Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Dwarvenhobble]

Agema has eloquently summed it up in post 759 and 765, but given that his simple outline made specter's brain melt, then if the rightwing sympathisers here don't get it, fuck it, why should anyone give a shit?

Yhe but that outline and explanation doesn't work because it means any case where a white person avoids the death penalty then it's white supremacy because some bullshit about balancing the ethereal scales.

It means anything seen in any way as benefitting anything even slightly right wing is white supremacy.

Supporting freedom of speech rights? White Supremacy
Supporting freedom of the press? White Supremacy
Supporting freedom of religion? White supremacy
Supporting freedom of choice? White Supremacy
Supporting people property rights in regards to things being stolen? White Supremacy.

It's extremely dumb.

 

[Kwak]

Yhe but that outline and explanation doesn't work because it means any case where a white person avoids the death penalty then it's white supremacy because some bullshit about balancing the ethereal scales.

It means anything seen in any way as benefitting anything even slightly right wing is white supremacy.

Supporting freedom of speech rights? White Supremacy
Supporting freedom of the press? White Supremacy
Supporting freedom of religion? White supremacy
Supporting freedom of choice? White Supremacy
Supporting people property rights in regards to things being stolen? White Supremacy.

It's extremely dumb.

None of that is what he said.

 

[Agema]

Agema has eloquently summed it up in post 759 and 765, but given that his simple outline made specter's brain melt, then if the rightwing sympathisers here don't get it, fuck it, why should anyone give a shit?

The right-wing sympathisers get it perfectly well. They have their political values about what they should be allowed to do, and the law in this case appeared to vindicate that belief. They're just not happy anyone disagrees with them.

I might occasionally reference the Sturmabteilung because there has always been an authoritarian vein in the political right that highly prizes (their view of) societal order and their entitlement, even duty, to enforce it themselves. The reason they frequently don't bother is because the state is already doing enough of it for them.

 

[Gordon_4]

X

Yes he did

No he did not. And I don’t mean this in the strictly legal definition; Rittenhouse was 17 years old at time of event, a minor. In a remotely sensible chain of events the police would have confiscated his firearm, escorted him out of the danger zone, given him a Gibbs patented slap upside the head and sent his arse home.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

None of that is what he said.

No, it's showing how dumb the position is by applying the same logic to other cases.

Anything benefiting or seen to be benefiting the right = white supremacy apparently.

The right-wing sympathisers get it perfectly well. They have their political values about what they should be allowed to do, and the law in this case appeared to vindicate that belief. They're just not happy anyone disagrees with them.

I might occasionally reference the Sturmabteilung because there has always been an authoritarian vein in the political right that highly prizes (their view of) societal order and their entitlement, even duty, to enforce it themselves. The reason they frequently don't bother is because the state is already doing enough of it for them.

No I actually really don't get it. You're arguing it proves the system works to support white supremacy, how? Because it wasn't a kangaroo court and used the oh so colonialist ideas of fair trial and justice rather than condemning people just because of seeing them become a symbol to hate?



And you know the funniest part? This applies to both sides and means a right wing militia can't chase down some-one they don't like and attack them either lest the left wing person act to defend themselves.

Both sides these day enforce order etc in different ways "Whose streets? " "Our Streets" is a show they believe they have the right to do as they please in the streets as they make the laws, they literally have tried to section off areas and claimed it was now an autonomous zone no longer operating as part of the USA but under it's own rules and laws. How is it not authoritarian to simply want to replace once set of law with another because they just feel they should be running the system then their system collapses into either apathy or chaos or a mix of both and they pretend it was all the fault of the previous system sabotaging them not their new system being worse.

 

[Kwak]

View attachment 4988

No, it doesn't mean that. Dale is a fucking moron and should put down the pen.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, it doesn't mean that. Dale is a fucking moron and should put down the pen.

It's one of the arguments made in the case lol. The prosecution argued that Kyle should have just taken the beating from people there because every now and again people have to take a beating and may deserve it for something or other.

It also does set a precedent to leave people alone

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The argument is that if you go looking for trouble and find it, you don't get to claim self-defense and shoot your way out.

And yes, before you say "what about", if a batch of antifa show up to directly confront the Proud Boys, it isn't self defense either, regardless of being perfectly justified.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The argument is that if you go looking for trouble and find it, you don't get to claim self-defense and shoot your way out.

And yes, before you say "what about", if a batch of antifa show up to directly confront the Proud Boys, it isn't self defense either, regardless of being perfectly justified.

Except Kyle and co didn't turn up to confront people they turned up to deter people from repeating the previous nights actions at said lot.

 

[gorfias]

Except Kyle and co didn't turn up to confront people they turned up to deter people from repeating the previous nights actions at said lot.

Yeah, that argument is like saying a woman that dresses nicely in public is asking to be attacked. Kyle was arguably no more interested in having a conflict than said women in being attacked. But he was prepared with the gun in case he was attacked. Or so he tells us.

Also, you also have to think of the logical line of reasoning on this "defense". Hypothetical: ANTIFA and Proudboys both go to a site expecting conflict. By this logic, they are now free to mow each other down. Then we throw the book at everyone that survives and they are without defenses. Or use Legal Eagles potential concern: "Last Man Standing" wins.

