Rittenhouse Trial

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 189
#61
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,556
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@thett3
Yes, I noticed the “you have this huge AR-15, and he has this puny little handgun… how is he a threat to you?” attempted narrative. Even worse, though, was the “He could have already shot you from 10-20 feet or so away. How was he still a threat up close if he hadn’t already shot you dead?”

Really??

Again, he rushed to indict Rittenhouse without proper investigation. It just got embarrassing from there for the prosecution…

#62
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,975
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@cristo71
The prosecutor is obviously a Proud Boys plant.
#63
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,556
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
Would you be able to speculate as to why so many prominent people continue to be convinced that Rittenhouse is a murderous vigilante?
#64
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Criminal Court is for crimes, civil court is for ethics and moral responsibility. The victims families are more than welcome to sue him in civil court.
#65
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Regardless of his reasoning, it is 100% illegal that he had that gun at that time and was even there to threaten people in the first place.

It is also self-defense how the others reacted to him having an AR-15 blatantly preparing to gun them down.

How are people saying he acted in self defence when the guys he shot actually were wielding their pistols and trying to disarm him in their own self-defence in the first place?

I have seen some of the trial, I think Kyle may be a clinical sociopath bordering on psychopathy, he appears to have no genuine deep emotions even giggling/smirking at times in a trial where he should be scared shit and deadly serious even if he believes he's totally innocent (such as in response to the video game question). He even feigned crying and panicking only to instantaneously relax when needed.

This appears to me to be someone deeply disturbed and what he did that day was murder (borderline premeditated), nothing less.

I am not at all saying I don't understand, I've always been a sympathiser for home defenders who kill in hyper defense of their home, I never understand why there's even a law about it. If someone's in my house uninvited and a potential threat to me and my roommates/family, I will take a knife and kill if need be no hesitation other than knowing what the law is and wanting to be proportional to their weaponry and aggression, I'd let them go if they ran but the moment they reach for something I'm willing to do time if need be (I shouldn't do any time for it, however I'd need to convince a jury they reached for a weapon and that I attacked preemptively before they could wield it to stop it being a fight they can win and that's very grey area legally). I understand that panic and mentality, however if I go somewhere else armed with something I shouldn't be and others defend against me, I can't play the fucking victim if I murder them in cold blood.
#66
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
LOL, those left wing radicals were not mad at Kyle for bringing a big gun, they were mad that he put out their dumpster fire.


I thoroughly enjoyed the testimony of "bicep boy" and his emotionless deadpan delivery of events. If you are looking for a psycochotic sociopath, bicep boy is your man. Imagine chasing after a kid for putting out a dumpster fire with a mob.
#67
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
I don’t understand how Rittenhouse deserves ethical blame for bringing along a firearm to protect himself from a dangerous situation
Because he had no business putting himself in that dangerous situation in the first place.

Self defense is when the danger comes to you, not when you seek it out and then find yourself having to use deadly force as a result. You seem to understand  this but then dismiss it because he performed some Boy Scout acts in between. There in between is irrelevant.
#68
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,621
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
' Star witness ' Gaige - "bicep boy" - Grosskreutz.   Didn't he do well...... for the defence.
Topic's author
#69
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
So your position is that it’s immoral to ever put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation, even to do what’s right. Your position is the elimination of courage as a virtue, and is textbook victim blaming 
#70
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@thett3
That same position would put all the BLM vigilantes at dire fault.
#71
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Because he had no business putting himself in that dangerous situation in the first place.

And that is exactly why Democrat men watched for 45 minutes on a train while a woman was brutally raped.
#72
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
No. My position takes context into account.

My position is that it’s not up to an 18 year olds in neighboring states to bring their AR15’s to defend against potential riots. I believe in democracy, so I believe it’s up to local authorities to do whatever they have to do to contain such circumstances.

My position is also that if you have no personal business in a neighboring state, and going down there is dangerous enough that you would need an AR15 to defend yourself, and local authorities are there to deal with the situation… you have no business going there. 

What part of that do you not agree with?
#73
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
No, it’s actually not
Topic's author
#74
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
What about when the local authorities have completely abandoned their posts? It’s immoral for citizens to put out fires or administer medical aid? What’s immoral about that? 

