1. #15381
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    There is a tax loophole that means all money needs to go to me. That’s legitimate until challenged in court? Are you sure?
    Which specific tax code, and explain why. Then I'll comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Because there is no legitimate reason to claim it’s a loophole.
    No one needs to argue a law is bad or doesn't apply until it's enforced. So again. How many people have been charged and convicted under this changed law?

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    No lawyer would disagree with what I am saying... no lawyer would claim that asserting a loophole without any jurisdiction, is legitimate, until challenged. It’s absurd...
    Except they already have. I'm not doing your searching for you. This has already been brought up in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    That’s great... is he using the “loophole”?
    He's said on interviews he's going to challenge on it being unconstitutional. Until the trial, who knows.

  2. #15382
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    64,365
    I'm going to break down a fundamentally dishonest misframing of both another user's post, and the general discourse and body of facts we have available to us, here. Point by point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    You only consider it dishonest because you've already found him guilty, and are dishonestly representing the facts to begin with. Of course I don't agree with your farcical version of the truth.
    You're conflating personal opinions of guilt or innocence with a court decision on the matter, a framing which you and others consistently use to try and malign anyone and everyone who forms an opinion that disagrees with your preferred outcome, just for having that differing opinion.

    By the same argument you're trying to apply here, you can't reasonably consider that Rittenhouse is innocent. Does that make sense to you? Of course it doesn't. Because you're inconsistent and making up non-rules that don't actually exist.

    And before you bring up the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim, that only applies at the broadest levels in the court system itself; it's why you're entitled to a trial before your conviction and sentencing. The alternative is that guilt is presumed, you're summarily convicted and sentenced upon arrest, and you have to file a lawsuit to be released, and in that suit's proceedings, will have to prove your innocence of the crime in question. Nobody is arguing for that. And outside of that, guilt (or at least, potential guilt) is constantly assumed, even by the legal system; it's why you can be arrested, why you can be held in jail until trial, why bail can be set, and so forth. Let alone broader society, for whom the maxim doesn't even apply.

    Hasn't been found guilty yet, and even if he is, doesn't change anything else, as already reported by multiple links in this thread.
    Pointing out that an accused spree killer hasn't been convicted yet is not an argument that has any meaning to anything being discussed. Nobody was saying he'd been convicted in a court of law. Attacking Bodakane's position this way is, thus, a fundamentally dishonest straw man attack.

    Crossing state lines is not illegal. You would need to prove he crossed state lines expressly to commit a crime. This is 100% your assumption at this point.
    That a thing is not itself illegal does not mean it is not relevant to the case. Buying rope, knives, and several tubs of lye at the local hardware store is perfectly legal. It's also going to be entered into evidence against you when you're accused of kidnapping, torturing, and killing women, and then disposing of the bodies by dissolving them in lye.

    Crossing state lines to commit a crime is a demonstration of intent, for instance. And no; it doesn't have to be exclusively to commit a crime; if that serial stab-murderer I described crossed state lines to grab a victim, it doesn't matter if he stopped for lunch at that burger joint he loves first.

    Wearing gloves is a crime now, apparently. I see people all the time wearing latex gloves. Near daily at this point. I mean, this guy is wearing gloves. So is this guy. Are you saying they anyone wearing gloves should be arrested?
    Again, this is something that speaks to intent and premeditation. Nobody was arguing that it was itself a crime. Again, this is a straw man attack.

    You seriously love throwing out the "harm's way" part of the quote while dishonestly leaving out the part before where the reason he's putting himself in harm's way is to help someone who is hurt. That's fucking incredibly dishonest. You're cherry picking one part of the statement to remove all context.
    The context doesn't matter. He still expresses intent, and understanding that he was putting himself into a dangerous position. That takes away the possibility that he didn't know what he was getting into. That's the point of bringing that up; it eliminates the possibility that he was trapped in a situation that suddenly escalated into unexpected violence. He expected that violence, and armed himself accordingly, in preparation. Legally, that's premeditation.

    If he'd armed himself to ensure he could protect others if need be and didn't actually shoot anyone at the protest, nobody would have cared that he was armed. This all speaks to the murders. Which is context you keep trying to exclude, making this argument here just pure projection on your part.

    Should I lump all the protesters into being guilty of vandalism and property destruction, if we're going to play the guilt by association card?
    False equivalence between BLM protestors and white nationalist militias. BLM protests are almost completely non-violent in nature.

    Let me now when he's guilty.
    If it's unfair for Bodakane to form an opinion that he's guilty before the court case is settled, why is it fair for you to form an opinion that he isn't?

    You're not playing fair.

