Sneelock
god
you're gonna break another heart
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by Sneelock on Nov 20, 2021 16:44:15 GMT
Smugness is only distasteful in Liberals.
|
|
~ / % ? *
god
disambiguating goat herder
Posts: 5,532
|
Post by ~ / % ? * on Nov 20, 2021 16:51:20 GMT
I remember seeing that after it happened. The kid and his buddies were entitled dicks. The thing about lawsuits against corporations is they will pay them off to cut their losses. It's no indication the kid was in the right. The kid did nothing wrong but the media tried to destroy him. Disgraceful. A bit hyperbole there perhaps, I don't there was any concerted effort to do anything, just the effects of a powerful 24/7 news cycle chasing a silly story with a powerful lens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 17:00:44 GMT
“Baseless” Remember that whole kerfluffle with the bail money? That Q-Anon #Fight Back guy wants their money back if he walks. He walks. Does Q-Anon get their money back? Is questioning the power of race in # fightbacks appeals for money “baseless”? I think Glenn is clucking his tongue about tribalism and brandishing his club at the same time. I don't really understand this answer. I prefer to try and separate events to determine the facts, as much as that is possible. The danger with conflating so many things together is that sometimes facts can get distorted or lost altogether. Would you agree that a self-defence defence was not unreasonable given our understanding of the sequence of events of that night?
|
|
~ / % ? *
god
disambiguating goat herder
Posts: 5,532
|
Post by ~ / % ? * on Nov 20, 2021 17:06:18 GMT
“Baseless” Remember that whole kerfluffle with the bail money? That Q-Anon #Fight Back guy wants their money back if he walks. He walks. Does Q-Anon get their money back? Is questioning the power of race in # fightbacks appeals for money “baseless”? I think Glenn is clucking his tongue about tribalism and brandishing his club at the same time. Would you agree that a self-defence defence was not unreasonable given our understanding of the sequence of events of that night? No. He created his own danger by being there armed. He traveled to put himself in the situation. He was not a local native who up and found himself having to protect his home, family or business.
|
|
Sneelock
god
you're gonna break another heart
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by Sneelock on Nov 20, 2021 17:18:30 GMT
G. I can’t get my head around why the kid was there in the first place. A guy was shot 7 times. The court decided this was reasonable. Many weren’t convinced. A protest was organized. I think more is made of the intentions of the protestors than of the intentions of the kid who took a machine gun and killed two of them.
I’m not a legal expert. I figure we’ve got enough of those. The internet is FULL of ‘em. I’m just a guy who pays his taxes. I don’t get why it’s okay to shoot a guy 7 times and then when people who show up to express THEIR free speech rights they need to contend with fucking machine guns.
|
|
Sneelock
god
you're gonna break another heart
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by Sneelock on Nov 20, 2021 17:24:47 GMT
Much is made of how the Liberal Media fucked this up. They deserve a lot of it but does Right Wing Media get a pass? They are galvanizing this gun happy horse shit. Turn on Newsmax today and you’ll see what I mean. This is being celebrated as a triumph for 2nd amendment rights. Hooray!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 17:35:51 GMT
Would you agree that a self-defence defence was not unreasonable given our understanding of the sequence of events of that night? No. He created his own danger by being there armed. He traveled to put himself in the situation. He was not a local native who up and found himself having to protect his home, family or business. I agree he shouldn't have gone, but that's not what he was being prosecuted for and I'm talking purely about the trial. You can believe his actions were inflammatory, highly irresponsible, reckless and probably illegal ( had he been charged with a lesser charge) and you can believe his claim that he was scared out of his wits and believed his life was in danger given he was physically attacked, chased by an angry mob and had a gun pointed at him. You can hold both views, they are not inconsistent with each other. I can understand why people are angry and how this seems really bad in the wider emotionally charged context of George Floyd and others, I really can. But if you separate the cold facts of what happened that night, from all of that, which after all is what a court of law is meant to do, then I can understand how the jury came to that decision. I can't see it as some blatant miscarriage of justice.
|
|
Sneelock
god
you're gonna break another heart
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by Sneelock on Nov 20, 2021 17:48:00 GMT
I can’t see your underwear. you must not be wearing any.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 19:06:38 GMT
I can’t see your underwear. you must not be wearing any. I'm actually not!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 19:33:07 GMT
Eeeww.
