Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

White Privilege

1212223242527»

Comments

  • HobbesHobbes Pacific NorthwestPosts: 5,177
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,275
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    Oh and no offense, but your post (and hers) is kind of bullshit.  Our justice system is derived completely from English common law.  The rules of the court, standards of guilt, everything comes from common law; from a time and place where Blacks had no rights, certainly not the right to defense counsel, trial by peers, etc.  Now if you want to say that over the course of the last 2 centuries that the people executing the law (prosecutors, judges, juries) have brought in their racial bias to decision, yeah I'd agree with that.  But to say the system was designed to protect white people is just flat wrong.  It was designed in a time when ONLY white people were defendants.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,275
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    Rittenhouse's 'profit' is unique to him, because he became a right wing hero.  If I was accused of beating my wife and subsequently acquitted, how would I have profited from that ordeal?

    From the trial evidence, he should not have been charged with murder.  A weapons charge, as a minor, would have stuck probably.  But all three of these dummies made aggressive moves towards him.  Just because you are illegally carrying a weapon doesn't mean everything subsequent to that minor crime is now a slam dunk guilty verdict.  
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 15,277
    edited November 20
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    Post edited by Ledbetterman10 on
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now.

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434
    I’m still not seeing race playing a role in this circumstance. 12 strangers found him not guilty. This was a time when our country was very violent. Rioters were allowed to burn buildings, beat people unconscious, throw Molotov cocktails and other deadly devices and police and others. Kyle was not the only one with a gun, there were several known people with a gun throughout the riots, many even fired them. Kyle was just the only one chased by a mob and forced to defend himself. Of all the riots and violence in the last 2 years, that lead to several deaths, only 1 person I can find was killed by law enforcement. An unarmed white female. Other people had guns. Some even used them not in self defense. They weren’t chased down. They weren’t killed by police. So what about Kyle being white makes any difference in this case and this verdict?
  • HobbesHobbes Pacific NorthwestPosts: 5,177
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    Rittenhouse's 'profit' is unique to him, because he became a right wing hero.  If I was accused of beating my wife and subsequently acquitted, how would I have profited from that ordeal?

    From the trial evidence, he should not have been charged with murder.  A weapons charge, as a minor, would have stuck probably.  But all three of these dummies made aggressive moves towards him.  Just because you are illegally carrying a weapon doesn't mean everything subsequent to that minor crime is now a slam dunk guilty verdict.  
    There was a young black girl who sat in a Kenosha jail for two years awaiting trial having been accused of killing her sexual abuser. Why wasn't she touted as a hero by the right wing? Nothing "unique" about Rittenhouse. Your profit? Um, you were acquitted in that scenario.
  • HobbesHobbes Pacific NorthwestPosts: 5,177
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    Boy, don't I have egg on my face. Disregard my previous comments. Equity at last! Whites 1, Blacks 1.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 23,196
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    and he's  still going to prison.....

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,195
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 15,277
    mickeyrat said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    and he's  still going to prison.....

    Well yeah, he’s still a convicted felon that wasn’t legally able to have the gun. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now.

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 15,277
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

    It is noteworthy, but Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t illegal. Maybe it should’ve been. That’s a gun law discussion though. As far as the law goes, Rittenhouse was able to have his and Coffee wasn’t because he had four felony convictions. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now.

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,195
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

    It is noteworthy, but Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t illegal. Maybe it should’ve been. That’s a gun law discussion though. As far as the law goes, Rittenhouse was able to have his and Coffee wasn’t because he had four felony convictions. 
    17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law? 

    I don’t know. I’m not complaining about the felon or his punishment, I’m in favor of it. But I genuinely don’t understand how Rittenhouse walked on the possession charge (or reckless endangerment for that matter). 
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

    It is noteworthy, but Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t illegal. Maybe it should’ve been. That’s a gun law discussion though. As far as the law goes, Rittenhouse was able to have his and Coffee wasn’t because he had four felony convictions. 
    17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law? 

