Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2
Options
Comments
-
clubberlang12 wrote: »Does that count for the protesters who brought guns? One of whom can be seen with one approaching Rittenhouse.
Of course. It's not limited to Trump supporters or right leaning groups. There's been plenty of evidence that the BLM/Antifa "protesters" have been little more than violent thugs, some of whom committed murders and serious assault, and should see hefty sentences for it.
I would see no difference in their attitude to human life than I would in the 17 years old. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who brings a gun to a riot/protest zone that isn't a police officer is only doing it with the knowledge and intent of using it, regardless of who they support politically. And when they use it, they're nothing more than murderers.0 -
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.
Being confrontational doesn't mean that he should be shot. Did the guy represent a deadly threat to Rittenhouse that warranted him shooting him in the head?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14853
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.
What else do you call walking around the street in the middle of a Riot with a weapon??
He was NOT defending property , he was looking for trouble. He was attempting to fulfill the role of the police/national guard. A role he had absolutely no legal authority to do.
The whole thing is tragic and an appalling indictment of the state of the US right now.0 -
"What else would you need a gun for"What else would you need a gun for? Planting tulips? Paddling a canoe? Measuring the length of a car?
That's not evidence. That's conjecture.
The onus is on you to prove he had premeditated killing someone.Bringing a gun to a protest/riot, you're not doing it unless you intend to use it. Which, tragically, he did.
Yes but you're begging the question. USE IT FOR WHAT? He went there to help defend private property from rioters. There's no evidence he went there because he wanted to kill people.
He may not have anticipated being chased away by a lunatic trying to take his gun but once that happened, his right to self defence still stands.0 -
Of course. It's not limited to Trump supporters or right leaning groups. There's been plenty of evidence that the BLM/Antifa "protesters" have been little more than violent thugs, some of whom committed murders and serious assault, and should see hefty sentences for it.
I would see no difference in their attitude to human life than I would in the 17 years old. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who brings a gun to a riot/protest zone that isn't a police officer is only doing it with the knowledge and intent of using it, regardless of who they support politically. And when they use it, they're nothing more than murderers.
In a perfect setting that is all very true, and i would generally agree. But what we have to try and assess here is the context in which the fire-arm was used, regardless of whether he should have brought one there.
In the context of this situation.........you have a fire-arm, you are in a hostile environment, you get chased by someone seeming to be aggressive, he throws something at you, you are running away and stumble, said chaser tries to remove your weapon from you physically(not through verbal reasoning), and you potentially fear for your own safety should he remove it.
What do you do in said situation? And lets be real, you are most likely fearing for your life.0 -
Advertisement
-
What else do you call walking around the street in the middle of a Riot with a weapon??
He was NOT defending property , he was looking for trouble. He was attempting to fulfill the role of the police/national guard. A role he had absolutely no legal authority to do.
The whole thing is tragic and an appalling indictment of the state of the US right now.
Wrong he was there to provide medical assistance to people that needed it since he is a trained medic as can be seen from this video in which helped a wounded protester.
https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1300970053307740160?s=09
He was there to help people and the reason he had his rifle was because he would be running into harms way in doing so.
https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1298776265197985799?s=090 -
This is a pretty disgusting move by the Trump campaign but not at all surprising. Very dishonest.
Kenosha business owner declines President Trump photo-op, former owner replaces him who Trump claims is still the business owner
https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/kenosha-business-owner-declines-president-trump-photo-op-former-owner-replaces-him0 -
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.
None of your post can determine his intentions?
Who was the agitator in this sequence of events? Rittenhouse? The persons chasing him in both instances of shooting? And don't say he was because he carried a fire-arm? Did every person carrying a fire-arm shoot someone that night, or any other night? If not, then what was their intentions for carrying a fire-arm with them?
Do you consider the people carrying fire-arms who conversed with rioters saying they were only there to protect private property and owners but agreed with them about some of the civil rights issue, to be just as incendiary as the rioters who damaged and looted?0 -
No but it undermines the case that he chased down Rittenhouse and tried to take his gun in some convoluted effort to defend himself. As though Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor (which we still have no evidence for).namloc1980 wrote: »Being confrontational doesn't mean that he should be shot.
