251
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
251 points (99.6% liked)
chapotraphouse
13616 readers
591 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Even if you steel man his argument and presume his 100% innocence, he still did something wrong by traveling to a place he didn't live to act belligerent to locals with his gun. It is impossible for you to argue that he did nothing wrong. Try harder.
Jurisdiction and Travel: One could argue that traveling to a place, even if it's not one's primary residence, does not inherently constitute wrongdoing. Rittenhouse had family ties in Kenosha, and he worked in the city as well. Thus, presenting it as an outsider coming in with no connections can be misleading.
Intent: The presumption of his intent as "acting belligerent" is an assumption. Kyle's stated intent was to protect property and provide medical aid. It's vital to separate one's interpretation of his actions from the actual intent.
Law Self-Defense: The trial's core issue was whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The jury found him not guilty on all counts, implying that, legally speaking, his actions were in line with self-defense statutes in Wisconsin.
Weapons: While he was underage possessing a firearm, the gun charge was dropped due to the specifics of Wisconsin law. The argument could be made that the gun shouldn't have been there in the first place, but this is a separate issue from the question of whether he acted in self-defense once confronted.
Moral Nuance: One can argue that Rittenhouse may have made decisions that escalated tensions (like bringing a firearm to a volatile situation), but that doesn't mean he acted criminally during the events in question.
Avoid Overgeneralization: It's essential to avoid painting the entire situation with a broad brush. Just because someone believes that Kyle acted in self-defense in the events of that night doesn't mean they endorse every decision he made leading up to it.
He traveled to start shit. He didnt work, live, or have family at a car lot.
His intent was to start shit. "Protecting" an empty car lot is the most hamfisted shitlib handwaving. Muh Private Property!
Legally speaking, nobody gives a shit nerd.
Once again, nobody gives a fuck about the banality of gun laws.
He acted like a dipshit cracker, theres your nuance
Kyle, and everyone who thinks he's cool, should throw a clot. That should be specific enough.
Hell yeah, drown me in banality baby. Tell me about his deep meaningful connection to secondhand autosales.
Protecting private property, hell yeah, jerk me harder locke. When i grab guns to head to a counterprotest, its because i care so much about classical conceptions of property rights.
I could go on a tangent about bourgeois "Legal frameworks", but its much easier to say "Death to America" and move on.
America delenda est
I dont respect you, or your opinions.
We can do both & the only thing worth constructing here is a pit.
So you think broken windows are more important than the lives of black people. You're a bad person and I hope you get to read that before you get banned.
Protecting private property justifies ANY violence, sweety
and those people should be fucking drowned
Drowning is fine and good but I still prefer the pit. Compromise solution, we add some water to the nazi pit - a permanent dunk tank if you willl
๐๐๐
But what if the water provides too much cushioning when they hit the bottom?
Then they drown
I'm more of a light them on fire kinda guy.
I've got a bridge they can protect.
They can protect it best standing right between the supports... yes, right there.
lmao, did ChatGPT write this shit?
Fr did, y'all getting got
Lmao the legal perspective isn't important at all. The law isn't some infallible deity, it's a dude in a gown, and the whole trial made it obvious who the judge was siding with. Behaving as if the legal perspective is in any way objective - or really relevant - is silly. It's also circular logic "the law decided he was innocent, so therefore the law was right". Had the law decided he was guilty the law would've been right too.
For the same reason it's not crucial to understand gun laws. They aren't upheld by impartial arbiters. Laws are tools of oppression wielded by the hegemonic power.
Why is a respectful dialogue crucial? You keep using this word as if it means anything in and of itself. I see no reason to be polite to someone that thinks it's cool and good to travel miles and miles with the purpose of murdering political adversaries.
Why is it you think constructive conversation is some sort of right? If you cannot handle statements like "I think all slavers should be killed", then I don't want to have a polite conversation with you, and there is most certainly nothing constructive that can come from it.
Also you might want to try to form your own thoughts for once, rather than have some silly chatbot tell you what to think.
It's hilarious when people act like legality is somehow the real world or just in any sense.
Reminds me of an adviser to Trump who suggested drone bombing refugees before they reached the US because they wouldn't be protected by the constitution at that point.
property is just stuff you fuckhead. blowing away lives for things is always wrong. what the fuck is wrong with you.
Hurry up and nut already, you're jerking yourself off so hard here you're going to pass out.