Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(10-28-2021, 10:36 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Often times people are victims of their own actions.

Unless they happen to be a 17-year-old white kid traveling across a state line with a weapon

because he heard there might be a riot somewhere and he wanted to "protect property."

If you just look at the facts and don't get all political, its not his fault if people tried to disarm him during

the riot and he killed them and then could walk right by the

police carrying a long gun and not even be stopped.

Irrelevant if a black kid could not get away with that. Speculation anyway.

When did an armed minor killing people in self defense while protecting someone else's property one state over during a riot

become a crime in this country? 

Should be legal to come armed to a riot and stand your ground if you only meant to protect.

If police were allowed to respond with greater violence there probably wouldn't even be riots. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2021, 11:15 AM)Dill Wrote: Unless they happen to be a 17-year-old white kid traveling across a state line with a weapon

because he heard there might be a riot somewhere and he wanted to "protect property."

If you just look at the facts and don't get all political, its not his fault if people tried to disarm him during

the riot and he killed them and then could walk right by the

police carrying a long gun and not even be stopped.

Irrelevant if a black kid could not get away with that. Speculation anyway.

When did an armed minor killing people in self defense while protecting someone else's property one state over during a riot

become a crime in this country? 

Should be legal to come armed to a riot and stand your ground if you only meant to protect.

If police were allowed to respond with greater violence there probably wouldn't even be riots. 

For someone who prides themselves on a logical argument this reads rather like a diatribe.  But let's examine your "points".

Crossed state lines.  You mentioned it twice, so you clearly think it's important.  Unfortunately, you included factually incorrect assertions as well, as he did not cross state lines with a weapon.  I am left wondering why crossing state lines is important to you, why you think it matters to the facts of the case.  This is irrelevant, but I'll include it as it rather points out how nonsensical this point of yours is.  He lived in an area of Illinois that is literally right on the border of Wisconsin.  Antioch, Illinois is 33 miles from Kenosha.  Now, let's say he lived in the part of Wisconsin that is as far away as possible from Kenosha.  If he lived in Superior, Wisconsin and traveled to Kenosha that would be 427.7 miles.  Would that be more palatable to you?  After all he's not crossing state lines, which is apparently a very big deal to you.  I'm waiting for someone to try and bring up RICO (which would be the only reason crossing state lines would even be relevant) so hilarity can ensue.


You want to make a case for Rittenhouse being guilty, please do so.  But this post just comes across as weak sarcasm, adding nothing to the conversation.  You are right about one thing though, it's absolutely not his fault that a mob of rioters tried to attack and disarm him for having the audacity to interfere with their attempts to blow up a gas station.  

[Belsnickel]

Yeah, I'm not reading this entire thread. Rittenhouse had a firearm illegally, but the shooting was, IMHO, justified. He was being chased, a round was fired by someone in the chase, and that is when he turned to find someone right on top of him. I would likely have reacted the same way. Guy would've had a 9mm bullet go through him instead of a 5.56, but the result is the same.

Now, the judge saying the term "victim" is prohibited can be understandable given the loaded connotations. However, other terms still allowed are also quite loaded. I definitely think the decision is a bit one-sided. Either we seek to rid the room of pathos or we let it in, don't let one side play with it while the other can't.

All in all, I believe Rittenhouse should be found guilty of his possession charge, but that's it.

[jj22]

(10-28-2021, 12:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   You mentioned it twice, so you clearly think it's important.  Unfortunately, you included factually incorrect assertions as well, as he did not cross state lines with a weapon.  I 

Not to get involved in this debate between the two of you, but for me it's important because of the argument of standing your ground. Standing your ground means your home your street your neighborhood (which is a stretch, but for the sake of argument) - or at least it should. You can't go looking for trouble (in my opinion), then claim standing your ground. Ideally as a parent, I'd argue he had no business involved in that mess anyway. We learned in the Travon case that this isn't so since he was killed after he was followed for miles and then confronted. But because he started wining the fight and got shot, the guy didn't get jail because he "stood his ground". The law I guess, but ridiculous as he shouldn't have been searching for trouble. He too became a hero of the right (even tho as time went on people realized he wasn't a good person at all).

