US Politics Thread

[ChicagoBlue]

Again, not correct.

By the laws of the State, he acted in self defence and that’s why he was acquitted.

Now whether those laws are correct is another matter. They’re in place. They’re also part of the reason I’d never want to live there.

I’m not making a judgement of whether the law was “correct,” only that two men were “unarmed” in the way that people who attack police officers are often “unarmed.”

In America, “unarmed” usually means not possessing a firearm, or other deadly weapon. We can argue whether bringing a skateboard to a gunfight means both people are armed until we are blue in the face, but will get nowhere.

In addition, I’m not saying he didn’t act in self defence, what I am saying and will say is that the Prosecution was unable, beyond a reasonable doubt, to prove that he was NOT acting in self defence, and was, in fact, a provocateur.

The fact that he was running AWAY from the people he shot, until they accosted him saved his skin.

Now, painting him as an “active shooter,” and the three victims as trying to squash that threat, was one approach to the prosecution, but clearly ended up being a bad choice.

The illegal weapons charge looks like it might fall on the guy who gave him the gun.

Ah, ‘Murica! Ain’t it grand?!

 

[toffee balls]

If this is an example of how the so called “most advanced” society in our new world has become, I’m out.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

If this is an example of how the so called “most advanced” society in our new world has become, I’m out.

The UK sees America as the ‘Partner of choice’ WRT political and economic terms but what we are seeing of late, coupled with Brexit, leaves us very much alone in the world.

Seems so fucked up in America at the moment.

 

[Dax777]

Except the only murders were at the hands of Rittenhouse. The status of the other participants (armed/not armed) are irrelevant as they did not shoot and kill anyone. Rittenhouse did.

Adding Rittenhouse to a combustible mix proved deadly. Absenting Rittenhouse would have meant no deaths. You might as well argue that a woman being assaulted and raped is as much as fault as the rapist because she too was there. Proximity alone is not the issue. Proximity and outcome is the issue.

Exactly! That's the argument you are making. You are saying if an underage girl went to a bar with a fake iD and was wearing a short skirt and being flirtatious at a rough bar, she should be guilty of shooting the men who tried to rape her because wearing a short skirt was provocative.

The energy of this argument is so wierd and sad. Has the feel of " She had it coming' for wearing that shirt skirt and flirting.

You really should step back and think this through.

The absurdity of American gun laws, it’s fetishisation of gun culture, narcissism of the individual ‘defending his rights‘, and inability to accept its racial history, propels an inadequate individual in to a situation with deadly results and this is then compounded by lack of consequences so that the cycle can continue.

It really has little to do with gun laws. Had everything to do with common sense self defense principles and unfortunately for those whose reasoning are dependent on what side they believe they should be on, they are burdened by the excessive amount of video evidence.

This is not my case, hell, it’s not even my country. We’ve got our own morons to worry about. Thankfully, ours are not armed.

True.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It was obvious he was going to get off given the ridiculous laws over there. He acted exactly like you'd expect an idiot, panicky 17-year-old to act when in a volatile situation with a gun, and most of the other people acted exactly as you'd expect them to act when they believed an active shooter was running around the streets. And that's why it's a bad idea to allow anyone to bring firearms to volatile situations, let alone a kid. The stupid thing is that if any of the people he killed had killed him first, they'd have been able to use exactly the same argument to get off too.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The shooting took place 25 minutes by car from where he lived. The shooting took place in the city where he works and following his shift at work.

It’s a different State for sure but that doesn’t quite tell the whole story. You know I’m anything but I rabid pro-gun right winger, but I’ve been watching and reading this trial every day (I’m 13 hours ahead of NY so have the US evening news on in the background whilst I’m working in a morning).

There was virtually no chance he was going to be found guilty of the charges they put to the jury.

Har they gone for lesser charges, then I’m sure it would have been a different outcome.

The judge had his thumb on the scale from the outset. The moment he discounted the lesser gun possession charges (which he did at the last minute), he delivered a fatal blow to the prosecutions case on ALL charges. Every decision made appeared on its face to be in favour of the defence.

The only real comfort for the relatives of the deceased and injured is that not guilty is not the same as innocent.

This case has done untold damage. The next time one of these Call of Duty cosplay white supremacist kids decides they want to go on a killing spree they just turn up at a rally with a gun, raise tensions, claim they felt threatened and start blasting.

The USA has f*cked itself in the ass bigly.

 

[Dax777]

Most people know I rarely agree with you but from the trial and the actual law, rather than the media leading up to it, it was a slam dunk acquittal.

In fairness to most who are shocked or dismayed by the outcome, they clearly neither examined the evidence nor watched the trial. So I'm not surprised at some of the media shaped responses here...

