Kyle Rittenhouse goes to trial

[American Legionaries]

Well, aside from Rosembaum, Huber, and Gross I guess.

There's no reason to believe that Rosenbaum, Huber, or Grosskreutz thought anything remotely like that.

Their actions were even worse, they continued to assail Rittenhouse despite knowing for a fact he was armed, and his weapon was loaded.

[Salus Maior]

Well, aside from Rosembaum, Huber, and Gross I guess.

There's no reason to believe that Rosenbaum, Huber, or Grosskreutz thought anything remotely like that.

I mean, Rittenhouse tried to ward Rosembaum off by displaying he had a gun, that didn't work.

[Ifreann]

Right, no one is ever going to react to being shot at by thinking "Well, I don't know for a fact that they loaded more than one round, so I will continue to assail them". And similarly, no one is ever going to react to having a gun pulled on them by thinking"Well, I don't know for a fact that it's loaded, so I will continue to assail them". This is just not how anyone thinks.

Plenty of assailants continue to assail in the face of deadly force.

Yes, obviously.

[Ifreann]

There's no reason to believe that Rosenbaum, Huber, or Grosskreutz thought anything remotely like that.

I mean, Rittenhouse tried to ward Rosembaum off by displaying he had a gun, that didn't work.

And given that Rosenbaum is dead we can only guess at what he might have been thinking at the time, but there is no reason we ought to believe that he was thinking "I don't know for a fact that this kid's gun is loaded".

[Salus Maior]

I mean, Rittenhouse tried to ward Rosembaum off by displaying he had a gun, that didn't work.

And given that Rosenbaum is dead we can only guess at what he might have been thinking at the time, but there is no reason we ought to believe that he was thinking "I don't know for a fact that this kid's gun is loaded".

Tbh the suicide theory I think is the strongest one.

[Ifreann]

And given that Rosenbaum is dead we can only guess at what he might have been thinking at the time, but there is no reason we ought to believe that he was thinking "I don't know for a fact that this kid's gun is loaded".

Tbh the suicide theory I think is the strongest one.

If you say so. I am very specifically addressing the idea that Luna/GTAA seems to have that it would be necessary or useful to fire a round to prove that the gun is loaded, as if it is a real risk that someone being threatened with a gun might not believe that it's loaded without proof and thus not be deterred. Evidently this reads as me saying that people are always deterred from whatever they are doing by having a gun pointed at them, and people want to correct me on that. You may all rest assured that I do understand that guns are not magic wands. It's specifically the idea that they might not believe you're telling the truth when you say the gun is loaded I'm talking about.

[Bear Stearns]

Right, no one is ever going to react to being shot at by thinking "Well, I don't know for a fact that they loaded more than one round, so I will continue to assail them". And similarly, no one is ever going to react to having a gun pulled on them by thinking"Well, I don't know for a fact that it's loaded, so I will continue to assail them". This is just not how anyone thinks.

Well, aside from Rosembaum, Huber, and Gross I guess.

why was gross armed in the first place

[Galloism]

Well, aside from Rosembaum, Huber, and Gross I guess.

why was gross armed in the first place

He was allowed to be armed in the general sense.

(He was carrying illegally concealed, but he was allowed to carry open. Ironically, the only one carrying illegally was Grosskreutz, and it wasn't because he wasn't allowed to carry per se, but he wasn't allowed to carry in the manner he was carrying.)

[Big Jim P]

The other problem with a warning shot is that it's a wasted shot and could be that one shot you would've needed to defend your life.

True. The first shot for effect IS the warning shot.

[Fahran]

The other problem with a warning shot is that it's a wasted shot and could be that one shot you would've needed to defend your life.

True. The first shot for effect IS the warning shot.

Um, I don't know about that. Beyond that, you don't owe someone who is trying to inflict serious bodily harm on you a warning shot after you've done everything short of discharging a firearm to disentangle yourself from the situation.

We should know, as adults, that we do not go around assaulting other people.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

While technically correct, I think ammunition quantity is often overplayed. The chances of facing a situation won with fifteen rounds, but lost with fourteen is exceedingly rare.

Well it is still better not to waste the shot, sure you hope you do not need all 15, but it is much better to have an additional round you do not need at the time than need an additional one and not have it. Besides not everyone carries a full sized. 40 around.
A lot of people are carrying 5 shot revolvers. Or something like a Ruger LCP.

No, I'd like to suggest firing 40 warning shots and being able to walk if 20 of them just "happened" to land into innocent bystanders that were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Or shooting in a rough direction w/o aiming or and no legal responsibility behind what is actually in that direction. Just to get their attention.

Hell, load a Beta-C and fire 100 warning-shots from an elevated position, you've got the literal high ground.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Or it'll ricochet unpredictably off the asphalt or concrete or a rock, or it'll penetrate through the flooring to hit something downstairs.

That sounds more like a reason to outlaw only the warning shots that are fired in a multi-story building, or in the vicinity of any surface that looks like soil but is actually asphalt, concrete, or rock, by the person holding the gun, not for a blanket ban on every type of warning shot ever in the vicinity of every type of surface ever.

