Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[blankall]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I don't think it is helpful for people to view Rittenhouse as a hero. But that was going to be inevitable in today's media...er...dumpster fire.

But I would put the people who hero worship KR into the same overall milieu as those people who try to sanitize the actions of Rosenbaum, Huber, Grosskreutz (both on that night and in their past). Or the victim blamers who think that KR somehow "had it coming because why was he there?"

These are the people - many of which are in this thread -that are just grist for mill of the current media environment. And they don't realize it because they think their side of the milieu is righteous.

I actually don't entirely disagree with this. The media on both sides of the political spectrum has major problems right now, and their messages have real world consequences.

That being said, I hope what does come out of this is a rethinking of firearm laws in the areas where these tragedies occurred. If the deaths of these two people results in multiple other larger tragedies not happening later, there is a silver lining.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

i actually don't entirely disagree with this. The media on both sides of the political spectrum has major problems right now, and their messages have real world consequences.

That being said, i hope what does come out of this is a rethinking of firearm laws in the areas where these tragedies occurred. If the deaths of these two people results in multiple other larger tragedies not happening later, there is a silver lining.

lol.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

lol.

I would never expect any kind of major overhaul. However, keeping guns out of the hands of minors or extra regulations around public open carries would be a start.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

I would never expect any kind of major overhaul. However, keeping guns out of the hands of minors or extra regulations around public open carries would be a start.

Haven't they spent the last few decades going the opposite direction thoguh? Admittedly I know very little about this stuff, but the idea that gun regulations would actually tighten in the US seems like an impossibility. As the saying goes, if murdering a bunch of children doesn't change anything, nothing will. Certainly not this one event.

[Fuzz]

ATER A YEAR spent at home in pyjamas and fitness clothes, the question of what to wear outside is on the minds of many. Some also have in mind an unexpected accessory: handguns. Across the country states are trying to make it easier for people to carry guns in public without applying for a permit, being subject to a background check or going through training. Since February five states have passed new or expanded “permitless-carry” laws.

https://www.economist.com/united-sta...ssive-gun-laws





Ya,that looks about right. It just seems so logical to a Canadian what needs to happen.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

1. At best, the legal position of GG and Huber with respect to self defense if KR had been killed would have been much murkier than Kyle's was.


2. No part of KR's story was sculpted. He didn't need to. The facts were on his side, and almost entirely on video.

3. No part of what KR did would fit in any useful definition of the word vigilante. Legal Eagle going off on a tangent about KR and vigilante-ism was pure straw man.

So basically you are going to bend over backwards to deny any little tiny piece of information that remotely threatens your opinion meaning you aren't actually having a conversation with anyone, you are just screaming at a wall about how you feel.

The Assertions you are making, wow, those are bold and clearly not anchored in any interest in objectivity.

1) An person without something commonly used as a deadly weapon gunned down in the streets has a murky right to the self dense argument when they fell threatened by someone brandishing a firearm in their direction, while somebody who shows up to a riot with s riffle clearly ended up defending when he went on a murdering spree.

2) As long as it's the person your team decided to agree with, we should not assume their narrative is coloured by their self interest, people would never colour their testimony in self interest unless they are out to get this good honest 'conservative' kid

3) Showing up to a property uninvited to defend it with a gun, without being deputized by the state is not vigilantism. That couldn't possibly be what that word means.

Society makes me so sad sometimes, but it's a breath of air we don't have to live in the terrifying reality you have in your head 100% of the time.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

I would never expect any kind of major overhaul. However, keeping guns out of the hands of minors or extra regulations around public open carries would be a start.

Yeah, for starters, I would like to see more private companies do what Wal-Mart and Target did by banning open carry on their properties. Make it as inconvenient as possible to take a gun anywhere.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for public institutions to do this because of their ridiculous constitution, but if enough private businesses and industries started banning open carry, it might make a difference.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by blankall

I actually don't entirely disagree with this. The media on both sides of the political spectrum has major problems right now, and their messages have real world consequences.

That being said, I hope what does come out of this is a rethinking of firearm laws in the areas where these tragedies occurred. If the deaths of these two people results in multiple other larger tragedies not happening later, there is a silver lining.

