RITTENHOUSE

[Borr 6,201]

Other than the above analogies don't account for a (for example) help riotous folks are going to damage our properties can you come down and assist in defending them, why of course be down directly...oh shot they're armed and going to take my weapon bang bang. He put himself in harm's way for some others . It probably came on top a bit fast. Old Chinese proverb says don't attack a guy when he's got an assault rifle.....I think the judgement was correct on both counts....imho. to add any home invader , serial car thief, serial peadophile,serial child killer, serial dog thief , serial rapist , serial burglar, should get a bullet. I've added serial to remove as much doubt of guilt as possible.

[mackem 27,043]

This case is currently running.... 

 

[Borr 6,201]

3 minutes ago, mackem said:

This case is currently running.... 

 

First impressions is that's murder, if the guy wasn't armed and three burly guys in broad daylight couldn't restrain him it's murder imo

[SheepChaser 8,089]

11 minutes ago, DIDO.1 said:

There's video of this kid scrubbing walls of graffiti and I believe of him carrying a blm protestor to safety. He went there to help and do his duty. 

Much has been made about him being a child. If he was a year older would it of changed things. Much has been said about the strangeness of him being allowed an assault weapon. Well he was allowed to open carry an assault weapon....he can't be found guilty of being allowed to open carry a legal weapon in a legal way. Would it of been different if he was carrying a bolt action. Probably would of been the same outcome. 

In an increasingly worrying world to hear the news that 3 scumbags got shot at a black rights scumbag riot I think is a chink of light and reason to be happy. 

The only people to be angry or upset with him walking free are people worried that more scumbag left wingers will one day get what's coming to them. 

I don’t think you understand my point in any way at all. Not trying to be offensive. 

[mackem 27,043]

5 minutes ago, Borr said:

First impressions is that's murder

They are going down the self defence route. 

Fate of Ahmaud Arbery’s killers now in hands of jury

WWW-AL-COM.CDN.AMPPROJECT.ORG

---

“You can’t claim self-defense if you are the unjustified aggressor,” Linda Dunikoski...

 

[SheepChaser 8,089]

The issue isn’t about who shoots who in as much as the general legal precedent set by making it ok to go out to someone where where you make the judgement call to go and get involved, take your weapon and if attacked or threatened with or without a gun, kill someone. The only reason I mentioned him being a minor - is forgetting this particular case, someone who is young, a teen etc, often perceives situations and threats differently from someone with more experience. 
 

Let’s use a different example, a kid gets in conflict  in school, he is going down the park and might see the bullies, so takes his semi auto. He does see them, they start picking on him or picking a fight, chase him across the park and hit  him with a skate board. He shoots one of them dead.

Does he walk? Is it murder ? 

[DIDO.1 22,844]

4 minutes ago, SheepChaser said:

I don’t think you understand my point in any way at all. Not trying to be offensive. 

I did. I wasn't particularly giving a reply to you. 

Just the more I see of the western world recently the less of a shite a give about scum. I understand the questions your posing for discussion, I just don't have the energy to care about the ins and outs. 

I'm not trying to be offensive either

[SheepChaser 8,089]

2 minutes ago, DIDO.1 said:

I did. I wasn't particularly giving a reply to you. 

Just the more I see of the western world recently the less of a shite a give about scum. I understand the questions your posing for discussion, I just don't have the energy to care about the ins and outs. 

I'm not trying to be offensive either

I can break it down to - the law isn’t always used to protect the innocent and the good, but also the scum. 
 

 

[chartpolski 24,207]

The way I understood the transcripts and videos of the trial is that Rittenhouse was staying with family, that's why the charge of taking of a weapon across state lines, was dropped. 

He owned the weapon legally, due to a law about barrel length.

His actions fitted in completely with the states definitions of self defence, and seeing the video of the shooting of the man who's bicep was "vaporised" and the cross examination by the defence council and the mans replies, to me, it could be nothing but self defence, in that shooting at least.

He was vilified and accused of being a " right wing terrorist" by the liberal press and President Biden long before the court case.

Now, it shouldn't matter if he was far right or far left. He was tried by a court and on the actual evidence, rather than hysterical hearsay, found not guilty on all charges by a jury.

Was he there looking for trouble, or defending fellow citizens ? 

