SSCReader
2d ago
But if it is simply arbitrary then the people wanting to keep the doors open have just as much of an argument as those who want it closed.
Its both true and not very helpful in the broader sense.
SSCReader
2d ago
It is, but that means pro-immigration people have just as much right to try to set the figure arbitrarily high.
If we're not trying to base it on cost benefit or some kind of moral function, then each persons arbitrary figure is as valid as the next. Which isn't very helpful from a governence perspective.
SSCReader
2d ago
30 years ago Bill Clinton was talking about how Americans were right to be concerned about illegal immigration, in his State of the Union address. 20 years ago Obama said people can't be allowed to pour over the border undocumented and unchecked. 18 months ago Biden talked about having to crack down on illegal immigration in a speech. Now you may question whether he means that, but he certainly didn't have any problems framing it as negative. And nor did his predecessors.
Now when Trump ralks about that do they frame that as racism? Of course, its a great attack vector. But "its racist when our enemies do it, but not when we do it" is a perfectly standard (albeit potentially immoral) political strategy. Which is targetted at what you might call squishy left leaning moderates.
It does alienate left-left people who will say things like Biden is just as bad as Trump etc. But thats not who is being aimed at.
In other words you are wrong that Democrats as a whole have been blasting concerns about illegal immigration being racist for 30 or 40 years. Only when their opponents have those concerns. Thats how they can pivot if required, on what they themselves say (or even do!) if polling indicates they should do so. When you (not you, you!) do it, its racist nonsense, when we do it, it's humanely targeted enforcement. When you say you are skeptical it will work...well it has been working. Not on everyone of course, but it doesn't need to. Just for those who are squeamish anout kids in cages, but also fear the stories of immigrant felons.
Will it work ENOUGH to win an election is the real question I suppose.
SSCReader
3d ago
But that also applies vice versa no? The American market is the wealthiest in the world. Lose it and all those factories making Iphones and Temu widgets collapse. There is no other market that can match it. And given China's upcoming population problem and their huge corruption problem, I don't see much incentive for them to pull the trigger on economic MAD. Especially because many of their elites are being enriched by it.
SSCReader
5d ago
Eh, if being downvoted bothered me, I'd have been gone years ago. I'm content that most people here wouldn't actually be mowing down protestors.
SSCReader
5d ago
I don't know for sure if it was Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse was wearing dark trousers of some sort (blue jeans maybe?) not khaki cargo shorts.
SSCReader
6d ago
In Northern Ireland that punchline would be..uhh interesting. As we call that a stroke. Hence why Londonderry/Derry (Londonderry if you are Protestant, Derry if you are Catholic) is nicknamed Stroke city.
SSCReader
6d ago
Blocking streets would be almost a textbook example of civil disobedience yes. Harassing motorists less so, but probably still covered, depending on the motorist and the level of harassment, particularly if they were trying to break the blockade. Whether civil disobedience needs to be peaceful is debated. Civil relates to citizens and their relationship with the state, not civil as in polite or peaceful necessarily.
Civil disobedience doesn't mean they are correct of course, it just means publicly breaking laws in service of some goal. Refusing to pay your taxes can be civil disobedience (a la Thoreau) and so can illegal marches and protests (a la Gandhi).
SSCReader
6d ago
Right, and that is where I am not sure if that would count as withdrawing and giving adequate notice, if it had come down to whether or not he was trying to disengage in good faith. It happens very quickly, and I assume the adequate notice clause is to avoid people baiting someone into attacking them, taking a couple of steps back in a couple of seconds and then claiming they were disengaged. You have to give the person time to understand your position has changed, and turning back to point the gun at Rosenbaum again could be seen as renewing the threat.
In the end though I agree it doesn't matter, as the prosecution was not able to show that Rittenhouse had actually threatened Rosenbaum in the first place, so the rest of the discussion is basically academic. All he had to so was satisfy the minimum of an attempt to retreat in order to not trigger the failure to retreat part of the law. And that, the video clearly shows. Arguably he could have fired the first time and that still would have been satisfied.
SSCReader
6d ago
But he may have been driving a car at the crowd right? If Perry drives car at crowd, then Foster can hold unsling his rifle and presumably open fire and Perry can't claim self-defence because he provoked. Unless of course by blocking the road Foster was provoking Perry.
Its why I think all self-defence shootings should have to to trial. Because most of them hinge on who was reasonable to fear what. And the people best suited to decide that is a jury of peers. But the trial should have to be expedited.
SSCReader
6d ago
This is a fair point. But presumably the idea in carrying the gun is that at some point you may have to actually unsling your gun and use it legally. So there must be some circumstances in which that is legal. Self-defence being one I would assume. Trapped in a room with a bear?
So holding the rifle can't always be a serious crime?
