Hell yeah, drown me in banality baby. Tell me about his deep meaningful connection to secondhand autosales.
Protecting private property, hell yeah, jerk me harder locke. When i grab guns to head to a counterprotest, its because i care so much about classical conceptions of property rights.
I could go on a tangent about bourgeois "Legal frameworks", but its much easier to say "Death to America" and move on.
America delenda est
I dont respect you, or your opinions.
We can do both & the only thing worth constructing here is a pit.
While you may disagree with his reasons, there are individuals who genuinely believe in protecting private property during unrest. It's a complex issue that shouldn't be reduced to simplistic labels.
So you think broken windows are more important than the lives of black people. You're a bad person and I hope you get to read that before you get banned.
Reminds me of an adviser to Trump who suggested drone bombing refugees before they reached the US because they wouldn't be protected by the constitution at that point.
Just because someone believes that Kyle acted in self-defense in the events of that night doesn't mean they endorse every decision he made leading up to it.
This is you conceding and agreeing with me. Thanks for playing, nerd. I win
People can disagree with some of Kyle's decisions while still believing he acted in self-defense during the confrontations. It's crucial to separate those two aspects. Discussions like these help us understand different perspectives, and I appreciate the exchange. Let's continue discussing the nuances without making it a game of wins and losses.
here's your "nuance." It was the police's fault more than anyone. the police deputized a bunch of vigilante reactionaries to "defend private property" (i.e. capital) from working class protesters by shooting them on sight. One of these vigilantes was a 17 year old who wasn't so much as carded by the police for the assault rifle he was open carrying. He then proceeded to do what he came to do, which was deliberately get in an altercation and shoot people, while making sure to "offer medical aid" to the people he was walking towards with a drawn assault rifle over his microphone so he could look like a nice guy while doing it. He then proceeded to "surrender to police" by raising his hands and walking towards a patrol car. The police drove right past him and didn't so much as investigate what he had done until much later because they approved of what he did. He lucked out and got a Fox News show trial where he could cry crocodile tears and pretend to be haunted while the nazi judge pat him on the back and kissed his boo boos. Now insufferable people defend this modern day friekorps child soldier online so they can feel like they were heckin nuanced.
Absolutely, it's important to approach discussions about cases like Kyle Rittenhouse's with an open mind and a focus on understanding different viewpoints. Separating personal opinions about his decisions from the legal question of self-defense allows for a more nuanced and productive conversation. Let's continue exploring these complexities without trying to assign winners or losers.
(This is chatgpt I’m just playing the dumb game they are)
Law Self-Defense: The trial's core issue was whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The jury found him not guilty on all counts, implying that, legally speaking, his actions were in line with self-defense statutes in Wisconsin.
Whelp time to pack it up everybody, the jury didn't convict so that proves he did nothing wrong
Thanks for your input. I understand that not everyone agrees with the jury's decision. My point was not to say that the verdict inherently proves moral rightness, but rather that legally, according to the standards of the trial and the statutes in Wisconsin, his actions were deemed self-defense. We can discuss the moral implications separately, but from a legal standpoint, the verdict was clear.
That's completely inane. It's literally just circular logic. You're arguing that the jury's decision proves that he was legally innocent, and that that proves the jury made the right call. By that logic, had the jury found him guilty, under the exact same circumstances, that would prove that he violated the law and that they made the right call. It's literally just licking the boot of the legal system, your argument rests on the assumption that innocent people are never wrongfully convicted and guilty people never found innocent, which is blatantly false.
I understand your perspective. My intention wasn't to argue that the justice system is infallible. Indeed, history has shown that both wrongful convictions and acquittals can happen. What I meant to highlight was that, given the evidence presented during the trial and the way the law is structured in Wisconsin, the jury arrived at that particular verdict. It's crucial to differentiate between presenting a legal outcome and endorsing the inherent perfection of the system.
Not a man (and neither is the bot you're feeding our replies into)
Obviously we already know that the jury didn't convict. That's one of the main things we're criticizing. Pointing out that they didn't convict as an argument to support them not convicting is the definition of circular reasoning.
Is it your honest opinion that the jurors sat down with grpah paper, checked to make sure they understood the laws and then did thr math to arrive at the final conclusion?
I'm sad that he left the scene without a bullet in his brain and I hope the events he 100% brought upon himself follow him for the rest of his life and send him to the brink of despair and beyond. :)
You know slavery was legal here in amarrica. Was it wrong? If in a narrow interpretation of the law the court said it was cool it has no moral or ethical authority to so do so
He is a fascist and murdered openly. This is absolutely a “which side are you on” situation. In a just world, he wouldn’t be on this earth. You and any other fascist apologist can go follow your leader
Intent: The presumption of his intent as "acting belligerent" is an assumption. Kyle's stated intent was to protect property and provide medical aid. It's vital to separate one's interpretation of his actions from the actual intent.
Was I imagining him, just like a day or two before the incident, being beat up by a bunch of black kids for assaulting a woman? It sure looked like him on that video, and now he's a Fox News darling. I sure wonder what his intentions were if his stated concern was "protecting property".
Law Self-Defense: The trial's core issue was whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The jury found him not guilty on all counts, implying that, legally speaking, his actions were in line with self-defense statutes in Wisconsin.
That's not what a jury is or does, moron. They are under no legal obligation to uphold the law and merely rule as they personally see being right or vote with the majority to get out of jury duty quickly.
That's not what a jury is or does, moron. They are under no legal obligation to uphold the law and merely rule as they personally see being right or vote with the majority to get out of jury duty quickly.
You're right. Civil and criminal trials operate under different standards of proof. In criminal trials, the burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' which is a high bar to meet. Civil trials typically require 'a preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it's more likely than not that one side's viewpoint is correct. The O.J. Simpson case is a prime example, as he was found not guilty in his criminal trial but later found liable in a civil trial. It's essential to recognize these distinctions when discussing legal outcomes.
Absolutely, you've provided a accurate description of the differing standards of proof in civil and criminal trials. The O.J. Simpson case indeed illustrates how someone can be acquitted in a criminal trial due to the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, yet still be found liable in a civil trial where the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is applied. These distinctions are crucial for understanding legal outcomes and the burden of proof in various legal contexts.
Removed by mod
He traveled to start shit. He didnt work, live, or have family at a car lot.
His intent was to start shit. "Protecting" an empty car lot is the most hamfisted shitlib handwaving. Muh Private Property!
Legally speaking, nobody gives a shit nerd.
Once again, nobody gives a fuck about the banality of gun laws.
He acted like a dipshit cracker, theres your nuance
Kyle, and everyone who thinks he's cool, should throw a clot. That should be specific enough.
Removed by mod
Hell yeah, drown me in banality baby. Tell me about his deep meaningful connection to secondhand autosales.
Protecting private property, hell yeah, jerk me harder locke. When i grab guns to head to a counterprotest, its because i care so much about classical conceptions of property rights.
I could go on a tangent about bourgeois "Legal frameworks", but its much easier to say "Death to America" and move on.
America delenda est
I dont respect you, or your opinions.
We can do both & the only thing worth constructing here is a pit.
So you think broken windows are more important than the lives of black people. You're a bad person and I hope you get to read that before you get banned.
Protecting private property justifies ANY violence, sweety
and those people should be fucking drowned
Drowning is fine and good but I still prefer the pit. Compromise solution, we add some water to the nazi pit - a permanent dunk tank if you willl
🌊🌊🌊
But what if the water provides too much cushioning when they hit the bottom?
deleted by creator
I'm more of a light them on fire kinda guy.
I've got a bridge they can protect.
They can protect it best standing right between the supports... yes, right there.
lmao, did ChatGPT write this shit?
Fr did, y'all getting got
deleted by creator
It's hilarious when people act like legality is somehow the real world or just in any sense.
Reminds me of an adviser to Trump who suggested drone bombing refugees before they reached the US because they wouldn't be protected by the constitution at that point.
property is just stuff you fuckhead. blowing away lives for things is always wrong. what the fuck is wrong with you.
Hurry up and nut already, you're jerking yourself off so hard here you're going to pass out.
This is you conceding and agreeing with me. Thanks for playing, nerd. I win
People can disagree with some of Kyle's decisions while still believing he acted in self-defense during the confrontations. It's crucial to separate those two aspects. Discussions like these help us understand different perspectives, and I appreciate the exchange. Let's continue discussing the nuances without making it a game of wins and losses.
You said he did nothing wrong and now you are trying to apply nuance after getting blown the fuck out. I win again
here's your "nuance." It was the police's fault more than anyone. the police deputized a bunch of vigilante reactionaries to "defend private property" (i.e. capital) from working class protesters by shooting them on sight. One of these vigilantes was a 17 year old who wasn't so much as carded by the police for the assault rifle he was open carrying. He then proceeded to do what he came to do, which was deliberately get in an altercation and shoot people, while making sure to "offer medical aid" to the people he was walking towards with a drawn assault rifle over his microphone so he could look like a nice guy while doing it. He then proceeded to "surrender to police" by raising his hands and walking towards a patrol car. The police drove right past him and didn't so much as investigate what he had done until much later because they approved of what he did. He lucked out and got a Fox News show trial where he could cry crocodile tears and pretend to be haunted while the nazi judge pat him on the back and kissed his boo boos. Now insufferable people defend this modern day friekorps child soldier online so they can feel like they were heckin nuanced.
There is no nuance. You either stand against fascism or you are one of them.
inserting nuance when there is none does not make you smart, and the more you think it does the more gullible you are
deleted by creator
Absolutely, it's important to approach discussions about cases like Kyle Rittenhouse's with an open mind and a focus on understanding different viewpoints. Separating personal opinions about his decisions from the legal question of self-defense allows for a more nuanced and productive conversation. Let's continue exploring these complexities without trying to assign winners or losers.
(This is chatgpt I’m just playing the dumb game they are)
deleted by creator
Whelp time to pack it up everybody, the jury didn't convict so that proves he did nothing wrong
Thanks for your input. I understand that not everyone agrees with the jury's decision. My point was not to say that the verdict inherently proves moral rightness, but rather that legally, according to the standards of the trial and the statutes in Wisconsin, his actions were deemed self-defense. We can discuss the moral implications separately, but from a legal standpoint, the verdict was clear.
That's completely inane. It's literally just circular logic. You're arguing that the jury's decision proves that he was legally innocent, and that that proves the jury made the right call. By that logic, had the jury found him guilty, under the exact same circumstances, that would prove that he violated the law and that they made the right call. It's literally just licking the boot of the legal system, your argument rests on the assumption that innocent people are never wrongfully convicted and guilty people never found innocent, which is blatantly false.
I understand your perspective. My intention wasn't to argue that the justice system is infallible. Indeed, history has shown that both wrongful convictions and acquittals can happen. What I meant to highlight was that, given the evidence presented during the trial and the way the law is structured in Wisconsin, the jury arrived at that particular verdict. It's crucial to differentiate between presenting a legal outcome and endorsing the inherent perfection of the system.
Oh, I just realized I'm arguing with an AI.
Removed by mod
Not a man (and neither is the bot you're feeding our replies into)
Obviously we already know that the jury didn't convict. That's one of the main things we're criticizing. Pointing out that they didn't convict as an argument to support them not convicting is the definition of circular reasoning.
Find a smarter bot.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Is it your honest opinion that the jurors sat down with grpah paper, checked to make sure they understood the laws and then did thr math to arrive at the final conclusion?
deleted by creator
Also, chatbots are horrible at 'the law'. They still don't know how to judge and rank legal citations properly and likely never will.
There's different standards of proof for a civil trial. OJ was "not guilty" as well.
I'm sad that he left the scene without a bullet in his brain and I hope the events he 100% brought upon himself follow him for the rest of his life and send him to the brink of despair and beyond. :)
lol as soon as I saw the numbered list my eyes almost involuntarily flicked upward to see what instance you were from.
You may not be aware, but this comm (/c/chapotraphouse) actually has a rule against this type of comment
I got hit by friendly fire :/
fuck off with this fascist apologia
you are a fucking nerd
Fuck off fascist apologist
hahahahaha
You know slavery was legal here in amarrica. Was it wrong? If in a narrow interpretation of the law the court said it was cool it has no moral or ethical authority to so do so
He is a fascist and murdered openly. This is absolutely a “which side are you on” situation. In a just world, he wouldn’t be on this earth. You and any other fascist apologist can go follow your leader
Was I imagining him, just like a day or two before the incident, being beat up by a bunch of black kids for assaulting a woman? It sure looked like him on that video, and now he's a Fox News darling. I sure wonder what his intentions were if his stated concern was "protecting property".
That's not what a jury is or does, moron. They are under no legal obligation to uphold the law and merely rule as they personally see being right or vote with the majority to get out of jury duty quickly.
That’s right.
deleted by creator
You're right. Civil and criminal trials operate under different standards of proof. In criminal trials, the burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' which is a high bar to meet. Civil trials typically require 'a preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it's more likely than not that one side's viewpoint is correct. The O.J. Simpson case is a prime example, as he was found not guilty in his criminal trial but later found liable in a civil trial. It's essential to recognize these distinctions when discussing legal outcomes.
Absolutely, you've provided a accurate description of the differing standards of proof in civil and criminal trials. The O.J. Simpson case indeed illustrates how someone can be acquitted in a criminal trial due to the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, yet still be found liable in a civil trial where the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is applied. These distinctions are crucial for understanding legal outcomes and the burden of proof in various legal contexts.