What if one's assailant was along a shoreline, and the warning shot was fired into the ocean?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Or it'll ricochet unpredictably off the asphalt or concrete or a rock, or it'll penetrate through the flooring to hit something downstairs.

What if one's assailant was along a shoreline, and the warning shot was fired into the ocean?

Same problem.

Fighter planes have actually shot themselves down that way.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

What if one's assailant was along a shoreline, and the warning shot was fired into the ocean?

Same problem.

Fighter planes have actually shot themselves down that way.

[Citation needed.]

[American Legionaries]

Same problem.

Fighter planes have actually shot themselves down that way.

[Citation needed.]

Water ricochets projectiles, this is a serious problem in wet conditions.

[Fahran]

What if one's assailant was along a shoreline, and the warning shot was fired into the ocean?

While dolphins are evil, I'm not certain you should kill them without provocation.

[Fahran]

[Citation needed.]

Water ricochets projectiles, this is a serious problem in wet conditions.

I thought this was covered in high school physics...

[GuessTheAltAccount]

True. The first shot for effect IS the warning shot.

Um, I don't know about that. Beyond that, you don't owe someone who is trying to inflict serious bodily harm on you a warning shot after you've done everything short of discharging a firearm to disentangle yourself from the situation.

We should know, as adults, that we do not go around assaulting other people.

I don't think it's about a sense of "owing" them a warning shot. I think it's about people's genuine reluctance to kill another human being until one tries alternatives to deadly force.

[Fahran]

I don't think it's about a sense of "owing" them a warning shot. I think it's about people's genuine reluctance to kill another human being until one tries alternatives to deadly force.

There's a couple of legal and moral problems with this reasoning - as has been pointed out. I'm more so trying to knock down any moral argument before it arises. Never mind that discharging your firearm without a target is just bad firearm safety on pretty much every level.

[American Legionaries]

Water ricochets projectiles, this is a serious problem in wet conditions.

I thought this was covered in high school physics...

We didn't shoot things in my physics class, unfortunately.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Same problem.

Fighter planes have actually shot themselves down that way.

[Citation needed.]

Common-ish occurrence when dive-bombing/strafing to spray the target with bullets to make the AAA a bit less responsive... if you kept firing a bit too long or kept level with the water on pullout, sometimes you'd be greeted by your own tracer-fire as one hurricane pilot found out on a practice-run.

But I suspect you haven't studied those sorts of things as a child.

I have.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

[Citation needed.]

Water ricochets projectiles, this is a serious problem in wet conditions.

It can, but wouldn't it reflect the vertical component instead of the horizontal one? I would think, regardless of the probability of it happening to a fighter plane (I suppose if it was flying close enough to the ocean, maybe) it would be even less likely to happen in a warning-shot scenario along a coastline with an ocean surface that seems more likely to make the bullet skim the ocean in the same direction it was fired than to be reflected directly back toward land.

What if one's assailant was along a shoreline, and the warning shot was fired into the ocean?

While dolphins are evil, I'm not certain you should kill them without provocation.

Yeah, well, in the real world, prisoners aren't sent to your little "pony farm" idea. They are sent to a place where correctional officers could pepper spray them to death at any moment. I'll believe the average person about distinguishing "moral agents" from "moral patients" when they treat prisoners more humanely.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

[Citation needed.]

Common-ish occurrence when dive-bombing/strafing to spray the target with bullets to make the AAA a bit less responsive... if you kept firing a bit too long or kept level with the water on pullout, sometimes you'd be greeted by your own tracer-fire as one hurricane pilot found out on a practice-run.

But I suspect you haven't studied those sorts of things as a child.

I have.

I said "citation needed" not "uncited claim needed".

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Water ricochets projectiles, this is a serious problem in wet conditions.

It can, but wouldn't it reflect the vertical component instead of the horizontal one? I would think, regardless of the probability of it happening to a fighter plane (I suppose if it was flying close enough to the ocean, maybe) it would be even less likely to happen in a warning-shot scenario along a coastline with an ocean surface that seems more likely to make the bullet skim the ocean in the same direction it was fired than to be reflected directly back toward land.

While dolphins are evil, I'm not certain you should kill them without provocation.

Yeah, well, in the real world, prisoners aren't sent to your little "pony farm" idea. They are sent to a place where correctional officers could pepper spray them to death at any moment. I'll believe the average person about distinguishing "moral agents" from "moral patients" when they treat prisoners more humanely.

Basicly, this happens

Except it isn't so much slowed down as travels a further distance and bounces while the plane flies a straight-ish line.

But yeah, this is why in duck-hunting you don't blow your load across the lake and watch pellets skip across the lake over to the other side, or towards boats.

[American Legionaries]

Common-ish occurrence when dive-bombing/strafing to spray the target with bullets to make the AAA a bit less responsive... if you kept firing a bit too long or kept level with the water on pullout, sometimes you'd be greeted by your own tracer-fire as one hurricane pilot found out on a practice-run.

But I suspect you haven't studied those sorts of things as a child.

I have.

I said "citation needed" not "uncited claim needed".

We're all literate here.