Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[mtutiger]

8 hours ago, SkyBlue said:

Yea, you may want to research that a little more, I get its the narrative the media has been feeding for a year.  The same media that will be paying a fortune in defamation suits in the near future ala Sandman.

Lol, like that matters in the cable news business.

For instance, Fox News is currently being sued for defamation by a voting machine company about lies that crossed its airways, yet I doubt that has had any of their viewership asking any questions about the quality of the narrative they helped spread. 

[pfife]

I think its awesome that dudes who think Kyler Rittenshouse was legally defending himself from a skateboard also argue the insurrectionists weren't armed.

[pfife]

9 hours ago, SkyBlue said:

Yea, you may want to research that a little more, I get its the narrative the media has been feeding for a year.  The same media that will be paying a fortune in defamation suits in the near future ala Sandman.

But don't let truth get in the way of your narrative.

Is it the same media or one of the thousands of media organizations that won't be paying sandman?

[Archie]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

My immediate reaction, without following the case closely, is that people need to be a little more discerning about the law in these particular high profile cases and whether it was ultimately broken, as well as the quality of the case made.

We have this tendency to turn these cases into big things where wrongs have to be righted regardless of whether the facts ultimately fall on one's side (I've been guilty on this front as well in the past). But that's not how the justice system works; its a prosecution that makes a case, a jury of peers that renders a verdict, etc. And from what I gather, the result matches the combination of facts plus the quality of the prosecution.

I dont love what Rittenhouse did. He really didn't have to be there that night. But I really can't argue with the ultimate result here. And my takeaway is a lot like Buddha's in that the real travesty isn't this ruling, its that it reinforces that there is an unevenness to reasonable doubt and how it is afforded to certain Americans.

Well said!  It very unfortunate that people don't respect the system.  We even have the POTUS and other well known political figures like De Blasio disagreeing with the verdict.  You would think they of all people would know better.  It makes me afraid of what this country has become.  Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean anything to some people anymore.  Then when they are proven not guilty it doesn't fit their narrative so they disagree with it.  

[pfife]

10 minutes ago, Archie said:

Well said!  It very unfortunate that people don't respect the system.  We even have the POTUS and other well known political figures like De Blasio disagreeing with the verdict.  You would think they of all people would know better.  It makes me afraid of what this country has become.  Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean anything to some people anymore.  Then when they are proven not guilty it doesn't fit their narrative so they disagree with it.  

Oh my people disagreed with a verdict?  Hopefully they're impeached because we don't have freedom here 

[mtutiger]

23 minutes ago, Archie said:

Well said!  It very unfortunate that people don't respect the system.  We even have the POTUS and other well known political figures like De Blasio disagreeing with the verdict. 

I believe Biden's statement said that while he was angry about the verdict, he said that the jury system works and that he respects the decision. 

If anything, my own opinion (which you appear to have agreed with above) aligns pretty closely with his statement. The right verdict by law may have been reached, but Kyle Rittenhouse is no hero either and shouldn't be glorified for what he did.

Edited November 20, 2021 by mtutiger

[pfife]

Should people in this threat have to pass a quiz on the components of the legal system before they're allowed to have an opinion on the legal system?  

[pfife]

9 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I believe Biden's statement said that while he was angry about the verdict, he said that the jury system works and that he respects the decision. 

If anything, my own opinion (which you appear to have agreed with above) aligns pretty closely with his statement. The right verdict by law may have been reached, but Kyle Rittenhouse is no hero either and shouldn't be glorified for what he did.

Should people have to know what Biden actually said before commenting on what he actually said?  Free country man just saying 

Edited November 20, 2021 by pfife

[mtutiger]

22 minutes ago, pfife said:

Oh my people disagreed with a verdict?  Hopefully they're impeached because we don't have freedom here 

I still remember seeing a lot of chatter on conservative social media back in July before and after the Chauvin verdict questioning that jury. I know I heard it from some family too.

Guessing their tune has changed on this one...

Edited November 20, 2021 by mtutiger

[pfife]

Are you saying conservatives have different standards for conservatives vs non conservatives when it comes to disagreeing with verdicts?

I think its safe to say I have a hard time believing that because they never ever have standards for thee and not for me 

[Tigeraholic1]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Actually agree with both you and Buddha on the general point, but do we really have to throw Nazi comparisons around so loosely?

It discusses how much better and cleaner the world is (Thankfully Hitler did not succeed but RVW did) once we eliminate the potential bad seeds. In "that" ideology its very comparable.

[pfife]

I'm pretty sure I've never heard conservatives disagree with a court decision. 

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

Edited November 20, 2021 by pfife

[Tigeraholic1]

54 minutes ago, pfife said:

I think its awesome that dudes who think Kyler Rittenshouse was legally defending himself from a skateboard also argue the insurrectionists weren't armed.

You are 100% right. You cant have it both ways. I was wrong.

[pfife]

2 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

You are 100% right. You cant have it both ways. I was wrong.

I wasn't talking to you specifically - it was a random thought I had in my mind about two sets of arguments I hear.  I think it is pretty inconsistent though.

