Rittenhouse trial WOW!

[poppopfox]

Giving a repressive regime in which he might be found guilty which is moot anyway as we live in the U.S.

And we all know the US system of justice is the best in the world. Can I get a like for that?

Which repressive regime(s) are you referring to? Would that be any country that has restricted/regulated firearm possession, 'cause that would be a very long list!

 

[poppopfox]

Oops...death threats put intent very much on the table.

When I had to eject some members of a local VFW for dealing narcotics I got more that a few death threats. Did not start carrying a gun as I recognized them as "empty" threats. Folks that have little control over their emotions, as Rosenbaum evidenced, make empty threats. Folks that have little control over their emotions and carry a weapon, as Rittenhouse evidenced, carry out those threats.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

So the answer to the question is "NO, I have no special knowledge of Chinese culture and I cannot evidence my claims."

You were saying?

Anger and debate over hit-and-run toddler Wang Yue

Anger and debate continue in the Chinese media and on the internet after the toddler left injured on a road after a hit-and-run accident dies.

www.bbc.com

Sure, twist the not guilty verdict into the jury "agreed with his actions." Got a statement from the jurors to evidence that?

I said the law, not the jury. The law agreed with his self defence...it's call aqquited.

Finish the sentence.

Fix the sentence.

Nothing to fix or finish.

As for atrocities,
Here is a list of some of the countless massacres in the history of the United States.

Most of these massacres were designed to suppress voting rights, land ownership, economic advancement, education, freedom of the press, religion, LGBTQ rights, and/or labor rights of African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, and immigrants. While often referred to as “race riots,” they were massacres to maintain white supremacy.

Starting with the Pequot Massacre which took place on May 26, 1637
Hundreds of Pequot villagers were massacred by the Puritans in Mystic, Connecticut.
Pequots were living in two forts. In one fort were mainly Pequot men. In the other were primarily women, children, and elders. [Mercenary John] Mason targeted the latter. Slaughter ensued. After killing most of the Pequot defenders, the soldiers set fire to the structures and burned the remaining people there alive.

HELLO! Something that's happened in this time frame...today.

Let me be very specific so you don't go back Hundreds of years for your example. Like 1637...lol!

What American atrocities that happened RIGHT NOW, compared to what's happening in China today.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

When I had to eject some members of a local VFW for dealing narcotics I got more that a few death threats. Did not start carrying a gun as I recognized them as "empty" threats. Folks that have little control over their emotions, as Rosenbaum evidenced, make empty threats. Folks that have little control over their emotions and carry a weapon, as Rittenhouse evidenced, carry out those threats.

Don't be crass. This wasn't during a riot with fires, gunshots going off, both sides carrying weapons. That was a city under seige, not just drugs inside the local VFW.

A much diffrent scenario.

 

[poppopfox]

It wasn't up to me or the jury to definitively determine Rosenbaum's intent to the point of fact. The standard is that a reasonable person could consider his actions as indicating that reasonable person is in danger of death or severe bodily harm.

Another country's legal system would have found him guilty for the sole reason he was there? Nah...you can keep a ****ed up legal system like that. I'm glad it isn't here, and so is irrelevant.

I did not say what you put in italics. And the legal systems you disregard with a cheap shot have a much lower rate of violent crime than the US.

I don't believe Thou shall not kill is a serious statement. More religious claptrap.

You're entitled to that belief but you'll perhaps explain what you mean by calling it "claptrap?"

Not surprising that you won't answer the questions that arise from a consideration of the legal system you're trumpeting.

I gave you a learning opportunity, it was your choice to stay uninformed. And I did not "trumpet" another legal system, I gave an example of how the standards of justice differ depending on the cultural beliefs that are codified into law.

 

[RF667799]

I did not say what you put in italics. And the legal systems you disregard with a cheap shot have a much lower rate of violent crime than the US.

You're entitled to that belief but you'll perhaps explain what you mean by calling it "claptrap?"

I gave you a learning opportunity, it was your choice to stay uninformed. And I did not "trumpet" another legal system, I gave an example of how the standards of justice differ depending on the cultural beliefs that are codified into law.

You're selectively editing my posts now? Along with your refusal or inability to address my earlier questions, I don't know how we can continue.

 

[poppopfox]

You were saying?

I was saying you have no special knowledge of Chinese culture and you proved it.

Anger and debate over hit-and-run toddler Wang Yue

Anger and debate continue in the Chinese media and on the internet after the toddler left injured on a road after a hit-and-run accident dies.

www.bbc.com

Look, a news story.

I said the law, not the jury. The law agreed with his self defence...it's call aqquited.

It's spelled acquitted. And the jury acquits, not the law.

Nothing to fix or finish.

Of course not, your language skills speak for themselves.

HELLO! Something that's happened in this time frame...today.

Sure, let's narrow the conversation down to the point in time where you can feel correct.

Let me be very specific so you don't go back Hundreds of years for your example. Like 1637...lol!

Want to fast forward to what we did in SE Asia?

What American atrocities that happened RIGHT NOW, compared to what's happening in China today.

Father tells police he threw baby in river, killed her mother Shot her in the head. Gun violence, a current American atrocity.

