Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Page 39 of 45 [ 709 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 ... 45  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

19 Nov 2021, 12:55 am

Brictoria wrote:

I can't even recall a single post they have made to\in reply to me that hasn't contained a significant amount of slights\abuse\insinuations....Maybe they have replied otherwise, but it's the frequent abuse from their posts which stands out in my memory.


Yeah, there's a real irony to the fact that all of his complaints are things he does, much more flagrantly and aggressively than those he's complaining about, definitely seems like there's some projection going on there.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Nov 2021, 12:58 am

I have to say, the argument that Rittenhouse provoked the whole thing by having a gun on him and the prosecution saying he should have just taken the beating, just doesn't sit well with me. I mean that's like having a case, where say a woman is attacked by three guys with weapons and she shoots them to stop the attack, and then gets charged with murder, and the prosecution tells the jury, she provoked the attack by the way she was dressed, and she should have just taken it rather than used excessive force....

It just seems like such a double standard to me, as people would not react well if that were the case.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Nov 2021, 1:00 am

ironpony wrote:
I can't find the part in the video where Rittenhouse aims his rifle at the crowd first to cause a provocation. Does anyone have the a link to the part of the video, where this happens?


I am interested also.
A million dollars to the first person who presents it. :mrgreen:



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

19 Nov 2021, 1:00 am

Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Since this is an open discussion board, it should all be OK. No one is forced to be here, and no one should be forced to conform to anyone else's idea of what a conversation should look like.


Who's doing any forcing? I'm not a mod, the most I can do is inflict some discomfort by exposing poor reasoning, or in this case, reacting to a lengthy insulting post directed at me with a brush off, I don't see where you're getting "forcing" from.


Sorry, I think I moved into more generalized (not at you) pontificating with that last paragraph and some other sentences or two.

Yes, I know just threw shade at myself with my word choice.


_________________
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).


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Nov 2021, 1:05 am

Dox47 wrote:
Would it be in poor taste to post the autistic screeching meme? It feels appropriate in light of the unhinged wall of text full of unsupported accusations that was just posted.


I don't read "wall of type" posts.
With my dyslexia, it just isn't worth the effort.
I will wait for someone else's critique. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Nov 2021, 1:24 am

Brictoria wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
. My only issue that there's ONLY trash talk. All noise, no substance.


And that, right there, is why I don't engage with you any more than I can help it, this thread has page after page of me, Pepe, Brictoria, and others explaining the legal aspects of this case at great length, but then you parachute in and brush all of it aside as so much "trash talk". What a joke.

I've found that their "contribution" to a thread is generally "ONLY trash talk. All noise, no substance", so I didn't even bother looking at their latest wall of text.

I can't even recall a single post they have made to\in reply to me that hasn't contained a significant amount of slights\abuse\insinuations....Maybe they have replied otherwise, but it's the frequent abuse from their posts which stands out in my memory.


Off Topic
Wow! Now I know how Amy Farrah Fowler feels being in the kool group. :mrgreen:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

19 Nov 2021, 1:24 am

ironpony wrote:
I have to say, the argument that Rittenhouse provoked the whole thing by having a gun on him and the prosecution saying he should have just taken the beating, just doesn't sit well with me. I mean that's like having a case, where say a woman is attacked by three guys with weapons and she shoots them to stop the attack, and then gets charged with murder, and the prosecution tells the jury, she provoked the attack by the way she was dressed, and she should have just taken it rather than used excessive force....

It just seems like such a double standard to me, as people would not react well if that were the case.


Imagine an underaged 17 yr old scantily clad teen deliberately walking into a strip club (being underaged) with a loaded weapon (that she doesn't have a licence to carry) claiming she is protecting the dancers from men. The men approach her and then she shoots the patrons claiming self-defence.

That's probably more accurately resembles Rittenhouse.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Nov 2021, 1:29 am

Oh well they would have to do more than approach her. In the case of written house they beat him with a scateboard, and pull a gun out at him themselves, so I think that would have to happen in this case, rather than just approach only.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Nov 2021, 1:30 am

cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
I have to say, the argument that Rittenhouse provoked the whole thing by having a gun on him and the prosecution saying he should have just taken the beating, just doesn't sit well with me. I mean that's like having a case, where say a woman is attacked by three guys with weapons and she shoots them to stop the attack, and then gets charged with murder, and the prosecution tells the jury, she provoked the attack by the way she was dressed, and she should have just taken it rather than used excessive force....

It just seems like such a double standard to me, as people would not react well if that were the case.


Imagine an underaged 17 yr old scantily clad teen deliberately walking into a strip club (being underaged) with a loaded weapon (that she doesn't have a licence to carry) claiming she is protecting the dancers from men. The men approach her and then she shoots the patrons claiming self-defence.

That's probably more accurately resembles Rittenhouse.


I give you an "F", for that comparison. :mrgreen:
I can explain why, if you are interested. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Nov 2021, 1:32 am

ironpony wrote:
Oh well they would have to do more than approach her. In the case of written house they beat him with a scateboard, and pull a gun out at him themselves, so I think that would have to happen in this case, rather than just approach only.


I no longer need to explain why it was a bad comparison. 8)



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

19 Nov 2021, 1:41 am

ironpony wrote:
I have to say, the argument that Rittenhouse provoked the whole thing by having a gun on him and the prosecution saying he should have just taken the beating, just doesn't sit well with me. I mean that's like having a case, where say a woman is attacked by three guys with weapons and she shoots them to stop the attack, and then gets charged with murder, and the prosecution tells the jury, she provoked the attack by the way she was dressed, and she should have just taken it rather than used excessive force....

It just seems like such a double standard to me, as people would not react well if that were the case.


It's an example of arguing from a conclusion. where the person doing so has a predefined goal, and tailors any information, regardless of relevence, towards it, so things such as carrying a rifle (in a state with open-carry laws) and crossing state lines (along with claims of having no connection to the town\reason to go to the town) are used as reasons to "prove" guilt, whereas a person who illegally carried a concealed weapon, and travelled over twice the distance to be there is not questioned.
Show Spoiler
Image


In much the same way, assertions that a person should just have "taken a beating" (which in other situations, such as those you mentioned, would be considered "in poor taste" at best) seek to justify this conclusion.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

19 Nov 2021, 1:47 am

Pepe wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh well they would have to do more than approach her. In the case of written house they beat him with a scateboard, and pull a gun out at him themselves, so I think that would have to happen in this case, rather than just approach only.


I no longer need to explain why it was a bad comparison. 8)


I'll raise you "did not require a licence to carry the weapon", "was legally entitled to be in possesionn of\carrying the weapon", and "there was no minimum age restriction to be able to access the premesis"...

To begin with :)



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Nov 2021, 1:51 am

Oh okay I see.

Another thing about this case I don't understand, is that it seems politically, the people who want Rittenhouse to be found guilty are democrats more so. Now democrats preach so much about how they are anti-racist and hate racism. The one guy who attacked Rittenhouse and got shot, the prosecution said to the jury that he was yelling the N-word to people that night on the street. Yet democrats seem to hold this guy up as a hero, trying to be a good samaritan, even though they claim to hate people who use that word on others.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

19 Nov 2021, 1:59 am

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay I see.

Another thing about this case I don't understand, is that it seems politically, the people who want Rittenhouse to be found guilty are democrats more so. Now democrats preach so much about how they are anti-racist and hate racism. The one guy who attacked Rittenhouse and got shot, the prosecution said to the jury that he was yelling the N-word to people that night on the street. Yet democrats seem to hold this guy up as a hero, trying to be a good samaritan, even though they claim to hate people who use that word on others.


Democrats also claim to be in favor of criminal justice reform and against harsh prison sentences, but would you like to guess who is calling for a life sentence here?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

19 Nov 2021, 2:04 am

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay I see.

Another thing about this case I don't understand, is that it seems politically, the people who want Rittenhouse to be found guilty are democrats more so. Now democrats preach so much about how they are anti-racist and hate racism. The one guy who attacked Rittenhouse and got shot, the prosecution said to the jury that he was yelling the N-word to people that night on the street. Yet democrats seem to hold this guy up as a hero, trying to be a good samaritan, even though they claim to hate people who use that word on others.


Counter to that is that all the people shot were there in "support" of the protest, whereas Mr Rittenhouse was there to try and contain certain illegal activity that had been committed in previous nights of the protest. Given the Democrats were (in general) in "favor" of the publicly stated aims of the protest, those who were "limiting" what could occur were seen as being against it (and by extension, their party\"side") - It's an exampe of "the side, not the principle" being more important.

There's also likely a component of "second ammendment"\firearm ownership\possesion as well, given the Democrats are in favour of restrictions\limitations in these areas, and so this event can also be used in support of their aims.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

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

19 Nov 2021, 2:12 am

Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay I see.

Another thing about this case I don't understand, is that it seems politically, the people who want Rittenhouse to be found guilty are democrats more so. Now democrats preach so much about how they are anti-racist and hate racism. The one guy who attacked Rittenhouse and got shot, the prosecution said to the jury that he was yelling the N-word to people that night on the street. Yet democrats seem to hold this guy up as a hero, trying to be a good samaritan, even though they claim to hate people who use that word on others.


Counter to that is that all the people shot were there in "support" of the protest, whereas Mr Rittenhouse was there to try and contain certain illegal activity that had been committed in previous nights of the protest. Given the Democrats were (in general) in "favor" of the publicly stated aims of the protest, those who were "limiting" what could occur were seen as being against it (and by extension, their party\"side") - It's an exampe of "the side, not the principle" being more important.

There's also likely a component of "second ammendment"\firearm ownership\possesion as well, given the Democrats are in favour of restrictions\limitations in these areas, and so this event can also be used in support of their aims.


Oh okay, but why doesn't the democrats just say it was people like the guy who was chanting the N-word who were the cause trouble? If the democrats need someone to blame for this, why not blame the guys like him? Why do they ant to shoehorn the blame for it onto Rittenhouse specifically?

It seems to me, they already have someone to blame that fits the narrative more, because that guy was using the N-word. Why try to shoehorn the blame on another guy who probably doesn't fit their narrative as much in comparison?