Racism in America (with data)

[malchior]

It’s…a tricky landscape.

it's not. He walked into a riot with a gun and then claimed unarmed people made him fear for his life. It's beyond parody to compare the two.

[Zaxxon]

It’s…a tricky landscape.

it's not. He walked into a riot with a gun and then claimed unarmed people made him fear for his life. It's beyond parody to compare the two.

+1. If you're going to compare this to 'did you see what she was wearing?' you are not a serious participant in the conversation.

[Little Raven]

Well, I’ll see myself out then.

[Smoove_B]

We really are living in the worst timeline:

Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) on Friday celebrated Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict by encouraging his followers to arm themselves.

The right-wing congressman posted a video shortly after the Rittenhouse verdict in which he called the jury's decision a victory for freedom.

"Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty, my friends!" he said. "You have a right to defend yourself! Be armed, be dangerous, and be moral!"

Cawthorn also posted a text message on the video offering Rittenhouse an internship at his office.

[Jaymann]

Will he be encouraged to bring his AR-15 to the internship?

[stimpy]

He jumped into a situation thinking he was showing how cool and badass he was, and immediately got in over his head.

You mean just like the Einsteins that decided it was a good idea to go after someone holding a rifle were trying to be cool and badass?

Let's put them on trial...

Not about trial. About making smart decisions. Both sides.
I see a dude with a rifle, know what I do?
Walk the other way.

What if you see a riot? Walk the other way or jump in with your gun?

Just curious why you chose to play the part of that side. One side is dead because of their bad decision, and one side gets off scot free. Does that seem just?

Why dont you ask Blackhawk why he thinks that Rittenhouses' motivation was to show how cool and badass he was?
How does he know? How does anyone know what ANY of the involved parties motivations were?
Making a statement or holding an opinion that Rittenhouse was the only one out there acting like an idiot is a false narrative.
Should he have had a rifle? No. Should the people that rushed him have done so? In hindsight, no.
But thinking that Rittenhouse was the only one acting in bad faith that night is conjecture.
Is the outcome just? No. But choices were made by all involved.

[stimpy]

Well, I’ll see myself out then.

Fall in line, man.

[Grifman]

And what about the people that made reckless decisions to chase and attack/threaten an armed man?

They witnessed Rittenhouse gun someone down. They could have been trying to prevent him from shooting anyone else. That's what's so wrong with these Wild West scenarios. They might have thought of themselves as the good guys with guns.

I totally agree - as I said previously in another post, at some point we will have two groups that claim to be threatened by the other and a massacre will result. That’s why it’s a gun control problem. There’s no way to account or control for situations where we allow armed groups wander our streets.

[dbt1949]

Do they give him his gun back now?

[malchior]

Double post ... again!

[malchior]

Do they give him his gun back now?

It wasn't his to begin with. The actual owner got convicted for giving him the weapon (he plead out iirc).

[Grifman]

Your problem is not self defense, it’s gun control. Nothing in your scenario is illegal according to the law in many states with less restrictive gun laws. If someone is acting legally, they don’t give up their rights.

It's weird to me that you can't see how granting reckless people the right to defend themselves is license to inflict harm upon others and be protected legally, with all the problems that might ensue from that.

First, I never said it wasn’t a problem, but it’s a gun control problem, not a problem with self defense laws. Secondly, it’s not a “license” - based upon the evidence, no one would have been shot by Rittenhouse if he had not be chased and threatened. Lastly, it’s weird you seem to ignore the salient fact that he was chased and threatened and even attacked.

My issue is self-defense. If said person shows up with crossbow, bow and arrow, or baseball bat, and as Law Beef noted: "Go to event, bring weapon, find a dangerous situation, "fear for your life", receive license to kill," you don't need it to be a firearm to be problematic.

The “license to kill” assertion keeps being repeated and it is just as ridiculous now as it was the first time it was made. Please stop with this. There’s no evidence he felt he had any such license. I’ll repeat again, he never fired until he was chased, threatened and attacked. He does not appear to have been wantonly threatening or pointing his weapon at people.

[Smoove_B]

There’s no way to account or control for situations where we allow armed groups wander our streets.

Not true. We just established if you feel threatened by wandering armed groups, shoot to kill. Just be first and don't miss.

[Grifman]

It’s…a tricky landscape.

it's not. He walked into a riot with a gun and then claimed unarmed people made him fear for his life. It's beyond parody to compare the two.

Uh, one guy had a gun and pointed it at him and another struck him with a skate board.

[malchior]

There’s no way to account or control for situations where we allow armed groups wander our streets.

Not true. We just established if you feel threatened by wandering armed groups, shoot to kill. Just be first and don't miss.

