Your positions shift when being told what and how to think on X. This is a class issue not a political one yet you don't seem to understand or have been "brainwashed" into believing otherwise. Billionaires in general don't have our interest at heart but go ahead and keep making this a left or right issue. Exactly like you were trained to do...
I don’t change my position. Lots of brainwashed racist idiots here. I’m with my family right now. No real time for this at the moment.
That is literally the purpose of the justice system. The jury are the finders of fact. They determine what the true facts of the case are. The court instructs them on the law to apply to those facts. Only insofar as imminent is not a precise word that means something like exactly within the next 1.2 seconds. Imminent simply means about to happen. That's why we use a reasonableness standard. If someone uses force when they unreasonably believe force is imminent, self-defense (or defense of others) doesn't apply (though it can mitigate murder to manslaughter). If you shoot someone because they are a black person, wearing a hoody, and walking in your direction, and that is all the facts, you will not be acquitted. The jury determined, based on the testimony of the witnesses, that it was reasonable to think violence was imminent. Words like "most situtations", "most likely", and "rarely" are weasel words that show that even you are aware that sometimes the crazed homeless person ranting about violence does attack people. Everyone that carries a weapon knows fully well that they might use it, that's the purpose of carrying it. That doesn't shift the blame from the people attacking him to the person carrying the weapon, nor does it remove his right to self-defense. When one person is putting out fires and offering people medical assistance and cleaning up graffiti, and another group of people is setting the fires and putting up the graffiti, and people from the second group attack the first guy, it is pretty clear who the good guy and who the bad guys are in that situation. The law does excuse him. That fact that he was clearly in the morally superior position in the situation means society should. The law just happens to agree. Not in the slightest. Wrong again. He did nothing provocative. This is true. They were mistaken. His right to self-defense is not defeated because they thought they were trying to stop an active shooter. He was an innocent boy who had defended himself and was running to the police and they attacked him. He is allowed to respond. Somehow the three people that attacked Rittenhouse all happened to be criminals. Yes, attacking people causes violent situations, not just walking around, putting out fires, cleaning graffiti, and offering people medical assistance. [qupte]not the idiot brinigna gun to a protest[/quote] Seems a good thing he had it, it saved his life. He had as much right to be there as they did. More than the ones who were rioting and setting fires. The police weren't doing their jobs. Multiple businesses were burned down. I celebrate Rittenhouse putting out fires, cleaning graffiti, and offering people medical assistance. It is unfortunate that he was attacked, I do not celebrate that. It is unfortunate he was forced to defend himself. He did nothing wrong, but people dying is nothing to celebrate. It is not at all difficult to see the distinctions between shooting people attacking you and ambushing someone and shooting them in the back in cold blood, like a coward. There is no connection, you are just desperate to equate them because you can recognize that Mangione did something evil (though you probably secretly support him, like many of your fellow travelers in the capitalism is evil camp) and you hate Rittenhouse, so you want to paint him as just as evil.
You know that a not guilty verdict is not the same thing as saying the person is innocent. It merely means they could not prove past a reasonable doubt. Seems a good thing he had it, it saved his life. He had as much right to be there as they did. More than the ones who were rioting and setting fires. The police weren't doing their jobs. Multiple businesses were burned down. I celebrate Rittenhouse putting out fires, cleaning graffiti, and offering people medical assistance. It is unfortunate that he was attacked, I do not celebrate that. It is unfortunate he was forced to defend himself. He did nothing wrong, but people dying is nothing to celebrate. It is not at all difficult to see the distinctions between shooting people attacking you and ambushing someone and shooting them in the back in cold blood, like a coward. There is no connection, you are just desperate to equate them because you can recognize that Mangione did something evil (though you probably secretly support him, like many of your fellow travelers in the capitalism is evil camp) and you hate Rittenhouse, so you want to paint him as just as evil.[/QUOTE] Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at people. People thought he was an active shooter after he killed a man. Rittenhouse was the threat. He was the imminently violent person. They would have been justified killing him.If they had killed Rittenhouse, we could have said if Rittenhouse was imminent about to commit violence. He had a gun, he had it out, and he was pointing it at people. Therefore the others were heros if they had managed to grab his gun and kill him. That's why your twisting of the facts is disturbing. They were the heros trying to take out a threat. Yet you spin it the other way around. This is the problem with people like Rittenhouse. They create death. If he had stayed home, things would be better. A dumpster would have burned, but others would be alive. You fail to acknowledge that. You celebrate a dumpster fire being put out and dismiss the lives of those he murdered.
