Black Lives Matter

[ShockerPrez]

"When you have completed making a fool of yourself, ditch the thread and bail, pat yourself on the back, look in the mirror and reinforce your self worth"

-- Fun Through Trolling" 1st ed, chapter 5 (2nd paragraph)

[C0|dB|00ded]

You've finally made a little sense here. It must feel good.

I think this is the nuance lost on both sides, to an extent. If you're going to use (carry) deadly force, and claim self defense, you better be able to prove it, and in fact you have to be able to prove it, and as you said, that can be difficult.

And I've heard more than once that KR is very fortunate that there were multiple videos proving his case, because without them, I think most of us would have to admit he's probably found guilty (and wrongly so). Not that he IS guilty, but in today's world, that jury is likely finding him so.

And hopefully that lesson isn't lost on either side of the ideological discussion. If you're going to do something while armed to the teeth, you might want to wear a body cam.

Much calmer!

[SubGod22]

Had he been carrying a concealed handgun, he would have been breaking Wisconsin laws as he was 17 and that would have been forbidden.

He didn't get into a heated match with the first guy he killed. He also wasn't alone when that happened. He was threatening the group but probably did target Kyle as he was probably the youngest and he felt he might get a rise out of him. I don't recall there being any evidence that Kyle responded to those threats verbally. The fact that he ended up shooting that guy I think is irrelevant as the video evidence shows the now dead guy chasing Kyle down and not the other way around. Kyle even shouted "friendly" I believe three times when the man first approached him that night and began chasing and threatening to kill him. Kyle still tried to avoid confrontation by running away.

He never harmed a single person of color, though he did shoot at one who had kicked him in the face. That man then fled and was no longer a threat.

I'm no fan of Kyle. He's no hero by any means. But the facts are what matters and he broke no laws and only fired after being threatened with death by the first guy, assaulted with a deadly weapon by the second guy that was killed and shooting and hitting the arm of a man who had pointed a loaded weapon at him. None of his actions were illegal and he was found not guilty and from everything I've seen about the trial and the numerous video options you can watch from that night there was really no reason to pursue charges in the first place. The self defense seemed pretty clear to anyone who honestly watched the videos of that day. There were some questions as to if he was allowed to carry the gun, but based on the judges ruling and what I've been able to read of the Wisconsin laws, which are poorly and vaguely written in some areas which is the sad intent of many laws federally and locally for the very reason of trying to make more people criminals, seems to be correctly not charged or convicted for that.

Legally, I don't see how there can really be much in the way of complaints on how this trial ended up and resulted in not guilty.

It's fine to question his decision making in being there. A lot of people wouldn't put themselves in harms way even though he'd done it previously without incident. You can choose to question things from a moral perspective if one chooses.

But at the end of the day, legally, there was nothing to see here.

And lets not forget the Coffee decision in FL that came the same day was a self defense case of a young black man/kid who was found not guilty of shooting at police serving a no knock warrant that was against I believe his father, who had already been apprehended, and not against him or his now dead pregnant girlfriend who was shot and killed by the police after throwing flash bang though his window and kicking in doors. Self defense mattered there and that involved police. Now his other charges are still debatable as we have some **** laws that may result in that kid spending up to 30 years in prison for being in possession of a firearm because he was a felon as a result of our nations failed war on drugs.

[WuDrWu]

The other part of the KR case that is troubling, to me at least, is I believe this is going to embolden the anti 2A crowd. The argument will be (just watch, I promise it's coming) that his defense is a result of "bad gun laws" and that if we change the laws and make it harder for him to have the gun (and therefore use it) then we could have stopped this miscarriage of justice.

And it's an argument that may very well win.

[C0|dB|00ded]

The other part of the KR case that is troubling, to me at least, is I believe this is going to embolden the anti 2A crowd. The argument will be (just watch, I promise it's coming) that his defense is a result of "bad gun laws" and that if we change the laws and make it harder for him to have the gun (and therefore use it) then we could have stopped this miscarriage of justice.

And it's an argument that may very well win.

If a person is using the 2nd Amendment in 2021 in order to bolster their civilian "presence", they are violating the spirit of the law. This young man is certainly straining the cause.

The argument that had Rittenhouse not carried an AR-15 on him that day, nobody would have gotten killed... and Rittenhouse would likely have been home playing PlayStation, is a defensible one.

The model "2A guy", or even sheepdog, are unassuming individuals not behaving in the manner of the gentleman on trial. He was playing John Rambo, pure and simple.

[C0|dB|00ded]

"When you have completed making a fool of yourself, ditch the thread and bail, pat yourself on the back, look in the mirror and reinforce your self worth"

-- Fun Through Trolling" 1st ed, chapter 5 (2nd paragraph)

The only person trolling is yourself. And you're trying to troll me?

