Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Themius]

Do not concern yourself with things that do no concern you. Let the judge decide.



The antifascist are the reason why Hitler gained power. Now antifa handed Trump his victory on a silver platter. Antifa’s only accomplishment is shooting themselves in the foot.

Are you arguing that anti fascism is bad and anti fascist are to clame for fascism?

[Machismo]

Do not concern yourself with things that do no concern you. Let the judge decide.



The antifascist are the reason why Hitler gained power. Now antifa handed Trump his victory on a silver platter. Antifa’s only accomplishment is shooting themselves in the foot.

Yep, just another dodge on your part. How many times is that?

Jesus, the national socialist from Germany is blaming Antifa for Hitler and his fucking Holocaust.

"We're racist, because you don't like racists!!!"

[Themius]

Sure frame it that way. you are losing credibility by the hour.

But we have videos....of protesters without weapons being arrested for standing around while white racist terror groups march with guns and aren't being detained for being out past curfew. Does curfew only apply to people fighting for civil rights?

[JohnBrown1917]

Do not concern yourself with things that do no concern you. Let the judge decide.

I'm asking you which law lets civilians excute sex offenders on the street. Judges do not make laws.

The antifascist are the reason why Hitler gained power. Now antifa handed Trump his victory on a silver platter. Antifa’s only accomplishment is shooting themselves in the foot.

Hitler gained power because the conservatives and liberal parties voted to give him that power and did nothing to stop him, only anti-fascists did.


Care to try again? Are you also going to shit on the other anti-fascists in europe who formed resistence groups against the nazis?

- - - Updated - - -

That’s why they got qualified immunity! Because by jolly we need to protect terrorist cops

Nazi Germany was inspired by the jim crow era American government and now in turn the US justice system and militias are inspirted by Nazi Germany/brown shirts.


Time is a circle.

[Themius]

I'm asking you which law lets civilians excute sex offenders on the street. Judges do not make laws.



Hitler gained power because the conservatives and liberal parties voted to give him that power and did nothing to stop him, only anti-fascists did.


Care to try again? Are you also going to shit on the other anti-fascists in europe who formed resistence groups against the nazis?

- - - Updated - - -



Nazi Germany was inspired by the jim crow era American government and now in turn the US justice system and militias are inspirted by Nazi Germany/brown shirts.


Time is a circle.

I would also want to point out that nazi Germany won 37% of the vote and their opponents didn't coalesce together to stop it. It's people who don't vote, or vote libertarian or green in this upcoming election.

On that, Germany also sent people to America to learn more about Jim Crow and were truly impressed. It really has come full circle.

Imagine the black people fighting nazi Germany over laws inspired by America, just to return to America and still be under him crow for two more decades. And then virtually for... huh... actually it hasn't ended has it?

[JohnBrown1917]

I would also want to point out that nazi Germany won 37% of the vote and their opponents didn't coalesce together to stop it. It's people who don't vote, or vote libertarian or green in this upcoming election.

On that, Germany also sent people to America to learn more about Jim Crow and were truly impressed. It really has come full circle.

Imagine the black people fighting nazi Germany over laws inspired by America, just to return to America and still be under him crow for two more decades. And then virtually for... huh... actually it hasn't ended has it?

Coming together was not the problem, because Germany had a parliament system. They just need 34% of the seats to be held by those standing against nazis. But all the liberal and conservative parties gave Hitler absolute power because they though they could controll him. Although they only got 67% of the seats by arresting all the communist party members.

[Endus]

Ah yes, like you are eliminating the fact that he was running away from Rosenbaum ? Who is eliminating the context again ?

And before you say anything, poorly handling his gun =/= poiting his gun at people unless clearly stated like that.

I've never ignored that.

I've pointed out, repeatedly, that there is no possible argument where Rosenbaum's actions could be legitimately construed as presenting a reasonable threat of imminent death or great bodily harm to Rittenhouse.

So Rittenhouse's use of lethal force is not justifiable, in those circumstances, even if we assume that Rosenbaum had no possible reason to assault Rittenhouse.

I'm not ignoring that context. That context does not support Rittenhouse's actions, in any way whatsoever. That context has been evaluated, and found to be insufficient, as such an explanation.

