The Kyle Rittenhouse verdict deforms natural law

[Mercedes]

33 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well I'll confess that I am not intimately familiar with the facts of this case, and there seems to be some level of ambiguity as to what actually occurred, which was proper for the jury to resolve.

I'd say this, if you have a large public demonstration, it is legitimate to put restrictions on the presence of firearms at the demonstration. I think it's legitimate for police to arrest people who openly display firearms at a large public demonstration, because the display of firearms can be a form of intimidation, or could instigate violence, depending on the circumstances.

On the other hand, we have situations where public demonstrations impact people who would otherwise want no part of it. Let's say you are a small business owner. You make your living from the small market or corner-store that you own, and folks in your city who are riled up about the George Floyd killing are going to stage a protest, and march right down the street where your store is. I think we have seen this situation with numerous protests, where totally innocent store-owners have their stores burned to the ground or looted, etc. Does the owner of that store have a right to stand in front of his store with a weapon and defend what he has worked his whole life to achieve? I'd say yes. He should be able to defend his property, as long as he is not going out of his way to instigate violence.

Now, as far as the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, I don't know the facts well enough to say which situation above his actions were closest to. I think that was the job of the jury, and after hearing the facts they thought it was closer to the second scenario than the first.

Now, you do have a valid point about the security guards. Yeah, if instead of having a random untrained 17 year old in front of your store, you had a trained security guard wearing a uniform, I think you are correct that the ultimate chaos that resulted would have been significantly less likely. But here I think the question is, does this justify a complete ban on a private right of self-defense? I'd say no. I mean, a lot of stores are simply not going to be able to afford to pay full time-security guards. If they don't have them on staff full-time, then they are going to need to rush and (hopefully) find short-term security guards for each emergency situation that arises. I don't know if that's too realistic in many situations. It's like George Floyd gets killed the riot is happening within the next couple hours. You don't always know when things are going to spark. You may not have time to plan and need to get out there with a gun and defend your property.

Also, of course, individual citizens will often have a need to carry a weapon for their own personal safety. The single mother who works late in a dangerous neighborhood, for example. It's not like she can hire an armed bodyguard to escort her home. She needs to keep a gun in her purse.

You should read what you can about the incident and then make an assessment.  The Original Post attacks the credibility of the Black Catholic site but there are facts that warrant further research.

Rittenhouse was held in a juvenile facility in Illinois until he was extradited to Wisconsin on October 30, 2020. He was released from detention on November 20, after posting $2 million bail. On January 22, 2021, the conditions of Rittenhouse's release were changed so that he could not consume alcohol, have access to firearms, or associate with persons or groups known to be a threat to others based on race or religion. These changes were made after Rittenhouse was seen on January 5 at a bar with his mother in Mt. Pleasant, Wisconsin, drinking beers and posing for pictures alongside five men who sang "Proud of Your Boy", a song used by members of the far-right Proud Boys political organization. In one photo with two of them, Rittenhouse flashed an "OK" sign, a hand gesture frequently used by white supremacists. On February 11, judge Schroeder denied a request by prosecutors for a $200,000 increase in Rittenhouse's bond, after Rittenhouse failed to file an address change within 48 hours of moving, stating that people out on bail often fail to update their address. Rittenhouse's attorney said that Rittenhouse had been staying at an undisclosed address out of concern for his safety.

Pretrial rulings

At a hearing on September 17, 2021, judge Bruce Schroeder denied prosecutors' requests to admit as evidence Rittenhouse's outing with Proud Boys members and a previous fight he was involved in, finding that the incidents were too dissimilar to be used as evidence of Rittenhouse's mindset during the shootings. On October 25, Schroeder defined what testimony would or would not be admissible by both the defense and the prosecution. Schroeder ordered that the men shot by Rittenhouse cannot be referred to as victims but can be described as arsonists or looters if the defense is able to establish evidence they were engaged in those activities that night. Legal experts weighed in on the decision saying that the term "victim" can appear prejudicial in a court of law, heavily influencing a jury by presupposing which people have been wronged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting

 

 

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, Mercedes said:

You should read what you can about the incident and then make an assessment.  The Original Post attacks the credibility of the Black Catholic site but there are facts that warrant further research.

Rittenhouse was held in a juvenile facility in Illinois until he was extradited to Wisconsin on October 30, 2020. He was released from detention on November 20, after posting $2 million bail. On January 22, 2021, the conditions of Rittenhouse's release were changed so that he could not consume alcohol, have access to firearms, or associate with persons or groups known to be a threat to others based on race or religion. These changes were made after Rittenhouse was seen on January 5 at a bar with his mother in Mt. Pleasant, Wisconsin, drinking beers and posing for pictures alongside five men who sang "Proud of Your Boy", a song used by members of the far-right Proud Boys political organization. In one photo with two of them, Rittenhouse flashed an "OK" sign, a hand gesture frequently used by white supremacists. On February 11, judge Schroeder denied a request by prosecutors for a $200,000 increase in Rittenhouse's bond, after Rittenhouse failed to file an address change within 48 hours of moving, stating that people out on bail often fail to update their address. Rittenhouse's attorney said that Rittenhouse had been staying at an undisclosed address out of concern for his safety.

