4 ms·

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 'unbal

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?
        esyir 5y ago
        >But there is a scale. ... Agreed. You're in luck here, as I've actually just rewatched the Fox clip of Grosskreutz's court appearance just before I saw this, and cross referenced it with the NYT visual investigation just to account for selective clipping. In this case, I would argue that the scale is proportionate. As to why I believe so, lets go over what happened post Rosenbaum. In the initial confrontation, Rittenhouse retreats, trips and falls to the ground. Huber hits Rittenhouse with a skateboard and gets shot in the chest. Grosskreutz then advances with his gun, then gets shot as well. Why do I consider this proportionate? First: Rittenhouse made an attempt to retreat. Only after the first physical attack (skateboard) and an attempted disarming, did Rittenhouse fire. After which, as per Grosskreutz's own admission, Rittenhouse did not fire when he backed off with his arms raised. Only after he ~returned to a firing position~ lowered his firearm and advanced did Rittenhouse fire on him as well. As he was armed and advancing with a firearm, I'd consider that a proportional response. >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? Apologies, I'm not too sure of the context before that as I've only personally seen the bit where Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse. However, if Huber and Grosskreutz did believe that they had an active shooter, they might ALSO be justified. Both sides here may have a sufficient justification in this case. However, in my opinion, and this is contingent on the accuracy of the NYT's report and the above assumption of "active shooter", the only ones who weren't justified, and are thus the root cause, are Rosenbaum, who unilaterally attacked Rittenhouse, and whoever that idiot shooting a pistol into the sky while Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse was. There's of course more to this, but I'll leave it open for response. Also, thanks for keeping it civil, it's much appreciated when discussing this sort of controversial topic.

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?
      - esyir 5y ago
        >But there is a scale. ... Agreed. You're in luck here, as I've actually just rewatched the Fox clip of Grosskreutz's court appearance just before I saw this, and cross referenced it with the NYT visual investigation just to account for selective clipping. In this case, I would argue that the scale is proportionate. As to why I believe so, lets go over what happened post Rosenbaum. In the initial confrontation, Rittenhouse retreats, trips and falls to the ground. Huber hits Rittenhouse with a skateboard and gets shot in the chest. Grosskreutz then advances with his gun, then gets shot as well. Why do I consider this proportionate? First: Rittenhouse made an attempt to retreat. Only after the first physical attack (skateboard) and an attempted disarming, did Rittenhouse fire. After which, as per Grosskreutz's own admission, Rittenhouse did not fire when he backed off with his arms raised. Only after he ~returned to a firing position~ lowered his firearm and advanced did Rittenhouse fire on him as well. As he was armed and advancing with a firearm, I'd consider that a proportional response. >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? Apologies, I'm not too sure of the context before that as I've only personally seen the bit where Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse. However, if Huber and Grosskreutz did believe that they had an active shooter, they might ALSO be justified. Both sides here may have a sufficient justification in this case. However, in my opinion, and this is contingent on the accuracy of the NYT's report and the above assumption of "active shooter", the only ones who weren't justified, and are thus the root cause, are Rosenbaum, who unilaterally attacked Rittenhouse, and whoever that idiot shooting a pistol into the sky while Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse was. There's of course more to this, but I'll leave it open for response. Also, thanks for keeping it civil, it's much appreciated when discussing this sort of controversial topic.