Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:51 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:13 pm

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:08 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:34 pm

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:26 pm

Well, law enforcement didn't do their job and let rioting go on for three nights. Local business owners requested the civilian security.

On a national level, many Americans supported the looting and arson. Many Americans did not.

So local businesses' request make it lawful? Crock of shit! Who gives a shit who supports what? The law is about what is written, and just because the law were wanting, does not mean you can break the law.

But Rittenhouse did not break any law, as was proven by the trail.
Legally held firearms can be carried openly in that particular state, which is what Rittenhouse was doing when he was violently attacked by no less than 3 individuals, he was legally allowed to defend himself against those attackers, which is exactly what he did.
His decision to carry a firearm that night could possibly be considered misguided, but certainly not illegal.
The guy was tried in a court of law and judged to be innocent of any criminal wrongdoing.
You said yourself, “the law is about what is written”, yet you seem to think the law should be disregarded in this instance because you don’t agree with it, you can’t have it both ways.

You should ask for clarification before you throw wild accusations.

I said what was he doing there in first instance.

You stated to protect the community. Not his job. Is vigilantism allowed? Is incitement allowed?

Now, you can say, "that is not what he was on trial for", and I can learn and you can keep this civilised.

You seem to think that nobody other than law enforcement are allowed to protect the community (which they clearly were not on the night in question), the community are also allowed to protect/defend themselves, the measures they take to protect/defend themselves would have to be proportionate to the dangers they faced, but nonetheless they are allowed to protect themselves when threatened, and let’s not forget the threat posed by an attacker armed with an illegally held firearm which he was pointing at Rittenhouse,
You mention vigilantism, but there was none, Rittenhouse at no time pointed his (legally held) weapon at anyone other than those three individuals who were violently attacking him, and only while they were attacking him, he did not offer up any threat to those who were burning, looting or genuinely protesting.
You also mention incitement, I’m assuming you believe that by carrying a firearm Rittenhouse was asking to be attacked, and that perhaps those attacks were justified? the court clearly determined otherwise.
Reacting violently to incitement is a decision made by an individual who could alternatively exercise self restraint. It could be argued that looting and burning businesses is incitement for concerned business owners and members of the community to attack or shoot those looters and arsonists, but no one chose to do so.
At the end of the day, the only people who got shot, were shot in self defense, after having taken it upon themselves to attack a guy clearly (and legally) armed with a rifle. I believe the expression goes something like “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”

You missed the issue. Why did he go there in first place? It was stated to protect the community. Vigilantism, right there.
If not, why would you enter a place of danger, knowing it was such? Does he always go out packing?
I realise you will reply with "go where you like." But I would say, he went there with the purpose of protecting the community by attempting to cease the looting.

Before you jump down my throat, I am trying to grasp how he got off, unscathed, having not followed the story.

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:12 am

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:01 pm Scary to think that a selected group of people could consist of one or more very influencial/s and the remainder a pack melted butter.

Colorful language.

What? Yellow?

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:28 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:52 am

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:12 am

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:01 pm Scary to think that a selected group of people could consist of one or more very influencial/s and the remainder a pack melted butter.

Colorful language.

What? Yellow?

No need for racism here, bud.

Oooookaaaaayy... where's the racism?

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:48 am

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:51 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:13 pm

Chad Sexington wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:08 pm

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:34 pm

So local businesses' request make it lawful? Crock of shit! Who gives a shit who supports what? The law is about what is written, and just because the law were wanting, does not mean you can break the law.

But Rittenhouse did not break any law, as was proven by the trail.
Legally held firearms can be carried openly in that particular state, which is what Rittenhouse was doing when he was violently attacked by no less than 3 individuals, he was legally allowed to defend himself against those attackers, which is exactly what he did.
His decision to carry a firearm that night could possibly be considered misguided, but certainly not illegal.
The guy was tried in a court of law and judged to be innocent of any criminal wrongdoing.
You said yourself, “the law is about what is written”, yet you seem to think the law should be disregarded in this instance because you don’t agree with it, you can’t have it both ways.

You should ask for clarification before you throw wild accusations.

I said what was he doing there in first instance.

You stated to protect the community. Not his job. Is vigilantism allowed? Is incitement allowed?

Now, you can say, "that is not what he was on trial for", and I can learn and you can keep this civilised.

