Fundraising complete, next renewal is August 2022. Paypal Donation Links US dollars CDN Dollars

Racism in America (with data)

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 47603
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Smoove_B »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:41 am He's the white George Zimmerman they've been waiting for.
I'm old enough to remember Bernie Goetz (well, remember him from when I was a kid). Look at how far we've come since 1984.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
malchior
Posts: 17951
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by malchior »

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:56 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:41 am He's the white George Zimmerman they've been waiting for.
I'm old enough to remember Bernie Goetz (well, remember him from when I was a kid). Look at how far we've come since 1984.
Yup. Goetz influenced Miller's work on The Dark Knight Returns. And while the real world wasn't and isn't as bad as that Gotham, Miller was certainly aware of and channeled some of America's love for vigilante justice. And that is what this celebration is. They are celebrating that "bad people" got what was coming and the hero was vindicated.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 33966
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Blackhawk »

malchior wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:13 pm
Smoove_B wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:56 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:41 am He's the white George Zimmerman they've been waiting for.
I'm old enough to remember Bernie Goetz (well, remember him from when I was a kid). Look at how far we've come since 1984.
Yup. Goetz influenced Miller's work on The Dark Knight Returns. And while the real world wasn't and isn't as bad as that Gotham, Miller was certainly aware of and channeled some of America's love for vigilante justice. And that is what this celebration is. They are celebrating that "bad people" got what was coming and the hero was vindicated.
He was also the inspiration for both Falling Down and Joker.
________________________________________
Letting my Curiosity Lead Me, a blog. Sort of. Eventually.

Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 4303
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Kurth »

malchior wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:22 am
Grifman wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:20 pm 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.
I’m having a hard time following: Are you taking the position that the jury’s verdict and the outcome of this trial is plainly wrong, or that the laws that got us to this point are plainly wrong?

One of these I agree with. The other I think is a load of crap.
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it -- John Gilmore
Black Lives Matter
malchior
Posts: 17951
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by malchior »

Kurth wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:03 pm
malchior wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:22 am
Grifman wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:20 pm 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.
I’m having a hard time following: Are you taking the position that the jury’s verdict and the outcome of this trial is plainly wrong, or that the laws that got us to this point are plainly wrong?
The jury I do not blame directly but I would be curious to see how they'd treat a black Kyle in a parallel universe. That hypothetical aside, I do blame the laws for sure but more widely the idea that our country has blind justice is a veneer.

Change a set of circumstances and the outcome would almost certainly have been different. For instance without the fame and massive donations he would not have had a top notch defensive team that could convince a judge to throw out the weapons charge on a drafting issue. One of several decisions that divided the legal audiences I saw. They held mock juries to analyze whether to put him on the stand or not. The lack of the top-dollar legal defense alone would have left him far more likely to be convicted. He would have had a low quality or overwhelmed public defender and the pressure would have been much higher to plead out.

The comment about the design is that we have at least two systems of justice - rich vs. poor. And then black vs. white. He hit the white/"rich" quadrant of that intersection which I'm pretty confident lines up with a society wide lack of accountability. Another is almost certainly cop vs. citizens but the techniques used by Rittenhouse's legal team are directly derived from the defense that cops mount to justify unarmed shootings. We've built a framework for state sanctioned and vigilante "street justice" that likely will come back to bite us.

The other aspect in there is that I also am talking about the love of vigilantism/gun rights where this is seen as a just outcome. Rosenbaum was a pedophile who inherently deserved death. Huber was a criminal. Kyle was the incident and lawfully armed hero who slayed them. It makes me sick to my stomach. It reminds me of conversations I had with folks in my travels outside this country who just don't understand us. Some envy our wealth but I saw that outweighed by a pity about how cruel our culture and society is. It is hard not to see that we are cruel, brutal, and frankly barbaric at times. It makes me sad because we have so much wealth and potential. Events like us remind us how far from good we actually are.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51921
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Jurors reportedly told the defense after trial they would have convicted on a charge of manslaughter or reckless use of a gun.

