What is wrong with America

[Tamesaint]

Wow. 4 days watching the trial. 

You must lead an interesting life.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, whelk said:

Why were you fascinated enough to watch 4 days of it? Amazing that you shut out all outside influences but came to same opinion of all the Fox News sorts.

I have heard that technically it wouldn’t be right to find him guilty but doesn’t hide the fact that he is an odious little psychopathic cunt. You sympathising and commenting on who he killed clearly shows where your allegiance lies. 

 

Because it was a very interesting case and it was fascinating to watch a direct source of the case and then see it twisted beyond all recognition by celebrities on twitter. No idea what a fox news type is, you seem to have a greater grasp on fox news than I do. The trial didn't give any impression that he was a psychopath, I think the prosecutorial misconduct on this case was shocking as outlined by the judge the weekend before closing arguments and my allegiance lies with the correct verdict being delivered. In other news, the correct verdict has also been reached in the Ahmaud Arbery case. I suspect you won't be so quick to smear the victim in that case... 

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Having been brought up in a household where he himself suffered that abuse as a regular occurrence. It doesn't justify his actions, but should perhaps inform our understanding as to why he acted as he did, and perhaps he didn't get the help he needed.

Like you said, it doesn't justify his actions and I wonder if his child victims feel the same way about the mitigating circumstances (spoiler alert they don't and they've spoken out following his death.) It's not completely relevant to the case, but I certainly wouldn't be shedding any tears for the death of a child abuser even if he had been a victim here which it is proven he wasn't in court. 

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Wow. 4 days watching the trial. 

You must lead an interesting life.

 

 

Wow all those millions who watched the OJ trial must have been guilty of the same thing. 

[hypochondriac]

29 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

".....but the fact that in this case a paedophile and a domestic abuser got killed and were the aggressors in this situation means that his shooting was justified under the law. "

"were the aggressors in this situation". 

[whelk]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because it was a very interesting case and it was fascinating to watch a direct source of the case and then see it twisted beyond all recognition by celebrities on twitter. No idea what a fox news type is, you seem to have a greater grasp on fox news than I do. The trial didn't give any impression that he was a psychopath, I think the prosecutorial misconduct on this case was shocking as outlined by the judge the weekend before closing arguments and my allegiance lies with the correct verdict being delivered. In other news, the correct verdict has also been reached in the Ahmaud Arbery case. I suspect you won't be so quick to smear the victim in that case... 

Glad they have been found guilty and genuinely pleased you agree with the verdict 

 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Glad they have been found guilty and genuinely pleased you agree with the verdict 

 

Because they were very obviously guilty. Its weird that someone would decide on guilt or innocent based on political allegiance. You can't just go out and shoot someone because you suspect them of a crime based on basically nothing. I haven't seen anything that makes me think Kyle is a psychopath or a cunt, he's a traumatised kid and a fool for doing what he did but he's been caricatured in the media by those with an agenda. 

Edited 24 November, 2021 by hypochondriac

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

"were the aggressors in this situation". 

So why not stick with "the aggressors" and leave out the additional descriptors ? As I asked above, would you have posted "....but the fact that in this case a shop-lifter and a flasher got killed ...".

[whelk]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because they were very obviously guilty. Its weird that someone would decide on guilt or innocent based on political allegiance. You can't just go out and shoot someone because you suspect them of a crime based on basically nothing. I haven't seen anything that makes me think Kyle is a psychopath or a cunt, he's a traumatised kid and a fool for doing what he did but he's been caricatured in the media by those with an agenda. 

Culture wars innit. Upsetting many norms

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

So why not stick with "the aggressors" and leave out the additional descriptors ? As I asked above, would you have posted "....but the fact that in this case a shop-lifter and a flasher got killed ...".

Because what they are guilty of speaks to their character and its why its laughable when celebrities on twitter like Mark Ruffalo give him affectionate nicknames and lionise him. If the situation had been reversed and Rosenbaum had been in the Rittenhouse role then you can just imagine what those types of people would be saying. It's hilarious but also quite sad. 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Culture wars innit. Upsetting many norms

Yes exactly. Glad we could have some semblance of a reasonable conversation after all. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Because what they are guilty of speaks to their character and its why its laughable when celebrities on twitter like Mark Ruffalo give him affectionate nicknames and lionise him. If the situation had been reversed and Rosenbaum had been in the Rittenhouse role then you can just imagine what those types of people would be saying. It's hilarious but also quite sad. 

