- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kyle Rittenhouse was released on bond, now he's nowhere to be found
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:06 am to NoSaint
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:06 am to NoSaint
quote:
it wasn’t a great situation for people to encourage a high school kid to put himself in.
So his actions would have been hunky-dory if he were five years older?
2
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:19 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
his actions would have been hunky-dory if he were five years older?
I think you are being a bit disingenuous about what I said if that’s your reply... but here I go... I said I didn’t think it was right to hand a high school kid a gun and send him in there. My commentary there was not rittenhouses actions. Legally I don’t know every last nuance of Wisconsin gun law and affirmative defenses so I haven’t chimed in much on whether I think he will be convicted of anything.
Morally, and also with my limited understanding of locally law, I stand by that opinion about giving him the gun though. You may change my mind legally as I don’t care enough to try to pretend I am a lawyer in the case with my research. I accept I’m just a dude spitballing on a message board from a thousand miles away.
I would, perhaps incorrectly, assume that we both agree that at some age handing a person a gun and sending them on there way goes from illegal to legal. Likewise itll progress along a spectrum of reckless to reasonable as the recipient ages, and situations change.
A teenage brain is still rapidly developing and changing, so I think handing it to a high school kid vs a college graduate there does change the equation. I suspect taken the other way you’d agree there’s no question it’d be wrong to put a middle schooler in that position.
I’m not one to pretend when you go to bed at 20 years and 364 days you suddenly learn how to handle alcohol while you sleep. It makes me uncomfortable to see discussion of sending the local Varsity football team armed in a city to do crowd control as a good idea (to add a little fun color to handing a kid a gun to go into a protest)
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:36 am to NoSaint
Your reply is all over the place. Let’s just break it down in its most simplistic terms:
Would a reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s position feel that their life was under threat by the first perpetrator such that it necessitated self-defense?
Would a reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s position feel that their life was under threat by the first perpetrator such that it necessitated self-defense?
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:43 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Your reply is all over the place. Let’s just break it down in its most simplistic terms:
Would a reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s position feel that their life was under threat by the first perpetrator such that it necessitated self-defense?
I’m way upstream from that debate in my comments
I was discussing a totally different aspect of what happened earlier in that day and you are replying with “but what about what happened hours later”
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:45 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Would a reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s position feel that their life was under threat by the first perpetrator such that it necessitated self-defense?
Any reasonable person would conclude that a group willing to chase after you while you openly carry a semi-automatic assault rifle is likely armed and intending to harm you.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:49 am to NoSaint
quote:
I’m way upstream from that debate in my comments
I was discussing a totally different aspect of what happened earlier in that day and you are replying with “but what about what happened hours later”
But you can’t disconnect the two - and that is the problem.
If you agree that Rittenhouse’s life, given the circumstances, was under threat such that lethal self-defense was reasonable and necessary, then arguing that it should be a crime to equip himself to be able to defend his life is a moral conundrum.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 8:58 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
But you can’t disconnect the two - and that is the problem.
If you agree that Rittenhouse’s life, given the circumstances, was under threat such that lethal self-defense was reasonable and necessary, then arguing that it should be a crime to equip himself to be able to defend his life is a moral conundrum.
Sure you can.
If he was never given the gun he wouldn’t likely have been standing guard out there, definitely would not have drawn the attention of being a target, and wouldn’t need to defend himself.
That’s why I think it’s important to not just look at the split second of the trigger pull when discussing how we got here. Sure that will be the issue in his legal defense but in the discussion of what we should tell our children to do... stay out of the situation in the first place as a kid, and don’t encourage other people’s children to end up there is pretty reasonable advice and also a part of the wider societal discussion of what happened that day.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 9:11 am to The Third Leg
quote:
Any reasonable person would conclude that a group willing to chase after you while you openly carry a semi-automatic assault rifle is likely armed and intending to harm you.
While on some level I don’t wildly disagree with the logic... it’s a hell of a situation to try to create a self defense argument that simply carrying a semi automatic assault rifle comes with the assumption that any threat against you must be deadly cause you have the ability to kill them so easily.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 9:19 am to NoSaint
quote:
While on some level I don’t wildly disagree with the logic... it’s a hell of a situation to try to create a self defense argument that simply carrying a semi automatic assault rifle comes with the assumption that any threat against you must be deadly cause you have the ability to kill them so easily.
