Off Topic Thread 5.0

Rittenhouse is the poster child for the broken state of American political discourse. He was 17, he had no business at all in having access to an arsenal of that nature and his motivations for being there are highly questionable and to my mind a good example of radicalisation. If he wasn't seeking conflict, he wouldn't have brought an automatic rifle with him (semi for the pedants) and he wasn't there to protect anyone, he was there because he was against the protests and wanted confrontation with it's participants. A reminder of how those protests are framed as against reality - 93% of BLM protests are entirely peaceful, and the remaining 7% are primarily understood to be criminal or other elements not related to the protests using them as cover. Rittenhouse was radicalised, certainly with a racial element albeit probably much more broad than that and you only need to have a look at how the likes of Fox cover the protests to see why.

I'm forever glad that we don't have a weird cultural obsession with the military and guns in this country. It feeds into a certain mentality that is unhealthy, aggressive and too easily manipulated into nationalism and supremacy.

Even the UK's obsession with the military and things like the poppy brings this out. The Denis Hutchings funeral was quite frankly deplorable given the crimes he was almost certainly guilty of - yet the fact he was even being held accountable is an outrage to so many (including high profile Government Politicians). Warped mentality.

molloyjh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118155815#Comment_118155815

This is a really twisted post. A civilian with no training and no reason to be there armed themselves with a weapon designed to do nothing but kill people and inserted himself into a tense and violent situation. The only things he was ever going to accomplish was either (a) getting himself hurt or (b) escalating already serious tensions. What did he think was going to happen? A “yes sir, sorry sir” response? An armed civilian entering a riot like he’s some form of authority isn’t going to make anything better. And especially given America’s history with gun violence how can anyone be surprised that people reacted violently towards him? Nothing about what he did was reasonable, responsible, restrained or safe. Staying at home would have been all of those things. And it confuses and scares me in equal measure the lengths some people will go to excuse that behaviour. He killed people because he went there with a weapon. Had he not done that he wouldn’t have killed those people. It’s just that simple.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118155832#Comment_118155832

I thought one was black. Any way, I believe he went there with the intention of acting the hard man and shooting somebody.

RichieRich_89

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156287#Comment_118156287

I thought the narrative was that they were "mostly peaceful" protests, not riots?

Going to something like that with a deadly weapon isn't something I'd do, but once he was under attack, I think he behaved reasonably.

As far as I'm aware, his argument is that he was there to stop a car dealership from being vandalised, and to provide medical aid. Maybe he thought having an AR-15 would be an effective deterrent? I mean, if I see someone with a semi-automatic rifle, my thinking would be that it would be extremely dangerous to lunge at him and attempt to grab his gun.

It's America. It may seem foreign to us, but patrolling the streets with a rifle isn't illegal in certain circumstances over there.

molloyjh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156374#Comment_118156374

Ah stop. He armed himself with a weapon, not medical supplies. And are you really so naive as to believe that he went to a different state to protect a car dealership he had no connection to and likely had never even heard of before? Please.

You believe that once he was attacked he behaved reasonably yet you don’t question what the bloody hell he was doing there in the first place? Serious gap in critical thinking there. If you walk into a violent situation with all the signs of wanting to be violent, what exactly do you think is going to happen? It’s beyond stupid not to realise that he created the situation where he was at risk and did so with a weapon that would kill anyone who threatened him. There was only 1 realistic outcome to what he chose to do. Someone was going to die. And there was absolutely no reason for him to create that situation. None.

aloooof

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156374#Comment_118156374

"As far as I'm aware, his argument is that he was there to stop a car dealership from being vandalised, and to provide medical aid."

I've been saying it for years, with the hospital bed shortage in this country, we really need to invest in more... semi-automatic weapons.

RichieRich_89

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156416#Comment_118156416

I don't know whether he had any connection to the places he's claimed he was protecting. And I'd wager neither do you. He says he had a med kit, and was seen on video offering medical assistance to injured people, or so I've read.

The whole thing is so politicised over there. Maybe he thought it was his civic duty to try to prevent general lawlessness?

If he wanted to kill people he could have started popping of shots from hundreds of metres away. But all the people he shot were right on top of him, and, respectively, tried to grab his gun, kicked him in the head while he was on the ground, hit him with a skateboard while he was on the ground, and pointed a handgun at him.

I don't disagree with your points about him travelling there. I'd ask where were the parents when you've got a 17-year old travelling to a situation like that with an AR-15.

molloyjh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156533#Comment_118156533

Going into a violent situation with a gun is asking for more violence. I mean it really isn’t any more complicated than that. He didn’t need to engineer a situation where someone could die. But he did. Nobody asked him to. It wasn’t his job. He did so on his own volition. So what happened as a result is on him. People can try and obfuscate all they want. This is one of those few cases that are actually pretty clear cut. He was asking for trouble and armed to kill if he got it. He could have just done what the vast, vast, vast majority of others did and stayed at home. He created a situation where he was likely to shoot and kill someone. Nobody else did. The end.

RichieRich_89

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156550#Comment_118156550

A very black and white view, and not really how it works, I don't think. He's not going to be convicted of murder because he took a deadly weapon to a dangerous situation. He was seen talking to police before the shootings. Presumably you think he should have been arrested then and there?