What's their character got to do with Rittenhouse believing he was in danger of death from them? 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

What's their character got to do with Rittenhouse believing he was in danger of death from them? 

Who claimed it did? Watch or listen to the testimony from the trial mate rather than forming your opinions from the view or twitter. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Who claimed it did? Watch or listen to the testimony from the trial mate rather than forming your opinions from the view or twitter. 

Twitter! Not me mate.

Nobody has to watch 4 days of a trial to understand the facts.

Someone who did should be able to explain how he feels that Rittenhouse felt that he was in danger of death.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he concede in evidence that he knew that Rosenbaum had no gun? 

On the first point, I thought that your earlier posts this evening suggested a relevance to the victim's past to the defence. Apologies if I misinterpreted. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Twitter! Not me mate.

Nobody has to watch 4 days of a trial to understand the facts.

Someone who did should be able to explain how he feels that Rittenhouse felt that he was in danger of death.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he concede in evidence that he knew that Rosenbaum had no gun? 

On the first point, I thought that your earlier posts this evening suggested a relevance to the victim's past to the defence. Apologies if I misinterpreted. 

The fact those who died were obvious scumbags doesn't have a bearing on the case of self defence. I already told you I have no desire to rerun the trial on this forum as I've already watched it. I explained to you already that Kyle was running away, that he had been assaulted with a weapon that was potentially deadly and that someone reaching for his gun meant that a reasonable assumption would be that his gun would have been taken from him and potentially used against him. This was all explained in great detail during the trial and I suggest you watch it so you have a proper grasp of the "facts." Since you're so keen to ask me questions, I'd be interested to know why you feel the verdict was a shocking one given the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was seeking to murder someone. Not sure if you're aware as you haven't watched it, but the prosecution actually used the line "everyone takes a beating sometimes" in closing arguments suggesting that Kyle should have refrained from shooting and taken a (potentially deadly) beating instead. Presumably you agree with this? 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The fact those who died were obvious scumbags doesn't have a bearing on the case of self defence. I already told you I have no desire to rerun the trial on this forum as I've already watched it. I explained to you already that Kyle was running away, that he had been assaulted with a weapon that was potentially deadly and that someone reaching for his gun meant that a reasonable assumption would be that his gun would have been taken from him and potentially used against him. This was all explained in great detail during the trial and I suggest you watch it so you have a proper grasp of the "facts." Since you're so keen to ask me questions, I'd be interested to know why you feel the verdict was a shocking one given the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was seeking to murder someone. Not sure if you're aware as you haven't watched it, but the prosecution actually used the line "everyone takes a beating sometimes" in closing arguments suggesting that Kyle should have refrained from shooting and taken a (potentially deadly) beating instead. Presumably you agree with this? 

The reaching for his gun was Huber and, as I said above, that was his best point. It does not relate to Rosenbaum. If you watched for 4 days, you'd know that. You'd also know that he conceded that he was aware that Rosenbaum had no gun - presumably he feared death by toothbrush or carrier bag?! 

Your constant "watch the trial" line is patronising and unhelpful - if you really watched for 4 days you could explain your rationale. Nobody has to watch a trial to know the facts of a case - I've been a practicing lawyer for over 25 years and every precedent case is reported, relied upon and discussed by people who weren't at or watching the case- the facts are laid out in writing and people sensibly debate and discuss them. 

Let's leave it mate. It was a shocking decision (even if correct by their fucked law) and I'll stick to my position that I find it shocking that anyone would defend the bloke. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

The reaching for his gun was Huber and, as I said above, that was his best point. It does not relate to Rosenbaum. If you watched for 4 days, you'd know that. You'd also know that he conceded that he was aware that Rosenbaum had no gun - presumably he feared death by toothbrush or carrier bag?! 

Your constant "watch the trial" line is patronising and unhelpful - if you really watched for 4 days you could explain your rationale. Nobody has to watch a trial to know the facts of a case - I've been a practicing lawyer for over 25 years and every precedent case is reported, relied upon and discussed by people who weren't at or watching the case- the facts are laid out in writing and people sensibly debate and discuss them. 

