What is wrong with America

[badgerx16]

See if there were more guns, that wouldn't have happened.

 

Erm...

 

Just read it - no charges as it was accidental??? Surely that's manslaughter at the very least???

 

Not in Florida, as it is one of the states with a "stand your ground" law.

[doddisalegend]

See if there were more guns, that wouldn't have happened.

 

Erm...

 

Just read it - no charges as it was accidental??? Surely that's manslaughter at the very least???

 

I'm trying to imagine the phone call to his daughter later.....

 

"Hi Dad did you like Chris flying all that way to surprise you for your birthday?"

" yeah about that sweetie…."

[Saint_clark]

Not in Florida, as it is one of the states with a "stand your ground" law.

 

Just read up on that...mental. Seems like a really easy way to commit murder and get away with it.

[badgerx16]

And so it continues;

A black woman was shot dead by police through a bedroom window on Saturday morning, following a request to check on her welfare.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50032290

[sadoldgit]

And so it continues;

A black woman was shot dead by police through a bedroom window on Saturday morning, following a request to check on her welfare.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50032290

 

Dreadful. It seems that the American police are so sure they are facing danger in every situation that they are wired to get their retaliation in first.

[shurlock]

And so it continues;

A black woman was shot dead by police through a bedroom window on Saturday morning, following a request to check on her welfare.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50032290

 

Disgusting

[benjii]

Let everyone have a gun then shoot people (if they're black) who might have a gun. Quite brilliant.

 

It would be ludicrous if going about your daily business wasn't a life-or-death peril for the poor people who have to live amongst this moral wasteland.

[badgerx16]

Bump !

What is wrong with America ?

It is a country where a gun manufacturer thought it would be a good idea to market a redesigned Glock handgun;

[Mystic Force]

Police normally shoot people with toy guns the problem should be self correcting.

[whelk]

A very dark county these days. The Republican Party is happy to do away with any democratic process. Republican senators getting death threats for voting for an infrastructure bills. And juries loaded with jurors who will support the outcome the defence wants.

fucked country although we aren’t too far behind

[Fan The Flames]

A country where you are applauded for killing two people because you were protecting property. We're never going that low.

[Mystic Force]

The problem with the Kyle Rittenhauser trial is that what he did was not against the law. The good news is that laws can be changed, the bad news is that they will not be. Because the right to have guns is more important than peoples safety. Some people every year will lose their lives because no action can be taken.

 

A person who in reality posses no threat can be lawfully killed by the police because they are seen as a threat stating they thought they were armed when it turns out this is not the case, and they will face no consequence. In another case the police are just fine with someone wandering around a hostile situation with a weapon and doing nothing. As to what criteria is used to sort people in column A and column B.......

 

The problem is that you can turn up to a riot with a gun and for it to not be a crime. The people who he shot were themselves acting in self defense thinking themselves to be in danger. In the future we will have people turning up arguing with each other and claim it is self defense when they were looking for trouble. This is not helped by "Stand your ground" rules where you are not required to at first try to extricate yourself, but can use deadly force as a first response. 

 

Due to permissive gun laws you can have people turn up to locations to "test" their 2nd amendment rights, just a few weeks ago a guy walked into my local Walmart heavily armed to wander around to "check his rights" sending everyone in to a panic and requiring a police response. Until someone pulls a trigger you do not know if they are a gun nut or just nuts. This is where the US is and probably be some more of this in the near future as people seek to test boundaries.

[Picard]

1 hour ago, Mystic Force said:

The people who he shot were themselves acting in self defense thinking themselves to be in danger.

Not true.

[Jonnyboy]

1 hour ago, Picard said:

Not true.

He shot one and the next one he killed was trying to stop him shooting people. 

[badgerx16]

Would Rittenhaus have been acquitted if he was black ?

[CB Fry]

44 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Would Rittenhaus have been acquitted if he was black ?

He'd already be dead.

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Would Rittenhaus have been acquitted if he was black ?

 

33 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

He'd already be dead.

 

Pretty obvious he wouldn't have walked out of this situation alive

 

 

[Picard]

22 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

 

 

Pretty obvious he wouldn't have walked out of this situation alive

 

 

You think that at a BLM protest about the shooting of a black man the police are going to kill a black man? No chance.

[Picard]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Would Rittenhaus have been acquitted if he was black ?

