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

[muto]

Can you please teach it to this guy then? Especially since that guy doubled down that it was $1k bail when someone pointed out the error?



JFC dude just admit you were wrong. It doesn't hurt. I promise.

I already admitted to making a typo. Maybe if you tried opening your eyes for 2 seconds.

- - - Updated - - -

No one actually touched Kyle til he got kicked, including the skateboard guy, it never even hit him.

- - - Updated - - -



Because they are just as fucking gullible as you are? And the protests that devolve into riots are because of cops and white nationalists like the Boogaloo Boys that were with Kyle that night he murdered 2 people.

- - - Updated - - -



Ah yes, lets post a video from a fucking conspiracy theorist and hope to be taken fucking serious. Not surprising you are fucking gullible enough to listen to Alex Jones' protege in Paul Joseph Watson.

- - - Updated - - -



You call 5 million in bail low?

- - - Updated - - -



That wasn't for the vehicular attack, he didn't have his day for arraignment til yesterday, that $1000 was for something else. Not surprising you believe bullshit right wing talking points. His bail is $5 million.

- - - Updated - - -



Because no one willingly listens to a flat earther conspiracy theorist that posts other white nationalist conspiracy theorist.

- - - Updated - - -



Coming from you, that is fucking hilarious.

- - - Updated - - -



They fuck Fox News isn't considered mainstream.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh, Hey, another white nationalist conspiracy theorist, color me shocked. Let me guess? You think the Illuminati is coming for you too like Mark Dice does?

The 10,000$ /1,000$ was for running over the mother of his child. The 5 million was for the parade. It's also funny you think I got that info from a right wing news outlet when I got it from CNN, but here's an even further left news outlet than CNN for you that has the info as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...l-brooks-bail/

[postman1782]

I already admitted to making a typo. Maybe if you tried opening your eyes for 2 seconds.

- - - Updated - - -



The 10,000$ /1,000$ was for running over the mother of his child. The 5 million was for the parade. It's also funny you think I got that info from a right wing news outlet when I got it from CNN, but here's an even further left news outlet than CNN for you that has the info as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...l-brooks-bail/

Yes, he was out on bail, they don't have the technology of the Minority Report to see that he was going to do another bad thing like terrorism. And I said right wing talking points, because that is the first thing I saw when the attack happened 2 days ago, that people were thinking he was already out on bail for $1000 after this attack.

[postman1782]

It’s shit that he was out on such low bail to begin with after the first attack, which is why it’s under review. Fuck, this is all off topic though. Zero to do with the thread, as per Rozz.

Oh absolutely, he shouldn't have been out on bail, but people are trying to pin this guy as being a BLM terrorist, when there is no evidence.

[KaPe]

Yes, he was out on bail, they don't have the technology of the Minority Report to see that he was going to do another bad thing like terrorism. And I said right wing talking points, because that is the first thing I saw when the attack happened 2 days ago, that people were thinking he was already out on bail for $1000 after this attack.

I thought they had access to telepathy? Or is that only individual vigilantes, not the police as a whole?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I missed the whole Rittenhouse verdict, but I read through it here, and it really is quite fascinating how many worms will come out of the woodwork to try and gloat, isn't it? Even got the flat earther (who censored "flat earther" in someone's post when replying for some reason) to come back. A certain "Condor," too! The ardent champions for Kyle "innocent victim" Rittenhouse are certainly an... interesting read. I'm particularly a fan of anyone repeating "unanimous verdict!" constantly, as if it actually means anything, and the "far left bully mob" guy. Bless 'em.

Anyway, definitely not the verdict he deserved, but absolutely the verdict I think the majority of people expected.

I'm actually kinda surprised how long the jury deliberated, considering the 3 times I've been picked for jury duty. But then again, it was a very high profile case that should have been a clear case of murder that got muddied up by the Trumper judge controlling the narrative of the trial, right down to not allowing the victims to be called victims, but allowing for them to be called rioters, looters, vandals etc. when there was no proof they'd done vandalism, looted, or were part of riots.

