17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest

[Huntn]

Yes, that's the history I'm familiar with too. (Based on wikipedia diving few years back)


Here's the major issue. What are the drivers of 2A mania? Prehistoric human behavior and gun lobby capitalizing on it. Throwing your money at the gun lobby will not make things better. One issue in America is that people have a very poor understanding of the safety of their environment. I lived in numerous "murder capitals" in the USA, never had a gun. Hardly witnessed a crime, let alone got mugged or murdered.

My response has a direct correlation to my frustration regarding the state of gun control, which is becoming non-control, the ridiculous, nonsensical, and new selfish perception of what self defense is about. What used to be a fist fight or a mugging is now elevated to killings based on a untenable standard, the individual perception or abuse of the words I was fearful...so me killing you is justified, enabled by the convenient trigger of a weapon.

Do you remember all of those situations capture on film where police officers yell “GUN!”, it is because guns are rightfully viewed as threats to safety. The Rittenhouse verdict amply displays this phenomena, that the law as viewed in some parts of the country, where guns used to be perceived as a threat, now gives preference to the armed individual and his right to summarily execute anyone who rightfully regards him as the threat. For a case like this it seems to take individuals with guns to counter the individuals with guns.

In this case what if the three individuals killed or wounded by him had also had guns and there was a gun fight? My understanding is that his victims were white, and I’m trying to imagine how this jury would have dealt with the verdict if all participants had been armed? All 4 people could claim fear for their lives especially those who ended up dead. Then what standard would be used to determine guilt? It might fall back on individual juror’s like or dislike of protests To decide guilt or innocence.

The real problem here is that typical private citizens are not trained for conflict, they have no self restraint or they overreact, and do we really want to turn over law enforcement to the judgement of any individual who shows up at a protest ready to shoot?

The Rittenhouse jury decided that it did not matter that he was a stranger to the community, showing up with a gun which in itself is a threat of violence,, that he was not a provocateur, his right to carry a gun and use it in any kind of conflict he deemed appropriate, trumped every other legal consideration, and ignored established tenants of public safety.

 

[SuperMatt]

The Rittenhouse jury decided that it did not matter that he was a stranger to the community, showing up with a gun which in itself is a threat of violence,, that he was not a provocateur, his right to carry a gun and use it in any kind of conflict he deemed appropriate, trumped every other legal consideration, and ignored established tenants of public safety.

In defense of the jurors, the judge excluded almost all the evidence that went to motive. Showing past examples of Rittenhouse’s violent tendencies towards women and his stated desire to shoot shoplifters might have given the jurors some indication of his motives. Instead, they were left thinking he had no motive at all, and was just reacting “in the moment” which was clearly false.

The jurors do have some responsibility too though: they chose to ignore the obvious fact that showing up at a mob scene with a clearly displayed assault weapon and picking fights is a provocation in and of itself. Not to mention that he killed a person trying to disarm him after witnessing Rittenhouse shoot another person.

This acquittal is absurd. And if it is “legally” correct, then we need to change the laws in this country so that it is no longer LEGAL to do what he did.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Donald Trump calls Kyle Rittenhouse ‘really a nice young man’ after visit

The teenager who was acquitted after killing two people in Kenosha visited the former president at his Mar-a-Lago resort

www.theguardian.com

Gross. Talk about vomit-inducing.

 

[Joe]

Donald Trump calls Kyle Rittenhouse ‘really a nice young man’ after visit

The teenager who was acquitted after killing two people in Kenosha visited the former president at his Mar-a-Lago resort

www.theguardian.com

Gross. Talk about vomit-inducing.

lol, 2 people with middle school vocabularies getting along. Shocker!

 

[Joe]

Black folks, and other minorities. Start arming yourself if you haven't already. You'll need to protect yourself when these crazy white fuck trump supporters do stupid shit.

 

[Huntn]

In defense of the jurors, the judge excluded almost all the evidence that went to motive. Showing past examples of Rittenhouse’s violent tendencies towards women and his stated desire to shoot shoplifters might have given the jurors some indication of his motives. Instead, they were left thinking he had no motive at all, and was just reacting “in the moment” which was clearly false.

