"killings by protesters"

Where can I get this figure? I'd love to put this in the graph, should be interesting! I predict it will be smaller than the 679 figure.

I just...I have no more words. I want to say things, I want to point out flaws and explain things as more than a hard-numbers sort of discussion, but I Get the impression it doesn't matter how much logic and reason are used, a certain subset of people on this forum - and the world at large - want nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry, but posting a graph comparing COVID-19 deaths to police brutality deaths in an effort to diminish the importance or significance of the police brutality deaths is an absolutely abhorrent thing to do. There are so many things wrong with that mindset that I Genuinely don't know where to start. Like, obviously the ratio shouldn't matter. Both are disgusting and ideally neither should happen, but consider the following:

One of them is a disease, something we're (theoretically) trying to slow the spread of, and one is as a result of actions done by people. These two things are not even remotely comparable in intent, preventability, and effect.

Neither of them are acceptable numbers. COVID-19 numbers, especially in the US, are astronomically high, high enough that we have to completely change the way we live our lives. We're living in historic times for this disease...Yet the police brutality shit is pretty consistent.

Do you want me to compare the COVID deaths to heart disease or cancer or auto accidents or war? Again, you can't do that because they are NOT The same thing and NONE of them even REMOTELY come close to justifying that grossly high police brutality number.

There's a lot more I could argue but I'm screaming at the void. If you genuinely believe you're right to devalue the importance of these issues just because there are technically things that kill more people, then you're a soulless, compassion-free, amoral person. You lack any sense of empathy or you tacitly endorse the police violence. IT doesn't matter what your justification is.

Only a handful of people get burned by coffee each year, yet McDonalds and other coffee shops have to put warnings on the labels. You need a license to drive. you need a license to have a dog. you need to pass tests and prove your aptitude to do many jobs. IT's NOT too much to ask that police are put under the same scrutiny and we put equal or more effort into keeping people safe one way or another. You don't get to dismiss something just becuase it's not literally the worst thing out there. If you do, yu're either devoid of compassion or secretly okay with it. neither are morally okay.

And yes, I read both KLXVer and Coolbeans' posts in response to mine. Neither of them are well-reasoned enough to respond to and others have already done a good job countering their terrible, unsubstantiated claims and whataboutism and senseless deflection and various other logical fallacies. (Mostly it just boils down to 'no, you're wrong but I'm not going to offer equally or more compelling counter points to explain myself so I'm just gonna act smug about it')

"I'm sorry, but posting a graph comparing COVID-19 deaths to police brutality deaths in an effort to diminish the importance or significance of the police brutality deaths is an absolutely abhorrent thing to do."

>I blame myself for being vague earlier: protests achieve the opposite of social distancing. People coalesce to protest rather than distance, perfect for the spread of communicable disease.

And this disease, if CDC numbers are to be believed, is a far more efficient, cold, relentless, and emotionless killing machine than even your most crooked of police.

Yes, important correction, thanks.

It absolutely does matter how Rittenhouse had a reason to believe he was in danger. And I'm almost certain jury will see this as a reasonable person's perception. He was the one who was attacked and then chased by a mob that eventually kicked him in the head, hit his head with a skateboard, tried to take his weapon and one of them was armed. Anyone in that situation would think they're at a risk of being badly beaten or maybe even killed..

It's quite obvious you don't look at the situation objectively. A reasonable person who witnesses a homicide would call the police and try to warn others. Rittenhouse running away while telling them he's going to cops doesn't look like an imminent threat to people around him. He's not shooting around like a mass murdered would be doing, not even pointing the gun at anyone. A reasonable person wouldn't escalate the situation further by jumping on a man with assault rifle, by doing that they're literally putting themselves and others in greater danger. Only an idiot would do it unless absolutely necessary.

If Rittenhouse did remain at the scene who knows how ugly it would've got. 

Lastly, I'd appreciate if you can provide an example of someone surrendering their right to self-defence in similar manner as you describe. Because I find it hard to believe that's how it works.

Imagine being attacked and you lawfuly (jury is still out in this case) defend yourself and flee,  then you should be expected to submit to possibly being killed or injured, because the people chasing you might be trying to lawfully attack you.. does this sound right to you?

1) "I'm honestly not following by what you mean by "unlawful" within this context": Something that is "unlawful" is something that is expressly forbidden by the law. 

2) "especially since there's no evidence that Rosenbaum was even making a citizen's arrest in this case": Whether or not an individual was making a citizen's arrest holds absolutely no bearing on that question, or any other question at hand. I'm also not sure why you are talking about Rosenbaum, as I believe I made it abundantly clear that I am speaking about the circumstances as Rittenhouse flees from that shooting. I am going to ignore large portions of your post because I am not speaking about the Rosenbaum shooting so I don't know why you are bringing that up. 

3) "That is unfair, especially in respect to the 2nd shooting.": What specifically about the second shooting are you referring to?

