Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[GenesisNemesis]

Well, the law says that minors ( both male and female) cannot legally consent to sex with an adult under most circumstances, depending on the age differential and whether or not they are married

Ritt was not having sex that night, so I do not know the relevance of this. Law in most of the developed world sets the age of consent at less than the age of majority, and that applies to many US states as well. Aoc of 18 is far from universal, and you should not be using universal language like "the laws says". Note, nowhere in the developed world is age of consent as low as 9-11, which is the age of the boys Joseph Rosenbaum abused.

and whether or not it is a commercial transaction.

Indeed, but that is truly a topic for another thread that I am still trying to get around to.

Rittenhouse was definitely a minor when he killed two people. His lack of maturity and the ease at which he was manipulated/convinced his presence and his gun was necessary is a testimony to that immaturity.

We can agree on that. He was immature. He should not have been there. But the others should not have been there either, regardless of age.

Adults around Rittenhouse played an enormous role in his actions that day in Kenosha. The crowd that night responded to the first shooting as many would: by pursuing the shooter, which resulted in two more shootings.

Yes, it was adults who attacked him, and he defended himself.

I don’t agree with the self defense argument because imo, attending a protest with an AK 15 demonstrates one’s intention to use the weapon to kill people.

First of all, what's an "AK 15"?
Second, no it does not necessarily. And would you apply it to armed protesters with whose political cause you agree?

Again, his immaturity played an enormous role. He was afraid and ran like the kid he was.

Would you rather he had shot his attacker sooner? He tried to extricate himself from the situation without using lethal force. That shows more maturity than the nominal adult who ran after him, cornered him and lunged at him. At that point, any of us would have fired.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted as an adult.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted at all, given that it was a clear case of self-defense. The whole case was a farce only pursued for political reasons. 2020 was a truly crazy year.
That said, I think that minor teenagers who commit serious crimes should be prosecuted "as an adult". That phrase is just colloquial term for being tried in criminal court, rather than juvenile/family court. These courts are wholly inadequate for dealing with serious crimes, and the penalties they may impose are not in any way appropriate for crimes like murder, felony assaults or armed robberies. That does not mean that the defendant's age should not be taken into account, just that a few years in juvi is not adequate for say premeditated murder. That's why the fauxgressives like former DA Gascon were so wrongheaded.
17-year-old previously tried as a minor for double murder now linked to another killing after release
Less than 4 years is insane for a double murder, don't you think, especially when the murderer is 17, i.e. not a child.

I am appalled but not surprised at the adults who have used his actions that night to paint him as a hero and reinforced the narrative that citizens, including minors, should be pressed into service to protect businesses in other states—or their own. He was cosplaying cowboy/soldier/hero with a deadly weapon and zero judgement or training nor ability to comprehend the potential or actual consequences of his actions.

I am more appalled by those who defend the Kenosha riots (or pretend that it was "fiery, but mostly peaceful" protests) or the actions by any of those who attacked Rittenhouse. Note that Rittenhouse was not the only one attacked during these riots.
'Broke his jaw:' Man in his 70s attacked while trying to protect burning Kenosha mattress store
That illustrates the need for armed protection when the angry mob is trying to destroy what others have built.

The adults who chased Rittenhouse were trying to catch someone who had just shot another person. As for Rittenhouse being ‘attacked,’ someone grabbed the barrel of his gun. Because Kyle was pointing it at him.

Right wingers can't understand the notion of self-defense from the perspective of people not carrying guns.

 

[Toni]

Well, the law says that minors ( both male and female) cannot legally consent to sex with an adult under most circumstances, depending on the age differential and whether or not they are married

Ritt was not having sex that night, so I do not know the relevance of this. Law in most of the developed world sets the age of consent at less than the age of majority, and that applies to many US states as well. Aoc of 18 is far from universal, and you should not be using universal language like "the laws says". Note, nowhere in the developed world is age of consent as low as 9-11, which is the age of the boys Joseph Rosenbaum abused.

and whether or not it is a commercial transaction.

Indeed, but that is truly a topic for another thread that I am still trying to get around to.

Rittenhouse was definitely a minor when he killed two people. His lack of maturity and the ease at which he was manipulated/convinced his presence and his gun was necessary is a testimony to that immaturity.

We can agree on that. He was immature. He should not have been there. But the others should not have been there either, regardless of age.

