Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Derec]

Yes, I am still shocked and incredulous that you seem to believe that a 16 year old reasons more like a 22 year old than like a 12 year old.

I think the rate of development is higher 12-16 than 16-20 (let's use the same Δ). But already 18 year olds are adults, and a 16 year old reasons a lot more like an 18 year old than a 12 year old. And even a 12 year old should know that killing people is wrong.

A 16 year old is more likely to engage in all sorts of risky behavior than a 12 year old but they do not have sufficient life experience nor brain development compared with someone in their 20’s.

Propensity for risky behavior is no reason to not charge them in criminal court if they murder someone. And it is not a reason for you to not see a difference between a 6 year old, a 12 year old and a 16 year old, or to pretend that a 17 years, 364 days old is somehow ontologically different than an 18 year old.

But because many physically resemble adults, some people conflate body size and secondary sexual characteristics with maturity and adulthood . To the great detriment of the 16 year olds and society as a whole.

No, treating anybody under 18 as children with no ability to take personal responsibility for their actions is what leads to great detriment to minors and the society as a whole. When you treat 17 year old murderers as children who don't know any better than to commit violent crimes, you endanger the society. When you treat 17 year olds as children who can't be trusted to do things independently, you hinder their development into fully functioning adults.
Teenagers are not adults, but they are not children either. It's a transitional stage between the two, and I fail to see why you can't comprehend that. Btw, the numbers of gun deaths I posted above shows that too. The transition is not sudden at 18, but it increases gradually as age increases, because as teenagers age, they are more likely to adopt adult behaviors. Including sadly getting involved in gang violence.

I’m not certain why you believe that Myron Burrell is liked by individuals who have not met him.

Walz and Elisson commuted his sentence. I thought commutation hearings are usually in person, so they would have met him.
Moriarty hired Burrell to work on her campaign. She most certainly met him.

At least you have compassion for Tyesha Edwards. Too bad you could find none for Tamir Rice.

I have compassion for Tamir Rice. It was a great tragedy that he was killed. That does not mean that I think he did not make any mistakes. Orange tips are put on pellet guns for a reason.

 

[laughing dog]

Teenagers are children.

Wrong. These are distinct stages of human development. And some teenagers (18-19) are not even minors.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children defines a child as anyone under the age of 18.

The important point is that people who are under the age of 18 are not fully mature in every physiological, emotional snd cognitive aspects and are not usually considered to be capable of important life decisions. That is true regardless of the quibble about different stages of development.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I have compassion for Tamir Rice. It was a great tragedy that he was killed. That does not mean that I think he did not make any mistakes. Orange tips are put on pellet guns for a reason.

I can forgive him though considering he was, ya know, 12 years old.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Teenagers are children.

Wrong. These are distinct stages of human development. And some teenagers (18-19) are not even minors.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children defines a child as anyone under the age of 18.

The important point is that people who are under the age of 18 are not fully mature in every physiological, emotional snd cognitive aspects and are not usually considered to be capable of important life decisions. That is true regardless of the quibble about different stages of development.

It should be noted though that teenagers are still tried as adults in some cases. Which I have no issue with depending on the case.

 

[Toni]

We

Do you remember the thread on the death of Tamir Rice? I do. More than one poster blamed the twelve year old playing in the park for his death at the hands of police.

His actions contributed to it, especially removing of the orange tip of the realistic replica he was playing with. Nobody was claiming that the two cops do not share in the blame as well.

More than one poster has no problem with Blue Lagoon or Pretty Baby starring a young girl.

We have already discussed that, and it has nothing to do with the issue of gun crime.
Why do you keep bringing it up?

Perhaps that should not affect me as much as it does.

Definitely.

Perhaps that should bother people more than it does.

No. And it certainly has no place in this thread.

Well yes, at least one poster claimed that the cops did no wrong. May I remind you that Tamir Rice was 12, and if memory serves, had some developmental delays. So he was a year older but probably less mature, going by averages, than the other child who was shot by gangs. So what is the difference here? The cops must have been right? The girl was studying and it was a gang killing instead of a police killing?

I’m being sincere. I don’t get it.

