Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[Thermal]

That's... not a defense. That's the opposite of a defense. That's an invalidation of a defense, which contradicts what you just said. Which suggests that you aren't so much hypocritical as just incoherent in how you write.

God, you're bad at this.

I didn't say it was a defence, ya numbskull. It dampens the claim of victim hood if the provocateur tries to claim self defense. You ain't defending yourself against assault against your will if you invited the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ assault (Kyle's claim for the need to protect himself from Rosenbaum).

On the flip, provocation by someone else could be used to justify your throwing down as a response to the adversay's first metaphorical assault, but that's a different issue (Rosenbaum's claim re Kyle).

Instead of condescending douchebaggery, could you give thinking about what's being said a whirl? Moves things forward.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't say it was a defence, ya numbskull.

You said, "One of my peeves is provocation having little weight as a defense". That, in plain language, indicates that you want provocation to have more weight than it does, to be more of a defense than it is.

If that's not what you meant, you should not have written that.

Instead of condescending douchebaggery, could you give thinking about what's being said a whirl? Moves things forward.

I did. Don't blame me because you can't express yourself coherently.

 

[Ziggurat]

You ever notice that you're constantly telling everyone else it's them? Think, maybe, it might be you?

Everyone? No, just a couple people. They have similar issues with other posters.

 

[AmyStrange]

I didn't say it was a defence, ya numbskull. It dampens the claim of victim hood if the provocateur tries to claim self defense. You ain't defending yourself against assault against your will if you invited the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ assault (Kyle's claim for the need to protect himself from Rosenbaum).

On the flip, provocation by someone else could be used to justify your throwing down as a response to the adversay's first metaphorical assault, but that's a different issue (Rosenbaum's claim re Kyle).

Instead of condescending douchebaggery, could you give thinking about what's being said a whirl? Moves things forward.

Good luck with that.

In Zig's fantasy world, everyone is speaking incoherently or is bad at communicating.

That's their go to defense when someone proves them wrong.

Along with arguing semantics, that's another big give away that proves they're losing the arguement.

 

[Thermal]

You said, "One of my peeves is provocation having little weight as a defense". That, in plain language, indicates that you want provocation to have more weight than it does, to be more of a defense than it is.

...and conversely, lessens a claim of self defense put forth by the provocateur. Which is what we are talking about re Kyle. Your legal defense and your physical defense are not the same thing.

Kyle claimed he was the victim of an assault. My argument is that Rosenbaum should have the same argument against Rittenhouse. That's why it's a peeve to have provocation having little weight; it numbs responsibility on the provocateur. You're a conservative, right? Does that personal responsibility angle not strike a chord?

If that's not what you meant, you should not have written that.

I did. Don't blame me because you can't express yourself coherently

Ya this game where you pretend you just can't understand anyone and blame everyone else for that gets really old, really fast. "You are confised/incoherent" only flies a few times before it becomes clear that it's a rhetorical tact.

 

[stanfr]

Brave sir Robbin.

My favorite color is yellow (truly)--what's yours?

 

[stanfr]

I personally believe Rittenhouse did fear for his life, and Rosenbaum was also a half-wit for chasing and grabbing the gun.

I agree about Rosenbaum (and he was a pedophile too, and a victim of childhood sexual abuse) which is why we should RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!
I am not sure about Rittenhouse's fear--I do suspect he was a snotty nosed coward, and without the gun he most certainly would not have even been there, and he probably had fear especially after he killed Rosenbaum. I do think he probably felt a bit empowered by carrying his AR, one reason I wish we had better details of what provoked the initial confrontation.

 

[stanfr]

They were guilty. And good riddance to pedophiles, the world is a better place without Rosenbaum.

You really don't see the irony of this statement after you chastise others for 'emotions' getting in the way of their logical judgment?

 

[stanfr]

You are correct that an unreasonable fear doesn't justify force, but I never suggested otherwise. You are objecting to a position I never took. And the reasonableness standard applied to your hypothetical very much depends on factors like whether it's a 4'10" nun or the Mountain high on meth, factors which you did not include. Factors which aren't erased by the presence of a banana.

Plus you are wrong: reasonableness is a subjective standard. An objective standard would be whether or not the threat was real, regardless of how it appears. We don't use that standard. Do you understand why?

Now you are misrepresenting what I said. I never said "reasonable fear' was objective. It is a mix of subjectivity and objectivity; the defender must 'subjectively' fear, but the standard is one that an 'reasonable' person (not the defendant!) would have in that circumstance.

