The Rittenhouse trial

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1463

Incidentally, today I happened upon an essay (on a completely different subject) that included the following:

The people who write- to me are clearly convinced that human beings are, collectively, stupid and weak to the point of insanity. Well, maybe they are, but if they are then nothing will save our civilization and we might as well forget all about strategies.

Which seems to me to more or less summarize the gun/anti-gun divide. If you are convinced of the above, than allowing guns at all is a folly. If you don’t, then maybe people ought to be entrusted to exercise their judgement within the boundaries of law. Certainly the whole Rittenhouse discussion has been riddled with contemptuous terms for Rittenhouse and co.: slack-jawed, asshole, nut case, death cult, incel, unethical, immoral, stupid, untrained child.

1464

And this is why I don’t like people trying to justify the attack with the “he had a gun” narrative. It continues to paint this false picture that the streets of Kenosha that night were akin to a High School hallway, where people would (rightfully) be panicked and running in fear if they saw a gunman. Instead, this was a place with many armed people, and outside of the Rittenhouse encounter no one was being killed.

If there was even any good evidence at all that Rittenhouse instigated something with Rosenbaum, or provoked etc, we’d know it by now. Whatever started it, we likely will never know. But I know what I saw–one person running, the other chasing. Without knowing more, and we’ll likely never know more, I lean towards believing the person doing the chasing is the aggressor.

I also know that Rosenbaum has a long history as a dangerous, violent criminal. Additionally he was mentally ill–in fact he had just been release from a hospital that day following a mental health crisis. I don’t find a lot of evidence that leads me to believe Rosenbaum was acting out of the norm for him when he became violent and irrational. Rosenbaum’s mental health conditions and past were not relevant to assessing whether Rittenhouse acted in proper self-defense–Rittenhouse would not have known of either when he pulled the trigger. But as third-party observers I do think it informs us in assessing who was likely the initial aggressor.

1465

While I agree that open-carry may well be too much of a hijack for this thread …

If I’m a NASCAR driver, I have an amazing tolerance for other NASCAR drivers being unbelievably close to me at jaw-dropping speeds.

We’re a brotherhood cadre of trained and experienced professionals who develop a level of trust in each others’ competence, preparedness, training, and good faith.

Ditto warfighters and first responders, generally.

But when you think of what your average vehicle driver is like … it’s hard to imagine giving The General Public any such chasmy benefit of the doubt regarding weapons of war.

Even with trained LEOs, mistakes are made, bad shoots happen, civilians/innocents get shot, etc., etc. It’s unlikely that the training makes them less competent. It’s more likely that the training simply is inappropriate and/or inadequate for the often stratospheric demands of the job.

And then there’s Kyle Rittenhouse and others much like him.

He may not have broken any significant laws before the first shot (granting that he was acquitted on all charges by a jury of his peers), but – putting the current law aside – on what basis do we give the KRs of this nation the benefit of the doubt and have them walking around in superheated situations as they were in the pic above ?

Me ? I’ll stay home, hit the brakes, get away from the drunk driver, call the cops, or in other ways not involve myself or escalate where options exist.

But at what point do we stop giving the benefit of the doubt to any and all of these wannabe SEALs ?

At what point do these laws get revisited and revised ?

And there is a difference – even if not under current law – between carrying an AR-15 variant as KR was and open-carrying a Glock in a Kydex holster on your side (which I know KR couldn’t legally do).

Just as – practically – there’s a difference between a mastiff and a chihuahua, even though a chihuahua is statistically more likely to bite. Lethality is a thing.

1466

Each state has its own set of rules regarding CCP or concealed carry weapons permits and open carry.
I live in Oregon, which is a “shall issue” state. Which means that unless some adverse reason for giving me a gun carry permit can be found, the local agency, usually on the county level “shall issue” me a carry permit. By law they cannot withhold or deny me a CCP without cause, they shall issue me one.

Other states have a may issue status meaning that it is up to the discretion of the issuing agency whether you get one or not and you usually need to provide a reason that you need one. 27 of the US states are shall issue. Just a little info.

1467

I don’t think there’s really many major advocates of open carry, or open carrying at protests, in this thread. I think there is significant confusion where a lot of you are interpreting the stated opinion that the open carry scenario had no relevance to the self-defense claim, which is well grounded in established legal doctrine, with the idea of being supportive of what Rittenhouse did. The desire to conflate these two issues has caused a lot of unnecessary back and forth in this thread, and much of it is because people just can’t seem to refrain from trying to continually tie in the legal case to what they think “should be” the gun law.

Rittenhouse had to be tried under the laws as they were when he shot Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz. Not the laws as we may want them to be, anything less would be a serious violation of the civil order of our country. We don’t criminalize things retroactively in the United States.

As someone who doesn’t really support open carry, and certainly not in a protest scenario, I don’t much feel compelled to argue the devil’s advocate position. The only thing I might say along those lines is just that the total number of annual firearm deaths from long guns of any kind (which include AR-15s) was like 400 in 2019. I think at present it is unlikely that people would rationally be so worried about this scenario becoming an epidemic, that is a very low number.

1468

The end result of this is “don’t protest against anything, because crazy children with powerful weapons will attend, and might feel threatened by you and shoot you dead.”

Which can be shortened to “don’t protest against anything”

Which is exactly the result desired.

1469

What if you tried protesting without starting fights? Just wondering.

