MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: #UnleashSean on November 19, 2021, 12:23:07 PM
-
Found not guilty on all charges.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-verdict-watch-11-19-21/index.html
Hope he learned his lesson.
-
We, on the other hand, evidently have not learned our lesson. Excited to see what this thread brings!
-
Kind of surprised on the not guilty of recklessly endangering safety.
-
We, on the other hand, evidently have not learned our lesson. Excited to see what this thread brings!
4 or so people derail them onto politics. Most of the scoopers had good engaging conversations on this.
-
Would be poetic if vigilante justice found its way into Antioch, IL.
-
Tremendous series of eff-ups by the prosecution let a killer go scot-free.
-
The more the trial went on, the clearer it became that he should be innocent on all charges.
Facts and evidence > media pressure and intimidation
The mods obviously don’t want discussion on this topic, so I will leave it at that. Time to get ready for the game tonight!
-
Tremendous series of eff-ups by the prosecution let a killer go scot-free.
I'd like to see your view point of that. From mine it seems that Rittenhouse truly was acting in self defense from every piece of video/witness accounts.
-
All sorts of prosecution issues, so the verdict isn’t necessarily all that surprising.
My beef is that a black or Hispanic teenager in the same circumstances would not have had the same outcome, and I base that on thirty years of criminal defense work.
-
Kind of surprised on the not guilty of recklessly endangering safety.
Me too, although I am not sure that legally carrying a firearm, that you then fire in self-defense, is recklessly endangering safety as I understand how the law is interpreted. If he would have carried it, and there was no threat to his life but he then fired it into the air, that is recklessly endangering safety.
But once it was determined that possessing it was legal, and that the shooting was in self-defense, I am not sure how they could convict him on the safety charge.
-
All sorts of prosecution issues, so the verdict isn’t necessarily all that surprising.
My beef is that a black or Hispanic teenager in the same circumstances would not have had the same outcome, and I base that on thirty years of criminal defense work.
That individual would never have made it to trial. He or she would be dead
-
I'd like to see your view point of that. From mine it seems that Rittenhouse truly was acting in self defense from every piece of video/witness accounts.
Oh, I absolutely didn't expect him to be found guilty of murder based on what we saw, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a killer. O.J. wasn't found guilty, either. There were charges for which he should have done jail time though IMHO. Instead, he's a vigilante hero, and others will be similarly emboldened.
And this:
All sorts of prosecution issues, so the verdict isn’t necessarily all that surprising.
My beef is that a black or Hispanic teenager in the same circumstances would not have had the same outcome, and I base that on thirty years of criminal defense work.
Hell, a Black or Hispanic teenager probably would have been gunned down by the cops that night, instead of being given a big smile and a thumbs-up.
-
I know it may be too much to hope for, but I hope that in the aftermath of this trial Rittenhouse shows some humility and empathy. He may have been found not criminally liable, but I hope he recognizes the absolute tragedy that he was involved in and acts accordingly. In short, I hope he demonstrates that he actually is the kind of person that the defense team and his supporters claim that he was.
-
Oh, I absolutely didn't expect him to be found guilty of murder based on what we saw, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a killer. O.J. wasn't found guilty, either.
::) ::) ::) FFS, can you stop talking in banal talking points for once? This has nothing to do with OJ. This has to do with a Wisconsin self-defense law that (IMO) gives way too much deference to the person pulling the trigger.
IOW, stop using these topics as ways to insert your politics and get them locked. The rest of us want to have a discussion here.
-
It's not getting much media coverage, but a black man charged with murder in Georgia was just acquitted. Look up the Rayshondre Tarver case. Drug deal gone bad results in 2 deaths. The accused is found not guilty of murder with an argument of self-defense.
Obviously there are differences in the case and even the final outcome, but here's a real-time example that doesn't tie into the typical narrative that just isn't getting much publicity. This doesn't change the history of the criminal justice system in our country, but it's an example of how often we see certain narratives shared more broadly than others.
Edit - I'm not trying to broaden the topic of the thread too much here, just offering a rebuttal to the theoreticals that are being tossed out
-
So vigilantism is legal in Wisconsin. Big yikes.
-
Oh, I absolutely didn't expect him to be found guilty of murder based on what we saw, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a killer. O.J. wasn't found guilty, either. There were charges for which he should have done jail time though IMHO. Instead, he's a vigilante hero, and others will be similarly emboldened.
And this:
Hell, a Black or Hispanic teenager probably would have been gunned down by the cops that night, instead of being given a big smile and a thumbs-up.
In regards to self defense and stand your ground laws, found this interesting:
Yet in Florida, some of the most ardent defenders of the law have been black defense attorneys. The reason: Their black, often young, clients are the most successful users of the law. Indeed, data show that black defendants have a high success rate in invoking stand your ground in black-on-black violence. In fact, if all cases are taken into account, black defendants have a higher success rate in claiming stand your ground than do white defendants, and they attempt to claim stand your ground at higher rates.
"There is a long history of African-American support for gun rights and the principle of armed self-defense," writes Jelani Cobb, director of the Institute for African-American Studies at the University of Connecticut, in The New Yorker. He cites the Deacons for Defense and Justice, an armed posse that protected civil rights marchers, and former NAACP head Walter White, who protected his home with a rifle during the 1906 Atlanta race riots.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0806/Racial-bias-and-stand-your-ground-laws-what-the-data-show (https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0806/Racial-bias-and-stand-your-ground-laws-what-the-data-show)
Edited to add link,
-
Drug deal gone bad is a very different scenario. I said a black teenager in Rittenhouse’s circumstances would not have walked; as pointed out, there is a good chance he would have been shot dead that night, as opposed to walking right past the cops.
-
The more the trial went on, the clearer it became that he should be innocent on all charges.
Facts and evidence > media pressure and intimidation
The mods obviously don’t want discussion on this topic, so I will leave it at that. Time to get ready for the game tonight!
exactly. This editorial from a Constitutional Law expert nailed it: bowing to public pressure doomed the prosecution. IMO, as a lawyer, the jury got it right based upon the evidence and the standard the prosecution had to meet.
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/16/rittenhouse-and-the-perils-of-weighing-public-opinion-over-evidence-in-prosecutions/
There were many people who were made at the Hennepin County DA for not charging with Chauvin with First Degree murder but he was smart and went for a charge for which he could get a conviction - the DA did not here.
BTW, it's not guilty, not "innocent."
Overcharging may please the public, but it can demolish a case. While jurors can convict on “lesser included” offenses, the credibility of the prosecution is established by the lead charge. Jurors tend to start at the top and work their way down on the charges. If the first-degree charge is wildly out of reach, they are more likely to doubt the lesser charges, too.
-
Lawdog - can you share that link?
-
Drug deal gone bad is a very different scenario. I said a black teenager in Rittenhouse’s circumstances would not have walked; as pointed out, there is a good chance he would have been shot dead that night, as opposed to walking right past the cops.
There's no way to refute the outcome of a fake scenario. I was simply offering a somewhat similar parallel scenario to Rittenhouse to show that in real life other outcomes do happen. We just don't hear about them as often.
-
There were many people who were made at the Hennepin County DA for not charging with Chauvin with First Degree murder but he was smart and went for a charge for which he could get a conviction - the DA did not here.
BTW, it's not guilty, not "innocent."
Overcharging may please the public, but it can demolish a case. While jurors can convict on “lesser included” offenses, the credibility of the prosecution is established by the lead charge. Jurors tend to start at the top and work their way down on the charges. If the first-degree charge is wildly out of reach, they are more likely to doubt the lesser charges, too.
This. In a jury trial, the lawyer's credibility is extremely important. If the jury doesn't trust the attorney, it is quite likely that the client will pay the price. I believe the prosecutor in this case lost a great deal of credibility the instant he overcharged Rittenhouse. He then continued to hemorrhage credibility when he tried to make the facts fit the ridiculous charge.
-
There's no way to refute the outcome of a fake scenario. I was simply offering a somewhat similar parallel scenario to Rittenhouse to show that in real life other outcomes do happen. We just don't hear about them as often.
In real life, a black male or Hispanic male in the same setting as Kyle Rittenhouse would be dead.
-
Could someone explain the self defense interpretation in Wisconsin? I was always told you're allowed to use lethal force only if your life is threatened. Ie I can't shoot someone for pushing me.
Is it different in wi? Did the prosecution over charge? Did the jury ultimately decide that all three threatened Kyle's life?
-
Court did it’s job, not guilty, case closed. He is also a killer of two humans, by his choice and by his hand.
-
Awful human being.
Probably has a career in politics.
-
Heard on the radio that mom is already saying he’s a hero.
-
Heard on the radio that mom is already saying he’s a hero.
Kyle is an idiot and so is his mother.
-
Kyle is an idiot and so is his mother.
His upbringing wasn’t allowed at trial but a cursory investigation into it and it wasn’t a surprise he was in the position he was that night
-
Can he be taken to civil court for shooting the survivor? Or does the not guilty verdict pretty much throw that out the window?
-
His upbringing wasn’t allowed at trial but a cursory investigation into it and it wasn’t a surprise he was in the position he was that night
I mean "online high school" says everything anyone needs to know.
-
Can he be taken to civil court for shooting the survivor? Or does the not guilty verdict pretty much throw that out the window?
He can be sued by all of them (or their families). It will not surprise me in the least if he is. Remember OJ and the Goldmans?
However, I think a key difference between this case and the OJ cases is that here we know that Rittenhouse killed those two men and the real question is whether it was self defense. If Rittenhouse gets a lot of money from lawsuits (and personally, I'm somewhat skeptical that will happen) I would expect civil lawsuits against him.
-
Kyle is an idiot and so is his mother.
100%. But, being an idiot and terrible human being don't make him a murderer. Good tweet from a WaPo columnist:
I was a Rittenhouse agnostic, tending towards "probably guilty of something", until I watched the testimony. After, I just couldn't get "beyond a reasonable doubt" on self defense in the Rosenbaum shooting--after which, everything that follows looks like a tragedy, not murder.
That doesn't absolve Rittenhouse of the moral responsibility for bringing a gun into a volatile situation. But in this country, we don't convict people of moral responsibility. We convict them of things that are illegal.
I mean "online high school" says everything anyone needs to know.
I think you'd be surprised at how many kids these days, especially athletes, attend "online high schools."
-
The more the trial went on, the clearer it became that he should be innocent on all charges.
Facts and evidence > media pressure and intimidation
I don't agree that Rittenhouse should have gone to Kenosha in the first place, but I agree with these statements. For those who think otherwise, my guess is they didn't pay attention to the facts/evidence and only base their views on what the media told them.
-
He can be sued by all of them (or their families). It will not surprise me in the least if he is. Remember OJ and the Goldmans?
However, I think a key difference between this case and the OJ cases is that here we know that Rittenhouse killed those two men and the real question is whether it was self defense. If Rittenhouse gets a lot of money from lawsuits (and personally, I'm somewhat skeptical that will happen) I would expect civil lawsuits against him.
I'm only 30 I barely remember the OJ trial.
I think you'd be surprised at how many kids these days, especially athletes, attend "online high schools."
Yeah and I think that's about all I need to know about them as well.
-
I'm only 30 I barely remember the OJ trial.
Yeah and I think that's about all I need to know about them as well.
The online schooling is pretty prevalent across all spectrums.
The upbringing he more to do with what his parents were instilling in him
-
That individual would never have made it to trial. He or she would be dead
Say it louder for the people in the back.
-
None of the idiots should have been in Kenosha. But, they were and the criminal justice system has spoken. Sorry if that disappoints some y'all. Last time I looked this is still America, hey?
-
None of the idiots should have been in Kenosha. But, they were and the criminal justice system has spoken. Sorry if that disappoints some y'all. Last time I looked this is still America, hey?
Agreed and I expect you had the same reaction to the Chauvin verdict?
-
Heard on the radio that mom is already saying he’s a hero.
Excellent analysis right here. Of course, the right won't heed his advice, to too many he will be a hero.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-right-self-defense-role-model/620715/
But these public poses still matter. When you turn a foolish young man into a hero, you’ll see more foolish young men try to emulate his example. And although the state should not permit rioters to run rampant in America’s streets, random groups of armed Americans are utterly incapable of imposing order themselves, and any effort to do so can lead to greater death and carnage.
In fact, that’s exactly what happened in Rittenhouse’s case. He didn’t impose order. He didn’t stop a riot. He left a trail of bodies on the ground, and two of the people he shot were acting on the belief that Rittenhouse himself was an active shooter. He had, after all, just killed a man.
If the jury acquits Rittenhouse, it will not be a miscarriage of justice. The law gives even foolish men the right to defend their lives. But an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero. A political movement that turns a deadly and ineffective vigilante into a role model is a movement that is courting more violence and encouraging more young men to recklessly brandish weapons in dangerous places, and that will spill more blood in America’s streets.