You seem to think that nobody other than law enforcement are allowed to protect the community (which they clearly were not on the night in question), the community are also allowed to protect/defend themselves, the measures they take to protect/defend themselves would have to be proportionate to the dangers they faced, but nonetheless they are allowed to protect themselves when threatened, and let’s not forget the threat posed by an attacker armed with an illegally held firearm which he was pointing at Rittenhouse,
You mention vigilantism, but there was none, Rittenhouse at no time pointed his (legally held) weapon at anyone other than those three individuals who were violently attacking him, and only while they were attacking him, he did not offer up any threat to those who were burning, looting or genuinely protesting.
You also mention incitement, I’m assuming you believe that by carrying a firearm Rittenhouse was asking to be attacked, and that perhaps those attacks were justified? the court clearly determined otherwise.
Reacting violently to incitement is a decision made by an individual who could alternatively exercise self restraint. It could be argued that looting and burning businesses is incitement for concerned business owners and members of the community to attack or shoot those looters and arsonists, but no one chose to do so.
At the end of the day, the only people who got shot, were shot in self defense, after having taken it upon themselves to attack a guy clearly (and legally) armed with a rifle. I believe the expression goes something like “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”

You missed the issue. Why did he go there in first place? It was stated to protect the community. Vigilantism, right there.
If not, why would you enter a place of danger, knowing it was such? Does he always go out packing?
I realise you will reply with "go where you like." But I would say, he went there with the purpose of protecting the community by attempting to cease the looting.

Before you jump down my throat, I am trying to grasp how he got off, unscathed, having not followed the story.

FTR, I’ve no intention of jumping down anyone’s throat, just offering up my opinion like everyone else.
It’s unfortunate that you did not follow the televised trial, as what I’m relaying here was pretty much all covered, and anyone seeing the evidence submitted would have to be incredibly biased to believe Rittenhouse was the bad guy in all this.
Firstly, you seem to have an incorrect view of what vigilantism is, or at least difficulty differentiating between self defense and vigilantism, they are not the same thing, self defense (using justifiable force) is legal, vigilantism is not, that’s why Rittenhouse walks free.
Vigilantism is about bypassing or disregarding the legal system, pursuing individuals with the intention of dealing out punishment or retribution for crimes committed or perceived.
That is not what the guy was doing, he was there to assist and if necessary protect members of the community. At no time did he pursue anybody, threaten anybody or interfere in any way with rioters or protesters, rather he had been offering them first aid assistance and helping put out fires with an extinguisher up until the first attack against him, an attack he attempted to retreat from but was pursued by the attacker who attempted to wrestle his weapon from him, at which point he fired in self defense, incredibly, this was to happen twice more, each time he’s attacked he attempts to retreat towards law enforcement, he’s pursued, the attack sustained, before firing in self defense (all caught on camera)
Rittenhouse went to Kenosha, a town he had previously worked in, the town where his father is a resident, at the request of local business owners for protection of their property and persons from rioters and looters who had for the previous two nights rampaged completely unchallenged by law enforcement.
As regards him being armed, thousands upon thousands of Americans routinely (and legally) carry firearms openly or concealed where permitted by law (whether that’s a good thing or not is open to debate, but the laws are what they are) and as the law in Kenosha currently stands the guy was perfectly within his rights to be armed. He’s not carrying a weapon with the intention of attacking someone, he’s carrying it in case he needs to defend himself, there’s a huge difference between the two.
As for him intentionally entering a place of danger? Why not? there’s too many instances of people standing by, watching violent crime being carried out, innocent people getting injured or killed, because they’re too afraid of possible consequences to get involved. Sometimes public spirited individuals do step up, and on occasion are lauded as heroes.
How would you feel if your home or business, your life or the life of a loved one were in imminent danger, law enforcement were just standing around with their fingers up their arses, too worried about political correctness to give a shit about you and yours, and some person volunteered to stand by you, intent to help in whatever way they could? I doubt you would tell that person to fuck off.

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:48 am I am trying to grasp how he got off, unscathed, having not followed the story.

I heard a black Democrat (rep, or something) say on PBS that after reading the statutes and listening to all the evidence he would have aquitted too.
He said there was no other option if you upheld your sworn duty as a juror > ie, applying the law as it is written.

He still said it was fucked.

Pseudonomdeplume wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:48 am]

You missed the issue. Why did he go there in first place? It was stated to protect the community. Vigilantism, right there.
If not, why would you enter a place of danger, knowing it was such? Does he always go out packing?
I realise you will reply with "go where you like." But I would say, he went there with the purpose of protecting the community by attempting to cease the looting.

Before you jump down my throat, I am trying to grasp how he got off, unscathed, having not followed the story.

Protecting property isn’t vigilantism and neither is self defense, it’s a basic human right. The whole argument about “why was he there in the first place” is akin to blaming a woman who is raped on what she was wearing.