Pretrial rulings

At a hearing on September 17, 2021, judge Bruce Schroeder denied prosecutors' requests to admit as evidence Rittenhouse's outing with Proud Boys members and a previous fight he was involved in, finding that the incidents were too dissimilar to be used as evidence of Rittenhouse's mindset during the shootings. On October 25, Schroeder defined what testimony would or would not be admissible by both the defense and the prosecution. Schroeder ordered that the men shot by Rittenhouse cannot be referred to as victims but can be described as arsonists or looters if the defense is able to establish evidence they were engaged in those activities that night. Legal experts weighed in on the decision saying that the term "victim" can appear prejudicial in a court of law, heavily influencing a jury by presupposing which people have been wronged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting

I had trouble taking that article seriously. For one, the author makes blanket statements and offers no factual support for them whatsoever. It's almost like folks are to accept his version of events as the gospel and accept it as a matter of faith. Secondly the author strongly implies that anyone who concludes that the jury verdict could have been correct is a tool of white supremacy - but that's plainly ridiculous, to me at least. There are numerous black people who have no problem with that verdict whatsoever.

[Vernon]

3 hours ago, Mercedes said:

Even police at the trial testified that they were responding to an 'active shooter' incident.  When a 17 year old kid with a big gun is shooting people who are trying to stop him... isn't that insane?  What is your version Vernon?

Check this video out please:

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-kyle-rittenhouse-facts-are-different-than-what-we-were-told

Quote

in one photo with two of them, Rittenhouse flashed an "OK" sign, a hand gesture frequently used by white supremacists.

Here's a picture of my favorite white supremacist:

[KnightofChrist]

The idea that the OK gesture is now a symbol of white supremacy is nuttier than squirrel poo. Frogs too, oh and Star Wars: The Last Jedi did poorly because Russian bots.

[Mercedes]

24 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The idea that the OK gesture is now a symbol of white supremacy is nuttier than squirrel poo. Frogs too, oh and Star Wars: The Last Jedi did poorly because Russian bots.

Brainless morons didn't get your message then.  The Aussie Brenton Tarrant who went over to New Zealand and shot dead 49 people at and around a mosque because as a white supremacist, he hated Muslims... he flashed the sign to his brain dead internet friends during his court trial.

https://meaww.com/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-white-power-ok-sign-brenton-tarrant-flashes-court

[KnightofChrist]

Just now, Mercedes said:

Brainless morons didn't get your message then.  The Aussie Brenton Tarrant who went over to New Zealand and shot dead 49 people at and around a mosque because as a white supremacist, he hated Muslims... he flashed the sign to his brain dead internet friends during his court trial.

https://meaww.com/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-white-power-ok-sign-brenton-tarrant-flashes-court

Oh wow, wow, that means only white supremacists use the ok gesture now. Or that those that do probably are, wow. Basic logic being thrown down here, nothing but sound thinking. Did he wave or wink too? Was he wearing anything? If so that's a symbol of white supremacy now. 

 As for him personally I have my own hand gesture.

The middle finger for those that don't get it 

[Mercedes]

47 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Oh wow, wow, that means only white supremacists use the ok gesture now. Or that those that do probably are, wow. Basic logic being thrown down here, nothing but sound thinking. Did he wave or wink too? Was he wearing anything? If so that's a symbol of white supremacy now. 

 As for him personally I have my own hand gesture.

The middle finger for those that don't get it 

I mean if you want to remain ignorant to the gesture inverted being adopted as a white supremacy symbol, that's fine.  But that's how he used it in front of the media.

[KnightofChrist]

Just now, Mercedes said:

I mean if you want to remain ignorant to the gesture inverted being adopted as a white supremacy symbol, that's fine.  But that's how he used it in front of the media.

The white supremacists use the gesture but don't own the gesture. It isn't theirs, they can't adopt it.

It isn't something we can assume is evidence of white supremacy, without actual evidence of white supremacy. If one sees another making a OK gesture and assumes white supremacist, that's foolish.

If they "adopt" the peace gesture will you see that as evidence of white supremacy too? How dumb does this get?

 

[little2add]

Kyle's being objectified by the left and the right.  The left has turned him into a demon, and some on the right are raising him up on a pedestal. 

 

[Peace]

7 hours ago, Mercedes said:

I mean if you want to remain ignorant to the gesture inverted being adopted as a white supremacy symbol, that's fine.  But that's how he used it in front of the media.

Well it definitely could be the case that he used the symbol as a sign of white supremacy, in solidarity with others who have done that. It's not unreasonable to suspect that.

But from a proof perspective I think its difficult to conclude that was his intention, without other corroborating evidence, since the "OK" sign is generally used to indicate all sorts of things.

