OT: Rittenhouse shot "three black men" - apparently! (2023 Update)

Young black American juveniles are five time more likely to be incarcerated than white.

It is the left-libertarian position (this one's, anyway) that civilized nations don't try children as adults in the first place, as there isn't anyone particularly well-qualified to judge children brought to trial as if they're adults. Not adults, and certainly not children.

That Rittenhouse was charged as an adult AT ALL given that he was legally a child when the crime was committed is just symptomatic of the fact the US isn't a civilized nation...

Looks good now, thanks Pamela!

Baseball is _not_ a sport for vegetables. Watch American football if you want to be a vegetable. Worse yet, soccer.

bitrex snipped-for-privacy@example.net wrote

But while he was technically a child, the reality is that he wasn’t.

????

I guess you could always leave it up to the courts to determine which children are actually non-binary adult/childern, but jesus christ that doesn't sound like a particularly good idea.

Has a court or jury in a first-world country ever let an adult accused of untoward relations with a minor off because it determined the minor was, "in reality", an adult?

It is not illegal to be a White Supremacist or a Black Supremacist or a Women Supremacist. And it's not illegal to "keep and bear arms."

It is illegal to start dumpster fires and kick people in the head.

So many people are on the side of the bad guys. They deserve to live in a house full of bad guys.

Quite. Unfortunately the individual you are attempting to engage with is a notorious troll. Just thought I'd save you the bother of attempting to debate with him. This explains it in more depth:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property."

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.

Yes, it's a rich man's game in the UK as well as a plaintiff can't get public assistance towards the cost of bringing a case. Newspapers in particular know this and take brutal advantage of it. I recall one particularly damning case where the Daily Mail published a front page splash branding 3 or 4 young white men "murderers" over the death of a young black man in London some years ago. They'd been tried but acquitted so the accusation was a very risky one indeed to print. But the Paper knew there was nothing in reality the thusly-branded could do about it. It even rubbed it in by saying, "If we are wrong, if they are not murderers, then let them sue us." A flagrant abuse of asymetric power IMV, regardless of the underlying rights and wrongs.

Not even close. Try basketball.

bitrex snipped-for-privacy@example.net wrote

He was in fact an adult in reality at the time.

They all are.

But it is an even worse idea to not treat someone like that as an adult when something like that happens.

In fact the law does when its what are technically children engage in voluntary sexual activity with others of similar age.

And the murderers of James Bulger should be tried as adults.

Sure, in the way many (not all) would agree a cluster of 4 cells is not a person but a fetus at 1 second before birth probably is. At what exact time the cells become a person and how is a philosophical question, I mean it's a stupid philosophical question but it's one someone could ponder.

It's a bad idea to leave philosophical questions in the hands of the state and let them just come up answers on a case-by-case basis. As to which option one feels is worse, YMMV.

No it doesn't, that there are sometimes dispensations granted in the law between e.g. a 16 year old and a 19 year old doesn't mean the 16 year old becomes an adult temporarily, not in US law at least.

Not familiar with the case.

To be clear, legislating what the difference between a child and adult is in a concrete way is a matter of some legal necessity, but legislating what a "person" is, is unnecessary. No one will ever agree, anyway, it should be avoided whenever possible. but IMO the last thing you want the state to be able to do is just make random calls every day depending on who's on trial for what.

Huh huh, you said "rod":

Wow he must be pretty bad if he a bigger troll than u

bitrex snipped-for-privacy@example.net wrote

Nothing like that in fact.

But is irrelevant to what is being discussed. There is no binary time at which a child becomes an adult.

And its stilly to claim that gang bangers who are legally not adults should be treated any differently in the courts than those who are legally adults.

It isn't a philosophical question.

There is no alternative with a raft of those issues like what constitutes self defence, who is insane and can not be held responsible for their criminal activity, who is old enough to realise that what they are considering doing isn't legally allowed, etc etc etc.

Yes it does in many jurisdictions.

I never said that the 16 year old becomes an adult temporarily.

bitrex snipped-for-privacy@example.net wrote

It is necessary when deciding what it is legal to kill with an abortion.

But that isn't possible in the situation being discussed, Rittenhouse.

They aren't anything like random.

It doesn’t happen every day either, even with your gang bangers.

There is no other viable alternative.

Same with deciding who is incapable of realising that their crime was a crime.

Clearly the murderers of James Bulger were aware that it is not acceptable to kill James and it has become clear that Venables chose to murder James and didn’t change how he behaved once he was legally an adult,

Its less clear whether Thompson was "easily led" or not quite as bad as Venables.

State has no business regulating whether anyone gives birth or not in the first place.

If someone is under a certain age they're tried as a juvenile, and if they're over they're tried as an adult.

bitrex snipped-for-privacy@example.net wrote

When it regulates who you can and cannot kill it does.

It is in fact much more complicated than that.