    If he gets off on self-defense, will you admit the others attacking him were in the wrong?
    1> A self defense plea succeeding does not, in any way, suggest that those attacking him were in the wrong. Not sure where you got that impression. A self defense plea requires a reasonable person to believe their life was in imminent danger or that of great bodily harm. It's entirely possible for both sides of a conflict to have such a fear, and thus have reasonable grounds for self defense against each other. This isn't a binary, in the first place, and it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the law to think that it would be.

    2> This also presumes that one believes that the courts are fair an impartial, and the issue underlying the BLM protests in general is that the courts observably are not impartial nor fair, particularly when it comes to police abuses of force and power.

  3. #15383
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    You only consider it dishonest because you've already found him guilty, and are dishonestly representing the facts to begin with. Of course I don't agree with your farcical version of the truth.
    See Endus' response above, it was more eloquent than mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    Hasn't been found guilty yet, and even if he is, doesn't change anything else, as already reported by multiple links in this thread.
    He is guilty of being illegally armed. There is literally no question about it, except, again, the bullshit your ilk is inventing. He wasn't;t hunting nor was he under direct supervision from a person 18 or older. That's it, full stop.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    Crossing state lines is not illegal. You would need to prove he crossed state lines expressly to commit a crime. This is 100% your assumption at this point.
    See Endus' response above, it was more eloquent than mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    Wearing gloves is a crime now, apparently. I see people all the time wearing latex gloves. Near daily at this point. I mean, this guy is wearing gloves. So is this guy. Are you saying they anyone wearing gloves should be arrested?
    See Endus' response above, it was more eloquent than mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    You seriously love throwing out the "harm's way" part of the quote while dishonestly leaving out the part before where the reason he's putting himself in harm's way is to help someone who is hurt. That's fucking incredibly dishonest. You're cherry picking one part of the statement to remove all context.
    See Endus' response above, it was more eloquent than mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    Should I lump all the protesters into being guilty of vandalism and property destruction, if we're going to play the guilt by association card?
    See Endus' response above, it was more eloquent than mine.


    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    Let me now when he's guilty. If he gets off on self-defense, will you admit the others attacking him were in the wrong?
    See Endus' response above, it was more eloquent than mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    I recommend a mirror.
    Cool, you just "I'm rubber you're glued" me.
    Last edited by Bodakane; 2020-09-14 at 06:24 PM.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  4. #15384
    Quote Originally Posted by I Push Buttons View Post
    I'm sorry, but where the fuck do you get any of that from this post:



    His argument is literally 'the police are killing minorities, the city/state won't protect them by holding police accountable, the federal government won't protect them by holding police accountable, so its appropriate and logical for them to shoot police in self-defense'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noxx79 View Post
    Bullshit. Nothing else to say really.

    Unless you want to defend extrajudicial executions. Like a good fascist.

    Show one post that is evidence for your cliams

    Otherwise go back to your hole.
    The post right above mine. Try again buddy.

  5. #15385
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    I'll gladly draw attention to what you said once again:
    Quote it a million more times and bold whatever you want. It doesn't matter. It doesn't in any way show what you think it does.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  6. #15386
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    I don't care what the court say. That's why there's been these fucking protests to begin with. I've seen all the evidence I need to see. White nationalist shit head came with other white nationalist shit heads to cause trouble and violence as has been their MO since these protests started and they caused trouble and violence. Case closed.
    It reminds me of the Trayvon Martin BS. Someone with a gun a picks a fight and then suddenly they get to claim self defense when things turn ugly.

  7. #15387
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilhen7 View Post
    It reminds me of the Trayvon Martin BS. Someone with a gun a picks a fight and then suddenly they get to claim self defense when things turn ugly.
    Its exactly that. The main difference is the law in Florida basically makes it that unless there's witnesses or video tape, the survivor is innocent.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  8. #15388
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    It doesn't matter.
    I disagree. I think it is important to highlight reasoning like yours to make sure people know exactly what kind of waters they are wading into. This kind of shit festers and propagates on the internet like the fucking plague when left unchecked, particularly now with Trump at helm giving a license to everyone to contort reality however it might suit their immediate interests best.

  9. #15389
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    To think that you could've had all the interaction with me you wanted. Tsk tsk. It looks like you chose to quote smiley faces at downnola instead. I see you
    What? Could you elaborate on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    I'm warning you that I will tap out of this soon because I hate flooding threads with BS, but I'll take on one more.
    That was posted 3 hours ago...
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  10. #15390
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    I disagree. I think it is important to highlight reasoning like yours to make sure people know exactly what kind of waters they are wading into. This kind of shit festers and propagates on the internet like the fucking plague when left unchecked, particularly now with Trump at helm giving a license to everyone to contort reality however it might suit their immediate interests best.
    If your argument is that I have to watch what I say because it maybe misconstrued by Trump and his cult, then I'll just point out that they can do that with literally anything and coddling them in fear is what got us to this point in the first place.

