My take, but that's informed by Dutch law, is that he put himself in a position where the likelihood of him shooting someone greatly increased by travelling there armed with an apparent intent to look for conflict. Whether that was racially motivated or for the "good reason" to protect others and their property is neither here nor there. Anything that followed from that is a consequence of that decision and therefore on him.

It seems the jury considers a causal break between his decision and the actual killings but that wouldn't fly in the Netherlands. In fact, the long time he has been there, the long travel time and chances to therefore turn back would result in a premeditated murder conviction.

Intent to look for conflict based purely on your opinion. That wouldn't stand in any court I know of.

A seventeen year old walking around with a gun in The Netherlands isn't legal is it? I think part of the ire involved is that many think he shouldn't be allowed to walk around with a gun - myself included - yet the law there doesn't disallow it. On top of this, as we all know, the law isn't a simple universal formula.

Such public cases are also a difficult thing to handle. There doesn't appear to be a good legal reason to have accused him with murder in the first place. This is the power of public opinion as there was clearly evidence that he acted in self-defense from the footage instantly available so without a clear cause to accuse someone of murder the chargers were brought forward prematurely - which neither protects the accused's rights nor helps the prosecution as they've had little time to reward anything. He may have been charged and arrested simply for his own personal safety too given the atmosphere at the time and what was happening.

The event was given political priority as it looked to suit different narratives that were and are highly politically charged at a highly politically charged time. These things are difficult.

The big question is will we see a change in the law for youngsters carrying weapons? I am pretty sure Rittenhouse would have taken a different course of action if he'd known exactly what would happen to him. If so are we likely to see him backing laws to prevent people like himself from having their life and other lives turned upside down due to naivety, stupidity, and/or immaturity?

Will there be a law that states carrying firearms during a protest is illegal? This would make some fear the police perhaps so how about during protests having both the citizens and police disarm themselves as standard procedure? Then if any bad element of the protesters cause damage to property then call in clearly marked police who are armed to deal with them and keep 'regular' police unarmed.

That is just off the top of my head and I'm not saying it is ideal by any means but I think something like that is at least a step in the right direction.

Intent to look for conflict based purely on your opinion. That wouldn't stand in any court I know of. — I like sushi

Opinion based in fact. When you move to an area of conflict carrying an semi-automatic firearm you are not going to sing Kumbayla now are you? Besides, didn't he admit to wanting to protect the property there? I think that is what Benkei meant with 'looking for conflict'. Tthere may still be a justification, namele preventing a direct and imminent attack on the goods of others. His intent though, was to play a role in the conflict and he brought the means to do so. That the defendent put himself in the position in which he might need to shoot, is I think clear as day. That is all Benkei needs.

Such public cases are also a difficult thing to handle. There doesn't appear to be a good legal reason to have accused him with murder in the first place. This is the power of public opinion as there was clearly evidence that he acted in self-defense from the footage instantly available so without a clear cause to accuse someone of murder the chargers were brought forward prematurely - which neither protects the accused's rights nor helps the prosecution as they've had little time to reward anything. He may have been charged and arrested simply for his own personal safety too given the atmosphere at the time and what was happening. — I like sushi

It depends on the legal system. Perhaps under US law the case is clear cut, I do not know, yet I am also not confident to say it is. As Benkei pointed out, him bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a conflictuous situation might, in some jurisdictions, offset a self defense justification. I will not speculate on the case itself, however self defense laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the US they might well differ from state to state. Under Dutch law such a situation will certainly be prosecuted. What the verdict would be I will not comment on because it depends on the exact facts of the case and I generally refrain from commentng on such issues directly.

The event was given political priority as it looked to suit different narratives that were and are highly politically charged at a highly politically charged time. These things are difficult. — I like sushi

Two people slain, one severely injured, that is a big deal legally independent of politics.

The legal merits of the case are different from the political ones. They are of course mixed, in practice, but can be treated independently, I think that is what Benkei was doing.

It is not intent simply to be armed. There is a case where someone got involved in a fight walked out to his car, took out his gun and then proceeded to shoot his attacker.

The technical difference here being he was provoked then retreated to his car to get a gun with intent of getting his rifle and shooting the other person. He was not initially armed with a gun and attacked.

Carrying a gun (in and of itself) in Rittenhouse's instance is not viewed as intent to cause harm or to act in conflict. Sounds kind of crazy in the situation he was involved in but that is the law.

I am not condoning the law just stating what it is. That is why I suggested an outline for an alternative law regarding protests that would shift away from armed conflicts.