Also make sure to kill because then that guy can't contradict your story.

[Grifman]

There’s no way to account or control for situations where we allow armed groups wander our streets.

Not true. We just established if you feel threatened by wandering armed groups, shoot to kill. Just be first and don't miss.

I was talking about the flaws in the current situation, not accepting them, and hie society needs to desk with this. But you are right, shoot first, claim self defense, and hope a jury believes you - if you want to take that that gamble. But I’d be willing to bet that if Rittenhouse had not been chased, threatened and attacked, the claim of self defense wouldn’t work.

[Smoove_B]

I was talking about the flaws in the current situation, not accepting them, and hie society needs to desk with this. But you are right, shoot first, claim self defense, and hope a jury believes you - if you want to take that that gamble.

I think you and I agree - your point earlier that this is a gun control problem. But that ship has sailed - Sandy Hook was the point we collectively decided that. Society didn't deal with Sandy Hook so I'm 100% sure we're doing nothing about it after Rittenhouse.

But I’d be willing to bet that if Rittenhouse had not been chased, threatened and attacked, the claim of self defense wouldn’t work.

I don't know. One man against a crowd of lawless antifa rioters? Who wouldn't feel threatened...after intentionally putting yourself in that situation?

[A nonny mouse]

There’s no way to account or control for situations where we allow armed groups wander our streets.

Not true. We just established if you feel threatened by wandering armed groups, shoot to kill. Just be first and don't miss.

This whole self defense argument is the Uncle Jim defense about hunting.

[Jaymann]

It’s…a tricky landscape.

it's not. He walked into a riot with a gun and then claimed unarmed people made him fear for his life. It's beyond parody to compare the two.

Uh, one guy had a gun and pointed it at him and another struck him with a skate board.

Wait a minute. My memory may be faulty but I thought Kyle was on the convenience store video doing something gun related before they chased him.

[malchior]

There will be more violence. Keep preparing.

[malchior]

It’s…a tricky landscape.

it's not. He walked into a riot with a gun and then claimed unarmed people made him fear for his life. It's beyond parody to compare the two.

Uh, one guy had a gun and pointed it at him and another struck him with a skate board.

He killed 2 *unarmed* people. Full stop. A skate board is not a comparable weapon in any realistic sense. The other guy did indeed have a gun. He said he had it out because there was shooting. Did he also not have a right to defend himself?

I happen to agree with you that this ultimately is a gun control issue. It is also a societal issue. We pretend we are about law and order but it is within a very particular set of constraints and this white kid fit them to a skin color.

[hepcat]

What happens when a protestor takes a rifle with him to a street protest and is attacked by a proud boy or just a trump supporter armed with a bike chain or even a bike helmet? Will his killing the attacker(s) be met with the same kind of celebratory outpouring by the same crowd crowing about Rittenhouse’s verdict if the same one is passed down in a protestor’s case?

But hypocrisy aside, I suspect we’re going to see blood spilled in the coming days thanks to this. A lot of people are feeling emboldened now.

[Grifman]

It’s…a tricky landscape.

it's not. He walked into a riot with a gun and then claimed unarmed people made him fear for his life. It's beyond parody to compare the two.

Uh, one guy had a gun and pointed it at him and another struck him with a skate board.

He killed 2 *unarmed* people. Full stop. A skate board is not a comparable weapon in any realistic sense. The other guy did indeed have a gun. He said he had it out because there was shooting. Did he also not have a right to defend himself?

As a prior post noted, a man was recently killed when he was hit in the head with a skate board. Weapons don’t have the be “comparable” to be viable threat. If a guy with a club is dumb enough to come after a guy with a rifle, that’s not the fault of the guy with the rifle. And yes, the other guy had every right to defend himself. But he wasn’t charged and he’s not claiming self defense, Rittenhouse is. Maybe if he had fired first and killed Rittenhouse, he’d have a valid claim. And that is the problem with an armed populace - it may come down to who is threatened and fires first.

And yes, that is insane. We’re back to a Wild West mentality - just look at the two guys in GA who sought to take the law into their own hands. It could get to be like some Western movie where the “bad guy” manipulates a naive inexperienced “greenhorn” into drawing first so he can kill him, all legally. It really is insane. But that is where we are at.

[Isgrimnur]

[malchior]

I mean anything can be a deadly weapon but I find that this one particularly amusing. I spent my youth hitting each other with the things regularly jackass style. I guess we just got lucky.

Still I think the greater issue is that we just have a sick culture. We praise death and vigilantes. Especially when they associate with white supremacists. This kid has carload of money poured into his defense. That wasn't in service of some civic good.