Let's leave it mate. It was a shocking decision (even if correct by their fucked law) and I'll stick to my position that I find it shocking that anyone would defend the bloke. 

Hold on so the jury gave the correct decision according to the law yet it was "shocking"? Absolutely bizarre logic. Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury? 

Edited 24 November, 2021 by hypochondriac

[egg]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Hold on so the jury gave the correct decision according to the law yet it was "shocking"? Absolutely bizarre logic. Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury? 

There's nothing bizarre to that logic. Correct application of the law often leads to unjust outcomes. It is bizarre, and more than a tad naive, to believe otherwise. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

There's nothing bizarre to that logic. Correct application of the law often leads to unjust outcomes. It is bizarre, and more than a tad naive, to believe otherwise. 

So should the jury have voted to convict in order for their decision to not be "shocking?" You disagree with the law not the decision of the jury that followed it. Should Kyle have "taken a beating" as suggested by the prosecution? 

Edited 24 November, 2021 by hypochondriac

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So should the jury have voted to convict in order for their decision to not be "shocking?" You disagree with the law not the decision of the jury that followed it. Should Kyle have "taken a beating" as suggested by the prosecution? 

OK. Let's take a hypothetical scenario. A burglar breaks into your house, takes a shit on your pillow, causes a bit of damage, steals your favourite stuff. He's seen, admits he was there, but at court some technicality means that the judge has to direct the jury to acquit (it happens, lots).

Are you happy with that legally correct outcome? Or are you fucking livid by the obviously unjust outcome? Rhetorical questions because I can't be arsed, and it's obvious what the answers should be. 

Legally correct outcomes aren't always the just one. That's the reality. 

 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

OK. Let's take a hypothetical scenario. A burglar breaks into your house, takes a shit on your pillow, causes a bit of damage, steals your favourite stuff. He's seen, admits he was there, but at court some technicality means that the judge has to direct the jury to acquit (it happens, lots).

Are you happy with that legally correct outcome? Or are you fucking livid by the obviously unjust outcome? Rhetorical questions because I can't be arsed, and it's obvious what the answers should be. 

Legally correct outcomes aren't always the just one. That's the reality. 

 

Was Kyle rittenhouse acquitted on a technicality then? You're drawing a false comparison between an obvious criminal who goes out with intent to burgle and someone like Rittenhouse who proved in court that that was not his intention. You're avoiding the question, should Kyle have "taken a beating" as suggested by the prosecution?

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Was Kyle rittenhouse acquitted on a technicality then? You're drawing a false comparison between an obvious criminal who goes out with intent to burgle and someone like Rittenhouse who proved in court that that was not his intention. You're avoiding the question, should Kyle have "taken a beating" as suggested by the prosecution?

You asked me "Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury?" 

It seems that you need to mull that one over yourself mate and relate it my rhetorical questions. It's either your position that what a jury decides / the judge directs must be the correct outcome, or it isn't. 

[kyle04]

Trying to judge this from a UK legal/moral rationale is futile. The US is a totally uncivilized fucked up country with "gun" laws that would shame any Latino narco state. Could any UK citizen kill another because he/she felt "threatened". An assualt rifle v a toothbrush, really? Regardless of the US legal niceties, the man's a murderer and got away with it, and that's how he'll be remembered.                              

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

You asked me "Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury?" 

It seems that you need to mull that one over yourself mate and relate it my rhetorical questions. It's either your position that what a jury decides / the judge directs must be the correct outcome, or it isn't. 

It's really odd that you spent about three posts badgering me because you wanted me to answer your questions, yet you are constantly avoiding mine. Why is that? 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

Trying to judge this from a UK legal/moral rationale is futile. The US is a totally uncivilized fucked up country with "gun" laws that would shame any Latino narco state. Could any UK citizen kill another because he/she felt "threatened". An assualt rifle v a toothbrush, really? Regardless of the US legal niceties, the man's a murderer and got away with it, and that's how he'll be remembered.                              

Hell be remembered as a murderer by simpletons who don't know what the definition of murder means or those who are politically partisan and want to believe it's true. 

[kyle04]

Machine gunning unarmed civilians, lets just call him over exhuberent then.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

Machine gunning unarmed civilians, lets just call him over exhuberent then.

Another one who didn't watch the trial and gets their news from twitter... 

