Racism in America (with data)

[Alefroth]

Much of what Kyle did was foolish.

But even fools have a right to defend themselves.

I think what is upsetting to so many is the ease with which one can claim self defense. There needs to be a much higher standard to react with deadly force.

[Octavious]

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised. You may not like Rittenhouse or what he represents, but the case against him was so thin.

Would a black guy have been acquitted? I sure hope so.

Would a black guy be acquitted? Hahahaha! There's a reason why you don't hear very much about black folk packing weapons. Except maybe the Black Panthers back in the day.

The last high-profile murder case involving a black guy I can think of was OJ. They had a much better case against him and he was acquitted.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with him being super rich. Well at the time he was.

[Alefroth]

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised. You may not like Rittenhouse or what he represents, but the case against him was so thin.

Would a black guy have been acquitted? I sure hope so.

Would a black guy be acquitted? Hahahaha! There's a reason why you don't hear very much about black folk packing weapons. Except maybe the Black Panthers back in the day.

The last high-profile murder case involving a black guy I can think of was OJ. They had a much better case against him and he was acquitted.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with him being super rich. Well at the time he was.

Or a Black man that had become a national hero.

[em2nought]

Much of what Kyle did was foolish.

But even fools have a right to defend themselves.

I think what is upsetting to so many is the ease with which one can claim self defense. There needs to be a much higher standard to react with deadly force.

https://abc7.com/starbucks-fight-santa- ... d/1098183/

[LordMortis]

Much of what Kyle did was foolish.

But even fools have a right to defend themselves.

I think what is upsetting to so many is the ease with which one can claim self defense. There needs to be a much higher standard to react with deadly force.

I don't know about the many but it is personally upsetting to me.

[Little Raven]

I think what is upsetting to so many is the ease with which one can claim self defense. There needs to be a much higher standard to react with deadly force.

I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a standard that Kyle would not qualify under.

Like, this was pretty much the PERFECT self defense case. Multiple witnesses testified that Rosenbaum had been promising the kill Kyle all night. People were shooting into the air around him. The crowd was screaming to get him. He runs away at every opportunity, and only fires when he can’t get away. After each immediate threat is dealt with, he resumes running. The whole thing is captured in high definition video, leaving almost no doubt as to events.

I have no idea how you craft a self defense standard that doesn’t cover that scenario.

[stimpy]

What timing on the latest Humble Bundle, huh?
Fuck.....now I cant shop at Humble Bundle anymore........racist assholes




(Joke. I cant quite come to terms on how they let him off scott free, but I didnt follow the case very closely.)

[Grifman]

Yeah, it was pretty obvious to me that it was self defense according to all the reasons that LR gave. Yes, he was irresponsible, yes, he should have never been there, but it was almost a perfect storm of a bad circumstances, with people on both sides making bad decisions that led to tragedy. It seems to have been lost that Rittenhouse was a teenager, and it is a fact that they oftentimes make poor decisions due to brain development. The people chasing him didn’t exercise any better judgement than Rittenhouse - who thought it as a good idea to chase a guy armed with a gun - or to hit him with a skateboard or point a pistol at him? Most of the arguments I’ve seen here have had little to do with the facts and circumstances as related to self defense. Morally I think Rittenhouse bears a lot of guilt, but legal guilt is from moral guilt. The whole thing is very sad.

[Dogstar]

Our definition of defense is dire need of update. I don't think fools have a right to come form without brandishing longarms as a show of a threat of violence and then defend themselves even if the law says otherwise.

This. At some point, the fool must take responsibility for their own choices. However, laws have to be reformed to reflect that.

[Grifman]

Our definition of defense is dire need of update. I don't think fools have a right to come form without brandishing longarms as a show of a threat of violence and then defend themselves even if the law says otherwise.

This. At some point, the fool must take responsibility for their own choices. However, laws have to be reformed to reflect that.

Exactly how should the law be reformed? What should a new self defense law look like?

