Dia on 25/11/2021 at 14:07
Quote Posted by SD
No, I'm sure three convicted felons were there out of the sheer goodness of their hearts. Like all the other peaceful protestors who burnt a city down to the ground.
Just an FYI: I live about 8 miles north of Kenosha and had occasion to drive through the town several times after the protests/riots (down Sheridan Road, which is Kenosha's equivalent of Chicago's Lake Shore Drive). I saw
one used car lot wherein the cars had all been burned to rusty husks. All the other businesses/shops, etc., had had their windows boarded up (some with pro-BLM slogans painted on the boards, others with warnings that there were children or disabled people living in apartments above the store/shop/business) and sustained absolutely
NO damage whatsoever. Most business/shop owners were warned in advance that things could get 'ugly' during the protest and those owners took necessary precautions accordingly. The town of Kenosha still stands and it's business as usual. It should be noted that busloads of out-of-state 'protesters' were stopped at the Wisconsin state line and turned away; also that many of those arrested for vandalism/looting etc. were not even from Wisconsin, let alone Kenosha. Just like that little sneaky snake Rittenhouse, they came to our state to cause more trouble and mayhem. Get your facts straight, SD.
P.S. I don't know how the law works where you come from but here in the U.S. a past criminal record can't be used against you in court if you're caught committing a different crime. A man in Wisconsin was convicted of stealing groceries and toys for his kids just before Christmas (he'd lost his job and his wife) so we should forever believe that man is a thief who can never be trusted again? I guess it all depends on the color of the man's skin, right? Besides, Rittenhouse did
not know the criminal record of the man he shot and killed so using the victim's past criminal record to justify his death is ridiculous. No one deserved to be shot to death that night.
SD on 25/11/2021 at 15:57
Quote Posted by faetal
And the award from most transparent bad faith argument of 2021 goes to this guy.
It's humour for goodness sake. When did people stop being able to spot obvious mockery?
I think if anyone's obsessed with that topic here, it's you, since you're bringing it into a wholly unrelated discussion. The irony being that me and SE disagree greatly on many things, but if you think you're going to provoke a second excellent long-term poster into getting himself banned, jog on pal.
SD on 25/11/2021 at 16:15
Quote Posted by demagogue
As for the case, there's a lot I could say. The job of a good lawyer is to accurately predict the outcome of cases, and this outcome was reasonably predictable. You have to distinguish claiming the decision was illegal or corrupt (which is a battle I don't think would win) vs. thinking it fairly upheld the the law, but the law itself is an ass (which has a better shot of hitting its mark).
I do admire the way in which you have used many words to circumspectly agree that the jury got it right, in a way that is unlikely to arouse ire.
Of course the law is an ass, but it is the law. The job of the legal system isn't to decide whether the law is right or wrong, or whether the accused is a good person, or whether it's a sensible idea to take a gun into a situation like this. It is there to decide whether laws were broken outwith a reasonable doubt.
On this basis, it is little wonder that critics of the decision rely upon appeals to emotion, slippery slope fallacies and outright falsehoods to make their arguments.
faetal on 25/11/2021 at 21:06
Quote Posted by SD
It's humour for goodness sake. When did people stop being able to spot obvious mockery?
Isn't humour meant to be funny, or plausibly attempting to be funny?
june gloom on 25/11/2021 at 21:54
Quote Posted by SD
It's humour for goodness sake. When did people stop being able to spot obvious mockery?
You've proven that as usual the right can't meme.
Quote Posted by SD
The irony being that me and SE disagree greatly on many things, but if you think you're going to provoke a second excellent long-term poster into getting himself banned, jog on pal.
Oh, so now it's
my fault SubJeff threw a tantrum and harassed the forum administrator because he faced the minimum of consequences for insulting not even me, but mopgoblin?
I'm the one responsible for his behavior? lmao
Azaran on 25/11/2021 at 22:04
Quote Posted by june gloom
Oh, so now it's
my fault SubJeff threw a tantrum and harassed the forum administrator
Is that why he got booted? Always wondered what happened
Nicker on 26/11/2021 at 02:56
Which American city got "burned to the ground", SD?
zacharias on 26/11/2021 at 07:39
Quote Posted by SD
if you think you're going to provoke a second
excellent long-term poster into getting himself banned, jog on pal.
Serious question: don't you honestly find it a bit cringeworthy to declare yourself ‘an excellent poster'? I mean, isn't that for other people to say?
