Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Metaphor]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

There was zero reason for anyone to be there with any sort of weapons, period. What possible reason could a 17 year old boy have for showing up at a protest with a loaded firearm?

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Showing up with a loaded firearm seems to indicate premeditation and intent.

Seems to you, you mean.

No, any remotely competent prosecutor would make that same claim that it demonstrated intent.

I'm going to lay out a completely imaginary scenario that I sincerely hope won't make you feel upset or threatened but rather that you might see the point I'm trying to make--and apologies to mods if you feel the need to edit it:

Suppose you and I had an argument in real life. I show up at your place with a loaded firearm. The argument escalates in person and gets physical. I shoot you. I may claim self defense--you're bigger than I am and male and younger and stronger and I was afraid for my life. The first thing any law enforcement officer would ask is why I drove to your place WITH A LOADED FIREARM. Even assuming I owned one and it was dutifully licensed and legal. this is pretend: I live about 50 miles away from you, not halfway across the world. Also I have a loaded firearm in my possession which would never happen. Not to mention I would never drive 50 miles to continue an argument in person.)

Obviously, this would be impossible in Australia even if you and I were up for such a fight and even if I ever ever ever wished to have any sort of firearm. So, maybe flip the scenario: You're in the US....giving a lecture or on vacation or whatever and I drive to your hotel to continue an online argument. Again: not something I would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever do. The thought is horrific to me, even without any firearms being involved.

Deliberately driving to and attending any confrontation aside from a formal skeet shoot competition with a firearm, loaded or not, certainly indicates that the person with the gun intended things to escalate, even beyond simply driving to confront someone in person. Loaded? That definitely looks like premeditation, like the person carrying a loaded firearm intended to use it--on...... someone. A specific person as the intended target is not necessary.

Who did he have an argument with that he intended to shoot?

Dick Cheney shot somebody while he was hunting. Was that premeditated?

Rittenhouse went to a demonstration with a loaded firearm. The ONLY reason to take a loaded firearm ANYWHERE is if you intend to shoot someone or something.

Really? You appear to be saying you know Rittenhouse's mind. That you cannot think of other reasons to have a firearm with you is a failure of your imagination.

But, also, so what? Let's say I accept your premise that he wanted to shoot (random?) people. Does his desire to do so mean nothing he does is self defense?

In fact, it is generally illegal to carry a loaded firearm. In Wisconsin, a long gun may be transported only if it is unloaded.

Whatever you intended, your Cheney example actually illustrates my point: He was carrying a loaded firearm because he was hunting quail on private property along with friends/acquaintances. He had a loaded firearm precisely because he intended to shoot and kill something.

But he did not intend to shoot the person he shot. He had no premeditation for that accident.

Cheney did shoot someone. He had a loaded firearm because he was hunting quail in a hunting party on private property. Hopefully, he and whatever secret service agents with him were intelligent enough to ensure that his weapon was not loaded until they got to the field. To do otherwise is gross incompetence. I write this as someone who grew up in a long line of quail hunters. Do I think that Cheney demonstrated his incompetence with a firearm? I certainly do. Do I think that Cheney could have and probably should have been charged in this incident? Possibly. Both men claimed it was an accident but I know enough about quail hunting that I am certain that it was not just an accident but gross incompetence. Do I think that Cheney should have been charged many times over for many crimes? Definitely.

Rittenhouse might have been incompetent, but that isn't the same thing as 'premeditated'.

 

[Metaphor]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

The reality is, RIttenhouse had no training and absolutely no capability to handle himself as a professional as a 'peacekeeper'.

So what?

This is in large part why people died. The main defense for him was he was simply defending himself. Yes, he defended himself with lethal force because he lacked the skill to defend himself any other way,

So what?

including de-escalation and avoidance of threats. As we saw, police officers and other armed vigilantes weren't shooting people that night too.

'Self defense' has to have some line drawn when needless personal incompetence is such a major driving force.

Either he shot people in self defense or he didn't. How he came to be in the situation is not relevant to his guilt or innocence, even if his choices caused him to be in a riskier situation than staying at home and watching reruns of Dallas or whatever it is the kids are watching.

At some point, negligence has to become a factor. There is a reason guns like that aren't even legal to for minors to purchase to begin with. This is the trouble with bogus SYG defenses, because it effectively makes the killer immune to any semblance of responsibility for their gross negligence.

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

 

[ZiprHead]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

 

[Metaphor]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

Sometimes we blame people for being negligent, but we don't say people are premeditated just because they were negligent.

A 17 year old who shoots a rival gang member on purpose and not in self defense is probably guilty of murder. But a 17 year old who accidentally shoots a rival gang member because they're incompetent with firearms isn't guilty of murder.

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

 

[Toni]

There was zero reason for Rittenhouse to be where he was, much less to be armed. Those adults directly responsible for providing him with that firearm and those legally responsible for him and his actions should also face charges.

This take is common, but I am very puzzled by it. Did the rioters also have zero reason to be there, or were there reasons for being there acceptable to you and therefore not worth mentioning?

Your reasoning to me smacks of telling women to not walk alone at night, or bad things might happen.

There was zero reason for anyone to be there with any sort of weapons, period. What possible reason could a 17 year old boy have for showing up at a protest with a loaded firearm?

It's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Showing up with a loaded firearm seems to indicate premeditation and intent.

Seems to you, you mean.

No, any remotely competent prosecutor would make that same claim that it demonstrated intent.

I'm going to lay out a completely imaginary scenario that I sincerely hope won't make you feel upset or threatened but rather that you might see the point I'm trying to make--and apologies to mods if you feel the need to edit it:

Suppose you and I had an argument in real life. I show up at your place with a loaded firearm. The argument escalates in person and gets physical. I shoot you. I may claim self defense--you're bigger than I am and male and younger and stronger and I was afraid for my life. The first thing any law enforcement officer would ask is why I drove to your place WITH A LOADED FIREARM. Even assuming I owned one and it was dutifully licensed and legal. this is pretend: I live about 50 miles away from you, not halfway across the world. Also I have a loaded firearm in my possession which would never happen. Not to mention I would never drive 50 miles to continue an argument in person.)

Obviously, this would be impossible in Australia even if you and I were up for such a fight and even if I ever ever ever wished to have any sort of firearm. So, maybe flip the scenario: You're in the US....giving a lecture or on vacation or whatever and I drive to your hotel to continue an online argument. Again: not something I would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever do. The thought is horrific to me, even without any firearms being involved.

Deliberately driving to and attending any confrontation aside from a formal skeet shoot competition with a firearm, loaded or not, certainly indicates that the person with the gun intended things to escalate, even beyond simply driving to confront someone in person. Loaded? That definitely looks like premeditation, like the person carrying a loaded firearm intended to use it--on...... someone. A specific person as the intended target is not necessary.

Who did he have an argument with that he intended to shoot?

Dick Cheney shot somebody while he was hunting. Was that premeditated?

Rittenhouse went to a demonstration with a loaded firearm. The ONLY reason to take a loaded firearm ANYWHERE is if you intend to shoot someone or something.

Really? You appear to be saying you know Rittenhouse's mind. That you cannot think of other reasons to have a firearm with you is a failure of your imagination.

But, also, so what? Let's say I accept your premise that he wanted to shoot (random?) people. Does his desire to do so mean nothing he does is self defense?

In fact, it is generally illegal to carry a loaded firearm. In Wisconsin, a long gun may be transported only if it is unloaded.

Whatever you intended, your Cheney example actually illustrates my point: He was carrying a loaded firearm because he was hunting quail on private property along with friends/acquaintances. He had a loaded firearm precisely because he intended to shoot and kill something.

But he did not intend to shoot the person he shot. He had no premeditation for that accident.

Cheney did shoot someone. He had a loaded firearm because he was hunting quail in a hunting party on private property. Hopefully, he and whatever secret service agents with him were intelligent enough to ensure that his weapon was not loaded until they got to the field. To do otherwise is gross incompetence. I write this as someone who grew up in a long line of quail hunters. Do I think that Cheney demonstrated his incompetence with a firearm? I certainly do. Do I think that Cheney could have and probably should have been charged in this incident? Possibly. Both men claimed it was an accident but I know enough about quail hunting that I am certain that it was not just an accident but gross incompetence. Do I think that Cheney should have been charged many times over for many crimes? Definitely.

Rittenhouse might have been incompetent, but that isn't the same thing as 'premeditated'.

Quail hunting is a good reason to carry a firearm. Hunting accidents happen, particularly if you aren't very good or practiced at hunting and don't pay attention. Cheney is unlikely to have committed a crime in that accidental shooting. I personally think that Cheney is guilty of multiple crimes against humanity but in this instance, probably not--I don't think the Secret Service would cover it up. He's guilty of being stupid and incompetent with a firearm but that's not a crime. I never claimed that Cheney committed a crime in that shooting. I'm sorry if my writing was unclear on that point.

Your attitude towards Rittenhouse's speculative plethora of legitimate reasons to carry a loaded firearm which he could not legally possess nor carry into a crowded demonstration is interesting for an Australian. I wonder if your imagination can provide any legitimate reasons for someone to unlawfully carry a loaded semiautomatic firearm into a crowded space, much less a contentious demonstration? Excluding trained on duty LEOs, of course.

Frankly, Rittenhouse had zero legitimate reasons to carry a loaded firearm that night because he was not legally allowed to do so. He was underaged and not able to legally possess or carry a firearm, much less a loaded firearm ANYWHERE. The fact that you don't like his victims' politics or skin colors does not increase the legitimacy of his actions.

 

[Trausti]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

Sometimes we blame people for being negligent, but we don't say people are premeditated just because they were negligent.

A 17 year old who shoots a rival gang member on purpose and not in self defense is probably guilty of murder. But a 17 year old who accidentally shoots a rival gang member because they're incompetent with firearms isn't guilty of murder.

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Eh, that's probably why we also have manslaughter and negligent homicide. Lack of premeditation doesn't save you if the killing is still unlawful.

 

[Toni]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

I agree that Rittenhouse should not be tried as an adult because he was 17 at the time. That does not make his killing of two men and wounding of a third man 'negligent.' In fact, it was criminal. The fact that he possessed and carried any firearm at the time was a crime. The fact that he carried a loaded firearm was a crime. The fact that he discharged his weapon at human beings who were fleeing is a crime. But he does not bear an adult responsibility for his crime. He still should face charges and if convicted, should do real time. So should those who enabled him by providing him the firearm and the means to go to a demonstration with a loaded weapon.

 

[Toni]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

Sometimes we blame people for being negligent, but we don't say people are premeditated just because they were negligent.

A 17 year old who shoots a rival gang member on purpose and not in self defense is probably guilty of murder. But a 17 year old who accidentally shoots a rival gang member because they're incompetent with firearms isn't guilty of murder.

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Baldwin wasn't incompetent. He relied upon the competence and expertise of the professionals on set who were in charge of ensuring that no loaded weapons were on set. This is something that he SHOULD have been able to rely upon. There is NO reason for a loaded weapon to be on set. There was gross negligence, at the very least, but it was not Baldwin's.

Note: From the little that I have been unable to avoid hearing about Baldwin, he sounds like a pretty terrible human being and not someone I would particularly like or enjoy meeting. I doubt we have a lot in common. That does not make him more or less culpable in the death of the person killed or the wounding of the other person.

 

[Trausti]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

I agree that Rittenhouse should not be tried as an adult because he was 17 at the time.

Why? Teenagers are not ignorant of right from wrong; do adult crime get adult time. He probably acted in self-defense but charging him as an adult was surely appropriate.

 

[ZiprHead]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

Sometimes we blame people for being negligent, but we don't say people are premeditated just because they were negligent.

A 17 year old who shoots a rival gang member on purpose and not in self defense is probably guilty of murder. But a 17 year old who accidentally shoots a rival gang member because they're incompetent with firearms isn't guilty of murder.

