Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Toni]

I linked to the CNN article that reported the video of a man saying Rittenhouse pointed the AR-15 at him and Rittenhouse saying "Yes, I did" was shown at the trial as part of the Prosecution's case, and that Rittenhouse testified about it on the stand.

Can you repost it?
In any case, if what you say was so convincing, the prosecutor would not have felt the need to try to conjure up corroboration from a pixelated video still. I maintain that the "brandishing" was not demonstrated and should not be stated as fact.

If you feel you must quibble you could at least follow the links and have some idea what you're quibbling about.

It's a long derail of a long thread. Can't have all the links at the ready.

Link to the evidence the car lot owner invited a 17 year old from Illinois to his car lot that night. I suspect you're posting bullshit but I am more than happy to learn more about all the different people who showed extremely poor judgement that night.

Again, why is him living in Illinois seen as such a clincher by the Ilk?
Anyway, see here:

Rittenhouse testified that he and Black went downtown because they were invited to guard the Car Source, a Kenosha car dealership, during the unrest and were under the impression they were going to be paid.
The Khindri brothers who own the dealership denied this under oath, but multiple other witnesses testified against them, backing Rittenhouse's version.

Kyle Rittenhouse didn't illegally bring a gun across state lines and 5 other myths surrounding the trial debunked

Is that because unlike Rittenhouse, Martin was unarmed, not inserting himself into a volatile situation or going to a place where rioting was likely to occur, and not doing anything provocative when he was chased down by a man with a documented history of violence? Or is it because Martin was black and therefore cannot get anything close to the same consideration you give to a white teenager?

Yes, one big part of the reason why the two cases are very different is that one of them occurred during a riot. And no, my analysis, unlike yours, has nothing to do with race. Also, I would say opening a can of "whoop ass" on the man he described as a "creepy ass cracker" is definitely provocative, to say the least.

Shall we compare Rittenhouse to Tamir Rice, then?

Why?

Rice had a pellet gun in a park and reportedly he pointed it at someone. You were adamant in your claim that 12 year old Rice should have known how intimidating he looked and was entirely responsible for the cops killing him within 2.5 seconds of arriving on scene. Was 17 year old Rittenhouse responsible for his actions, too, and for the response he got from Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz? If not, why not?

Again, it has not been established that Ritt pointed his gun at anybody. It has been established that Rosenbaum has been belligerent the whole night and certainly did not require such provocation to attack Ritt. Huber smashed his skateboard over Ritt's head and Grosskreutz admitted that he pointed his gun at Ritt first

Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two of them. He definitely pointed his gun at at least those three. In fact, his killing if the first person is why he was chased by the others who were, in their minds, attempting to apprehend a murderer. Im inclined to agree with them.

As I’ve said before, I grew up in a hunting household. The very first lesson was to never, ever, ever EVER point a firearm at something you did not intend to shoot—and to shoot to kill. This applies to a weapon that you had just pulled paper and cleaned and KNEW was unloaded. Because you could be wrong.


Rittenhouse went to a riot with a gun he was too young to legally possess. Tamir Rice went to a park to play. Travon Martin went to a convenience store to get snacks for his little brother. One of these is not like the other.

 

[Emily Lake]

Unfortunately, you and some others tend to take any disagreement with progressive ideas as being indicative of being a nazi.

Aw that's a shame. I can certainly sympathize. Being a conservative and being a nazi are very different things, and whoever called you a nazi must be a very bad person indeed, because you give no such impression. You're just a naive conservative. Or a brilliant actor posing as one.
Like most conservatives whose outward behavior outside religion is basically rational, you seem to consider yourself a centrist. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Own it.
You be you, Emily. Don't let those nazi-name-calling commies getcha down.

I'm not even a conservative though! It's intensely frustrating, because the vast majority of my views are liberal and a few are downright socialist. There's very, very few views that I hold that could rationally be considered conservative, and those are almost entirely related to fiscal responsibility on the part of the government. I don't even favor smaller government, I favor more effective and less corrupt government.

