America & World IV: Trump's Taxing Day

[Dogg Thang]

I don’t understand it. Was there doubt it was him? He was cleared of everything. I don’t get it.

[QualityChimp]

Even if I was self-defence, he decided to drive to his car to patrol protesters, premeditated.
He was charged with being underage with a dangerous weapon, but the judge dropped it.

[Asura]

I don’t understand it. Was there doubt it was him? He was cleared of everything. I don’t get it.

From what I've seen, somebody did something stupid on court; one of the lawyers picked up the gun to demonstrate something and in the process pointed it at the jury. It (rightfully) caused a massive furore and (wrongfully) totally derailed the proceedings.

It's become this decade's OJ trial, in that it's (to the outside world) very obviously about the actions of a specific person on a specific day doing a terrorism. However, whereas the US court system has twisted the OJ trial was twisted into being all about racism, this one has been twisted into being all about a person's right to defend themselves with deadly force, where the implication was if he was found guilty, that would suggest Americans aren't allowed to do that.

Which is bollocks for like 20 reasons, but it's how things have fallen.

[fishbowlhead]

Yep. You absolutely need to have a fully automatic weapon of war as a personal safety device, in your car, just in case.

[Asura]

Yep. You absolutely need to have a fully automatic weapon of war as a personal safety device, in your car, just in case.

Well yeah, gotta be able to protect yourself. That's why it's called an assault rifle.

[randombs]

One of my colleagues at our America HQ said you need a gun to protect you from “bad guys”. It was bizarre hearing an adult use a children’s phrase like that.

[monel]

One of my colleagues at our America HQ said you need a gun to protect you from “bad guys”. It was bizarre hearing an adult use a children’s phrase like that.

Well, being a libtard commie is childish...

That was sarcasm, don't shoot me. Oh yeah I'm not in that country so you technically can't shoot me.

[Neon Ignition]

I mean of course he was innocent, his defense is water tight


He's white.

[charlesr]

I don't get how he was even acquitted of being under 18 with an AR. Surely should have gone down for at least that?

[randombs]

Well, being a libtard commie is childish...

What’s that?

[wakka]

From the reading I've done about it, decades of effective lobbying by the firearms industry in the US has resulted in iron-clad self defence laws that provide a lot of leeway. That means he was very unlikely to be convicted.

If you're confused by this case, like I was, and you have 5 to 10 minutes, there is a very good analysis here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/unsurprising-outcome-rittenhouse-trial/620742/

[cutmymilk]

I thought Biden was going to go hard on gun laws. Seeing gangsta types show off their machine gun collections to Louis Theroux though, it seems impossible.

[Brad]

That's really interesting. If you take the legal wording as it's written it seems fair enough:

I can defend my home. Ok, I'm in a country where people have guns; someone invading my home may well be armed, if they come at me then I'll be armed too and I'll shoot first. This seems fair enough to me. Potential home invaders should realise that invading someone's home is putting their own lives at risk.

Then we extend the law so that you can protect your friends, livelihood, hometown from oppressors plus you have the right to self defence. This also seems ok. We can conjure up an A-Team episode where a gang of bikers have been terrorising the county and you get word that they're coming to your town! Right, make a device that launches cabbages, drive into town and let's protect Mrs Miggins' Pie Shop! Here they come, they look aggressive and I FEAR FOR MY LIFE - HAVE A CABBAGE BAD GUYS! Except it's guns and bullets not cabbages.

The problem is that someone is able to cite a (until proven otherwise) peaceful protest as a threat to one of the above, show up with a gun and, well here we are.

[Asura]

The problem is that someone is able to cite a (until proven otherwise) peaceful protest as a threat to one of the above, show up with a gun and, well here we are.

There was a lot of disinformation going on at the time.

Firstly, not all the protests were entirely peaceful (not that I'm not suggesting they were unjust; just there was some property damage).

But at the same time, there was a lot of shady **** going down. For instance, there was a video of a masked "protestor" systematically breaking the windows of a building (while others around him shouted "why are you doing that?" at the guy) only for it to be revealed shortly after that he was a false-flag actor; like he was someone opposed to the protests that had gone out in a mask to break stuff and get on camera doing it so that it would show up as a violent protest on the news.

This isn't a defense of what Rittenhouse did; more that it's difficult to accept a citizen can unilaterally decide to go "A-Team" on a group of people due to, I dunno, what they've seen on Twitter, or even on the news. Classic example is the police Menezes murder here in the UK; there are still people in this country who believe that man fled from police in a suspect manner, because the police who killed him flat-out lied about what happened and the media re-printed the lies ad nauseam.

[Lebowski]

There was a lot of disinformation going on at the time.

Firstly, not all the protests were entirely peaceful (not that I'm not suggesting they were unjust; just there was some property damage).

But at the same time, there was a lot of shady **** going down. For instance, there was a video of a masked "protestor" systematically breaking the windows of a building (while others around him shouted "why are you doing that?" at the guy) only for it to be revealed shortly after that he was a false-flag actor; like he was someone opposed to the protests that had gone out in a mask to break stuff and get on camera doing it so that it would show up as a violent protest on the news.

This isn't a defense of what Rittenhouse did; more that it's difficult to accept a citizen can unilaterally decide to go "A-Team" on a group of people due to, I dunno, what they've seen on Twitter, or even on the news. Classic example is the police Menezes murder here in the UK; there are still people in this country who believe that man fled from police in a suspect manner, because the police who killed him flat-out lied about what happened and the media re-printed the lies ad nauseam.

It really brings it home how crazy it is the US, the media focuses on opportunists looting and the negative sides of a protest. Gun nuts show up with rifles to protect something? "it wasn't their area they traveled to get there" one of them shoots and kill unarmed people and this is all perfectly legal. they use the "South park style defense" "its coming right for us/Self Defence*" to get round the legal issues of killing someone.

*