Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

[theprestige]

In general, that has been obvious to anyone with half a brain since forever.

Didn't Brian DePalma make a whole movie starring Sean Connery, elucidating this very principle?

 

[Thermal]

Stay out of the street. Simples.

And now jaywalking is a capital offence, with execution carried out by random motorists.

You can't make this **** up.

 

[Ziggurat]

And now jaywalking is a capital offence, with execution carried out by random motorists.

You can't make this **** up.

You can make this up, and you did make this up. That isn't what any of the laws regarding motorists and protesters do.

 

[Thermal]

You can make this up, and you did make this up. That isn't what any of the laws regarding motorists and protesters do.

We were not talking about the law. We were talking about webfusion's somewhat sicko take on what he thinks it means. You know, when he says he can just drive along and "not worry about" anyone in the street.

The Help Desk is always open.

 

[Ziggurat]

We were not talking about the law. We were talking about webfusion's somewhat sicko take on what he thinks it means. You know, when he says he can just drive along and "not worry about" anyone in the street.

Worrying or not worrying is a subjective state of mind which the law never makes any reference to. The law never requires you to worry. And nothing he said indicates that he thinks you can actually violate the law with impunity. So your claim about jaywalking, capital offenses, and random executions is a straw man.

 

[webfusion]

We were not talking about the law. We were talking about webfusion's somewhat sicko take on what he thinks it means. You know, when he says he can just drive along and "not worry about" anyone in the street.

The proposed law (870.015) in Florida is what we are talking about. Specifically:
"blocking traffic becomes a third-degree felony, while offering immunity to drivers who unintentionally kill or injure protesters blocking traffic."

If I am reading this correctly, which I may not be, it assumes a large mob of people, who are not there legally at all and intentionally interfering with thousands of motorists using the public thoroughfare (an interstate highway, for instance) and surround vehicles they have impeded, and start using sticks, rocks, poles, and other violent tactics, and I decide to evade, in fear for my safety, and unintentionally strike people in my path, I am immune from prosecution.

(The Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office in May 2020 declined to press charges and suggested that the impeding protesters were the real instigators and the driver was the victim.)
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/22/9898...o-drivers-who-unintentionally-harm-protesters

 

[theprestige]

Put it that way, and it seems like the law is an obvious and reasonable extension of self-defense principles already enshrined in law.

 

[Thermal]

The proposed law (870.015) in Florida is what we are talking about. Specifically:
"blocking traffic becomes a third-degree felony, while offering immunity to drivers who unintentionally kill or injure protesters blocking traffic."

If I am reading this correctly, which I may not be, it assumes a large mob of people, who are not there legally at all and intentionally interfering with thousands of motorists using the public thoroughfare (an interstate highway, for instance) and surround vehicles they have impeded, and start using sticks, rocks, poles, and other violent tactics, and I decide to evade, in fear for my safety, and unintentionally strike people in my path, I am immune from prosecution.

(The Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office in May 2020 declined to press charges and suggested that the impeding protesters were the real instigators and the driver was the victim.)
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/22/9898...o-drivers-who-unintentionally-harm-protesters

Y'all need to reflect on the meaning of this. What it means is that you do still have to worry (or to make Ziggaraut happy, 'be concerned about') running mother ******* over.

 

[Thermal]

Put it that way, and it seems like the law is an obvious and reasonable extension of self-defense principles already enshrined in law.

Like when you unintentionally defend yourself?

 

[webfusion]

Y'all need to reflect on the meaning of this. What it means is that you do still have to worry (or to make Ziggaraut happy, 'be concerned about') running mother ******* over.

I'll honk my horn first.
Beep Beep.

 

[Ziggurat]

Y'all need to reflect on the meaning of this. What it means is that you do still have to worry (or to make Ziggaraut happy, 'be concerned about') running mother ******* over.

Is your objection only to what Webfusion said, or do you also object to the law itself?

 

[Thermal]

Is your objection only to what Webfusion said, or do you also object to the law itself?

As I said, it's webfusion's take I an criticizing. The law itself I think has some merit, as long as it is not abused. A motorist is put in a position of limited control over hitting someone if people are literally clamoring over their vehicle. A motorist should be free to not be restrained by protesters, and it does fall into a form of self-defense , as theprestige said (despite my earlier comment), to be able to free themselves from that restraint with limited culpability for damages to others.

But it seems a slippery law that is ripe for vehicular homicidal abuse.

 

[Ziggurat]

As I said, it's webfusion's take I an criticizing.

I suspect he’s mostly just winding you up, and you’re playing along.

But it seems a slippery law that is ripe for vehicular homicidal abuse.

I doubt it. We have seen in this case that someone with a legitimate, clear cut right to self defense will still get prosecuted for it if the people who got hurt or killed are politically favored. Someone who doesn’t have a legitimate and clear cut right to self defense is never going to get away unscathed.

 

[Thermal]

I suspect he’s mostly just winding you up, and you’re playing along.

Maybe a little. But that has been his subtext for dozens of pages: "God, I'd love to be allowed to take out the trash with my rifle on some city street". With Kyle's acquittal, it's noticeably more confident.

I doubt it. We have seen in this case that someone with a legitimate, clear cut right to self defense will still get prosecuted for it if the people who got hurt or killed are politically favored. Someone who doesn’t have a legitimate and clear cut right to self defense is never going to get away unscathed.

But we will inevitably have ambiguity. "Did he really have to floor it to get out of there, killing those 8 bystanders and the hot-dog cart?" "Were 38 people really blocking his way?" "Did he really have to back up over the same protesters 12 times while making a K-turn to escape?"

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe a little. But that has been his subtext for dozens of pages: "God, I'd love to be allowed to take out the trash with my rifle on some city street". With Kyle's acquittal, it's noticeably more confident.

Given the numerous statements in this thread essentially hoping that someone kills Kyle, what exactly do you expect?

Again, in a better universe this trial never would have happened because Gaige wouldn't have hesitated, instead blowing Kyle's brains out when he had the opportunity. Then maybe he could have been on the stand crying crocodile tears.

The way Kyle is going on the fashy media circuit, someone may correct this error after the fact.

This forum in general is getting less civil. And it’s far from a one sided affair.

 

[Thermal]

Given the numerous statements in this thread essentially hoping that someone kills Kyle, what exactly do you expect?



This forum in general is getting less civil. And it’s far from a one sided affair.

Truth. Dying and killing are nothing to cheer about. It's always a somber affair, even when it has to be done.

 

[webfusion]

Truth. Dying and killing are nothing to cheer about. It's always a somber affair, even when it has to be done.

I am confused -- are you saying that killing Kyle Rittenhouse is something that "has to be done" ?

Please clarify.

TIA.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, um... apparently this happened.

https://twitter.com/KenoshaCtyEye/status/1473031178118742018

 

[Thermal]

I am confused -- are you saying that killing Kyle Rittenhouse is something that "has to be done" ?

Please clarify.

TIA.

Sorry, missed this one.

Answer: No, I am not, nor have I said anything remotely like that.

Glad to clear up whatever was bouncing around in your head, there.

 

[carlitos]

So, um... apparently this happened.

https://twitter.com/KenoshaCtyEye/status/1473031178118742018

for the twitter-impaired:

In a very bizarre statement, Kenosha Assistant District Attorney James Kraus tells Wisconsin Lawyer Ethics Investigator that he and T. Clair Binger are NOT homosexual lovers. Keep in mind neither I nor anybody I have seen have accused them of being such. (T. Clair/LGBT Shirt)

What the hell.