2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

namloc1980

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

Why are you calling them violent mobs? Have they been charged and found guilty? Just that you were very concerned earlier about Rittenhouse's innocence and that he isn't a vigilante etc. pointing out he hasn't been found guilty of anything.

Quin_Dub

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

Doing that would involve actually being at a business owners property - Standing at the door or what have you.

Once he was on a public street ANY claims of "defending property" goes out the window , both in principal and more importantly as a matter of law.

Roaming the streets with a weapon isn't "defending a business owners property" , it's being a vigilante.

If he had been standing in the doorway of a building or on the roof or whatever and a crowd were outside throwing rocks and maybe even a firebomb then firing his weapon in defence of said property might well have met the requirements for self-defence or indeed the Castle Doctrine. But he wasn't doing that.

Bottom line - Kyle Rittenhouse is absolutely no different to any of the armed rioters out there that night.

He is neither entitled to nor deserving of any additional sympathy to anyone else out on the streets that night.

They were all there looking for trouble and ALL should be held fully accountable for their actions under the law.

LessOutragePlz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Isn't that why you have .police force? In fact they were there at the time doing exactly that when Rittenhouse murdered two people.

Clearly they weren't able to be in all places at all times to defend every business property.

If there was enough cops there that night, then the business owner wouldn't have needed to ask for peoples help but there clearly wasn't as 2 of his other business properties were burnt to the ground the previous night as were many other properties or have no not seen the images of the burnt down buildings?

Carfacemandog

hotmail.com wrote: »

Not one person will have their vote influenced by these protests.

These will be forgotten if Biden gets in, as those that identify as liberals, just want to blame everything on Republicans.

They had riots when Biden was in as VP, nobody "forgot about them", competent leadership just got them under control rather than taking awful actions that have only seen them scale up to a level never seen before in American history in the way that Trump has. The same can be seen in Hong Kong and Belarus for other examples.

LessOutragePlz

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why are you calling them violent mobs? Have they been charged and found guilty? Just that you were very concerned earlier about Rittenhouse's innocence and that he isn't a vigilante etc. pointing out he hasn't been found guilty of anything.

You don't need to be found guilty of a crime to be called violent..... it's a subjective term not a legal definition.

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

You don't need to be found guilty of a crime to be called violent..... it's a subjective term not a legal definition.

Ah right, so i can call you a violent protester even though I don't know you because you have (as far as I know) never been found guilty of a crime that involves violence?

LessOutragePlz

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Doing that would involve actually being at a business owners property - Standing at the door or what have you.

Once he was on a public street ANY claims of "defending property" goes out the window , both in principal and more importantly as a matter of law.

Roaming the streets with a weapon isn't "defending a business owners property" , it's being a vigilante.

If he had been standing in the doorway of a building or on the roof or whatever and a crowd were outside throwing rocks and maybe even a firebomb then firing his weapon in defence of said property might well have met the requirements for self-defence or indeed the Castle Doctrine. But he wasn't doing that.

Bottom line - Kyle Rittenhouse is absolutely no different to any of the armed rioters out there that night.

He is neither entitled to nor deserving of any additional sympathy to anyone else out on the streets that night.

They were all there looking for trouble and ALL should be held fully accountable for their actions under the law.

That's all based on your opinion of what happened that night.

Just as my opinion of what happened was that he acted in self defense.

LessOutragePlz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ah right, so i can call you a violent protester even though I don't know you because you have (as far as I know) never been found guilty of a crime that involves violence?

Do you consider the burning down of buildings and the destroying of businesses as non-violent?

namloc1980

Some very poor polling coming out overnight for Trump & the Republicans. Evidence of the usual incumbent bump following a convention hasn't materialised following the RNC. Even his favourite pollsters Rasmussen who always lean for Trump don't look great.

Race/Topic () Poll Results Spread
2020 Generic Congressional Vote Grinnell/Selzer Democrats 48, Republicans 41 Democrats +7
2020 Generic Congressional Vote USA Today/Suffolk Democrats 48, Republicans 42 Democrats +6
Direction of Country USA Today/Suffolk Right Direction 30, Wrong Track 62 Wrong Track +32
Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 28, Wrong Track 72 Wrong Track +44
General Election: Trump vs. Biden USA Today/Suffolk Biden 50, Trump 43 Biden +7
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Grinnell/Selzer Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8
President Trump Job Approval Grinnell/Selzer Approve 43, Disapprove 51 Disapprove +8
President Trump Job Approval USA Today/Suffolk Approve 45, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +7
President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

joeguevara

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I haven't gone to extraordinary lengths to defend him, pretty ironic you saying that when you and other posters have to gone to extraordinary lengths to paint him as a murderous vigilant. I've merely stated that I believe that he acted in self defense.

There's no way of proving that he wasn't working as a community lifeguard that day so I'll be taking his lawyers word for it unless proof comes out that he hasn't working as a community lifeguard that day.

The fact that you have stated he acted in self defence means you accept he committed a murder. There cannot be self defence without murder. Therefore he is murderous. A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands without lawful right. As you have accepted he murdered someone and he is not an officer means by definition he is a vigilante.

Now, the fact he is a juvenile and travelled to a riot and got a phone call from a business owner and was given a rifle, could mean that it wasn’t murder. Manipulation could be at play. It is no coincidence that previous principals are saying he was severely bullied for being dumb and stupid. Also, if it transpires that he was receiving paraphernalia from third parties fuelling his blue lives matter obsession and further instructions which led to the heinous crime, then all bets are off.

I can see a lack of duty of care defence being put forward. Honestly, I see this going to juvenile court. Media blackout. US equivalent of manslaughter bargained. If he is convicted of murder conservative gun activists will have their perfect gun control case. If he is found not guilty, it will be a Rodney king x10000000.

Sean.3516

With regard to Kyle Rittenhouse, a number of things can be true at once.

Thing no. 1: He shouldn't have had the weapon. He was 17 and outside his home state.

Thing no. 2: It was irresponsible for him to be there.

Thing no. 3: Things 1 & 2 become completely irrelevant once his life was in danger from a lunatic with a shirt on his head chasing him down and trying to take the gun from him (for no discernible reason.) That combined with the other guy firing off his pistol, It was a chaotic situation, but that first shooting (by Rittenhouse) was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

As were the two shootings after that. No murder took place here.

Quin_Dub

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

That's all based on your opinion of what happened that night.

Just as my opinion of what happened was that he acted in self defense.

No..

It's based on the law - I linked to it a page or two back.

Defending property" requires you to be ON THE PROPERTY - He wasn't on the property , he was on the public street.


You keep talking about him having a "Legitimate and Genuine" reason for being there. Whilst he himself might think that, as you clearly do. Under the law , he did not.

The facts under the law are - He was not "defending property" , he was on the street with a gun.

The simple act of him being on the street with a gun may have been illegal - That remains to be clarified.

He shot 3 people , 2 of whom died.

Whether or not his claim of "self-defence" holds up may come down to the interpretation of Wisconsins "Duty to Retreat" laws.

Wisconsin is not a "Stand your ground" State.

If it is deemed that he "started" the incident by getting involved in another pre-existing fight , then he cannot claim self-defence.

The other people there , especially the 3rd guy that was shot who had a gun, also have cases to answer.

He might also be able to claim self defence (but unlikely).

LessOutragePlz

joeguevara wrote: »

The fact that you have stated he acted in self defence means you accept he committed a murder. There cannot be self defence without murder. Therefore he is murderous. A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands without lawful right. As you have accepted he murdered someone and he is not an officer means by definition he is a vigilante.

Now, the fact he is a juvenile and travelled to a riot and got a phone call from a business owner and was given a rifle, could mean that it wasn’t murder. Manipulation could be at play. It is no coincidence that previous principals are saying he was severely bullied for being dumb and stupid. Also, if it transpires that he was receiving paraphernalia from third parties fuelling his blue lives matter obsession and further instructions which led to the heinous crime, then all bets are off.

I can see a lack of duty of care defence being put forward. Honestly, I see this going to juvenile court. Media blackout. US equivalent of manslaughter bargained. If he is convicted of murder conservative gun activists will have their perfect gun control case. If he is found not guilty, it will be a Rodney king x10000000.

Not true at all as murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.

Therefore, he didn't murder anyone he killed 2 people in self defense killing someone and murdering someone are not the same thing.

For instance you wouldn't say that a cop murdered an armed suspect in a shoot out you'd say he killed them.

clubberlang12

duploelabs wrote: »

Does the role of community lifeguard enable someone to be armed?

Does playing football after work mean you wear football boots to the office?

Do all fire arms owners bring their fire-arms into their work place?

Some of the comments here are ridiculous and trying to be sensational.

To the people asking to prove Rittenhouse was working as a community life guard that day...........why don't ye show provable evidence that he definitely wasn't working as one that day?

Hande hoche!

namloc1980 wrote: »

Some very poor polling coming out overnight for Trump & the Republicans. Evidence of the usual incumbent bump following a convention hasn't materialised following the RNC. Even his favourite pollsters Rasmussen who always lean for Trump don't look great.