I don't agree with it, but the flipside of this argument is that KR's gun worked as intended in self defense, and the problem gun was an illegal handgun carried by the assailant.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, for starters, I would like to see more private companies do what Wal-Mart and Target did by banning open carry on their properties. Make it as inconvenient as possible to take a gun anywhere.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for public institutions to do this because of their ridiculous constitution, but if enough private businesses and industries started banning open carry, it might make a difference.

I was just looking into, and Wisconsin state has a set of laws which ban lesser levels of government from putting any gun laws into place that are less stringent than the laws of Wisconsin. Pretty nuts.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Okay, but you seemed to take issue with how the police handled this situation with your first post with the tweet. Perhaps I misunderstood. This is how they should have handled it had the McMichaels been Black or green.

No you are correct. It is my belief with the amount of racism in that country, and that part of the country, that a black man with blood on his hands after lynching a white man would not have been treated the same in that situation. If you disagree that's fine, but I have close to zero faith the situations would have been handled the same. Should they? Yes, that would be peachy. But I'm just being realistic. The black man would be in cuffs and hauled off. Or maybe shot at the scene. IMO of course.

But given that the McMichael's had called 911, were cooperating, not trying to flee and posed no danger, the police handled it reasonably it appears. And again in handling it how they did they got convictions despite all the other corruption above them.

Or, they are white. One of 'them'. The video released by the murderers themselves did more to convict them in that case than the way they were treated by the cops like the one in the video.

And yes, I am very negative and pessimistic when it comes to cops and racism in that country. It will be very tough to change my mind that the cops did the right thing and everybody would have been treated the same, regardless of skin color. I just don't believe it. I appreciate the discussion, though, thanks.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

The video released by the murderers themselves did more to convict them in that case than the way they were treated by the cops like the one in the video.

Roddie's video would have pretty much exonerated him if not for his statements to police. His entire defense was circumscribed around him being only a witness to the event and not an active participant. He took the video inside of his truck when Arbery was shot and was several meters away.

The hurdle that his defense couldn't jump was that he had told the police on scene and immediately after that he had actively chased and tried to stop Arbery with his vehicle. It was his cooperation with police that lead them to investigate his vehicle, notice the dent, find fingerprints and fibre from Arbery indicating that he had been struck.

Similarly, and only somewhat less significantly, the elder McMichael's statements to police that they had trapped him like a rat, never indicated to him he was under arrest, never saw him steal anything, yelled that he would blow his head off, all sealed his fate as the defense could not claim they were making a reasonable and legal citizen arrest. His defense hinged on the, now repealed, Georgia Law that allowed for citizen arrest:

Originally Posted by Georgia Citizen Arrest Law

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

By confirming to police that he did not see Arbery steal, did not tell him he was under arrest, the defense could not convince the jury that that they were enacting a legal citizen arrest at the time of the killing and the fact that McMichael told police he wanted to blow Arbery's brains out for no reason other than him not stopping certainly did not help.

As much as the video looked like a cold blooded murder, as it was, there was room for reasonable doubt had the McMichael's done the smart thing and got a lawyer to help them navigate the police.

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

And yes, I am very negative and pessimistic when it comes to cops and racism in that country. It will be very tough to change my mind that the cops did the right thing and everybody would have been treated the same, regardless of skin color. I just don't believe it. I appreciate the discussion, though, thanks.

I'm not saying everyone would have been treated the same. I'm saying they should be treated the same (as are you).

I guess our conversation comes down to this:

Me: Yes, Black people would have been treated differently than McMichaels but they should be treated like McMichaels were

You: Yes, Black people would have been treated differently than McMichaels but the McMichaels should be treated like Black people would have.

[BoLevi]

The McMichaels can rot in hell.

But I don't think the advantages they got were because they were white, were they?

I thought it was because they were friends with the prosecutors and cops.

I bet if it they were someone else, white or not, they would have been arrested immediately.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

But I don't think the advantages they got were because they were white, were they?

There's probably three separate situations:

The first: Initial officer arrives on scene, Black man dying in the streets. Calls backup and medical, but otherwise is relatively nonchalant. Doesn't offer medical help to the still breathing Arbery but would later testify that he could not be distracted due to potential officer safety. Despite this he turns his back on the McMichaels within a minute of encountering them. This is probably the most clear case of some form of bias as he lets the McMichaels pace around including going to their vehicle. McMichael may or may not have identified himself as an officer but the officer, I do not believe, knew McMichael. I think at the very least if the suspects were Black we can reasonably assume they would be forced to sit, put up hands instead of just being asked if they had weapons, not be allowed to go back to truck (I believe it was only to close door but still).

