Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Gadianton]

Yes. Freedom of assembly. Maybe it’s not what you had in mind, but the state clamping down on that right is associated in my mind with some ugly images

Have you ever heard of a Reese's treat of death? it's what you get when you mix the peanut butter of an unlimited first amendment with the chocolate of an unlimited second amendment and then shape the mixture within a bite-sized mold.

It seems like the second amendment has more money behind it and so maybe we give up a little of the first. Either way, won't affect me personally as I'll never be anywhere near this mayhem. Increasingly, the only people for whom its worth the time and risk to enter this scenario will live on the margins of society, providing entertainment and fuel for outrage within the higher castes who sit back and argue over the outcomes. That scene is also disturbing.

[drumdude]

The solution is to expect people to act like adults. They can protest, they can carry guns.

Yes it's a tragedy but you can't prevent every tragedy. You can't ban all air travel because 9/11 happened, you can't ban protests because rioting happened, and you shouldn't ban open carry because the Rittenhouse incident happened.

[Res Ipsa]

Yes. Freedom of assembly. Maybe it’s not what you had in mind, but the state clamping down on that right is associated in my mind with some ugly images

Have you ever heard of a Reese's treat of death? it's what you get when you mix the peanut butter of an unlimited first amendment with the chocolate of an unlimited second amendment and then shape the mixture within a bite-sized mold.

It seems like the second amendment has more money behind it and so maybe we give up a little of the first. Either way, won't affect me personally as I'll never be anywhere near this mayhem. Increasingly, the only people for whom its worth the time and risk to enter this scenario will live on the margins of society, providing entertainment and fuel for outrage within the higher castes who sit back and argue over the outcomes. That scene is also disturbing.

Sure, I understand the concept that the constitution is not a suicide pact, but I’m not arguing for an unlimited right to assemble. The right is limited to peaceful assembly. And I believe the government can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the right as well.

Pre-COVID, I attended protest marches and rallies, but I understand the risks and follow a few rules that keep me out of harms way. I’ve never felt unsafe at one of these events. And, in my opinion, gathering together in support of a common cause can motivate folks to take concrete, positive action in addition to just parading and waving protest signs.

[Gadianton]

The solution is to expect people to act like adults. They can protest, they can carry guns.

Yes it's a tragedy but you can't prevent every tragedy. You can't ban all air travel because 9/11 happened, you can't ban protests because rioting happened, and you shouldn't ban open carry because the Rittenhouse incident happened.

Curious what you think about Georgia scrapping its citizen arrest laws after Arbery. Should that have been done over one incident?

Like citizen's arrest laws, open carry is barely a thing anyway, even if on paper it has gained steam. It's nowhere near as necessary for a functioning civilization as air travel.

Open carry is allowed where I've lived this past few years, and with the exception of my right-wing friend who I only knew carried because he told me -- he went the A-Mike route of a pea shooter in the front pocket that you could barely see -- in all this time I've only seen two people openly carrying guns, and both were in the same supermarket (at different times). Both were huge guys carrying big pistols in holsters around their waists. The way it seemed to me is that here are these big guys wearing a big middle finger around their waists, begging for someone to take an issue with them.

But, like 911, as I've stated before, the market will adjust and solve the problem in its own way. Increased airline security is probably a necessary formality, but the assurance 911 won't happen again comes with passengers who understand the rules of the game of an airline hijacking had changed by the third flight hijacked on 9/11. Passengers won't hesitate to rush attackers because they expect the end result is a maximum loss and so no negotiation. Likewise, the next K-R will be met with people actually trying to kill him rather than just giving K-R an excuse to kill them.

[drumdude]

The solution is to expect people to act like adults. They can protest, they can carry guns.

Yes it's a tragedy but you can't prevent every tragedy. You can't ban all air travel because 9/11 happened, you can't ban protests because rioting happened, and you shouldn't ban open carry because the Rittenhouse incident happened.

Curious what you think about Georgia scrapping its citizen arrest laws after Arbery. Should that have been done over one incident?

Like citizen's arrest laws, open carry is barely a thing anyway, even if on paper it has gained steam. It's nowhere near as necessary for a functioning civilization as air travel.

Open carry is allowed where I've lived this past few years, and with the exception of my right-wing friend who I only knew carried because he told me -- he went the A-Mike route of a pea shooter in the front pocket that you could barely see -- in all this time I've only seen two people openly carrying guns, and both were in the same supermarket (at different times). Both were huge guys carrying big pistols in holsters around their waists. The way it seemed to me is that here are these big guys wearing a big middle finger around their waists, begging for someone to take an issue with them.

But, like 911, as I've stated before, the market will adjust and solve the problem in its own way. Increased airline security is probably a necessary formality, but the assurance 911 won't happen again comes with passengers who understand the rules of the game of an airline hijacking had changed by the third flight hijacked on 9/11. Passengers won't hesitate to rush attackers because they expect the end result is a maximum loss and so no negotiation. Likewise, the next K-R will be met with people actually trying to kill him rather than just giving K-R an excuse to kill them.

Self defense is a natural right. Citizen's arrest is not. I agree that citizens arrest is antiquated and not necessary, but I'm not convinced you can so easily put handguns and rifles in there too.

I don't argue that citizens need bazookas and flame throwers to protect themselves, but IMHO rifles and handguns are perfectly reasonable self defense tools. Not just against human attackers, but against animals as well. There are many remote places in the world where you would be a fool to travel without the tools to defend yourself from predators.

[Res Ipsa]

If citizen’s arrest laws were ever a good idea, I don’t think they are today. People who attempt them often do not understand what they are and they are not permitted to do. And the person that is being arrested often does not understand what is going on. In a state with a stand your ground laws, if you approach me with a drawn weapon, how am I supposed to know when I can stand my ground and when I must meekly surrender. Giving ordinary citizens the right to initiate force against other citizens the right to defend themselves from use of force against them is a recipe for dead citizens.

I agree with your last paragraph. One of the lessons of the Rittenhouse case is, if you think you need to stop a guy with a gun, kill him.

[Gadianton]

we must also take into account conflicts of rights and externalities that come with people exercising their natural rights.

How does a person exercising their natural right impinge on others who wish to exercise their natural rights?

The law ultimately sides with schools and businesses that prohibit the natural rights of people to protect themselves within their establishments with guns, at the discretion of the business. Same for HOAs.

[Res Ipsa]

we must also take into account conflicts of rights and externalities that come with people exercising their natural rights.

How does a person exercising their natural right impinge on others who wish to exercise their natural rights?

The law ultimately sides with schools and businesses that prohibit the natural rights of people to protect themselves within their establishments with guns, at the discretion of the business. Same for HOAs.

Washington has been an open carry state for years. But a new law enacted this spring prohibits open carry within 250 feet of a permitted demonstration. There is no truth to the rumor that the bill’s title was In Your Face, Proud Boys!

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