Its clear you watched the trial and have seen the evidence. It's hard to conclude otherwise once you have.

 

[Phil1]

The acquittal was correct, sadly.
The circumstances that allowed the whole thing to take happen in the first place is just fucked up beyond repair though.
Reading Dax make the argument that everyone who went to the protest should have been armed if they had any sense makes my head hurt, but, its their country and their laws so I guess it is what it is.
Not that I'll be missed but my days of going to the US are done I think. For a supposedly progressive country its one of the most backwards in the western world.

 

[GH64]

State's own witnesses laid path for Rittenhouse acquittal

Richard McGinniss saw Kyle Rittenhouse gun down the first of three men he shot the night of Aug. 25, 2020, making him a critical witness for the prosecution at the trial of the U.S. teenager. However, his testimony may also have helped persuade the jury to acquit Rittenhouse on Friday.

www.reuters.com

Unless someone paid the dude to say that I don't think he was going to get convicted after that, & from then on the prosecutor was trying to provoke a mistrial.

No idea why the gun charge got brought, never mind thrown out so late, but assuming the defence weren't quite as thick as the prosecutor the time to bring up the fact that he was legally allowed to carry the gun that he was charged with carrying (some technicality about barrel length) was perfect. The judge didn't have to throw it out, The prosecutor agreed with the defence.

 

[SWP's back]

In fairness to most who are shocked or dismayed by the outcome, they clearly neither examined the evidence nor watched the trial. So I'm not surprised at some of the media shaped responses here...

Its clear you watched the trial and have seen the evidence. It's hard to conclude otherwise once you have.

I did yeah and as soon as I knew more, I did a complete 180. I thought prior to the trial starting that it was an open and shut guilty verdict. But so many commenting are basing their thoughts off duff info.

But one can hardly blame them when yesterday saw headlines such as this in the U.K.:

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I did yeah and as soon as I knew more, I did a complete 180. I thought prior to the trial starting that it was an open and shut guilty verdict. But so many commenting are basing their thoughts off duff info.

But one can hardly blame them when yesterday saw headlines such as this in the U.K.:

View attachment 30264

Regardless of the trial outcome and whether you believe Rittenhouse to be guilty or not - the tragedy remains. Two people are dead because it's legal to carry assault rifles to emotionally charged, confrontational events such as the Kenosha protests. It's a miracle that others haven't been killed in similar circumstances (that I'm aware of) up until now.

The legality of carrying fire arms to protests stuck me as so self-evidently ill conceived that I wondered just how insane gun laws in Wisconsin are. For example, is it legal to carry assault rifles into a pub in Wisconsin? - Apparently it is not - so I guess there are (woefully inadequate) bounds on this insanity.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Regardless of the trial outcome and whether you believe Rittenhouse to be guilty or not - the tragedy remains. Two people are dead because it's legal to carry assault rifles to emotionally charged, confrontational events such as the Kenosha protests. It's a miracle that others haven't been killed in similar circumstances (that I'm aware of) up until now.

The legality of carrying fire arms to protests stuck me as so self-evidently ill conceived that I wondered just how insane gun laws in Wisconsin are. For example, is it legal to carry assault rifles into a pub in Wisconsin? - Apparently it is not - so I guess there are (woefully inadequate) bounds on this insanity.

The ban on firearms in pubs in bars seems to be a brief moment of Wisconsin lawmakers applying common sense to gun regulations. Alcohol + guns= more violence.

I agree with you on the first paragraph it is beyond absurd. But I can only imagine people like Dax view the possession of firearms at protests as an act of protest in itself, and in their view it is necessary for them to actively defend their right to posess these weapons by doing so at every opportunity.

 

[mat]

Fucking Bullshit.

Rittenhouse is cleared and then goes on Tucker Carlson.

****.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Fucking Bullshit.

Rittenhouse is cleared and then goes on Tucker Carlson.

****.

Was always going to happen with a not guilty verdict, although he would have been a right-wing hero regardless of the trial outcome.

I fully expect him to sign some kind of sponsorship deal with gun firms or open his own gun range and shop when he is old enough.

 

[idahoblues]

Except the only murders were at the hands of Rittenhouse. The status of the other participants (armed/not armed) are irrelevant as they did not shoot and kill anyone. Rittenhouse did.

Adding Rittenhouse to a combustible mix proved deadly. Absenting Rittenhouse would have meant no deaths. You might as well argue that a woman being assaulted and raped is as much as fault as the rapist because she too was there. Proximity alone is not the issue. Proximity and outcome is the issue.

The absurdity of American gun laws, it’s fetishisation of gun culture, narcissism of the individual ‘defending his rights‘, and inability to accept its racial history, propels an inadequate individual in to a situation with deadly results and this is then compounded by lack of consequences so that the cycle can continue.

This is not my case, hell, it’s not even my country. We’ve got our own morons to worry about. Thankfully, ours are not armed.

The ban on firearms in pubs in bars seems to be a brief moment of Wisconsin lawmakers applying common sense to gun regulations. Alcohol + guns= more violence.

I agree with you on the first paragraph it is beyond absurd. But I can only imagine people like Dax view the possession of firearms at protests as an act of protest in itself, and in their view it is necessary for them to actively defend their right to posess these weapons by doing so at every opportunity.

At what point do you draw the line?

Was always going to happen with a not guilty verdict, although he would have been a right-wing hero regardless of the trial outcome.

I fully expect him to sign some kind of sponsorship deal with gun firms or open his own gun range and shop when he is old enough.

I think the kid is shit scared for his very exiting at this point

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

At what point do you draw the line?

I think the kid is shit scared for his very exiting at this point

How about giving authorities the ability to declare a red zone in areas of unrest that ban possession of firearms outside personal property for anyone not part of law enforcement?

Why not restrict possession to their own property or activities like hunting (which they need to have a separate licence for and restrict it to certain weapons)?

Why do you need a gun to defend yourself on public streets when you have a phone in your pocket to call the cops?

But I'm not pro-gun, and to be honest I find American gun culture childish at best and morally repugnant at it's worst and have made my views clear on it before.

 

[idahoblues]

How about giving authorities the ability to declare a red zone in areas of unrest that ban possession of firearms outside personal property for anyone not part of law enforcement?

Why not restrict possession to their own property or activities like hunting (which they need to have a separate licence for and restrict it to certain weapons)?

Why do you need a gun to defend yourself on public streets when you have a phone in your pocket to call the cops?

But I'm not pro-gun, and to be honest I find American gun culture childish at best and morally repugnant at it's worst and have made my views clear on it before.

You feel safer in someone else’s hands?

 

[idahoblues]

How about giving authorities the ability to declare a red zone in areas of unrest that ban possession of firearms outside personal property for anyone not part of law enforcement?

Why not restrict possession to their own property or activities like hunting (which they need to have a separate licence for and restrict it to certain weapons)?

Why do you need a gun to defend yourself on public streets when you have a phone in your pocket to call the cops?

But I'm not pro-gun, and to be honest I find American gun culture childish at best and morally repugnant at it's worst and have made my views clear on it before.

I have to say that I find the English system repugnant as such a huge percentage of the population is held hostage to a Chav culture that is so out of control with no recourse

 

[Dax777]

Regardless of the trial outcome and whether you believe Rittenhouse to be guilty or not - the tragedy remains. Two people are dead because it's legal to carry assault rifles to emotionally charged, confrontational events such as the Kenosha protests. It's a miracle that others haven't been killed in similar circumstances (that I'm aware of) up until now.

The legality of carrying fire arms to protests stuck me as so self-evidently ill conceived that I wondered just how insane gun laws in Wisconsin are. For example, is it legal to carry assault rifles into a pub in Wisconsin? - Apparently it is not - so I guess there are (woefully inadequate) bounds on this insanity.

Again, a lot of what you've said here seems reasonable in a vacuum. But it bellies a misunderstanding of reality.

1. Two people are not dead because it's legal to carry a rifle to emotionally charged confrontational events. They are dead because they acted poorly.

2. The notion that a legal ban on guns would have stopped people from having them is patently naive. I mean, the guy who got his bicep shot off coz he was pointing a pistol at Rittenhouse, had that gun ILLEGALLY at the 'protests'. He and many others would have had their guns regardless of what the law was.

3. In short the law would have only stopped law abiding citizens from being able to arm themselves while allowing those who could care less about the law to have an upper hand.

4. I mean let's apply some basic common sense here, do we really think Wisconsin law allows for property destruction and business burnings during protests? Hopefully no one is naive enough to think it does.. Now ask yourself, how effective were those laws at stopping destruction, burning and looting?

 

[Dax777]

The ban on firearms in pubs in bars seems to be a brief moment of Wisconsin lawmakers applying common sense to gun regulations. Alcohol + guns= more violence.

I agree with you on the first paragraph it is beyond absurd. But I can only imagine people like Dax view the possession of firearms at protests as an act of protest in itself, and in their view it is necessary for them to actively defend their right to posess these weapons by doing so at every opportunity

My view has nothing to do with 2nd amendment absolutism. Again, just common sense prescriptions. If you are anti-business, and property destruction under the guise of protest and you want to protect against such, then you should come with a gun, coz you can be rest assured that those who come to coz mayhem in your City likely are coming armed too.