Spontaneous combustion, I guess. Completely normal phenomenon.
2020 US Election (Part Two)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
You know, in a world of 'bring guns to a protest', it's very easy for everyone to behave both legally and morally and still have it become a disaster.
IF Rittenhouse used the rifle appropriately the first time (self-defense) then the other people in the area don't have complete information. They are then left with the decision of whether to detain someone firing a rifle, and if they're good people they will*. Rittenhouse then perceives that he's being attacked unjustly, and uses his firearm defensively again.
You know, there's partisan problems fed by incendiary rhetoric. And then there's a culture of bringing guns to protests. That's just going to end badly. Even in a best-case scenario.
*good person with a gun
IF Rittenhouse used the rifle appropriately the first time (self-defense) then the other people in the area don't have complete information. They are then left with the decision of whether to detain someone firing a rifle, and if they're good people they will*. Rittenhouse then perceives that he's being attacked unjustly, and uses his firearm defensively again.
You know, there's partisan problems fed by incendiary rhetoric. And then there's a culture of bringing guns to protests. That's just going to end badly. Even in a best-case scenario.
*good person with a gun
Lexicus
Deity
Kenosha is still there, trust me. It didn't get burned down. And calling people arsonists simply because they were outside in the city while buildings were being burnt down is Trump-level garbage.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Now you call it not only an echo chamber, but it's supposedly my echo chamber. Leaving aside the absurdity that it is somehow mine, we are still left with the question: if you believe it is an echo chamber, and you don't like echo chambers, why can't we get you to just leave?
There are lots of people here who disagree with me about lots of things, but the one thing I can always count on to produce wide, echo chamber like agreement with is punching you. Do you have some emotional need for abuse?
See, here's the thing. No one believes you. Or cares.
I haven't voted at all in a couple decades. That doesn't mean I have not supported campaigns. You are a constant campaigner for Trump. So honestly, which of course is a word that doesn't apply to you, your unverifiable voting record makes no difference. Based on your posting, which is all we have to go on, you are a pure unadulterated Trumpist.
Well, somebody did burn down those buildings, didn't they?
His first victim had - allegedly - been starting fires.
Sure, we don't know that about the second group.
Any reason why? I really don't see the point of being politically involved, if you don't vote in the political elections available to you, even if they are supposedly safe either way. Unless you literally can't vote for some reason.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'm a felon and just got my voting rights restored.
Lexicus
Deity
We don't know, but you called them arsonists. Why?
To stress that the overall situation was, as Estebonrober rather modestly put it, "tense" and because I assumed there was at least some overlap with the first group, which included one.
My apologies to all the peaceful protesters who may or may not have been present.
Lexicus
Deity
The situation was tense and Rittenhouse chose to insert himself into it. He did not have to travel to Kenosha.
This is exactly the problem with self-defense as it is often applied in the US. If you have the right to shoot someone dead for attacking you, imo you must have an obligation to AVOID situations where you will end up with no other option but to shoot people. That part is what's lacking and it means that you can claim self-defense for shooting someone because of a fight you started (not saying that's what happened in this case but imo it certainly applies to Zimmerman and Martin's altercation).
EnglishEdward
Deity
Well, Congratulations!
The danger now is that your candidate will get elected and when they do something you don't
like you will no longer be able to shrug your shoulders and say 'I didn't vote for that person'.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'm not a denier anyway. I also made a point throughout my term of not voting to campaign hard, so I always felt responsible for the results. Probably more responsible than the average voter. That's why claims of "well I didn't vote for the guy" don't really matter to me when they come from a guy who shills for Trump day in day out.
Oh, I actually wondered about that but didn't include it in my post because I wasn't sure.
Congrats.
You don't have any issues with the fines and fees stuff? I know Florida is dicking people around with that. If that is the state since I know some other states have similar provisions that disenfranchise people.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Should be noted that law in most states is still more or less in line with what you want. The fact that Florida fell for the stand-your-ground nonsense and then executed it so glaringly badly doesn't mean you can just pick a fight, get scared, and kill someone anywhere else in the US.
He was apparently asked to help to protect a car dealership. Hardly "starting a fight", if you ask me.
Also, I very much doubt that even in US it is possible to claim self-defense for shooting someone in a fight one started by themselves.
Since I was just forced to refresh my memory on Zimmerman case, he was acquitted because there was no evidence of him having "started the fight".
EnglishEdward
Deity
It seems to me that one of the differences between the Rittenhouse and the Zimmerman cases is the quantity of evidence.
One can consider that Zimmerman was in reality guilty, but that he was acquitted because there was a
lack of witnesses at the key moments and the jury gave him the benefit of the doubt as they are supposed to.
Now I don't think the jury will have the problem of a lack of witness testimony in Rittenhouse's case.
One can consider that Zimmerman was in reality guilty, but that he was acquitted because there was a
lack of witnesses at the key moments and the jury gave him the benefit of the doubt as they are supposed to.
Now I don't think the jury will have the problem of a lack of witness testimony in Rittenhouse's case.
Lexicus
Deity
Of course it's possible. You shoot the other witness, they're dead, no evidence, you get away with it.
Iirc Zimmerman was actively looking for Trayvon, so in that sense he did start the fight. I recall he had a good lawyer while the state lawyer was a Dr. Phil impersonator.
An key difference, though, is that Trayvon was in the process of actually killing Zimmerman, while no one was in the process of killing Ritterman (in fact the only guy who could shoot him, did not, until it was way too late - after he saw one other person being executed by Rittenhouse)
- Status