Sit down son, before you get yourself hurt.

[ShockerPrez]

The only person trolling is yourself. And you're trying to troll me?

Sit down son, before you get yourself hurt.

What does 'hurt' look like on an Internet message board? I don't live in that reality.

[Kung Wu]

If a person is using the 2nd Amendment in 2021 in order to bolster their civilian "presence", they are violating the spirit of the law. This young man is certainly straining the cause.

I mean forming a band of armed brothers and stopping rioters from destroying property and threatening innocent people's lives is almost EXACTLY the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I mean forming a band of armed brothers and stopping rioters from destroying property and threatening innocent people's lives is almost EXACTLY the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

I'm going to have to disagree, particularly in the context of the 21st century. Vigilantism is VERY legally expensive.

vig·i·lan·tism
/ˌvijəˈlan(t)(ē)ˌizəm/

noun

1. law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.
   "the message here is not to encourage vigilantism"

I think the modern-day interpretation is "in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves". Rittenhouse narrowly met that definition.

Moving "towards" the danger that eventually threatened him is where I personally have issue.

If a man goes into bear country and gets mauled by a bear, how heartbroken are you? Now if the bear breaks into a person's home and does damage, it's an entirely different circumstance.

Heroes like firemen, paramedics, (graffiti washers?), generally do not run towards the danger with AR-15's strapped to their backs. The folks that carry those have authorization to use deadly force. Ritt had to "engender" authorization by entering bear country. I think this is what gives the average person pause.

Thanks to all for your point of views which helped me to form my own.

[wufan]

You've finally made a little sense here. It must feel good.

I think this is the nuance lost on both sides, to an extent. If you're going to use (carry) deadly force, and claim self defense, you better be able to prove it, and in fact you have to be able to prove it, and as you said, that can be difficult.

And I've heard more than once that KR is very fortunate that there were multiple videos proving his case, because without them, I think most of us would have to admit he's probably found guilty (and wrongly so). Not that he IS guilty, but in today's world, that jury is likely finding him so.

And hopefully that lesson isn't lost on either side of the ideological discussion. If you're going to do something while armed to the teeth, you might want to wear a body cam.

The guys in the Arbery case are going to go to prison. They thought they were within the law, but they were (most likely) not.

Kyle’s case should have never gone to trial with the preponderance of evidence that was available at the time of the incident. It just goes to show how much power the state has in forcing one to censor their God given rights.

[wufan]

The other part of the KR case that is troubling, to me at least, is I believe this is going to embolden the anti 2A crowd. The argument will be (just watch, I promise it's coming) that his defense is a result of "bad gun laws" and that if we change the laws and make it harder for him to have the gun (and therefore use it) then we could have stopped this miscarriage of justice.

And it's an argument that may very well win.

Oh yes, they are in fact arguing this. If he had been convicted they’d be arguing for more gun laws as well. Can’t react to the left on this one. Need to take our wins and keep pushing for more!

[Kung Wu]

I'm going to have to disagree, particularly in the context of the 21st century. Vigilantism is VERY legally expensive.

Vigilantism? The "band of brothers" in this case weren't out there trying to arrest anyone. They were trying to help people in need with their medkits, clean up graffiti, and snuff out fires. That's not vigilantism.

The 2nd amendment doesn't need context. It stands just fine as it is, but thanks for being willing to reinterpret the Constitution for us.

You'll make a fine liberal one day, just keep working at it.

[wufan]

I'm going to have to disagree, particularly in the context of the 21st century. Vigilantism is VERY legally expensive.



I think the modern-day interpretation is "in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves". Rittenhouse narrowly met that definition.

Moving "towards" the danger that eventually threatened him is where I personally have issue.

If a man goes into bear country and gets mauled by a bear, how heartbroken are you? Now if the bear breaks into a person's home and does damage, it's an entirely different circumstance.

Heroes like firemen, paramedics, (graffiti washers?), generally do not run towards the danger with AR-15's strapped to their backs. The folks that carry those have authorization to use deadly force. Ritt had to "engender" authorization by entering bear country. I think this is what gives the average person pause.

Thanks to all for your point of views which helped me to form my own.

This wasn’t bear country, this was his community, and the effing zoo keepers imported a bunch of bears, walked six blocks away, and then acted surprised when the people tried to get the bears to stop burning their businesses down.

[Kung Wu]

I think this is what gives the average person pause

The average person _that actually knows anything about this case_ does not have "pause". The only people that do are people that are badly misinformed or ignorant of what happened that day.

[wufan]

The average person _that actually knows anything about this case_ does not have "pause". The only people that do are people that are badly misinformed or ignorant of what happened that day.

Those that “know next to nothing” about the case.