Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Karlz0rz]

It was fairly obvious, or rather, likely, that Rittenhouse would be found not guilty of murder. There's very nice proof in video format, so that was pretty set in stone in my opinion.
However, he should've never been out there in the first place, and neither should the protesters.
Just a clusterfuck all around! No winners, just losers.

[PhaelixWW]

What. The. FUCK.

There are two situations where you apply over a dozen stun gun shocks to a black person:
1. The black person was actually a rampaging elephant and not a black person.
2. You're fucking racist.

The victim wasn't black.

[postman1782]

Well, I think it's a fine guess by him. I'd imagine most people are indeed against Fascism and indeed think that black lives matter.

Yeah, but he called them thugs, which means he supports literal fascists, which isn't surprising since he supports the white nationalist Kyle Rittenhouse.

[FAILoZOFF]

I'd imagine most people are indeed against Fascism and indeed think that black lives matter.

They are also against pedophilia, wife beating and robbery. Unlike these degenerates.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The victim wasn't black.

Outrage still stands though, you don't stun gun someone over a dozen times no matter their skin color. That's far beyond excessive. My bad for just assuming the skin color though, because of the thread and how damn common that kind of thing is.

[masterhorus8]

It was fairly obvious, or rather, likely, that Rittenhouse would be found not guilty of murder. There's very nice proof in video format, so that was pretty set in stone in my opinion.
However, he should've never been out there in the first place, and neither should the protesters.
Just a clusterfuck all around! No winners, just losers.

First amendment says hello.

[DarkTZeratul]

They are also against pedophilia, wife beating and robbery. Unlike these degenerates.

You can be against all those things and not think that they deserve to get murdered by a vigilante wholly unaware of their histories.

[JohnBrown1917]

They are also against pedophilia, wife beating and robbery. Unlike these degenerates.

Good to see more people taking a stand against Ritterhouse for hitting that girl. It was not his wife though, you can't get married at 17!

[postman1782]

They are also against pedophilia, wife beating and robbery. Unlike these degenerates.

Yet, they support Trump, who is ALL FUCKING 3.

[Grax]

You can be against all those things and not think that they deserve to get murdered by a vigilante wholly unaware of their histories.

The jury wasn't tasked with answering whether or not anyone deserved to be murdered. They were asked to render judgement based on the circumstances that led to the charges brought by the state, based on the evidence and testimony presented to them at trial. If you, or anyone else, is incapable of seeing this for what it is, and respecting the centuries-old process of trial by jury, with all its benefits and faults, then that is a lack of cognition on your part.

[s_bushido]

It was not his wife though, you can't get married at 17!

Um...this is America. Of course you can.

The jury wasn't tasked with answering whether or not anyone deserved to be murdered.

And yet the right-wing narrative since the beginning has been that one of them did deserve to be murdered because of his criminal history. Case in point: the poster he was responding to.

[Grax]

First amendment says hello.

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

Having said that, Rittenhouse's underage a** should have never been allowed out the house.

[FAILoZOFF]

And yet the right-wing narrative since the beginning has been that one of them did deserve to be murdered because of his criminal history. Case in point: the poster he was responding to.

And yet, he wasn't shot "for" that, I'd call it just a lucky coincidence, but that's besides the point

Yet, they support Trump, who is ALL FUCKING 3.

"Sure, Jan."

You can be against all those things and not think that they deserve to get murdered by a vigilante wholly unaware of their histories.

lets agree to disagree, and dying in a failed attack isn't called "murder". But alas, pedo died doing what he loved the most, chasing teens <3

[postman1782]

And yet, he wasn't shot "for" that, I'd call it just a lucky coincidence, but that's besides the point

"Sure, Jan."

lets agree to disagree, and dying in a failed attack isn't called "murder". But alas, pedo died doing what he loved the most, chasing teens <3

It isn't a sure Jan moment, Trump ripped a chunk of his first wifes scalp out because she wouldn't have sex with him, he raped a 13 year old, and he literally stole millions from the tax payers because of his fucking golf trips.

[masterhorus8]

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

Having said that, Rittenhouse's underage a** should have never been allowed out the house.

EDIT: My apologies, incorrect fallacy. Moving goalposts. What I responded to did not mention anything about the protestors actions, just that they should not have been there.

[Egomaniac]

I mean, the article mentions that his death was ruled a homicide by asphyxiation. That kinda rules out accidental death. Those guys would have to argue that the 5 of them had enough trouble subduing a naked man to "justify" the homicide, which I don't see happening.

Grand Juries fail to indict cops all the time.

https://www.news24.com/news24/World/...k-man-20210623
https://www.naacpldf.org/press-relea...ing-apartment/

Just a couple of quick examples.

- - - Updated - - -

The victim wasn't black.

No, he wasn't black. He was brown.

[Bodakane]

Just cuz you dont like a group doesnt mean they dont deserve rights. Kyle is prolly a white supremacisr, he is still entitled to a right to defend himself

No one said anything of the sort.

You shouldn't be allowed to go to somewhere with the express intent of putting yourself in harm's way, then claim self defense because you're in harm's way.

[DarkTZeratul]

The jury wasn't tasked with answering whether or not anyone deserved to be murdered. They were asked to render judgement based on the circumstances that led to the charges brought by the state, based on the evidence and testimony presented to them at trial.

Then why do people keep bringing up the victims' past histories as if it fucking matters in the slightest?

[PhaelixWW]

Grand Juries fail to indict cops all the time.

I wasn't rebutting your statement but rather continuing the discussion. Perhaps I should have quoted the same post you did.

My point was that it's more than just a good first step. The indictment (as pointed out in the sentence you omitted) includes malice murder and the state medical examiner wasn't shy about labeling the death a homicide.

I think this case will much more likely see justice than many of the others mentioned.

[Breccia]

As expected, Rittenhouse goes on Hannity and claims Biden defamed him by calling him a White Supremacist.

"Oh, so Biden called him a White Supremacist?"

No.

"Um...then what's he talking about?"

Biden shared a video clip of him 100% disavowing white supremacists and other domestic terrorists.

"Including Rittenhouse?"

No. The clip was from the debates.

"But...surely he mentioned Rittenhouse by name?"

Well look, I stand by what the jury has concluded. The jury system works and we have to abide by it

"...that's not very defaming. What's the deal?"

Biden said he stands by the jury's decision and then posted that video. Rittenhouse made the conclusion that, by putting the two things next to each other, that he was trying to make the two related.

For example, if you, say, had a video of a bunch of inhuman monsters being slain, and then also put the faces of your political opponents on the monsters that were being slain, and said "well, there's no relation between the two, it's just an anime clip, therefore, Biden said I was a KKK member."

I look forward to Rittenhouse's claiming to sue but then never doing it, because he has no case.