Because "angry man running towards you" is not a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

Even if Rosenbaum was committing what he intended to be a violent assault, that still doesn't justify Rittenhouse's use of lethal force. And that's a really big fuckin' leap to make, which I don't think the facts actually warrant.

[Zython]

The point is that it implies a certainty that you know what's right and you have to convince everyone else of it. Not have a discussion. Nobody likes having discussions with people who are certain they are right and are not willing to listen to other viewpoints. That's why this page is an ultra liberal echo chamber. You guys have managed to drive everyone else away.

I can assure you, if I have ever come to that conclusion, it is because the right told me this was the case. The right said I’m a bad person for having empathy and morality (“woke”, “SJW”, “virtue-signaling”). They said that I must provide evidence to my claims (because I can), while they don’t have to (because they can’t). They said that they don’t have to explain their worldview, while I do (again, because they can’t). They even go so far as to attempt to censor me, rather than fail to refute my arguments.

Given all of this, what conclusion SHOULD I draw?

- - - Updated - - -

Do not concern yourself with things that do no concern you. Let the judge decide.



The antifascist are the reason why Hitler gained power. Now antifa handed Trump his victory on a silver platter. Antifa’s only accomplishment is shooting themselves in the foot.

“The Jews were responsible for the Holocaust” is..:a take.

[Inuyaki]

The antifascist are the reason why Hitler gained power.

wtf are you talking about?
Hitler gained power because of nationalist idiots who believed his lies and propaganda.

As a German I am offended by you whitewashing Nazism and Hitler and will report this post.

[Specialka]

I've never ignored that.

I've pointed out, repeatedly, that there is no possible argument where Rosenbaum's actions could be legitimately construed as presenting a reasonable threat of imminent death or great bodily harm to Rittenhouse.

So Rittenhouse's use of lethal force is not justifiable, in those circumstances, even if we assume that Rosenbaum had no possible reason to assault Rittenhouse.

I'm not ignoring that context. That context does not support Rittenhouse's actions, in any way whatsoever. That context has been evaluated, and found to be insufficient, as such an explanation.

Because "angry man running towards you" is not a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

Even if Rosenbaum was committing what he intended to be a violent assault, that still doesn't justify Rittenhouse's use of lethal force. And that's a really big fuckin' leap to make, which I don't think the facts actually warrant.

If I charge at you, shouting at you, how can you be so sure I won't heavily bodyharm you ? How can you be sure that I will stop before hurting you ?

[Endus]

If I charge at you, shouting at you, how can you be so sure I won't heavily bodyharm you ? How can you be sure that I will stop before hurting you ?

You're moving goalposts dishonestly.

Wisconsin law requires a reasonable expectation of imminent death or great bodily harm. "Great bodily harm" is a specific term under the law, and refers exclusively to serious disfigurement/impairment, not just "being hurt". And you can't just immediately leap to that assumption whenever you have any assault.

The facts are that Rosenbaum never laid a finger on Rittenhouse. There is no indication he meant Rittenhouse any serious harm. If you want to make that case, the onus is on you. And before you pull some "presumption of innocence" garbage; self-defense is an affirmative defense. If we're going to stick to court rules, the onus is on the defense to establish the facts that support that conclusion. If you cannot or will not, that defense fails. Not that court rules really apply outside of the courts.

You need a whole hell of a lot more than "angry shouty man running towards me" to justify shooting them in the head. Being a panicky cowardly idiot who's too heavily armed for their own good isn't part of a defense; that just describes the motive and character of a violent murderer.

[DKjaigen]

wtf are you talking about?
Hitler gained power because of nationalist idiots who believed his lies and propaganda.

As a German I am offended by you whitewashing Nazism and Hitler and will report this post.

report with this then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blutmai

The antfascist communist party greatly aided hitlers rise to power by being utter idiots-

[Elegiac]

report with this then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blutmai

The antfascist communist party greatly aided hitlers rise to power by being utter idiots-

You do realise the wikipedia article you posted points out the Blutmai was the result of militarized and reactionary law enforcement agitating protests into riots, right?

Can y'all fuckin read the shit you post and make sure it doesn't entirely contradict your argument. Lol.

[Specialka]

You're moving goalposts dishonestly.

