EPTAlso trial's live everyone they are finalizing the jury instructions its gonna be pretty boring but might be worth tuning in if anyone's interested in how the jury may end up coming to their final verdict.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3376
| 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
Canada418 Posts
Also trial's live everyone they are finalizing the jury instructions its gonna be pretty boring but might be worth tuning in if anyone's interested in how the jury may end up coming to their final verdict. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On November 16 2021 00:22 Taelshin wrote: @blitz I believe the perception of what you are saying is correct but and I am not 100% sure about this because its lawyering well above my pay grade but I believe that even in the case of someone having say an illegal firearm they can still use it in a self defense situation, although they are likely to get whacked with the gun charge after the fact. Maybe the fact that crossing state lines is a felony play's in though so that's an interesting take either way. I have posted about prior crimes not meaning you are guilty already and agree with what you're saying. Just pointing out why this is coming up. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1944 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44376 Posts
On November 16 2021 00:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: 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. I'm having trouble understanding how the aggression is contingent upon the "crossing state lines with a firearm" felony. I get that crossing state lines with a firearm would be a felony, but why would that felony specifically make him the aggressor? Wouldn't he be the aggressor anyway, regardless of whether or not he crossed a state line? I would think that him purposely traveling there with the gun (to do what he had threatened to do, earlier) makes him the aggressor, whether it's 100 feet away of 100 miles away, no? | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada418 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21705 Posts
On November 16 2021 00:15 Taelshin wrote: You'll find that "The police say" is not an effective argument. Most people here have 0 trust in most American police being critical of themselves and will by default, based on an overwhelming amount of historic precedent, assume police will protect their own no matter what.@Wombat I'd love to give you a rundown of the misinformation of the Jacob Blake shooting from the time but that's a pretty big ask and I just don't have that sort of info on tap. Suffice to say the officer in that shooting was not charged and there is many articles you can read on that otherwise id just be quoting from articles and or the wiki and I'm not sure that's what your looking for. 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 16 2021 00:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm having trouble understanding how the aggression is contingent upon the "crossing state lines with a firearm" felony. I get that crossing state lines with a firearm would be a felony, but why would that felony specifically make him the aggressor? Wouldn't he be the aggressor anyway, regardless of whether or not he crossed a state line? I would think that him purposely traveling there with the gun (to do what he had threatened to do, earlier) makes him the aggressor, whether it's 100 feet away of 100 miles away, no? I wouldn't call the CVS video and traveling away from home mutually exclusive. If you're saying he is the aggressor and doesn't merit self defense then both are part of any coherent argument that he should be guilty. Kyle being in the middle of a felony while doing all this is just icing on top to make it even easier to shift to the aggressor. I've already posted how the law sees prior guilt and my thoughts on it. I think this is a sore spot in public opinion on how criminals should be treated. Prisoners being raped by each other as normal in our culture is certainly no small part in that. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7312 Posts
On November 16 2021 00:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm having trouble understanding how the aggression is contingent upon the "crossing state lines with a firearm" felony. I get that crossing state lines with a firearm would be a felony, but why would that felony specifically make him the aggressor? Wouldn't he be the aggressor anyway, regardless of whether or not he crossed a state line? I would think that him purposely traveling there with the gun (to do what he had threatened to do, earlier) makes him the aggressor, whether it's 100 feet away of 100 miles away, no? It takes a lot more effort to travel the 100 miles and degrades the defense that he was there to protect businesses because there’s no reason he should have particular attachment to businesses far from his home. That he spent a bunch of time traveling to a place he doesn’t have any reasonable attachment to with murder weapons and proceeded to murder with the murder weapons indicates he did not murder people for self defense, or at best willfully put himself in a dangerous situation with the intent to use deadly force to murder people. Easier to cry self defense when it’s your home, but driving to your cousins home an hour away with a gun intending to shoot some robbers? That’s a lot more homicide-y. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada418 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On November 16 2021 00:17 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: 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. This is it. Two armed people, Andrew and Ben, confront each other in a building, both reasonably fear for their lives and draw their weapons, Andrew kills Ben. Seems like self defence. Now I add that Andrew was in the building illegally and with ill intent. Suddenly it doesn’t. Presenting the confrontation out of context makes it look completely different. There was a curfew, he was illegally breaking it. He has explicitly described his ill intent, he wanted to shoot those people, he wanted to shoot them so badly he traveled there to do it, he brought his illegally owned tools with him to do it. The context makes the crime, just as it does with Andrew and Ben. That is why it is so fucked up that the jury were not allowed to see Kyle describing his murderous intent. If there was a video of Andrew talking about how he wished he could steal a giant flatscreen TV, there was a giant flatscreen TV in the building he entered, and he brought tools to steal a giant flatscreen TV with him then that would be pretty devastating to his claim of self defence. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
confusedzerg
Russian Federation102 Posts
also witnesses say rosenbaum was grabbing his gun and chasing after him after kyle tried to flee. now we have someone (i will not say who) in this thread victim blaming, they are saying "they brought their AR to this place looking for trouble". i do not even know how someone like this can even get dressed by themselves. who in their right mind chases, threatens, and harasses a man with a fucking rifle? it is a deterrent. the fact that it wasnt and someone got shot should make you americans happy because now your gene pool is more intelligent. secondly, arent you americans supposed to be big on your rights and not victim blaming? i just dont understand.... people will follow the narrative the media gives, even someone is saying kyle is a white supremacist just because biden tweeted it? where is the evidence? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44376 Posts
