Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Wordle Gummidge

[premierstone]

Rittenhouse might walk but at least some Jurors who watched ALL the evidence considers him guilty . Probably factoring in some of the ridiculous calls by the biased Judge . Hope they jail the fucker .

And clearly some also consider him innocent, your arguement makes no sense?

Why do you consider the judge to have been biased? For correctly calling out the prosecuton for multiple violations? Or becasue he is white?

Anyone with a basic understanding of US law can see it should have been a slam dunk acquittal, but unfortunatley there are far more things at play here. The longer it goes the less chance he walks but again he has a cast iron case for an appeal.

[Solksjaer!]

And clearly some also consider him innocent, your arguement makes no sense?

Why do you consider the judge to have been biased? For correctly calling out the prosecuton for multiple violations? Or becasue he is white?

Anyone with a basic understanding of US law can see it should have been a slam dunk acquittal, but unfortunatley there are far more things at play here. The longer it goes the less chance he walks but again he has a cast iron case for an appeal.

My argument ? we well know the opposite is true .

Basic understanding of US law slam dunk acquittal? irony there.


Btw usually when it goes on for so long they usually walk. That's my basic understanding.

The judge dismissed a lot of evidence, dismissed the misdemeanor, and refused to allow the victims be called victims . There's the mindset . A lot of experts on here , God help us . Hope they fry the terrorist. An active shooter armed and ready, kills 2. Brags about it etc etc . Slam dunk.?

[premierstone]

You seem well clued in on the case Solks fair play, can't argue with your compelling facts

[Keane]

Are you going to the game on Sunday? You'll have half of Killarney cheering for ye given the relegation permutations

I am of course. Obv underdogs but I think we have a decent chance. Not sure how I would cope if we won.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

I've eaten there a good few times and only noticed the sign to bring dishes downstairs the Saturday before last so I duly obliged to carry my two plates and dipping bowls downstairs.

When I got downstairs, there was three people queuing up and several drinks at the small hatch in the perplex screen at the till so I went over to the right but there was nobody there to take the plates off me so I tried to balance them on an uneven counter. The dipping bowls were starting to rock/slide and I could visualise them dropping to the ground and smashing.

It felt like everyone in the queue was looking at me, waiting for the plates to fall and smash and I could feel my face going red (hidden by the mask) Eventually, (it was probably only a few seconds but felt like hours) somebody scurried out of the kitchen and took the plates off me and I made a hasty exit.

I love sitting at the bench upstairs looking out the window. Great spot to watch the world go by and eat tasty grub.

Ha. That's a weirdly similar vibe! That spicy pork noodles dish is an absolute star. Is there anything else you would recommend in there?

[dobby]

I am of course. Obv underdogs but I think we have a decent chance. Not sure how I would cope if we won.

Be down myself. We are in the final on Saturday in Killarney and heading to your game with the brother on Sunday. Always nice to see the crokes beaten so may as well cheer for your boys

[Hectorjelly]

I had two great meals recently. I had 6-year-old Mole in the best restaurant in Mexico https://www.theworlds50best.com/the-...-20/Pujol.html

And I had beef neck tacos in the hottest taco stand here, Los Cocuyos. Quite a queue despite going there at 1 am on a Sunday. Both absolutely delicious in completely different ways. Nobody asked me to return any plates thankfully.

853c444c-304d-4a27-9e28-078221c2e69f.jpg 4.jpg

[Mellor]

My argument ? we well know the opposite is true .

Basic understanding of US law slam dunk acquittal? irony there.

Btw usually when it goes on for so long they usually walk. That's my basic understanding.

The judge dismissed a lot of evidence, dismissed the misdemeanor, and refused to allow the victims be called victims . There's the mindset . A lot of experts on here , God help us . Hope they fry the terrorist. An active shooter armed and ready, kills 2. Brags about it etc etc . Slam dunk.?

I think his point was that some thinking he was innocent is as relevant as some thinking he is guilty. ie it means virtually nothing.

Not sure what irony you are getting at with the US law/slam dunk acquittal/irony.
Emotional reactions are the entire issue with perception of the case, trial by media, and people getting their information from Facebook.
People unable to separate their moral views from the legal perspective.

I think he is guilty of the misdemeanor. And that's its clear cut.
However the misdemeanor is only related to being a minor and for the murder trial he is charged as an adults. Seems fundamentally unfair to play it both ways at once.
If they are treating him as an adult in this trial, which they are, then deferring the misdemeanor seems completely fair. In fact letting it play out ahead of the main charge would mislead the jury.
Similar to the misdemeanor the charges agaisnt Grosskreutz wee also dropped. As playing them out in front of the jury is misleading on the other direction.

Calling them the victims. Most, if not all of them, were engaged in criminal behaviour at the time. (Vandalism, arson, unlawful firearms violations etc). Whether they were victims of manslaughter/murder or killed in self defense is the entire purpose of the trial. Referring to them as victims or Rittenhouse as a murderer during the trial would be contrary to the entire legal system.

Yes, a slam dunk. Because being "armed and ready" is legal in that messed up state. You criminalizing him for things you disagree with, but are not illegal.

[Mellor]

I had two great meals recently. I had 6-year-old Mole in the best restaurant in Mexico https://www.theworlds50best.com/the-...-20/Pujol.html

And I had beef neck tacos in the hottest taco stand here, Los Cocuyos. Quite a queue despite going there at 1 am on a Sunday. Both absolutely delicious in completely different ways. Nobody asked me to return any plates thankfully.

853c444c-304d-4a27-9e28-078221c2e69f.jpg 4.jpg

Assume the menu picture means they use dollar symbol for the peso rather than it being an expensive cartel hotspot.

[Hectorjelly]

Haha yeah, that's in pesos.

[Solksjaer!]

I think his point was that some thinking he was innocent is as relevant as some thinking he is guilty. ie it means virtually nothing.

Not sure what irony you are getting at with the US law/slam dunk acquittal/irony.
Emotional reactions are the entire issue with perception of the case, trial by media, and people getting their information from Facebook.
People unable to separate their moral views from the legal perspective.

I think he is guilty of the misdemeanor. And that's its clear cut.
However the misdemeanor is only related to being a minor and for the murder trial he is charged as an adults. Seems fundamentally unfair to play it both ways at once.
If they are treating him as an adult in this trial, which they are, then deferring the misdemeanor seems completely fair. In fact letting it play out ahead of the main charge would mislead the jury.
Similar to the misdemeanor the charges agaisnt Grosskreutz wee also dropped. As playing them out in front of the jury is misleading on the other direction.

Calling them the victims. Most, if not all of them, were engaged in criminal behaviour at the time. (Vandalism, arson, unlawful firearms violations etc). Whether they were victims of manslaughter/murder or killed in self defense is the entire purpose of the trial. Referring to them as victims or Rittenhouse as a murderer during the trial would be contrary to the entire legal system.

Yes, a slam dunk. Because being "armed and ready" is legal in that messed up state. You criminalizing him for things you disagree with, but are not illegal.

Despite your over analysis and obsession with being correct . This went to trial is on its 5th day deliberating the verdict so you slam dunk point is incredible. In this you are WRONG. I've no time to go through it .

Hes having a go at the emoticons now

[shrapnel]

I had two great meals recently. I had 6-year-old Mole in the best restaurant in Mexico https://www.theworlds50best.com/the-...-20/Pujol.html

And I had beef neck tacos in the hottest taco stand here, Los Cocuyos. Quite a queue despite going there at 1 am on a Sunday. Both absolutely delicious in completely different ways. Nobody asked me to return any plates thankfully.

853c444c-304d-4a27-9e28-078221c2e69f.jpg 4.jpg

there is an episode on him and his restaurant on "chef's table" (great series on netflix, highlighting incredible restaurants and their creators). Looks amazing. My wife goes to Mexico regularly for work, so this one is now clearly on her list.

[Raoul Duke III]

Trying to apprehend and disarm an active shooter is surely an act of heroism, no?

[Wombatman]

The misdemeanor charges against Rittenhouse were both dismissed. He still faces five serious charges. Maybe that's why the deliberations are drawn out i.e. the number of counts.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-charges-kyle-rittenhouse-face-81208625

[Raoul Duke III]

I wrote two summaries of the case. Pick the one that suits your own bias.