[kyle04]

I don't tweet or whatever it's called. A 17 year old took a military grade assault weapon to a demo, how did you think it was going to end?

[whelk]

Hypo’s wallpaper

 

[hypochondriac]

13 minutes ago, whelk said:

Hypo’s wallpaper

 

What a shame. It seemed like we were having a sensible conversation with your previous post. Never mind. Also hi soggy! Glad to see you're still following along despite pretending to have me on ignore. 

Edited 24 November, 2021 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

I don't tweet or whatever it's called. A 17 year old took a military grade assault weapon to a demo, how did you think it was going to end?

He took a gun to a riot where he was attempting to put out fires and provide first aid as law enforcement had given up. He was attacked and fired as it was reasonable to assume his gun was going to be taken and he then surrender himself to law enforcement. I've already said he was a fool for doing so and I am not a fan of guns but what I've said is factually accurate and it was shown to be the case in court. 

[egg]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's really odd that you spent about three posts badgering me because you wanted me to answer your questions, yet you are constantly avoiding mine. Why is that? 

I've answered mate. You think this bloke is innocent, I don't.

I have no interest in the answer, but ask yourself whether (using your own question) you "Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury?" in the hypothetical scenario I laid out above. 

Back to Rittenhouse, you still haven't explained what you heard in 4 days of trial watching to satisfy yourself that he feared death. Rosenbaum threw a bag at him, and he knew he had no gun. I don't believe that he had any reasonable belief to fear death. You think otherwise. 

We'll agree to differ. 

 

 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What a shame. It seemed like we were having a sensible conversation with your previous post. Never mind. 

I think most are having a sensible conversation...and the sensible conclusion is that this fool is vile and would not be defended by right minded people. And no, that's not because that's what twitter says. 

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What a shame. It seemed like we were having a sensible conversation with your previous post. Never mind. Also hi soggy! Glad to see you're still following along despite pretending to have me on ignore. 

No need to be a grumpypuss 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

I've answered mate. You think this bloke is innocent, I don't.

I have no interest in the answer, but ask yourself whether (using your own question) you "Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury?" in the hypothetical scenario I laid out above. 

Back to Rittenhouse, you still haven't explained what you heard in 4 days of trial watching to satisfy yourself that he feared death. Rosenbaum threw a bag at him, and he knew he had no gun. I don't believe that he had any reasonable belief to fear death. You think otherwise. 

We'll agree to differ. 

 

 

I'll take that as a deflection. I answered your question as you already know and you refuse to answer mine because you know that the idea that rittenhouse should have just taken a beating is clearly ridiculous. 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

I think most are having a sensible conversation...and the sensible conclusion is that this fool is vile and would not be defended by right minded people. And no, that's not because that's what twitter says. 

On second thoughts it's probably not worth your time watching the trial as you'd clearly made your mind up prior to its start. Shame you couldn't stay a bit more open minded and less partisan. Pity. 

[kyle04]

Why not just point the gun or fire in the air, and why take a gun in the first place? Something's not quite right about this, but it is after all wackjob America...

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

No need to be a grumpypuss 

Hypo, you still don’t seem to have grasped the fact that I can still see your posts when someone quotes them. Oh well….

Anyway, having seen some of your comments here I note that, despite your recent laughable supposed conversion to liberalism, you are still firmly rooted in the far right mind set. Your defence of this individual who took an automatic weapon to a demonstration (illegally by the way) and killed two unarmed individuals comes as no surprise. Neither does the time and effort you spend on defending like minded individuals. Trust me Hypo, you are not and never will be someone with liberal sensibilities.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'll take that as a deflection. I answered your question as you already know and you refuse to answer mine because you know that the idea that rittenhouse should have just taken a beating is clearly ridiculous. 

We've covered this. Reasonable fear of death is the legal test, not a hiding. I've asked you several times now what you heard in your apparent 4 days of watching that made you conclude that he feared that. I haven't had an answer yet, and to be honest, I'm not interested. We'll end up with you maintaining that he's innocent cos the jury said so and they're always right. 

[egg]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

On second thoughts it's probably not worth your time watching the trial as you'd clearly made your mind up prior to its start. Shame you couldn't stay a bit more open minded and less partisan. Pity. 

