RITTENHOUSE Verdict unleashes CELEBRATIONS, on the RIGHT

The THEORIES about this excitement?

And you are 100% correct. It was largely feared that a guilty verdict would have spelt the end for self-defense by use of firearm, which would have certain 2nd Amendment implications.

Nope. On the contrary, it was MOST expected. Even with the disgusting piles of human WASTE in the media slandering Kyle as an evil white supremacist who went to Kenosha to kill black people, we had a good feeling that the jury would come to their senses and see that he is clearly innocent.

 

I agree with almost all you've stated, and commend you on a very insightful and interesting post. But I believe it will be read with partisan eyes - including my own.

I don't happen to agree with the idea that neither parties want change. In fact, the Dems are thoroughly condemned by the Republican party for their attempts at change.

 

RITTENHOUSE Verdict unleashes SADS, on the LEFT

 

The true goal is power.

 

That's an interesting point. The system itself is conducing to constant confrontation between "winner" and "loser". Very little bi-partisan politics is possible.
Contrary to most countries in Europe, where the political spectrum is largely segmented and where several parties need to come to a compromise agreement in order to form a government able to manage their country, in the USA, the "winner" takes all, as you say and the government of the country is headind either left or right, with very little room for a moderate centrist approach.

I believe the vast majority of people in the US are moderate dems or repubs, with a large independants minority fraction, often denied mere existence.
This forum is a perfect example: anyone who dares to criticize the right are automatically dubbed leftists, commies, wokes, Beijing valet etc...and anyone who criticize the left is called a rightist, a racist etc...

It's been that way for a long time, although things have gotten worse since the advent of social media giving anyone the power to express a strong and final opinion just about everything, most of the time based on immediate feeling rather than on reason and/or knowledge.

 

As I had said, I had not been paying attention to the case. The impression I'd superficially gleaned, which may have been incorrect, was that Rittenhouse was not just defending his own property, but that he was out "playing policeman." Naturally, I have nothing against someone defending themself; I would hope that you would, like me, see that differently than a person actually antagonizing others, to provoke being attacked. I am not saying that this is what Rittenhouse did; but I do not think it is far-fetched to imagine that some who may be inspired by this ruling, to follow in Kyle's footsteps, will get carried away with the sense of power they get, from their weapon-- perhaps akin to the effect of being in a large crowd of protesters, leading some to vandalism. There has already been at least one poster to this thread, who has maintained that it is the right of any American to do as they please, walk wherever they want, with their gun, irrespective of any protesters. That poster characterized avoiding the crowd/mob, as running and hiding; I would suggest that not purposely confronting them, is a matter of common sense.

There is one other assumption in your opinion, with which I will take issue. You consider the situation as a person, in their home, which is under siege. I think it would be few who would deny the gun-owner's right to defend his person & property, under those circumstances. But in the case of roving "peace-keepers, as we have already seen with the Proud Boys and other militias, the engagements can be far more spontaneous, and so not as distinctly defined, in terms of combatants. A protester, in a large crowd, is not made immune to a panicked spray of rounds from an AR-15, whose holder has been caught off-guard by a sudden attack, just because he is not part of the attack, and is being peaceful. That is, I think someone in close proximity to gunfire, directed against members of the crowd, of which one is a part, would not be unreasonable to be concerned with the possibility of that shooter striking an unintended target.



I am glad if Rittenhouse was not unjustly convicted. Perhaps it was a case akin to one that I did follow, of George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin, in which it was clear to me that Zimmerman was only guilty of poor judgement, not of breaking Florida law, which had been the real culprit, in that case (and, while it did not deserve a death sentence, it appeared that Trayvon had also contributed to the tragic outcome, by attacking the ill-prepared Zimmerman). But that gets to the difference I noted, in my OP, between a verdict about one specific case, versus the extrapolation of this verdict, in the grander way which many seem to be seeing it, including in the view expressed by yourself, as warranting that protesters, now, need trust citizen militia, to supervise their marches.

 

Of course they are. So many on the left, the talking heads of the left et al are crying out that somehow Rittenhouse must be publicly pilloried. And here you are as well. What's your excuse?

 

Funny, I did not associate some of your comments, like this one, with being from the same member who wrote your more philosophical posts, on the partisan dynamic. The name-caller, here, seems a different person. No matter, I will just address a couple of points. First, allow me to explain the concept of asking for links, to confirm a specific claim. If that claim is that Lincoln was our 16th President, you would be warranted in calling me lazy, to not look that up, on my own, because ANY source will list this information, IMMEDIATELY. For the claims I asked about, however, the same cannot be said. As you must realize, if I were to read everything that came up in a search of even just "Biden comments on Rittenhouse," it could easily take me a week. The idea is that, since you are making the claim, you can steer me straight to the desired information, without my having to wade through all the B.S.

