Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Derec]

Somebody breaking and entering your home is clear indication that your home is under attack.

That story is from Florida. There is no reason to conclude that killing an intruder in that circumstance is necessarily morally acceptable.

The only reason to doubt it is your anti-Florida bigotry.

From the article:

Officials said two unknown men were captured on the homeowner’s video surveillance system entering through the back of the house after 9 p.m.
The homeowner fired multiple rounds at one of the intruders, and the other intruder ran away, officials said.
[...]
Officials said the deceased suspect was previously arrested in 2023 in Illinois and spent four months in jail for residential burglary before being released on parole in November of this year. He had an active warrant for parole violation and was considered armed and dangerous.

Yeah, I'm sure they were innocent.

 

[Derec]

Disagree. Being followed through multiple turns at night over a relatively long period of time is pretty indicative of a threat. Even though I can understand Zimmerman's perspective and desire to protect his community, I think he was squarely in the wrong. I also, however, object to framing Zimmerman's actions as "hunting", with the insinuation that he was a racist looking for an excuse to kill any black person - I think that oversimplifies a tragic situation.

It was a tragic situation, and Z should not have followed Trayvon once he called it in. On the other hand, somebody following you does not give you the right to physically assault and batter him either.

 

[laughing dog]

Somebody breaking and entering your home is clear indication that your home is under attack.

That story is from Florida. There is no reason to conclude that killing an intruder in that circumstance is necessarily morally acceptable.

The only reason to doubt it is your anti-Florida bigotry.

From the article:

Officials said two unknown men were captured on the homeowner’s video surveillance system entering through the back of the house after 9 p.m.
The homeowner fired multiple rounds at one of the intruders, and the other intruder ran away, officials said.
[...]
Officials said the deceased suspect was previously arrested in 2023 in Illinois and spent four months in jail for residential burglary before being released on parole in November of this year. He had an active warrant for parole violation and was considered armed and dangerous.

Yeah, I'm sure they were innocent.

I made no claim of innocence. The intruders were guilty of breaking and entering. Under Florida law, the homeowner was legally justified in shooting them. But not every jurisdiction in the US or the world has such laws. Nor is it clear that it is morally acceptable to kill someone who is a threat only to property.

 

[Derec]

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

 

[Derec]

I made no claim of innocence. The intruders were guilty of breaking and entering. Under Florida law, the homeowner was legally justified in shooting them. But not every jurisdiction in the US or the world has such laws. Nor is it clear that it is morally acceptable to kill someone who is a threat only to property.

I think every jurisdiction in the US deems it justified to use lethal force to defend against somebody breaking into an occupied dwelling. And even if there were such jurisdictions, they would be the exception, not Florida.

Why do you think it might not have been morally acceptable to shoot these home invaders?

 

[Emily Lake]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.

Certainly one can impute economic rationality on a choice: alcohol is legal because its benefits are judged to exceed its costs.

But that presumes a decision is based on economic rationality.

In this context, the word "cost" is used figuratively to convey downside outcomes, not necessarily monetary in nature. I assumed that was rather obvious.

Regardless, downside outcomes are not passively accepted in the vast majority of situations.

Sure they are. I mean that pretty literally - you accept the risk of downside outcomes all the time, every time you walk out the door. The only time we ever do something about those downsides is when the risk becomes larger than we wish to bear (either personally or collectively). That's why we have laws and social mores and all the rest of it. To reduce the risk to a level that is accepted.

Even though it's illegal to drink and drive, every single time you get on the road on a Friday or Saturday night, or at 2 AM, or on a major holiday, you're passively accepting the risk of a downside outcome. Sure, if you get hit by a drunk driver, and if they stick around, and if you get the cops there to take action, and if they can't wriggle out of it, then they'll maybe go to jail. In the meantime, however, maybe you're dead or severely injured.

 

[Emily Lake]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.

Certainly one can impute economic rationality on a choice: alcohol is legal because its benefits are judged to exceed its costs.

But that presumes a decision is based on economic rationality.

In this context, the word "cost" is used figuratively to convey downside outcomes, not necessarily monetary in nature. I assumed that was rather obvious.

It was. In economics, a cost is what is given up which includes non-monetary outcomes.

Fair. And just as with economics, I never assume it's fully rational

 

[Elixir]

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.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

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.

Also people on the left get accused of being antisemitic merely for disagreeing with Israel. Cry me a river.

 

[laughing dog]

I made no claim of innocence. The intruders were guilty of breaking and entering. Under Florida law, the homeowner was legally justified in shooting them. But not every jurisdiction in the US or the world has such laws. Nor is it clear that it is morally acceptable to kill someone who is a threat only to property.

I think every jurisdiction in the US deems it justified to use lethal force to defend against somebody breaking into an occupied dwelling. And even if there were such jurisdictions, they would be the exception, not Florida.

