Rather than advocating for the ethical bearing of arms, gun culture is enabling permissive, reckless, and ill-considered behavior that's placing people in serious lethal and legal jeopardy.
It's not entirely surprising, but I keep seeing people getting tripped up in arguing the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario. They're straining at nats and entirely missing my point. My point is that it is not difficult to foresee intersecting claims of self-defense and that part of ethically carrying a firearm is to not provoke others into believing they should fear for themselves.
Moving beyond the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario, my point is that open carry, patrol carry, low ready, militant behavior and dress, and a tactical presence can be, in and of themselves, provocative acts especially in volatile situations. The people who are confronted by such circumstances have a right to self-defense as well, and, as I point out, self-defense requires only a reasonable belief that someone's life is in danger, which is not a difficult burden to meet.
I'm not arguing the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario, I'm arguing that the pro-gun community failed Rittenhouse by engendering a culture that lacks ethical consideration and led to an untrained seventeen-year-old inserting himself into a situation that got people killed, could have gotten himself killed, and led to a lengthy legal process that could have resulted in serious criminal consequences.
I guess I just think we should have this conversation now before another young man, responding to all the praise being heaped on Rittenhouse, inserts himself into a volatile situation, with a gun, that he neither has the training nor maturity to properly handle and ends up with a prison sentence or gets himself killed.
If the community had bound together to stop the violence in the streets in the first place there would not be a reason to open carry or to have to protect yourself. There in, is the failure of our society. In Europe, specifically in Hungary, the violence is stopped before it comes to a point where people have to consider protecting themselves with firearms. It starts with a society's mental state. There is our sickness we need to change our way of thinking about each other. I remember a better society where we all helped each other and looked after our families and our old ones. We didn't open carry back then.
I haven’t thought much about open carry. It’s legal in VA where I’m from but I don’t own a gun (yet). Are you against open carry in general?
Also (if you are), what are your thoughts on openly displaying firearms while riding in a vehicle? I think that can be rude, but a vehicle is treated the same as a house under castle doctrine I believe so laws against open carry don’t apply.
It does bug me when Republican politicians and others fetishize firearms with photos on social media of ridiculous poses etc. but unlike the rest of my family I otherwise like guns and I plan to buy one when I can afford to.
"Grosskreutz himself testified that he drew his pistol because he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter. That belief itself legally justifies the use of force in self-defense."
But it's not, especially under Wisconsin law that demands running away until until retreat isn't possible. That's why Rittenhouse's defense worked under the law. His attorneys proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was trapped and unable to continue to retreat from Rosenbaum. Since he was on his back under the other two attacks, retreat wasn't possible in the seconds both occurred in.
Neither Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz nor Huber were under direct threat by Rittenhouse nor was anyone else.
Rittenhouse would have been in much more trouble if he had been concealed carry because of his age. Also assuming the experienced rioters and looters in that crowd wouldn't have sussed out that he was carrying is naïve IMO. Rosenbaum, Ziminsky and others wanted Rittenhouse's gun and thought he was vulnerable and weak enough to take it from him. There were other instances of them making moves on others' guns and the reporter who tried to help Rosenbaum testified that Rosenbaum had tried to get Rittenhouse's gun previously, while he was interviewing him.
IMO the Ziminskys and Rosenbaum set up an ambush by setting fire to the vehicle and waiting for Rittenhouse to walk up and try to put it out. Ziminsky took his own gun out of his pocket and, while the video doesn't clearly show him pointing it at Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse said he did and you can clearly hear him say "Friendly friendly friendly" on the videos.
So, no, the others didn't see Rittenhouse as a threat, just the opposite.
Now lets get back to agreeing with each other. :-)
Can't agree with you here: " the legal result would probably have been the same" Rosenbaum was definitely pursuing Rittenhouse and the other two actually impeded him from turning himself in to the police. None of them were defending themselves.
They might have CLAIMED self defense but it would never have washed for a jury.
