|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 14 2021 05:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 04:42 Gorsameth wrote:On November 14 2021 04:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 14 2021 04:06 Yurie wrote:On November 14 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Assuming current guilt from past events is not how our justice system works. Criminal history, or is this case talking about crime, should never be used as evidence. Lets say you have multiple possession charges. You shouldn't be arrested and convicted of possession because you have prior convictions. The state must present evidence that you currently possess illegal substances, not that you have in the past. This is one of the pillars of US criminal justice and being assumed not guilty. Isn't this more the case of just before committing a crime you say you will do it. Thus putting up motive for doing it? Not relevant to if you are innocent or not but changes the reason the action occurred. Let us say that we are in an alternate universe where Kyle shot up that CVS and killed people. Do you think that means he is also guilty in Kenosha? You can't use the argument that person previously committed this crime so they did it again in a criminal case in the US. This isnt a previous crime being used as evidence in a previous crime. He shot people, that is not up for dispute. The question is if he acted in self defence or not, from what I understand. This is correct. Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 04:42 Gorsameth wrote:
I think statements of "I want to shoot people" provide an underlying basis about motive when that person later goes out and finds people to shoot.
As a laymen it certainly adds important information about why he might have been out after curfew with a deadly weapon during a riot.
It was illegal for him to carry the firearm over state lines, but that doesn't mean it wasn't self defense. This is where the layman gets lost in this case and the reason Kyle is going to be acquitted. I understand he might be acquitted, because the US is insane.
Here is how my reasoning works. If you bring a deadly weapon to a situation where you shouldn't have a deadly weapon (aka your not at a gun range basically) and then someone reaches for your deadly weapon in an altercation and you shoot them, that is not self defence to me. Because that situation only exists because you brought a deadly weapon in the first place.
That fact there is video that mentions he wants to shoot people with his deadly weapon and therefor questions why he was there in the first place and makes a case that the person reaching for his deadly weapon was infact acting in self defence is just the cherry on top.
|
|
|
I mean, as far as actually proving intent behind what he did, I can't imagine any more of a shot-on-goal than having a recent recording of them saying how much they want to do the thing they just did. It would be an astronomical coincidence that they just happened to be in a pure self-defense situation, with a gun that he expressed wanting to go on the offensive and crossed multiple state lines with.
I know there's layers of technicalities that will ultimately set Kyle free, thus vindicating his desire to pick up a gun and shoot people who disagreed with him on how the world should work. But, maybe the utterly overwhelming obviousness of his intent should be cause to examine those technicalities? That'll never happen either, though.
|
On November 14 2021 06:47 NewSunshine wrote:
It would be an astronomical coincidence that they just happened to be in a pure self-defense situation, with a gun that he expressed wanting to go on the offensive and crossed multiple state lines with.
FYI he didn't cross "multiple state lines" to get to this protest. There is no evidence that he crossed any state lines with the gun. He lives about 20 miles from where the protest occurred. The narrative that he went on some cross country road trip with his AR-15 to get to the action is a narrative pushed by the media that a lot of people bought into.
|
On November 14 2021 06:47 NewSunshine wrote:
I mean, as far as actually proving intent behind what he did, I can't imagine any more of a shot-on-goal than having a recent recording of them saying how much they want to do the thing they just did. It would be an astronomical coincidence that they just happened to be in a pure self-defense situation, with a gun that he expressed wanting to go on the offensive and crossed multiple state lines with.
I know there's layers of technicalities that will ultimately set Kyle free, thus vindicating his desire to pick up a gun and shoot people who disagreed with him on how the world should work. But, maybe the utterly overwhelming obviousness of his intent should be cause to examine those technicalities? That'll never happen either, though.
Yeah, this is a core tenet of the US "justice" system. Technicalities that protect some people, but not everyone. If you are white, technicalities protect you. If you are a cop, technicalities protect you. If you are rich, technicalities protect you. If you are none of these, then you are guilty.