The Rittenhouse case is a one-of-kind/unique/special case. One white boy guns down three white guys, one lives to tell the tale and it's about racism against blacks. With all due respect for the fallen and wounded (RIP Joseph Rosenbaum, RIP Anthony Huber, and RIP Jacob Blake. :flower: for Gaige Grosskreutz)I have to admit I like where this is going. Abraham Lincoln would've approved.

It is not intent simply to be armed. There is a case where someone got involved in a fight walked out to his car, took out his gun and then proceeded to shoot his attacker. — I like sushi

No, but intent is constructed when you go to a conflict situation, armed with an assault rife (mind you not something to hunt deer with) and you state you want to protect property from rioters. You are not 'simply being armed' like I am simply carrying a notebook around, You are armed in order to be armed at that time and place. We can never look into the mind of someone else, so always in law the mindset of the defendent has to be constructed, based on the outward characteristics of his actions.

Carrying a gun (in and of itself) in Rittenhouse's instance is not viewed as intent to cause harm or to act in conflict. Sounds kind of crazy in the situation he was involved in but that is the law. — I like sushi

He is not carrying a gun 'in and off itself'. If I am carrying a power drill to my neighbour's house who needs a painting to be hung or a tap to be fixed, I am carrying the power drill in order to drill a hole.

I of course do believe you if you tell me that the law of the state of Wisconsin on self defense does not take into account teh recklessness of bringing deadly weapons to a scene of conflict. Benkei pointed out that in such cases applying Dutch law would lead to a different outcome. The fact that fire arms are forbidden in the Netherlands does not matter that much. The case would also be prosecuted if I brought a meat cleaver to a fist fight, even if my intentions of separating the fighting parties would be in itself not blameworthy.

I am not condoning the law just stating what it is. That is why I suggested an outline for an alternative law regarding protests that would shift away from armed conflicts. — I like sushi

I know, we are also not in substantial disagreement. There are a few points of law which are interesting. Firstly the construction of intent. I think the construction of intent is not the problem here. Secondly I do think Dutch and US law differ in the case of justifications for self defense. We have the notion of 'culpa in causa', which occurs if one has had a hand in creating the situation in which you have to resort to self defense. Then there is the issue of proportionality, the level of violence matching the level of threat.

You argue that a self defense plea is so obviously warranted that prosecution is unjustified. You may be right, but what Benkei did was to point out that in many legal systems that is not a likely position. I would want to know what the arguments for the prosecution were actually.

Thank god it is not up to Dutch law, then. The US has the 2nd amendment, and in Wisconsin a man can bear arms for security. In other words, a man can carry a gun with the intent to protect himself. “Simply being armed” is not only a deterrent but an effective means to defend one’s life from violence. Given that both the deceased attacked him and tried to grab his weapon, it appears that’s what Rittenhouse did, and we need not construct any intent beyond that.

Thank god it is not up to Dutch law, then. The US has the 2nd amendment, and in Wisconsin a man can bear arms for security. In other words, a man can carry a gun with the intent to protect himself. “Simply being armed” is not only a deterrent but an effective means to defend one’s life from violence. — NOS4A2

"... the freedom to kill whoever he wants..."

How many black people did he kill again?

How many black people did he kill again? — NOS4A2

You think he wanted to kill black people too? You're probably right.

Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to shoot black people, did so, but was acquitted by a jury instructed to ignore anything Rittenhouse did to cause concern to others.

You’re words, not mine. Race-thinking and disinfo don’t mix, I’m afraid.

"... the freedom to kill whoever he wants..." — Kenosha Kid

How many black people did he kill again? — NOS4A2

Oh you're saying he wanted to kill white people? Well, he went to a black rights protest with a -- ahem -- automatic rifle, but yes he did have more occasion to kill white people. Maybe he wasn't that fussed about who he killed. A crowd is a crowd.

Just be happy you can now go to the zoo, jump in the polar bear cage and gun them down if they attack you. Ahmaud Arbery confronted and tried to disarm his attacker too. In WI, his killers would walk free.

Thank god it is not up to Dutch law, then. — NOS4A2

Last time I checked a perfectly fine legal system in well ordered society.