Wrong question. Was it reasonable for Rittenhouse to believe he represented a deadly threat.namloc1980 wrote: »Did the guy represent a deadly threat to Rittenhouse that warranted him shooting him in the head?
Well if someone with a shirt tied to their head chases you down while throwing things and tries to grab your gun and you let them take your gun. What might happen next? It wouldn't be unreasonable for Rittenhouse to see this as a threat. Especially when you've got someone firing a pistol into the air in the background.0 -
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.
Intention to murder also includes the probable outcome of the action. For instance there is a famous case of a guy shooting a gun in a crowded bar. He tried to plea that he didn’t mean to kill anyone. But he was convicted of murder because of the probable outcome of his actions or his disregard of same. In the current situation, bringing a loaded rifle to a situation where there was a likelihood that he would discharge it, would on the face of it satisfy the disregard Mens rea. Of course, it could be raised that he was only going to use it to intimidate. The fact it was loaded is the disregard. Also, if intimidation was the desired outcome a bat or stick has the same outcome. One of the most damning things is the fact it was stated that if he didn’t bring a loaded rifle he would have died. Preemption of self defence is considered not justifiable in US law. There is a defence of same in international law but is restricted to armed conflict or terrorism but I have never seen it argued when a person travels with a lethal weapon.
Listen, this case is a lawyers dream. It has everything. Also, a jury is a wildcard. Chances of allowing such a powder keg case to go to trial is zero. Everything above is my opinion. Who knows what will come out.0 -
Advertisement
-
Conjecture or not, guns are designed for the purpose of killing. Having a gun on your person for use therefore denotes the very possibility of using it to kill. Knowing you have an instrument designed to kill on you person would denote the willingness to use it."What else would you need a gun for"
That's not evidence. That's conjecture.
The onus is on you to prove he had premeditated killing someone.
Yes but you're begging the question. USE IT FOR WHAT? He went there to help defend private property from rioters. There's no evidence he went there because he wanted to kill people.
He may not have anticipated being chased away by a lunatic trying to take his gun but once that happened, his right to self defence still stands.
As for conjecture, unless you've spoken directly to the chap himself, you have no clue as to his motive for being there either.
As for not anticipating someone chasing him, why did he bring the gun then? If he was there to "protect property", then he would have anticipated confrontation, meaning he went there with the intent to shoot. A premeditation to shoot means murder. not self defence. And as much as "there's no evidence he went there because he wanted to kill people", equally there's no evidence to suggest that he wasn't intending on killing people either, American youngsters of course being in no way infamous for random, deadly shootings.
And as you're going down the "there's no evidence route", there's no evidence the person attempting to take his gun may have being someone genuinely attempting to prevent the murder of an innocent person. It wouldn't be the first time someone wielding a gun in public was tackled by a fellow citizen to prevent them killing someone.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14853
LessOutragePlz wrote: »Wrong he was there to provide medical assistance to people that needed it since he is a trained medic as can be seen from this video in which helped a wounded protester.
https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1300970053307740160?s=09
He was there to help people and the reason he had his rifle was because he would be running into harms way in doing so.
https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1298776265197985799?s=09
He himself says he was "there to defend property" which under the law he was not doing.
Like I have said - He can put his "self defence" argument to the jury and see how he gets on , but so can the others.
It's your refusal to see the other sides potential legal defence/arguments as valid is what is frustrating here.
I don't think ANY of them should have been on the street that night.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14853
clubberlang12 wrote: »None of your post can determine his intentions?
Who was the agitator in this sequence of events? Rittenhouse? The persons chasing him in both instances of shooting? And don't say he was because he carried a fire-arm? Did every person carrying a fire-arm shoot someone that night, or any other night? If not, then what was their intentions for carrying a fire-arm with them?
Do you consider the people carrying fire-arms who conversed with rioters saying they were only there to protect private property and owners but agreed with them about some of the civil rights issue, to be just as incendiary as the rioters who damaged and looted?
Who was the agitator? I don't know , none of them should have been there in the 1st place. I would contend that both sides were there "looking for trouble" and as such both sides should be held accountable for their actions.