We know now, according to Stevenson, the bondsman would have accepted ten years in prison for a guilty plea had the state offered up a deal.

“If she actually intended to kill this man, she’s within a foot of him. She could have done a kill shot to the head or a shot to his heart,” Stevenson said he argued in trial. “She didn’t do that. She downward angled toward his back.”
Not race related but ties in to the self-defense thing.


(Yes, I know that sometimes back shots are justified but this guy was fleeing her after she got a gun out of her desk drawer.).
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 6866
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by gbasden »

Grifman wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:27 pm

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.
If things were that dangerous, why is it that the only three people shot that night were shot by Rittenhouse? He went looking for trouble and found it.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Alefroth »

Made it.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 19550
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Grifman »

gbasden wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:19 pm
Grifman wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:27 pm

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.
If things were that dangerous, why is it that the only three people shot that night were shot by Rittenhouse? He went looking for trouble and found it.
You and others keep ignoring the facts:

https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/la ... g-3-people
The following is based on court testimony, drone footage and videos from Aug. 25, 2020: * During the day, Rittenhouse helps clean graffiti off a school. That same day Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, is released from a Milwaukee hospital where he had been admitted after a suicide attempt.

* Around 10 p.m. video shows Rittenhouse with a rifle standing with other armed men near a used-car dealership. Rittenhouse testified he was asked to help guard the business due to the threat of looting and arson. He brought a medical kit and says his objective was to provide aid to anyone injured. * Around 10:45 p.m., another video shows Rittenhouse asking police officers for water. One officer says: "We appreciate you guys. We really do."

* Around 11:45 p.m. Rosenbaum chases Rittenhouse into a used-car lot as Rittenhouse yells "Friendly, friendly, friendly." Rosenbaum throws a plastic bag containing toiletries at Rittenhouse. * Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum grabbed his gun. A journalist for the Daily Caller, a conservative website, testified that Rosenbaum lunged for the rifle. Rittenhouse fires his gun at Rosenbaum, hitting him four times and killing him.

* Video shows Rittenhouse fleeing the scene of the Rosenbaum shooting and being chased by a growing crowd, some yelling "Get him!" * Just minutes later, after stumbling to the ground, Rittenhouse fatally shoots Anthony Huber, a 26-year-old who swung a skateboard at him.

* After Huber was shot, Gaige Grosskreutz, now 27, stops moving toward Rittenhouse and put his hands in the air. He was holding a handgun. When Grosskreutz resumes advancing, Rittenhouse shoots him, severing most of his bicep. Rittenhouse testified that Grosskreutz had his pistol pointed at his head. * Rittenhouse then walks toward the police with his hands up and the rifle slung across his body. Police order him to get out of the way and one officer pepper sprays Rittenhouse when he approaches the window of the patrol car. The police then drive off, believing the active shooter was elsewhere.
So now, if Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, please answer these questions for me:

Why did Rittenhouse try to dissuade the first guy by saying "Friendly, friendly friendly" if he so ready to shoot and kill?
Why did he only fire AFTER the guy went for and perhaps grabbed his gun?
Why did he run from the crowd that chased him? Why didn't he stand his ground and shoot them?
Why did he shoot the next guy only AFTER Rittenhouse fell (and was in a vulnerable position) and the guy hit him with a skateboard? Why not earlier he was so ready to kill someone?
Why did he only shoot the next guy AFTER the guy pointed his gun at Rittenhouse (as he admitted in court) and then advanced towards him? Why not at the first opportunity?

It should also be noted that video shows Rittenhouse at time offering medical assistance to protestors? If he was out to kill them WTH was he doing that.

I know all of this is really inconvenient for you and others, but those are the facts as we have them.

Rittenhouse is the only one who shot and killed because he was the only one who was threatened, chased and attacked that night. That really shouldn't be hard to understand.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 33966
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Blackhawk »

Was that used car dealership the same one he'd been guarding with others? If so, my impression was that 'Friendly, friendly, friendly!' was to alert them not to shoot the armed guy running toward them (ie - him.)
________________________________________
Letting my Curiosity Lead Me, a blog. Sort of. Eventually.

Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 19550
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Grifman »

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:11 pm Was that used car dealership the same one he'd been guarding with others? If so, my impression was that 'Friendly, friendly, friendly!' was to alert them not to shoot the armed guy running toward them (ie - him.)
No, it was a different one. Here's a video of the events - WARNING - GRAPHIC VIOLENCE SHOWN:



From the video, there doesn 't appear to be anyone guarding that car lot.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 3947
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by em2nought »

I wonder if he'd get more sympathy here if he'd been guarding Teslas? :mrgreen:
TRUMP1
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 14990
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Zarathud »

When my wife went to protests in the 80s, she showed up with a backpack of food and bandages. As a teenager, put her body on the line for her beliefs. She was beaten, punched, rushed and stomped on. But she is a tough short Irish chick who wasn’t afraid. She didn’t kill anyone.

I have no sympathy for cowards like Rittenhouse choosing to show up with their guns to play soldier and getting scared. He added fuel to the fire and made himself a target. He is no hero. He is a stupid asshole who got in over his head.

Coming to a protest with a gun is an act of aggression. The law doesn’t take that into account yet. It should, but Republicans have enshrined defending yourself with a gun into the law because they’re not usually the targets.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
malchior
Posts: 17951
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by malchior »

Grifman wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:56 pm
gbasden wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:19 pm
Grifman wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:27 pm

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.
If things were that dangerous, why is it that the only three people shot that night were shot by Rittenhouse? He went looking for trouble and found it.
You and others keep ignoring the facts:

https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/la ... g-3-people
The following is based on court testimony, drone footage and videos from Aug. 25, 2020: * During the day, Rittenhouse helps clean graffiti off a school. That same day Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, is released from a Milwaukee hospital where he had been admitted after a suicide attempt.

* Around 10 p.m. video shows Rittenhouse with a rifle standing with other armed men near a used-car dealership. Rittenhouse testified he was asked to help guard the business due to the threat of looting and arson. He brought a medical kit and says his objective was to provide aid to anyone injured. * Around 10:45 p.m., another video shows Rittenhouse asking police officers for water. One officer says: "We appreciate you guys. We really do."

* Around 11:45 p.m. Rosenbaum chases Rittenhouse into a used-car lot as Rittenhouse yells "Friendly, friendly, friendly." Rosenbaum throws a plastic bag containing toiletries at Rittenhouse. * Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum grabbed his gun. A journalist for the Daily Caller, a conservative website, testified that Rosenbaum lunged for the rifle. Rittenhouse fires his gun at Rosenbaum, hitting him four times and killing him.

* Video shows Rittenhouse fleeing the scene of the Rosenbaum shooting and being chased by a growing crowd, some yelling "Get him!" * Just minutes later, after stumbling to the ground, Rittenhouse fatally shoots Anthony Huber, a 26-year-old who swung a skateboard at him.

* After Huber was shot, Gaige Grosskreutz, now 27, stops moving toward Rittenhouse and put his hands in the air. He was holding a handgun. When Grosskreutz resumes advancing, Rittenhouse shoots him, severing most of his bicep. Rittenhouse testified that Grosskreutz had his pistol pointed at his head. * Rittenhouse then walks toward the police with his hands up and the rifle slung across his body. Police order him to get out of the way and one officer pepper sprays Rittenhouse when he approaches the window of the patrol car. The police then drive off, believing the active shooter was elsewhere.
So now, if Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, please answer these questions for me:

Why did Rittenhouse try to dissuade the first guy by saying "Friendly, friendly friendly" if he so ready to shoot and kill?
Why did he only fire AFTER the guy went for and perhaps grabbed his gun?
Why did he run from the crowd that chased him? Why didn't he stand his ground and shoot them?
Why did he shoot the next guy only AFTER Rittenhouse fell (and was in a vulnerable position) and the guy hit him with a skateboard? Why not earlier he was so ready to kill someone?
Why did he only shoot the next guy AFTER the guy pointed his gun at Rittenhouse (as he admitted in court) and then advanced towards him? Why not at the first opportunity?
Violence is rarely ordered. He might not have gone with an explicit goal to kill but he sure as hell was ready to do it. And he significantly increased the chances it'd happen due to his reckless actions.

