Battersbox

So, if you had lifted a gun, and then by chance 10 minutes later two guys were after you and you thought they were going to kill you, you wouldn't shoot them?? I'm not saying stealing a gun is right. I'm saying you can commit a crime and still have a right to self-defense (particularly if that crime is unrelated to the act of self-defense). And lighten up, I was making a joke about GTA.

I thought of that, but it felt too much like Grand Theft Auto. I almost edited and said: a woman walks into a seedy bar at closing time naked save for a gun in a holster. Two guys chase her out the door and try to grab her and take her gun and she shoots them. The fact that she was naked shouldn't affect her right to self defense.

Yes it definitely depends. But, even if he had stolen that gun 10 minutes before he arrived it Kenosha, it still could possibly be self defense. The legality of the gun ownership doesn't factor for me.

Yes, there are situations where it's all one continuous event. If that's the case here, it is possible this isn't self-defense. But none of the facts we know of support this was all one event. If that changes, I'll change my opinion. To flip it on its head in another way: if the guy Rittenhouse shot in the arm (forgot his name) had been chased by some other rednecks into an alley that night and he then shot them both when they finally caught up to him, would he not have the right of self defense? After all, he was there at a potential riot, and he was armed and part of a crowd who were agitating and more than likely looking for trouble.

I agree self-defense laws are sometimes too muddy. As an example, I thought George Zimmerman was a scumbag and he likely should have faced harsh consequences for what happened to Trayvon Martin. But, barring new details about Rittenhouse and what happened that night, I don't this situation as equivalent. Crossing state lines and being in possession of a firearm when he wasn't legally supposed to have it fall far short of removing his right to self defense in my opinion. As a sloppy analogy: if a woman walks into a seedy bar at closing time naked, she's breaking the law. But, nobody in their right mind would argue she deserves to get raped.

I hear you. Everyone is going to have a different line as to what is acceptable. I personally think it was acceptable for my neighbors to camp out overnight on our one main street to potentially repel any troublemakers who were threatening to burn our town to the ground. But, most of them weren't business owners, should they have stayed home? Would a town right next door been acceptable to pitch in? I don't know. I personally wouldn't but I can understand those who would. I absolutely think Rittenhouse was looking to be a hero of some sort. That's misguided to say the least. But, I don't necessarily think looking to be a hero is the same as looking for trouble. For sure it's a slippery slope though. Which is exactly why, in my opinion, allowing all the looting and burning to occur last summer was tragic.

I don't know, I'm no attorney. But it seems people are often pointing to the laws he broke and then suggesting because he broke laws earlier, the forfeits his right to self-defense (not saying you are implying that). To me, that doesn't make sense.

I'm fine with a jury trial. It's just that imo they are overcharging him by going for murder. Ironically, he would be far more likely to be held accountable for his actions had they gone for lesser charges. My feeling is that politics ensured this would be a murder trial, which isn't in anyone's best interests.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. Example: I live in the town Rittenhouse is from. In the wake of this all taking place, nationwide threats from social media and local news reports were flying fast and furious. Our town's main street had to be boarded up, and people who live here sat vigil on sidewalks for a couple of nights awaiting something to go down. Some of them were armed. I know some of them personally. Friends and neighbors I hold in high regard. My neighbor offered to lend me a gun (I declined, I'm not a gun guy, but I honestly considered it). Had something actually happened, and my friend who lives a few doors down from me been in the exact situation Rittenhouse was (from facts we know publicly) and he'd actually shot and killed some people I would be flabbergasted if he were charged like Rittenhouse has been. To be clear, he wasn't at his house, he was 'downtown' in our little village believing he was helping out small business owners who have shops there. The temperature of the country was different in the summer of 2020. People seriously felt like the authorities weren't likely to protect them and their property in the face of violence. Faced with a threat to your own small town from agitators from outside your area, you think differently. I wouldn't have blamed a single person who camped out on main street for arming themselves those couple of nights. Now, Rittenhouse didn't live in Kenosha, that's true. As I've said, he should not have been there. His mother is unfit in my opinion. But, he was there, and he was armed. Those mistakes do not rob him of his right of self-defense imo.

I agree with you here that he should face some sort of accountability. As a society we shouldn't ever condone or encourage any sort of vigilantism--it's unhealthy for everyone. Perhaps the problem is the charges themselves. I don't for a second believe this kid is guilty of murder. With the facts we know today, I think the idea this wasn't self-defense is absurd. Should he be charged with something lesser? Possibly. I'd be interested in hearing what those charges could be as I'm not a student of the law.

Same boat here. It's frustrating. I get that we have to pay more than most, but I'm not willing to forfeit my retirement. My daughter is looking at large state schools, but the dream of going out of state is likely out the window. Big10 schools don't seem too willing to give merit aid for out-of-state kids. I feel bad for my daughter as she's worked very hard to build an impressive resume. Still, lesser students (classmates) who didn't put in the effort she did during high school are likely going to get chances to go out of state before she will.

I have no idea. But it's significant to me in that Nordic countries are limiting the vaccine to younger people at the same time California is mandating it. That's quite a wide divergence.

Well, it's definitely news, since these two countries just limited access to the vaccine for part of the population. And also Finland just did the same.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-06/sweden-halts-moderna-s-covid-vaccine-for-people-aged-30-or-under

Sweden has halted any vaccinations w/Moderna for people under 30. First, 2nd, or 3rd shot. Denmark I believe has halted any vaccinations w/Moderna for anyone under 18.