Like so many things in the US, your court system would also be a complete joke if it wasn't this tragic.
White terrorists who shoot black people always go free. Cops who shoots black people always go free. Black people who have half a gram of marihuana go to prison.
A justice system needs to be impartial and deliver the same justice to everyone. The US system horribly fails at this.
|
On November 14 2021 07:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 06:47 NewSunshine wrote:
It would be an astronomical coincidence that they just happened to be in a pure self-defense situation, with a gun that he expressed wanting to go on the offensive and crossed multiple state lines with. FYI he didn't cross "multiple state lines" to get to this protest. There is no evidence that he crossed any state lines with the gun. He lives about 20 miles from where the protest occurred. The narrative that he went on some cross country road trip with his AR-15 to get to the action is a narrative pushed by the media that a lot of people bought into.
Say I concede the point. Does that qualitatively change anything about what Kyle did? Is scoring the point worth it?
|
No $15 minimum wage, yet the nation is gripped by a "was it self defense or not" situation from Rittenhouse.
The plan's working!
|
On November 14 2021 08:57 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2021 06:47 NewSunshine wrote:
It would be an astronomical coincidence that they just happened to be in a pure self-defense situation, with a gun that he expressed wanting to go on the offensive and crossed multiple state lines with. FYI he didn't cross "multiple state lines" to get to this protest. There is no evidence that he crossed any state lines with the gun. He lives about 20 miles from where the protest occurred. The narrative that he went on some cross country road trip with his AR-15 to get to the action is a narrative pushed by the media that a lot of people bought into. Say I concede the point. Does that qualitatively change anything about what Kyle did? Is scoring the point worth it?
Personally I never understood why people keep repeating the "crossed state lines" thing as if it has any relevance to what he did. I do think it's worth pointing out that it's untrue because only then do the people that keep repeating it agree that it's irrelevant.
|
|
|
On November 14 2021 09:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 08:57 NewSunshine wrote:On November 14 2021 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2021 06:47 NewSunshine wrote:
It would be an astronomical coincidence that they just happened to be in a pure self-defense situation, with a gun that he expressed wanting to go on the offensive and crossed multiple state lines with. FYI he didn't cross "multiple state lines" to get to this protest. There is no evidence that he crossed any state lines with the gun. He lives about 20 miles from where the protest occurred. The narrative that he went on some cross country road trip with his AR-15 to get to the action is a narrative pushed by the media that a lot of people bought into. Say I concede the point. Does that qualitatively change anything about what Kyle did? Is scoring the point worth it? Personally I never understood why people keep repeating the "crossed state lines" thing as if it has any relevance to what he did. I do think it's worth pointing out that it's untrue because only then do the people that keep repeating it agree that it's irrelevant.
He did cross state lines. He lived in IL and killed in WI. There is a line between IL and WI that is often called a state line.
I don’t think the number of states he crossed really matters though. What matters is that he traveled outside his community to a place where he knew there would be protests, brought a gun, menaced protesters, and then killed some of them who he felt were threatening. He also showed that it was premeditated, but that part was not allowed into court.
What worries me most is the precedent this would set if he isn’t convicted. It’s basically telling everyone that they can start a fight and then kill in self-defense if the fight goes bad. If you’re a protester, do you now have the right to kill counter-protesters with guns because you know they can legally kill you?
|
I believe it's incredibly disingenuous to cast Rittenhouse as a bloodthirsty murderer because of a single phrase he said.
How many people express outrage at injustice by wishing physical violence? It's pretty common to hear someone say that Nazis should be punched in the face, or worse. So if you believe this, and you see a Nazi in real life committing atrocities, it wouldn't be unreasonable if somebody said "I want to kill that Nazi".
