- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2874 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
707 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 27146
I suppose it's time for a new thread seeing as the previous one is almost at 1,700 posts.
It's been kicking off in America (again) after the police have shot a black man (again). A couple of protesters/rioters have been killed after they were driven by the police towards an alt-right militia, with this planned in advance.
|>>|| No. 35883
We're lovin' each day as if it's our last
Dancing all night and havin' a blast
Oh baby, I want you right here next to me
|>>|| No. 35884
His bail was covered by right-wing American nutters, he can simply move to a part of the country where everyone is a right-wing nutter and live a happy and safe life. He'd probably be elected mayor in half of the US.
|>>|| No. 35957
Rittenhouse acquitted on all charges. There'll be riots this weekend, I'm sure of it, and more people are likely to die.
|>>|| No. 35958
I imagine that's why they were pushing so hard for a mistrial. It was obvious he wasn't going to be convicted for first degree murder.
|>>|| No. 35960
It's a bad idea to start a fight with someone who is carrying a loaded assault rifle and is well trained in how to use it. It's an exceptionally bad idea to start a fight with all of those people at once.
|>>|| No. 35961
George Zimmerman turned it into a whole career. And he's a proper murderer rather than an adolescent who accidentally massacred some protestors in self-defence.
|>>|| No. 35962
>accidentally massacred some protestors
One was a domestic abuser and the other was a paedophile. He's unintentionally done the world a favour.
|>>|| No. 35963
Rotterdam's kicking off ostensibly because of Covid restrictions. It's a bit surreal seeing the police response to the riots while food delivery riders zip through the chaos.
|>>|| No. 35965
I'm traveling back to my pre-pandemic position of ignoring everything and anything that happens in America, as I'm reminded again and again it's just a third world, phony democracy that happens to have loads of cash floating about.
|>>|| No. 35966
I guess if you feel like killing someone, all you need to do is go to the US, get a gun, drive to the next state along and shoot someone that looks vaguely threatening. Oh, and be white, obviously.
|>>|| No. 35967
The race of the killer is irrelevant; it's the race of the victim that matters. And Kyle Rittenhouse is clearly so mentally defective that I think he's just swallowed the messaging of the alt-right and taken it more seriously than he should have. I fully expect him to now conclude that the opposite extremism must be true, and he will become a tireless (but thick) advocate for gun control, which is a good thing. There's no way he's going to hang onto the beliefs that he originally espoused, after all the trouble they got him in and given that I don't think he even really understands them.
|>>|| No. 35968
Aparantly he's already doing interviews with Shapiro and the likes with a smile on his face.
|>>|| No. 35969
I'm glad he got off. I don't agree with his actions and there's a whole raft of other issues with what led him to be in that situation; but it's very obvious the only reason most people wanted him prosecuted was to make an example of, regardless of the facts of the matter or the laws in that jurisdiction.
It does make me wish there was a requirement of anonymity in high profile cases like this. If we didn't know anything about him or his background people would actually be able to discuss the issues surrounding the events that led to the trial, which is arguably the far more important thing. But instead it becomes another polarised slap-fight between reactionary racist gun nuts who think it's a victory for the principle of being able to shoot people as a first line of self defence, and self hating middle class liberals who wish they would hang him for being white.
|>>|| No. 35970
Nobody wants to hang him for being white. They want to hang him for crossing state lines with an illegal firearm with the intent to kill people over property and then killing people when they tried to shut him down.
|>>|| No. 35971
One of the guys he shot was trying to wrestle the gun from his hands, one was pointing a gun at him and the other had hit him over the head with a skateboard. That was proved beyond doubt by multiple witnesses and video recordings.
Under Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse's actions were inarguably justifiable homicide on grounds of self defence. People might disagree with that law, but deciding what the law ought to be is not the job of a jury.
Whether Rittenhouse is a dickhead is besides the point; being a dickhead is not the same as being a murderer. It's entirely reasonable to argue that Rittenhouse may have been treated differently if he was black, but the idea that he should be convicted to even the score is the antithesis of justice.
