Kyle Rittenhouse says he will sue Whoopi Goldberg

Page 7 of 10 [ 149 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

27 Feb 2022, 3:03 am

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Whatever he did, it wasn't deemed to be illegal in a court of law. 8)


in Muurica


Of course.
This madness wouldn't happen in Australia.
"Only in Ammmuuuria". :mrgreen:



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

27 Feb 2022, 3:31 am

ironpony wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. Well what I don't understand about left and right politics, is how does say the left decide on who's side they are on if that person ends up killing three people in self defense? Does someone high up in the democratic party decide if they will be on against this person, and then passes the word down, and then everyone else on the left, loyal to the democratic party follows, even if they do not personally agree?


I think that it is worth pointing out that without all the investigation that fed into the trial, it was not knowable that this was a case of self-defense. There were some people claiming it was, and others claiming it was not. The witnesses on the scene seemed to mostly see Rittenhouse as an aggressor and perpetrator. It isn't fair to take a conclusion that was reached after a year of investigations and weeks of trial, and try to superimpose that on minds at the time of the event. What we know now is not what was known by anyone then.

At the time of the event, what was known was that two people were dead at Rittenhouse's hands, and another injured. It was known that he had shown up to a protest fully armed with a weapon most Democrats don't believe should even be legal to carry. I don't think ulterior political motives were needed for the term "murder" to get applied at that point in time. How did the Democrats decide who to be against at that point in time? The guy with the riffle who killed two people; the natural and obvious first reaction conclusion, really.

Even following the trail, there were many people who still felt the actions had been murder. They watched the same evidence the rest of us did, and reached a different conclusion than the jury did. When people are dead, it's human nature to want to place blame and have someone pay the price. As much as I do feel reporting and politics fed into the perceptions, the divided response would likely have existed regardless. I don't see how it could not have. Rittenhouse's trail was a difficult and nuanced case, and no one will ever be held responsible for two deaths. That result can be a hard truth for people to accept, even if it was the right result.


Oh okay. But even if the perception before the trial was different, it seems it hasn't changed much since, especially since you said people still want someone to be held responsible. But in a case of self defense, though, can't these same democratic people still take comfort in the fact, that in self defense, no one has to be held responsible because it was self defense, and that's okay?


I don't think the loss of life feels any less like the loss of life just because it was deemed self-defense.

The people Rittenhouse tangled with felt they were in the right same as Rittenhouse felt he was in the right. No one was seeing the full picture; they all had perceptions based on assumptions and incomplete information. Ultimately, who lived and who died ended up being decided in a flash of a second. There will never be any comfort in that except to the friends and loved ones of Rittenhouse, since he is the one who got to live and didn't have to go to jail.

A lot of times in life, there simply can never be comfort. To me, this was one of those situations. Once we had all the facts, there was no villain and there was no hero, just people mixed up in a tragic circumstance. It can never make sense. Some people will never be able to accept that, they have to find a villain and a hero in order to move forward. Some people have villainized the victims, others have villainized Rittenhouse. I think it's the only way they can understand the world.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

27 Feb 2022, 3:36 am

Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:

It's likely US law helped Rittenhouse's case. Had this trial been in another country he would likely be in jail rather than doing the talk show circuit talking up his chance of making millions from killing two people.


Context is important.
Ammmuuuuurian laws allowed Rittenhouse to defend himself.
End of story.

Perhaps you should change the laws there. :mrgreen:


As much as I hate that Rittenhouse could show up there with a gun, as much as I hate his milking of the talk show circuit, as much as I hate that he did, in fact, take two lives ... I'm one of those who, after seeing all the facts, couldn't really send him to jail for any extended period, either. We have a lot of laws that could use a little tweaking, but I don't think this case ended up with the wrong result. What I would change, if we could figure out a reasonable way to do it, would be the laws that allowed him to show up armed to a civil unrest situation in the first place. If he hadn't been armed I do not believe any of it would have happened.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

27 Feb 2022, 3:44 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
If he hadn't been armed I do not believe any of it would have happened.


That's actually something that's lost on everyone. Had he gone in without an AR15 he would have been totally ignored,



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

27 Feb 2022, 4:03 am

cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
If he hadn't been armed I do not believe any of it would have happened.


That's actually something that's lost on everyone. Had he gone in without an AR15 he would have been totally ignored,


Was he the only one who went there with a gun?
I'm not sure of that.

There are a lot of violent people at those "peaceful" burning stuff down riots.
Haven't you seen the video clips of gangs of peaceful antifa members kicking the shite out of a lone individual in the middle of the street or store owners being bashed over the head with a 4 by 2 just for protecting their property?
Damn, you have had a sheltered life. 8O

If the protesters rioters weren't violent, there would be no violence, well, most of the time. 8)



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

27 Feb 2022, 3:41 pm

Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
If he hadn't been armed I do not believe any of it would have happened.


That's actually something that's lost on everyone. Had he gone in without an AR15 he would have been totally ignored,


Was he the only one who went there with a gun?
I'm not sure of that.

There are a lot of violent people at those "peaceful" burning stuff down riots.
Haven't you seen the video clips of gangs of peaceful antifa members kicking the shite out of a lone individual in the middle of the street or store owners being bashed over the head with a 4 by 2 just for protecting their property?
Damn, you have had a sheltered life. 8O

If the protesters rioters weren't violent, there would be no violence, well, most of the time. 8)


Well it sets a precedence for armed vigilanteism.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

27 Feb 2022, 9:11 pm

Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
If he hadn't been armed I do not believe any of it would have happened.


That's actually something that's lost on everyone. Had he gone in without an AR15 he would have been totally ignored,


Was he the only one who went there with a gun?
I'm not sure of that.

There are a lot of violent people at those "peaceful" burning stuff down riots.
Haven't you seen the video clips of gangs of peaceful antifa members kicking the shite out of a lone individual in the middle of the street or store owners being bashed over the head with a 4 by 2 just for protecting their property?
Damn, you have had a sheltered life. 8O

If the protesters rioters weren't violent, there would be no violence, well, most of the time. 8)


It would be my preference for no one there to be armed, and for anyone engaged in violence to be arrested and charged.

I believe in the right to protest. But as a way ensuring that right can always exist, I don’t believe in the right to engage in violence nor to carry heavy weaponry into a protest. Those aren’t the tools of peaceful protest organizers, but of disrupters. I am sure examples of exceptions can be found, and I won’t pretend I’m proposing a perfect solution. It’s just how I see things right now. I have no patience for the elements that turn protests into danger zones.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,045

28 Feb 2022, 6:36 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
If he hadn't been armed I do not believe any of it would have happened.


That's actually something that's lost on everyone. Had he gone in without an AR15 he would have been totally ignored,


Was he the only one who went there with a gun?
I'm not sure of that.

There are a lot of violent people at those "peaceful" burning stuff down riots.
Haven't you seen the video clips of gangs of peaceful antifa members kicking the shite out of a lone individual in the middle of the street or store owners being bashed over the head with a 4 by 2 just for protecting their property?
Damn, you have had a sheltered life. 8O

If the protesters rioters weren't violent, there would be no violence, well, most of the time. 8)


It would be my preference for no one there to be armed, and for anyone engaged in violence to be arrested and charged.

I believe in the right to protest. But as a way ensuring that right can always exist, I don’t believe in the right to engage in violence nor to carry heavy weaponry into a protest. Those aren’t the tools of peaceful protest organizers, but of disrupters. I am sure examples of exceptions can be found, and I won’t pretend I’m proposing a perfect solution. It’s just how I see things right now. I have no patience for the elements that turn protests into danger zones.


Definitely. Protests do not need dangerous weapons in them.

I suppose the situation depends on how rough the police are in a given geographical area. If a police force are reasonable and only use weapons as a last resort, in self-defense, then peaceful protest from attending protestors is a reasonable situation.

If the police are angry thugs ready to beat a person down at a moments notice, it is probably necessary to bring a weapon.

So the whole thing rests on bargaining really with the two parties (protestors + police forces).


_________________
“I was ashamed of myself when I realized life was a costume party and I attended with my real face” - Franz Kafka


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

28 Feb 2022, 8:35 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
If he hadn't been armed I do not believe any of it would have happened.


That's actually something that's lost on everyone. Had he gone in without an AR15 he would have been totally ignored,


Was he the only one who went there with a gun?
I'm not sure of that.

