Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Is this an apples to apples comparison??

The Lonious Monk said:
We're going around in circles.

They were rioters. They were protesters. You don't get to malign a group of people to justify taking actions that are inherently meant to be intimidating.

I'm not sure what you mean by Pimp C is a strawman since it wasn't a logical argument and therefore can't be a fallacy. But the point is that for his menacing charge, he didn't even have to have the gun out. The other person just had to perceive his actions as threatening. There's nothing stopping the protesters from saying that they perceived those dudes popping up with guns drawn in response to their presences as threatening. When you factor in the fact that, prior to going to Wisconsin, Rittenhouse expressed that he wanted to shoot people that he perceived as rioters, he doesn't really deserve the benefit of doubt or any caping on his behalf.
Click to expand...
I understand ur point about the nuance between what defines a rioter vs a protester

it all comes down to perspective/perception........which adds to my point of only wanting to convict KR for personal feelings vs what the law actually says

the Pimp C situation wasn't relevant cuz the argument I made was about open carry

and open carry was legal in the jurisdiction KR was in.....the Pimp C example u gave was different

and how threatened were KR's victims when they literally chased him down and tried to take his gun and hit him over the head with a skateboard?

and expressing that he wanted shoot rioters isn't illegal or takes away his right to self-defense

should he have been convicted for pump-faking?
 
Bow to Royalty said:
People say this a lot and I guess I'm just not informed enough on the subject. Are you saying small business owners have no significant negative effects if their building and inventory are set on fire?

I know I've seen places around here catch fire, and never re-open.
Click to expand...
No

My issue is it's not worth dying over EVER

but they do have insurance to help offset losses
 
AP3.0 said:
No

My issue is it's not worth dying over EVER

but they do have insurance to help offset losses
Click to expand...
I can understand this

u don't believe people should be killed over property




unfortunately property rights can't be enforced if the full weight of the law doesn't apply

and enforcement of any law requires that we accept mofos possibly being killed to maintain order
 
Mr BFK said:
I can understand this

u don't believe people should be killed over property




unfortunately property rights can't be enforced if the full weight of the law doesn't apply

and enforcement of any law requires that we accept mofos possibly being killed to maintain order
Click to expand...
🫱🏿‍🫲🏾
 
AP3.0 said:
No

My issue is it's not worth dying over EVER

but they do have insurance to help offset losses
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, nobody was shot over property.

I had a convo kinda like this in an older thread.

To me, some of the time, the person getting shot also decides something is worth being killed over and they create the conflict. If Man A is outside guarding a store with a gun, and Man B decides he wants to try to set it on fire anyway...Man B decided that fire was worth getting shot over. There's no interaction, conflict, or harm to anyone or anything if Man B doesn't cause a problem. Put more of the blame on him.

If an armed man isn't fucking with you, why would you go out your way to provoke him? Some people just gotta fuck around and find out the hard way though.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
Just to clarify, nobody was shot over property.

I had a convo kinda like this in an older thread.

To me, some of the time, the person getting shot also decides something is worth being killed over and they create the conflict. If Man A is outside guarding a store with a gun, and Man B decides he wants to try to set it on fire anyway...Man B decided that fire was worth getting shot over. There's no interaction, conflict, or harm to anyone or anything if Man B doesn't cause a problem. Put more of the blame on him.

If an armed man isn't fucking with you, why would you go out your way to provoke him? Some people just gotta fuck around and find out the hard way though.
Click to expand...
I wasn't implying anyone was shot over property, at least I didn't think I was

But ijs, a life is priceless, this ain't call of duty. There is no respawn. Let them have that shit. No reason to die
 
AP3.0 said:
I wasn't implying anyone was shot over property, at least I didn't think I was

But ijs, a life is priceless, this ain't call of duty. There is no respawn. Let them have that shit. No reason to die
Click to expand...

I didn't know what details of it you knew.

That's what I mean. Why you not putting any of the blame on the person creating the conflict? We're talking about the shooter the same we'd talk about someone killing someone to take their jewelry.
 
5th Letter said:
Under most circumstances Rittenhouse would’ve gotten locked up. They protected him….
Click to expand...

Bruh, stop being so emotional. Name the laws he broke. You just keep saying he should be locked up and that he did shit he didn't do.


He could legally possess the gun, and all the shootings were easy self defense claims.

Name what he should have been found guilty of.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
I didn't know what details of it you knew.

That's what I mean. Why you not putting any of the blame on the person creating the conflict? We're talking about the shooter the same we'd talk about someone killing someone to take their jewelry.
Click to expand...
I am putting the responsibility on anyone creating a situation that could've been prevented

If you're looking to loot there's a possibility a store owner will not just let you take their shit

If you are on the other side of town far away from the mayhem, and decide to get in your car to be boots on the ground, you have left the safety of your home to potentially cause problems where they probably wouldn't exist had you stayed your ass at home
 
Bow to Royalty said:
Bruh, stop being so emotional. Name the laws he broke. You just keep saying he should be locked up and that he did shit he didn't do.


He could legally possess the gun, and all the shootings were easy self defense claims.

Name what he should have been found guilty of.
Click to expand...
2nd degree murder
 
AP3.0 said:
I want the record to reflect no one told me anything lol

I made a huge ass assumption cause why would black people be so upset that he shot 3 white/white adjacent people

😂😂😂😂

I mean it's fucked up still but I thought he killed black men
Click to expand...


So you just didn’t read shit lol
 
AP3.0 said:
I am putting the responsibility on anyone creating a situation that could've been prevented

If you're looking to loot there's a possibility a store owner will not just let you take their shit

If you are on the other side of town far away from the mayhem, and decide to get in your car to be boots on the ground, you have left the safety of your home to potentially cause problems where they probably wouldn't exist had you stayed your ass at home
Click to expand...

That's fair. I just put more blame on the person doing foul shit. Rittenhouse didn't need to go to the protest/riot and probably shouldn't have. But he didn't really seem to be fuckin with people for the most part. Videos show he was mostly there to prevent stores from being destroyed, put out fires, and offer light medical help. Rosenbaum was there to fuck shit up and get into altercations. Rosenbaum forced an altercation without being provoked... his fault.
 
5th Letter said:
2nd degree murder
Click to expand...

Alright, cool. Which of these do you think apply to what he did? Or if there's another definition I missed let me know.

  • Adequate provocation - The death was caused under the influence of a provocation that caused the defendant to lose self-control and would do so in an ordinary person, or a "heat of passion" killing.
  • Unnecessary defensive force - The defendant genuinely believed they or another person was in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury and that the force they used was necessary to defend whoever was endangered, but the belief of danger or the force being necessary was not reasonable.
  • Prevention of a felony - The defendant believed that the force used was necessary to prevent or stop a felony, but that belief was unreasonable.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
Alright, cool. Which of these do you think apply to what he did? Or if there's another definition I missed let me know.

  • Adequate provocation - The death was caused under the influence of a provocation that caused the defendant to lose self-control and would do so in an ordinary person, or a "heat of passion" killing.
  • Unnecessary defensive force - The defendant genuinely believed they or another person was in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury and that the force they used was necessary to defend whoever was endangered, but the belief of danger or the force being necessary was not reasonable.
  • Prevention of a felony - The defendant believed that the force used was necessary to prevent or stop a felony, but that belief was unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Murder in the second degree is usually defined as an intentional (rather than accidental) killing without premeditation. This means you intend or desire to harm or kill the victim with your actions. However, you didn't plan the killing.
 
5th Letter said:
Murder in the second degree is usually defined as an intentional (rather than accidental) killing without premeditation. This means you intend or desire to harm or kill the victim with your actions. However, you didn't plan the killing.
Click to expand...

That's a portion that leaves out important details.

But let's run with it. The OP was a video of those kids on the bus. If the kid they were trying to murder had a knife on him, and stabbed the kid with the gun would you say he needs to go to jail for 2nd degree intentional homicide/murder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top