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.