|
|
Sneelock
god
you're gonna break another heart
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by Sneelock on Nov 21, 2021 17:02:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Reasonable good Nick on Nov 22, 2021 14:22:57 GMT
G. I can’t get my head around why the kid was there in the first place. A guy was shot 7 times. The court decided this was reasonable. Many weren’t convinced. A protest was organized. I think more is made of the intentions of the protestors than of the intentions of the kid who took a machine gun and killed two of them. I’m not a legal expert. I figure we’ve got enough of those. The internet is FULL of ‘em. I’m just a guy who pays his taxes. I don’t get why it’s okay to shoot a guy 7 times and then when people who show up to express THEIR free speech rights they need to contend with fucking machine guns. He testified that was there because rioters were burning the town down. Rittenhouse had close connections to Kenosha - I believe his father lives there and Rittenhouse had a job in the town. He went to protect properties and businesses that were in danger of being torched. He spent a couple of hours cleaning off graffiti. He was not doing anything illegal. He didn't shoot anyone until he was attacked and his life was in danger. He was a 17 year old kid at the time, chased by a crowd and then violently attacked by three men who all turned out to be convicted criminals. Now, you can argue that he shouldn't have gone, that he acted very foolishly, and that he put himself in danger, and I'll broadly agree. But none of that is relevant to the salient facts in the trial. Rittenhouse had a very strong case for self-defence, and I think the jury made the right decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 15:02:49 GMT
G. I can’t get my head around why the kid was there in the first place. A guy was shot 7 times. The court decided this was reasonable. Many weren’t convinced. A protest was organized. I think more is made of the intentions of the protestors than of the intentions of the kid who took a machine gun and killed two of them. I’m not a legal expert. I figure we’ve got enough of those. The internet is FULL of ‘em. I’m just a guy who pays his taxes. I don’t get why it’s okay to shoot a guy 7 times and then when people who show up to express THEIR free speech rights they need to contend with fucking machine guns. He testified that was there because rioters were burning the town down. Rittenhouse had close connections to Kenosha - I believe his father lives there and Rittenhouse had a job in the town. He went to protect properties and businesses that were in danger of being torched. He spent a couple of hours cleaning off graffiti. He was not doing anything illegal. He didn't shoot anyone until he was attacked and his life was in danger. He was a 17 year old kid at the time, chased by a crowd and then violently attacked by three men who all turned out to be convicted criminals. Now, you can argue that he shouldn't have gone, that he acted very foolishly, and that he put himself in danger, and I'll broadly agree. But none of that is relevant to the salient facts in the trial. Rittenhouse had a very strong case for self-defence, and I think the jury made the right decision. Yeah man, when I go to clean up graffiti I take my ak47 just in case the 'artists' turn up . I make sure I have live ammo too. Imagine if generally you had connections with a grandma in Bournemouth and there was a riot going on , fuck me, it is your right to help the police by going gung ho, especially when you go out of your way to get involved. They were criminals , makes it more palatable I guess, lucky break. What next ? Klan member goes into blind Billy's blues bar exercising his democratic right to wear a costume and pulls out an Uzi because he shouldn't have put himself in that situation but , you know, he was only there for the free nuts. He was a 17 year old kid voluntarily going to a riot with a gun and live ammo. Poor fucker, why would you have a problem with that, mmm. I would like to hear some of the other people's views on why they attacked a kid with a gun in the street except I can't, he killed them, in self defence.
|
|
|
Post by Half Machine Lipschitz on Nov 22, 2021 15:16:00 GMT
I would like to hear some of the other people's views on why they attacked a kid with a gun in the street except I can't, he killed them, in self defence. My guess is they were trying to prevent themselves and others getting shot by a 17-year old with an assault rifle, y'know, in self-defence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2021 15:19:01 GMT
I would like to hear some of the other people's views on why they attacked a kid with a gun in the street except I can't, he killed them, in self defence. My guess is they were trying to prevent themselves and others getting shot by a 17-year old with an assault rifle, y'know, in self-defence. My guess is they were criminals and he did the world a favour.
|
|