When do we draw the line for standing your ground. Can I come to your place (state, home, street), involve myself in something that doesn't involve me, and then kill you and claim I am "standing my ground". Ideally the message would be (if politics wasn't involved), mind ya own business and you wouldn't have gotten into this trouble.

But that common sense is out the window. 

[jj22]

(10-28-2021, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would likely have reacted the same way. 

Hopefully Belsnickel you would have stayed home and not went to a whole nother state to get involved in something that had already turned violent etc. And if you did, you know what, people should have to suffer the consequences. The lesson Republicans are trying to teach by supporting this kid is nothing a good parent would teach their child.

I'm sure regardless of what people say if they had a 17 year old, they would have told them not to go, and knew the consequences of seeking trouble that don't involved them. We as parents always (well I have) preached this.

Don't go involving yourself in mess that don't involve you..... Am I the only one raised and raised my kids with that advice at times?

[GMDino]

(10-28-2021, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I'm not reading this entire thread. Rittenhouse had a firearm illegally, but the shooting was, IMHO, justified. He was being chased, a round was fired by someone in the chase, and that is when he turned to find someone right on top of him. I would likely have reacted the same way. Guy would've had a 9mm bullet go through him instead of a 5.56, but the result is the same.

Now, the judge saying the term "victim" is prohibited can be understandable given the loaded connotations. However, other terms still allowed are also quite loaded. I definitely think the decision is a bit one-sided. Either we seek to rid the room of pathos or we let it in, don't let one side play with it while the other can't.

All in all, I believe Rittenhouse should be found guilty of his possession charge, but that's it.

There's a bit more to it so it's not as one sided as the headline make it seem.

(10-28-2021, 12:42 PM)jj22 Wrote: Not to get involved in this debate between the two of you, but for me it's important because of the argument of standing your ground. Standing your ground means your home your street your neighborhood (which is a stretch, but for the sake of argument) - or at least it should. You can't go looking for trouble (in my opinion), then claim standing your ground. Ideally as a parent, I'd argue he had no business involved in that mess anyway. We learned in the Travon case that this isn't so since he was killed after he was followed for miles and then confronted. But because he started wining the fight and got shot, the guy didn't get jail because he "stood his ground". The law I guess, but ridiculous as he shouldn't have been searching for trouble. He too became a hero of the right (even tho as time went on people realized he wasn't a good person at all).

When do we draw the line for standing your ground. Can I come to your place (state, home, street), involve myself in something that doesn't involve me, and then kill you and claim I am "standing my ground". Ideally the message would be (if politics wasn't involved), mind ya own business and you wouldn't have gotten into this trouble.

But that common sense is out the window. 

The sad thing is he can "stand his ground" anywhere.  In some sates he can initiate the confrontation and be found not guilty, or even charged, for killing someone because he was "attacked".  (Zimmerman)

But I think in this case it will be more "Self defense" than stand your ground (without knowing that state's laws).

Now if he had not gone, had not been armed, had not attempted to do something he was not trained or prepared to do there would have been no killing to defend.  But all of that will be moot because he will be seen to have been, pardon this, the "victim" of an attack that he had to shoot to protect himself.

And again I think it is stupid that someone can put themselves in that situation and then claim they were the victim when they had the choice to not be there at all.  Just as the three dead people had a choice not to chase him.  In the end Rittenhouse's choice led to the deaths but they will be found justified because the people he agitated didn't walk away from him.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2021, 12:42 PM)jj22 Wrote: Not to get involved in this debate between the two of you, but for me it's important because of the argument of standing your ground. Standing your ground means your home your street your neighborhood. You can't go looking for trouble (in my opinion), then claim standing your ground. Ideally as a parent, I'd argue he had no business involved in that mess anyway.