Not everyone that was out that night used their weapon thankfully, whether that was purely luck or down to better control on the part of possibly more mature and/or experienced gun owners we'll never know. Or indeed down to the better behaviour/judgement of the Protestors/Rioters.
Again , none of them should have been out there and anyone that was anywhere other than standing on private property was not "protecting private property".0 -
So he was a US Senator for 35 years and Vice President for 8, that's 40 years in politics and he has done sweet f*ck all about these issues. These problems are because of his own parties' monumental and deliberate destroying of black communities.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/13009399970594938880 -
But not necessarily murdering.Conjecture or not, guns are designed for the purpose of killing.
Intending to kill from the outset (ie. murder) and being willing to kill in order to protect the life or property of himself or others are two different things.Having a gun on your person for use therefore denotes the very possibility of using it to kill. Knowing you have an instrument designed to kill on you person would denote the willingness to use it.
One is a crime and the other isn't.
We have footage of him explaining why he was there and offering first aid to injured protesters.As for conjecture, unless you've spoken directly to the chap himself, you have no clue as to his motive for being there either.
I said he may not have anticipated it but I don't think it matters.As for not anticipating someone chasing him, why did he bring the gun then? If he was there to "protect property", then he would have anticipated confrontation, meaning he went there with the intent to shoot.
"he anticipated confrontation..." Again, you're begging the question. By "confrontation" do you mean a confrontation in which he is an aggressor or a defender? That distinction is what this entire case hinges on.
If we can assume he anticipated he may have to use his weapon while defending either someone else's property or his own life, that's not the same as premeditating murder
I'm guessing you've never heard of the presumption of innocence?And as much as "there's no evidence he went there because he wanted to kill people", equally there's no evidence to suggest that he wasn't intending on killing people either, American youngsters of course being in no way infamous for random, deadly shootings.
That paragraph is just hilarious.And as you're going down the "there's no evidence route", there's no evidence the person attempting to take his gun may have being someone genuinely attempting to prevent the murder of an innocent person. It wouldn't be the first time someone wielding a gun in public was tackled by a fellow citizen to prevent them killing someone.
If that's your standard then, that there's no evidence that anything we don't know happened didn't happen, therefore we're obligated to consider the possibility....
Look, we can only make conclusions from the evidence that's available. Trying to make conclusions based on the absence of evidence is logically absurd. Logic 101, it's impossible to prove a negative.0 -
He himself says he was "there to defend property" which under the law he was not doing.
Like I have said - He can put his "self defence" argument to the jury and see how he gets on , but so can the others.
It's your refusal to see the other sides potential legal defence/arguments as invalid is what is frustrating here.
I don't think ANY of them should have been on the street that night.
This defend property/assist business owner could be a red herring or could be used as part of a three pronged defence. The prosecution would start with the question why did he travel to the area. First prong is the defend property. Without it, he has no reason. Now the fact it didn’t come to fruition isn’t paramount. Got lost, ran into a riot etc could be raised which leads to second prong. Here is a juvenile whose reason for being there is lost but needs a reason to possess rifle. Raise 2nd amendment. This is not simply possession but a literal reading is right to bare arms for a well regulated milita for security of free state. The fact this persons obsession with police and law and order in general is arguable that he felt he was part of a well regulated militia whether right or not. As I have posted earlier, as a juvenile if he was manipulated into believing he was part of a militia, could satisfy this. Then comes third prong. Self defence. He was in imminent fear of his life and acted out.
Now, that’s the way I would try and create a defence and all this BS about hunting etc is a no go. I would then hope it was enough to begin a plea.
Disregarding everything we have read, this is a case of a juvenile who left school because he was bullied for his intellectual capability. He became obsessed with law enforcement and his social media showed videos of this obsession. He then crossed state lines, apparently received a phone call from a business owner in a city that he has no connection two, was given a rifle that wasn’t his and ended up killing people. There are a lot of steps there which means opportunities to raise doubt.0 -
1800_Ladladlad wrote: »So he was a US Senator for 35 years and Vice President for 8, that's 40 years in politics and he has done sweet f*ck all about these issues. These problems are because of his own parties' monumental and deliberate destroying of black communities.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1300939997059493888
Notwithstanding the fact that he is one man, and the issues in minority communities have existed a lot longer than 1980 (40 years in politics), exacerbated by both republican and Democrat parties, but are a result of 100s of years of treating blacks as animals, I don’t understand the point that you are making.
