By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KiigelHeart said:

Oh one more question @Machiavellian

Just to be clear, are you critizizing/worried about your current laws of self-defence or the outcome of Ritterhouse trial? If it's the former then yeah, I can somewhat see where you're coming from but if it's the latter, I'm not sure what you wanted to happen. This guy to spend his life in prison even though there wasn't enough evidence to deem him act against the law, just because someone uninformed tool might think this'll be a loophole to kill people without consequences?

Actually, I am not that concerned about Ritterhouse in general at all.  If you really want to know my stance on the situation, is that there was a lot of poor judgement going on all around.  Chasing someone with a gun.  Grabbing the gun barrel, hitting and stomping on someone with a gun are all cases where Ritterhouse with a gun was put in a situation where he would definitely use it.  Was he wrong for shooting those people, no because when you have that adrenaline pumping in your body, and you have a means to fight you are going to use it.  Only people who ever been in that situation knows that feeling, the fight or flight and its as powerful a drug pumping in your veins as pure coke. Those people unfortunately put themselves in great risk and lost their lives and as tragic a situation as it was, it really was very poor judgement.

With that said, I believe Ritterhouse actions also set the stage for what happen.  When he was first confronted by the person he shot, he should have left the scene.  The reason why is because if someone says they are going to come and kill you, you have 2 options, leave the scene, alert the police to handle the situation or continue to go forward.  He choose to go forward because he trusted his gun.  He was not trusting his gun for defense, he was trusting it for offense.  Let them come, I will show them etc.  This mentality could have resulted in him getting killed and we would be complaining about the person who killed him whether they were in the right since he was openly caring his gun.  The gun gives the false sense of protection but only if everyone else is not armed.  Ritterhouse was not as cold of a killer as to the people who he could have run up on because he would have shot way sooner before they closed on him.  He got very luck this time.

Now some will say that is the wrong way to think that Ritterhouse was in the right to continue but those people only look at the event on the positive for Ritterhouse which is he is the killer.  Throughout my years, I just know that the opposite would be that a 17 year old kid is laying dead in the streets because he wanted to play hero.  Not for protecting his family or community like the GOP want to spin it but because he did not fully understand the consequences of his actions and the fact his life could have ended just as fast as the people he shot.

My larger concern is that we should have better laws on engagement if everyone has a right to carry.  There needs to be clear laws concerning each type of weapon how you can approach any scene and that its not your right to engage but seek Police help first before coming into contact with others.  Its already bad enough we have police whos only solution is to kill on sight but if we now encourage the public, well, this is only going to promote blood baths where everyone will feel that they need to be armed just to walk down the street and the simple contact with another armed person would be to shoot first.  Hell they do not even have to be armed these days, you can just say, I thought they had a gun which is what most do today already.



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/583024-jury-finds-defendants-guilty-on-most-counts-in-arbery-case

>All 3 men in Arbery killing found guilty of murder

If there were a way to reveal who clicked the Agree button on that post, I suspect the results would reveal there to be zero overlap between those of us who agree with the jury's decision in the Ahmoud Arbery case and the Kyle Rittenhouse supporters here, and that fact tells you what you need to know about the latter group's idea of justice, IMO.



Jaicee said:
the-pi-guy said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/583024-jury-finds-defendants-guilty-on-most-counts-in-arbery-case

>All 3 men in Arbery killing found guilty of murder

If there were a way to reveal who clicked the Agree button on that post, I suspect the results would reveal there to be zero overlap between those of us who agree with the jury's decision in the Ahmoud Arbery case and the Kyle Rittenhouse supporters here, and that fact tells you what you need to know about the latter group's idea of justice, IMO.

Um, what? That is really presumptuous. I looked at the Fox article when the Arbery case was decided and all the top voted comments were people saying they jury decided correctly on both cases. Actually, I haven't read any conservatives saying they got it wrong so far (I'm sure there are), but I've seen many examples of conservatives saying they got it right. Those three hunted down a guy for something as little as oddly wandering into a house multiple times and not stealing anything. Can you not assume the worst about the "other side", please?



Dulfite said:
Jaicee said:

If there were a way to reveal who clicked the Agree button on that post, I suspect the results would reveal there to be zero overlap between those of us who agree with the jury's decision in the Ahmoud Arbery case and the Kyle Rittenhouse supporters here, and that fact tells you what you need to know about the latter group's idea of justice, IMO.

Um, what? That is really presumptuous. I looked at the Fox article when the Arbery case was decided and all the top voted comments were people saying they jury decided correctly on both cases. Actually, I haven't read any conservatives saying they got it wrong so far (I'm sure there are), but I've seen many examples of conservatives saying they got it right. Those three hunted down a guy for something as little as oddly wandering into a house multiple times and not stealing anything. Can you not assume the worst about the "other side", please?

I honestly wouldn't have expected that. Alright, fair enough! Maybe I'm too cynical sometimes.



Jaicee said:
Dulfite said:

Um, what? That is really presumptuous. I looked at the Fox article when the Arbery case was decided and all the top voted comments were people saying they jury decided correctly on both cases. Actually, I haven't read any conservatives saying they got it wrong so far (I'm sure there are), but I've seen many examples of conservatives saying they got it right. Those three hunted down a guy for something as little as oddly wandering into a house multiple times and not stealing anything. Can you not assume the worst about the "other side", please?

I honestly wouldn't have expected that. Alright, fair enough! Maybe I'm too cynical sometimes.