1470

Cute.

Right, I’ll just walk quietly away from the heavily armed vigilantes with my eyes properly downcast, just in case he feels like I’m “starting a fight” by looking at him.

It’s simply intimidation to prevent the “wrong” kind of people from protesting the Right And Proper Order Of Things. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it

1471

What will you do with the heavily armed protesters? Will you also walk away from them with your eyes downcast, or is that only supposed to be for those who disagree with the protests?

But it’s cool, to you, that the right kinds of people are armed? As long as they are protesting? That’s the thing…I’m not seeing much criticism or even acknowledgment of the point that many of the protesters were armed, and have been armed at many of the protests. Just this stubborn, to me stupid spin to try and paint the narrative in one light while ignoring the other elephants in the room

1472

I would advise you not participate in public protest if you believe the only two options are “charge at and attack armed people like a mad man” or “hide in terror with your eyes downcast”, equipped with such faulty information I don’t believe you should expose yourself to the risk.

1473

I think we’re mostly in agreement, Martin.

As I told a beloved family member – one who’s quite liberal: I very well may have voted to acquit KR based on even just what I’ve heard of testimony and seen of the evidence – and understood the laws to be.

But, immediately afterward, I probably would have written an open letter to the major US newspapers decrying the laws that let him walk.

It’s time to have these discussions again, as a nation.

It’s time … before those relatively low (not so awfully low if it’s you or your loved one) long gun death numbers do start to climb.

They may not, but they very well may.

1474

More of a threat? More likely, he looked like someone who was scared and young, and that made him a target. Who would you rather try to disarm - Rittenhouse or the 30-something ex-army guy?

This is rich. The whole purpose of riots is to intimidate people. What you are angry about is that in the absence of cops, some citizens are arming up and refusing to be intimidated.

Rmember the Rodney King riots? Over 1,000 buildings damaged or destroyed, 50 people killed. The cops refused to come to emergency calls in Koreatown, which was being looted and burned. So neighborhood defense became a thing, with shopkeepers arming up and young Koreans armed with handguns and shotguns (thr LA Korean Youth Task Force) patrolled the streets. Shopkeepers with rifles sat on rooftops and fired warning shots when rioters approached their stores.

This is what happens when the police are defenestrated and riots allowed to run for days. If you don’t want to see millions more guns purchased and more people showing up armed to defend against rioters, support letting the police do their jobs, stop stoking racial hatred, and make sure that activists know that starting riots will get them nowhere but a jail cell. Stop rewarding them by calling them heroes.

1475

I think it’s important to draw a distinction between those who seek to protect their own property and those who … well … are Kyle Rittenhouse.

There’s a lot of daylight between the two categories defined.

ETA: lest we arrive yet again (as I’ve said before) at the Altamont Free Concert: right potential problem identified, wrong solution chosen.

1476

Maybe the Republicans should lead by example?

1477

That wasn’t my point. The point was simply that if you prevent the police from doing their jobs (say by defunding them, or throwing them under the bus when they employ riot control tactics), citizens are going to step up and take their place if riots go on long enough, because a riot is an intolerable thing for a community. There are communities that were damaged by riots in the 1960’s that still haven’t fully recovered.

Also, the young Koreans I mentioned were exactly like Rittenhouse. They weren’t the shop owners - they were an ad-hoc militia of young men formed out of the wider community, coming to the aid of a neighborhood being ransacked by criminals. In fact, the actions of the Koreans in saving their neighborhood has been an inspiration for others to arm up and practice citizen defense of their own communities.

This will keep happening, and get worse, until the left stops rioting and the police are allowed to shut down the riots when they start.

1478

I don’t know about Canada, but the police here can shut down riots when they start.

1479

Are the words “protest” and “riot” synonymous for you, Sam? Or only when people of a certain political persuasion are involved?

Sorry - police are what?

You first. Stop supporting excessive police reactions and stop defending armed vigilantes.

1480

But I think the point is they often don’t and aren’t shutting them down.

1481

It really doesn’t sound that way from the article you linked. It sounds like it was the shop owners, themselves, and some who the shop owners directly asked for help.

Which ain’t Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse aped Mighty Mouse: “Here I come to save the day !!”

I think the difference is significant.

I will also take the turn of speaking for most of the Dopers, as I recall, who decried the violence, looting, and property destruction by a fraction of those involved in the protests.

And “defund the police” is an idiotic message that seems to be falling flat.

“Reimagine policing” was my version, and seems more relevant.

We ask too much of them, and continue funneling large percentages of municipal budgets to them where the fundamental problem is that there often are (or damned well should be) better resources to bring to bear, and better places to direct money, than crime and punishment.

If your only tool is a Bearcat …

But it’s a guns vs. butter discussion that we don’t ever seem to get to.

1482

No, you first…stop defending deranged and violent felons who just happen to be on your side and at protests you support. Or, simply acknowledge that many protesters were also armed…how about that as a start? Seems like it would be at least baby steps if one of you guys going over the top here would at least acknowledge this and explain why it was ok for those protesters to be armed but not Rittenhouse et al. Because I haven’t seen many of you even acknowledge this point, or explain why it’s ok. If it’s not ok with you, then my question is…why are you defending these folks? Then maybe we can talk about the felonies and the fact that these weren’t exactly concerned citizens out to help their fellow man…