Kyle Rittenhouse criticized Donald Trump. So conservatives said he's transgender.
They posted graphics calling him a "biological female" before he caved. Rittenhouse backtracked his criticism not even 12 hours after the online hate from his fellow conservatives started.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Those that are most heavily armed don’t seem very polite, but a lot of people get shot.
Remember, we're talking about intent here. Whether you believe it's true has zero bearing, it's whether he may.
You don’t send security to an event without the intent of using it if needed.
Well, sure. But that's like when I put on my seatbelt when I get in the car: I'm not planning to crash into someone just taking the necessary precautions. I know it will be necessary as time approaches infinity, but this is a far cry from saying I intend to get into an accident because I put my seatbelt on, which is effectively what we're talking about.
If your argument is that he's guilty because he knew he might have to use a gun to protect himself, rather than going with the intent of actually shooting someone, then I disagree that this even remotely makes him guilty of a crime, as this would mean I'm guilty of intending to cause an accident because I put my seatbelt.
Remember, we're talking about intent here. Whether you believe it's true has zero bearing, it's whether he may.
People believe vaccines cause Autism. When they don't vaccinate their children I'm going to blame them for the death regardless of whatever stupid belief led them to think their children were invincible. They are still at fault despite the stupid crap they believe.
that's like when I put on my seatbelt when I get in the car: I'm not planning to crash into someone just taking the necessary precautions
Oh, does Rittenhouse bring his gun like that every time he leaves the house? Or is this more like adding more safety features to your vehicle (air bags, better bumpers, roll cage etc) before going somewhere you knew beforehand people were driving on the wrong side of the road, and the only reason you're going there is to enforce traffic laws?
Rittenhouse is not a cop. He went there to be a vigilante. If he didn't want to use the gun then he's a fucking idiot, and being ignorant is no defence.
People believe vaccines cause Autism. When they don’t vaccinate their children I’m going to blame them for the death regardless of whatever stupid belief led them to think their children were invincible.
Okay, but your argument is that he intended to shoot someone, I think you understand that, even if they are stupid, they didn't intend to kill their child. Just like what was probably to he case with Rittenhouse, he thought he was doing the right thing, he's just an idiot. Unfortunately, being an idiot is not a crime. Intending to kill or hurt someone is, which is what we are talking about.
Ignorance and stupidity is not a defense. It doesn't matter if someone believes there is a child trafficking ring in the basement of a pizza place, and they are "doing the right thing" by going in there with a gun insisting on being shown the basement. It's still a crime.
In this example, you are saying it doesn't matter if they thought they were doing the right thing because a crime was committed anyway. I absolutely agree with you here.
However, your initial position was that Rittenhouse committed a crime because he intended to shoot someone. If your claim is now that he ignorantly broke a law, I would say "okay which one?" and also inquire as to what happened to your initial position. Is this an admission you realize that he may not have gone there with the intent to shoot someone?
"responding to my arguments means you have given up your position."
Not really, no. He went there with the intent to shoot someone. You are correct that we do not have a mind reading machine so it cannot be 100% proven, that doesn't make it not true. I further expanded that even if someone were to accept your argument that he didn't that doesn't mean he's innocent of his actions. My point was either way he's a murderer.
If your claim is now that he ignorantly broke a law, I would say "okay which one?"
Vigilantism. "The laws / legal system are insufficient" is not a defense of immoral, dangerous, or damaging behaviour.
You are correct that we do not have a mind reading machine so it cannot be 100% proven, that doesn’t make it not true.
I've made it pretty clear that Im not certain of his state of mind, by saying he only probably didn't go with an intent to shoot people. Maybe that is even unfair, but I tend to think people are more likely to be motivated stupidity rather than motivated by malice.
You seem to be criticizing your own position here because you are the one defending your claim that you know what his state of mind was, and appear to be assuming, because I disagree with you, that I must be taking the exact opposite position and assuming that I know he had no intent to shoot people.
further expanded that even if someone were to accept your argument that he didn’t that doesn’t mean he’s innocent of his actions.
Sure, and I followed this up with some more questions as to what was the crime. It would have also gone a long way to ease the debate if you had said you were no longer talking about intent (especially because you kept repeatedly saying that intent did not matter) and had moved on to a new way to try and claim you know he was guilty.
Vigilantism. “The laws / legal system are insufficient” is not a defense of immoral, dangerous, or damaging behaviour.
Which law exactly? Why wasn't he charged with it? If a shop owner stood there with a gun to protect their own property, is that illegal vigilantism? What if it is the shop owner and their family? Or friend? I'm curious to hear this line of reasoning, but it's a bit vague for me to really sink my teeth into.
Something about you quoting me saying "The laws / legal system are insufficient" and responding with "Which law exactly?" Makes me question your sincerity or how much you're listening to what I'm saying.
What Rittenhouse was doing should be clearly covered by vigilantism. If he wasn't charged with it then the laws are insufficient.
Which law exactly?
The one that apparently doesn't exist saying "you are not a cop and are not allowed to use deadly force to protect someone else's property."
if he wasn’t charged with it then the laws are insufficient.
I believe we would find common ground here. But this is one of political beliefs rather than an objective analysis of the law and whether he broke it that night in such a way that he should be found guilty of murder.
And remember this is where this all comes from, me pointing out that it's weird to claim that it makes no sense that people would think he's not guilty of a crime. You even seem to be relenting a bit and admitting that maybe he didn't break a law, but saying there should be a law against it.
On that last point, I do agree. This should not be legal to do, and he's an idiot for doing it.
You even seem to be relenting a bit and admitting that maybe he didn't break a law, but saying there should be a law against it.
Maybe you're having discussions with other people and confusing me with someone else. I remind you that my first reply to you was:
I can acknowledge the court case, not disagree with the decision, and still call Rittenhouse a murderer
The definition of murder does require "being found guilty of the crime of murder in the place where it happened."
For example: historically it was legal to kill minorities. Those that did were still murderers even if it was "legal" at the time.
I don't care that Rittenhouse was found "not guilty", he's still a murderer. I'm not saying the trial was wrong, I'm saying Rittenhouse was wrong and the existing laws are insufficient.