Being a racist while having a soft skull

[jimbob]

My opinion: Either Pujols hit him deservedly, no punishment at all.

OR Pujols hit him without reasonable provocation, = manslaughter, = prison time.

Pedophilia had not a g-d thing to do with this case.

QFT

 

[plague311]

The phrase "deserved to be killed" gives me a profound sense of unease.

Probably because no one throughout this entire thread has said that the man "deserved to die", probably. That's what Warp12 says about Joseph Rosenbaum, etc.

There's a gigantic difference between thinking the man "deserved to be killed" and deciding not to feel too bad about it.

Like me, I feel more sorry for the kid that he has to be on house arrest for a few years than I do for the guy on the receiving end. I have never claimed to be a good person.

 

[Pterodactyl]

I don't have anything substantive to add, just want to mention that I have laughed out loud at least twice at the thread title.

 

[plague311]

Introspection that you had no interest exploring when it was a white kid who killed a pedo. You couldn't dance on that guy's grave hard enough. Now suddenly you're asking for some kind moral examination from which you conveniently exempt yourself.

And it's very telling that you keep sanitizing what this guy did by referring to it as his "criminal history". Pretty much every time you posted about Rosenbaum you made some kind of graphic reference to his pedophilia. You relished it and did it at every opportunity.

But in the case of this pedo, no graphic references to his pedophilia, let alone repeatedly. Just his "criminal history".

Why is it that you pull your punches for a pedo killed by a black kid?

Why does this pedo merit that respect from you?

I've noticed you didn't get an answer to this and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

 

[Warp12]

I've noticed you didn't get an answer to this and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Probably because it is a pathetic attempt to turn this debate into a racial one. And, of course, I have already mentioned that I don't support any pedo's, here or elsewhere. I am not one of those types who does so selectively. There is another thread where we can see that is clearly the case for some.

Still waiting for answers to my question, from those who are celebrating this guy's death.

But I understand the silence.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Well yeah, you can relish that karma indirectly took care of what the justice system couldn't. But that doesn't mean the hommes here has a blank slate to be the Hammer of God, just kind of hoping that whoever he kills had it coming for previous crimes unknown.

Society would probably be better off if service workers got to lay out one rude customer per day without consequence.

 

[plague311]

Probably because it is a pathetic attempt to turn this debate into a racial one. And, of course, I have already mentioned that I don't support any pedo's, here or elsewhere. I am not one of those types who does so selectively. There is another thread where we can see that is clearly the case for some.

Still waiting for answers to my question, from those who are celebrating this guy's death.

But I understand the silence.

Moving the goal posts? You said earlier that people here said, "he deserved to die". I don't recall anyone saying that, but words are hard. I get it.

I don't see anyone mourning this man's death, but why should they? Do you? Just like with Rosenbaum, the old man had obvious issues. He didn't deserve to die for those issues, but my issue wasn't with WHO Rittenhouse killed, it was that he went out of his way to put himself in a situation where killing someone was highly, highly likely and he dressed the part for it.

The man that killed this guy didn't. He was working at his job. He wasn't even the one that made the mistake that sent this guy off. The employee wasn't rolling in front of this guy with a gun just waiting for a chance to pull the trigger. The old man ****** around and found out. Rittenhouse got a ride to **** around and was praying for the chance to make someone find out.

 

[Warp12]

The old man ****** around and found out.

Ok, so his assault and ensuing death was justified because he called the guy a name. Got it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As I have stated already, I don't support pedos. This guy or any other. Some people are selective about the ones that they support or mourn for; I am not one of those people. I am still interested though, to hear from the vocal crowd here, why this guy deserved to die:

1) His criminal history

or

2) For calling someone a name

It's an important distinction. So far, nobody has clarified their position on this matter, other than Thermal.

Obviously 2. A guy who thinks racially abusing service workers is an acceptable response to a mild annoyance is someone I can robustly celebrate getting some teeth loosened. The fact that this guy died as a result of picking a fight he 100% wasn't ready to see through is even funnier.

It's a shame for our puncher because he almost certainly didn't believe he was using lethal force when dealing with this soft-skulled racist, but fortunately the system rightly treated this killing as the mostly justifiable accident it was.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again... didn't the system work here?

Dude committed a crime, was arrested, convicted, and will be charged and nobody seems to think that's some great injustice. What's to be fixed outside of vague mush mouth "Well it would be better if no crimes ever got committed ever" truisms to score points in a culture war only one side is fighting?

People getting angry when the systems works and trying to present as some sort of counter claim to an unrelated discussion about the system not working baffle me.

"bUT stOP tRying tO maKE iT RaciAL!" misses the point intentionally.

 

[Thermal]

Moving the goal posts? You said earlier that people here said, "he deserved to die". I don't recall anyone saying that, but words are hard. I get it.

I don't see anyone mourning this man's death, but why should they? Do you? Just like with Rosenbaum, the old man had obvious issues. He didn't deserve to die for those issues, but my issue wasn't with WHO Rittenhouse killed, it was that he went out of his way to put himself in a situation where killing someone was highly, highly likely and he dressed the part for it.