The second: Many officers arrive on scene, including those who knew McMichael. This is probably closer to the blue shield in action.

The third: Not being charged despite the police alleging that they had enough cause due to pressure from Jackie Johnson. This is probably just having the right friends in the right places. Wouldn't put it passed them that they are friends because they a bunch of racist hicks though.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

There's probably three separate situations:

The first: Initial officer arrives on scene, Black man dying in the streets. Calls backup and medical, but otherwise is relatively nonchalant. Doesn't offer medical help to the still breathing Arbery but would later testify that he could not be distracted due to potential officer safety. Despite this he turns his back on the McMichaels within a minute of encountering them. This is probably the most clear case of some form of bias as he lets the McMichaels pace around including going to their vehicle. McMichael may or may not have identified himself as an officer but the officer, I do not believe, knew McMichael. I think at the very least if the suspects were Black we can reasonably assume they would be forced to sit, put up hands instead of just being asked if they had weapons, not be allowed to go back to truck (I believe it was only to close door but still).

The second: Many officers arrive on scene, including those who knew McMichael. This is probably closer to the blue shield in action.

The third: Not being charged despite the police alleging that they had enough cause due to pressure from Jackie Johnson. This is probably just having the right friends in the right places. Wouldn't put it passed them that they are friends because they a bunch of racist hicks though.

You're right. It's probably both.

They're not just corrupt. They're racist and corrupt.

####ers.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The thoughts of alt-right white supremacists are always interesting for a certain type of people, I guess.

In an effort to show how concerned he is about Black Lives Matter, Kyle went and hung out with Jack Posobiec today. A bit of an odd choice.

[Lanny_McDonald]

And so it begins…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...stody-row.html

[scotty2hotty]

That seems like a pretty quick ‘no charges’ decision in Texas. That very situation is why they love guns.

Aggressor #1 walks on to man #2’s property
Man #2 tells him to leave. #1 refuses.
Man #2 gets his gun, tells #1 to leave. #1 refuses.
Man #2 fires a warning shot into the floor. #1 refuses.
Man #2 shoots #1.

I’m 100% anti-gun … but that one is never seeing the inside of a courtroom. It’s more likely that man #2 is hailed as a hero in
Texas.

“Hero lawfully protects family, home, and property.”

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

And so it begins…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...stody-row.html

Nutjob trespasses, refuses to leave, and tells homeowner to use the gun he has clearly shown he has and even fired a warning shot, continues to approach him in menacing manner on his own property and ends up shot.

Honestly, if my partner's ex showed up like that I would be glad if I had a gun. I wouldn't have gone outside and would have called the cops, but in situations like this it is not uncommon to have it end with the ex killing the spouse and new partner.

I know everyone will say "He should have called the cops instead of pulling a gun" - But why didn't the ex "Call the cops" if his child was suppose to be released to him and wasnt at the correct time. Why is going on someone personal property and threatening them 'ok' - What does he expect to happen?

Best case start a fist fight?

You know who isn't getting killed in any these stories. People who follow the law and mind their own business. (Queue the typical suspects spending the next 3 hrs on the internet to find articles contradicting this statement! It isn’t an absolute )

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

And so it begins…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...stody-row.html

You have awful opinions.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Nutjob trespasses, refuses to leave, and tells homeowner to use the gun he has clearly shown he has and even fired a warning shot, continues to approach him in menacing manner on his own property and ends up shot.

Honestly, if my partner's ex showed up like that I would be glad if I had a gun. I wouldn't have gone outside and would have called the cops, but in situations like this it is not uncommon to have it end with the ex killing the spouse and new partner.

I know everyone will say "He should have called the cops instead of pulling a gun" - But why didn't the ex "Call the cops" if his child was suppose to be released to him and wasnt at the correct time. Why is going on someone personal property and threatening them 'ok' - What does he expect to happen?

Best case start a fist fight?

You know who isn't getting killed in any these stories. People who follow the law and mind their own business. (Queue the typical suspects spending the next 3 hrs on the internet to find articles contradicting this statement! It isn’t an absolute )

Where is the green text?