US Politics: The supply chain of hot takes remains robust

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Week said:

Discussing open carry -- this is not a particularly useful or relevant nit to be picked. 

Castile was not open carrying, hence my confusion. Are there any actual examples of black men or women lawfully open carrying being killed by police because of the fact they were open carrying?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, the punishment for threatening violence towards fellow members should be to actually commit violence against the offending member.

Can't tell if you're being serious here or joking around.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Can't tell if you're being serious here or joking around.

I was being a smartass too.  What you work alone?

[Week]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Castile was not open carrying, hence my confusion. Are there any actual examples of black men or women lawfully open carrying being killed by police because of the fact they were open carrying?

Every single black person killed because police said they thought they had a weapon or reached towards their waist?

Hold up, pardon, my mistake. You make a good point -- they were killed because they were black and not because they were open carrying. 

Anyhow, we've gotten far enough afield.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

Castile was not open carrying, hence my confusion. Are there any actual examples of black men or women lawfully open carrying being killed by police because of the fact they were open carrying?

Didn't Raygun change a lot of CA gun laws because the Black Panthers were open carrying?

Anyways, just do a basic thought experiment, what would 1/6 have looked like if it was a bunch of BLM protestors storming the capitol? I think the logical conclusion is rather obvious, and just apply that same thought process to what you'd expect in this scenario. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

I was being a smartass too.  What you work alone?

I mean, a fair middle ground would be to force him to recreate this video if he wants to keep his seat. I'd call that even. 

[Mister Smikes]

2 hours ago, Kalsandra said:

No, you were threatening people.

Lol.  Well, maybe you should report me to the police then.  Or to the mods.  

2 hours ago, Kalsandra said:

As a lawyer I would imagine you'd be cognizant of the difference between pointing out something ("this sort of thing would probably be of interest to the police" and threatening ("I should point this out to the police")

I did not say either of these things.  But never mind.  I'm sorry you felt so threatened.  You poor dear fellow.

2 hours ago, Kalsandra said:

You seem to be confused with the idea that saying that what is legally most beneficial to someone is actually advocating murder, especially a generic hypothetical, with actual calls to specifically murder someone.

If you want to clarify that you were not actually advocating murder, but merely pointing out a moral hazard, then I will happily accept your clarification.

Like when a bank robber whose mask falls off is tempted to murder the witness who saw his face.  Evil, to be sure, but we can understand the motive for the crime.

2 hours ago, Kalsandra said:

The latter is only something police and police supporters like Rittenhouse can get away with.

Police can sometimes (perhaps far too often) be trigger-happy cowards and bullies, who act like they are the only people in the universe who have a right to feel safe.

Rittenhouse not so much.  I don't call him a hero, and I can imagine a more virtuous man turning the other cheek, being a super-good Christian, and not pulling the trigger on attackers, despite being in reasonable fear of his life.  And I can imagine a braver, stronger, more physical man holding fire when Rittenhouse ended up shooting.  But certainly Rittenhouse pulled the trigger under circumstances where a person of average courage and virtue would have done no better, and where many would have done far worse.

I do think the Rittenhouse case illustrates that the duty to retreat, that has been made law in some jurisdictions, does not make a whole lot of sense in all contexts.  Retreating can embolden attackers, which can in the end make things even more dangerous in many contexts.   For instance, Ryan Balch, who also was wandering around with a rifle that night, and helped Gaige with his tourniquet, was less likely to have been attacked, because he radiated more confidence and command.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

ETA: another victim of the edit change. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not saying they should go old school and cane him, but it does have historical precedent.

