Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote: Mostly agree... though I am still an unclear why he gets to claim self-defense. nutjob twitter suggests that the law says everything that happened prior to Kyle being chased doesn't matter (i.e. bringing the gun, walking into the crowds, etc.) but that seems like exactly what should matter. I dunno.

This is the equivalent of saying his skirt was too short.

Its not provoking violence unless he's using fighting words, charging at people, swinging on them, etc. You only lose self defense protections if you are acting recklessly/ violently or some other clearly spelled out carveout in the law. You know, engaging in criminal behavior, which its far from clear he did.

If wandering around the street is enough to lose your self defense claim, then it sounds like he would have been justified in firing indiscriminately into the crowd similarly wandering around, some of whom were armed. I mean, if walking around that particular street was so recklessly provacative.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: Mostly agree... though I am still an unclear why he gets to claim self-defense. nutjob twitter suggests that the law says everything that happened prior to Kyle being chased doesn't matter (i.e. bringing the gun, walking into the crowds, etc.) but that seems like exactly what should matter. I dunno.

This is the equivalent of saying his skirt was too short.

Its not provoking violence unless he's using fighting words, charging at people, swinging on them, etc. You only lose self defense protections if you are acting recklessly/ violently or some other clearly spelled out carveout in the law. You know, engaging in criminal behavior, which its far from clear he did.

If wandering around the street is enough to lose your self defense claim, then it sounds like he would have been justified in firing indiscriminately into the crowd similarly wandering around, some of whom were armed. I mean, if walking around that particular street was so recklessly provacative.

so if everyone's walking around with firearms, no one's provoking violence.

spike wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: Mostly agree... though I am still an unclear why he gets to claim self-defense. nutjob twitter suggests that the law says everything that happened prior to Kyle being chased doesn't matter (i.e. bringing the gun, walking into the crowds, etc.) but that seems like exactly what should matter. I dunno.

This is the equivalent of saying his skirt was too short.

Its not provoking violence unless he's using fighting words, charging at people, swinging on them, etc. You only lose self defense protections if you are acting recklessly/ violently or some other clearly spelled out carveout in the law. You know, engaging in criminal behavior, which its far from clear he did.

If wandering around the street is enough to lose your self defense claim, then it sounds like he would have been justified in firing indiscriminately into the crowd similarly wandering around, some of whom were armed. I mean, if walking around that particular street was so recklessly provacative.

he was walking around holding an AR-15.

Whenever I see a person with a rifle, my first instinct is to threaten and chase them.

guys, giving everyone guns totally works. look how peaceful inner city neighborhoods are.

If that’s true McP why isn’t his mother also on trial?

She should definitely have known better.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: Mostly agree... though I am still an unclear why he gets to claim self-defense. nutjob twitter suggests that the law says everything that happened prior to Kyle being chased doesn't matter (i.e. bringing the gun, walking into the crowds, etc.) but that seems like exactly what should matter. I dunno.

This is the equivalent of saying his skirt was too short.

Its not provoking violence unless he's using fighting words, charging at people, swinging on them, etc. You only lose self defense protections if you are acting recklessly/ violently or some other clearly spelled out carveout in the law. You know, engaging in criminal behavior, which its far from clear he did.

If wandering around the street is enough to lose your self defense claim, then it sounds like he would have been justified in firing indiscriminately into the crowd similarly wandering around, some of whom were armed. I mean, if walking around that particular street was so recklessly provacative.

It's not the same at all and that's not what I am saying. I am suggesting Kyle knew exactly what might happen when he showed up with gun in that place with those people and that he went into the crowd knowing full well it dramatically increased the odds he might have to use that gun. I'm not suggesting that people cannot defend themselves or should not be allowed to walk the streets (though there was a curfew to avoid exactly this), but there has to a be line there. You can't step into a big fight and expect not to get hit. There must, somewhere, be a duty to not recklessly endanger yourself.

No there doesn't and shouldn't be a line there. You don't get to decide that.

You have a right to go to a dangerous public place and not be attacked. That right doesn't go away because you think it's too dangerous. And whether he should expect to be attacked is completely irrelevant.

- "nutjob Twitter"

God I hope Clint Eastwood lives long enough to make a Kyle Rittenhouse movie.

BurtReynolds wrote:You have a right to go to a dangerous public place and not be attacked. That right doesn't go away because you think it's too dangerous. And whether he should expect to be attacked is completely irrelevant.