It still stands that from many perspectives the person most responsible for 2 deaths and a dreadful injury was the person who suffered the least consequences. In fact, long term it seems to be bringing him rewards. That is not justice. This is the hallmarks of a broken culture in action.
It should also be noted that video shows Rittenhouse at time offering medical assistance to protestors? If he was out to kill them WTH was he doing that.

I know all of this is really inconvenient for you and others, but those are the facts as we have them.

Rittenhouse is the only one who shot and killed because he was the only one who was threatened, chased and attacked that night. That really shouldn't be hard to understand.
Which is it? Was he the only one attacked tbat night or was he offering aid to people who merely skinned their knees accidentally falling in the ground?
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 47603
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Smoove_B »

RE: Grifman's comments, I think this just about sums it up for me:


When the 2nd Amendment is exalted above the 1st and the 14th, these are the choices available to us.
So now, when we see one coming at a protest, how do we know if he is a good guy or a bad guy? So do we:
1) Wait to be gunned down?
2) Try to disarm the potential shooter, and if he decides to shoot and kill us, it was self-defense?
3) Cower and give up our 1st amendment rights?
Still in 100% agreement that this is a gun control issue at the core and I do not believe there is any justification for open carry. Also not a fan of concealed carry either, fwiw. People can't be trusted to vaccinate or wear masks but they can safely carry a loaded gun? Nope.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Alefroth »

If everyone was armed, all protests would be polite.
User avatar
Default
Posts: 6195
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:01 pm
Location: Handling bombs.

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Default »

If nobody was armed, two people wouldn't be dead. I hope he gets eaten alive with civil lawsuits
"pcp, lsd, thc, tgb...it's all good." ~ Kraken
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 47603
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Smoove_B »

Default wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:18 pm If nobody was armed, two people wouldn't be dead. I hope he gets eaten alive with civil lawsuits
Haven't you heard? He's moving on and is focused right now on going to college and becoming a nurse. Can't wait to see what hospital system hires the nurse that gunned down people first.

Also, he's not going to become a nurse.
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 14252
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Jaymann »

I think "nurse" is code for "Proud Boy'"
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Scoop20906
Posts: 11566
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 3:50 pm
Location: Stafford, VA

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Scoop20906 »

malchior wrote: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. :lol:

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.
This.

The culture is sick and it’s not recent. We are only feeling symptoms from hundreds of years of morale gangrene. It’s not going to be fixed by the politicians or laws, celebrities, athletes or whatever. It’s only going to be fixed by us.
Scoop. Makeup and hair are fabulous. - Qantaga

Xbox Gamertag: Scoop20906
Steam: Scoop20906
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 19550
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Grifman »

malchior wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:39 pm Violence is rarely ordered. He might not have gone with an explicit goal to kill but he sure as hell was ready to do it. And he significantly increased the chances it'd happen due to his reckless actions.
I don't disagree with any of that. But that doesn't mean he wasn't acting in self defense which is the legal question here. Yes, Rittenhouse was reckless, but so were the people that chased, attacked and threatened a person with a rifle. Why do you not condemn their recklessness? Other people were violent or threatened violence towards him, but you ignore their seeking a violent confrontation. You can't have it both ways.

The fact is that being a white supremacists or KKK member or Nazi doesn't mean you give up your rights to self defense any more than you give up your rights to freedom of speech.
It still stands that from many perspectives the person most responsible for 2 deaths and a dreadful injury was the person who suffered the least consequences. In fact, long term it seems to be bringing him rewards. That is not justice. This is the hallmarks of a broken culture in action.
With which I totally agree. By all means if you want to talk about our crazy gun culture, white supremacy, the right wing glorification of Rittenhouse and any other issues that led to these events or are now happening fine, I'm all for that. But none of that has any bearing on his legal guilt or innocence.
It should also be noted that video shows Rittenhouse at time offering medical assistance to protestors? If he was out to kill them WTH was he doing that.

I know all of this is really inconvenient for you and others, but those are the facts as we have them.

Rittenhouse is the only one who shot and killed because he was the only one who was threatened, chased and attacked that night. That really shouldn't be hard to understand.
Which is it? Was he the only one attacked tbat night or was he offering aid to people who merely skinned their knees accidentally falling in the ground?
This is a weird questions, since video showed him providing aid to protestors, and later being chased and attacked. This doesn't seem to be in dispute. You do know that two things can be true at the same time, right?
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 19550
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Grifman »

Sometimes I think the only solution will be for both sides to show up heavily armed - then as noted above, everyone will be polite. Then again, when I am feeling perverse, I wonder if a giant shoot out with tons of casualties might change attitudes in America. Then I remember Sandy Hook and realize if the mass killing of tiny defenseless children won't change our attitude towards guns, nothing will. With open/concealed carry, with "militia" types walking down streets carrying high powered military style weapons, we're going back in time. Every city is going to become a Dodge City or Tombstone. It's insane, it truly is, but that's where our fetishization of guns has led us.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 23709
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by RunningMn9 »

My problem isn’t with the legal outcome. My problem is with a system that allows someone to insert themselves into a potentially violent situation with a loaded gun, creating the situation in which they felt the need for self-defense, killed two people and wounded a third - and the system places absolutely no responsibility on that person for the outcome.

It’s gross.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
malchior
Posts: 17951
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by malchior »

Grifman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:29 pm
malchior wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:39 pm Violence is rarely ordered. He might not have gone with an explicit goal to kill but he sure as hell was ready to do it. And he significantly increased the chances it'd happen due to his reckless actions.
I don't disagree with any of that. But that doesn't mean he wasn't acting in self defense which is the legal question here. Yes, Rittenhouse was reckless, but so were the people that chased, attacked and threatened a person with a rifle. Why do you not condemn their recklessness? Other people were violent or threatened violence towards him, but you ignore their seeking a violent confrontation. You can't have it both ways.

The fact is that being a white supremacists or KKK member or Nazi doesn't mean you give up your rights to self defense any more than you give up your rights to freedom of speech.
It isn't having anything both ways. Somehow this broken legal system has invented a right to self-defense that seems to be bound only by what one person can be shown to believe. The burden of proof perversely shifts to need proof that he wasn't defending himself. And the only people who could explain the other side are in the ground. It's fundamentally flawed. That's all I'm saying. The law as it has been twisted over the years by gun zealots is now logically incoherent and dangerous. And we're all prisoners in this insane asylum of a country.
It should also be noted that video shows Rittenhouse at time offering medical assistance to protestors? If he was out to kill them WTH was he doing that.

I know all of this is really inconvenient for you and others, but those are the facts as we have them.

Rittenhouse is the only one who shot and killed because he was the only one who was threatened, chased and attacked that night. That really shouldn't be hard to understand.
Which is it? Was he the only one attacked tbat night or was he offering aid to people who merely skinned their knees accidentally falling in the ground?
This is a weird questions, since video showed him providing aid to protestors, and later being chased and attacked. This doesn't seem to be in dispute. You do know that two things can be true at the same time, right?
It wasn't more of a question than rhetorical device to point out that stating an absolute that he was the only person attacked doesn't really meet up with reality. I was just saying he was treating injured people and unless everything was pure accident it was because of violence. We know other people were armed. We know even some shots were fired by others. Yet no one else murdered people. And that is my takeaway. I think this kid is worthless murderer. I think this result will lead to more death and violence. That's the result of a system geared to protecting and incentivizing people to act this way.
RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:39 pm My problem isn’t with the legal outcome. My problem is with a system that allows someone to insert themselves into a potentially violent situation with a loaded gun, creating the situation in which they felt the need for self-defense, killed two people and wounded a third - and the system places absolutely no responsibility on that person for the outcome.