I get so tired of being called names, being told I'm a nazi, or nazi-adjacent, that I'm a fascist, a far-right republican, and a conservative for holding rational views. Apparently my lack of vilification for sitting presidents (go through my history, and you'll see this applies to ALL of them) and for acting politicians in general means I'm a trump-sucking bigot. Apparently my desire for female human beings to retain access to single-sex spaces that exclude ALL males regardless of how they feel inside makes be a fascist. It's tired, it's old, and it's just plain wrong.

I'm fed up with the constant purity tests and demonization.

 

[Emily Lake]

Making firearms illegal doesn't entirely eliminate firearm deaths.

Hmmm. Not like abortions then.

Once more, here you are intentionally misrepresenting my views. Why do you seem to believe that if you engage in a disinformation campaign, it will alter actual reality?

How about you tell the truth?

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes. Several people in this thread have taken the position that Rittenhouse did NOT have a right to self-defense... because he shouldn't have been present in the first place, and the fact that he was present and in possession of a firearm makes Rittenhouse the aggressor, and it makes Rosenbaum's actions of chasing down, cornering, and attacking Rittenhouse into a defensive action, and therefore Rittenhouse is a murderer.

Rittenhouse was in violation of the clean hands law doctrine. He purchased the weapon illegally. He entered a closed zone illegally, He was carrying the weapon illegally and it was reported he brandished the weapon which is very illegal and can get you shot if you do it towards police officers.

I know, I know. He totally brought it on himself, he's to blame for being chased, cornered, and attacked by someone else. Did you see what he was wearing?

There's not a single person that night (except for perhaps cops and EMTs) who was there legally - therefore not a single person had clean hands by your logic.

I agree, actually. But people get pissed/anxious when someone points a semi auto weapon at them.

People also get terrified and anxious when a grown-ass adult chases them, corners them, and tries to physically attack them.

 

[Emily Lake]

What in the holy fuck?

Covid quarantine did a serious number on the mental well being of youth. Suicide rose significantly during that period.

 

[Emily Lake]

You are doing nothing but making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Me: I think firearms should require training, qualifying, and licensing
You: You're making perfect the enemy of good!

Somehow me not supporting a complete ban on firearms and the overturning of a fundamental constitutional right fits your description? Please explain.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'd rather people like thebeave, TSwizzle, Emily Lake, etc... just come out and say the "death toll simply isn't high enough to do a thing about it, and it never will be".

Or... and hear me out... maybe you could actually be bothered to consider what I have proposed?

 

[laughing dog]

You are doing nothing but making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Me: I think firearms should require training, qualifying, and licensing
You: You're making perfect the enemy of good!

Somehow me not supporting a complete ban on firearms and the overturning of a fundamental constitutional right fits your description? Please explain.

In this thread, you’ve assumed gun regulation means a complete ban on firearms. Licensing, qualifying and training is a form of gun regulation. Making automatic weapons illegal for civilians is a form of gun regulation.

As to a fundamental constitutional right, it seems to me that right was understood differently for around 200 years until SCOTUS changed that understanding. Which suggests it isn’t much of s fundamental right.

 

[Emily Lake]

We aren't even allowed to talk about gun violence safety, excluding of course the discussion about needing more guns for self defense. Access to weapons that can be made semi-automatic, concealed carry, open carry, endless number of gun access, non-restrictive storage requirements, no waiting periods for gun possession or mental health checks.

You have a host of apparent misconceptions in here.

Nearly ALL firearms are semi-automatic. The exceptions are single-shot rifles, ancient single-action revolvers, and arguably pump-action shotguns. I think you probably meant to say "can be made automatic"... which, by the way, is a felony unless you're registered, pay a special tax, and fill out a fuck-ton of paperwork.

With very few exceptions, concealed carry required permitting to be done legally.

Open carry of long guns is legal in *most* of the US, although it's usually (not always) prohibited in major cities for the rather obvious reason that it makes normal people get creeped out.