The jurors do have some responsibility too though: they chose to ignore the obvious fact that showing up at a mob scene with a clearly displayed assault weapon and picking fights is a provocation in and of itself. Not to mention that he killed a person trying to disarm him after witnessing Rittenhouse shoot another person.

This acquittal is absurd. And if it is “legally” correct, then we need to change the laws in this country so that it is no longer LEGAL to do what he did.

I’m completely bewildered as to why when the judge disallowed the dead victims being referred to as victims why this did not go mistrial immediately. Did the legal entity who had jurisdiction to make this call, drop the ball or condone this miscarriage of Justice?

Clearly I am not a lawyer, I’ve never heard that a mistrial prevented a defendant from being tried again. This article says “mistrial with prejudice” by the defense. Maybe the prosecution can’t call for a mistrial? The thing is in this case it would the prosecution who should ask for a new judge as this one was clearly prejudiced against the dead victims.

A Kyle Rittenhouse Mistrial is Unlikely. Here's Why

Lead prosecutor Thomas Binger angered the judge with his line of questioning, with the defense suggesting he was purposely trying to have case thrown out.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Huntn]

Black folks, and other minorities. Start arming yourself if you haven't already. You'll need to protect yourself when these crazy white fuck trump supporters do stupid shit.

Upfront this sounds like a reckless statement, but this kind of verdict encourages the gun nut vigilante types, so now it’s a self fulfilling prophesy. But the primary caveat still remains, if it is black versus white, and you are black, don’t expect any breaks in court. That most likely will play out as usual.

 

[ronntaylor]

Upfront this sounds like a reckless statement, but this kind of verdict encourages the gun nut vigilante types, so now it’s a self fulfilling prophesy. But the primary caveat still remains, if it is black versus white, and you are black, don’t expect any breaks in court. That most likely will play out as usual.

Black people can't bird watch, jog or simply walk. Now some want them to walk around armed? I'd ask Philando Castile what he thinks, but he's dead for simply being a legally allowed gun owner that happened to be Black.

 

[Joe]

Black people can't bird watch, jog or simply walk. Now some want them to walk around armed? I'd ask Philando Castile what he thinks, but he's dead for simply being a legally allowed gun owner that happened to be Black.

Let me know if you need any help

 

[Huntn]

Black people can't bird watch, jog or simply walk. Now some want them to walk around armed? I'd ask Philando Castile what he thinks, but he's dead for simply being a legally allowed gun owner that happened to be Black.

You have a point. I acknowledge that if Mr Arbery had been armed it would not have saved him, but someone might have joined him.

 

[User.45]

We often see child soldiers in 3rd world conflicts. Now it’s happening in America with armed children at culture war protests killing people. There is lots of precedent for children being enlisted to fight in other parts of the world... but is that what we want for America?

Yup. When I searched for "armed minors at protests" one of the set of events I found was Mexican drug cartels arming kids.... It's usually not a sign of things headed in a good direction. Kids

My response has a direct correlation to my frustration regarding the state of gun control, which is becoming non-control, the ridiculous, nonsensical, and new selfish perception of what self defense is about. What used to be a fist fight or a mugging is now elevated to killings based on a untenable standard, the individual perception or abuse of the words I was fearful...so me killing you is justified, enabled by the convenient trigger of a weapon.

Do you remember all of those situations capture on film where police officers yell “GUN!”, it is because guns are rightfully viewed as threats to safety. The Rittenhouse verdict amply displays this phenomena, that the law as viewed in some parts of the country, where guns used to be perceived as a threat, now gives preference to the armed individual and his right to summarily execute anyone who rightfully regards him as the threat. For a case like this it seems to take individuals with guns to counter the individuals with guns.

In this case what if the three individuals killed or wounded by him had also had guns and there was a gun fight? My understanding is that his victims were white, and I’m trying to imagine how this jury would have dealt with the verdict if all participants had been armed? All 4 people could claim fear for their lives especially those who ended up dead. Then what standard would be used to determine guilt? It might fall back on individual juror’s like or dislike of protests To decide guilt or innocence.

