EPTSpeaking of which the closing arguments are today should start in roughly an hour or so. Should be interesting.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3375
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
Speaking of which the closing arguments are today should start in roughly an hour or so. Should be interesting. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 15 2021 23:16 Taelshin wrote: @Sunshine He never crossed state lines with an a gun, this is a lie that has been told so many times it's painful. Good, I guess we can all go back to what we were doing then, because the real issue here was that he crossed state lines to kill people, not that he killed people. It's settled. | ||
KwarK
United States43203 Posts
On November 15 2021 23:14 Taelshin wrote: Nothing in the trial has shown he was there "looking" for trouble. He was there to help defend a local business by offering a deterrent and a presence as well as medical aid and early in the day clean up some graffiti from the night before. He had every right to be there just as did every protester (thought one could argue that once the curfew had gone into effect no one actually had the right to be there). There is near endless amounts of correct and verified information out there including but not limited to the entire trial being broadcasted. Speaking of which the closing arguments are today should start in roughly an hour or so. Should be interesting. If you believe he was there due to his passion for defending small businesses you presumably have a video of him from before the incident where he contacts small businesses and asks them if they have sufficient insurance coverage and proper smoke detectors. Because the people who believe he was there due to his desire to shoot people have a video of him from before the incident talking about how he wants to shoot people. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 15 2021 23:23 KwarK wrote: If you believe he was there due to his passion for defending small businesses you presumably have a video of him from before the incident where he contacts small businesses and asks them if they have sufficient insurance coverage and proper smoke detectors. Because the people who believe he was there due to his desire to shoot people have a video of him from before the incident talking about how he wants to shoot people. I mean, the fact that there's been this much back and forth because people still somehow find his actions not just defensible, but justifiable, is the very reason Kyle will walk, and get to do it all over again some other time. We always heard about how the critical thing that keeps us from nailing the guy who obviously did it is proving intent, which is almost impossible, but the truth is that's just a useful excuse. Even when we have video evidence of him declaring his intent, something that could not make establishing intent more convenient, we're still bickering over whether his intent was actually to shoot someone. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 15 2021 23:28 Taelshin wrote: Kwark : That video was not allowed to be offered into evidence at trial, People can be as mad as they want about the judges ruling on that specific item but as it stands now it has no bearing on the case at hand. I'd also like to point out Rosenbaums extensive criminal history was also not allowed to be presented at trial. I wasn't aware TeamLiquid was a court of law. Reminder, folks: keep discussion limited to legally admissible or admitted evidence. Discussion regarding evidence not being used is a violation of community guidelines, and will be enforced accordingly. I know this is absurd on my part. That's the point. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43203 Posts
On November 15 2021 23:28 Taelshin wrote: Kwark : That video was not allowed to be offered into evidence at trial, People can be as mad as they want about the judges ruling on that specific item but as it stands now it has no bearing on the case at hand. I'd also like to point out Rosenbaums extensive criminal history was also not allowed to be presented at trial. Rosenbaum isn’t on trial and this isn’t a trial, we can talk about what we like. Kyle’s expressed desire to shoot particular people with his gun is relevant to why he traveled to where he expected to find his those people, brought his gun with him, and shot some. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7381 Posts
On November 15 2021 23:16 Taelshin wrote: @Sunshine He never crossed state lines with an a gun, this is a lie that has been told so many times it's painful. Where did Kyle Rittenhouse live? Why is it materially different to cross state lines and then pick up your illegally obtained gun in state in order to seek out people who you think you may have a legal claim to murder? | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
I'm losing patience for repeating myself, so I'll just use a handy-dandy function to quote myself. On November 15 2021 23:08 NewSunshine wrote: The real question is what constitutes self-defense. I say this knowing I go well above the low bar we set for it here in the US, but I don't think expressing a desire to shoot people, grabbing an AR, crossing state lines, and starting shit with people who threatened him (who could obviously see his large rifle) places him or anyone else in a situation that constitutes self-defense. What is he defending? His right to travel to protests he disagrees with for the express purpose of threatening violence? That's what he did. That's what landed him in hot shit. The only reason anyone said anything to him was because he was brandishing a fucking rifle. I also tend to think that shooting someone is an escalation of the situation, far more often than it is self-defense. If Kyle's position is that he wasn't looking for trouble and didn't want to hurt someone or get hurt himself, then his behavior of expressing a desire to hurt people, grabbing a weapon that is terrible for self-defense but great for being an attacker, and traveling to a situation where he could instigate violence, so that he could then instigate violence, is rather strange. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45006 Posts
| ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
@zambrah At the time he lived in Antioch Illinois. Roughly 25-30minutes outside of Kenosha Hey I've got an opinion. If people had correctly reported on the shooting of Jacob Blake (The police shooting that sparked all of this in Kenosha) then maybe no one would have showed up to protests/riots and Kyle also wouldn't have shown up and thusly maybe less or no people would have lost their lives. Also lets consider that there may be other people on the forum here who are reading, and unsure of the facts, and trying to formulate their own opinion, I believe we are doing an injustice if we don't provide people with the truth. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25995 Posts
I think the media does have to be careful in not fanning the flames in this, or all kinds of other scenarios and can frequently fail in this endeavour, I am just unfamiliar with the specifics you're mentioning. On the flip side, I don't exactly think much restraint has been shown over coverage of BLM and people pontificating about Marxists looting America either, which could absolutely stir a naive (or otherwise) young man into taking to the streets to defend the nation. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21947 Posts
On November 15 2021 23:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It raises the concept that he isn't protecting his local neighbourhood but actively travelled to be in an area of conflict, which further leads into him seeking out conflict rather then simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time and having to defend himself with an AR.Honest question: If he's being tried for murder, then why is whether or not he crossed state lines relevant? Why do people bring up that he did/didn't? Isn't that potential crime a completely separate issue? | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
A quote just from the wiki on it though "On August 28, the police union said that most narratives about the shooting were wholly inaccurate and purely fictional, including information from Blake's attorneys.[28] It also criticized a statement released by the Wisconsin Department of Justice's Division of Criminal Investigation, which is leading the investigation into the police shooting, as "riddled with incomplete information".[28]" and I also grabbed this was actually a very interesting read and maybe would answer your question better https://abcnews.go.com/US/family-investigators-police-offer-starkly-views-jacob-blake/story?id=72675684 All this to say it shows what happens when people rush to judgements and or are pushed one way or the other by media before all the facts of a particular case have come in. Look at the damage wrought by all this. 100% agree with your fanning of the flames and this goes for both sides without a doubt. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On November 15 2021 23:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Honest question: If he's being tried for murder, then why is whether or not he crossed state lines relevant? Why do people bring up that he did/didn't? Isn't that potential crime a completely separate issue? Because most people don't dispute that he could be acting in self defense as Sivanel points out. Their issue is that actions prior to conflict mean he shouldn't be shielded from the consequences because he is the aggressor. Crossing state lines with a firearm would be a felony so he was the aggressor and shouldn't be granted protections is a pretty simple argument to follow. | ||
| ||