The crime being discussed was allegedly perpetrated by a white male. Who literally has nothing to do with the destruction of black communities. Are you giving a pass to a white person murdering people because of ghettoisation?0 -
But not necessarily murdering.
True. But willingly turning up in public with a loaded firearm with an intent to use the gun would suggest premeditation. Which if it ends up in a death, is murder.Intending to kill from the outset (ie. murder) and being willing to kill in order to protect the life or property of himself or others are two different things.
One is a crime and the other isn't.
True. But was he on the property when he fired the gun? Or protecting someone else in imminent danger?We have footage of him explaining why he was there and offering first aid to injured protesters.
Was he using his gun to provide first aid? And I thought the reason he was there was to defend property? And of course, it's impossible he may have been untruthful in his explanation.I said he may not have anticipated it but I don't think it matters.
"he anticipated confrontation..." Again, you're begging the question. By "confrontation" do you mean a confrontation in which he is an aggressor or a defender? That distinction is what this entire case hinges on.
If we can assume he anticipated he may have to use his weapon while defending either someone else's property or his own life, that's not the same as premeditating murder
When you bring a gun into an area where there's a protest/riot, you are anticipating using the gun. Which shows intent. If there's intent to kill before an occurrence, it's murder.
As regard self defence. The people he shot may have been genuinely trying to tackle what they saw as an armed threat to themselves or other, which is self defence. What's good for the goose....I'm guessing you've never heard of the presumption of innocence?
Was that afforded to the people he shot? Is it not the role of the police and the justice system to determine innocence, and not an armed vigilante?That paragraph is just hilarious.
If that's your standard then, that there's no evidence that anything we don't know happened didn't happen, therefore we're obligated to consider the possibility....
I was just using your own logic in reverse.Look, we can only make conclusions from the evidence that's available. Trying to make conclusions based on the absence of evidence is logically absurd. Logic 101, it's impossible to prove a negative.
And the only cold hard evidence available is that an armed 17 year old shot dead two unarmed people in public, and injured another in armed confrontation.
Neither you nor I know the full story at the moment, apart from that verifiable fact. And logic 101 would suggest gunning people down in public is murder.0 -
He then killed Rosenbaum, ran off was chased down by the group that included Anthony Huber, who tried to disarm him, and Rittenhouse murdered him as well.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!"
BTW, what's your opinion of Huber's actions regarding Rittenhouse? I don't recall if KidC ever answered my direct question, but here it is to you: Is Anthony Huber a hero? He probably saved lives that otherwise would have been taken by Rittenhouse
After he murdered someone. The 'main argument' against Kyle Rittenhouse is, he is accused of shooting 2 people to death. We have no EVIDENCE of anything, there's yet to be a trialThe 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.
Farcical. He shot the gun. And, no trial, no evidence. This comes up all the time in these discussions. We all have opinions on the information we've each gathered.In order to invalidate Rittenhouse's self defence case, you have to prove he was the initial aggressor. We have evidence to the contrary.
Let me dumb this down for you. I walk up next to you and murder someone with a handgun. For whatever reason. You then, trying to be a good sport, don't turn tail and run, but take a run at me to get me to drop my weapon. I kill you - can I plead self-defense? How different is that than the old joke of the fellow that murdered his parents pleading for mercy now that he was an orphan?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/sep/02/electoral-college-explained-biden-uphill-battle-us-election
Good article in the guardian on how Biden faces an uphill battle in the election due to the electoral college system.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14853
LessOutragePlz wrote: »https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/sep/02/electoral-college-explained-biden-uphill-battle-us-election
Good article in the guardian on how Biden faces an uphill battle in the election due to the electoral college system.
Everyone knows this - That's why the Swing States matter.
And he's leading in more than enough of them today. and has increased his lead in multiple states over the last few weeks , includes places like Wisconsin , Michigan and Arizona.
Still time for things to change , but so far it's going well for Biden and not so well for Trump.
A survey yesterday asked about who people trusted more across the major issues that are of concern in the US today..
