Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[None]

I think it might be worth remembering that, at the time, there were regular threats made about driving through protestors and a few instances of white nationalists showing up armed to intimidate or escalate, and it was regularly happening that these protests against police brutality and violence were frequently met with police brutality and violence. The police weren't there for the protection of the protestors- the protestors could have easily been victim of a mass murder type event.

It shouldn't be surprising that protestors were armed, is what I mean to summarize to.

[nenjin]

Not surprising, but personally? If there's a riot, people are bringing guns, there's threats of violence out there.....you're there because of the violence. Say what you will about protesting police injustice, if you're in the middle of a riot and you know there's going to be trouble and you choose to be there AND bring a gun....you are part of the problem. The difference between them and Rittenhouse is that Rittenhouse drove to be part of that shitstorm.

[Micro102]

The right is always going to be violent and bring guns. I've seen countless pictures of obese guys wearing camo and little flaps of body armor with rifles running around LARPing as militia. So until the laws change, I truly think the best thing to do is for the left to also bring guns, so the gun-nuts don't think there won't be consequences if they shoot someone. You may have heard about the concern for gun control that suddenly appeared when the Black Panthers started open carrying.

I can't say I buy this "if the left doesn't bring any guns, the right will start playing nice" idea.

[LordBaal]

I for one not taking sides on this particular discussion. Its pretty simple, if you go out with a gun, stick or whatever, or just the will, with the willing to killing someone else because it has a different political view, you need to take a hard long look at your life.

All those people played stupid games, and won stupid prices.

What got into your country so hard that you are fine with killing an otherwise innocent person just because is left, rigth, cop, rich, poor, white, hispanic, black or whatever the fuck?

Btw I was on the side of the unarmed jerks that got shot at while protesting. Never though of taking a gun of any kind to any protest before or after that. I'm not going to kill anyone to "prove" a point or that my way of thinking is superior.

[nenjin]

Most in America RN feel like they're in war for the soul of the country. The Left doesn't want to sit around anymore and watch cops brutalize minorities and everyone else with impunity, and the Right treats every thing they don't like as the frontline on the overall culture war of America. Rittenhouse went out there because he thought it was his duty to defend random people's property in another state against leftists rioters, and he was willing to kill to do that.

[LordBaal]

Rittenhouse went out there because he thought it was his duty to defend random people's property in another state against leftists rioters, and he was willing to kill to do that.

Every action on that phrase is so wrong... why looking so hard as to drive to another place for troubles? Why "protest" by looting...? Dear God...

I can understand standing up to defend your propiety, or family or a friend or neighbour. But some random place in another city? There is no logic there.

Also looting do not proves any point beyond you are now a criminal that vandalized and stolen someone else propriety and work.

[scriver]

The right is always going to be violent and bring guns. I've seen countless pictures of obese guys wearing camo and little flaps of body armor with rifles running around LARPing as militia. So until the laws change, I truly think the best thing to do is for the left to also bring guns, so the gun-nuts don't think there won't be consequences if they shoot someone. You may have heard about the concern for gun control that suddenly appeared when the Black Panthers started open carrying.

I can't say I buy this "if the left doesn't bring any guns, the right will start playing nice" idea.

You seem to have bought the "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" idea though

[None]

I mean, someone tried using a skateboard instead? He's dead now. People are motivated by hate to do violence against a people that the authorities have chosen not to protect or support. Peaceful protest was tried and met with teargas and rubber-coated steel bullets and the politically regressive came brandishing weapons. I'd prefer nobody came armed myself, but that chapter's already been written in blood.

How's that saying go- those who make peaceful protest impossible make violent revolution inevitable? The looting aspect of the riots/protests/how you'd like to call it is neither condoned nor surprising as a consequence. It is, unfortunately, a tool of protest, but not one that gets chosen first.

Of course it's relatively safer for the protestors if nobody had protested- police would have to beat their spouses instead of people angry that the police beat people, 'Antifa' would probably be some other bogeyman, white nationalists wouldn't be crossing lines to live out their hate fantasies, and the hammer of justice would continue to beat disproportionately on minorities and the marginalized. It's easier to do nothing, but that's how we got here, right?

[da_nang]

Prosecution rests, and the curfew charge has been dismissed. Either the prosecution hasn't even bothered or the rumors of the unlawfulness of the curfew order are true.

I haven't heard anything about the gun charge yet--I think the judge is still mulling over the legal text. I suspect any guilty verdict on that one will be appealed all the way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

So now the prosecution is looking at either a full acquittal or maybe a gun charge.

[nenjin]

I can't say I buy this "if the left doesn't bring any guns, the right will start playing nice" idea.

Neither do I, but one thing it WOULD do is make for far less ambiguous trials like this one, if the only person packing had been Rittenhouse. If this had been 20+ years ago, the question would have been asked "Why did he place himself in that situation?" But due to how politics in the US has devolved, the question now instead is "was it justifiable for him to shoot people?" The presence of other weapons turns him from "lone politically-motivated killer" to "guy trying to stay alive."

