Jump to content

Terrorist Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted on all counts


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, stepee said:

l

 

I don’t think you are pointing out anything nor do I think I ever even made comment you’d be able to regard to as wrong as I said his murders were legal.


It wasn’t murder in any sense. Unless you want to define the word in a way that renders it completely meaningless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

I guess we just disagree on what murder is ya. Anyway hope kid eats a bullet.

I agree it was negligent homicide in a moral sense (play stupid games, win stupid prizes), but by the letter of the law, it wasn't murder.

 

We can argue how the trial would have gone entirely differently if Rittenhouse had different melanin content, but that's a greater discussion.

 

Getting rid of guns is the only answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, stepee said:

like fine he killed him? i don’t care 


Using the correct word changes your argument. If you don’t care for people to understand what you mean, that is fine.

 

18 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Getting rid of guns is the only answer.


This is really the whole thing. There is a reason that few homicides occur when people are just throwing hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jwheel86 said:

I've been playing with this in my head and I'm curious what you all think. My understanding is part of the reason the armed groups were there was because riots aren't covered by business insurance, I'm sure the race issue was a huge factor too, but let's just take this issue for now. If the law required insurance cover riots in a timely fashion then you at least wouldn't have business owners inviting in armed groups.

 

Right now, my understanding is one of the factors that goes into underwriting a business and homeowners insurance policy is the proficiency rating of the local Fire Department. If the local Fire Department sucks, rates go up and the insurance industry has an organization that grades departments.

 

What if something existed like that for Police Departments? Where if the insurance industry determines that a Police Department is bad, insurance rates for the community and businesses go up, creating pressure on local governments to fix the Police Department by reducing the risk of incidents that could fuel/spark riots. In this case the Blake shooting might be justified but other factors about the local Police Department could have added fuel to the protests. In the Michael Brown case DOJ found a ton of factors within the local police that explained the intensity of the protests beyond the shooting. 

I've heard the same thing but haven't looked in depth. If businesses that are destroyed by rioters were covered by insurance, it seems like it could solve some problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Why don’t you define it. Not even in a strictly legal definition sort of way, just in the way you mean when you say this was a legal way to murder somebody.

He put himself in a volatile situation with a weapon in opposition of the protest/riot with the intention of stopping them by force in necessary.


He made the likelihood of a deadly situation occurring by being there much much greater. As far as I'm concerned morally at least he committed murder. 



Its like if hypothetically a band of liberals with assault rifles put themselves between the insurrectionists and the state capitol building. The only thing that could happen is mass death.  That is what police are for and why they have the power they do. Anyone who goes to a volatile situation with a weapon with the intention of using it should be convicted of murder regardless of the circumstances behind them using it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


Using the correct word changes your argument. If you don’t care for people to understand what you mean, that is fine.

 


This is really the whole thing. There is a reason that few homicides occur when people are just throwing hands.

 

I think we were having an argument in your head that we aren’t having that’s all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

I've heard the same thing but haven't looked in depth. If businesses that are destroyed by rioters were covered by insurance, it seems like it could solve some problems. 

The problem with THAT is there has been a lot of fraud when it comes to civil unrest. Not an insignificant amount of businesses in Newark were burned by their own owners in order to collect the insurance money and relocate. This is not unheard of at all.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

The problem with THAT is there has been a lot of fraud when it comes to civil unrest. Not an insignificant amount of businesses in Newark were burned by their own owners in order to collect the insurance money and relocate. This is not unheard of at all.

 

Business insurance in general is a bit of a mess. I haven't had to file many claims, but it was a real chore each time. I've heard similar complaints from other business owners. I'm sure fraudulent claims are an issue, but it would seem fraudulent denials aren't a rarity either!

 

This is a story involving a fellow theater owner who had literal pandemic insurance and his insurance company tried to avoid covering it for hilariously dumb reasons

 

44f0e331-5260-4bba-8d8c-5a1a375d3c21_114
WWW.KHOU.COM

Star Cinema Grill is suing its insurance market after it claimed the theaters are not covered by 'pandemic insurance' because COVID-19 is "not a named disease."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Business insurance in general is a bit of a mess. I haven't had to file many claims, but it was a real chore each time. I've heard similar complaints from other business owners. I'm sure fraudulent claims are an issue, but it would seem fraudulent denials aren't a rarity either!

 

This is a story involving a fellow theater owner who had literal pandemic insurance and his insurance company tried to avoid covering it for hilariously dumb reasons

 

44f0e331-5260-4bba-8d8c-5a1a375d3c21_114
WWW.KHOU.COM

Star Cinema Grill is suing its insurance market after it claimed the theaters are not covered by 'pandemic insurance' because COVID-19 is "not a named disease."

 


Insurance is general is a bit of a mess. They sure love to take you premiums but will fight tooth and nail if you need them to pay out. 

  • Guillotine 1
  • Upvote 1
  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

The problem with THAT is there has been a lot of fraud when it comes to civil unrest. Not an insignificant amount of businesses in Newark were burned by their own owners in order to collect the insurance money and relocate. This is not unheard of at all.

My original comment had a line about unintended consequences which I removed. I agree that this could be a real issue. Legislation would have to be carefully crafted.


Overall I agree with what some others have said that the issue is firearms. Ask your local trauma canter hospital what they think of firearms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

The right wing are celebrating him because he lived out their fantasies of murdering liberals. 

The two ideologies:

Conservatives fantasize about shooting libs and commies so they cosplay like Rambo

 

Liberals fantasize about taking guns away which will make society better.

 

The New York Times: these are the same thing. 

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stepee said:

 

Im not arguing words with you lol.

 

Some people really want to turn this into a semantics debate, and all it does is dilute the actual issue, until the obvious point of how wrong this all is isn't obvious anymore.

 

It's best not to engage that bullshit.

  • True 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Seems clear the prosecution's heart wasn't in it AKA took a dive. 


Hard to have your heart in a case you know you can’t make on the grounds of the law. I think they probably thought they would get the possession of a firearm by a minor charge though. Should have read the exceptions more clearly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...