Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[canpakes]

If the defense makes this claim, it weakens the argument that the other 6 shots fired were done in self defense. If they claimed that one was accidental and the others were intentional, rather than saying they were all intentional and in self defense, they would have ruined the case.

Somebody got a Bingo!

[canpakes]

Democrats or Liberals (not socialists or anarchists) really need to get off this thing they have with going to bat for pieces of crap. Sun Tzu said Napoleon said* something to the effect that when your enemy is making a mistake, let them. We’re going to lose the middle to the GOP the more we side with pieces of crap doing piece of crap things.
…
The more we play reindeer games with basic stuff like the right to self-defense the more rational people will move away from us.

I shed exactly zero tears and give exactly zero "F"s (as you’d probably put it) for any of Rittenhouse’s victims. But I also don’t have pity for Rittenhouse. As stated earlier, Rittenhouse inserted himself into the midst of jackassery, and then commited his own handful of acts of supreme dumbfuckery. But we ended up with an opportunity to take a long, hard look at a few larger issues, which won’t happen given that too many folks want to see this event strictly through a partisan political lens or as some kind of joke to be acted out online with a large dose of propaganda and BS.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[doubtingthomas]

The bottom line is Kyle Rittenhouse ‘got away’ with defending himself from four pieces of crap.

Huber was a piece of crap for trying to disarm a kid? Anyways, I agree with the jury because the prosecution did not prove Rittenhouse is guilty. However, Rittenhouse is very likely to lose in a civil court. The standards are going to change in a civil court.

Democrats and Liberals need to get off this far Left thing if they want to be taken seriously moving forward. The more we play reindeer games with basic stuff like the right to self-defense the more rational people will move away from us.

Most Americans want stricter gun laws according to the polls, and I doubt most Americans know who Rittenhouse is. The Democrats are in trouble in the midterms, but not because of gun control or Rittenhouse.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Dr. Shades]

Just so I'm clear, are you trying to say that a dumb teenager walking down a crowded street pointing an assault rifle at people is the same as a woman walking into a dark alley?

He wasn't pointing an assault rifle at anyone. He was fleeing his pursuers. He didn't actually point his rifle at anyone who WASN'T physically attacking him. Didn't you watch the videos?

I can't F'ing believe you think this analogous.

A woman wearing a mini skirt is putting herself in a rape situation, is she? I mean, she's just asking to be assaulted... is that it?

I'm at a loss for words.

Did Shades really say this? That's unbelievable. Wow. I didn't see it in the last couple of pages but if so, Shades you have some serious thinking to do.

No, I absolutely didn't say this. I'm saying the exact opposite; and I'm surprised Some Schmo misinterpreted it so badly.

I'm saying that if a woman wears a miniskirt, it does NOT matter the situation she subsequently puts herself into. She is NOT asking to be raped, and if someone tries to rape her, it is the RAPIST'S fault, NOT hers. . . in spite of the fact that she's wearing a miniskirt in a situation she "has no business being in" (according to everyone OTHER THAN myself).

Here's my point: Kyle Rittenhouse/our hypothetical female put himself/herself into a situation he/she had no business being in, while holding a firearm/wearing a miniskirt. In spite of all that, any would-be rioter/rapist who tries to kill/rape him/her is FULLY accountable for his own actions, IN SPITE OF the situation in which Rittenhouse/our hypothetical female put himself/herself into and IN SPITE OF the rifle/miniskirt that he/she is carrying/wearing. If someone attempts to kill/rape him/her, then he/she has the right to defend him/herself, REGARDLESS of the situation he/she put him/herself into.

Get it now?

[doubtingthomas]

I'm surprised Some Schmo misinterpreted it so badly.

Why are you surprised? Some Schmo misinterprets everything all the time.

[Dr. Shades]

Excellent work. So when Dr. Shades asked you what you would do in a situation, your answer was that you wouldn't be in that situation. Excellent work.

Apparently Shades was able to read the answer.

Your answer was essentially, "I would've done anything other than what Rittenhouse did." That's pretty much a non-answer.

[doubtingthomas]

Rittenhouse was a coward for killing Rosenbaum and Huber. Rosenbaum was a weak homeless man who was discharged from the hospital. Rittenhouse knew Rosenbaum didn't have a weapon. Huber was a very skinny dude capable of hurting no one. Rittenhouse was a complete idiot who obviously overreacted. Rittenhouse didn't have a good reason for fear for him life, he is a big guy.