    I don’t know. I’m not complaining about the felon or his punishment, I’m in favor of it. But I genuinely don’t understand how Rittenhouse walked on the possession charge (or reckless endangerment for that matter). 
    According to WI law he can posses long rifles, but not own it. So that charge was dropped. 
    I spoke about the endangerment charges before, if you acquit on the murder you had to acquit on the endangerment. The endangerment chargers were specific to the 2 individuals he shot at but missed. So if you’re going to say shooting and killing was justified, how are you going to find him guilty of shooting and missing?
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,275
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    Rittenhouse's 'profit' is unique to him, because he became a right wing hero.  If I was accused of beating my wife and subsequently acquitted, how would I have profited from that ordeal?

    From the trial evidence, he should not have been charged with murder.  A weapons charge, as a minor, would have stuck probably.  But all three of these dummies made aggressive moves towards him.  Just because you are illegally carrying a weapon doesn't mean everything subsequent to that minor crime is now a slam dunk guilty verdict.  
    There was a young black girl who sat in a Kenosha jail for two years awaiting trial having been accused of killing her sexual abuser. Why wasn't she touted as a hero by the right wing? Nothing "unique" about Rittenhouse. Your profit? Um, you were acquitted in that scenario.
    So your solution is that more white people should be wrongly convicted rather than better justice for POC?  

    I'm being glib but again,  one thing has nothing to do with the other.  Do you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty to right some wrongs with other cases?
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,275
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

    It is noteworthy, but Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t illegal. Maybe it should’ve been. That’s a gun law discussion though. As far as the law goes, Rittenhouse was able to have his and Coffee wasn’t because he had four felony convictions. 
    17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law? 

    I don’t know. I’m not complaining about the felon or his punishment, I’m in favor of it. But I genuinely don’t understand how Rittenhouse walked on the possession charge (or reckless endangerment for that matter). 
    The judge threw out the weapons charge before it went to jury.  So I would assume there was some issue with the charge or the conduct by the prosecutor. 
  • HobbesHobbes Pacific NorthwestPosts: 5,177
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    Oh and no offense, but your post (and hers) is kind of bullshit.  Our justice system is derived completely from English common law.  The rules of the court, standards of guilt, everything comes from common law; from a time and place where Blacks had no rights, certainly not the right to defense counsel, trial by peers, etc.  Now if you want to say that over the course of the last 2 centuries that the people executing the law (prosecutors, judges, juries) have brought in their racial bias to decision, yeah I'd agree with that.  But to say the system was designed to protect white people is just flat wrong.  It was designed in a time when ONLY white people were defendants.  
    How the law has been allowed to be interpreted and exercised differently based on race is precisely by design.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    Oh and no offense, but your post (and hers) is kind of bullshit.  Our justice system is derived completely from English common law.  The rules of the court, standards of guilt, everything comes from common law; from a time and place where Blacks had no rights, certainly not the right to defense counsel, trial by peers, etc.  Now if you want to say that over the course of the last 2 centuries that the people executing the law (prosecutors, judges, juries) have brought in their racial bias to decision, yeah I'd agree with that.  But to say the system was designed to protect white people is just flat wrong.  It was designed in a time when ONLY white people were defendants.  
    How the law has been allowed to be interpreted and exercised differently based on race is precisely by design.
    Can you find examples in WI where 17 year old black males were charged of possession of a long rifle? Assuming they had no prior criminal record that prevented them from possessing?
    Theblaw says a barrel of 12” or longer was legal to possess if you’re 16 or older. I don’t know how you interpret race into that.
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,195
    edited November 20
    mace1229 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

    It is noteworthy, but Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t illegal. Maybe it should’ve been. That’s a gun law discussion though. As far as the law goes, Rittenhouse was able to have his and Coffee wasn’t because he had four felony convictions. 
    17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law? 

    I don’t know. I’m not complaining about the felon or his punishment, I’m in favor of it. But I genuinely don’t understand how Rittenhouse walked on the possession charge (or reckless endangerment for that matter). 
    According to WI law he can posses long rifles, but not own it. So that charge was dropped. 
    I spoke about the endangerment charges before, if you acquit on the murder you had to acquit on the endangerment. The endangerment chargers were specific to the 2 individuals he shot at but missed. So if you’re going to say shooting and killing was justified, how are you going to find him guilty of shooting and missing?
    So, it’s legal for minors in WI to possess other people’s guns. (Edit: provided it’s a long rifle) 

    Good to know. 
    Post edited by Merkin Baller on
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434
    edited November 20
    mace1229 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

    It is noteworthy, but Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t illegal. Maybe it should’ve been. That’s a gun law discussion though. As far as the law goes, Rittenhouse was able to have his and Coffee wasn’t because he had four felony convictions. 
    17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law? 