Immaterial, he wasn't breaking any law and and found not guilty.

Cheers.

[SheepChaser 8,089]

1 minute ago, chartpolski said:

The way I understood the transcripts and videos of the trial is that Rittenhouse was staying with family, that's why the charge of taking of a weapon across state lines, was dropped. 

He owned the weapon legally, due to a law about barrel length.

His actions fitted in completely with the states definitions of self defence, and seeing the video of the shooting of the man who's bicep was "vaporised" and the cross examination by the defence council and the mans replies, to me, it could be nothing but self defence, in that shooting at least.

He was vilified and accused of being a " right wing terrorist" by the liberal press and President Biden long before the court case.

Now, it shouldn't matter if he was far right or far left. He was tried by a court and on the actual evidence, rather than hysterical hearsay, found not guilty on all charges by a jury.

Was he there looking for trouble, or defending fellow citizens ? 

Immaterial, he wasn't breaking any law and and found not guilty.

Cheers.

But I think the issue is it’s moves the boundary again. Essentially as you say, it is now potentially immaterial if the next person is looking to help or looking for trouble or which side that person is on. The law has found not guilty in a unique and divisive case. So it has set new legal precedent (potentially).  

[green lurchers 16,729]

1 minute ago, SheepChaser said:

But I think the issue is it’s moves the boundary again. Essentially as you say, it is now potentially immaterial if the next person is looking to help or looking for trouble or which side that person is on. The law has found not guilty in a unique and divisive case. So it has set new legal precedent (potentially).  

I don’t see it like that at all 

[SheepChaser 8,089]

Just now, green lurchers said:

I don’t see it like that at all 

Ok. Don’t tell me, a good guy shot some scum? So that’s ok. I do get that. 

[WILF 47,353]

59 minutes ago, SheepChaser said:

Ok. . . . . here goes . . . .  

 

Firstly I need to state that I dont necessarily have an issue with the three guys getting shot, or dying. The world is full of arseholes. This isn't really about 'my view' just some thoughts i had when reading through some of the stuff on this case and some of the other commentary that has gone on about / in American Law.

As I said before, and as has been shows by some of the posts following my initial comment - things are often /always seen by most folk based upon the individual characters of those involved - i.e. the guys who got shot were 'scum', had bad records of previous crimes etc, and they may well (rightly or wrongly) have deserved to die at some point, possibly then, and are probably no great loss to society.

The issues I was talking about dont really pertain to the specific individuals involved in this incident. 

Those folk who are seeing this as a negative or worrying event do split into two categories - those who have an issue with those individuals being shot and the individual who did the shooting - these mostly surround race, class, etc and may or may not have validity. . . . . but that side isn't what I'm talking about.

What I'm trying to articulate (possibly badly) is the other group of worried individuals (both within wider american society and also within the legal system).

It all comes back to the self defence laws in the USA, which obviously vary from state to state, and as WIlf has said are heavily tied to the ingrained idea of citizens bearing arms.

Defence laws in the USA largely fit into two types - 'Duty to retreat' and 'Stand your ground' laws. The former says that if you are under threat and it is possible to retreat in full safety (i.e. you dont get hurt at all) then it is your duty to opt for that option and hope / allow the powers that be to sort it out. Now I know that doesn't sit well with many, but the idea is you do away with the murky issue of what is an acceptable level of threat etc and also the fact that it can be 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. The caveat to this is the 'castle' factor - if you are in your own home, and in some states your place of work or vehicle, then you dont have to retreat, which seems fair. The second type of defence law 'stand your ground' - means that in any situation where you are going about your lawful business and are then put or find yourself in a situation where you perceive a threat, which can be of physical harm but can also be robbery etc, then you can stand your ground and open fire.

Now as questionable as the latter may be at times, its the law in some states. The issue is it comes down to the individual 'perceiving' themselves to be at threat. Thats a pretty tenuous an contentious issue. . . . .  has been for a while.

