|
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 |
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On November 21 2021 08:55 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 08:32 WombaT wrote:On November 21 2021 07:46 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 07:39 WombaT wrote:On November 21 2021 06:25 NewSunshine wrote:
I think anyone trying to play this off as business as usual is ignoring the way the verdict will embolden every single person who has been itching to do the same thing Kyle did. Arguments can be made that this isn't exactly what happened in the case itself, but this verdict is going to legitimize political violence. It will tell people that they can go to anti-racism protests near them, with a gun, and shoot the people there as long as they have any credible argument for self-defense whatsoever, because protesting racism is an insult to the fabric of America or whatever, and they'll find themselves doing just fine afterward.
Tucker Carlson and all the other White Supremacists celebrating this verdict aren't celebrating Kyle's persistent drive to protect local businesses not where he lives. They're celebrating the far-Right wet dream of shooting someone with a gun because you feel like it, and getting away with it as self-defense. That is absolutely happening. This, I think I’ve articulated most of my objections along this plane, Whether Rittenhouse is one, it’s pretty clear that there was a trend of rather unsavoury white supremacist or fash adjacent characters turning up open carrying, with a mentality closer to hoping to get the excuse to use than hoping not to have to use them. A trend that I, and I’m pretty sure most here saw as a worrying trend with well, pretty predictable consequences Then that is further legitimised, and let’s be real if some leftist protestor shot someone dead under justifiable self-defence terms Tucker Carlson isn’t having them on and the cohort defending Rittenhouse aren’t going to have their back. The advisability of specifically open carrying in such scenarios is, extremely suspect IMO. These are chaotic, adrenaline and emotionally-fuelled environments with huge gaps in information. You have all sorts, but you round a corner and there’s some bloke with their intimidation stick out. Is he a Good Samaritan, some lone wolf nutjob about to shoot you, a member of some skinhead militia? I don’t understand why these scenarios are discussed through the lenses of rationality and sensible, calm decision making, those scenarios are the polar opposite, and that absolutely should be taken into account into assessing what it is appropriate or sensible to do in that scenario. Who knows, but he’s got a pretty big gun on him? With the caveat I’m talking this kind of charged, protest/counter-protest kind of environment. If I’m just chilling out and some guy’s sauntering about with a gun on a sunny afternoon my reaction is going to be totally different to rounding some corner after a day of heated protest and the surrounding political invective and there’s some bloke stroking his rifle. People get halfway there and justify open carrying in such an environment as a visible deterrent, without considering perhaps being visibly intimidating in a chaotic environment will have people see you as a threat and attack you. Yeah, telling him hours earlier "If I find you alone I will kill you" and then yelling "You won't do shit motherfucker" at Kyle really drives home how threatened they were in attacking him. You're making up a story that suits your feelings and substituting it for what is documented to have happened on video. To boot I don’t think a lot of people care one jot about this, they’re just glad their guy shot a few Commies and skated, which is kind of what me and others have been alluding to as the worrying precedent and aspect of the case. Much like a lot of people from the other side were immediately sure this guy was a nazi out on a killing mission targeting peaceful protesters and now they can't accept that he's not guilty because he acted in self defense and apparently his only real "agression" was to put out a fire the rioters caused.
Not going to get any arguments from me on that, I’ve stated it myself in the thread.
|
On November 21 2021 06:45 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 06:08 Sermokala wrote:
I think it's wild to not expect a change in behavior after this. The court has clearly signaled that the last person alive between two people with guns will go free. Anyone who sees someone else with a gun out and they're holding a gun themselves is now told to kill the other person with the knowledge they will not face repercussion from it. The court has signalled nothing other than they won't ignore a mountain of evidence of self defence to satisfy the public's lust for a guilty verdict. If you shoot somebody on sight solely because they have a gun you are going to go to prison whether you want to pretend otherwise or not. I don't recommend you try it.
The case disagrees with you. Kyle shot the people he did because they had a gun. I would highly recommend doing it if anyone is in either of their situations because they would then be alive and according to this court case they wouldn't face any legal consequences.
If someone says they're going to go kill someone and then celebrates killing people afterward its 100% okay in Wisconsin if you know how to fabricate enough of a self defense case.
|
I'm curious if any of the people that think Rittenhouse killed people in self defense also think Travis McMichael killed Ahmaud Arbery in self defense?
|
On November 21 2021 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious if any of the people that think Rittenhouse killed people in self defense also think Travis McMichael killed Ahmaud Arbery in self defense?
