Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

He might have been trying to get off the X and out of the line of fire before deploying his pistol, but he moved the wrong way and Rittenhouse was quicker. Fun gunfight tip: action will usually beat reaction, but if you're trying to get out of the way of a gun pointed at you, move to the shooter's outside, so to the right of a right handed shooter or the left of a lefty, as it's more difficult to track that way than across your own body with a weapon, and blade your body so as to present a narrower target to the shooter.

He wasn't legally allowed to carry the gun, so he may have been trying to escape prosecution himself.

Several pages ago, someone asked a question that involved how different weapon carries might be perceived, and I answered why they are perceived differently by ME.

I'm not going to pretend it isn't anything but emotional and instinctive. Perception doesn't have to be based in fact to be real and valid. Different individuals are entitled to their instinctive, emotional reactions.

I realize my reaction comes from my own background and beliefs, but based on what I see and hear from friends all over the country, my reaction isn't unique to me or this geography at all. Geography may influence reaction, but it doesn't determine it. There has been plenty to suggest that there were people in Kenosha that night who reacted the way I would have, although my reason for posting it was to answer a specific question, not to get into the Kenosha situation specifically.

As for armed cops, in my younger days they tended to interact with me like suitors more than anything else; even at traffic stops. At this age, knowing my own issues with hearing, comprehension and reaction speed; and having seen some of the video published this past decade or so; I would rather not encounter an armed police officer, either, and hope I am never, ever in a contentious, confusing situation with one trying to give me instructions. Traffic stops I oddly still feel OK about, despite what statistics show, but I guess that is simply because I've had too much practice with them (any practice is too much, right?).

I specifically excluded Rosenbaum, and did not suggest that either of the later men used Rittenhouse's gun to shoot him. I should have specified that in my mind the hypothetical placed them into the same scenario believing Rittenhouse was an active shooter, using their own weapons. Rightly or wrongly, I wasn't envisioning Rittenhouse "running away" at the time of a shooting or someone shooting him the back; I was envisioning a scuffle following their attempts to physically stop him, and a shooting occurring during that scuffle, just as it had with Rittenhouse doing the shooting. That is how I understood the question, rightly or wrongly.

They are, but it doesn't make them valid, as in true to reality. My mother, for example, was initially quite concerned when I started carrying a gun, the movies had given her all sorts of ideas about them going off unexpectedly when dropped or jostled, and she literally acted as though I had some sort of unstable explosive device strapped to my waistband, until I took one apart and showed her the multiple redundant safety devices and explained how they worked, along with the legal reality that a gun maker who sold guns that randomly discharged would not be in business very long. So, her perception might have been valid insofar as it was how she felt, but it was invalid in that it was based in fiction and not a legitimate concern, like a lot of things that might appear dangerous until you learn about them.

I don't know if we can solve this communication hurdle, but I'm going to give it a shot. I honestly don't know what I do that makes you feel I am patronizing you. I don't see myself as superior. I feel I write the same way to everyone, or do I not? Or do you read my style as being patronizing to everyone? I do occasionally challenge people to think differently, but I see challenging each other as opportunities to stretch our thinking, and don't have an issue with people doing it back. If my writing doesn't across that way, is there something I can do to change it?

I'd probably really like your mom.

We do hear about people shoot themselves accidentally. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. I am aware that must mean they've done something stupid, like intentionally defeated safety mechanisms or otherwise not followed protocol, but people (including me) ARE stupid at times. Don't we all have our moments?

But that wasn't your point. It was familiarity and instruction. Which most liberals avoid, when it comes to guns. The result is what it is. I simply wanted this conversation to include recognition of the reality.

This skunk also believes it was justifiable self-defence, in situ.
How do you explain that?

I used reason, rather than emotionalism to come to this conclusion.
And politics had nothing to do with my opinion.

Could it possibly be that the judge was simply seeing the political BS for what it was?
That he felt sorry the kid had to be dragged through the mud?

Do you *ever* *not* take the progressive side of an argument?
I personally have *never* seen it in the seven years we have interacted.

Dude.

Aggressively avoid when it comes to guns. Honestly, so much of my annoyance with liberals comes down to that, they want to condescend to me about things that they go out of their way not to know about, and not just guns (but especially guns).

That's really probably the reason I tend to caucus with the conservatives even though I have at least as much if not more in common with the liberals, I just can't stand the attitude.

The prosecution's case had nothing, period, when you look at the facts, and I don't mean the made up "facts".

You aren't wrong. I have friends who are surprised that I actually try when it comes to guns, although I probably do not try as much as you'd like me to. I think most people have areas they aggressively avoid gaining knowledge about, albeit different ones. I can think of quite a few I personally feel conservatives are that way about, but the way it gets displayed is usually different. It comes down to what different people prioritize; where they believe deep knowledge is important; what they feel about our responsibilities as citizens. Since guns are your thing, I can understand the aggressive avoidance on that topic has to be particularly annoying.

To be fair, DW and I go back more than a decade, she's the one who let me back in here after I was banned a million years ago; I don't know if either of us thinks that was a good idea in retrospect...

Eh, it's actually just the area where I'm on the surest footing, since I did actually go to school for them and all, incuriosity in general is my real pet peeve. You can actually see this pretty clearly in my post history, I don't just tee off on random people I disagree with, it's the people who blindfold themselves and stick their fingers in their ears when inconvenient facts come their way who get the BAD DOX treatment, most of my best friends are actually liberals after all.

Every member should be treated with respect. I never intend to do otherwise, but I do react differently to different tones. It is never meant to be patronizing, but I can keep trying to work on that.

Dox mostly gets the simple benefit of saying fewer things I can directly challenge; he does his homework. But it should also be recognized that the history between us runs some 10-15 years deep. There is a lot buried in that history which naturally affects how we relate to each other, that others here simply aren't party to.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 04 Dec 2021, 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thanks for my laugh of the day.

Good question.

But, nah, no regrets. The purpose of this forum is to allow people to find support, and use that in their journey through life. Mistakes get made. Having no allowance for that all in the old days was just wrong, IMHO.