Which made it suicidal of Rosenbaum to chase him. But pedophiles don't tend to have good impulse control, especially around minors. Do you really think Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle because Rosenbaum had a justifiable claim to self defense?

Wow, you really show your nonobjective cards there ROFL. I am not sure what Rosenbaum was thinking--we don't have a clear picture of what prompted the initial confrontation. It does seem pretty clear (to me) that at one point in the 'chase'--Kyle turned around and faced Rosenbaum rather than retreating. Early speculation was that the shot fired out immediately prior to Kyle killing Rosenbaum was misinterpreted by Kyle as coming from Rosenbaum. But we don't really know what happened.

 

[jeremyp]

Why would you think that? Do you think Kyle picked a fight? He didn't.

You can't argue without straw. You don't know how to.

Yes he did. He went to a riot with a gun.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes he did. He went to a riot with a gun.

That isn't picking a fight. I know you want it to be, but it isn't.

 

[wareyin]

That isn't picking a fight. I know you want it to be, but it isn't.

Nonsense. Illegally obtaining a firearm, then seeking out and going to a place you believe you will be able to use that firearm against other people, then actually using that firearm multiple times to kill people very clearly demonstrates an intent to fight.

 

[AmyStrange]

Nonsense. Illegally obtaining a firearm, then seeking out and going to a place you believe you will be able to use that firearm against other people, then actually using that firearm multiple times to kill people very clearly demonstrates an intent to fight.

...and kill unarmed folks.

But according to the late (and not so great) Kirk, that's a good thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nonsense. Illegally obtaining a firearm, then seeking out and going to a place you believe you will be able to use that firearm against other people, then actually using that firearm multiple times to kill people very clearly demonstrates an intent to fight.

And now we're back to the give a mouse a cookie arguments. No. That's not how it works. Did you know that there were a LOT of armed people in the area that night? Most of them never fired a shot. Likewise, most of the protesters never attacked Kyle (or anyone else with a gun), and were not fired upon.

 

[plague311]

That isn't picking a fight. I know you want it to be, but it isn't.

Then what other reason was there for him to be there? He didn't live there, he wasn't invited there, and he wasn't legally supposed to be there.

 

[plague311]

And now we're back to the give a mouse a cookie arguments. No. That's not how it works. Did you know that there were a LOT of armed people in the area that night? Most of them never fired a shot. Likewise, most of the protesters never attacked Kyle (or anyone else with a gun), and were not fired upon.

Nice own goal there. You're literally making the point that Kyle was the problem. No one else seemed to have an issue, it was just this one kid looking for a fight, found one and killed people. I know you're obtuse but you're taking it to a new level here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nice own goal there. You're literally making the point that Kyle was the problem. No one else seemed to have an issue, it was just this one kid looking for a fight, found one and killed people. I know you're obtuse but you're taking it to a new level here.

The prior basis offered for concluding he was looking for a fight was that he showed up with a gun. That's false, as you have conceded. Now you're claiming he must have been looking for a fight because he found one. But that's just post-hoc rationalization. You really think that's a winning argument? It isn't.

 

[Thermal]

I honestly don't think he was looking for a fight. I think he was looking to swagger around and be a hero and nobody would mess with him if he was carrying a rifle around in ready position. As he discovered, that didn't scare people off, even when he started killing them in his pants-pissing panic firing.

He illegally went to an out-of-state protest, knowing it defied police orders. Then he tried to play cop, and went 'on patrol' (not guarding some husk of a car dealership as he alternatively claimed). But he wasn't a cop.

 

[wareyin]

The prior basis offered for concluding he was looking for a fight was that he showed up with a gun. That's false, as you have conceded. Now you're claiming he must have been looking for a fight because he found one. But that's just post-hoc rationalization. You really think that's a winning argument? It isn't.

You keep skipping over a lot of illegal activities that demonstrated intent when you are concluding that he had no intent to use the gun that he illegally obtained and illegally violated curfew orders to bring the illegally obtained weapon to.

Is this because it is fatal to your stupid "give a mouse a cookie" argument?

 

[AmyStrange]

I honestly don't think he was looking for a fight. I think he was looking to swagger around and be a hero and nobody would mess with him if he was carrying a rifle around in ready position. As he discovered, that didn't scare people off, even when he started killing them in his pants-pissing panic firing.

He illegally went to an out-of-state protest, knowing it defied police orders. Then he tried to play cop, and went 'on patrol' (not guarding some husk of a car dealership as he alternatively claimed). But he wasn't a cop.

Yup, he was a half-wit coward, and anyone who defends him for having a gun there is a half-wit coward too.