The real problem here is that typical private citizens are not trained for conflict, they have no self restraint or they overreact, and do we really want to turn over law enforcement to the judgement of any individual who shows up at a protest ready to shoot?

The Rittenhouse jury decided that it did not matter that he was a stranger to the community, showing up with a gun which in itself is a threat of violence,, that he was not a provocateur, his right to carry a gun and use it in any kind of conflict he deemed appropriate, trumped every other legal consideration, and ignored established tenants of public safety.

I don't have much to add to this. There had been hypothetical scenarios where there is a bad guy with a gun, who gets shot by a good guy with a gun who gets shot by another good guy who had only seen the part where the bad guy got shot. Instant chaos. We often criticize cops for messing up situations like this, but in all fairness, you can't train well enough for shit shows like this. From my personal experience, hospital codes rarely run as smoothly as it is depicted on TV and they don't even have the extra stress of personal safety being at risk.

In defense of the jurors, the judge excluded almost all the evidence that went to motive. Showing past examples of Rittenhouse’s violent tendencies towards women and his stated desire to shoot shoplifters might have given the jurors some indication of his motives. Instead, they were left thinking he had no motive at all, and was just reacting “in the moment” which was clearly false.

The jurors do have some responsibility too though: they chose to ignore the obvious fact that showing up at a mob scene with a clearly displayed assault weapon and picking fights is a provocation in and of itself. Not to mention that he killed a person trying to disarm him after witnessing Rittenhouse shoot another person.

This acquittal is absurd. And if it is “legally” correct, then we need to change the laws in this country so that it is no longer LEGAL to do what he did.

I'm don't have (to pretend to have) the competency to comment on the legal part, but my impression that the judge absolutely primed the jury for an acquittal.

Black folks, and other minorities. Start arming yourself if you haven't already. You'll need to protect yourself when these crazy white fuck trump supporters do stupid shit.

Nobody should do that. For real. I'm baffled why anybody would want to reward the gun lobby for problems cause by the gun lobby.

Now some want them to walk around armed? I'd ask Philando Castile what he thinks, but he's dead for simply being a legally allowed gun owner that happened to be Black.

Absolutely this.

 

[Joe]

Believe it or not, but people don't Open Carry everywhere, even in Texas. I never see anyone other than a police officer with a weapon. If someone is carrying it is most likely concealed or hidden in their vehicle.

The only time I see people open carry are at these stupid redneck rallies they were having to defend confederate statues. Other than that, it is not the wild wild west that everyone thinks lol

Get you some protection and learn how to properly use it. You're gonna need it to protect yourself from crazy trump folks that get crazier and crazier every year. You've been warned

 

[User.45]

Believe it or not, but people don't Open Carry everywhere, even in Texas. I never see anyone other than a police officer with a weapon. If someone is carrying it is most likely concealed or hidden in their vehicle.

The only time I see people open carry are at these stupid redneck rallies they were having to defend confederate statues. Other than that, it is not the wild wild west that everyone thinks lol

Get you some protection and learn how to properly use it. You're gonna need it to protect yourself from crazy trump folks that get crazier and crazier every year. You've been warned

It is the WWW just in a more subtle way. Look up where the bulk of "stolen" weapons flood the rest of the country from. And then we do this hand-wringing and say "gUn coNtROl dOesN't wORk! It start with people not keeping their guns in their cars where they get stolen.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Get you some protection and learn how to properly use it. You're gonna need it to protect yourself from crazy trump folks that get crazier and crazier every year. You've been warned

That's some dangerous advice for SOME people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/25/a-black-off-duty-cop-tried-to-help-stop-a-crime-another-officer-shot-him/

Soldier Tried to Help Victims in Ala. Mall Shooting Before Police Killed Him, Family Seeks Charges

EJ Bradford, 21, was shot three times -- in the back, the back of his neck and his head, according to an autopsy report

people.com

The system is intended that only one group of people would be allowed to defend themselves AND proactively carry guns to protect car dealerships in another town.