Usually on jury duty deliberations, it's either a very obvious case and you don't even know why one side is even arguing because it's really clear either a law was broken (or not), or it's basically down to the opinion of the jurors. The isntructions of the judge can play a HUGE part in the verdict. For instance if the defendant is a piece of scum who did something awful, has a former criminal record, etc. but the judge gives you very specific instructions to deliberate on a very specific item, you can come back with a not guilty because the defense was successfully able to argue a loophole around a guilty verdict.

The more and more I look at this trial, like the actual transcripts, the more this looks like that.

Also most jurors aren't willing to stick to their convictions if there's a pretty evenly split jury. Usually one side will have a slight majority, and the other side will just cave. Why? Because they have no personal investment into the outcome of the trial. They're missing work and because of how the modern world works, most likely not getting paid for said missed work.

In fact, that's how 5 jurors felt on the last trial I went into. They just said "We don't really care how this trial comes out, we just want to go back to work. You guys make the call."


Our constitution is already a complete and utter mess thanks to conservatives, and even moreso than ever our justice system is jam packed with Trump stooges, and our workers who serve as jurors aren't willing to take trial verdicts seriously because they just want to get out of there as soon as possible.

[Lenonis]

I didn't see explicit identification of the Kenosha County lifeguard position, so for all I know it could be less than ten minutes away in a suburb. Maybe you can identify it?

Google is -----> if you actually care to know the city he worked. And if it's less than ten minutes away in a suburb then he still isn't "protecting where he works".

You've made a case out of the difference between Kenosha, the city, and Kenosha, the county, so I was wondering if this had any bearing on anything in particular.

Because the argument was made that Rittenhouse was justified being there because he was protecting his workplace. Which isn't the case and just goes to show the lengths the right wing are going to in order to make this guy someone other than a kid with piss poor judgment that resulted in multiple people getting killed.

And besides, it isn't his place to defend anything other than his home. That's what the police are for. We don't need 17 year old wanna be vigilantees running around.

Two of three of the men shot by Rittenhouse didn't live in Kenosha, so can I call them out of towners that just came into Kenosha to cause havoc?

I mean if you want to engage in whataboutism that's on you. I've not made a single statement on what I think of the people who were killed, nor would that opinion change my stance on the quality of Rittenhouse's judgment.

[tehdang]

Google is -----> if you actually care to know the city he worked. And if it's less than ten minutes away in a suburb then he still isn't "protecting where he works"

Out here in LA, the dozen cities surrounding are always called LA until somebody asks “where in LA?” Maybe it’s a regional thing. But it seems like you’re going to continue to be unreasonable and pedantic on this point, so you do you.

And, yes, I did google searches to determine if the workplace in the county was ever mentioned. Maybe you’ll have better luck.

Because the argument was made that Rittenhouse was justified being there because he was protecting his workplace. Which isn't the case and just goes to show the lengths the right wing are going to in order to make this guy someone other than a kid with piss poor judgment that resulted in multiple people getting killed.

And besides, it isn't his place to defend anything other than his home. That's what the police are for. We don't need 17 year old wanna be vigilantees running around.

As mentioned earlier, I disagreed with his choice to help out that community (and, yes, one that he had many strong ties to). And I echo the opposite claim to yours: this case goes to show the lengths lefties go to in order to criminalize self-defense and cover for a belief that white guys with AR-15s are guilty.

I mean if you want to engage in whataboutism that's on you. I've not made a single statement on what I think of the people who were killed, nor would that opinion change my stance on the quality of Rittenhouse's judgment.

Its illustrative of the perverse conversation. If we’re splitting hairs on cities and responsibilities, of course I’m going to allege that two of the three shot had no reason to be there to do criminal mischief, and the third should’ve been taken into custody long before attempting to assault Rittenhouse. Mass failure of the governor and local PD to control the situation, in this case, an out-of-control n-word-yelling violent and mentally disturbed psychopath.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm actually kinda surprised how long the jury deliberated, considering the 3 times I've been picked for jury duty. But then again, it was a very high profile case that should have been a clear case of murder that got muddied up by the Trumper judge controlling the narrative of the trial, right down to not allowing the victims to be called victims, but allowing for them to be called rioters, looters, vandals etc. when there was no proof they'd done vandalism, looted, or were part of riots.

