I agree, he was found innocent by a jury. I do not dispute the jury’s verdict. I DO dispute calling him “the victim”.
So cite please. Give me some evidence.
If you read the cite in my post #97, for example, you’ll know quite well that what you’re saying is in fact false. Same for the cites I’ve posted in earlier discussions such as this one and this one and this one.
That’s a classic example of right-wing projection on your part. Despite being provided with ample evidence that perpetrators of criminal acts at or around left-wing protests are not being ignored in the media or given a pass by law enforcement, you cling to your made-up claims to that effect because they’re what you want to believe.
You can look at the cites in this post to see how thoroughly devoid of evidence octopus’s whining on this issue is.
This is another example of the illogical magical thinking by anti-gunners. “Semi-auto” is a magical phrase, that to people like you, connotates a scary, super-dangerous weapon.
Here is a picture of a very popular semi-automatic rifle, the Ruger 10/22.
Just for the sake of comparison, the Springfield 1903 was used by the US army throughout WW1, and even into WW2.
In other words, the Springfield is considerably more dangerous than the Ruger, even though the Springfield is a bolt-action, which means it cannot be fired as quickly as the Ruger.
Of course it would, at least in the sense (as somebody pointed out in a concurrent thread) that one can be a cancer victim or a COVID victim or an accident victim. I.e., “victim” as in “suffering from a bad thing happening to you”, irrespective of how much or little the victim contributed to the circumstances of the bad thing happening.
ISTM that people here trying to assign the categories of “victim” and “assailant” or “wrongdoer” in a strict moral binary are barking up the wrong tree. This situation AFAICT is not a neat illustration of nicely delineated moral binaries. Rather, it’s an example of the shitty things that tend to happen when angry people and guns mix.
And it includes a whole lot of ethical gray area, such as the fact that a person can be doing a stupid and reckless thing but still be acting legally, or that a person can be shot dead while thinking they’re trying to take down a bad guy but not be considered a murder victim in a court of law. Shitty situation, shitty consequences.
Imagine if a BLM protestor traveled across state lines to Portland, OR. He is armed, but peaceful and not antagonistic. A bunch of Proud Boys/MAGA thugs attack him. He successfully defends himself. Though his actions were obviously defensive, an overzealous prosecutor charges him with multiple crimes. Right-wing commentators call him a socialists/Marxist rioter & criminal, though he isn’t one. Every Doper (including me) would be calling him a victim.
Would you agree that say, a pistol would likely result in a fewer number of casualties, should someone go on a rampage? I presume there’s a reason mass murderers choose these types of guns, no?
I take the “he crossed state lines” as less of a negative factor or legal concept and more of a description, like “he wore a green shirt”.
But one thing not mentioned in this thread so far (I think) is the magnitude of response to provocation. Rittenhouse was “attacked” initially by someone throwing a plastic bag with meds and papers. I’m not sure there was any contact or personal injury from it. IMHO, that level of attack would easily justify a retaliatory fist or angry retort, but a murder is overkill. Literally.
To put it another, and maybe more relevant way, why do you think Rittenhouse chose to take an AR 15 to the riot, as opposed to any other kind of weapon or gun? What advantage would that confer to him? And do you think it contributed, at all, to his ability to protect himself?
I’m not sure I would conclude that. There have been a number of very deadly mass shootings in the United States using pistols.
One possibility, of course, is that he knew that, under Wisconsin law, he could legally open carry an AR15. But could not carry a handgun or many other weapons. He also had access to one (I assume we would all find it a lot more suspicious if he went a purchased a shotgun for the express purpose of going to the riot).
Just curious, is it legal to open carry an AR 15 because it would otherwise be impossible to conceal, or for some other reason?
A pistol is semi-automatic. Most rifles nowadays are semi-automatic. Adding the words “semi-automatic” doesn’t really add much to the discussion.
Have to get my exercise from somewhere.
I can concede that point. What I’m trying to understand is why choose that kind of weapon over any other kind? Falchion helpfully provided some possible explanations. Why does an AR 15 exist? What advantage does it have?
I think that answering that question would likely derail this thread.
There was a lengthy thread on that very issue awhile ago (now closed), but it goes into the issue of AR15s in great detail:
Basically the open vs. conceal-carry laws are, well, for the purpose of regulating carry of weapons that can be concealed. Many of these laws were passed at times where the big fear was the hoodlum with a Saturday Night Special in his coat pocket. After the Reagan/Brady shooting the regulatory focus for a while was on handguns, again. In some states you have to do a ton of paperwork and even registration for a handgun but not so for a regular rifle. Depending on your jurisdiction, you may be able to keep/bear a “long gun” at age 18 but for a handgun have to wait until 21. You saw how in the KR case a charge was dropped because the way the law and he definitions therein were worded, it would mean a minor was only forbidden from carrying a weapon with less than 16” barrel length.
Wisconsin generally permits the open carry of any firearm. But only allows individuals under the age of 18 to possess rifles and shotguns (subject to exceptions). So, if a 17-year-old wants to carry a firearm in public in Wisconsin, he must do so openly (he can’t get a concealed carry permit) and it must be a rifle or shotgun.
Independent of the age issue, I have seen cases involving handguns where there is a dispute over whether or not a weapon was “concealed” (many of these cases involve automobiles, but also coats, etc.). Open carry of a rifle is pretty obviously open carry.
That said, I do think that there is a sense that being visibly armed will deter criminals. And, there is a level of “threat” inherent in that.
Here’s my understanding of the timeline, and please correct me if I’m wrong:
Kyle for no good reason (my opinion) goes to the site of a protest with a gun (that he possibly did not know how to use-I am unaware of his familiarity with it).
Someone comes at him with possibly violent intent. (Rosenbaum)
A shot is fired (by person unknown).
Rosenbaum apparently tries to disarm him, but Kyle gets startled and shoots him, then other people who take him for an active shooter (which he was).
Is that pretty much it?
Did Rosenbaum come at him before or after the first shot (the one not fired by Rittenhouse) was fired?
I had read that it was after but I may be mistaken.