You shouldn’t opine on the case if you don’t know the facts. His father, grandparents, aunt and uncle, and cousins live in the area and it was about a half hour drive. He also worked in the area. The local authorities were in fact not dealing with the situation—like they did throughout 2020 they completely abandoned their duties. Even when he tried to surrender himself to the police, saying that he shot someone they told him to get lost. It was a good idea to bring a rifle for protection since he was attacked by a five time child rapist who twice threatened to kill him

Why is unethical to do good deeds even when it places you in personal danger? That sounds like the definition of heroism to me

#75
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
No, it’s actually not.

Oh so all the other men watching the rape happen for 45 minutes wanted to put themselves in harms way but then suddenly realized it was an independent strong woman that could handle it herself for 45 minutes. That makes more sense.
#76
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,556
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s the fault of our corrupt and racist system, not those who refuse to call the police.
#77
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
It’s the fault of our corrupt and racist system, not those who refuse to call the police.
You are EXACTLY right my friend. In a systemically racist country, men are not allowed to jump in and help a woman being raped for 45 minutes.

If only the country had less whites, then men would naturally put themselves into danger to protect the weak.
#78
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,556
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
No one knows what brought that man to rape a woman. He is obviously not a man of privilege. Perhaps he is himself a victim— a victim of  our aforementioned racist system. Depending on that very system to deal with him is obviously a self defeating notion.

As to your second point, I must educate you there— white supremacy is a global phenomenon. Even with whites in the minority, white supremacy could theoretically still reign. That said, there is an ideology which believes that whites reproducing with other whites (thus sustaining or increasing the current white population) is an act of white supremacy.


#79
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
As to your second point, I must educate you there— white supremacy is a global phenomenon. Even with whites in the minority, white supremacy could theoretically still reign. That said, there is an ideology which believes that whites reproducing with other whites (thus sustaining or increasing the current white population) is an act of white supremacy.

Point in fact, there are a significant number of Black skinned white supremacists in the world disrupting the natural order of things.

One of them was elected as Lt Governor of Virginia.


#80
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,556
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Indeed. As Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley so courageously declared, “We don’t need black faces without Black voices.”
#81
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Perhaps he is himself a victim— a victim of  our aforementioned racist system.

Perhaps he was claiming his reparations. 45 minutes worth of reparations.
#82
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Wow I've never seen anyone justify a guy being a rapist before it's disturbing.
#83
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Pretty sure Kyle shot a sex offender dead while being attacked.
#84
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
What about when the local authorities have completely abandoned their posts?
Then those authorities need to be held accountable by the people who elected them. If what they did was egregious enough they will be, if not then perhaps the situation was not quite what right wing propaganda made it seem.

It’s immoral for citizens to put out fires or administer medical aid? What’s immoral about that?
That’s not the part I objected to, and there’s no way you could have honestly gotten that from what I said. 

Why is unethical to do good deeds even when it places you in personal danger?
You ignored every point I just made.

I said it’s not up to an 18 year olds in neighboring states to bring their AR15’s to defend against potential riots. Do you agree with that statement? If not, who is responsible? How do we as a society handle such a threat?

I also said if one has no business in a neighboring state (and he didn’t, having family 30 minutes away does not make it your business) and it’s dangerous enough to need an AR15, and local authorities are on the scene, then he had no business going there. Do you agree with that statement? If not, what’s wrong with it?

Imagine a couple of antifa members showing up at the Capitol on Jan 6th with their AR15’s ready to “defend democracy” and then ended up killing a few Trump supporters. Would you be just as dismissive of their actions? Would you be just as sympathetic to their view that Capitol police weren’t going to handle them properly, so they felt they needed to handle it themselves? Would you be just as quick to talk about their Boy Scout activities prior to using their AR15’s? Would you be just as willing to dig up the personal histories of the people they killed and deem their lives unworthy of concern?
#85
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,266
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh so all the other men watching the rape happen for 45 minutes wanted to put themselves in harms way but then suddenly realized it was an independent strong woman that could handle it herself for 45 minutes. That makes more sense.
Not sure if you’ve realized this yet, but you’re having a conversation entirely with yourself. Nothing I’ve said remotely resembles any of this.
Topic's author
#86
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Then those authorities need to be held accountable by the people who elected them. If what they did was egregious enough they will be, if not then perhaps the situation was not quite what right wing propaganda made it seem.
That has nothing to do with the here and now. Your position on the police and fire departments totally abandoning their posts is "the community has no right to collective self defense, they can just wait it out until the next election"

Right wing propaganda? Do you deny that 40 buildings were destroyed during the Kenosha riots? https://abc7chicago.com/kenosha-shooting-protest-looting-fires/6402998/

That’s not the part I objected to, and there’s no way you could have honestly gotten that from what I said. 