It turned out, nonetheless, that your first link did not really support your claims. This is the other reason to ask for a link: it is a simple matter for anyone making false claims, to respond to any who question him, by saying "go do a thorough investigation yourself, and you'll see that I'm right." This may shock you, but people who make this sort of claim do NOT always turn out to have been portraying an indisputable version of the truth. So, again, if this is information that is supposedly easy for someone, who is mostly unfamiliar with the story, to locate, it seems it should be extremely simple for someone who is well-steeped in the story. So why such complaints?

As it turns out, your link did not make a convincing case for your argument. This is a third reason, why it is not mere laziness, but sensible practicality, on my part, that leads to my asking for your link; otherwise, when I came back denying your claim, you could just question the accuracy of my source. Had none of these things ever occurred to you?

As to your Daily Mail source, it is an exaggerated misrepresentation, which begins by saying that Biden called Rittenhouse a, "White Supremacist," but then ends by saying that this was clearly what his ad had, "suggested." Clearly, they had little concern over making any misleading "suggestions," of their own. The same can be seen in your quote, above:

right-wing militia groups – like the groups the 17-year-old just arrested in Illinois for murdering two people in Wisconsin is reputed to have been aligned with.

Unless Rittenhouse was NOT reputed to be a member of an extremist right wing militia group, the worst thing you can accuse Biden of, is having false information. If we were to condemn every politician for that...Which brings me to the other quotes, by various far left Representatives. Unless you are ready to call conspiracies, all the inflammatory and outright false concepts, spread by far right politicians, then to not acknowledge that this is just part of politics, is your own showing a very partisan face, for someone who, in his more reasonable-sounding persona, faulted partisanship as the source of our nation's woes.

 

I realize that. The AR-15 was an assault rifle at one time and could easily be confused today by many with the M16 and M4. I should not have referred to Rittenhouse's weapon as an assault rifle because it could add to the narrative the kid was intending to mow people down.

Correct. For the most part, our military stopped using semi-automatics after WW2.

 

Indeed they are, but I would offer that what they really are should not be determined by what the opposition says about them, or what they say about themselves, but by what they do.

What they do is adjust again within the parameters of the current system. Their last major legislation was the affordable care act which did nothing to change the health care system fundamentally, but rather just paid off insurance companies to in theory offset lower premiums, and increase coverage.

This is a reoccurring theme when it comes to Democratic party "change". Most end up being check writing campaigns to pay private entities to do the tasks the Democratic party wants to see accomplished, and they often wind up being exploited and corrupte.

 

By suggesting the left are calling for Rittenhouse to be lynched, you're only encouraging them to tune you out.

You don't read what you quote (see above)? Egads.

 

@EyesWideOpen , and anyone who might have misunderstood my last post.

I did not mean to imply, by saying that it this was a part of politics, that I feel it is fine to slander anyone. My point was that this is nothing unique to this case, and if one is sincerely against this, they should be against it, regardless of who is being slandered, and to which political Party the slandering offender belongs. A test of this concern could probably be seen in how closely one's outrage over mischaracterizations of Rittenhouse, mirrors one's reaction to the baseless election lies, when they were directed toward any entity, by name. As Dominion's lawsuit shows, though, in blatant cases of slander, there is always remediation available, in the civil court system.

As to the idea of trying to prevent these slanders being spread through, and by, the news media, there were some Dems in this Congress who were interested in developing some mechanism for insuring that news agencies are truthful; the only Republican voices I heard, here, talking about this, were-- if you can believe it-- against this idea. Likewise, I heard of no bipartisan interest, from the Republican side of Congress. Making the argument of "slander," when it comes from the left, loses all its force, from anyone who calls the same thing, "free speech," when it comes from a Republican politician, or someone on FOX NEWS.

 

You're misrepresenting my position. He had every right to wear his MAGA hat without being harassed. That doesn't mean he isn't a dupe for supporting Trump or that he wasn't mugging for his pals.

 

So you are saying it was wrong to accuse him?

 

Our system was designed to work best without political parties. Of course, we right away formed parties.

Welcome to mindless tribalism!

 

Political parties were inescapable after the adoption of single member districts for the House of Representatives.

 

Yes. He should never have been prosecuted. The law says he had every right to have been where he was with a firearm.

If we don't like that law, we have to change it. Elections have cinsequences.

 

Yes, and I think our system has a design flaw.

 

I, too, judge parties by their actions - not just their policies. Your example of the ACA shows how compromise can eat away at the best of intentions.

 

Well you are 100% wrong in your assumption. I did not follow the case at all, and had no "wants," going into the verdict. Had I followed the case, and believed Rittenhouse not guilty, I certainly would not have hoped for the conviction of an innocent person! It is slanderous of you to even make such an allegation, with nothing to base it on.