There is actually a similar case involving a black man

Andrew Coffee case

[Sheaf Saint]

19 minutes ago, Picard said:

You think that at a BLM protest about the shooting of a black man the police are going to kill a black man? No chance.

A black man walking towards them with an assault rifle slung over his chest, while onlookers shout to them that he had just shot and killed someone?

They wouldn't stop and think what kind of image they were projecting. They would shoot first and ask questions later.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Picard said:

There is actually a similar case involving a black man

Andrew Coffee case

That is hardly a "similar" case. Coffee didn't kill anybody, yet was charged with the murder of his girlfriend, who was actually killed by the Police, and Coffee now faces 30 years for possessing a firearm. Rittenhaus killed 2, tried to kill a third, and was acquitted.

[CB Fry]

2 hours ago, Picard said:

You think that at a BLM protest about the shooting of a black man the police are going to kill a black man? No chance.

Absolutely hilarious, okay mate.

The US police have shot and killed Black men for playing with a toy gun. 

There is no way a black man with a semi-auto rifle who had killed someone in the maelstrom of a riot situation would have lived long enough to face trial. He wouldn’t have lived long enough to face breakfast.

Edited 23 November, 2021 by CB Fry

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

A black man walking towards them with an assault rifle slung over his chest, while onlookers shout to them that he had just shot and killed someone?

They wouldn't stop and think what kind of image they were projecting. They would shoot first and ask questions later.

That’s total conjecture based on anecdotal evidence. During the riots last year somebody posted statistics that if anything a black man was slightly more likely to survive an interaction with the police. There was basically little in it, but IIRC a Police interaction with a black man was marginally more likely to involve violence but less likely to end in a fatality.

 

If it was true, why are there so many black men in prison in the US for armed robberies and other crimes involving firearms? Surely the police are just blowing them away the second they step out of their squad cars.

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

That’s total conjecture based on anecdotal evidence. During the riots last year somebody posted statistics that if anything a black man was slightly more likely to survive an interaction with the police. There was basically little in it, but IIRC a Police interaction with a black man was marginally more likely to involve violence but less likely to end in a fatality.

What about black men carrying assault rifles? Are there stats for that?

[Lighthouse]

15 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

What about black men carrying assault rifles? Are there stats for that?

Surely you know that in detail, already? You've already asserted that a black man carrying an assault rifle basically has a 100% chance of death, I was rather hoping you'd be able to provide me with those stats.

[whelk]

14 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Surely you know that in detail, already? You've already asserted that a black man carrying an assault rifle basically has a 100% chance of death, I was rather hoping you'd be able to provide me with those stats.

He’s right, he would be. 

[badgerx16]

59 minutes ago, whelk said:

He’s right, he would be. 

And if he wasn't actually carrying an assault rifle when he was shot, the Police would ensure he was by the time their report was filed.

[LVSaint]

Jnr thinks daddy should give him a medal...

[buctootim]

5 hours ago, LVSaint said:

Jnr thinks daddy should give him a medal...

Thats one event I'd let him take his rifle to 

[Fan The Flames]

An interesting question is, what the out come and fallout would have been if the two guys Rittenhaus had killed were black. The outcome would be the same but I'm sure the fall out would be different.

The gun is so sacred in America, if Rittenhaus had 'defended' himself by driving the two guys down, would he have got away with murder, I doubt it. It's all about the America wild west pysche bollocks about every mans right to defend their property with a gun. The country needs to grow up.

[hypochondriac]

4 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

An interesting question is, what the out come and fallout would have been if the two guys Rittenhaus had killed were black. The outcome would be the same but I'm sure the fall out would be different.

The gun is so sacred in America, if Rittenhaus had 'defended' himself by driving the two guys down, would he have got away with murder, I doubt it. It's all about the America wild west pysche bollocks about every mans right to defend their property with a gun. The country needs to grow up.

I don't like guns and I think America is backwards for having them but if you'd watched the trial it is immediately obvious that it was self defence and that his acquittal was the correct verdict. You can argue all you like about whether it's right to have guns in the first place but this was the right outcome. 

[LVSaint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't like guns and I think America is backwards for having them but if you'd watched the trial it is immediately obvious that it was self defence and that his acquittal was the correct verdict. You can argue all you like about whether it's right to have guns in the first place but this was the right outcome. 