It does not make pretty reading for Trump.
Biden has a significant lead in a lot of areas , including "Public Safety" so his current Law and Order angle doesn't seem to be resonating with the electorate.
https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/13011192988371107860 -
Again, you're begging the question...True. But willingly turning up in public with a loaded firearm with an intent to use the gun would suggest premeditation. Which if it ends up in a death, is murder.
Use the gun for what? Using a gun to intentionally kill someone is murder. If his intent is simply to defend himself, that's not murder.
You keep missing the point. Being willing to use a gun is essential but not sufficient to sustain a murder charge. You need to prove it was his intention from the outset to kill someone.
Re-read my post. "in order to protect the life or property of himself or others.."True. But was he on the property when he fired the gun? Or protecting someone else in imminent danger?
Ergo, if he's defending his own life, no matter where he is, the same principle applies.
While he was standing guard, an injured protester walks by and he can be seen going towards them saying "I'm an EMT" (Emergency Medical Technician).Was he using his gun to provide first aid? And I thought the reason he was there was to defend property? And of course, it's impossible he may have been untruthful in his explanation.
You just love begging the question.When you bring a gun into an area where there's a protest/riot, you are anticipating using the gun. Which shows intent. If there's intent to kill before an occurrence, it's murder.
Intent to what? Intending to use a gun to defend life or property is not the same as intending to use it specifically to kill people. The intent is what distinguishes murder from self defence or forms of negligent homicide.As regard self defence. The people he shot may have been genuinely trying to tackle what they saw as an armed threat to themselves or other, which is self defence. What's good for the goose....
And do you have any evidence of that?
Just asking because we have evidence that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun. We have no evidence that Rittenhouse did anything threatening to Rosenbaum leading up to this.
If you're gonna try and grab someone's AR-15, you better not fail or you could die.Was that afforded to the people he shot? Is it not the role of the police and the justice system to determine innocence, and not an armed vigilante?
You're right to life is contingent on you not unlawfully threatening someone else's life.
Really? How?I was just using your own logic in reverse.
Correction:And the only cold hard evidence available is that an armed 17 year old shot dead two unarmed people in public, and injured another in armed confrontation.
One was armed with a gun,
another was armed with a potentially lethal blunt instrument.
The other was trying to grab a weapon from someone.
These people weren't innocent bystanders.
They were playing a stupid game and they won a stupid prize.
**Intentionally killing someone with a gun is murder.Neither you nor I know the full story at the moment, apart from that verifiable fact. And logic 101 would suggest gunning people down in public is murder.0 -
Again, you're begging the question...
Use the gun for what? Using a gun to intentionally kill someone is murder. If his intent is simply to defend himself, that's not murder.
You keep missing the point. Being willing to use a gun is essential but not sufficient to sustain a murder charge. You need to prove it was his intention from the outset to kill someone.
Re-read my post. "in order to protect the life or property of himself or others.."
Ergo, if he's defending his own life, no matter where he is, the same principle applies.
While he was standing guard, an injured protester walks by and he can be seen going towards them saying "I'm an EMT" (Emergency Medical Technician).
You just love begging the question.
Intent to what? Intending to use a gun to defend life or property is not the same as intending to use it specifically to kill people. The intent is what distinguishes murder from self defence or forms of negligent homicide.
And do you have any evidence of that?
Just asking because we have evidence that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun. We have no evidence that Rittenhouse did anything threatening to Rosenbaum leading up to this.
If you're gonna try and grab someone's AR-15, you better not fail or you could die.
You're right to life is contingent on you not unlawfully threatening someone else's life.
Really? How?
Correction:
One was armed with a gun,
another was armed with a potentially lethal blunt instrument.
The other was trying to grab a weapon from someone.
These people weren't innocent bystanders.
They were playing a stupid game and they won a stupid prize.
**Intentionally killing someone with a gun is murder.
Sean, self defence can only be used when you feel that you are in imminent threat of danger. It’s a full defence to murder or manslaughter but without an imminent threat, it cannot be argued. The fact that he wasn’t in imminent threat is key. His lawyer has made public that the reason he brought the gun because if he didn’t he would die, is trying to construct a self defence argument, but if he stayed where he was he would be fine. Preemptive self defence is not justifiable in the US.0 -
Well first of all, I don't believe the Rosenbaum killing was a murder to begin with.He then killed Rosenbaum, ran off was chased down by the group that included Anthony Huber, who tried to disarm him, and Rittenhouse murdered him as well.
