Race

[sturg33]

[striker42]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/u...ing-video.html

This is a good breakdown of the sequence of events in the Rittenhouse shootings.

First, at best Rittenhouse is a complete idiot. If he thought driving into a situation like that with an assault rifle would help keep the peace then he's got no sense at all. Considering he was obsessed with police and was walking around with a med pack, it makes me think he thought of himself as some sort of vigilante peacekeeper. However, this is someone I wouldn't trust with a spoon much less an assault rifle.

Second, I'm going to try to look at this objectively and how the law might work in this case.

Here we go. The prosecution is going to have a difficult time on this one. According to that NY Times article, Rittenhouse was being pursued by a crowd before the first shooting and someone in the crowd fired a gun into the air. That could make a murder conviction tough. He's one person allegedly being pursued by multiple people. Someone has fired a shot already and another person is lunging at Rittenhouse. It's not going to be easy to get a murder conviction there.

However, a lot could depend on the facts of how this altercation started. If it comes out that Rittenhouse had been waving his gun around threatening these people then their reaction to that might be reasonable and so defeat Rittenhouse's self defense claim. Running counter to that and something his lawyers will bring up is Rittenhouse may have been retreating. If he was retreating from a prior altercation and was being pursued, it changes things.

The second and third shootings are even dicier as far as getting a conviction goes. The video shows a large group pursuing Rittenhouse down the street. At least one of the pursuers appears to be carrying a handgun. Rittenhouse falls to the ground and things deteriorate from there. It looks like someone tries to grab his gun at some point and fails. Two people are shot, one of which appears to be armed (again, going by the NY Times article). Someone being pursued by an armed mob and who falls to the ground might be in reasonable fear for their life or safety.

Where it could go against Rittenhouse in the second shooting is if he's in the wrong in the first. If the first is murder then there's the argument that the crowd was trying to stop a murderer from escaping. Wisconsin, best I can tell, does have a citizens arrest doctrine. If the crowd was in the right making a citizens arrest of a murderer then Rittenhouse doesn't have the right to open fire on those apprehending him.

Bottom line, this is not a clean case by any measure. The videos aren't super clear and there are still a lot of holes in the sequence of events. Self-defense is this kid's only real hope though.

[Runnin]

It is indeed poverty based.

Perhaps we should support policies that enable lifting people put of their bad situations... not just keeping them on the government welfare dependency cycle

Nahhhhhh. Then they might not vote for D!

Be careful. You are starting to sound like a progressive again. "A rising tide raises all boats." I forgot who said that.

[Runnin]

I'd like to hear what Jared Kushner knows about working a regular job.

[zitothebrave]

while the constitution said black people were 3/5ths of a person from the start

Constitution didn't say black people were 3/5, but slaves were. The constitution made slavery legal. And for years free black land owners couldn't vote.

[zitothebrave]

Yeah, that doesn't pass the sniff test. NBA owners can't cut salaries if a team advances in the playoffs or not. So how can they not pay the players salary for suspending the playoffs?

[sturg33]

Yeah, that doesn't pass the sniff test. NBA owners can't cut salaries if a team advances in the playoffs or not. So how can they not pay the players salary for suspending the playoffs?

Players get a share of playoff revenu, no?

[chop2chip]

Players get a share of playoff revenu, no?

Correct. Revenues flow into the cap calculation. It’s literally how you guarantee a revenue split.

Cancelling the playoffs would be a substantial hit to the cap.

[MrShwag]

Constitution didn't say black people were 3/5, but slaves were. The constitution made slavery legal. And for years free black land owners couldn't vote.

But could own slaves. Imagine that one if you will. Also not 3/5ths a "person" but 3/5ths a citizen. Specifically regarding congressional representation. But yea, nice interpretation. Sure gets the internal rioter fired up. Interesting that right now Trump is trying to make illegal aliens 0/5ths a citizen (census) regarding congressional representation. And I'm actually with it, but I'd be interested to hear the 3/5ths debate regarding them based on the precedence of the Constitution. I don't think illegal enterers should be able to come here and impact Congressional representation. Personal take.

[nsacpi]

"A rising tide raises all boats." I forgot who said that.

Jack Kemp used to like to say it. But I'm pretty sure it's not original to him. Wikipedia gives credit to JFK and Ted Sorensen for popularizing it. Ted Sorensen has to be the greatest speech writer of all time.

[zitothebrave]

[zitothebrave]

But could own slaves. Imagine that one if you will. Also not 3/5ths a "person" but 3/5ths a citizen. Specifically regarding congressional representation. But yea, nice interpretation. Sure gets the internal rioter fired up. Interesting that right now Trump is trying to make illegal aliens 0/5ths a citizen (census) regarding congressional representation. And I'm actually with it, but I'd be interested to hear the 3/5ths debate regarding them based on the precedence of the Constitution. I don't think illegal enterers should be able to come here and impact Congressional representation. Personal take.

What the **** is this post even about?