In the case of self-defense, it means that the jury found the facts were not sufficient to prove it was not self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Fortunately in the Kyle Rittenhouse situation, there was actually no doubt as to the facts, because they are all on video and you can watch them for yourself. He pointed his weapon at people who were attacking him. Rosenbaum attacked him from behind. Rittenhouse literally ran away from him and was chased. He turned when Rosenbaum had nearly caught him and didn't shoot until Rosenbaum grabbed his gun. Yes. They were wrong. He had defended himself and then was running to the police. No, Rosenbaum was the threat. Then he was dead. Then Huber was the threat. Then he was dead. Then Grosskruetz was the threat, then he was disarmed. No, he was not. He never attacked anyone first, nor did he threaten to attack anyone first. He was attacked and defended himself. Huber and Grosskruetz likely had a reasonable belief that Rittenhouse had shot and killed someone, though when they attacked Rittenhouse, he was running directly away from them and toward the police, so even with that belief, it would be difficult to justify their actions as self-defense or defense of others. Clearly he was not attacking any of the dozens of people on the street that he was running past on his way to the police line. Except that he didn't. He had his gun out, and he was running with it toward the police not attacking anyone. Then he was struck from behind and knocked to the ground. Then someone kicked him in the head. He shot at that guy (and missed). Then he was attacked again with a skateboard, and he shot that guy. Then he Grosskreutz pointed a gun at him, so he shot him. The only people he pointed a gun at or shot at were people attacking him. I'm sorry the truth disturbs you. Arguably, Huber and Grosskreutz were attacking what they thought was a murderer running away. Conceivably you could characterize that as heroic. The problem is, they were wrong. They were actually attacking a boy who had defended himself from an attacker. Rittenhouse is not required to let them attack him, because they think he is a murderer. That is why I said, repeatedly, that it is sad that they attacked him and were shot. I am just giving you the facts. I even posted the video of the attack. The attackers created death. Rittenhouse was just defending himself. He had more right to be there than the rioters. He didn't murder anyone. If no one had attacked him, no one would have died. You go from him showing up to him killing people. You are leaving out the most important bit in the middle. They attacked him. If he showed up, put out the fires, cleaned the graffiti, offered the medical assistance, and no one attacked him, it would be the best scenario. The moral failing is on those who attacked him, not him for defending himself.
Seems a good thing he had it, it saved his life. He had as much right to be there as they did. More than the ones who were rioting and setting fires. The police weren't doing their jobs. Multiple businesses were burned down. I celebrate Rittenhouse putting out fires, cleaning graffiti, and offering people medical assistance. It is unfortunate that he was attacked, I do not celebrate that. It is unfortunate he was forced to defend himself. He did nothing wrong, but people dying is nothing to celebrate. It is not at all difficult to see the distinctions between shooting people attacking you and ambushing someone and shooting them in the back in cold blood, like a coward. There is no connection, you are just desperate to equate them because you can recognize that Mangione did something evil (though you probably secretly support him, like many of your fellow travelers in the capitalism is evil camp) and you hate Rittenhouse, so you want to paint him as just as evil.[/QUOTE] Above is more effort than I could ever muster for a post. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
long but well worth reading Luigi Mangione and the American Abyss The assassination of Brian Thompson does not call for a “conversation” about health care—it calls for a reckoning with Americans’ moral breakdown. https://www.city-journal.org/article/luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson
It's the leftists without a moral compass who celebrate this murderer...and who say "this is not a left/right thing". Yes it is.
The conversation about American Healthcare was overdue long before Thompson was assassinated. And the state of American Healthcare and particularly United which was Thompson's company is definitely related to the moral breakdown happening in America.
