|
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 |
United States44014 Posts
On November 14 2021 15:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 15:07 KwarK wrote: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 too it 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. 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? 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.
Re: racism. Do you really think he’s getting this treatment if he was black? Really?
Re: self defence. Yes, a bad guy with a gun killing a good guy with a gun is obviously self defence. That’s one of the many problems with the whole thesis. Zimmerman stalked and harassed Trayvon Martin but once the fight started both participants could reasonably be considered to be defending themselves. Self defence isn’t limited to the fight itself, broader context matters. Context is why the Nazis in war movies are the bad guys and why the Americans are the good guys.
I really don’t see how you’re not seeing the relevance of the video. We have two possible explanations for why he got his gun, went somewhere he expected to find lawbreakers, and shot some people. One is that he really wanted to shoot them. The other is that he wanted to protect some businesses that he had no connection to and thought that he needed to bring a gun with him in case the ability to put bullets into people would somehow protect the businesses but then shot some people without planning to. In support of the first explanation is him literally saying he wishes he could do it. In support of the second one is some shit he said in trial after he got in trouble. And you’re thinking it’s probably the second one?
Let’s say I was caught fucking a married woman with a giant horsecock dildo. The husband is angry at me but I explain that I entered her house because I was really worried about the possibility of bad plumbing causing water damage and then events got out of hand, eventually resulting in the unintentional horsecock dildo fucking. I don’t live in the house and it’s not really clear why I was so worried about the risk of water damage, or why I thought it was my responsibility. It’s really not clear why I thought the horsecock dildo would help. Also a few days earlier I recorded myself talking about how much I wished I could fuck someone’s wife with my giant horsecock dildo. Should the husband believe my passion for preventing water damage led me to enter his house and a series of unfortunate events led me to penetrate his wife with the dildo that I just happened to bring or should he be suspicious?
Before shooting some people he said he wished he could shoot some people. After he got in trouble he claimed that he was so passionate about property rights that he couldn’t bear the thought of vandalism, wherever it may happen, and so he set out on a peaceful quest to prevent vandalism and also brought his gun with him but didn’t plan to kill anyone so presumably he thought it was loaded with unbroken windows and fresh paint.
You’re not being asked to convict anyone here, nothing bad will happen to him just because of what you say. You can be honest with us. Do you really think the guy who fantasized about shooting people wasn’t hoping to shoot anyone when he grabbed his gun and set out that day? He was there on purpose, it’s not somewhere he just happened to be, it’s somewhere he hoped to find people like the ones he fantasized about killing. He had his gun with him on purpose, it didn’t just happen to be on hand, it’s the same gun he fantasized about killing people with.
|
Have you actually watched any of the trial Kwark? I ask because if you had you would have a different opinion of the actual case. Its been available to the public the entire time(pre trial motions and trial). The answer to many of your questions lay there my friend and frankly your ignorance of the case at hand is shocking.
"You’re not being asked to convict anyone here, nothing bad will happen to him just because of what you say. You can be honest with us" this is a border line threat and I cant believe a TL mod would ask such a thing in such a way, Disgusting.
Edit: id like to point out I cannot report Kwark's post for veiled threats so I'm left leaving it in the main thread.
|
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.
I don't disagree that conservatives will twist things until they fit.
You're doing the same though (not just you). He factually acted in self defense. We can argue whether or not it was provocative to run around there with a rifle (yes it was), or stupid to go there in the first place (yes it was) - but it's factual and established that he got attacked first before he killed that person.
This by itself makes the actual crime he's charged with nonsense - they'd never make first degree murder stick.
Your argument has zero merit. If the people he killed would've have been there he would've killed someone else? Maybe, first of all you'd need to prove it, second of all and more importantly, the same goes for the looters/"protesters" that were there despite a curfew.
He didn't shoot people randomly, he shot people who physically attacked him. After or while they were attacking him. Your argument has the same merit as me saying "if people would have adhered to the curfew, nobody would've died" - or, in fact, "if nobody attacked him, nobody would've died". It's something that people seem to not care that much about - because of course they don't.
There's two parties at fault here, Rittenhouse obviously isn't an innocent man, but neither are the people who attacked him. There absolutely, factually, are reasonable claims that he acted in self defense. In fact much more so than for most cops using the "i feared for my life" argument after shooting someone who twitched "wrong".
|
Its important to keep in mind that while what happened may technically fall under self defence under American law there are those who believe that it shouldn't.
Its important to be clear which situation your talking about when discussing this.
|
So, just out of curiosity, those people that are arguing not guilty due to self defense, would you say that he is guilty of another crime and if yes, which one? And are you giving that statement purely because of the interpretation of law, or does morality play a role as well?
|
So, let me get this straight. If I break into your home, wait for you to attack me and then shoot you dead, I acted in self defense? I mean... you attacked me!
Or does the fact that I was in your home with a gun overrule the entire concept of self defense?
So if we agree that me breaking into your home with a gun cancels out the self defense argument, we have agreed there are exceptions to the simplistic idea of "person X attacked and person Y shot them in response. It was therefore self defense". What then remains to be decided is whether Rittenhouse's case is such an exception. A video saying he wished he had his gun so he could shoot people seems very relevant to determining whether he DELIBERATELY put himself in a situation where shooting his attackers was his only option, and therefore it was not actually self defense.
|
He did not break into you or anyone's home. That is not the case we are looking at.
Edit: I want to stress there is ample live video from the court room on this case/topic if you have not watched that but are commenting on the case then you are likely uninformed.
|
United States44014 Posts
On November 14 2021 19:09 Taelshin wrote:
Have you actually watched any of the trial Kwark? I ask because if you had you would have a different opinion of the actual case. Its been available to the public the entire time(pre trial motions and trial). The answer to many of your questions lay there my friend and frankly your ignorance of the case at hand is shocking.
"You’re not being asked to convict anyone here, nothing bad will happen to him just because of what you say. You can be honest with us" this is a border line threat and I cant believe a TL mod would ask such a thing in such a way, Disgusting.
Edit: id like to point out I cannot report Kwark's post for veiled threats so I'm left leaving it in the main thread.
Wtf are you talking about?
|
United States44014 Posts
On November 14 2021 20:04 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 15:07 KwarK wrote: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. I don't disagree that conservatives will twist things until they fit. You're doing the same though (not just you). He factually acted in self defense. We can argue whether or not it was provocative to run around there with a rifle (yes it was), or stupid to go there in the first place (yes it was) - but it's factual and established that he got attacked first before he killed that person. This by itself makes the actual crime he's charged with nonsense - they'd never make first degree murder stick. Your argument has zero merit. If the people he killed would've have been there he would've killed someone else? Maybe, first of all you'd need to prove it, second of all and more importantly, the same goes for the looters/"protesters" that were there despite a curfew. He didn't shoot people randomly, he shot people who physically attacked him. After or while they were attacking him. Your argument has the same merit as me saying "if people would have adhered to the curfew, nobody would've died" - or, in fact, "if nobody attacked him, nobody would've died". It's something that people seem to not care that much about - because of course they don't. There's two parties at fault here, Rittenhouse obviously isn't an innocent man, but neither are the people who attacked him. There absolutely, factually, are reasonable claims that he acted in self defense. In fact much more so than for most cops using the "i feared for my life" argument after shooting someone who twitched "wrong".
I’m not defending the dead guys, obviously they attacked him. They’re not on trial though, they’re dead. If they were alive they would be making various arguments about how they were trying to protect everyone from a wannabe mass shooter and I’d probably find that equally silly. You write “Rittenhouse obviously isn’t an innocent man” and that’s my point.
|
So, i watched some one that video evidence that you referenced to. I see a case for the first death being in self defence. The second was not. At that point, you just killed a man, who was unarmed by the way and you keep your gun and keep shooting at other people. So, let's say it's not murder in your eyes, what is it then? Freedom? Manslaughter?