I think those are two completely different situations. I don't see many people rushing to defend Travis or the other two guys literally hunting down another person.
|
United States44442 Posts
I don’t know if anyone has spoken about that aspect but one concerning thing is that he was radicalized as a child to the point that he longed to shoot his fellow Americans. He grew up in the post 9/11 conservative laager fantasy and was too young and inexperienced to understand that the media was lying to him.
|
On November 21 2021 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious if any of the people that think Rittenhouse killed people in self defense also think Travis McMichael killed Ahmaud Arbery in self defense?
I'll preface by saying I think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty of something, so I can't speak for those who agreed that he should walk.
Having said that, the McMichael case seems even worse. The case for self-defense seems even thinner. With Rittenhouse, you have to ignore his words from a couple weeks before and ignore that he purposely put himself in a dangerous situation where he could carry out his words and then you can make a decent case for self-defense. In the Arbery case, you'd have to ignore McMichael's actions from about 5 seconds before he killed Arbery.
It truly is a case of, "can you start a fight, start to lose it, then shoot the guy who's winning because you now feel threatened?" I'm pretty sure people would say no.
The one scary thing in the McMichael case is that there was a law that allowed for citizens arrests, but the judge in the case basically said that they have to have witnessed the crime being committed immediately before a citizen's arrest would be valid. They did not, so it seems to strike the idea that they were legally trying to arrest Arbery and guts the defense's case.
Here's a news article that says pretty much what I just said:
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/defense-says-ruling-by-judge-ahmaud-arbery-trial-over-citizens-arrest-law-guts-their-case/KI73ZTIXI5DELKFTRHWCBZX3VI/
I'd suspect they might get lighter sentence than would otherwise be appropriate because they were "trying to do good", but there are 5 counts of murder (I don't know the details) and they need to be convicted of some of them. They also have federal hate crime charges waiting.
|
It's just sad that the gun culture in the US has created a world where someone can feel threatened enough to take lives because some blokes were yelling shit at him. Maybe this kid is not guilty, he sure as he'll is a giant pussy who was so scared to break a nail that he would rather take other people's lives.
|
On November 21 2021 18:03 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's just sad that the gun culture in the US has created a world where someone can feel threatened enough to take lives because some blokes were yelling shit at him. Maybe this kid is not guilty, he sure as he'll is a giant pussy who was so scared to break a nail that he would rather take other people's lives.
Is this really your best effort at an honest interpretation of the video evidence? He shot some people because some blokes were yelling shit at him? The videos are available for everyone to see. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind sinking your own credibility by embellishing the story to such a degree that it becomes plainly untrue to everyone following along.
|
@brotch the other day you had legit questions about the case and had some good reasoning based off what it would be like in Germany. Now you go full lunacy claiming he was afraid to break a nail and that's why he shot people? What changed between then and now...
|
|
|
This is a moral and legal victory, an innocent man was found not guilty after 14 months of smears and lies. I'm not celebrating the killing of 2 or maiming of one but I am celebrating the truth coming to light. My first post was not a troll.
|
On November 21 2021 22:42 Taelshin wrote:
This is a moral and legal victory, an innocent man was found not guilty after killing 2 people. I'm not celebrating the killing of 2 or maiming of one but I am celebrating the truth coming to light. My first post was not a troll.
What actually happened. The reason people continue to debate, discuss, and argue is because we have a hard time labeling 2 unnecessary deaths a "moral victory". The legal victory was also suspect.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On November 21 2021 23:48 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 22:42 Taelshin wrote:
This is a moral and legal victory, an innocent man was found not guilty after killing 2 people. I'm not celebrating the killing of 2 or maiming of one but I am celebrating the truth coming to light. My first post was not a troll. What actually happened. The reason people continue to debate, discuss, and argue is because we have a hard time labeling 2 unnecessary deaths a "moral victory". The legal victory was also suspect.
To be fair it does make sense that people would be happy that a guy on 'their side' gets away with killing people on the other side.
Its where politics has been going for a while.
|
On November 22 2021 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 23:48 NewSunshine wrote:On November 21 2021 22:42 Taelshin wrote:
This is a moral and legal victory, an innocent man was found not guilty after killing 2 people. I'm not celebrating the killing of 2 or maiming of one but I am celebrating the truth coming to light. My first post was not a troll. What actually happened. The reason people continue to debate, discuss, and argue is because we have a hard time labeling 2 unnecessary deaths a "moral victory". The legal victory was also suspect. To be fair it does make sense that people would be happy that a guy on 'their side' gets away with killing people on the other side. Its where politics has been going for a while. Yeah, it does make sense that you think everyone who believes this was the right decision must be on the 'other side'. It's where politics has been going for a while.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On November 22 2021 00:40 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2021 00:37 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 21 2021 23:48 NewSunshine wrote:On November 21 2021 22:42 Taelshin wrote:
This is a moral and legal victory, an innocent man was found not guilty after killing 2 people. I'm not celebrating the killing of 2 or maiming of one but I am celebrating the truth coming to light. My first post was not a troll. What actually happened. The reason people continue to debate, discuss, and argue is because we have a hard time labeling 2 unnecessary deaths a "moral victory". The legal victory was also suspect. To be fair it does make sense that people would be happy that a guy on 'their side' gets away with killing people on the other side. Its where politics has been going for a while. Yeah, it does make sense that you think everyone who believes this was the right decision must be on the 'other side'. It's where politics has been going for a while.
