Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening

[SupahEwok]

>on your level
How very condescending.

Tbf every moment spent in a Houseman argument lowers the "level" of everyone involved. C'mon, guys. There's got to be better things for you to do. While y'all have added 10 pages to this thread saying the same things, I've done my week's worth of studying for my grad class and done a swim workout.

Have puppies.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Tbf every moment spent in a Houseman argument lowers the "level" of everyone involved. C'mon, guys. There's got to be better things for you to do. While y'all have added 10 pages to this thread saying the same things, I've done my week's worth of studying for my grad class and done a swim workout.

Have puppies.

You shown just a drunk puppy. This cute propaganda is for underaged drinking!

Damnit, Ewok, I always knew you were cool. But using your coolness to get kids soused? I'm ok with that. Hard year for everyone.

 

[Houseman]

>on your level
How very condescending.

I mean, I'm typing 200-word elementary-school essays on the topic, and you're typing one or two sentences.
I feel like you aren't putting as much effort into this as I am, and I would just appreciate it if you would meet me half-way. I would like to see a good argument from you where you break down your logic and explain things, but I'm just not seeing that, is all.

However you never actually showed why 2.b overrides.

I did in post #528

But you attempted to argue that there could be no possibility of "good-faith withdrawal" because a "good-faith withdrawal" would have taken place before the fight ever happened, but the law explicitly allows for one to withdraw in the middle of a fight, and to that you said "none of that matters because 2.c"

It's a circular argument on your part.

Me: 2.b overrides 2.c
You: no it doesn't, because there's no possibility of good-faith withdrawal
Me: yes there is, because the law says you can withdraw in the middle of a fight.
You: that doesn't matter anyway because 2.c overrides 2.b

Repeat from step 1.
That's what you're doing.

However I have a hypothetical for you, since you like them. If a school shooter stalks the halls and a teacher starts trying to get the gun away from them, can the shooter claim self defense?

No, because "stalking the halls" is not "withdrawing in good faith".

 

[Buyetyen]

Tbf every moment spent in a Houseman argument lowers the "level" of everyone involved. C'mon, guys. There's got to be better things for you to do. While y'all have added 10 pages to this thread saying the same things, I've done my week's worth of studying for my grad class and done a swim workout.

Have puppies.

Which reminds me, I have a stack of library books to work through. If any of you are sci-fi fans and haven't heard of Fredric Brown, look him up because he rules. His short stories average about 500 words and end with some downright hilarious twists. My personal favorite so far: Question. Look it up. I guarantee it will provide you with more joy and intellectual nourishment than the on-going sophistry.

 

[Revnak]

I’ll say it again, if you have independent intent/motive to do violence and are in the process of violating multiple other laws, you are not gonna be able to get away with claims of self defense. This is just Charlottesville with a younger killer who was in the process of breaking more laws when he killed them. This isn’t fucking complicated.

 

[SupahEwok]

You shown just a drunk puppy. This cute propaganda is for underaged drinking!

Damnit, Ewok, I always knew you were cool. But using your coolness to get kids soused? I'm ok with that. Hard year for everyone.

"Remember kids, don't drink and pup."

"You're no pup so don't drive drunk."

"You can hand over your pup or your life. Make the right choice."

"Drinking and pupping is a gamble that you just can't win."

"Pupping and Driving: a Grave Mistake."

"Pupping isn't cool, it makes you act like a fool."

"Pup Hammered, get slammered."

"Puppyness is nothing but voluntary madness."

"Pups don't let pups drive drunk."

 

[Houseman]

Have puppies.

TWO PEOPLE ARE DEAD! HAVE SOME RESPECT! SPECIFICALLY BY ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT .223 IS THE SAME AS 5.56 AND THE MINUTIA OF WISCONSIN LAW (DESPITE HIM BEING TRIED IN ILLINOIS UNDER ILLINOIS LAWS) /s

 

[SupahEwok]

Which reminds me, I have a stack of library books to work through. If any of you are sci-fi fans and haven't heard of Fredric Brown, look him up because he rules. His short stories average about 500 words and end with some downright hilarious twists. My personal favorite so far: Question. Look it up. I guarantee it will provide you with more joy and intellectual nourishment than the on-going sophistry.

I wished I'd used more of my pandemic blues to read rather than surf the net, but now that I'm employed it's all about studying up to get ahead. Ah well. Maybe someday I'll find that Nirvana of "work-life balance" that I hear the kids always talking about.

 

[SupahEwok]

TWO PEOPLE ARE DEAD! HAVE SOME RESPECT! SPECIFICALLY BY ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT .223 IS THE SAME AS 5.56 AND THE MINUTIA OF WISCONSIN LAW (DESPITE HIM BEING TRIED IN ILLINOIS UNDER ILLINOIS LAWS) /s

 

[Agema]

And yet we're on page 27.

You'll have a 27 page thread on whether the Earth is flat or spherical if you get the right (/wrong) people on the forum, even though that should be the easiest slam-dunk imaginable.

It doesn't help that no-one here is an expert in just about any issue connected to this. But even if there were, what people want to believe is often far more important to them than what's the case in reality. This isn't really a debate about how culpable this kid is, it's a debate about how people feel about law and order and politics.

 

[SupahEwok]

This isn't really a debate about how culpable this kid is, it's a debate about how people feel about law and order and politics.