    I don’t know. I’m not complaining about the felon or his punishment, I’m in favor of it. But I genuinely don’t understand how Rittenhouse walked on the possession charge (or reckless endangerment for that matter). 
    According to WI law he can posses long rifles, but not own it. So that charge was dropped. 
    I spoke about the endangerment charges before, if you acquit on the murder you had to acquit on the endangerment. The endangerment chargers were specific to the 2 individuals he shot at but missed. So if you’re going to say shooting and killing was justified, how are you going to find him guilty of shooting and missing?
    So, it’s legal for minors in WI to possess other people’s guns. 

    Good to know. 
    Not any gun. Just long rifles with a barrel over 12” (or maybe it was 16”, I don’t have it memorized).
    And not any minor, need to be at least 16 and not have any other disqualifying factors like a felony or restraining order.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • HobbesHobbes Pacific NorthwestPosts: 5,177
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    Rittenhouse's 'profit' is unique to him, because he became a right wing hero.  If I was accused of beating my wife and subsequently acquitted, how would I have profited from that ordeal?

    From the trial evidence, he should not have been charged with murder.  A weapons charge, as a minor, would have stuck probably.  But all three of these dummies made aggressive moves towards him.  Just because you are illegally carrying a weapon doesn't mean everything subsequent to that minor crime is now a slam dunk guilty verdict.  
    There was a young black girl who sat in a Kenosha jail for two years awaiting trial having been accused of killing her sexual abuser. Why wasn't she touted as a hero by the right wing? Nothing "unique" about Rittenhouse. Your profit? Um, you were acquitted in that scenario.
    So your solution is that more white people should be wrongly convicted rather than better justice for POC?  

    I'm being glib but again,  one thing has nothing to do with the other.  Do you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty to right some wrongs with other cases?
    No. I'm saying POC should be protected by a justice system that currently favors white people. Ya know, equity.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,275
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    Rittenhouse's 'profit' is unique to him, because he became a right wing hero.  If I was accused of beating my wife and subsequently acquitted, how would I have profited from that ordeal?

    From the trial evidence, he should not have been charged with murder.  A weapons charge, as a minor, would have stuck probably.  But all three of these dummies made aggressive moves towards him.  Just because you are illegally carrying a weapon doesn't mean everything subsequent to that minor crime is now a slam dunk guilty verdict.  
    There was a young black girl who sat in a Kenosha jail for two years awaiting trial having been accused of killing her sexual abuser. Why wasn't she touted as a hero by the right wing? Nothing "unique" about Rittenhouse. Your profit? Um, you were acquitted in that scenario.
    So your solution is that more white people should be wrongly convicted rather than better justice for POC?  

    I'm being glib but again,  one thing has nothing to do with the other.  Do you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty to right some wrongs with other cases?
    No. I'm saying POC should be protected by a justice system that currently favors white people. Ya know, equity.
    Sure yay.  So you're good with the not guilty verdict,  right?
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,195
    edited November 20
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

    It is noteworthy, but Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t illegal. Maybe it should’ve been. That’s a gun law discussion though. As far as the law goes, Rittenhouse was able to have his and Coffee wasn’t because he had four felony convictions. 
    17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law? 

    I don’t know. I’m not complaining about the felon or his punishment, I’m in favor of it. But I genuinely don’t understand how Rittenhouse walked on the possession charge (or reckless endangerment for that matter). 
    According to WI law he can posses long rifles, but not own it. So that charge was dropped. 
    I spoke about the endangerment charges before, if you acquit on the murder you had to acquit on the endangerment. The endangerment chargers were specific to the 2 individuals he shot at but missed. So if you’re going to say shooting and killing was justified, how are you going to find him guilty of shooting and missing?
    So, it’s legal for minors in WI to possess other people’s guns. 

