CBS lied abouT Rittenhouse crossing state line armed...

[Shaul]

Transporting a legally owned firearm across a state border isn’t any crime.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet a court and a jury didn’t rule so.

They ruled that they weren't sure of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The US justice system - like that of many countries - is set up around an idea like Blackstone's Ratio:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Blackstone's ratio - Wikipedia

IMO, Rittenhouse is one of the "ten" that Blackstone was talking about.

 

[Shaul]

They ruled that they weren't sure of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The US justice system - like that of many countries - is set up around an idea like Blackstone's Ratio:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Blackstone's ratio - Wikipedia

IMO, Rittenhouse is one of the "ten" that Blackstone was talking about.

So a jury and court which had access to the best evidence the prosecution could offer couldn’t come to a guilty verdict, but you, internet hero, know he is certainly guilty.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So a jury and court which had access to the best evidence the prosecution could offer couldn’t come to a guilty verdict, but you, internet hero, know he is certainly guilty.

Do you think OJ Simpson was guilty?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So a jury and court which had access to the best evidence the prosecution could offer couldn’t come to a guilty verdict, but you, internet hero, know he is certainly guilty.

Should I take your strawmanning of my position as a sign that you don't have an argument against what I'm actually saying?

 

[Debater Slayer]

So a jury and court which had access to the best evidence the prosecution could offer couldn’t come to a guilty verdict, but you, internet hero, know he is certainly guilty.

This is a very interesting argument.

For the last two years, I've seen many people, mainly conservatives, dismiss expert consensus on a potentially life-threatening pandemic disease and act as what one could call "internet experts." But now, in a court case where the right generally agrees with the verdict, I see you and many others appeal to the authority of the judge and the jury and dismiss contrary opinions on the basis that they don't have access to the best evidence--which is exactly the case with laypeople who don't have the credentials or academic background to understand medical evidence.

I understand that some people lean right and have conservative beliefs even if I disagree, but when consistency is so casually flouted in discussions like this, I don't know how you expect others to respond to your position.

 

[Shaul]

Should I take your strawmanning of my position as a sign that you don't have an argument against what I'm actually saying?

So you don’t think the court and jury had the best evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you don’t think the court and jury had the best evidence.

Would you like me to copy-paste this for all of your replies from now on?

Should I take your strawmanning of my position as a sign that you don't have an argument against what I'm actually saying?

 

[Shaul]

This is a very interesting argument.

For the last two years, I've seen many people, mainly conservatives, dismiss expert consensus on a potentially life-threatening pandemic disease and act as what one could call "internet experts." But now, in a court case where the right generally agrees with the verdict, I see you and many others appeal to the authority of the judge and the jury and dismiss contrary opinions on the basis that they don't have access to the best evidence--which is exactly the case with laypeople who don't have the credentials or academic background to understand medical evidence.

I understand that some people lean right and have conservative beliefs even if I disagree, but when consistency is so casually flouted in discussions like this, I don't know how you expect others to respond to your position.

Any unspecified supposed opinions you purportedly have seen about a pandemic have nothing to do with a poster not accepting the official verdict of a court and jury in this case.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Any unspecified supposed opinions you purportedly have seen about a pandemic have nothing to do with a poster not accepting the official verdict of a court and jury in this case.

They do, though, unless you yourself defer to expert authorities on everything. If you have ever disagreed with expert opinions, then you should be able to discern the logic behind disagreeing with an official verdict of a court and jury.

 

[Shaul]

Would you like me to copy-paste this for all of your replies from now on?

Should I take your strawmanning of my position as a sign that you don't have an argument against what I'm actually saying?

Cut and paste? Ok. You wrote “I say he's a murderer because he killed two people in a way that broke the law.” I pointed out, quite correctly, “Yet a court and jury didn’t rule so.” There is no straw man.

 

[Shaul]

They do, though, unless you yourself defer to expert authorities on everything. If you have ever disagreed with expert opinions, then you should be able to discern the logic behind disagreeing with an official verdict of a court and jury.