Agreed and I expect you had the same reaction to the Chauvin verdict?
If the prosecutors had followed the lead of the DA in the Chauvin trial they may have gotten a conviction. Justice was served there thanks to competent DA's not bowing to public pressure and overcharging. I remember many here screaming for Murder One. If Manslaughter had been on the table a conviction would have been far more likely in the Rittenhouse case. But instead, it was all or nothing and the DA got nothing.
-
None of the idiots should have been in Kenosha. But, they were and the criminal justice system has spoken. Sorry if that disappoints some y'all. Last time I looked this is still America, hey?
What disappoints me is, we can’t have a serious discussion about the fact it’s 2021 and deep-seated racism remains because it makes people uncomfortable to discuss. The original sin of America has never been fully cleansed.
This trial and its verdict is about a lot more than what happened in that courtroom. America is the greatest country in the world and yet, we bury our heads in the sand at the realities of the casual racism that permeates everyday life.
Edit: And this is a discussion that should be uncomfortable for everyone involved
-
What disappoints me is, we can’t have a serious discussion about the fact it’s 2021 and deep-seated racism remains because it makes people uncomfortable to discuss. The original sin of America has never been fully cleansed.
This trial and its verdict is about a lot more than what happened in that courtroom. America is the greatest country in the world and yet, we bury our heads in the sand at the realities of the casual racism that permeates everyday life.
Edit: And this is a discussion that should be uncomfortable for everyone involved
how is one white dumbass shooting three white dudes engaged in criminal activity "racism?"
-
So I have a hypothiticalsituation this seems to effect. If I am a concert with my AR 15 and some drunk anti gun person gets aggressive saying I shouldn't have that and tries to grab my gun I'm allowed to shoot to kill correct?
Now I'm an active shooter, and if anyone who believes me to be an active shooter attempts to come after me to incapacitate me, and I shoot them, I'm still defending myself correct?
If I am correct this sets a precedent that I can be a mass shooter but get away with it by nature of self defense depending on how many people are ill informed on the first shooting and come at me to stop me.
-
how is one white dumbass shooting three white dudes engaged in criminal activity "racism?"
Everything that lead to that night and it’s aftermath is based on race relations
-
What disappoints me is, we can’t have a serious discussion about the fact it’s 2021 and deep-seated racism remains because it makes people uncomfortable to discuss. The original sin of America has never been fully cleansed.
This trial and its verdict is about a lot more than what happened in that courtroom. America is the greatest country in the world and yet, we bury our heads in the sand at the realities of the casual racism that permeates everyday life.
Edit: And this is a discussion that should be uncomfortable for everyone involved
Word.
how is one white dumbass shooting three white dudes engaged in criminal activity "racism?"
Pay attention.
If one white dumbass had been a Black dumbass, the cops would have gunned him down instead of happily letting him pass. And if the Black dumbass had somehow survived, he probably would have been convicted at trial.
So I have a hypothiticalsituation this seems to effect. If I am a concert with my AR 15 and some drunk anti gun person gets aggressive saying I shouldn't have that and tries to grab my gun I'm allowed to shoot to kill correct?
Now I'm an active shooter, and if anyone who believes me to be an active shooter attempts to come after me to incapacitate me, and I shoot them, I'm still defending myself correct?
If I am correct this sets a precedent that I can be a mass shooter but get away with it by nature of self defense depending on how many people are ill informed on the first shooting and come at me to stop me.
Legit questions.
-
So I have a hypothiticalsituation this seems to effect. If I am a concert with my AR 15 and some drunk anti gun person gets aggressive saying I shouldn't have that and tries to grab my gun I'm allowed to shoot to kill correct?
Now I'm an active shooter, and if anyone who believes me to be an active shooter attempts to come after me to incapacitate me, and I shoot them, I'm still defending myself correct?
If I am correct this sets a precedent that I can be a mass shooter but get away with it by nature of self defense depending on how many people are ill informed on the first shooting and come at me to stop me.
Precedent doesn't really work like that.
However, the notion that someone might think it operates to bless the conduct you describe probably makes that conduct more likely to occur in the future.
-
Pay attention.
If one white dumbass had been a Black dumbass, the cops would have gunned him down instead of happily letting him pass. And if the Black dumbass had somehow survived, he probably would have been convicted at trial.
I get the point you're trying to make. But (a) it's speculative, and (b) if it had been one black dumbass shooting another black dumbass, this wouldn't have been a local story, let alone a national story, because the media wouldn't have cared about it. But that's pure speculation as well, so perhaps it's better to look at the facts of each case rather than generalizations and speculation.
-
how is one white dumbass shooting three white dudes engaged in criminal activity "racism?"
The three white dues were there in protest of a system they believed (not without reason!) treats people of color unfairly.
The one white dumbass was there with an AR-15 to defend that system.
-
Be safe tonight, jockitch.
-
The three white dues were there in protest of a system they believed (not without reason!) treats people of color unfairly.
The one white dumbass was there with an AR-15 to defend that system.
Only two of the shot white dudes were there in protest I thought? One was just out there being an idiot.
-
Tremendous series of eff-ups by the prosecution let a killer go scot-free.
They were incompetent from the start.
-
So I have a hypothiticalsituation this seems to effect. If I am a concert with my AR 15 and some drunk anti gun person gets aggressive saying I shouldn't have that and tries to grab my gun I'm allowed to shoot to kill correct?
Now I'm an active shooter, and if anyone who believes me to be an active shooter attempts to come after me to incapacitate me, and I shoot them, I'm still defending myself correct?
If I am correct this sets a precedent that I can be a mass shooter but get away with it by nature of self defense depending on how many people are ill informed on the first shooting and come at me to stop me.
This is why the legislature needs to do its job and clearly define the law for a situation such as this.
-
I think it's reasonable to point out that one can believe that this was a just and correct verdict and still agree that there are significant problems - including problems with racism - infecting our criminal justice system.
In my opinion, one of he problems with the Rittenhouse case is that it seems that some people are comfortable with the idea of punishing him to make a broader point about about systemic injustice. Injustice cannot be fixed with injustice.
-
Excellent analysis right here. Of course, the right won't heed his advice, to too many he will be a hero.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-right-self-defense-role-model/620715/
But these public poses still matter. When you turn a foolish young man into a hero, you’ll see more foolish young men try to emulate his example. And although the state should not permit rioters to run rampant in America’s streets, random groups of armed Americans are utterly incapable of imposing order themselves, and any effort to do so can lead to greater death and carnage.
In fact, that’s exactly what happened in Rittenhouse’s case. He didn’t impose order. He didn’t stop a riot. He left a trail of bodies on the ground, and two of the people he shot were acting on the belief that Rittenhouse himself was an active shooter. He had, after all, just killed a man.
If the jury acquits Rittenhouse, it will not be a miscarriage of justice. The law gives even foolish men the right to defend their lives. But an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero. A political movement that turns a deadly and ineffective vigilante into a role model is a movement that is courting more violence and encouraging more young men to recklessly brandish weapons in dangerous places, and that will spill more blood in America’s streets.
This is really good and sums it up nicely.
-
I think it's reasonable to point out that one can believe that this was a just and correct verdict and still agree that there are significant problems - including problems with racism - infecting our criminal justice system.
In my opinion, one of he problems with the Rittenhouse case is that it seems that some people are comfortable with the idea of punishing him to make a broader point about about systemic injustice. Injustice cannot be fixed with injustice.
This cuts both ways.
-
Agreed and I expect you had the same reaction to the Chauvin verdict?
Actually both trials the juries were swayed by the video and evidence presented, thankfully not by our politics.
-
I think it's reasonable to point out that one can believe that this was a just and correct verdict and still agree that there are significant problems - including problems with racism - infecting our criminal justice system.
In my opinion, one of he problems with the Rittenhouse case is that it seems that some people are comfortable with the idea of punishing him to make a broader point about about systemic injustice. Injustice cannot be fixed with injustice.
Truth
-
I think it's reasonable to point out that one can believe that this was a just and correct verdict and still agree that there are significant problems - including problems with racism - infecting our criminal justice system.
In my opinion, one of he problems with the Rittenhouse case is that it seems that some people are comfortable with the idea of punishing him to make a broader point about about systemic injustice. Injustice cannot be fixed with injustice.
Fair.
-
Actually both trials the juries were swayed by the video and evidence presented, thankfully not by our politics.
thats not what I asked, I want to make sure he upholds his standards for our behavior for himself and his side when a trial doesn't go the typical "right" way.
-
Excellent analysis right here. Of course, the right won't heed his advice, to too many he will be a hero.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-right-self-defense-role-model/620715/
But these public poses still matter. When you turn a foolish young man into a hero, you’ll see more foolish young men try to emulate his example. And although the state should not permit rioters to run rampant in America’s streets, random groups of armed Americans are utterly incapable of imposing order themselves, and any effort to do so can lead to greater death and carnage.
In fact, that’s exactly what happened in Rittenhouse’s case. He didn’t impose order. He didn’t stop a riot. He left a trail of bodies on the ground, and two of the people he shot were acting on the belief that Rittenhouse himself was an active shooter. He had, after all, just killed a man.
If the jury acquits Rittenhouse, it will not be a miscarriage of justice. The law gives even foolish men the right to defend their lives. But an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero. A political movement that turns a deadly and ineffective vigilante into a role model is a movement that is courting more violence and encouraging more young men to recklessly brandish weapons in dangerous places, and that will spill more blood in America’s streets.
If the prosecutors had followed the lead of the DA in the Chauvin trial they may have gotten a conviction. Justice was served there thanks to competent DA's not bowing to public pressure and overcharging. I remember many here screaming for Murder One. If Manslaughter had been on the table a conviction would have been far more likely in the Rittenhouse case. But instead, it was all or nothing and the DA got nothing.
Well, the Governor, Mayor, the State Police, and Sheriff did not impose order either, they just let the town burn until it was too late.
-
Well, the Governor, Mayor, the State Police, and Sheriff did not impose order either, they just let the town burn until it was too late.
You're a special kind of stupid if you think anyone was going to get 'control' of that situation.
-
You're a special kind of stupid if you think anyone was going to get 'control' of that situation.
What, the authorities are not capable of establishing order after 3 days of burning and looting especially after what happened in Minneapolis just a few weeks earlier? I will not retort to ad hominem however.
-
I get the point you're trying to make. But (a) it's speculative, and (b) if it had been one black dumbass shooting another black dumbass, this wouldn't have been a local story, let alone a national story, because the media wouldn't have cared about it. But that's pure speculation as well, so perhaps it's better to look at the facts of each case rather than generalizations and speculation.
+1
Your speculation makes much more sense than Rico/82’s. But as you say, it’s still speculation. Nobody found Rittenhouse not guilty of being a dumbass. If that was the charge the jury wouldn’t have been out for 10 minutes. But based on the law as it stands, not guilty of murder was the only logical verdict possible. That won’t stop other idiots (Diblasio and Cuomo have already weighed in) from ignoring the law and fanning the flames, though. WTF has happened to our “leaders”?
-
+1
Your speculation makes much more sense than Rico/82’s. But as you say, it’s still speculation. Nobody found Rittenhouse not guilty of being a dumbass. If that was the charge the jury wouldn’t have been out for 10 minutes. But based on the law as it stands, not guilty of murder was the only logical verdict possible. That won’t stop other idiots (Diblasio and Cuomo have already weighed in) from ignoring the law and fanning the flames, though. WTF has happened to our “leaders”?
I think the outcome was the correct outcome. I also believe this never gets to trial if Rittenhouse is a minority because he’s dead before we can get that far. I don’t think that’s wild speculation at all.
-
So I have a hypothiticalsituation this seems to effect. If I am a concert with my AR 15 and some drunk anti gun person gets aggressive saying I shouldn't have that and tries to grab my gun I'm allowed to shoot to kill correct?
Now I'm an active shooter, and if anyone who believes me to be an active shooter attempts to come after me to incapacitate me, and I shoot them, I'm still defending myself correct?
If I am correct this sets a precedent that I can be a mass shooter but get away with it by nature of self defense depending on how many people are ill informed on the first shooting and come at me to stop me.
In gun-happy Amurika, you are correct.
Then you accuse all of the dead people of being actors pushing whatever the agenda du jour is.
-
Could someone explain the self defense interpretation in Wisconsin? I was always told you're allowed to use lethal force only if your life is threatened. Ie I can't shoot someone for pushing me.
Is it different in wi? Did the prosecution over charge? Did the jury ultimately decide that all three threatened Kyle's life?
They had to prove he only used lethal force if believed his life was in danger-
They were able to prove Rosenbaum was the aggressor-if he gets rittenhouse gun, it’s over
Getting chased, kicked, hit while on ground put rittenhouse in imminent danger, once again, if they get his gun, it’s over
The gage guy had a gun and it was pointed In rittenhouse direction
Now people will argue if he didn’t bring the gun…doesn’t matter. That’s not what the charges were
People keep calling him a vigilante-totally inaccurate. Just because he had a gun-open carry nonetheless, doesn’t make him one. It’s how/when it was used. He never used it prior to getting chased etc. and it was only raised when his life was in imminent danger. Note the questioning around that issue. The gage dude killled the prosecution on day1 when he admitted rittenhouse only raised gun when he saw his Glock. You could see the heavier set prosecutor do a face plant into his hands behind him as he answered.
Personally, I think open carry is stupid- why advertise? Once people know what you have, they can base their attack on you accordingly. Plus I think it demeans the legalization of guns. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. I guess it’s hard to conceal an AR, but whatever…
-
What, the authorities are not capable of establishing order after 3 days of burning and looting especially after what happened in Minneapolis just a few weeks earlier? I will not retort to ad hominem however.
What should they have done differently? Crack some skulls?
-
But an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero. A political movement that turns a deadly and ineffective vigilante into a role model is a movement that is courting more violence and encouraging more young men to recklessly brandish weapons in dangerous places, and that will spill more blood in America’s streets.
Those that would make him a hero want that violence. They want it very much.
-
I think the outcome was the correct outcome. I also believe this never gets to trial if Rittenhouse is a minority because he’s dead before we can get that far. I don’t think that’s wild speculation at all.
Is there any data that comes even close to supporting your non-wild speculation?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was data that showed a minority in process of committing a violent crime is more likely to be shot at by police than a white person. But think of the thousands and thousands of situations where police intervene with a violent suspect - how many result in death? It's got to be a super low percentage. It is absolutely not the common outcome. That doesn't mean there's not a problem. But it does mean your assumption is very likely wildly off-base. Facts matter. They need to be discussed more often.
-
Is there any data that comes even close to supporting your non-wild speculation?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was data that showed a minority in process of committing a violent crime is more likely to be shot at by police than a white person. But think of the thousands and thousands of situations where police intervene with a violent suspect - how many result in death? It's got to be a super low percentage. It is absolutely not the common outcome. That doesn't mean there's not a problem. But it does mean your assumption is very likely wildly off-base. Facts matter. They need to be discussed more often.
That’s a fair question and criticism. I think in this case, however, the ending is far different.
-
They had to prove he only used lethal force if believed his life was in danger-
They were able to prove Rosenbaum was the aggressor-if he gets rittenhouse gun, it’s over
Getting chased, kicked, hit while on ground put rittenhouse in imminent danger, once again, if they get his gun, it’s over
The gage guy had a gun and it was pointed In rittenhouse direction
Now people will argue if he didn’t bring the gun…doesn’t matter. That’s not what the charges were
People keep calling him a vigilante-totally inaccurate. Just because he had a gun-open carry nonetheless, doesn’t make him one. It’s how/when it was used. He never used it prior to getting chased etc. and it was only raised when his life was in imminent danger. Note the questioning around that issue. The gage dude killled the prosecution on day1 when he admitted rittenhouse only raised gun when he saw his Glock. You could see the heavier set prosecutor do a face plant into his hands behind him as he answered.
Personally, I think open carry is stupid- why advertise? Once people know what you have, they can base their attack on you accordingly. Plus I think it demeans the legalization of guns. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. I guess it’s hard to conceal an AR, but whatever…
Thank you for youre response, I agree about Rosenbaum. Seems like the guy was a nut job and looking for issues. What I'm confused at is
1) if the jury deems that the second killing is justified they're essentially saying that anyone trying to incapacitate someone they deem as an active shooter is the aggressor and that the active shooter can retaliate in self defense. Essentially, it would seem to me that if I brought a gun to a theater and shot someone, then 9 people rush me to take me down I can now claim I killed the other 9 in self defense and be correct.
2) Would gage have been justified if he shot first? We're talking about someone who just witnessed a guy kill two people and was a responsible gun owner (Let's say his permit wasn't expired). is it essentially a matter of whoever shoots first is correct because they both pointed their guns at each other? I mean what is the gun there for except trying to take down an active shooter, or is the jury saying Gage should have ignored Rittenhouse and any responsible gun owner shouldn't try to take down an active shooter. This take is actually more of an affront to gun rights logic than finding Kyle not guilty IMO.
-
Compliments to all Scoop responders. This is a really emotional issue. I hope the country can have a similar response.
-
Thank you for youre response, I agree about Rosenbaum. Seems like the guy was a nut job and looking for issues. What I'm confused at is
1) if the jury deems that the second killing is justified they're essentially saying that anyone trying to incapacitate someone they deem as an active shooter is the aggressor and that the active shooter can retaliate in self defense. Essentially, it would seem to me that if I brought a gun to a theater and shot someone, then 9 people rush me to take me down I can now claim I killed the other 9 in self defense and be correct.
If someone incorrectly assumes you were an active shooter and came after you, you would be entitled to defend yourself, though, right?
I would guess that the jury viewed the initial shooting as justified, and so any attempts to attack/restrain that followed would provide Rittenhouse the ability to defend himself. Kind of a domino effect. However, if the initial shooting was viewed as murder, then I would bet the following actions would also have been viewed as illegal.
Maybe someone from the jury will let us know at some point so we won't have to speculate.
-
If someone incorrectly assumes you were an active shooter and came after you, you would be entitled to defend yourself, though, right?
I would guess that the jury viewed the initial shooting as justified, and so any attempts to attack/restrain that followed would provide Rittenhouse the ability to defend himself. Kind of a domino effect. However, if the initial shooting was viewed as murder, then I would bet the following actions would also have been viewed as illegal.
Maybe someone from the jury will let us know at some point so we won't have to speculate.
Well I'm not sure. In my head, anyone who killed a person and truly believes it to be self defense should probably be willing to be detained by a citizen... say another gun owner. Now of course that's a perfect scenario but if Kyle shoots Rosenbaum (who I concede was the aggressor) and then puts his hands up and kneels down I have a tough time imagining a person comes running up with a skateboard. Then lastly let's say even that still happens and Kyle is forced to defend himself there then it would seem to me that he should be willing to be "detained" by say another gun owner.
-
I may be wrong, but I don't recall the "active shooter" issue ever coming up in the other thread. This seems to be arising from the prosecutor's closing argument which was, in my opinion, desperate and disingenuous.
Rittenhouse was not acting like an "active shooter" as that term is typically used (i.e., someone who is indiscriminately killing people). He carried that weapon around for hours and did not fire it until he was being chased by someone threatening to kill him and lunging for his gun. After shooting the first person he was leaving the scene and did not shoot anyone else that he didn't perceive as a threat. You may quibble with this description but, by definition, that is what the jury concluded. If I'm not mistaken, he fired eight rounds of the 30 in his mag and only at people who were attacking him (or pointing a gun at him) at the time he fired. That does not feel like an "active shooter." There is every reason to believe that if he had not been attacked, he would not have fired his weapon again. And for the record, I do not fault the people who tried to stop him. As I think someone else said in this thread (or I may have read elsewhere): this was a self defense followed by an absolute tragedy.
I acknowledge that it's very difficult for people in a chaotic situation to know how to act when they may have incomplete information. Assuming for the sake of argument that the second two victims did believe that Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" what should the "rule" be? If, as the jury found, Rittenhouse was legally justified in shooting the first victim (i.e., it was legitimate self defense), is he permitted to defend himself from the mob? Or must he permit himself to be beaten to death?
-
I find a comparison to this case and that of Matthew Dollhoff intriguing. From a standpoint of how people on different sides of the aisle viewed it initially, police handling, and also money flooding in for defense cases.
-
I may be wrong, but I don't recall the "active shooter" issue ever coming up in the other thread. This seems to be arising from the prosecutor's closing argument which was, in my opinion, desperate and disingenuous.
Rittenhouse was not acting like an "active shooter" as that term is typically used (i.e., someone who is indiscriminately killing people). He carried that weapon around for hours and did not fire it until he was being chased by someone threatening to kill him and lunging for his gun. After shooting the first person he was leaving the scene and did not shoot anyone else that he didn't perceive as a threat. You may quibble with this description but, by definition, that is what the jury concluded. If I'm not mistaken, he fired eight rounds of the 30 in his mag and only at people who were attacking him (or pointing a gun at him) at the time he fired. That does not feel like an "active shooter." There is every reason to believe that if he had not been attacked, he would not have fired his weapon again. And for the record, I do not fault the people who tried to stop him. As I think someone else said in this thread (or I may have read elsewhere): this was a self defense followed by an absolute tragedy.
I acknowledge that it's very difficult for people in a chaotic situation to know how to act when they may have incomplete information. Assuming for the sake of argument that the second two victims did believe that Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" what should the "rule" be? If, as the jury found, Rittenhouse was legally justified in shooting the first victim (i.e., it was legitimate self defense), is he permitted to defend himself from the mob? Or must he permit himself to be beaten to death?
Mostly what you've said is correct. What I will say is that Kyle should have been arrested on the spot after the first shooting. Terrible police work.
That he had to turn himself in a day later after leaving the scene of three shootings also speaks to the situation.
-
Well I'm not sure. In my head, anyone who killed a person and truly believes it to be self defense should probably be willing to be detained by a citizen... say another gun owner. Now of course that's a perfect scenario but if Kyle shoots Rosenbaum (who I concede was the aggressor) and then puts his hands up and kneels down I have a tough time imagining a person comes running up with a skateboard.
Maybe we all agree that it would have been sensible for Rittenhouse to do that. Hell, it would have been sensible for him to stay home and/or not bring his gun to a riot. Alas. It is my understanding that after shooting Rosenbaum he was looking for the police were to surrender himself. Honestly, not a particularly bad idea. I can see where someone might prefer that course of action to surrendering your weapon to a mob in the middle of the riot. In the midst of the chaos that was happening (I've heard an awful lot about how violent the situation was and how Rittenhouse should not have brought a gun into such a violent setting), I'm not sure I would have entrusted my life to the mob.
Then lastly let's say even that still happens and Kyle is forced to defend himself there then it would seem to me that he should be willing to be "detained" by say another gun owner.
We will never know what might have happened (or not happened) if Grosskreutz had opted to not level his weapon on Rittenhouse.
-
Mostly what you've said is correct. What I will say is that Kyle should have been arrested on the spot after the first shooting. Terrible police work.
I agree completely.
-
Maybe we all agree that it would have been sensible for Rittenhouse to do that. Hell, it would have been sensible for him to stay home and/or not bring his gun to a riot. Alas. It is my understanding that after shooting Rosenbaum he was looking for the police were to surrender himself. Honestly, not a particularly bad idea. I can see where someone might prefer that course of action to surrendering your weapon to a mob in the middle of the riot. In the midst of the chaos that was happening (I've heard an awful lot about how violent the situation was and how Rittenhouse should not have brought a gun into such a violent setting), I'm not sure I would have entrusted my life to the mob.
We will never know what might have happened (or not happened) if Grosskreutz had opted to not level his weapon on Rittenhouse.
I agree we won't know. I guess my confusion is why Grosskreutz hasn't received any guns rights money or sympathy. The guy was using his gun for something he thought was right self defense of an active shooter. It seems to me any guns rights individual should be a little bit uncomfortable with the ruling that Rittenhouse was justified because it means if you perceive the wrong situation that you can be considered the aggressor.
-
Here’s the thing…would you chase after someone who’s openly carrying an AR or any gun for that matter? Understand, the 3 who were injured or killed were not alter boys. Rosenbaum spent 15 years in prison for child rape. He had numerous violations while incarcerated in Arizona. Huber had an assortment of felonies including holding a knife to his brother and domestic abuse, strangulation and suffocation twice. Grosskreutz had a dui or 2 and he was carrying a gun illegally and lied about it
-
I agree we won't know. I guess my confusion is why Grosskreutz hasn't received any guns rights money or sympathy. The guy was using his gun for something he thought was right self defense of an active shooter. It seems to me any guns rights individual should be a little bit uncomfortable with the ruling that Rittenhouse was justified because it means if you perceive the wrong situation that you can be considered the aggressor.
I think that's a fair take. Of course, I have a lot of confusion about whey Grosskreutz wasn't charged for illegally carrying that weapon. I think we both know the answers to the questions we posed. On the other hand, I could be snarky and suggest that the guns rights gang don't like people who are illegally carrying guns...but we both know that's bullcrap and not the reason.
I am sickened by people who want to make Rittenhouse out to be a hero. It's absolutely disgusting and I hope he doesn't court that group (but know that he probably will).
-
Here’s the thing…would you chase after someone who’s openly carrying an AR or any gun for that matter? Understand, the 3 who were injured or killed were not alter boys. Rosenbaum spent 15 years in prison for child rape. He had numerous violations while incarcerated in Arizona. Huber had an assortment of felonies including holding a knife to his brother and domestic abuse, strangulation and suffocation twice. Grosskreutz had a dui or 2 and he was carrying a gun illegally and lied about it
No, you shoot them. Same if a cop is chasing you or about to draw his weapon.
