[ckaihatsu]

He went there to murder people because the rightwing dreams of violently murdering their political enemies, hope that helps.

And what port do I use on my computer to plug in the new computer-attached peripheral that I just bought?


= D

[ckaihatsu]

The dangerous Qanon cult tearing families apart with conspiracies _ 60 Minutes Australia

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, according to the police union, take that for what it's worth:

The police union also thought George Floyd’s killer should not be fired, even after he was charged with murder.

[Saeko]

@Unthinking Majority

I see where you're coming from, but you should be consistent and apply the same sort of reasoning to Blake as you did to Rittenhouse. Did Blake not have reason to believe that HIS life was in danger? He was surrounded by a hostile police force and right-wing nutjobs with guns. It would be easy to make the argument that he fired into the air in order to scare off his would-be killers. But Blake is no longer here to defend himself.

[Unthinking Majority]

@Unthinking Majority

I see where you're coming from, but you should be consistent and apply the same sort of reasoning to Blake as you did to Rittenhouse. Did Blake not have reason to believe that HIS life was in danger? He was surrounded by a hostile police force and right-wing nutjobs with guns. It would be easy to make the argument that he fired into the air in order to scare off his would-be killers. But Blake is no longer here to defend himself.

Oh c'mon. If every person went to war with police any time they were put under arrest or detained there'd be a heck of a lot more people shot dead by police. I don't like cops, you certainly don't have to obey everything they tell you to do (it's often not lawful and they use their power to bully people), but the second they order you under arrest and especially with a weapon drawn you're always best to comply because resisting arrest if their license to kick your ass or even shoot you.

Defending yourself against police is different than defending yourself against private citizens. You don't have a right to the latter, plus you're never going to win a fight vs the police. It's a suicide mission.

[Saeko]

Oh c'mon. If every person went to war with police any time they were put under arrest or detained there'd be a heck of a lot more people shot dead by police. I don't like cops, you certainly don't have to obey everything they tell you to do (it's often not lawful and they use their power to bully people), but the second they order you under arrest and especially with a weapon drawn you're always best to comply because resisting arrest if their license to kick your ass or even shoot you.

Defending yourself against police is different than defending yourself against private citizens. You don't have a right to the latter, plus you're never going to win a fight vs the police. It's a suicide mission.

But Rittenhouse wasn't defending himself legally either! If you're going to claim self-defense despite breaking the law for one guy, you have to extend the other guy the same right. If you're going to say one of them was defending himself illegally, then so was the other.

[colliric]

He went there to murder people because the rightwing dreams of violently murdering their political enemies, hope that helps.

The prosecution is simply doing a shitty job of arguing that.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/ ... dgee-judge

The Jury is basically going to decide this case on the basis of if a person knowingly going into a dangerous and extremely hostile situation with a loaded firearm and then having to "defend themselves" constitutes intentional murder.

I think it sets a dangerous precedent if found guilty and also a dangerous precedent if found not guilty.

Even if he gets convicted it's going to appeal.

We all know he clearly put himself in this situation most likely in the genuine belief he was there to mainly defend property(with loaded firearms). But does that constitute murder or not?

[Unthinking Majority]

It would be funny if he's found not guilty and then people rioted.

[SpecialOlympian]

The prosecution is simply doing a shitty job of arguing that.

They are. That doesn't change the fact that he went there to murder people, because the ultimate goal of rightwing thought is to murder everyone who isn't a "real" American or who deviates from the groupthink.

[SpecialOlympian]

He's just a young innocent lad who carried around a loaded assault rifle to "defend property." The only thing the boy is guilty of is loving property so much that he was willing to die to defend other people's property. A completely normal and sane thing for anyone to do, especially people who had no desire to murder.

Property that was being attacked by antifa.

[Saeko]

He's just a young innocent lad who carried around a loaded assault rifle to "defend property." The only thing the boy is guilty of is loving property so much that he was willing to die to defend other people's property. A completely normal and sane thing for anyone to do, especially people who had no desire to murder.

Property that was being attacked by antifa.

"There is no nobler cause than to lay down one's life for global financial capitalism."

-@Rancid

[Potemkin]

"There is no nobler cause than to lay down one's life for global financial capitalism."

-@Rancid

...or, even better, to lay down other people's lives for global financial capitalism. This kid is a true hero of capitalism!

[Saeko]

...or, even better, to lay down other people's lives for global financial capitalism. This kid is a true hero of capitalism!

I will wait and be impressed only when he writes a book about this and makes money off of it.

[Potemkin]

I will wait and be impressed only when he writes a book about this and makes money off of it.

You know he will, @Saeko. His Hero's Journey will end with the apotheosis dreamed of by any self-respecting supporter of capitalism - becoming famous and wealthy by profiting off other people's misery.

[colliric]

He's just a young innocent lad who carried around a loaded assault rifle to "defend property." The only thing the boy is guilty of is loving property so much that he was willing to die to defend other people's property. A completely normal and sane thing for anyone to do, especially people who had no desire to murder.

Property that was being attacked by antifa.

Rioters can destroy business properties, which in turn can cause severe financial trauma or damage, especially if the business owner took out a loan to get the business up and running or needs to take a loan to fix everything, which in turn causes the business owner to have to find someway of paying their debt to the bank.... Which sometimes causes poverty, divorce, bankruptcy and occasionally suicide.

That's why alot of the time, sometimes small business owners will take to defending their property with whatever weapon that's available.

If the rooftop Korean snipers shot and killed Antifa/BLM rioters should that be considered murder or defending their own property against violent rioters with force?

[ckaihatsu]

The vigilantes claimed that Arbery was a “burglary suspect” and that they had shot him in “self-defense” while attempting to carry out a “citizen’s arrest.” Notwithstanding these claims of self-defense, Arbery’s killers currently face multiple charges, including murder and aggravated assault.

In the same way, if anyone had a right to self-defense in the Rittenhouse case, it was protesters who collectively confronted a far-right youth illegally carrying and brandishing an assault rifle and pointing it at them. Simply by carrying the rifle to the protest as an associate of a far-right militia, Rittenhouse’s conduct constituted an implicit death threat and a reckless and extreme provocation. Having recklessly provoked a violent confrontation, Rittenhouse cannot legally claim to have acted in self-defense in the confrontation that he provoked.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/1 ... t-n13.html

[colliric]

Whoever wrote that article is an idiot.

Both the rioters and Rittenhouse were in the mood for violence.

He was in "Roof Korean" mode while they were in "smash, burn and loot" mode.

The question is does it constitute murder to go knowingly into a dangerous situation with a fully loaded firearm and then have to "defend yourself".

I mean if Rittenhouse is found guilty that means under the new precedent the Roof Koreans probably would have been "guilty" with murder too if they had of killed someone during the famous gunfights back in the Rodney King riots.

[ckaihatsu]

Whoever wrote that article is an idiot.

Both the rioters and Rittenhouse were in the mood for violence.

He was in "Roof Korean" mode while they were in "smash, burn and loot" mode.

The question is does it constitute murder to go knowingly into a dangerous situation with a fully loaded firearm and then have to "defend yourself".

I mean if Rittenhouse is found guilty that means under the new precedent the Roof Koreans probably would have been "guilty" with murder too if they had of killed someone during the famous gunfights back in the Rodney King riots.

Why are you defending vigilantism?

Kenosha would have been better off that night if Rittenhouse had never left Antioch.

[Rich]

https://youtu.be/df3ZL862vgw

If the rooftop Korean snipers shot and killed Antifa/BLM rioters should that be considered murder or defending their own property against violent rioters with force?

yes Asian infidels seem likely to cause increasing problems for American Cultural Marxists. Already many Asian Americans have been saying, Jews refused to accept race quotas for Jews why should we have race quotas.

Many Asian infidels just simply refuse to accept White guilt. Now I know this can be a bit confusing if you haven't put yourself inside the mind of the Cultural Marxist. "But I thought Asian people weren't White? (even if they often have lighter skin colour than many Europeans) Why should they feel White guilt if their not White?" Well it depends. Cultural Marxism is thoroughly racist, but its Cultural racist and to a much less extent class racist, but its not really morphologically racist. This means that a blue eyed Tajik Muslim can be considered symbolically more Black than a South Sudanese Christian or Pagan. This is the same logic that led to the Tutsis being genocided for being "White", although Tutsis don't look particularly White to the untrained eye.

[late]

There is always an argument going on among lawyers. A lot of countries have eliminated jury trials, because they are erratic. Some have them just for capital cases.

In an emotionally charged case like this, justice will usually be better served with a judge; rather than a jury.

FYI, there are good counterarguments.