US Politics - Hot takes from my cold dead hands

[HoodedCrow]

He already had hundreds of thousands for his defense, and he has been offered an internship.( giggle) The slack jaw and the low brain power are here to stay, and the poor dear has that mother, with fridnds to buy him as many weapons as he likes. At least he didn’t go full Columbine.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Arbery did not have a gun to defend himself from the armed mob that was hunting him.  That seems to be the main difference between the two cases.

That's actually irrelevant. All that matters is a self-defense claim based on the fear that the shooter feared the person they shot was going to take their gun and kill them with it, and McMichael actually has claimed that Arbery tried to grab his gun which is more than Rittenhouse ever tried to claim.

[Mister Smikes]

2 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

He already had hundreds of thousands for his defense

I don't think any of that money is actually his.  

There is now going to be a fight over who gets his $2 million bail bond.  But Rittenhouse himself will not be one of the claimants.

[JGP]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's actually irrelevant. All that matters is a self-defense claim based on the fear that the shooter feared the person they shot was going to take their gun and kill them with it, and McMichael actually has claimed that Arbery tried to touched his gun which is more than Rittenhouse ever tried to claim.

Plus, you know, Rittenhouse wasn't being hunted [lol] until after he killed his first victim. 

Beyond absurd.

[Mister Smikes]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's actually irrelevant.

A little quick shooting by Arbery, and Arbery might still be alive.  Like Rittenhouse is.  

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

All that matters is a self-defense claim based on the fear that the shooter feared the person they shot was going to take their gun and kill them with it, and McMichael actually has claimed that Arbery touched his gun which is more than Rittenhouse ever tried to claim.

McMichael does not really have a self defense claim, because he was unlawfully attacking Arbery.  The same would be true of Rittenhouse's attackers, had they succeeded in murdering Rittenhouse.

That the attacking mob felt unreasonably justified in their own unreasonable minds, is irrelevant to Rittenhouse's self defense claim; just as it would be irrelevant to Arbery's self defense claim, if hypothetically Arbery had had a gun to defend himself with, and had blown away McMichael.

[Mister Smikes]

3 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Plus, you know, Rittenhouse wasn't being hunted [lol] until after he killed his first victim. 

Rosenbaum lay in ambush for him, and then chased him.  Ziminski confronted him with gun in hand, and then fired a shot as he was fleeing.  All this occurred before Rittenhouse fired his first shot.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Mister Smikes said:

A little quick shooting by Arbery, and Arbery might still be alive.  Like Rittenhouse is.  

A black dude in the South shooting white people...okay dude. And again, this is wholly irrelevant.

Also, this speaks to your world view in a way in which I would never want to be associated with. This isn't the Wild West dude. At least it shouldn't be.

Quote

McMichael does not really have a self defense claim, because he was unlawfully attacking Arbery.  The same would be true of Rittenhouse's attackers, had they succeeded in murdering Rittenhouse.

His defense is that he was basically trying to make a citizens arrest, and that in the process Arbery struggled to take his gun. If you want to be cynical you can argue the threat to his life was actually great than what Rittenhouse ever experienced. 

And in both instances the same thing played out, the guy with a gun inserted himself into a situation he never needed to do so, killed someone and claimed self defense.

Quote

That the attacking mob felt unreasonably justified in their own unreasonable minds, is irrelevant to Rittenhouse's self defense claim; just as it would be irrelevant to Arbery's self defense claim, if hypothetically Arbery had had a gun to defend himself with, and had blown away McMichael.

Again, your framing on a number of levels is rather revealing and quite disgusting. And seriously, an attacking mob? 

[Kalbear]

If Arbery had a visible gun he would have been shot before they drove much at all, possibly by police. 

And they would have claimed they were afraid of an armed black man in their neighborhood. And had an even stronger claim. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

It was strapped to him.

Yeah. Bit of gun trivia; you can fire a gun even when it’s strapped to someone.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

And this assumption that taking his gun means he was 100% going to die is nonsense.

Because why would you think the delusional man ranting about killing people would kill people if given access to a loaded gun. I notice you’ve stopped ranting about them this all being due to responsible adults recognizing Rittenhouse was underage. 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

By this logic I assume you also believe the three men charged with murdering Ahmaud Arbery should also get off, because despite them chasing him around in a truck for several minutes, at the end of the day Travis McMichael said Arbery was going for his gun after he drew it on him so he had to shoot him.

No, because those assholes were the aggressors in those cases, and if Arbuthnot killed them all when they tried to illegally detain Arby you’d cry self-defense.