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by pfife

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, ewsieg said:

It’s not a threat to legally carry a gun in Kenosha.  Also, why doesn’t he belong there?  To me, it’s stupid.  I wouldn’t let my 17 year old do what Rittenhouse did. But guilty of being stupid is not a crime.  
 

 

Twenty-year-olds are considered not yet mature enough to rent a car, but sure, seventeen-year-olds definitely have the prefrontal cortex maturity to patrol crowded streets armed with a live semiautomatic rifle, right? After all, as you imply, it’s totally legal for minor children to wave semiautomatic weapons around in public. Do I have you straight on this?

Also, why wouldn’t you let your 17-year-old patrol the streets of your town with a semiautomatic rifle? Are you saying your kid is dumber than Kyle Rittenhouse? 😜

[pfife]

tfw when brandishing conservative bona fides overrides the will to make sense

[Archie]

53 minutes ago, pfife said:

Should people have to know what Biden actually said before commenting on what he actually said?  Free country man just saying 

Let's not forget that Biden also called him a white supremist.  I hope Rittenhouse sues him and the media for defamation.  He could be a rich man like Nicholas Sandman.  

There is a ton of misinformation about this case in the media and some of it ends up on this forum.  These so called news outlets should at least report the truth because their false info inflames people.  There was one media outlet, I believe they are British, that said after the verdict that Rittenhouse shot three black people.  

[pfife]

3 minutes ago, Archie said:

Let's not forget that Biden also called him a white supremist.  I hope Rittenhouse sues him and the media for defamation.  He could be a rich man like Nicholas Sandman.  

There is a ton of misinformation about this case in the media and some of it ends up on this forum.  These so called news outlets should at least report the truth because their false info inflames people.  There was one media outlet, I believe they are British, that said after the verdict that Rittenhouse shot three black people.  

Lets not forget that Kyle Rittenhouse has been photographed flashing white power hand signals.     There are media outlets that aren't telling you that and apparently those are the ones you're consuming.

Cool lecture though you should try listening to it yourself 

Edited November 20, 2021 by pfife

[chasfh]

I will stipulate that Wendy Rittenhouse did not drive her son to the streets of Kenosha with a rifle. D. L. Hughley got me on that one.

[Archie]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Twenty-year-olds are considered not yet mature enough to rent a car, but sure, seventeen-year-olds definitely have the prefrontal cortex maturity to patrol crowded streets armed with a live semiautomatic rifle, right? After all, as you imply, it’s totally legal for minor children to wave semiautomatic weapons around in public. Do I have you straight on this?

Also, why wouldn’t you let your 17-year-old patrol the streets of your town with a semiautomatic rifle? Are you saying your kid is dumber than Kyle Rittenhouse? 😜

I don't know about other states but in Michigan you need to be 12 years old to possess a long gun.  How many kids do you see walking around with rifle?  Unless it hunting season and you're in the back woods you probably haven't seen a single one.  As for a semi-automatic, most firearms are semi-automatic.  One trigger pull=one bullet fired.  We are no longer in the powder days where it takes a couple minutes to reload after firing or even single load firearms. 

Speaking of misinformation, I saw one guy in the crowd interviewed after the verdict yesterday saying he can't believe our laws allow people like Rittenhouse to carry an automatic AR-15 and go around shooting people.  People like this just make themselves look like fools on camera because its obvious that they don't know what they are talking about.  The media and uninformed politicians have caused this by the false information they've put out on AR-15 rifles.

[Motown Bombers]

I'm not clear, where did he get the gun? I'm assuming Wisconsin? How was that legal? If he brought it from his home in Illinois, isn't that illegal? I'm just surprised there wasn't at least some sort of gun charge he was guilty of?

[Archie]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

I still remember seeing a lot of chatter on conservative social media back in July before and after the Chauvin verdict questioning that jury. I know I heard it from some family too.

Guessing their tune has changed on this one...

I'm sure someone somewhere questions the Chauvin verdict, but the overwhelming majority agrees with it.  I think most trials are like that.  There will always be someone who disagrees with it. 

The only problem with the Chauvin jury is the one guy who lied about his involvement in protests and such during selection.  After the trial was over pictures of him were found at protests and wearing a shirt with a saying supporting BLM or so something like that.  That guy should face charges for lying during selection.  I also think there are appeals over the trial and that could have an impact on those appeals. 

[pfife]

Imagine rolling up and trying to blast people for disagreeing with a verdict and like 10 minutes later, disagreeing with a verdict.   

[Tigeraholic1]

7 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm not clear, where did he get the gun? I'm assuming Wisconsin? How was that legal? If he brought it from his home in Illinois, isn't that illegal? I'm just surprised there wasn't at least some sort of gun charge he was guilty of?

He borrowed from a friend in Wisconsin which was registered and legal to do. The media has really spoon fed misinformation during this case. One of the alarming side effects of this social media era we are in. 

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

He borrowed from a friend in Wisconsin which was registered and legal to do. The media has really spoon fed misinformation during this case. One of the alarming side effects of this social media era we are in. 

Is a 17 year old really allowed to open carry in Wisconsin? Is it legal for the friend to lend a gun to a minor? I can't wrap my head around how it's legal for a 17 year old to just strut around with a semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder. It's like we are in Kabul or something.