• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Scum Makes Bail

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
31,490
10,248
146
Not really, because the bank robber was committing a crime and the police officer is acting in his lawful duty, although given the whole police reform discussion, a person robbing a bank should not necessarily result in a lethal response from police. Also, the Rittenhouse situation is complex. The kid went to clean graffiti, he also entered the community as an illegally armed vigilante, he “thought” he was helping. A situation escalated to lethal force. Given the sequence of events, I do believe he acted in self defense, but he shouldn’t have been armed or in that situation to begin with. This is why I’ve never been a fan of open carry. A private citizen shouldn’t use the military tools of the trade any more than they should be able to just walk into a factory and start operating heavy machinery. Rittenhouse needs to face charges for obtaining an illegal firearm.
The kid went to defend a building, invited by the same guy who bought the weapon for him.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,272
640
126
That's what we like to tell ourselves. Jury's have found innocent people guilty and guilty people innocent, and it's been "consistent with the law" at those times too. American's fight against common sense gun laws all the time. However, I live in MA, and I think our gun laws are quite reasonable and allow for self defense when the situation warrants it. My state also has a duty to retreat instead of stand your ground, but that's those libtards for ya, with their elitist attitudes and low gun death rates.
Not if it was as open and shut people on here make it out to be, since either they seem to think 1) misdemeanor gun possession puts you in jeopardy for even someone suiciding against you 2) the mere fact of trying to obtain the gun illegally = proof that he wanted to kill someone that night.

What was I supposed to be refuting? Can you point to where I said I was? I was simply commenting on the article that you cherry picked a piece of that says what you want to hear.
There you go again acting like you proved something wrong. The so-called “cherry-pick” was the point for posting the article. If they follow Wisconsin law, it isn’t going to be a simple and dumb as 1) misdemeanor gun possession puts you in jeopardy for even someone suiciding against you 2) the mere fact of trying to obtain the gun illegally = proof that he wanted to kill someone that night.

And? Where did I specifically say that?
You apparently aren’t but most of everyone else is.

Guns aren't devices of peace, theyre devices of fear. When used as "peace keeping" tools, they're just devices of compliance, out of fear. Numbers don't lie, when guns are available, death is more likely to happen.
Uh, how come he cannot possibly have the same reasonings as everyone else who was there that didn’t have to shoot someone? It is frankly bizarre how people think mere illegal gun possession is proof that you want to kill. Gee, it could not be that he felt he would be safer with a gun just like everyone else who went carrying a rifle.

Surely you agree with the main point tho, when guns are involved common sense goes out the window.
It should be common sense that somebody basically suiciding you should not put you in jeopardy just because you are underage. It should be common sense that more than a dozen people trying to take someone down for the accusation of murder would elicit a fear response from the person who shot said person suiciding.

*tweet* whatabout on the play. I never said anything about introducing his girl hitting into the case. This is you jumping to conclusions because you're being very defensive, likely due to some emotional attachment to some part of this case.
You bring it up and then say, “This kid went looking for a fight” after I responded. Why is that? Looking at the actual video evidence and information currently about the incident, I do not see that. If there was a provocation, there is clearly a disconnect from that possible original confrontation where Kyle gets away for a short period of time. He was always running from the threats, didn’t shoot Rosenbaum until they basically collided, let Gaige feign a surrender, and then didn’t kill Gaige when many cops would have still perceived him as a threat, since Gaige could not let go of the gun.

Illegal gun possession is criminal behavior, why are you trying to frame it as not? The girl punching thing I simply found in passing, and kinda lol'd because based on the little I knew (know more now tho) said this guy was just a hero's hero, and real American. Well, I guess that's kinda true, considering the amount of pro USA apparel he don's.
My position was that illegal gun possession ranges significantly on severity depending on intent. It’s fucking hilarious seeing fski suggesting it’s super serious proof of intent to kill and do multiple crimes every time, but only for white people because I know he would think differently here.

The goal, the president and his advisers say, is to free the federal prisons of nonviolent offenders who have ties to their communities and for whom time in prison is a waste.

“Our focus really has been on people who we think were overcharged and people who we do not believe have a propensity towards violence,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference last week, highlighting the decisions he is making on gun charges.

He held up a hypothetical case of a teenager in a gang who was caught with drugs and a gun, never used the weapon but ended up with a decadeslong sentence because of mandatory minimums, saying that man should get leniency.


Look at you tho, bringing up a person's past into the thread then attacking others for simply stumbling across a NYPost (out of all places) article that shows Rittenhouse repeatedly sucker punching his "sister", lol.
As I said above, you seem to think its evidence for him “looking for a fight”, do you not? Otherwise what is that based on? Again, I primarily look at the incident itself, and “looking for a fight” is stretching it. It is going to be interesting revisiting the thread if there ends up not even being a provocation angle to this.

Btw, lol I meant he was punching a girl that was fighting his sister.

Might I suggest you consider not everyone is out to get you, lest you end up like Rittenhouse.
Lolwut Now I am part of a militia?