4) "despite him literally running towards authorities.": The authorities were still pretty far away and didn't arrive for several more minutes. More pressing is that he was running away from a homicide. Also, the fact that authorities were some distance away does not remove the danger of this individual and instantaneously remove the right to self-defense of everybody around. 

5) "No one in this mob gets to establish self-defense when Rittenhouse has consistently followed in the duty to retreat.": That isn't really how this works, for a few reasons. One is that Wisconsin doesn't have a duty to retreat. Two is that the duty to retreat exists upon the individual acting in self defense. You cannot argue that an individual loses their right to self defense because the person that they are defending themselves against moved away from them, especially when that person has a firearm. Everyone in that crowd has a right to defend themselves from the guy who just shot someone.

6) "he audibly says "I'm going to the cops."": You'll need to back up that claim, and prove that all of the individuals who he had shot were aware of that claim in order for it to have any bearing here.

Again, by my interpretation of events, the individuals in the crowd were acting reasonably to attempt to disarm Rittenhouse as he had just shot someone and did the very guilty looking thing of then sprinting away from the scene. Rittenhouse on the other hand, did not have the right to self-defense, as his actions were inherently an act of provocation (and also were incredibly stupid and dangerous), and the other individuals involved were not acting unlawfully or unreasonably in their pursuit of self-defense.

Pursuit of self-defence, quite a concept. As in actively trying to get yourself in a situation where you have to defend yourself?

You shouldn't flee the scene of a self-defense shooting unless absolutely necessary. As far as I am aware, after the initial shooting, there was no one posing any imminent danger to Rittenhouse. He was given no reason to flee. If you were to flee with your firearm in your hands, you are making every single person around you reasonably afraid for their life. That does not mean that you can never reclaim a right to self defense, but it would require a lot more than what happened in this case. Further, in my opinion, there is no reason to assume that individuals chasing you after you committed a homicide would kill you or do great bodily harm unless you take action to further put them in danger. You cannot make the assumption that someone is going to kill you without really good evidence and them attempting to disarm you does not suffice when you just shot someone. 

It's cute that you think that disregarding my many posts in this thread where I wrote detailed breakdowns and gave hard data as well as pushed for people to have compassion interspersed with their logic gives you the right to be smug and arrogant about how much 'better' you are. Congratulations, you can use a thesaurus. Good for you. 

You're me. Ten years ago. Don't worry, you'll grow out of it. Eventually you'll realize that your long-winded posts have almost zero substance and they're just words for the sake of making you feel good inside. Like I said, you're me, ten years ago. Hopefully you'll mature a bit and learn to care about others enough to not be this discompassionate. Hopefully you'll learn to share substance when you realize that using fancy words like pusillanimous doesn't do much to endear people to you, it just makes you look smug and arrogant. 

You're not some clever genius sticking it to plebs, you're a smug hipster. 

But since I know this will just get flagged for being an argument about you as a person, this will be my last response to you unless you say something that has value. I don't respond to you directly because your posts are a barrage of ill-researched, subjective opinions that have no basis in reality and are completely devoid of any sense of compassion or decency. You dismiss reasonable evidence by everyone in this thread, then cry foul when people don't play by your arbitrary rules and are probably just smart enough to have been told you are intelligent but not smart enough to understand how much you have yet to learn. It's people like you who make America the terrible nation that it is today, by dedicating yourself to the needs of yourself instead of the needs of the many. The kind who didn't personally shoot a black man in the back and thus don't think it's your job to do something about it. 

Ugh, some people are so exhausting. this right here? This is why it's so frustrating dealing with some people. 

I swear I've seen this exact post repeated on this thread a few times...but it's still relevant and it's still poignant. 

No, just no. Not waiting around for situation to escalate further and wanting to report yourself to authorities after what happen is what a reasonable person would do. Imagine if he was again surrounded by angry mob.

Not a single reasonable person would submit and give their firearm to mob chasing them. Again, you just don't want to look at this objectively. Rittenhouse wasn't posing an immediate danger while fleeing, if he was then a reasonable person wouldn't be following him, asking him questions or encouraging others to kick his ass. 

Even if we'd say a reasonable person would assault an armed individual fleeing a police scene (which I don't agree with anyway), there's absolutely no way for Rittenhouse to know if he's being pursued by a reasonable person. 

Who is considering Rittenhouse's actions as heroic? The whole situation is a tragedy. What could have done to avoid it? Maybe let the police do their job of arresting riotets and disperse crowds if there's unrest among protesters. Politicians could condemn riots and not let them go on for months. Media could stop polarizing everything to breed hate. But the way things are going, it'll only get worse.

And your examples of justify someone's death are misleading to say the least. Try "violently resisted arrest while armed" or "had an open warrant for sexually assaulting the mother of his children and then causing disturbance in her home" and stuff like that, no?

Your whole post comes off as a giant strawman.