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.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

You cannot possibly know what was in Rittenhouses's mind, so your response is risible.

I know Rittenhouse can't have gone to a riot with plans to murder people he didn't know existed.*

*If it emerges Rittenhouse had pre-existing dealings with the people he shot, that would be relevant evidence of malice aforethought.

 

[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.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

Really?

And you got your law degree from where?

I never finished my law degree actually. I was too distracted by people making fallacious credentialism arguments on the internet.

 

[Metaphor]

I just keep thinking about how different this entire thing would have played out if Rittenhouse were black or if the demonstrators were neo-Nazis…..

Does it bear that much thinking about? I mean, everybody who offers a different opinion to you is obviously racist.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

You cannot possibly know what was in Rittenhouses's mind, so your response is risible.

I know Rittenhouse can't have gone to a riot with plans to murder people he didn't know existed.

He knew rioters existed. Duh.

 

[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.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

You cannot possibly know what was in Rittenhouses's mind, so your response is risible.

I know Rittenhouse can't have gone to a riot with plans to murder people he didn't know existed.

He knew rioters existed. Duh.

And, if you'd bothered to parse what I actually wrote, you'd note that I've noted he didn't know those specific rioters. You can't have malice aforethought to kill people you don't know existed.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

You cannot possibly know what was in Rittenhouses's mind, so your response is risible.

I know Rittenhouse can't have gone to a riot with plans to murder people he didn't know existed.

He knew rioters existed. Duh.

And, if you'd bothered to parse what I actually wrote, you'd note that I've noted he didn't know those specific rioters. You can't have malice aforethought to kill people you don't know existed.

He knew rioters existed. So, of course, he could have had intent.



Are you playing another one of your boring and stupid "gotcha" pedantic games with this "malice aforethought", or are you just pretending to be this obtuse?

 

[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.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

You cannot possibly know what was in Rittenhouses's mind, so your response is risible.

I know Rittenhouse can't have gone to a riot with plans to murder people he didn't know existed.

He knew rioters existed. Duh.

And, if you'd bothered to parse what I actually wrote, you'd note that I've noted he didn't know those specific rioters. You can't have malice aforethought to kill people you don't know existed.

He knew rioters existed. So, of course, he could have had intent.



Are you playing another one of your boring and stupid "gotcha" pedantic games with this "malice aforethought", or are you just pretending to be this obtuse?

Sorry, I'm not at the top of my game today. I am allergic to false dichotomies.

 

[laughing dog]

Sorry, I'm not at the top of my game today. I am allergic to false dichotomies.

Someone can have intent to kill a rioter without having a specific named person in mind, so I guess I was wrong about the "pretending" part.

 

[Arctish]

I know Rittenhouse can't have gone to a riot with plans to murder people he didn't know existed.

I know he can't have gone to a riot because people weren't rioting in Kenosha when he went there and weren't rioting at any time while he was there.

I have no reason to believe he went there with the intention of committing murder. But I have more than sufficient reason to believe he recklessly handled that AR-15 and may have provoked the confrontation that resulted in him using it.

Rittenhouse killed 2 people, grievously wounded a third, aimed and fired at a fourth, and sent bullets flying towards at least one other person while illegally carrying a weapon. Frankly I'm astounded so many people want to turn a blind eye to this matter.

I said it before and I'll say it again: if Rittenhouse was a black teenager who had killed a couple of Proud Boys under identical circumstances, some of his most ardent defenders here would have the exact opposite reaction. I suspect at least one would have been calling for the death penalty right from the start.

 

[Metaphor]

Sorry, I'm not at the top of my game today. I am allergic to false dichotomies.

Someone can have intent to kill a rioter without having a specific named person in mind, so I guess I was wrong about the "pretending" part.

It speaks a great deal about you that you think Rittenhouse went to the riot with the intent to kill rioters.

 

[laughing dog]

Sorry, I'm not at the top of my game today. I am allergic to false dichotomies.

Someone can have intent to kill a rioter without having a specific named person in mind, so I guess I was wrong about the "pretending" part.

It speaks a great deal about you that you think Rittenhouse went to the riot with the intent to kill rioters.

The use of "possible intent" and "can have intent" would lead a reasonably capable user of the English language to grasp that I clearly mean it is possibility.

 

[Metaphor]

I know Rittenhouse can't have gone to a riot with plans to murder people he didn't know existed.

I know he can't have gone to a riot because people weren't rioting in Kenosha when he went there and weren't rioting at any time while he was there.

I have no reason to believe he went there with the intention of committing murder. But I have more than sufficient reason to believe he recklessly handled that AR-15 and may have provoked the confrontation that resulted in him using it.

Rittenhouse killed 2 people, grievously wounded a third, aimed and fired at a fourth, and sent bullets flying towards at least one other person while illegally carrying a weapon. Frankly I'm astounded so many people want to turn a blind eye to this matter.

I said it before and I'll say it again: if Rittenhouse was a black teenager who had killed a couple of Proud Boys under identical circumstances, some of his most ardent defenders here would have the exact opposite reaction. I expect t least one would have been calling for the death penalty right from the start.

And no doubt the same people ready to condemn Rittenhouse before his trial on this thread would be calling for a calm evaluation of the facts if Rittenhouse were a black teenager.

I too do not believe, and have no reason to believe, that Rittenhouse went to the riot with the intention of murdering people. I would go further and say: even if he did have that intention, that does not preclude that he acted in self-defense in the actual circumstances.