Adults around Rittenhouse played an enormous role in his actions that day in Kenosha. The crowd that night responded to the first shooting as many would: by pursuing the shooter, which resulted in two more shootings.

Yes, it was adults who attacked him, and he defended himself.

I don’t agree with the self defense argument because imo, attending a protest with an AK 15 demonstrates one’s intention to use the weapon to kill people.

First of all, what's an "AK 15"?
Second, no it does not necessarily. And would you apply it to armed protesters with whose political cause you agree?

Again, his immaturity played an enormous role. He was afraid and ran like the kid he was.

Would you rather he had shot his attacker sooner? He tried to extricate himself from the situation without using lethal force. That shows more maturity than the nominal adult who ran after him, cornered him and lunged at him. At that point, any of us would have fired.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted as an adult.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted at all, given that it was a clear case of self-defense. The whole case was a farce only pursued for political reasons. 2020 was a truly crazy year.
That said, I think that minor teenagers who commit serious crimes should be prosecuted "as an adult". That phrase is just colloquial term for being tried in criminal court, rather than juvenile/family court. These courts are wholly inadequate for dealing with serious crimes, and the penalties they may impose are not in any way appropriate for crimes like murder, felony assaults or armed robberies. That does not mean that the defendant's age should not be taken into account, just that a few years in juvi is not adequate for say premeditated murder. That's why the fauxgressives like former DA Gascon were so wrongheaded.
17-year-old previously tried as a minor for double murder now linked to another killing after release
Less than 4 years is insane for a double murder, don't you think, especially when the murderer is 17, i.e. not a child.

I am appalled but not surprised at the adults who have used his actions that night to paint him as a hero and reinforced the narrative that citizens, including minors, should be pressed into service to protect businesses in other states—or their own. He was cosplaying cowboy/soldier/hero with a deadly weapon and zero judgement or training nor ability to comprehend the potential or actual consequences of his actions.

I am more appalled by those who defend the Kenosha riots (or pretend that it was "fiery, but mostly peaceful" protests) or the actions by any of those who attacked Rittenhouse. Note that Rittenhouse was not the only one attacked during these riots.
'Broke his jaw:' Man in his 70s attacked while trying to protect burning Kenosha mattress store
That illustrates the need for armed protection when the angry mob is trying to destroy what others have built.

The adults who chased Rittenhouse were trying to catch someone who had just shot another person. As for Rittenhouse being ‘attacked,’ someone grabbed the barrel of his gun. Because Kyle was pointing it at him.

Right wingers can't understand the notion of self-defense from the perspective of people not carrying guns.

As long as the people with the guns are white. If you’re black, no matter which side of the barrel you are, it’s your fault Abd you deserve to be shot and imprisoned.

 

[Patooka]

Right wingers can't understand the notion of self-defense from the perspective of people not carrying guns.

Yep. And I despise quote trees.

 

[Patooka]

As long as the people with the guns are white. If you’re black, no matter which side of the barrel you are, it’s your fault Abd you deserve to be shot and imprisoned.

Also true.

 

[Derec]

No, they can't.
What defense does a gun offer to you? The only thing you can do with it is attack your assailant with lethal force.

Of course they can. As they say, the best defense is a good offense.

That's not a defence.

If somebody breaks into your house, and you shoot the home invader, you just successfully defended yourself and your home.

Body armour is defensive.

That is an excessively limited view of "defense", and one that does not inform the legal definition of "self defense" in the US, and most likely also not Down Under.

Even a sword can be defensive, as you can use it to parry or block. But a gun cannot be used defensively - to protect its owner from an attack.

Disabling the attacker can "protect its owner from an attack".

If two people face off with guns, the winner is the one who attacks first.

Unless the first one misses.
But note that a homeowner, or another party being attacked, should not have to wait to be fired upon in order to shoot the attacker.
Han shot first, and he was right to do so.

 

[Derec]

Derec, there is zero requirement t, logistically or morally, to object to every other f

Every other f?

Derec, there is no logical or moral imperative to list objections to every objectionable action by every organization or individual.

When your ire is directed only at actions by certain groups and individuals, while ignoring and supporting others, then it's ok to notice that pattern.

For example, I have not posted about what I perceive as hypocrisy and blatant racism re: Kyle Rittenhouse’s behavior vs Travon Martin who was unarmed and walking home from a convenience store when he was murdered by a gun toting wannabe cop ( similar to Rittenhouse, actually, except without the excuse of youth and bad influences).

