But expecting him to shoot an armed murder who isn't threatening anyone

Leaving aside the yammering gibberish you need to somehow pass off as coherent thought to come up with "armed murderer who isn't threatening anyone" nobody said they expected the officer to shoot in both cases the point is Rittenhouse WASN'T EVEN ARRESTED. Saying "Duhhhh, but he didn't resist arrest" is the whole point. HE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESIST ARREST BECAUSE THEY LET HIM WALK AWAY. Two people doing vastly different things were treated with the inverse reactions of what you should expect given what they did.

A child could grasp that.

There's Nik in a nutshell. Someone dares to question his logic and he jumps up on the box and throws a personal attack for good measure. Wonder if the mods are ever going to deal with you are are the site owners happy with 20 members from the League's largest fanbase?

Resisting arrest does not give a police officer the right to shoot someone, holding and using a deadly weapon does. The whole point of the comparison is that Blake was killed without cause while Rittenhouse wasn't even arrested despite cause.

It certainly does not but when you resist you greatly increase the chances of the situation going the sideways. The comparison does not work

And yet holding and firing an assault weapon at peaceful protestors and literally killing people does not put a white person in similar danger. Excuse me? We saw this with Dylan Roof too. How many times do we have to go around this merry-go-round? There's always some level of excuse to justify police brutality and it's getting tiresome. Nobody deserves to be paralyzed for resisting arrest. The police aren't The Punisher or Judge Dredd. Their job is to use the least force possible to subdue somebody and 7 bullets is excessive force. How many of us condoned the killing of Sammy Yatim when it happened here?

Maybe next we're going to say Breonna Taylor shouldn't have been living at her address?, or Philando Castille shouldn't have been driving at all.

Careful getting down from your soapbox. The Officer should be charged but that does not mean he should have shot the White guy to be equal, the situations aren't.

But he would have been justified in shooting a man with an assault rifle that shot at and killed protestors. There's no justification for shooting Jacob 7 f'n times in the back.

I think I have written several times that I think the Officer should be charged. But expecting him to shoot an armed murder who isn't threatening anyone when Officer gets there 8s a bad comparison

I have seen no evidence that the White person posed any threat

He killed two people.

To the Officer

Resisting arrest does not give a police officer the right to shoot someone, holding and using a deadly weapon does. The whole point of the comparison is that Blake was killed without cause while Rittenhouse wasn't even arrested despite cause.

It certainly does not but when you resist you greatly increase the chances of the situation going the sideways. The comparison does not work

And yet holding and firing an assault weapon at peaceful protestors and literally killing people does not put a white person in similar danger. Excuse me? We saw this with Dylan Roof too. How many times do we have to go around this merry-go-round? There's always some level of excuse to justify police brutality and it's getting tiresome. Nobody deserves to be paralyzed for resisting arrest. The police aren't The Punisher or Judge Dredd. Their job is to use the least force possible to subdue somebody and 7 bullets is excessive force. How many of us condoned the killing of Sammy Yatim when it happened here?

Maybe next we're going to say Breonna Taylor shouldn't have been living at her address?, or Philando Castille shouldn't have been driving at all.

Careful getting down from your soapbox. The Officer should be charged but that does not mean he should have shot the White guy to be equal, the situations aren't.

It certainly does not but when you resist you greatly increase the chances of the situation going the sideways. The comparison does not work

It highlights the discrepancy between how a black person was treated while not giving cause for lethal violence vs. how a white person was treated while giving cause. That they did not do the same thing is central to the topic at hand. If you don't understand how comparisons are useful even between two dissimilar things then that's on you and your capacity, or lack thereof, for critical thinking.

I have seen no evidence that the White person posed any threat so only considering only Race is not a valid comparison. The Officer should be charged

Resisting arrest does not give a police officer the right to shoot someone, holding and using a deadly weapon does. The whole point of the comparison is that Blake was killed without cause while Rittenhouse wasn't even arrested despite cause.

It certainly does not but when you resist you greatly increase the chances of the situation going the sideways. The comparison does not work

Things are getting out of hand.  That Blake shooting wasn?t unwarranted.

Well they didn't shoot a white guy with an assault rifle who literally killed two people, but hey, what do I know?

Did he resist? Officer should still be charged but looking for a comparison might be a wasted effort

Things are getting out of hand.  That Blake shooting wasn?t unwarranted.

The Blake shooting was wrong and should lead to charges but Blake could have easily prevented it. That still does not excuse the Officer's actions. You would think after hundreds of incidents it would be abundantly clear that the possibility of bad things happening when you resist arrest greatly increase. Officer still should be charged.

I wrote in response to Herman's words questioning them alone.

And Herman's words were in the context of what he was quoting.

And making a huge generalization that just isn't true whole helping nothing.

I don't recall reading "violent nationalist dogma" in the post I replied to?

It was literally chock full of pictures of people holding assault weapons, some of which were used against their fellow citizens in a double murder and how those people are being celebrated by the mainstream of the Republican party.

I wrote in response to Herman's words questioning them alone.

I'm not on the Right or Republucan side but thinking its as simple as this is where X leads might have someone suggest Socialist policy leads to Venezuela. 

That analogy doesn't work because there are dozens and dozens of examples of states adopting socialist policies without becoming Venezuela whereas there aren't large scale examples of countries adopting violent nationalist dogma and it not leading to violence and hatred. You actually have to establish a causality before saying one thing leads to another and I think that's been done with nationalism/populism and fascism.

Again, this isn't a left/right thing. This isn't a dispute about marginal tax rate. I'm not so sure why you seem intent on tying Conservatism to this sort of violent rhetoric when a bunch of left-wing people are saying that Conservatism hasn't always and doesn't have to be that.

I don't recall reading "violent nationalist dogma" in the post I replied to? The vast majority of people on the Right in the US do not believe in those things.

https://twitter.com/crimethinc/status/1298787401792446466
Just in case you're confused about where populist nationalistic demagoguery eventually leads

I'm not on the Right or Republucan side but thinking its as simple as this is where X leads might have someone suggest Socialist policy leads to Venezuela.  Its best to just consider that because someone does not share your thoughts or political beliefs it does not make them them the devil.

Nailed it except for those 11 MLB games that are either finished or still playing right now,

But if they go the other direction how would that not equally alienate a lot of their voters? They had the most party votes last time around.

I'm sure it would alienate some voters but that inherently reveals why the Conservatives have such an uphill battle in trying to win National elections. By fusing the PC party and the Reform/Alliance/Whatever they were calling themselves the Conservatives were trying to build a coalition of hard right reactionaries as well as Red Tories or whatever and we're seeing the cracks of that coalition as it comes to actually getting votes.

Getting the most votes among all of the parties isn't a huge accomplishment when there's one party for people right of centre and 4 centre-left or left wing parties. Actually forming a government will require the Conservatives to actually grow their numbers to an electable number and they can't do that by moving further to the right. 66% of the country was to the Left of the CPC in the last election. Until they try to do something about that, they're going to be in opposition.

Regardless though, all Bender said was that he wanted the CPC to reject populist demagoguery in favour of a more moderate conservatism. You can disagree with that as electoral strategy if you want but if you're saying that anyone who did that wouldn't really be a conservative you're effectively tying the entire conservative movement as an ideology to nationalist populism which, again, seems like a bad strategy even before we get to how repulsive it is to a lot of people on its actual merits.

Bender said they did not elect a leader that would win him to their side.  I simply replied that from my reading that would require them to go from the right to the left and i don't see how that makes sense? Why would they cross over the threshold and compete for voters when they don't have that much less chance of attracting voters who are fed up with the Liberals? Turn Quebec and the CPC are the Govt.

It's highly doubtful that person will lead the party in the near future.

That's the point busta and Bender are making. By effectively saying that the CPC isn't the place for people who are socially liberal but in favour of generally right-wing fiscal policies the party is alienating a large number of voters.

But if they go the other direction how would that not equally alienate a lot of their voters? They had the most party votes last time around.