consciousness. Moreover, there seem to have been almost as many such folk heroes on the wrong side of the law as on the right . That's why the pudgy kid with the big gun is so popular with certain elements - and to another segment of society looks like the archetypal school shooter

You mean they aren't dead yet? 

1 minute ago, beecee said:

The old west with Billy the Kid and Wyatt Earp is long dead and buried I would think.

Yes I understand what you are trying to say, and appears in some long winded way, the same as I am saying. Worth noting also that we also had our own share of outlaws, some we called Bushrangers....Ned Kelly, who was hung after being caught and whose last words were, "such is life" another named Ben Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushranger We though didn't have Hollywood to give them the status that yours had.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Of course we both have opinions, but again your analogy/comparisons was poor...

No, my analogy was perfect as both opinions were the same thing; irrelevant.

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

why not just compare US gun laws and Australia's gun laws, and whether one is advantagious over the other or not

Because it is off-topic in this thread.

[beecee]

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

My point with that post, however, was that the father has been receiving death threats for over a year. That’s not a problem created by either our 2nd amendment or our gun laws. 

Not familiar with this seemingly strange event. The victim (Father of the vicitm)  receiving death threats? can you link or relate the story?

Just now, zapatos said:

No, my analogy was perfect as both opinions were the same thing; irrelevant.

Sorry, I see it far from that. My position was that reasonable, sensible gun laws may have prevented this, whether or not it did have any bearing or not...obviously what I say at the opposite side of the world has no bearing. Your comparing your bias against a food, as having ( or not having) the same bearing? Sorry, I see that extreme to say the least. 

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because it is off-topic in this thread.

Except that reasonably sensibly made gun laws, may have prevented this happening, and by extension many other mass shootings in your country.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

My position was that reasonable, sensible gun laws may have prevented this,

Well, the part of your position that I responded to was when you said "I see absolutely no reason for any non military personel to own any semi or automatic weapon." I most certainly did not say that "reasonable, sensible gun laws may have prevented this" was irrelevant.

[Peterkin]

34 minutes ago, beecee said:

You mean they aren't dead yet? 

Exactly that. Legends do not die; they are enhanced, ennobled and enlarged, once they're no longer around to embarrass their admirers. Do your legendary outlaws have a cult following? Songs, I know about. But do kids dress like them, strut about talking tough and shoot tin cans, pretending they're cops - or sheriff's deputies, or Mexican army, or whatever the fantasy is around each particular action hero? That's what a lot of these armed vigilante types are doing: living their own movie. That's what little Kyle Rittenhouse was doing: being a star. That single photo tells his whole script.      

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Exactly that. Legends do not die; they are enhanced, ennobled and enlarged, once they're no longer around to embarrass their admirers.

Ahhh, OK its there legends that aren't dead...gotcha! But would they have been that legendary if not for Hollywood? genuine question btw. I understand the more heroic factors of Bowie and Boone and their bravery at the Alamo.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 Do your legendary outlaws have a cult following? Songs, I know about. 

Not to the extent of yours obviously, but yes to one example, Ned Kelly, rose to prominence for the reasons that he, his family having arrived from Ireland as convicts were originally grossly mistreated prior to turning Bushranger.....there are though various interpretations of the story and his rise to infamy. And yes there were numerous songs, one even by Johnny Cash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LH7FXf66KU

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 But do kids dress like them, strut about talking tough and shoot tin cans, pretending they're cops - or sheriff's deputies, or Mexican army, or whatever the fantasy is around each particular action hero? That's what a lot of these armed vigilante types are doing: living their own movie. That's what little Kyle Rittenhouse was doing: being a star. That single photo tells his whole script.      

Actually no, as kids in my days anyway, we sadly driven and lead by Hollywood, played cowboys and Indians...the American version. No argument at all about what the little punk was doing, or the other one wearing the horned head gear. I find it hard to raise sympathy for either though, rather sympathy for the shooting victims, and the invasion of American democracy by redneck criminals.

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Well, the part of your position that I responded to was when you said "I see absolutely no reason for any non military personel to own any semi or automatic weapon." I most certainly did not say that "reasonable, sensible gun laws may have prevented this" was irrelevant.

"And we are going round in circles, because while certainly reasonable sensible gun laws may have prevented this, I still see no reason for any non military person ever owning a semi or automatic weapon, whether or not my thoughts had any bearing. I see those thoughts as valid. In fact that was echoed by a former Conservative Prime Minister of Australia ( that I never voted for) that re-enforced rightly our already tough laws...an example of a conservative being right in this case...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia 

"Then Prime Minister John Howard frequently referred to the United States to explain his opposition to civilian firearms ownership and usage in Australia, stating that he did not want Australia to go "down the American path".^{[108][109][110]} In one interview on Sydney radio station 2GB, Howard said, "We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns... ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia."^[111] In 1995 Howard, as opposition leader, had expressed a desire to introduce restrictive gun laws.^[112] "I did not want Australia to go down the American path. There are some things about America I admire and there are some things I don't. And one of the things I don't admire about America is their... slavish love of guns. They're evil."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

His thoughts and the consequent laws had bypartisan support across the whole Australian parliment.

Edited November 22, 2021 by beecee

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

But would they have been that legendary if not for Hollywood? genuine question btw.

Not as, of course not. Hollywood inflates everything and renders stories graphic; it plays an enormously significant part in popular culture, from the 1930's onward. The archetype, as well as well as the names, already existed in literary form, ready for Hollywood to harvest. 

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Actually no, as kids in my days anyway, we sadly driven and lead by Hollywood, played cowboys and Indians...