Well, one guy had a handgun, and this dipshit kid was running away from the conflict and being chased by a group that knew he was armed and had the capacity to kill them. Given those circumstances, any reasonable person would conclude their life was in imminent danger.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 9:21 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Would a reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s position feel that their life was under threat by the first perpetrator such that it necessitated self-defense?
Yeah.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 9:24 am to NoSaint
quote:
Sure you can.
Only if you’re completely intellectually dishonest
quote:
If he was never given the gun he wouldn’t likely have been standing guard out there,
Huge assumption
quote:
definitely would not have drawn the attention of being a target, and wouldn’t need to defend himself.
Another assumption and, given what transpired across the country last summer, one that is easily refutable.
On some level, your argument is akin to “did you see the way she was dressed? She was asking for it.”
Posted on 2/6/21 at 10:01 am to Antonio Moss
NoSaint makes a fair point about the friend who bought the gun and gave it to him. He will likely be in some legal trouble. One can reasonably conclude that his actions were pretty negligent while Kyle also exercised self defense.
As for Kyle, at least one shot was fired near him while he was being chased and there is video evidence of that. I also believe journalist Richard McGinnis who was in view of the first shooting said he witnessed Rosenbaum try to grab and take away Kyle’s rifle before he was shot.
I watched some video from a criminal defense lawyer walking through all the legal arguments and he said it seems to be pretty clear self defense and the prosecution will likely focus on other legal issues and try to say because these other things took place “some illegal”, Kyle couldn’t exercise self defense.
As for Kyle, at least one shot was fired near him while he was being chased and there is video evidence of that. I also believe journalist Richard McGinnis who was in view of the first shooting said he witnessed Rosenbaum try to grab and take away Kyle’s rifle before he was shot.
I watched some video from a criminal defense lawyer walking through all the legal arguments and he said it seems to be pretty clear self defense and the prosecution will likely focus on other legal issues and try to say because these other things took place “some illegal”, Kyle couldn’t exercise self defense.
This post was edited on 2/6/21 at 10:03 am
Posted on 2/6/21 at 10:57 am to SUB
quote:
NoSaint makes a fair point about the friend who bought the gun and gave it to him.
Maybe.
But I’m discussing Rittenhouse specifically
Posted on 2/6/21 at 11:01 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
So his actions would have been hunky-dory if he were five years older?
Or even a few months older where he could be in the military. People acting like he was some 10 year old with an AK.
This post was edited on 2/6/21 at 11:02 am
Posted on 2/6/21 at 11:19 am to SUB
quote:
NoSaint makes a fair point about the friend who bought the gun and gave it to him. He will likely be in some legal trouble. One can reasonably conclude that his actions were pretty negligent while Kyle also exercised self defense.
As I have stated due to some horrible redrafting of the statutes a few years ago it is (arguably) legal for a 15-year-old in WI to be in possession of a .50 BMG Barret 82A1 but not a pair of nunchucks. The redrafting did not impact the law regarding the person that provided the gun to the minor:
Subsections of 948.60:
quote:
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
Note there is no exception for self-defense or defense of others due to the fact the law was never meant to allow an 18 to possess or go armed with any dangerous weapon.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 11:39 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
I don't give a shite about Kyle Rittenhouse to be honest.
You should. This will be a landmark case that will go the USSC if needed. Rittenhouse shootings were 100x more justified than the Ashli Babbit shooting.
This post was edited on 2/6/21 at 11:40 am
Posted on 2/6/21 at 12:06 pm to NoSaint
quote:
If he was never given the gun he wouldn’t likely have been standing guard out there, definitely would not have drawn the attention of being a target, and wouldn’t need to defend himself.
Once again: "If she had never worn that skirt, definitely would not have drawn the attention of being a target, and wouldn't need to defend herself."
You are doing nothing but blaming the victim for the actions of the aggressor(s).
Posted on 2/6/21 at 7:07 pm to GetmorewithLes
I look at Trayvon Martin case and see very little evidence and Zimmerman still got off. I look at this case and see mountains of evidence to support self defense. I just can't see a legal argument that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt the charge of murder. I don't think he should be charged for any serious offense barring any new evidence that comes out. It really is a shame how much politics influences what charges are filed in cases like this. Has it always been this bad?
Page 20 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News