Rittenhouse's actions may seem extreme and indefensible by British standards, but they're perfectly lawful in that jurisdiction. For every American who believes that Rittenhouse is a racist murderer, there is another who believes that he simply performed his public duty. President Biden might be "angry" at the verdict, but he is the only man in America with the responsibility and the opportunity to prevent those circumstances from happening again.
|>>|| No. 35972
>One of the guys he shot was trying to wrestle the gun from his hands, one was pointing a gun at him and the other had hit him over the head with a skateboard.
Er, yes, they did that because he turned up with a rifle. They were acting in self-defence because he presented an imminent threat to their lives - to wit, two of them were indeed killed.
|>>|| No. 35973
Wisconsin is an open-carry state. It is perfectly legal for anyone aged over 16 to walk around in public with a loaded rifle or shotgun. The firearms charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed with prejudice, because they were based on a wilful misinterpretation of statute 948.60(2)(a) and entirely without merit.
Rittenhouse was engaged in a perfectly lawful activity by standing around in public with a gun. The state of mind of his assailants is irrelevant to whether he acted in self defence. They may or may not have held the sincere belief that they were in imminent danger, but that doesn't alter the fact that Rittenhouse was assaulted while acting lawfully and had the lawful right to defend himself.
You may not see the difference between carrying a gun and pointing a gun at someone, but there is a world of difference in a place where it is legal and commonplace to carry guns. If you go to a gun club and start chinning people because they've got guns, you'll be leaving in an ambulance or a police car.
|>>|| No. 35974
>but that doesn't alter the fact that Rittenhouse was assaulted while acting lawfully and had the lawful right to defend himself.
He wasn't "acting lawfully". He crossed state lines with a gun he was not lawfully entitled to procure or possess. He did so with the intent to shoot people. The people he shot, however, were acting lawfully and had the lawful right to defend themselves, and indeed were attempting to do so when he shot them.
>If you go to a gun club and start chinning people because they've got guns, you'll be leaving in an ambulance or a police car.
If you go to a gun club and start waving your gun around away from the range, you'll be leaving in similar fashion.
|>>|| No. 35975
>He crossed state lines with a gun he was not lawfully entitled to procure or possess.
That's factually incorrect, which was why the judge dismissed the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon. The rifle was purchased by and legally the property of Dominick Black, a Wisconsin resident. Rittenhouse could not legally possess the rifle in Illinois because he had not yet been issued a FOID, but he could legally possess it in Wisconsin. Statute 948.60(2)(a) prohibits persons under the age of 18 from possessing a dangerous weapon, with the specific exception of rifles and shotguns.
Gaige Grosskreutz, one of the men shot by Rittenhouse, was carrying a gun that he was not lawfully entitled to, because his concealed carry permit had expired.
|>>|| No. 35976
>>35968 is quite right. Things don't work like that here. He's already very famous for having been a Good American Boy, and the fame won't allow him any chance for reflection on the situation. His side has already been chosen for him, likely forever. Honestly, I was half kidding when I said he could be elected in one of the redder states, but there's been too many jokes already about his "future in politics" for there not to be something in it. He'll be a GUNS poster boy for a while, and the way the politics here are lately, on a ballot in a decade or two.
|>>|| No. 35977
>Rittenhouse could not legally possess the rifle in Illinois because he had not yet been issued a FOID
Right. Therefore, Rittenhouse being a resident of Illinois, he set out with a weapon he could not legally procure or possess.
|>>|| No. 35978
He could not legally possess the rifle in Illinois. He did not possess the rifle in Illinois. He could legally possess it in Wisconsin. He did possess it in Wisconsin. The rifle did not cross state lines. Rittenhouse did cross state lines. Wisconsin law does not apply in Illinois and vice-versa.
|>>|| No. 35979
He could not legally purchase the gun in either state. Like a teenager asking someone to buy booze or fags from a shop, he asked a friend to buy it for him. He gave the friend the money, and the friend testified in court that the gun was bought for him.
He did not and could not legally procure and possess the gun.
You do not carry a gun you have no intention of using. We have no evidence of any other intent for him being there. It has been claimed he went with the intent of providing first aid, but at no point do we see him do so. Indeed, when presented with multiple opportunities to do so, he passed them all up.
|>>|| No. 35980
He didn't possess the rifle, there was no permanent transferral of ownership, that would require paperwork. No such paperwork was completed, the gun was essentially borrowed. There's no law against borrowing a gun. Like it or not, it was all legal.
As for the actual shooting, even in this country, you don't get away with a self-defence argument if you strike pre-emptively. Striking first makes you the assailant. The facts are clear here, Rittenhouse was acting in self defence.
This is exactly what I meant though, you're getting hung up on the details of the case because this has become an ideological battle. The details of the case are pretty clear cut, there's no point discussing it. If you want to discuss why it's retarded that America considers this kind of legal framework adequate, please go ahead, but either way his actions on that night in those circumstances were legal, leaving him an innocent man.
|>>|| No. 35981
>He didn't possess the rifle
In that case, I can't see what all the fuss is about. You can't kill someone with a gun if you don't have one in your possession. Why didn't his lawyers think of that one in the first place? This trial could have been avoided entirely if only someone had realised he didn't actually have a gun.
|>>|| No. 35982
You can clearly see why he didn't get convicted when this kind of pedantic fuckwittery is about the best they had to offer too.
|>>|| No. 35985
This seems to me to take far too serene a view of the law. Surely all it would take to render his actions illegal would be for him to have been found guilty at trial and to have lost any resultant appeal, which is always a perfectly possible option. (Particularly in the US, which seems to enjoy devices like "My guy can be president, but you can't use this as precedent.")
I would regard it as cynical but not insane to claim that in a case like this it's not a matter of "law" winning over "politics" so much as two competing sets of politics with the law reflecting an underlying balance of power. "Oh, but what if the case was less high profile?" hypotheticals are surely interesting for lawyers, but we live in a world where the case is high profile and the decision can't be completely disentangled from that.
(I would emphasise that this should be read in a "politically neutral" sort of way. Flip the trial outcome and the underlying analysis should be the same.)
|>>|| No. 35987
>Surely all it would take to render his actions illegal would be for him to have been found guilty at trial and to have lost any resultant appeal, which is always a perfectly possible option.
The Birmingham Six weren't guilty, despite losing a trial and an appeal.
In American jurisprudence, the concept of "the spirit of the law" is basically irrelevant - they take a strict legalistic approach to interpreting statute. The firearms charge was completely baseless; the other charges were decided on point of fact by the jury, who were wholly satisfied that Rittenhouse's actions satisfied the standards of self defence in Wisconsin law. That decision was fully supported by all of the evidence and any reasonable jury would have come to the same conclusion.
Arguments like "Rittenhouse provoked the situation by carrying a gun" or "his attackers were defending themselves from a threat and so Rittenhouse could not have been acting in self defence" are legally baseless. The mere presence of a firearm does not constitute a threat, Wisconsin law interprets the duty to retreat quite liberally, it's clear that Rittenhouse did try to retreat and the intent of an assailant is irrelevant to whether someone acted in self defence. Arguments for Rittenhouse's guilt are wishful thinking based on what people think the law ought to be, not arguments based on what the law actually is. You might think that someone shouldn't be able to rock up at a riot with a rifle, but Wisconsin law says otherwise.
Unless further evidence comes to light, Rittenhouse is innocent and will remain so. Rittenhouse was obviously innocent, the evidence was abundantly clear and the decision to prosecute was entirely politically motivated. The presiding judge saw straight through it and was not at all pleased with the flimsy case brought before him.
There's an entirely legitimate argument that Wisconsin should have stricter laws regarding firearms and self defence, but that argument is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of Rittenhouse. He might have been guilty if the laws were different, but that could be said of anyone doing anything.
|>>|| No. 35988
>The Birmingham Six weren't guilty, despite losing a trial and an appeal.
No, by definition that means they were very much guilty.
Just as in so many other cases, you're conflating being guilty or not with having done the thing or not. See also: OJ Simpson, who was not guilty despite very blatantly having done it.
|>>|| No. 35989
And yet the fact that Stephen Paddock was merely defending himself from a spider with 8 pairs of nunchucks on his hotel room window was laughed out of court.
|>>|| No. 36015
>Arguments like "Rittenhouse provoked the situation by carrying a gun" or "his attackers were defending themselves from a threat and so Rittenhouse could not have been acting in self defence" are legally baseless.
They're not "legally baseless". Wisconsin law provides that carrying a gun can, in and of itself, amount to provocation. It also provides that if you kill someone in an attempt to disarm you, you cannot claim self-defence.
|>>|| No. 36025
I would argue that Ahmaud Arbery's death is just as well-known as Kyle Rittenhouse, or at least it was until everyone became obsessed with the trial. Ahmaud Arbery is why /pol/ says "I hate joggers" and generally uses "jogger" as a sneaky coded euphemism for the word that got me autobanned from here for an hour 59 minutes ago and deleted my original post. He was out jogging, then he got shot, then he influenced the online zeitgeist far more than Kyle Rittenhouse did.
I hope you agree because waiting an hour to argue with you is getting on my tits.
|>>|| No. 36026
>White men do get sent down, when they actually break the law.
In this case sure, but this is a bad generalisation, especially when it took a good 2 months for this to even get taken to court and that's only because it got blown up due to public outrage. Fortunately the DA is now under fire for trying to cover it up too. But then you have people like Christopher Belter who pled guilty to his crimes and received no prison sentence. There's no consistency to justice.
|>>|| No. 36030
What is this weird UK flag I keep seeing on some of the police officers in the UK? Are they trying to be Americans? Thin blue line? What is the point of it? It is extremely off-putting. Are we becoming too Americanised but without the guns? At least give me guns and a constitution first. Jesus.
|>>|| No. 36033
The civil case against the tiki twats concluded this week, with various Nazis being hit for up to a million dollars each. Richard Spencer (of getting-punched-in-the-face fame) is on the hook for around $800k.
|>>|| No. 36037
Look Nazi, just because there is an Asian woman and a black man in this programme doesn't mean it isn't British.
|>>|| No. 36039
>Instead of toning the bill down, the Home Secretary has made it vastly more dangerous, adding several aggressive new provisions.
>Now police can deploy stop and search to avoid “serious disruption” or a “public nuisance”. They can be initiated “whether or not the constable has any grounds for suspecting that the person… is carrying a prohibited object”
>Anyone found guilty of obstructing a stop and search during a protest faces a jail term “not exceeding 51 weeks”.
>Amendment 319C criminalises “wilful obstruction of a highway”. Amendment 319D criminalises the obstruction of “major transport works”, including roads, rail lines or airport runways. Amendment 319A creates an offence of “locking on”, or carrying equipment which might facilitate it. It targets anyone who attaches themselves to “a person, to an object or to land”. These all come with a potential 51 week prison sentence.
>There is no definition of the term “attach”, so it could equally be applied to protestors who link arms during a sit-down protest, or even hold hands. It could apply to someone found with superglue while walking past a protest, or to the disabled activists who chained their wheelchairs to traffic lights over benefits cuts.
>the most far-reaching and alarming part of the legislation is called an SDPO, or Serious Disruption Prevention Order... you do not even have to have been convicted of a crime. You do not even need to have caused disruption. It’s enough that you might have... Once the order is imposed, it eradicates your rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Those under an order can be forced to report to the authorities whenever the courts demand it, as often as they demand it. They must “present themselves to a particular person at a particular place at… particular times on particular days”.
They can also be prohibited from being at a certain place, or possessing certain items, or participating in certain activities, or socialising with certain people, for up to two years. They can be blocked from using the internet to “encourage” people to “carry out activities related to a protest”. Someone who used their social media account to promote a demonstration could be found in breach of the order. The SDPOs are a full-scale assault on the individual’s human rights. And they can apply even if they’ve never been convicted of a crime.
|>>|| No. 36041
The policing bill has been part of this thread for the past seven months. Keep up.
|>>|| No. 36042
It was originally a poem by Rudyard Kipling, which was similarly mediocre to the TV series (and the law enforcement authorities).
|>>|| No. 36043
>"locking on", or carrying equipment which might facilitate it.
Well I wouldn't need to own a bike lock if the police did their bloody jobs when my bike gets stolen. But seemingly that's not important.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]