• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

BillBrasky Memorial Political Chat Thread

bym051d said:
He actually didn't. From what I heard on Opening Arguments, he said they could be called looters and rioters in the closing argument if they could be proven as such.

I think there's horrible stuff the judge has done, but victims and looters / rioters aren't part of it. And, they're not going to be why Rittenhouse is going to walk free.
Click to expand...

It sounds to be that, more than anything else, this is not a judicial system failure, but a legislative failure. That Rittenhouse went way out of his way looking for trouble, found it, and then killed 3 people, should be very illegal, but it is apparently not. That is a problem with laws about guns, and self defense.
 
birdman said:
It sounds to be that, more than anything else, this is not a judicial system failure, but a legislative failure. That Rittenhouse went way out of his way looking for trouble, found it, and then killed 3 people, should be very illegal, but it is apparently not. That is a problem with laws about guns, and self defense.
Click to expand...

100%

Someone who did what Rittenhouse did deserves to be in jail, just like George Zimmerman deserved. But like Zimmerman, Rittenhouse will go free.
 
birdman said:
It sounds to be that, more than anything else, this is not a judicial system failure, but a legislative failure. That Rittenhouse went way out of his way looking for trouble, found it, and then killed 3 people, should be very illegal, but it is apparently not. That is a problem with laws about guns, and self defense.
Click to expand...

Is there evidence that the defendant was the aggressor? If not, why can't he defend himself? What should the law be? Is it different inside an ongoing riot?
 
WokeandBroke said:
Is there evidence that the defendant was the aggressor? If not, why can't he defend himself? What should the law be? Is it different inside an ongoing riot?
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the time frame you consider in the criminal act. It is almost certain that all three people would still be a live if Rittenhouse had not brought a gun to Kenosha that day and the other guy's gun possession was immaterial on that time scale. Rittenhouse went looking for trouble ; he was the initial aggressor, and the people he killed were acting in self defense when you look at an hours/days long timeline. When you only consider the seconds before he fired short, then sure he is acting in self defense.
 
I mean kind of like if you kill somebody in the commission of a crime even unintentionally it kind of gets tied to the crime. In my opinion anybody who brings a gun to a protest/riot should be complicit in any death that occurs as a result of that
 
Gun nuts can never explain at what point people can defend themselves against the gunman claiming "self defense." You'd think after Rittenhouse shot the first person, everyone else could defend themselves, but I guess not.

You all need to understand that Republicans do not care about gun violence and they support it when gun violence kills people they disagree with.

If Dylann Roof's lawyers had just come out and said, "My client just wanted to go to Bible study. They jumped him because he's white. He just defended himself." Republicans would have eaten it up. They love this shit.
 
Last edited:
ImTheCaptain said:
how about we just make using guns to defend yourself illegal
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that. Right now, we have the opposite. People can defend themselves from plastic bags with guns but unarmed people who defend themselves from a gunman aren't "victims."
 
WokeandBroke said:
Is there evidence that the defendant was the aggressor? If not, why can't he defend himself? What should the law be? Is it different inside an ongoing riot?
Click to expand...

Driving across state lines with an illegally-obtained weapon to march into a riot is not aggressive?

Defending your business from rioters is one thing. But if I had gone to DC on 1/6 with an illegal weapon and started shooting the insurrectionists because they came at me, I still think I would be more than a bit culpable. I mean, I had no reason to be there in the first place.
 
ChrisL68 said:
I mean kind of like if you kill somebody in the commission of a crime even unintentionally it kind of gets tied to the crime. In my opinion anybody who brings a gun to a protest/riot should be complicit in any death that occurs as a result of that
Click to expand...

We already have that law. That's felony-murder. I don't know that the predicate crime is a felony.
 
DeaconSig said:
Driving across state lines with an illegally-obtained weapon to march into a riot is not aggressive?

Defending your business from rioters is one thing. But if I had gone to DC on 1/6 with an illegal weapon and started shooting the insurrectionists because they came at me, I still think I would be more than a bit culpable. I mean, I had no reason to be there in the first place.
Click to expand...

That's fair, but how is his right to be there inferior to other people's?
 
PhDeac said:
Gun nuts can never explain at what point people can defend themselves against the gunman claiming "self defense." You'd think after Rittenhouse shot the first person, everyone else could defend themselves, but I guess not.

You all need to understand that Republicans do not care about gun violence and they support it when gun violence kills people they disagree with.

If Dylann Roof's lawyers had just come out and said, "My client just wanted to go to Bible study. They jumped him because he's white. He just defended himself." Republicans would have eaten it up. They love this shit.
Click to expand...

Another fever daydream.
 
WokeandBroke said:
That's fair, but how is his right to be there inferior to other people's?
Click to expand...

J4PO1-nu_400x400.jpg
 
WokeandBroke said:
That's fair, but how is his right to be there inferior to other people's?
Click to expand...

The law, as written regarding self-defense, is what it is. Morally, I have a pretty large problem providing a legal defense to someone who goes looking for a fight and finds one. Like you said, we already have the felony-murder rule. I'm not sure why we wouldn't have a larger window of time to judge self defense that what currently exists as well.
 
The dude is accused and being prosecuted for murder, right ? Doesn't that presuppose that there is a victim ? Prove your case prosecution. Jesus, 99.9% of these people are guilty anyway. Stop wasting our time and resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top