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Premeditation will play a big part in this trial. Rittenhouse certainly had premeditation when he illegally took that gun to a riot. Premeditation is the difference between first and second degree murder.

 

[Metaphor]

Quail hunting is a good reason to carry a firearm. Hunting accidents happen, particularly if you aren't very good or practiced at hunting and don't pay attention. Cheney is unlikely to have committed a crime in that accidental shooting. I personally think that Cheney is guilty of multiple crimes against humanity but in this instance, probably not--I don't think the Secret Service would cover it up. He's guilty of being stupid and incompetent with a firearm but that's not a crime. I never claimed that Cheney committed a crime in that shooting. I'm sorry if my writing was unclear on that point.

I did not claim you claimed Cheney committed a crime. I am saying you can carry a loaded firearm with the intention to shoot, and actually shoot someone, but not have intended to shoot them.

Your attitude towards Rittenhouse's speculative plethora of legitimate reasons

You are the one who has decided there is only one (or no) "legitimate" reasons. What's a legitimate reason? I suspect he was carrying one as a signal that he could protect himself from danger.

to carry a loaded firearm which he could not legally possess nor carry into a crowded demonstration is interesting for an Australian. I wonder if your imagination can provide any legitimate reasons for someone to unlawfully carry a loaded semiautomatic firearm into a crowded space, much less a contentious demonstration? Excluding trained on duty LEOs, of course.

I have no idea what you think a 'legitimate' reason is. What do you mean by 'legitimate'? But whether he had 'legitimate' reasons or not, that does not mean his shootings were 'premeditated'.

Frankly, Rittenhouse had zero legitimate reasons to carry a loaded firearm that night because he was not legally allowed to do so. He was underaged and not able to legally possess or carry a firearm, much less a loaded firearm ANYWHERE. The fact that you don't like his victims' politics or skin colors does not increase the legitimacy of his actions.

Oy gevalt, the race card. I don't even know who he shot. But, sure. I'm racist and I'm glad he killed whoever it is he killed. Why not.

 

[Metaphor]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

Sometimes we blame people for being negligent, but we don't say people are premeditated just because they were negligent.

A 17 year old who shoots a rival gang member on purpose and not in self defense is probably guilty of murder. But a 17 year old who accidentally shoots a rival gang member because they're incompetent with firearms isn't guilty of murder.

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Premeditation will play a big part in this trial. Rittenhouse certainly had premeditation when he illegally took that gun to a riot. Premeditation is the difference between first and second degree murder.

When you say he certainly had premeditation, what do you mean? Isn't premeditation something you have to prove? You mean, he was premeditated to murder people and this is proven by taking a gun?

I'm also curious as to why the illegal possession part gets mentioned. It does not seem relevant to me. If his possession had been legal instead, would that change your mind about his premeditation?

 

[Toni]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

I agree that Rittenhouse should not be tried as an adult because he was 17 at the time.

Why? Teenagers are not ignorant of right from wrong; do adult crime get adult time. He probably acted in self-defense but charging him as an adult was surely appropriate.

Knowing right from wrong is necessary to be legally able to be responsible for a crime. But at 17, the human brain is not adult. 17 year olds lack the experience and perspective of an adult and more importantly lack the ability to engage in long term planning, to foresee consequences and to practice self control as a 30 year old would be able to, to name a few differences. That is why in my view, RIttenhouse should not be tried or sentenced as an adult. And why, in my view, charges should be filed against those who enabled him to attend the demonstration with a loaded weapon he was not legally able to possess. I honestly don't know much about that kid but it seems to me that some adults took a lot of advantage of his youth and inexperience--and at least 4 people have paid an extremely high price for such hubris and cowardice.

 

[Toni]

Quail hunting is a good reason to carry a firearm. Hunting accidents happen, particularly if you aren't very good or practiced at hunting and don't pay attention. Cheney is unlikely to have committed a crime in that accidental shooting. I personally think that Cheney is guilty of multiple crimes against humanity but in this instance, probably not--I don't think the Secret Service would cover it up. He's guilty of being stupid and incompetent with a firearm but that's not a crime. I never claimed that Cheney committed a crime in that shooting. I'm sorry if my writing was unclear on that point.

