Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

Why don't you come up with a good reason why a 17 year old who had no legal right to carry a firearm would travel to a protest with a rifle?

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

Why don't you come up with a good reason why a 17 year old who had no legal right to carry a firearm would travel to a protest with a rifle?

LOL.

What difference does it make? Would you say that, if Rittenhouse was found to have wrongfully killed somebody there, it makes a difference how he came to be there, and, had he had a 'good' reason to be there, that a judgment of wrongful killing might instead have been no judgment of wrongful killing?

I am not interested in debating 'good' reasons from 'bad' ones, especially since it would just lead to disagreement about what a 'good' or 'bad' reason is. But I can tell you what I told Toni and offer my opinion on the actual reason he was open carrying: because open carrying is an outward and visible sign you should not physically mess with the person open carrying. I also think he went with a loaded gun and not an unloaded gun because the chilling effect of open carrying is completely lost if it is discovered that it is a complete bluff.

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

If he went to the demonstration intending to kill demonstrators, don't you think that would matter?

 

[Toni]

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

Why don't you come up with a good reason why a 17 year old who had no legal right to carry a firearm would travel to a protest with a rifle?

LOL.

What difference does it make? Would you say that, if Rittenhouse was found to have wrongfully killed somebody there, it makes a difference how he came to be there, and, had he had a 'good' reason to be there, that a judgment of wrongful killing might instead have been no judgment of wrongful killing?

I am not interested in debating 'good' reasons from 'bad' ones, especially since it would just lead to disagreement about what a 'good' or 'bad' reason is. But I can tell you what I told Toni and offer my opinion on the actual reason he was open carrying: because open carrying is an outward and visible sign you should not physically mess with the person open carrying. I also think he went with a loaded gun and not an unloaded gun because the chilling effect of open carrying is completely lost if it is discovered that it is a complete bluff.

No one aside from the person carrying a weapon can tell if a weapon is loaded or unloaded---unless it is discharged.

Lots of people are killed by police for having an unloaded firearm and seeming to be threatening. Or a toy gun. Or a cell phone. Or a cigarette lighter. Generally speaking, almost everyone agrees that the police have no way of knowing if a firearm is loaded or not.

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

If he went to the demonstration intending to kill demonstrators, don't you think that would matter?

I don't believe he did that, but no, it would not matter if any killings that actually transpired were done in self-defense.

If he went there to randomly shoot protesters (which is an absurd thing to believe without evidence), and he randomly shot protesters and it wasn't in self-defence, then that would be the difference between first-degree murder and lesser offences.

But whether he went for 'good', 'legitimate', or 'rational' reasons isn't relevant.

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

If he went to the demonstration intending to kill demonstrators, don't you think that would matter?

I don't believe he did that, but no, it would not matter if any killings that actually transpired were done in self-defense.

If he went there to randomly shoot protesters (which is an absurd thing to believe without evidence), and he randomly shot protesters and it wasn't in self-defence, then that would be the difference between first-degree murder and lesser offences.

But whether he went for 'good', 'legitimate', or 'rational' reasons isn't relevant.

Do you think bank robbers can claim self defense if they shoot at police officers or security guards who are pursuing them?

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

Why don't you come up with a good reason why a 17 year old who had no legal right to carry a firearm would travel to a protest with a rifle?

LOL.

What difference does it make? Would you say that, if Rittenhouse was found to have wrongfully killed somebody there, it makes a difference how he came to be there, and, had he had a 'good' reason to be there, that a judgment of wrongful killing might instead have been no judgment of wrongful killing?

I am not interested in debating 'good' reasons from 'bad' ones, especially since it would just lead to disagreement about what a 'good' or 'bad' reason is. But I can tell you what I told Toni and offer my opinion on the actual reason he was open carrying: because open carrying is an outward and visible sign you should not physically mess with the person open carrying. I also think he went with a loaded gun and not an unloaded gun because the chilling effect of open carrying is completely lost if it is discovered that it is a complete bluff.

No one aside from the person carrying a weapon can tell if a weapon is loaded or unloaded---unless it is discharged.

Yes, that's the point. It's a bluff, and if the illusion is broken--for whatever reason--the gun is worse than useless as a deterrent. And of course somebody might be able to tell. Rittenhouse himself would know whether it was loaded or not, and, although I've never held a gun to somebody who is about to attack me, I'd feel better (and inadvertently betray that feeling, I bet) knowing the gun was actually loaded and it wasn't all a bluff.

Lots of people are killed by police for having an unloaded firearm and seeming to be threatening. Or a toy gun. Or a cell phone. Or a cigarette lighter. Generally speaking, almost everyone agrees that the police have no way of knowing if a firearm is loaded or not.

Are you interested in understanding what Rittenhouse might have been thinking, or are you merely interested in having all your prejudices confirmed?

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

If he went to the demonstration intending to kill demonstrators, don't you think that would matter?

I don't believe he did that, but no, it would not matter if any killings that actually transpired were done in self-defense.

If he went there to randomly shoot protesters (which is an absurd thing to believe without evidence), and he randomly shot protesters and it wasn't in self-defence, then that would be the difference between first-degree murder and lesser offences.

But whether he went for 'good', 'legitimate', or 'rational' reasons isn't relevant.

Do you think bank robbers can claim self defense if they shoot at police officers or security guards who are pursuing them?

Oy gevalt. Why would that automatically follow from what I've said?

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

If he went to the demonstration intending to kill demonstrators, don't you think that would matter?

I don't believe he did that, but no, it would not matter if any killings that actually transpired were done in self-defense.

If he went there to randomly shoot protesters (which is an absurd thing to believe without evidence), and he randomly shot protesters and it wasn't in self-defence, then that would be the difference between first-degree murder and lesser offences.

But whether he went for 'good', 'legitimate', or 'rational' reasons isn't relevant.

Do you think bank robbers can claim self defense if they shoot at police officers or security guards who are pursuing them?

Oy gevalt. Why would that automatically follow from what I've said?

Why can't you answer the question?

 

[Toni]

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

Why don't you come up with a good reason why a 17 year old who had no legal right to carry a firearm would travel to a protest with a rifle?

LOL.

What difference does it make? Would you say that, if Rittenhouse was found to have wrongfully killed somebody there, it makes a difference how he came to be there, and, had he had a 'good' reason to be there, that a judgment of wrongful killing might instead have been no judgment of wrongful killing?

I am not interested in debating 'good' reasons from 'bad' ones, especially since it would just lead to disagreement about what a 'good' or 'bad' reason is. But I can tell you what I told Toni and offer my opinion on the actual reason he was open carrying: because open carrying is an outward and visible sign you should not physically mess with the person open carrying. I also think he went with a loaded gun and not an unloaded gun because the chilling effect of open carrying is completely lost if it is discovered that it is a complete bluff.

No one aside from the person carrying a weapon can tell if a weapon is loaded or unloaded---unless it is discharged.

Yes, that's the point. It's a bluff, and if the illusion is broken--for whatever reason--the gun is worse than useless as a deterrent. And of course somebody might be able to tell. Rittenhouse himself would know whether it was loaded or not, and, although I've never held a gun to somebody who is about to attack me, I'd feel better (and inadvertently betray that feeling, I bet) knowing the gun was actually loaded and it wasn't all a bluff.

Lots of people are killed by police for having an unloaded firearm and seeming to be threatening. Or a toy gun. Or a cell phone. Or a cigarette lighter. Generally speaking, almost everyone agrees that the police have no way of knowing if a firearm is loaded or not.

Are you interested in understanding what Rittenhouse might have been thinking, or are you merely interested in having all your prejudices confirmed?

Obviously, you have zero experience with firearms.

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

Why don't you come up with a good reason why a 17 year old who had no legal right to carry a firearm would travel to a protest with a rifle?

LOL.

What difference does it make? Would you say that, if Rittenhouse was found to have wrongfully killed somebody there, it makes a difference how he came to be there, and, had he had a 'good' reason to be there, that a judgment of wrongful killing might instead have been no judgment of wrongful killing?

I'd say your response speaks volumes about you and nothing else

I am not interested in debating 'good' reasons from 'bad' ones, especially since it would just lead to disagreement about what a 'good' or 'bad' reason is. But I can tell you what I told Toni and offer my opinion on the actual reason he was open carrying: because open carrying is an outward and visible sign you should not physically mess with the person open carrying. I also think he went with a loaded gun and not an unloaded gun because the chilling effect of open carrying is completely lost if it is discovered that it is a complete bluff

Your response begs the question why RIttenhouse would feel the need to travel to another state with an illegal firearm in order to provide a visible sign to not mess with him to people who he did not know. After all, he could have saved himself all that bother by staying at home.

But feel free to further contort reason with your responses.

 

[Toni]

Yes, this video is from Occupy Democrats but it's video from the testimony of the surviving victim of Rittenhouse's shooting:

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

If he went to the demonstration intending to kill demonstrators, don't you think that would matter?

I don't believe he did that, but no, it would not matter if any killings that actually transpired were done in self-defense.

If he went there to randomly shoot protesters (which is an absurd thing to believe without evidence), and he randomly shot protesters and it wasn't in self-defence, then that would be the difference between first-degree murder and lesser offences.

But whether he went for 'good', 'legitimate', or 'rational' reasons isn't relevant.

Do you think bank robbers can claim self defense if they shoot at police officers or security guards who are pursuing them?

Oy gevalt. Why would that automatically follow from what I've said?

Why can't you answer the question?

I can answer it: the answer is no, bank robbers cannot claim self defense if they shoot police who are chasing them.

Now perhaps you can tell me why you think it is relevant.

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

If he went to the demonstration intending to kill demonstrators, don't you think that would matter?

I don't believe he did that, but no, it would not matter if any killings that actually transpired were done in self-defense.

If he went there to randomly shoot protesters (which is an absurd thing to believe without evidence), and he randomly shot protesters and it wasn't in self-defence, then that would be the difference between first-degree murder and lesser offences.

But whether he went for 'good', 'legitimate', or 'rational' reasons isn't relevant.

Do you think bank robbers can claim self defense if they shoot at police officers or security guards who are pursuing them?

Oy gevalt. Why would that automatically follow from what I've said?

Why can't you answer the question?

I can answer it: the answer is no, bank robbers cannot claim self defense if they shoot police who are chasing them.

Now perhaps you can tell me why you think it is relevant.

A crowd saw Rittenhouse shoot an unarmed man and then flee. They gave chase, much as police officers or security guards might give chase to a bank robber. Rittenhouse turned and shot at two of them, one of whom had apparently raised his hands in surrender after seeing Rittenhouse shoot someone else.

I think it is hard for Rittenhouse to claim self defense.

 

[Metaphor]

Your response begs the question why RIttenhouse would feel the need to travel to another state with an illegal firearm

This bullshit has been debunked a number of times on this thread. Rittenhouse was already in the state and he did not cross borders with the firearm.

in order to provide a visible sign to not mess with him to people who he did not know.

I don't know why he went to the protest. It doesn't matter whether I approve of his reason for going to the protest, or whether you do, either.

After all, he could have saved himself all that bother by staying at home.

But feel free to further contort reason with your responses.

He wanted to go to the protest and provide an outward and visible sign that he was not physically vulnerable to the protesters. I am not contorting reason by stating that. It should be fucking obvious to most anybody that that is consistent with his actual actions.

 

[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.

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.

Toni is insinuating it. She doesn't think there is a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason for Rittenhouse to have gone to the protest. I asked why the reason he went there mattered.

laughing dog also appears to believe what Rittenhouse thought when he went to the protest is relevant.

If he went to the demonstration intending to kill demonstrators, don't you think that would matter?

I don't believe he did that, but no, it would not matter if any killings that actually transpired were done in self-defense.

If he went there to randomly shoot protesters (which is an absurd thing to believe without evidence), and he randomly shot protesters and it wasn't in self-defence, then that would be the difference between first-degree murder and lesser offences.

But whether he went for 'good', 'legitimate', or 'rational' reasons isn't relevant.

Do you think bank robbers can claim self defense if they shoot at police officers or security guards who are pursuing them?

Oy gevalt. Why would that automatically follow from what I've said?

Why can't you answer the question?

I can answer it: the answer is no, bank robbers cannot claim self defense if they shoot police who are chasing them.

Now perhaps you can tell me why you think it is relevant.

A crowd saw Rittenhouse shoot an unarmed man and then flee. They gave chase, much as police officers or security guards might give chase to a bank robber.

So, civilians are the same as police officers?

When you say 'a crowd saw Rittenhouse' do such and such, so what? Do you think an unarmed man automatically poses no physical threats to people? (Please do not relate once again your story of triumphantly fighting off a male would-be rapist when you weighed 98 pounds).

Rittenhouse turned and shot at two of them, one of whom had apparently raised his hands in surrender after seeing Rittenhouse shoot someone else.

I think it is hard for Rittenhouse to claim self defense.

The actual circumstances of each shooting will be taken into account.

I simply challenged your thinking that Rittenhouse needed a 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to attend a protest with a gun in order to be not guilty of murder (if he is indeed not guilty).

 

[blastula]

If Rittenhouse intended to murder rioters, I'm pretty fucking sure he would have murdered a lot of them

Metaphor, I am only replying to this quote to show you or anyone how to easily reply to a post without quoting an entire wall of text in that post.

To do so, you don't need to hit reply and then manually delete everything you don't want. All you need to do is shade or highlight only the text in the post that you want to reply to, as shown in this image:



To make this post you're reading, I highlighted only the selected text above and then clicked the black Reply button generated underneath the text.

When you shade some text, the forum will create that little black button underneath to which you can click on either "Quote" or "Reply." (I have drawn in that big red arrow pointing to it.)

Click on Reply and you will be transferred to the bottom of the page to the reply box where you can finish your post as shown below.



It's easy!

(If you click Quote, it will instead add that same text to the "multiquote" option which you can use to quote from multiple posts at the same time and then add them individually to your post by using the "Insert quotes" button you will see in the reply box at the bottom.)

This is not meant for Metaphor alone, but anyone here on the side of goodness, and not wanting to quote or scroll through entire ginormous posts all the time. Please use this feature for yours and everyone's reading convenience, but mostly mine , until at least the PTB figure out how to limit the number of nested quotes allowed.

Thank you.

 

[Derec]

I'm not paying attention. Is this right??? So KR was running around with a gun, intending to shoot people.

It is clear you are not paying attention. For one, there is no evidence KR intended to shoot people.

Another white guy saw him and thought, "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." So he went to shoot him but got shot himself. Then two other guys charged KR trying to get him but also were shot?

No, the guy with the gun (Gaige Grosskreutz or GG), who later told his buddy that his only regret was that he did not kill KR, was the third to be shot.

KR was first attacked by Joseph Rosenbaum (JR), a violent felon, then by Anthony Huber (AH), another violent felon, and finally by GG.

 

[Derec]

It's easy!

Thank you. This quote "Inception" is really getting out of hand.