[Blackhawk]

Not only can a skateboard be considered a deadly weapon (most heavy blunt objects can), being outnumbered and armed can justifiably - in some circumstances and locations - be considered enough of a threat to fear for your life, and being knocked to the ground helps that. If you have a gun and are incapacitated or restrained, you're now helpless and your attacker has a gun. If there is a believable threat there (such as death threats and being chased), then allowing yourself to be incapacitated is allowing yourself to die, and you may be justified in killing to prevent it.

Note: This wasn't about this case specifically, just a few points about how self defense works - again, varying by location. I carried a gun in a crowded environment for quite a while as part of multiple jobs, and I've had jobs where the interview included asking whether I'd be willing to shoot an unarmed person running away in the back (where 'no' meant not getting hired.) I spent a lot of time being trained in what's justifiable, and a great deal more thinking about it and what it meant.

[Grifman]

The NYT echoes everything that LR and I have been saying, and more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/r ... fense.html

[Zaxxon]

I must be missing the reference to scantily-clad women in the NYT piece.

[Octavious]

Oh look he's already got an interview lined up with Tucker Carlson. Shocking

[Freyland]

Yeah, but in California everything causes cancer too.

[Smoove_B]

When I say we are not acting like a serious country, this is what I am talking about.

(he's a member of the FL House of Representatives, if you were curious)

[Zaxxon]

When I say we are not acting like a serious country, this is what I am talking about.

(he's a member of the FL House of Representatives, if you were curious)

Why wait?

[disarm]

Has anyone ever seen an explanation of why the prosecutors chose to pursue murder charges against Rittenhouse instead of manslaughter?

I'm no lawyer, but it seems like they should have realized the difficulty in meeting the requirements of a murder conviction in this case, mainly proving 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Rittenhouse acted out of malice rather than self defense when he pulled the trigger. If they had charged him with manslaughter, the burden of proof would have been considerably less and they probably could have secured a conviction that would have resulted in at least some kind of punishment. Unfortunately, they chose to charge him with crimes that are notoriously hard to convict even in much more clear-cut cases, the jury seems to have made the appropriate decision based on the law and evidence in hand, and a kid walks away unpunished after killing two people.

My guess is that the prosecutors went for murder charges due to public pressure and the publicity involved, but the world may never know...

[malchior]

The NYT echoes everything that LR and I have been saying, and more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/r ... fense.html

The voice of the very serious people...for a very, very unserious and psychotic country.

But "joking" aside the article mostly points out the facts. I don't think they were in total dispute. For me at least it is the system acting as designed and for me that is what I have issue with.

This case mirrors much of the same rationale that leads to lots of unarmed black and brown people gunned down every year by the police.

[Kraken]

Reminder #1,234,567 that justice and the law aren't the same thing.

[hepcat]

When I say we are not acting like a serious country, this is what I am talking about.

(he's a member of the FL House of Representatives, if you were curious)

I think any time you quote crazy and don’t include a state of origin, we know it’s Florida at this point.

[Blackhawk]

Reminder #1,234,567 that justice and the law aren't the same thing.

+1. It was the right legal decision. It was the wrong justice decision.

[Jaymann]

Prediction:

Kyle will deteriorate mentally under all the attention and develop a god complex until he ultimately goes postal.

[LawBeefaroni]

Prediction:

Kyle will deteriorate mentally under all the attention and develop a god complex until he ultimately goes postal.

He'll join the Matt Gratz harem and live a long, healthy and controversy ridden life.

He's the white George Zimmerman they've been waiting for.

[Blackhawk]

Prediction:

Kyle will deteriorate mentally under all the attention and develop a god complex until he ultimately goes postal.

Or he'll crumple under the pressure and either end up committed or simply vanish from the spotlight (move, change his name, grow a beard, avoid attention.)

Any way you look at it, he's a kid who suddenly found himself a murderer, in prison, on trial, on the national stage, and at the center of a nationwide political war. He simultaneously became the target of protests from one faction and national praise from the other, being manipulated used as a tool by both sides (although much more by one...) That's a lot for anyone to handle, and this happened to him at 17. He may swim in the praise and become the next extremist congressman, he may collapse under the hatred and end up dead or in rehab, or he simply try to return to a normal life and view this as a nightmare from the past.

And the thing is, I can't hate him. I can be unhappy with the situation, but I do feel sorry for him (despite acknowledging that he brought it on himself.) I know that, as an adult, I'm glad that I am not held accountable for every idiotic idea I held and every stupid thing I did at 17. I was a terrible person at 17, and it mostly stemmed from fear, pain, and a desperate need to be accepted. I can't condemn him entirely for one night's idiocy without condemning myself, too.