George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

[Dax777]

This is stupid, I know the law on the two cases, so since you can't actually think for yourself I'll have to explain it. Clearly.

You quoted Kaz's assertion that if Rittenhouse was Black and shot White men, you countered it with an attempted repartée about Andrew Coffee.

Why?

Well done.

Katz claimed if Kyle had been a black man, he would have been found guilty.

What principle was applied to find Kyle not guilty? The principle of self defense.

So if Katz thinks a black man wouldn't have been acquitted, then all I have to do is find a case where a black man is acquitted on the same principle. Self Defense.

In other words, black man kills someone, but court concludes he is not guilt. Why? Based on self defense.

Rittenhouse, just like Covey applied the very same principle ( or at least a variation of the same underlying principle) resulting in an acquital, in spite of attempting to kill someone.

I used Covey coz his acquital was recent. A Google search of court records on Acquital on Self Defense could have debunked her silly notion

I'm not sure this lesson will help you, but since I promised to give it if you asked... Well, I'm a man of my word.

 

[Bigga]

Well done.

Katz claimed if Kyle had been a black man, he would have been found guilty.

What principle was applied to find Kyle not guilty? The principle of self defense.

So if Katz thinks a black man wouldn't have been acquitted, then all I have to do is find a case where a black man is acquitted on the same principle. Self Defense.

In other words, black man kills someone, but court concludes he is not guilt. Why? Based on self defense.

Rittenhouse, just like Covey applied the very same principle ( or at least a variation of the same underlying principle) resulting in an acquital, in spite of attempting to kill someone.

I used Covey coz his acquital was recent. A Google search of court records on Acquital on Self Defense could have debunked her silly notion

I'm not sure this lesson will help you, but since I promised to give it if you asked... Well, I'm a man of my word.

Your 'brilliant' mind hasn't helped yourself, though.

This is why I said earlier - and something thing that clearly bypassed you - that comparing an OVERALL shape doesn't make the two things the same thing i.e., apples and oranges.

Can you work out why, I wonder?

 

[Dax777]

Your 'brilliant' mind hasn't helped yourself, though.

This is why I said earlier - and something thing that clearly bypassed you - that comparing an OVERALL shape doesn't make the two things the same thing i.e., apples and oranges.

Can you work out why, I wonder?

I didn't compare the overall shape. I compared the charge they used similar defenses on and how both were successful. Even though one was black, and as some would have us believe, black people never win in Court.

But since you've been hinting at it... Go ahead, spell put the difference. What is it?

 

[Bigga]

I didn't compare the overall shape. I compared the charge they used similar defenses on and how both were successful. Even though one was black, and as some would have us believe, black people never win in Court.

But since you've been hinting at it... Go ahead, spell put the difference. What is it?

"Hinting"??? I'm trying to get you to recognise your adamant false equivalency on the cases and yet you claim "similar defence". What because bullets and death were involved??

You really believe your crap about these situations!

Let me use your patronising 'intellectual' words on something you're clueless about so...

"Again, I can help with your lack of understanding here, but you have to ask. Nicely!"

 

[Dax777]

"Hinting"??? I'm trying to get you to recognise your adamant false equivalency on the cases and yet you claim "similar defence". What because bullets and death were involved??

You really believe your crap about these situations!

Let me use your patronising 'intellectual' words on something you're clueless about so...

"Again, I can help with your lack of understanding here, but you have to ask. Nicely!"

I already asked. I'm asking again. Please please please what's the false equivalence about these situations?

 

[Bigga]

I already asked. I'm asking again. Please please please what's the false equivalence about these situations?

Oh, since you asked so nicely!

Where was Rittenhouse and where was Coffee at the times of both incidents?

What were the differences in actions?

Just these two points ALONE put your 'argument' in different light and present differently if the shoes were on different feet, ultimately putting Kaz's point as more likelier than your false equivalency in shutting down her point.

 

[Dax777]

Oh, since you asked so nicely!

Where was Rittenhouse and where was Coffee at the times of both incidents?

What were the differences in actions?

Just these two points ALONE put your 'argument' in different light and present differently if the shoes were on different feet, ultimately putting Kaz's point as more likelier than your false equivalency in shutting down her point.

God! You are as boring as you are predictable. The point wasn't that it was the exact same situation.

I picked Covey specifically for the irony. That on the very same day someone was lamenting how a black person would never have been acquitted, on that very same day, a black person was being acquired using the same underlying principle.