    If idiots are going to idiot, then they don't get a seat at the table when the adults are talking because the country is bad enough that we cannot spare the time it takes to talk down to them in a way their idiot brains will grasp. Fuck them they killed 200,000 Americans, cheered the imprisoning of innocent children and are happy cops kill black people with impunity.
    When I despair, I remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible.
    But in the end, they always fall. Always.- Mahatma Gandhi


  11. #15391
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    That was posted 3 hours ago...
    Indeed three hours ago and you still haven't found a way to engage me other than piggybacking other people's arguments.

    I see you

  12. #15392
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    Which specific tax code, and explain why. Then I'll comment.
    Why? Are you a tax lawyer or something? Why exactly is your assessment required?

    No one needs to argue a law is bad or doesn't apply until it's enforced. So again. How many people have been charged and convicted under this changed law?
    What? How is the law written in the first place? You are literally making shit up now...

    Except they already have. I'm not doing your searching for you. This has already been brought up in this thread.
    Why? Did his lawyer state his claim or not?

    He's said on interviews he's going to challenge on it being unconstitutional. Until the trial, who knows.
    Who knows? It looks like we know... That doesn’t sound like he is using your defense... you should call him...
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  13. #15393
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    Indeed three hours ago and you still haven't found a way to engage me other than piggybacking other people's arguments.

    I see you
    I honestly don’t understand what you are on about. It should be obvious, since I keep asking... /shrug

    Edit: wtf? I never claimed to be John Cena...
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  14. #15394
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    I honestly don’t understand what you are on about. It should be obvious, since I keep asking... /shrug

    Edit: wtf? I never claimed to be John Cena...
    Exactly .

  15. #15395
    The Insane draynay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    16,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    Exactly .
    Boy its a good thing you "hate flooding threads with BS" I'd hate to see things otherwise.
    /s

  16. #15396
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,956
    Quote Originally Posted by draynay View Post
    Boy its a good thing you "hate flooding threads with BS" I'd hate to see things otherwise.
    You are spoiling the surprise:

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    T2B... everything... explain everything from top to bottom... It’s for the good of social science... I have a suprise at the end.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  17. #15397
    Quote Originally Posted by draynay View Post
    Boy its a good thing you "hate flooding threads with BS" I'd hate to see things otherwise.
    Oh that isn't BS. I fully expected an interaction with that person to escalate into BS, hence that comment, but he was smart enough to avoid it.

    I will agree that the entire discussion with downola was BS though. I just couldn't help myself; that fruit was hanging too low. Apologies for that.

  18. #15398
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You're conflating personal opinions of guilt or innocence with a court decision on the matter, a framing which you and others consistently use to try and malign anyone and everyone who forms an opinion that disagrees with your preferred outcome, just for having that differing opinion.
    I'm being accused of being dishonest because my interpretation of events differs from theirs. I've said repeatedly the facts don't back up what has been said. So before you mount your high horse trying to say I'm maligning anyone who disagrees, I'm being maligned to begin with, for my opinion. It's quite telling that you're directing this at me though. not the person who initially misframed, who happens to agree with your interpretation of events.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    By the same argument you're trying to apply here, you can't reasonably consider that Rittenhouse is innocent. Does that make sense to you? Of course it doesn't. Because you're inconsistent and making up non-rules that don't actually exist.
    Then you apparently can't read very well:
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    As I said, for this specific case, based on the evidence released so far, I think it is more likely that a jury would find him not guilty. There are a lot of details we still don't know yet. It wouldn't completely surprise me if he was also found guilty. Regardless of which way it is found though, I still think they need to change open carry rules, and fix the ambiguous area in Wisconsin gun laws specifically.
    I have repeatedly said that based on the evidence released so far he will be found innocent. I've also said he's an idiot, and shouldn't have put himself there in the first place with a gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Pointing out that an accused spree killer hasn't been convicted yet is not an argument that has any meaning to anything being discussed. Nobody was saying he'd been convicted in a court of law. Attacking Bodakane's position this way is, thus, a fundamentally dishonest straw man attack.
    Under the law, whether or not Rittenhouse's possession of the rifle is legal or not has no bearing on weather or not he is entitled to self defense. This is not an opinion, this is fact. Much like how a convicted felon barred from posession guns can use a gun in self defense, and be found not guilty, but will still be found guilty on the posession.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That a thing is not itself illegal does not mean it is not relevant to the case. Buying rope, knives, and several tubs of lye at the local hardware store is perfectly legal. It's also going to be entered into evidence against you when you're accused of kidnapping, torturing, and killing women, and then disposing of the bodies by dissolving them in lye.
    If it isn't illegal, then why do you need to specifically state "crossing state lines"? Why does it matter that Rittenhouse crossed a state line to get somewhere, when other people traveled farther to reach the same place, but didn't cross a state line? It's not even one of the charges he is facing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Crossing state lines to commit a crime is a demonstration of intent, for instance. And no; it doesn't have to be exclusively to commit a crime; if that serial stab-murderer I described crossed state lines to grab a victim, it doesn't matter if he stopped for lunch at that burger joint he loves first.
    Which still requires the actual conviction of a crime. Rittenhouse was in Kenosha working that day. Unless that Shift was booked that morning or the night before, it's going to be hard to convince anyone that his intent when he crossed the border that morning it was to shoot 3 people, instead of go to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Again, this is something that speaks to intent and premeditation. Nobody was arguing that it was itself a crime. Again, this is a straw man attack.
    Why is it only intent for Rittenhouse, and for no one else?