Not you too dredging up Trayvon Martin. I do think the two cases are very different and that a comparison is not fruitful. Also, that case was much more muddy, especially since we have a lot of video footage from Kenosha. All that said, I think the defense had shown that Trayvon most likely did attack Z, which makes self defense justifiable.

Well I guess I just did. So, Derec, what’s up with that? It is ok for white boy Rittenhouse to cosplay with a loaded AK 15 but a black teen the same age can’t go to the convenience store after dark in his own neighborhood?

Again, very different cases. But let's not derail this derail we are already in.

 

[Derec]

No one should take a firearm, loaded or unloaded to a protest.

I agree.

Doing so indicates you are looking for trouble.

I disagree. Doing so may simply indicate that you want to be prepared if you encounter trouble - for example a deranged pedo off his meds, or a skateboard-wielding violent felon.

 

[Derec]

It's reasonable to believe that until you're faced with the situation. I happen to be well practiced with firearms, but most aren't. I once had a client who carried a .45 Glock. She'd never fired it and had no training in it. She said she had to "carry with me." She definitely wasn't the brightest bulb in the box.

Indeed. If you are going to invest hundreds in a firearm, at least also invest some time to go to the range and familiarize yourself with it.
How does she expect she would be able to handle her gun if the time comes that she is forced to use it?

 

[bilby]

No, they can't.
What defense does a gun offer to you? The only thing you can do with it is attack your assailant with lethal force.

Of course they can. As they say, the best defense is a good offense.

So, not a defence.

That's not a defence.

If somebody breaks into your house, and you shoot the home invader, you just successfully defended yourself and your home.

Nope, you just responded by retaliation with excessive force.

Body armour is defensive.

That is an excessively limited view of "defense", and one that does not inform the legal definition of "self defense" in the US, and most likely also not Down Under.

It's not a view at all, it's an example.

Even a sword can be defensive, as you can use it to parry or block. But a gun cannot be used defensively - to protect its owner from an attack.

Disabling the attacker can "protect its owner from an attack".

Sure, as long as lethal force is justified.

It almost never is. A gun is not, therefore defensive; it is offensive. It is an escalation of violence, rather than a protection against violence. And escalation increases risk, where a defence by definition reduces it.

If two people face off with guns, the winner is the one who attacks first.

Unless the first one misses.

Sure. So the winner is the one with most experience, and/or fewest qualms about killing. That is, almost always, the 'bad guy'.

But note that a homeowner, or another party being attacked, should not have to wait to be fired upon in order to shoot the attacker.

How are you able to determine that lethal force is justifed and proportionate, if you have not been fired upon? How can you even know that you are under attack at all?

Han shot first, and he was right to do so.

Han was a fictional character in one of the absurd morality plays that have led to your equally absurd viewpoint being widely recieved wisdom in the USA.

In reality, situations in which it is justified to use lethal force are vanishingly rare, and you should anticipate a lifetime without them, unless you are a soldier, or a cop in a very bad neighbourhood.

If they do arise, you will not be prepared (because nobody is ever prepared for a once or twice in a lifetime event). Even if you live a life of utter paranoia - which will only make them more likely to arise.

Anericans need to take Hollywood less seriously. Gunfights between cowboys who conveniently colour code their hats to indicate their inherent virtue (or vice) are fiction.

Han shot in a story.

 

[laughing dog]

Doing so indicates you are looking for trouble.

I disagree. Doing so may simply indicate that you want to be prepared if you encounter trouble - for example a deranged pedo off his meds, or a skateboard-wielding violent felon.

I would think anyone worried about such encounters would simply not travel out of state to a riot.

Rittenhouse was not standing guard at some site. He was roaming, looking for trouble.

 

[Toni]

Derec, there is zero requirement t, logistically or morally, to object to every other f

Every other f?

Derec, there is no logical or moral imperative to list objections to every objectionable action by every organization or individual.

When your ire is directed only at actions by certain groups and individuals, while ignoring and supporting others, then it's ok to notice that pattern.

For example, I have not posted about what I perceive as hypocrisy and blatant racism re: Kyle Rittenhouse’s behavior vs Travon Martin who was unarmed and walking home from a convenience store when he was murdered by a gun toting wannabe cop ( similar to Rittenhouse, actually, except without the excuse of youth and bad influences).