Huber tried to club Rittenhouse with a potentially lethal blunt object and got shot for his trouble.BTW, what's your opinion of Huber's actions regarding Rittenhouse? I don't recall if KidC ever answered my direct question, but here it is to you: Is Anthony Huber a hero? He probably saved lives that otherwise would have been taken by Rittenhouse
I don't think he achieved anything other than getting himself killed.
As regards him saving lives, neither he nor the other guy who had the gun, "mangled arm guy" would have been shot had they not been trying to rush Rittenhouse with their weapons.
So no. Not a hero.
If we have no evidence and you'd rather wait for the trial, then why are you calling Rittenhouse a murderer.After he murdered someone. The 'main argument' against Kyle Rittenhouse is, he is accused of shooting 2 people to death. We have no EVIDENCE of anything, there's yet to be a trial
Yes, and the reason he shot the gun is because a lunatic chasing him with a shirt on his head throwing things around tried to grab the gun from him.Farcical. He shot the gun. And, no trial, no evidence. This comes up all the time in these discussions. We all have opinions on the information we've each gathered.
I think this is kind of obvious from the video.
That's not what happened here at all. Have you seen the video?Let me dumb this down for you. I walk up next to you and murder someone with a handgun. For whatever reason. You then, trying to be a good sport, don't turn tail and run, but take a run at me to get me to drop my weapon. I kill you - can I plead self-defense? How different is that than the old joke of the fellow that murdered his parents pleading for mercy now that he was an orphan?
Rittenhouse didn't just shoot Rosenbaum for no reason. He was being chased by him and he tried to take his gun. That's not a trivial detail! That's what makes it self defence!0 -
-
-
The key question is how Trump allowed the 'left wing terrorism' to grow into such a state that it has over the last four years.
Where has the intelligence services been? What has he done to limit their growth?
What policies has he inacted to stop the spread? Surely his first job is to keep the citizens safe, and according to him, left wing terrorists are rampant in the country?
PS - All of the above is of course based on Trumps labelling of the problem, rather than the actual reality that right wing terrorism is by far the greater problem for the US.
But if those that are seeking to side with Trump on this issue, why are you not asking why the POTUS has failed to be on top of this. I assume you will of course simply blame the local governors, but whatever about brining in the national guard etc, this clearly is a massive failure in intelligence.0 -
Kidchameleon wrote: »No, he is literally a WWE wrestler
That in a microcosm is why America is in such a bad position.
Enough people wanted this circus act to become President for it to actually happen.0 -
Advertisement
-
You have it almost right. It has to be reasonable for you to believe you are under threat.joeguevara wrote: »Sean, self defence can only be used when you feel that you are in imminent threat of danger.
And "threat" doesn't have to mean "threat of dying". If someone tried to hit me with a baseball bat and I shoot them. That's a legitimate self defence.
You had it almost right above when you said "feel that you are in imminent threat" above. Now you have it completely wrong.joeguevara wrote: »It’s a full defence to murder or manslaughter but without an imminent threat, it cannot be argued. The fact that he wasn’t in imminent threat is key.
Whether or not the threat is real is immaterial. It has to be reasonable for you to believe that the threat is real at the time. Because people can only act given the information available to them in the moment.
If Kyle Rittenhouse had allowed Rosenbaum to take his weapon, it stands to reason that he could have been in imminent danger from him. That's why that shooting was self defence.
"If he stayed where he was he'd been fine" is not an argument against him having the right to defend himself. You're conflating causality with responsibility.joeguevara wrote: »His lawyer has made public that the reason he brought the gun because if he didn’t he would die, is trying to construct a self defence argument, but if he stayed where he was he would be fine.
Whether or not he had stayed home it wouldn't absolve the responsibility of others not to attack him.
Whether or not it's preemptive depends on that standard of reasonableness I've just laid out.joeguevara wrote: »Preemptive self defence is not justifiable in the US.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement