Page 4 of 4

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:44 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:28 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
You're really an advocate for justice? Of course the result would be the same. You want laws to change because of your political bent? Or you just don't agree with the result?
Wow.
Wanting laws to change because of a political bent is kind of the whole point of politics. Laws are often value choices. Here (and in many other respects), our laws make the choice to prioritize the right to gun ownership and gun possession over the right to life. That's a choice I disagree with. Of course I intend to take political action to change those choices.

But remember this conversation when it's an antifa shooter who kills right-wing demonstrators. See if you remain content with the laws then, or whether you might consider taking political action to change the laws so that the same actions lead to a different result in the future. --Bob

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:48 pm
by Beebs52
No.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:05 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:48 pm
No.
Okay. I think you've been consistent on this issue.

But an awful lot of the people praising the Rittenhouse verdict also seem to think that action should be taken against the uniformed officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt. So at a minimum, I think anyone who thinks the Rittenhouse verdict was just fine but has a problem with the officer's action is being pretty damned hypocritical. --Bob

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:06 pm
by tlynn78
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:44 pm
Beebs52 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:28 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
You're really an advocate for justice? Of course the result would be the same. You want laws to change because of your political bent? Or you just don't agree with the result?
Wow.
Wanting laws to change because of a political bent is kind of the whole point of politics. Laws are often value choices. Here (and in many other respects), our laws make the choice to prioritize the right to gun ownership and gun possession over the right to life. That's a choice I disagree with. Of course I intend to take political action to change those choices.

But remember this conversation when it's an antifa shooter who kills right-wing demonstrators. See if you remain content with the laws then, or whether you might consider taking political action to change the laws so that the same actions lead to a different result in the future. --Bob
You're not talking about changing the law, you're talking about changing the Constitution. And if the set of facts is substantially similar (especially with video to back it up), then I'd expect the verdict to be similar.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:49 pm
by Bob78164
tlynn78 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:06 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:44 pm
Beebs52 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:28 pm
You're really an advocate for justice? Of course the result would be the same. You want laws to change because of your political bent? Or you just don't agree with the result?
Wow.
Wanting laws to change because of a political bent is kind of the whole point of politics. Laws are often value choices. Here (and in many other respects), our laws make the choice to prioritize the right to gun ownership and gun possession over the right to life. That's a choice I disagree with. Of course I intend to take political action to change those choices.

But remember this conversation when it's an antifa shooter who kills right-wing demonstrators. See if you remain content with the laws then, or whether you might consider taking political action to change the laws so that the same actions lead to a different result in the future. --Bob
You're not talking about changing the law, you're talking about changing the Constitution. And if the set of facts is substantially similar (especially with video to back it up), then I'd expect the verdict to be similar.
(a) The last time I checked, the Constitution is a form of law, and one that can be changed, if necessary. Hell, it's happened four times in my lifetime, and if I'd been born a few months earlier, that number would be five.

(b) It's not necessary here. Even with the Supreme Court's Republican caucus firmly in control, there is a lot of room to change the law within the bounds of current doctrine that would cause people to think twice before they go out looking for trouble. --Bob

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:04 pm
by tlynn78
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:49 pm
tlynn78 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:06 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:44 pm
Wanting laws to change because of a political bent is kind of the whole point of politics. Laws are often value choices. Here (and in many other respects), our laws make the choice to prioritize the right to gun ownership and gun possession over the right to life. That's a choice I disagree with. Of course I intend to take political action to change those choices.

But remember this conversation when it's an antifa shooter who kills right-wing demonstrators. See if you remain content with the laws then, or whether you might consider taking political action to change the laws so that the same actions lead to a different result in the future. --Bob
You're not talking about changing the law, you're talking about changing the Constitution. And if the set of facts is substantially similar (especially with video to back it up), then I'd expect the verdict to be similar.
(a) The last time I checked, the Constitution is a form of law, and one that can be changed, if necessary. Hell, it's happened four times in my lifetime, and if I'd been born a few months earlier, that number would be five.

(b) It's not necessary here. Even with the Supreme Court's Republican caucus firmly in control, there is a lot of room to change the law within the bounds of current doctrine that would cause people to think twice before they go out looking for trouble. --Bob
Good luck with that.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right?

Second, it was not an assault weapon. But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:18 pm
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right?

Second, it was not an assault weapon. But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
We appear to have different definitions of "looking for trouble." --Bob

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:27 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:18 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right?

Second, it was not an assault weapon. But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
We appear to have different definitions of "looking for trouble." --Bob
As well as fact and truth.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:35 pm
by Bob78164
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:27 pm
As well as fact and truth.
Are you taking a disagreement between us and using it to call me a liar? If so, please specify what I said that you believe to be a lie. --Bob

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:07 pm
by BackInTex
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:35 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:27 pm
As well as fact and truth.
Are you taking a disagreement between us and using it to call me a liar? If so, please specify what I said that you believe to be a lie. --Bob
If we had the same definition of fact and truth the. I’d say you are lying. But you’re not, right? So we must have different definitions.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:45 am
by Estonut
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:35 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:27 pm
As well as fact and truth.
Are you taking a disagreement between us and using it to call me a liar? If so, please specify what I said that you believe to be a lie.
He just did. 3 posts prior to the one I quoted here.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:32 am
by Bob78164
Estonut wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:45 am
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:35 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:27 pm
As well as fact and truth.
Are you taking a disagreement between us and using it to call me a liar? If so, please specify what I said that you believe to be a lie.
He just did. 3 posts prior to the one I quoted here.
I think I'll let BiT speak for himself, especially when I'm asking whether he's calling me a liar. He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself, so I suggest you allow him to do so. --Bob

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:33 pm
by Estonut
Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:32 am
Estonut wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:45 am
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:35 pm
Are you taking a disagreement between us and using it to call me a liar? If so, please specify what I said that you believe to be a lie.
He just did. 3 posts prior to the one I quoted here.
I think I'll let BiT speak for himself, especially when I'm asking whether he's calling me a liar. He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself, so I suggest you allow him to do so.
Is this the other Bob?

