Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[GenesisNemesis]

Juries can and do get things wrong all the time.

 

[TSwizzle]

A jury weighed two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment, and found Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges.

0/5.

Yes.

I know.

I also know that one of the jurors said in an interview that the jury was very conscientious, reviewed each video several times, and went over the judge's instructions very carefully.

What is your point?

You’re still crying about something that has been settled for years.

Dry your eyes and move on.

You're projecting.

I am not projecting, I am interpreting your ceaseless whining about the way things have turned out as you whining/crying.

I'm not crying about the results of the trial. I am attempting to correct your misconceptions about it and about the events in Kenosha by providing facts and accounts from reliable sources. I am pointing out the obvious bits of propaganda and the lack of supporting evidence for some of the claims being made.

I think getting the facts straight is important, especially when one is drawing conclusions from what one remembers about an event. Other people prefer to focus on one set of facts (using a truncated timeline, for example) and ignore the rest. And some folks really like using fallacies and propaganda to avoid challenging their preconceptions and prejudices. We see all three types in discussions around here.

I am not buying your narrative.

And guess who else didn't buy your narrative? Yeah, that's right, the trial jury.

0/5 based on the evidence.

 

[laughing dog]

A jury weighed two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment, and found Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges.

0/5.

Yes.

I know.

I also know that one of the jurors said in an interview that the jury was very conscientious, reviewed each video several times, and went over the judge's instructions very carefully.

What is your point?

You’re still crying about something that has been settled for years.

Dry your eyes and move on.

You're projecting.

I am not projecting, I am interpreting your ceaseless whining about the way things have turned out as you whining/crying.

I'm not crying about the results of the trial. I am attempting to correct your misconceptions about it and about the events in Kenosha by providing facts and accounts from reliable sources. I am pointing out the obvious bits of propaganda and the lack of supporting evidence for some of the claims being made.

I think getting the facts straight is important, especially when one is drawing conclusions from what one remembers about an event. Other people prefer to focus on one set of facts (using a truncated timeline, for example) and ignore the rest. And some folks really like using fallacies and propaganda to avoid challenging their preconceptions and prejudices. We see all three types in discussions around here.

I am not buying your narrative.

And guess who else didn't buy your narrative? Yeah, that's right, the trial jury.

0/5 based on the evidence.

How terribly sad must be your life.

 

[Arctish]

A jury weighed two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment, and found Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges.

0/5.

Yes.

I know.

I also know that one of the jurors said in an interview that the jury was very conscientious, reviewed each video several times, and went over the judge's instructions very carefully.

What is your point?

You’re still crying about something that has been settled for years.

Dry your eyes and move on.

You're projecting.

I am not projecting, I am interpreting your ceaseless whining about the way things have turned out as you whining/crying.

What whining?

Please provide a quote from one of my posts that you think is whining.

I think you are projecting and I think it's because you are prone to extremist either-or thinking, where one either fully supports one person/party or one must fully support their opposite. You're not the only one doing it here.

Some folks appear to think there are only two possible positions on Rittenhouse. Either he was entirely justified to walk around the streets of Kenosha brandishing a loaded AR-15 he could not legally own, and to kill people he perceived as threats, or he must be Public Enemy Number 1 and deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life.

Posters who are not prone to that kind of thinking parse things differently. They can accept the verdict of Not Guilty while still believing that Rittenhouse contributed to the shit show that unfolded by attempting to exert an authority he didn't have and by doing stupid teenager things like not being mindful of where the barrel of his gun was pointing. Their take-away can be that it's a terrible idea to allow teenagers to carry loaded weapons without adult supervision while also believing that Rosenbaum was volatile, that he put Rittenhouse in fear for his life, that Rittenhouse was justified in shooting him and panicking when he shot at the guy in light colored pants, and when he killed Huber and wounded Grosskreutz.

In fact, some people can believe it is because people like Rosenbaum are wandering around at street protests that having teenagers with guns wandering around there, too, is a bad idea.

And most people can understand that an active shooter might be acting in self defense, but that doesn't change the fact they're an active shooter.

I'm not crying about the results of the trial. I am attempting to correct your misconceptions about it and about the events in Kenosha by providing facts and accounts from reliable sources. I am pointing out the obvious bits of propaganda and the lack of supporting evidence for some of the claims being made.

I think getting the facts straight is important, especially when one is drawing conclusions from what one remembers about an event. Other people prefer to focus on one set of facts (using a truncated timeline, for example) and ignore the rest. And some folks really like using fallacies and propaganda to avoid challenging their preconceptions and prejudices. We see all three types in discussions around here.

I am not buying your narrative.

And guess who else didn't buy your narrative? Yeah, that's right, the trial jury.

0/5 based on the evidence.

The trial jury and I are in agreement.

The Prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse committed any of the crimes he was charged with having committed, therefore they correctly found him Not Guilty. That doesn't mean he wasn't an active shooter, that people who tried to stop him were in the wrong, that everything he did that night was perfectly lawful and justifiable while everyone he crossed paths with was an asshole, etc.

I'm sorry if that's too complicated to fit your preferred way of thinking but reality is complex.

 

[TSwizzle]

What whining?

Please provide a quote from one of my posts that you think is whining. {snip sermon}

Almost all of them.

You are still banging on about an event from 2020. It doesn’t look like you are going to get over it anytime soon.

 

[Arctish]

What whining?

Please provide a quote from one of my posts that you think is whining. {snip sermon}

Almost all of them.

That's a very interesting filter you've got there. It's like you have sludge-tinted glasses making everything look displeasing to you.

You are still banging on about an event from 2020. It doesn’t look like you are going to get over it anytime soon.

You are talking about it just as much as I am. And I'm not the one who brought it up in this thread. That happened here back in December. I entered the conversation a few posts later to clear up a misconception about how Rittenhouse got the gun he was carrying.

As I said before, I do get a little bit obsessive about keeping the facts straight and calling out bullshit. Why are you still talking about Rittenhouse and the events in Kenosha, though?

It is because you haven't gotten over it, that you should get a life, that you are obsessing, etc.?

Is it because you wish to discuss those events with other posters and think you have something informative to offer?

Is there some other reason?

 

[TSwizzle]

What whining?

Please provide a quote from one of my posts that you think is whining. {snip sermon}

Almost all of them.

That's a very interesting filter you've got there.

If you say so. Keep crying.

 

[Arctish]

What whining?

Please provide a quote from one of my posts that you think is whining. {snip sermon}

Almost all of them.

That's a very interesting filter you've got there.

If you say so. Keep crying.

You think I'm crying? Are you imagining that your posts are reducing me to tears???

Or is that the only way you can interpret someone caring about pesky little things like facts and reason instead of just going along with the flow of bullshit and half-assed patter about misremembered history?

FYI, I'm the kind of person who likes going to museums. I like history and learning facts about events. I also like anime, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and fan fiction. I don't get them confused.

Imagining things is fun, but facts are what we should be using when reaching conclusions.

 

[TSwizzle]

What whining?

Please provide a quote from one of my posts that you think is whining. {snip sermon}

Almost all of them.

That's a very interesting filter you've got there.

If you say so. Keep crying.

You think I'm crying?

Yes, I think you are crying.

I’m close to tears myself, from laughing

 

[Arctish]

What whining?

Please provide a quote from one of my posts that you think is whining. {snip sermon}

Almost all of them.

That's a very interesting filter you've got there.

If you say so. Keep crying.

You think I'm crying?

Yes, I think you are crying.

I’m close to tears myself, from laughing

Well, like I said, you do you.

This little side chat has become extremely unproductive so if that's all you've got to say, we can move on.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm not even a conservative though! It's intensely frustrating,

It is was a free country; you can call yourself whatever you fancy.
I s’pose not worshiping Trump makes you a screaming lib’rul in his book.
Requiring legal oversight/second opinions on emergency abortions

That's a false statement with respect to my views.

Really? My apology. I didn't realize you worshiped Trump.

and allowing punks carrying loaded rifles to demonstrations

You mean, allowing people to do legal things?

You're recommending that someone should have felt threatened and killed the little fucker.
I have to admit, that's hard to argue with.

and shoot people with impunity

Again, a false statement with respect to my views.

You're not real great at expressing your views then, since you don't object to the punk's actions.

might just make you a xenophobic conservotard to others.
My opinion is just my opinion, based on a presumably small sample of Emily. Don’t take it so hard.

It's a sample of your frothing imagination, not a reflection of reality.

Do tell. What part is imaginary and what is the reality you're asserting?

Pretty much every view you ascribe to me is either a gross mischaracterization of my actual views which comes across as intentionally malicious... or it's an entirely invented in your own mind falsehood.

If you really, really, desperately need to direct your hatred at someone here on IIDB, nothing's going to stop you from doing that. But it's certainly bad faith and uncivil to persistently and repeatedly spout disinformation about fellow members.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your options facing down a semi-automatic are fewer than a revolver. Then there is the damage by the bullet.

Because six bullets from a pistol somehow do more damage than six bullets from a revolver? It takes the same amount of time to pull the trigger six times for both, you know that, don't you? Are you imagining that all revolvers are old-west single actions?

My meager understanding of magazines for semi-automatic weapons is that 6 bullets is the minimum number in a magazine. Depending on whether the weapon is a handgun or a rifle, magazines can hold much more than 6 bullets. Some revolvers can hold up to 9 bullets (at least that is my understanding).

My point is that your response ignores the basic point that semi-automatic weapons typically have a larger capacity for bullets which allows a shooter to shoot MORE BULLETS than the typical revolver. More bullets mean more potential damage.

That might be your point, not sure it's Jimmy's point.

In your case, the issue is capacity... which has virtually nothing at all to do with the firearm being semi-automatic.

That’s silly. Revolvers hold 6 rounds while semiautomatics typically hold at least twice as many.

Again, your problem seems to be capacity, not the semi-auto status of the firearm. Your issue could be addressed by limiting magazine capacity to 6 or fewer rounds, couldn't it?

 

[Emily Lake]

Teenagers are children.

Teenagers (14 to 19) are minors, but they aren't juveniles, hence not children.

Tell that to their parents.

Honestly, your responses suggest you know fuck all about children.

Seriously, people, just use accurate language. Is that so much to ask?

Generally speaking, children are pre-pubescent humans - they're juveniles.
The majority of kids that we think of as "teens" are 14 to 18 (give or take), but generally they're young humans who have already entered puberty.

Pre-pubertal humans are drastically different from pubertal humans in terms of cognition, behaviors, and overall mental development.

All of them can generally be referred to as minors, which is a term associated with legal status.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you are personally heartbroken every time a child anywhere on the planet dies, then you're never going to have time to get anything done in your life.

Right on sister. Goes triple for a fetus.

Stop intentionally misrepresenting my views. It's intentionally malicious and uncivil.

 

[Emily Lake]

Re gun laws:

@ZiprHead -
Do you consider the AU model too lax?
@Emily Lake -
Do you consider the AU model too restrictive?

Just trying to narrow down the point of disagreement, if there is one.

From an unbiased and objective perspective, I'd say the AU model is somewhat too restrictive, but plausibly not unreasonable.

That said, however, there's a world of difference between people never having had a constitutional right to firearms and taking away a right.

You don't know Australia's history. Gun possession may not have been a right, but it was and is a privilege, and there are many Australians who have guns. So no right was taken away by gun laws.

No shit. That's exactly my point. Australians have never had a constitutional right to guns, so changing laws about who is allowed to have them doesn't violate any rights. That's not the case in the US, as it IS a constitutional right, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

Throughout most human history gun ownership has never been a right.

Most of human history occurred prior to the penning of the US constitution, indeed prior to the existence of the US at all. What's your point?

You could just as accurately state that throughout most of human history, nobody had a right to free speech, or that throughout most of human history women had no right to own property in their own name. You might have emotions that make you think this is some kind of applicable point, but it isn't.

If there is a psychological difference between people that have a right to own guns and those for whom it is a privilege, then that difference is amenable to study by experts in mental conditions. If there is no such psychological difference then there is not a world of difference between people who do or do not have such a dubious (not natural) right.
There is a universal declaration of human rights, and gun ownership is not one of those rights.
If "taking away" (actually only suggesting regulations, not removal of a "right") Americans "gun rights" has such a debilitating impact on so many people (their minds or social perceptions), then Americans may need massive therapy to wean them away from a condition similar in type to drug addiction.

