• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    You’re confusing my attack of an childish meme with an attack on coming to different conclusions based on the facts.

    Although, lets me clear, you’ve not provided any facts that indicate he went there to kill someone.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      He went somewhere he had no place to be, with a gun, in order to “protect property” he had no reason to protect. He said himself he went to “protect property”. How do you think he was going to use that gun to protect property? Tickle people with it?

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Have you never heard “an armed society is a polite one?” Do you think when they send security to any event, the goal is to violently use it? Or do you think that maybe the goal of showing force is to, sometimes, dissuade violence?

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Have you never heard “an armed society is a polite one?

          Case in point:

          https://lawandcrime.com/crime/i-will-personally-pluck-out-her-eyes-man-who-threatened-to-light-kamala-harris-on-fire-is-baffled-feds-were-at-his-door-over-a-comment-complaint-alleges/

          A Winchester, Virginia, man who vowed to light Vice President Kamala Harris on fire and “personally pluck out her eyes” reacted with surprise when investigators showed up at his door “over a comment,” a federal complaint alleges.

          Investigators said that Carillo in one post said Harris doesn’t “have a snowballs chance in hell which is exactly where you’re going and soon,” adding “I will cut your eyes out of your F—ING head” and “will make sure you suffer a slow agonizing death[.]” ** In another post, he allegedly said he would “personally” set Harris on fire “if no one else does[.]” In a third post, Carillo allegedly said Harris is “going to regret ever trying to become president because if that ever happened I will personally pluck out her eyes with a pair of pliers but first I will shoot and kill everyone that gets in my way that is a f** promise.”**

          Carillo allegedly said he owned a pistol and an AR-15 and made remarks of surprise about the reason for the law enforcement visit.

          This armed man was so polite he was confused about why agents would show up at his door over a simple “comment”

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Again, whether it’s true makes no difference because we’re discussing intent to go shoot someone, so if he believes it to be true (or any of the others I listed) then your claim that it is a fact he intended to shoot someone is really just a supposition.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              your claim that it is a fact he intended to shoot someone is really just a supposition.

              So your defense is he’s too stupid and ignorant and shouldn’t have been allowed around a gun in the first place?

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                He’s probably too stupid to own a gun or be allowed around one. I’m not sure what this has to do with your claim that he intended to shoot someone.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Have you never heard "an armed society is a polite one

          American society is armed. Those that are most heavily armed don’t seem very polite, but a lot of people get shot.

          Do you think when they send security to any event, the goal is to violently use it?

          You don’t send security to an event without the intent of using it if needed. When people take a security job they expect they will be using force at some point.

          I challenge you to find me someone who works security that doesn’t expect to ever use force. The difference is someone who works security is 1) trained, and 2) in situations where they are there as a precaution, not as an expectation. When there is an expectation of violence the police are involved.

          Speaking of, if Rittenhouse is concerned about “protecting property” why doesn’t he work for the police? I thought vigilantism was illegal.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  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.

                  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    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?