You see a debate, I see everybody involved lining up behind their positions by page 5 and then yelling the same things over and over.

 

[Revnak]

TWO PEOPLE ARE DEAD! HAVE SOME RESPECT! SPECIFICALLY BY ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT .223 IS THE SAME AS 5.56 AND THE MINUTIA OF WISCONSIN LAW (DESPITE HIM BEING TRIED IN ILLINOIS UNDER ILLINOIS LAWS) /s

Houseman, we’re arguing minutiae because we’ve all decided to degrade ourselves and engage in internet sleuthing with you. Personally I’d rather just say he killed two dudes, will likely be convicted of murder, and move the fuck on.

 

[Silvanus]

I mean, I'm typing 200-word elementary-school essays on the topic [...]

I don't think 200 words constitutes an "essay".

 

[Houseman]

Houseman, we’re arguing minutiae because we’ve all decided to degrade ourselves and engage in internet sleuthing with you. Personally I’d rather just say he killed two dudes, will likely be convicted of murder, and move the fuck on.

Well thank you for sinking to my level. It's lonely down here. I appreciate it. However, I would understand if you wanted to move on. I'll be fine down here by myself. Honest. You go on, and I'll catch up with you later, someday.

I don't think 200 words constitutes an "essay".

You wanna argue about the minutiae of the word "essay"? *roll's up sleeves* alright let's do this!

 

[Agema]

find that Nirvana of "work-life balance" that I hear the kids always talking about.

"Work-life balance" is what your boss tells you need to find in pep talks, whilst the rest of the time he's barking at you to work 14h a day without any overtime pay.

I feel similarly about "reflective practice", which is another thing employers in my field tell us is an incredibly important part of our job, but never give us time to do in our workload models.

Houseman, we’re arguing minutiae because we’ve all decided to degrade ourselves and engage in internet sleuthing with you. Personally I’d rather just say he killed two dudes, will likely be convicted of murder, and move the fuck on.

I think in practice he needs to be found guilty of at least some degree of murder, because the ramifications if he's not are genuinely awful. It would be an open invitation to vigilante groups to make themselves self-appointed guardians of social order and roam the streets dispensing "self defence". If we imagine how broad the justifications police officers use to delete citizens, these vigilantes will use the same.

 

[Agema]

I don't think 200 words constitutes an "essay".

I'd call that a 15-minute short answer question in an exam.

 

[Revnak]

Well thank you for sinking to my level. It's lonely down here. I appreciate it. However, I would understand if you wanted to move on. I'll be fine down here by myself. Honest. You go on, and I'll catch up with you later, someday.

Aight

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I mean, I'm typing 200-word elementary-school essays on the topic, and you're typing one or two sentences.
I feel like you aren't putting as much effort into this as I am, and I would just appreciate it if you would meet me half-way. I would like to see a good argument from you where you break down your logic and explain things, but I'm just not seeing that, is all.

You type a lot to say a little.

I admittedly have issues not explaining my points well enough, but still

I did in post #528

But you attempted to argue that there could be no possibility of "good-faith withdrawal" because a "good-faith withdrawal" would have taken place before the fight ever happened, but the law explicitly allows for one to withdraw in the middle of a fight, and to that you said "none of that matters because 2.c"

It's a circular argument on your part.

Me: 2.b overrides 2.c
You: no it doesn't, because there's no possibility of good-faith withdrawal
Me: yes there is, because the law says you can withdraw in the middle of a fight.
You: that doesn't matter anyway because 2.c overrides 2.b

Repeat from step 1.
That's what you're doing.

It's not circular, I am however saying there wasn't a good faith withdraw because

No, because "stalking the halls" is not "withdrawing in good faith".

If you're already at the point where you're a threat to people, you can't just turn and run and claim self defense. The reason why 2.b doesn't apply and 2.c does is that he provoked an attack to have an excuse to "defend" himself. And proceeded to kill 2 people and injure a 3rd.

 

[Houseman]

I think in practice he needs to be found guilty of at least some degree of murder, because the ramifications if he's not are genuinely awful. It would be an open invitation to vigilante groups to make themselves self-appointed guardians of social order and roam the streets dispensing "self defence". If we imagine how broad the justifications police officers use to delete citizens, these vigilantes will use the same.

Is that really the law's... I'm trying to find the right word... purpose? Purview? Responsibility?
Should the law be concerned with "unintended consequences" like that?

If it's a choice between "making an example of him" and "letting bands of vigilantes patrol the streets", does it hang with the law to enforce "the greater good" or to judge everybody and every case on an individual basis?

Like what if there was some case, just after Jim Crow laws ended, that determined whether or not a black person can be denied a promotion because of his race, and all the racists were wringing their hands over the case saying "it would set a dangerous precedent" if the law decided against them. Shouldn't the law just be focused on the law, not whatever social issue is going on outside?

Legal and illegal shouldn't be influenced by social issues, is my point.

 

[Houseman]

If you're already at the point where you're a threat to people, you can't just turn and run and claim self defense.

If you're withdrawing, you're not a threat. You're either one or the other.

The reason why 2.b doesn't apply and 2.c does is that he provoked an attack to have an excuse to "defend" himself.

This is disproven by him fleeing. Fleeing shows a lack of malicious intent.