You know that they have the opportunity to kill you and get away with it, so killing them first is the best option.
-
Here’s the thing…would you chase after someone who’s openly carrying an AR or any gun for that matter? Understand, the 3 who were injured or killed were not alter boys. Rosenbaum spent 15 years in prison for child rape. He had numerous violations while incarcerated in Arizona. Huber had an assortment of felonies including holding a knife to his brother and domestic abuse, strangulation and suffocation twice. Grosskreutz had a dui or 2 and he was carrying a gun illegally and lied about it
Cool. Kyle Rittenhouse is also a scumbag who punched a girl in the head a couple of weeks before.
None of these people knew these things about each other before that night, so they are all irrelevant.
-
Mostly what you've said is correct. What I will say is that Kyle should have been arrested on the spot after the first shooting. Terrible police work.
That he had to turn himself in a day later after leaving the scene of three shootings also speaks to the situation.
Either you still don’t know the details of this case or you continue to make stuff up. He turned himself in within an hour of the shooting, not a day later.
Kenosha PD was barricaded off and closed cause of the riots, he tried to immediately turn himself into a patrol car which resulted in him getting pepper sprayed and told to get the f away so he went home explained what happened to his mom who then immediately brought him to Antioch police station. All within an hour of the shooting.
-
Either you still don’t know the details of this case or you continue to make stuff up. He turned himself in within an hour of the shooting, not a day later.
Kenosha PD was barricaded off and closed cause of the riots, he tried to immediately turn himself into a patrol car which resulted in him getting pepper sprayed and told to get the f away so he went home explained what happened to his mom who then immediately brought him to Antioch police station. All within an hour of the shooting.
I'm very aware of the details. The Kenosha PD told him to 'go home'. Which he did. Terrible Police work. Which is what I said.
But keep going.
-
What should they have done differently? Crack some skulls?
Having family in Kenosha, I got some feedback regarding what happened regarding the looting, arson and destruction.
The Wisconsin National Guard just was not there the first couple of days.
Without the Guard to protect, the Kenosha PD alone could not protect all the business regions.
The looters, arsonists and destructors simply went to the areas that were not protected.
When the Guard arrived, the looting, arson and destruction went to nil.
Shame some people lost their livelihood.
-
Having family in Kenosha, I got some feedback regarding what happened regarding the looting, arson and destruction.
The Wisconsin National Guard just was not there the first couple of days.
Without the Guard to protect, the Kenosha PD alone could not protect all the business regions.
The looters, arsonists and destructors simply went to the areas that were not protected.
When the Guard arrived, the looting, arson and destruction went to nil.
Shame some people lost their livelihood.
Thanks, that is exactly what my point was. There was nothing that could have been done at that point.
Luckily the people who lost their livelihood only lost material things which could be replaced.
-
Thanks, that is exactly what my point was. There was nothing that could have been done at that point.
Luckily the people who lost their livelihood only lost material things which could be replaced.
and this attitude is why cosplay vigilantes like Rittenhouse felt compelled to go to Kenosha. So people lost everything they'd worked to build, their businesses, their income. Many were minorities. Sorry man, a criminal resisting arrest and armed with a knife was shot, you get to lose everything you and your family worked to build.
My wife has clients who lost their business in the riots for an incident that didn't take place in our city. Insurance wasn't covering much of the damage or loss. One woman tried to take her own life, having lost everything. Others haven't reopened. Others have had to go deep in debt to try and rebuild. I'll have her know they're lucky.
-
Thanks, that is exactly what my point was. There was nothing that could have been done at that point.
Luckily the people who lost their livelihood only lost material things which could be replaced.
so they're lucky because...? they get to live?? i'd like to see you walk door to door and tell them this to their faces
this all could have been limited if we had some leadership to put stops to the "mostly peaceful rioting"
-
and this attitude is why cosplay vigilantes like Rittenhouse felt compelled to go to Kenosha. So people lost everything they'd worked to build, their businesses, their income. Many were minorities. Sorry man, a criminal resisting arrest and armed with a knife was shot, you get to lose everything you and your family worked to build.
My wife has clients who lost their business in the riots for an incident that didn't take place in our city. Insurance wasn't covering much of the damage or loss. One woman tried to take her own life, having lost everything. Others haven't reopened. Others have had to go deep in debt to try and rebuild. I'll have her know they're lucky.
so they're lucky because...? they get to live?? i'd like to see you walk door to door and tell them this to their faces
this all could have been limited if we had some leadership to put stops to the "mostly peaceful rioting"
Look you twits, I didn't say it was okay to burn down Kenosha, only that luckily material possessions were lost instead of more lives.
But you know, read into things that weren't said, you easily triggered babies.
-
I think the outcome was the correct outcome. I also believe this never gets to trial if Rittenhouse is a minority because he’s dead before we can get that far. I don’t think that’s wild speculation at all.
Like this guy? Oh, wait...
https://www.wpbf.com/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640
-
Like this guy? Oh, wait...
https://www.wpbf.com/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640
Anecdotal.
-
Feels like there's a stat about black people not being given the benefit of the doubt by law enforcement. Maybe some good anecdotal support from Kenosha. Could be imagining though
-
Nm
-
Tamir Rice. 12 year old with a toy gun. Shot dead within seconds of police seeing him.
Kyle Rittenhouse. 17 year old from IL “protecting businesses” in WI. Shows up to civil unrest and shoots 3 people with an assault rifle. Is given water bottles when police see him.
-
Anecdotal.
Oh, but there are more. You just refuse to acknowledge it and would rather play “yeah well what if” in your virtue signaling contest.
Enjoy: https://twitter.com/AmySwearer/status/1461801378137919489
-
Here’s the thing…would you chase after someone who’s openly carrying an AR or any gun for that matter? Understand, the 3 who were injured or killed were not alter boys. Rosenbaum spent 15 years in prison for child rape. He had numerous violations while incarcerated in Arizona. Huber had an assortment of felonies including holding a knife to his brother and domestic abuse, strangulation and suffocation twice. Grosskreutz had a dui or 2 and he was carrying a gun illegally and lied about it
A dui is almost nothing. Why would you put that with the other two?
-
Oh, but there are more. You just refuse to acknowledge it and would rather play “yeah well what if” in your virtue signaling contest.
Enjoy: https://twitter.com/AmySwearer/status/1461801378137919489
He simply expressed an opinion. More anecdotal stories is just more anecdotal stories. If you are making the case that race doesn't matter when it comes to self defense, you are going to need more than a simple Twitter search.
And anyone who uses the phrase "virtue signaling" shouldn't be taken seriously.
-
Its unfortunate leadership didn't send in the Guard after the first night of people being knocked out, their buildings burnt down and destroyed along with various other assaults. If someone had thought to do that, none of this would have happened.
Instead police and the Guard were told to stand down. Let them have space...
The Guard shut this down in an hour when called upon.
-
He simply expressed an opinion. More anecdotal stories is just more anecdotal stories. If you are making the case that race doesn't matter when it comes to self defense, you are going to need more than a simple Twitter search.
And anyone who uses the phrase "virtue signaling" shouldn't be taken seriously.
I’ll listen to counteraeguments. But I agree about virtue signaling being thrown around. It’s a non-serious defense mechanism
-
Its unfortunate leadership didn't send in the Guard after the first night of people being knocked out, their buildings burnt down and destroyed along with various other assaults. If someone had thought to do that, none of this would have happened.
Instead police and the Guard were told to stand down. Let them have space...
The Guard shut this down in an hour when called upon.
Not sure where this narrative comes from. Police were told not to disperse the by and large peaceful protests that were happening the day after the Blake shooting. (I mean, it's a Constitutional right to assemble right?) But the National Guard was deployed the morning after the first protests, and were out along with the Police and Sheriff's Department when the violence started the second night. And I think it is pretty well known that the protesters during the day were not the ones burning and looting at night.
A lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.
-
Not sure where this narrative comes from. Police were told not to disperse the by and large peaceful protests that were happening the day after the Blake shooting. (I mean, it's a Constitutional right to assemble right?) But the National Guard was deployed the morning after the first protests, and were out along with the Police and Sheriff's Department when the violence started the second night. And I think it is pretty well known that the protesters during the day were not the ones burning and looting at night.
A lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here.
Its not a narrative Kenosha burned on the first night. Look it up for yourself. It wasnt peaceful. Should have been shut down on the spot after it was clear that first night it wasnt peaceful. Finally the Guard was allowed to act after the Rittenhouse events. Not sure where you get this from. Maybe from the the same media that was portraying that Rittenhosue had shot black people and carried a gun across state lines. Evers finally allowed the guard to act after the 3rd night. Deploying them and allowing them to act are 2 very different things. They were deployed all week this week as well.
-
Its not a narrative Kenosha burned on the first night. Look it up for yourself. It wasnt peaceful. Should have been shut down on the spot after it was clear that first night it wasnt peaceful. Finally the Guard was allowed to act after the Rittenhouse events. Not sure where you get this from its all been reported everywhere. Evers finally allowed the guard to act after the 3rd night. Deploying them and allowing them to act are 2 very different things. They were deployed all week this week as well.
I know there was violence the first night. That is why the national guard was deployed. The false narrative is that no one told the Police to "stand down." No one told the National Guard to "stand down." These statements make it sound like the Police, Guard and Fire just stood back and let violence occur. That did not happen.
As for breaking up a peaceful protest the next day...sorry....but peacefully assembling is a Constitutional right. And it was by and large peaceful during the day with the rioting occurring at night. So no, they should not have been breaking anything up the morning after the first night.
Oh and I see you now edited your comment to blame "the media." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Another person to not take seriously here....
-
This thread did not disappoint.
ND sucks.
-
Congresspeople and governors advocating for future violence:
Following a not-guilty verdict in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse on Friday, Rep. Madison Cawthorn offered the 18-year-old an internship and told people on Instagram to “be armed, be dangerous and be moral.”
Other politicians have thrown their support toward Rittenhouse as well.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told his supporters in a fundraising email that Rittenhouse “did what we should want citizens to do in such a situation: step forward to defend the community against mob violence,” according to the news website Florida Politics.
Rep. Matt Gaetz told Newsmax that Rittenhouse deserved a not-guilty verdict and also said he would consider giving him an internship.
Good to know that if antifa showed up on Jan. 6 and just started shooting to protect democracy from "mob violence," and their attorneys were able to provide some definition of "self defense," these douchenozzles would have happily applauded them for being "armed, dangerous and moral."
And apparently, getting Floridians killed by COVID-19 isn't enough for DeSantis. He wants to get them gunned down by vigilantes, too.
-
I know there was violence the first night. That is why the national guard was deployed. The false narrative is that no one told the Police to "stand down." No one told the National Guard to "stand down." These statements make it sound like the Police, Guard and Fire just stood back and let violence occur. That did not happen.
As for breaking up a peaceful protest the next day...sorry....but peacefully assembling is a Constitutional right. And it was by and large peaceful during the day with the rioting occurring at night. So no, they should not have been breaking anything up the morning after the first night.
Oh and I see you now edited your comment to blame "the media." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Another person to not take seriously here....
U know there is violence but it’s peaceful
Lolololol
U make no sense at all
-
U know there is violence but it’s peaceful
Lolololol
U make no sense at all
Oh look. Someone can't have a serious discussion. Shocking.
-
Oh look. Someone can't have a serious discussion. Shocking.
They didnt peacefully assemble is the point. Not even for one night. The guard didnt do anything till a full 2 nights later.
Id submit you are the one who cant have a serious discussion
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO :-)
I guess we disagree on what a peaceful protest is considered and how you go about having one.
Know what I mean? Have a good day. Let's go Warriors!
-
They didnt peacefully assemble is the point. Not even for one night. The guard didnt do anything till a full 2 nights later.
Id submit you are the one who cant have a serious discussion
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO :-)
I guess we disagree on what a peaceful protest is considered and how you go about having one.
Know what I mean? Have a good day. Let's go Warriors!
So I guess you have reading comprehension problems too. The protests during the day were by and large peaceful, which is what I said above...twice. You seem to be suggesting that those protests should have been broken up.
The night of Day 2 is when it got out of hand, but no one was told to "stand down" as you initially asserted.
-
Something something the usual suspects.
-
Something something the usual suspects.
Notice you don’t call out the inaccuracies but whatever…
-
So I guess you have reading comprehension problems too. The protests during the day were by and large peaceful, which is what I said above...twice. You seem to be suggesting that those protests should have been broken up.
The night of Day 2 is when it got out of hand, but no one was told to "stand down" as you initially asserted.
Speaking of reading comprehension, where in Thomaskyle's comments does he state that any protests during the day should have been shut down?
