Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[doubtingthomas]

If I recall, we started with talking about whether the jury got it right or got it wrong. If that's the question, it doesn't matter what you think you see from the footage. You have to see through Rittenhouse's eyes and take into account his actual situation, including what he had experience leading up to his encounter with G. If you haven't read R's testimony, you aren't in any position to second guess the jury.

I will do more reading when I get the time. Do you think the prosecution should have charged Rittenhouse with attempted manslaughter, manslaughter, and reckless endangerment?

If I recall, we started with talking about whether the jury got it right or got it wrong. If that's the question, it doesn't matter what you think you see from the footage.

Something that would surprise Doc.

[doubtingthomas]

*shrug*. GG had produced a visible gun. While I think there are better ways K could have responded, was pointing the gun inappropriate beyond all reasonable doubt? GG could have blown K away and we'd be having this conversation about him instead.

True, but Rittenhouse also had a visible weapon, it was his right. Is it illegal to have a gun in your hand in Wisconsin? And wasn't Rittenhouse initially following Rosenbaum?

I guess my most important question is: Did Grosskreutz do anything wrong or illegal?

[doubtingthomas]

I mean, the real tragedy here is the fact that open carry exists.

Agree.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Chap]

As soon as guns are drawn, the stakes are way up, independent of where they're pointing.

I mean, the real tragedy here is the fact that open carry exists.

Wrong. The tragedy is that people screwed around and found out. Open carry is not the tragedy at all.

If nobody had been carrying a lethal weapon, then the worst that was likely to have happened was a shouting match, some pushing and shoving, and maybe a punch thrown with someone getting a bloody nose.

But on planet America, where people are allowed to walk around the streets carrying loaded firearms (which they need to do in order to be able to protect themselves from the other people carrying loaded firearms, of course), two lives were ended.

To watching dwellers in alien civilisations, this was a tragedy. To others, it was perhaps no more than just a bit more blood round the roots of the Tree of Liberty. As they say, not my circus, not my monkeys.

[Gadianton]

If nobody had been carrying a lethal weapon, then the worst that was likely to have happened was a shouting match, some pushing and shoving, and maybe a punch thrown with someone getting a bloody nose.

This is true. The defense claimed that K had to shoot people because "who knows" what would have happened if they would have got hold of his gun.

Who in their right mind would take a gun capable of killing 30 people in short order to a crowded place that includes unsavory people looking to steal the gun in order to commit mass murder?

A brief distraction and the gun you brought is taken away from you and used against a crowd. While it has no bearing on the case itself, the implications of "good guy" gun logic, which says one has a right and duty to use maximal force with his gun because the "bad guy" is invariably trying to take your gun away to commit atrocities, only implies what a horrible law open carry is itself. If that's the way the world really is, then its a world that needs to ban open carry immediately.

Don't even think about shipping a lithium ion battery in the mail or taking one on the plane, but please, it's your duty as a citizen to walk into a crowd with a semi-auto rifle and 30 round clip where it's the doctrine of gun totters that they enemy is trying to get your gun to use against that crowd you're walking through.

[Chap]

Without artificial aids, human beings are not really very effective as killing machines. One of our cousins, such as a healthy adult male chimpanzee, could take a strong man to pieces with relative ease.

If we are the result of intelligent design, it does rather look as if our designer knew something about us, and did his or her best to limit our capacity to harm one another. I mean, how useful are your teeth and nails as weapons compared to those of many other animals?

But we worked hard with our cunning little brains, and found ways round the safety precautions kindly put in place for our protection ...

[ajax18]

If nobody had been carrying a lethal weapon, then the worst that was likely to have happened was a shouting match, some pushing and shoving, and maybe a punch thrown with someone getting a bloody nose.

But on planet America, where people are allowed to walk around the streets carrying loaded firearms (which they need to do in order to be able to protect themselves from the other people carrying loaded firearms, of course), two lives were ended.

To watching dwellers in alien civilisations, this was a tragedy. To others, it was perhaps no more than just a bit more blood round the roots of the Tree of Liberty. As they say, not my circus, not my monkeys.

I doubt Adam Haner would agree that a shouting match is the worst outcome of inadvertently driving to close to a BLM protest unarmed.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-mar ... st-beating

[Chap]

But everybody involved is still alive.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

If nobody had been carrying a lethal weapon, then the worst that was likely to have happened was a shouting match, some pushing and shoving, and maybe a punch thrown with someone getting a bloody nose.

But on planet America, where people are allowed to walk around the streets carrying loaded firearms (which they need to do in order to be able to protect themselves from the other people carrying loaded firearms, of course), two lives were ended.

To watching dwellers in alien civilisations, this was a tragedy. To others, it was perhaps no more than just a bit more blood round the roots of the Tree of Liberty. As they say, not my circus, not my monkeys.

I doubt Adam Haner would agree that a shouting match is the worst outcome of inadvertently driving to close to a BLM protest unarmed.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-mar ... st-beating

Ajax, do you understand you’re just parroting the latest outrage meant to keep you enthralled with your outrage? “F” it, I’ll give this a shot, understanding it’s fruitless.

There’s a psychological mechanism called parasocial empathy. Simply put, parasocial empathy means that our lizard brain cannot distinguish between people in real life and the images of and information about people we see in media, to include the Internet.

Your years of otherizing people, mostly Blacks and “Liberals”, has that made you balanced out and happy? You should question why you’re caught in this outrage addiction, and then project that out for the rest of your life. Consider what is most likely:

1) The world will fracture beyond anything we know today, an ideological state will arise that values what you value, and you’ll live in this optimized state.

or

2) The world will continue to be filled with people with whom you disagree, and you’ll have to share it with them in one form or another.

What’s the best strategy for you and your family? Drawing that circle of trust so tightly you become insular and bitter, or just relaxing your expectations for the world so you can find some peace?

- Doc