And I guess my point is.....the righteousness of the cause of protesting injustice has to, for it to have real power, be peaceful. That's what martyrdom looks like. That's what starts changing people's minds. Is when people believe so strongly in their cause, they're willing to face death for it. That isn't what rioting, or carrying around a gun because the other side does, looks like. Civil disobedience is  standing tall in the face of the most extreme opposition. Tiananmen Square, basically. I have a hard time seeing anything more than that (rioting, carrying weapons, vandalism, arson) as something noble. It's an excuse to give vent to their frustrations under the guise of justice, the same thing the right is ultimately doing.

What I can't say though, is that I'm from a demographic that has been so oppressed and brutalized by US society that I've been driven to violence or felt the need to defend myself.

Small stupid story. One of my bosses at work has a 19 year old son. During the protests that hit my town here, he went out into the streets as a field medic. Carrying water, bandages, disinfectant. Despite covid and the sheer insanity of being around that many people. Despite throngs of people from the right out there with the left shouting abuse. Despite being spit on. Despite being tackled by police. Despite almost getting his ass kicked multiple times. He was out there just helping people. That's heroism. That's what we need more of, along with evidence of when nobility like that is attacked and criminalized.

What we don't need is more fucking hopped up people carrying guns into volatile situations, of ANY POLITICAL STRIPE. But hey since literally no one trusts police anymore, why are we surprised? The idea that the police will equally protect everyone is so laughable now, people feel like if they want to live to see another year it's now their responsibility to ensure it. Combine that with an inability to just stay the fuck home and we've arrived where we are.

[delphonso]

There is a false equivalence going on here. Armed Leftists as a rule have not been instigators of murder (feel free to find evidence of the contrary, the number of leftist-motivated shootings are extremely low). The Right, however, has murdered protestors at a rate that is unsettling (though, frequently using vehicles rather than just guns). You can say that Rittenhouse and his victims are "equally responsible" for what happened, but keep in mind that armed Rightwingers go out seeking violence while armed Leftists are there to intimidate that into not happening.

It's not a good situation, but I don't think it's fair to victim blame, when they showed remarkable restraint, and the Left in general has been a better example of responsible use of the 2nd Amendment than the Right has been.

[nenjin]

I should walk it back a bit, you're right. On the other hand, we're broadly generalizing to groups. What demo do the rioters belong to? Arson and looting may not be as bad as murder, but it's violence against a community and hurts innocent people. The more militant on the Left say "yep, that's the price unchecked injustice charges." Is that not also just a form of justification, the same as the Right's "if you don't want to get shot, don't be present at a riot" attitude to protest? Do we actually know that all of "the Left" only brings weapons as a deterrent to violence? Averages dictate a lot of things, but not specifics, and all it takes is one specific example to create a disproportionately impactful event. My biases would agree with your statement that the Left does shit like this far less often, and I'm not going to go look for examples. But that doesn't mean I give the Left a pass either.

It's honestly the sheer absurdity of people in the middle of active civil unrest, both carrying guns, trying to argue someone else was in the wrong, that pushes me toward that kind of equivalency. WTF did people think would happen when two opposing sides came bearing guns? How did that gun deterrent ultimately work out?

Rittenhouse should be rotting in jail as a dangerous human with extremely dangerous judgment, who went looking for trouble and found it. Unfortunately our batshit insane conceptualization of "freedom" means his actions won't be seen for the premeditation they so clearly have. Even if he goes to jail for this, I don't think it should stop there. Other people carrying weapons for their own self-defense contributed to escalating the situation. I've had guns pointed at me. It's an insanely stressful situation where life altering choices get made in seconds. I'm honestly surprised he didn't gun down more people once people (rightly, wrongly, whatever) attacked him. Maybe by then it dawned on him what a monumentally bad fucking decision he made coming there. If that's true for him I think it's equally true for the others there.

[delphonso]

I should walk it back a bit, you're right. On the other hand, we're broadly generalizing to groups.

That's true, but I will continue to do so in the following.

The more militant on the Left say "yep, that's the price unchecked injustice charges." Is that not also just a form of justification, the same as the Right's "if you don't want to get shot, don't be present at a riot" attitude to protest?

This is another false equivalence - they're both justifications, but one is of property damage and the other is of murder.

Do we actually know that all of "the Left" only brings weapons as a deterrent to violence? Averages dictate a lot of things, but not specifics, and all it takes is one specific example to create a disproportionately impactful event.
[...] How did that gun deterrent ultimately work out?

This is fair as well, though - I'll point out that it /has/ worked in the past, speaking generally. Particularly against Proud Boys, who began to think twice about walking up and punching people in the back of the head during protests.

I believe the generalization is significant to this case, because clearly this case represents a lot more than just Rittenhouse shooting people down in the street - it is unfortunately a representation of how the Right is allowed to actually kill Leftists in the US, and not see major consequences. They have the support of the police, as we saw with Rittenhouse, and have the support of the government in general, as we saw with Trump's dog-whistles. The Left is unprotected at this time, as Democrats once again try to appeal to the Right, rather than protecting the Left. The generalizations are significant because this case is likely to get generalized effects.
Rittenhouse walks free, that's free shooting on any armed Leftists.
Rittenhouse is locked up and the victims are also considered guilty, that's saying property damage is equal to or less than murder - encouraging more shootings on Leftists.
Rittenhouse is locked up and the victims are painted as...well, victims - that'll at least keep the current status quo.

