TallSilhouette said:
KLAMarine said:

Someone share this with protesters

While they're at it, compare Covid to killings by protesters, considering how much of a bigger deal is being made about destroyed property than hundreds of thousands of deaths.

"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.



Around the Network

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')



sundin13 said:
coolbeans said:

What are you talking about? The status of each party 'in the moment' is fundamentally crucial in determining fault.  You don't just get to arbitrarily determine intent when video evidence contradicts your preconceived notions.  He was literally running TOWARDS authorities and away from those who were physically and/or verbally threatening his well-being & life.  I have yet to see any video evidence that supports this half-effort narrative of him like you're painting, unless your perspective of open-carry is terribly skewed.  Your confidence in that final sentence is only going to sting more when several of these charges are dropped (EDIT: or found not guilty if pros. locks these in all the way to court).

This is so monumentally skewed I'm genuinely unsure you've done anything but watch whatever John Oliver vid has covered this.  For someone who's done the smarmy "do u know law?" comment, I'm genuinely curious what you know about open-carry in WI.  Because unless you have video evidence of him actually waving it like some kind of loon before being chased by Rosenbaum, using that kind of language for someone who open-carried & held it like you normally do is just sperging out over the sight of a big gun.  Even if you stick him with breaking various laws beforehand Rittenhouse does not forfeit his right to self-defense, especially since he committed to de-escalating this situation both times.  So, you can't even wax poetic about how Stand Your Ground laws have poisoned our thinking and yada yada.  

I'll break it down for you as to why: the unedited footage was thrust on me and I pursued that versus relying on third-party filters with pre-fabricated responses.  Try it.

Let me pose you this hypothetical:

You are in a public space. You hear a gunshot and see someone with a gun running away from someone who had just been shot in the head. You think that this is an active shooting scenario, and the context clues lead you to assume that their is reasonable danger to yourself and others in the vicinity. As such, you attempt to neutralize the threat of this individual.

Do they then have the right to murder you?

If so, I believe that the self-defense laws are fundamentally broken. A key to self-defense law is not only that you must reasonably believe that an individual will do you harm, but that this harm is "unlawful". This is why provocation clauses exist. In circumstances like this, it is logical to assume that the harm that is being done to a shooter fleeing the scene of a crime through a crowd is in itself an act of self-defense. I saw nothing in the video after that initial shooting which leads me to believe that any of the victims did anything that fell outside of the bounds of self-defense. Similarly, I believe that a reasonable individual would see fleeing from the scene of a shooting with a gun as being a situation in which individuals would feel the need to lawfully intervene. As such, I do not consider it reasonable to murder someone who was reasonably acting out their legal right to self-defense. 

That is also ignoring the fact that an individual may only use lethal force in situations where there is a reasonably belief of again, not simply harm, but death or great bodily harm. I do not believe that this belief is reasonable in this situation. It is simply not a reasonable belief that someone running at, or attempting to disarm a shooter will kill you or do great bodily harm without additional input which then grants them the legal right to utilize a higher level of force in self-defense.

I believed that the extent of Rittenhouse's stupidity was so great that while he may have been acting out of the fear he sincerely held, he was not acting as a reasonable individual in this instance and as such, he loses his right to self-defense in all shootings following the initial shooting. 

I'm currently not going to entertain this hypothetical for a few reasons:

1.)  I'm utterly unconvinced some of the people who've commented on this have actually accumulated enough data on this event alone.  Adding another constructed scenario may have us arguing on two different sets of principles, muddying the waters even more.  I'll do some simple analogies but they're able to be more contained than what this could turn into.

2.)  The critical nuances found in Kyle's case that you've stripped out is enough to make what you're driving at dis-analogous.

3.)  Ending it by begging the question puts me off from bothering.

So I'm going to jump to this. I'm honestly not following by what you mean by "unlawful" within this context, especially since there's no evidence that Rosenbaum was even making a citizen's arrest in this case.  The only thing I've audibly heard from him--ironically--is the challenge "shoot me!"  So, already you're establishing an ivory-tower standard in both circumstances whereby the mob gets to divine Kyle's deadly intent, despite actions to the contrary, and Kyle has no standing in believing any of these individuals' deadly intent, despite actions in the affirmative.  That is unfair, especially in respect to the 2nd shooting.  

But in regards to the instigating actions by Rosenbaum, the standard is pretty simple: if you're brandishing a firearm and your assailant continues a crazed pursuit regardless, you're within reason to expect lethal intent.  And eyewitness testimony that's claimed he was going for Kyle's gun (around 5:00) intensifies the legitimate fear he's probably dead if Rosenbaum wins that battle.  This is further compounded by hearing another gun go off nearby, moments before the 1st shot against Rosenbaum was taken.  If you're one of these people who say "muh plastic bag" then congrats: you now have tangible proof to present in court that you're mentally unfit to serve on a jury.  

Now, the events preceding Rosenbaum's demise should demonstrate him (EDIT: Kyle) being in the right.  After the sole instigating threat is downed, Kyle has the gun back down, goes back over to see R, let someone administer first aid, and call someone on the phone.  From there, he's heading down the road towards the police.  Although I can't verify this (YET), I caught wind that skater boy's GF was livestreaming this and he audibly says "I'm going to the cops."  I'm going to say this in no uncertain terms: any reasonable actor ought to determine this as de-escalation.  The single instigator who charged Kyle gets downed, Kyle makes no further attempts to kill anyone in the mob like some kind of madman, and it can be assumed he's now turning himself into the police by running towards them.  

It's pretty simple to see the mob re-escalates this.  You can audibly hear some people yelling "get that dude!" and "beat his ass!" despite him literally running towards authorities.  No one in this mob gets to establish self-defense when Rittenhouse has consistently followed in the duty to retreat.

Runa216 said:

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')

If you want to give no effort in ascertaining the truth or making a cogent argument: just admit it and be gone then.  Crying about me like some pusillanimous bore just makes you look pathetic.

Last edited by coolbeans - on 04 September 2020

October 2020 Articles:

https://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/6186/Kingdoms-of-Amalur-Re-Reckoning/ (Kingdoms of Amalur: Re-Reckoning Review - 5.5/10)

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445807/leisure-suit-larry-wet-dreams-dont-dry-xone/ (Leisure Suit Larry: Wet Dreams Don't Dry Review - 4/10)

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445831/the-console-framerate-revolution/ (Article - The Console Framerate Revolution)

Runa216 said:
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.



sundin13 said:
KiigelHeart said:

But it's a bit problematic to judge Rittenhouse's actions based on how this other guy may have seen the situation. Had this other guy injured or killed Rittenhouse because he thought he's protecting himself and others, then this would be something to consider. Rittenhouse's right to use deadly force to protect himself comes from his perception of the situation.

To clarify, Rittenhouse's right to use deadly force to protect himself comes from a reasonable person's perception of the situation.

No matter how sincerely Rittenhouse believed that he was in danger, it doesn't really matter. The question is "would a reasonable person see it that way". As previously stated, I believe that a reasonable person would see an individual fleeing from shooting someone in the head would be considered a risk and disarming that individual would not be considered unlawful. As such, Rittenhouse would not have the legal right to use self-defense in that situation (unless the situation took a turn which it did not take).

I believe it is incredibly important to protect the right of people to act in self-defense and in defense of others, so we cannot allow individuals to infringe on that right such as Rittenhouse, who assaulted and killed people who were reasonably exercising that right. He should have understood that fleeing the scene of a homicide through a crowd with a gun was in and of itself an act of provocation and by failing to understand that, he put himself and everybody around him in danger. As previously stated, the extent of his stupidity was so great that he surrendered his right to self-defense. 

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?



Around the Network
coolbeans said:

So I'm going to jump to this. I'm honestly not following by what you mean by "unlawful" within this context, especially since there's no evidence that Rosenbaum was even making a citizen's arrest in this case.  The only thing I've audibly heard from him--ironically--is the challenge "shoot me!"  So, already you're establishing an ivory-tower standard in both circumstances whereby the mob gets to divine Kyle's deadly intent, despite actions to the contrary, and Kyle has no standing in believing any of these individuals' deadly intent, despite actions in the affirmative.  That is unfair, especially in respect to the 2nd shooting. 

From there, he's heading down the road towards the police.  Although I can't verify this (YET), I caught wind that skater boy's GF was livestreaming this and he audibly says "I'm going to the cops."  I'm going to say this in no uncertain terms: any reasonable actor ought to determine this as de-escalation.  The single instigator who charged Kyle gets downed, Kyle makes no further attempts to kill anyone in the mob like some kind of madman, and it can be assumed he's now turning himself into the police by running towards them.  

It's pretty simple to see the mob re-escalates this.  You can audibly hear some people yelling "get that dude!" and "beat his ass!" despite him literally running towards authorities.  No one in this mob gets to establish self-defense when Rittenhouse has consistently followed in the duty to retreat.

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.

Last edited by sundin13 - on 04 September 2020

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



KiigelHeart said:

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?

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. 



coolbeans said:

Runa216 said:

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')

If you want to give no effort in ascertaining the truth or making a cogent argument: just admit it and be gone then.  Crying about me like some pusillanimous bore just makes you look pathetic.

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 think the thing that bothers me the most about this Rittenhouse stuff is how people are viewing a 17 year old having to kill two people in self defense as being heroic.

Even if you come to the conclusion that he was acting in self defense and he did nothing wrong, how in the hell do you view that situation as heroic instead of tragic?

This is precisely why people are protesting. Because so many of our lives (black lives in particular) are considered worthless. So many have a lack of empathy for anyone we deem to be beneath us. It's apparently so easy to justify someone's death.

"He was walking away"
"He didn't comply with the officer"
"He was being rude"
"He committed a crime 20 years ago."
"He had detention in 5th grade".

It would be nice if for one instance, that instead of justifying a shooting or calling the shooter a hero, if we stopped and asked ourselves what more could have been done to avoid a situation like this.

It would be nice if the same people, who just a few months ago attacked Greta Thunberg for being a child getting involved in a "politically divisive topic", would stop making a hero out of a child who decided to get involved in a "politically divisive topic" with a gun.