Jump to content

US Politics: Turkeys Available Here


DMC
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Surely you can do the basic maths here. 'If he didn't he may be dead' is surely better than 'because he did 2 people are dead'. 

From the person possibly being murdered perspective? Not normally  nor should they be obliged to sacrifice themselves to keep a lower fatality rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

From the person possibly being murdered perspective? Not normally  nor should they be obliged to sacrifice themselves to keep a lower fatality rate.

But from a societal point of view, one possible murder is better than 2 actual right?

Would he have been attacked if he wasn't wandering around with a rifle like a total ball bag in the first place though? 

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, litechick said:

Really?  I mean, really? 

Yes. Why do you think a guy going  “I’ll kill you” and attempting to grab a firearm isn’t a legitimate cause for someone to fear for their life? 

2 hours ago, litechick said:

Do you live in a world where it's better to kill people than get an ass-whooping?

I don’t believe every person is obliged to suffer a beating if they have means to defend themselves no. 

Also, again Rosenbaum was talking about killing, and tried to take Rittenhouse’s gun. A beating was not the worst thing Rittenhouse could reasonably fear.

2 hours ago, litechick said:

I was scared."

“Because This man said he'd kill me and tried to grab my gun, and chased after me.” 

41 minutes ago, Week said:

Definitely more of a Rotten House than a writtenhouse, for sure.

Ha I made a typo. 
 

 

8 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

But from a societal point of view, one possible murder

What happened was not murder.
 

 

8 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

one possible murder is better than 2 actual right?

So if a black guy’s only chance at avoid getting lynched by a group of 5  klansmen and using lethal force to defend himself he should submit? Because five is bigger than 1?

8 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Would he have been attacked if he wasn't wandering around with a rifle like a total ball bags though? 

Would he be attacked without the rifle? Probably still yeah. The initial confrontation was with a mentally ill man who was aggressive to everyone. Rittenhouse was just the latest target he latched onto. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you know martial arts you're expected to hold back more on the basis that you're knowledge and experience means you should have a better understanding of how fighting works and what is and is not dangerous than the average person, surely there should be something similar if you're running around with a gun?

But there I go expecting sense. We'll just hold the person with a weapon of war to the same standard as any random fucko.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

regarding the relevance of race to the rittenhouse matter, we might turn to the baldus study. the basic thesis is that the race of victim and race of defendant are both relevant--black defendants are treated more harshly, but white victims are valued more highly in terms of punishments. both factors would've been at work here. the supreme court noted the systemic biases in criminal justice in mccleskey v. kemp, citing the study--but indulged in something similar to the ad consequentiam fallacy to avoid acting on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

If you know martial arts you're expected to hold back more on the basis that you're knowledge and experience means you should have a better understanding of how fighting works and what is and is not dangerous than the average person, surely there should be something similar if you're running around with a gun?

I think this may be a very Hollywood view of martial arts; a lot of it cannot/wouldn’t in a real life physical fight.
 

Also, whether the person firing a gun is a trained marksman or half-blind it only takes one bullet to cripple or kill you.
 

In the next tug of war with Rittenhouse’s gun maybe he'd get lucky and the gun wouldn't go off in the struggling and kill him. But maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

At certain select occasion it is okay for a civilian to lethal force to defend themselves.

I have no problem with people using 'appropriate force' to defend themselves.

But fuck you If you only have to use that force because you did something monumentally stupid. I.e. walk around the street with a fucking rifle at 17. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Did Rittenhouse demand Rosenbaum try to take his gun? Or say he’ll kill him? 

He wasn't being attacked because he had a gun. 

Walking around the street with a rifle is stupid because it's stupid. Not because of the consequences in this case.

No other country has people who feel the need to so bizarrely advertise how utterly pathetic and scared they are all the time, in such a small dick energy way. 

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

advertise how utterly pathetic and scared

that's my interpretation of public displays of arms by amateurs. whatever critical thinking ability that oplocratic authoritarian cultists may have possessed was overwhelmed by their irrational fears. they need help, but their politics stridently oppose public mental health programs and ideologically they're predisposed to disbelieve psychology, sociology, and other relevant disciplines.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ran said:

I would have liked to see a poll checking how informed respondents were about basic and uncontestable facts about the case (e.g. did Rittenhouse cross state lines with a weapon.) As I've remarked earlier, there's a tremendous lack of knowledge even among people one would consider better equipped than most to parse facts and weed out misinformation (I.e Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, politicians.)

Would be interesting to have seen if greater knowledge of the facts of the case changed responses.

The informed respondents have already spoken.  It was 12 out of 12 in favor of acquittal.  The system worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The informed respondents have already spoken. 

fairly sure the discussion upthread concerns the politics of the case, rather than the verdict itself. 

that said, normally jurors have the least exposure to polemics in civil society regarding the question presented.  that's one major point of the rules of evidence--to disinform the jury. i find delicious the contradiction between 'marketplace of ideas' triumphalism in later first amendment cases and the totalitarian control of information in jury trials.  capitalism requires different types of stupid and different measures of mendacity at different times.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ran said:

It was not an illegal firearm according to the laws of Wisconsin.

I'm still not sure this is so cut and dried and it's possible a different judge would have allowed the charge to stand (and worth noting by tossing the charge the judge basically kneecapped the prosecution on several levels). The law in question is contradictory, much like the Second Amendment itself, and lawyers and legal scholars view its language differently. Defense lawyers support how it was interpreted when asked if they'd be defending Rittehouse, but the legal scholars I've seen comment on it seem to come down on the side of that was not how the law was meant to be interrupted. Regardless, assuming you think the judge ruled correctly, that in essence means it's okay for someone as young as 12 to open carry in the state of Wisconsin.

Glad they thought it wise to ban throwing stars and nunchakus for minors though... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be too off-topic for this thread, but I've heard a lot of scuttlebutt about how Trump allies and friends are trying to talk him out of a 2024 run; the main line of reasoning they are using is that he would lose and he doesnt like to be a loser.

On the flip side his private pollster thinks he will run and has a path to victory (not surprising considering the current situation but its still 3 years away)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

But from a societal point of view, one possible murder is better than 2 actual right?

Would he have been attacked if he wasn't wandering around with a rifle like a total ball bag in the first place though? 

So, if deliberately killing a million innocents to save the lives of another billion the million should be killed forthwith and without hesitation?

That’s utilitarian calculus but calculus that is easier to apply in abstract discussions than in actuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...