Same folks praising the likes of Rittenhouse and painting him as a conservative hero are condemning Luigi, go figure. Just send the usual thoughts and prayers. Folks faux indignation are just laughable
I don't consider Rittenhouse a hero, but if you cannot understand the difference between premeditated murder and acting in self-defense, it says something about your lack of intellectual capability.
Good job with the ‘shaming’ perp walk by the Corporatocracy sycophant Mayor and NYPD. We’re witnessing the birth of a folk hero:
Murder is murder, I'm not gonna argue morality with u. I'm just find it funny that conservatives are championing a dude that killed folks in "self defense" and get triggered when folks are celebrating a ceo get gunned down. Just send your thoughts and prayers and move on. Chalk it up to another life lost to gun violence. Save your faux indignation. Deathes only seem to matter to u when it's your side that's impacted.
I think you have the position because you don't believe in the right to self defense. That explains both your statement of "murder is murder" and where you put self dense in quotation marks. Most anti gun folks share this position but haven't really been as clear on it as you are here.
Murder has a specific definition. Killing in self-defense or in defense of others is not murder, it is justifiable homicide. Killing by accident is not murder. Killing through negligence is not murder. The reason people draw a distinction between Mangione and Penny (or Rittenhouse) is that one committed a cold-blooded, premeditated murder on camera and is being celebrated by one segment of society, and the other tried to restrain someone he allegedly viewed as an imminent danger to others and ended up killing him (or in Rittenhouse's case, defended himself from attacks that were also conveniently all caught on camera), and he is being celebrated by an entirely different segment of society. They are three very different events that should be analyzed individually. Equating the events as all are just one person killing another for their own reasons is the simplistic analysis of a child.
I can never understand how anyone can celebrate anyone murdering someone. It's sick, but there are always those who think murdering others for political or personal vengeance is justified. In the same respect, it's a sad state when greed has overwhelmed the country by pharmaceutical companies, healthcare facilities, and others providing life saving treatment or medicine. I will never understand how our government or others don't want to give everyone affordable healthcare. This country can afford to do that, and whether that's adding more taxes to the wealthiest, adding more tax to cigarettes, beer, and liquor, capping drugs, or whatever it takes. People should all have a right to live, as Americans, and as taxpayers. It really bothers me that some people don't care, simply because they can afford the best treatment. More people die from lack of proper healthcare than those in combat, or those being murdered. The sick part is that killing some CEO won't change that. Instead, vote for people who care, and want to change that for the better. Other countries have. Why not us? Imagine what it's like having cancer, and being treated at MD Anderson getting life saving treatment until you all of a sudden you are denied any more treatment, because now they don't accept your private health insurance. It's sickening, sad, and simply not right. Imagine what it's like when you know your life isn't as valuable to healthcare providers than their profit, and the government refuses to change that.
No one was acting in self-defense in these cases. Rittenhouse provoked the situation. That's not self-defense. Killing a homeless man while he was having an episode is not self-defense. Hilling a CEO for being evil is not self-defense. Maybe not murder by statues in the state you live in. Maybe not premeditated. But Rittenhouse went looking for someone to kill.Penny jumped someone who had not attacked anyone, then put him in a chokehold for 6 mins knowing it could kill the man. Call what you want - murder, manslaughter, whatever. These men all killed people that didn't have to die - all because they acted on their ego with reckless concern for the safety of their victims.
You must be joking. Rittenhouse was chased by a man who had already threatened to kill him. He "provoked" the situation by putting out a literal dumpster fire. It is maybe the clearest, video recorded case of self-defense in the history of trials. 12 New York jurors seem to have agreed that he was acting in the defense of others, as did the people who were on that subway and testified that they were terrified of Neely and that he had threatened them. Killing a homeless many while he is having an episode very well can be an act of self-defense or defense of others. Just because someone is crazy, that doesn't mean they are not dangerous. At least you were right one out of three times. You aren't allowed to ambush and murder someone because you don't like their business practices. Your issue is that you have equated this one with the other two. Self-defense isn't murder by statutes (or statues) in any state in the United States. Rittenhouse walked around for hours cleaning graffiti, putting out fires, and offering medical care to people. He was attacked by a pedophile who recently was released from the mental hospital. Then, after he defended himself, he was attacked again by a domestic abuser. Then, when he defended himself again, someone jump kicked him while he was on the ground, so he shot at that guy, then another criminal came at him with a gun, so Rittenhouse shot him in the arm. He wasn't looking for someone to kill, people were looking to kill him and he stopped them. The witnesses and the jurors seem to disagree with your assessment. Rittenhouse acted in a measured way, with concern for his own safety. Penny acted in a trained way, in concern for the safety of others. Mangione acted in a cowardly way, because he wanted to kill someone whose business practices he disagreed with. They are not at all similar situations.
