Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[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.

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.

No, it doesn't. You have a failure of imagination.

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.

I am not suggesting Rittenhouse should have been at the riot, let alone carrying a loaded rifle there. I am suggesting that that fact does not automatically entail that he murdered anyone with premeditation.

 

[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?

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

"Premeditation to carry a loaded gun" might be relevant to the crime of "carrying a loaded gun", sure.

 

[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.

No, it doesn't. You have a failure of imagination.

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.

I am not suggesting Rittenhouse should have been at the riot, let alone carrying a loaded rifle there. I am suggesting that that fact does not automatically entail that he murdered anyone with premeditation.

Please tell me about your experience with firearms and about any gun safety classes you have taken.

As for my failure of imagination? It seems you share it as you have not provided a single reason that a 17 year old could legitimately carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of people.

 

[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.

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

No, because you make errors of logic that are prejudicial to the defendant.

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

Your envy at Australian firearm laws is noted, but there's nothing else I can do for you about it.

 

[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.

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.

No, it doesn't. You have a failure of imagination.

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.

I am not suggesting Rittenhouse should have been at the riot, let alone carrying a loaded rifle there. I am suggesting that that fact does not automatically entail that he murdered anyone with premeditation.

Please tell me about your experience with firearms and about any gun safety classes you have taken.

Why? I can tell you my practical experience is zero.

As for my failure of imagination? It seems you share it as you have not provided a single reason that a 17 year old could legitimately carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of people.

Why do I have to provide a reason, or a 'legitimate' reason? His carrying the firearm, 'legitimately' or not, does not entail what you assume it entails.

 

[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.

"Premeditation to carry a loaded gun" might be relevant to the crime of "carrying a loaded gun", sure.

In the USA committing other acts while committing a crime, illegally carrying a firearm in this case, can change what might have been legal to illegal.

 

[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?

No, because you make errors of logic that are prejudicial to the defendant.

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

Your envy at Australian firearm laws is noted, but there's nothing else I can do for you about it.

lolololololololol

It's ok to admit you have no idea why anyone would carry a loaded firearm and NOT intend to shoot it. There's no reason for you to know a reason because you live in Australia and also because there IS NO LEGITMATE REASON TO CARRY A LOADED FIREARM AND NOT INTEND TO SHOOT IT.

 

[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.

No, it doesn't. You have a failure of imagination.

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.

I am not suggesting Rittenhouse should have been at the riot, let alone carrying a loaded rifle there. I am suggesting that that fact does not automatically entail that he murdered anyone with premeditation.

Please tell me about your experience with firearms and about any gun safety classes you have taken.

Why? I can tell you my practical experience is zero.

As for my failure of imagination? It seems you share it as you have not provided a single reason that a 17 year old could legitimately carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of people.

Why do I have to provide a reason, or a 'legitimate' reason? His carrying the firearm, 'legitimately' or not, does not entail what you assume it entails.

So, you have no experience with firearms. You are not well versed in US laws in general nor specifically laws in the state of Wisconsin. Yet you are CERTAIN there was a good reason for a 17 year old boy to carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of demonstrators, even though it was illegal for him to possess or carry a firearm or a loaded firearm. That's your claim: there were legitimate reasons for him to have done so. You just don't happen to know any. But you're certain that he had a legitimate reason to carry a loaded firearm that he was not legally allowed to possess or carry into a crowd of people.

That certainly gives a lot of weight to your responses in this discussion, even more than usual.

 

[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?

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

"Premeditation to carry a loaded gun" might be relevant to the crime of "carrying a loaded gun", sure.

In the USA committing other acts while committing a crime, illegally carrying a firearm in this case, can change what might have been legal to illegal.

If that's the case then that's the case, but it does not change my point - carrying a firearm does not mean you were premeditated to kill somebody.

 

[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.

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.

No, it doesn't. You have a failure of imagination.

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.

I am not suggesting Rittenhouse should have been at the riot, let alone carrying a loaded rifle there. I am suggesting that that fact does not automatically entail that he murdered anyone with premeditation.

Please tell me about your experience with firearms and about any gun safety classes you have taken.

Why? I can tell you my practical experience is zero.

As for my failure of imagination? It seems you share it as you have not provided a single reason that a 17 year old could legitimately carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of people.

Why do I have to provide a reason, or a 'legitimate' reason? His carrying the firearm, 'legitimately' or not, does not entail what you assume it entails.

So, you have no experience with firearms. You are not well versed in US laws in general nor specifically laws in the state of Wisconsin. Yet you are CERTAIN there was a good reason for a 17 year old boy to carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of demonstrators, even though it was illegal for him to possess or carry a firearm or a loaded firearm.