As I said, he already answered your question:
BackInTex wrote:If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right? (Calls out your lie #1)

Second, it was not an assault weapon. (Calls out your lie #2) But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; (Calls out your lie #3) no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:51 pm
by Bob78164
Estonut wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:33 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:32 am
Estonut wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:45 am
He just did. 3 posts prior to the one I quoted here.
I think I'll let BiT speak for himself, especially when I'm asking whether he's calling me a liar. He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself, so I suggest you allow him to do so.
Is this the other Bob?

As I said, he already answered your question:
BackInTex wrote:If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right? (Calls out your lie #1)

Second, it was not an assault weapon. (Calls out your lie #2) But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; (Calls out your lie #3) no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
For someone who likes to nitpick at the language of others, you're being awfully cavalier about putting words in the mouths of others.

BiT unambiguously claimed that I was wrong about the facts. (I'll note that examples two and three are at least potentially differences in definition, rather than a challenge to my understanding of the facts.) He did not unambiguously call me a liar.

You, on the other hand, appear to be doing so. Why are you lying about BiT's intent? If you want to accuse me of deliberately misstating facts by calling me a liar, why don't you do so in your own name?

I think it's because you're more interested in trying (poorly) to play Internet bully behind the facade of a pseudonym than you are in trying to achieve a common understanding. --Bob

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:06 pm
by themanintheseersuckersuit
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right?

Second, it was not an assault weapon. But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
Jack Lucas from Plymouth was awarded the MOH at age 17 for heroism on Iwo Jima

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:07 pm
by themanintheseersuckersuit
Plymouth NC

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:56 am
by BackInTex
themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:06 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right?

Second, it was not an assault weapon. But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
Jack Lucas from Plymouth was awarded the MOH at age 17 for heroism on Iwo Jima
Thankfully Bob#s wasn't on the committee to determine the award. They don't give out MOH to folks looking for trouble.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2023 7:01 pm
by jarnon
Rittenhouse’s supporters have a new cause célèbre:
Kid Rock a top donor to Daniel Penny's defense in NYC subway chokehold death

I bet these guys become the next heroes of the right:
US Marine among 2 men charged with firebombing California Planned Parenthood
One of them is a Marine like Penny; they didn’t kill or injure anyone; and they prevented a lot of abortions. OTOH leftists probably want them charged with domestic terrorism.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2023 7:30 pm
by Bob78164
jarnon wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2023 7:01 pm
Rittenhouse’s supporters have a new cause célèbre:
Kid Rock a top donor to Daniel Penny's defense in NYC subway chokehold death

I bet these guys become the next heroes of the right:
US Marine among 2 men charged with firebombing California Planned Parenthood
One of them is a Marine like Penny; they didn’t kill or injure anyone; and they prevented a lot of abortions. OTOH leftists probably want them charged with domestic terrorism.
I'm skeptical that they prevented any abortions. They probably delayed a bunch, but that's about all they accomplished.

Other than an arson fire that might have spread to surrounding buildings, of course. --Bob

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2023 7:59 am
by BackInTex
jarnon wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2023 7:01 pm
Rittenhouse’s supporters have a new cause célèbre:
Kid Rock a top donor to Daniel Penny's defense in NYC subway chokehold death

I bet these guys become the next heroes of the right:
US Marine among 2 men charged with firebombing California Planned Parenthood
One of them is a Marine like Penny; they didn’t kill or injure anyone; and they prevented a lot of abortions. OTOH leftists probably want them charged with domestic terrorism.
Wow. F*** you and your personal heroes who firebombed a crisis pregnacy center in Buffalo back in September.

Same to your other personal heroes who fire bombed a crisis pregnancy center in Oregon last June.

And to your personal heroes who set fire to a crisis pregnancy center in Colorado last June along with threats of further violence.

Re: Rittenhouse trial

Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:46 am
by tlynn78
BackInTex wrote:
Thu Jun 15, 2023 7:59 am
jarnon wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2023 7:01 pm
Rittenhouse’s supporters have a new cause célèbre:
Kid Rock a top donor to Daniel Penny's defense in NYC subway chokehold death

I bet these guys become the next heroes of the right:
US Marine among 2 men charged with firebombing California Planned Parenthood
One of them is a Marine like Penny; they didn’t kill or injure anyone; and they prevented a lot of abortions. OTOH leftists probably want them charged with domestic terrorism.
Wow. F*** you and your personal heroes who firebombed a crisis pregnacy center in Buffalo back in September.

Same to your other personal heroes who fire bombed a crisis pregnancy center in Oregon last June.

And to your personal heroes who set fire to a crisis pregnancy center in Colorado last June along with threats of further violence.

Morons are gonna moron.