Once they’ve tasted blood, they get a craving for it.
Bloodlust can never be satiated.
Agreed - make it part of the permitting process. Define an area as gun free. Just like school zones.
I was praying for justice. I am happy.
Welp, who needs police when we’ve got randos with rifles protecting… themselves, I guess.
Also just to be clear–I saw your mention of “Jesus didn’t give it to us.” I take that to be a reference to our natural or God-given rights. Few people are held in higher esteem than John Locke when it comes to discussions about natural rights, and in his treatises, it is extremely clear he views self-defense as an innate, natural right, that all humans are born with, that all humans have a right to–in some cases even if a government tells them they don’t.
The realm of natural rights is not a friendly one to the claim that self-defense is a simple privilege.
People commonly don’t get permits to protest for those kind of protests. I agree that it would be great if they did.
Then why does the Wisconsin law specifically name it a privilege that can be granted?
And you are to be commended for acknowledging this.
I’ll be honest I think we need to take a hard look at policies that are being pushed from administrators onto police that basically are forbidding the police to adequately quash some of these riots. Let’s be quite clear–Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz were shot at a violent riot not a protest. All three were violent men who attempted to do violence that night. There is absolutely negative consequences to police not being able to quash riots–one of the core functions of government in fact is to suppress riots for the safety of the public and to ensure domestic tranquility.
Right, which completely undermines your idea that Rittenhouse was attacked solely because he was armed.
I think that that is irrelevant to the case at hand. Unless you can show that these people were attacking everyone that was armed, then him simply being armed was not the reason for the confrontation.
I take it that what you mean is that you hope that people stop demonstrating against things you don’t want them to demonstrate against. As that was really the only poor judgment that he showed.
Or in other words…as has been the case for hundreds of years in the common law world.
This is a very unique case. There were a lot of very high quality video of the transactions. From multiple angles. The vast majority of such cases don’t.
Because that’s how it was written. It doesn’t mean that it can still be construed differently from a right.
For the record, I have not read all the cases cited above about whether there’s a constitutional right to self defense, so I don’t know the ins and outs. I think it’s probably true that there is. And if so, Wisconsin calling it a privilege vs a right would mean nothing.
That’s a discussion for another time and thread
What it undermines is the idea that Rittenhouse was “dangerous, and in need of confronting” just because he was walking around armed, which is the suggestion that has been made in this thread many times.
The actual evidence is highly suggestive Rosenbaum was unhinged, making threats, and commenced an attack on Rittenhouse. He was then shot and killed. He had a lot of opportunities to not do those things.
Right, like the phrasing of a State law isn’t enough to alter fundamental rights and whether they exist. A State can have a law on the books that references the “privilege of free speech”, but that doesn’t demote free speech to a mere privilege.
A legal question that I just thought of: suppose this happens to Rittenhouse again. The facts are fundamentally the same. Is there any way his previous trial could be used against him at all in the second? If not, could he conceivably do it over and over and over, and as long as he’s acquitted each time, it’s like a fresh new case and there’s nothing to be done about it?
In very limited and very specific situations, patterns of behavior can be introduced as evidence. Broadly speaking they cannot be (in fact even previous convictions typically cannot be.) A criminal trial largely has to be determined based on evidence specific to the incidents in question.
OK let’s see…
There’s some of us who feel he was dead to rights guilty on everything, should have taken ten minutes to deliberate. And send a message to not do what he did.
There’s some of us who feel he’s dead to rights not guilty of anything, should have taken ten minutes etc. and send a message to keep doing what he did.
There’s a number of us, myself included, who felt it was not a simple thing, he could have been got on some charges, but the state did not nail him on all, and may be disappointed in it but can understand the legal aspects involved. And are concerned about what sort of “messages” some people may get though sending messages is not the jury’s job.
…
There’s those of us who think KR is a damn fool who was acting imprudently, with great disregard for his own and others’ safety, that the only good course of action for him was to stay the hell home; or at least someone on site should have said “kid, put the gun away and stay in a safe place unless told otherwise”.
Then there’s who apparently are absolutely certain that they KNOW that KR went there fully intending TODAY FINALLY I KILL and that this is a greenlight for others.
This is gonna keep going like that, ain’t it?
There is no point in you claiming that that is what I am doing when obviously, it is not, and it is just something that you are making up as it is easier to argue against than what I actually said.
In fact, you are the one how is claiming that you are not allowed to defend yourself against someone pointing a gun at you.
Fair enough, I actually am not sure what the purpose of engaging with people who keep making things up to argue against, rather than responding to what was actually said.
Except if someone is pointing a gun at you, apparantly.
It would be nice if you would engage with the actual content of the posts, rather than the bails of hay that you prefer to debate, but I’m not counting on that changing anytime soon.
I suppose the only thing left to say to you is, Good Day, Sir!
Moderating: This isn’t the pit. That’s an insult. Tone it down.