 

[poppopfox]

Don't be crass. This wasn't during a riot with fires, gunshots going off, both sides carrying weapons. That was a city under seige, not just drugs inside the local VFW.

A much diffrent scenario.

An empty threat is still an empty threat, and you still have no proof that Rosenbaum would have carried out that threat.

 

[RF667799]

An empty threat is still an empty threat, and you still have no proof that Rosenbaum would have carried out that threat.

The absolute proof would have been a deceased Rittenhouse. Probably why we have the reasonable person standard for self defense.

 

[poppopfox]

The absolute proof would have been a deceased Rittenhouse. Probably why we have the reasonable person standard for self defense.

Rittenhouse was not a reasonable person. A reasonable person would have not walked into such an environment, alone, armed with a "cool looking" semiauto long gun, and a "We don't do non-lethal" mentality.

 

[RF667799]

Rittenhouse was not a reasonable person. A reasonable person would have not walked into such an environment, alone, armed with a "cool looking" semiauto long gun, and a "We don't do non-lethal" mentality.

Begs the question.

 

[Rich2018]

Rosenbalm said if he caught anyone alone he would kill them.

He then proceeded to chase him down, in fact separating him from the group alone and in Kyles mind a serious threat to him and needing to use self defence as he was trying to grab his rifle.

You mean Rosenbaum, and what quote can you cite supporting this ?

 

[RF667799]

You mean Rosenbaum, and what quote can you cite supporting this ?

KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) — The first man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse on the streets of Kenosha was “hyperaggressive” that night, threatened to kill Rittenhouse and someone with him, and later lunged for Rittenhouse's rifle just before the 17-year-old fired, witnesses testified Thursday.

And those were witnesses for the prosecution.

https://fox11online.com/news/state/detective-rittenhouse-shouted-friendly-to-pursuer?src=link

 

[zsu2357]

I watched the video. Rittenhouse clearly looked like an active shooter. End of story.

Post 1796 it would seem you do think he was an active shooter and not just perceived as one. In re to your 1851 post.

 

[zsu2357]

Wasn't this actually months after the shooting?

That's what I thought too, in fact I was thinking about checking on it. Won't now.

 

[Rich2018]

Post 1796 it would seem you do think he was an active shooter and not just perceived as one. In re to your 1851 post.

Think that something is x, and perceiving that something is x
Is exactly the same thing.

 

[Fledermaus]

Think that something is x, and perceiving that something is x
Is exactly the same thing.

Except he wasn't.

 

[RF667799]

Think that something is x, and perceiving that something is x
Is exactly the same thing.

No. Not in context.

If the poster thinks that he was an active shooter, that isn't the same thing as the poster thinking that others perceived him as an active shooter.

 

[poppopfox]

Begs the question.

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.

Premise, Rittenhouse was not a reasonable person. Support and proof, a reasonable 17-year-old person would not have went into the situation he put himself into armed with a "We don't do non-lethal" mentality and a military style semiauto cool-looking long gun which he used to kill two and wound a third.

How is that begging the question when the support for my premise was clearly stated?

Begging the question would be the premise that Rosenbaum would have killed Kyle, and the only evidence offered to back that up is hearsay testimony about a verbal taunt and "feels."

 

[RF667799]

The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.

Premise, Rittenhouse was not a reasonable person. Support and proof, a reasonable 17-year-old person would not have went into the situation he put himself into armed with a "We don't do non-lethal" mentality and a military style semiauto cool-looking long gun which he used to kill two and wound a third.

How is that begging the question when the support for my premise was clearly stated?

Begging the question would be the premise that Rosenbaum would have killed Kyle, and the only evidence offered to back that up is hearsay testimony about a verbal taunt and "feels."

Your proof that he is not a reasonable person, is just claiming his actions are not reasonable. Your argument assumes the premise. So sorry.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Rittenhouse was not a reasonable person. A reasonable person would have not walked into such an environment, alone, armed with a "cool looking" semiauto long gun, and a "We don't do non-lethal" mentality.

Uh...Rosenbaum wasn't a resonable person. Many bipolar people, like Rosenbaulm, who are off their medication often are...

 

[Linuxcooldude]

An empty threat is still an empty threat, and you still have no proof that Rosenbaum would have carried out that threat.

Apparently, the jury thought so. Rosenbaums violent behavior coupled in context to the happenings during the riot.

It doesn't matter if Rosenbaulms threats are empty or not. Its if his death threats and then actions reasonably put Kyle in fear of his life or great bodily harm. Agian, 12 people agreed.

 

[Rich2018]

Uh...Rosenbaum wasn't a resonable person. Many bipolar people, like Rosenbaulm, who are off their medication often are...

In your mind, you probably think anyone not voting Republican isn't reasonable.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Premise, Rittenhouse was not a reasonable person. Support and proof, a reasonable 17-year-old person would not have went into the situation he put himself into armed with a "We don't do non-lethal" mentality and a military style semiauto cool-looking long gun which he used to kill two and wound a third.

A resonable Rosenbaum, would not make death threats, just because he is mad.

A resonable Rosenbaum, would not chase down an armed man to take his rifle.

Often, a bipolar man off his medication often are not reasonable.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

In your mind, you probably think anyone not voting Republican isn't reasonable.

Irrelivent to the case.