Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Weird law, he previously used Blake's gun at a range because he knew he couldn't buy one but here he is showing up in another state with an AR15 with 30 rounds at a riot. Sounds like the laws need some updating.
"Updated to "only rioters are allowed to be armed"?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,622 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Well, as long as it looked like a controllable crowd to YOU ... happily setting dumpsters on fire and whatnot ..
I hope someone was there handing out snacks and lemonade to the rioters ...
You can't have it both ways, venice. You can't say police shouldn't allow rioting, and come back and say this was not controllable.
Pick one. The cops were right to ignore the looting and burning because it was uncontrollable, or the cops should have stopped it because with some manpower, it could have been avoided.
He did escalate it. By strutting around with an AR15. That's an escalation.
I've read your following posts after this one, as well as the chorus of folks disagreeing, and I offer a qualified agreement with your above point.
Here's the qualification - it is SEEN/VIEWED as an escalation to simply bear arms because the government and media have made the mere presence of a weapon, even if carried in a non-threatening way, tantamount to an actual act of violence.
It is not factually, objectively or logically an escalation of force, but it is subjectively interpreted that way because government has a compelling interest in making the mere presence of a firearm carried by anyone but them appear as some sort of heinous act that must be punished.
Thus, I agree that you and others would see/view Rittenhouse (or anyone) openly carrying a firearm as an escalation of force. The written law disagrees with you in an open carry state, but I totally get the perception, given the decades long propaganda campaign waged by various anti-2A forces.
That subjective interpretation IS THE PROBLEM. I don't direct this at you personally, but generally upon the entire society. The two major tribes in this country, vis-a-vis firearm perception, are simple extensions of the two tribes of collectivists and individualists.
The collectivist views the individual action that deviates from any/all/some of the collective narrative as acts of violence. In this case, the perfectly legal open carry of a firearm is seen as an escalation, or precursor/prompting of violence, thus an act of violence in and of itself. But this same exact thinking applies when an individual uses incorrect pronouns, speaks an inconvenient truth or otherwise speaks against a collective approved narrative.
Where did the term micro-aggression come from and why is it important? It created the playing field where now, your words/actions may very well indeed be non-violent, non-threatening, etc...but if even one observer within the collective views them as violence, well now they are and any force used against you is actually pre-emptive self-defense.
The Rittenhouse case is nothing more than a 2A example of microaggression theory and professional victimology on display. His behavior prior to being attacked was perfectly legal, non-threatening and non-violent. One knucklehead chose to attack him, he defended, then an angry mob turned on him and made him run away, and the rest is history. But the legal attack from the theory of the microaggression is that the collective views his actions as threatening, thus violent. His presence in Kenosha was not required, thus the collective does not understand his presence, thus it was unwarranted, thus violent. Perception trumping the law as written. The prosecution's entire case rested on perception rather than written law. Why else try to make invoking his Miranda rights as "suspicious behavior?" Easy - create a perception.
Back to my original semi-agreement - it makes sense that you and a sizable portion of the population see his mere presence in Kenosha with a firearm as an act of violence. You've been trained to think that way since you were born. Government has made you actually believe that only they can carry firearms openly because only they should have the power to defend themselves and only they can protect you.
We will see how the jury feels. If they are individualists who understand the jury's instructions, the rule of law and their obligation within that rule of law, then he'll be not guilty across the board. If they are collectivists who ignore law in favor of collective perception, then he will be declared guilty. If there is a mix, and they are hardcore in their respective beliefs, hung jury/mistrial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
