9 ms·
Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process
by umvi 5y ago
Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process
- jacquesm 5y ago
- cdot2 5y agoYoud rather he be dead? That would be better?
- jacquesm 5y agoNo, I'd rather he stayed at home, rather than to play at police officer as a trigger happy youth.
- RubberMullet 5y agoYou either didn't watch any of the videos from that night or don't know what trigger happy means. Rittenhouse made a number of mistakes but being trigger happy was not one of them.
- jacquesm 5y agoIf I bring a sandwich to work I intend to eat it. If I bring a ball to the park I'm going to play with it. If I bring a loaded weapon to a riot I intend to use it. Normal people do not walk into riots with loaded guns unless they want to partake in that riot.
- RubberMullet 5y agoIf you wear a seat belt while driving a car do you intend to crash? Do you have any idea how many people were open carrying that night and never fired a shot? Rittenhouse hit every target he aimed at and all whom had attacked him. 100% of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse were not shot. That is not trigger happy. And Rittenhouse didn't even fire the first shot, Ziminski did. Who is "normal" at a riot? The people firebombing immigrant owned businesses in the name of justice?
- jacquesm 5y agoAre you seriously comparing a seat belt with a gun? Sorry, I can't follow you there.
- RobotCaleb 5y ago: shrug: you compared it to a sandwich
- jacquesm 5y agoNo, I illustrated that intent usually goes right along with bringing stuff with you. If you feel that that equates a sandwich to a gun then I don't know how to explain things to you for which I apologize.
- scrollaway 5y agoJacques, stop. You compared it to a sandwich. You don't get to complain that someone makes a comparison with a seat belt. I'm European and extremely pro gun control / anti gun in general, probably moreso than you, by the way. You are blinded by your bias and it really shows in your posts. Edit, to elaborate on why i think you're blinded by it: I am with you, it's utterly idiotic that people bring guns to these things and that this is somehow okay. But you can't judge US protester actions by EU standards, because over there and in that case, bringing a gun "just in case" with no intent to use it absolutely is standard. The comparison with a seat belt absolutely stands, because it was brought "just in case". And yes, it's stupid that this is how things are over there, but you can't blame a seventeen year old for centuries of political idiocy.
- jacquesm 5y agoI won't be told off by you or anybody else. You don't 'bring a seatbelt with you just in case', the law says that you should wear a seatbelt when you are inside a moving vehicle (unless it is public transportation, in which case apparently it suddenly doesn't apply). But you do bring a gun with you based on a conscious decision to do so, you do bring a loaded gun with you, and you do shoot to kill rather than to stop someone. And I do blame a seventeen year old for doing all this, these aren't accidents or self defense by any stretch of the imagination and as long as America/Americans do not realize that this is the wrong way to go about this it will end in another civil war one day. And it is up to the rest of the world to show that this is not the only way to go about this. I've lived in Canada, on the United States border. Canada has a pretty high number of citizens with guns, and yet the number of gun incidents per capita is a small fraction of what it is in the United States. This whole delusion that somehow allowing your populace to run around armed with military grade weapons is a good thing needs to go away. Before more people die (as they do pretty much every day on account of senseless gun violence).
- rayiner 5y agoThe police officers had been standing down for two days! I don’t know what things are like in the Netherlands. But in Bangladesh, we still use guns to protect ourselves from people like the ones Rittenhouse killed. The only difference is that we technically have “gun control” so only the affluent people who can afford a guard to carry their gun for them can protect themselves.
- joshuamorton 5y agoYes, and in doing so the police managed not to kill anyone. It's a testament to their restraint. Vigilantism is illegal and for good reason, I'm surprised to see you advocating so strongly for it.
- GhettoComputers 5y agoWhat do you expect people to do when their lives are threatened? Just lay down and die?
- vkou 5y agoIf we follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then the other individual with the gun (or, quite literally, any bystander in such a situation, defending themselves from an active shooter) shooting and killing Rittenhouse would have also been a perfectly reasonable outcome. I have no doubt that he, too, felt threatened for his life by an armed gunman at some point in that altercation. I also assume that, as the saying goes, either of the people that Rittenhouse killed would have also rather faced a trial by twelve, than be carried by six.
- School-Cotton 5y agoThat's not the contradiction you seem to think it is. It's easy to imagine scenarios where two parties could be legitimately acting in self-defense, because of what they reasonably -- but possibly incorrectly -- believe about the other's motive. This kind of very easy dramatic escalation is exactly why carrying rifles around on the street at all should be illegal. But that's a separate question from the one of whether according to the set of laws we actually live under, Rittenhouse is guilty of murder or not.