[Octavious]

The law that needs to be changed is the one that allows idiots to run around with rifles. This was bound to happen at some point.

[ImLawBoy]

Our definition of defense is dire need of update. I don't think fools have a right to come form without brandishing longarms as a show of a threat of violence and then defend themselves even if the law says otherwise.

This. At some point, the fool must take responsibility for their own choices. However, laws have to be reformed to reflect that.

Exactly how should the law be reformed? What should a new self defense law look like?

I've been thinking on this, and the best I can come up with so far is something that takes into account the danger the person claiming self defense has put himself in by his actions. Did the person's actions recklessly raise the likelihood of the danger that would cause that person to claim self-defense? Then maybe they don't get to claim it.

Just spit-balling here. Maybe that's already a part of some self-defense laws. Maybe bringing a weapon to an event is too far attenuated from the immediate peril that caused the self defense. It's always tricky (and often a bad idea) to make laws of general applicability arising out of a specific incident.

[Smoove_B]

The law that needs to be changed is the one that allows idiots to run around with rifles. This was bound to happen at some point.

But freedom. And really, how could anyone have guessed this would have happened? This is also what we'll be saying at the next *event* where people on both sides just start shooting at each other. And we'll collectively throw our hands up and wonder how, how did this happen?

[LordMortis]

Our definition of defense is dire need of update. I don't think fools have a right to come form without brandishing longarms as a show of a threat of violence and then defend themselves even if the law says otherwise.

This. At some point, the fool must take responsibility for their own choices. However, laws have to be reformed to reflect that.

Exactly how should the law be reformed? What should a new self defense law look like?

That's a good question. One that should theoretically be for law makers. This seems sadly perennially appropriate

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prev ... 1819576527

[Blackhawk]

Self defense? Maybe, under the law. Every death is still his fault. He jumped into a situation thinking he was showing how cool and badass he was, and immediately got in over his head. At his age? Maybe he can come back from that and be a decent person. Maybe the full weight of what happened has given him some insight into himself. Maybe not. Maybe he'll double down and revel in it.

I find this situation more nuanced than some, and honestly don't think there was any good outcome.

[Unagi]

He wouldn't be alive for the trial... It's really kind of amazing to me how quickly we backtracked from a country that elected a black president.

I think you mean ‘recoiled’

[Grifman]

The law that needs to be changed is the one that allows idiots to run around with rifles. This was bound to happen at some point.

That’s a gun control issue, not a self defense issue.

[stimpy]

He jumped into a situation thinking he was showing how cool and badass he was, and immediately got in over his head.

You mean just like the Einsteins that decided it was a good idea to go after someone holding a rifle were trying to be cool and badass?

[LordMortis]

He jumped into a situation thinking he was showing how cool and badass he was, and immediately got in over his head.

You mean just like the Einsteins that decided it was a good idea to go after someone holding a rifle were trying to be cool and badass?

Let's put them on trial...

[Grifman]

Our definition of defense is dire need of update. I don't think fools have a right to come form without brandishing longarms as a show of a threat of violence and then defend themselves even if the law says otherwise.

This. At some point, the fool must take responsibility for their own choices. However, laws have to be reformed to reflect that.

Exactly how should the law be reformed? What should a new self defense law look like?

I've been thinking on this, and the best I can come up with so far is something that takes into account the danger the person claiming self defense has put himself in by his actions. Did the person's actions recklessly raise the likelihood of the danger that would cause that person to claim self-defense? Then maybe they don't get to claim it.

So I make reckless decision means that I can’t defend myself? So if I walk through a gang infested neighborhood and am attacked, that’s just tough on me? And what about the people that made reckless decisions to chase and attack/threaten an armed man?

It’s really weird that people seem to ignore the fact that Rittenhouse does not appear to be the aggressor in any of these shootings. He was chased, he was attacked, he was threatened. He seems to be a scapegoat for a lot of other issues here - gun control, race relations, etc.

