5 ms·

Let’s say you carry a gun. Someone attempts to rape you. Nobody is likely to die. Your argument says that you should just be raped. There’s a case (I think it

by hajile 5y ago

Let’s say you carry a gun. Someone attempts to rape you. Nobody is likely to die. Your argument says that you should just be raped. There’s a case (I think it might still be pending) about a drunk guy who hits someone one time and kills them. I’ve seen a video of a kid hitting his friend and killing them. In fact, a lot of people have died from being hit just one time the wrong way. Even if he weren’t armed, Rosenbaum still chases him down. Rosenbaum’s buddy Zaminski had a gun too. If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him given all the trouble they went through to ambush him. Also, Grosskreutz is interesting. He ran down Rittenhouse while pulling a gun. At the same time, he testified he had no reason to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone. Mob mentality is crazy. Loads of people have died at the hands of unarmed mobs. Any individual would never hurt anyone else, but together, the mob mentality results in something terrible happens.

d1sxeyes 5y ago
That wasn't my argument at all, actually: > I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them). Your other points are all good and interesting - one in particular caught my eye: > If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you.
- hajile 5y ago
  > That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you. He wasn't worried about that. He was worried about they guy trying to grab the gun in his hands (as proven due to the powder stippling on half of Rosenbaum's hand). We've got the Joker just released from the mental hospital. He beats up the woman he's supposed to love and He's trying to burn down the city. How much self control will he have toward a complete stranger who is foiling his plans? You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation. What other options are there once the situation is inevitable?
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    > You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation. This is the second time you're telling me what I'm arguing, and the second time you're wrong. I absolutely, completely believe that Rittenhouse was in mortal fear for his life when he killed Rosenbaum. But he should never have had a gun, and he should never have been in that situation.
    - Svettie 5y ago
      The last line is just your opinion, and clearly Rittenhouse disagreed. If it's not illegal for me to be somewhere, then I have the right to be there, and I can choose to exercise that right.
      - esyir 5y ago
        Something I've found interesting is that the arguments deployed against Rittenhouse are pretty analogous to victim-blaming in rape cases. - Rittenhouse did something legal, but risky and potentially foolhardy. - An external agent intervenes, causing the incident - "Well, he shouldn't have been there to begin with" vs "Well, she knew that was a bad part of town" Main differences there would be that he defended himself successfully, so to some, victim and aggressor get flipped.
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        This is a really interesting point, and I've thought about this a little bit to try and understand why I think these are not analogous. I would probably think that a potential rape victim who successfully defended him or herself was justified in doing so. But there is a scale. You can't go and stand on the sidelines at an orgy, then shoot anyone who looks at you funny. You can't go and shoot someone who offers to buy you a drink on the off-chance they might slip a roofie in it. You can't just turn around and shoot someone who is walking behind you in case they might be a rapist. On the other hand, if you shoot a guy who tries to drag you into his car, that's pretty clearly a sensible defence. There are grey areas here too. What if a guy runs up behind you and you spin around and shoot, and it turns out you'd left your phone at the bar, and he was trying to catch up and give it to you. > 'legal, but risky and potentially foolhardy' This does describe both 'drinking a lot' and 'going with a gun to a riot', but I don't think it does justice to the differences between the behaviours. Drinking too much, wearing short skirts, etc. does not imply any kind of consideration of consequences. Bringing a gun to a riot DOES. It shows that Rittenhouse was aware of the increased likelihood of violence, and had already decided that he was prepared to respond with deadly force. Out of interest, with regards to Huber and Grosskreutz, do you believe that they were also justified in trying to defend against what seemed at the time to be an active shooter?

by hajile 5y ago

d1sxeyes 5y ago

That wasn't my argument at all, actually: > I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them). Your other points are all good and interesting - one in particular caught my eye: > If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you.

hajile 5y ago
> That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you. He wasn't worried about that. He was worried about they guy trying to grab the gun in his hands (as proven due to the powder stippling on half of Rosenbaum's hand). We've got the Joker just released from the mental hospital. He beats up the woman he's supposed to love and He's trying to burn down the city. How much self control will he have toward a complete stranger who is foiling his plans? You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation. What other options are there once the situation is inevitable?
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  > You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation. This is the second time you're telling me what I'm arguing, and the second time you're wrong. I absolutely, completely believe that Rittenhouse was in mortal fear for his life when he killed Rosenbaum. But he should never have had a gun, and he should never have been in that situation.
  - Svettie 5y ago
    The last line is just your opinion, and clearly Rittenhouse disagreed. If it's not illegal for me to be somewhere, then I have the right to be there, and I can choose to exercise that right.
    - esyir 5y ago
      Something I've found interesting is that the arguments deployed against Rittenhouse are pretty analogous to victim-blaming in rape cases. - Rittenhouse did something legal, but risky and potentially foolhardy. - An external agent intervenes, causing the incident - "Well, he shouldn't have been there to begin with" vs "Well, she knew that was a bad part of town" Main differences there would be that he defended himself successfully, so to some, victim and aggressor get flipped.
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        This is a really interesting point, and I've thought about this a little bit to try and understand why I think these are not analogous. I would probably think that a potential rape victim who successfully defended him or herself was justified in doing so. But there is a scale. You can't go and stand on the sidelines at an orgy, then shoot anyone who looks at you funny. You can't go and shoot someone who offers to buy you a drink on the off-chance they might slip a roofie in it. You can't just turn around and shoot someone who is walking behind you in case they might be a rapist. On the other hand, if you shoot a guy who tries to drag you into his car, that's pretty clearly a sensible defence. There are grey areas here too. What if a guy runs up behind you and you spin around and shoot, and it turns out you'd left your phone at the bar, and he was trying to catch up and give it to you. > 'legal, but risky and potentially foolhardy' This does describe both 'drinking a lot' and 'going with a gun to a riot', but I don't think it does justice to the differences between the behaviours. Drinking too much, wearing short skirts, etc. does not imply any kind of consideration of consequences. Bringing a gun to a riot DOES. It shows that Rittenhouse was aware of the increased likelihood of violence, and had already decided that he was prepared to respond with deadly force. Out of interest, with regards to Huber and Grosskreutz, do you believe that they were also justified in trying to defend against what seemed at the time to be an active shooter?