The US is not the world. Some states, including New York and Minnesota have “duty to retreat” laws.

Why do you think it might not have been morally acceptable to shoot these home invaders?

If they were not threat to the occupants.

 

[Toni]

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).

 

[Elixir]

Making firearms illegal doesn't entirely eliminate firearm deaths.

Hmmm. Not like abortions then.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[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?

 

[ZiprHead]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.
Realistically, the only counter to accepting that some drunk driving and addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol, would be to advocate for it being illegal. That's pretty much the only argument you could make that doesn't tacitly accept the trade-off as worth it.

That's the only possible argument? Or, how about... we just know that making alcohol illegal doesn't work. So we don't do that. That doesn't mean alcohol related deaths are "worth it". Oh and there are laws against drunk driving too. Wonder why.

Making firearms illegal doesn't entirely eliminate firearm deaths. And we have laws against shooting people too.

At the end of the day, we as a society have decided that having access to alcohol is more important than eliminating alcohol-related deaths. It's harsh to put it in such terms, but it's the reality - there is a cost to having alcohol be legal, and that's a cost that we as a society are willing to bear because we value the freedom to get drunk.

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

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.
Realistically, the only counter to accepting that some drunk driving and addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol, would be to advocate for it being illegal. That's pretty much the only argument you could make that doesn't tacitly accept the trade-off as worth it.

That's the only possible argument? Or, how about... we just know that making alcohol illegal doesn't work. So we don't do that. That doesn't mean alcohol related deaths are "worth it". Oh and there are laws against drunk driving too. Wonder why.

Making firearms illegal doesn't entirely eliminate firearm deaths.

Yeah, having seatbelts doesn't eliminate deaths either. Still a good idea to have seatbelts. And, I'm not for making all firearms illegal.

 

[Derec]

Rittenhouse's right of self defense was compromised by him committing a felony (illegal possession of a firearm) when the homicide occured.

I think that count was a misdemeanor only, it was dismissed by the judge, and would not affect the self defense claim anyway.

Also, at least one person believed Rittenhouse had pointed an AR-15 at him, and when accused of having done it Rittenhouse said "Yes, I did." That's brandishing, and it's also a felony. Rittenhouse could still use self-defense as the justification for pleading innocent to a charge of murder but it's not an airtight defense due to his own criminal actions.

I don't remember that there was a specific person, but I remember that the ADA tried to claim that based on a few generously interpreted pixels on a still from a video taken from some distance. In any case, alleged "brandishing" was not demonstrated in court, and should not be used to dismiss or erode his self-defense claims.

I have never excused Rosenbaum for his actions that night. I have consistently noted that he was being very aggressive and that Rittenhouse was afraid of him. We can't be certain he was trying to disarm Rittenhouse but we can be very confident Rittenhouse was panicking when Rosenbaum chased him and caught up to him.

And rightly so. Rosenbaum was a genuine threat, and a "reasonable person" would feel a clear threat to life and limb in that situation. Hence, self defense.

If Rittenhouse had been unarmed, not deliberately inserted himself into the situation, and had done nothing provocative, then his right to self defense would have been just as you say: perfectly clear and obvious. But that's not what happened.

If Rittenhouse had been unarmed, he would not have had the means to defend himself.
He did not "insert himself" into the situation any more than the rest of the people there.
And lastly, it has not been established that he had done anything that a "reasonable person" would find provocative. Of course, Rosenbaum was the polar opposite of a "reasonable person".

He had no legal right to be where he was (after curfew in a city in a state where he did not live)

He had a much legal right to be there as anybody else. More so, probably, given that he and his friends (incl. Dominick Black) were invited by the car lot owner.
Him having a residence in a different US state does not change anything, and I hate that "he crossed state lines" has become such a trope by the left re this case. He lived 20 miles away, and had connections to Kenosha. Grosskreutz afaik had no connections to Kenosha, and drove from farther away, but I never see Leftists saying that he should not have been there.
Hell, AOC (when she was still Barmaid Sandy, hi Swammi!) drove more than 1600 miles in an oil burning Subaru and crossed several state lines to protest against oil in North Dakota. In America, we can move freely between states, and we do not have to have a good reason, or any reason at all.

doing what he was doing (illegally carrying a long gun and attempting to exert an authority he did not have)

The gun charge was dismissed due to a loophole in WI law, so you can't keep saying "illegally". And I don't know he attempted to exert any particular authority - do you have any evidence to that?

and may have provoked Rosenbaum by pointing a weapon at him, or at least seeming to have done it, and saying he had.

We do not and should not dismiss self-defense claims based on what "may have" happened.

That does not mean Rittenhouse is evil, or guilty of the most heinous crimes, or any of the other extremist bullshit people may be thinking.

At least you disagree with your ideological brethren on that.