You are correct. Everyone (with their head screwed on) knows that he deserves punishment, but under what law? We know what kind of a person he is and why he went into a riot/protest with a machinegun. It's left a lot of people sickened that this was allowed to happen and that he was able to do this without any repercussions. Two people have died here and the immediate focus of the right is to celebrate and embrace what has happened. This won't be the last time we'll see this unfold. This country revolts me.

[egg]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't like guns and I think America is backwards for having them but if you'd watched the trial it is immediately obvious that it was self defence and that his acquittal was the correct verdict. You can argue all you like about whether it's right to have guns in the first place but this was the right outcome. 

There was no self defence involved, certainly not reasonable self defence. Shocking verdict, as is any defence of the guy. 

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, LVSaint said:

You are correct. Everyone (with their head screwed on) knows that he deserves punishment, but under what law? We know what kind of a person he is and why he went into a riot/protest with a machinegun. It's left a lot of people sickened that this was allowed to happen and that he was able to do this without any repercussions. Two people have died here and the immediate focus of the right is to celebrate and embrace what has happened. This won't be the last time we'll see this unfold. This country revolts me.

Not sure what you mean by what person he is. He's actually said he supports black lives matter (which I disagree with him on) and the trial was quite illuminating about how he was putting out fires and not seeking confrontation. Obviously there's a wider issue about it being legal for young people to have guns but the fact that in this case a paedophile and a domestic abuser got killed and were the aggressors in this situation means that his shooting was justified under the law. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

There was no self defence involved, certainly not reasonable self defence. Shocking verdict, as is any defence of the guy. 

Did you watch the trial? Because I did, I watched about 4 days in total and most of the major incidents and what you say is entirely untrue. Go and watch the trial and then try to claim that the verdict was shocking. The jury could not reasonably have reached any other verdict given the facts of the case. 

[AlexLaw76]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Did you watch the trial? Because I did, I watched about 4 days in total and most of the major incidents and what you say is entirely untrue. Go and watch the trial and then try to claim that the verdict was shocking. The jury could not reasonably have reached any other verdict given the facts of the case. 

I caught some of the official lines on the trial, and agree with what you say here.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

I caught some of the official lines on the trial, and agree with what you say here.

You would hope that regardless of opinions that people could try to be subjective and listen to the actual trial. Almost every one of the hot takes on twitter talking about him being obviously guilty, a white supremacist, crossing state lines with a gun etc are completely contradicted by the testimony during the trial. It's sad that so many people just read twitter and accept what it says uncritically. The Internet has largely destroyed people's ability to be objective which is a shame. 

[badgerx16]

36 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

....... but the fact that in this case a paedophile and a domestic abuser got killed and were the aggressors in this situation means that his shooting was justified under the law. 

So would it have been justified if it was a shop lifter and a flasher ? One of the victims suffered from severe mental illness after being brought up in a violently and sexually abusive household, which probably mitigates the issues he encountered in his adult life, but it does not justify his killing.

Edited 24 November, 2021 by badgerx16

[egg]

31 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Did you watch the trial? Because I did, I watched about 4 days in total and most of the major incidents and what you say is entirely untrue. Go and watch the trial and then try to claim that the verdict was shocking. The jury could not reasonably have reached any other verdict given the facts of the case. 

No I didn't. What did you hear that makes you satisfied that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger, thus justifying the use of deadly force? 

Edited 24 November, 2021 by egg

[whelk]

35 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Not sure what you mean by what person he is. He's actually said he supports black lives matter (which I disagree with him on) and the trial was quite illuminating about how he was putting out fires and not seeking confrontation. Obviously there's a wider issue about it being legal for young people to have guns but the fact that in this case a paedophile and a domestic abuser got killed and were the aggressors in this situation means that his shooting was justified under the law. 

Do you ever switch over from Fox News? 

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

No I didn't. What did you hear that makes you satisfied that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger, thus justifying the use of deadly force? 

Of course his life was in danger, he was forced to use deadly force to ward off the threat of a plastic carrier bag containing a toothbrush and some socks.

[egg]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Of course his life was in danger, he was forced to use deadly force to ward off the threat of a plastic carrier bag containing a toothbrush and some socks.

Indeed. The legal test is clear - reasonable belief that his life was in danger. Nothing about this case suggests to me that he could reasonably have believed that. 