I did not claim you claimed Cheney committed a crime. I am saying you can carry a loaded firearm with the intention to shoot, and actually shoot someone, but not have intended to shoot them.

Your attitude towards Rittenhouse's speculative plethora of legitimate reasons

You are the one who has decided there is only one (or no) "legitimate" reasons. What's a legitimate reason? I suspect he was carrying one as a signal that he could protect himself from danger.

to carry a loaded firearm which he could not legally possess nor carry into a crowded demonstration is interesting for an Australian. I wonder if your imagination can provide any legitimate reasons for someone to unlawfully carry a loaded semiautomatic firearm into a crowded space, much less a contentious demonstration? Excluding trained on duty LEOs, of course.

I have no idea what you think a 'legitimate' reason is. What do you mean by 'legitimate'? But whether he had 'legitimate' reasons or not, that does not mean his shootings were 'premeditated'.

Frankly, Rittenhouse had zero legitimate reasons to carry a loaded firearm that night because he was not legally allowed to do so. He was underaged and not able to legally possess or carry a firearm, much less a loaded firearm ANYWHERE. The fact that you don't like his victims' politics or skin colors does not increase the legitimacy of his actions.

Oy gevalt, the race card. I don't even know who he shot. But, sure. I'm racist and I'm glad he killed whoever it is he killed. Why not.

The only reason to carry a loaded weapon is because you intend to fire it. He carried a loaded weapon into a crowd of people. THAT is premeditation. There were no quail, no pheasant, no turkeys, no deer---even if these had been in season at the time of the shootings. The only thing Rittenhouse intended to shoot was people. He just didn't identify his victims beforehand.

 

[Metaphor]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

Sometimes we blame people for being negligent, but we don't say people are premeditated just because they were negligent.

A 17 year old who shoots a rival gang member on purpose and not in self defense is probably guilty of murder. But a 17 year old who accidentally shoots a rival gang member because they're incompetent with firearms isn't guilty of murder.

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Baldwin wasn't incompetent. He relied upon the competence and expertise of the professionals on set who were in charge of ensuring that no loaded weapons were on set. This is something that he SHOULD have been able to rely upon. There is NO reason for a loaded weapon to be on set. There was gross negligence, at the very least, but it was not Baldwin's.

I don't own guns, I have never used a gun, I don't even play one on TV. But I do know gun enthusiasts have told me 'don't ever aim a gun at someone unless you don't mind they are shot'.

My point here is taking and using a loaded gun does not mean you were premeditated to murder. You are begging the question.

Note: From the little that I have been unable to avoid hearing about Baldwin, he sounds like a pretty terrible human being and not someone I would particularly like or enjoy meeting. I doubt we have a lot in common. That does not make him more or less culpable in the death of the person killed or the wounding of the other person.

 

[Metaphor]

Quail hunting is a good reason to carry a firearm. Hunting accidents happen, particularly if you aren't very good or practiced at hunting and don't pay attention. Cheney is unlikely to have committed a crime in that accidental shooting. I personally think that Cheney is guilty of multiple crimes against humanity but in this instance, probably not--I don't think the Secret Service would cover it up. He's guilty of being stupid and incompetent with a firearm but that's not a crime. I never claimed that Cheney committed a crime in that shooting. I'm sorry if my writing was unclear on that point.

I did not claim you claimed Cheney committed a crime. I am saying you can carry a loaded firearm with the intention to shoot, and actually shoot someone, but not have intended to shoot them.

Your attitude towards Rittenhouse's speculative plethora of legitimate reasons

You are the one who has decided there is only one (or no) "legitimate" reasons. What's a legitimate reason? I suspect he was carrying one as a signal that he could protect himself from danger.

to carry a loaded firearm which he could not legally possess nor carry into a crowded demonstration is interesting for an Australian. I wonder if your imagination can provide any legitimate reasons for someone to unlawfully carry a loaded semiautomatic firearm into a crowded space, much less a contentious demonstration? Excluding trained on duty LEOs, of course.

