White Privilege
Comments
-
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?0 -
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?0 -
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?Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
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.0 -
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?Post edited by Ledbetterman10 on2000: 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. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
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?0
-
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.mrussel1 said:
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?Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
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.
0 -
Boy, don't I have egg on my face. Disregard my previous comments. Equity at last! Whites 1, Blacks 1.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?0 -
and he's still going to prison.....Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
_____________________________________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 '140 -
He wasn’t completely acquitted though:Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?“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.
0 -
Well yeah, he’s still a convicted felon that wasn’t legally able to have the gun.mickeyrat said:
and he's still going to prison.....Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?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. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
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.Merkin Baller said:
He wasn’t completely acquitted though:Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?“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.
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. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
He wasn’t completely acquitted though:Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?“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.
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).0 -
According to WI law he can posses long rifles, but not own it. So that charge was dropped.Merkin Baller said:
17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
He wasn’t completely acquitted though:Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?“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.
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).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?0 -
So your solution is that more white people should be wrongly convicted rather than better justice for POC?Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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?Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
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.
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?0 -
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.Merkin Baller said:
17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
He wasn’t completely acquitted though:Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?“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.
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).0 -
How the law has been allowed to be interpreted and exercised differently based on race is precisely by design.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?0 -
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?Hobbes said:
How the law has been allowed to be interpreted and exercised differently based on race is precisely by design.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
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.0 -
So, it’s legal for minors in WI to possess other people’s guns. (Edit: provided it’s a long rifle)mace1229 said:
According to WI law he can posses long rifles, but not own it. So that charge was dropped.Merkin Baller said:
17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
He wasn’t completely acquitted though:Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?“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.
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).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?Good to know.Post edited by Merkin Baller on0 -
Not any gun. Just long rifles with a barrel over 12” (or maybe it was 16”, I don’t have it memorized).Merkin Baller said:
So, it’s legal for minors in WI to possess other people’s guns.mace1229 said:
According to WI law he can posses long rifles, but not own it. So that charge was dropped.Merkin Baller said:
17 year olds are allowed to possess certain guns in WI? Or was it just a loophole in the wording of the law?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
He wasn’t completely acquitted though:Ledbetterman10 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?“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.
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).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?Good to know.
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 on0 -
No. I'm saying POC should be protected by a justice system that currently favors white people. Ya know, equity.mrussel1 said:
So your solution is that more white people should be wrongly convicted rather than better justice for POC?Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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?Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Hobbes said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Didn’t a white guy shoot three white guys?Hobbes said:
what does her post even mean? Is she upset that beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard?
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.
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?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help