Number of guns and storage requirements... that we should probably talk about.

In almost all of the US, there is a waiting period and a background check required for handguns.

There's no pre-screening of mental health because HIPAA makes it a violation... but in a rather large number of places, if someone makes a police report in which they claim that you're mentally unwell, all of your firearms can be seized and might or might not be returned to you if you can prove that you're stable.

There are actually a lot of firearm-related laws and regulations in place already. You know who doesn't follow those laws and regs? The people who are already criminals, and who commit the overwhelming amount of gun-related crimes. So short of going house-to-house and literally confiscating everyone's firearms, hunting down every criminal and taking their guns away, and sealing up the border and searching everyone crossing to make sure they're not bringing in guns... I don't know how you think that increasing rules on law abiding citizens is going to change the behavior of people who don't abide by laws. Give me a real, practical, and effective plan for how you're going to address the actual problem, and I'm open to it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your options facing down a semi-automatic are fewer than a revolver. Then there is the damage by the bullet.

Because six bullets from a pistol somehow do more damage than six bullets from a revolver? It takes the same amount of time to pull the trigger six times for both, you know that, don't you? Are you imagining that all revolvers are old-west single actions?

 

[Emily Lake]

You are doing nothing but making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Me: I think firearms should require training, qualifying, and licensing
You: You're making perfect the enemy of good!

Somehow me not supporting a complete ban on firearms and the overturning of a fundamental constitutional right fits your description? Please explain.

In this thread, you’ve assumed gun regulation means a complete ban on firearms. Licensing, qualifying and training is a form of gun regulation.

No... I've assumed that the people saying that we should get rid of guns and if there are no guns then the criminals can't have guns either are arguing for a complete gun ban.

Making automatic weapons illegal for civilians is a form of gun regulation.

Automatic weapons are already pretty much illegal for civilians in almost all cases. To own one, it has to have been produced in the early 80s and registered prior to the ban on automatics... or you have to go through a massive FBI background check that takes months as well as registering it federally and paying extra for the privilege of asking permission in the first place.

As to a fundamental constitutional right, it seems to me that right was understood differently for around 200 years until SCOTUS changed that understanding. Which suggests it isn’t much of s fundamental right.

Will you elaborate on this rather than being vague? What was understood differently, and what changed?

 

[Elixir]

Once more, here you are intentionally misrepresenting my views. Why do you seem to believe that if you engage in a disinformation campaign, it will alter actual reality?

How about you tell the truth?

Is that an “I know you are but what am I?” or just a “nuh uh”?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Open carry of long guns is legal in *most* of the US, although it's usually (not always) prohibited in major cities for the rather obvious reason that it makes normal people get creeped out.

So were you just being needlessly, ridiculously, disingenuously argumentative when you made the stupid 'what she was wearing' brain fart when I said the same thing?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Perhaps. But if you make legal firearm access more difficult, it would affect law abiding people most severely. Gang members who use illegal guns would be affected only indirectly, if at all.

If you reduce the quantity of guns that can be legally obtained, then there is a flow-on effect reducing the quantity of illegal guns.

But there is a big difference between a child who got shot accidentally or as a victim of a crime, or a teenager who commits suicide on one hand, vs. a teenager who gets shot because he (or she for that matter) is active in a street gang and may have shot people themselves

Children wouldn't get shot accidentally if there was proper regulation of gun ownership, reducing easy access of guns to children who shoot themselves or other children, and to parents who shoot children. Mandatory lockbox use with severe penalties for breaches of proper gun handling would be a start. Another would be gun licences that require a rigorous training course, and gun registration.

Again, it has not been established that Ritt pointed his gun at anybody. It has been established that Rosenbaum has been belligerent the whole night and certainly did not require such provocation to attack Ritt. Huber smashed his skateboard over Ritt's head and Grosskreutz admitted that he pointed his gun at Ritt first.

So Rittenhouse shot people without pointing his gun at them. What a genius; he must have had a trick gun that could shoot without requiring being pointed at target person. Rittenhouse acted provocatively.

Rittenhouse was involved in three separate confrontations:

• Joseph Rosenbaum: Rittenhouse was chased by an unarmed Joseph Rosenbaum in a car dealership parking lot. Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum lunged for his gun, and he fired four times, killing him.
• Anthony Huber: As Rittenhouse ran from the scene, pursued by a crowd, he fell to the ground. Anthony Huber struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard and attempted to grab his rifle during a struggle. Rittenhouse fatally shot Huber once in the chest.
• Gaige Grosskreutz: Gaige Grosskreutz then approached Rittenhouse, who was on the ground, with a loaded pistol in his hand. Rittenhouse shot and wounded Grosskreutz in the right arm.

• 
  He shot four times at Rosenbaum. That is either the panic of an improper gun user, or intent to kill.
  Rittenhouse ran away because he knew he had committed murder, and then resisting a citizen's arrest, killed again. If he was a law abiding citizen he wouldn't have run but stayed to be arrested.
  Another citizen attempts to arrest him or make him drop his gun, but again he attempts to kill.
  
  You may say that the last two are fanciful interpretations, but they are as valid as Rittenhouse's claims, as he didn't attempt to cool down the situation, but instead ran and reacted violently to pursuit.

 

[bilby]

Automatic weapons are already pretty much illegal for civilians in almost all cases.

So much for fundamental constitutional rights.

 

[laughing dog]

Making automatic weapons illegal for civilians is a form of gun regulation.

Automatic weapons are already pretty much illegal for civilians in almost all cases. To own one, it has to have been produced in the early 80s and registered prior to the ban on automatics... or you have to go through a massive FBI background check that takes months as well as registering it federally and paying extra for the privilege of asking permission in the first place.

So, it is not illegal for citizens to own automatic weapons.

As to a fundamental constitutional right, it seems to me that right was understood differently for around 200 years until SCOTUS changed that understanding. Which suggests it isn’t much of s fundamental right.

Will you elaborate on this rather than being vague? What was understood differently, and what changed?

 District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-4"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-5"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a> The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision, the law at issue also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975....

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had bestowed "a dramatic upheaval in the law".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-Greenhouse-53"><span>[</span>53<span>]</span></a> Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#cite_note-Greenhouse-53"><span>[</span>53<span>]</span></a>

The ruling overturned longstanding precedent. Seems to me that a fundamental constitutional right would not need to overturn a longstanding precedent, because such a fundamental right would have been understood. Furthermore, it seems to me that if a longstanding precedent (which might be viewed as a fundamental constitutional right) can be overturned, the resulting ruling could also be overturned in the future thereby creating another fundamental constitutional right.

 

[laughing dog]

Your options facing down a semi-automatic are fewer than a revolver. Then there is the damage by the bullet.

Because six bullets from a pistol somehow do more damage than six bullets from a revolver? It takes the same amount of time to pull the trigger six times for both, you know that, don't you? Are you imagining that all revolvers are old-west single actions?

My meager understanding of magazines for semi-automatic weapons is that 6 bullets is the minimum number in a magazine. Depending on whether the weapon is a handgun or a rifle, magazines can hold much more than 6 bullets. Some revolvers can hold up to 9 bullets (at least that is my understanding).

My point is that your response ignores the basic point that semi-automatic weapons typically have a larger capacity for bullets which allows a shooter to shoot MORE BULLETS than the typical revolver. More bullets mean more potential damage.

 

[Arctish]

Yes. Several people in this thread have taken the position that Rittenhouse did NOT have a right to self-defense... because he shouldn't have been present in the first place, and the fact that he was present and in possession of a firearm makes Rittenhouse the aggressor, and it makes Rosenbaum's actions of chasing down, cornering, and attacking Rittenhouse into a defensive action, and therefore Rittenhouse is a murderer.