Comparing Nazis and shoplifters seem hyperbole though. Obviously they can't compare, right? The degree of evilness of the groups isn't the point though. Remember the political climate at the time was extremely hostile and full of hyperbolic rhetoric. The right and left largely stopped acknowledging each other and sank into their echo chambers. Covid wreaked havoc on the country and government policies further divided people. People said America was going to enter a civil war. If you were on the left, the right were facists who wanted to instate a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by rich old white males exploiting the rest of society. If you were on the right, the left were brain washed and stupid and wanted to take away all of the people's liberties and force everybody to their ideology. When Rittenhouse sees a shoplifter, it's not just a shoplifter but a member of the other.
So Rittenhouse was clearing angry with the shoplifter, but would he really have shot him if he had his rifle? He didn't have his rifle so we'll never know. I think there is a very clear difference between wanting to do something and actually doing something. If everybody gave in to their internal desires, society would crumble very quickly - murder, rape, theft, property damage, and more would happen daily. Many people can feel these terrible urges in tense situations, but thankfully most people don't act on them. Does saying "I want to kill someone" out loud push you to more likely act on these urges? If it's repeated, consistent, and long term then I say yes. If it's in rare isolated cases of high emotions, then I don't agree. I believe people can say want and say things when they are emotionally charged but have the discipline and rationality to not act on them. I don't believe in trying to understand an entire person's character based on short phrases given with little context, especially during a time when opinions are already divided and people have already picked a side.
I believe you can use the same logic that Rittenhouse was "looking for a fight" for the men Rittenhouse shot. They were there to "protest BLM" (which everybody knew or highly suspected would end in looting and burning of property) just like Rittenhouse was there to "protect stores". During this time there was massive anti-Trump and anti-right sentiment among the left in news and social media, labeling Trump voters as racist, unintelligent, and violent gun shooters and truck drivers. I think it's reasonable to believe that many BLM protesters would have existing hostility against people like Rittenhouse and his gang, a bunch of white dudes with guns on trucks from outside the city. I also think it's reasonable to believe many people were primarily motivated by anger and hate to protest (fuck the police, fuck racists, fuck Trump, etc). I don't believe people do things for just one reason - it's more complicated - but I don't doubt that Rittenhouse did have some intention of wanting to help and I believe bringing a rifle would be justified if he believed the protesters (an angry mob) would label him an enemy try to attack him. It's idiotic to think that a mob who is looting stores and blowing up cars won't try to physically harm somebody who opposes them. So of course there was existing hostility between the protesters and vigilantes, but we shouldn't assume their motives as singular, nothing-else-matters mindsets.
Feel free to disagree and argue but be nice 
|
|
|
United States43597 Posts
On November 14 2021 12:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 12:10 PaxViaAtomi wrote:I believe it's incredibly disingenuous to cast Rittenhouse as a bloodthirsty murderer because of a single phrase he said. How many people express outrage at injustice by wishing physical violence? It's pretty common to hear someone say that Nazis should be punched in the face, or worse. So if you believe this, and you see a Nazi in real life committing atrocities, it wouldn't be unreasonable if somebody said "I want to kill that Nazi". Comparing Nazis and shoplifters seem hyperbole though. Obviously they can't compare, right? The degree of evilness of the groups isn't the point though. Remember the political climate at the time was extremely hostile and full of hyperbolic rhetoric. The right and left largely stopped acknowledging each other and sank into their echo chambers. Covid wreaked havoc on the country and government policies further divided people. People said America was going to enter a civil war. If you were on the left, the right were facists who wanted to instate a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by rich old white males exploiting the rest of society. If you were on the right, the left were brain washed and stupid and wanted to take away all of the people's liberties and force everybody to their ideology. When Rittenhouse sees a shoplifter, it's not just a shoplifter but a member of the other. So Rittenhouse was clearing angry with the shoplifter, but would he really have shot him if he had his