[stimpy]

He jumped into a situation thinking he was showing how cool and badass he was, and immediately got in over his head.

You mean just like the Einsteins that decided it was a good idea to go after someone holding a rifle were trying to be cool and badass?

Let's put them on trial...

Not about trial. About making smart decisions. Both sides.
I see a dude with a rifle, know what I do?
Walk the other way.

[Octavious]

The law that needs to be changed is the one that allows idiots to run around with rifles. This was bound to happen at some point.

That’s a gun control issue, not a self defense issue.

Yup and that was my point. Most normal civil countries don't allow people to run around like it's the wild west. I'm always horrified when I see these militia people walking around like it's WW3.

[ImLawBoy]

Our definition of defense is dire need of update. I don't think fools have a right to come form without brandishing longarms as a show of a threat of violence and then defend themselves even if the law says otherwise.

This. At some point, the fool must take responsibility for their own choices. However, laws have to be reformed to reflect that.

Exactly how should the law be reformed? What should a new self defense law look like?

I've been thinking on this, and the best I can come up with so far is something that takes into account the danger the person claiming self defense has put himself in by his actions. Did the person's actions recklessly raise the likelihood of the danger that would cause that person to claim self-defense? Then maybe they don't get to claim it.

So I make reckless decision means that I can’t defend myself? So if I walk through a gang infested neighborhood and am attacked, that’s just tough on me? And what about the people that made reckless decisions to chase and attack/threaten an armed man?

As I stated, I'm just spitballing and trying to come up with ways that self defense laws could be reformed. I also admitted that making laws based on specific scenarios is often a bad idea.

That said, I would think that 10 seconds of deliberation would lead one to realize that you wouldn't lose all rights to self defense based on contributing any element of risk to your behavior. I think most people could probably also draw a distinction between walking at night in a dangerous area and bringing and displaying an AR-15 to a protest/riot (whatever one's perspective might be) and would be willing to admit that the person is bringing different levels of risk to a scenario. If you truly want to consider how self defense laws might be modified (as you asked), then maybe open your mind up to options instead of immediately shooting them down without doing any critical analysis.

[Dogstar]

Our definition of defense is dire need of update. I don't think fools have a right to come form without brandishing longarms as a show of a threat of violence and then defend themselves even if the law says otherwise.

This. At some point, the fool must take responsibility for their own choices. However, laws have to be reformed to reflect that.

Exactly how should the law be reformed? What should a new self defense law look like?

I've been thinking on this, and the best I can come up with so far is something that takes into account the danger the person claiming self defense has put himself in by his actions. Did the person's actions recklessly raise the likelihood of the danger that would cause that person to claim self-defense? Then maybe they don't get to claim it.

So I make reckless decision means that I can’t defend myself? So if I walk through a gang infested neighborhood and am attacked, that’s just tough on me? And what about the people that made reckless decisions to chase and attack/threaten an armed man?

It’s really weird that people seem to ignore the fact that Rittenhouse does not appear to be the aggressor in any of these shootings. He was chased, he was attacked, he was threatened. He seems to be a scapegoat for a lot of other issues here - gun control, race relations, etc.

You show up in an environment you know is tense (like Kenosha was) with a weapon after crossing state lines to do so. You carry said weapon and proceed on foot. You're not law enforcement. At what point do you not bear some responsibility for putting yourself in that situation and upping the stakes by carrying a firearm?

It's weird to me that you can't see how granting reckless people a nigh-unfettered right to defend themselves is license to inflict harm upon others and be protected legally, with all the problems that might ensue from that.

[LawBeefaroni]

A thought that's been kicking around my head. If the guy with the skateboard or the jumpkick guy or Glock guy killed Rittenhouse, they would probably get acquitted on self defense grounds as well.


Go to event, bring weapon, find a dangerous situation, "fear for your life", receive license to kill.

[Alefroth]

He jumped into a situation thinking he was showing how cool and badass he was, and immediately got in over his head.