The cane - beating nearly to death of Massachusetts abolitionist Charles Sumner who was trapped by his desk \holding him down, by slaver from South Carolina Preston Brooks because Sumner 'insulted' his relative Andrew Butler, notorious for flaunting his enslaved concubines, is not a precedent, not even as a joke, for Gosnor. Abolitionists,  Dems etc. never do this shyte.  It's always Them that do.  Brooks was censored, but honored by his voters and returned to office. He was given many canes with which to beat all the Northerners in Congress.  You probably know all this though.

~~~~~~~

Just what the eff is this even supposed to mean: "a person of average courage and virtue would have done no better, and where many would have done far worse." What might they have done that was worse than killing somebody unarmed?  Lynching, maybe? Shoving broom stick / baton into mouth and anus while lynching? Feh.
 

[Kalbear]

33 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Lol.  Well, maybe you should report me to the police then.  Or to the mods.  

Don't worry, you already have been

33 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I did not say either of these things.  But never mind.  I'm sorry you felt so threatened.  You poor dear fellow.

You did, but I don't expect someone like you to particularly own up to what you said. 

33 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

If you want to clarify that you were not actually advocating murder, but merely pointing out a moral hazard, then I will happily accept your clarification.

We already did, and you already didn't, so 

33 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Police can sometimes (perhaps far too often) be trigger-happy cowards and bullies, who act like they are the only people in the universe who have a right to feel safe.

They are, however, one of the only people who have a right to feel safe and can reasonably expect to have nothing happen to them. 

33 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Rittenhouse not so much.  I don't call him a hero, and I can imagine a more virtuous man turning the other cheek, being a super-good Christian, and not pulling the trigger on attackers, despite being in reasonable fear of his life.  And I can imagine a braver, stronger, more physical man holding fire when Rittenhouse ended up shooting.  But certainly Rittenhouse pulled the trigger under circumstances where a person of average courage and virtue would have done no better, and where many would have done far worse.

A person of average courage and virtue? So by that token literally every other person in Kenosha that night was above average. 

That seems a bit mathematically unlikely. 

33 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

I do think the Rittenhouse case illustrates that the duty to retreat, that has been made law in some jurisdictions, does not make a whole lot of sense in all contexts.  Retreating can embolden attackers, which can in the end make things even more dangerous in many contexts.   For instance, Ryan Balch, who also was wandering around with a rifle that night, and helped Gaige with his tourniquet, was less likely to have been attacked, because he radiated more confidence and command.

That is definitely one thing it illustrates!

It also illustrates the danger of encouraging untrained vigilantes running around with rifles and attempting to protect property when they're not acting neutrally and have a habit of believing skateboards are deadly weapons. IF ONLY WE COULD HAVE FORSEEN THIS

[Varysblackfyre321]

46 minutes ago, Week said:

Every single black person killed because police said they thought they had a weapon or reached towards their waist?

I think the word you missed was lawfully openly carrying. In many states you can’t.

Wisconsin has different gun-laws than California.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

and have a habit of believing skateboards are deadly weapons

You seem to gloss over the whole attempt to grab the gun bit.

8 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

It also illustrates the danger of encouraging untrained vigilantes running around with rifles and attempting to protect property

It should be noted Rittenhouse hadn’t shot anyone in the pursuit of protecting property—on,y himself.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think the word you missed was lawfully openly carrying. In many states you can’t.

Wisconsin has different gun-laws than California.

Like...Philando Castile? Pretty sure that he had a legal permit for his gun in a state where he had the right to carry it, and was shot while not reaching for his gun in his own car in front of his girlfriend.

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You seem to gloss over the whole attempt to grab the gun bit.

I don't! I mean, he could also be deadly afraid of a plastic bag too!

Again, it is a heroic action to see someone fleeing the site of a shooting with a rifle and try and subdue that person. Rittenhouse was potentially afraid for his life because he had just killed someone. 

Sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone afraid of skateboarders or plastic bags, I DEFINITELY don't think they should armed, I don't think they should be armed with a rifle they don't own.  

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It should be noted Rittenhouse hadn’t shot anyone in the pursuit of protecting property—on,y himself.

No, he just went there with a rifle he didn't own with the stated intent to protect property that wasn't his and had no particular relation to. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The cane - beating nearly to death of Massachusetts abolitionist Charles Sumner who was trapped by his desk \holding him down, by slaver from South Carolina Preston Brooks because Sumner 'insulted' his relative Andrew Butler, notorious for flaunting his enslaved concubines, is not a precedent, not even as a joke, for Gosnor. Abolitionists,  Dems etc. never do this shyte.  It's always Them that do.  Brooks was censored, but honored by his voters and returned to office. He was given many canes with which to beat all the Northerners in Congress.  You probably know all this though.

That's not exactly accurate. I'd suggest checking out Joanne Freeman's The Field of Blood if you haven't already done so. It documents violence in Congress in the few decades leading up to the Civil War, and while the majority of it was started by Southerners, it wasn't always them who were in the wrong (at least when it came to starting confrontations, though they mostly were started over the terrible Southern culture at the time).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Again, it is a heroic action to see someone fleeing the site of a shooting with a rifle and try and subdue that person. Rittenhouse was potentially afraid for his life because he had just killed someone. 

This is still the part I find so strange with regards to how the law can be applied. Rittenhouse killed someone and was credibly viewed by those around him as an active shooter. Disarming an active shooter is literally in our corporate active shooter training, albeit the last approach one should take. The active shooter cannot claim self-defense at that point IMO, even if they may feel they were justified. To allow that means anyone in a contested shooting can just take out anyone else around them if they come towards them and they feel threated. That makes no sense at all.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

I don't! I mean, he could also be deadly afraid of a plastic bag too!

Grabbing someone’s gun does not equal throwing a plastic bag at them.

9 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone afraid of skateboarders or plastic bags

I think he was more afraid of the men who’d beat him blunt objects and try to take his gun. That can be pretty scary even without the inclusion of a gun or a plastic.

11 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

No

Thank you.

23 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Like...Philando Castile?

But he wasn’t openly-carrying. His firearm was concealed in his car. 
 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Disarming an active shooter is literally in our corporate active shooter training

To clear In the situation where running way isn’t an viable option. 
 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But he wasn’t openly-carrying. His firearm was concealed in his car. 
 

He told Yanez he had a gun in his car, didn't appear to be going for it and was shot several times anyways. See how different the treatment was compared to a white kid telling a cop he was involved in a shooting while carrying a giant ass gun and being told to just go away?

[DMC]

While I've found most of this argument inane I find it curious that Grosskreutz's testimony has not been cited more often.  He stated he was responding to an active shooter and he tried to take the gun to subdue him.  I think at that point any reasonable person would think he's trying to take my gun not to shoot me but because I just shot someone.  Especially considering he already had a gun himself.