You're not interrupting, Dill just entered the chat.    To your point I would raise the same question that I asked Dill, would it be better if he hadn't crossed states lines and instead came from a town in Wisconsin over 400 miles away from Kenosha?  I understand your point, I feel the same way when I see rioters, both left and right leaning, in other scenarios.  One of the people convicted of firebombing a police station in Minneapolis came from Brainard, which is over a 100 miles away.  Yet I don't recall the same outrage at this, much farther distance.  

In any event, while I understand your point we live in a country in which our freedom of movement is guaranteed.  There is nothing illegal about traveling to another state or city to protest or counter protest.  In fact, that happens all the time.

Quote:When do we draw the line for standing your ground. Can I come to your place (state, home, street), involve myself in something that doesn't involve me, and then kill you and claim I am "standing my ground". Ideally the message would be (if politics wasn't involved), mind ya own business and you wouldn't have gotten into this trouble.

Ideally, sure.  But, again, traveling to another area to protest or counter protest is not illegal, nor should it be.

Quote:But that common sense is out the window. 

On both sides, I'd agree.

[*Nately120*]

(10-28-2021, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I'm not reading this entire thread. Rittenhouse had a firearm illegally, but the shooting was, IMHO, justified. He was being chased, a round was fired by someone in the chase, and that is when he turned to find someone right on top of him. I would likely have reacted the same way. Guy would've had a 9mm bullet go through him instead of a 5.56, but the result is the same.

Now, the judge saying the term "victim" is prohibited can be understandable given the loaded connotations. However, other terms still allowed are also quite loaded. I definitely think the decision is a bit one-sided. Either we seek to rid the room of pathos or we let it in, don't let one side play with it while the other can't.

All in all, I believe Rittenhouse should be found guilty of his possession charge, but that's it.

This is how I feel.  I think liberals should just let this one go and try not to give the violent extremist neo-cons who like the idea of someone killing liberals the satisfaction of refusing to believe this was a justified action.

Seriously, if the idea of neo-cons getting hard over a conservative killing liberals gets you down just go over to that reddit thing that laughs at anti-vaxxers who die of covid and get your symmetrical jollies.

[BmorePat87]

I thought the importance of crossing state lines had to do with laws differing between the states regarding whoever illegally supplied him with the firearm.

With regards to using the term victim vs rioter, definitely an issue there. Both carry big emotional connotations. Were both rioters?

The first guy killed chased him with a plastic bag with maybe a beverage bottle in it. Scared for his life? I don't know. I find it to be a tough argument to suggest that he needed to turn around and shoot him point blank because of that. The second guy reacted to someone saying that this armed man just killed someone and then tried to apprehend him. Someone may respond "he had a gun too", but he also didn't use it. Funny how if he had shot first, he'd be the one arguing self defense because an armed person had just killed someone and then pointed a rifle at him as he tried to disarm him.

I've made my position clear. He chose to illegally arm himself and travel to a place with what appears to be the intent to engage somehow with the other side. He chose to kill a man who was chasing him with a bag and maybe a bottle after the guy had thrown the bag and kept running towards him. I just don't see the justification of lethal force. Since I view that as murder, I then don't see an argument for self defense when people tried to subdue him for killing a man.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2021, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I thought the importance of crossing state lines had to do with laws differing between the states regarding whoever illegally supplied him with the firearm.

Yes, that was the initial reason for it being brought up.  Even then crossing state lines is only an issue if you do so in furtherance of a crime.  If the crime involves different laws in different jurisdictions, which btw could also take place within the same state, then the crossing state lines is only relevant in that regard.  At this point it's a talking point for people who dislike Rittenhouse and want him convicted.

Quote:With regards to using the term victim vs rioter, definitely an issue there. Both carry big emotional connotations. Were both rioters?

You're missing a key point here.  The bench officer stated they could only label the deceased as rioters if the provide evidence they were involved in riotous activity and not before.  So, it's a much more fair ruling that being portrayed by some.

Quote:The first guy killed chased him with a plastic bag with maybe a beverage bottle in it. Scared for his life? I don't know. I find it to be a tough argument to suggest that he needed to turn around and shoot him point blank because of that.