|
The idea that viewing the available video footage of what transpired when Rittenhouse killed those people dispels any possible dispute over Rittenhouse's guilt or what consequences he should face is simply incorrect, there is a ton of relevant information that is not provided in the video. In particular, the lead-up to the gunshot report that allegedly triggered Rittenhouse's fear justifying his use of deadly force is an essential component of his claim of self-defense, but is not recorded and has only been discussed in court here and there. If Rittenhouse had reason to be fearful at any point before he first heard that gunshot, his claim that the sound of the shot served as a reasonable endpoint for his need to retreat or otherwise reduce the likelihood that he was involved in a life-endangering scenario becomes much less tenable. The prosecution did not focus as much on that as I would have thought appropriate, and that's part of why I think they'll be partially blameworthy when he gets off, the prosecution has been less than stellar.
|
@Kwark I think my post speaks for it self. Your Clear ignorance of the case aside, your obviously veiling a threat behind your last paragraph. Maybe you'd like to reword it.
|
On November 14 2021 23:36 farvacola wrote:
The idea that viewing the available video footage of what transpired when Rittenhouse killed those people dispels any possible dispute over Rittenhouse's guilt or what consequences he should face is simply incorrect, there is a ton of relevant information that is not provided in the video. In particular, the lead-up to the gunshot report that allegedly triggered Rittenhouse's fear justifying his use of deadly force is an essential component of his claim of self-defense, but is not recorded and has only been discussed in court here and there. If Rittenhouse had reason to be fearful at any point before he first heard that gunshot, his claim that the sound of the shot served as a reasonable endpoint for his need to retreat or otherwise reduce the likelihood that he was involved in a life-endangering scenario becomes much less tenable. The prosecution did not focus as much on that as I would have thought appropriate, and that's part of why I think they'll be partially blameworthy when he gets off, the prosecution has been less than stellar.
Which is all on courttv and restreamed on youtube. Video of the full trial is available for anyone who wants to watch.
|
@farva the initial gunshot may not have been brought up as much as you like, but there is no hiding the fact that he was fleeing and being chased by a person who (with eye witness account(s)) literally managed to touch the barrel of his rifle before he shot. One could argue that whether he heard the gun shots or not is irrelevant if he was being chased down by a person whom previously in the night said (paraphasing) " I will kill you if I catch you alone " among other terrible things.
|
United States44014 Posts
On November 14 2021 23:42 Taelshin wrote:
@Kwark I think my post speaks for it self. Your Clear ignorance of the case aside, your obviously veiling a threat behind your last paragraph. Maybe you'd like to reword it.
Wtf are you talking about?
|
On November 14 2021 23:42 Taelshin wrote:
@Kwark I think my post speaks for it self. Your Clear ignorance of the case aside, your obviously veiling a threat behind your last paragraph. Maybe you'd like to reword it.
Literally nothing about that paragraph sounds threatening
|
So, how was the second kill selfdefense?
|
On November 15 2021 00:08 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, how was the second kill selfdefense?
Didn't the second guy hit him with a skateboard and then try to wrestle the gun away from him?
|
On November 15 2021 00:02 Taelshin wrote:
@farva the initial gunshot may not have been brought up as much as you like, but there is no hiding the fact that he was fleeing and being chased by a person who (with eye witness account(s)) literally managed to touch the barrel of his rifle before he shot. One could argue that whether he heard the gun shots or not is irrelevant if he was being chased down by a person whom previously in the night said (paraphasing) " I will kill you if I catch you alone " among other terrible things.
I was not suggesting that the prosecution should have focused more on the first shot, the opposite in fact, the shot is fairly irrelevant given all of the fear-inducing things that occurred before the shot was fired. The fact that these people said frightening, threatening things beforehand undercuts Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense because they gave him reason to remove himself from the situation before things escalated.
|
On November 15 2021 00:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2021 00:08 Broetchenholer wrote:
So, how was the second kill selfdefense?
Didn't the second guy hit him with a skateboard and then try to wrestle the gun away from him?
Yes, how is this reason to shoot someone? Surely even a state in the US has some rule that limits self defense to a scenario where it is appropriate to the level of threat? Like, treating the attacks on him as threats on his life, where deadly force is the only way out is really weird, considering that the second fight he had resulted directly from him shooting someone. If i manage to be perceived as a threat to the safety of a group of 20 to thirty individuals due to killing one of them, which enables me to be allowed to kill them when they try to neutralize that threat, then this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I killed someone for fearing for my life, so now i am afraid i will get killed for killing someone, so i am now allowed to kill more people. This is mind boggling for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