    So if Rittenhouse wearing gloves is intent for him to commit a crime, Rosenbaum putting on a mask before engaging Rittenhouse would show the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The context doesn't matter. He still expresses intent, and understanding that he was putting himself into a dangerous position. That takes away the possibility that he didn't know what he was getting into. That's the point of bringing that up; it eliminates the possibility that he was trapped in a situation that suddenly escalated into unexpected violence. He expected that violence, and armed himself accordingly, in preparation. Legally, that's premeditation.

    If he'd armed himself to ensure he could protect others if need be and didn't actually shoot anyone at the protest, nobody would have cared that he was armed. This all speaks to the murders. Which is context you keep trying to exclude, making this argument here just pure projection on your part.
    The fuck it doesn't. The application of self defense doesn't matter if you were armed or not prior to the encounter. You're effectively arguing that any person in an open carry or concealed carry state who walks through any unsafe part of town is guilty of murder if the are attacked.

    I don't deny that he intended to bring protection if the situation arose. Having a gun does not make him guilty. How it was used is what does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    False equivalence between BLM protestors and white nationalist militias. BLM protests are almost completely non-violent in nature.
    Do you have a statistical representation of that? The majority of protesters and counter-protesters on any topic don't often engage in violence. It's the extremes on both sides.

    If the protesters were so non-violent, why did Rosenbaum chase down Rittenhouse? To give him a hug? Why did the "paramedic" say his biggest regret was not pulling his gun sooner and emptying his clip into Kyle? It doesn't matter what proportion of which group is violent. What matters are the people involved in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If it's unfair for Bodakane to form an opinion that he's guilty before the court case is settled, why is it fair for you to form an opinion that he isn't?

    You're not playing fair.
    He's entitled to his opinion. But if he's going to go on a paragraph long rant about how I'm being intellectually dishonest, and his only backup is his opinion, it's fucking hilarious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    1> A self defense plea succeeding does not, in any way, suggest that those attacking him were in the wrong. Not sure where you got that impression. A self defense plea requires a reasonable person to believe their life was in imminent danger or that of great bodily harm. It's entirely possible for both sides of a conflict to have such a fear, and thus have reasonable grounds for self defense against each other. This isn't a binary, in the first place, and it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the law to think that it would be.
    One of the pillars of a successful self defense is that you tried to get out of the situation. That you were left with no other choice. Rosenbaum actively pursued Rittenhouse, threw an object at him, and then upon reaching him, tried to take his gun (all part of the criminal complaint). Rosenbaum at no point has a claim to self defense. Well, he could claim it, but has no grounds for it. The only thing that will matter (as we've discussed before) is whether Rittenhouse's response was proportional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    2> This also presumes that one believes that the courts are fair an impartial, and the issue underlying the BLM protests in general is that the courts observably are not impartial nor fair, particularly when it comes to police abuses of force and power.
    And if you want to play this card, then a conviction of murder proves nothing either. So if court rulings mean nothing, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

  19. #15399
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    52,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    Oh that isn't BS. I fully expected an interaction with that person to escalate into BS, hence that comment, but he was smart enough to avoid it.

    I will agree that the entire discussion with downola was BS though. I just couldn't help myself; that fruit was hanging too low. Apologies for that.
    Still interested in hearing the whole point of all this. Could you start over or something?
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  20. #15400
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    He is guilty of being illegally armed. There is literally no question about it, except, again, the bullshit your ilk is inventing. He wasn't;t hunting nor was he under direct supervision from a person 18 or older. That's it, full stop.
    If only the law worked that way. Guilty before even going to trial. He's guilty in your opinion. Full stop. It has the same weight as me saying he's innocent.

    Which as said before doesn't negate the right to self-defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    Cool, you just "I'm rubber you're glued" me.
    It's hard to take what you're saying seriously.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •