Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[laughing dog]

Emily Lake's post was equating a person justifying raping a third party due to what she is wearing with a person finding an openly armed third person alarming.

Nah. It was an observation of the logic of your argument. The actual logical framing of your position is the same - it's blaming the victim for having caused their own victimization, and opining that if they just hadn't done something, they wouldn't have gotten themselves hurt.

No, it isn’t. The logic is that blaming the woman is illogical because wearing clothes is expected and not automatically arousing, while a civilian carrying a rifle in the open in public is threatening. You are adding another step - the necessary/appropriate response to a threat is to attack - which is untrue.

Oooh, you're so very close!

Just take that extra step back and consider the form of the arguments being made in this thread, with that "extra step" in mind. Because you're like right on the edge of agreeing with my view.

What view? I was showing your rape analogy is bogus.

 

[Derec]

What view? I was showing your rape analogy is bogus.

The point of the analogy is that you are blaming the victim.

 

[laughing dog]

What view? I was showing your rape analogy is bogus.

The point of the analogy is that you are blaming the victim.

That point is incorrect.

 

[Emily Lake]

What view? I was showing your rape analogy is bogus.

The point of the analogy is that you are blaming the victim.

That point is incorrect.

Do you claim that you are blaming Rosenbaum?
Or are you claiming that Rittenhouse was NOT a victim of attack by Rosenbaum?

Look, I have all sorts of disagreements with who should have been present (pretty much NONE of the people who were there, rioters and property defenders alike), and serious disagreement with whether any of them behaved in an appropriate manner. I think it was an incredibly poor decision for Rittenhouse to go to Kenosha at all, and an even worse decision to go stand around armed during a riot.

But that disagreement does not deprive Rittenhouse of his right to self defense. And in this thread, Rittenhouse is being blamed for a grown-ass adult chasing, cornering, and attacking him.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Does the fact that his "poor judgement" consisted of threatening people with a gun come into this equation?

There is no evidence he threatened anyone with his rifle.

Openly carrying a firearm is a threatening behaviour, in a way that wearing a short skirt most certainly is not.

Not necessarily. And do you apply this to people on your side who openly carry firearms, for example the #BLMers who occupied the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle or the University Ave. area in Atlanta? Was Daniel Perry justified in shooting Garrett Foster because "openly carrying a firearm" is per se "threatening behaviour[sic]" in your estimation?

Hunters and farmers do their gun using in rural areas, not in the city. He didn't engage in self defense, he was the aggressor.

Ritt brought the gun for self-defense. Not for hunting, sure, but he was not the aggressor either. Rosenbaum was.

Your belief is wrong; the political views of the people there, including Rittenhouse, are irrelevant (except from being a part of Rittenhouse's motive to go there, and do what he did).

Motive: to protect a business from looters and rioters.
What he did: he successfully defended himself.

If it was conservatives protesting, and a "mad leftist" started shooting people to death, you can bet we would be criticizing him.

What about a scenario closer to the Rittenhouse case? What if a "mad rightist" attacked an armed leftist and he killed the attacker(s) in self defense? Would you still be calling for murder charges?

Of course, there probably would in that case be a different and more sensible jury verdict.

Given that your scenario is almost completely different than what happened in Kenosha, I would except the verdict to be different, yes.

He had the right to go as per the First Amendment.

He did not have the First Amendment right to try to set things on fire. He also did not have the First Amendment right to attack a teenager.

If that was also Rittenhouse's purpose, he would also have a right to be there, but he went there not for free speech but with the clear aim to kill people, which he did.

You are just making stuff up. There is no evidence that he went there "with the clear aim to kill people". Quite the opposite - he only used his firearm when he was attacked by a "mad leftist". He went there to protect a business. This, I think, stems from the same impulse to help the community that led him to clean the graffiti that #BLM and Antifa left all over town during the previous night.

Protecting businesses from looters and rioters is a job for the police, not something ordinary citizens are supposed to do, especially if they are not even a local.
If he went there to protect a business, and he did so by bringing a gun, he intended to use that gun.
He could protect himself by running away, not by confrontation. Holding a gun whilst in the middle of a group of people is an indication that he is dangerous to others, and provocative to violence.

 

[Emily Lake]

Many of the protesters were armed, in the middle of a group of people. Do you hold the view that all of the armed protesters were also dangerous to others and provocative to violence? Do you believe that an aggressive attack targeting an armed protester would be justified, and that the armed protester is at fault for causing the attack and therefore no longer has a right to defend him/herself?

 

[laughing dog]

What view? I was showing your rape analogy is bogus.

The point of the analogy is that you are blaming the victim.

That point is incorrect.

Do you claim that you are blaming Rosenbaum?
Or are you claiming that Rittenhouse was NOT a victim of attack by Rosenbaum?

I have not mentioned either. I pointed out the flaw in the rape analogy. That’s it.

Look, I have all sorts of disagreements with who should have been present (pretty much NONE of the people who were there, rioters and property defenders alike), and serious disagreement with whether any of them behaved in an appropriate manner. I think it was an incredibly poor decision for Rittenhouse to go to Kenosha at all, and an even worse decision to go stand around armed during a riot.

But that disagreement does not deprive Rittenhouse of his right to self defense. And in this thread, Rittenhouse is being blamed for a grown-ass adult chasing, cornering, and attacking him.

I have not blamed anyone.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble, found it, got arrested, had a fair trial and walked away. That’s history.

Now he is a poster child for dumbasses with a firearm funded by gun fellators, promoting violence in the name of “self defense “.

 

[Arctish]

I am linking to two posts from our 2020 discussion of Rittenhouse and the events in Kenosha the night he killed two people and gravely wounded another.

My old post (#56) contains a still active link to the CBS news report on the prosecution's case, and ZiprHead's post (#59) contains a summary of events and explains why Rittenhouse illegally carrying the AR-15 made the shooting of Rosenbaum a felony regardless of Rosenbaum chasing him.

1. He was 17. It was illegal for him to posses that rifle. In his home state you have to be 21, in wisconsin you have to be 18.
This was crime 1.

2. Crossing the state line with an illegally possessed weapon is a pretty big deal and a big fat number 2 on the crime list.

3. Wisconsin totally allows for the use of deadly force in self defense, but the caveat is that you cant be committing a crime while that use of force happens. Which we addressed above he was actively committing a crime by possessing that rifle.

Point 2 is invalid. At the time, people thought Rittenhouse got the AR-15 in Illinois and brought it to Wisconsin. But the other two points stand.

Rittenhouse was committing a crime (illegal possession of a firearm) when he shot Rosenbaum. That is what compromised his Right to kill in self defense.

I have not yet found the part of the old thread where we discussed Rittenhouse pointing the AR-15 at others. When I do, I'll post a link to it as well. Brandishing a weapon and/or putting people in fear for their lives and safety is also illegal and would also compromise a Right to use lethal force in response to an attack the brandishing had provoked.

*** Update: #142 and the next few posts contain a discussion of the statements of witnesses but the old links don't all work anymore. I'll see if I can find a fresh source.

 

[Arctish]

Here is an active link from Toni's post #317 in the old thread: A visual timeline of violence in Kenosha after police shooting of Jacob Blake

 

[Arctish]

I haven't reviewed the entire thread from 2020 so I haven't found our previous discussion of the guy who said Rittenhouse pointed a gun at him but there is a video that was shown at the trial and Rittenhouse was asked about it.

From CNN, November 2021:

At another point, the jury was shown video from that night in which Rittenhouse falsely told the camera he was an EMT. “I told him I was an EMT but I wasn’t,” Rittenhouse testified.

In the video, a man wearing yellow pants tells Rittenhouse that the teenager had just pointed a gun at him for standing on a vehicle. Rittenhouse responds in the video, “Yeah I did.”

In court, he testified that he had not actually pointed his weapon at the man and said his admission on video was “sarcasm.”

“I thought that would be the best way to avoid conflict,” Rittenhouse testified. “I thought the best thing to do would be to walk away instead of getting into some argument.”

* bolding added

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Remember though if you see a strange person carrying a gun, you should never view them as threatening and just go about your day as usual. And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Many of the protesters were armed, in the middle of a group of people. Do you hold the view that all of the armed protesters were also dangerous to others and provocative to violence? Do you believe that an aggressive attack targeting an armed protester would be justified, and that the armed protester is at fault for causing the attack and therefore no longer has a right to defend him/herself?

Did they shoot anyone? No. The difference is that they were not enemies of the people they were with, similar to the way if have a group of soldiers or police, and some are armed, the unarmed ones have no fear of them shooting them.

 

[TSwizzle]

Remember though if you see a strange person carrying a gun, you should never view them as threatening and just go about your day as usual. And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

And you should challenge those beliefs by threatening them, chasing them down and assaulting them if possible. We appreciate your sacrifice.