I ‘keep bringing it up’ because it really is the same issue: Who is considered a child? Who deserves to be shielded and protected from violence and exploitation?

 

[bilby]

Re gun laws:

@ZiprHead -
Do you consider the AU model too lax?
@Emily Lake -
Do you consider the AU model too restrictive?

Just trying to narrow down the point of disagreement, if there is one.

I think the Aussie model to be just fine. I might tweak some of the details if I cared enough to study it further but I accept Bilby's description of it.

Hang on, Bilby personally confirmed to me Australia doesn't exist.

Yeah, it is a made up place of awfulness where everything can kill people and cricket is the top sport, in order to scare people into behaving... kind of like hell but hotter and less hospitable.

Why do you think we call it "Down Under"?

 

[Derec]

I’m sorry you don’t find anything inappropriate about some of the hand waving re: casting a 12 year old as a prostitute in a romanticized way

Haven't see that movie so I can't comment about how "romanticized" the depiction is, but child actors get cast in disturbing roles all the time. How would you portray a 12 year old prostitute without casting somebody about 12 years old to play her?

or ‘joking’ about a 14 year old in a sexual relationship while stranded on and island or Epstein’s island. That is all beyond crass in my opinion.

Yeah, it was a joke about an actress who is 60 or so by now. And it was a joke not about a sexual relationship, but again about acting. Lighten up, Francis!

 

[Derec]

Why were grown ass adults chasing him?

The first one because he was a violent mental case.
The others because they misinterpreted the situation as they did not witness the initial self-defense shooting and made assumptions.

 

[Derec]

Yup, lots of people here agree, rioting bad.

There was a lot of support for the rioting on here when it happened.

They would disagree on the extent of the rioting.

The riot denialism on the left is strong. They will acknowledge that some rioting took place, but will claim that 2020 was "mostly peaceful" despite billions of dollars in damage, people getting killed, and territory being occupied to establish "autonomous zones".

(And saying BLM set the stage for Trump's return is wild, while ignoring decades of conservative policy but whatever).

The 2020 riots and the response to it, including by corporate America, alienated a lot of people. That led to increasing polarization, and Trump/MAGA thrives on polarization, on a "us vs. them" conflict. Notably, the DSA/AOC/Bernie/Mamdani wing of the Democratic Party also thrives on that, so it is not surprising somebody like Zohran Mamdani would be triumphant in the same year Trump was.

I also think #BLM rioting greatly helped Trump getting elected the first time too. The 2014 Ferguson riots were not that long past in 2016, but even more relevantly, 2016 saw its own #BLM riots. For example, September 2016 (less than months before the election day) saw violent riots in Charlotte, NC over the justified police shooting of an armed person. Don't tell me that did not contribute to Hillary losing!

Not to mention, a big thing about 2024 was them egg prices.

Indeed. Few things in the real world are monocausal. But I think the 2020 craziness contributed to inflation as well. The polarization and strength of the DSA-wing encouraged the Biden administration to overreach, including on spending, which upped the inflationary pressures. The bird flu that led to the extra pressure on egg prices over and beyond overall inflation has nothing to do with #BLM or even Biden's policies, of course.

 

[Derec]

Well yes, at least one poster claimed that the cops did no wrong.

I don't remember that. I have always acknowledged that the responding cops made serious tactical mistakes.

May I remind you that Tamir Rice was 12, and if memory serves, had some developmental delays. So he was a year older but probably less mature, going by averages, than the other child who was shot by gangs. So what is the difference here?

You place too much importance on age. The main difference is that she was in her home minding her own business. She could have been 16 year old doing high school homework, or a college student, or even a 30 year old unwinding from a workday. One can be any age and still be an innocent victim of gang violence. But the reason there are few actual children who get killed by guns, and significantly more teenagers, with numbers increasing in age, is because these teens tend to get shot because they are themselves involved in gun crime, usually in gangs.
Cases like that of Tamir Rice are very rare. Cases of teenage gang members shooting each other are so common they rarely get mentioned, except if the shooters hit innocent bystanders as well.

The cops must have been right? The girl was studying and it was a gang killing instead of a police killing?