rifle? He didn't have his rifle so we'll never know. I think there is a very clear difference between wanting to do something and actually doing something. If everybody gave in to their internal desires, society would crumble very quickly - murder, rape, theft, property damage, and more would happen daily. Many people can feel these terrible urges in tense situations, but thankfully most people don't act on them. Does saying "I want to kill someone" out loud push you to more likely act on these urges? If it's repeated, consistent, and long term then I say yes. If it's in rare isolated cases of high emotions, then I don't agree. I believe people can say want and say things when they are emotionally charged but have the discipline and rationality to not act on them. I don't believe in trying to understand an entire person's character based on short phrases given with little context, especially during a time when opinions are already divided and people have already picked a side. I believe you can use the same logic that Rittenhouse was "looking for a fight" for the men Rittenhouse shot. They were there to "protest BLM" (which everybody knew or highly suspected would end in looting and burning of property) just like Rittenhouse was there to "protect stores". During this time there was massive anti-Trump and anti-right sentiment among the left in news and social media, labeling Trump voters as racist, unintelligent, and violent gun shooters and truck drivers. I think it's reasonable to believe that many BLM protesters would have existing hostility against people like Rittenhouse and his gang, a bunch of white dudes with guns on trucks from outside the city. I also think it's reasonable to believe many people were primarily motivated by anger and hate to protest (fuck the police, fuck racists, fuck Trump, etc). I don't believe people do things for just one reason - it's more complicated - but I don't doubt that Rittenhouse did have some intention of wanting to help and I believe bringing a rifle would be justified if he believed the protesters (an angry mob) would label him an enemy try to attack him. It's idiotic to think that a mob who is looting stores and blowing up cars won't try to physically harm somebody who opposes them. So of course there was existing hostility between the protesters and vigilantes, but we shouldn't assume their motives as singular, nothing-else-matters mindsets. Feel free to disagree and argue but be nice No one is, its because he said it, and then did it.
This. Kyle’s intent to kill isn’t being judged solely from a video of him stating his intent to shoot people with his AR-15. It’s the combination of him saying that he wanted to shoot people with his AR-15 and then the action of taking his AR-15 and shooting people. The video by itself could either be him talking shit or expressing a genuine desire, we don’t know which. The video plus the fact that he subsequently did exactly what he threatened to do provides important context.
|
On November 14 2021 12:10 PaxViaAtomi wrote:
I believe it's incredibly disingenuous to cast Rittenhouse as a bloodthirsty murderer because of a single phrase he said.
How many people express outrage at injustice by wishing physical violence? It's pretty common to hear someone say that Nazis should be punched in the face, or worse. So if you believe this, and you see a Nazi in real life committing atrocities, it wouldn't be unreasonable if somebody said "I want to kill that Nazi".
Comparing Nazis and shoplifters seem hyperbole though. Obviously they can't compare, right? The degree of evilness of the groups isn't the point though. Remember the political climate at the time was extremely hostile and full of hyperbolic rhetoric.
Merely saying "I want to punch a liberal / conservative / BLM protester / Nazi" may or may not be hyperbolic rhetoric, but actually punching them is a crime. It's not just posturing if you actually commit the physical violence, right? And the vigilante may be sincere and well-intentioned and believing they're doing a public good by hurting that individual, but that doesn't make their action legal.
|
The argument is that he was acting in self-defense though. If you already believe he wasn't acting in self-defense or was acting unreasonably provocatively then it seems logical to connect intent and action and believe the video is evidence of his intent. Correct me if I'm wrong but the logic seems to be this: Rittenhouse knew there would be hostility in the riots and he wanted to shoot these guys so he showed up with a rifle under the pretense of protecting businesses and defending himself. He knew he could provoke somebody into acting violently toward him, murder them, then claim self defense to get off. So what's the evidence of this? If Rittenhouse was there with intent to murder, he would be inciting hostility and stirring up trouble. I haven't seen any evidence of this. However, I have seen reports that he was threatened with violence and was putting out fires just before the shooting situation happened.