Stip being dense. This is not that complicated. I can rattle of names from a Google search on black folks who have gotten of using self defense. Her claim is simply idiotic ideological drivel.

.

 

[Bigga]

God! You are as boring as you are predictable. The point wasn't that it was the exact same situation.

I picked Covey specifically for the irony. That on the very same day someone was lamenting how a black person would never have been acquitted, on that very same day, a black person was being acquired using the same underlying principle.

Stip being dense. This is not that complicated. I can rattle of names from a Google search on black folks who have gotten of using self defense. Her claim is simply idiotic ideological drivel.

.

No, dummy, that's NOT what Kaz said or meant.

It's you that twisted her point to make a shittier one.

If it was "predictable" you'd have recognised that in in your ill thought justification for comparison. You didn't caveat anything, but only now, choosing to look 'intelligent' after the fact.

Just remember, you stated both cases had a "similar" defence when the two were differing reasons behind the actions. Let me go back to what I said yet again, you cannot compare the two as they are 'apples and oranges'.

Crushed, yet again, with your fraudulent 'intellectualism', i.e., you're full of shit on this point.

 

[Dax777]

No, dummy, that's NOT what Kaz said or meant.

It's you that twisted her point to make a shittier one.

If it was "predictable" you'd have recognised that in in your ill thought justification for comparison. You didn't caveat anything, but only now, choosing to look 'intelligent' after the fact.

Just remember, you stated both cases had a "similar" defence when the two were differing reasons behind the actions. Let me go back to what I said yet again, you cannot compare the two as they are 'apples and oranges'.

Crushed, yet again, with your fraudulent 'intellectualism', i.e., you're full of shit on this point.

No you dummy. She was responding to a post that was explaining to her that it seemed it was the evidence that exonerated him. To which she responded, "he wouldn't have been acquitted if he was black."

Meaning, even if the evidence supported him, his blackness would have meant he'd be found guilty anyways. That was her claim.

I just thought it was ironic that someone would make such a dense comment on the very same day a black man was being acquitted for using a similar doctrine. Hence why I posted the video.

I'm literally reading her comments on my phone as I'm watching Covey on the tube. So I had to post it.

But again, examples of black people winning on Self Defense is so common that its silly to hold the opinion Katz did.

But let's be clear, are you saying black people don't get acquitted on Self Defense?

 

[Bigga]

No you dummy. She was responding to a post that was explaining to her that it seemed it was the evidence that exonerated him. To which she responded, "he wouldn't have been acquitted if he was black."

Meaning, even if the evidence supported him, his blackness would have meant he'd be found guilty anyways. That was her claim.

I just thought it was ironic that someone would make such a dense comment on the very same day a black man was being acquitted for using a similar doctrine. Hence why I posted the video.

I'm literally reading her comments on my phone as I'm watching Covey on the tube. So I had to post it.

But again, examples of black people winning on Self Defense is so common that its silly to hold the opinion Katz did.

But let's be clear, are you saying black people don't get acquitted on Self Defense?

LOL!!

As disingenuous as it gets. Let's go back to Kaz's point that you dismissed.

Let's place Rittenhouse and Coffee (not Covey and it's your own frickin' example!!) in each other's shoes. The odds of Coffee strapping an AR-15 to his chest and discharging it against the same guys chasing him, as did Rittenhouse, and him getting away with a self defence acquittal is HIGHLY unlikely.

This is different than Rittenhouse in the same situation as Coffee, because ONE WAS A HOME INVASION (apple) and the other was in a chaotic riot based situation (or oranges).

Show me a case where a Black person was found 'not guilty' in that scenario.

Ergo, these are NOT similar in nature. Dummy.

 

[Dax777]

LOL!!

As disingenuous as it gets. Let's go back to Kaz's point that you dismissed.

Let's place Rittenhouse and Coffee (not Covey and it's your own frickin' example!!) in each other's shoes. The odds of Coffee strapping an AR-15 to his chest and discharging it against the same guys chasing him, as did Rittenhouse, and him getting away with a self defence acquittal is HIGHLY unlikely.

Jaleel Stallings, Black, 28 defending a friend's gas station in Minneapolis during the George Floyd riots. He shot 4 times at cops who were using 40 mm launchers to disperse crowds, before giving himself up after realizing they were cops. He had assumed they were rioters... Self Defense,.. Won on 2 counts of attempted murderl.

St. Paul man who shot at MPD in self-defense acquitted of all charges by jury

A St. Paul man has been acquitted on all charges stemming from an incident where he shot at Minneapolis police officers in self-defense last summer.

kstp.com

It took a 5 minute Google Search.

So what do we have..

Black guy, during Riots after police killing of a black man, protecting gas station from rioters, shot at white men, gave himself up and wasn't killed, charged with similar counts as Rittenhouse, except for Murder (He wasn't as accurate) and beat all those charges on the exact same doctrine.

When would you idiots learn?

 

[Bigga]

Jaleel Stallings, Black, 28 defending a friend's gas station in Minneapolis during the George Floyd riots. He shot 4 times at cops who were using 40 mm launchers to disperse crowds, before giving himself up after realizing they were cops. He had assumed they were rioters... Self Defense,.. Won on 2 counts of attempted murderl.

St. Paul man who shot at MPD in self-defense acquitted of all charges by jury

A St. Paul man has been acquitted on all charges stemming from an incident where he shot at Minneapolis police officers in self-defense last summer.

kstp.com

It took a 5 minute Google Search.

So what do we have..

Black guy, during Riots after police killing of a black man, protecting gas station from rioters, shot at white men, gave himself up and wasn't killed, charged with similar counts as Rittenhouse, except for Murder (He wasn't as accurate) and beat all those charges on the exact same doctrine.

When would you idiots learn?

The only idiot here is you.

I asked you for proof that a Black man got away with what Rittenhouse did in his scenario.

I'm still waiting.

 

[mccity]

Stop insulting each other in your posts. Keep it civil.

Thanks.

 

[Dax777]

The only idiot here is you.

I asked you for proof that a Black man got away with what Rittenhouse did in his scenario.

I'm still waiting.

Go away. Annoy someone else.

 

[BobKowalski]

Jaleel Stallings, Black, 28 defending a friend's gas station in Minneapolis during the George Floyd riots. He shot 4 times at cops who were using 40 mm launchers to disperse crowds, before giving himself up after realizing they were cops. He had assumed they were rioters... Self Defense,.. Won on 2 counts of attempted murderl.

St. Paul man who shot at MPD in self-defense acquitted of all charges by jury

A St. Paul man has been acquitted on all charges stemming from an incident where he shot at Minneapolis police officers in self-defense last summer.

kstp.com

It took a 5 minute Google Search.

So what do we have..

Black guy, during Riots after police killing of a black man, protecting gas station from rioters, shot at white men, gave himself up and wasn't killed, charged with similar counts as Rittenhouse, except for Murder (He wasn't as accurate) and beat all those charges on the exact same doctrine.

When would you idiots learn?

And this brings us back to the sheer lunacy that underpinned the Rittenhouse case. The acceptance that this is normal behaviour. Casually shooting at people is not normal. It is a symptom of a society that has become detached from all that is sane.

You spend endless hours arguing that cops shooting unarmed people is fine, people arming themselves and going to a riot and shooting two people dead is fine, a man shooting at cops is fine. It isn’t fine. Mall shootings, School shootings, workplace shootings. All of these stem from the same diseased rationale, this obsession with guns and the toxic glorification that surrounds them.

It is a collective mental illness.

 

[Dax777]

And this brings us back to the sheer lunacy that underpinned the Rittenhouse case. The acceptance that this is normal behaviour. Casually shooting at people is not normal. It is a symptom of a society that has become detached from all that is sane.

Agreed. Never said otherwise.

You spend endless hours arguing that cops shooting unarmed people is fine, people arming themselves and going to a riot and shooting two people dead is fine, a man shooting at cops is fine. It isn’t fine. Mall shootings, School shootings, workplace shootings. All of these stem from the same diseased rationale, this obsession with guns and the toxic glorification that surrounds them.

It is a collective mental illness.

I have NEVER argued cops shooting unarmed people is fine. Never!

I have NEVER argued people going to riots arming themselves and killino 2 people is fine.

Nor have I argued shooting at cops is fine. To claim I have is disingenuous. What I've done is simply correct repeated false claims, state what the existing laws are where needed, and apply common sense based on existing reality to each scenario.

Again, like I told others on a separate thread, I wasn't having an intellectual discussing about the 2nd Am or American gun love or how stupid Americans are. I already conceded that point. You all can go ahead and feel superior. I have no issues with that.

But I will counter false narratives about specific incidents with facts and be honest about factual realities as opposed to utopian fantasies.

So when someone say Rittenhouse should not have gone to the riots armed. I agree he probably shouldn't have gone there. But if he was going to go, he absolutely should be armed because many amongst the rioters would be and as evidence showed, were.

Pointing out a reality isn't making a moral judgment about it.

 

[BobKowalski]

Agreed. Never said otherwise.


I have NEVER argued cops shooting unarmed people is fine. Never!

I have NEVER argued people going to riots arming themselves and killino 2 people is fine.

Nor have I argued shooting at cops is fine. To claim I have is disingenuous. What I've done is simply correct repeated false claims, state what the existing laws are where needed, and apply common sense based on existing reality to each scenario.

Again, like I told others on a separate thread, I wasn't having an intellectual discussing about the 2nd Am or American gun love or how stupid Americans are. I already conceded that point. You all can go ahead and feel superior. I have no issues with that.

But I will counter false narratives about specific incidents with facts and be honest about factual realities as opposed to utopian fantasies.

So when someone say Rittenhouse should not have gone to the riots armed. I agree he probably shouldn't have gone there. But if he was going to go, he absolutely should be armed because many amongst the rioters would be and as evidence showed, were.

Pointing out a reality isn't making a moral judgment about it.

There is no common sense. Common sense left the building and was shot trying to get back in.

As for utopian fantasies. These utopian fantasies are the rule in Western developed countries. The US is the outlier. And, no,I don’t buy your rationale as to why you expend considerable energy and time in defending these instances. Defending them - aka ‘pointing out reality’ - is making a moral judgement.

Every school shooting, every cop shooting of an unarmed civilian, the militarisation of the police, every bizarre trial that frets over who shot first rather than why anyone feels compelled to start shooting to begin with, every political denial that mass shootings are not a problem, and media led conspiracies that they are a false flag to take peoples guns away. This is a mental disease where the abnormal is treated as normal and no one can stop it because the mental patients are in charge.

 

[Bigga]

Go away. Annoy someone else.

You know, the funny thing is, I found out this morning your particular argument has been used by right wing conservative Men in the US and I hadn't even been talking to my links in the US, the past few days.

I already know how you people think.

It was pathetic to compare and Kaz was 100% right.

I will always call you out on your faux logic.

 

[Dax777]

There is no common sense. Common sense left the building and was shot trying to get back in.

As for utopian fantasies. These utopian fantasies are the rule in Western developed countries. The US is the outlier. And, no,I don’t buy your rationale as to why you expend considerable energy and time in defending these instances. Defending them - aka ‘pointing out reality’ - is making a moral judgement.

Every school shooting, every cop shooting of an unarmed civilian, the militarisation of the police, every bizarre trial that frets over who shot first rather than why anyone feels compelled to start shooting to begin with, every political denial that mass shootings are not a problem, and media led conspiracies that they are a false flag to take peoples guns away. This is a mental disease where the abnormal is treated as normal and no one can stop it because the mental patients are in charge.

Like I said, whst often happens in my discussion is that someone makes a claim that I deem somewhat inaccurate. So I reply by pointing out where I believe the innacuracies are and where I think their overall belief doesn't match the reality on the ground.

Then someone like you with an objection to say in this case, guns, will then come and accuse me of being pro guns because I object to someone else's point that I deemed inaccurate. You shouldn't foist on me a position I don't hold or I'm not objecting to.


Even though I think your post conflates self defense with your anti-guns/no-common-sense view, I can't in fairness challenge the wrongness of that claim coz I realize it's 2nd Am you want to argue. And I'm not the best opponent to take that up with.

I'm sure there are other Americans here who are 2A advocates. They are in a better position to get into that argument with you.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Like I said, whst often happens in my discussion is that someone makes a claim that I deem somewhat inaccurate. So I reply by pointing out where I believe the innacuracies are and where I think their overall belief doesn't match the reality on the ground.

Then someone like you with an objection to say in this case, guns, will then come and accuse me of being pro guns because I object to someone else's point that I deemed inaccurate. You shouldn't foist on me a position I don't hold or I'm not objecting to.


Even though I think your post conflates self defense with your anti-guns/no-common-sense view, I can't in fairness challenge the wrongness of that claim coz I realize it's 2nd Am you want to argue. And I'm not the best opponent to take that up with.

I'm sure there are other Americans here who are 2A advocates. They are in a better position to get into that argument with you.

How can you claim not to be pro-guns... when you think taking guns to protests is the sensible thing to do?