Oy gevalt. I am certain that the law does not define what a 'good' or 'legitimate' reason to carry a loaded firearm is, and if it does then this whole conversation is pointless.

You are obsessed with the idea that Rittenhouse had to have a 'good' or 'legitimate' reason to carry a loaded firearm. I already gave you the most probable actual reason (whether you think it is good or legitimate is up to you): Rittenhouse wanted an outward and visible sign that he could defend himself if somebody tried to assault him. And it was loaded because if it were not and this was made known to the would be assaulters, then the illusion is broken and the outward and visible sign was useless.

That's your claim: there were legitimate reasons for him to have done so. You just don't happen to know any. But you're certain that he had a legitimate reason to carry a loaded firearm that he was not legally allowed to possess or carry into a crowd of people.

That certainly gives a lot of weight to your responses in this discussion, even more than usual.

I gave you the probable reason he did it. I am not interested in your opinion of whether that reason was 'legitimate', nor have you explained why having a 'legitimate' reason has any bearing on his guilt or innocence.

 

[blastula]

The fact that you don't like his victims' politics or skin colors does not increase the legitimacy of his actions.

The deceased all had the same skin color as the shooter.

By the way, I'm about to intentionally homicide somebody in this thread unless they start trimming down their reply quotes. Talk about negligence!

 

[Toni]

The fact that you don't like his victims' politics or skin colors does not increase the legitimacy of his actions.

The deceased all had the same skin color as the shooter.

By the way, I'm about to intentionally homicide somebody in this thread unless they start trimming down their reply quotes. Talk about negligence!

I haven't gotten the hang of this new forum yet, and my mouse isn't working the way I want it to, so patience, please!

 

[ZiprHead]

In the USA committing other acts while committing a crime, illegally carrying a firearm in this case, can change what might have been legal to illegal.

If that's the case then that's the case, but it does not change my point - carrying a firearm does not mean you were premeditated to kill somebody.

i don't think anyone is disagreeing with that point. I certainly don't.

 

[Toni]

In the USA committing other acts while committing a crime, illegally carrying a firearm in this case, can change what might have been legal to illegal.

If that's the case then that's the case, but it does not change my point - carrying a firearm does not mean you were premeditated to kill somebody.

i don't think anyone is disagreeing with that point. I certainly don't.

Carrying a loaded firearm into a crowd of demonstrators has an entirely different connotation than carrying a loaded firearm into a field where quail are. And carrying an unloaded firearm means something entirely different than carrying a loaded firearm.

 

[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.

No, it doesn't. You have a failure of imagination.

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.

I am not suggesting Rittenhouse should have been at the riot, let alone carrying a loaded rifle there. I am suggesting that that fact does not automatically entail that he murdered anyone with premeditation.

Please tell me about your experience with firearms and about any gun safety classes you have taken.

Why? I can tell you my practical experience is zero.

As for my failure of imagination? It seems you share it as you have not provided a single reason that a 17 year old could legitimately carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of people.

Why do I have to provide a reason, or a 'legitimate' reason? His carrying the firearm, 'legitimately' or not, does not entail what you assume it entails.

So, you have no experience with firearms. You are not well versed in US laws in general nor specifically laws in the state of Wisconsin. Yet you are CERTAIN there was a good reason for a 17 year old boy to carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of demonstrators, even though it was illegal for him to possess or carry a firearm or a loaded firearm.

Oy gevalt. I am certain that the law does not define what a 'good' or 'legitimate' reason to carry a loaded firearm is, and if it does then this whole conversation is pointless.

You are obsessed with the idea that Rittenhouse had to have a 'good' or 'legitimate' reason to carry a loaded firearm. I already gave you the most probable actual reason (whether you think it is good or legitimate is up to you): Rittenhouse wanted an outward and visible sign that he could defend himself if somebody tried to assault him. And it was loaded because if it were not and this was made known to the would be assaulters, then the illusion is broken and the outward and visible sign was useless.

That's your claim: there were legitimate reasons for him to have done so. You just don't happen to know any. But you're certain that he had a legitimate reason to carry a loaded firearm that he was not legally allowed to possess or carry into a crowd of people.

That certainly gives a lot of weight to your responses in this discussion, even more than usual.

I gave you the probable reason he did it. I am not interested in your opinion of whether that reason was 'legitimate', nor have you explained why having a 'legitimate' reason has any bearing on his guilt or innocence.

