Celebrating the 40th anniversary of Return of the Jedi

Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
FreeKyle

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
Subj: Re: CNN: Angry White Men
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 03:51:31 pm EST (Viewed 404 times)
Reply Subj: Re: CNN: Angry White Men
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 09:37:13 am EST (Viewed 386 times)



    Quote:

      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.



      Quote:
      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?



    Quote:
    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?


His stated reasons were to protect a car dealership and to provide medical assistance. I read mixed things on if help was asked for by the dealership depending on the witness, but I doubt an arm teen was high on the list.

It was not to go in and get his dad out. If he was protecting his dad from violence I would not really have an issue with it. He was there at least in part as a civilian with no authority with a dangerous weapon to protect property and so on. Things that a teenager probably should not be doing as they lack the training to do so and he was not acting in any official capacity.


    Quote:

      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.



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


Legally it is subjective and who can make their case better. In a situation where one person is armed and another is not armed it seems natural that most people would be more uneasy about this than not. It is not a threat.

That person on high alert that some random person has a gun and the person with the gun makes a movement perceived to be a threat and takes action. The person with the gun see's the person coming and kills them. Both saw a threat in the other, but one person is dead and there is only the person who did the killings word on it in situations and a body.

Most of these situations are not black and white and perception is a big deal. A person is often said to think they were under threat and acted in self defense, if they did or did not is up to the jury to figure out which may or may not uphold the law and may or may not be ethical. As the two are not the same and it is not really the jury's job to decide the later anyway.

There is also a concern that firing a rifle into a crowd injures other people with nothing to do with anything, so to me it just seems like a needless risks and nobody needed to die over anything that happened.

What happens if you kill somebody in self defense, run from the scene and somebody seeing it from a distance things you are a killer and tries to defend themselves and then they are gunned down as well? The gunmen can still claim self defense and really the person charging could do so as well.

These are hypotheticals but to me they are all concerning as there did not need to be a conflict at all.


    Quote:

      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.



    Quote:
    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.


I would recommend watching the news more if that is your view. Seems like more often than not a black person will be arrested for more minor transgressions. That black people are arrested more is common knowledge.

And I imagine examples I would provide would be considered anecdotal. I mean even that 16 year old kid in Texas ran into a bunch of bicyclists and all because he was being an idiot and he got to go home. Seems to be a trend to me but I cannot make you see what you do not want to see.


    Quote:

      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.



    Quote:
    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.


That is your opinion but what constitutes a threat is subjective. Is the inherent consideration there. And it ties into the first point I made, as he was there to more or less be a vigilante or security of sorts despite having no authority or responsibility to do so. Is such an act ok? Putting yourself into potential harms way and when it happens and you kill people is that all on everybody else and not the person who put them into that spot?



    Quote:
    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.


Ok


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



    Quote:
    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.


Maybe but that is a bit of an idealized situation. I do not agree with folks just being out with guns in the first place as escalation is always possible, but the situations would be different.


    Quote:
    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."


I am not really condoning those actions as I found it distasteful and not helpful when folks have effigies or similar symbols at MAGA rallies and I think it is wrong there but I do think they are a somewhat different situations.


    Quote:
    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.


I am not sure as for the most part I find more and more that self-defense just means find the place with the weakest laws on the matter and go from there. Who did what and where is always going to be somewhat subjective.

In both scenarios the group or individual put themselves into a situation they did not need to be and by carrying a weapon elevated the level of threat present that may not have existed otherwise and if they would have stayed out of it no problem would have started. Although to my knowledge the individuals your article is going over have not broken any laws yet.

However, in the hypothetical sense I would not be supportive of it.


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


I object to it being as clear cut as all of that. As a large number of who did what and when is subjective in the end.


    Quote:

      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.



    Quote:
    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.


I did not say they had a right to be violent. I just said that people have a right to protest.

I am not seeing anything about a stand down order. Various releases by police telling people to go home, some supportive and other things, but there were police and national guard present already.

I mean depending on the militia group, they are ready for a fight if there is one or is not one. What was one of the ones out west where they expected bus loads of antifa that never showed but there was an armed presence in place.

To me if there is already that presence and there are problems having a bunch of people there with guns does not look good at all and can make things worse. Everybody who destroyed something should get arrested and stand trial.


    Quote:

      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.



    Quote:
    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.


I would agree. And I would agree that I think Rittenhouse had some grounds for self defense for sure apparently given that he was being chased and that there was a gunshot. I do question why he saw the need to be there at all though.

However, they do highlight the subjectivity of self defense laws. In Florida it is apparently even ok to drive a vehicle into protestors on the road which seems outlandish to me.

I get that he wants to be there to protect things and I presume thinks that the folks doing that job do not do a good job but for the most part if there is going to be trouble than stay home and stay out of it. The authorities there are going to have enough of a problem anyway.

If anything it is a miracle more people were not hurt.


    Quote:

      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.



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


Look, to be fair I have not seen much effort in your original posts either. You get what you put forward.





    Quote:
    “I will need to track down…” Precisely.


This may shock you but I do not save every article I ever read for future use and not ever article cites the same things. So yes, it takes a minute sometimes if it is not a headline thing that is caught on.

If you want threats both veiled and not it is easier and not even that hard to find. I grant that people saying stupid things on social media is what it is but it is still troubling.


https://www.adl.org/blog/right-wing-extremists-cheer-rittenhouse-verdict-in-predictable-fashion







Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 95.0.4638.69 on Windows 10
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