SSCReader
6d ago
Right, exactly my point. So essentially this is kind of baked in to your model. That you are going to have even more incoherence because it's like comparing Germany to France. But due to the 2 party nature of your politics it's not 50 separate nations, it's become kind of twoish with a bit of wriggle room.
SSCReader
6d ago
It is contradicted by what the video shows though. https://youtube.com/watch?v=BEbcLqBE-ts&t=14360
From 3:59:20 when they start, Rittenhouse is already running away. The bag gets thrown at 3:59:21. By 3:59:23 Rittenhouse has turned and raises his gun. The persecutor then asks at this point you have turned around and are pointing you weapon at Mr Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse says correct. Then they continue the video and we see Rittenhouse turn back around and continue to run. Then at 3:59:46 (because the pause the video they are watching for a bit) they reach the cars and Rittenhouse (presumably feeling boxed in) turns again as Rosenbaum lunges at him and fires.
The video is clear at this point. Rittenhouse points his gun at Rosenbaum twice. The second time is when he shoots him. Rittenhouse agrees with that series of events. The prosecution claims he pointed the gun at Rosenbaum THREE times, the first time being the movement he does with his arms after he puts down the fire extinguisher, the one that is extremely blurry and hard to see and happens before this part of the video. That one Rittenhouse claims is not correct. You can see that on the video starting at 3:55:14.
I'm not disputing here to say you are wrong about Rittenhouse in toto, but you are wrong about the specific series of events here. And that is why (referencing your other post) I am not sure Rittenhouse does give adequate notice of his withdrawal (assuming he did provoke the incident), he is running for about 10 seconds and in those 10 seconds he has the gun pointed at Rosenbaum twice. If Rittenhouse had actually threatened Rosenbaum, I think it is plausible the jury would not have felt this counted as a good faith retreat.
But I don't think the evidence did prove that he provoked the incident in the first place just to be clear. The reason the prosecution point to this is because at an earlier confrontation what set Rosenbaum off (where he yells "shoot me nigga") is he claims someone pointed their gun at him where Rittenhouse was there with another man.
SSCReader
6d ago
Its true that it is difficult for a nation to have a fully coherent philosophy, but I do think the US is more..inconsistent than other Western nations. Probably because Federalism is essentially the idea that you can have different philosophies of government co-existing within the same nation. Its deliberate that Texas and New York can make different decisions on what they teach or tax. Even if the Federal government has steadily expanded its reach over time.
That and sheer size and population compared to most other single nations means you're not really propagandizing one single philosophy.
This happens other places as well of course but i think it is more evident in the US. Whether this is a positive or negative is dependent on your POV I suppose.
SSCReader
6d ago
Civil disobedience is is a well worn use of public power in the West. Though I think the French may be the champions at it.
I am not sure it is quite as American as apple pie..but rebelling against authority through acts of civil disobedience were right there at the dawn of the Republic.
SSCReader
6d ago
Alot of this is what I was trying to get at and I agree. Guns are both a right to carry around and a cause to be shot. Should someone open carrying a rifle raise your alert level or not?
If it should then an open carry right is going to trigger some number of escalations. If it shouldn't then cops overeact to people who are legally armed all the time. See Castille et al.
SSCReader
6d ago
And both those things can be true, that both the killer and the slain could have had a reasonable fear for their life.
This is a good point, and I agree! Not all situations are clear cut.
SSCReader
6d ago
I completely agree protestors should not surround and attack vehicles. Those who do should certainly be arrested and charged.
SSCReader
6d ago
Well they claimed that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum twice, once to trigger Rosenbaum's charge and then once during (after/during fleeing).
If the first was true (and this is a big if of course!) then Rosenbaum charging Rittenhouse in the first place was legitimate self-defence. Then Rittenhouse fleeing may have "reset" that, but then pointing his gun at him again again counted as a threat.
In fact its possible Rosenbaum started with the one having the self-defence right (again only if Rittenhouse did point his gun at him first with no provocation) then lost that right when Rittenhouse fled, and Rittenhouse gained it when Rosenbaum kept chasing him.
And that is why although I think Rittenhouse being acquitted was correct, I think him being brought to trial was reasonable. Whether he was the one who kicked off the encounter is potentially the matter of a couple of seconds of time based upon Rosenbaum yelling about not pointing his gun at him. And being based on what a "reasonable" person would have felt such that I think a jury of peers not DAs or cops should be making that determination. Especially when you look at cases like Arbury where they were like, no chasing someone down with guns and trucks seems reasonable to us. No charges!
Having DA's and judges and the like be elected positions and so explicitly partisan seems like a big problem to me. Not sure how you can have a blind justice when they have to keep peeking to see who is voting for them. But that horse has left the stable, won the Kentucky derby three times and retired.