- vkou 5y agoI think you've outlined exactly the kind of contradiction that I think it is - a moral, not a legal one. The laws on the books encourage this sort of insane behaviour, and as a result, two people are dead, but legally speaking, nobody's at fault. I'm not blaming any of this on the jury. Had the facts gone even a little differently, one person would have been dead, and again, it's unlikely that anyone would have been found at fault.
- GhettoComputers 5y agoIf you attack someone openly carrying a rifle, don’t expect a good outcome. Only an insane person would do that.
- urda 5y agoSorry, self defense is a right no matter what isle of the political spectrum you land on. Arguing otherwise here, means you A) didn't follow the case or B) are arguing in bad faith. BOTH of these options do not make for a good look on yourself.
- dreyfan 5y agoSo, next time a police officer draws a weapon on someone, and that someone lawfully exercises their right to self-defense while exercising their right to bear arms, we're all 100% on the same page that it's okay, yeah?
- urda 5y agohttps://weartv.com/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend https://weartv.com/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shoot... Literally yes? Can you drop the strawman and whataboutism in an attempt to derail things and maybe focus on the discussion at hand?
- dreyfan 5y agoHow the fuck is this a strawman? It's a massive courtcase that says it's okay to show up to places where you probably shouldn't have a gun, and if anyone else feels threatened and attempts to stop you, you're 100% okay to murder them to protect yourself.
- urda 5y ago> How the fuck is this a strawman? Annnnnd we're done here. You never wanted a discussion you just thought you had a "got them" moment, which never occurred. You can be civil when you get called out in the future thanks.
- Rebelgecko 5y agoYeah. That actually happened recently in Minneapolis, a story that got amazingly little media coverage. Cops in an unmarked van were driving around shooting rubber bullets and people. Dude things they're trying to kill him, so he shoots back. After he realizes theyre cops, he drops his gun and the officers beat the shit out of him. Prosecutors tried to get him to plea down, but he fought the case and was declared not guilty.
- MaxHoppersGhost 5y agoKyle is a fool but if every one of those folks would have just left Kyle alone instead of attacking him they’d be alive.
- jacquesm 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- esyir 5y agoSaid dead people should also not have been there. But they didn't. They were there, he was there, but they made the even worse decision to attack him. At that point, self defense is justifiable. Any argument that Rittenhouse should not have been there to begin with also similarly applies to the dead. That they instigated the incident is the reason we call it self defense, as compared to the irrelevant school shooter analogy.
- jacquesm 5y agoI totally agree with that. But nobody in their right mind feels that defending a bunch of cars is worth human lives.
- GhettoComputers 5y agoProperty rights of any civilized country disagrees.
- rayiner 5y agoIt’s not a “bunch of cars.” It’s the livelihoods of a couple of immigrants who did nothing to deserve having their business destroyed. It’s not just some buildings. It’s people’s community. Their businesses, their places of recreation, their community gathering places. That built environment was the labor of many people who left more to their kids than they started with. Property is the difference between Bangladesh and America. Many of these communities never rebound after riots like this. Destroying city blocks like this is profoundly anti-social and damaging to the people who live there.
- TimeBearingDown 5y agoAs the adage in the concealed carry community goes, “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six”. At that point, when your life is threatened, act, and look to ensure the involvement of medics and the law once you are safe.
- Teever 5y agoI am so glad to live in a country where people do not routinely carry firearms so that I can go about my day to day life without thinking like that.
- bobthechef 5y agoSo instead of shooting men, criminals no less, that were blatantly threatening his life, he should have filed a police report and then appear in court to make his case?
- jacquesm 5y agoIs today false dichotomy day and I missed the memo or something? Is that really the only other alternative that you can come up with?
- PhantomGremlin 5y agoAlso the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process I don't think that's quite true. Biden's initial comment was "Look, I stand by what the jury has concluded," he said. "The jury system works, and we have to abide by it." His handlers went on to later change the narrative. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/politics/joe-biden-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/politics/joe-biden-kyle-ritte...
- umvi 5y agoI think you are right actually. At the time though I don't think I ever saw that initial statement. I seem to remember only seeing stories about the second statement - Biden being "concerned and angry" about the verdict!
- hajile 5y agoIf you've followed politics for more than the last 5 years, it's very weird having an entire administration constantly running around contradicting whatever comes out of the President's mouth. "Handlers" is quite the term. Do we believe the President or not? If we can't believe what they say and other people have to speak and do for them, why don't we elect one of those people? instead?
- rufus_foreman 5y ago>> His handlers went on to later change the narrative If only the Tsar knew!
- Wiseacre 5y agoThis is not true, and ironically an example of misinformation.