Now breaking down this particular situation - a child (considered a minor in the USA) is able to hold a semi automatic weapon and ammunition (ostentatiously for hunting), this child is then able to make the decision to travel to somewhere he perceives there to be potential of threat to himself, he is able to go there by choice, and he is able to take his semi automatic weapon with him. He is able to travel to a public place where he makes the judgement that there may be wrong doing and he may feel or be threatened. He goes there and gets involved in the situation. He finds himself through whatever actions, in a situation where he (a child) feels threatened. He then makes the decision to point and discharge his weapon at someone and kill them. This then escalates and he continues to feel threaten, and so fires at two more people. Two die and one is badly injured. He goes to court and he walks because it is deemed self defence, using the above stand your ground law.

 

OK . . . so for this specific incident it may or may not be a justifiable course of events. However by him waling, it opens up a whole can of legal worms, for the wider system and the wider concept of self defence. 

 

Essentially if you made it a simpler situation its a bit like this -

Situation one - You are in your house putting a shelf up hammer in hand and a man smashed your door down to kill you and rape your wife and you smash his head in with the hammer. 

Situation two - You are in your house putting a shelf up hammer in hand, see on your cctv a man down the bottom of your lane breaking into you / a car. You creep out shout at him to stop, he keeps trying to start the car and screams at you to f**k off - you pull him out, he swings for you and you beat him to death with your hammer.

Situation three - You're going out in town and town centre can get a bit messy and you never know but you may well find yourself in a barny with someone, so you go out with a hammer down the back of your pants. You're out and about, some fella bumps into you, you tell him to f**k off, he squares up to you and you smash his head in with a hammer and kill him.

Situation four - You're going out in town etc and might see some lads you dont like and take a hammer downpour pants. You see the lads and start calling them noncy fat c**ts across the street, one comes over to give you a hiding and you smash him with the hammer and kill him.

 

You can see why this legal case starts to blur the lines. Up until now 'going equipped for defence' has sort of been a thing but only in your day to day normal activities by which you may have a back up plan for threatening situations but do not deem one any more likely than any other time. But a child taking a semi automatic weapon to an obvioulsy volatile situation in a public place, carrying it openly, ending in conflict, feeling threatened, and killing some people . . . .  is pushing the boundaries a lot.

Where does it stop ? How far does it go? If an armed militia perceive themselves to be a threat, how militant can they be etc. Forget about the individuals killed and think about the wider precedent. 

That’s a great post.

I suppose what I think you missed in it (and as I understand the case) was he was going to town to protect a shop?/business?/The Town? 
 

So your scenario of protecting the home extends to the the business and or his community.

I don’t think we get that concept at all in Britain, I think that’s a very American thing to circle the wagons round your community.

He wasn’t going into a town knowing it’s gets a bit naughty on a Saturday night armed and ready for what May come, he was going to his community to defend it from a pre meditated exceptional and known threat event.

I think that is a massive difference to carrying a weapon as protection and using it in a rough area.

In this instance “the community” is his “Home” 

[chartpolski 24,207]

7 minutes ago, SheepChaser said:

But I think the issue is it’s moves the boundary again. Essentially as you say, it is now potentially immaterial if the next person is looking to help or looking for trouble or which side that person is on. The law has found not guilty in a unique and divisive case. So it has set new legal precedent (potentially).  

No, it has set no precedent.....he was found not guilty under the laws of the state. 

If he had walked up to the people he shot and just killed them, he would have been found guilty.

But he was being chased down the road by up to a hundred rioters, one hit him over the head with a skateboard, knocking him to the ground, another kicked him in the head, the third advanced on him, as he was on the ground, pointing a glock 9mm at him, so he fired in self defence, just as the jury accepted.

Cheers.

Edited November 23, 2021 by chartpolski

[SheepChaser 8,089]

2 minutes ago, WILF said:

That’s a great post.

I suppose what I think you missed in it (and as I understand the case) was he was going to town to protect a shop?/business?/The Town? 
 

So your scenario of protecting the home extends to the the business and or his community.

I don’t think we get that concept at all in Britain, I think that’s a very American thing to circle the wagons round your community.

He wasn’t going into a town knowing it’s gets a bit naughty on a Saturday night armed and ready for what May come, he was going to his community to defend it from a pre meditated exceptional and known threat event.

I think that is a massive difference to carrying a weapon as protection and using it in a rough area.

In this instance “the community” is his “Home” 

Thanks and aye I do get what you are saying, but ultimately the defence that was used was the self defence one. It just muddies the water a lot on the situation where it is legal to ‘defend’ yourself by killing others. Mackems video for example.