You know, if you had a photo of him wearing a KKK hood while making the OK sign. Or a photo of him holding a noose while making the sign, it would be a lot safer to conclude that he was using it as a white supremacist signal. Its tough to conclude that he had a racist intention, merely by the use of the symbol itself, without something more.

Personally I'd guess that the whole "I'm just in town to protect a business and help people" jazz was a bunch of BS. He's probably down there because he is ideologically against the protests. He's young. He's stupid. Probably he got mixed-up with some right-wingers and he views "protecting" the business as a form of silent-protest against the BLM demonstrations or what have you.

But its tough to prove that he came down there with the specific intention of interfering with the protests, or as an act of defiance against the protests, just based on general suspicion (and he does look suspect to me at least). I think we need specific testimony or statements indicating his intent, to prove it from a legal perspective. Was there anything like that? I mean, do they have him on tape making negative statements about the protests, or indicating that he went down there with the specific purpose to interfere with them? If there is evidence like that, I think it helps prove the case against him.

[rachael]

On 11/21/2021 at 8:46 PM, Vernon said:

I'm not questioning why that article was linked to. I just am wondering what's up with the Black Catholic magazine and why they seem so much like white liberals.

What's wrong with white liberals? Stop making it political, and look at the facts of the case.

19 hours ago, Vernon said:

Check this video out please:

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-kyle-rittenhouse-facts-are-different-than-what-we-were-told

Here's a picture of my favorite white supremacist:

And Fox News isn't exactly...a non-biased news source.

22 hours ago, Peace said:

I had trouble taking that article seriously. For one, the author makes blanket statements and offers no factual support for them whatsoever. It's almost like folks are to accept his version of events as the gospel and accept it as a matter of faith. Secondly the author strongly implies that anyone who concludes that the jury verdict could have been correct is a tool of white supremacy - but that's plainly ridiculous, to me at least. There are numerous black people who have no problem with that verdict whatsoever.

Yep, and I say that as someone who clearly disagrees with the verdict.

Edited November 23, 2021 by rachael

[rachael]

On 11/21/2021 at 8:55 PM, KnightofChrist said:

Meanwhile, a African American woman goes missing and they don't care so much. 

It's as if they only really care about white people. 

You make a great point here, but this is with all media in general, not just 'right' or 'left' media.

Edited November 24, 2021 by rachael

[KnightofChrist]

42 minutes ago, rachael said:

You make a great point here, but this is with all media in general, not just 'right' or 'left' media.

Yes. Agreed. They're the first ones to trumpet equality, but don't really practice it to well. 

[Didacus]

On 11/21/2021 at 5:18 PM, Vernon said:

This article was linked to in the front page of Phatmass:

https://www.blackcatholicmessenger.com/rittenhouse-verdict-natural-law/

I don't see any difference between the author and of the haters in the liberal leftwing media who see racism behind every tree. He presumes "white supremacy" without even making a case for it.

The article does pose a perspective I did not previously encounter. 

There are spme very interesting take aways in so far as evolution of law and its content.

It would seem that regardless of actions the author would find the defendant guilty and gives only partial context to the case at hand.  For that reason the opinion expressed is at its best only incomplete and would seem to be squarely biased.

I would not, based on the content of the article, give much weight (or any) to the conclusions of the article.

I would agree that ringing racism as done in the article is nothing more than a tired old refrain - I wouldnt bother entering in a discussion with the author (I would even wager than anyone who would disagree with the author would in turn be accused of racism on the onset, making any discussion moot is without worth).

On 11/21/2021 at 7:07 PM, rachael said:

[Snip]

Kyle Rittenhouse performing his own form of vigilante justice against others is not 'natural law.' Kyle came from elsewhere with a semi-automatic rifle to protect a dealership - not his property. What do semi-automatic rifles do to a human body? Kill. Kyle Rittenhouse didn't really need to be in the area, much less armed, in the first place. 

[Snip]

Not sure about that...

If my neighbor is being attacked - is it my business to intervene and help defemd him? Or just bare witness come hell or high water?

If a man comes at me with a bat - I would have no issue with reaching for a gun.  If yhe attackwr is dimb enough to match his bat to my gun - that's his own stupidity, not mine.

Kyle was attacked with people who were armed were they not? A testimony admitted a pointing a gun to Kyle prior to Kyle using force?

Now if the attacker trying to wrestle the gun from Kyle did not have a gun themselves - then them guys were stupid in themselves.  If I don't like my neighbor flashing a gun in front of my kids, I'll pose a complaint or report him.  I wouldn't charge him and try to take the gun from him.  If I did, my neighbor would be fully justified in shooting me (and spare this world my stupidity, as Tolkien would say).

[Vernon]

This was retweeted from the co-founder of Black Catholic Messenger. I think there is something wrong with this picture.

https://twitter.com/ArtValley818_/status/1463260380084375556/photo/1

 

Can images be uploaded from our own files?

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by Vernon