Usually on jury duty deliberations, it's either a very obvious case and you don't even know why one side is even arguing because it's really clear either a law was broken (or not), or it's basically down to the opinion of the jurors. The isntructions of the judge can play a HUGE part in the verdict. For instance if the defendant is a piece of scum who did something awful, has a former criminal record, etc. but the judge gives you very specific instructions to deliberate on a very specific item, you can come back with a not guilty because the defense was successfully able to argue a loophole around a guilty verdict.

The more and more I look at this trial, like the actual transcripts, the more this looks like that.

Also most jurors aren't willing to stick to their convictions if there's a pretty evenly split jury. Usually one side will have a slight majority, and the other side will just cave. Why? Because they have no personal investment into the outcome of the trial. They're missing work and because of how the modern world works, most likely not getting paid for said missed work.

In fact, that's how 5 jurors felt on the last trial I went into. They just said "We don't really care how this trial comes out, we just want to go back to work. You guys make the call."


Our constitution is already a complete and utter mess thanks to conservatives, and even moreso than ever our justice system is jam packed with Trump stooges, and our workers who serve as jurors aren't willing to take trial verdicts seriously because they just want to get out of there as soon as possible.

The jury instructions were very complicated and a lot of the prosecutions case rested on flimsy video evidence they claim showed provocation. I was expecting two days or more.

[Lenonis]

But it seems like you’re going to continue to be unreasonable and pedantic on this point, so you do you.

It's not unreasonable and pedantic. It's core to my point. Chicago is in Cook County. So are a bunch of suburbs. If I worked in Arlington Heights and called it "I work in Cook County" and then went to a protest downtown to "protect where I work" I'd be lying. Because cities and counties aren't the same thing.

And I echo the opposite claim to yours: this case goes to show the lengths lefties go to in order to criminalize self-defense and cover for a belief that white guys with AR-15s are guilty.

Great, glad we agree this kid showed terrible judgment. I made no claims in regards to his self-defense so that's not relevant.

Its illustrative of the perverse conversation. If we’re splitting hairs on cities and responsibilities, of course I’m going to allege that two of the three shot had no reason to be there to do criminal mischief, and the third should’ve been taken into custody long before attempting to assault Rittenhouse. Mass failure of the governor and local PD to control the situation, in this case, an out-of-control n-word-yelling violent and mentally disturbed psychopath.

You seem to be unable to grasp that my claims around his judgment actually have nothing to do with events that actually happened in Kenosha except for his fleeing the scene. You can double down on the whataboutism on the dead folks but it doesn't change anything about the accusations I'm leveling at Rittenhouse for his poor judgment.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me one link or quite where anyone on the right is calling Rittenhosue a role model.

The lying here needs to stop.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...d-medal-to?amp

You ready to admit you are wrong yet?

[Xyonai]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...d-medal-to?amp

You ready to admit you are wrong yet?

Man for a party that - at least used to - whine endlessly about Virtue Signalling they sure as shit like to signal their virtues a whole fuckin' lot.

[Ivanstone]

As mentioned earlier, I disagreed with his choice to help out that community (and, yes, one that he had many strong ties to). And I echo the opposite claim to yours: this case goes to show the lengths lefties go to in order to criminalize self-defense and cover for a belief that white guys with AR-15s are guilty.

Or it shows the lengths that social conservatives will try to justify murder as self-defense. White guys (or anyone) with AR15s should be disarmed.

If anyone is carrying an assault weapon I do consider them threatening. Anyone who has their hand on the grip of any gun I consider them threatening. The only two caveats to that are if you're engaging in target practice or hunting animals.

Raul Rodriquez armed himself and recorded himself confronting his neighbours about the volume of their music. His neighbours were unarmed and he shot them anyways claiming Castle Doctrine. He went looking for trouble and created it. Amber Guyger trespassed another person's property and killed them. She also claimed self defense. She accidentally went looking for trouble and found it. There are more if you care to look.

Kyle Rittenhouse went looking for trouble. He didn't need to be there. He's not a cop or even a security guard. He armed himself with a weapon he was not legally able to own or carry. His feelings about government response are irrelevant. Two of his victims didn't need to be there either but they didn't arm themselves. Gaige Grosskreutz was there for valid reasons. He was legally armed although not legally entitled to carry. None of them stand accused of vandalism.