Just as your present-day Trumpite nutbars carry the Rambo poster. We also get our cinematic imagery from Hollywood. But we don't - except at the extreme fringes - identify with it. Americans do: it's their culture. (Not all Americans with the same archetype, obviously. There are several other kinds of more or less emulatable hero,  and many Americans who don't play-act. But this meme is very popular with a certain type of youth.)

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I find it hard to raise sympathy for either though

So what? Neither your lack of sympathy, nor the alt-right's admiration, make a difference to what motivated him.  Nor does whatever we, outsiders, think have any part in how the rest of the story will play out. 

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I still see no reason for any non military person ever owning a semi or automatic weapon

And others do. But two people telling each other about their opposing opinions doesn't accomplish much. If you want to convince people to change the status quo you need a reasoned argument, not personal belief.

If I tell you that some guy I know sees a reason for a non-military person owning a semi-automatic weapon, I'm pretty sure you'll not change your position on personal ownership of semi- or automatic weapons.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

If you want to convince people to change the status quo you need a reasoned argument,

And that works? I have yet to see it work in US legislation.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Not as, of course not. Hollywood inflates everything and renders stories graphic; it plays an enormously significant part in popular culture, from the 1930's onward. The archetype, as well as well as the names, already existed in literary form, ready for Hollywood to harvest. 

And like religion, the weak minded follow. I respect enormously many Americans as well as Australians...I don't idolise/adore them.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Just as your present-day Trumpite nutbars carry the Rambo poster. We also get our cinematic imagery from Hollywood. But we don't - except at the extreme fringes - identify with it. Americans do: it's their culture. (Not all Americans with the same archetype, obviously. There are several other kinds of more or less emulatable hero,  and many Americans who don't play-act. But this meme is very popular with a certain type of youth.)

Yes many just do not grow out of their childish adorations and/or beliefs. But to resort to evil as a result, is a personal choice, that this punk made. 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So what? Neither your lack of sympathy, nor the alt-right's admiration, make a difference to what motivated him.  Nor does whatever we, outsiders, think have any part in how the rest of the story will play out. 

 He was found not guilty...a travesty imo (yep which doesn't count) but which I'm expressing anyway. If he had of been found guilty, and locked up, he still would not have my sympathy. ( yep and again that doesn't count) and again, so what? I'm expressing that opinion whether you like it or not, as others have. I'm also not that interested with your sympathies lying with perpetrators, rather then vicitms, but that's your choice, which of course doesn't count anyway and makes no difference to the justice system.

[Peterkin]

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm expressing that opinion whether you like it or not, as others have. I'm also not that interested with your sympathies lying with perpetrators, rather then vicitms, but that's your choice,

That has never been "my choice".  My sympathy doesn't enter in. I try to see a coloured picture, that's all.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

And others do. But two people telling each other about their opposing opinions doesn't accomplish much. If you want to convince people to change the status quo you need a reasoned argument, not personal belief.

Not much is accomplished anyway on any forums with any personal opinions and pushing of personal political philosophies. So why are we tooing and froing? My reasons? Sure! Guns kill...semi and automatic weapons kill far more efficiently...mass killings are more then capable with these weapons...That's sufficient reasons for the far greater percentage in my country to have them banned and/or under strict control, and as is the case in other countries, and consequently the reasons why the US have many more mass killings then other countries.Something I'm sure you don't desire. 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

If I tell you that some guy I know sees a reason for a non-military person owning a semi-automatic weapon, I'm pretty sure you'll not change your position on personal ownership of semi- or automatic weapons.

Wrong again. Give me a reason why any non military person should be able to have the right to own a semi or automatic weapon? I'm listening. 

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That has never been "my choice".  My sympathy doesn't enter in. I try to see a coloured picture, that's all.

That has never been your choice???😲 Well let me reword it more effectively...your sympathies lie more with perpetrators then mine ever do, in the majorty (not all) of cases, where mine are approaching zero in many cases.(not all but many) . No one's sympathy counts either way, other then the sympathies when a justice system needs to make a decision re a criminal and the danger he is to society... but we still express them. Again mine are that this little punk was found not guilty( according to prevailing justice) and imo that is a travesty...both the justice system and the little punk.  

Edited November 22, 2021 by beecee

[iNow]

8 hours ago, beecee said:

Give me a reason why any non military person should be able to have the right to own a semi or automatic weapon? I'm listening. 

This isn’t his position, though. You’re asking Zap to defend a stance he’s not here advocating. He’s correctly saying that change won’t come from a Aussie putting forth an argument rooted in personal incredulity… “I can’t see a reason” is a valid opinion, but does nothing to make things better. It’s equivalent to Zaps neighbor saying, “well, I do… so there” and leaves us at an impasse… so maybe best to focus on other aspects of the discussion instead. 

Zap also said reason is needed more than emotive opinions, with is true to an extent, but Peterkin rightly pushed back on this. Human minds tend more often to be changed at a visceral emotional level, then rationalized after the fact with reason, IMO.

Anyway, it’s clear that you don’t think any valid reasons exist for assault-style weapons to be owned and out on the streets and outside the military. So what… What happens next? Fair??

[Peterkin]

What happens next? My guess is, nothing better. The present federal government is ... let's be generous and say, not quite strong enough to address either the gun issues or the racial rifts, while the conservative state governments have grown disproportionately powerful.

This is the least rational period of my lifetime - not only in the US, but globally - and quite possibly the least rational in modern history. You'd have to look back to the Reformation for so much volatile unreason.  I very much fear that what comes next is a far-right victory, one last feeding frenzy, followed by economic collapse - all of it accompanied by many senseless killings, everywhere. Then war, plague, famine - you know the drill.   

I have been wrong before. I hope I'm wrong now.