-
It seems to me that much of this discussion has nothing to do with the facts of this case but instead a broader narrative. Based on our laws and standards the question is as a reasonable person do you have reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse committed 1st degree homicide? Do you believe it's conceivable he acted in self-defense? That's the standard, nothing else matters. Now, if you want to discuss changing the system because you don't like it or there's a better system? Go for it. But to besmirch ths jury because they followed the laws of our country is absurd. These people in the media pissing and moaning about the verdict are simply refusing to talk about the facts of this case and are just as complicit in dividing our country as those suggesting Rittenhouse is a hero.
-
It seems to me that much of this discussion had nothing to do with the facts of this case but instead a broader narrative. Based on our laws and standards the question is as a reasonable person do you have reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse committed 1st degree homicide? Do you believe it's conceivable he acted in self-defense? That's the standard, nothing else matters. Now, if you want to discuss changing the system because you don't like it or there's a better system? Go for it. But to besmirch ths jury because they followed the laws of our country is absurd. These people in the media pissing and moaning about the verdict are simply refusing to talk about the facts of this case and are just as complici in dividing our country as those suggesting Rittenhouse is a hero.
Have people in this thread been besmirching the jury? I’ve seen criticisms of many facets of this whole episode but not any criticisms of the jury from these 5 pages.
-
Speaking of reading comprehension, where in Thomaskyle's comments does he state that any protests during the day should have been shut down?
He has it should be shut down period. No time offered.
-
Have people in this thread been besmirching the jury? I’ve seen criticisms of many facets of this whole episode but not any criticisms of the jury from these 5 pages.
There have been all sorts of narratives promulgated that have literally nothing to do with the case. The media has been pissing and moaning. I shouldn't have lumped the people in this thread to them. My apologies.
-
There have been all sorts of narratives promulgated that have literally nothing to do with the case. The media has been pissing and moaning. I shouldn't have lumped the people in this thread to them. My apologies.
Well, I believe the jury did their job and reached the correct verdict. As far as the media is concerned, criticism of them is fair game when it comes to this case. I’m not sure how that isn’t true.
-
He has it should be shut down period. No time offered.
Actually, all of his comments are about night. The only time he uses the word “day” is when he says “Have a good day.” But you’re Sultan, so there’s that.
-
Well, I believe the jury did their job and reached the correct verdict. As far as the media is concerned, criticism of them is fair game when it comes to this case. I’m not sure how that isn’t true.
It's fair game and a enormous problem. They are basically propagandists on both political sides. We should be able to talk about the facts of the case as reasonable human beings. When people like NBA coaches or players drivel "I'm not surprised" or "we need to do better". Or a FoxNews host bloviates about this guy being a hero it is tremendously damaging to our country. I am dumbfounded at the interest in this case franky and the ludicrous narratives being espoused that totally disregard the facts.
-
Following a not-guilty verdict in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse on Friday, Rep. Madison Cawthorn offered the 18-year-old an internship and told people on Instagram to “be armed, be dangerous and be moral.”
Apparently, the Republican Unemployment Office was out of women beaters & rapists. ::)
Uneducated: check
Willing to kill strangers: check
Sociopath: check
You can start on Monday, young man.
-
I also believe this never gets to trial if Rittenhouse is a minority because he’s dead before we can get that far. I don’t think that’s wild speculation at all.
Actually, that is the definition of wild speculation. Far more people of color involved in gun related activities survive encounters with police than do not survive. Throw in the reason why there were riots that night, if you think the Kenosha Police were going to shoot ANYONE (unless they saw a a violent crime taking place), then you already have your mind made up. Also, statements like yours and MU82's are they exact reason others bring in anecdotal evidence.
-
Actually, all of his comments are about night. The only time he uses the word “day” is when he says “Have a good day.” But you’re Sultan, so there’s that.
I mean he never disputed what I said. But I guess you know better because???
-
It's fair game and a enormous problem. They are basically propagandists on both political sides. We should be able to talk about the facts of the case as reasonable human beings. When people like NBA coaches or players drivel "I'm not surprised" or "we need to do better". Or a FoxNews host bloviates about this guy being a hero it is tremendously damaging to our country. I am dumbfounded at the interest in this case franky and the ludicrous narratives being espoused that totally disregard the facts.
Independent journalists provided all of the critical facts and evidence in this case. Without them, corrupt corporate media would have put Rittenhouse behind bars for the rest of his life.
Corporate media and politicians only provided dangerous lies and made up narratives. MSNBC was caught red handed jury tampering.
So, yes it is an enormous problem. It’s encouraging to see that Nicholas Sandmann, the individual who successfully won (hundreds of?) millions in lawsuits from the lies made up by the media, is planning to work with Rittenhouse to accomplish the same.
Source:
https://twitter.com/n1cksandmann/status/1461967317592649728?s=21
I’m really hoping to see some major accountability and some people, such as the MSNBC manager who authorized the jury intimidation, to face very serious consequences.
I also want to see the prosecutors testify under oath about that one video and lose their careers and face consequences should they be found guilty.
There’s a lot of justice that still needs to take place.
-
Independent journalists provided all of the critical facts and evidence in this case. Without them, corrupt corporate media would have put Rittenhouse behind bars for the rest of his life.
Corporate media and politicians only provided dangerous lies and made up narratives. MSNBC was caught red handed jury tampering.
So, yes it is an enormous problem. It’s encouraging to see that Nicholas Sandmann, the individual who successfully won (hundreds of?) millions in lawsuits from the lies made up by the media, is planning to work with Rittenhouse to accomplish the same.
Source:
https://twitter.com/n1cksandmann/status/1461967317592649728?s=21
I’m really hoping to see some major accountability and some people, such as the MSNBC manager who authorized the jury intimidation, to face very serious consequences.
I also want to see the prosecutors testify under oath about that one video and lose their careers and face consequences should they be found guilty.
There’s a lot of justice that still needs to take place.
I suppose there could be defamation lawsuits.
-
Apparently, the Republican Unemployment Office was out of women beaters & rapists. ::)
Uneducated: check
Willing to kill strangers: check
Sociopath: check
You can start on Monday, young man.
You just described the three persons who were shot that night in Kenosha. Their backgrounds are easy to find. Curious why no one was concerned about "peaceful" riots were Rittenhouse found guilty.
Classic case of tranferring actions to another to obfuscate and denigrate,
-
Independent journalists provided all of the critical facts and evidence in this case. Without them, corrupt corporate media would have put Rittenhouse behind bars for the rest of his life.
Corporate media and politicians only provided dangerous lies and made up narratives. MSNBC was caught red handed jury tampering.
So, yes it is an enormous problem. It’s encouraging to see that Nicholas Sandmann, the individual who successfully won (hundreds of?) millions in lawsuits from the lies made up by the media, is planning to work with Rittenhouse to accomplish the same.
Source:
https://twitter.com/n1cksandmann/status/1461967317592649728?s=21
I’m really hoping to see some major accountability and some people, such as the MSNBC manager who authorized the jury intimidation, to face very serious consequences.
I also want to see the prosecutors testify under oath about that one video and lose their careers and face consequences should they be found guilty.
There’s a lot of justice that still needs to take place.
💯
-
Congresspeople and governors advocating for future violence:
Following a not-guilty verdict in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse on Friday, Rep. Madison Cawthorn offered the 18-year-old an internship and told people on Instagram to “be armed, be dangerous and be moral.”
Other politicians have thrown their support toward Rittenhouse as well.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told his supporters in a fundraising email that Rittenhouse “did what we should want citizens to do in such a situation: step forward to defend the community against mob violence,” according to the news website Florida Politics.
Rep. Matt Gaetz told Newsmax that Rittenhouse deserved a not-guilty verdict and also said he would consider giving him an internship.
Good to know that if antifa showed up on Jan. 6 and just started shooting to protect democracy from "mob violence," and their attorneys were able to provide some definition of "self defense," these douchenozzles would have happily applauded them for being "armed, dangerous and moral."
And apparently, getting Floridians killed by COVID-19 isn't enough for DeSantis. He wants to get them gunned down by vigilantes, too.
Have a day Olberman!!
-
Have a day Olberman!!
Rittenhouse’s attorney had very similar sentiments.
“They're raising money on it and you have all these Republican congressmen saying come work for me,” Richards said to Insider following Rittenhouse’s acquittal Friday. “They want to trade on his celebrity and I think it's disgusting.” The remarks came following offers from far-right lawmakers such as Reps. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), and Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who bantered on Twitter about who could scoop up the conservative poster child. Richards did not mince words for Donald Trump, Jr., either, after he tweeted—and deleted—that a gun rights organization would send Rittenhouse an AR-15. “He’s an idiot. I don't have to expand on that because it speaks for itself,” he said.
-
Independent journalists provided all of the critical facts and evidence in this case. Without them, corrupt corporate media would have put Rittenhouse behind bars for the rest of his life.
Corporate media and politicians only provided dangerous lies and made up narratives. MSNBC was caught red handed jury tampering.
So, yes it is an enormous problem. It’s encouraging to see that Nicholas Sandmann, the individual who successfully won (hundreds of?) millions in lawsuits from the lies made up by the media, is planning to work with Rittenhouse to accomplish the same.
Source:
https://twitter.com/n1cksandmann/status/1461967317592649728?s=21
I’m really hoping to see some major accountability and some people, such as the MSNBC manager who authorized the jury intimidation, to face very serious consequences.
I also want to see the prosecutors testify under oath about that one video and lose their careers and face consequences should they be found guilty.
There’s a lot of justice that still needs to take place.
A producer from MSNBC followed the bus taking the jurors to their hotel. In no, way, shape or form is that "tampering" or is it "intimidation." Stop being ridiculous.
It was clearly inappropriate and the judge rightfully admonished him for it.
I love how people claim the bias of the media, but then clearly show their bias while criticizing them, with no sense of irony.
-
He was actually a freelancer to boot.
-
Except they weren’t in a hotel. He was following them to their homes. And the free lancer was instructed to do so by the producer at MSNBC. I wouldn’t die on this hill. Clear violation.
-
Except they weren’t in a hotel. He was following them to their homes. And the free lancer was instructed to do so by the producer at MSNBC. I wouldn’t die on this hill. Clear violation.
I assumed they went to a hotel because he was following their bus.
And I said it was a violation. It just wasn’t tampering or intimidation.
-
Nicholas Sandmann, the individual who successfully won (hundreds of?) millions in lawsuits from the lies made up by the media,
link please
-
People: The media is the problem, if you just follow the facts, this was the right decision
Same People: You know the guys he shot were bad people right?
lol
-
People: The media is the problem, if you just follow the facts, this was the right decision
Same People: You know the guys he shot were bad people right?
lol
To be fair, both of those can be true.
-
Have a day Olberman!!
Thanks hoopaloop!!
Republican politicians making bank on a guy who killed 2 people and who abused a woman. Which shouldn't be surprising since 2 of them have been accused of abusing women. And one of them is openly telling his fellow douchenozzles to "be armed, be dangerous."
As reinko said, even Rittenhouse's lawyer says your heroes are disgusting ... and that DFT Jr. is an "idiot," which is indisputably true.
But you be you, and Q be Q, and that's all you need to make you happy!
-
To be fair, both of those can be true.
I agree. But one is a fact of the case, the other is gleaned form media. hence the lol. Guess this isn't obvious to people.
-
I agree. But one is a fact of the case, the other is gleaned form media. hence the lol. Guess this isn't obvious to people.
"The other is gleaned from the media". What specifically are you referring to here? We do know some pretty disturbing facts about those that were killed.do we not?
-
Isn't Rittenhouse too young for Gaetz?
-
We do know some pretty disturbing facts about those that were killed.do we not?
And should that have any bearing on whether or not killing them was justified?
My lol, is because people love to say media is the problem, and then refer to their backgrounds, when that wasn't any part of the case. Maybe a "bonus" for society, but that wasn't for Rittenhouse to judge, nor anything he knew when he shot.
So my point is, don't complain about "media" when you're citing facts irrelevant to the case...that you got from the media.
-
And should that have any bearing on whether or not killing them was justified?
My lol, is because people love to say media is the problem, and then refer to their backgrounds, when that wasn't any part of the case. Maybe a "bonus" for society, but that wasn't for Rittenhouse to judge, nor anything he knew when he shot.
So my point is, don't complain about "media" when you're citing facts irrelevant to the case...that you got from the media.
Exactly.
For instance, don't be saying that the police were told to "stand down," when that was never the case.
But you heard that once from....the media.
-
I assumed they went to a hotel because he was following their bus.
Hotel? The jury wasn’t sequestered.
-
Hotel? The jury wasn’t sequestered.
Yes. That has been established. I had assumed so because they supposedly took a bus somewhere.
But a producer following a bus is not "tampering" nor is it "intimidation."
And actually is an exercise in freedom of the press...but I guess that's not something we care about anymore.
