Jump to content

US Politics - Hot takes from my cold dead hands


Larry of the Lawn

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

I doubt such a civil verdict could be obtained.  Notwithstanding the different standards of proof, a jury is still likely to feel that Rittenhouse acted in self defense.  And he can counterclaim as well.

Moreover, the purpose of the civil law is to compensate victims, not to vindictively ruin a teenager's life forever.  There are safeguards against the sort of abuses you contemplate.  Rittenhouse, an unemployed 18 year old, can file for bankruptcy.  Then, at some point in the future, he can start rebuilding his life.

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.

I find the notion, that Rittenhoouse not only got away with murder, but him now making a killing out of it, like he was German entrepreneur in the 1940s to be in equal measures absurd and disgusting. That the walking white supremacist talking point Carlson is paying him blood money from Murdoch's coffers is just fitting. In a sane world, Rittenhouse would be shunned by society and not become some deranged media figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Fuck off. I absolutely do,

No you don’t. You admitted quite blatantly that if Rittenhouse was of age and a legal-gun owner you wouldn’t see the shootings anymore justified

I don’t think you care that he traveled 20 minutes to Kenosha. 

Hes right wing and he’s shot people you’ve subscribed to your side. That’s all that matters and that’s why he should get life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Why do you find it so so absurd to for one to reasonably fear a man who says he’ll kill you and try to get a weapon to do possibly do it?

That's not what I find absurd, is the thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Okay, so you can see why Rittenhouse was reasonably fearful of Rosenbaum could/would do him great harm. 

Great harm is debatable, but I can see how Rittenhouse might feel that way. Wannabe's are often out of their depth once it comes down to the being part. 

So?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

And you completely fail to see how the very idea, that an agent provocateur could claim self-defense is in itself absurd?

You get you don’t get to shoot or kill, or beat, or whatever because you feel provoked right?

Oh I just looked up what agent provocateur meant lol.

So how did Rittenhouse convince anyone to break a law that night?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Great harm is debatable

Not really . Getting into a struggling match over a loaded weapon is really dangerous especially with a madman whose expressed homicidal tendencies.

So maybe don’t act like it’s overly unreasonable for a person to fear for their life in such scenario.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You get you don’t get to shoot or kill, or beat, or whatever because you feel provoked right?

Oh I just looked up what agent provocateur meant lol.

So how did Rittenhouse convince anyone to break a law that night?

By threatening people with his gun, and then getting assaulted (that's what you claim right?), which lead to him killing people in self defense.

The whole concept of taking an Assault Rifle to a protest is intself crazy, open carry or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never had altercations with an armed man. Twice.

But when did I say it was unreasonable for Rittenhouse to be afeared? The fucking kid lives in it. 

And again-- so?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

By threatening people with his gun

As been exhausted in saying; Wisconsin is an open-carry state. Having a gun out in the open can be not meaningfully interpreted as threatening enough to justify action against the holder.

7 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

and then getting assaulted (that's what you claim right?),

No.

8 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

which lead to him killing people in self defense.

Yeah after they attacked him. Why should he put his life in the hands of a delusional hostile stranger?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The vigilante waving

Where did he wave it around?

11 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

being the delusioal hostile stranger in that scenario is rich

Sure when the other party is man constantly saying to random they want to murder people.

12 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

But hey protesters should totally put their lives in the hands of the HJ.

HJ? Also should be noted again; Rosenbaun wasn’t a protester. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...