A democratic society that is populated only by pussies that will not stand up for other people's rights and interests, including their families, livelihoods, furniture stores, car dealerships, gas stations, safe streets and public venues, has already ceased to be a civil democratic society.
As noted upthread, for those who value living in a civil, democratic society, the fraying of lawful social order is a negative. For those with fantasies of anarchy that fuel their Second Amendment prepper post-apocalyptic wet dreams, well, the above is clearly your preference to release said splooshing.
It just shows the side you are on isn't that of civil democratic society but that of anarchy. I'm guessing you may be one of those "populist" mo-fos.
Last edited by honorentheos on Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't think a 16 year old can cause the same physical damage as a 30 year old man.
What makes you think they were going to cause severe physical damage? The most reasonable interpretation is that the three men were tying to prevent a tragedy. It is highly irrational to think they were trying to kill him.
And some 17 year old are very strong, some are stronger than your average 30 year old. 17 year old can join the military in the US and many fought in WW2.
Rittenhouse ONLY fired his gun after Grosskreutz had aimed his at Rittenhouse. His own words.
Okay. You might have a very good self-defense argument here. Was that before Rittenhouse shot the other guys? Or after? If it was before Rittenhouse shot the other guys then it is case closed.
Last edited by doubtingthomas on Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
I don't follow the logic. How is Rittenhouse, who ran away from his aggressors and only resorted to using force when absolutely necessary, comparable to Rosenbaum and others who actively ran towards Rittenhouse and were quick to attempt or use force against Rittenhouse. They seem very incomparable to me.
There are actually two questions to consider.
If folks chase after someone who just shot another, arguably in an attempt to disarm him, are they aggressors?
Does being labeled an aggressor mean that the person so labeled intends to kill anyone?
In the context of this case, after he shot Rosenbaum and began running down the street to the police I do not believe he was a present threat. As stated before he was not aiming his gun at the crowd surrounding him or indicating any aggression toward anyone. He was simply running away. Had he been pointing his gun at people after the initial confrontation with Rosenbaum or had been verbally threatening people, I would agree with you. But there was no indication that he was a threat as he ran down the street. Pair that with the fact that those who attacked him as he was down had not witnessed him shoot Rosenbaum I think adds to my point. Had they witnessed the shooting I would be more charitable in giving them the benefit of the doubt of assuming he was an active shooter.
In this context of self defense, aggressor means anyone attacking someone with the intent to cause death or great bodily harm.
"I advise all to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness." -Joseph Smith
I don't follow the logic. How is Rittenhouse, who ran away from his aggressors and only resorted to using force when absolutely necessary, comparable to Rosenbaum and others who actively ran towards Rittenhouse and were quick to attempt or use force against Rittenhouse. They seem very incomparable to me.
There are actually two questions to consider.
If folks chase after someone who just shot another, arguably in an attempt to disarm him, are they aggressors?
Does being labeled an aggressor mean that the person so labeled intends to kill anyone?
Hey canpakes,
I want to be clear that this line of argument is poor. Once the events turned into a conflict, the reality of the law is Rittenhouse was justified in his actions as affirmed by a jury of his peers.
The issue is that the conflict itself was a degrading of the social order, both by rioters engaging in criminal activity and by vigilantes inserting firearms into the situation.
Our justice system was dealing narrowly with the case as it was. Legislation is almost certainly going to attempt to react to this in potentially damaging ways from both the left and right due to being reactionary. Yeah, we need to rethink how the law should be evolved to deal with the current fraying of society. But that needs to be value based. For good or ill, Rittenhouse has rights that needed protecting for the good of society, too.
Last edited by honorentheos on Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As noted upthread, for those who value living in a civil, democratic society, the fraying of lawful social order is a negative. For those with fantasies of anarchy that fuel their Second Amendment prepper post-apocalyptic wet dreams, well, the above is clearly your preference to release said splooshing.
It just shows the side you are on isn't that of civil democratic society but that of anarchy. I'm guessing you may be one of those "populist" mo-fos.
honorentheos, in order to make an ideological statement, you omitted part of my post. You omitted this part.
Thankfully, there are some people left that are not pussies and some people left that believe in individual rights and dignity. I hope the courts continue to be part of that process.
The courts should be part of this process, not guns or splashes of semen.
We agree the courts are essential to civil society. The omission was due to the issue of court involvement being a non sequitur to the issue of vigilantism.
I don't think a 16 year old can cause the same physical damage as a 30 year old man.
What makes you think they were going to cause severe physical damage? The most reasonable interpretation is that the three men were tying to prevent a tragedy. It is highly irrational to think they were trying to kill him.
And some 17 year old are very strong, some are stronger than your average 30 year old. 17 year old can join the military in the US and many fought in WW2.
Rittenhouse ONLY fired his gun after Grosskreutz had aimed his at Rittenhouse. His own words.
Okay. You might have a very good self-defense argument here. Was that before Rittenhouse shot the other guys? Or after? If it was before Rittenhouse shot the other guys then it is case closed.
You presented the scenario of it happening in school all the time. I think there is a great power differential in a 30 something year old attacking a 17 year old vs a 17 year old attacking a 17 year old. Biological development supports this.
I highly suggest you watch the video of the whole Rittenhouse incident. The string of events is clearly caught on camera and I don't feel like regurgitating everything that happened on here.
"I advise all to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness." -Joseph Smith
You presented the scenario of it happening in school all the time. I think there is a great power differential in a 30 something year old attacking a 17 year old vs a 17 year old attacking a 17 year old. Biological development supports this.
Sure, but it is not always the case. Many professional boxers and other athletes make a debut at 17. A lot has to do with genes. But anyways, what is the evidence that the two other guys were going to hurt Rittenhouse? Doesn't it make more sense to assume they were simply trying to prevent a tragedy?
I highly suggest you watch the video of the whole Rittenhouse incident. The string of events is clearly caught on camera and I don't feel like regurgitating everything that happened on here.
I will when I get the time. I am using my time to have a discussion here. Is there any evidence that the three guys were going to kill or seriously hurt Rittenhouse?
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