-
And should that have any bearing on whether or not killing them was justified?
My lol, is because people love to say media is the problem, and then refer to their backgrounds, when that wasn't any part of the case. Maybe a "bonus" for society, but that wasn't for Rittenhouse to judge, nor anything he knew when he shot.
So my point is, don't complain about "media" when you're citing facts irrelevant to the case...that you got from the media.
That's correct. It has no bearing on the shooting itself. But there's a difference between citing actual facts that are verifiable vs a narrative propagated by the media.
-
Yes. That has been established. I had assumed so because they supposedly took a bus somewhere.
But a producer following a bus is not "tampering" nor is it "intimidation."
And actually is an exercise in freedom of the press...but I guess that's not something we care about anymore.
You think MSNBC was trying to find out where the jurors lived because it was in the public’s interest and it was their right to know not an attempt at intimidation? That’s a bridge too far for me.
-
That's correct. It has no bearing on the shooting itself. But there's a difference between citing actual facts that are verifiable vs a narrative propagated by the media.
lol, ok boss
-
You think MSNBC was trying to find out where the jurors lived because it was in the public’s interest and it was their right to know not an attempt at intimidation? That’s a bridge too far for me.
I mean did they publish an address or anything like that? Or their names? Even since the end of the trial?
Of course not. No one was, or has been, intimidated. It’s a dumb assertion that’s not backed up by any facts.
And freedom of the press isn’t bound by public interest. Otherwise many media outlets would have been shut down by now.
-
lol, ok boss
Rocky, there are numerous examples of people creating a narrative in the media during and after the verdict. There's no reason to go into it but that's completely different than talking about specific facts.
Whether it be the criminal records of those killed or Rittenhouse lying about specific details of his life.
-
Yes. That has been established. I had assumed so because they supposedly took a bus somewhere.
But a producer following a bus is not "tampering" nor is it "intimidation."
And actually is an exercise in freedom of the press...but I guess that's not something we care about anymore.
Disagree. The assumption is the journalist was following the van to determine the addresses/identities of jurors. Attorneys on both sides, and the judge and jurors were targeted and subjected to unwarranted flak. We need to protect the sanctity of the jury process. It’s the cornerstone of our democracy. So some asshat following them home isn’t intimidation while they are deliberating? I can’t even reply to a juror that says “hello” on the elevator while trying a case without being sanctioned if called on it. Wait until the case is over before any attempt to communicate with jurors.
-
Disagree. The assumption is the journalist was following the van to determine the addresses/identities of jurors. Attorneys on both sides, and the judge and jurors were targeted and subjected to unwarranted flak. We need to protect the sanctity of the jury process. It’s the cornerstone of our democracy. So some asshat following them home isn’t intimidation while they are deliberating? I can’t even reply to a juror that says “hello” on the elevator while trying a case without being sanctioned if called on it. Wait until the case is over before any attempt to communicate with jurors.
Lol no.
A producer following a bus isn’t intimidation. And has nothing to do what you can or cannot do on an elevator.
It was inappropriate and the network was sanctioned for it. But that’s about it.
-
Lol no.
A producer following a bus isn’t intimidation. And has nothing to do what you can or cannot do on an elevator.
It was inappropriate and the network was sanctioned for it. But that’s about it.
Then you really don’t get what it’s like to be a juror. Especially in a case like this one.
-
Rocky, there are numerous examples of people creating a narrative in the media during and after the verdict. There's no reason to go into it but that's completely different than talking about specific facts.
Whether it be the criminal records of those killed or Rittenhouse lying about specific details of his life.
Ok, but back to brining up the records of those shot, isn't that just the media using "facts" to spin a narrative? The answer is yes, because those facts have nothing to do with the case.
Back to my point of "the media is bad", also "The guys he shot were bad, I heard it from the media". None of this is relevant to the case, and it's a big lol complaining about the media.
-
Then you really don’t get what it’s like to be a juror. Especially in a case like this one.
There was a reason they ran a red light chasing a bus with the jurors aboard and anyone with half an eye and half an ass knows what it was. Get names, addresses and intimidate. Once the verdict was in intimidation is off the table. Thankfully the judge got it. You and I get it. And while Fluffy claims he doesn’t I don’t for a minute believe that. He’s smarter than that - he’s just being stubborn.
-
Ok, but back to brining up the records of those shot, isn't that just the media using "facts" to spin a narrative? The answer is yes, because those facts have nothing to do with the case.
Back to my point of "the media is bad", also "The guys he shot were bad, I heard it from the media". None of this is relevant to the case, and it's a big lol complaining about the media.
-
Ok, but back to brining up the records of those shot, isn't that just the media using "facts" to spin a narrative? The answer is yes, because those facts have nothing to do with the case.
Back to my point of "the media is bad", also "The guys he shot were bad, I heard it from the media". None of this is relevant to the case, and it's a big lol complaining about the media.
I agree that it's irrelevant to the shooting and probably irrelevant to the entire case. That said I didn't watch the testimony at all. If the lawyers on either side questioned witnesses, and certain character issues came up for those killed or Rittenhouse, they may have been done for a particular reason like to establish a motive or not.
I'm making a distinction between these points and the endless nonsense I read or heard from both sides of the political spectrum.
-
Then you really don’t get what it’s like to be a juror. Especially in a case like this one.
LOL ok. I guess.
Again, nothing about the jury has been published. No names, no addresses...nothing.
-
There was a reason they ran a red light chasing a bus with the jurors aboard and anyone with half an eye and half an ass knows what it was. Get names, addresses and intimidate. Once the verdict was in intimidation is off the table. Thankfully the judge got it. You and I get it. And while Fluffy claims he doesn’t I don’t for a minute believe that. He’s smarter than that - he’s just being stubborn.
Yes, MSNBC was looking to intimidate jurors like they’re the Kenosha mob.
MSNBC was looking for doors to knock on next week for media rights and interviews. Happens on all national cases by all the news affiliates.
-
There was a reason they ran a red light chasing a bus with the jurors aboard and anyone with half an eye and half an ass knows what it was. Get names, addresses and intimidate. Once the verdict was in intimidation is off the table. Thankfully the judge got it. You and I get it. And while Fluffy claims he doesn’t I don’t for a minute believe that. He’s smarter than that - he’s just being stubborn.
And that's the crux of it. I'm smart. And you're...slow.
It's not intimidation. It's inappropriate, but hardly illegal.
-
And that's the crux of it. I'm smart. And you're...slow.
It's not intimidation. It's inappropriate, but hardly illegal.
The real crux of it is I’m honest, so I admit you’re smart even if you’re a stubborn pain in the ass.
And you’re dishonest, because you know I’m smart also… smarter than you in any way smart can be measured.
It was an attempt to intimidate, thwarted only because the car following the jurors was stopped for running a red light in pursuit of the bus carrying the jurors to their homes. Look, you based your opinion on your false assumption that the jurors were headed to their hotel. How would following them to their hotel be intimidating? But your logic was based on fake news. When you follow them home and get names and addresses? That was the goal and that would be a clear attempt to intimidate. But if you can’t (or stubbornly refuse to) connect obvious dots I was wrong and you’re not smart at all.
-
The real crux of it is I’m honest, so I admit you’re smart even if you’re a stubborn pain in the ass.
And you’re dishonest, because you know I’m smart also… smarter than you in any way smart can be measured.
It was an attempt to intimidate, thwarted only because the car following the jurors was stopped for running a red light in pursuit of the bus carrying the jurors to their homes. Look, you based your opinion on your false assumption that the jurors were headed to their hotel. How would following them to their hotel be intimidating? But your logic was based on fake news. When you follow them home and get names and addresses? That was the goal and that would be a clear attempt to intimidate. But if you can’t (or stubbornly refuse to) connect obvious dots I was wrong and you’re not smart at all.
Kinda reminds me of someone…
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-called-smart-six-times-before/story?id=52209712
-
Fox News didn't find the need to follow the bus. Pretty much sez it all, aina?
-
The verdict is in.
The real question I have is: "What kind of life will Kyle Rittenhouse live?"
18 years old. Hopefully he makes better decisions in the future.
-
The real crux of it is I’m honest, so I admit you’re smart even if you’re a stubborn pain in the ass.
And you’re dishonest, because you know I’m smart also… smarter than you in any way smart can be measured.
It was an attempt to intimidate, thwarted only because the car following the jurors was stopped for running a red light in pursuit of the bus carrying the jurors to their homes. Look, you based your opinion on your false assumption that the jurors were headed to their hotel. How would following them to their hotel be intimidating? But your logic was based on fake news. When you follow them home and get names and addresses? That was the goal and that would be a clear attempt to intimidate. But if you can’t (or stubbornly refuse to) connect obvious dots I was wrong and you’re not smart at all.
FFS, figuring out the identity of jurors is not an attempt to intimidate. It's over zealous and inappropriate reporting.
-
Kinda reminds me of someone…
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-called-smart-six-times-before/story?id=52209712
Those who are slipping always claim they're not.
-
Then you really don’t get what it’s like to be a juror. Especially in a case like this one.
Oh, do tell us of your experience as an OJ juror.
Could someone in the "Paranoia, Inc." faction of Scoop explain why and how an MSNBC producer would intimidate jurors?
-
Fox News didn't find the need to follow the bus. Pretty much sez it all, aina?
They're too busy defending the violent cultists who were incited by the previous president to attempt a coup that ended up injuring 150 cops and resulting in 5 deaths. Hang Mike Pence, nu?
-
Oh, do tell us of your experience as an OJ juror.
Could someone in the "Paranoia, Inc." faction of Scoop explain why and how an MSNBC producer would intimidate jurors?
Oh, maybe to get a guilty verdict. If the trial was going bad for Rittenhouse, I have no doubt Fox would have done something similar.
Kind of like when the president stated he was not following the facts of the case, but then issues a statement that says this "While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included,". Why would he feel angry at a verdict in a case in which he did not follow the facts?
-
And that's the crux of it. I'm smart. And you're...slow.
It's not intimidation. It's inappropriate, but hardly illegal.
Here's a nice article:
https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/the-public-s-right-of-access-to-juror-information-loses-more.html (https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/the-public-s-right-of-access-to-juror-information-loses-more.html)
-
Kinda reminds me of someone…
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-called-smart-six-times-before/story?id=52209712
Cheap shot. Expect better from you.
-
Oh, maybe to get a guilty verdict. If the trial was going bad for Rittenhouse, I have no doubt Fox would have done something similar.
Kind of like when the president stated he was not following the facts of the case, but then issues a statement that says this "While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included,". Why would he feel angry at a verdict in a case in which he did not follow the facts?
So, you honestly believe an MSNBC producer was following van of jurors because it would persuade them to vote guilty?
Just how drunk are you, and isn't it a bit early for that?
As for the Biden stuff ... what's the relevance to the topic at hand?
-
Cheap shot. Expect better from you.
Lenny: Fluffy, you're a stubborn pain in the ass and I'm way smarter than you.
Also Lenny: How dare you insult me, Fluffy!
-
Kind of like when the president stated he was not following the facts of the case, but then issues a statement that says this "While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included,". Why would he feel angry at a verdict in a case in which he did not follow the facts?
You're right about that part of Biden's statement. It was political pandering.
It was good, though, that he went on to ask people to “express their views peacefully, consistent with the rule of law.”
That part of his statement beats the heck out of telling violent extremists to "stand back and stand by."
-
Here's a nice article:
https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/the-public-s-right-of-access-to-juror-information-loses-more.html (https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/the-public-s-right-of-access-to-juror-information-loses-more.html)
This is a good article, but I am not sure about what point you are trying to make. At no point does it state that media companies trying to obtain that information is tampering or intimidating. But I can understand why the court wouldn't release it.
-
Cheap shot. Expect better from you.
The phrase; smarter than you in any way smart can be measured is pretty funny, and I personally don’t know many folks who speak like that, but one kinda just jumped into my head 🤷🏼♂️
-
This is a good article, but I am not sure about what point you are trying to make. At no point does it state that media companies trying to obtain that information is tampering or intimidating. But I can understand why the court wouldn't release it.
Not trying to make a point, just giving some background
-
So, you honestly believe an MSNBC producer was following van of jurors because it would persuade them to vote guilty?
No, you asked for the paranoid section to answer
-
Not trying to make a point, just giving some background
Gotcha. Thank you.
-
It will be interesting to see what the verdict ends up being for the jamokes who killed Ahmaud Arbery.
Arbery, a Black man, was unarmed. The armed killers, both white, chased him down. When Arbery tried to defend himself by grabbing for the gun -- the gun they were threatening to kill him with -- one of them shot him.
They are, of course, claiming self-defense.
"Sure, we chased him down, taking the law into our own hands instead of contacting the authorities. Sure, he was unarmed. Sure, we threatened his life. But he had some nerve actually wanting to live, so we gunned him down like an animal. Ipso fatso, self-defense!"
