4 ms·

Rittenhouse, an 17 year old, carried a weapon across state lines to engage in militia activities and shot someone. He was not defending his own house or busines

Rittenhouse, an 17 year old, carried a weapon across state lines to engage in militia activities and shot someone. He was not defending his own house or business. He is a bad guy, and what he did was bad. In the modern world, the state has a monopoly on violence, no roving militias are legitimate uses of force.

cbozeman 6y ago
If the Founding Fathers wanted the state to have the monopoly on violence, there wouldn't have been a Second Amendment.
jojobas 6y ago
In the other reality, nothing you said waived his right to self defence. Law professors are also caught on both sides of this reality rift.
kypro 6y ago
As far as I'm aware Rittenhouse was acting within his legal rights. Here is a really good summary from someone with two degress in criminal justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAz851P8p4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAz851P8p4 The fact you used the "carried a weapon across state lines" line suggests that you may be consuming biased reports. It's not a crime to carry a weapoon across state lines. He also lived right on the state line and worked in Kenosha. It's not like he drove miles to shoot protestors in some city he has no affiliation to and portraying it like this is dishonest. He also probably acted within self-defense as is covered in this part of the video I shared: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=648&v=dfAz851P8p4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=648&v=dfAz851P8p4 For the record, I think what he did was reckless and dangerous, but the catalyst to this was the riots and looting. Right or wrong you'll find some people will react like this when they feel their neighbourhoods are under attack. You can't expect one group to be violent without some kind of push back from another. The same problem exists with antifa and BLM (not that these groups are a direct comparison). My point is these groups don't exist in a vaccum, they appear when they believe law enforcement and those in power are not doing a good enough job. You have to go a level deeper and ask why BLM protestors are on the street, and why are people are feeling the need to form militas in the first place? If you ignore the causes these events will continue to occur and likely escalate.
- 0xB31B1B 6y ago
  "The fact you used the "carried a weapon across state lines" line suggests that you may be consuming biased reports." No, its clear. He was not defending his home or his business, he traveled 90 minutes by car to play soldier. It was not his neighborhood that was "under attack" and this wasn't self defense. He was not going about his life when someone threatened him, he went on a mission. He entered a dangerous area with a gun with full knowledge of the range of outcomes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

cbozeman 6y ago

If the Founding Fathers wanted the state to have the monopoly on violence, there wouldn't have been a Second Amendment.

jojobas 6y ago

In the other reality, nothing you said waived his right to self defence. Law professors are also caught on both sides of this reality rift.

kypro 6y ago

As far as I'm aware Rittenhouse was acting within his legal rights. Here is a really good summary from someone with two degress in criminal justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAz851P8p4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfAz851P8p4 The fact you used the "carried a weapon across state lines" line suggests that you may be consuming biased reports. It's not a crime to carry a weapoon across state lines. He also lived right on the state line and worked in Kenosha. It's not like he drove miles to shoot protestors in some city he has no affiliation to and portraying it like this is dishonest. He also probably acted within self-defense as is covered in this part of the video I shared: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=648&v=dfAz851P8p4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=648&v=dfAz851P8p4 For the record, I think what he did was reckless and dangerous, but the catalyst to this was the riots and looting. Right or wrong you'll find some people will react like this when they feel their neighbourhoods are under attack. You can't expect one group to be violent without some kind of push back from another. The same problem exists with antifa and BLM (not that these groups are a direct comparison). My point is these groups don't exist in a vaccum, they appear when they believe law enforcement and those in power are not doing a good enough job. You have to go a level deeper and ask why BLM protestors are on the street, and why are people are feeling the need to form militas in the first place? If you ignore the causes these events will continue to occur and likely escalate.

0xB31B1B 6y ago
"The fact you used the "carried a weapon across state lines" line suggests that you may be consuming biased reports." No, its clear. He was not defending his home or his business, he traveled 90 minutes by car to play soldier. It was not his neighborhood that was "under attack" and this wasn't self defense. He was not going about his life when someone threatened him, he went on a mission. He entered a dangerous area with a gun with full knowledge of the range of outcomes.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]