 

[Arctish]

Would someone define what they mean by riot?

The night Rittenhouse was in Kenosha people were out in the streets demonstrating and arguing but they weren't fighting with the cops or anything.

 

[Metaphor]

Sorry, I'm not at the top of my game today. I am allergic to false dichotomies.

Someone can have intent to kill a rioter without having a specific named person in mind, so I guess I was wrong about the "pretending" part.

It speaks a great deal about you that you think Rittenhouse went to the riot with the intent to kill rioters.

The use of "possible intent" and "can have intent" would lead a reasonably capable user of the English language to grasp that I clearly mean it is possibility.

If Rittenhouse intended to murder rioters, I'm pretty fucking sure he would have murdered a lot of them and in a way that was a lot less ambiguous than the shooting deaths that transpired.

 

[Metaphor]

Would someone define what they men by riot?

The night Rittenhouse was in Kenosha people were out in the streets demonstrating and arguing but they weren't fighting with the cops or anything.

I've got no interest in playing language games. Whether you call it the scene or the protest or the gathering--the idea that Rittenhouse went there to murder random people is completely unevidenced.

 

[fromderinside]

It says something pretty systematic about you as well Metaphor to think a guy would come from Minnesota armored, with a weapon and extra ammunition, to believe he is an innocent bystander. Of course he came to "have fun."

 

[Arctish]

Sorry, I'm not at the top of my game today. I am allergic to false dichotomies.

Someone can have intent to kill a rioter without having a specific named person in mind, so I guess I was wrong about the "pretending" part.

It speaks a great deal about you that you think Rittenhouse went to the riot with the intent to kill rioters.

The use of "possible intent" and "can have intent" would lead a reasonably capable user of the English language to grasp that I clearly mean it is possibility.

If Rittenhouse intended to murder rioters, I'm pretty fucking sure he would have murdered a lot of them and in a way that was a lot less ambiguous than the shooting deaths that transpired.

The list of charges I posted earlier in the thread indicates the Prosecution is alleging Rittenhouse intentionally pointed his weapon at people and then intentionally pulled the trigger, thereby showing intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

No one is alleging he went took to the streets in order to kill people.

 

[Arctish]

Would someone define what they men by riot?

The night Rittenhouse was in Kenosha people were out in the streets demonstrating and arguing but they weren't fighting with the cops or anything.

I've got no interest in playing language games. Whether you call it the scene or the protest or the gathering--the idea that Rittenhouse went there to murder random people is completely unevidenced.

No one is saying he did.

You aren't seriously expecting people to provide evidence of something they don't believe happened, are you?

 

[laughing dog]

Sorry, I'm not at the top of my game today. I am allergic to false dichotomies.

Someone can have intent to kill a rioter without having a specific named person in mind, so I guess I was wrong about the "pretending" part.

It speaks a great deal about you that you think Rittenhouse went to the riot with the intent to kill rioters.

The use of "possible intent" and "can have intent" would lead a reasonably capable user of the English language to grasp that I clearly mean it is possibility.

If Rittenhouse intended to murder rioters, I'm pretty fucking sure he would have murdered a lot of them and in a way that was a lot less ambiguous than the shooting deaths that transpired.

That speaks a great deal about you and nothing at all about that point in contention.

 

[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.

Utter nonsense. It goes to possible intent.

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse did not know the people he shot. He did not show up with malice aforethought to kill those people. The reason he showed up to the riot is irrelevant because the charges are about his actions (and mens rea) towards the shooting of specific people.

You cannot possibly know what was in Rittenhouses's mind, so your response is risible.

I know Rittenhouse can't have gone to a riot with plans to murder people he didn't know existed.

He knew rioters existed. Duh.

And, if you'd bothered to parse what I actually wrote, you'd note that I've noted he didn't know those specific rioters. You can't have malice aforethought to kill people you don't know existed.

Try telling that to the parents of Sandy Hook elementary.

On second thought: don't. They have suffered enough with the loss of their children's lives and the disgusting conspiracy theories people use to deny that Adam Lanza murdered 26 people, 20 of them 6 and 7 year olds to have to trifle with your bizarre claims. Not that Adam Lanza knew the names of the kids he murdered nor the teachers and staff that he killed.

No one is suggesting that Rittenhouse went to the demonstration specifically to shoot any particular individual. But the fact that he came to a demonstration with a loaded weapon strongly suggests he intended to use it if he felt he 'needed' to. The fact that he shot an unarmed person and then shot two other individuals who were chasing the person (Rittenhouse) who had just shot an unarmed person is a direct result of him having illegally brought a loaded semiautomatic rifle to a demonstration. If he had followed the law with regards to the use and carrying of a long gun or basic gun safety, two men would still be alive and a third man would have use of his arm. If he hadn't been a frightened kid too green and inexperienced to determine who was and was not a threat, these deaths would not have happened. He made a terribly bad choice to attend a demonstration with the intention of 'protecting' businesses, something he was absolutely unqualified by age, training, or experience to do. He made a terrible choice to shoot at an unarmed person and then instead of immediately approaching a law enforcement officer to hand over his weapon and describe the events, to run, which led to him being chased by those who saw him kill an unarmed man. It is difficult to see how any reasonable person can claim he was acting in self defense when he initiated the violence. It is difficult to see how any reasonable person can believe that he did not intend to kill people when he fired his weapon at them. In fact, he did kill two of them and it is only luck that kept him from killing the third man, and potentially more people.