You're again missing a key piece of evidence here, quite honestly the most key piece of them all.  One of the other people chasing Rittenhouse also fired a hand gun, as I mention in my second post in this thread.  Seeing as how Rittenhouse had his back to the mob chasing him he would obviously be unaware of who fired the shot or that it was fired in the air.  Secondly, Rosenbaum then, by all accounts, physically assaulted Rittenhouse and attempted to rob him of his firearm.  At that point his throwing a plastic bag, even if Rittenhouse knew that was all he had previously done, is no longer relevant.  If a member of an angry mob physically attacks me and attempts to take my firearm I'm going to logically conclude that my life is in danger if they succeed and act accordingly.

Quote:The second guy reacted to someone saying that this armed man just killed someone and then tried to apprehend him. Someone may respond "he had a gun too", but he also didn't use it. Funny how if he had shot first, he'd be the one arguing self defense because an armed person had just killed someone and then pointed a rifle at him as he tried to disarm him.

That wasn't the second guy, that was the third.  The second guy is the one who chose to strike Rittenhouse with a skateboard (deadly weapon) while Rittenhouse was fleeing the scene.  (I do find it odd how all these people who hate the police want to be amateur cops)  The third guy is the one who approached brandishing a hand gun and was initially aggressive, then feigned surrender before again assuming an aggressive posture and being shot.

Quote:I've made my position clear. He chose to illegally arm himself and travel to a place with what appears to be the intent to engage somehow with the other side. He chose to kill a man who was chasing him with a bag and maybe a bottle after the guy had thrown the bag and kept running towards him. I just don't see the justification of lethal force. Since I view that as murder, I then don't see an argument for self defense when people tried to subdue him for killing a man.

Respectfully, your account of this incident is riddled with inaccuracies and omits extremely important details.  Again respectfully, this appears to be a trend of those condemning Rittenhouse in this thread.  I did a point by point breakdown of this incident in my second post, which no detractor has attempted to address or refute.

I will end with this.  The misinformation leading some to condemn Rittenhouse is exactly why I think he should go with a bench trial.  All it takes is one person who ignores the actual evidence and condemn this kid for reasons not relevant to the claim of self defense to cause a mistrial.  With a bench trial his acquittal is a near certainty.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

For those who care to read it, here's a rather even handed piece on the bench officer for this case.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-judge-kenosha-shooting-20211028-zzh5ma4i65dtbdriaxadk5utdy-story.html

[Dill]

(10-28-2021, 12:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You want to make a case for Rittenhouse being guilty, please do so.  But this post just comes across as weak sarcasm, adding nothing to the conversation.  You are right about one thing though, it's absolutely not his fault that a mob of rioters tried to attack and disarm him for having the audacity to interfere with their attempts to blow up a gas station.  

"Parody" is the term you want here.  

(10-28-2021, 12:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For someone who prides themselves on a logical argument this reads rather like a diatribe.  But let's examine your "points".

Crossed state lines.  You mentioned it twice, so you clearly think it's important.  Unfortunately, you included factually incorrect assertions as well, as he did not cross state lines with a weapon.  I am left wondering why crossing state lines is important to you, why you think it matters to the facts of the case.  This is irrelevant, but I'll include it as it rather points out how nonsensical this point of yours is.  He lived in an area of Illinois that is literally right on the border of Wisconsin.  Antioch, Illinois is 33 miles from Kenosha.  Now, let's say he lived in the part of Wisconsin that is as far away as possible from Kenosha.  If he lived in Superior, Wisconsin and traveled to Kenosha that would be 427.7 miles.  Would that be more palatable to you?  After all he's not crossing state lines, which is apparently a very big deal to you.  I'm waiting for someone to try and bring up RICO (which would be the only reason crossing state lines would even be relevant) so hilarity can ensue.

You want to laugh at people?

People are interested in R's crossing of a state line because they want to know what jurisdictional questions might be raised by R's actions, not "distance" questions. 

The night of the shooting, how did R get the weapon he had purchased illegally and was carrying illegally to Kenosha?

I am relieved to see that I am not the only one on this thread who sees more to this case than simply question of R's guilt under current law.