[sturg33]

I missed Lebrons protest for Mr. Dorn, and the dozens of other black people killed during riots

This was tough to watch

[nsacpi]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/u...ing-video.html

This is a good breakdown of the sequence of events in the Rittenhouse shootings.

First, at best Rittenhouse is a complete idiot. If he thought driving into a situation like that with an assault rifle would help keep the peace then he's got no sense at all. Considering he was obsessed with police and was walking around with a med pack, it makes me think he thought of himself as some sort of vigilante peacekeeper. However, this is someone I wouldn't trust with a spoon much less an assault rifle.

Second, I'm going to try to look at this objectively and how the law might work in this case.

Here we go. The prosecution is going to have a difficult time on this one. According to that NY Times article, Rittenhouse was being pursued by a crowd before the first shooting and someone in the crowd fired a gun into the air. That could make a murder conviction tough. He's one person allegedly being pursued by multiple people. Someone has fired a shot already and another person is lunging at Rittenhouse. It's not going to be easy to get a murder conviction there.

However, a lot could depend on the facts of how this altercation started. If it comes out that Rittenhouse had been waving his gun around threatening these people then their reaction to that might be reasonable and so defeat Rittenhouse's self defense claim. Running counter to that and something his lawyers will bring up is Rittenhouse may have been retreating. If he was retreating from a prior altercation and was being pursued, it changes things.

The second and third shootings are even dicier as far as getting a conviction goes. The video shows a large group pursuing Rittenhouse down the street. At least one of the pursuers appears to be carrying a handgun. Rittenhouse falls to the ground and things deteriorate from there. It looks like someone tries to grab his gun at some point and fails. Two people are shot, one of which appears to be armed (again, going by the NY Times article). Someone being pursued by an armed mob and who falls to the ground might be in reasonable fear for their life or safety.

Where it could go against Rittenhouse in the second shooting is if he's in the wrong in the first. If the first is murder then there's the argument that the crowd was trying to stop a murderer from escaping. Wisconsin, best I can tell, does have a citizens arrest doctrine. If the crowd was in the right making a citizens arrest of a murderer then Rittenhouse doesn't have the right to open fire on those apprehending him.

Bottom line, this is not a clean case by any measure. The videos aren't super clear and there are still a lot of holes in the sequence of events. Self-defense is this kid's only real hope though.

You skipped over the more relevant parts of the article:

His mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, a nurse’s aide, sought a protection order on behalf of her son in January 2017, accusing one of Mr. Rittenhouse’s classmates of calling him “dumb” and “stupid”

A manager at Culver’s, a Midwest hamburger chain, said he had worked there briefly a year ago but it was “not a good fit.” He faced a similar hurdle with the U.S. Marine Corps, contacting recruiters in January before being found to be disqualified for service

what we have here is an idiot loser...aka all-american chucklehead

idiot loser + rifle = two senseless deaths

[Krgrecw]

You skipped over the more relevant parts of the article:

His mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, a nurse’s aide, sought a protection order on behalf of her son in January 2017, accusing one of Mr. Rittenhouse’s classmates of calling him “dumb” and “stupid”

A manager at Culver’s, a Midwest hamburger chain, said he had worked there briefly a year ago but it was “not a good fit.” He faced a similar hurdle with the U.S. Marine Corps, contacting recruiters in January before being found to be disqualified for service

what we have here is an idiot loser...aka all-american chucklehead

idiot loser + rifle = two senseless deaths

Those instances have nothing to do with what happened.

[sturg33]

Those instances have nothing to do with what happened.

He's lost it.

Feel bad for him

[Runnin]

Those instances have nothing to do with what happened.

Are you sure about that? I'm not.

It could be nothing or it could be something. A 17 yr old who didn't have the intelligence or social skills to work around mostly Blacks for minimum wage. And also wasn't good enough for the Marines. And yet, he was able to secure some kind of position in a police training program.

[Runnin]

He's lost it.

Feel bad for him

Don't feel bad for him. Whatever you think he lost that won't allow him to see things your way, I'll bet he never had it.

[Runnin]

You skipped over the more relevant parts of the article:

His mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, a nurse’s aide, sought a protection order on behalf of her son in January 2017, accusing one of Mr. Rittenhouse’s classmates of calling him “dumb” and “stupid”

A manager at Culver’s, a Midwest hamburger chain, said he had worked there briefly a year ago but it was “not a good fit.” He faced a similar hurdle with the U.S. Marine Corps, contacting recruiters in January before being found to be disqualified for service

what we have here is an idiot loser...aka all-american chucklehead

idiot loser + rifle = two senseless deaths

He also skipped over this.

These two idiots waved guns at black protesters and were praised by the President. You think that played at part in a 17 yr old doing the same thing, except that he actually pulled the trigger?

[Carp]

So I need thethe to come here calling Jon Ponder a POS. Arrested multiple times for domestic assault and armed robbery. Or is he "one of the good ones" because Trump likes him?

Better hope he doesn't get pulled over on his home from the GOP convention and get shot by the police. Thethe will turn on him in a heartbeat.