Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[doubtingthomas]

Maybe would should start buy teaching progressives not to chase a guy who's armed with a long gun.

So conservatives want children to have guns?

[Tinfoilhat]

Rittenhouse was a coward for killing Rosenbaum and Huber. Rosenbaum was a weak homeless man who was discharged from the hospital. Rittenhouse knew Rosenbaum didn't have a weapon. Huber was a very skinny dude capable of hurting no one. Rittenhouse was a complete idiot who obviously overreacted. Rittenhouse didn't have a good reason for fear for him life, he is a big guy.

You gotta be kiddin me. Rittenhouse had a mob chasing him! The cowards were the rioters who were burning down businesses. The cowards were the rioters that broke into businesses. The cowards were the rioters that thought they could break the law and ruin the lives of hard working Americans. Why do find it so hard to understand someone shouldn't chase after a guy with a gun?

[canpakes]

Apparently Shades was able to read the answer.

Your answer was essentially, "I would've done anything other than what Rittenhouse did." That's pretty much a non-answer.

There are many choices. But it depends on what point in the timeline.

I’d have stayed with Rosenbaum if possible, until police/medical arrived. If not, I’d have placed the AR into the backpack sling and walked to where I wanted to be. I would not start jogging down the street with the AR in the ready position.

[canpakes]

You gotta be kiddin me. Rittenhouse had a mob chasing him! The cowards were the rioters who were burning down businesses. The cowards were the rioters that broke into businesses. The cowards were the rioters that thought they could break the law and ruin the lives of hard working Americans. Why do find it so hard to understand someone shouldn't chase after a guy with a gun?

The problem with your mindset is that it’s not consistent with other situations involving a public shooting. It only works after you know that the folks rushing Rittenhouse were generally crappy folks with records.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st ... e-n1003951

[Dr. Shades]

What exactly made Rittenhous[e] believe he was about to get killed by three guys?

You're trolling us, right? If not, watch some of the footage on YouTube and see for yourself.

It’s also not his responsibility to have assumed, for a second time after already having shot someone under dubious rationale, that his only option in difficult situations is to shoot to kill anyone who gets close enough.

"Gets close enough?" What if those who "got close enough" immediately tried to grab the firearm from him after threatening to kill him, then tried to bash his brains out with a skateboard, then tried to shoot him?

There are many choices. But it depends on what point in the timeline.

I'm talking during the exact split second that miscreant #1 tried to grab his weapon, followed by the split second after miscreant #2 bashed him in the head with a skateboard, then lastly the split second that miscreant #3 tried to shoot him.

I’d have stayed with Rosenbaum if possible, until police/medical arrived. If not, I’d have placed the AR into the backpack sling and walked to where I wanted to be. I would not start jogging down the street with the AR in the ready position.

So the fact that she was wearing a miniskirt makes it her fault the guy tried to rape her, which in turn makes it her fault she shot him in self-defense?

[Some Schmo]

I'm saying that if a woman wears a miniskirt, it does NOT matter the situation she subsequently puts herself into. She is NOT asking to be raped, and if someone tries to rape her, it is the RAPIST'S fault, NOT hers. . . in spite of the fact that she's wearing a miniskirt in a situation she "has no business being in" (according to everyone OTHER THAN myself).

Here's my point: Kyle Rittenhouse/our hypothetical female put himself/herself into a situation he/she had no business being in, while holding a firearm/wearing a miniskirt.

This is why it's not analogous, Shades. Why does a woman have no business wearing a miniskirt?

That's the blackhole sized problem with your analogy.

[Tinfoilhat]

You gotta be kiddin me. Rittenhouse had a mob chasing him! The cowards were the rioters who were burning down businesses. The cowards were the rioters that broke into businesses. The cowards were the rioters that thought they could break the law and ruin the lives of hard working Americans. Why do find it so hard to understand someone shouldn't chase after a guy with a gun?

