It would have been better if the local citizens had been encouraged to go into the streets armed to keep the peace in their community. The KR verdict shows them that they have the power to do that - legally. It should not take armed police or troops to keep the peace on the streets of America.
Both trials are over now, and I thought both juries reached the correct verdicts. I disagree with you about what the Rittenhouse case means. The reason why Rittenhouse shot 3 white men had nothing to do with race. That case was all about the various issues surrounding the right of self defense. Imagine for a moment that Rittenhouse was an armed black man, he was alone, and he found himself being chased and assaulted by a group of white supremacist skinheads. And imagine that the jury found him "not guilty", affirming his right to self defense. Would you still feel that was a miscarriage of justice? On the other hand, there was a racial component to the Arbery case, in my opinion. But that aside, again, the issue at trial was whether or not McMichael had a right to shoot Arbery in self defense. For a number of reasons, the answer was "No", and I agree with that finding. There were distinct differences to Rittenhouse's claim of self defense and McMichael's claim of self defense. Perhaps the most glaring difference was the question of who the aggressor was. A claim of self defense is never cut and dry. It is full of nuance. Details and circumstances matter. Think about this ... The Rittenhouse case tried the issue of self defense, and race wasn't a factor. In the Arbery case, an unarmed black man was shot dead by one of three white men who chased him down. They were tried in the Deep South. The judge was white, the prosecutor was white, the defense lawyers were white, and the jury was almost all white. And that almost all white jury found all three of those white men guilty of murder. Most likely they will spend the rest of their lives in prison. There is a message here, if we're willing to hear it. Seth
I agree completely. But one thing to consider..... Black Lives Matters the mere name suggests a focus on race perhaps even to the exclusion of others. I think many separatist's realize that and gravitate toward that. If we are to ever be the "color blind" society that MLK suggested and unity demands we need to come to grips. In this day where Political Correctness is shoved down our throats, I think the wording needs to be addressed, perhaps to Charactor Matters ......then the Marxists can go pound sand! Happy Thanksgiving!
If Rittenhouse had been an armed Black man he would have been killed on sight by the police. Look what happened to Jacob Blake for allegedly having a knife. The law is not applied to Whites and Blacks equally in this country. That's just the truth. Remember Philando Castille? He was the young Black man who was shot multiple times as he reached into his glove box. Philando had told the police officer he had a gun in his glove box. He shot him anyway. I believe Philando would still be alive if he was White. There is something about Black men that scares the police.
There are 2 results I'd like to see from these two trials: 1) I'd like to see changes in the self defense laws. If you knowingly put yourself in a compromised position or start the fight, you should not be able to claim self defense. 2) ALL citizen's arrest privileges should be struck down in all states. Arresting someone can be dangerous and should be left to the police.
I want to say "Thank you" to everyone who participated in this thread. I appreciate your comments, even if I don't agree with you.
Very interesting projection. So that is a hard fast rule? Here's another one...... If O.J. had been an armed Black man, he would have been killed on sight by the police! Oh wait..... he was a previously armed black man! What he did was just as horrendous . Want to project more systematic racism? It is a myth!
So victims do not have the same rights as armed activists.....I see your point. They should stay at home. As to point two....... you don't leave ANYTHING to the police when they are castrated and told to STAND DOWN!
BLM resonates with many black Americans because at least since Reconstruction black lives have not mattered to our ruling political class - especially for the DP bosses. "From the day of its birth, the anomaly of slavery plagued a nation which asserted the equality of all men, and sought to derive powers of government from the consent of the governed. Within sound of the voices of those who said this lived more than Half a million black slaves, forming nearly one fifth of the population of a new nation." "The black population as the time of the first census had risen to three quarters of a million, and there were over one million at the beginning of the 19th century. Before 1830, the blacks had passed the two million mark, helped by the increased importations just before 1808 and the illicit smuggling up until 1820. By their own reproduction, the Negroes reached 3,638,808 in 1850, and before the Civil War, stood at 4,441,830. They were 10% of the whole population of the nation in 1700, 22% in 1750, 18.9% in 1800 and 11.6% in 1900." Page 3. Note the population drop which corresponds to the start of the "progressive" era. Happy Thanksgiving!
IMO, fewer armed police and more armed citizens, especially black American citizens would quickly end virtually all public violence.
My wife warned me if I posted anything regarding what I am about to post, I better quote the source or I will be labeled a racist. T.W. Shannon- the former speaker of Oklahoma House of Representatives whom I happen to admire greatly, happens to be A Black Man (Joe Biden probably would say "he ain't black) Anyway, he came up with the true definition of BLM. BLM= Black Lying Marxists ! Though many ARE white, Antifa has the same goals.
