Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[K Graham]

Jesus we're still talking about this.

[Res Ipsa]

Jesus we're still talking about this.

You know us, Kevin. No horse is ever dead enough.

[Res Ipsa]

They were wrong and a better precedent was ultimately set in this case for would be vigilante protesters trying to disarm someone or assault random property owners.

which is what I was trying to tell you. It's all good news for you Ajax, so where's your gun?

You'll never get one; you'll never protect your own shop nor anyone else's with a gun, no matter how many court wins you get.

I agree that a precedent was set. The next good guy with that thinks he sees an active shooter now knows to just kill him rather than try to disarm him. Were the Rittenhouse scenario replayed today, he'd likely end up dead. Although, maybe cutting the deaths in half is a better result.

[Doctor Steuss]

Multiple times, by multiple people, the protesters have been referred to as vigilantes. Could someone help explain to me how they fit that label? Weren’t Rittenhouse, et.al. the ones who were taking upon themselves a role of law enforcement by setting out to protect private property against lawless rioters?

Or do I have a skewed understanding of what a vigilante is?

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[drumdude]

They were wrong and a better precedent was ultimately set in this case for would be vigilante protesters trying to disarm someone or assault random property owners.

which is what I was trying to tell you. It's all good news for you Ajax, so where's your gun?

You'll never get one; you'll never protect your own shop nor anyone else's with a gun, no matter how many court wins you get.

If someone never has to plead the 5th, does that mean they should lose access to that right? Very few people ever actually are put into the position where they have the need to remain silent to protect their innocence. Yet we have decided as a society that it is an important right to have when you need it.

Similarly, we've decided in this country that even though most people will never need to defend themselves with a firearm, they have the ability to carry one should they ever need it.

So I'm not sure why you keep harping on him never going to protect someone's shop. Are you denying the possibility that rioting could ever come to his community as it did in so many places in 2020? I think it's been demonstrated that people will riot and take advantage of lawlessness when it occurs as they did week after week in the summer of 2020. It's not unreasonable to have firearms to protect oneself from the mob.

[canpakes]

Multiple times, by multiple people, the protesters have been referred to as vigilantes. Could someone help explain to me how they fit that label? Weren’t Rittenhouse, et.al. the ones who were taking upon themselves a role of law enforcement by setting out to protect private property against lawless rioters?

Or do I have a skewed understanding of what a vigilante is?

Your conclusion seems correct. Via Oxford:

vig·i·lan·te
/ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē/
noun
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

That sounds closer to what militias are doing than protesters, rioters, or simple observers.

Also, from the Online Dictionary of Etymology-

vigilante (n.)
"member of a vigilance committee," 1856, American English, from Spanish vigilante, literally "watchman," from Latin vigilantem (nominative vigilans) "watchful, anxious, careful," from vigil "watchful, awake" (from PIE root *weg- "to be strong, be lively"). Vigilant man in same sense is attested from 1824 in a Missouri context. Vigilance committees kept informal rough order on the U.S. frontier or in other places where official authority was imperfect.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/vigilante

[Gadianton]

If someone never has to plead the 5th, does that mean they should lose access to that right? Very few people ever actually are put into the position where they have the need to remain silent to protect their innocence. Yet we have decided as a society that it is an important right to have when you need it.

Similarly, we've decided in this country that even though most people will never need to defend themselves with a firearm, they have the ability to carry one should they ever need it.

sure, with all kinds of exceptions such as, not in a school, many government facilities, private property against the wishes of the property owner.

Well let's stop here: why should we deny the right to carry a gun openly at school? In my personal experience, if there ever has been a time in my life I could have used something to protect myself, it would have been in Jr. high. Is the general rule of no guns within 1000 feet of a school contrary to the 2nd amendment?

[Analytics]

sure, with all kinds of exceptions such as, not in a school, many government facilities, private property against the wishes of the property owner.

Well let's stop here: why should we deny the right to carry a gun openly at school? In my personal experience, if there ever has been a time in my life I could have used something to protect myself, it would have been in Jr. high. Is the general rule of no guns within 1000 feet of a school contrary to the 2nd amendment?

Excellent point. If Americans ought to have the right to use guns to defend themselves from violent attacks, middle school kids ought to have the right to carry at school. It would be one hell of a deterrent against bullying.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

sure, with all kinds of exceptions such as, not in a school, many government facilities, private property against the wishes of the property owner.

Well let's stop here: why should we deny the right to carry a gun openly at school? In my personal experience, if there ever has been a time in my life I could have used something to protect myself, it would have been in Jr. high. Is the general rule of no guns within 1000 feet of a school contrary to the 2nd amendment?

Excellent point. If Americans ought to have the right to use guns to defend themselves from violent attacks, middle school kids ought to have the right to carry at school. It would be one hell of a deterrent against bullying.

Think about how “polite” and “civil” these children would be toward each other and teachers if they were all strapping? MANDATORY OPEN CARRY FOR CHILDREN NOW.

- Doc