Nope, I also believe it was the right decision.
However, there's a difference between thinking it was the right decision and celebrating the whole thing, which is what i posted earlier in the thread.
|
|
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On November 22 2021 00:52 JimmiC wrote:
My point was there is a massive gulf between thinking this was the legally correct decision and that it is good that person professed their dream of shooting up shoplifters with a AR, gets a AR and goes and shoots up some bad guys.
The people celebrating him as hero have very messed up morales. This is a horrible event for society and many families lives have been ruined.
edit: also this "poor Kyle" shtick is embarrassing. Half "the media" is making him out as a american hero, he is getting wealth and celebrity for putting himself in the exact situation he dreamed of. The guy is living out his fantasy.
From what little i know about US law I assume he had the right to defend himself in this situation.
Does that mean he's innocent? Fuck, no.
He's not guilty of the charge that was seen in court, by virtue of circumstance. As far as I'm concerned, he went there to kill people, that was his aim, and he carried it out ruthlessly. The guy is a fucking cunt with murderous intentions. We should all be devastated that a guy like that walks free to do the same again, not 'happy for him and his family'.
|
On November 22 2021 00:52 JimmiC wrote:
My point was there is a massive gulf between thinking this was the legally correct decision and that it is good that person professed their dream of shooting up shoplifters with a AR, gets a AR and goes and shoots up some bad guys.
The people celebrating him as hero have very messed up morales. This is a horrible event for society and many families lives have been ruined.
edit: also this "poor Kyle" shtick is embarrassing. Half "the media" is making him out as a american hero, he is getting wealth and celebrity for putting himself in the exact situation he dreamed of. The guy is living out his fantasy.
Yeah, there's also a massive gulf between people thinking a 17 year old saying "I wish I had my AR, I'd shoot some rounds at them" casually to a friend is equivalent to laying bear his innermost desires of being a mass shooter at his local Neo-Nazi press conference or is just a literal dumb kid saying stupid shit.
It's at the point where a serial child rapist with a laundry list of prison assaults yelling about how he wants to kill people and then tries to kill someone: That doesn't mean he deserved to die, everyone make mistakes in life and we need to understand him as a whole person, not just some things he did.
A literal child says "I'd shoot some rounds at them": Oh my God, he's irredeemable scum!
|
United States24812 Posts
What would Kyle need to have said prior to the day of in order for us to reasonably believe it was his innermost desire to shoot the preferred type of protester with his AR? It seems like the bar is so high that it's impossible to ever prove motive for a 17 year old.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On November 22 2021 01:22 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2021 00:52 JimmiC wrote:
My point was there is a massive gulf between thinking this was the legally correct decision and that it is good that person professed their dream of shooting up shoplifters with a AR, gets a AR and goes and shoots up some bad guys.
The people celebrating him as hero have very messed up morales. This is a horrible event for society and many families lives have been ruined.
edit: also this "poor Kyle" shtick is embarrassing. Half "the media" is making him out as a american hero, he is getting wealth and celebrity for putting himself in the exact situation he dreamed of. The guy is living out his fantasy. Yeah, there's also a massive gulf between people thinking a 17 year old saying "I wish I had my AR, I'd shoot some rounds at them" casually to a friend is equivalent to laying bear his innermost desires of being a mass shooter at his local Neo-Nazi press conference or is just a literal dumb kid saying stupid shit. It's at the point where a serial child rapist with a laundry list of prison assaults yelling about how he wants to kill people and then tries to kill someone: That doesn't mean he deserved to die, everyone make mistakes in life and we need to understand him as a whole person, not just some things he did. A literal child says "I'd shoot some rounds at them": Oh my God, he's irredeemable scum!
All of this could be true, if he didn't in fact grab his AR and go and put some rounds in them.
Seems like he got to play out his innermost desires to me.
I suppose it could be a coincidence that what he did in the end, was exactly what he said he wished he could do.
edit: You seem to be approaching this from a common sense POV, which is great, but your common sense is going to fail if you want to argue that him going to the protest with his AR was completely unrelated to him wishing he had an AR to shoot the fools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