There are degrees of responsibility and proportionality to consider. The fact Rittenhouse was still a minor while Rosenbaum was an adult is a very big factor, or at least is should be, which is yet another reason why the comparison to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman is apt.

I still don't see any similarities other than those two people were the same age.

 

[Arctish]

Rittenhouse's right of self defense was compromised by him committing a felony (illegal possession of a firearm) when the homicide occured.

I think that count was a misdemeanor only, it was dismissed by the judge, and would not affect the self defense claim anyway.

Also, at least one person believed Rittenhouse had pointed an AR-15 at him, and when accused of having done it Rittenhouse said "Yes, I did." That's brandishing, and it's also a felony. Rittenhouse could still use self-defense as the justification for pleading innocent to a charge of murder but it's not an airtight defense due to his own criminal actions.

I don't remember that there was a specific person, but I remember that the ADA tried to claim that based on a few generously interpreted pixels on a still from a video taken from some distance. In any case, alleged "brandishing" was not demonstrated in court, and should not be used to dismiss or erode his self-defense claims.

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.

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

I have never excused Rosenbaum for his actions that night. I have consistently noted that he was being very aggressive and that Rittenhouse was afraid of him. We can't be certain he was trying to disarm Rittenhouse but we can be very confident Rittenhouse was panicking when Rosenbaum chased him and caught up to him.

And rightly so. Rosenbaum was a genuine threat, and a "reasonable person" would feel a clear threat to life and limb in that situation. Hence, self defense.

If Rittenhouse had been unarmed, not deliberately inserted himself into the situation, and had done nothing provocative, then his right to self defense would have been just as you say: perfectly clear and obvious. But that's not what happened.

If Rittenhouse had been unarmed, he would not have had the means to defend himself.
He did not "insert himself" into the situation any more than the rest of the people there.
And lastly, it has not been established that he had done anything that a "reasonable person" would find provocative. Of course, Rosenbaum was the polar opposite of a "reasonable person".

He had no legal right to be where he was (after curfew in a city in a state where he did not live)

He had a much legal right to be there as anybody else. More so, probably, given that he and his friends (incl. Dominick Black) were invited by the car lot owner.

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.

Him having a residence in a different US state does not change anything, and I hate that "he crossed state lines" has become such a trope by the left re this case. He lived 20 miles away, and had connections to Kenosha. Grosskreutz afaik had no connections to Kenosha, and drove from farther away, but I never see Leftists saying that he should not have been there.
Hell, AOC (when she was still Barmaid Sandy, hi Swammi!) drove more than 1600 miles in an oil burning Subaru and crossed several state lines to protest against oil in North Dakota. In America, we can move freely between states, and we do not have to have a good reason, or any reason at all.

doing what he was doing (illegally carrying a long gun and attempting to exert an authority he did not have)

The gun charge was dismissed due to a loophole in WI law, so you can't keep saying "illegally". And I don't know he attempted to exert any particular authority - do you have any evidence to that?

and may have provoked Rosenbaum by pointing a weapon at him, or at least seeming to have done it, and saying he had.

We do not and should not dismiss self-defense claims based on what "may have" happened.

That does not mean Rittenhouse is evil, or guilty of the most heinous crimes, or any of the other extremist bullshit people may be thinking.

At least you disagree with your ideological brethren on that.

There are degrees of responsibility and proportionality to consider. The fact Rittenhouse was still a minor while Rosenbaum was an adult is a very big factor, or at least is should be, which is yet another reason why the comparison to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman is apt.

I still don't see any similarities other than those two people were the same age.

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?

Shall we compare Rittenhouse to Tamir Rice, then? 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?

 

[Derec]

The US is not the world.

I know. But we are generally discussing US situations in this thread.

Some states, including New York and Minnesota have “duty to retreat” laws.

Duty to retreat is generally about public spaces. It does not apply when your very home is invaded.

If they were not threat to the occupants.

Invading somebody's home is prima facie threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Well that'd be ridiculously dumb witted to compare a massively regulated thing and a much lesser regulated thing. A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars are a massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

With cars there comes recognized hazards. We have speed limits, limit the age of people that operate them, have rules regarding what is allowed while driving. Our streets are littered with control devices, even have 20 mph limits near schools. The number of car related deaths has plummeted due to Government intervention. I'm wondering if there is an activity in America that is regulated remotely in the same hemisphere as automobiles.

It sure the heck isn't guns.

This might help clarify things, regarding the inevitable guns deaths resulting from the 2nd Amendment. Its not really an issue of comparing a "regulated thing" versus a "much less regulated thing":

No, It Wasn't Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot

Automobiles were brought up by Derec not me. I was simply replying that the danger of automobiles and deaths due to them isn't considered a fait accompli, rather automobiles are a massively regulated thing in the US in order to ensure greater safety. If cars started exploding, AAA wouldn't be on the news saying it is "too early" to take action.