this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
851 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3987 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

People believe vaccines cause Autism. When they don’t vaccinate their children I’m going to blame them for the death regardless of whatever stupid belief led them to think their children were invincible.

Okay, but your argument is that he intended to shoot someone, I think you understand that, even if they are stupid, they didn't intend to kill their child. Just like what was probably to he case with Rittenhouse, he thought he was doing the right thing, he's just an idiot. Unfortunately, being an idiot is not a crime. Intending to kill or hurt someone is, which is what we are talking about.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ignorance and stupidity is not a defense. It doesn't matter if someone believes there is a child trafficking ring in the basement of a pizza place, and they are "doing the right thing" by going in there with a gun insisting on being shown the basement. It's still a crime.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

In this example, you are saying it doesn't matter if they thought they were doing the right thing because a crime was committed anyway. I absolutely agree with you here.

However, your initial position was that Rittenhouse committed a crime because he intended to shoot someone. If your claim is now that he ignorantly broke a law, I would say "okay which one?" and also inquire as to what happened to your initial position. Is this an admission you realize that he may not have gone there with the intent to shoot someone?

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"responding to my arguments means you have given up your position."

Not really, no. He went there with the intent to shoot someone. You are correct that we do not have a mind reading machine so it cannot be 100% proven, that doesn't make it not true. I further expanded that even if someone were to accept your argument that he didn't that doesn't mean he's innocent of his actions. My point was either way he's a murderer.

If your claim is now that he ignorantly broke a law, I would say "okay which one?"

Vigilantism. "The laws / legal system are insufficient" is not a defense of immoral, dangerous, or damaging behaviour.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You are correct that we do not have a mind reading machine so it cannot be 100% proven, that doesn’t make it not true.

I've made it pretty clear that Im not certain of his state of mind, by saying he only probably didn't go with an intent to shoot people. Maybe that is even unfair, but I tend to think people are more likely to be motivated stupidity rather than motivated by malice.

You seem to be criticizing your own position here because you are the one defending your claim that you know what his state of mind was, and appear to be assuming, because I disagree with you, that I must be taking the exact opposite position and assuming that I know he had no intent to shoot people.

further expanded that even if someone were to accept your argument that he didn’t that doesn’t mean he’s innocent of his actions.

Sure, and I followed this up with some more questions as to what was the crime. It would have also gone a long way to ease the debate if you had said you were no longer talking about intent (especially because you kept repeatedly saying that intent did not matter) and had moved on to a new way to try and claim you know he was guilty.

Vigilantism. “The laws / legal system are insufficient” is not a defense of immoral, dangerous, or damaging behaviour.

Which law exactly? Why wasn't he charged with it? If a shop owner stood there with a gun to protect their own property, is that illegal vigilantism? What if it is the shop owner and their family? Or friend? I'm curious to hear this line of reasoning, but it's a bit vague for me to really sink my teeth into.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Something about you quoting me saying "The laws / legal system are insufficient" and responding with "Which law exactly?" Makes me question your sincerity or how much you're listening to what I'm saying.

What Rittenhouse was doing should be clearly covered by vigilantism. If he wasn't charged with it then the laws are insufficient.

Which law exactly?

The one that apparently doesn't exist saying "you are not a cop and are not allowed to use deadly force to protect someone else's property."

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

if he wasn’t charged with it then the laws are insufficient.

I believe we would find common ground here. But this is one of political beliefs rather than an objective analysis of the law and whether he broke it that night in such a way that he should be found guilty of murder.

And remember this is where this all comes from, me pointing out that it's weird to claim that it makes no sense that people would think he's not guilty of a crime. You even seem to be relenting a bit and admitting that maybe he didn't break a law, but saying there should be a law against it.

On that last point, I do agree. This should not be legal to do, and he's an idiot for doing it.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

You even seem to be relenting a bit and admitting that maybe he didn't break a law, but saying there should be a law against it.

Maybe you're having discussions with other people and confusing me with someone else. I remind you that my first reply to you was:

I can acknowledge the court case, not disagree with the decision, and still call Rittenhouse a murderer

The definition of murder does require "being found guilty of the crime of murder in the place where it happened."

For example: historically it was legal to kill minorities. Those that did were still murderers even if it was "legal" at the time.

I don't care that Rittenhouse was found "not guilty", he's still a murderer. I'm not saying the trial was wrong, I'm saying Rittenhouse was wrong and the existing laws are insufficient.