It's not worth my time as who the fuck wants to spend 4 days of their lives watching a TV trial?! I have a life, wife, job, and family. Give some thought to that question of yours mate, it'll open your eyes to the real world. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Hypo, you still don’t seem to have grasped the fact that I can still see your posts when someone quotes them. Oh well….

Anyway, having seen some of your comments here I note that, despite your recent laughable supposed conversion to liberalism, you are still firmly rooted in the far right mind set. Your defence of this individual who took an automatic weapon to a demonstration (illegally by the way) and killed two unarmed individuals comes as no surprise. Neither does the time and effort you spend on defending like minded individuals. Trust me Hypo, you are not and never will be someone with liberal sensibilities.

Interesting. What was illegal about it? I really don't need to know what you think about liberalism considering you bang on about the far right all the time. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

It's not worth my time as who the fuck wants to spend 4 days of their lives watching a TV trial?! I have a life, wife, job, and family. Give some thought to that question of yours mate, it'll open your eyes to the real world. 

Maybe stick to opining on things you have actually seen rather than taking opinion pieces as gospel mate. 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

We've covered this. Reasonable fear of death is the legal test, not a hiding. I've asked you several times now what you heard in your apparent 4 days of watching that made you conclude that he feared that. I haven't had an answer yet, and to be honest, I'm not interested. We'll end up with you maintaining that he's innocent cos the jury said so and they're always right. 

So are we saying that it was reasonable for rittenhouse to think he might get severely beaten but not that that beating might result in severe injury or death? Or that he might have had his gun wrestled off him and used against him? Let's remember that this judgement was made in fractions of a second. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Maybe stick to opining on things you have actually seen rather than taking opinion pieces as gospel mate. 

But you apparently spent 4 days watching it and still can't / won't say what convinced you that he feared death! 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

But you apparently spent 4 days watching it and still can't / won't say what convinced you that he feared death! 

I've answered it about 4 times now. You have said yourself that it was reasonable that he could have expected a beating had he not shot but for some reason you consider it beyond the bounds of possibility that in the split second he had to make the decision that he couldn't have though that his gun could have been wrestled off him and used against him. In your mind he should have not shot, taken a potentially severe beating- which could easily result in death on its own-and run the risk that his gun would be used against him. 

Edited 24 November, 2021 by hypochondriac

[kyle04]

2 people are dead because of him . 2 familes lives destroyed beyond repair.  He had no right to enter the situation with a deadly firearm. He's a murderer who escaped justice.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So are we saying that it was reasonable for rittenhouse to think he might get severely beaten but not that that beating might result in severe injury or death? Or that he might have had his gun wrestled off him and used against him? Let's remember that this judgement was made in fractions of a second. 

The legal test is a reasonable belief of death. Nothing more or less. I've said that his best point was Huber apparently approaching his gun. What made him fear death at the hands of the unarmed (on his admission) Rosenbaum? Don't bounce this back with another "watch it" response - you apparently did so what's the answer? 

[Tamesaint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

But you apparently spent 4 days watching it and still can't / won't say what convinced you that he feared death! 

I am beginning to think that sad hypo did spend 4 days watching the trial. He must have spent the greater part of the evening typing on this thread. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I've answered it about 4 times now. You have said yourself that it was reasonable that he could have expected a beating had he not shot but for some reason you consider it beyond the bounds of possibility that in the split second he had to make the decision that he couldn't have though that his gun could have been wrestled off him and used against him. In your mind he should have not shot, taken a potentially severe beating and run the risk that his gun would be used against him. 

You have not answered it. You've said that a closing speech mentioned him taking a hiding. That's a) not evidence or b) fear of death. 

People who watch trials hear the evidence and can explain it. 

People who don't just go round in circles like you. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, kyle04 said:

2 people are dead because of him . 2 familes lives destroyed beyond repair.  He had no right to enter the situation with a deadly firearm. He's a murderer who escaped justice.

2 people are dead due to their own actions. One of those people who died was a child abuser who raped kids so I won't exactly be weeping over his passing. The law in America says he does have the right to have a deadly firearm even though I personally don't think anyone in America should have a gun. Murder is premeditated and his actions immediately prior to the shooting and afterwards do not suggest he was trying to kill anyone until he was confronted, attacked and then provoked by the two men who died and the other one who was shot. Like I said only simpletons or those who have little knowledge of the case would think he was a murderer.