Race/Topic () Poll Results Spread
2020 Generic Congressional Vote Grinnell/Selzer Democrats 48, Republicans 41 Democrats +7
2020 Generic Congressional Vote USA Today/Suffolk Democrats 48, Republicans 42 Democrats +6
Direction of Country USA Today/Suffolk Right Direction 30, Wrong Track 62 Wrong Track +32
Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 28, Wrong Track 72 Wrong Track +44
General Election: Trump vs. Biden USA Today/Suffolk Biden 50, Trump 43 Biden +7
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Grinnell/Selzer Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8
President Trump Job Approval Grinnell/Selzer Approve 43, Disapprove 51 Disapprove +8
President Trump Job Approval USA Today/Suffolk Approve 45, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +7
President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

From what I recall neither candidate got a particularly impressive bump post convention. A lot can happen in eight weeks.

Sean.3516

joeguevara wrote: »

The fact that you have stated he acted in self defence means you accept he committed a murder. There cannot be self defence without murder. Therefore he is murderous.

You know the word murder has an actual definition right?

joeguevara wrote: »

A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands without lawful right. As you have accepted he murdered someone and he is not an officer means by definition he is a vigilante.

Exactly, "without lawful right." It's not illegal to shoot someone in legitimate self-defence. He's not a vigilante.

Kyle Rittenhouse will not do a day in prison for homicide. I guarantee you.

randd1

I honestly cannot fathom how anyone, on either side of the US political divide, cannot see that a 17 year old out on a public street with a gun that you intend to use, that shoots 2 people dead and injures another, is not a murderer.

Is the political divide in America so bad that people can't see a 17 year old vigilante shooting people dead is not murder based on who you support for president?

What a *ucked up country.

Quin_Dub

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Not true at all as murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.

Therefore, he didn't murder anyone he killed 2 people in self defense killing someone and murdering someone are not the same thing.

For instance you wouldn't say that a cop murdered an armed suspect in a shoot out you'd say he killed them.

Self-Defence is a legally reasonable (and the only) defence for his lawyers to contend.

However , the people who he was involved in the scuffles with that led to the shootings could equally put forward the same defence.

It remains to be seen how the judge and jury decide , but your willingness to absolve one person from all guilt and convict the others in confusing.

None of the people involved that night had a "legitimate and genuine" reason for being there.

Sean.3516

randd1 wrote: »

I honestly cannot fathom how anyone, on either side of the US political divide, cannot see that a 17 year old out on a public street with a gun that you intend to use, that shoots 2 people dead and injures another, is not a murderer.

How do you know that he went there with the intent to kill someone?

Seriously, you actually have to substantiate a claim like that.

randd1 wrote: »

Is the political divide in America so bad that people can't see a 17 year old vigilante shooting people dead is not murder based on who you support for president?

His only crime was having a gun he shouldn't have had.

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Do you consider the burning down of buildings and the destroying of businesses as non-violent?

As you said you, it's a subjective term and not a legal definition.

I would certainly call someone shooting dead 2 people and injuring another violent, but thats my subjective definition apparently.

namloc1980

Hande hoche! wrote: »

From what I recall neither candidate got a particularly impressive bump post convention. A lot can happen in eight weeks.

Biden did get a bump in fairness https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-enjoys-post-convention-bump-favorability-poll/story?id=72544897

Post convention bumps are of little use as they usually settle back down after a few weeks but the fact Trump got none at all is very unusual - if anything his favourability went down according to Rasmussen polling (which Trump often cites).

Of course there's a long way to go and anything could still happen but the Trump side have been claiming over the last few days that Biden is collapsing in the polls which isn't the case at all.

Carfacemandog

Hande hoche! wrote: »

From what I recall neither candidate got a particularly impressive bump post convention. A lot can happen in eight weeks.

It seems the only two states with significant movement were Arizona and Wisconsin, though they do represent 21 of the EC votes which isn't insignificant given that a lot of states seem almost set in stone, along with there being extremely low numbers of undecided voters remaining and Trump's "path to 270 seats" being increasingly difficult to see, outside of limiting access to people's ability to vote by messing with the mail service further or continuing the republican tradition of strategically closing polling centres in order to make lines at those still open take hours and hours to get through.

A lot can happen in 8 weeks indeed, but with Trump already behind by a noticeable margin, he would have been the one looking for a bump from the convention more than Biden. This was an opportunity for something to happen for Trump, and quite a big one at that, but it didn't. He will need more to go in his favour now than he otherwise would have if the RNC had gone better, or the DNC had gone worse.

All in all, not a resounding victory for Biden, but it was definitely a missed opportunity for Trump.

randd1

Sean.3516 wrote: »

How do you know that he went there with the intent to kill someone?

What else would you need a gun for? Planting tulips? Paddling a canoe? Measuring the length of a car?

Bringing a gun to a protest/riot, you're not doing it unless you intend to use it. Which, tragically, he did.

clubberlang12

randd1 wrote: »

I honestly cannot fathom how anyone, on either side of the US political divide, cannot see that a 17 year old out on a public street with a gun that you intend to use, that shoots 2 people dead and injures another, is not a murderer.

Is the political divide in America so bad that people can't see a 17 year old vigilante shooting people dead is not murder based on who you support for president?

What a *ucked up country.

How do you prove intend? Does every single gun owner in the US have the intend to use it to shoot someone? Or do some own for safety and protection purposes?

If he wasn't attacked..........would he still have fired at someone?

This has nothing to do with "support for president", it's actually about using some critical thinking on the event. Ironically, it seems more that the hatred for a president is driving peoples opinion of the incident.

namloc1980

Carfacemandog wrote: »

A lot can happen in 8 weeks indeed, but with Trump already behind by a noticeable margin, he would have been the one looking for a bump from the convention more than Biden. This was an opportunity for something to happen for Trump, and quite a big one at that, but it didn't. He will need more to go in his favour now than he otherwise would have if the RNC had gone better, or the DNC had gone worse.

All in all, not a resounding victory for Biden, but it was definitely a missed opportunity for Trump.

The Trump side playing up that Biden would be practically unable to give his speech at the DNC but ended up giving a perfectly serviceable coherent political speech was probably the biggest win for Biden. Many people believed the Trump hyperbole and genuinely thought Biden would be unable to speak and come out drooling but he came across like a normal politician.

joeguevara

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You know the word murder has an actual definition right?


Exactly, "without lawful right." It's not illegal to shoot someone in legitimate self-defence. He's not a vigilante.

Kyle Rittenhouse will not do a day in prison for homicide. I guarantee you.

You can’t ask a question about a definition and not state it. Yes I am aware of the definition. It requires an actual reus and a men’s rea. First is the act, which you have agreed as you raise the self defence argument. The second is the mens rea which is the mental element. His lawyer has said he brought his rifle into the riot with a specific reason to use force to protect a business owner. Now, if you make such a decision you have reasonably accepted the consequences of what could happen. You can’t raise the self defence argument at this stage as you are not in fear of your life. So someone who decides to go into a dangerous situation with an armed weapon has the mens rea if an actus reus is committed.

Now, the fact he is claiming self defence does not stop him being a vigilante. Are you saying a vigilante can’t claim self defence. A vigilante does not automatically mean they are going to murder someone. A citizen who takes law into their own arms is a vigilante.

As an analogy, if an anti drugs group storm a dealers house to give them a warning/beating they are vigilantes. If one is about to be shot by a dealer and in fear of their life stabs them in self defence, are they still not a vigilante?

clubberlang12

randd1 wrote: »

What else would you need a gun for? Planting tulips? Paddling a canoe? Measuring the length of a car?

Bringing a gun to a protest/riot, you're not doing it unless you intend to use it. Which, tragically, he did.

Does that count for the protesters who brought guns? One of whom can be seen with one approaching Rittenhouse.

clubberlang12

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Self-Defence is a legally reasonable (and the only) defence for his lawyers to contend.

However , the people who he was involved in the scuffles with that led to the shootings could equally put forward the same defence.

It remains to be seen how the judge and jury decide , but your willingness to absolve one person from all guilt and convict the others in confusing.

None of the people involved that night had a "legitimate and genuine" reason for being there.

Probably the most common sense thing said on here so far.

Sean.3516

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Self-Defence is a legally reasonable (and the only) defence for his lawyers to contend.

However , the people who he was involved in the scuffles with that led to the shootings could equally put forward the same defence.

Kyle was running away from Rosenbaum (the first guy to get shot). There's footage of Rosenbaum earlier being confrontational with the guys who were part of Kyle's group. He was saying "shoot me nigga!"

The main argument against Kyle Rittenhouse seems to be he was "looking for trouble". We have no proof of that. We do have proof that the first guy he shot was behaving confrontationally with the people defending private property and later chased on of them and tried to take his gun.

In order to invalidate Rittenhouse's self defence case, you have to prove he was the initial aggressor. We have evidence to the contrary.

Quin_Dub

clubberlang12 wrote: »

How do you prove intend? Does every single gun owner in the US have the intend to use it to shoot someone? Or do some own for safety and protection purposes?

If he wasn't attacked..........would he still have fired at someone?

This has nothing to do with "support for president", it's actually about using some critical thinking on the event. Ironically, it seems more that the hatred for a president is driving peoples opinion of the incident.

What did he "intend" then .

We've already proved that he wasn't "Protecting Property" he was there to intimidate people with a gun. Why else would someone go to a riot with a gun?

People like Rittenhouse and the other "Militia" types that were on the street that night were not helping , they were inflaming an already bad situation.

Unless they were explicitly standing on Private property and remained there , they are no different to the Rioters - There to cause trouble.

That is not a defence of the rioters, they are also guilty without question. Anyone that threw a rock at a window or any other act of vandalism or criminal damage etc. should also be prosecuted.