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2021, 06:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: This is how I feel.  I think liberals should just let this one go and try not to give the violent extremist neo-cons who like the idea of someone killing liberals the satisfaction of refusing to believe this was a justified action.

Seriously, if the idea of neo-cons getting hard over a conservative killing liberals gets you down just go over to that reddit thing that laughs at anti-vaxxers who die of covid and get your symmetrical jollies.

I know you're being snarky with this post, but in the end I am an institutionalist. Believe me when I say that I know about the attitudes of many about the situation and, quite frankly, it sickens me. I'm not blind to the way parts of the firearm community behave in situations like this. I've dressed down quite a few people lately over their commentary on the Alec Baldwin situation.

It is with all this in mind that I say what I say. I'm basing my position on the evidence and the law. I don't care about the pathos arguments that both sides are employing. I care about what happened and what the law says about it. The jury may find differently. They may be swayed by the more emotional arguments. That is our system. Hell, the prosecuting attorneys could drop some evidence that Rittenhouse actually demonstrated intent to kill rather than the presumptuous positions everyone seems to be taking on the issue.

Right now, based on the evidence and the law, Rittenhouse should only answer for the charge of illegal possession that he is charged with, not the others. We have a system of innocent until proven guilty in this country, and the illegal possession charge is the only one I have seen proof of his guilt for.

[*Nately120*]

(10-29-2021, 08:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know you're being snarky with this post, but in the end I am an institutionalist. Believe me when I say that I know about the attitudes of many about the situation and, quite frankly, it sickens me. I'm not blind to the way parts of the firearm community behave in situations like this. I've dressed down quite a few people lately over their commentary on the Alex Baldwin situation.

It is with all this in mind that I say what I say. I'm basing my position on the evidence and the law. I don't care about the pathos arguments that both sides are employing. I care about what happened and what the law says about it. The jury may find differently. They may be swayed by the more emotional arguments. That is our system. Hell, the prosecuting attorneys could drop some evidence that Rittenhouse actually demonstrated intent to kill rather than the presumptuous positions everyone seems to be taking on the issue.

Right now, based on the evidence and the law, Rittenhouse should only answer for the charge of illegal possession that he is charged with, not the others. We have a system of innocent until proven guilty in this country, and the illegal possession charge is the only one I have seen proof of his guilt for.

I legitimately agree with you. I'm just providing some snarky insight on the latest developments of Americans celebrating the deaths of those politically opposed to them. 

20 years ago the enemy was "over there" and now the enemy is next door.  This goes beyond one justified shooting and X number of deaths.  

It's justified and I'm fine with that.  The deeper and more interesting issue is how this adds to what i see as Americans fettishizing the suffering and death of their enemies and the enemies being fellow Americans.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2021, 01:14 AM)Dill Wrote: "Parody" is the term you want here.

 

Much more like snarky, but that's my opinion.

Quote:You want to laugh at people?

People?  Not at all.  Arguments.

Quote:People are interested in R's crossing of a state line because they want to know what jurisdictional questions might be raised by R's actions, not "distance" questions. 

No, they aren't as this has been addressed, both here and elsewhere.  Anyone still bringing it up is engaging in the use of talking points to muddy the waters.

Quote:The night of the shooting, how did R get the weapon he had purchased illegally and was carrying illegally to Kenosha?

There's plenty of evidence addressing this, he got it from a friend who purchased it in Wisconsin.  Now, this raises strawman purchasing concerns, but that wouldn't apply to Rittenhouse, but the person who bought it.  It also has absolutely nothing to do with the crux of the case, which is the self defense argument.

Quote:I am relieved to see that I am not the only one on this thread who sees more to this case than simply question of R's guilt under current law.

Oh, so you're not discussing the subject of the thread other than as an indictment of our criminal justice system in general?  That wasn't clear, at all.  It's also not rather germane to the trial itself, hence my not assuming that was what you were doing.  I would be happy to actually discuss the substance of the case with you, if you are so inclined.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2021, 08:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know you're being snarky with this post, but in the end I am an institutionalist. Believe me when I say that I know about the attitudes of many about the situation and, quite frankly, it sickens me. I'm not blind to the way parts of the firearm community behave in situations like this. I've dressed down quite a few people lately over their commentary on the Alec Baldwin situation.

Yes, some of that has been way over the top.  On the other hand, he's getting way too much of a free pass from many.  He was a producer, hence he has much more responsibility for on set safety than someone who is just there acting.  He also knowingly ignored long established safety protocols regarding the handling of firearms on set.  I'm absolutely not saying, with the evidence available, that he should be charged with negligent homicide, but he is definitely more culpable than many are stating.

Quote:It is with all this in mind that I say what I say. I'm basing my position on the evidence and the law. I don't care about the pathos arguments that both sides are employing. I care about what happened and what the law says about it. The jury may find differently. They may be swayed by the more emotional arguments. That is our system. Hell, the prosecuting attorneys could drop some evidence that Rittenhouse actually demonstrated intent to kill rather than the presumptuous positions everyone seems to be taking on the issue.

You're seeing a perfect microcosm of that here in this thread.  The pro-self defense posts in this thread actually address the evidence at hand.  The anti-self defense posts tend to be appeals to emotion and, quite honestly, have frequently gotten their facts wrong.  As I stated in my second post, I don't know how anyone can look at the evidence at hand through a logical, dispassionate legal lens and not agree with the self defense argument.  You see tons of "he shouldn't have been there" and "the cops drove right past him", etc. none of which have any bearing whatsoever on whether Rittenhouse acted in self defense.  Even if he is guilty of possessing the firearm illegally that has zero bearing on the argument of self defense.

Quote:Right now, based on the evidence and the law, Rittenhouse should only answer for the charge of illegal possession that he is charged with, not the others. We have a system of innocent until proven guilty in this country, and the illegal possession charge is the only one I have seen proof of his guilt for.

100%

(10-29-2021, 09:06 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I legitimately agree with you. I'm just providing some snarky insight on the latest developments of Americans celebrating the deaths of those politically opposed to them. 

20 years ago the enemy was "over there" and now the enemy is next door.  This goes beyond one justified shooting and X number of deaths.  

It's justified and I'm fine with that.  The deeper and more interesting issue is how this adds to what i see as Americans fettishizing the suffering and death of their enemies and the enemies being fellow Americans.  

That is certainly a troubling after effect of this incident, and yet another reason why so many people have trouble divorcing their emotions from this case.

[Belsnickel]

(10-29-2021, 11:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, some of that has been way over the top.  On the other hand, he's getting way too much of a free pass from many.  He was a producer, hence he has much more responsibility for on set safety than someone who is just there acting.  He also knowingly ignored long established safety protocols regarding the handling of firearms on set.  I'm absolutely not saying, with the evidence available, that he should be charged with negligent homicide, but he is definitely more culpable than many are stating.

As a producer, he is civilly liable because of the working conditions that caused staff to walk off and for the employment of a negligent armorer. He and the rest of the production staff will face some serious liability claims and they need to. The glee I have seen from some, though, has been really bad. This isn't to say my affinity for dark humor hasn't led me to chuckle at some of the memes, especially because I can't stand Baldwin, but at the same time you have several ruined lives, one of them completely lost, with this incident. The firearms community should come together to show compassion but seek accountability. The approach we've seen from some will be used against us for a long time.

[*Nately120*]

(10-29-2021, 11:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: As a producer, he is civilly liable because of the working conditions that caused staff to walk off and for the employment of a negligent armorer. He and the rest of the production staff will face some serious liability claims and they need to. The glee I have seen from some, though, has been really bad. This isn't to say my affinity for dark humor hasn't led me to chuckle at some of the memes, especially because I can't stand Baldwin, but at the same time you have several ruined lives, one of them completely lost, with this incident. The firearms community should come together to show compassion but seek accountability. The approach we've seen from some will be used against us for a long time.