[DMC]

52 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

If, years down the road, he decides to try making some money off his story, it will be too late to sue him, because of the statutes of limitations.

Your notion that Rittenhouse is going to wait for the statutes of limitations to expire before financially benefitting off this is positively adorable.

[Mister Smikes]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

A black dude in the South shooting white people...okay dude.

I never mentioned skin color.

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, this speaks to your world view in a way in which I would never want to be associated with. This isn't the Wild West dude. At least it shouldn't be.

I never advocated anything.  I am a Christian, and believe in "Do unto others as they would do unto you" and not "Do unto others before they do unto you."  But Arbery is obviously dead.  And the possibility exists that, had he shot his attackers before they could shoot him, he might still be alive. 

And more to the point, he might have a valid self defense claim under the law, if he reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent an immanent threat to his life.   

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

His defense is that he was basically trying to make a citizens arrest, and that in the process Arbery struggled to take his gun.

The problem is that he forfeited his right to self defense when he initiated an unlawful attack on Arbery.  And again, that he felt justified in his own mind, on a citizen's arrest theory, is rather beside the point.

Arbery was being attacked.  He could have grabbed the gun from his attackers, and perhaps even used it, and maybe been justified, if he reasonably believed his actions were necessary to defend his life.

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you want to be cynical you can argue the threat to his life was actually great than what Rittenhouse ever experienced. 

I don't see how.  They outnumbered Arbery 3 to 1.   In the other case, Rittenhouse was the one who was outnumbered.  

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And in both instances the same thing played out, the guy with a gun inserted himself into a situation he never needed to do so, killed someone and claimed self defense.

Rittenhouse never committed an unlawful act that forfeited his right of self defense. 

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, your framing on a number of levels is rather revealing and quite disgusting. And seriously, an attacking mob? 

There were more people attacking Rittenhouse than were attacking Arbery.  So yeah, he was seriously outnumbered by people who evidently intended to do him serious harm.  Mr. Ziminski, Mrs. Ziminski, Rosenbaum, the mob of vandals who scattered when the first shots were fired, Jump Kick Man, the woman who yelled "cranium him", Huber, Grosskreutz. 

[Mister Smikes]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Your notion that Rittenhouse is going to wait for the statutes of limitations to expire before financially benefitting off this is positively adorable.

Well then, maybe the "victims" can go after those deep pockets.  I don't think it will work out though.  We'll just have to wait and see.

[JGP]

47 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Rosenbaum lay in ambush for him, and then chased him.  Ziminski confronted him with gun in hand, and then fired a shot as he was fleeing.  All this occurred before Rittenhouse fired his first shot.

It's the rhetoric. 'Hunted.' 'Ambushed,' et so on. Let me know how the Get Rittenhouse Conspiracy pitch goes. Maybe you can turn a profit too. Fucking pathetic.  

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah. Bit of gun trivia; you can fire a gun even when it’s strapped to someone.

Sure, but explain how you're firing an AR-15 when it's strapped to someone. Maybe at best you're hitting them in the lower leg.

Quote

Because why would you think the delusional man ranting about killing people would kill people if given access to a loaded gun. I notice you’ve stopped ranting about them this all being due to responsible adults recognizing Rittenhouse was underage. 

Because he's delusional. What he's saying probably shouldn't carry much weight considering it appears he was yelling it at everyone.

And I have not changed my stance, the sole survivor has maintained he wanted to disarm, not kill, Rittenhouse, so the narrative that everyone was trying to steal his gun and kill him with it is already gone, but still you keep trying to make that point.

Quote

No, because those assholes were the aggressors in those cases, and if Arbuthnot killed them all when they tried to illegally detain Arby you’d cry self-defense.

This is worse than your inability to distinguish "their" from "they're," and no I would not because I think using a gun and then claiming self defense should have a really high standard to prove.  

[Mister Smikes]

47 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

It's the rhetoric. 'Hunted.' 'Ambushed,' et so on. Let me know how the Get Rittenhouse Conspiracy pitch goes. Maybe you can turn a profit too. Fucking pathetic.  

Some people are all about language control.  

But if a bunch of people are running after me yelling "get him" and "cranium him", it is not unreasonable for me to conclude that that if I let them get me, I will be "craniumed", a process that suggests death or brain damage.

And there was evidence in the trial that Rosenbaum hid between two cars so he could leap out at Rittenhouse, as he ran by.  I guess you don't have to call that an "ambush" if you don't want to.  The prosecutor argued in his opening statement that this meant Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbaum before Rosenbaum started chasing Rittenhouse.  But this went so badly in the actual trial, that the prosecutor gave up on it completely, and the closing argument makes no reference to the theory.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

I never mentioned skin color.

Because I'm sure you're the type that also says they don't see color, right? 

Quote

I never advocated anything.  I am a Christian, and believe in "Do unto others as they would do unto you" and not "Do unto others before they do unto you."  But Arbery is obviously dead.  And the possibility exists that, had he shot his attackers before they could shoot him, he might still be alive. 

Aren't Christians also suppose to turn the other cheek rather than advocate for violence? Shocking that Jesus was a bit of a hypocrite. Funny how both quotes come from the same sermon. 

Quote

And more to the point, he might have a valid self defense claim under the law, if he reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent an immanent threat to his life. 

Again, a black man in the South making this defense, good luck with that.

Quote

The problem is that he forfeited his right to self defense when he initiated an unlawful attack on Arbery.  And again, that he felt justified in his own mind, on a citizen's arrest theory, is rather beside the point.

Arbery was being attacked.  He could have grabbed the gun from his attackers, and perhaps even used it, and maybe been justified, if he reasonably believed his actions were necessary to defend his life.

In turn the defense can say their clients were confronting a potential criminal, and after the fact he attacked them. See how easy it is the blur these lines? 

Quote

Rittenhouse never committed an unlawful act that forfeited his right of self defense. 

He literally committed several crimes leading up to the shootings. They were all handwaved away, and thus can be done for McMichael too if a judge allows it (notice also how differently the two judges are handling the cases, one in a fashion that seems fairly reasonable and the other in a fashion numerous people find astonishingly bizarre).

Quote

There were more people attacking Rittenhouse than were attacking Arbery.  So yeah, he was seriously outnumbered by people who evidently intended to do him serious harm.  Mr. Ziminski, Mrs. Ziminski, Rosenbaum, the mob of vandals who scattered when the first shots were fired, Jump Kick Man, the woman who yelled "cranium him", Huber, Grosskreutz. 

Depends on how you want to frame it. Rittenhouse had several militia members and friendly police officers in the area while Arbery was all alone. Anyways, Arbery posed no threat to anyone around him while Rittenhouse was seen walking around holding his gun like he was ready to shoot it. Those two examples are a little different, wouldn't you say? Rittenhouse also went to an area with a deadly weapon with, if we're assuming he was the vaunted responsible gun owner, knowledge that he was going there with the premeditated notion that he may have to use it, otherwise he would not have been open carrying, right? 

It's still amazes me that people can argue with a straight face that those around Rittenhouse didn't have a reasonable amount of fear that they might get shot because a kid was playing out some videogame fantasy.

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sure, but explain how you're firing an AR-15 when it's strapped to someone

By pulling the little thing called a trigger. 

 

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because he's delusional.

Brilliant argument. Obviously this crazy person wouldn’t do anything crazy. That’d be crazy.

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What he's saying probably shouldn't carry much weight considering it appears he was yelling it at everyone.

And try to get his hands on a firearm. 

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I have not changed my stance, the sole survivor has maintained he wanted to disarm, not kill, Rittenhouse, so the narrative that everyone was trying to steal his gun and kill him with it is already gone, but still you keep trying to make that point.

He’s not a mind-reader nor obliged to put himself at substantial risk because the people threatening him may have benign intentions or feel they’re in the right.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He literally committed several crimes leading up to the shootings. They were all handwaved away,

You do not care about most of those crimes.

[JGP]

23 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

And there was evidence in the trial that Rosenbaum hid between two cars so he could leap out at Rittenhouse, as he ran by.  I guess you don't have to call that an "ambush" if you don't want to.  The prosecutor argued in his opening statement that this meant Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbaum before Rosenbaum started chasing Rittenhouse.  But this went so badly in the actual trial, that the prosecutor gave up on it completely, and the closing argument makes no reference to the theory.

le lulz.

Don't get me started on the prosecution. They may have fucked it from go [acquitted for murder? Ok. All charges though? pfft] but...

But.

That still doesn't validate your bullshit. 

---

This below is probably the most objective account I've been able to find on it, when I was keen on it mind. If you're not interested in the context and background [though one should be] that Rittenhouse plunked his many-adjectived dumb ass into, you can skip to 16:50 and get the play by play from there.

 

 

Hunted. Ambushed. Mmn hmn.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You do not care about most of those crimes.

Fuck off. I absolutely do, otherwise I would not have been making the same exact arguments the entire time. You on the other hand have enjoyed trolling these threads for some time now. 

ETA: Consider yourself the first person I've ever blocked here.