The man that killed this guy didn't. He was working at his job. He wasn't even the one that made the mistake that sent this guy off. The employee wasn't rolling in front of this guy with a gun just waiting for a chance to pull the trigger. The old man ****** around and found out. Rittenhouse got a ride to **** around and was praying for the chance to make someone find out.

While a good point, the counter argument might point out that Kyle at least theoretically was being attacked and was defending himself. Pujols here was the atracker, and initiated the one sided physical assault.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

While a good point, the counter argument might point out that Kyle at least theoretically was being attacked and was defending himself. Pujols here was the atracker, and initiated the one sided physical assault.

Sorta.

Pujols likely would have been legally justified in forcefully removing this unwanted trespasser from the premises, and using proportionate self-defense if our now deceased racist used force to resist. Pujols' lapse of judgement was skipping to the extremely gratifying punchout rather than walking through the intermediate steps first.

 

[Thermal]

Again... didn't the system work here?

Dude committed a crime, was arrested, convicted, and will be charged and nobody seems to think that's some great injustice. What's to be fixed outside of vague mush mouth "Well it would be better if no crimes ever got committed ever" truisms to score points in a culture war only one side is fighting?

People getting angry when the systems works and trying to present as some sort of counter claim to an unrelated discussion about the system not working baffle me.

"bUT stOP tRying tO maKE iT RaciAL!" misses the point intentionally.

Is the discussion here to judge the functional mechanics of the system, or discuss moral versus legal justifications of violence? I thought the latter.

 

[Warp12]

Obviously 2. A guy who thinks racially abusing service workers is an acceptable response to a mild annoyance is someone I can robustly celebrate getting some teeth loosened. The fact that this guy died as a result of picking a fight he 100% wasn't ready to see through is even funnier.

It's a shame for our puncher because he almost certainly didn't believe he was using lethal force when dealing with this soft-skulled racist, but fortunately the system rightly treated this killing as the mostly justifiable accident it was.

This is the face of conviction. It is admirable, even if mistaken.

I don't think name-calling warrants physical assault. This isn't the first time that "they used a racial slur" has been used to justify killing someone, unfortunately. And there seem to be enough supporters that it won't be the last.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is the face of conviction. It is admirable, even if mistaken.

I don't think name-calling warrants physical assault. This isn't the first time that "they used a racial slur" has been used to justify killing someone, unfortunately. And there seem to be enough supporters that it won't be the last.

Not with that attitude. Racists are going to have to get beat to death at a much higher rate to make any real ground.

 

[Thermal]

Sorta.

Pujols likely would have been legally justified in forcefully removing this unwanted trespasser from the premises, and using proportionate self-defense if our now deceased racist used force to resist. Pujols' lapse of judgement was skipping to the extremely gratifying punchout rather than walking through the intermediate steps first.

I'm not confident that as an employee, Pujols would have been jusified in using physical force against any non violent person in a place of public accommodation.

But bigger picture: I agree that extreme verbal provocation should be treated as a "first blow" that can be met with force. At least sometimes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Is the discussion here to judge the functional mechanics of the system, or discuss moral versus legal justifications of violence? I thought the latter.

99% of the discussion here is a thinly veiled "SEE DA BLACK GUY COMMITED A CRIME SO RACISM DOESN'T EXIST" nonsense when the point is, just like with Justin Smollet, is that when black people commit crimes they actually get punished for them without needing nationwide protests or outrage.

The guy committed a murder which is bad and the system responded which is good. Nobody is really arguing that point, but that isn't the point.

"Sure would be nice if that happened when the photo negative version of that same thing happens" is the point and everyone knows it.

But as always the racist apologist demand we look at the incident in a vacuum.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In not confident that as an employee, Pujols would have been jusified in using physical force against any non violent person in a place of public accommodation.

But bigger picture: I agree that extreme verbal provocation should be treated as a "first blow" that can be met with force. At least sometimes.

Pujols was management. He might have got fired after the fact because often these stores have policies of refusing to protect the dignity and safety of their workforce from abusive customers, but its hard to argue that he didn't have authority to eject someone screaming racial slurs from the establishment at that moment in time.

People get forcibly bounced from open-to-the-public businesses for far less.

 

[Thermal]

This is the face of conviction. It is admirable, even if mistaken.

I don't think name-calling warrants physical assault. This isn't the first time that "they used a racial slur" has been used to justify killing someone, unfortunately. And there seem to be enough supporters that it won't be the last.

Yeah, but there is a spectrum of name-calling. At one end, the eyelash fluttering used so often on these hallowed fora. At the other, something so hateful and insulting that to utter it is the opening volley of a fight.

 

[Warp12]

But bigger picture: I agree that extreme verbal provocation should be treated as a "first blow" that can be met with force. At least sometimes.

Supporting escalation can often turn out be a slippery slope. I've seen a lot of outrage around here, selectively, when such things happen. But here we are, with some feeling it is entirely OK, despite the result. How curious.