I have no idea what you think a 'legitimate' reason is. What do you mean by 'legitimate'? But whether he had 'legitimate' reasons or not, that does not mean his shootings were 'premeditated'.

Frankly, Rittenhouse had zero legitimate reasons to carry a loaded firearm that night because he was not legally allowed to do so. He was underaged and not able to legally possess or carry a firearm, much less a loaded firearm ANYWHERE. The fact that you don't like his victims' politics or skin colors does not increase the legitimacy of his actions.

Oy gevalt, the race card. I don't even know who he shot. But, sure. I'm racist and I'm glad he killed whoever it is he killed. Why not.

The only reason to carry a loaded weapon is because you intend to fire it. He carried a loaded weapon into a crowd of people. THAT is premeditation. There were no quail, no pheasant, no turkeys, no deer---even if these had been in season at the time of the shootings. The only thing Rittenhouse intended to shoot was people. He just didn't identify his victims beforehand.

Well, I can only hope a jury selection would have selected you out.

 

[Metaphor]

Quail hunting is a good reason to carry a firearm. Hunting accidents happen, particularly if you aren't very good or practiced at hunting and don't pay attention. Cheney is unlikely to have committed a crime in that accidental shooting. I personally think that Cheney is guilty of multiple crimes against humanity but in this instance, probably not--I don't think the Secret Service would cover it up. He's guilty of being stupid and incompetent with a firearm but that's not a crime. I never claimed that Cheney committed a crime in that shooting. I'm sorry if my writing was unclear on that point.

I did not claim you claimed Cheney committed a crime. I am saying you can carry a loaded firearm with the intention to shoot, and actually shoot someone, but not have intended to shoot them.

Your attitude towards Rittenhouse's speculative plethora of legitimate reasons

You are the one who has decided there is only one (or no) "legitimate" reasons. What's a legitimate reason? I suspect he was carrying one as a signal that he could protect himself from danger.

to carry a loaded firearm which he could not legally possess nor carry into a crowded demonstration is interesting for an Australian. I wonder if your imagination can provide any legitimate reasons for someone to unlawfully carry a loaded semiautomatic firearm into a crowded space, much less a contentious demonstration? Excluding trained on duty LEOs, of course.

I have no idea what you think a 'legitimate' reason is. What do you mean by 'legitimate'? But whether he had 'legitimate' reasons or not, that does not mean his shootings were 'premeditated'.

Frankly, Rittenhouse had zero legitimate reasons to carry a loaded firearm that night because he was not legally allowed to do so. He was underaged and not able to legally possess or carry a firearm, much less a loaded firearm ANYWHERE. The fact that you don't like his victims' politics or skin colors does not increase the legitimacy of his actions.

Oy gevalt, the race card. I don't even know who he shot. But, sure. I'm racist and I'm glad he killed whoever it is he killed. Why not.

The only reason to carry a loaded weapon is because you intend to fire it.

No. That is a failure of your imagination.

 

[Toni]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

Sometimes we blame people for being negligent, but we don't say people are premeditated just because they were negligent.

A 17 year old who shoots a rival gang member on purpose and not in self defense is probably guilty of murder. But a 17 year old who accidentally shoots a rival gang member because they're incompetent with firearms isn't guilty of murder.

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Baldwin wasn't incompetent. He relied upon the competence and expertise of the professionals on set who were in charge of ensuring that no loaded weapons were on set. This is something that he SHOULD have been able to rely upon. There is NO reason for a loaded weapon to be on set. There was gross negligence, at the very least, but it was not Baldwin's.

I don't own guns, I have never used a gun, I don't even play one on TV. But I do know gun enthusiasts have told me 'don't ever aim a gun at someone unless you don't mind they are shot'.

My point here is taking and using a loaded gun does not mean you were premeditated to murder. You are begging the question.

Note: From the little that I have been unable to avoid hearing about Baldwin, he sounds like a pretty terrible human being and not someone I would particularly like or enjoy meeting. I doubt we have a lot in common. That does not make him more or less culpable in the death of the person killed or the wounding of the other person.