Your reason is not legitimate by any rationally determined reason. If he wanted to carry a firearm to discourage others from threatening him, what way would he demonstrate that ‘he meant business?’ If unloaded, he would be vulnerable. If loaded, the only way to prove it was loaded would be to fire. Discharging a firearm in a crowd is exceptionally dangerous particularly for someone who is afraid, and too young to carry said firearm legally.

 

[ZiprHead]

In the USA committing other acts while committing a crime, illegally carrying a firearm in this case, can change what might have been legal to illegal.

If that's the case then that's the case, but it does not change my point - carrying a firearm does not mean you were premeditated to kill somebody.

i don't think anyone is disagreeing with that point. I certainly don't.

Carrying a loaded firearm into a crowd of demonstrators has an entirely different connotation than carrying a loaded firearm into a field where quail are. And carrying an unloaded firearm means something entirely different than carrying a loaded firearm.

With that I definitely agree.

 

[Metaphor]

In the USA committing other acts while committing a crime, illegally carrying a firearm in this case, can change what might have been legal to illegal.

If that's the case then that's the case, but it does not change my point - carrying a firearm does not mean you were premeditated to kill somebody.

i don't think anyone is disagreeing with that point. I certainly don't.

Toni does.

 

[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.

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.

No, it doesn't. You have a failure of imagination.

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.

I am not suggesting Rittenhouse should have been at the riot, let alone carrying a loaded rifle there. I am suggesting that that fact does not automatically entail that he murdered anyone with premeditation.

Please tell me about your experience with firearms and about any gun safety classes you have taken.

Why? I can tell you my practical experience is zero.

As for my failure of imagination? It seems you share it as you have not provided a single reason that a 17 year old could legitimately carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of people.

Why do I have to provide a reason, or a 'legitimate' reason? His carrying the firearm, 'legitimately' or not, does not entail what you assume it entails.

So, you have no experience with firearms. You are not well versed in US laws in general nor specifically laws in the state of Wisconsin. Yet you are CERTAIN there was a good reason for a 17 year old boy to carry a loaded firearm into a crowd of demonstrators, even though it was illegal for him to possess or carry a firearm or a loaded firearm.

Oy gevalt. I am certain that the law does not define what a 'good' or 'legitimate' reason to carry a loaded firearm is, and if it does then this whole conversation is pointless.

You are obsessed with the idea that Rittenhouse had to have a 'good' or 'legitimate' reason to carry a loaded firearm. I already gave you the most probable actual reason (whether you think it is good or legitimate is up to you): Rittenhouse wanted an outward and visible sign that he could defend himself if somebody tried to assault him. And it was loaded because if it were not and this was made known to the would be assaulters, then the illusion is broken and the outward and visible sign was useless.

That's your claim: there were legitimate reasons for him to have done so. You just don't happen to know any. But you're certain that he had a legitimate reason to carry a loaded firearm that he was not legally allowed to possess or carry into a crowd of people.

That certainly gives a lot of weight to your responses in this discussion, even more than usual.

I gave you the probable reason he did it. I am not interested in your opinion of whether that reason was 'legitimate', nor have you explained why having a 'legitimate' reason has any bearing on his guilt or innocence.

Your reason is not legitimate by any rationally determined reason. If he wanted to carry a firearm to discourage others from threatening him, what way would he demonstrate that ‘he meant business?’ If unloaded, he would be vulnerable. If loaded, the only way to prove it was loaded would be to fire. Discharging a firearm in a crowd is exceptionally dangerous particularly for someone who is afraid, and too young to carry said firearm legally.

It appears nothing can disabuse you of your prejudices.

Whether you think Rittenhouse had a 'legitimate', 'rational', or 'good' reason to carry the firearm is completely irrelevant to his case, because nobody is suggesting he had premeditation to kill the specific individuals he shot and killed.

Second, openly carrying the firearm is the demonstration he meant business. It is the outward and visible sign that nobody should attack him. And should somebody attack him, an unloaded firearm would give him away as defenseless.

 

[Derec]

A 17 year old gang banger is not responsible for shooting the rival gang member?

In LA most he risks is a few years in juvi.
Gascón stops effort to prosecute juvenile gang murderer as adult; victim’s family outraged

 

[Derec]

Whether you think Rittenhouse had a 'legitimate', 'rational', or 'good' reason to carry the firearm is completely irrelevant to his case, because nobody is suggesting he had premeditation to kill the specific individuals he shot and killed.

Unfortunately, premeditated murder is what the prosecution has charged him with. That's why the prosecutor is so hung up on falsehoods like Rosenbaum being shot in the back or that he was chased by Rittenhouse. In reality, Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and lunged for his weapon, and was shot in the front.