Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial (Jacob Blake Protest Shooting)

5th Letter said:
Click to expand...


Disanthrope said:
The fix is in

Our white allies not getting justice
Click to expand...



Calling them victims implies guilt, and the whole case is about who's the victim. If he successfully argues self defense, he would be the victim. Like let's say someone broke into your house with a gun, and you shot and killed them. Then you go to trial to determine if it was a legal self defense shooting.

Calling the burglar the "victim" the whole time would imply you were in the wrong. If it was self defense, you were the victim. Calling them a burglar the whole time, would just be accurate.

This is only if it can be proven they are what they're called (prove they looted, burned shit, etc). I think they have Rosenbaum on camera burning shit.
 
Last edited:
Bow to Royalty said:


Calling them victims implies guilt, and the whole case is about who's the victim. If he successfully argues self defense, he would be the victim. Like let's say someone broke into your house with a gun, and you shot and killed them. Then you go to trial to determine if it was a legal self defense shooting.

Calling the burglar the "victim" the whole time would imply you were in the wrong. If it was self defense, you were the victim. Calling them a burglar the whole time, would just be accurate.

This is only if it can be proven they are what they're called (prove they looted, burned shit, etc). I think they have Rosenbaum on camera burning shit.
Click to expand...

Oook

Sure

How do you explain the judge allowing the non victims to be called rioters and looters??

You can't

They can't be called victims but can be called rioters

you can't rationalize white supremacy.. stop trying
 
Disanthrope said:
Oook

Sure

How do you explain the judge allowing the non victims to be called rioters and looters??

You can't

They can't be called victims but can be called rioters

you can't rationalize white supremacy.. stop trying
Click to expand...

Victim is based on if he can claim self defense or not. That's the whole point of the case.

If they were lighting dumpsters on fire, they're arsonists. That's not a label based on opinion/circumstance.

Also, is this uncommon? Feel like sometimes y'all just want to be mad, haha. Like did we check to see if it's common, in cases arguing self defense, to not allow people to be called victims? Or you just jumping straight to the situation that lets you be the most angry?
 
Bow to Royalty said:
Victim is based on if he can claim self defense or not. That's the whole point of the case.

If they were lighting dumpsters on fire, they're arsonists. That's not a label based on opinion/circumstance.

Also, is this uncommon? Feel like sometimes y'all just want to be mad, haha. Like did we check to see if it's common, in cases arguing self defense, to not allow people to be called victims? Or you just jumping straight to the situation that lets you be the most angry?
Click to expand...
Tf? Where's the PROOF they lit dumpsters or anything?

They should be called PROTESTORS because we KNOW that's what they were doing. All those other labels are white supremacy in action

You can't legally call them rioters and arsonists in a court of law when they haven't been charged or convicted of such

It's super dense of you to try to rationalize these obviously openly anti black rulings
 
Disanthrope said:
Tf? Where's the PROOF they lit dumpsters or anything?

They should be called PROTESTORS because we KNOW that's what they were doing. All those other labels are white supremacy in action

You can't legally call them rioters and arsonists in a court of law when they haven't been charged or convicted of such

It's super dense of you to try to rationalize these obviously openly anti black rulings
Click to expand...

You're arguing with nobody about what I already addressed.

My first post said:

"This is only if it can be proven they are what they're called (prove they looted, burned shit, etc). I think they have Rosenbaum on camera burning shit."

That's me saying they should have to prove it, in order to call them that. And I think Rosenbaum is on video pushing a burning dumpster... that's riot behavior.

Then you ask me where the proof is. That's what I'm saying they need... you just read to be angry, haha. Listen to what your anger has you saying...they haven't been charged/convicted? They're dead, man. Why would they convicted of anything?

Here's Rosenbaum pushing a flaming dumpster. That's gonna get him called a rioters.

 
Bow to Royalty said:
You're arguing with nobody about what I already addressed.

My first post said:

"This is only if it can be proven they are what they're called (prove they looted, burned shit, etc). I think they have Rosenbaum on camera burning shit."

That's me saying they should have to prove it, in order to call them that. And I think Rosenbaum is on video pushing a burning dumpster... that's riot behavior.

Then you ask me where the proof is. That's what I'm saying they need... you just read to be angry, haha. Listen to what your anger has you saying...they haven't been charged/convicted? They're dead, man. Why would they convicted of anything?

Here's Rosenbaum pushing a flaming dumpster. That's gonna get him called a rioters.

Click to expand...
Fine

Even if he is a rioter he's still very much a victim and should be recognized as such.

The attempt to only recognize him as a rioter and not a victim is
WHITE SUPREMACY
 
Marc123 said:
Even if you shoot n kill some one in self defense aren't they still ur victim
Click to expand...

Feel like you'd only make that argument if intentionally trying to ignore how victim is used. The victim is usually the person on the bad end of a wrong.

So if a guy runs up on you with a knife to rob you, then you punch him and bounce nobody would call him the victim in that scenario because he was the one in the wrong.

Using it in court would imply to people he was in the wrong when shooting them, and that's the entire purpose of the case.
 
Disanthrope said:
Fine

Even if he is a rioter he's still very much a victim and should be recognized as such.

The attempt to only recognize him as a rioter and not a victim is
WHITE SUPREMACY
Click to expand...

We commonly use victim to describe the person not in the wrong. Without bullshitting around, I think we can agree to that.

The court case is to determine if Rittenhouse was in the wrong by shooting him. If it's determined to be self defense, they weren't victims. If it's not, they were victims.

And you still haven't looked into how common this "victim" thing is. You're letting the media think for you. If it's found he can't afford a lawyer and one is provided for him an article will come out saying "State of Wisconsin using taxpayer money to defend Rittenhouse" and you'll claim its an act of white supremacy, instead of thinking on your own and saying "that's a public defender".

Stop letting headlines and tweets tell you what to think instead of what to research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top