You mean just like the Einsteins that decided it was a good idea to go after someone holding a rifle were trying to be cool and badass?

Let's put them on trial...

Not about trial. About making smart decisions. Both sides.
I see a dude with a rifle, know what I do?
Walk the other way.

What if you see a riot? Walk the other way or jump in with your gun?

[Grifman]

The law that needs to be changed is the one that allows idiots to run around with rifles. This was bound to happen at some point.

But freedom. And really, how could anyone have guessed this would have happened? This is also what we'll be saying at the next *event* where people on both sides just start shooting at each other. And we'll collectively throw our hands up and wonder how, how did this happen?

I definitely agree that thus is going to happen. One day you are going to get two groups that feel threatened by each other and open fire. Heck, it appears that there was confusion in this situation where some thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter. I suspect if they had beaten or killed him they could have claimed “self defense”. It’s all due to our nation’s obsession with guns.

[stimpy]

He jumped into a situation thinking he was showing how cool and badass he was, and immediately got in over his head.

You mean just like the Einsteins that decided it was a good idea to go after someone holding a rifle were trying to be cool and badass?

Let's put them on trial...

Not about trial. About making smart decisions. Both sides.
I see a dude with a rifle, know what I do?
Walk the other way.

What if you see a riot? Walk the other way or jump in with your gun?

[Alefroth]

And what about the people that made reckless decisions to chase and attack/threaten an armed man?

They witnessed Rittenhouse gun someone down. They could have been trying to prevent him from shooting anyone else. That's what's so wrong with these Wild West scenarios. They might have thought of themselves as the good guys with guns.

[LordMortis]

Go to event, bring weapon, find a dangerous situation, "fear for your life", receive license to kill.

That's the problem I have coming out of this. It may be legal but it doesn't pass the sniff test.

[stimpy]

And what about the people that made reckless decisions to chase and attack/threaten an armed man?

They witnessed Rittenhouse gun someone down. They could have been trying to prevent him from shooting anyone else. That's what's so wrong with these Wild West scenarios. They might have thought of themselves as the good guys with guns.

How'd that work out for them?

[Alefroth]

He jumped into a situation thinking he was showing how cool and badass he was, and immediately got in over his head.

You mean just like the Einsteins that decided it was a good idea to go after someone holding a rifle were trying to be cool and badass?

Let's put them on trial...

Not about trial. About making smart decisions. Both sides.
I see a dude with a rifle, know what I do?
Walk the other way.

What if you see a riot? Walk the other way or jump in with your gun?

Just curious why you chose to play the part of that side. One side is dead because of their bad decision, and one side gets off scot free. Does that seem just?

[Alefroth]

And what about the people that made reckless decisions to chase and attack/threaten an armed man?

They witnessed Rittenhouse gun someone down. They could have been trying to prevent him from shooting anyone else. That's what's so wrong with these Wild West scenarios. They might have thought of themselves as the good guys with guns.

How'd that work out for them?

Is that a trick question?

[Grifman]

Our definition of defense is dire need of update. I don't think fools have a right to come form without brandishing longarms as a show of a threat of violence and then defend themselves even if the law says otherwise.

This. At some point, the fool must take responsibility for their own choices. However, laws have to be reformed to reflect that.

Exactly how should the law be reformed? What should a new self defense law look like?

I've been thinking on this, and the best I can come up with so far is something that takes into account the danger the person claiming self defense has put himself in by his actions. Did the person's actions recklessly raise the likelihood of the danger that would cause that person to claim self-defense? Then maybe they don't get to claim it.

So I make reckless decision means that I can’t defend myself? So if I walk through a gang infested neighborhood and am attacked, that’s just tough on me? And what about the people that made reckless decisions to chase and attack/threaten an armed man?

It’s really weird that people seem to ignore the fact that Rittenhouse does not appear to be the aggressor in any of these shootings. He was chased, he was attacked, he was threatened. He seems to be a scapegoat for a lot of other issues here - gun control, race relations, etc.

