Community >> View Post
·
Post By
FreeKyle

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
In Reply To
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: CNN: Angry White Men
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 09:37:13 am EST (Viewed 376 times)
Reply Subj: Re: CNN: Angry White Men
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 04:45:17 pm EST (Viewed 371 times)



    Quote:
    I am not going to argue the legal points. I am not a lawyer and do not care to do so. I will highlight my concerns from a more societal point of view. As legally the jury found it compelling enough that he was acting in self defense.

    1. Why did a 17 year old take it upon himself to go to a protest with a weapon? He had to be driven several hours to get there. I am sure he felt passionate but was he hired to do it? What was his experience? Is it ok for people to show up with no direct interest and act as a police force?


He lived in Antioch which is 20 miles from Kenosha. His dad lived in Kenosha. So where did you get that he had to be driven for several hours and that he had no direct interest?


    Quote:
    2. Having a gun in the first place is going to be a contentious issue but one could rightfully take it as a threat in and of itself.


Not legally you can’t. If the sight of a gun triggers you to a violent response, then you are the provocateur.


    Quote:
    3. Was he treated differently than say a black or latino man of the same age would be if he performed the same acts? Killing two white men and then being allowed to go free by police multiple times before being taken in. I tend to be leary that they would have.


Was he? You asked the question, the burden is on you to support your hypothetical. Personally, I feel quite certain that a black man in the same situation would not have even been charged. I feel that to suggest otherwise is nonsense and misdirection.


    Quote:
    4. Where is the line for vigilante justice? It seems disturbing that people should be out doing that sort of thing. One could make a case that he put himself into a dangerous environment and decided to carry a rifle in the process that could make a situation worse. None of this would have happened if he did not decide to protect property or provide first aid.


I already explained where the line was drawn in a previous post. The line is drawn the moment the armed person becomes a provocateur. Meaning: makes verbal threats, points his gun, shoots in the air, etc. But just standing there is not provocation.

Here’s an example: the Black Panthers are currently standing in front of the Glynn County Courthouse for the Ahmaud Arbery trial, and they are armed to the teeth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wjcl.com/amp/article/ahmaud-arbery-closing-arguments-update/38324969

This is fine in and of itself, and a person who violently attacks one of these people for just standing there would be forcing the gun holder into a self-defense situation.

But, as always, and of course, the black panthers are going further than that and are walking the dangerous line. There are reports that they made coffins in front of the courthouse with the defendants’ names, and they already issued a threat: “Ya'll are in serious trouble because the wrath of karma is coming on America," said a man who identified himself as the supreme commander of the New Black Panther militia. "We're not taking it no more."

You can see how they are starting to creep over the line I drew (which was based on the law). And they might even be over it. If someone dies, I don’t know if self-defense can be argued anymore for the reasons I explained.

If you object to the line I clearly drew then I’d like to know why and how I’m being unfair or hypocritical.


    Quote:
    5. Also keep in mind the protesting is a right too, the assumption of a 17 year old that there was going to be trouble and he could stop it is a bit troubling to me.


Nobody has a right to violently protest. This nonsense about protester rights is tired and old. What is more troubling is how the Kenosha police were told to stand down, making citizens feel that they had to step up against lawlessness.


    Quote:
    To me the legal questions pale next to the larger questions raised and the court would never have been able to rule on entirely, but it is mostly a trend where it seems that self defense is being stretched to the breaking point more and more.


I’d agree that some states are not interpreting it correctly. George Zimmerman, for example, is guilty in my book. And so are the people involved in the Ahmaud Arbery trial.


    Quote:
    I sort of laid out my concerns, but I imagine I will quickly find why initially I did not want to waste the effort.


I still didn’t see much effort, though: “I sort of…”




“I will need to track down…” Precisely.




Posted with Apple iPhone 14.1.2
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software