I don't see what else I'm supposed to take away from your statements. You are calling what Rittenhouse did (put out fires and render medical aid) immoral because there are authorities charged with that responsibility. I pointed out that the authorities had completely ceded the streets to the mob, allowing businesses to be burned and people to be attacked, and that I don't think it's immoral for private citizens to put out fires or render medical aid. You say "he shouldn't have been there!" well, why? Simply because it was dangerous? I'll reiterate: doing what is right even when it puts you in personal danger is the definition of heroism.

I said it’s not up to an 18 year olds in neighboring states to bring their AR15’s to defend against potential riots. Do you agree with that statement? If not, who is responsible? How do we as a society handle such a threat?
I don't agree with that statement. If 18 year old LARPers are the only people with the courage to put themselves in harms way to put out fires and help people injured by rioters that's a reflection on society, not them. Ideally the local authorities would have dealt with the rioters with overwhelming force...but they didn't. They allowed businesses to burn, and people to be attacked, and your position is that the community just needs to lie down and take it, they aren't even allowed to try and put those fires out

I also said if one has no business in a neighboring state (and he didn’t, having family 30 minutes away does not make it your business) and it’s dangerous enough to need an AR15, and local authorities are on the scene, then he had no business going there. Do you agree with that statement? If not, what’s wrong with it?
I don't agree with that statement. He is an American citizen and has every right to walk the streets if he so chooses. The streets do not belong to violent rioters, they belong to the people. We have also already established that local authorities were not on the scene. Local authorities allowed dozens of buildings to be burned to the ground, and allowed people to be assaulted. When Rittenhouse tried to surrender himself to the police because he had shot someone they told him to go away and pepper sprayed him. That is how little the authorities cared...they wouldn't even take someone who just said they shot someone into custody

This is textbook victim blaming. Does a 19 year old girl with a fake ID belong in a bar? No? Well, she shouldn't have been there! Who cares if she is assaulted!

Imagine a couple of antifa members showing up at the Capitol on Jan 6th with their AR15’s ready to “defend democracy” and then ended up killing a few Trump supporters. Would you be just as dismissive of their actions? Would you be just as sympathetic to their view that Capitol police weren’t going to handle them properly, so they felt they needed to handle it themselves? Would you be just as quick to talk about their Boy Scout activities prior to using their AR15’s? Would you be just as willing to dig up the personal histories of the people they killed and deem their lives unworthy of concern?
If a mob of Trump supporters attacked a leftist who was clearly trying to flee and in no way provoked them (other than just being there) and it was all caught on camera I would 100% be on the leftists side, yes. If a leftist at the capitol riot was going around trying to clean up damage and giving people medical aid I see absolutely nothing immoral about that, and if they were attacked they would 1000% have the right to self defense. 
#87
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@thett3
The prosecution is a joke. I think anyone on this site could make a better prosecutor
#88
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
That's not what his goal was but continue believing the agenda spread by Twitter

FYI, go read the actual case. Not Twitter
Topic's author
#89
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Vader
I don't think anyone on this site would have taken the case to trial. I may vehemently disagree with Castin, Ramshutu and Double_R on the morality of the situation but unlike the prosecution they aren't monsters who would try to put someone away for life over this. The prosecution is that monstrous. It is an open and shut case of self defense! The reason the prosecution looks so bad is because they literally have no case so they have to resort to inane tactics like asking "why did you run to put out a fire? there were multiple fires!" and charging the defendant for a gun crime that requires the rifle to be a short barreled rifle, without actually measuring the barrel of the rifle 
#90
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
How do we as a society handle such a threat?
How do we as a society handle the threat of leftist radicals destroying the police system that is supposed to protect citizens from terrorist vigilante rioters?

If it isn't with personal defense, then how else?

If I recall, individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness isn't trumped by a leftist's manifesto. At least not in America.

How do we protect ourselves as a society from the thugs that would intimidate witnesses and juries if their brand of vigilante justice is not served cold?

How exactly do we handle that threat as a society?