YES. Carrying a loaded firearm means you intend to shoot it at someone or something. Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't hunting game animals. He carried it into a crowd of people.

He could not legally own or carry that rifle, loaded or unloaded. He lacked the maturity and the experience to own or to carry a loaded rifle, period, much less in a crowd of people. Moreover, the police DO NOT WANT civilians of any age to carry loaded firearms into crowded demonstrations. Because people end up dead.

 

[Toni]

Quail hunting is a good reason to carry a firearm. Hunting accidents happen, particularly if you aren't very good or practiced at hunting and don't pay attention. Cheney is unlikely to have committed a crime in that accidental shooting. I personally think that Cheney is guilty of multiple crimes against humanity but in this instance, probably not--I don't think the Secret Service would cover it up. He's guilty of being stupid and incompetent with a firearm but that's not a crime. I never claimed that Cheney committed a crime in that shooting. I'm sorry if my writing was unclear on that point.

I did not claim you claimed Cheney committed a crime. I am saying you can carry a loaded firearm with the intention to shoot, and actually shoot someone, but not have intended to shoot them.

Your attitude towards Rittenhouse's speculative plethora of legitimate reasons

You are the one who has decided there is only one (or no) "legitimate" reasons. What's a legitimate reason? I suspect he was carrying one as a signal that he could protect himself from danger.

to carry a loaded firearm which he could not legally possess nor carry into a crowded demonstration is interesting for an Australian. I wonder if your imagination can provide any legitimate reasons for someone to unlawfully carry a loaded semiautomatic firearm into a crowded space, much less a contentious demonstration? Excluding trained on duty LEOs, of course.

I have no idea what you think a 'legitimate' reason is. What do you mean by 'legitimate'? But whether he had 'legitimate' reasons or not, that does not mean his shootings were 'premeditated'.

Frankly, Rittenhouse had zero legitimate reasons to carry a loaded firearm that night because he was not legally allowed to do so. He was underaged and not able to legally possess or carry a firearm, much less a loaded firearm ANYWHERE. The fact that you don't like his victims' politics or skin colors does not increase the legitimacy of his actions.

Oy gevalt, the race card. I don't even know who he shot. But, sure. I'm racist and I'm glad he killed whoever it is he killed. Why not.

The only reason to carry a loaded weapon is because you intend to fire it. He carried a loaded weapon into a crowd of people. THAT is premeditation. There were no quail, no pheasant, no turkeys, no deer---even if these had been in season at the time of the shootings. The only thing Rittenhouse intended to shoot was people. He just didn't identify his victims beforehand.

Well, I can only hope a jury selection would have selected you out.

Why? Because I am well versed in the ethics of gun ownership?

I mean, instead of sitting safely on another continent where it is not legal to own firearms typing at a keyboard, another keyboard warrior?

 

[ZiprHead]

It seems to me that if the law says that Rittenhouse was too young to carry the firearm, then he is too young to be liable for his negligence with it.

How does one follow the other? It makes no sense. A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

Sometimes we blame people for being negligent, but we don't say people are premeditated just because they were negligent.

A 17 year old who shoots a rival gang member on purpose and not in self defense is probably guilty of murder. But a 17 year old who accidentally shoots a rival gang member because they're incompetent with firearms isn't guilty of murder.

Alec Baldwin shot and killed the cinematographer on his film set. He took a loaded gun in his hand, aimed it, and pulled the trigger. But he didn't have premeditation to kill the cinematographer, he was just incompetent.

Premeditation will play a big part in this trial. Rittenhouse certainly had premeditation when he illegally took that gun to a riot. Premeditation is the difference between first and second degree murder.

When you say he certainly had premeditation, what do you mean? Isn't premeditation something you have to prove? You mean, he was premeditated to murder people and this is proven by taking a gun?

I'm also curious as to why the illegal possession part gets mentioned. It does not seem relevant to me. If his possession had been legal instead, would that change your mind about his premeditation?

No, I mean he was premeditated when he decided to pick up that gun and carry it to a riot, illegally btw.