Rittenhouse Volume 2

[Pakuni]

In other cases, when I person acts in self-defense, is the shooter "guilty/responsible for their deaths" if that's the result?  Are you making a distinction between Rittenhouse and say a person shooting someone if they break into their home?  Technically isn't anyone who kills someone in self-defense "responsible" for the death?  That doesn't mean that it's a crime.

The distinction between someone who arms him/herself and voluntarily steps into a violent situation and a person whose home is invaded seems pretty obvious, no?

[Hards Alumni]

I linked one of his tweets because I saw it via a retweet from someone who I do follow which is how Twitter works my friend.  I linked his tweet cause good luck finding any "reputable" (in your eyes at least) covering this trial with the video evidence to what Pakuni and I were talking about at the time.  I didn't link his tweet because of the video in it, not in support of him or any prior positions he's held.  Should t be that hard to figure out Hards.

You know, a real person would just say, "I'm sorry, I will be more careful in the future."

But that ain't you.

Either way, if you're following people who retweet Jack Posobiac, it still says a lot about your twitter tendencies, no?

[MuggsyB]

The distinction between someone who arms him/herself and voluntarily steps into a violent situation and a person whose home is invaded seems pretty obvious, no?

On the surface yes, but I'm asking from a legali standpoint.  I'm not making a moral equivalency.  No one is denying he used poor judgment and shouldn't have been there.

[Billy Hoyle]

Rex Chapman is a hilarious addition to the other 2.  Thanks for the chuckle

agreed. The other two are at least highly educated journalists, not under-educated emotional flame throwers

[rocket surgeon]

what a shocker, "main stream" people get it wrong again and blame the institution who, by the way was appointed by a "D".  you would think they learned their lesson with the nick sandmann debacle.  people have lost the ability to look at anything as it is anymore.  if this were flipped, they would be ALL in. 

[Uncle Rico]

what a shocker, "main stream" people get it wrong again and blame the institution who, by the way was appointed by a "D".  you would think they learned their lesson with the nick sandmann debacle.  people have lost the ability to look at anything as it is anymore.  if this were flipped, they would be ALL in.

😂

[rocky_warrior]

what a shocker, "main stream" people get it wrong again and blame the institution who, by the way was appointed by a "D".  you would think they learned their lesson with the nick sandmann debacle.  people have lost the ability to look at anything as it is anymore.  if this were flipped, they would be ALL in.

I have to assume you just watched something on TV, came here to find the most "relevant" thread, and posted your opinions about what you watched on TV, as opposed to the actual thread.  That's the only way I can understand most of your posts.  They have nothing to do with what is currently being discussed in the thread, and frankly I have no context for what they mean (nor do most people).  The only thing I'm certain of is that some politicized media outlet got you all riled up.

[#UnleashSean]

Well boys, we had 3 great pages of discussion, then 6 pages of "those guys" derailing everything.


If we could talk about the actual case that would be great. Not what political party you're on.

[MU82]

😂

You're getting lazy, Unk. Ratings, please.

The president commented on this today?  Was that before or after his remarks on Satchel Paige?

It was after the president's remarks about Frederick Douglass being alive, Steve Apple and the fire-ravaged California town of Pleasure.

[Hards Alumni]

I have to assume you just watched something on TV, came here to find the most "relevant" thread, and posted your opinions about what you watched on TV, as opposed to the actual thread.  That's the only way I can understand most of your posts.  They have nothing to do with what is currently being discussed in the thread, and frankly I have no context for what they mean (nor do most people).  The only thing I'm certain of is that some politicized media outlet got you all riled up.

I believe Hannity had Rittenhouse's mother on.

[jficke13]

Glad to see this thread is going places.

[MuggsyB]

You're getting lazy, Unk. Ratings, please.

It was after the president's remarks about Frederick Douglass being alive, Steve Apple and the fire-ravaged California town of Pleasure.

LOL.

[jesmu84]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/qsayje/insurgent/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

[The Sultan]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/qsayje/insurgent/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Legally this is a pretty inaccurate.