The US has the 2nd amendment, and in Wisconsin a man can bear arms for security. In other words, a man can carry a gun with the intent to protect himself. — NOS4A2

And such a relief it is one has that right and certainly that others have this right too, makes me feel so much safer

“Simply being armed” is not only a deterrent but an effective means to defend one’s life from violence. — NOS4A2

Ohh... Perhaps the people from Columbine feel different... And of course you have facts and figures to back this claim up? According to our world in data the homicide rates in the US were on 6.1 per 100.000 people whereas those in the Netherlands are at 0.9. As a US resident the chances to falling victim to homicide is 7 x higher. Of these homicides, half were committed in the US by fire arms while in the Netherlands this was one in five.

Of course there are fluctuations especially given that the Netherlands is a small country. Anyway, being armed seldom deters. In times past when the state did not have the means to enforce its monopoly on violence the level of violence was much higher than it is now.

Given that both the deceased attacked him and tried to grab his weapon, it appears that’s what Rittenhouse did, and we need not construct any intent beyond that. — NOS4A2

Well that's the question innit Saul? Should putting oneself situation in which one has to use lethal violence weigh into the blameworthiness of it? Here apparently Dutch and US legal systems part ways. But perhaps the legal subtleties are beyond you. whether this case is self defense does not interest me. It is a theoretical point of law.

Nobody but the Dutch particularly cares about the Dutch attitude toward the Rittenhouse verdict.

The Dutch system is probably a fine legal system, but completely irrelevant in both jurisdiction and rights. I’m not sure why we’d compare them.

My point was that deterrence and self-defence is the most likely intent to open-carrying a weapon. I don’t know about you, but my own common sense dictates that I would not go near anyone carrying an AR. Even so, it obviously did not deter the attackers. The first attacker yelled “you won’t do shit” before lunging for the weapon. It didn’t work out for him, but it does help your point about deterrence rarely working.

White people are black people, riots are protests…anymore doublespeak to add?

The Dutch system is probably a fine legal system, but completely irrelevant in both jurisdiction and rights. I’m not sure why we’d compare them. — NOS4A2

You raised the question of desirability, not me. I just find it interesting to see whether Benkei's take holds or does not hold under US law. Sushi pointed out it does not. That makes comparison interesting. Comparative law is an interesting subject in and of itself. I at least find it of significance whether a legal system accounts for culpa in causa or does not. The question would than be what would explain this difference, is there a theoretical argument for valuing one over the other, or is there not, what are the societal consequences of this difference, etc. Those are the interesting questions to ask form a legal philosophical or socio-legal point of view.

The verdict itself does not belong on a philosophy forum without any theoretical point. I am also not arguing the acquital, I do not feel in the position to judge the case, nor should I. I just feel an interesting point of law is at issue.

My point was that deterrence and self-defence is the most likely intent to open-carrying a weapon. — NOS4A2

I am also not arguing that. In fact I belief in the case at hand the defendent said as much, namely that he wanted to protect the property from rioters. The question is, should his carrying of that weapon than and there, knowing what danger it could present, weigh into the level of blameworhiness we ascribe to his actions. Under Dutch law it would be a factor, under US law it would not (apparently).

I don’t know about you, but my own common sense dictates that I would not go near anyone carrying an AR. Even so, it obviously did not deter the attackers. — NOS4A2

Auto self refutation, I love it when that happens.

Nobody but the Dutch particularly care about the Dutch attitude toward the Rittenhouse verdict. — frank

Similarly, nobody but you cares about your take on the Rittenhouse verdict. In fact you probably never spoken a word or wrote a sentence anybody should care about.

The verdict: When you boil it all down to the nut, here is what we find: Incentive for an arms race.

We have a saying in the U.S.: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." That would include fists, skateboards, or even handguns-against-rifles.

The counter to this would be: Don't bring a rifle to a riot, unless you are law enforcement, or you have to be there to protect your property (like the Korean Americans did in the L.A. riots; they stayed on their own property, too).

Because, if people start bringing rifles to riots, and if law enforcement stands idly by and does nothing about it, or even encourages it by taking sides, then rioters will start bringing rifles to riots. The arms race is on.

And the fault will lie squarely on the backs of law enforcement for failing to enforce the law. And by "law enforcement" I include judges who act like they are law enforcement.

If some people want to say that law enforcement has already failed to enforce the law with respect to the rioters, and thus we must arm-up and suppress the riots ourselves, and if those riots are themselves the result of the actions of law enforcement acting unlawfully, and the system letting them walk, then the civil war is on. Law enforcement will have taken a side against the people.

Arms race? Have any of you people ever heard of I.E.D.s? Insurgency? Snipers? Poison? Etc.? Can you imagine what it would be like to try to go to the grocery to buy milk in such an environment?