It’s gross.
Exactly. Worse it is planning on rewarding him.
Last edited by malchior on Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 39137
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Kraken »

Grifman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:37 pm Every city is going to become a Dodge City or Tombstone.
We can only wish. "Cities and towns like Tombstone, Dodge City, and Deadwood banned guns outright within their borders."
“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part… Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”

Such laws left their mark on Tombstone, Arizona especially. The legendary gunfight at the O.K. Corral was, in part, a dispute over gun control that escalated and boiled over. The town’s marshal, Virgil Earp, and his deputized brothers Wyatt and Morgan, along with their deputized friend Doc Holliday, were performing their duties by disarming visitors to the small western town. A group of cowboys refused to disarm and brandished their weapons openly. Their defiance led to a shootout at the O.K. Corral, where the lawmen and cowboys had a showdown over gun control which ultimately cost three cowboys their lives.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Alefroth »

Grifman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:37 pm Sometimes I think the only solution will be for both sides to show up heavily armed - then as noted above, everyone will be polite. Then again, when I am feeling perverse, I wonder if a giant shoot out with tons of casualties might change attitudes in America.
It'll have to be more than nine.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/70943231 ... t-killed-9
Texas Prosecutor Drops All Charges In 2015 Biker Shootout That Killed 9
malchior
Posts: 17951
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by malchior »

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 47603
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Smoove_B »

Meanwhile, the NYT is jumping in with their own hot take:


Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal has reinvigorated support on the right for armed responses to racial justice protests.
(could also be posted in the death of the 4th Estate thread)
I'm so far off the map the sun is shining
User avatar
dbt1949
Posts: 23361
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:34 am
Location: Hogeye Arkansas

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by dbt1949 »

I'm confused. Were the guys he shot white or black?
Ye Olde Farte
Double Ought Forty
aka dbt1949
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 19550
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Grifman »

Kraken wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:13 pm
Grifman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:37 pm Every city is going to become a Dodge City or Tombstone.
We can only wish. "Cities and towns like Tombstone, Dodge City, and Deadwood banned guns outright within their borders."
“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part… Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”

Such laws left their mark on Tombstone, Arizona especially. The legendary gunfight at the O.K. Corral was, in part, a dispute over gun control that escalated and boiled over. The town’s marshal, Virgil Earp, and his deputized brothers Wyatt and Morgan, along with their deputized friend Doc Holliday, were performing their duties by disarming visitors to the small western town. A group of cowboys refused to disarm and brandished their weapons openly. Their defiance led to a shootout at the O.K. Corral, where the lawmen and cowboys had a showdown over gun control which ultimately cost three cowboys their lives.
Yeah, I knew that but the bans only happened after a lot of gun violence which is what I was referring to. Sadly, it seems our ancestors learned faster than we do now.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 13603
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by ImLawBoy »

Little Raven wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:10 pm I’m not attacking you, Law. I know what you were aiming for. But I’m not convinced this is just a loaded phrase, either. It’s pretty much the exact same argument: by “putting themselves in danger” a person has forfeited the right to bodily autonomy.

It’s…a tricky landscape.
Just getting back to this after the weekend.

I wasn't feeling attacked by what you said, but I was doing a little attacking on what you said. The reason "she was asking for it" isn't even remotely similar, except on a purely surface level, is because that phrase has a long and sordid history of being used to justify sexual assault and to minimize the impact of rape on women. It's still commonly used today, even with all of the awareness of the odious nature of that argument. Self defense claims don't have that same history, and even if my off-the-cuff "solution" to the self defense question were adopted, I sincerely doubt "the defender was asking for it" would have nearly the same impact as "she was asking for it". To start (and I'm admittedly not looking up the statistics here), I suspect that the incidence of self defense claims is orders of magnitude lower than the number of sexual assaults in this country. Second, the number of self defense claims where an "invitation of risk" (or something like that) were to come into play is realistically pretty dang low. Third, given the vastly different nature of sexual assault vs. self-defense, I'm OK with different standards being used to judge them.