It's not entirely surprising, but I keep seeing people getting tripped up in arguing the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario. They're straining at nats and entirely missing my point. My point is that it is not difficult to foresee intersecting claims of self-defense and that part of ethically carrying a firearm is to not provoke others into believing they should fear for themselves.
Moving beyond the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario, my point is that open carry, patrol carry, low ready, militant behavior and dress, and a tactical presence can be, in and of themselves, provocative acts especially in volatile situations. The people who are confronted by such circumstances have a right to self-defense as well, and, as I point out, self-defense requires only a reasonable belief that someone's life is in danger, which is not a difficult burden to meet.
I'm not arguing the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario, I'm arguing that the pro-gun community failed Rittenhouse by engendering a culture that lacks ethical consideration and led to an untrained seventeen-year-old inserting himself into a situation that got people killed, could have gotten himself killed, and led to a lengthy legal process that could have resulted in serious criminal consequences.
I guess I just think we should have this conversation now before another young man, responding to all the praise being heaped on Rittenhouse, inserts himself into a volatile situation, with a gun, that he neither has the training nor maturity to properly handle and ends up with a prison sentence or gets himself killed.
About as well as I’ve heard this articulated.
If the community had bound together to stop the violence in the streets in the first place there would not be a reason to open carry or to have to protect yourself. There in, is the failure of our society. In Europe, specifically in Hungary, the violence is stopped before it comes to a point where people have to consider protecting themselves with firearms. It starts with a society's mental state. There is our sickness we need to change our way of thinking about each other. I remember a better society where we all helped each other and looked after our families and our old ones. We didn't open carry back then.
Sounds like David French’s argument.
I haven’t thought much about open carry. It’s legal in VA where I’m from but I don’t own a gun (yet). Are you against open carry in general?
Also (if you are), what are your thoughts on openly displaying firearms while riding in a vehicle? I think that can be rude, but a vehicle is treated the same as a house under castle doctrine I believe so laws against open carry don’t apply.
It does bug me when Republican politicians and others fetishize firearms with photos on social media of ridiculous poses etc. but unlike the rest of my family I otherwise like guns and I plan to buy one when I can afford to.
"Grosskreutz himself testified that he drew his pistol because he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter. That belief itself legally justifies the use of force in self-defense."
But it's not, especially under Wisconsin law that demands running away until until retreat isn't possible. That's why Rittenhouse's defense worked under the law. His attorneys proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was trapped and unable to continue to retreat from Rosenbaum. Since he was on his back under the other two attacks, retreat wasn't possible in the seconds both occurred in.
Neither Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz nor Huber were under direct threat by Rittenhouse nor was anyone else.
Rittenhouse would have been in much more trouble if he had been concealed carry because of his age. Also assuming the experienced rioters and looters in that crowd wouldn't have sussed out that he was carrying is naïve IMO. Rosenbaum, Ziminsky and others wanted Rittenhouse's gun and thought he was vulnerable and weak enough to take it from him. There were other instances of them making moves on others' guns and the reporter who tried to help Rosenbaum testified that Rosenbaum had tried to get Rittenhouse's gun previously, while he was interviewing him.
IMO the Ziminskys and Rosenbaum set up an ambush by setting fire to the vehicle and waiting for Rittenhouse to walk up and try to put it out. Ziminsky took his own gun out of his pocket and, while the video doesn't clearly show him pointing it at Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse said he did and you can clearly hear him say "Friendly friendly friendly" on the videos.
So, no, the others didn't see Rittenhouse as a threat, just the opposite.
Now lets get back to agreeing with each other. :-)
Can't agree with you here: " the legal result would probably have been the same" Rosenbaum was definitely pursuing Rittenhouse and the other two actually impeded him from turning himself in to the police. None of them were defending themselves.
They might have CLAIMED self defense but it would never have washed for a jury.
I agree whole heartedly withbwhst you are say but do you think Rittenhouse should have stood down and not pretected himself or his families property?