On November 16 2021 01:38 confusedzerg wrote: rittenhouse clearly acted in self-defense, this is obvious if you saw video. even the one person who survived getting shot by him admitted it in court. also witnesses say rosenbaum was grabbing his gun and chasing after him after kyle tried to flee. now we have someone (i will not say who) in this thread victim blaming, they are saying "they brought their AR to this place looking for trouble". i do not even know how someone like this can even get dressed by themselves. who in their right mind chases, threatens, and harasses a man with a fucking rifle? it is a deterrent. the fact that it wasnt and someone got shot should make you americans happy because now your gene pool is more intelligent. secondly, arent you americans supposed to be big on your rights and not victim blaming? i just dont understand.... people will follow the narrative the media gives, even someone is saying kyle is a white supremacist just because biden tweeted it? where is the evidence? Some people think that the victims are the ones who were shot, rather than the person doing the shooting. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
On November 16 2021 01:38 confusedzerg wrote: rittenhouse clearly acted in self-defense, this is obvious if you saw video. even the one person who survived getting shot by him admitted it in court. also witnesses say rosenbaum was grabbing his gun and chasing after him after kyle tried to flee. now we have someone (i will not say who) in this thread victim blaming, they are saying "they brought their AR to this place looking for trouble". i do not even know how someone like this can even get dressed by themselves. who in their right mind chases, threatens, and harasses a man with a fucking rifle? it is a deterrent. the fact that it wasnt and someone got shot should make you americans happy because now your gene pool is more intelligent. secondly, arent you americans supposed to be big on your rights and not victim blaming? i just dont understand.... people will follow the narrative the media gives, even someone is saying kyle is a white supremacist just because biden tweeted it? where is the evidence? You are twisting the meaning of "victim blaming" to the point where it hurts. The person who shot 2 people is not the victim. The victims are the people who got shot. Everything else you writes also follows this line of twisting what the words mean. If a guy brings a gun to a place and shoots people there, the people to blame are not the people who were not sufficiently deferential to the guy with the gun. I do not fit into the category of "you americans". The fact that you think that if you own a gun and go someplace, everyone needs to be very careful around you, or you have the right to shoot them is absolutely incompatible with how a civilized society should work. If a guy says on video that he would like to shoot some people, then takes a gun to go to a place where there are people, and proceeds to shoot people there, i find it very hard to believe that that falls into the category of self defense. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25470 Posts
On November 16 2021 01:38 confusedzerg wrote: rittenhouse clearly acted in self-defense, this is obvious if you saw video. even the one person who survived getting shot by him admitted it in court. also witnesses say rosenbaum was grabbing his gun and chasing after him after kyle tried to flee. now we have someone (i will not say who) in this thread victim blaming, they are saying "they brought their AR to this place looking for trouble". i do not even know how someone like this can even get dressed by themselves. who in their right mind chases, threatens, and harasses a man with a fucking rifle? it is a deterrent. the fact that it wasnt and someone got shot should make you americans happy because now your gene pool is more intelligent. secondly, arent you americans supposed to be big on your rights and not victim blaming? i just dont understand.... people will follow the narrative the media gives, even someone is saying kyle is a white supremacist just because biden tweeted it? where is the evidence? You know some terms, you either don’t understand, or are wilfully misusing a cultural concept/term to try and score a ‘gotcha’ point. Which may fly on some subreddit and get you a bunch of upvotes, it’s not going to fly here. It’s a gross distortion of a concept. A woman merely wearing revealing clothing, and that being used against her if she is raped is not at all analogous to sauntering over to some town with an AR15, especially if said individual is on film saying he wished he could shoot some people. Kyle Rittenhouse may, or may not be a white supremacist, many of his defenders IMO 100% are, but anyway. ‘He can’t be a white supremacist because he shot white people, checkmate leftists’ is silly. I don’t believe many are zoning in on that, the issue of white supremacy on a wider, structural scale absolutely was invoked, primarily that an active shooter got to leave the premises and hand himself in, vs the (hypothetical) mirror if he had been a black man and what may have happened there. I’m not sure I 100% agree, elements I do. But the police doing what, I think the police should seek to do in terms of well, not just shooting everyone, and what we want police to do in terms of de-escalation, is being used as a stick to beat the police response. I think 100% police reacted the way they did with his background and ‘gosh golly I want to be a cop’ in a way they absolutely don’t do with another individual. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42778 Posts
On November 16 2021 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Some people think that the victims are the ones who were shot, rather than the person doing the shooting. None of them should have been there tbh. I’d be fine with the survivors also getting charged for their part. Kyle is guilty but he’s not alone in that. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 16 2021 01:38 confusedzerg wrote: rittenhouse clearly acted in self-defense, this is obvious if you saw video. even the one person who survived getting shot by him admitted it in court. also witnesses say rosenbaum was grabbing his gun and chasing after him after kyle tried to flee. now we have someone (i will not say who) in this thread victim blaming, they are saying "they brought their AR to this place looking for trouble". i do not even know how someone like this can even get dressed by themselves. who in their right mind chases, threatens, and harasses a man with a fucking rifle? it is a deterrent. the fact that it wasnt and someone got shot should make you americans happy because now your gene pool is more intelligent. secondly, arent you americans supposed to be big on your rights and not victim blaming? i just dont understand.... people will follow the narrative the media gives, even someone is saying kyle is a white supremacist just because biden tweeted it? where is the evidence? I seem to get dressed by myself ok. I even have a job! | ||
|
Husyelt
United States832 Posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/politics/alex-jones-sandy-hook.html | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