Well, that's great to hear that all this hubbub is just out of love for the triumph over injustice. I guess, then, the only reason PF didn't see lots of threads on Terry Talley, who was released from the Georgia prison system after serving 40 years for 4 sexual assaults which the Georgia Innocence Project (GIP) proved he had been convicted of, falsely, was because nobody heard about it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.11...rison/85-6c4f5484-e893-41eb-ba88-f25bc8e5a557

<SNIP>

The GIP said there was no evidence linking Talley to the five violent crime scenes. Despite this, lead detectives from the LaGrange Police Department and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation put Talley in photographic and in-person line-ups.

Victims and neighbors who lived near the crime scenes were brought in, one-by-one, within minutes of each other, according to the release, and each of them identified Talley, though nearly all of them had previously identified other suspects. The witnesses identified him with varying levels of confidence -- some by his physical appearance, some by his voice, others by a process of elimination.

A short time later, Talley was charged with the five violent sexual assault cases along with the attempt to pay for sex.

“How does an innocent Black man get convicted of a series of brutally violent crimes that he did not commit?” asked Clair Gilbert, executive director of the Georgia Innocence Project. “The answer lies in the power of unreliable eyewitness identification, a blinding determination by the State to convict, and systemic racial bias. Add to that, an under-resourced public defender system, set in the 1980s Deep South, and you have an infallible recipe for wrongful conviction.”

<END SNIP>

There had been 5 victims. The one that was black was the only one that Talley was not convicted of.


Even worse, is the case of Kevin Strickland, who has spent 43 years in a Missouri prison. The State Prosecutor found that this was a wrongful conviction and, to his credit, divulged the mistake, to get him released. But the Governor has kept him in prison for months since then, because he doesn't see any need for urgency.

https://abc7news.com/wrongly-accuse...ri-governor-mike-parson-kansas-city/10780751/


Or Curtis Crosland, who was just exonerated after 34 years, on evidence that's been in the case file for decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/08/01/philadelphia-man-exonerated-murder-charge-prison/


Or Eddie Lee Howard, exonerated after 26 years on Mississippi's death row.

https://innocenceproject.org/eddie-lee-howard-is-exonerated-after-26-years-on-mississippi-death-row/

<SNIP>

(Columbus, MS) Eddie Lee Howard was exonerated on Friday, January 8, 2021, marking the end of his 26-year fight for innocence. Mr. Howard, a Black man, was sentenced to death in 1994 after being wrongfully convicted of murdering an elderly white woman in Columbus, Mississippi, based almost entirely on now discredited bite mark evidence. New forensic opinion regarding bite marks and powerful alibi witnesses, along with DNA testing of crime scene evidence, including blood and DNA from the murder weapon, excluded Mr. Howard, proving his innocence. He was released from Mississippi’s death row in early December 2020 ahead of today’s ruling.

<End Snip>

As unfairly as anyone can say Rittenhouse has been treated, the system could have been a lot more horrible to him. Think even about the security guard, Richard Jewell, who was a hero of the Atlanta Olympics, by finding a bomb, who was shortly after turned on, by the media, and portrayed as having had something to do with the placing of that bomb, to begin with.

But I'm getting off my list of victories over injustice. So here are 2 men, who are just now being exonerated for the 1966 killing of Malcolm X, for which both spent over 20 years in prison.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...yregion/malcolm-x-killing-exonerated.amp.html

And more:
30 years--
https://eji.org/cases/anthony-ray-hinton/

28 years--
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/case-4-year-old-killed-reopened-after-convicted-man-exonerated-released-after-28-years-1646436?amp=1

So, there's lots for all you haters of injustice, to celebrate!

 

We disagree. I think parties perform a useful sorting and clarifying function.

 

Not an indictment of anything other than the prosecutor's fear of the mob since based on the available evidence there was no reason for there to have been a trial in the first place.

 

You were foaming at the mouth over that kid.

 

Most all AR15s are manufactured to reliably fire M855s.
Here is one brand manufactured in South Korea and available through mail order from this company in Tennessee:

https://www.luckygunner.com/pmc-5-56x45-ammo-for-sale-556x45mm62fmjm855pmc-1000

They are easier to obtain through mail order than a box of Sudafed or any other product containing pseudoephedrine.
They are also less regulated than alcohol and tobacco.

If you are unfortunate enough to receive one of these rounds anywhere on your body you will not likely be relieved that the weapon used to fire the round was only capable of firing about a round every second, minimum. I and most anyone else can fire a 30 round clip in 20 seconds without hardly even trying, and the buffer tube design of this rifle makes it not very difficult to keep the rounds within the limits of a torso sized target at 25m. It's just as easy at 100m with any number of optics or even my eyes and just a peep site when I was 19.

I have no political interest in banning these style of rifles however given that the vast number of gun homicides are due to handguns. In fact, I've no interest in the politics of gun control at all given so very many other aspects of stupidity I see in our Federal, State and Local governments as well as our culture wars about everything from Hollywood to Mt. Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty.

Just don't trivialize the wicked amount of damage these weapons can achieve simply based on the fact that they are semi autos.

 

With the Senate, our system is designed to thwart government. It makes parties more ideological to overcome the structure.