[JWags85]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/qsayje/insurgent/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

So if I showed up to my neighbors house, with my legally owned handgun, where he was being beaten violently by an intruder and screaming for help and I shot the intruder before he killed him, I'm a...terrorist?

[🏀]

So if I showed up to my neighbors house, with my legally owned handgun, where he was being beaten violently by an intruder and screaming for help and I shot the intruder before he killed him, I'm a...terrorist?

Not really a parallel.

[MuggsyB]

Legally this is a pretty inaccurate.

Legally and entirely.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/qsayje/insurgent/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

So we've moved the intellectual discourse from random Twitter accounts to meme reddit pages?  Proud of you.

[JWags85]

Not really a parallel.

Why not?  His description is incredible general and broad.  "armed, violence occurring, prepared for violence, engaging in violence". 

If he wanted to stop there and deem it out of bounds for self defense, I can see the argument (besides it being kind of extreme to apply wartime/military circumstances to civilian matters).  But taking it to terrorist was a bit much.

If he wanted to talk about it being some sort of active conflict/crime occurring situation/etc then it puts some sort of parameters on the argument, but he didn't, presumably to create more shock value

[Billy Hoyle]

a good look at the Judge and some of the more "controversial" (per the graduates of the Twitter School of Law) decisions for trail procedure. When left wing Slate defends him maybe there's something to the overreaction from the left:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/judge-bruce-schroeder-rittenhouse-trial-villain.html?via=rss

So far Schroeder has not done anything to suggest he overtly favors one side over the other. And his past record doesn't suggest partiality either. If Kyle Rittenhouse goes free, there will be lots of blame to go around: the prosecution for antagonizing the judge when their case appeared to be going poorly, an almost entirely white jury that may empathize more with a killer than the men he killed, a political machinery that turns right-wing vigilantes into conservative folk heroes, and a criminal justice system that gives white defendants a benefit of the doubt it never offers to Black defendants.

[StillAWarrior]

Deleted. I've complained about political stuff in the past...want to resist the urge myself.

[Pakuni]

Why not?  His description is incredible general and broad.  "armed, violence occurring, prepared for violence, engaging in violence". 

If he wanted to stop there and deem it out of bounds for self defense, I can see the argument (besides it being kind of extreme to apply wartime/military circumstances to civilian matters).  But taking it to terrorist was a bit much.

If he wanted to talk about it being some sort of active conflict/crime occurring situation/etc then it puts some sort of parameters on the argument, but he didn't, presumably to create more shock value

You're being overly pedantic to delegitamize the guy's point without having to actually address the guy's point. Agree with him or not (and I mostly do not) it's obvious he was speaking of Rittenhouse's actions, not some fiction in which you rescue your neighbor from a murderous intruder.
Not nearly as lame as another poster's ad hominem, but you're clearly capable of better.

[jesmu84]

So we've moved the intellectual discourse from random Twitter accounts to meme reddit pages?  Proud of you.

"I treat this board like the joke it is" guy getting triggered is a turn I didn't see coming

[MU82]

a good look at the Judge and some of the more "controversial" (per the graduates of the Twitter School of Law) decisions for trail procedure. When left wing Slate defends him maybe there's something to the overreaction from the left:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/judge-bruce-schroeder-rittenhouse-trial-villain.html?via=rss

So far Schroeder has not done anything to suggest he overtly favors one side over the other. And his past record doesn't suggest partiality either. If Kyle Rittenhouse goes free, there will be lots of blame to go around: the prosecution for antagonizing the judge when their case appeared to be going poorly, an almost entirely white jury that may empathize more with a killer than the men he killed, a political machinery that turns right-wing vigilantes into conservative folk heroes, and a criminal justice system that gives white defendants a benefit of the doubt it never offers to Black defendants.

I wouldn't have expected you to agree with Slate's point of view on all of that, BH.

[Pakuni]

I don't think the judge is biased, but he's teetering on incompetent 
https://twitter.com/Guinz/status/1459216913536634881/video/1