Troubling, I've been asking around. Had Gaige Grosskreutz shot Kyle in the face, even if it could be proven that Kyle had done nothing wrong, Gaige Grosskreutz's real belief that Kyle HAD done a serious crime and was trying to escape, he would have not been held legally responsible. So I'm being told. Still reviewing.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Also, you also have to think of the logical line of reasoning on this "defense". Hypothetical: ANTIFA and Proudboys both go to a site expecting conflict. By this logic, they are now free to mow each other down. Then we throw the book at everyone that survives and they are without defenses. Or use Legal Eagles potential concern: "Last Man Standing" wins.

No, that's fine. "Last Man Standing" is how Zimmerman got away with ignoring cops, picking a fight, and killing a dude once he allegedly started losing.

What's the alternative, get two volatile groups together and determine which side is allowed to legally murder the other based on who threw the first punch?

 

[Hades]

Supporting freedom of speech rights? White Supremacy
Supporting freedom of the press? White Supremacy
Supporting freedom of religion? White supremacy
Supporting freedom of choice? White Supremacy
Supporting people property rights in regards to things being stolen? White Supremacy.

It's extremely dumb.

Um.....but white supremacists don't support any of that. When they get their own in power these are all things they seek to restrict.

Free speech? They don't want it when it stops applying to them?
Freedom of press? They and their champions are always deeply hostile to the press. ''Enemies of the people'' and all that
Freedom of religion? Not if its not the Christian religion
Freedom of choice? To do what? Certainly not to choose who you love if you're not straight, certainly not the right to choose an abortion.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Except Kyle and co didn't turn up to confront people they turned up to deter people from repeating the previous nights actions at said lot.

That's the cop's job

 

[gorfias]

No, that's fine. "Last Man Standing" is how Zimmerman got away with ignoring cops, picking a fight, and killing a dude once he allegedly started losing.

What's the alternative, get two volatile groups together and determine which side is allowed to legally murder the other based on who threw the first punch?

More or less. The 1st one to throw the punch has escalated things. Imagine if you create a law that causes people to fear throwing that 1st punch. Golly. Peace might break out. Maybe people would have to speak to each other.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

More or less. The 1st one to throw the punch has escalated things. Imagine if you create a law that causes people to fear throwing that 1st punch. Golly. Peace might break out. Maybe people would have to speak to each other.

So if, hypothetically, a group of people were protesting late into the night, and one person threw a bottle, it should be legal to mow them down?

Just testing the limits on this brave new "no matter how you provoke it, if somebody takes a swing at you it's legal to murder them" idea.

Like, given that it's innocent until proven guilty in this country, what stopping people from following somebody into a place with no cameras, murdering the shit out of them, then claiming the other person threw a punch?

 

[gorfias]

So if, hypothetically, a group of people were protesting late into the night, and one person threw a bottle, it should be legal to mow them down?

Just testing the limits on this brave new "no matter how you provoke it, if somebody takes a swing at you it's legal to murder them" idea.

Like, given that it's innocent until proven guilty in this country, what stopping people from following somebody into a place with no cameras, murdering the shit out of them, then claiming the other person threw a punch?

Proportionality is still an issue, reasonable actions taken to defend oneself. Is mowing the bottle thrower down the only reasonable response to defending oneself? Or can you call the cops and have the guy busted for throwing the bottle at your leisure?

What is to stop a group from engaging the murder as you describe? What stops them now? I imagine the same things, if any.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Proportionality is still an issue, reasonable actions taken to defend oneself. Is mowing the bottle thrower down the only reasonable response to defending oneself? Or can you call the cops and have the guy busted for throwing the bottle at your leisure?

So which is it? If you go looking for a fight and find one, is it or is it not self defense to shoot your way out if you find one?

What is to stop a group from engaging the murder as you describe? What stops them now? I imagine the same things, if any.

Not really. That's how Zimmerman got away with it.

 

[gorfias]

So which is it? If you go looking for a fight and find one, is it or is it not self defense to shoot your way out if you find one?
Not really. That's how Zimmerman got away with it.

Depends.
Suppose guy one is a lunatic and hopes to engage in a fight. He goes to a place known to have other lunatics who will attack him with little provocation. The person shouts, "I like Nestles more than Hershey's". The loons grab guns and start chasing him. He is in obvious retreat while guy 2 is gaining on him screaming, "I'm going to kill you". Guy one is not very wise, but proportionality, proximate cause, cool down periods etc? They all matter. My advise? Don't try to murder people over trivial matters while they are armed too.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Depends.
Suppose guy one is a lunatic and hopes to engage in a fight. He goes to a place known to have other lunatics who will attack him with little provocation. The person shouts, "I like Nestles more than Hershey's". The loons grab guns and start chasing him. He is in obvious retreat while guy 2 is gaining on him screaming, "I'm going to kill you". Guy one is not very wise, but proportionality, proximate cause, cool down periods etc? They all matter. My advise? Don't try to murder people over trivial matters while they are armed too.

When describing hypotheticals, try for something a tad more realistic than gag anime scenarios.

 

[gorfias]

When describing hypotheticals, try for something a tad more realistic than gag anime scenarios.

Honestly, I'm afraid to even ask what Rittenhouse supposedly did that was so provocative. We've been lied to a lot about this case and I think he is going to have a cause of action against a lot of talking heads and their employers. Even our *honk honk* POTUS may get sued.