    Good to know. 
    Not any gun. Just long rifles with a barrel over 12” (or maybe it was 16”, I don’t have it memorized).
    Yeah, I edited. 

    I fail to see the relevance in barrel length in relation to 16 & 17 year olds being able to possess, but wtf do I know. 

    Edited to include ages as opposed to ‘minors’. 
    Post edited by Merkin Baller on
  • nicknyr15nicknyr15 Posts: 4,975
    Holy shit I can’t believe how varied gun laws are in this country, state to state. 
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

    It is noteworthy, but Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t illegal. Maybe it should’ve been. That’s a gun law discussion though. As far as the law goes, Rittenhouse was able to have his and Coffee wasn’t because he had four felony convictions. 
    17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law? 

    I don’t know. I’m not complaining about the felon or his punishment, I’m in favor of it. But I genuinely don’t understand how Rittenhouse walked on the possession charge (or reckless endangerment for that matter). 
    According to WI law he can posses long rifles, but not own it. So that charge was dropped. 
    I spoke about the endangerment charges before, if you acquit on the murder you had to acquit on the endangerment. The endangerment chargers were specific to the 2 individuals he shot at but missed. So if you’re going to say shooting and killing was justified, how are you going to find him guilty of shooting and missing?
    So, it’s legal for minors in WI to possess other people’s guns. 

    Good to know. 
    Not any gun. Just long rifles with a barrel over 12” (or maybe it was 16”, I don’t have it memorized).
    Yeah, I edited. 

    I fail to see the relevance in barrel length in relation to 16 & 17 year olds being able to possess, but wtf do I know. 

    Edited to include ages as opposed to ‘minors’. 
    I assume it has to do with concealability. Just like hand guns aren’t legal for them to possess.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434
    I’m not 100% sure on this, but I do believe in many states it’s not illegal to conceal rifles and shotguns because in theory they are too big to conceal effectively. Which is one reason there are barrel requirements on things like shotguns, so you can’t saw it off and conceal it (other reasons too). That’s why length matters….barrel length.
    So there is nothing illegal about having a .16 gauge buried under your clothes.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 23,275
    mace1229 said:
    I’m not 100% sure on this, but I do believe in many states it’s not illegal to conceal rifles and shotguns because in theory they are too big to conceal effectively. Which is one reason there are barrel requirements on things like shotguns, so you can’t saw it off and conceal it (other reasons too). That’s why length matters….barrel length.
    So there is nothing illegal about having a .16 gauge buried under your clothes.
    Even while you pay?
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 6,195
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

    It is noteworthy, but Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t illegal. Maybe it should’ve been. That’s a gun law discussion though. As far as the law goes, Rittenhouse was able to have his and Coffee wasn’t because he had four felony convictions. 
    17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law? 

    I don’t know. I’m not complaining about the felon or his punishment, I’m in favor of it. But I genuinely don’t understand how Rittenhouse walked on the possession charge (or reckless endangerment for that matter). 
    According to WI law he can posses long rifles, but not own it. So that charge was dropped. 
    I spoke about the endangerment charges before, if you acquit on the murder you had to acquit on the endangerment. The endangerment chargers were specific to the 2 individuals he shot at but missed. So if you’re going to say shooting and killing was justified, how are you going to find him guilty of shooting and missing?
    So, it’s legal for minors in WI to possess other people’s guns. 

    Good to know. 
    Not any gun. Just long rifles with a barrel over 12” (or maybe it was 16”, I don’t have it memorized).
    Yeah, I edited. 

    I fail to see the relevance in barrel length in relation to 16 & 17 year olds being able to possess, but wtf do I know. 

    Edited to include ages as opposed to ‘minors’. 
    I assume it has to do with concealability. Just like hand guns aren’t legal for them to possess.

    If that’s the case, then why restrict ownership of long barreled rifles for 16 & 17 year olds? 

    I know you didn’t make the law, I’m just pointing out the absurdity I see with it. 