Wisconsin law requires a reasonable expectation of imminent death or great bodily harm. "Great bodily harm" is a specific term under the law, and refers exclusively to serious disfigurement/impairment, not just "being hurt". And you can't just immediately leap to that assumption whenever you have any assault.

The facts are that Rosenbaum never laid a finger on Rittenhouse. There is no indication he meant Rittenhouse any serious harm. If you want to make that case, the onus is on you. And before you pull some "presumption of innocence" garbage; self-defense is an affirmative defense. If we're going to stick to court rules, the onus is on the defense to establish the facts that support that conclusion. If you cannot or will not, that defense fails. Not that court rules really apply outside of the courts.

You need a whole hell of a lot more than "angry shouty man running towards me" to justify shooting them in the head. Being a panicky cowardly idiot who's too heavily armed for their own good isn't part of a defense; that just describes the motive and character of a violent murderer.

You are the one being dishonest here. A fist in your face can be a risk of imminent death or great bodily harm if hit repeatedly. There is no indication that Rosenbaum would have harm him but there is none the other way around where he would not have, and I wonder who would want to check that and wait for the fist to connect to his own face to act.

[Endus]

You are the one being dishonest here. A fist in your face can be a risk of imminent death or great bodily harm if hit repeatedly. There is no indication that Rosenbaum would have harm him but there is none the other way around where he would not have, and I wonder who would want to check that and wait for the fist to connect to his own face to act.

I'm not being dishonest, at all.

What you're describing there is completely unreasonable. By your argument, any time someone gets angry at you and you're worried they might punch you in the face, you're legally entitled to shoot them dead.

That's literally insane. That's how a violent murderer thinks, not a reasonable person.

And, ironically enough, the phrase in bold is all it takes; you just admitted, there, that Rittenhouse had no grounds to reasonably believe he faced such a threat, and thus, Rittenhouse's actions were deliberate, intentional murder.

[Elegiac]

You are the one being dishonest here. A fist in your face can be a risk of imminent death or great bodily harm if hit repeatedly. There is no indication that Rosenbaum would have harm him but there is none the other way around where he would not have, and I wonder who would want to check that and wait for the fist to connect to his own face to act.

"There is no indication that Rosenbaum would have harmed him but there's no evidence that he wouldn't have so it is a moot point" is an argument from ignorance, sweetheart.

[downnola]

You are the one being dishonest here. A fist in your face can be a risk of imminent death or great bodily harm if hit repeatedly. There is no indication that Rosenbaum would have harm him

We can stop right there and just agree that what comes after means jack shit in the court of law. Rosenbaum isn't on the stand for murder and required to prove his intents and motives, Rittenhouse is.

[Inuyaki]

You do realise the wikipedia article you posted points out the Blutmai was the result of militarized and reactionary law enforcement agitating protests into riots, right?

Can y'all fuckin read the shit you post and make sure it doesn't entirely contradict your argument. Lol.

What do you expect at this point?

[Elegiac]

We can stop right there and just agree that what comes after means jack shit in the court of law. Rosenbaum isn't on the stand for murder and required to prove his intents and motives, Rittenhouse is.

Let's just call their position out for what it is: "We can't know someone's motives for sure unless they're someone I disagree with politically" - i.e. an argument of guilt by association.

If you identify as BLM or a supporter of them, according to Specialka, you are guilty until proven otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you expect at this point?

I dunno mate, I just figured people with such a need to inflate their ego by cheering on the oppression of others wouldn't repeatedly put themselves in a position to be publicly humiliated for acting like a fascist simp. Ya got me there. :shrugs:

[DKjaigen]

But we have videos....of protesters without weapons being arrested for standing around while white racist terror groups march with guns and aren't being detained for being out past curfew. Does curfew only apply to people fighting for civil rights?

It has something to with the fact that BLM and antifa have caused billions in damage. The police have their priorities straight.

And are you for civil rights? i never seen a civil right movement that fucked over the average amercian worker harder then blm or antifa.

- - - Updated - - -

And, ironically enough, the phrase in bold is all it takes; you just admitted, there, that Rittenhouse had no grounds to reasonably believe he faced such a threat, and thus, Rittenhouse's actions were deliberate, intentional murder.

The courts will likely disagree.