Wrong. False dichotomy.

 

[ecco]

So a jury and court which had access to the best evidence the prosecution could offer couldn’t come to a guilty verdict,

I guess you are unaware of the thousands of innocent men that have been imprisoned by "the best evidence the prosecution could offer". If you were aware you wouldn't be making comments about the reliability of juries.

 

[Shaul]

I guess you are unaware of the thousands of innocent men that have been imprisoned by "the best evidence the prosecution could offer". If you were aware you wouldn't be making comments about the reliability of juries.

I’m aware of that and that guilty people are also not convicted. Which isn’t relevant. Because I am also aware that courts are the best determiners of Justice, not opinions of internet denizens. Something you seem to overlook.

 

[Suave]

Well the ADL is full of feathers on this. The purported proud boy members here are wearing pants. By this “logic” pant wearing is now associated with white power. Your repeating this nonsense doesn’t make it so. It just makes you less credible.

OK sign is under siege: How the squeaky-clean hand gesture was twisted by trolls and acquired racist undertones

Just stop already: The 'OK' symbol is not a 'white power' sign

Do you have any proof that these purported proud boys are genuine? No. Do you have any proof that Kyle Rittenhouse knew they who they were? Again, no. Joe Biden has publicity lauded a bona fide, genuine former Grand Gleagle of the KKK, should he be branded as a white supremacist through association too? So much for indisputable.

Kyle Rittenhouse listened to the Proud Boys anthem serenaded to him by the Proud Boys. Hence, Kyle Rittenhouse knew the Proud Boys were buying his beer of which Kyle Rittenhouse drank three bottles worth bought by the Proud Boys. So now what do you think about Kyle Rittenhouse being so cozy and cordial with the Proud Boys? There is no denying the Proud Boys acting as Kyle Rittenhouse's legal guardian gifted him his beer, because in Wisconsin an 18 year old can only legally drink beer under the supervision of a legal adult guardian. Please let us know why we should not consider an 18 year old having white supremacists act as his legal guardian buying beer for the 18 year old as belonging to white supremacists?

 

[sun rise]

Fox was created by Murdock to basically be a propaganda channel, so why is this so difficult for some to understand? According to PolitiFact, it is the least accurate in reporting news than any other major news network.

Now are we to hear how "biased" that site is? Well, then why is it that both sides use it, but generally speaking, only when it confirms what they believe.

I look at the Wall Street Journal, hardly a far left outlet because they score high in accuracy and provide an alternate view of events from a business viewpoint. "The Hill" also is center right and high in accuracy.

Fox's reality is illustrated by them requiring vaccinations for employees while their commentators say the opposite.

 

[sun rise]

Wrong. False dichotomy.

Expected

 

[Shaul]

Kyle Rittenhouse listened to the Proud Boys anthem serenaded to him by the Proud Boys. Hence, Kyle Rittenhouse knew the Proud Boys were buying his beer of which Kyle Rittenhouse drank three bottles worth bought by the Proud Boys. So now what do you think about Kyle Rittenhouse being so cozy and cordial with the Proud Boys? There is no denying the Proud Boys acting as Kyle Rittenhouse's legal guardian gifted him his beer, because in Wisconsin an 18 year old can only legally drink beer under the supervision of a legal adult guardian. Please let us know why we should not consider an 18 year old having white supremacists act as his legal guardian buying beer for the 18 year old as belonging to white supremacists?

Because the whole narrative is a lie. He says it was a set up.
Kyle Rittenhouse says Proud Boys meeting was a "set up"

 

[Shaul]

Expected

Well if you expected me to call out your illogic then you shouldn’t have tried to peddle it.

 

[Suave]

Because the whole narrative is a lie. He says it was a set up.
Kyle Rittenhouse says Proud Boys meeting was a "set up"

That was wrong to frame Kyle Rittenhouse"s meeting with the Proud Boys. Please kindly disregard my remarks about Kyle Rittenhouse being associated with white supremacists