851
Kyle Rittenhouse criticized Donald Trump. So conservatives said he's transgender.
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
851 points (96.8% liked)
politics
19144 readers
2822 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He went somewhere he had no place to be, with a gun, in order to "protect property" he had no reason to protect. He said himself he went to "protect property". How do you think he was going to use that gun to protect property? Tickle people with it?
Have you never heard "an armed society is a polite one?" Do you think when they send security to any event, the goal is to violently use it? Or do you think that maybe the goal of showing force is to, sometimes, dissuade violence?
American society is armed. Those that are most heavily armed don't seem very polite, but a lot of people get shot.
You don't send security to an event without the intent of using it if needed. When people take a security job they expect they will be using force at some point.
I challenge you to find me someone who works security that doesn't expect to ever use force. The difference is someone who works security is 1) trained, and 2) in situations where they are there as a precaution, not as an expectation. When there is an expectation of violence the police are involved.
Speaking of, if Rittenhouse is concerned about "protecting property" why doesn't he work for the police? I thought vigilantism was illegal.
Remember, we're talking about intent here. Whether you believe it's true has zero bearing, it's whether he may.
Well, sure. But that's like when I put on my seatbelt when I get in the car: I'm not planning to crash into someone just taking the necessary precautions. I know it will be necessary as time approaches infinity, but this is a far cry from saying I intend to get into an accident because I put my seatbelt on, which is effectively what we're talking about.
If your argument is that he's guilty because he knew he might have to use a gun to protect himself, rather than going with the intent of actually shooting someone, then I disagree that this even remotely makes him guilty of a crime, as this would mean I'm guilty of intending to cause an accident because I put my seatbelt.
People believe vaccines cause Autism. When they don't vaccinate their children I'm going to blame them for the death regardless of whatever stupid belief led them to think their children were invincible. They are still at fault despite the stupid crap they believe.
Oh, does Rittenhouse bring his gun like that every time he leaves the house? Or is this more like adding more safety features to your vehicle (air bags, better bumpers, roll cage etc) before going somewhere you knew beforehand people were driving on the wrong side of the road, and the only reason you're going there is to enforce traffic laws?
Rittenhouse is not a cop. He went there to be a vigilante. If he didn't want to use the gun then he's a fucking idiot, and being ignorant is no defence.
Okay, but your argument is that he intended to shoot someone, I think you understand that, even if they are stupid, they didn't intend to kill their child. Just like what was probably to he case with Rittenhouse, he thought he was doing the right thing, he's just an idiot. Unfortunately, being an idiot is not a crime. Intending to kill or hurt someone is, which is what we are talking about.
Ignorance and stupidity is not a defense. It doesn't matter if someone believes there is a child trafficking ring in the basement of a pizza place, and they are "doing the right thing" by going in there with a gun insisting on being shown the basement. It's still a crime.
In this example, you are saying it doesn't matter if they thought they were doing the right thing because a crime was committed anyway. I absolutely agree with you here.
However, your initial position was that Rittenhouse committed a crime because he intended to shoot someone. If your claim is now that he ignorantly broke a law, I would say "okay which one?" and also inquire as to what happened to your initial position. Is this an admission you realize that he may not have gone there with the intent to shoot someone?
"responding to my arguments means you have given up your position."
Not really, no. He went there with the intent to shoot someone. You are correct that we do not have a mind reading machine so it cannot be 100% proven, that doesn't make it not true. I further expanded that even if someone were to accept your argument that he didn't that doesn't mean he's innocent of his actions. My point was either way he's a murderer.
Vigilantism. "The laws / legal system are insufficient" is not a defense of immoral, dangerous, or damaging behaviour.
I've made it pretty clear that Im not certain of his state of mind, by saying he only probably didn't go with an intent to shoot people. Maybe that is even unfair, but I tend to think people are more likely to be motivated stupidity rather than motivated by malice.
You seem to be criticizing your own position here because you are the one defending your claim that you know what his state of mind was, and appear to be assuming, because I disagree with you, that I must be taking the exact opposite position and assuming that I know he had no intent to shoot people.
Sure, and I followed this up with some more questions as to what was the crime. It would have also gone a long way to ease the debate if you had said you were no longer talking about intent (especially because you kept repeatedly saying that intent did not matter) and had moved on to a new way to try and claim you know he was guilty.
Which law exactly? Why wasn't he charged with it? If a shop owner stood there with a gun to protect their own property, is that illegal vigilantism? What if it is the shop owner and their family? Or friend? I'm curious to hear this line of reasoning, but it's a bit vague for me to really sink my teeth into.
Something about you quoting me saying "The laws / legal system are insufficient" and responding with "Which law exactly?" Makes me question your sincerity or how much you're listening to what I'm saying.
What Rittenhouse was doing should be clearly covered by vigilantism. If he wasn't charged with it then the laws are insufficient.
The one that apparently doesn't exist saying "you are not a cop and are not allowed to use deadly force to protect someone else's property."
I believe we would find common ground here. But this is one of political beliefs rather than an objective analysis of the law and whether he broke it that night in such a way that he should be found guilty of murder.
And remember this is where this all comes from, me pointing out that it's weird to claim that it makes no sense that people would think he's not guilty of a crime. You even seem to be relenting a bit and admitting that maybe he didn't break a law, but saying there should be a law against it.
On that last point, I do agree. This should not be legal to do, and he's an idiot for doing it.
Maybe you're having discussions with other people and confusing me with someone else. I remind you that my first reply to you was:
The definition of murder does require "being found guilty of the crime of murder in the place where it happened."
For example: historically it was legal to kill minorities. Those that did were still murderers even if it was "legal" at the time.
I don't care that Rittenhouse was found "not guilty", he's still a murderer. I'm not saying the trial was wrong, I'm saying Rittenhouse was wrong and the existing laws are insufficient.
Case in point:
https://lawandcrime.com/crime/i-will-personally-pluck-out-her-eyes-man-who-threatened-to-light-kamala-harris-on-fire-is-baffled-feds-were-at-his-door-over-a-comment-complaint-alleges/
This armed man was so polite he was confused about why agents would show up at his door over a simple "comment"
Again, whether it's true makes no difference because we're discussing intent to go shoot someone, so if he believes it to be true (or any of the others I listed) then your claim that it is a fact he intended to shoot someone is really just a supposition.
So your defense is he's too stupid and ignorant and shouldn't have been allowed around a gun in the first place?
He's probably too stupid to own a gun or be allowed around one. I'm not sure what this has to do with your claim that he intended to shoot someone.