The counter to Alec Baldwin being culpable has shifted to the 24 year old woman who had a shaky history of professional conduct as the firearms person (the term/job title I just learned because of this escapes me at the moment).  So we can have the right wing laughing at a peacenick ultra lib shooting and killing someone and a blonde who loved posing with guns being blamed by the left.  Each side gets their scapegoat and so on.  Meanwhile someone is dead, but hey...again...what is one more life in the latest cold/civil war we have going on in this country.

Of course I'm assuming the woman who was in charge in this situation can be molded into a stand in for the "conservatives are to blame" side of things.  I don't know her background or affiliation or any of that stuff (not that that matters too much). 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-29-2021, 11:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: As a producer, he is civilly liable because of the working conditions that caused staff to walk off and for the employment of a negligent armorer. He and the rest of the production staff will face some serious liability claims and they need to. The glee I have seen from some, though, has been really bad. This isn't to say my affinity for dark humor hasn't led me to chuckle at some of the memes, especially because I can't stand Baldwin, but at the same time you have several ruined lives, one of them completely lost, with this incident. The firearms community should come together to show compassion but seek accountability. The approach we've seen from some will be used against us for a long time.

I agree.  Some of the memes have been clever but many have been downright nasty.  I get the appeal for some of taking the piss out of a vehement anti-gun person who negligently killed someone with a gun.  Also, while I enjoy Baldwin as an actor (his character in 30 Rock is near perfection) he's an insufferable prick off the set.  But yes, the glee that some have in mocking him has been a bad look to be sure.

On a related note, a YouTube channel I watch, I don't recall which at the moment, raised an interesting point regarding the push to ban firearms on set after this incident.  They pointed out that Brandon Lee died under much less negligent, but still negligent, circumstances and there was no such push then.  Additionally, the move seems like more than a little bit of an overreaction to me.  This kind of thing is exceedingly rare, and won't happen at all with a competent armorer on set.  How many people are killed on the job by forklifts every year?  We certainly don't see a drive to ban forklifts.  I suppose, for some, your life only matters if your death is news worthy.

(10-29-2021, 12:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The counter to Alec Baldwin being culpable has shifted to the 24 year old woman who had a shaky history of professional conduct as the firearms person (the term/job title I just learned because of this escapes me at the moment).  So we can have the right wing laughing at a peacenick ultra lib shooting and killing someone and a blonde who loved posing with guns being blamed by the left.  Each side gets their scapegoat and so on.  Meanwhile someone is dead, but hey...again...what is one more life in the latest cold/civil war we have going on in this country.

Of course I'm assuming the woman who was in charge in this situation can be molded into a stand in for the "conservatives are to blame" side of things.  I don't know her background or affiliation or any of that stuff (not that that matters too much). 

Baldwin is/was a producer.  He is in charge of the production, safety being included within that.  I would be in total agreement with you if he was just a paid actor on set.  By all accounts thus far they were trying to get by on the cheap with this movie and there were numerous safety violations and concerns, so much so that people had already walked off set because of it.  Also, the armorer appears to be atypical Hollywood nepotism hire.  A story recently came out that she was lambasted by Nicholas Cage for unsafe/unprofessional behavior on a previous set.  So she had a history.

[*Nately120*]

(10-29-2021, 12:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Baldwin is/was a producer.  He is in charge of the production, safety being included within that.  I would be in total agreement with you if he was just a paid actor on set.  By all accounts thus far they were trying to get by on the cheap with this movie and there were numerous safety violations and concerns, so much so that people had already walked off set because of it.  Also, the armorer appears to be atypical Hollywood nepotism hire.  A story recently came out that she was lambasted by Nicholas Cage for unsafe/unprofessional behavior on a previous set.  So she had a history.

I'm looking into this more in the psychological ways it plays into the biased mindset of an American population currently at war with itself.  In the same way with the Rittenhouse thing, the facts are damn near irrelevant to people and the manner by which the situation is discussed/criticized/celebrated and how that affects the world in which we live.

The OJ trial was an early indicator of this sort of thing.  It's like....people can admit the facts don't really support their narrative but they feel that making their narrative known and putting their solutions into effect are important enough to justify ignoring the reality of the situation.