 

Edited 24 November, 2021 by egg

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, whelk said:

Do you ever switch over from Fox News? 

Never watched it in my life. I watched a live feed of the trial and made up my own mind based on the facts of the case. What unbiased source did you use to form your opinion?

[hypochondriac]

26 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So would it have been justified if it was a shop lifter and a flasher ? One of the victims suffered from severe mental illness after being brought up in a violently and sexually abusive household, which probably mitigates the issues he encountered in his adult life, but it does not justify his killing.

I didn't say it did justify it. What justified the killing was the provocation of those who were shot. The fact that the two that were killed were subsequently lionised on social media by Hollywood celebrities says an awful lot when as I previously mentioned one of them anally raped little boys. 

[hypochondriac]

28 minutes ago, egg said:

No I didn't. What did you hear that makes you satisfied that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger, thus justifying the use of deadly force? 

Right so you didn't watch the trial, don't know the details of the case yet you think the argument of self defence was a joke verdict? Listen to the testimony and the evidence presented in court, the reasons for Rittenhouse being there on the record, his actions prior to the shooting, his use of "friendly friendly, the fact he was running away, the aggressive actions of the others involved, the climate at the time etc and then try to argue that his actions weren't justified under the law. 

Not being funny but you've just admitted you didn't watch the trial so I'm not sure why you're asking me questions as if I hadn't done so. Your questions are answered in the trial and no objective individual would have found him guilty as proven by the unanimous verdict of the jury. You've got the legal brains of the likes of Mark Ruffalo on your side though so he's definitely a white supremacist and this has been a massive miscarriage of justice. 

Edited 24 November, 2021 by hypochondriac

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I didn't say it did justify it. What justified the killing was the provocation of those who were shot. The fact that the two that were killed were subsequently lionised on social media by Hollywood celebrities says an awful lot when as I previously mentioned one of them anally raped little boys. 

Huber grabbing at his gun was his best point. Rosenbaum threw a bag at him. He knowledged that Rosenbaum did not have a gun. There's nothing in that which suggests that he could reasonably have believed his life was in danger. 

As for the past of the victims, how did us now knowing that make Rittenhouse believe himself to be in danger at the time?! It's a terrible point. 

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I didn't say it did justify it. What justified the killing was the provocation of those who were shot. The fact that the two that were killed were subsequently lionised on social media by Hollywood celebrities says an awful lot when as I previously mentioned one of them anally raped little boys. 

".....but the fact that in this case a paedophile and a domestic abuser got killed and were the aggressors in this situation means that his shooting was justified under the law. "

Edited 24 November, 2021 by badgerx16

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Right so you didn't watch the trial, don't know the details of the case yet you think the argument of self defence was a joke verdict? Listen to the testimony and the evidence presented in court, the reasons for Rittenhouse being there on the record, his actions prior to the shooting, his use of "friendly friendly, the fact he was running away, the aggressive actions of the others involved, the climate at the time etc and then try to argue that his actions weren't justified under the law. 

Not being funny but you've just admitted you didn't watch the trial so I'm not sure why you're asking me questions as if I hadn't done so. Your questions are answered in the trial and no objective individual would have found him guilty as proven by the unanimous verdict of the jury. You've got the legal brains of the likes of Mark Ruffalo on your side though so he's definitely a white supremacist and this has been a massive miscarriage of justice. 

Read what I've written. They're facts. I repeat the question you've avoided - what did you hear in those 4 days (really?!) of watching the trial that satisfied you that Rittenhouse felt his life was in danger? Shouldn't be hard to explain your argument. 

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

.........when as I previously mentioned one of them anally raped little boys. 

Having been brought up in a household where he himself suffered that abuse as a regular occurrence. It doesn't justify his actions, but should perhaps inform our understanding as to why he acted as he did, and perhaps he didn't get the help he needed.

Edited 24 November, 2021 by badgerx16

[whelk]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Never watched it in my life. I watched a live feed of the trial and made up my own mind based on the facts of the case. What unbiased source did you use to form your opinion?

Why were you fascinated enough to watch 4 days of it? Amazing that you shut out all outside influences but came to same opinion of all the Fox News sorts.

I have heard that technically it wouldn’t be right to find him guilty but doesn’t hide the fact that he is an odious little psychopathic cunt. You sympathising and commenting on who he killed clearly shows where your allegiance lies.