And here's the deal: Foreign bad actors (Russia?) and others will have all the incentive in the world to throw gas on the fire, provide aid and comfort *to both sides*. Some, like myself, suspect this has already happened and is happening. America is divided against itself and such a house cannot stand.

We better get our shit together. And I mean now. So I say again, leadership and law enforcement, particularly the POTUS, the FBI, and the DOJ: We are watching. Unite us. Be a Lincoln, not a Trump.

P.S. For all the children out there: If you don't want to escalate, and if you support law enforcement, then get the training and become a cop, or stay out of the battle space.

White people are black people, riots are protests…anymore doublespeak to add? — NOS4A2

I think you're in your own straw world on this one.

Maybe. Still, nobody but the Dutch and a few stragglers care much about a Dutch attitude toward the Rittenhouse verdict.

Yeah that in a nutshell.

Fair enough about your legal interests.

But your question about whether his carrying a weapon into a riot should contribute to his blameworthiness is interesting. I say it does not. He has the right to open-carry that weapon in that state (I’m not sure about carrying concealed weapons). He wasn’t out there committing crimes. His attackers are aware he is carrying it. And he used it to defend himself from attack. Why would a legal system ascribe more blame to this scenario?

Why would a legal system ascribe more blame to this scenario? — NOS4A2

To avoid an arms race. You know, where you, NOS, or your loved-ones, can still go the grocery store and not worry about getting blown up. Do you think you have what it takes to live in a combat zone? With your family?

I'm not black, so I can't pretend to understand why they don't escalate and start shooting whites. But I *suspect* it might have something to do with being a minority. They know that when whites start blowing up whites, one side of that equation is going to blame blacks, and then blacks will end up on the short end of the stick for something they did not do. So they don't want whites to start blowing up whites. I don't want it either.

But whites, like those in WI, did not bring rifles to what turned out to be a rifle fight. They have learned, now, that having a rifle is a good thing.

That is why a legal system should ascribe more blame to the scenario, where a pudgy little kid who doesn't even shave starts wandering around a riot zone with an AR and the cops don't do shit about it. It's a recipe for escalation. Just because you have a right does not mean you have no responsibility. That's why we should have adults in the room.

But hey, you make your bed. You can sleep in. Don't say you weren't warned. "May your children live in interesting times." Anon.

My point was that deterrence and self-defence is the most likely intent to open-carrying a weapon. — NOS4A2

No. Being an immature asshole lost in some fantasy is the reality. Think about it: no sensible person with any brains at all open-carries. Why would they?

Outside of law-enforcement and professional security, very few people have any business carrying any gun. It is all fantasy, immaturity, and personality disorder. But because the guns at least are real, dangerous.

In the video referenced just above, the point is made that the crimes charged were very specific, and the laws under which they were charged problematic. For example, if KR had instead been killed, likely his killers also would have been acquitted, if even charged.

KR wasn't charged with what was the truth, that he created the situation in which he killed people. The police should have detained him at first sight. After all, if I'm a policeman at a disturbance, the last thing I want is children running around with rifles - and if I am a policeman, that is my call.

A recipe for escalation… it’s a nonsensical notion unless people start attacking the person carrying the gun.

A man and his daughter excercized their same right just outside the Rittenhouse trial where people were protesting, and no escalation entered the equation. Had people attacked them it would be a different story, of course.

A recipe for escalation… it’s a nonsensical notion unless people start attacking the person carrying the gun. — NOS4A2

That photo is proof of my point. DOH!. What you are saying is what we used to call "MAD" or Mutually Assured Destruction. It's the very arms race I tried to describe to you. The fact that you would advocate it in your individualist, libertarian fantasy world shows you just how far you are from individualism and libertarianism. :roll:

If I am seeing right, the man has a scope on his rifle that implies he does not know what his rifle is for. It is, then, just a dressed up expensive toy - my dick is bigger than your dick. His face, on the other hand, tells of a different reality - he at least does not appear to be an immature asshole.

Well put Wajahat Ali. Police shooting an unarmed black man in the back because they thought he might have a knife: fine. Police shooting or courts punishing an obviously armed white boy, not fine. What's the distinction here.

I don’t care how many arms people carry. If they don’t attack each other no one gets shot. The child rapist who first attacked Rittenhouse assumed, wrongly, that Rittenhouse wouldn’t defend himself. He said “you won’t do shit” as he attacked him. He wasn’t deterred by the weapon. Boy, was he wrong.

And the picture goes against your race-thinking pundit. Everyone was cool with it.