I think you are wrong.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
I think you are wrong.
I've not once asked you to do that - I've been quite specific with my questions... with all the replies you've thrown in where you attempt to deflect/avoid you could have simply answered but you don't... rather telling.
Yet you're unable to articulate why... you edit out the rest of the post which includes a direct question and just respond with an assertion.
I could have answered, but i dont want to. I'd rather you went back and read the thread.
I've read the thread thanks, my questions have been in direct response to claims/statements you've made.
for example, you made a claim in relation to me and you've not backed it up - apparently, it's blindingly obvious but you can't answer when questioned:
I've just had a look at the 3 pages of posts from Jono in this thread, the 1st 20 odd were largely your usual trump/trump fans/republicans bad stuff and then the issue of self defense was in one post. It would seem that in Jono's mind chasing after someone for a block or 2 is clearly self defense, regarding the 2 that were shot after the 1st guy died. Everything I've read or seen indicates the 1st guy chased Rittenhouse after he put out a fire that was started by the rioters, not sure how you can claim that's self defense. Then again I'm not entirely sure that's his point with the 1st death, would be nice if he can clarify.
To be fair everything I've seen from Jono indicates he posts from an emotional viewpoint rather than logical one.
Do you know exactly why the first man was chasing Kyle?
Also, there is nothing illogical about what i have said.
I don't think there will be much clarification from him tbh... the arguments/claims aren't clear and seem a bit weak, keeping them vague and deflecting is probably the best way of maintaining them.
Anyway, more on the first shooting - some commentary mentions the first attacker being shot in the back, but there is evidence today pointing out that that is from him being bent forwards, which ties in well with the defence claim of him rushing at Kyle/going for the rifle (also supported by the key witness to the shooting).
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/09/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-tuesday/index.html
Note I asked the below re: the second person shot but apply it to the first case if you like, let's assume, for the sake of argument, there was good reason to chase after Kyle - then what?
Lol. "I can't argue this very well, so i'm just going to constantly claim that what you have said is vague with no explanation of why i think that and no specifics about what i think is vague"
Eh? I've asked you several direct questions which you've then deflected from. Do you want me to preface them with "this is vague so here is a question"?
None of them good, or that i havent answered before in my posts.
There we go again with the deflection..
Where did you answer this one which relies on a condiction/hypothetical I've put in in order to try and get some sort of point from you?
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35227259/
This is true, however, there seems to be a double standard from many on the far left in so far as they think Kyle doesn't have a right to self defence because he committed criminal acts, they often victim blame him and suggest he should have just taken a potentially lethal beating because he had used bad judgement in going there.
For me the fact Kyle had an AR-15 is largely a red herring.
look, if you had something interesting or new to say to expand on what i have been talking about i would engage with you (see Rroff's recent post for something actually interesting/worth responding properly to).
Suspended
Has jono8 answered a single question in here? All I can see is him telling people to read his previous posts which still don't answer questions.
Yes, many.
I like the new deflection reason, now it's that the posts weren't "interesting" rather than the questions haveing already been addressed... Anything to avoid answering.
He avoids things that might be too critical or highlights any weaknesses in his vague arguments and some of the unsubstantiated claims he's made.
I don't think Kyle had no right to self defense. The reckless homicide charge will largely be based on whether his use of the weapon was deemed excessive in terms of self defense, and likely on whether he had any part in instigating the chain of events that happened.
Incorrect.
i'm fully confident of the arguments i have made thanks. So much so that they dont need repeating in tedium to you.