- "nutjob Twitter"

The looter's veto worked great last summer.

BurtReynolds wrote:You have a right to go to a dangerous public place and not be attacked. That right doesn't go away because you think it's too dangerous. And whether he should expect to be attacked is completely irrelevant.

- "nutjob Twitter"

If you are walking down a street late at night in bad neighborhood, I agree. When it's in the middle of violent lawlessness, and you are aware of that lawlessness, and you are armed and violating a curfew hanging with a bunch of others who are armed and violating a curfew, and you walked armed into that lawlessness, I disagree.

It was not murder. Don't think I believe that nonsense. And may be completely legal, but it seems like loophole in self defense laws.

tragabigzanda wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:McP, at what age do you think one evolves from being “young enough to be that stupid” to “being old enough to know better”?

Or I guess a better question would be what does the science say

It’s a complicated line to draw. All I can say is that I don’t think the science of human development exists in a vacuum.

What I mean by that is, I wouldn’t have the same answer for a 17 year old who brings a gun to a mall and opens fire as I would for a 17-year-old who tries to mimic the adults he repeatedly sees being accepted and even lauded for bringing guns to patrol a protest…adults whose presence is regularly, visibly, positively received by police and admired by an entire political ideology. Adults he admires, who do this sort of thing without it blowing up into catastrophe all the time.

Add to that the active support of such a decision by key adults in his life, and it becomes a level of perception distortion that I’m not comfortable demanding a 17 year old to be able to cut cleanly through.

I’m not saying that he should be free from the cost of his actions (as I said before, I think he CAN’T be, for the rest of his life). And I think it’s right to put him on trial…in part because the trauma that is fear of incarceration is a consequence, and in part because a trial serves as an opportunity for a jury to evaluate circumstances and character.

But I *am* saying I think that, with all the adults who showed up that night with guns, there’s a reason it was the 17-year-old who ended up in this mess. And more than anyone else involved, I am mad at the adults with guns (including cops!) that he interacted with that night who didn’t say “kid, stay here close to us. This isn’t a fucking game.“ Those people are, to a T, stupid as dirt.

Not sure a single thing other than his age and weapon type is true. Shame on Joe S for being sooo wrong.

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:You have a right to go to a dangerous public place and not be attacked. That right doesn't go away because you think it's too dangerous. And whether he should expect to be attacked is completely irrelevant.

- "nutjob Twitter"

If you are walking down a street late at night in bad neighborhood, I agree. When it's in the middle of violent lawlessness, and you are aware of that lawlessness, and you are armed and violating a curfew hanging with a bunch of others who are armed and violating a curfew, and you walked armed into that lawlessness, I disagree.

It was not murder. Don't think I believe that nonsense. And may be completely legal, but it seems like loophole in self defense laws.

You can't defend your friend's property, there are looters there!

I wonder what Rittenhouse supporters would say if a black man went to the Capitol on January 6 to defend it with his assault rifle and he was attacked and shot someone? Would they be upset when he inevitably would have been killed while doing so?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:I wonder what Rittenhouse supporters would say if a black man went to the Capitol on January 6 to defend it with his assault rifle and he was attacked and shot someone? Would they be upset when he inevitably would have been killed while doing so?

He'd be shot by cops before getting a chance to attempt to (because its the capitol and there's no carry allowed and its a sensitive location).

Your hypothetical is a bit off as the Capitol is a public building that in normal times is open to the public, so it kind of seems that he would have arbitrarily decided that a certain group shouldn't be there. Its frequently the site of protests, so thats a bit strange.

Change your hypothetical to any structure closed to the general public and yes, 100%. The cause of the protesters has no bearing on self defense.

Its also kind of weird to suggest that having a weapon somehow chills the speech of demonstrators. They had no issue using fighting words with the armed group Kyle was with, so its not clear how their speech was stifled.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:I wonder what Rittenhouse supporters would say if a black man went to the Capitol on January 6 to defend it with his assault rifle and he was attacked and shot someone? Would they be upset when he inevitably would have been killed while doing so?

I wonder what Rittenhouse haters would think about that.

spike wrote:guys, giving everyone guns totally works. look how peaceful inner city neighborhoods are.

Super problematic post. Yikes!

Well I'm neither but I would apply logic to both situations and say I would never walk into a volatile situation like that in the first place if I wasn't forced to.

*Edit this was responding to Burt