The second. The girl was an innocent bystander. That makes her very different than for example gang killer Gakirah " Lil Snoop" Barnes, 17.

I’m being sincere. I don’t get it.

You don't get why I consider somebody sitting in her house an innocent victim but do not extend that to say teenage gang members shooting each other or a teenage robber or mugger getting shot by his victim or the police?

I ‘keep bringing it up’ because it really is the same issue: Who is considered a child?

I tend to consider pre-teen minors as children. Teenagers are a different category.

Who deserves to be shielded and protected from violence and exploitation?

Everybody, including adults. Tyesha Edwards could have been 31 instead of 11, and she still would have been an innocent victim of Myon Burell's intent to murder a rival teenage gang member.
However, if they are the ones inflicting violence and exploitation, even if they are <18 themselves, then they do not count as innocent victims. Say a 16 year old who robs a store and gets shot, or a 16 year old who drive-by shoots a rival gang and later gets shot by them in retaliation.

 

[Derec]

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children defines a child as anyone under the age of 18.

So? That's an argument from poor wording of an UN document.

The important point is that people who are under the age of 18 are not fully mature in every physiological, emotional snd cognitive aspects and are not usually considered to be capable of important life decisions. That is true regardless of the quibble about different stages of development.

It's not a quibble. It's a biological and legal reality. US laws, as well as laws of other countries, do not treat all minors the same.

For the purposes of this side discussion, which was started by Toni's comment about gun deaths among minors, the stark differences in gun deaths by age between 0 and 17 are very much relevant, as are the reasons for that difference. Pretending that 5 year olds and 15 year olds are essentially the same is a ridiculous position, and one that will prevent finding solutions to the gun violence problem among teenagers.

Nobody is saying that minors are "fully mature", but that is not relevant to acknowledging the basic fact that maturing is a process, not a binary switch. And that affects the behavior, and therefore risk these minor teenagers expose themselves to.

 

[Derec]

I have compassion for Tamir Rice. It was a great tragedy that he was killed. That does not mean that I think he did not make any mistakes. Orange tips are put on pellet guns for a reason.

I can forgive him though considering he was, ya know, 12 years old.

We can all forgive him, of course, because he was young. But it's still a fact that it contributed to his death. It is also a fact that cases like his are very rare, compared to say teenage gang violence.

 

[laughing dog]

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children defines a child as anyone under the age of 18.

So? That's an argument from poor wording of an UN document.

It’s a recognition of an international consensus.

The important point is that people who are under the age of 18 are not fully mature in every physiological, emotional snd cognitive aspects and are not usually considered to be capable of important life decisions. That is true regardless of the quibble about different stages of development.

It's not a quibble. .,.[/quote] Yes, it is a quibble. Despite all of your deflection, children are not adults and should not be treated as such. That simple obvious notion does not mean or even imply the your ridiculously idiotic straw man that it means treating 5 and 15 year olds the same.

 

[Toni]

Well yes, at least one poster claimed that the cops did no wrong.

I don't remember that. I have always acknowledged that the responding cops made serious tactical mistakes.

May I remind you that Tamir Rice was 12, and if memory serves, had some developmental delays. So he was a year older but probably less mature, going by averages, than the other child who was shot by gangs. So what is the difference here?

You place too much importance on age. The main difference is that she was in her home minding her own business. She could have been 16 year old doing high school homework, or a college student, or even a 30 year old unwinding from a workday. One can be any age and still be an innocent victim of gang violence. But the reason there are few actual children who get killed by guns, and significantly more teenagers, with numbers increasing in age, is because these teens tend to get shot because they are themselves involved in gun crime, usually in gangs.
Cases like that of Tamir Rice are very rare. Cases of teenage gang members shooting each other are so common they rarely get mentioned, except if the shooters hit innocent bystanders as well.

The cops must have been right? The girl was studying and it was a gang killing instead of a police killing?

The second. The girl was an innocent bystander. That makes her very different than for example gang killer Gakirah " Lil Snoop" Barnes, 17.

I’m being sincere. I don’t get it.