 

[bilby]

The difference is that they were not enemies of the people they were with, similar to the way if have a group of soldiers or police, and some are armed, the unarmed ones have no fear of them shooting them.

Well, up to a point.

My grandfather used to say that back in WWII, if the Germans started firing, the British took cover, if the British started firing, the Germans took cover, and if the Americans started firing, everyone took cover.

 

[Arctish]

Remember though if you see a strange person carrying a gun, you should never view them as threatening and just go about your day as usual. And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

And you should challenge those beliefs by threatening them, chasing them down and assaulting them if possible. We appreciate your sacrifice.

Good guys with guns are spiritually discerned. If you are a True Believer then you will truly believe the volunteer militia guys wearing body armor and armed with AR-15s and AK-47s are no threat to you or your civil rights and it will be true. Believe it!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You know what, I'm not going to take someone who rants about blue haired people and "fat lesbians" very seriously. Not worth it.

 

[Derec]

Remember though if you see a strange person carrying a gun, you should never view them as threatening and just go about your day as usual. And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

And if you see these guys as threatening, you are clearly just racist.

/s

 

[TSwizzle]

Remember though if you see a strange person carrying a gun, you should never view them as threatening and just go about your day as usual. And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

And you should challenge those beliefs by threatening them, chasing them down and assaulting them if possible. We appreciate your sacrifice.

Good guys with guns are spiritually discerned. If you are a True Believer then you will truly believe the volunteer militia guys wearing body armor and armed with AR-15s and AK-47s are no threat to you or your civil rights and it will be true. Believe it!

Sure, Jan.

 

[Swammerdami]

Rittenhouse was underage.

Yes. Meaning Ritt was a "child" who was attacked by three adults, one of them a convicted pedophile. And I mean an actual pedophile. Rosenbaum had raped preteen boys.

Was Ritt afraid of being raped? How did he knew the guy was a pedophile? If he didn't know, what relevance does it have? Or does QAnon pay you on a per-keystroke basis?

He could not legally purchase that weapon nor have it in his possession In the state where he lived (Illinois) so he got his friend Dominick Black (recently arrested for armed robbery, btw) who lived in Wisconsin to buy and store it for him.

Yes. He planned to transfer it in his name when he turned 18. What does that have to do with Ritt's self defense against the Antifa assailants?

You've been ranting about the heroic Ritt, along with George the Hero in Florida, for years now and still completely miss the point.

We can't expect you to adopt the rational position, but you should at least try to understand it.

Pay attention:
If Ritt was under attack and felt that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury, he had the right to self-defense. Has anyone ever disputed that?

Your Hero George Z from Florida who stalked a black child because the child was wearing a hoodie had the right of self-defense once he felt endangered. Has anyone ever disputed that? No? Then Why the F**k do you insist on prattling this out over and over and over?

Even if a transgender black Islamo-Marxist in the country illegally from Venezuela with anti-Trump tattoos prominently displayed was under attack and felt that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury, even he would have the right to self-defense. (You'd deny the right to him of course, but I'm trying to explain the position of rational thinkers.)

The problem with George is that he put himself in a position where he was likely to kill a human being. That's a No-No position to be in, even when 12 jurors rightly say Not guilty. Ritt put himself in a position where he could go home proudly, having killed two "Antifa" in self-defense.

(And where the F**k do you get the "Antifa" label? Or is it just a label you throw around for the anti-MAGA crowd generally?

And if the transgender black Islamo-Marxist in the country illegally from Venezuela with anti-Trump tattoos prominently displayed went to a Trump rally carrying a machine gun, rational thinkers would blame him for his action, even if the bullets he started spewing were in self-defense.

Capische?

[And on and on and on and on .....]

I can only take so much. Get RayJ to fix the bug (or is it a feature? ) in the Ignore implementation, and I'll happily put you back on that list.

 

[Swammerdami]

Remember though if you see a strange person carrying a gun, you should never view them as threatening and just go about your day as usual. And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

And if you see these guys as threatening, you are clearly just racist.

/s

This photo is over Fifty-eight years old. (Yes, Fifty-eight with two F's and a Y. And anyway, with hands in pockets and in full view of cops I think Derec's fear is mostly imagined.)

The right-wing needs to stoke Fear of the Black Man to pursue its agenda, but ... with a 58-year-old photo?? Surely Derec isn't trying to make a caricature of racist right-wing propaganda? Right? Is there some other punch-line I'm missing?