Rittenhouse was in violation of the clean hands law doctrine. He purchased the weapon illegally. He entered a closed zone illegally, He was carrying the weapon illegally and it was reported he brandished the weapon which is very illegal and can get you shot if you do it towards police officers.

I know, I know. He totally brought it on himself, he's to blame for being chased, cornered, and attacked by someone else. Did you see what he was wearing?

There's not a single person that night (except for perhaps cops and EMTs) who was there legally - therefore not a single person had clean hands by your logic.

I agree, actually. But people get pissed/anxious when someone points a semi auto weapon at them.

People also get terrified and anxious when a grown-ass adult chases them, corners them, and tries to physically attack them.

^This is why the comparison to Trayvon Martin is so informative.

A grown-ass adult with a gun got out of his car to chase Martin, cornered him, and physically attacked him, but Derec is either incapable or unwilling to give Martin the same consideration he gives Rittenhouse. Instead, Derec used the words of a witness about "whoop ass" as a smear on the character of the teenager fighting for his life who did nothing to provoke the attack on his person, and to discredit his right to defend himself, while handwaving away all the dumb shit Rittenhouse did and championing his right to use lethal force to defend himself from people trying to stop him so he wouldn't kill even more of them.

Some folks here have been noting that Rittenhouse, like Martin, was a minor while Rosenbaum, like Zimmerman, was an adult. To some of us, the difference in maturity and life experiences makes a difference in how we view the confrontation and how we measure culpablility. Meanwhile, Derec saying 12 year old Tamir Rice should have known how intimidated people felt seeing him pointing a pellet gun at distant passersby while giving 17 year old Rittenhouse a free pass for pointing an even more dangerous weapon at people much closer to him, and actually shooting at 4 of them, gets *crickets* and Huber and Grosskreutz trying to disarm an active shooter gets villification and contempt.

People saw Rittenhouse with an AR-15. They saw him pointing it at others. They saw him shoot people. They witnessed it directly, up close, in real time. But to hear Derec tell it, "Ritt" was attacked for no reason by Woke Antifa Child Rapers and Zimmerman was attacked by a "thug" for being a good neighbor.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

And literally no one was arguing Tamir Rice should have been waving around a pellet gun (cue right wingers lying and claiming people were). Oh, and there's a difference between a 12 year old boy being dumb with a pellet gun, and a 17 year old literally going to a protest with a real gun, with the knowledge that you might end up killing a person (right wingers will swear there's "no difference!" though). But it is odd how right wingers say Tamir Rice shouldn't have been doing that while Rittenhouse can do whatever the fuck he wants.

 

[thebeave]

For the last several years, in the US, firearms have been the leading cause of death for children and teenagers, eclipsing automobile or other accidents, cancer and other diseases.

One of the reasons is that life has become so much safer for children and teenagers that others causes of death have become very rare. That's a good thing.
But you also have to consider that the risk of firearm death is much, much higher for teenagers than for children, and that's because teenagers who get killed with firearms are often participants in these crimes - for example, they get involved in robberies or are victims and perpetrators of gang shootings.

For example this one: Suspects in deadly shooting near Atlantic Station take guilty pleas

Without easy access to firearms, fewer minors would lose their lives to gun violence.

I never quite get how it is that to you, once someone is over the age of 12, they no longer count: they are fuckable and deserve to die violent deaths, especially if they are not white.

Gun deaths among U.S. kids rose 50% from 2019 to 2021 | Pew Research Center

In 2021, there were 2,590 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18, up from 1,732 in 2019.

www.pewresearch.org

The number of children and teens killed by gunfire in the United States increased 50% between 2019 and 2021, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest annual mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

What in the holy fuck?

?

I was referencing your crude, malicious, uncalled for comment about Derec that I bolded. That is:

I never quite get how it is that to you, once someone is over the age of 12, they no longer count: they are fuckable and deserve to die violent deaths, especially if they are not white.

It is hard for me to imagine anyone so vile that that would accurately describe them. You need to read rule #7 of the IIDB rules. You really should apologize, IMHO.