Killing a man for believing you are an active shooter when he is armed with a skateboard is not self-defense. lol. Ridiculous. He could have gone to the police line. He didn't have to be there. He went there looking for violence. And the jurors didn't say Penny was justified - only that there is reasonable doubt. Fact remains the homeless guy didn;t strike anyone. That's a fact. Killing him - an unarmed man - was unnecessary. The more people like yourself celebrate killing of people because they are liberals or homeless or unlike you in someway, you go down a dangerous slippery slope. Taking justice into your own hands is a threat to civil order. More people will tend towards violence in situations if they feel emboldened
Ok? I don’t think many people thought he would? This just kind of shows how out of touch the author is.
He was going to the police line. Then Huber ran up behind him and hit him in the head with the skateboard, knocking him down. Then he ran at him and swung the skateboard at him again. The problem with your argument is that the whole thing is on video and everyone can see what actually happened. You don't have to wait for someone to strike before using force against them. Force can be used to prevent the imminent use of force. Clearly the jurors felt the prosecution failed to prove defense of others did not apply here. I didn't celebrate anything. It is very sad that Rosenbaum and Huber and Neely put themselves into situations where taking their lives was justified. I would prefer innocent people never be attacked or menaced and that self-defense or defense of others never came into play. I won't condemn people for defending themselves or defending others. I won't equate doing so to a coward stalking an innocent man because he doesn't like the insurance business he runs as CEO and shooting him in the back. Self-defense and defense of others are not taking justice into your own hands, they are taking safety into your own hands. It is something everyone should do. Attacking people because they put out the dumpster fire you set alight or threatening people on the subway because you are mad and/or crazy is something no one should do.
This is not shocking at all to me. The numbers are not much lower when you change the upper range to 40 and under. Many of these people have lived through having a corrupt President that has been impeached multiple times. They now have seen Biden pardon his corrupt son. They have been privy to how biased and corrupt the SCOTUS is…. They saw just how little authority figures knew how to handle a pandemic. They have come of age with homeownership not being feasible for many. They have seen how devalued a college degree is… they have seen that the wealthy divide is just getting worse… that there is no real loyalty from or towards their employer or business in general. They have seen the absolutism of the fringe of the left and right and how they have set policy for moderates. They have been raised in a world that reflects the fact that your government - corporations and the legal system do not exist for the common American but go help the wealthy become wealthier at the expense of the many “others”. So they don’t view the CEO of an insurance company as some great American success story like some idiots on the right say - and they don’t care about the sanctimonious hypocrisy of some on the left. A CEO at an insurance company maximizes profits at the expense of sick people dying - and that makes him a really bad person from the perspective of many in that age group. We will still have idiot BS claims of “Liberal brainwashing” or “Gun culture” but the reality is that these people aren’t democrats or republicans - they hate the rich, corporations and the government for exploiting them.
NY is stupid then. CEO’s should not have the resources spent on them - there are too few of them and way down the list of social and criminal issues the police should be concerned about.
The jury doesn't determine the truth - you are confusing what happens within a court of law as the truth, that's not the purpose of the justice system. Not guilty doesn't mean they didn't commit a crime. The imminent use of force is subjective. What one person sees as a threat isn't what another does. Someone could see a black man in a hoody approach them as them about to be killed, and thus shoots first. I know in most situations a homeless person ranting about violence isn't going to actually become violent. That person was mostly like not going to get violent. People were scared, but that doesn't mean violences was imminent. The evidence points the other way in fact. Everyone who has lived in NYC long enough has encountered a homeless person ranting about violence. Yet rarely does it happen. To argue otherwise is just plan dishonest. You can warp reality to justify your judgement. Whether or not you recognize you are doing that is the question. Rittenhouse put himself into a situation where he would get to use his gun. That's why he went into that situation. He wasn't with store owners, he was running through the streets. You don't go to a protest with angry people with a rifle unless you are looking to get some shots in - or at very least, know fully well that you might use it. The law may excuse him, but that doesn't mean society should. What he did was criminal adn morally decrepit. Had he not walked into that brandishing a rifle pointing at people, he wouldn't have provoked people against him. The people attacking him with a skateboard and going after him thought he was an active shooter. They were the ones trying to be heroic to stop this man. Yet they are painted the other way. They are the ones you caused the situation, not the idiot brinigna gun to a protest he should never gone to. Let the ****ing police do their job. Don't be a vigilante. If you can't understand how celebrating this stuff - and yes you are when you justify it - creates the backdrop for people to go out and kill evil CEOs, then you are just blind. Unable to see the connections because you have to box everything in a way to fit your reality.
Penny - vigilantism. He acted as law enforcement would have because cops were not around. Rittenhouse - vigilantism and then self defense. He stopped rioters from burning down a car dealership because law enforcement was not there and then defended himself when they tried to kill him for it Luigi - terrorism - he executed a man commiting no crime at the time and who was a threat to nobody. If you dont morally understand the difference in these events, you need to have a tough talk with yourself.
Only the racial narrative matters to some. It’s what is being taught out there. Lots of brainwashing of the mentally weak and vulnerable.