Starting out your comment with an italicized commentary about "she was asking for it" serves to tie a potentially legitimate discussion about self defense claims with an absurd claim about sexual assaults (at least I certainly hope we all recognize it as absurd!). The two are not equivalent and shouldn't be made to seem equivalent. I wouldn't necessarily have objected to the concepts being discussed with more context and explicit recognition that they aren't really equivalent. It's not an unfair point to wonder whether a similar idea might be used against someone with a legitimate self defense claim. But for the person who has taken a life, even in self defense, there should be some level of scrutiny of their behavior leading to the need for self defense.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
geezer
Posts: 7418
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Yeeha!

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by geezer »

RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:39 pm My problem isn’t with the legal outcome. My problem is with a system that allows someone to insert themselves into a potentially violent situation with a loaded gun, creating the situation in which they felt the need for self-defense, killed two people and wounded a third - and the system places absolutely no responsibility on that person for the outcome.

It’s gross.
This.

Something interesting, maybe a little tangential (or maybe not)... I was listening to an interview with Dan Abrams (Mediaite and a legal analyst for CNN I think) and he gave the opinion that if one of the three that went after Rittenhouse, believing him to be an "active shooter," had killed Rittenhouse (instead of being killed themselves), that THEY would have *also* been found not guilty.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51921
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Enlarge Image
geezer wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:06 pm
RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:39 pm My problem isn’t with the legal outcome. My problem is with a system that allows someone to insert themselves into a potentially violent situation with a loaded gun, creating the situation in which they felt the need for self-defense, killed two people and wounded a third - and the system places absolutely no responsibility on that person for the outcome.

It’s gross.
This.

Something interesting, maybe a little tangential (or maybe not)... I was listening to an interview with Dan Abrams (Mediaite and a legal analyst for CNN I think) and he gave the opinion that if one of the three that went after Rittenhouse, believing him to be an "active shooter," had killed Rittenhouse (instead of being killed themselves), that THEY would have *also* been found not guilty.
Stole my bit.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:10 pm A thought that's been kicking around my head. If the guy with the skateboard or the jumpkick guy or Glock guy killed Rittenhouse, they would probably get acquitted on self defense grounds as well.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
$iljanus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13040
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: New England...or under your bed

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by $iljanus »

Watching the defense closing argument in the Abery murder trial. Lawyer is really trying to push the self defense angle after opening with the suspected burglary citizens arrest angle although arrest is replaced by detain for the police. Travis was in fear of his life as Mr Abery came at him and grabbed the gun.
Black lives matter!

Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25328
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by Zaxxon »

$iljanus wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:18 pm Watching the defense closing argument in the Abery murder trial. Lawyer is really trying to push the self defense angle after opening with the suspected burglary citizens arrest angle. Travis was in fear of his life as Mr Abery came at him and grabbed the gun.
Another 'after I decided to step into the lions' exhibit at the zoo, I just had to shoot those scary lions! They were gonna eat me!'
User avatar
$iljanus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13040
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: New England...or under your bed

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by $iljanus »

So he has also made the argument that Travis McMichael did not commit the felony of intentional murder and in fact the only time that there was intent of harm was when Abery came around the truck and grabbed the shotgun.

I'm getting nervous, even though I thought the prosecutor did a good job with her closing argument earlier.
Black lives matter!

Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 51921
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by LawBeefaroni »

$iljanus wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:18 pm Watching the defense closing argument in the Abery murder trial. Lawyer is really trying to push the self defense angle after opening with the suspected burglary citizens arrest angle although arrest is replaced by detain for the police. Travis was in fear of his life as Mr Abery came at him and grabbed the gun.
If you're at close range and someone is brandishing or pointing a gun at you and you fear for your life, "going for the gun" is often the best defense. It's another case of self-defending against self-defense. If Abery disarmed and shot a truckload of good ole boys menacing and pointing guns at him, he'd have a legit case. Not that he'd live to get to trial.

Once again proof that open carrying long guns is raising the stakes unnecessarily, and perhaps intentionally.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
malchior
Posts: 17951
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by malchior »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:25 pm Enlarge Image
geezer wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:06 pm
RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:39 pm My problem isn’t with the legal outcome. My problem is with a system that allows someone to insert themselves into a potentially violent situation with a loaded gun, creating the situation in which they felt the need for self-defense, killed two people and wounded a third - and the system places absolutely no responsibility on that person for the outcome.

It’s gross.
This.

Something interesting, maybe a little tangential (or maybe not)... I was listening to an interview with Dan Abrams (Mediaite and a legal analyst for CNN I think) and he gave the opinion that if one of the three that went after Rittenhouse, believing him to be an "active shooter," had killed Rittenhouse (instead of being killed themselves), that THEY would have *also* been found not guilty.
Stole my bit.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:10 pm A thought that's been kicking around my head. If the guy with the skateboard or the jumpkick guy or Glock guy killed Rittenhouse, they would probably get acquitted on self defense grounds as well.
In abstract sure. We all know that isn't how it works though. A big factor is if they had the legal team to make it work. That's a big ingredient. But it'd also depends on whether their identity as a potential protester/rioter would work *against* them as defendants. And a ton of other factors. I don't think it's a clear cut hypothetical.
Last edited by malchior on Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geezer
Posts: 7418
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Yeeha!

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by geezer »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:25 pm Enlarge Image
geezer wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:06 pm
RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:39 pm My problem isn’t with the legal outcome. My problem is with a system that allows someone to insert themselves into a potentially violent situation with a loaded gun, creating the situation in which they felt the need for self-defense, killed two people and wounded a third - and the system places absolutely no responsibility on that person for the outcome.

It’s gross.
This.

Something interesting, maybe a little tangential (or maybe not)... I was listening to an interview with Dan Abrams (Mediaite and a legal analyst for CNN I think) and he gave the opinion that if one of the three that went after Rittenhouse, believing him to be an "active shooter," had killed Rittenhouse (instead of being killed themselves), that THEY would have *also* been found not guilty.
Stole my bit.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:10 pm A thought that's been kicking around my head. If the guy with the skateboard or the jumpkick guy or Glock guy killed Rittenhouse, they would probably get acquitted on self defense grounds as well.
:oops: It was a good thought :)
User avatar
$iljanus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13040
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: New England...or under your bed

Re: Racism in America (with data)

Post by $iljanus »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:36 pm
$iljanus wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 1:18 pm Watching the defense closing argument in the Abery murder trial. Lawyer is really trying to push the self defense angle after opening with the suspected burglary citizens arrest angle although arrest is replaced by detain for the police. Travis was in fear of his life as Mr Abery came at him and grabbed the gun.
If you're at close range and someone is brandishing or pointing a gun at you and you fear for your life, "going for the gun" is often the best defense. It's another case of self-defending against self-defense. If Abery disarmed and shot a truckload of good ole boys menacing and pointing guns at him, he'd have a legit case. Not that he'd live to get to trial.

Once again proof that open carrying long guns is raising the stakes unnecessarily, and perhaps intentionally.
Yeah, the right for Mr. Abery to defend himself is very relevant. One wonders if the jury will think along the lines of a property owner concerned by burglaries vs a jurist who would consider how an African American person would fear for their life and not trust the intentions of white people in pickup trucks. Kind of makes jury selection rather important in order to get both viewpoints considered…

The prosecutor did methodically address how self defense didn’t really apply at any point as the events unfolded in her opening.
Black lives matter!

Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
Post Reply