This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?  (Read 34562 times)

3catcircus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 721
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #285 on: November 21, 2021, 11:49:08 AM »

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?
Armed lunatics by and large tend to seek out places that lack anyone with a gun to counter them. Gun free zones are a favorite target of the lunatic. In regards to a riot turning into a firefight, yes, that possibility might incur. I’d argue that ought to be great encouragement to mayors and governors to more quickly and forcefully counter the riots as they start rather than give them “space to destroy” as they did in Baltimore, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, etc.:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/25/baltimore-mayor-gave-those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/%3famp

I have no problem with the actual peaceful protests, and I support efforts to reform/demilitarize the police because there are documented problems with police interactions with minorities. These problems also happen to whites, but seem to be less common, and the minority communities have a heightened awareness of the problems they face. There was a protest in the city l live, but it remained peaceful throughout the day and the night. Nobody should have sympathy for those wanting to riot, loot and burn. There are provocateurs who are encouraging the riots, and too many government officials are giving them the space to destroy. I want to avoid the great American shootout as well, but the odds of that occurring are only going to increase the longer the rioters are treated as jaywalkers by the authorities. The mainstream media and most of the commentators are complicit in this by referring to the riots as protests. That reporter describing a riot as a “fiery, but mostly peaceful protest” wasn’t a simple verbal mistake. That was the media trying to gaslight the public into believing that rioting is normal civic practice.

There are reports of ~ 200 rioters cornering riot police in a garage last night in Portland.  I don't get it - you're armed. Order them to disperse and hit 'em with tear gas if they don't before it gets to that point.  Once it got to that point, you should have opened fire, killing as many of them as possible.

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5039
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #286 on: November 21, 2021, 11:57:01 AM »
2. Hoping insurance covers your losses should rioters and looters destroy it.  Any time leftist assholes defend looting as a victimless crime, they always say "what's the big deal, you have insurance." Yeah. No you don't.  With few exceptions, insurance won't cover these losses because the insurers have exceptions for force majeure events - like wars, natural disasters, and looting/rioting.  Many small business owners are left empty-handed.

Do you have a convenient source confirming this?

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?

https://fee.org/articles/does-insurance-cover-rioting-and-looting-damage-either-way-its-disastrous/

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/downtown-portland-businesses-face-rising-insurance-costs-decreased-coverage-after-riots/283-f29140a0-9442-44b0-b555-295c8697c509

https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/2020/06/articles/insurance/what-exactly-is-a-riot-and-civil-commotion-under-a-property-insurance-policy/

Bottom line - unless you have specific riders, even if you should be covered, you'll either have a fight with your insurer, or they won't make you whole. 

In my hypothetical?  What's stopping the lunatic is what *always* stops them - a large amount of armed citizens whose mere presence is a deterrent or who will quickly end a lunatic's rampage which prevents them from killing many people, unimpeded.  In *every* instance of an active shooter, armed citizens have ended their rampage much more quickly than when they weren't armed and had to cower while waiting for the police.

Greeings!

*Laughing* That's right, my friend! Here where I live, we occasionally have some nut or jackass try and pull something. Many times, an armed citizen shoots them fucking dead, fast. The rest of the time, we have swift police response here, who bring the hammer down hard on thugs and criminals. That's the way we like it in Idaho. ;D

And Idaho is a pro 2nd Amendment state. People are free here to arm themselves in just about any way they want. Open carry or concealed. Lots of normal citizens here are armed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

wmarshal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • w
  • Posts: 631
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #287 on: November 21, 2021, 12:04:40 PM »

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?
Armed lunatics by and large tend to seek out places that lack anyone with a gun to counter them. Gun free zones are a favorite target of the lunatic. In regards to a riot turning into a firefight, yes, that possibility might incur. I’d argue that ought to be great encouragement to mayors and governors to more quickly and forcefully counter the riots as they start rather than give them “space to destroy” as they did in Baltimore, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, etc.:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/25/baltimore-mayor-gave-those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/%3famp

I have no problem with the actual peaceful protests, and I support efforts to reform/demilitarize the police because there are documented problems with police interactions with minorities. These problems also happen to whites, but seem to be less common, and the minority communities have a heightened awareness of the problems they face. There was a protest in the city l live, but it remained peaceful throughout the day and the night. Nobody should have sympathy for those wanting to riot, loot and burn. There are provocateurs who are encouraging the riots, and too many government officials are giving them the space to destroy. I want to avoid the great American shootout as well, but the odds of that occurring are only going to increase the longer the rioters are treated as jaywalkers by the authorities. The mainstream media and most of the commentators are complicit in this by referring to the riots as protests. That reporter describing a riot as a “fiery, but mostly peaceful protest” wasn’t a simple verbal mistake. That was the media trying to gaslight the public into believing that rioting is normal civic practice.

There are reports of ~ 200 rioters cornering riot police in a garage last night in Portland.  I don't get it - you're armed. Order them to disperse and hit 'em with tear gas if they don't before it gets to that point.  Once it got to that point, you should have opened fire, killing as many of them as possible.
I disagree with the “as many as possible.” They should have escalated force as much as necessary to quell the riot, and if that included reaching lethal force, then that is what it takes. When you say “as many as possible” that bring to mind trying to lure the rioters into a kill zone to cause as many fatalities as possible.

If it reaches the point of lethal force it won’t take that many actual casualties. Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that. I think a part of what drives the ANTIFA provocateurs nuts about Rittenhouse is that they realize that their tactic of rioting turns into a losing proposition as people realize they have a right to defend themselves. At this point ANTIFA would have rather no charges had been brought at all against Rittenhouse. That way they can continue to blame “the system” for the lack of charges, and there wouldn’t be a legally confirmed positive example of someone defending themselves.

Kiero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 2989
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #288 on: November 21, 2021, 12:07:45 PM »
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
Currently running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia in 300BC.

Our podcast site, In Sanity We Trust Productions.

wmarshal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • w
  • Posts: 631
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #289 on: November 21, 2021, 12:53:12 PM »
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp

3catcircus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 721
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #290 on: November 21, 2021, 01:12:52 PM »

Quote
3. *Everyone* who owns a firearm that can legally open-carry needs to do so, en masse. Everyone who can, should apply for concealed carry.  An armed society is a polite society...

In your hypothetical, what's stopping an armed lunatic from shooting someone in a pan-armed crowd and triggering the Great American Shootout?
Armed lunatics by and large tend to seek out places that lack anyone with a gun to counter them. Gun free zones are a favorite target of the lunatic. In regards to a riot turning into a firefight, yes, that possibility might incur. I’d argue that ought to be great encouragement to mayors and governors to more quickly and forcefully counter the riots as they start rather than give them “space to destroy” as they did in Baltimore, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, etc.:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/25/baltimore-mayor-gave-those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/%3famp

I have no problem with the actual peaceful protests, and I support efforts to reform/demilitarize the police because there are documented problems with police interactions with minorities. These problems also happen to whites, but seem to be less common, and the minority communities have a heightened awareness of the problems they face. There was a protest in the city l live, but it remained peaceful throughout the day and the night. Nobody should have sympathy for those wanting to riot, loot and burn. There are provocateurs who are encouraging the riots, and too many government officials are giving them the space to destroy. I want to avoid the great American shootout as well, but the odds of that occurring are only going to increase the longer the rioters are treated as jaywalkers by the authorities. The mainstream media and most of the commentators are complicit in this by referring to the riots as protests. That reporter describing a riot as a “fiery, but mostly peaceful protest” wasn’t a simple verbal mistake. That was the media trying to gaslight the public into believing that rioting is normal civic practice.

There are reports of ~ 200 rioters cornering riot police in a garage last night in Portland.  I don't get it - you're armed. Order them to disperse and hit 'em with tear gas if they don't before it gets to that point.  Once it got to that point, you should have opened fire, killing as many of them as possible.
I disagree with the “as many as possible.” They should have escalated force as much as necessary to quell the riot, and if that included reaching lethal force, then that is what it takes. When you say “as many as possible” that bring to mind trying to lure the rioters into a kill zone to cause as many fatalities as possible.

If it reaches the point of lethal force it won’t take that many actual casualties. Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that. I think a part of what drives the ANTIFA provocateurs nuts about Rittenhouse is that they realize that their tactic of rioting turns into a losing proposition as people realize they have a right to defend themselves. At this point ANTIFA would have rather no charges had been brought at all against Rittenhouse. That way they can continue to blame “the system” for the lack of charges, and there wouldn’t be a legally confirmed positive example of someone defending themselves.


You're free to disagree.  It's not luring when the mayor and police commissioner have tied the hands of law enforcement so they can't lob tear gas or use tasers or lethal force, resulting in then having to cower in a garage instead of enforcing the law.  At the point that the police are forced to run resulting in then being cornered, policing goes out the window and now it's about self defense - so yes - kill as many of them as you can.  I don't care if the result is Portland runs out of body bags.  The more rioters and looters killed is 1:1 fewer that can tie again the next night or who can travel to riot somewhere else.  Make no mistake these rioters are paid to travel to different cities to riot.

3catcircus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 721
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #291 on: November 21, 2021, 01:14:54 PM »
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp

If Babbitt was such a threat, then why did the swat officers behind her not take her into custody? Why did the "rioters" manage to queue like a group of Brits in the hall of statuary, staying between the red velvet ropes?

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #292 on: November 21, 2021, 02:00:29 PM »
.... Liberals really do have jello for brains. Their entire minds are filled with cat food......

As a biologist who has taught human anatomy, and who has A LOT of liberal colleagues and friends.... I can neither confirm nor deny these claims :D 

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #293 on: November 21, 2021, 02:06:06 PM »
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.

wmarshal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • w
  • Posts: 631
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #294 on: November 21, 2021, 02:37:04 PM »
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.
You love to jump to conclusions. When did I speak to any of the actions taken against those arrested for Jan 6th after the riot?

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #295 on: November 21, 2021, 02:38:42 PM »
The cope and seethe is so delicious. They NEEDED Rittenhouse guilty, and they didn't get it.

Now you have retards asking 'but can the prosecution appeal?'. And if any of those dumb fucks had taken a high-school level civics course, they'd know the answer (for the terminally unprepared, it's no).

And plenty of 'oh my god, right wing death squads are coming!' without any thought about what we saw ALL. LAST. YEAR.

Dont worry, Ghostmaker, the Feds have got your back!

Nadler is going to make sure Rittenhouse gets his justice.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5039
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #296 on: November 21, 2021, 02:40:24 PM »
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.

Greetings!

Yes, Pat, I agree with this. I know I can get emotional, and sick of these scum and rant about killing them all. Part of me thinks that would be good. Part of me though, likes what you say here, too.

See? I am *Nuanced* ;D and complex!

The trouble with such an approach though, is that requires genuine commitment, integrity, and a ruthless fidelity to discipline, order, and law, while at the same time keeping a good faith commitment to compassion and justice.

I don't think we have many people like that in our court system, law enforcement, or especially the government. I know there are some, but I think their numbers are fewer and fewer. That was the expectation for everything in jurisprudence 40 years ago.

Now though, Pat? Watching this whole corrupt trial where the prosecution literally wipes their ass with the constitution, with justice, and all these Liberals in the media--Joy Reid, Al Sharpton, lots of other blacks--and lots of politicians--Corey Bush, AOC, Ilhan, whoever the fuck--all demanding that the innocent white boy be fucking destroyed, and justice be damned?

That doesn't incline me to feel merciful, Pat. You know what I'm saying?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #297 on: November 21, 2021, 02:42:00 PM »
If it reaches the point of lethal force it won’t take that many actual casualties. Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that. I think a part of what drives the ANTIFA provocateurs nuts about Rittenhouse is that they realize that their tactic of rioting turns into a losing proposition as people realize they have a right to defend themselves. At this point ANTIFA would have rather no charges had been brought at all against Rittenhouse. That way they can continue to blame “the system” for the lack of charges, and there wouldn’t be a legally confirmed positive example of someone defending themselves.

It was even worse then that wmarshal.

Some of the Jan 6 rioters crossed state lines!
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #298 on: November 21, 2021, 02:49:47 PM »
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.
You love to jump to conclusions. When did I speak to any of the actions taken against those arrested for Jan 6th after the riot?
You said we need to treat Antifa the way the 1/6 violent insurrectionist terrorist babyeaters were treated. You didn't time-bound it, so the literal interpretation of what you said includes the aftermath.

Notice that while I pointed out the natural consequences of what you actually said, I phrased it as a question. I was clearly indicating I didn't think that was your intent, even though that's what you said.

And then I went on to provide a more nuanced version.

But hey, be a jackass. It's a popular cosplay around here.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2021, 03:00:35 PM by Pat »

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #299 on: November 21, 2021, 03:00:03 PM »
Only 1 person was killed by the authorities on January 6, and it’s not like the rioters tried to force their way in after that.

What "riot"? They were let in, they didn't force their way into the building.
It may have started that way, but it devolved into a riot. Take a look at 2nd picture in the article. That’s not people being let in. Tear gas doesn’t get deployed as a part of letting people in. When the crowd of people Ashli Babbitt was with tried to force their way into the Speaker’s Lobby that was not people being let in. Did some of them make the mistake that they’d be treated the same as the ANTIFA rioters? Yes, it was not equal treatment compared the ANTIFA rioters. What we need is for the authorities to start treating the ANTIFA rioters the same as those on Jan 6th, because the authorities are never going to treat the Jan 6th rioters as kindly as they have ANTIFA. People defending their communities against ANTIFA may be what it takes for some of these authorities to step back in and do their jobs.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/capitol-police-intelligence-report-before-capitol-breach-warned-congress-itself-could-be-targeted.amp
So you support the pograms and forced recantations of everyone who was involved, even those who just waltzed in when they were invited by the police, stayed within the ropes, and then quietly left?

No, what we need is a proportional, measured response that can distinguish between people who are peacefully protesting, those who are getting rowdy or doing things pushing against barriers, those who are engaged in wanton destruction of property, and those who are engaging in highly dangerous behavior like throwing molotovs. We need to recognize the threat presented by large anonymous crowds, while at the same time recognizing the bad actors don't represent the group, and that charges, if necessary, should be based on an individual's personal actions and behavior instead of their mere presence or presumed political affiliation.

Greetings!

Yes, Pat, I agree with this. I know I can get emotional, and sick of these scum and rant about killing them all. Part of me thinks that would be good. Part of me though, likes what you say here, too.

See? I am *Nuanced* ;D and complex!

The trouble with such an approach though, is that requires genuine commitment, integrity, and a ruthless fidelity to discipline, order, and law, while at the same time keeping a good faith commitment to compassion and justice.

I don't think we have many people like that in our court system, law enforcement, or especially the government. I know there are some, but I think their numbers are fewer and fewer. That was the expectation for everything in jurisprudence 40 years ago.

Now though, Pat? Watching this whole corrupt trial where the prosecution literally wipes their ass with the constitution, with justice, and all these Liberals in the media--Joy Reid, Al Sharpton, lots of other blacks--and lots of politicians--Corey Bush, AOC, Ilhan, whoever the fuck--all demanding that the innocent white boy be fucking destroyed, and justice be damned?

That doesn't incline me to feel merciful, Pat. You know what I'm saying?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
As H.P. Mencken once said, "Every normal American must be tempted, in this strange aeon, to spit on zir hands, hoist the tentacled flag, and summon Cthulhu to turn Washington into abbatoir."