Additionally there are many amendments and original Constitutional words that Americans seem happy to ignore, being obsessed only with this one. Americans don't have a constitutional right to have limbs or a head, but I'm sure they would miss not having them, so don't need a thing to be a right to have it make a difference when that thing is taken away. Strangely Americans don't have rights to food, shelter, and other necessary things, but rather have rights mainly to nebulous concepts like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Many Americans do not really understand what rights are. They are granted by other people. They are not innate, which is how many Americans see gun rights as - that is, not granted by other humans but by nature itself.

In the US, Constitutional Rights are those that the government is not allowed to infringe. Nobody thinks they're "innate" other than people trying to argue against strawmen.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know Emily, I don't actually care about Rittenhouse. And neither do you.

You're correct. I don't care about him personally.

I care about justice and rationality.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes. Several people in this thread have taken the position that Rittenhouse did NOT have a right to self-defense... because he shouldn't have been present in the first place, and the fact that he was present and in possession of a firearm makes Rittenhouse the aggressor, and it makes Rosenbaum's actions of chasing down, cornering, and attacking Rittenhouse into a defensive action, and therefore Rittenhouse is a murderer.

Rittenhouse was in violation of the clean hands law doctrine. He purchased the weapon illegally. He entered a closed zone illegally, He was carrying the weapon illegally and it was reported he brandished the weapon which is very illegal and can get you shot if you do it towards police officers.

I know, I know. He totally brought it on himself, he's to blame for being chased, cornered, and attacked by someone else. Did you see what he was wearing?

There's not a single person that night (except for perhaps cops and EMTs) who was there legally - therefore not a single person had clean hands by your logic.

I agree, actually. But people get pissed/anxious when someone points a semi auto weapon at them.

People also get terrified and anxious when a grown-ass adult chases them, corners them, and tries to physically attack them.

Why were grown ass adults chasing him?

Because Rosenbaum was already agitated, already aggressive, and Rittenhouse made a good target for him, I suppose.

No, people were chasing Rittenhouse AFTER they saw him shoot someone.

Who did he shoot before Rosenbaum started chasing him?

 

[Emily Lake]

Our society recognizes a Right of self defense. Rittenhouse was found Not Guilty of murder despite his own contributions to the conflict that resulted in two deaths. That doesn't mean the people trying to prevent him from fleeing the scene of a homicide or to disarm him were wrong to do so, or that any of them were lunatics.

Rosenbaum was an aggressor. Everyone AFTER Rosenbaum was reasonably likely to believe they were acting in defense of others.

 

[Emily Lake]

These assholes learned a valuable lesson that day,

Yeah. Arm up and next time some punk brandishes an AR at a demonstration, don’t try to disarm him; shoot the fucker first.

Seriously, Elixir, do you even care that you're now advocating for outright murder?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your options facing down a semi-automatic are fewer than a revolver. Then there is the damage by the bullet.

Because six bullets from a pistol somehow do more damage than six bullets from a revolver? It takes the same amount of time to pull the trigger six times for both, you know that, don't you? Are you imagining that all revolvers are old-west single actions?

My meager understanding of magazines for semi-automatic weapons is that 6 bullets is the minimum number in a magazine. Depending on whether the weapon is a handgun or a rifle, magazines can hold much more than 6 bullets. Some revolvers can hold up to 9 bullets (at least that is my understanding).

My point is that your response ignores the basic point that semi-automatic weapons typically have a larger capacity for bullets which allows a shooter to shoot MORE BULLETS than the typical revolver. More bullets mean more potential damage.

That might be your point, not sure it's Jimmy's point.

In your case, the issue is capacity... which has virtually nothing at all to do with the firearm being semi-automatic.

That’s silly. Revolvers hold 6 rounds while semiautomatics typically hold at least twice as many.

Again, your problem seems to be capacity, not the semi-auto status of the firearm. Your issue could be addressed by limiting magazine capacity to 6 or fewer rounds, couldn't it?

Yes, it could. But we aren't allowed to make any changes to guns in America, because it is all a camel nose under the tent to *echo* ban guns */echo*.