Obviously there are crazies out there, but most conservatives don't fall into those categories, just like most liberals aren't extremists in their own way. Most conservatives just want the law followed in court cases based on both federal and state constitutions. And that's where the difference resides. Liberals want what they deem is the "right" way, whereas conservatives aren't as focused on right vs. wrong and are moreso focused on the constitution and laws written as is. We just want the law followed to the letter. If the law has a loophole that someone can get away with something wrong, then it is what it is until said law is changed. We fall into this side because a WHOLE lot more damage could be done in society by subjective interpretations of law based on heightened emotions than can be done by following the law so closely that people get away with horrible things. 



Around the Network
Dulfite said:
Jaicee said:

If there were a way to reveal who clicked the Agree button on that post, I suspect the results would reveal there to be zero overlap between those of us who agree with the jury's decision in the Ahmoud Arbery case and the Kyle Rittenhouse supporters here, and that fact tells you what you need to know about the latter group's idea of justice, IMO.

Um, what? That is really presumptuous. I looked at the Fox article when the Arbery case was decided and all the top voted comments were people saying they jury decided correctly on both cases. Actually, I haven't read any conservatives saying they got it wrong so far (I'm sure there are), but I've seen many examples of conservatives saying they got it right. Those three hunted down a guy for something as little as oddly wandering into a house multiple times and not stealing anything. Can you not assume the worst about the "other side", please?

For those interested here's the polling for this one by political ideology when asked should the defendents in the Arbery case be found guilty:

And then here's the same question from the same poll for Rittenhouse:

Conservatives did better on the Arbery case than Democrats did on the Rittenhouse one as far agreeing with the verdict, but there is definitely an ideological swing there. 

Link for source: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/3ppnqjpghh/econTabReport.pdf

Last edited by Torillian - on 28 November 2021

...

Dulfite said:
Jaicee said:

If there were a way to reveal who clicked the Agree button on that post, I suspect the results would reveal there to be zero overlap between those of us who agree with the jury's decision in the Ahmoud Arbery case and the Kyle Rittenhouse supporters here, and that fact tells you what you need to know about the latter group's idea of justice, IMO.

Um, what? That is really presumptuous. I looked at the Fox article when the Arbery case was decided and all the top voted comments were people saying they jury decided correctly on both cases. Actually, I haven't read any conservatives saying they got it wrong so far (I'm sure there are), but I've seen many examples of conservatives saying they got it right. Those three hunted down a guy for something as little as oddly wandering into a house multiple times and not stealing anything. Can you not assume the worst about the "other side", please?

*lot of issues with the post publication hanging up on me and I post twice lately....meh. 



...

Dulfite said:
Jaicee said:

I honestly wouldn't have expected that. Alright, fair enough! Maybe I'm too cynical sometimes.

Obviously there are crazies out there, but most conservatives don't fall into those categories, just like most liberals aren't extremists in their own way. Most conservatives just want the law followed in court cases based on both federal and state constitutions. And that's where the difference resides. Liberals want what they deem is the "right" way, whereas conservatives aren't as focused on right vs. wrong and are moreso focused on the constitution and laws written as is. We just want the law followed to the letter. If the law has a loophole that someone can get away with something wrong, then it is what it is until said law is changed. We fall into this side because a WHOLE lot more damage could be done in society by subjective interpretations of law based on heightened emotions than can be done by following the law so closely that people get away with horrible things. 

I live around lots of conservative-minded people; enough to know that the actual certifiable loons are in the minority anyway. But I also know that conservatives (not unlike other politicos) can get pretty neurotic about certain subjects, particularly, in the case of conservatives, those involving abortion or guns. You're among the more reasonable conservatives here, IMO. I can have a civil conversation with you. There are others here with whom I really don't think that's possible, or at least not for me.

Anyway, as to the whole constitution stuff, I feel that people favor strict, "originalist" interpretations of the constitution for the same reasons that many of those same people also favor strict, "originalist" interpretations of the Bible. I don't see how the topic is relevant here though.



Jaicee said:
the-pi-guy said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/583024-jury-finds-defendants-guilty-on-most-counts-in-arbery-case

>All 3 men in Arbery killing found guilty of murder

If there were a way to reveal who clicked the Agree button on that post, I suspect the results would reveal there to be zero overlap between those of us who agree with the jury's decision in the Ahmoud Arbery case and the Kyle Rittenhouse supporters here, and that fact tells you what you need to know about the latter group's idea of justice, IMO.

Well I agree with both these decisions from juridical point of view and based on facts we know. While there are some similarities between these cases, there's also crucial differences.

There's also a difference between moral and legal justice. Agreeing with jury's decicion on Rittenhouse case does not make one a Rittenhouse supporter ffs. 



Torillian said:

For those interested here's the polling for this one by political ideology when asked should the defendents in the Arbery case be found guilty:

And then here's the same question from the same poll for Rittenhouse:

Conservatives did better on the Arbery case than Democrats did on the Rittenhouse one as far agreeing with the verdict, but there is definitely an ideological swing there. 

Link for source: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/3ppnqjpghh/econTabReport.pdf

Just look at how much more divisive the Rittenhouse case was! Public opinion on the Arbery case isn't even close. On the Rittenhouse case, by contrast, just three percentage points separate those who agree with the jury's decision to let him off scot-free for killing two people with an illegally-obtained AR-15 and those who feel differently, and what's more the latter group is the larger one!