George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

[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?