-
The phrase; smarter than you in any way smart can be measured is pretty funny, and I personally don’t know many folks who speak like that, but one kinda just jumped into my head 🤷🏼♂️
Context.
It was a reply to a guy who (when acknowledged/complimented on being smart eagerly agreed that he was. And then called me “slow”. He’s the one who made the comparison, I just pointed out how ridiculous it was.
-
Context.
It was a reply to a guy who (when acknowledged/complimented on being smart eagerly agreed that he was. And then called me “slow”. He’s the one who made the comparison, I just pointed out how ridiculous it was.
The old, WELL HE STARTED IT. I only acknowledged the language YOU chose to write and made a joke Lenny. I stand by my comparison because what you wrote was undeniably hilarious.
-
Fox News didn't find the need to follow the bus. Pretty much sez it all, aina?
Fox News had Tucker and an entire film crew embedded with Rittenhouse filming all aspects of the trial process. They are using these films/stories to market their streaming service.
So, yes, they were actively trying to profit as much as possible off of covering this trial. So why did they push this story so much, why did they make Rittenhouse look to be a hero, while ignoring every negative aspect of his story?
Why didn't they run similar stories regarding the Matthew Dolloff case (security guard who was hired to defend a tv crew, who ended up shooting and killing a far-right protestor after being maced; he was arrested and is under trial)?
Because they wanted to politicize this as much as possible, divide as much as possible, and profit from this story as much as possible.
If you think Fox News good; MSNBC bad, or vice versa, you aren't paying attention to what is going on.
-
Fox News had Tucker and an entire film crew embedded with Rittenhouse filming all aspects of the trial process. They are using these films/stories to market their streaming service.
So, yes, they were actively trying to profit as much as possible off of covering this trial. So why did they push this story so much, why did they make Rittenhouse look to be a hero, while ignoring every negative aspect of his story?
Why didn't they run similar stories regarding the Matthew Dolloff case (security guard who was hired to defend a tv crew, who ended up shooting and killing a far-right protestor after being maced; he was arrested and is under trial)?
Because they wanted to politicize this as much as possible, divide as much as possible, and profit from this story as much as possible.
If you think Fox News good; MSNBC bad, or vice versa, you aren't paying attention to what is going on.
I don't watch much news but read articles from realclearpoltics. I think you make a good point here and it's essential for the public to understand that we are dealing with propagandists in media, not journalists. If I read an article from both left leaning journalists and right learning journalists that also doesn't solve the problem. In other words both could be entirely wrong about the facts and the writers are often creating a narrative for more readers.
So as I stated before this is a big, big, problem. We really don't have journalists anymore and this is leading to further Balkanization of our country. They need to be held responsible for this garbage on both sides.
-
Context.
It was a reply to a guy who (when acknowledged/complimented on being smart eagerly agreed that he was. And then called me “slow”. He’s the one who made the comparison, I just pointed out how ridiculous it was.
But it isn't.
-
I don't watch much news but read articles from realclearpoltics. I think you make a good point here and it's essential for the public to understand that we are dealing with propagandists in media, not journalists. If I read an article from both left leaning journalists and right learning journalists that also doesn't solve the problem. In other words both could be entirely wrong about the facts and the writers are often creating a narrative for more readers.
So as I stated before this is a big, big, problem. We really don't have journalists anymore and this is leading to further Balkanization of our country. They need to be held responsible for this garbage on both sides.
Blaming everything wrong with this country on the media isn't the solution. Having a population that determine the difference between reality and fiction is far more important than trying to police what is and what isn't true. An educated populace eliminates the need for narrative news.
We have tons of good journalists if you're willing to look for them. The trouble is that a large portion of our population (and a large portion of scoop) is too lazy to do the work and is more interested in being spoon fed the gruel that sustains their outrage du jour.
-
Fox News had Tucker and an entire film crew embedded with Rittenhouse filming all aspects of the trial process. They are using these films/stories to market their streaming service.
So, yes, they were actively trying to profit as much as possible off of covering this trial. So why did they push this story so much, why did they make Rittenhouse look to be a hero, while ignoring every negative aspect of his story?
Why didn't they run similar stories regarding the Matthew Dolloff case (security guard who was hired to defend a tv crew, who ended up shooting and killing a far-right protestor after being maced; he was arrested and is under trial)?
Because they wanted to politicize this as much as possible, divide as much as possible, and profit from this story as much as possible.
If you think Fox News good; MSNBC bad, or vice versa, you aren't paying attention to what is going on.
Yeah, and more folks have died of covid in 2021 than in all of 2020, without the vaccine. Thought FD Joe wuz gonna protect all of us, aina?
-
Blaming everything wrong with this country on the media isn't the solution. Having a population that determine the difference between reality and fiction is far more important than trying to police what is and what isn't true. An educated populace eliminates the need for narrative news.
We have tons of good journalists if you're willing to look for them. The trouble is that a large portion of our population (and a large portion of scoop) is too lazy to do the work and is more interested in being spoon fed the gruel that sustains their outrage du jour.
I agree with this. There is a ton of good journalism out there for people looking to find it.
-
Yeah, and more folks have died of covid in 2021 than in all of 2020, without the vaccine. Thought FD Joe wuz gonna protect all of us, aina?
When was the last time you added anything constructive to a conversation here? I get it, you're provocative.
Nothing like a septuagenarian edgelord.
-
Blaming everything wrong with this country on the media isn't the solution. Having a population that determine the difference between reality and fiction is far more important than trying to police what is and what isn't true. An educated populace eliminates the need for narrative news.
We have tons of good journalists if you're willing to look for them. The trouble is that a large portion of our population (and a large portion of scoop) is too lazy to do the work and is more interested in being spoon fed the gruel that sustains their outrage du jour.
I'm not blaming everything wrong with this country on the media but when for example certain news sources and social media networks ban information that's an additional component of a serious problem. It's better here than most countries but we absolutely have issues and it has a direct impact fostering division.
-
There are no conversations here. Its all a shout down and schmeckel measuring game, aina?
-
When was the last time you added anything constructive to a conversation here? I get it, you're provocative.
Nothing like a septuagenarian edgelord.
He’s not terribly provocative either. Just recycled talking points.
-
I'm not blaming everything wrong with this country on the media but when for example certain news sources and social media networks ban information that's an additional component of a serious problem. It's better here than most countries but we absolutely have issues and it has a direct impact fostering division.
No. The problem can't be solved overnight, so removing harmful objective 'news sources' from social media is required. It isn't a banishment of information. It is a banishment of serious DISINFORMATION.
There are too many stupid people who told their children to 'not trust everything you read on the internet' who literally do that. All day. Every day.
-
BH, you can do better than this, kin, hey?
-
BH, you can do better than this, kin, hey?
Challenge accepted. Generally, the people dieing from covid19 at this point are unvaccinated people.
I wonder why these 'free thinkers' won't get vaccinated.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/kPtv3UIPrv36cjxqLs/giphy.webp)
-
Challenge accepted. Generally, the people dieing from covid19 at this point are unvaccinated people.
I wonder why these 'free thinkers' won't get vaccinated.
Yep.
https://apnews.com/article/counties-worst-virus-surges-voted-trump-d671a483534024b5486715da6edb6ebf
Counties that voted for Trump -- counties filled with people who spent months singing his praises for inventing the vaccine -- are now filled with "freedom fighters" who refuse their hero's vaccine, thereby undermining the national effort to all but eliminate COVID-19 as a killer. Additionally, we have Trump-wannabe GOP governors and state legislators who are aggressively undermining efforts to keep their own constituents healthy.
For most of a year, these folks loved to say it was "only the flu." Well, now it actually would be only like the flu, or possibly even milder, except the Trump-loving freedom fighters keep rejecting proven, life-saving vaccines -- and they largely do it for selfish, ignorant and/or political reasons.
Unlike the Trump administration, which for months pretended the coronavirus didn't exist while it was killing hundreds of thousands of Americans -- a stance that cost Trump his job -- the Biden administration has endlessly promoted a vaccine that would usher in post-pandemic life. The administration has made sure supplies are plentiful, has given medical personnel everything they need to distribute it, and has made all 3 vaccines free to anybody willing to get a shot. When that only got so far, Biden tried to mandate it for the good of the country.
But, you know ... Freedom!
-
Challenge accepted. Generally, the people dieing from covid19 at this point are unvaccinated people.
I wonder why these 'free thinkers' won't get vaccinated.
I blame the media.
-
Tamir Rice. 12 year old with a toy gun. Shot dead within seconds of police seeing him.
Kyle Rittenhouse. 17 year old from IL “protecting businesses” in WI. Shows up to civil unrest and shoots 3 people with an assault rifle. Is given water bottles when police see him.
Darrell Brooks. Mows down a Christmas parade with his SUV killing 5 and injuring 40. Taken into custody alive.
-
Darrell Brooks. Mows down a Christmas parade with his SUV killing 5 and injuring 40. Taken into custody alive.
He said that he felt threatened by the rioters in the "parade" so the Waukesha police asked him to go home.
-
He said that he felt threatened by the rioters in the "parade" so the Waukesha police asked him to go home.
I sincerely hope you are better than this
-
I sincerely hope you are better than this
My bad. I thought that this was the, "defend people that murdered a bunch of people," thread and I was trying to stay on topic.
-
I sincerely hope you are better than this
That one flew so high over your head...
-
My bad. I thought that this was the, "defend people that murdered a bunch of people," thread and I was trying to stay on topic.
Quit while you are behind.
-
That one flew so high over your head...
Uh. No it didn't. It was crude, insensitive, politically charged, and well below what I expected from that poster.
-
Fox News had Tucker and an entire film crew embedded with Rittenhouse filming all aspects of the trial process. They are using these films/stories to market their streaming service.
So, yes, they were actively trying to profit as much as possible off of covering this trial. So why did they push this story so much, why did they make Rittenhouse look to be a hero, while ignoring every negative aspect of his story?
Why didn't they run similar stories regarding the Matthew Dolloff case (security guard who was hired to defend a tv crew, who ended up shooting and killing a far-right protestor after being maced; he was arrested and is under trial)?
Because they wanted to politicize this as much as possible, divide as much as possible, and profit from this story as much as possible.
If you think Fox News good; MSNBC bad, or vice versa, you aren't paying attention to what is going on.
$$$$$!
Once Fox uses him up and gets every $$$ that they can from taking advantage of an ignorant young kid, they will spit him out. His 15 minutes will be over and his life - whatever that is - will spiral down. Hopefully it won't result in him killing more people.
When you have bonafide, conservative hard right-wing neo-cons like Stephen Hayes and Johan Goldberg quitting Fox as a result of what Tucker is doing, that says it all.
-
Uh. No it didn't. It was crude, insensitive, politically charged, and well below what I expected from that poster.
It's nice of you to have high expectations of me.
I think we'll be more closely aligned in our "political" beliefs, though, once someone sheds some light on the criminal records of the Dancing Grannies.
-
It's nice of you to have high expectations of me.
I think we'll be more closely aligned in our "political" beliefs, though, once someone sheds some light on the criminal records of the Dancing Grannies.
Everyone’s misplaced expectations have been reset at absolute zero. You can stop now.
-
Oh, I absolutely didn't expect him to be found guilty of murder based on what we saw, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a killer. O.J. wasn't
Hell, a Black or Hispanic teenager probably would have been gunned down by the cops that night, instead of being given a big smile and a thumbs-up.
yeah. https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/1462943235530059782/photo/1
-
yeah. https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/1462943235530059782/photo/1
You win. Black people are bad.
-
yeah. https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/1462943235530059782/photo/1
Just there to render first aid.
-
Uh-oh. Looks like Trumpers' newest hero is a Marxist!
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-shootings-race-and-ethnicity-kenosha-wisconsin-64f379ffb884fba5b1420f88d0b8feb6?user_email=&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningWire_Nov23&utm_term=Morning%20Wire%20Subscribers
Yep, KR-47 told Tucker that he supports Black Lives Matter.
-
You win. Black people are bad.
and to think an MU educated person who had his narrative questioned with facts came to that conclusion. SMH. ::)
-
and to think an MU educated person who had his narrative questioned with facts came to that conclusion. SMH. ::)
Nobody attacked them with a skateboard, so Rittenhouse sure taught those hooligans!
-
and to think an MU educated person who had his narrative questioned with facts came to that conclusion. SMH. ::)
Your “facts” aren’t. But keep trying.
-
Damn white supremacist court system using video evidence to reach a correct verdict.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/24/1058240388/ahmaud-arbery-murder-trial-verdict-travis-greg-mcmichael?utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
-
Damn white supremacist court system using video evidence to reach a correct verdict.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/24/1058240388/ahmaud-arbery-murder-trial-verdict-travis-greg-mcmichael?utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
Average every day citizens come to the right verdict based on the evidence, again.