You don't get why I consider somebody sitting in her house an innocent victim but do not extend that to say teenage gang members shooting each other or a teenage robber or mugger getting shot by his victim or the police?

I ‘keep bringing it up’ because it really is the same issue: Who is considered a child?

I tend to consider pre-teen minors as children. Teenagers are a different category.

Who deserves to be shielded and protected from violence and exploitation?

Everybody, including adults. Tyesha Edwards could have been 31 instead of 11, and she still would have been an innocent victim of Myon Burell's intent to murder a rival teenage gang member.
However, if they are the ones inflicting violence and exploitation, even if they are <18 themselves, then they do not count as innocent victims. Say a 16 year old who robs a store and gets shot, or a 16 year old who drive-by shoots a rival gang and later gets shot by them in retaliation.

Tamir Rice was a little bit—oh, physically big for his age but by all reports, slow and not very mature. At age 12, some girls can be taken for adults unless you talk to them. A 12 year old boy can look 8 or 15 but again, talking to him, it’s extremely obvious that they are kids. And less mature—with less ability to understand the consequences of their actions or to understand how others may perceive them.

He was a kid. Acting like a kid.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tamir Rice did not have enough time to mentally process the commands yelled at him by the officer, let allow follow them. At the very worst, Rice's action led to the police showing up, not his killing.

 

[Bomb#20]

Re gun laws:

@ZiprHead -
Do you consider the AU model too lax?
@Emily Lake -
Do you consider the AU model too restrictive?

Just trying to narrow down the point of disagreement, if there is one.

I think the Aussie model to be just fine. I might tweak some of the details if I cared enough to study it further but I accept Bilby's description of it.

I don't know about that. Seems to me the whole "Let's spice up our homebrew beer-making with some homebrew gun-making." model is a recipe for things going, if you'll pardon the expression, south.

 

[Derec]

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.

Possibly. That's why I wrote that gangs "would be affected indirectly, if at all". The law-abiding citizens would be affected most, however.
The left's go-to is to severely restrict guns, while at the same time go easy on gang crimes. For example, former LA DA Gascon refused to apply gang enhancements and never tried anybody under 18 in criminal court. Leading to miscarriages of justice like this:
17-year-old previously tried as a minor for double murder now linked to another killing after release

Seventeen-year-old Shanice Dyer, a member of the East Coast Crips, was charged with premeditated murder by then-District Attorney Jackie Lacey and was set to be tried as an adult. However, that changed when George Gascón took office in 2020.
[...]
As a result, Shanice Dyer was tried as a juvenile. Despite being convicted of two murders, she was in custody for less than four years. "It's still very hard. And now we find out that this person has committed another crime, doing this to yet another family," said Carrera.
The same woman who killed Alfredo and Jose is now accused of murder once again, allegedly aiding and abetting in the murder of 21-year-old Joshua Streeter.

We go back over and over again to the collective insanity of 2020.

I think we should have stricter gun laws, yes. I do not think we should go overboard on that as some on the left want, and make it onerously difficult for law-abiding citizens to get firearms. Especially not when at the same time lefty DAs go easy on actual gun violence.

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.

I agree with all that.
That does not change my point about how gun deaths are much higher for teenagers than for children, and that gun deaths rise with age for teenagers. That is due to too many teenagers being members of street gangs, and that requires not being soft on gang crime.

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.

You know full well what I mean. There is no evidence he pointed his gun at people except in self-defense.

Rittenhouse acted provocatively.

That has not been established, and you should not be repeating it as a fact.

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.

Clear self-defense.

- 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.

Also clear self-defense.

- 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.

Self-defense as well.
What is the point of this list?

He shot four times at Rosenbaum. That is either the panic of an improper gun user, or intent to kill.

Four trigger pulls do not take that much time, a couple of seconds maybe. I do not think it is unusual or that it's a point against it being self-defense.

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.

Ritt probably ran because he panicked. He did not commit murder, as the shooting was in self-defense.
Huber and Grosskreutz did not witness the shooting, and should not have attacked Ritt.

Another citizen attempts to arrest him or make him drop his gun, but again he attempts to kill.

You mean, attempts to defend himself?

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.

