Rittenhouse Verdict

[jp1]

And it is equally true that if his attackers hadn’t been there, or hadn’t pursued and attacked him, then no one would have gone to the morgue that night.

I don’t see it as a flaw in our laws that being in the wrong place at the wrong time isn’t a capital crime.

I suppose one could consider it not a flaw in our laws that someone who is so stupid as to put themselves In what anyone with at least slightly below average intelligence would understand to be the wrong place at the wrong time deserves to be able to kill people. I don’t. But as Iris Lily says, you do you.

[iris lilies]

I suppose one could consider it not a flaw in our laws that someone who is so stupid as to put themselves In what anyone with at least slightly below average intelligence would understand to be the wrong place at the wrong time deserves to be able to kill people. I don’t. But as Iris Lily says, you do you.

Quoting Iris Lilies is always appropriate!

—-Iris lilies

[LDAHL]

I suppose one could consider it not a flaw in our laws that someone who is so stupid as to put themselves In what anyone with at least slightly below average intelligence would understand to be the wrong place at the wrong time deserves to be able to kill people. I don’t. But as Iris Lily says, you do you.

I’m willing to accept the jury’s determination of who the aggressors were in this case. The “deserves to be able to kill people” stems from the right to defend oneself. The prosecution tried the “heroes reacting to a threat” narrative, but the evidence didn’t support it.

I don’t think there’s much of an argument for anyone being there that night, but I certainly don’t think this stupid kid deserved to be convicted of murder based on some kind of aggravated ideological symbolism charge.

I would agree that Iris Lilies has much wisdom to offer.

[jp1]

I'm just saying that maybe self defense should not be a defense if one intentionally put themselves in a situation that most reasonable people would be smart enough not to. I challenge you to find anyone, just one person, who thinks that a white teenager running around at a BLM protest with a gun strapped to their chest is not one of the following. 1) tremendously stupid and naive. 2) malevolent and looking for trouble.

A person minding their own business should be able to claim self-defense. A person aggressively looking for conflict should not.

[Alan]

A person minding their own business should be able to claim self-defense. A person aggressively looking for conflict should not.

There was no evidence that he was aggressively looking for conflict. It may not have been a smart move to put yourself between a potentially violent group and the object of their destruction, thinking that arming yourself for self protection would keep a particularly violent person from targeting you. But people do that sort of thing all the time without any conscious desire to harm anyone else. I really don't understand the ongoing desire by some to demonize the boy when all the evidence points to others as the aggressors.

[bae]

I really don't understand the ongoing desire by some to demonize the boy when all the evidence points to others as the aggressors.

The "boy"/"child" narrative is a bit odd too. He was not tried as a juvenile, and he was facing adult penalties. He was, what, 17 1/2 years old at the time of the incident, old enough to enlist in the military.

[LDAHL]

I'm just saying that maybe self defense should not be a defense if one intentionally put themselves in a situation that most reasonable people would be smart enough not to. I challenge you to find anyone, just one person, who thinks that a white teenager running around at a BLM protest with a gun strapped to their chest is not one of the following. 1) tremendously stupid and naive. 2) malevolent and looking for trouble.

A person minding their own business should be able to claim self-defense. A person aggressively looking for conflict should not.

Whether he was intruding on a “BLM protest” or a “destructive riot” is a judgment offering great opportunities for subjective perception. As is whether he or his attackers were “aggressively looking for conflict”.

I prefer that people be judged by their actions rather than anyone’s projection of their thoughts.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I think the boy thing is just a comment on mentality.

I challenge you to find anyone, just one person, who thinks that a white teenager running around at a BLM protest with a gun strapped to their chest is not one of the following. 1) tremendously stupid and naive. 2) malevolent and looking for trouble.

I'd be happy to go with tremendously stupid and naive. And possibly (although not necessarily!) not realizing how many years upon years of white supremacy that invokes, you know besides just being generally wtf who does that, because young and dumb. Young and dumb AND unlikely to mature any time soon, because of the forces that are pushing on him now. His life now as some kind of hero to those who are malevolent and looking for trouble is perhaps a punishment of it's own.

[jp1]

Whether he was intruding on a “BLM protest” or a “destructive riot” is a judgment offering great opportunities for subjective perception. As is whether he or his attackers were “aggressively looking for conflict”.

I prefer that people be judged by their actions rather than anyone’s projection of their thoughts.

I AM judging him by his actions. He strapped a ****ing gun to his chest and went to a BLM protest.

He wouldn’t have had ‘attackers’ if he hadn’t been a stupid ass. Behaving stupidly shouldn’t only have consequences for other people.

[jp1]

A thought experiment for ldahl. If a teenager with a gun strapped to his chest was walking down the street in front of your house at 10pm some night what would you do? Correct me if I’m wrong but I assume that you, and probably almost all of us, would call the police. Why? Because you perceived that individual to be a potential threat.