-
Damn white supremacist court system using video evidence to reach a correct verdict.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/24/1058240388/ahmaud-arbery-murder-trial-verdict-travis-greg-mcmichael?utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
And without the video evidence, those three guys walk free.
-
And without the video evidence, those three guys walk free.
And right or wrong, there's a good argument to be made that without the video evidence, Rittenhouse doesn't walk free.
-
And without the video evidence, those three guys walk free.
Ding ding ding
But why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?
-
And without the video evidence, those three guys walk free.
yeah, that pesky thing called "evidence."
Rittenhouse would be in jail if not for video evidence. But I guess video evidence only works in certain situations for those who went to Facebook School of Law.
Ding ding ding
But why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?
you mean "speculation." Nice try though.
-
Thankfully, the Arbery jury came to the only possible conclusion, and I hope these racist killers have very "eventful" lives in prison.
-
All three men found guilty of murder in the Arbery case.
-
yeah, that pesky thing called "evidence."
Rittenhouse would be in jail if not for video evidence. But I guess video evidence only works in certain situations for those who went to Facebook School of Law.
Yes, because that is what I said.
(https://c.tenor.com/B_Hu0w-1JKQAAAAC/fallacy.gif)
-
All three men found guilty of murder in the Arbery case.
Where did you see that? I haven’t seen anything on a decision yet?
-
Where did you see that? I haven’t seen anything on a decision yet?
https://www.ajc.com/news/ahmaud-arbery-case-the-charges-each-defendant-was-convicted-of/T7DH5TWHPNHLXK43OT5ALSWJNI/
-
And without the video evidence, those three guys walk free.
Video evidence that the accused leaked because they thought it would exonerate them.
-
Video evidence that the accused leaked because they thought it would exonerate them.
It's Georgia, these guys probably thought they were going to get a medal.
-
Where did you see that? I haven’t seen anything on a decision yet?
I just heard it on the radio. They'll get life imprisonment. Good news.
-
Ding ding ding
But why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?
And even with the video evidence, the original prosecutor tried for months to bury the case.
Wasn't until the video went public that anything happened.
-
It's Georgia, these guys probably thought they were going to get a medal.
If so they thought wrong and your comment seems like a unnecessary cheap shot on the citizens of Georgie.
-
If so they thought wrong and your comment seems like a unnecessary cheap shot on the citizens of Georgie.
Nah, I assure you, it is well deserved. Pictured top is the state flag of Georgia (decided by 73.1% of Georgians in 2003) and bottom is the flag of the short lived, highly racist, traitorous Confederate States of America.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Flag_of_Georgia_%28U.S._state%29.svg/220px-Flag_of_Georgia_%28U.S._state%29.svg.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861%E2%80%931863%29.svg/220px-Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861%E2%80%931863%29.svg.png)
But we're off topic enough so I'll stop.
-
I didn’t follow this case as closely as the Rittenhouse one, but the one parallel I see between Arbery and Rittenhouse was the concept of provocation. You can’t claim that it was self defense if you are the one who started it. Thought that was checkmate for the 3 men in Georgia.
Rittenhouse would have (and should have according to the law) also been found guilty if there was enough evidence he had provoked the people who were killed.
-
If so they thought wrong and your comment seems like a unnecessary cheap shot on the citizens of Georgie.
They'll be along to challenge Hards to a duel any moment now.
-
I guess I have to reevaluate the fact that I had a great time in Atlanta last month. with people of multiple races and ethnicities, pretty much at every establishment. I'll be sure on my next visit I'm prepared to deal with how horrible the community is there.
-
I guess I have to reevaluate the fact that I had a great time in Atlanta last month. with people of multiple races and ethnicities, pretty much at every establishment. I'll be sure on my next visit I'm prepared to deal with how horrible the community is there.
I have family in Atlanta, and colleagues. There are wonderful people with great food & a long history of messed up culture and deep-seated racism that's hard to believe still exists having lived in the North for most of my life.
It can be both.
-
Racism doesn’t exist because in Georgia because Mugs had a nice time in Atlanta. 🙄🙄🙄
-
Racism doesn’t exist because in Georgia because Mugs had a nice time in Atlanta. 🙄🙄🙄
I spent a night in Chicago recently and not only wasn't I murdered, but I didn't see a single shooting.
What's all this nonsense about gun violence?
-
I spent a night in Chicago recently and not only wasn't I murdered, but I didn't see a single shooting.
What's all this nonsense about gun violence?
You must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express....
-
I guess I have to reevaluate the fact that I had a great time in Atlanta last month. with people of multiple races and ethnicities, pretty much at every establishment. I'll be sure on my next visit I'm prepared to deal with how horrible the community is there.
I'm glad you had fun in the largest most diverse city in Atlanta. I suggest you visit anywhere outside the metro area before absolving the state of its racist roots.
-
I have family in Atlanta, and colleagues. There are wonderful people with great food & a long history of messed up culture and deep-seated racism that's hard to believe still exists having lived in the North for most of my life.
It can be both.
There is deep seated racism among individuals in every major city in the world among other prejudices. I think because of the racial demographics, if you're going to prejudge people, Atlanta may be the least racist major city in the USA.
-
There is deep seated racism among individuals in every major city in the world among other prejudices. I think because of the racial demographics, if you're going to prejudge people, Atlanta may be the least racist major city in the USA.
What if I were to tell you there are vast swaths of Georgia that are not Atlanta?
-
There is deep seated racism among individuals in every major city in the world among other prejudices. I think because of the racial demographics, if you're going to prejudge people, Atlanta may be the least racist major city in the USA.
It's different down there, it's clear you haven't spent a lot of time in the South. You don't hear the 'hard R' in public in restaurants in Chicago like you do in Memphis and Atlanta. Nobody is calling the server at the restaurant 'boy' in Chicago, cause in the North you'd get slapped for that.
There's a lot of beautiful wonderful people making their way through the world down there. At the same time everyone's that the same age as my grandparents, aunts, and uncles went to segregated schools down there. The people that beat the crap out of the folks on the Selma march still live down there. It's not like they've changed. I'm related to them, I've asked them.
-
nm
-
It's RuralGeorgia, these guys probably thought they were going to get a medal.
We’re way more evolved in the ATL
-
Curious what the Rittenhouse supporters think of this case.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/marc-wilson-self-defense-case (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/marc-wilson-self-defense-case)
Note: The defendant in this case was denied bail as he was deemed a danger to society because of the accused crimes.
-
It's different down there, it's clear you haven't spent a lot of time in the South. You don't hear the 'hard R' in public in restaurants in Chicago like you do in Memphis and Atlanta. Nobody is calling the server at the restaurant 'boy' in Chicago, cause in the North you'd get slapped for that.
There's a lot of beautiful wonderful people making their way through the world down there. At the same time everyone's that the same age as my grandparents, aunts, and uncles went to segregated schools down there. The people that beat the crap out of the folks on the Selma march still live down there. It's not like they've changed. I'm related to them, I've asked them.
Sorry you have a piece of $hit family. Don’t let your hatred for them make you the idiot who paints people with an unfairly broad brush.
But I guess it’s too late for that.
-
Curious what the Rittenhouse supporters think of this case.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/marc-wilson-self-defense-case (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/marc-wilson-self-defense-case)
Note: The defendant in this case was denied bail as he was deemed a danger to society because of the accused crimes.
This is the first I’ve read about it so it would be silly to comment without seeing the facts of the case presented at trial.
For his sake I hope their is video evidence to help him back up his claims. The video evidence IMO is the only thing that saved Kyle during his trial.
Happy Thanksgiving Forgetful!!
-
Sorry you have a piece of $hit family. Don’t let your hatred for them make you the idiot who paints people with an unfairly broad brush.
But I guess it’s too late for that.
When you’re a hammer…….
-
Lenny
Once again, you put an early morning smile on my face.
-
Hey, now.
😱
-
Sorry you have a piece of $hit family. Don’t let your hatred for them make you the idiot who paints people with an unfairly broad brush.
But I guess it’s too late for that.
Wow. Just wow.
-
Sorry you have a piece of $hit family. Don’t let your hatred for them make you the idiot who paints people with an unfairly broad brush.
But I guess it’s too late for that.
Way over the top response.
And reeks of someone who has not lived/spent considerable time in the Deep South (e.g. Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia). Skat is correct, it is different down there.
-
Way over the top response.
And reeks of someone who has not lived/spent considerable time in the Deep South (e.g. Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia). Skat is correct, it is different down there.
Same.
First time I visited my brother after he moved to a state in the Deep South, his neighbor (late 20s/early 30s, college-educated, white collar kind of guy) went for a beer run. Minutes into the ride - minutes after I met the guy - he's dropping the N-word left and right. Not in an intentionally malicious sense. Just conversationally, like it was the most natural thing in the world.
-
Same.
First time I visited my brother after he moved to a state in the Deep South, his neighbor (late 20s/early 30s, college-educated, white collar kind of guy) went for a beer run. Minutes into the ride - minutes after I met the guy - he's dropping the N-word left and right. Not in an intentionally malicious sense. Just conversationally, like it was the most natural thing in the world.
Speaking as someone who grew up in the South, I would say that in general, they are no more racist than people in other regions. The main difference is that they are more honest about it.
Example: I worked at a restaurant as a youth in Nashville, and an African-American man came to apply for a job as a bus boy. He submitted an application, and when he left, the manager said, "If he thinks I am going to hire a n***** to work here, he's crazy".
In Illinois, a similar thing happened, except the manager said, "He's...not quite what we are looiking for."
-
Speaking as someone who grew up in the South, I would say that in general, they are no more racist than people in other regions. The main difference is that they are more honest about it.
Example: I worked at a restaurant as a youth in Nashville, and an African-American man came to apply for a job as a bus boy. He submitted an application, and when he left, the manager said, "If he thinks I am going to hire a n***** to work here, he's crazy".
In Illinois, a similar thing happened, except the manager said, "He's...not quite what we are looiking for."
Yeah, but did any of that happen after Obama was elected, an event that proved racism in America was eliminated?
Except for reverse racism, of course. That's raging!
-
Couldn't help yourself, Mike? After you modified your post of an hour ago, its right back to the same, old narrative, aina?
-
Couldn't help yourself, Mike? After you modified your post of an hour ago, its right back to the same, old narrative, aina?
Happy Thanksgiving.
-
Yeah, but did any of that happen after Obama was elected, an event that proved racism in America was eliminated?
Except for reverse racism, of course. That's raging!
I don't get your point. But you don't need to explain it. Spend some quality time with your family instead.
-
I don't get your point. But you don't need to explain it. Spend some quality time with your family instead.
Like you, "family time" this year is just me and my wife. And every moment I spend with her is quality! Happy Thanksgiving to you and glow.
-
We’re way more evolved in the ATL
Here's one of Georgia's finest now ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/greene-rittenhouse-congressional-gold-medal/2021/11/24/c09980d2-4d49-11ec-a1b9-9f12bd39487a_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F355f9e1%2F619fbd999d2fdab56b9f5e8f%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F10%2F72%2F619fbd999d2fdab56b9f5e8f
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has introduced a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal — the legislative branch’s highest honor — to Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who last week was found not guilty of homicide and other charges related to his fatal shooting of two men during a protest against police violence last year.
Greene introduced a bill Tuesday to give Rittenhouse the award. While the bill’s full text was not immediately available, a summary states that the measure would “award a Congressional Gold Medal to Kyle H. Rittenhouse, who protected the community of Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a Black Lives Matter (BLM) riot.”
Absolutely, a vigilante's heroic killing of two other white guys must be rewarded!
-
Here's one of Georgia's finest now ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/greene-rittenhouse-congressional-gold-medal/2021/11/24/c09980d2-4d49-11ec-a1b9-9f12bd39487a_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F355f9e1%2F619fbd999d2fdab56b9f5e8f%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F10%2F72%2F619fbd999d2fdab56b9f5e8f
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has introduced a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal — the legislative branch’s highest honor — to Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who last week was found not guilty of homicide and other charges related to his fatal shooting of two men during a protest against police violence last year.
Greene introduced a bill Tuesday to give Rittenhouse the award. While the bill’s full text was not immediately available, a summary states that the measure would “award a Congressional Gold Medal to Kyle H. Rittenhouse, who protected the community of Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a Black Lives Matter (BLM) riot.”
Absolutely, a vigilante's heroic killing of two other white guys must be rewarded!
You realize her district is primarily rural northern GA mountain towns, yes? Not ATL.
And by the way I absolutely agree that racism is endemic in/to the South. See MJT as exhibit #1.
-
You realize her district is primarily rural northern GA mountain towns, yes? Not ATL.
And by the way I absolutely agree that racism is endemic in/to the South. See MJT as exhibit #1.
Yes. I know it's not Atlanta.
And yes, you're right.