The problem with your mindset is that it’s not consistent with other situations involving a public shooting. It only works after you know that the folks rushing Rittenhouse were generally crappy folks with records.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st ... e-n1003951

Not at all. How far will you extend your screwed up view of self defense? Let's say you, canpakes, is walking down the street and 2 unarmed individuals come up to you and say, give me your wallet or we're going to Screw you up!!! You're scared, your adrenaline kicks in, you're in fear of being beaten and possibly ending up in the hospital. But you know absolutely nothing about the guys threatening you, they could be really good people in a desperate situation. Maybe they have 3 kids at home starving and need money. All of a sudden one of the guys starts beating you over the head with a 2x4! You're scared you're going to die. What do you canpakes start doing? Are you going to just lay there and take the beating? Or do you fight back?

[Some Schmo]

And by the way, everyone saying, "You must not have watched the video" is assuming that everyone interprets what they see the exact same way. It's damned dumb, especially since the video quality is poor and we're all watching a chaotic scene without knowing all the exact details of what people thought was happening.

No, I don't interpret skateboard guy was posing an imminent threat to his life, just a threat to Kyle keeping his damned gun.

[Dr. Shades]

This is why it's not analogous, Shades. Why does a woman have no business wearing a miniskirt?

YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT: A woman HAS EVERY RIGHT to wear a miniskirt "in questionable situations," just like Kyle Rittenhouse HAS EVERY RIGHT to carry a firearm for self-defense while protecting businesses, defusing situations, and putting out fires.

MY POINT: If you say that Kyle Rittenhouse's carrying of a firearm makes it his fault that he got attacked, then YOU ALSO SAY that a woman's wearing a miniskirt makes it her fault that a rapist tries to rape her. NEITHER SCENARIO IS TRUE, but you are operating on a double-standard if you believe one notion but not the other.

That's the blackhole sized problem with your analogy.

Not anymore there isn't, now that you understand my analogy.

[Morley]

Just so I'm clear, are you trying to say that a dumb teenager walking down a crowded street pointing an assault rifle at people is the same as a woman walking into a dark alley?

He wasn't pointing an assault rifle at anyone. He was fleeing his pursuers. He didn't actually point his rifle at anyone who WASN'T physically attacking him. Didn't you watch the videos?

Did Shades really say this? That's unbelievable. Wow. I didn't see it in the last couple of pages but if so, Shades you have some serious thinking to do.

No, I absolutely didn't say this. I'm saying the exact opposite; and I'm surprised Some Schmo misinterpreted it so badly.

I'm saying that if a woman wears a miniskirt, it does NOT matter the situation she subsequently puts herself into. She is NOT asking to be raped, and if someone tries to rape her, it is the RAPIST'S fault, NOT hers. . . in spite of the fact that she's wearing a miniskirt in a situation she "has no business being in" (according to everyone OTHER THAN myself).

Here's my point: Kyle Rittenhouse/our hypothetical female put himself/herself into a situation he/she had no business being in, while holding a firearm/wearing a miniskirt. In spite of all that, any would-be rioter/rapist who tries to kill/rape him/her is FULLY accountable for his own actions, IN SPITE OF the situation in which Rittenhouse/our hypothetical female put himself/herself into and IN SPITE OF the rifle/miniskirt that he/she is carrying/wearing. If someone attempts to kill/rape him/her, then he/she has the right to defend him/herself, REGARDLESS of the situation he/she put him/herself into.

Get it now?

Shades, apart from what should or shouldn't have been the Rittenhouse verdict, your analogy is seriously flawed. Each potential scenario has to do with perceived intentions.

Any woman wearing a miniskirt never has the intention to initiate rape. A reasonable person is never going to conclude she may be provoking violence. A miniskirt has no ability to harm others.

A person packing a rifle may indeed be have the intention to become an active shooter. A reasonable person seeing someone in an urban setting with any type of long gun may wonder at the intentions of the carrier.

It's the reason we let women in miniskirts walk into middle schools, while stopping folks who are carrying rifles.