There are a lot of violent people at those "peaceful" burning stuff down riots.
Haven't you seen the video clips of gangs of peaceful antifa members kicking the shite out of a lone individual in the middle of the street or store owners being bashed over the head with a 4 by 2 just for protecting their property?
Damn, you have had a sheltered life. 8O

If the protesters rioters weren't violent, there would be no violence, well, most of the time. 8)


It would be my preference for no one there to be armed, and for anyone engaged in violence to be arrested and charged.

I believe in the right to protest. But as a way ensuring that right can always exist, I don’t believe in the right to engage in violence nor to carry heavy weaponry into a protest. Those aren’t the tools of peaceful protest organizers, but of disrupters. I am sure examples of exceptions can be found, and I won’t pretend I’m proposing a perfect solution. It’s just how I see things right now. I have no patience for the elements that turn protests into danger zones.


Is it possible for a protest to be peaceful though, as everytime a big protest happens, it always gets violent at some point. Is the term 'peaceful protest' an oxymoron pretty much now, unless I am wrong, and they actually can be peaceful?



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,045

28 Feb 2022, 8:39 pm

ironpony wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
If he hadn't been armed I do not believe any of it would have happened.


That's actually something that's lost on everyone. Had he gone in without an AR15 he would have been totally ignored,


Was he the only one who went there with a gun?
I'm not sure of that.

There are a lot of violent people at those "peaceful" burning stuff down riots.
Haven't you seen the video clips of gangs of peaceful antifa members kicking the shite out of a lone individual in the middle of the street or store owners being bashed over the head with a 4 by 2 just for protecting their property?
Damn, you have had a sheltered life. 8O

If the protesters rioters weren't violent, there would be no violence, well, most of the time. 8)


It would be my preference for no one there to be armed, and for anyone engaged in violence to be arrested and charged.

I believe in the right to protest. But as a way ensuring that right can always exist, I don’t believe in the right to engage in violence nor to carry heavy weaponry into a protest. Those aren’t the tools of peaceful protest organizers, but of disrupters. I am sure examples of exceptions can be found, and I won’t pretend I’m proposing a perfect solution. It’s just how I see things right now. I have no patience for the elements that turn protests into danger zones.


Is it possible for a protest to be peaceful though, as everytime a big protest happens, it always gets violent at some point. Is the term 'peaceful protest' an oxymoron pretty much now, unless I am wrong, and they actually can be peaceful?


Peaceful protests are called peaceful when only a small portion of the crowd usually gets sandwiched by the police they oppose and the people behind them.

Everyone else just shouts & watches from safety.

Violent protests are when probably at least 10 rows of people have merged into a mob and have gone wild and cannot be contained without violence from police.


_________________
“I was ashamed of myself when I realized life was a costume party and I attended with my real face” - Franz Kafka


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

28 Feb 2022, 8:39 pm

Oh okay I see.



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,045

28 Feb 2022, 8:40 pm

It depends on the number of arrests as well. If two people are arrested, no big deal.

If 30 people are arrested, that's quite an issue.


_________________
“I was ashamed of myself when I realized life was a costume party and I attended with my real face” - Franz Kafka


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

28 Feb 2022, 8:41 pm

blitzkrieg wrote:
It depends on the number of arrests as well. If two people are arrested, no big deal.

If 30 people are arrested, that's quite an issue.


That makes sense. It just seems in all these protests happening lately, more than a dozen people are arrested per protest it seems.



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,045

28 Feb 2022, 8:43 pm

ironpony wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
It depends on the number of arrests as well. If two people are arrested, no big deal.

If 30 people are arrested, that's quite an issue.


That makes sense. It just seems in all these protests happening lately, more than a dozen people are arrested per protest it seems.


Yep. A dozen arrests is pretty serious. Each arrest takes time to process & time costs police departments money in paperwork etc, labour force for questioning felons or suspects....


_________________
“I was ashamed of myself when I realized life was a costume party and I attended with my real face” - Franz Kafka


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

04 Mar 2022, 2:21 pm

Oh ok.

Also, would a lot more people be on Rittenhouse's side more if it was a woman instead who shot when being attacked after running?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

04 Mar 2022, 5:38 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh ok.

Also, would a lot more people be on Rittenhouse's side more if it was a woman instead who shot when being attacked after running?


If the victims were female Rittenhouse would be in jail