[Lenonis]

Man for a party that - at least used to - whine endlessly about Virtue Signalling they sure as shit like to signal their virtues a whole fuckin' lot.

They have nothing but projection. It's comical.

[Deus Mortis]

Or it shows the lengths that social conservatives will try to justify murder as self-defense. White guys (or anyone) with AR15s should be disarmed.

If anyone is carrying an assault weapon I do consider them threatening. Anyone who has their hand on the grip of any gun I consider them threatening. The only two caveats to that are if you're engaging in target practice or hunting animals.

Nothing threatening about people like this. Took place just the other day.
https://www.blackenterprise.com/blac...house-protest/


Just a black father and 16 year old daughter exercising their constitutional rights. Sad to see people like yourself want to tear up the constitution.

[Ivanstone]

Nothing threatening about people like this. Took place just the other day.
https://www.blackenterprise.com/blac...house-protest/


Just a black father and 16 year old daughter exercising their constitutional rights. Sad to see people like yourself want to tear up the constitution.

There’s no need for them to be doing that. They’re just stunting while creating a climate of fear.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment is subject to change and reinterpretation. Ever notice how no one talks about the well regulated militia part? I wonder why.

[Zan15]

There’s no need for them to be doing that. They’re just stunting while creating a climate of fear.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment is subject to change and reinterpretation. Ever notice how no one talks about the well regulated militia part? I wonder why.

Oh they do talk about it. You should see the mental gymnastics over in the gun mega thread on that particular part.....

[Deus Mortis]

There’s no need for them to be doing that. They’re just stunting while creating a climate of fear.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment is subject to change and reinterpretation. Ever notice how no one talks about the well regulated militia part? I wonder why.

I feel sorry for the people that scares, cause to me it is just two Americans using their rights, and I am glad that there is people like them that stand up for themselves.

[Draco-Onis]

I feel sorry for the people that scares, cause to me it is just two Americans using their rights, and I am glad that there is people like them that stand up for themselves.

Ronald Reagan and the GOP passed strict gun laws because the black panthers were carrying guns if enough people of the right skin tone start carrying watch how fast the right will change their tune.

[minteK917]

Legal Eagle pretty much discrediting 95% of the screeching on both sides in two videos, got to love it lol.

[Yuujin]

Legal Eagle pretty much discrediting 95% of the screeching on both sides in two videos, got to love it lol.

The exception to the exception to the exception applied.

Edit: My favorite part was him saying any system that incentivizes rule by the last person standing, that is killing anyone that might dispute your claims of self defense, seems suboptimal. Vigilantism is bad.

[Endus]

The exception to the exception to the exception applied.

Edit: My favorite part was him saying any system that incentivizes rule by the last person standing, that is killing anyone that might dispute your claims of self defense, seems suboptimal. Vigilantism is bad.

Like, what this decision means is that Grosskreutz shouldn't have held his fire. He should've shot Rittenhouse. He had far more cause than Rittenhouse did, as Rittenhouse had actually shot and killed someone already. And then Huber might still be alive and he might not have lost his bicep.

Is that "better"? Is the ideal society one where you pre-emptively shoot threats "just in case"? Seems like it shouldn't be.

To be clear; I'm not myself suggesting Grosskreutz should've just unloaded on Rittenhouse. Or that Rittenhouse deserved that. I'm pointing out that's the corollary of this legal decision. That's why I disagree with the decision.

[Yuujin]

Like, what this decision means is that Grosskreutz shouldn't have held his fire. He should've shot Rittenhouse. He had far more cause than Rittenhouse did, as Rittenhouse had actually shot and killed someone already. And then Huber might still be alive and he might not have lost his bicep.

Is that "better"? Is the ideal society one where you pre-emptively shoot threats "just in case"? Seems like it shouldn't be.

To be clear; I'm not myself suggesting Grosskreutz should've just unloaded on Rittenhouse. Or that Rittenhouse deserved that. I'm pointing out that's the corollary of this legal decision. That's why I disagree with the decision.

Which is an argument the "reviewer" presents. A reasonable person could also believe that Grosskreutz felt his life was in danger because he believed Kyle was an active shooter, and he just witnessed him fire his weapon at two different people.