Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

Remove this Banner Ad

Big_Birdy

Premiership Player
Jul 6, 2011
3,550
5,233
AFL Club
West Coast
So there is a protest being organised by ASU to have Kyle removed as a student from the college.

So I wonder what the deal was when the prosecution said they wanted to call in a rebuttal witness who was from the college regarding Kyle’s testimony that he attended the University?

I haven’t seen this brought up again or discussed anywhere.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Passenger

Bugman & Programmer Extraordinaire
Mar 25, 2003
33,295
23,290
127.0.0.1
AFL Club
West Coast
It will be interesting to see if the conservative press see Chrystul Kizer as a media darling, given she too also killed a sexual deviant and is claiming self defence.


Prosecutors say Ms Kizer planned to kill Volar because she wanted to steal his BMW. But her attorneys argue that she acted in self defence after suffering years of sexual abuse at Volar’s hands.
 

scoman

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2013
6,369
7,107
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
It will be interesting to see if the conservative press see Chrystul Kizer as a media darling, given she too also killed a sexual deviant and is claiming self defence.

If her claims are found to be legitimate then she may well get off. I think the link to the Rittenhouse case is a bit of a stretch though. I'm sure there have been other, more similar cases to hers that would be a much better comparison.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
58,116
104,200
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Looks like the Supreme Court is going to mess with Roe v Wade. There's something deeply f***ed up about a country that protects someone like Rittenhouse but criminalises women having a medical procedure that might save their life.
 

scoman

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2013
6,369
7,107
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Looks like the Supreme Court is going to mess with Roe v Wade. There's something deeply f***ed up about a country that protects someone like Rittenhouse but criminalises women having a medical procedure that might save their life.
Another rather interesting topic to somehow relate to the Rittenhouse verdict. Some very strange comparisons being made of late.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
58,116
104,200
AFL Club
Hawthorn
No it's not. Bows being stretched big time.
If a kid can get off a murder charge claiming self defence but a women can't get a basic medical procedure without being labelled a criminal, do you not think there might be an issue or two with the legal system over there?
 

scoman

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 19, 2013
6,369
7,107
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
If a kid can get off a murder charge claiming self defence but a women can't get a basic medical procedure without being labelled a criminal, do you not think there might be an issue or two with the legal system over there?
I get what you are trying to say.

But all you are really doing is having a winge about two completely unrelated things you don't agree with. Then packaging it up in to something (those crazy cats in America) you think everyone will agree with.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Present Not Past

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
10,479
10,060
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
Looks like the Supreme Court is going to mess with Roe v Wade. There's something deeply f***ed up about a country that protects someone like Rittenhouse but criminalises women having a medical procedure that might save their life.
Surely if the woman feels that her life is somehow threatened, and going by the Rittenhouse case there is no real true measure of this fear, by the presence of the foetus in her body, then she is in her right to terminate that life.
 

ShanDog

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 12, 2012
20,384
39,293
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
If a kid can get off a murder charge claiming self defence but a women can't get a basic medical procedure without being labelled a criminal, do you not think there might be an issue or two with the legal system over there?
I don't think this is the comparison you think it is. The underlying principle of self defence and banning abortion is about protecting life. That you don't like the way those principles are implemented in law is not a slam dunk argument about hypocrisy.
 

Osho

THE BEAST
Jul 9, 2021
666
705
AFL Club
GWS
Looks like the Supreme Court is going to mess with Roe v Wade. There's something deeply f***ed up about a country that protects someone like Rittenhouse but criminalises women having a medical procedure that might save their life.
Link to details on new abortion laws please.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
58,116
104,200
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I don't think this is the comparison you think it is. The underlying principle of self defence and banning abortion is about protecting life. That you don't like the way those principles are implemented in law is not a slam dunk argument about hypocrisy.
I think a society that criminalises abortion but allows someone to kill another in the name of self defence is very sick indeed.
 

ShanDog

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 12, 2012
20,384
39,293
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Do you think the MAGA crowd and the hard core anti abortionists really care about protecting the mother or the unborn?
Not sure what you mean by mother, but regardless, I wouldn't pretend to know the thoughts of millions of people. Still, I'd bet every last cent I had that many of them do care about the unborn. Not sure how you could say otherwise, as that's basically asserting that anti-abortion people simply want to control women, which would again be pretending to know the secret inner thought of literally millions of people. It's textbook ideological bias.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
58,116
104,200
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Not sure what you mean by mother, but regardless, I wouldn't pretend to know the thoughts of millions of people. Still, I'd bet every last cent I had that many of them do care about the unborn. Not sure how you could say otherwise, as that's basically asserting that anti-abortion people simply want to control women, which would again be pretending to know the secret inner thought of literally millions of people. It's textbook ideological bias.
I'd argue taking that crowd's argument in good faith is your first mistake.
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
58,116
104,200
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Do you apply that rule equally to all across all political leanings, or just the ones you don't like?
I apply it were I think due and when it comes to anti abortionists I suspect their arguments have very little to with concern for the health of mother or baby and more to do with misogyny and the desire to control women. You can believe them if you want to but I think you're being pretty naive here.
 

ShanDog

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 12, 2012
20,384
39,293
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
I apply it were I think due and when it comes to anti abortionists I suspect their arguments have very little to with concern for the health of mother or baby and more to do with misogyny and the desire to control women. You can believe them if you want to but I think you're being pretty naive here.
You're just explicitly admitting a cognitive bias here, and treating literally millions of people as a monolith with the same (ostensibly) hidden agenda. It's no different to the thought process of a conspiracy nutter. "I know what's really the case behind all that so-called explanation and reasoning - they just want to control half the world!"

There's no naivety on my behalf at all - I've no doubt some people of that ilk are just as you describe. But to suggest all are (or enough to write them all off with a handwave) is just utter nonsense, and a product of your ideological blinkers. Pardon the bluntness, but I find it totally ridiculous.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad