BuckAurelius

China takes over as the supreme super power. And we, as Americans, Brits, Euros, and Aussies, wonder how this could have possibly happened. By then it's too late to do anything about it.

The honest truth is that America cannot be the only country set against China. In case no one has noticed, America is deeply divided against itself. Therefore, in the absence of America, to stand against China, what other country is going to take America's place? My guess is none. Is Britain going to assume this role? Please. Are any other European countries going to assume this role? No. So let's sit back and enjoy Chinese hegemony for the next forty years.

Detail is always welcome. Please expand on your opinions. A multi-syllabic grunt is no argument. I understand that you were the one who originated this topic but you've had scant little to say on the matter, aside from your contention that what really convinced you of Rittenhouse's guilt was how compelling the prosecutor's summation was.

What I've been trying to do in this thread, mostly unsuccessfully, is to encourage people to look, really look, at the actual evidence. But this case is so hopelessly politicized, so polluted by tribalism, that it's a futile endeavor. And it isn't, nor should it be, a matter of politics. We should be willing to look at the factual evidence of a criminal case and judge it solely based on its merits. But does anybody here really believe this is what is actually happening here?

I said you were aptly named. That's all. I didn't call you a "fascist," a "racist," a "scum," the most toxic invective that you yourself have used on this thread against another person, who cares if this person is a member of the forum or not. You were the one who chose your ironic ASEAN moniker. I hardly think my comment constitutes a "flame." But apparently I've pushed some sensitive buttons here, and that was not my intention. So, I say again, let's move on and let other people express their own take.

I apologize if I hurt your feelings. But I'd rather you direct your ad hominem at me, rather than at the person who's currently facing decades in imprisonment. At any rate, an ad hominem is an ad hominem. If you don't like the ad hominem being directed at you, then don't direct your own at anybody else, including Rittenhouse. It's still a fallacy no matter who is the victim.

You've been hurling ad hominem juvenile name-calling at Rittenhouse from the outset. Give me a break. You're the last person who should be whining about ad hominem. And it's "hominem," not "hominen." You were the one who first introduced the long discredited falsehood into this thread that Rittenhouse illegally transported a firearm across state lines.

And you're aptly named. You've no cogent argument against the actual evidence of the case and so you call the defendant names and try to smear him by association. It's pitiful.

Rosenbaum might be the one case where Rittenhouse could have exercised better "trigger control." But it was dark, chaotic, and you can't tell if your first shots even hit the mark. Let me give you an example from my own experience. I was at a vape shop back in America about five years ago. Outside a man was walking around the boulevard threatening motorists with a knife. The police showed up. The man attempted to flee with the knife into a Circle K. The police officer, fearing a hostage situation, opened fire on the guy, striking him twice. He shot five times. Two stray bullets went into the smoke shop, one into the neighboring business, and shattered the display case right where I was standing. I agree that lethal force was justifiable in this case. I was not impressed either by the officer's marksmanship nor by his disregard for innocent bystanders. At the same time these things happen in split seconds, under very inhospitable circumstances, and we should take this into account. Rittenhouse, by comparison, exercised a lot more self-control than the so-called professional police officer. It's the very antithesis of the sort of behavior you'd expect from someone "out looking for trouble" or trying to pick a fight.

No firearms instructor in the world recommends you fire a warning shot, just as none of them recommend "shooting to wound." This includes most police training--you are trained to aim for center of mass, not for the arms or the legs. If you're interested why, there are many YouTube videos out there explaining all the reasons. I was a firearms instructor myself when in college and I always trained my students to aim center of mass or at the head, depending on the circumstances. You shoot to kill or not at all--more precisely, to "stop" your assailant--not to wound. Under the circumstances people are amazed that Rittenhouse hit every target he intended to hit, not a single stray shot or miss (correct me if I'm wrong), given that he was firing from the most awkward positions imaginable, no doubt bursting with adrenaline. I'm not happy that people died here. But it demonstrates a great deal of "trigger control" from Rittenhouse that he didn't start spraying bullets all over the place, and belies the narrative that he was on some sort of murderous rampage. BTW, he did not intend to shoot Gaige in the arm. That would have been a miraculous shot if so. In fact, in America, if you shoot to wound, prosecutors will actually use this against you if the case goes to court--claiming that you obviously did not feel that lethal force was justifiable, or you would have used lethal force. Sounds perverse, but prosecutors use this argument.

"The defense will need to prove that the pursuers were acting illegally if they want to establish self defense." Not sure where you're getting this from. There's no such requirement in American law. To claim self-defense you need to demonstrate that you had a reasonable fear of life and limb. You don't need to demonstrate that the axe-wielding maniac (for the sake of argument) chasing you through the woods was committing a crime by wielding an axe or chasing you. You have a reasonable fear that he means you great bodily harm.

That's not a bad take all things considered. But "firing in the air", giving a warning shot, is problematic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the guy who actually did fire a warning shot now being charged with a crime of some sort? It's also not realistic. When Rittenhouse did fire at Rosenbaum, the latter was within feet of Rittenhouse, after someone else had fired his gun, which could have been Rosenbaum for all Rittenhouse knew, as his back was turned to the shot. It also doesn't take into account the previous death threat by Rosenbaum to Rittenhouse. I agree that this shooting is the haziest of the three, but there's ample reasonable doubt here. If someone told me that the next time he saw me, he was going to kill me--especially under riotous circumstances--and a while later, proceeded to chase me headlong through a parking lot--you bet, I'd shoot the guy, armed or unarmed. Legally, this scenario doesn't preclude a valid claim of self-defense. Feet and fists kill lots and lots of people each year. I should have also added that you need to take Rosenbaum's previous hyper-aggressive behavior into account (caught on video) and his wild daring of the armed men to shoot him. Any contact with this guy would have demonstrated to anybody that Rosenbaum wasn't a man likely to be dissuaded by any sort of warning whatsoever. He chased a guy armed with an AR-15 across a parking lot, for F sake.

Okay, so it's not anything specifically about the evidence of the case, it's the persuasiveness of the state advocate's argument that convinced you? No, I haven't served on a jury myself, but I fear you might have, and that scares me a little, given your penchant for argumentation over evidence.

I can imagine it ;). Ten or eleven people, clutching their heads in dismay, while the one or two other people sit in their chairs with their arms crossed, refusing to listen to reason or consider the evidence.

I did watch them. I watched most of the trial. Exactly what piece, specifically, is supposed to edify me here?