[nenjin]

This is another false equivalence - they're both justifications, but one is of property damage and the other is of murder.

Implying that looting and arson can't result in murder? There's always this desire to say who is worse at the end of the day. How about this instead: everyone is guilty for what they've done. Let's not excuse anything, from anyone. Let's just have justice, across the board.

Particularly against Proud Boys, who began to think twice about walking up and punching people in the back of the head during protests.

Yeah, being unarmed when someone else is tends to have that effect. America has the solution to that "problem" though.

Rittenhouse is locked up and the victims are also considered guilty, that's saying property damage is equal to or less than murder - encouraging more shootings on Leftists.

The charge for property destruction and perhaps carrying and brandishing an unlicensed firearm should be? much less than murder. Each are guilty for what _they've done_. If someone wants to translate that into equivalency, then they're the ones doing it falsely.

Rittenhouse is locked up and the victims are painted as...well, victims - that'll at least keep the current status quo.

Nothing maintains the status quo anymore, that's the nature of change. Everything moves the needle while we're in this place. Let me give you the conservative take on Rittenhouse in jail and no one else:

"What, you mean we're supposed to fuckin' stand around while people loot our businesses and [insert ever more extreme shit here.] Fuck that shit, the next sumbitch that even looks at my shit like he's thinking about touching it is gonna eat lead. Can't fuckin trust government to do the right thing, they didn't do right by Kyle Rittenhouse when all those leftists attacked him and he's the one that went to jail."

I don't even need to point out all the problems in that logic. I want to say I'm exaggerating for effect, but I've heard shit like this too many times come out of people's mouths in person. I think it's a pretty accurate take.

My desire for justice for all isn't rooted in sympathy for conservative America. I'm just sick of them being handed ammunition. To my mind, that requires some sacrifice from the rest of the sane public, even though none of us actually want to do that. For the Right to be fully in the wrong, the Left has to be unimpeachable. That means upholding laws because, let's be real, looting and arson are not ok. Packing heat while looting and burning is not ok. (That's just straight criminality at that point, doesn't matter why you say you're there. If looks like a dog, barks like a dog and can bite like a dog, then it's a fucking dog. Anyone that tries to tell you looting and arson is part of social justice already has a flimsy grasp of ethics to begin with.)

The Left has to be unimpeachable because that makes what the Right does look that more insane, and that more unreasonable and that more dangerous. You wanna know why the Capitol riots didn't come off well for Conservatives? Because only one person died. If 30 or 40 people had gotten blown away there, the narrative around it would be much, much different today. Restraint is what the Left needs to do. The Right is gonna do what they're gonna do, and the more black and white the atrocity, then maybe one fucking day, America as a consensus will become so disgusted by it and its shadowy offshoots of casual racism, entertaining terrible discourse for the sake of politeness, etc.... that we'll rightly condemn this shit and the true believers can slither back into their earthen warrens and wait for their next chance to destroy democracy.

To my mind that means not escalating to their level. And that will require some restraint, a lot of bravery, sacrifice and maybe even martyrdom.

You see shit like this in little ways, little awful Twitter and Ticktok moments, Facebook posts. Some jackass flies off the handle over some idiotic political opinion and gets physically carried out of a store or arrested. I remember one where a dude in Canada punched a 15 year old Amusement Park ride attendant because he asked him to put on a mask. Dude in turn got jumped by about 8 people and restrained, while the rest of the crowd stood by and cheered as the police arrived and arrested him. Now...what if the kid had actually provoked him by insulting him or his politics or his intelligence or whatever? Well, he still would have gotten punched. But his assailant would also have justification to confuse and muddle the core issue that he just assaulted a teenager for _no reason_.

Sometimes that's what you have to do so show how awful something is, is let it happen so there can be no debate. That's why Tiananmen Square is called a massacre and not a battle.

[delphonso]

Implying that looting and arson can't result in murder? There's always this desire to say who is worse at the end of the day. How about this instead: everyone is guilty for what they've done. Let's not excuse anything, from anyone. Let's just have justice, across the board.

Sorry for getting dug into semantics and escalating to "the greater good" sort of debate. You're clearly right on this point.

Yeah, being unarmed when someone else is tends to have that effect. America has the solution to that "problem" though.

Don't misunderstand this - the Proud Boys show up strapped, which is why leftists began doing the same.

The Left has to be unimpeachable because that makes what the Right does look that more insane, and that more unreasonable and that more dangerous.
[...]
To my mind that means not escalating to their level. And that will require some restraint, a lot of bravery, sacrifice and maybe even martyrdom.

I would say, without any institutional backing, this will just be pointless self-sacrifice (as it has been many times already). Dems aren't out there to help the Left. You may get support in the moment, but I don't know if that will effect actual change in the US.