During the Kenosha riots as left-wing antifa thugs destroyed property, Kyle Rittenhouse, a brave young supporter of law enforcement, selflessly decided he had to do something to help the property owners of the businesses being attacked. He packed a medical kit and headed for the scene, ready to give out assistance where he could. Naturally he brought his personal weapon with him for protection. As the riots intensified, Rittenhouse and other law-abiding patriotic defenders were confronted by an angry mob of rioters and looters who were burning down businesses and looting their contents. Rittenhouse was pursued and attacked by one rioter in particular. As it was clearly obvious that this man intended to grab his weapon and kill Rittenhouse, plus as many others as he could, Rittenhouse fired in self defence and killed the rioter, a man with a long history of psychiatric illness and criminal behaviour, including paedophilia. Other agitators then chased and attacked Rittenhouse who was again forced to defend himself against their assault as they clearly intended to kill him with their bare hands. He shot two of these vicious thugs and then made his way home. He is being unjustly persecuted for his selfless actions by the left-wing woke media and politically ambitious prosecutors. Kyle is an American hero!

Following yet another police shooting of a black man in dubious circumstances, protests broke out in the city of Kenosha. Some of these turned nasty and empty businesses were ransacked by some fringe elements. Heavily armed paramilitary-style white nationalists then confronted some of the crowd and one of them, Kyle Rittenhouse, a seventeen year old from out of town, shot and killed an unarmed man. The domestic terrorist was then pursued by several concerned citizens who then, bravely if foolishly, attempted to disarm and subdue this active shooter so that they could hand him over to law enforcement. Sadly their courageous actions led to more carnage as Rittenhouse shot and killed one unarmed citizen and wounded another. Rittenhouse is a domestic terrorist who should pay the maximum penalty for his crimes!

[elbows]

I wrote two summaries of the case. Pick the one that suits your own bias.

https://youtu.be/IzfockTg57g

[RichieM]

Trying to disarm an active shooter is surely an act of heroism, no?

The whole case is deciding if he he was an attacking or was attacked and defended himself.

You have to take 2 insane things out of your assessment. Being allowed to form a mob/militia to take care of criminal elements/protect your property and being allowed to stroll around with military grade weapons.

2 things that have been illegal in most countries for a century at least are still totally fine in that state.

The defence just needs to show that he felt attacked and in danger for it to be self defence from what I have read - if I was in that situation I would have been.

How I would have got there doesn’t really seem to be the issue.

I think Mellor is correct in how he is looking at it as insane as that makes the whole situation.

[Guest]

Trying to disarm an active shooter is surely an act of heroism, no?

Reminds me of World War One full frontal infantry assault on fixed defensive positions through obstacles and barbed wire. Brave heroic but also stupid and usually ends in a bad way for the hero.

[ionapaul]

Yeah, TBH I am not sure why people are arguing back against Mellor's pretty dispassionate reading of the situation - everything that happens should be viewed within the framework of the existing laws there, however crazy they are to us (absolutely batshit insane, like how could you live there IMHO!) - and with that framework in place and the situation that night, it's likely that the guy legitimately felt his life was under threat.

Chasing a man with an assault rifle and trying to hit him with a skateboard is such a terrible, terrible line to take...

[Raoul Duke III]

Chasing a man with an assault rifle and trying to hit him with a skateboard is such a terrible, terrible line to take...

i.e. trying to disarm an active shooter, or domestic terrorist in order to prevent further shootings

Brave, yes. Foolhardy, undoubtedly.

[Mellor]

Despite your over analysis and obsession with being correct . This went to trial is on its 5th day deliberating the verdict so you slam dunk point is incredible. In this you are WRONG. I've no time to go through it .

Hes having a go at the emoticons now

I’m not the one that says it was a slam dunk. That was pokerhand. I was just pointing out that your “armed and ready” label was not Illegal
You’ve made a number of incorrect claims. When that’s pointed out, you resorted to babbling rather than backing it up. I doesn’t suggest a string argument.

It’s string of murder charges, why wouldn’t there be a lot of deliberation. It’s been 3 days I think.
Considering the law of the state is over analysis. Lol

[Solksjaer!]

Insulting me now Mellor .

Assumption made : That he himself felt his life was threatened. How can they prove or disprove this? How he FELT ? Only the video evidence (well what was allowed by the Judge , no zooming in now) Can’t that be the defence for all such shooting going forward. Where is the line drawn? The next protest some goon will incite the crowd and then shoot them when they turn on him. I was scared for my life your honour.

Surely he instigated the whole situation himself by electing himself as a vigilante to control the looters. What else was his purpose there? Now you have the whole NRA delighted that one of their creed
stood up for the American way? It’s seems crazy to me that mellor called the ‘looter’ criminal and he knows FOR SURE the mown down victims were in fact looting? Did they have a TV under their arm? Where is the proof these individuals looted? And even if they were , who other than the police has a right to intervene and shoot them? SO in the trial, the Jude ALLOWED the victims to be called Looters and arsonists and said let the evidence speak for that? WTF Not everyone at the protest was looting? Let’s forget that for a minute. The crux of this case shouldn’t be if the instigator felt threatened it should be his intent. We can’t even defend his INTENT? The medic stance ? come on. This is why is it’s not a slam dunk , this is why they are deliberating . If he avoids ALL charges well then the US Justice system have paved the way for carnage in the coming weeks/years. Head into a protest you don’t agree with , engage and shoot whoever you are and if anyone tries to disarm you Bang Bang.

[Raoul Duke III]

Insulting me now Mellor .

Assumption made : That he himself felt his life was threatened. How can they prove or disprove this? How he FELT ? Only the video evidence (well what was allowed by the Judge , no zooming in now) Can’t that be the defence for all such shooting going forward. Where is the line drawn? The next protest some goon will incite the crowd and then shoot them when they turn on him. I was scared for my life your honour.

Surely he instigated the whole situation himself by electing himself as a vigilante to control the looters. What else was his purpose there? Now you have the whole NRA delighted that one of their creed
stood up for the American way? It’s seems crazy to me that mellor called the ‘looter’ criminal and he knows FOR SURE the mown down victims were in fact looting? Did they have a TV under their arm? Where is the proof these individuals looted? And even if they were , who other than the police has a right to intervene and shoot them? SO in the trial, the Jude ALLOWED the victims to be called Looters and arsonists and said let the evidence speak for that? WTF Not everyone at the protest was looting? Let’s forget that for a minute. The crux of this case shouldn’t be if the instigator felt threatened it should be his intent. We can’t even defend his INTENT? The medic stance ? come on. This is why is it’s not a slam dunk , this is why they are deliberating . If he avoids ALL charges well then the US Justice system have paved the way for carnage in the coming weeks/years. Head into a protest you don’t agree with , engage and shoot whoever you are and if anyone tries to disarm you Bang Bang.

Somewhat inelegantly expressed () but the point is well made; if Rittenhouse is found innocent, then that is literally creating a charter for killing anyone you don't like the look of and claiming self defence.

[Goodluck2me]

I’m not the one that says it was a slam dunk. That was pokerhand. I was just pointing out that your “armed and ready” label was not Illegal
You’ve made a number of incorrect claims. When that’s pointed out, you resorted to babbling rather than backing it up. I doesn’t suggest a string argument.

It’s string of murder charges, why wouldn’t there be a lot of deliberation. It’s been 3 days I think.
Considering the law of the state is over analysis. Lol

For what it’s worth your dispassionate reading of this case (and other situations) are a remarkable antidote to social media.

[Goodluck2me]

Insulting me now Mellor .

Assumption made : That he himself felt his life was threatened. How can they prove or disprove this? How he FELT ? Only the video evidence (well what was allowed by the Judge , no zooming in now) Can’t that be the defence for all such shooting going forward. Where is the line drawn? The next protest some goon will incite the crowd and then shoot them when they turn on him. I was scared for my life your honour.

Surely he instigated the whole situation himself by electing himself as a vigilante to control the looters. What else was his purpose there? Now you have the whole NRA delighted that one of their creed
stood up for the American way? It’s seems crazy to me that mellor called the ‘looter’ criminal and he knows FOR SURE the mown down victims were in fact looting? Did they have a TV under their arm? Where is the proof these individuals looted? And even if they were , who other than the police has a right to intervene and shoot them? SO in the trial, the Jude ALLOWED the victims to be called Looters and arsonists and said let the evidence speak for that? WTF Not everyone at the protest was looting? Let’s forget that for a minute. The crux of this case shouldn’t be if the instigator felt threatened it should be his intent. We can’t even defend his INTENT? The medic stance ? come on. This is why is it’s not a slam dunk , this is why they are deliberating . If he avoids ALL charges well then the US Justice system have paved the way for carnage in the coming weeks/years. Head into a protest you don’t agree with , engage and shoot whoever you are and if anyone tries to disarm you Bang Bang.

Solskjaer I think you’ve made fine arguments as to why the law should change in the US and why it’s already changed elsewhere, but where you seem to be mistaking Mellor is that he’s explaining what should happen based on the current law.

To use a strained argument from a previous conversation, maybe if they all carried nets instead of guns they could have tied each other up.

[ionapaul]

Somewhat inelegantly expressed () but the point is well made; if Rittenhouse is found innocent, then that is literally creating a charter for killing anyone you don't like the look of and claiming self defence.

There's already so much of that over there already. If someone comes arguing to your door - some standard neighbourly dispute for example - you can always shoot 'em, drag them inside your door if you want a little more protection, and claim you were under threat and standing your ground. And that would be in the more liberal states! In fact that argument might even work in Ireland these days, definitely if they are inside your door.

In this case there's a video of those guys literally attacking him though! Unless I'm misremembering the video I saw of him being chased and people rushing him. How is it not self-defence in this case? The only argument for me is about disproportionate force being used, of course yes if you are in Ireland, maybe no in that jurisdiction?

[Solksjaer!]

Babbling ; getting my info from Facebook. Etc etc wtf . The BBV might be reading Melllor as dispassionate I read him as insulting and condescending. Perspective.

[pokerhand]

I’m not the one that says it was a slam dunk. That was pokerhand. I was just pointing out that your “armed and ready” label was not Illegal
You’ve made a number of incorrect claims. When that’s pointed out, you resorted to babbling rather than backing it up. I doesn’t suggest a string argument.

It’s string of murder charges, why wouldn’t there be a lot of deliberation. It’s been 3 days I think.
Considering the law of the state is over analysis. Lol

Huh ... I know nothing about the case and expressed no opinion on it... Think you have me mixed up with someone else.

[Solksjaer!]

Btw I've never once said Mellors understanding of the law was incorrect . I've expressed how the case should and possibly could go. Over and out.

[Iago]

So I've finally booked a trip back to Armageddon, or as it used to be know Dublin city. It only took the return of the one true king Garth to make it happen.

yippee ki yay muthafuckas

[Mellor]

Trying to disarm an active shooter is surely an act of heroism, no?

The guy who tried to disarm him, the first guy. Did so before Rittenhouse had fired a shot. Under their law, he had no grounds to disarm him. That’s where you argument I falls apart. That and repeatedly calling the guy with the glock pistol unarmed.

You ridiculed the idea that trying to grab the gun was a threat. But I’ve asked a few times what do you think Rosenbaum would have done if he got the gun off him? And you’ve dodge it. Not a great look.

It’s much as I appreciated you left right/left creative writing above. That’s the exact (social) media twist that I’m opposing.

[Raoul Duke III]

There's already so much of that over there already. If someone comes arguing to your door - some standard neighbourly dispute for example - you can always shoot 'em, drag them inside your door if you want a little more protection, and claim you were under threat and standing your ground. And that would be in the more liberal states! In fact that argument might even work in Ireland these days, definitely if they are inside your door.

Hmmm, so there's an upside to all this.

[Raoul Duke III]

The guy who tried to disarm him, the first guy. Did so before Rittenhouse had fired a shot. Under their law, he had no grounds to disarm him. That’s where you argument I falls apart. That and repeatedly calling the guy with the glock pistol unarmed.

The second and third guys that Rittenhouse shot were trying to disarm an active shooter (Rittenhouse).

The one who survived actually testified as such. That would be the guy who actually was a trained paramedic (as opposed to Rittenhouse who lied and claimed he was).

[RichieM]

Somewhat inelegantly expressed () but the point is well made; if Rittenhouse is found innocent, then that is literally creating a charter for killing anyone you don't like the look of and claiming self defence.

I can’t disagree with any of this as the likely outcome. Not sure if that changes what he was allowed to do on the night tho

[Raoul Duke III]

I don't actually know what the standard is in WI for a verdict.

Unanimous? Simple majority? 10-2?

You would imagine it's a coinflip given the length of deliberations.

[Iago]

The second and third guys that Rittenhouse shot were trying to disarm an active shooter (Rittenhouse).

The one who survived actually testified as such. That would be the guy who actually was a trained paramedic (as opposed to Rittenhouse who lied and claimed he was).

to be fair, he was hardly going to say 'well your honour, if he had just let us be and we had gotten to loot everything we wanted then we wouldn't be in this mess now'

the survivors testimony was always going to be along the lines of 'somebody had to do something, he was a threat' regardless of whether or not that is based in fact.

[Raoul Duke III]

to be fair, he was hardly going to say 'well your honour, if he had just let us be and we had gotten to loot everything we wanted then we wouldn't be in this mess now'

the survivors testimony was always going to be along the lines of 'somebody had to do something, he was a threat' regardless of whether or not that is based in fact.

Exactly! And that is the main line of defence too.

Rittenhouse's testimony was always going to be "he was lunging for my gun to kill me".
Or in your words: 'somebody had to do something, he was a threat'

i.e. pretty much exactly the same evidence - except, unlike the survivor, Rittenhouse actually acted. Appointed himself judge, jury - and executioner.

[Raoul Duke III]

All of our pointless squabbling aside, I would hate to be on that jury panel.

[Wombatman]

The use of 'active shooter' is loaded and not appropriate in this context.

Rittenhouse is the worst type of brainless MAGA scum IMO, but to be fair to him at no point did he fire indiscriminately. He was arguably provoked or in fear of his life in all cases.

[Raoul Duke III]

The use of 'active shooter' is loaded and not appropriate in this context.

Rittenhouse is the worst type of brainless MAGA scum IMO, but to be fair to him at no point did he fire indiscriminately. He was arguably provoked or in fear of his life in all cases.

The judge didn't disallow the use of the term by the prosecution so if it's appropriate to use in the courtroom, it's appropriate anywhere else..

And he is facing multiple homicide\attempted homicide cases after killing two and wounding one. Sounds like a shooter who was pretty active to me.

[dobby]

Austria back in national lockdown a week before we are due to fly. Wonder will I get anything back off Ryanair? Bollox it anyway

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-austria-to-enter-full-national-lockdown-amid-record-case-surge-as-fourth-wave-sweeps-europe-12472233

[Raoul Duke III]

Austria back in national lockdown a week before we are due to fly. Wonder will I get anything back off Ryanair? Bollox it anyway

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...urope-12472233

UL.

Interesting though: Austria is making vaccination compulsory for all. I reckon that must be the first country in the world to do this. Wonder how they will legally enforce it? It's one thing to try and coerce people into it through restrictions but quite another to legally mandate that you must get it.

[Iago]

UL.

Interesting though: Austria is making vaccination compulsory for all. I reckon that must be the first country in the world to do this. Wonder how they will legally enforce it? It's one thing to try and coerce people into it through restrictions but quite another to legally mandate that you must get it.

what do you expect from Hitlers birth country?

too soon?

joking aside, I assume it needs to pass muster with whatever is their constitution but even still it's hard to see how they can get it through without co-operation

[Mellor]

Assumption made : That he himself felt his life was threatened. How can they prove or disprove this? How he FELT ? Only the video evidence (well what was allowed by the Judge , no zooming in now) Can’t that be the defence for all such shooting going forward. Where is the line drawn?

That's what the law says. Or to be specific, that they reasonably believes there is a risk of death or great harm.

'''The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Surely he instigated the whole situation himself by electing himself as a vigilante to control the looters. What else was his purpose there?

Under the law of the state, and their interpretation of their constitution. Citizen are allowed to arm themselves and form a milita. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's the law.

It’s seems crazy to me that mellor called the ‘looter’ criminal and he knows FOR SURE the mown down victims were in fact looting? Did they have a TV under their arm? Where is the proof these individuals looted? And even if they were , who other than the police has a right to intervene and shoot them?

I said vandalism/arson not looting. The first guy (the one that kicked it all off) is on video trying to push a burning dumpster into a petrol station. He was not there peacefully protesting.
The guy shot in the bicep was illegally as carrying a conceal pistol without a license. Those are the criminal actions I refered. I

If Rittenhouse decided to take it in hand, and intervened and shot those guys. It absolutely would have been murder. But that it's what happened.
The whole thing hinges on the first guy trying to disarm him.

I wasn't trying to insult you. When I said you were misinformed, I was referring to the the fact that you seemed unaware of the context that makes it completely legal to be armed and ready on the street. And you were looking at it from an outside context. And FFS I didn't say got your information from Facebook. I said the issue with these these things is that People do. That's a real issue.

[Raoul Duke III]

what do you expect from Hitlers birth country?

too soon?

I was privately wondering how long it would take.

Interestingly though, it's a poor analogy as the Nazis actually relaxed previously compulsory vaccination programs. Although not for any benevolent reasons.

[Raoul Duke III]

I think though this marks the start of a new phase in the public health response to covid.

Maybe call it the 'fuck the bullshit, you're going to get vaxxed - or else. And yes, we do know what's best for you." stage?

Austria won't be the last imo.

[Iago]

yeah was thinking more from the authoritarian point of view still and all, hard to see how they square it off unless it's aligned with the constitution and even then I think it's a very dangerous step to take.

Side effects including death may well be very rare but they happen. A government mandating that everyone is vaccinated will ultimately be responsible for those deaths and that's a liability nobody wants.

[Mellor]

Huh ... I know nothing about the case and expressed no opinion on it... Think you have me mixed up with someone else.

Apologies dude, it was premierstone above.

The second and third guys that Rittenhouse shot were trying to disarm an active shooter (Rittenhouse).

The one who survived actually testified as such. That would be the guy who actually was a trained paramedic (as opposed to Rittenhouse who lied and claimed he was).

I asked about the first guy, I think you knew that. Question stands.
.
As you mentioned the survivor, he was conceal carrying a pistol (without permit FWIW) and pulled it out and pointed it at Rittenhouse. There's no way Rittenhouse didn't have a reasonable belief he was at risk of harm at that point. And bizarrely, had that guy pulled the trigger first, the exact same defense would probably apply.
If people are allowed to walk around with guns in that environment. That's the outcome.



Edit: Fully agree on the medic lies btw. Serious whiff of Walter Mitty off of him.

[Raoul Duke III]

yeah was thinking more from the authoritarian point of view still and all, hard to see how they square it off unless it's aligned with the constitution and even then I think it's a very dangerous step to take.

Side effects including death may well be very rare but they happen. A government mandating that everyone is vaccinated will ultimately be responsible for those deaths and that's a liability nobody wants.

This is such a simple equation for a decision maker as to be the ultimate no-brainer.

1. Get everyone vaxxed. Save tens of thousands of lives, prevent health system from collapsing, return society and economy to normal.
2. Don't do the above due to vague and unsubstantiated fears about vaccine side-effects. Tens of thousands die, health system collapses, society and economy go into prolonged lockdown

hmm. I'll take (a) please Bob.

[Iago]

your option 1 misses the fact that it is likely that some people die as a result of it. That doesn't negate option 1 being the right call but it is one thing to make a call that everyone should be vaccinated and know that the call means lives will be saved.

It's another thing altogether to make a choice when you know even 1 person will lose their life because of it. There's a difference mentally between preventing death and causing death..it's just the way we're wired.

I'm a big believer in vaccines but I wouldn't like to be the person forcing someone to get one for fear of them suffering as a result of my action.

[Solksjaer!]

My last rittenhouse post


For the record I’ve not once said Mellors understanding of the US law was incorrect. I’ve been giving my reasons why he SHOULD and COULD go down for his actions and why WE should think that he should. (I’m still stunned some of you think he deserves to walk) Those with the opposing viewpoint have gone beyond what is said in the trail and giving points of view on the situation and somehow justifying Rittenhouses actions on the night . Not just ‘legally justifying them’ but otherwise. This is where I have contention. There is no justification for his actions . If you find yourself trying to justify them. EG , The right to defend some strangers property, the right to shoot someone dead who hits you with a skateboard, the right to basically act as a vigilante, I think you are wrong. Be honest with yourself. Do you really think this guy set himself up to help quell the protest by peaceful means? Now according to US LAW this case has gone to trail and according to US LAW his fate hangs on the jurors selected to deliberate . (despite what you open/shut case folk think)
If he is convicted of any of the charges is the verdict then unlawful (jury decision) Now how can that be?

[Raoul Duke III]

I'm a big believer in vaccines but I wouldn't like to be the person forcing someone to get one for fear of them suffering as a result of my action.

It's a complex issue no doubt.

Weigh up the cost of inaction though.

We have the vaccines. We know they are safe, efficient and they make a huge difference. There is no legitimate argument against them - and, with this fourth wave becoming overwhelming in scope, mandatory vaccination seems inevitable (or, at the very least, restricting hugely those who refuse to get it).

[Goodluck2me]

My last rittenhouse post


For the record I’ve not once said Mellors understanding of the US law was incorrect. I’ve been giving my reasons why he SHOULD and COULD go down for his actions and why WE should think that he should. (I’m still stunned some of you think he deserves to walk) Those with the opposing viewpoint have gone beyond what is said in the trail and giving points of view on the situation and somehow justifying Rittenhouses actions on the night . Not just ‘legally justifying them’ but otherwise. This is where I have contention. There is no justification for his actions . If you find yourself trying to justify them. EG , The right to defend some strangers property, the right to shoot someone dead who hits you with a skateboard, the right to basically act as a vigilante, I think you are wrong. Be honest with yourself. Do you really think this guy set himself up to help quell the protest by peaceful means? Now according to US LAW this case has gone to trail and according to US LAW his fate hangs on the jurors selected to deliberate . (despite what you open/shut case folk think)
If he is convicted of any of the charges is the verdict then unlawful (jury decision) Now how can that be?

Could be wrong Solks but I don’t think anyone is defending what he did as “correct” more that he won’t be sent to jail for it because the law is what it is in the US. I think their actions were all despicable taking firearms to a rally and walking around with loaded guns, like a hammer looking for a nail, it’s despicable.

[Solksjaer!]

Again there is a difference between correct and justifying

[Guest]

It's a complex issue no doubt.

Weigh up the cost of inaction though.

We have the vaccines. We know they are safe, efficient and they make a huge difference. There is no legitimate argument against them - and, with this fourth wave becoming overwhelming in scope, mandatory vaccination seems inevitable (or, at the very least, restricting hugely those who refuse to get it).

We know they are safe really ? Besides the clots heart inflammation adverse reactions otherwise they are fine? Do you believe what you say the whole time complete arrogance. Nobody knows long term if the vaccines are safe. Swine flu vaccines were safe now a heap of kids are suing the state for horrible side effects. I’ll have to be held down to take a booster or 3rd course as that gowl Varadkar has said it is. Two haven’t worked sure 3 /4 definitely will. Think many people are seeing through this as the farce that it is. Irish hospitals I was in one 12 years ago was on a trolley for 30 hours was jammed with trolleys it was bad before Covid. Follow the science follow the money more like.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

Its going to be a very happy Christmas in two Dublin households this year, Mr Electrician and Mr Plumber, have properly rodgered us for every penny going. But its hard to complain given tis the season.

[AndyFatBastard]

the right to shoot someone dead who hits you with a skateboard

This is 100% a right that you have now and that everyone should have always. There are some more limitations and technicalities around appropriate use of force in Ireland, UK and the rest of Europe, but you have the right to defend yourself from bodily harm with force, up to and including deadly force. And that's a good thing.

[Solksjaer!]

In other news

That guy who stole my diary last month has passed away


My thoughts are with his family

[Solksjaer!]

This is 100% a right that you have now and that everyone should have always. There are some more limitations and technicalities around appropriate use of force in Ireland, UK and the rest of Europe, but you have the right to defend yourself from bodily harm with force, up to and including deadly force. And that's a good thing.

Stupidity right there . Imo

[hotspur]

Has anyone watched the drone footage of the full incident with Rosenbaum?

The sequence of events as the prosecutor described it was that Rittenhouse illegally points his gun which instigates a response from Rosenbaum who chases him. Rittenhouse turns and points the gun at him when he is not too close to him, then runs again. As Rosenbaum gets close to him he shoots him multiple times. There is no lunge for the gun, we can see that that was a lie. How much that actually matters I don't know because if Rosenbaum got him it probably wouldn't have been his medical pack he was going to take.

I can't actually see the first part that the prosecutor points out about Rittenhouse pointing his gun.

So the jury requested to see this footage again during deliberation.

One question I have been thinking about is this. If Rittenhouse considered he would be in danger if Rosenbaum had the rifle then why would the reverse not also be the case given Rittenhouse had been pointing it at people. It is illegal to point a gun at someone in that jurisdiction, so will the jury decide that he instigated that specific incident with Rosenbaum? Or that it was caused by his illegal behaviour which prevents the argument ofself-defence?

Apologies if this has been poured over already, I haven't read all the posts fully.