I don't want to re-litigate the Castille case. We don't know if the police would have shot Rittenhouse on sight if he was black, and that deflects from the point. If this had all gone down just exactly as it did, but Rittenhouse had been a black man trying to escape white supremacist skinheads, would you not be cheering the verdict? I think you would, and so would I. Because regardless of the racial component that so many people focus on, this was a question of the laws allowing self defense. Whether Rittenhouse was white or black, or his assailants were white or black, the trial was about self defense, not race. We don't have to be a fan of Rittenhouse. We may love him or hate him. It just doesn't matter. What was on trial here has nothing to do with how we feel about Rittenhouse, the person. If the trial outcome affirms our right to protect ourselves, that is a win for everyone. The Arbery jury came to the same conclusion. The difference, of course, is that Arbery died trying to defend himself. But by convicting those 3 men, the jury affirmed Arbery's right to self defense. Remember, in the last seconds of his life, he tried to fight to protect himself. The jury rejected the defense argument that McMichael then had a right to shoot Arbery in self defense. Arbery was the one with the right to self defense in this case, not McMichael. By rejecting McMichael's self defense claim, they were affirming Arbery's right to self defense. Both juries reached the correct conclusion. So for those whose biggest issue is racial justice, this was a win. For those who see the right of self defense as the biggest issue, this was a win.
Sorry, I just see them as all human beings. Just wish everyone would look at things that way, but they don't. Many are human being criminals and scum and many are freedom loving American human beings.
That probably depends on where it takes place. In Portland, almost all of the violence and property destruction was done by white Antifa fascists, not black people. In fact, black leaders in Portland disavowed the Antifa fascists and wanted nothing to do with them.
Define "compromised position" is that like we should change the law about rape and if you dress sexy and walk down a dangerous street you can't claim rape? And "starting the fight" is already the law, it did not apply here. Except sometime the police can't be there all the time, even less so with the defunding of the police that has occurred, and we citizens have a right to defend our communities from criminals. And you never explained your statement Why should African-American people have been paying VERY close attention more so than others. Why should AA people in particular have paid attention?
When they are lily white they are lily white, and almost all of the violent anarchists are lily white. For instance, the lily white lynch mob that went after KR.
Most of the crimes committed by black Americans have historically been associated with a poor underclass. Anarchism/revolutionary Communism are generally pursuits of the privileged elites - not the "masses" they pretend to represent.
Many are black as the ace of spades. I think ideology spans all colors and if you don't realize that, you live in a cave. I do know a lot of them have white skin pigmentation but an awful lot of the Marxists are black. I am surprised skin color is such an issue to you. The Founders of BLM are black Marxists. If they aren't pure Marxists, they are Marxist tools. T.W. Shannon former Speaker of Oklahoma House of Representatives defines BLM this way..... BLM= Black Lying Marxists Shannon, whom I admire is Black!
You are correct in that privileged elites are the only "beneficiaries" of American Marxism, but without the underclass revolutionaries....they get no where.
At least two of the leaders of BLM have described themselves as Marxists. They are apparently very wealthy - like little stars it makes one wonder what they really are. There are usually a couple of black faces interviewed when the anarchist/Communists riot, but the mob is very white.
When there is no peace on the streets looting and vandalism is inevitable, and not motivated by any ideology.
IMO, the all Americans should agree that black lives matter, and act accoridingly. "By then, both parties had effectively abandoned integration as national policy, beyond what had already been achieved (and even that came under fire. in the Reagan/Bush administrations). Neither party pressed hard for further racial gains or pushed for enforcement of what had been done, and both treated racial aspirations largely as a patronage problem to be handled by Cabinet appointments and other political spoils. Most important, neither party was willing or professed to see the necessity to mount an attack on the economic trends that had created the inner-city ghetto and that also were keeping many whites and non-ghetto blacks in poverty and hopelessness." THE NATION, Deserting the Democrats: Why African-Americans and the Poor Should Make Common Cause in Their Own Party, By Tom Wicker, June 17, 1996. https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-18381645/deserting-the-democrats-why-african-americans-and
Marxist revolutionaries will lie to advance revolution. This fundamental dishonesty usually ends with the mass slaughter of the Marxist and the rise of fascism. "Whenever Hobsbawm enters a politically sensitive zone, he retreats into hooded, wooden language, redolent of Party-speak. "The possibility of dictatorship," he writes in The Age of Extremes, "is implicit in any regime based in a single, irremovable party." The "possibility"? "Implicit"? As Rosa Luxemburg could have told him, a single irremovable party is a dictatorship. Describing the Comintern's requirement in 1932 that German Communists fight the Socialists and ignore the Nazis, Hobsbawm in his memoirs writes that "it is now generally accepted that the policy...was one of suicidal idiocy." Now? Everyone thought it criminally stupid at the time and has thought so ever since—everyone, that is, except the Communists." NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, Interesting Times: A Twentieth-Century Life, by Eric Hobsbawm, Pantheon, 2003. Reviewed by Tony Judt. 11/20/2003.