He will be convicted of murder of the prosecution can show he didn't act in self defence. I can't see it. He could have been badly beaten, possibly even to death, if he hadn't defended himself.

molloyjh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156617#Comment_118156617

Or he could have been at home at no risk at all. This is nothing short of pathetic. Falling back on technicalities and obfuscation to absolve an individual of any form of personal responsibility. I’m often the one to talk about grey areas. There aren’t any here. He went there when he didn’t need to. He brought a dangerous weapon when he didn’t need to. If he chose to do neither of those things he never would have been at risk and he never would have killed anyone. But sure you chose to ignore those facts because you don’t want to hold him to account. Christ knows why, and in all honesty I don’t care. I’m done.

aloooof

There's no point, molloy. He was calling Covid "the China virus" yesterday.

RichieRich_89

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156632#Comment_118156632

I'm not contesting those facts? But they don't mean he's going to be convicted of murder.

molloyjh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156651#Comment_118156651

Yeah, that seems to be what we’re dealing with. Or used to be dealing with.

ersatz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156658#Comment_118156658

He'll probably walk. The fact that the judge is a cracker helps him but if the trial only considers the narrow time line around the shootings he has a good case.

But your other points are disingenuous. The right have for years been showing up armed at left wing demos attempting to provoke situations and to shoot people under cover of self defense. It happened in Seattle, in Portland, in NYC, LA and several other cases. On right wing media and podcasts there are discussions about his strategy and legal experts outlining what's legal and illegal. Right wingers at these demos wear Pinochet shirts showing people being thrown out of helicopters, a reference to Pinochet's habit of murdering activist young people in this manner. On right wing media expressions of murderous loathing for leftists are routine, and Rittenhouse's showing up at that BLM demo is a direct result of this sort of politics and propaganda. These guys are obsessed with violence and Trump and republican stand your ground laws encourage them to think they are right. Rittenhouse is a classic loan wolf not very smart inadequate who went out to prove something, armed with an extremely dangerous weapon. In any sane society that would be enough to lock him up.

mfceiling

Funny when I was younger I grew up in the height of the troubles. At the height of the riots in Belfast or Derry I never thought to myself "must jump into the car and drive 40 miles to have a look at what's going on".

If there is something called a riot taking place somewhere then most sane people would be of the "I'll stay at home" persuasion.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118156808#Comment_118156808

Look at the Ahmad Arbery case as the perfect example of certain people weaponising self-defence laws to basically just commit murder.

There is no defence for travelling great distances to attend a demonstration armed. I suspect he'll get away with it, but its just indicative of the US genuinely starting to fall apart.

pickarooney

There's not much point in an argument that pits morality against legality.

Of course the guy shouldn't have gone to another state armed to the teeth but there's nothing illegal about doing that in the US so there's nothing to charge him with in that respect.

ersatz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118157591#Comment_118157591

On this level the US has always fallen apart. A massively underexplored phenomenon is the white mob in American history, the posse going after Native Americans and Mexicans (Texas and the borderlands), and the Lynch mobs who were active up until the 1940s. Its role has always been to patrol the colour line and enforce white supremacy, and it never went away, it was just formalized into the police force. Those guys who murdered Arbery live in a county that is majority black but in a white neighborhood, they're basically out enforcing segregation at the point of a gun. The Trayvon Martin case is the same story, black kid walking in a mostly white neighbourhood is confronted and ultimately murdered by a white vigilante just because he is black. Rittenhouse fits into a distinct tradition of this stuff.

Bazzo

Every one of ye hook, line and sinker lads...

OldRio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118159110#Comment_118159110

I'd like to think you are correct alas you're not.

Bazzo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118159526#Comment_118159526

I have no idea how much Richie believes of what he posts but I'm 100% sure he lives under a bridge

stephen_n

Big Garda presence around the entrance to Stephen’s Green. For what turned out to be about 30 idiots with placards. Who couldn’t even manage to make enough noise to drown out a busker. Thankfully these anti vax protests are diminishing to the point of non existence,

swiwi_

When the NZ rugby and cricket teams can't win, well there's always the soccer team. It's a great effort for a little nation to qualify directly for the soccer world cup, especially at the expense of Italy...a word of thanks to our Northern Ireland friends for their contribution.

Podge_irl

Hop Suisse!

swiwi_

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118172067#Comment_118172067

No i think they have now qualified. 4-0 vs Bulgaria means they are directly qualified and Italy go into the repechage or whatever you call it in soccer.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118172073#Comment_118172073

Ah, you got in ahead of my sneaky edit. My stream of NI-Italy was behind and I hadn't realised. They are indeed through.

Need to show thorough support for Switzerland now as the world cup coincides well with when I need to start my citizenship application.

swiwi_

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118172079#Comment_118172079

Podge_ch

you know you want to

swiwi_

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118172079#Comment_118172079

You’re going for citizenship ?!

Good luck with that. Be prepared for some very arcane Qs. Also the good people of Geneva city, Geneva canton and Switzerland itself must all agree you would be a good little Swiss man.

Rittenhouse acquitted. Utterly ludicrous country.

Clegg

It's not a surprise though. I think he went into those protests looking to pick a fight and shoot somebody. But the prosecution was weak from the very beginning with their own witness hurting their case when being cross examined.

Wisconsin's self defence laws being opaque hurt the prosecution. From what I understand about the law in America, they had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't acting in self defence and that he was the initial aggressor. If a person instigates aggression from another party and then claims self defence after killing that person, the original aggressor will still be guilty as he initiated the events.

But there's a further caveat to that in Wisconsin there's case law to suggest that even if you're an aggressor and instigate events, you can still claim self defence if you can prove you feared for your own life even though you are at fault for triggering the series of events. Which appears to have been the Rittenhouse defence.