Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: locogringo who wrote (1330313)	11/24/2021 3:58:04 PM
From: locogringo	2 Recommendations Recommended By Broken_Clock Winfastorlose Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571150

HUH? Liberals are really REALLY sick in the head... MSNBC Calls Christmas Parade Massacre an “Accident” Clint Watts called it an accident despite the fact that witnesses said the driver stopped, then sped through the crowd, sending people flying in all directors in an act of complete mayhem. CBS called it a "parade crash."

To: locogringo who wrote (1330313)	11/24/2021 5:37:25 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	5 Recommendations Recommended By IC720 locogringo rxbond tntpal Winfastorlose Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571150

Tenchu's Thoughts: tHe lAw nEeDs tO cHaNgE Here's Fredo from CNN talking with Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyer: Fredo makes a couple of points that are quite asinine but unfortunately is commonly held, especially among leftists. *1) Unless your assailant clearly and unequivocally wants you dead dead dead, you cannot fire back.* In the video, from 3:37, Fredo asks the question, "Does [Kyle] have concerns that maybe he could have done something else, maybe he didn't have to fire, maybe he could have fought, maybe he could have gotten back on his feet ..." Yeah, coulda shoulda woulda, huh Fredo? Fredo also claims with a straight face (starting at time 5:14), "It's hard to believe that somebody chasing you is going to beat you to death." "Why else was he chasing him, Chris?" replied Kyle's lawyer. "Probably to get him and beat him up, hurt him ..." answers Fredo. Really? Rosenbaum was acting like a LUNATIC. He was violent. He charged at Kyle. He was clearly going for the gun. Even many people who think Kyle should have been found guilty would admit that. That is a SCARY situation to be in, Fredo. No one of sound judgment would just stand there and take it "like a man." But let's get to the point-by-point of why Fredo is wrong. First of all, in self-defense, it's not just the potential loss of life that should be considered. It's also the threat of great bodily harm. And great bodily harm includes injuries like a broken arm, or a concussion, or bruises caused by hitting someone with a bludgeoning tool, or stomping on someone with a shod foot. All of those threats justifies the use of deadly force. Second, the intent of the assailant doesn't matter. Just because the assailant never intended to kill or do great bodily harm doesn't mean jack. "Yes, I pointed a loaded gun at Kyle, but I never intended to fire." *Bullshit. "Yes, Rosenbaum lunged for Kyle's gun, but he never intended to use it." Again, bullshit. All that is required is that the defender be put in reasonable fear of his own life. Someone lunging for your gun qualifies, as has been shown in many, many cases of self-defense. Someone pointing a loaded gun at you also qualifies. And third, there is NO obligation for an armed defender to drop his own weapon and engage in a fist fight with an unarmed assailant. That's the argument that the prosecutor tried to make, "yOu dOn'T bRiNg a gUn tO a fIsT fIgHt." Really? Well then why the hell not? Against a mob who is going after you, WTF are you going to do? Use your kick ass mixed martial arts abilities? Go Chuck Norris on your attackers? What if you're an elderly person or a member of a vulnerable population? What if you are a woman who is like 5'2" and an unarmed assailant who is 6'0" attacks you? Don't you think you're better off with a firearm? 2) The law needs to change.* At 5:26, Fredo says, "My problem is with the law here ... Look, we don't know what he was going to do. All we know ... well NOW we do. Because now we know that none of the people involved here have ever killed anybody before or known for that kind of violence, but he didn't know that at the moment. This law, does it concern you, how low a bar this law presents, for now some 10 years, that there's no duty to retreat, that you put yourself in his shoes, not the reasonable person's shoes, that the prosecutor has to prove self-defense wasn't necessary by a reasonable doubt unlike so many other state's statutes? You worried about this being too low a bar?" This, right there, is CNN's official opinion on self-defense. This is what drives all of CNN's narratives and leads them to conclude that Kyle should have been found guilty, if it weren't for that pesky thing called the law. Stephen Colbert said the same thing: TheGuardian - Stephen Colbert on Rittenhouse verdict: ‘If he didn’t break the law, we should change the law’ Once again, that's a load of bullshit. First of all, the right to self-defense is key to making America a free and secure society. Second, how would YOU change the standard for use of lethal force in self-defense? Do you need to KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy coming at you wants to kill you? Is it no longer OK to shoot the sonuvabitch if all he wants to do is beat you up and break a few bones? What if you're a girl (or a guy, either way) and the guy wants to rape you? At least the guy doesn't want to kill you, right? How about that duty to retreat? Wisconsin apparently doesn't have that duty, but in all three cases, Kyle DID attempt to retreat. So how is that relevant here? What about open carry? Plenty of people have argued that Kyle provoked Joseph Rosenbaum simply by carrying a scary looking rifle around. There is no proof of that, as Rosenbaum was a lunatic that night and was going around attacking anyone without provocation. So once again, it's not clear to me that open carry was relevant in Kyle's case. *The Bottom Line* The bottom line is this. The left is overly invested in their own narrative, namely the whole "white supremacist" thing. They twisted the Rittenhouse case to fit this narrative. They twisted his intentions to make him look like a "white vigilante" out to hunt black people and their supporters. They made HIM look like the bloodthirsty murderer and his assailants "innocent victims" who wouldn't harm a fly. And now that Rittenhouse was unanimously exonerated by a jury of his peers, the left wants the law to change. That's how radical the left has become. They want everything to change in order to fit their political views. "Justice" to them will never happen until outcomes are equalized and the only people who suffer are those who disagree with them. Tenchusatsu