Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please demonstrate your rational basis for this statement.You miss the point. The facts are predetermined by America's legitimizing people to carry guns on the streets to intimidate others.
It provided the opportunity for self-defenseThat provided the opportunity for murder.
There was never really any question, at least not for people not pre-disposed against the use of a firearm in self-defense.And now a not guilty verdict will eliminate the questions of whether it will be self defense or murder.
Don't know. Tell us.Will murder of black men by gun or by lynching be the acceptable punishment for drinking from a 'whites only' water fountain?
The shootings on the streets can only take place when there are guns present. That's as rational as we can be!Please demonstrate your rational basis for this statement.
Yes, guns provide the opportunity for self defense and people die.It provided the opportunity for self-defense
I'm not sure what you are trying to say? I can just say that in Canada we don't provide the opportunity to need to shoot people dead in self defense.There was never really any question, at least not for people not pre-disposed against the use of a firearm in self-defense.
Don't know. Tell us.
Provide the rational basis for your response.
That's flat out stupid. The facts are the mob that was chasing him had at least one gun and was prepared to use it on him. That provided the opportunity for self defense, which is what happened.You miss the point. The facts are predetermined by America's legitimizing people to carry guns on the streets to intimidate others. That provided the opportunity for murder.
And now a not guilty verdict will eliminate the questions of whether it will be self defense or murder.
Will murder of black men by gun or by lynching be the acceptable punishment for drinking from a 'whites only' water fountain?
So many Americans on this board are predicting another civil war!
No doubt a not guilty verdict will prove it to be self defense.That's flat out stupid. The facts are the mob that was chasing him had at least one gun and was prepared to use it on him. That provided the opportunity for self defense, which is what happened.
That's possible. In Canada we judge that to not be probable. In fact, we consider the odds being greater if there are guns present.Without any guns in the picture, there would be one dead young man beaten to death by a deranged mob that was ticked off he put out their fire.
For the most extreme example I can think of at the moment:As for your whites only water fountain, the 1960's called and want their symbol back. Apparently you didn't notice that race didn't even enter into this picture, so any mention of it came from you, not the case.
No. This part:The shootings on the streets can only take place when there are guns present. That's as rational as we can be!
Play stupid games, right?Yes, guns provide the opportunity for self defense and people die.
That -some- people are predisposed to the use of a firearm in self-defense, these people see what happened as murder, and no amount of fact will change their mind -- for these people, there was never any "question" hereI'm not sure what you are trying to say?
How does this answer your question?In Canada we don't provide the opportunity for claims of self defense with guns.
Demonstrate the rational basis for your claim.I'm suggesting that the 'self defense' claim will be used to justify situations in which it's permissable to shoot a black man in the back when he's running away from a burglary or where he has committed rape of a white woman.
The law says you can't shoot a person in the back when he's running from a crime he's committed.Demonstrate the rational basis for your claim.
I'm sorry -- since you cut >90% of my post out, I have no idea what part of my post you're referring to.The law says you can't shoot a person in the back when he's running from a crime he's committed.
I'm assuming that's the law in the US too.
If there's something on which we disagree then you must state that now!I'm sorry -- since you cut >90% of my post out, I have no idea what part of my post you're referring to.
Let us know. Don't mess it up.
And, since you cut out the remainder of my post, all of which directly and effectively addressed points --you-- made, I accept your concession of those points.
-That- is progress, because it means I convinced you that your points were, in some way, shape, or form , invalid.
You can disagree, but that will mean you need to provide responses to said points.
They were protesting in Kenosha because the cops shot an unarmed young black man in the back 7 times in broad daylight who was NOT involved in the domestic violence call they answered..
Is that OK in your town?
They have never even been taught that because might stress out their feelings.When will you people learn that police misconduct doesn't give you the right to go out and loot, burn, and murder innocent people?
Or... what?If there's something on which we disagree then you must state that now!
As it should! This is not a good time to question the rights of any Americans carrying guns on the streets.Dog and pony show of another persecution of another armed white guy defending himsrlf is falling back into abyss it crawled out of.
Of course. Rittenhouse couldn't claim self-defense if he shot someone who was running away. Likewise his attackers can't claim self-defense because they were running towards him, but he CAN claim it because he was on the ground and they were running at him with deadly weapons.No doubt a not guilty verdict will prove it to be self defense.
That's possible. In Canada we judge that to not be probable. In fact, we consider the odds being greater if there are guns present.
For the most extreme example I can think of at the moment:
If a bad buy has just raped your mother and is running away, you can't shoot him in the back and claim self defense. Do you understand why?
I personally know of a Canadian who shot a man in his legs with a shotgun while running away from the shooters house after a burglary. The shooter was duly punished by the law. Do you get the picture?
Post #85 I said:Or... what?
See post 61, 85, and 87.
In these posts, you made a number of claims. I asked you to demonstrate your rational basis for those claims.
Either you can demonstrate your rational basis for the claims so challenged therein, or you can't.
Until you -do- demonstrate those rational basis, there's no need for me to disagree with anything , because nonsense fails on its own.
Can you demonstrate the rational basis for your claims, or are you ready to concede the points?
He sure can!Of course. Rittenhouse couldn't claim self-defense if he shot someone who was running away. Likewise his attackers can't claim self-defense because they were running towards him, but he CAN claim it because he was on the ground and they were running at him with deadly weapons.
Floyd was what? 46 years old and a proven felon who made others lives miserable. Never doing a good thing in his life. Rittenhouse was in an anarchy situation. Anything goes. I would argue to agree with you. But after endless destruction and having to pay for this in increased costs in products purchase, it is tiresome. The same people you love as Progs will kill the same who rioted if it comes to it when totally empowered. And you still do not pay attention to it.Rittenhouse also beats up girls.
Footage shows Kenosha gunman Kyle Rittenhouse 'attacking a girl'
The footage was captured in Downtown Kenosha on July 1 - just weeks before 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse would shoot dead two Black Lives Matter protesters with an AR-15www.dailymail.co.uk
The footage, which first began circulating on Twitter earlier this week, was captured on July 1 – weeks before Rittenhouse shot dead two protesters
The melee occurred in downtown Kenosha, according to the two men who filmed the clip, who also identified the teen depicted as Kyle Rittenhouse
The teen is also seen wearing the same American Flag Crocs in the footage that Rittenhouse is seen donning in a widely photo of the shooter from Facebook
The teen believed to be Rittenhouse is seen punching a girl at least four times, striking her in the back of the head and the abdomen
Four men approach the teen for striking a girl, with one grappling with him, forcing him to the ground and proceeding to kick him before fleeing
Rittenhouse is charged with first-degree intentional homicide in the shooting death of two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha last week
The bottom line is, there's no reason to argue hypotheticals. Rittenhouse was on the ground with a mob running at him that had deadly weapons. He was justified in protecting himself.He sure can!
But he couldn't if they were running away from him.
As with Shooter, you need to find something on which we disagree. If you can't do that then I'm dumping you on account of you wasting my time. I've been more than generous with you assholes today.
Post 85 is -my- post.Post #85 I said:
The shootings on the streets can only take place when there are guns present.
You've once again failed to provide something on which we disagree.Post 85 is -my- post.
In post 85, I asked you to demonstrate your rational basis for your statement:
America's legitimizing people to carry guns on the streets to intimidate others.
And:
I'm suggesting that the 'self defense' claim will be used to justify situations in which it's permissable to shoot a black man in the back when he's running away
You have, so far, failed to do so.