    Regarding the decision to toss the charge:
    According to this article in the Milwaukee Sentinel, this doesn’t set a precedent as that would require an appellate court to affirm the judge’s decision. 

    Had the judge made this decision months ago, as the defense requested, the prosecution could have turned to an appellate court for a decision as to whether or not it was the right call. Tossing it when he did left the prosecution with no recourse in that regard. Does the judge owe the prosecution anything? No, not at all, but I think it’s noteworthy nonetheless. 

  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Hobbes said:
    AOC reflects on today's verdict...


    Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?

    what does her post even mean?  Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
    The "justice" system was designed by white males to ensure that other white males would profit and be protected. Kyle profited from being white. From that night in Kenosha all the way to the verdict. Had Kyle been black, this would have had a different outcome. There is nothing "reasonable" about this regarding race.
    How does a shooting involving white people have anything to do with that?  If he was black, yeah maybe he would have been guilty.  But that means nothing because it's hypothetical.  I mean is she saying that every white person acquitted from here on out is a beneficiary of white privilege even when the 'victims' are white?  Is she saying that POC should not ever go to trial?  IMO she is turning a crime that has zero to do with race, into a racial crime. 
    She is stating that historically white people have benefited from a criminal justice system that was designed to protect them. Rittenhouse is yet another example. POC do not profit from the criminal justice system in the same way white people do.
    A black guy that opened fire on sheriff deputies that were serving a warrant was acquitted due to claiming self-defense yesterday at almost the same time Rittenhouse was. 

    He wasn’t completely acquitted though: 

    “In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

    At his sentencing Jan. 13, he faces a maximum prison term of 30 years.

    “The state will be seeking that maximum 30 years upon him,” Assistant State Attorney Chris Taylor said after court.“

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see gun laws being enforced, but if you’re going to use that story as a comparison to Rittenhouse, I think that’s a noteworthy distinction. 

    It is noteworthy, but Rittenhouse’s gun wasn’t illegal. Maybe it should’ve been. That’s a gun law discussion though. As far as the law goes, Rittenhouse was able to have his and Coffee wasn’t because he had four felony convictions. 
    17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law? 

    I don’t know. I’m not complaining about the felon or his punishment, I’m in favor of it. But I genuinely don’t understand how Rittenhouse walked on the possession charge (or reckless endangerment for that matter). 
    According to WI law he can posses long rifles, but not own it. So that charge was dropped. 
    I spoke about the endangerment charges before, if you acquit on the murder you had to acquit on the endangerment. The endangerment chargers were specific to the 2 individuals he shot at but missed. So if you’re going to say shooting and killing was justified, how are you going to find him guilty of shooting and missing?
    So, it’s legal for minors in WI to possess other people’s guns. 

    Good to know. 
    Not any gun. Just long rifles with a barrel over 12” (or maybe it was 16”, I don’t have it memorized).
    Yeah, I edited. 

    I fail to see the relevance in barrel length in relation to 16 & 17 year olds being able to possess, but wtf do I know. 

    Edited to include ages as opposed to ‘minors’. 
    I assume it has to do with concealability. Just like hand guns aren’t legal for them to possess.

    If that’s the case, then why restrict ownership of long barreled rifles for 16 & 17 year olds? 

    I know you didn’t make the law, I’m just pointing out the absurdity I see with it. 


    Regarding the decision to toss the charge:
    According to this article in the Milwaukee Sentinel, this doesn’t set a precedent as that would require an appellate court to affirm the judge’s decision. 

    Had the judge made this decision months ago, as the defense requested, the prosecution could have turned to an appellate court for a decision as to whether or not it was the right call. Tossing it when he did left the prosecution with no recourse in that regard. Does the judge owe the prosecution anything? No, not at all, but I think it’s noteworthy nonetheless. 

    Just guessing here, but restricting ownership means it’s under the control of an adult. I don’t think a minor can even buy ammo. The minor would need permission of said owner and need them to buy the ammo so they can target practice or hunt or whatever.

    I agree it’s dumb. Should require an adult present.  I don’t think you can even buy a BB gun or BBs until you’re 18. So allowing a 16 year old with a rifle unsupervised seems like a bad decision. 
Sign In or Register to comment.