Rittenhouse. What an American Hero. Will Biden apologise?

[ChristineM]

Your reluctance to hear Rittenhouse's side of things seems emotion-based to me.

Sorry if I'm wrong.

Rittenhouse killed 2 people with what i and the 2 states statutes involved consider an illegal weapon. A judge and jury believe differently. Not sure how you can consider that to be emotional.

FYI, the last time i got emotional about something like this was in 1996 when the IRA blew my aunts arm off. Some guy in America doesn't even register. But i do find it interesting how its split America even further.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Your reluctance to hear Rittenhouse's side of things seems emotion-based to me.

Sorry if I'm wrong.

Better to study the law and apply it first, as @ChristineM is trying to get started, it seems. Rittenhouse's lawyers likely told him what to say to have his i's dotted and t's crossed.

Sometimes I give people the benefit of a doubt. But my suspicion is raised after he broke down crying. There are reasonable explanations as to why he cried. He could very well have had PTSD. But there's also the chance it was a tactic suggested by his lawyers.

If someone has the truth, no tears are needed. The truth speaks for itself. But the problem is, I don't have the knowledge to know whether it was a tactic, or real problems he was having. It just raises suspicion for me as it's so often used as a tactic.

Several things about the case raise suspicion for me. Though, the prosecutors did a horrible job, too.

 

[Quagmire]

Rittenhouse killed 2 people with what i and the 2 states statutes involved consider an illegal weapon. A judge and jury believe differently. Not sure how you can consider that to be emotional.

It comes across as emotion-base in the sense that you seem to be using all this as a way to change the subject.

The subject being, "You really should watch the video".

 

[Revoltingest]

If someone has the truth, no tears are needed. The truth speaks for itself.

Oh, you young'ns....so innocent in the ways of the world.
"Truth" is a complex thing for humans....so much so that
it's an illusion. Good lawyers (a rare breed) prep defendants
for a court performance that conveys "The Truth".
Some components of truth in the justice system....
- Objective evidence
- Subjective evidence
- Emotional impressions & reactions
- Laws that can be read different ways
- Public pressure
- Mood of the judge
- Dishonesty by cops & prosecutors
- Incompetence
- Prejudice

As you can see, the truth will not set you free.
One must take all factors into consideration,
strategize, & then play the game for all it's worth.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Oh, you young'ns....so innocent in the ways of the world.
"Truth" is a complex thing for humans....so much so that
it's an illusion. Good lawyers (a rare breed) prep defendants
for a court performance that conveys "The Truth".
Some components of truth in the justice system....
- Objective evidence
- Subjective evidence
- Emotional impressions & reactions
- Laws that can be read different ways
- Public pressure
- Mood of the judge
- Dishonesty by cops & prosecutors
- Incompetence
- Prejudice

As you can see, the truth will not set you free.
One must take all factors into consideration,
strategize, & then play the game for all it's worth.

Which is why you don't ask defendants questions you don't already tend to know the answer to.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which is why you don't ask defendants questions you don't already tend to know the answer to.

I vividly recall by having been questioned by one such idiot.
It appeared that he was sloppily conducting discovery during the trial.
One can be dumb as a stump, yet still pass the bar exam & practice law.

 

[ChristineM]

It comes across as emotion-base in the sense that you seem to be using all this as a way to change the subject.

The subject being, "You really should watch the video".

The subject being

Rittenhouse. What an American Hero. Will Biden apologise?

And i have not changed that.

I think we are talking cross purposes here, the video does not change state law, it does not change the fact he killed 2 people

 

[Wildswanderer]

Bullpoop, you obviously know squat about the American legal system but blame your hated enemy instead

And you are hailing a killer because he is one of yours. This i find very disturbing

Soo. Are all the young men who killed during wars for our freedoms, killers in your eyes, or heroes?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Soo. Are all the young men who killed during wars for our freedoms, killers in your eyes, or heroes?

Which freedoms? The Vietnam and Iraq wars weren't about "freedoms." The U.S. was an aggressor and invader in both wars.

Afghanistan is a bit less straightforward because of the presence of al-Qaida there, but either way, a soldier being sent to fight under false pretenses is different from someone voluntarily going to an area where protests and riots are occurring while carrying a gun.

 

[Quagmire]

The subject being

Rittenhouse. What an American Hero. Will Biden apologise?

And i have not changed that.

I think we are talking cross purposes here, the video does not change state law, it does not change the fact he killed 2 people

That's not the conversation we were having.

 

[ChristineM]

Soo. Are all the young men who killed during wars for our freedoms, killers in your eyes, or heroes?

Strawman, totally irrelevant.

They had a reason, they killed for their country under instruction from their officers. Can you say the same about Rittenhouse?

 

[ChristineM]

That's not the conversation we were having.

It was the one i was having, that is after all what th thread is about

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which freedoms? The Vietnam and Iraq wars weren't about "freedoms." The U.S. was an aggressor and invader in both wars.

Afghanistan is a bit less straightforward because of the presence of al-Qaida there, but either way, a soldier being sent to fight under false pretenses is different from someone voluntarily going to an area where protests and riots are occurring while carrying a gun.

Well that answers that. Obviously your heroes don't include soldiers fighting for America.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Strawman, totally irrelevant.

They had a reason, they killed for their country under instruction from their officers. Can you say the same about Rittenhouse?

It's not irrelevant. It establishes what you believe to be heroic. If you would give a straight answer.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well that answers that. Obviously your heroes don't include soldiers fighting for America.

They certainly don't include invaders who committed many war crimes, opened torture-filled prisons, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in my region (the Middle East).

The last time the U.S. Army was in a war for a truly noble cause was in WWII.

 

[Wildswanderer]

They certainly don't include invaders who committed many war crimes, opened torture-filled prisons, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in my region (the Middle East).

Yes because your area has such good leaders who would never do such things as torture and subject women to unbearable lives, and bomb anyone they don't like.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes because your area has such good leaders who would never do such things as torture and subject women to unbearable lives, and bomb anyone they don't like.

That has no relevance to what I said, though. The two problems aren't mutually exclusive, and the U.S. government has consistently supported exactly those kinds of leaders before.

Nonetheless, you were comparing soldiers to Kyle Rittenhouse, and I think the comparison is inaccurate because he didn't have to be there by orders from a superior as in the army.

 

[ChristineM]

It's not irrelevant. It establishes what you believe to be heroic. If you would give a straight answer.

No it doesn't, it establishes what YOU want to believe what i believe is heroic.

I gave you good reason why it was irrelevant, you seem to ignore country and chain of command, perhaps because you don't have an answer to who commanded Rittenhouse.

 

[Quagmire]

Better to study the law and apply it first,

Not seeing much value in understanding the law if you're not willing to hear testimony from both sides

 

[Revoltingest]

Which freedoms? The Vietnam and Iraq wars weren't about "freedoms." The U.S. was an aggressor and invader in both wars.

Afghanistan is a bit less straightforward because of the presence of al-Qaida there, but either way, a soldier being sent to fight under false pretenses is different from someone voluntarily going to an area where protests and riots are occurring while carrying a gun.

How about WW1 & WW2....were allied soldiers
all "killers"? Or should we make a distinction
between people's motives & effects when they kill?