Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

I still remember Rekieta Law from the Vic Mignogna lawsuit. The appeals are still pending by the way.

another one of those lawsuits that just won't die?

I've heard a lot about that one, but hadn't looked into it. It might be time to go through Nick's back-catalogue to see what it was about, as well as what has happened so far in it.

I just watched a news report about the consequence of "defunding the police" movement.

People are frightened about the lack of police protection, after the what happened in the BLM riots.
Police have less involvement with the community, these days.
The result is that more people are buying guns to protect themselves.

The Rittenhouse case was mentioned in the article and because of the violent rioting, the gun sales has boomed.
If people want to defund the police, they have to deal with the consequences.

It seems you’ve filled your head with some very biased reporting on the topic.

No one is promoting anarchy. Defund the police = stop treating everything as a criminal matter & sending police in with guns. Everything looks like a nail when all you’ve got is a hammer.. the concept is to reduce police budgets and spend the money on social workers, psych nurses, job programs etc in order to improve society instead of just shooting people or jailing survivors.

The USA has a disproportionate % of the world’s incarcerated due to treating the prison system as a business. The whole thing is backwards and continued to prove itself ineffective. That’s why people are calling for change.

That’s true…..but semantically screwed up.

It’s more like people advocate “diverting some of the police budget towards other things.”

Are you misrepresenting the situation, again?
I thought we don't do that here, anymore.



Rather than defunding law and order, focus on changing the culture of the police.

And why "instead"?
Do both.

The Biden administration is spending something like 2.5 Trillion dollars on community projects, etc, to "Build Back Better", etc.
Are you telling me they aren't going to spend a lot on correcting social inequity?
If so, shame on the Democrats.



Here's an idea.
The "good guys" are in power now.
They can change the system.

The antifa bogeyman was also carted out during the 2016 protests against Trump and subsequent Charlottesville riots. The right wing commentators on the media and certain pro-Trump GOP politicians seem to like casting the left as promoting things like social anarchy, weakening the policeforce, releasing prisoners on bail or parole. It's mean't to scare the public to vote republican.

The FBI has warned media commentators to not to use crime statistics to prop up performance of political parties
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53991722

Along with CRT, climate change and other issues, the right wing love to lie about crime.

Black Lives Matter Activist: Abolishing The Police '100%' Means Just That


Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police
Whether it is abolishing the police or BLM being Marxist influenced and Communist Sympathisers we are told over and over they don't really mean it, it is bluster, not everybody agrees yada, yada, yada.

But when Trump talked about "fine people on both sides", "s**thole countries", explanations by his supporters that it is just bluster are not exactly accepted. I never accepted Trump literally meant there are fine people on both sides and don't believe BLM is just about ending racism.

I think Trump is more clever than the left gives him credit. A WP member suggested Biden is culpable in the Rittenhouse verdict because he implied Kyle was a white supremacist. Infact Trump has been using implicit language throughout his presidency which (he knows very well) serves as a dog whistle to disgruntled white republicans but at the same time easily allows him to evade legal culpability for inciting violence or enabling racists.

Agreed

So it follows you also agree he had an agenda

Yep.

Trump wanted to maintain his power—at all costs.

He wanted to stifle any criticism of him by the press….like any good, red-blooded dictator would.

In Trump’s world view, anyone who supports him is “fine people” so, yes, I think he meant it exactly as said. He was not going to risk censoring what he knew was part of loyal base.

BLM organizational leadership is not the BLM movement, and the MOVEMENT IS about ending racism AND helping the black community achieve economic parity. The opportunity for the later was LITERALLY stolen from them over and over and over again in the 150 years since the civil war, and during slavery before that, as well. People like me may not have done the stealing, but we have enjoyed the benefits. So, yes, there is a little bit more, but can you blame them? Read up on the recent return of Bruce’s Beach in Southern California. Or the once thriving businesses district in Tulsa. I can understand wanting some form of justice for these crimes. Right now lawyers are looking at more Bruce Beach situations to see if more wrongs can be fixed as relatively easily and peacefully; it’s an appropriate process. The concept of reparations is much stickier and perhaps too broad, but some thefts can be made right. And should be.

Defunding the police similarly has no single meaning. The strongest advocates don’t eliminate all law and order, but believe the current policing systems are still too tainted by their historically racist/classist origins to ever overcome the systemic injustices they impose. They would replace it with something different, likely more community based. Others believe we can keep the existing policing departments by changing training and culture, and adding social service experts and healthcare professionals so police officers don’t have to try to be one-size-fits-all. I think these are important conversations to have, and should not be just tossed because of one quote from one leader.

Is it any surprise that Trump has a "special" meeting with Kyle Rittenhouse?

Trump uses his dog whistle to the right wing of the GOP on a regular basis
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/ ... 895c634653

Quickly watching the videos: looks like clear self-defense to me as there's enough footage of before, during and after both incidents. Shouldn't have gone to trial IMO because of the exonerating footage, as the best you could probably argue for is manslaughter on the 1st guy due to excessive force (firearm versus fisticuffs is often seen as such, but considering the context and what looks like almost contact range shots meaning grappling range, it'd be justified here), but it's unlikely a jury would convict for manslaughter there. To me, it looks like the first guy tried to and succeeded in committing suicide via rifle; I wouldn't be surprised if he was mentally ill and had a history of suicide attempts. His mannerisms and behavior show such a thing; I doubt he intended to actually kill green shirt, and getting killed, taking the rifle and using it on himself or suicide by cops was the goal. Second incident looks like mob mentality with apprehension of the shooter and/or revenge being the motive, but was unwise as green shirt wasn't actively engaging anyone on his way out and was in shoot-no shoot mode. You see green shirt meet up with another green shirt soon after he flees the 1st incident. The crowd seemed to be fine with this 2nd green shirt, so it appears "sides" really weren't much of a factor here. There's also a more stocky looking guy with a rifle and body armor that is yelling at green shirt to come his way after the 2nd incident.

Lots of gunshots going on in the background. I counted at least 30 overall that weren't connected to green shirt's rifle. Some sounded directed at green shirt as he disengaged from the second incident and he failed to notice its direction (he hears it, but looks the wrong way), and it was a handgun being fired close to the cameraman. Just no hits. When fighting starts, shooting happens with intent and it's almost always directed at someone else. I'm assuming they chose not to investigate any of that, even though they likely have drone/FLIR footage of all the muzzle flashes and would have tracked the shooters back to their cars since I saw the FBI footage of the 1st incident with such.

The guy firing the 1st shot into the air is quite odd, as that'll just make green shirt have a heightened threat level if he thought it was directed at him, and it would have made green shirt more afraid when it comes to the context of shirtless chasing him.

Quite an odd encounter overall. Reality tends to be odd.

I don't see the big deal over this case though, but not everyone sees the same things when looking at the same...things.

Green shirt probably is going to have some PTSD from this one. The handgun guy from the 2nd incident will too. No winners in these things.