Total posts: 19,931
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Jury tampering is disgusting, no matter which side does it. I agree with you on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You talk as if all men are bloodthirsty 'alpha males' and all women are timid beta housewives.
It really can't be that simplistic, there has to be more to it, just think of how many people there are and how each is different to the others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I just saw this:
James Kraus, one of the prosecutors in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, told the jury in a Kenosha, Wisconsin court Monday that the defendant should have let himself be attacked last August because “everybody takes a beating sometimes.”
What on Earth did they do behind the scenes to even come up with such wording?
What he meant to say is that you do not fire a gun four times simply for threat of melee unarmed attack, his wording was absolutely atrocious.
I really hope the prosecution lawyers are forever delegated to the depths of shit cases, this is absolutely terrible representation.
Created:
Posted in:
In a rebuttal argument, James Kraus, one of the prosecutors in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, indicated that Rittenhouse should not have defended himself with a firearm because “everybody takes a beating sometimes.”
Yes, I followed it through to this link and that is absolutely appaling wording. I'm not defending it at all, I know what he meant and what he said was absolutely idiotic wording.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
In the US, you can hire a lawyer who will unconditionally represent you short of perjuring himself.
As opposed to... Which country?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
In the US, you can decide that your right to bodily integrity is unconditional. That means killing someone else in self-defense, even if only to save yourself from one punch to the face that you didn't deserve to receive.
psychopathy
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
In other countries, if you're being beaten up or raped and you can't fight back, the state would advise you to flee and seek justice later. If you can't flee, then you pretty much have to lie there and take it, and wait either for somebody to come along and help or for your assailant to later be taken to court after they've had their way with you.
utter propaganda bullshit
Created:
Posted in:
Like the prosecution said during the trial. If you live in a Democrat state, everyone takes a beating sometime.
Where did they say this?
Obviously you inserted the 'democrat state' part but where did they say this? Was this genuinely said?
Created:
Posted in:
I think I would find him innocent but I would never approve of why and how he was there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
what a sexist and derogatory nickname for Harris.
Created:
-->
@Bones
You're right, they don't lose any rights for being somewhere they know violence and aggression will come their way.
So, I guess I would find him legally innocent but he definitely was there seeking out a fight. That much I am certain of. I wonder if something like this will happen later in his life given his tendency to go directly where he is sure people will get annoyed with him, flaunting a massive gun intentionally.
I think it's fine to be that way (aggressive and passionate, unafraid of the conflict that will ensue), just not if it is at a lethal level with guns involved.
Created:
Bible Slapped Silly®️
He should have used ™ intead of the 'registered' mark because that would make it a trademarked phrase about tradesecret.
Created:
-->
@Bones
Okay, let's say all that's forgivable and legal, the real question is this:
Why was he at the event? He was neither a qualified security guard, police officer or officially requested assister of any kind. He took it upon himself to approach people he knew were aggressive and probably armed, while blatantly being aligned against their cause.Why was he doing that and would he have been stupid enough to do so had he not had a massive gun to inspire the idea?That's the blunt, harsh aspect that the anti-Rittenhouse crowd are fundamentally basing their attitude on.He went there bloodthirsty and looking for trouble. He then found it and as soon as he could justify it, killed. If he had truly not been looking for trouble, why would he have gone out of his way as a 17-year-old to obtain a firearm that's very legally questionable for a guy of his age to be carrying and gone to an event with people he clearly detests for ruining property?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
In this case someone used a gun to defend themselves against multiple assailants so I’m glad he had a gun with him
Why was he at the event? He was neither a qualified security guard, police officer or officially requested assister of any kind. He took it upon himself to approach people he knew were aggressive and probably armed, while blatantly being aligned against their cause.
Why was he doing that and would he have been stupid enough to do so had he not had a massive gun to inspire the idea?
That's the blunt, harsh aspect that the anti-Rittenhouse crowd are fundamentally basing their attitude on.
He went there bloodthirsty and looking for trouble. He then found it and as soon as he could justify it, killed. If he had truly not been looking for trouble, why would he have gone out of his way as a 17-year-old to obtain a firearm that's very legally questionable for a guy of his age to be carrying and gone to an event with people he clearly detests for ruining property?
Created:
On a separate note, the fact looters go to the lengths they go to, in order to feel like their cause is heard is asinine. Nobody should be needing to use graffiti and burning mattresses or smashing bottles or any of that kind of thing just to feel heard, it implies they think that's the only way to get attention and express emotions of a severe kind.