SSCReader
6d ago
Blocking roads has been part of American discourse for a long time. Legalising just ploughing through the crowds seems a little over the top.
SSCReader
6d ago
I accept the pardon is a legitimate outcome, elections do indeed have consequences! And expression of political power overriding the judicial system is part of those consequences. It's entirely within bounds as far as I am concerned.
I'll get back to you on the consensus part.
SSCReader
6d ago
Right, its quite possible Foster was threatening Perry. Or even he was about to shoot him. It's just nowhere near as clear as Rittenhouse and just angling your gun down as you would anyway can't be as clearly dispositive.
I think Foster was stupid for bring a rifle at all, but thats neither here nor there.
SSCReader
6d ago
As far as I understand it from our very long threads back in the day the law in Wisconsin doesn't specify you have to defend yourself in the smartest way. If someone points a gun at you, running may well be the smart play, but if you choose to fight, you still can claim self defense. That is why the prosecution were trying to establish Rosenbaum had the gun pointed at him prior to him charging.
IF Rittenhouse had openly threatened Rosenbaum, charging him would have been legally permissible, though stupid.
SSCReader
6d ago
But if you can't have your rifle pointed down, because that threatens a person seated below you, then that means the general freedom to open carry a rifle is severely circumscribed. In a city there will always be cars around.
In fact in the hours that Rittenhouse was walking around we have images him of gun angled down walking past an occupied car. If that is enough to trigger threat then the occupant could have shot him!
My point is that on its own should be ok. If it is ok to open carry a rifle then we must accept some people will have it angled towards them. Rittenhouse in the image has his gun pointed at the legs of the man next to him. Unless you are always pointing your gun directly vertically down, its just a statisical certainty. So if open carrying rifles is legal, then that cannot be the standard.
You can legally in Texas walk up to a car with a rifle open carried. The question is does that mean when doing the safe thing, and pointing it down, you are automatically threatening the occupant because you could shoot them in seconds? I say the answer logically has to be no, in order for the legal carry right to make any sense.
Now to be clear that does not mean Foster wasn't actually threatening Perry! He may well of been and certainly previous testimony might make that more likely. But it can't come solely from walking towards an occupied vehicle with your gun angled down. Because that is I am given to understand (and as Rittenhouse did!) the safer way to point it. Is he supposed to raise it? Because that seems more likely to trigger a response. If open carrying is legal you can walk towards people legally, you can walk past them, you can ealk up to their car window and knock on it. You can ask them for the time or pet their dog.
My point is not that Foster was not threatening Perry, but that the description of WHY it was a threat seems biased. If Perry was threatened it was not because the gun was simply angled down and he is lower, it has to be because it was actively pointed at him. That was the determination in the Rittenhouse trial, that merely turning with your gun angled down such that it is passing a trajectory where you could shoot someone can't count as being actively threatened so Rosenbaum could not have been defending himself. Whether the gun is pointing at your leg or your body because you are sitting down doesn't matter.
If we want to claim that Perry was legally threatened then it has to be because Foster was aiming at him. Not just holding the gun in his general direction. And the problem is, from the images we have we can't see that, which is why Nybbler has to fall back to the gun being angled down being a threat because that is all we can make out. He is inflating the level of evidence we have. Again to be clear it is entirely possible Foster was pointing his gun right at Perry. And if so Perry would be justified in seeing that as a threat. Likewise in a state where open carry of rifles is not permitted maybe the walking towards you carrying a rifle pointed close to you might be a threat. But if you are going to legalize open carry of long arms, they WILL be angled towards people at some point (seriously go watch the pre-shooting footage of Kenosha, particularly when some of the "militia" are standing and walking together, their barrels are angled down but pass trajectories of peoples legs all the time) and if that legally counts as a threat, there is a serious mismatch, that risks inciting incidents. (Assuming we are allowing open carry, I don't think it should count for the record.) That is true even if Foster was about to shoot Perry in cold blood (and he might have been!).
I'm not complaining that people are defending Perry. More that they are pitching certainties or potentially reasonable things as absolute proof. Such that there is no chance the jury was actually correct.
To be clear, just as I think it was dumb of Rittenhouse to be wandering around a protest with a rifle regardless of whether he did anything legally wrong, then Foster was just as stupid, possibly more so. I don't think its a huge loss he got shot. Though I am sure as it always is it is a loss to his family. Attending protests has risk, attending openly armed inflates the risk that someone will take exception. Possibly Rittenhouse is only alive because Rosenbaum was not armed. And in the US, that is not a good gamble, as Foster perhaps learned...well briefly.
Also I keep typing Genosha instead of Kenosha, so if any made it through, I apologise.
Ahem, we also have the Europa hotel, the "most bombed hotel in the world".
Well it was during the Troubles. I think some Bosnian hotel stole that accolade.
More options
Context Copy link