Not you too dredging up Trayvon Martin. I do think the two cases are very different and that a comparison is not fruitful. Also, that case was much more muddy, especially since we have a lot of video footage from Kenosha. All that said, I think the defense had shown that Trayvon most likely did attack Z, which makes self defense justifiable.

Well I guess I just did. So, Derec, what’s up with that? It is ok for white boy Rittenhouse to cosplay with a loaded AK 15 but a black teen the same age can’t go to the convenience store after dark in his own neighborhood?

Again, very different cases. But let's not derail this derail we are already in.

There is zero reason to suspect that Travon Martin attacked Zimmerman. I mentioned Martin because he was the same age as Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse killed two people and injured another person with a firearm it was not legal for him to have. White boy was the shooter= AOK. Black boy was dead = AOK. By you, of course. Rittenhouse went looking for trouble and brought a weapon to ensure he found it. Martin was walking home from a convenience store when he was killed by an armed adult. Both shooters had delusions of being essential police auxiliaries. They each got away with killing unarmed people.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Derec, there is zero requirement t, logistically or morally, to object to every other f

Every other f?

Derec, there is no logical or moral imperative to list objections to every objectionable action by every organization or individual.

When your ire is directed only at actions by certain groups and individuals, while ignoring and supporting others, then it's ok to notice that pattern.

For example, I have not posted about what I perceive as hypocrisy and blatant racism re: Kyle Rittenhouse’s behavior vs Travon Martin who was unarmed and walking home from a convenience store when he was murdered by a gun toting wannabe cop ( similar to Rittenhouse, actually, except without the excuse of youth and bad influences).

Not you too dredging up Trayvon Martin. I do think the two cases are very different and that a comparison is not fruitful. Also, that case was much more muddy, especially since we have a lot of video footage from Kenosha. All that said, I think the defense had shown that Trayvon most likely did attack Z, which makes self defense justifiable.

Well I guess I just did. So, Derec, what’s up with that? It is ok for white boy Rittenhouse to cosplay with a loaded AK 15 but a black teen the same age can’t go to the convenience store after dark in his own neighborhood?

Again, very different cases. But let's not derail this derail we are already in.

There is zero reason to suspect that Travon Martin attacked Zimmerman. I mentioned Martin because he was the same age as Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse killed two people and injured another person with a firearm it was not legal for him to have. White boy was the shooter= AOK. Black boy was dead = AOK. By you, of course. Rittenhouse went looking for trouble and brought a weapon to ensure he found it. Martin was walking home from a convenience store when he was killed by an armed adult. Both shooters had delusions of being essential police auxiliaries. They each got away with killing unarmed people.

Omg stop blaming the victim!!!11 (Even though Zimmerman was literally stalking Martin).

 

[ZiprHead]

Not you too dredging up Trayvon Martin. I do think the two cases are very different and that a comparison is not fruitful. Also, that case was much more muddy, especially since we have a lot of video footage from Kenosha. All that said, I think the defense had shown that Trayvon most likely did attack Z, which makes self defense justifiable.

So you attack someone. The person you attacked starts getting the better of you, so it's okay to kill the person you attacked "in self defense". What a totally fucked up viewpoint this is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Guessing it had to do with someone bringing up crime rates and race (can't imagine who).

 

[Toni]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Not directly, of course. But I do believe he helped create a more dangerous world for any who are not white, straight, ‘Christian’ and male.

 

[thebeave]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Not directly, of course. But I do believe he helped create a more dangerous world for any who are not white, straight, ‘Christian’ and male.

I think Charlie Kirk would beg to differ with you. If he could.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Not directly, of course. But I do believe he helped create a more dangerous world for any who are not white, straight, ‘Christian’ and male.

I think Charlie Kirk would beg to differ with you. If he could.

Why should anyone care what some racist chauvinist dumbass might say if he were alive?

 

[Toni]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Not directly, of course. But I do believe he helped create a more dangerous world for any who are not white, straight, ‘Christian’ and male.

I think Charlie Kirk would beg to differ with you. If he could.

Even if he were alive, that would be a difficult feat to do credibly.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Not directly, of course. But I do believe he helped create a more dangerous world for any who are not white, straight, ‘Christian’ and male.

I think Charlie Kirk would beg to differ with you. If he could.

Even if he were alive, that would be a difficult feat to do credibly.

I mean, I can directly quote Kirk falsely claiming that the U.S. was founded on Christianity, and built for Christians, but what'd be the point? They'd just deny it even though it's a direct quote.