I don't know precisely if that's an American thing as that kind of stuff did happen in other protests elsewhere even before Floyd, years before, in London and such but what was fairly unique was the extent of raw aggression among the protesters, which Rittenhouse came face-to-face with. This rage-gets-me-heard ethos is also, in reverse, what Trump believed he had to show towards the protesters in order to tame them.
This all solves very little because if neither side feels remotely heard, animosity will grow. I'm not sitting on a high horse here, I am just noticing. If I were in such an environment, I'm sure I'd become aggressive too, it's why one should avoid attending events that are so brutally aggressive. It's not going to truly fix any of BLM's agenda-issues.
Created:
Something that occurred to me is whether or not one supports Kyle Rittenhouse or the 2 dead men in terms of morality, one must definitely be horrified at guns and America's easy-access culture regarding them.
In any other highly developed nation, it would horrify everybody in the society that somebody as young as Kyle Rittenhouse could just so easily grab an AR-15 and, on the other end of the spectrum, that the rioters could all be possessing pistols fully able and ready to hurt people (Rosenbaum couldn't get one because he's mentally unwell and I guess didn't want to risk getting one illegally).
The fact that guns themselves are so easy to access, as well as the fact that the possession of an AR-15 via cross-state methodology for Rittenhouse to end up possessing it doesn't warrant any legal penalty, makes me wonder what exactly Americans consider 'too far'.
At what stage, after how many incidents of either mass shootings or back-and-forth killing scenarios between criminals (Rittenhouse wasn't a criminal before and perhaps after this but the back-and-forth element was there, no matter who we support it was about to happen possibly with Huber and the guys, I'm not denying that)?
I am not making this thread to talk bad about Rittenhouse, something deeper that's an issue is how gun-happy American culture in general is. There is something deeply disturbing about the fact that events like this don't make people hate guns but instead be fervently proud of how they were wielded instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
so, regarding gun rights and how easy it was for everyone to get a gun... Does that at least horrify you? Regardless of the side you take?
I already know the answer is no and that's what perplexes me about American pro-gun culture.
Created:
-->
@Bones
I can even understand the one where Huber died, I will admit this is much more justifiable given that Rittenhouse didn't truly know whether or not he'd be beaten up or just restrained if he'd let his gun go.
The part I don't comprehend is why he shot Rosenbaum four times to 'confirm a kill' instead of once, focusing back on the guy who fired the shot that distracted him. That already seems odd to me.
I also am extremely confused what he was there for, which is something you avoided answering. He is not in the protest or riots and isn't in any shape or form a qualified and trained combat expert to handle such a situation professionally. Why was he there at his age and at that time?
Created:
-->
@Bones
You are directly lying about the order of events, by the way, despite correctly admitting that Huber and the 'mob' only properly engaged Rittenhouse after he'd killed Rosenbaum.
They wanted to disarm him from that terrifying gun before he did that, it's true, however what led Huber and 'the mob' to really chase Rittenhouse down was the Rosenbaum killing.
Created:
-->
@Bones
What part is incorrect about the timeline?
Also, I want to ask another question that I forgot to specify, why did he fire three further bullets into Rosenbaum after the initial one, the fourth specifically aimed at his skull?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@949havoc
@cristo71
- Why did he murder Rosenbaum? I am aware of the things Rosenbaum has been found guilty of and that he was very high asking to be shot but nobody in their right mind would presume that the right action would be to literally kill him just because he's asking to be shot.
- After he'd also murdered Huber instead of surrendering, what exactly is he using as his moral high ground?
Created:
Posted in:
- Why was someone who blatantly is affiliated with white supremacists (ones whom paid instantly to get him bail and have been socialising with him frequently before and after he was inititally arrested) at a BLM protest? If he was there to 'defend' then who was it who requested a 17-year-old to carry an AR-15 across state lines in order to 'defend' something? Isn't requesting that illegal?
- Why did he murder Rosenbaum? I am aware of the things Rosenbaum has been found guilty of and that he was very high asking to be shot but nobody in their right mind would presume that the right action would be to literally kill him just because he's asking to be shot.
- After he'd also murdered Huber instead of surrendering, what exactly is he using as his moral high ground?
Created:
-->
@thett3
@Vader
@ILikePie5
@Bones
Please see above
Created:
- Why was someone who blatantly is affiliated with white supremacists (ones whom paid instantly to get him bail and have been socialising with him frequently before and after he was inititally arrested) at a BLM protest? If he was there to 'defend' then who was it who requested a 17-year-old to carry an AR-15 across state lines in order to 'defend' something? Isn't requesting that illegal?
- Why did he murder Rosenbaum? I am aware of the things Rosenbaum has been found guilty of and that he was very high asking to be shot but nobody in their right mind would presume that the right action would be to literally kill him just because he's asking to be shot.
- Do you agree that if (and it is the case that) the 'mob' only set on Rittenhouse after the Rosenbaum murder on an unarmed man, then it suddenly becomes much clearer who was the fundamental attacker vs defender in the aggression that ensued. Huber was proactively trying to get Rittenhouse to disarm and not escape so thata) he can't go on to murder any othersb) cops could arrive before he's gotten away, to arrest him for the Rosenbaum murder
- After he'd also murdered Huber instead of surrendering, what exactly is he using as his moral high ground?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Charisma, of course, is something the glorious Trump was and is abundant in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
That mob would have beaten him to death. His behavior beforehand simply wasn’t the behavior of someone who just wanted to kill people.
He had already murdered Rosenbaum who was unarmed and high as a kite asking to be killed.
It was this murder that set the 'mob' on him which primarily consisted of Huber trying desperately to disarm and restrain the guy who had just murdered Rosenbaum (who was unarmed). Then Rittenhouse kills him instead of surrendering and the others become more panicky not sure whether to attack or run scared.
You have a very strange narration of events when you say the mob set on him initially while in fact he'd already killed a guy by then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
No, no, it's quite the other way around.
Frankly, I significantly blame both his mother for neglect and whatever older guys got him involved with such vile weaponry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Please see my replies to Bones, I don't think you are piecing together the events properly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Not a hero, but a kid you defended himself. You realise Kyle would be dead if he didn't do anything?
He wouldn't. This is some bullshit propaganda line. He had already murdered Rosenbaum.
"Kyle Rittenhouse testifies he knew Joseph Rosenbaum was unarmed "
It was this murder that triggered the others to keep chasing him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
You said he later testified in court but if he is dead how did he do that later? I genuinely don't understand what you're saying.
What happened was that Rosenbaum said 'kill me n*****' to a white guy during the events that unfolded, in response to this, Rittenhouse literally did kill him.
I don't think people realise that the first killing happened unprovoked and that provoked the others to chase.
This is a very good timeline of what went down with backstories:
Rosenbaum was a very mentally ill, troubled man who had been abused worse or as badly as you say he had done. If we can justify murdering him for that by a vigilante, it sets very dangerous precedent for what can be justified in other murder cases.
Huber literally tried to disarm Rittenhouse, I don't understand what people are saying in this thread.
Rittenhouse had already murdered Rosenbaum before Huber and 'the mob' chased Rittenhouse to grab his gun and keep him there until cops arrived.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
If you believed Epstein killed himself, you wouldn't have used the image to prove a point as it would be irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Do you support the Elite assassinating Epstein to stop him exposing them? I think you only helped my point.
You say 'combined', how can the pedo testify if he is dead? I am genuinely confused.
Are you saying he came with targets in mind, tactically baited them and delivered vigilante justice? That's a line I could buy into and may fit his personality more, explaining that he's a hero-complex narcissist as opposed to just a simple sociopath.
Kyle is clearly high functioning and knew exactly how and when to unleash the weapon so as to justify doing what he did, he primed it for just the right moment to not get labelled a mass shooter or lunatic, had he done it a moment sooner we'd be seeing him differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@BigPimpDaddy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
See my above post with 'want you to ask yourself' part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
That's a very weird way to twist the entire video out of context, it doesn't show what happened before and I'm not verifying my age on google to see it (I don't like it tracking my real identity with videos like that, Google doesn't need my passport or other form of ID for me to experience the web).
I already know that the video fails to show the build-up.
I want you to ask yourself what someone who is 100% affiliated with white supremacists is doing at a Black Lives Matter rally armed with a gun capable of taking down 12 with him.
He says he was defending but who demanded or requested the assistance of a 17 year-old armed with a gun that is illegal for him to be wielding and frankly should be illegal all-out as it operates practically automatically while using it if one knows exactly when to let go and re-press the trigger between the bursts.
There is absolutely no way you are telling me that if someone who blatantly is anti-BLM and is verbally warning you to back off, armed with an AR-15 that you aren't going to feel threatened as a BLM supporter that you know that type despise and bearing in mind that type has been responsible for unleashing mass shootings quite a few times with such a weapon in the past few years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Irish protestants are right-wing.not socially
The Irish, in general, were and are more right-wing and conservative than most Europeans. Irish Protestants vs Irish Catholic is complex because as you say, in some ways the Irish Catholics are more typically conservative but Irish Protestants are more pro-power/security/establishment in ways that the Irish Catholics are not. It depends what aspect of right-wing we are talking about.
In terms of LGBTQ, they were both very conservative to begin with but the Protestants have been more open to it within Irish culture. In terms of substance abuse, the Catholics are more lenient on alcohol abuse, even celebrating it as part of their culture while the protestants can be but are usually a bit more conservative about it all. The ones that party the hardest and have the typical 'Irish furious drunk' types at their parties are typically the Irish Catholics and that's not socially conservative. Irish Catholics are also known (this is just word of mouth but the birth rates do suggest it) to be more promiscuous than the Irish Protestants, this is closely linked to their alcoholic partying lifestyle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
they are very much related, all of them are based on experiments done by the same person
Are you saying that consensual porn involving no human trafficking made by and for consenting adults is based on experiments done by the same person that is responsible for pedophilia?
Frankly, I think you have no clue what you're talking about but I'm asking it so bluntly to give you a chance to justify it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
socially, the right is morally Christian, they would never allow that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
what sex-abuse motive is there thats right wing?
Inequality acting itself out without any intervention to equal things for the weaker entity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Irish protestants are right-wing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
how are you connecting consensual porn with pedophilia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There is, in fact, not one single nation involved with human trafficking based on sex-abuse motive that leans to the left.
Perhaps China is an exception but I don't support/agree with the idea that China is left-wing overall and only a minority of its human trafficking has anything to do with sex work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
In history there has been far more sexual abuse, including of homosexual nature, done by people who support politics of a selfish variety and who run either cults or religious organisations.
From catholic priests to filthy rich celebrities that want to keep as much of their wealth as possible untaxed to an average Alabama incest family, there is consistent alignment between that and the right-wing, have you somehow found a link between those activities and being left-wing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's spelled cholera
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
you can keep avoiding replying to me but you can't say nonsense like this and expect me not to respond:
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!
I will repeat clearly what I said:
Monsters huh? What the fuck do you think a guy who murders two people by shooting them multiple times like it's a video game is and kept shooting others?Was he a police officer? Was he the fire brigade? Was he military?No, he's a 17 year old whose mother was so neglectful that she didn't know her own son had easy access to a weapon barely any American citizen should be wielding under any circumstance and it scared the shit out of the people he approached because, after all, it's exactly the kind of weapon a mass-shooter would bring there if they pre-planned to gun people down.So, the people react. Not even overreact, they react. In response to being asked to disarm and hold his hands up, he holds onto the gun and tries to run away but if he runs away and they let him, he can then turn around too far away to easily combat with pistols and gun down masses.Put yourself in the fucking shoes of the people who tried to disarm him. Don't for one second twist this into 'but hurrr durrrr you either want to smash property and support everything looters do or you back Kyle' because it isn't that simple at all. What is simple is seeing how it is absolutely straightforward to empathise with the dead guys.And as for Ramshutu saying this guy is so traumatised.Is this trauma? What happens when the mask slips?You know who was smiling without shame or trying to mask it before they were slaughtered by a vigilante lunatic?^ These images are used by right wing newsYou should be fucking ashamed what you are defending. Let's play this game then, justify the murders.
You can play your rhetoric and context-twisting games with others, it won't work with me. I see what you're doing and can reverse-engineer it.
Created:
Posted in:
Because nobody is stupid enough to approach guys armed like this:Actually, Bicep boy and his crew was that stupid.
No, no, it was he who approached and threatened them.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
- has an AR-15 underage and 100% unlicensed, is considered entitled to have it
- have pistols overage whether licensed or not, are all considered scumbags to have and wield them
- not just flexing the AR-15 but using it to slaughter people shooting way past the initial shot to confirm 2 kills - called an angel
- barely using the pistols at all, asking him to calmly disarm himself, running and screaming when he fires - called the devils
Created: