More "largely peaceful" Portland protests

[*Nately120*]

(08-28-2020, 12:33 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Everyone PLEASE watch Kellyanne Conway yesterday tell us point blank that Trump wants to see more violence in America between now and election Day because he thinks it helps him: https://t.co/h3QF5jHTt7

— (((DeanObeidallah))) (@DeanObeidallah) August 28, 2020

I don't think she's wrong...maybe she is.  I hope that wanting Americans fighting and killing each other would be a death knell for a politician, but my brain can't accept that it is true.

Like I said before and maybe I'm going overboard but if it were announced that Islamic terrorists had attacked I feel like people would ask "Where did they strike?" before deciding if they were upset or not.  We've transferred the political vitriol to our own country.  We no longer need a strong president to protect us from the other side of the world...we need him to protect us from our neighbors.  Spooky.

[GMDino]

(08-28-2020, 12:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't think she's wrong...maybe she is.  I hope that wanting Americans fighting and killing each other would be a death knell for a politician, but my brain can't accept that it is true.

Like I said before and maybe I'm going overboard but if it were announced that Islamic terrorists had attacked I feel like people would ask "Where did they strike?" before deciding if they were upset or not.  We've transferred the political vitriol to our own country.  We no longer need a strong president to protect us from the other side of the world...we need him to protect us from our neighbors.  Spooky.

I don't think she's wrong at all.  Trump loves chaos while claiming he will handle it.

Meanwhile he's don't jack-squat to handle it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-28-2020, 12:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't think she's wrong...maybe she is.  I hope that wanting Americans fighting and killing each other would be a death knell for a politician, but my brain can't accept that it is true.

Like I said before and maybe I'm going overboard but if it were announced that Islamic terrorists had attacked I feel like people would ask "Where did they strike?" before deciding if they were upset or not.  We've transferred the political vitriol to our own country.  We no longer need a strong president to protect us from the other side of the world...we need him to protect us from our neighbors.  Spooky.

What "peaceful protesters" have been killed?  You may not be wrong on the second part, which is sad.

(08-28-2020, 12:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't think she's wrong at all.  Trump loves chaos while claiming he will handle it.

Well then, the Dems are in luck as almost all of the chaos and violence is occurring in areas of the country they're running.  The ball is in their court.

Quote:Meanwhile he's don't jack-squat to handle it.

He sent in Federal law enforcement and you had an aneurysm.  What could he be doing that he is not, in your opinion?

[*Nately120*]

(08-28-2020, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What "peaceful protesters" have been killed?  You may not be wrong on the second part, which is sad.

I'm not sure if it matters.  I'm at the point myself where anyone engaging in political activism now is asking for trouble, fair or not. 

I picked a good time to lack a spine, I'll admit.  I just notice how much we debate the minutia of Americans shooting each other.  It's quite the interesting trend from a country that seems to need a common enemy. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-28-2020, 02:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not sure if it matters.  I'm at the point myself where anyone engaging in political activism now is asking for trouble, fair or not. 

I picked a good time to lack a spine, I'll admit.  I just notice how much we debate the minutia of Americans shooting each other.  It's quite the interesting trend from a country that seems to need a common enemy. 

Well, China's certainly stepping up to the plate.  Unless you're the NBA of course. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-28-2020, 02:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, China's certainly stepping up to the plate.  Unless you're the NBA of course. 

Im not sure what you mean and I've probably hit my daily quota of political pratfalls for one day. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

It's interesting that we see charges of the "right wing" media defending Rittenhouse. I haven't seen a single main stream news article that even remotely raises the possibility that the kid acted in self defense. The astounding hypocrisy is palpable.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-28-2020, 02:53 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Im not sure what you mean and I've probably hit my daily quota of political pratfalls for one day. 

That China is stepping up as a "common enemy", unless you're the NBA, who chooses to turn a blind eye to China's genocide and human rights abuses because China puts money in their pocket.  Very progressive!

[Belsnickel]

(08-28-2020, 11:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We are pretty much 100% in agreement here.  So, as a level headed guy who strives to be objective, let me ask yo two questions.

1.  Why would the DA file murder 1 charges when they are clearly inappropriate?

The first, most obvious answer, is to appease the masses. The other reason is because in Wisconsin they can be knocked down during the process. So the jury could still bring back a guilty charge for second-degree.

(08-28-2020, 11:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 2.  Why has a YouTuber provided far better reporting on this subject than any mainstream media outlet.  Have you seen any media outlet advancing the self defense position?

I've seen some conservative ones talking about it. National Review actually has a pretty good write up on the whole thing.

(08-28-2020, 12:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Were I a juror, I'm not sure I could ignore the series of bad decisions that led a 17-year old from Illinois to take up arms he could not legally wield and "charge towards danger" in another state--finally finding it.

People are going to be replaying the image of this white teen armed with a long gun, wandering unhindered around police during a riot, alongside video of Tamir Rice and John Crawford III etc. for years to come.

And if you were to take all of that into account as a juror, then you would not be fulfilling your role as you should. The focus is on whether he reasonably felt imminent threat to life or great injury. How it will play in the media doesn't matter, or shouldn't, when it comes to our judicial system. How he got there with the gun doesn't matter for the homicide charges. He can be guilty for illegally carrying without being guilty of homicide.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-28-2020, 05:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The first, most obvious answer, is to appease the masses. The other reason is because in Wisconsin they can be knocked down during the process. So the jury could still bring back a guilty charge for second-degree.

I concur.  Although the DA tends to overcharge so they have something to pull back when they negotiate a plea bargain. 

Quote:I've seen some conservative ones talking about it. National Review actually has a pretty good write up on the whole thing.

That's actually my point.  Every other outlet is treating this as a likely murder.  I've already seen op eds stating this kid is a straight up murderer.

Quote:And if you were to take all of that into account as a juror, then you would not be fulfilling your role as you should. The focus is on whether he reasonably felt imminent threat to life or great injury. How it will play in the media doesn't matter, or shouldn't, when it comes to our judicial system. How he got there with the gun doesn't matter for the homicide charges. He can be guilty for illegally carrying without being guilty of homicide.

Nailed it!  Too many people make decisions with their heart and not their head, even when they believe otherwise.

[GMDino]

He is a murderer.

He just did it "legally".

Still a problem.

If he's not there with the gun he probably doesn't kill someone nor does he "exchange words" with protesters.

Just like the chief saying if there weren't protesters no one would get killed.

There are legal ways to kill people in this country. Seems this kid was looking to "defend himself" form the get go and has enough evidence to get away with two deaths.

I'm sure he'll be dine moving forward.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-28-2020, 08:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: He is a murderer.

He just did it "legally".

Someone needs to be educated about the definition of murder.  Murder is an unlawful killing of a human being.  If he acted in self defense he is absolutely not a murderer.  A police officer who lawfully kills a suspect is not a murderer, a soldier who kills an enemy combatant is not a murderer and a civilian who kills someone in self defense is not a murderer.  Words have meanings for a reason.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Quote:Still a problem.

If he's not there with the gun he probably doesn't kill someone nor does he "exchange words" with protesters.

A flip side to that position would be that if people weren't rioting, burning and looting this kid would not have been there with a gun.

Quote:Just like the chief saying if there weren't protesters no one would get killed.

Oh, no no no.  If there weren't rioters, arsonists and looters no one would get killed.

Quote:There are legal ways to kill people in this country.

 
Sure, along with every other country on the planet.

Quote:Seems this kid was looking to "defend himself" form the get go and has enough evidence to get away with two deaths.

Wow, even with all the evidence in this poor kid's favor you're still desperate to condemn him.  He won't "get away" with anything, that implies he'll avoid consequences for something he shouldn't have done.  

Quote:I'm sure he'll be dine moving forward.

Not sure if he'll be fine.  He's got a long, arduous and immensely stressful legal battle ahead of him.  He'll also have people like yourself who will consider him a murderer regardless of the outcome.  Not a position I'd envy.

[Von Cichlid]

(08-28-2020, 05:01 AM)Dill Wrote: Von, I'm not sure it's just impressionable youths who have no sense of world history.

Also, I'm not sure it's impressionable youths who are doing the burning. According to SSF's video, the guys shot by Rittenhouse had pretty long rap sheets. 

Well, I agree its not just the youths.

Way I see it, none of these people can possibly have jobs that are participating in this crap.  That brings up the question of who is feeding them?  Who is sheltering them?  Who is clothing them?  

If they just knew a little about the struggle of man throughout the ages they would thank their lucky stars that they were born where they were and in the time they were.  There was literally no easier time to be alive than there is today in the USA.  (I don't want comparisons with Canada or the Scandinavian countries- their demographics and population densities make for a much more sustainable welfare state than the USA could ever provide for its citizens.)  There is much opportunity to provide for yourself if you are willing to learn a skill and live relatively clean.  I'm not saying it is easy, but it is still more possible now to live a comfortable, fulfilling life than it ever has been anywhere and anytime else in the vast, vast majority of the world's history.

I just do not sympathize one iota with any of these protestors.    

[GMDino]

(08-28-2020, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Someone needs to be educated about the definition of murder.  Murder is an unlawful killing of a human being.  If he acted in self defense he is absolutely not a murderer.  A police officer who lawfully kills a suspect is not a murderer, a soldier who kills an enemy combatant is not a murderer and a civilian who kills someone in self defense is not a murderer.  Words have meanings for a reason.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought



A flip side to that position would be that if people weren't rioting, burning and looting this kid would not have been there with a gun.



Oh, no no no.  If there weren't rioters, arsonists and looters no one would get killed.


 
Sure, along with every other country on the planet.



Wow, even with all the evidence in this poor kid's favor you're still desperate to condemn him.  He won't "get away" with anything, that implies he'll avoid consequences for something he shouldn't have done.  


Not sure if he'll be fine.  He's got a long, arduous and immensely stressful legal battle ahead of him.  He'll also have people like yourself who will consider him a murderer regardless of the outcome.  Not a position I'd envy.

Like I said people can legally murder each other.  As you say police, soldiers, self defense.  Define it however you want.  The kid came ready to "defend himself" and legally killed two people.  So yes, I "condemn" him for being another moron with a gun who wanted to play cop and killed 
two people. 

If he'd have stayed home he wouldn't have killed anyone for possible exchanging words. 

Good for him.  I'm sure he'll be in RNC campaign ads soon.

It's all very sad.

[*jason*]

(08-28-2020, 08:47 PM)Von Cichlid Wrote: Well, I agree its not just the youths.

Way I see it, none of these people can possibly have jobs that are participating in this crap.  That brings up the question of who is feeding them?  Who is sheltering them?  Who is clothing them?  

If they just knew a little about the struggle of man throughout the ages they would thank their lucky stars that they were born where they were and in the time they were.  There was literally no easier time to be alive than there is today in the USA.  (I don't want comparisons with Canada or the Scandinavian countries- their demographics and population densities make for a much more sustainable welfare state than the USA could ever provide for its citizens.)  There is much opportunity to provide for yourself if you are willing to learn a skill and live relatively clean.  I'm not saying it is easy, but it is still more possible now to live a comfortable, fulfilling life than it ever has been anywhere and anytime else in the vast, vast majority of the world's history.

I just do not sympathize one iota with any of these protestors.    

I wasn't around then, and I'm not sure you were either, but don't you suppose it was "easier" to live here during the post war baby boom? Families thrived with 1 income... The American people are not better off now than they were then. I get why people wanna go back to that or whatever, but it's not happening... In the USA anyway.

Of course I'm excluding certain groups who most certainly didn't have it better back then.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-28-2020, 09:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Like I said people can legally murder each other.

Incorrect.  By definition that is impossible.
 

Quote: As you say police, soldiers, self defense.  Define it however you want.

It's not how I want to define it, it's how the English language defines it.
 

Quote: The kid came ready to "defend himself" and legally killed two people.

 
Actually, by his own statements he came to defend others.  Or are you saying you have a unique insight into his mind?  Glad to see you're on the "he shouldn't have been charged" side of the fence.

Quote:So yes, I "condemn" him for being another moron with a gun who wanted to play cop and killed 
two people. 

Do you condemn the rioters for attacking him and causing the situation?

Quote:If he'd have stayed home he wouldn't have killed anyone for possible exchanging words. 

Of course the flip side of that argument is that if no one had been rioting, looting and burning this wouldn't have happened.

Quote:Good for him.  I'm sure he'll be in RNC campaign ads soon.

It's all very sad.

You sound more bitter than sad.  But I do agree the entire scenario is sad.

[Von Cichlid]

(08-28-2020, 09:49 PM)jason Wrote: I wasn't around then, and I'm not sure you were either, but don't you suppose it was "easier" to live here during the post war baby boom? Families thrived with 1 income... The American people are not better off now than they were then. I get why people wanna go back to that or whatever, but it's not happening... In the USA anyway.

Of course I'm excluding certain groups who most certainly didn't have it better back then.

I mean there were certain isolated pockets in the history of the US were it might have been better, like from 1950 to 1965. But that is 15 years out of 250.  If I had to roll the dice and be born in a random time slot in the history of the US, then I would hold what I got and choose the life I have now, for sure.  That's not to even mention the rest of the world that I could have been born in.

Also, that 15 years of post war baby boom greatness was paid for by the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of American lives.  This country has in large part been living off of the steam of that generation's accomplishments for some time now.  With each passing year that greatest generation becomes more and more gone forever.



*As far as thriving off of one income, I think people were much happier with less in those days.  Most houses had one car and one TV, that was it.

We have:  4 smart phones, 4 TV's, 3 cars, satellite, 5 laptops, internet bills, I lost count of how many video game systems, etc.  We also eat out a lot more than they did back then too.

If families (mine included) were willing to live the "good life of the 50's" then we might be able to get by on one income. Then again, a lot of those technology bills are made essential by jobs too.

[Dill]

(08-28-2020, 05:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And if you were to take all of that into account as a juror, then you would not be fulfilling your role as you should. The focus is on whether he reasonably felt imminent threat to life or great injury. How it will play in the media doesn't matter, or shouldn't, when it comes to our judicial system. How he got there with the gun doesn't matter for the homicide charges. He can be guilty for illegally carrying without being guilty of homicide.

Appreciate the response. I know what considerations the legal frame excludes. And how the incident plays in the media is not my concern here. 

How R, got there with the gun does matter, though, if we are trying to understand why these incidents occur--keep occuring.

Determing whether the 17-year-old was behaving reasonably under a homicide statute will not provide that understanding.

Were I a juror, I would ask for more clarification on the legal rationale for excluding actions/decisions by which a boy placed himself in a riot with a gun in a position to "reasonably" defend himself.  To me this looks like one of those issues that spurs challenges, changes and reframing of legal principles. That would be a legal research project, perhaps. 

[Brownshoe]

(08-29-2020, 01:31 AM)Dill Wrote: Appreciate the response. I know what considerations the legal frame excludes. And how the incident plays in the media is not my concern here. 

How R, got there with the gun does matter, though, if we are trying to understand why these incidents occur--keep occuring.

Determing whether the 17-year-old was behaving reasonably under a homicide statute will not provide that understanding.

Were I a juror, I would ask for more clarification on the legal rationale for excluding actions/decisions by which a boy placed himself in a riot with a gun in a position to "reasonably" defend himself.  To me this looks like one of those issues that spurs challenges, changes and reframing of legal principles. That would be a legal research project, perhaps. 

From what Rittenhouse's lawyer said he got the AR15 from a friend who lives in Wisconsin (Rittenhouse lives on the boarder, so Kenosha was about ~20 min away from where he lived). The lawyer also said that it wasn't illegal for him to have the AR15 since it's legal to open carry a long gun at his age. Now, because it's from his lawyer I would take it with a grain of salt.


From a neutral eye witness testimony (a reporter) Rittenhouse didn't start the conflict and was trying to flee the conflict. Everything I see points to self defense. I don't know if Kyle (Rittenhouse) will even be charged with anything honestly. To be fair, I don't think that he should have been there. I think he should have left this to the police and the national guard. I think he should have been arrested as soon as the police were able to. He defiantly shouldn't have been able to leave without being in handcuffs and under investigation.

[Brownshoe]

(08-28-2020, 11:29 PM)Von Cichlid Wrote: I mean there were certain isolated pockets in the history of the US were it might have been better, like from 1950 to 1965. But that is 15 years out of 250.  If I had to roll the dice and be born in a random time slot in the history of the US, then I would hold what I got and choose the life I have now, for sure.  That's not to even mention the rest of the world that I could have been born in.

Also, that 15 years of post war baby boom greatness was paid for by the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of American lives.  This country has in large part been living off of the steam of that generation's accomplishments for some time now.  With each passing year that greatest generation becomes more and more gone forever.



*As far as thriving off of one income, I think people were much happier with less in those days.  Most houses had one car and one TV, that was it.

We have:  4 smart phones, 4 TV's, 3 cars, satellite, 5 laptops, internet bills, I lost count of how many video game systems, etc.  We also eat out a lot more than they did back then too.

If families (mine included) were willing to live the "good life of the 50's" then we might be able to get by on one income. Then again, a lot of those technology bills are made essential by jobs too.

Not to mention everyone had to be way more handy. They were more likely to fix their own things and not hire someone to do it. There is some things that are untenable though, one of the many examples is the price of housing was a lot cheaper (which we do live in MUCH bigger buildings).