Very fanciful, and not at all reasonable. Note that Ritt only fired on those who physically attacked him, by smacking him in the head with a skateboard and pointing a firearm at him. He did not fire at everyone who pursued him, so your "reacted violently to pursuit" is not just fanciful, but demonstrably false.

 

[Bomb#20]

Re firearms … Someone clue me in - what is the objection to the Australian model? Not enough guns (for some noble purpose)?

Australians are free to do as they please; I take it you mean the objection to importing their model to the USA. And surely you're already quite familiar with the whole rule-of-law issue -- confiscating the guns is constitutional in Australia and unconstitutional here -- so I take it you just don't mind when your rulers act lawlessly as long as they're doing your will. So setting legality aside...

The Australian model, to sum up, is "After a horrific mass shooting, the government orders most Australians to turn in their guns, and almost all of them comply." So the obvious objection to importing that model is it's impossible to import it. If our government ordered most Americans to turn in their guns, a huge fraction of us would cop a "when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" attitude. There'd be about a hundred million resisters filing lawsuits or simply hiding their guns, and reporting them stolen if they were registered. Americans on average aren't as obedient as Australians. Our self-appointed betters can't even make us give up our pounds, gallons and miles.

 

[Derec]

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

It is not, no matter how hard you are trying to draw parallels.

A grown-ass adult with a gun got out of his car

Pretty much the only thing that is true.

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.

That's because there is zero evidence of any of this. Yes, Z followed Trayvon, but there is no evidence that he chased him or cornered him. I know you are using that language to draw a parallel to what Rosenbaum did, but that dog won't hunt.
As far as "physically attacked him" - the physical evidence shows the opposite, that Trayvon attacked Z. I already shared links showing that Z sustained injuries to his head, while Trayvon had abrasions on his knuckles. I.e. he was beating on Z, not the other way around.

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,

I am not smearing anybody. I am just pointing out where the evidence lies. You are ignoring evidence, and going by your prejudices.

and to discredit his right to defend himself,

Evidence shows Trayvon initiated the physical confrontation.

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.

The only reason any of them got show is because they attacked Ritt. Had Huber and Grosskreutz minded their own business, they would not have been shot, and neither would anybody else. Ritt wasn't a maniac shooting randomly at people, but he was attacked by a maniac.

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.

Except that Ritt is viewed as public enemy #1, while for Trayvon Martin the media used photos of him from when he was 13 years old or so to make him look more innocent.

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.

All of these cases are different and need to be analyzed individually. Yes, Tamir Rice should have known that removing the orange tip made his pellet gun look like a firearm. No, there is no evidence Ritt was not acting in self defense. And Huber and Grosskreutz should not have assumed that the kid they chased and attacked was "an active shooter" and not somebody who defended himself. They did not even witness the shooting itself.

People saw Rittenhouse with an AR-15.

Many people have rifles at these protests. Including on the #BLM/Antifa side.

They saw him pointing it at others.

Did they?

They saw him shoot people. They witnessed it directly, up close, in real time.

I do not think Huber and Grosskrutz witnessed shit directly. Where do you get that from?

But to hear Derec tell it, "Ritt" was attacked for no reason by Woke Antifa Child Rapers

Yes, there was no reason for Rosenbaum to attack Ritt.

and Zimmerman was attacked by a "thug" for being a good neighbor.

Z was overly aggressive in his role as neighborhood watch, but I do think Trayvon acted suspiciously and the evidence shows that he attacked Z. Both of these cases are water over the bridge though.

 

[Derec]

Tamir Rice was a little bit—oh, physically big for his age

He was more than a "big a little bit". If I recall correctly, he was off the charts, literally.

but by all reports, slow and not very mature. At age 12, some girls can be taken for adults unless you talk to them. A 12 year old boy can look 8 or 15 but again, talking to him, it’s extremely obvious that they are kids. And less mature—with less ability to understand the consequences of their actions or to understand how others may perceive them.

Indeed. It was a big tragedy. He should not have removed the orange tip and waved the pellet gun around, and the cops should not have pulled up that close and shot that quickly.
They should not be police officers anywhere again, but it was not murder.