You show up in an environment you know is tense (like Kenosha was) with a weapon after crossing state lines to do so. You carry said weapon and proceed on foot. You're not law enforcement. At what point do you not bear some responsibility for putting yourself in that situation and upping the stakes by carrying a firearm?

Your problem is not self defense, it’s gun control. Nothing in your scenario is illegal according to the law in many states with less restrictive gun laws. If someone is acting legally, they don’t give up their rights.

It's weird to me that you can't see how granting reckless people the right to defend themselves is license to inflict harm upon others and be protected legally, with all the problems that might ensue from that.

First, I never said it wasn’t a problem, but it’s a gun control problem, not a problem with self defense laws. Secondly, it’s not a “license” - based upon the evidence, no one would have been shot by Rittenhouse if he had not be chased and threatened. Lastly, it’s weird you seem to ignore the salient fact that he was chased and threatened and even attacked.

[Blackhawk]

In regards to self-defense, it sounds like the middle ground may not be about putting yourself at risk, but more of a 'looking for trouble' clause that nullifies self defense if you were deliberately looking to put yourself in harms way without good reason.

But again, there are sometimes good reasons to put yourself in harm's way.

[malchior]

Go to event, bring weapon, find a dangerous situation, "fear for your life", receive license to kill.

This is the clearest explanation of my problem with this absurdity.

[Little Raven]

I've been thinking on this, and the best I can come up with so far is something that takes into account the danger the person claiming self defense has put himself in by his actions.

I mean, seriously…did you see that skirt she was wearing? She was asking for it!

I know that’s not what you intend, but I can’t help but feel like that’s where such a law would inevitably lead. And I’d be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that such a law would end up being wielded primarily against those already most disadvantaged by the system. As you say, making legislation out of edge cases is generally counterproductive.

[ImLawBoy]

I've been thinking on this, and the best I can come up with so far is something that takes into account the danger the person claiming self defense has put himself in by his actions.

I mean, seriously…did you see that skirt she was wearing? She was asking for it!

I know that’s not what intend, but I can’t help but feel like that’s where such a law would inevitably lead. And I’d be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that such a law would end up being wielded primarily against those already most disadvantaged by the system. As you say, making legislation out of edge cases is generally counterproductive.

There are certainly legitimate arguments against what I threw out there (I myself am not convinced it would work), but throwing out loaded phrases as a counterargument while ignoring the context of sexual assault claims vs. self defense claims isn't terribly productive.

[Dogstar]

Your problem is not self defense, it’s gun control. Nothing in your scenario is illegal according to the law in many states with less restrictive gun laws. If someone is acting legally, they don’t give up their rights.

It's weird to me that you can't see how granting reckless people the right to defend themselves is license to inflict harm upon others and be protected legally, with all the problems that might ensue from that.

First, I never said it wasn’t a problem, but it’s a gun control problem, not a problem with self defense laws. Secondly, it’s not a “license” - based upon the evidence, no one would have been shot by Rittenhouse if he had not be chased and threatened. Lastly, it’s weird you seem to ignore the salient fact that he was chased and threatened and even attacked.

My issue is self-defense. If said person shows up with crossbow, bow and arrow, or baseball bat, and as Law Beef noted: "Go to event, bring weapon, find a dangerous situation, "fear for your life", receive license to kill," you don't need it to be a firearm to be problematic.

I'll grant the second part, but still think Law Beef's summary stands. But for Rittenhouse traveling to Kenosha, bringing his AR-15, walking into a tense situation, and "fearing for his life", this likely wouldn't have been a problem and two people wouldn't be dead.

[Little Raven]

I’m not attacking you, Law. I know what you were aiming for. But I’m not convinced this is just a loaded phrase, either. It’s pretty much the exact same argument: by “putting themselves in danger” a person has forfeited the right to bodily autonomy.

It’s…a tricky landscape.