I also support Rittenhouse, someone who was as much a child as Martin, and who defended himself against the violent white men who attacked him.
It’s almost like race is irrelevant to justice - not that the American left will ever see that.
What a fucking tool you are.
Of course I think they were criminal acts. They were against the law. That doesn’t make them wrong.
Burning down the Senate because there’s 1(one) alleged criminal they support? That would be wrong.
As for the rest of my post, it is not gibberish. I’m not american, not christian and not straight, which means I’m not what I’ve been accused of being here, I have an outsiders perspective on it, and I know what it’s like to be a threatened minority. So maybe you should know what you’re talking about before you spout off…
Really? You think people should be treated differently depending on their race? I don’t. To do otherwise would be unjust, immoral and in many circumstances illegal.
You’re a racist fucking tool. You’ve shown no indication of anything different.
They are already being treated differently, as you very well know.
1994 called and wants its racism back.
Which I consider unjust, obviously.
I would much have preferred that Ahmaud Arbery had been able to defend himself against his attackers, and face no consequences for doing so even if he’d killed them, but I’m not naive enough to think that would have happened. The best case scenario would be that he was armed and able to kill them, assuming they were intent on attacking him.
Had that happened, there would have been a bunch of people on a mirror-image of this board saying he wasn’t really threatened, that they didn’t really have a weapon, that he should have avoided them and so on. They would be as wrong as you lot here are.
It is to laugh. The racism is in thinking that they couldn’t possibly be armed, that black people are always victims, and other nonsense. The racism is in thinking that the white people involved in these issues must be evil, because of whiteness. It’s ridiculous. You can’t decide what actually happened based on the race of the people involved, only on the actual evidence. The narrative that blacks are all victims all the time is just as racist and damaging as the notion that they’re all criminals, and just as false.
Then you won’t mind that I continue to bring them up. It’s a fact that you said, and apparently continue to believe, that the entirety of the person (you didn’t just praise an action - you praised the whole person) that is Michael Dunn, convicted child murderer, is “the sort of [person] normal people want around them”. This is what you believe about someone who shot at fleeing children, killed an unarmed child, and was demonstrated to have lied about it in court.
There was a trial. Dunn was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of murdering an unarmed child. Beyond a reasonable doubt, in a trial. And, for some reason, you’re doubling down on this evidence free 90s racist idea that these kids must have been armed.
It is indeed to laugh.
Unless they’re listening to gansta music?
I’m not sure who you’re replying to in this post . . . I certainly haven’t been involved in this conversation at all, so definitely haven’t said anything like “black people are always victims”, “white people involved in these issues must be evil”, nor have I taken a position about what “actually happened” based on race.
I just think it’s hilarious that someone can, with a straight face, accuse everyone else of racism while also taking a position that “listens to rap music” is relevant in determining whether someone might be armed or not.
I’m wondering if he’s a white “Rhodesian”
No one ever said black people are always victims. That’s the thing. When you attack us, you constantly make up things we didn’t actually say. You seem to have issues with projection—if you believe X, then we must believe not X.
The issue is remains that, in these cases, the idea of “self-defense” makes no fucking sense, because both of them put themselves into the situation where they would need to shoot people. The only saving grace I have with Rittenhouse is that he was responding to people on Facebook begging for vigilantes to come in and help them, and he’s a kid who maybe didn’t realize you shouldn’t do that.
But, still, his victims died because he wanted to take the law into his own hands, just like Zimmerman. Still, the fact that their victims were scared of them doesn’t factor into it. It didn’t matter that we had proof Martin was scared enough to run. It didn’t matter how many people testified that Rosenbaum was trying to take the gun after he heard a gun shot. As I say, dead people don’t get self-defense rights.
This is idiotic. It results in the situation being that it’s better to kill and take your chances on getting off in court than to resolve situations peacefully. That’s the last thing you want to do. The whole point of laws involving assault is to encourage peaceful resolutions without violence
And, yeah, @iiandyiiii has you dead to rights. He showed a case where you don’t accept the court’s conviction as accurate. To us, we have to accept what the court says about Rittenhouse and Zimmerman, but you are free to disagree. You are free to make inferences based on the music preferences of the people involved.
So either it is you who lacks a system of morality and goes just by your feelings, or you have to accept all of us are allowed to not required to accept the courts’ verdicts if we think the evidence doesn’t support it, or think the law being applies results in a worse outcome for everyone.
Oh, and what music people listen to tells you nothing about whether they are armed. I can’t say I listen to rap or hip hop a lot, but I know a lot of people who do and none of us carry guns.
Just for fun, here is my very favorite full post from our friend Steophan:
That’s the whole post. No snipping.
So it appears that we have determined that Steophan, he of child-sized penis fame, is fond of child killers and kiddy diddlers as long as they focus on victims who are black. While that might be interesting from a psychological perspective, it’s really not worth continuing to observe from a message board perspective.
Later racist!
Only within the walls of the courtroom is this highly legalistic reading correct. As you may have noticed, none of us are within the walls of a courtroom. This is as stupid a misunderstanding of language as people who, based on chemistry, say, “Herp derp, all food is organic!”
Huh. Coulda sworn I’ve had you on Ignore for a number of months.
No matter. Plonk.
There; done.
Christ, what an asshole. Now he’s over in the ATMB thread insisting that “if it’s true, it can’t possibly be insulting”.
[quote=“engineer_comp_geek, post:12, topic:955062”]
ATMB is for resolving issues. The forum does not exist for your entertainment, and posts like these run very much counter to the purpose of this forum. Do not insult or belittle other’s posts outside of the Pit. Do not post snark or insult posts or posters in ATMB.
ECG issued that note in the “Protesting a Warning” ATMB thread. I can see that, as it could be viewed as personally insulting to Steophan.
In fairness, though, even before looking at who the OP is, who doesn’t look at an ATMB thread titled “Protesting a Warning” and look forward to someone making a conspicuous fool of themselves in an entertaining fashion?