- cross-posted to:
- antifascism@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- antifascism@midwest.social
cross-posted from: https://midwest.social/post/9997521
To the person from lemm.ee who reported this post as “terrorism” go fuck yourself.
Link for tickets: https://events2022.tpusa.com/events/kyle-rittenhouse-at-kent-state
Locked because I keep getting reports from people arguing. Cool off.
Neither did I, and I don’t think anyone would believe it right now if you did.
I’m not the one making up my own definition for murder and then getting mad when other people point out that my definition is very loose, lacks meaningful implications, and encompasses clear-cut defensive situations.
TTFN.
My favorite type of troll. The one going around trying to hold people to legal definitions if it suits them, dismissing any logic not aligned with what a court would say.
Oh, you’re back already? That was fast.
Not trolling. Anyone can freely look up a video of the shooting, and the events leading up to it. Having seen the video first hand, it is clearly a defensive shooting. Secondly, you are accusing someone of murder based on your own loose logic, and pretending that it should have the same implications and stigma as the legal definition, since you previously opined that he “walked” away from legal consequences. In that case, you are a murderer, by my arbitrary out of my ass definition, because you killed your argument.
What a weakly strung together pile of idiocy
Self-reflection is a removed, ain’t it?
You wouldn’t know. Because by this nothing burger of an argument, no one is allowed an opinion that wouldn’t hold up in a specific courtroom. Because as we all know, courtrooms have only ever decided cases a) accurately to reflect the law and b) under laws that are 100% just.
Therefore, FascistDefender9000 is forced to conclude that opinions contrary to legal definitions are 100% evil and abhorrent, and are identical to just making up any shit that can be imagined.
What’s next in a world where people’s opinions aren’t based on law? Social change? Dogs and cats living together?! I cannot just sit idly by while opinions like “taking a gun to menace people you hate and then killing them likely means you premeditated exactly such a scenario” exist!!!
I think your definition of murder is shit, regardless of a courtroom being involved, hence why my first first example didn’t involve a courtroom at all.
Funny name there. Thinly veiled ad-hominems aside, do you think that Kyle Rittenhouse (or anyone else) should be denied due process because of their fascist beliefs? That actually sounds pretty fascist to me…
Not what I said. This is a poor attempt at a strawman.
Pretty much the usual shit? Laws are based on established opinions about social conduct. You’re the one who thinks that your opinion of what makes a person a murderer should be used in legal proceedings, which is why you are so angry that a teen in a clear-cut self defense scenario did not get convicted of murder.
That is your opinion on what happened. In the case of what actually happened, should Kyle, or anyone else, lay on the ground and let people beat, and possibly even execute them, after they tried to de-escalate and escape the situation, or do they have a right to defend themselves?
Which is why it’s weird you didn’t just move on and I’m still getting ridiculous messages in my inbox. Now you’re trying to imply that I think legal processes shouldn’t exist due to my read of a single situation. Try harder. Good luck with your trolling campaign.
This wasn’t you?
This isn’t your definition of a murderer?
That wasn’t you insinuating that I’m defending fascists, and that it’s a bad thing to hope for equal application of justice, even when the people protected by it are people that I find reprehensible?