The only evidence for Rittenhouse having intent to murder are videos that "expose" his intentions and the fact he brought a gun to a place that would be hostile to him. I've stated my opinions on the former and I think it's very reasonable to believe somebody brought a gun "just in case" when you know a huge and angry mob can turn on you. He has stated that he was there to help protect stores from damage. What's the basis for questioning his stated intent? His actions that night up to the shooting seem more consistent with his stated intent to me than someone looking for a fight. Obviously he probably doesn't like these people, that's why he was opposing their protests. That doesn't prove he wanted to murder them. Feel free to know if I'm missing something, more information is always appreciated.
Mod edit: link removed because the combination of a new account and a link is causing the mod bot to get angry
|
United States43597 Posts
He said he wished he could shoot them with his gun and then he took his gun and went to where they were and shot them but sure, maybe he was there to protect small businesses. Not local small businesses but small businesses in another state. A lot of 17 year olds are very passionate about the protection of small businesses and 17 year old boys with guns are increasingly taking the place of insurance.
|
Apparently Rittenhouse's dad, grandma, and other extended family lived in Kenosha. So he did have a connection there. But either way, that he acted in self-defense is now pretty clear.
edit: and the nyt also reported that he worked in Kenosha for a while as well, which seems logical if family was there, including dad.
|
United States43597 Posts
On November 14 2021 14:42 Introvert wrote:
Apparently Rittenhouse's dad, grandma, and other extended family lived in Kenosha. So he did have a connection there. But either way, that he acted in self-defense is now pretty clear.
edit: and the nyt also reported that he worked in Kenosha for a while as well, which seems logical if family was there, including dad.
It’s not pretty clear, I think the opposite. He went there planning to shoot people. Had the people he killed not been there he would have killed someone else. Conservatives always talk about how you need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun but somehow when the bad guy with a gun kills them it’s also self defence. It’s an incoherent ideology until you add race, and then it’s just a nakedly racist one.
|
On November 14 2021 15:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 14:42 Introvert wrote:
Apparently Rittenhouse's dad, grandma, and other extended family lived in Kenosha. So he did have a connection there. But either way, that he acted in self-defense is now pretty clear.
edit: and the nyt also reported that he worked in Kenosha for a while as well, which seems logical if family was there, including dad. It’s not pretty clear, I think the opposite. He went there planning to shoot people. Had the people he killed not been there he would have killed someone else. Conservatives always talk about how you need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun but somehow when the bad guy with a gun kills them it’s also self defence. It’s an incoherent ideology until you add race, and then it’s just a nakedly racist one.
ok, i'll modify and say from the video i've seen and the testimony i've seen, it looks like self-defense, clearly. Have you seen any of it? I mean you just now assumed his (lack) of connection to the town, so maybe this is all based on limited information? have you watched any of the video? going back like a week to a different statement and using that to say he wanted to shoot someone vs what can actually be seen and testified to is pretty weak. that's probably the reason he can (and should) walk, you can't possible think hanging your case on a statement like that is at all sensible against the other evidence. but when it's all you have, I suppose...
and none of the people he shot were black (another thing people seem to be mistaken about), but I suppose the circumstances around the event is what makes it racist? he thought "oh, an BLM rally [riot]! time to shoot up some blacks or their white allies!"
given what you and others in this thread have posted so far i'd say this is less of the US justice system failing than actually having a reasonable standard for convicting people.
edit: it's bed time but i'm curious if people are actually reading and watching what's coming out of the trial (I've learned a lot about it the past few days) or if they are repeating what they heard a year ago when it happened. given media reporting the case was much fuzzier last year, but really by now everyone should be incredibly wary of trusting mainstream, national news organizations. They suck.
|
On November 14 2021 14:11 PaxViaAtomi wrote:
The argument is that he was acting in self-defense though.
No. That was not your argument. You did not mention self-defense, which is why those who replied to your post were talking about your analogy and your argument, as opposed to self-defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