Unfortunately the best piece of advice for many is making sure the cameras on your phones work, it MAY help get the people who harm OTHERS convicted.

 

[MEJHarrison]

Believe it or not, but people don't Open Carry everywhere, even in Texas. I never see anyone other than a police officer with a weapon. If someone is carrying it is most likely concealed or hidden in their vehicle.

I saw some clown over the summer open carrying a weapon. We were at the food trucks across the street from City Hall. And I don't live in some tiny town here in Oregon. I'm in Beaverton where Nike is headquartered. We're a major suburb of Portland. BG's Food Cartel next to city hall is a not a place where you might need to fight off a bear. Also, based on his overall appearance, I'd bet my next paycheck that if he's even been near a cop uniform, he was probably in cuffs. There's no way this was an off duty officer. Just some fool toting a gun around in a place where he would be very likely to hit an innocent person if he were to attempt to use it. From that spot, there's trucks in pretty much all directions.

This photo is from just when the place originally opened. But he was hanging around where the red food truck is. You can clearly see City Hall on the building behind this place.

Also included is a picture of Nick Offerman at a book signing about 1/4 mile from those food trucks. Has nothing to do with the rest of my post, but I came across it as I was looking for the other photo. And it's Nick Offerman! I've loved him in pretty much everything I've seen him in. But he was there to talk woodworking that day. Still a hilarious guy, even when talking about wood.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

That's some dangerous advice for SOME people.




The system is intended that only one group of people would be allowed to defend themselves AND proactively carry guns to protect car dealerships in another town.

Unfortunately the best piece of advice for many is making sure the cameras on your phones work, it MAY help get the people who harm OTHERS convicted.

I think it’s an interesting mindset that I don’t have. If in a potentially dangerous situation I think my reflex reaction would be to get away from it, not bust out my phone and start filming it. I might also be a bit paranoid about this, but I think becoming an impromptu on the scene reporter might also make you a target. It seems like we’re starting to get to the point where filming something is no longer plays a part in defusing a situation, might even serve as an irritant to some true believer (in whatever) who is willing to be some kind of martyr to the cause. But luckily there’s no shortage of other people who want to film anything and everything. I even believe there are people hoping to catch something juicy with little empathy for the actual situation. I suppose if it helps justice then the actual motivation for recording it doesn’t really matter.

 

[User.45]

Serious question: does anybody really watch these youtube commentaries? I absolutely hate everything about these. Write it down so I can read it 5x faster.
BTW, WTF is "based"? It's like terms like gaslight or narcissist, SocMed Y-ers pick it them up and use them as catch-alls for everything.

 

[Huntn]

That's some dangerous advice for SOME people.




The system is intended that only one group of people would be allowed to defend themselves AND proactively carry guns to protect car dealerships in another town.

Unfortunately the best piece of advice for many is making sure the cameras on your phones work, it MAY help get the people who harm OTHERS convicted.

Without much doubt this seems to illustrates the racist nature of our society, open carry, arm yourself, but keep an eye on the black guy, and if reaches for the gun he is allowed to carry, shoot first and ask questions later. And later he will be blamed for acting suspiciously being black. It’s sickening how blatant and simultaneously denied this Is.

The police who shot the black soldier helping people, if makes me so angery, I want these guys tried for reckless, racist homicide,

 

[Huntn]

Serious question: does anybody really watch these youtube commentaries? I absolutely hate everything about these. Write it down so I can read it 5x faster.
BTW, WTF is "based"? It's like terms like gaslight or narcissist, SocMed Y-ers pick it them up and use them as catch-alls for everything.

I listened to the first 7 min and most of what this guy says seems reasonable. He even changed my mind on the judge not allowing the victims to be referred to as victims, from a legal standpoint point. One thing I disagreed with is not allowing the video where Rittenhouse says he wished he could shoot two people outside of a CVS drug store that took place 2 weeks prior because this is his vigilante frame of mind on display, just prior to the protests.