By your reasoning, a bank robber could legitimately claim self-defense for shooting a cop, because the cop tried to take the gun away from him, or shot at him first.
Uh, what reasoning? I have no idea what you are referring to. No one could have possibly known Kyle was underage if you are trying to make an analogy of Kyle and the bank robber. The cop obviously has a job to do. Rosenbaum was not acting like a cop. Lol

Dishonest. Grasping at straws, making stupid assumptions, and still assigning false statements to others. Fuck off, shithead.
Lol They did it again. Apparently, the thread should have ended because if you go open carry, you can’t claim self-defense even if someone suicides against you.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
31,490
10,248
146
Not if it was as open and shut people on here make it out to be, since either they seem to think 1) misdemeanor gun possession puts you in jeopardy for even someone suiciding against you 2) the mere fact of trying to obtain the gun illegally = proof that he wanted to kill someone that night.
Ok, but it's you make it seem like it's open and shut self defense, just so you know.

1) lol, that would depend on your state, and lots of grey area in there.

2) illegally purchasing a weapon means one thing, you're a criminal that intends to do something with that weapon. No reasonable person is going to go out of their way to purchase a weapon illegally so they can practice cleaning it or whatever.

There you go again acting like you proved something wrong. The so-called “cherry-pick” was the point for posting the article. If they follow Wisconsin law, it isn’t going to be a simple and dumb as 1) misdemeanor gun possession puts you in jeopardy for even someone suiciding against you 2) the mere fact of trying to obtain the gun illegally = proof that he wanted to kill someone that night.
Again, what was I supposed to be refuting in your mind? You picked a specific piece of an article, that you seem to disagree with because you won't address what I've said, and put it out there like you're owning everyone with it. Oh, btw, I agree with the article, and that's because our gun laws and SYG laws are pretty common sensless in this country. The more I see this craziness, the more I agree with my states laws. You seem to ignore the broader premise of the article for the part that makes you feel good tho.

So, I guess I could say, "there you go again, acting like I was supposed to be proving something right or wrong"

You apparently aren’t but most of everyone else is.
Shrug, lol

Uh, how come he cannot possibly have the same reasonings as everyone else who was there that didn’t have to shoot someone? It is frankly bizarre how people think mere illegal gun possession is proof that you want to kill. Gee, it could not be that he felt he would be safer with a gun just like everyone else who went carrying a rifle.
Who else involved was carrying illegally? I personally don't care about his delicate feelings. He was invited to protect a property, he knew what was going on, went anyways, and went as far as to illegally arm himself also. He's definitely guilty of bad choices and illegal gun possession.

It should be common sense that somebody basically suiciding you should not put you in jeopardy just because you are underage. It should be common sense that more than a dozen people trying to take someone down for the accusation of murder would elicit a fear response from the person who shot said person suiciding.
umm, ok, you're saying that those two people he killed, and the third he injured, were' suiciding? What's your cause for believing this? Did they scream "YOLO" or leave a note before going to the protest? If not, then you should probably stop with this because it makes you look foolish.

You bring it up and then say, “This kid went looking for a fight” after I responded. Why is that? Looking at the actual video evidence and information currently about the incident, I do not see that. If there was a provocation, there is clearly a disconnect from that possible original confrontation where Kyle gets away for a short period of time. He was always running from the threats, didn’t shoot Rosenbaum until they basically collided, let Gaige feign a surrender, and then didn’t kill Gaige when many cops would have still perceived him as a threat, since Gaige could not let go of the gun.
1. Not even close to his area - check
2. illegally armed himself - check
3. I simply found that article while searching for timelines and such, and thought it was a bit funny.
4. Well, sorry if that hurts your feels as well, but I'm not here for your feels, or the perp's.

My position was that illegal gun possession ranges significantly on severity depending on intent. It’s fucking hilarious seeing fski suggesting it’s super serious proof of intent to kill and do multiple crimes every time, but only for white people because I know he would think differently here.
Illegal gun possession is illegal gun possession. It doesn't matter if you bought it to hunt, or target shoot, or home defense. You went out of your way to get an illegal fire arm.

The goal, the president and his advisers say, is to free the federal prisons of nonviolent offenders who have ties to their communities and for whom time in prison is a waste.

“Our focus really has been on people who we think were overcharged and people who we do not believe have a propensity towards violence,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference last week, highlighting the decisions he is making on gun charges.

He held up a hypothetical case of a teenager in a gang who was caught with drugs and a gun, never used the weapon but ended up with a decadeslong sentence because of mandatory minimums, saying that man should get leniency.
oh, I c, so this is you trying to play "gotcha" because Obama said something. Guess what, Rittenhouse did use it, and killed two people with it. So what's your stance on a person that buys a weapon illegally, is hired to protect a property, and kills two people during that time?

As I said above, you seem to think its evidence for him “looking for a fight”, do you not? Otherwise what is that based on? Again, I primarily look at the incident itself, and “looking for a fight” is stretching it. It is going to be interesting revisiting the thread if there ends up not even being a provocation angle to this.
His own actions, that's what it's based on. I mean, you seem to be up to speed on this thread, but you don't much about the person?

Btw, lol I meant he was punching a girl that was fighting his sister.
You mean that girl who the other guy had already pulled away from the girl he was repeatedly sucker punching? lol, yea...sure, you're really making the case here ;)



Lolwut Now I am part of a militia?


Uh, what reasoning? I have no idea what you are referring to. No one could have possibly known Kyle was underage if you are trying to make an analogy of Kyle and the bank robber. The cop obviously has a job to do. Rosenbaum was not acting like a cop. Lol
The cops job was apparently allow a young man to walk around armed, not check anything out, and even offer him water and thanks. What a good job

Lol They did it again. Apparently, the thread should have ended because if you go open carry, you can’t claim self-defense even if someone suicides against you.
There you go again, lol, did the two men killed leave suicide notes?

You're in pretty deep there guy, I dunno how the case will turn out, and I know the defense will try to weed out unsympathetic jurors, but two things are for sure: Rittenhouse did indeed break gun laws, used his pal to do it, and his pal will likely server more time for it.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,604
1,861
126
This is worth a bump. The entire time I've been reading this thread I have been thinking nearly the same thing. Your post should have been the end of this discussion.
Why? It’s makes for a great social media sound byte but its not entirely correct. Kenosha was not a combat zone. Even if you subscribe to the idea of classifying Rittenhouse as a combatant, his behavior better fits the patterns of a vigilante. Combatants are usually classified as lawful or unlawful, and the distinction becomes important should they become prisoners of war. If we define Kenosha as a combat zone, then by entering said combat zone and engaging Rittenhouse, his victims willingly shed their protected noncombatant civilian status.

Rittenhouse is guilty of illegally obtaining a firearm, taking it across state lines and asserting himself in a vigilante role for which he had no authority.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cytg111

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
4,474
908
136
Why? It’s makes for a great social media sound byte but its not entirely correct. Kenosha was not a combat zone. Even if you subscribe to the idea of classifying Rittenhouse as a combatant, his behavior better fits the patterns of a vigilante. Combatants are usually classified as lawful or unlawful, and the distinction becomes important should they become prisoners of war. If we define Kenosha as a combat zone, then by entering said combat zone and engaging Rittenhouse, his victims willingly shed their protected noncombatant civilian status.

Rittenhouse is guilty of illegally obtaining a firearm, taking it across state lines and asserting himself in a vigilante role for which he had no authority.
At first I thought vigilante fit but somehow it's just not a strong enough word to describe what these people do. Grabbing a gun and going to another city or state to intimidate or looking for trouble or the right opportunity to shoot someone was likely his intention.

Jerks like him came to my small town when folks wanted to have a blm protest. Well their intimidation worked as they cancelled the event. This is the type of shit that crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed IMHO. Protesting is part of who we are as a nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,604
1,861
126
At first I thought vigilante fit but somehow it's just not a strong enough word to describe what these people do. Grabbing a gun and going to another city or state to intimidate or looking for trouble or the right opportunity to shoot someone was likely his intention.

Jerks like him came to my small town when folks wanted to have a blm protest. Well their intimidation worked as they cancelled the event. This is the type of shit that crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed IMHO. Protesting is part of who we are as a nation.
I agree, he crossed a dangerous line, but combatants don’t usually stop on the way to the front to perform community service. It’s a complicated situation, but he should still be held accountable for the poor choices he made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: balloonshark

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
77,558
10,561
126
Some thoughts from a comedy site:


Years from now very few people will be defending him. But in the middle of the bullshit it may seem like half the country supports his actions.

My thoughts:
He appears to be an awful lot like George Zimmerman.
He had a chip on his shoulder and some dangerous ideas about justice and law and order.
He went looking for a fight.
He started one.
He couldn't win so he killed somebody and then claimed self-defense after the fact.
Because we have a nation of bullies he is currently getting a lot of people to agree with him.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,195
1,563
136
Yeah! Look at those massive privileges like... being able to go into a public restaurant. The nerve of these people!
White kid gets charged with murder. Gets bailed out for free. Gets high end lawyers for free. Gets to go hangout in bars for free. Probably will get a book deal when its all said and done.

Black kid gets charged with stealing a backpack he didn't steal. Gets held without bail for months or even years. Gets public defenders who don't care and are overworked. Kills himself due to massive depression or takes a plea deal for a crime he didn't commit (real story by the way. Look it up)
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,252
18,851
136
Seems like a nice kid:

need to get this kid together with the affluenza bastard and that Martin Schreli dude and call them some Superteam of punchable, deplorable, shitbastards. What would be their team name?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
104,252
18,851
136
White kid gets charged with murder. Gets bailed out for free. Gets high end lawyers for free. Gets to go hangout in bars for free. Probably will get a book deal when its all said and done.

Black kid gets charged with stealing a backpack he didn't steal. Gets held without bail for months or even years. Gets public defenders who don't care and are overworked. Kills himself due to massive depression or takes a plea deal for a crime he didn't commit (real story by the way. Look it up)
he's illiterate. I think that's the problem.
 

Pohemi420

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
3,141
777
136
need to get this kid together with the affluenza bastard and that Martin Schreli dude and call them some Superteam of punchable, deplorable, shitbastards. What would be their team name?
White Shitball Turdburglars? The white is important, I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burpo

ASK THE COMMUNITY