What a bonkers country - America in all of its glory.

[tforturton]

I must admit, I thought Rittenhouse would be found guilty of manslaughter, and get off with a short sentence, but anyone thinking he was going to go down for murder had obviously not read anything about the circumstances.

The problem here is that an awful lot of people had been fed a line by the media, about a violent white racist who 'crossed state lines' to deliberately cause trouble, when the reality was far from that. When the truth came out, there's been an awful lot of back-pedalling by people who should have done their own research, before leaping to conclusions (and that includes the press and tv). They seemed all too keen to jump on a story without really looking into the detail. Once the evidence came to court, it was always going to be a case of self-defence.

And now they've turned the story around. It's no longer a murder case, it's a racist one, with the cry being "What if he'd been black? White man's privilege, etc". Thing is, he wasn't, and neither were any of the other people involved.

Okay, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not saying anyone deserved to die, and I also think Rittenhouse should shoulder part of the blame. But the way the media has twisted and used this whole affair - not once, but twice - and how the various factions of the US media have chosen to present it for their own purposes - that's the real story here.

[Croesy Blue]

The whole thing sets a precedent for “self defence” where you carry a gun get into an argument and shoot someone citing self defence.

Absolute madness you can just carry a gun to “defend a town” against protesters and shoulder no blame at all for killing someone whatever the circumstances.

The biggest argument against allowing gun ownership is how a situation like this can escalate so quickly just because of the gun.

And the fact he’s become a political figure with certain politicians using him to gain popularity shows the state politics in that country is in.

[chrisp_1927]

The whole thing sets a precedent for “self defence” where you carry a gun get into an argument and shoot someone citing self defence.

Absolute madness you can just carry a gun to “defend a town” against protesters and shoulder no blame at all for killing someone whatever the circumstances.

The biggest argument against allowing gun ownership is how a situation like this can escalate so quickly just because of the gun.

And the fact he’s become a political figure with certain politicians using him to gain popularity shows the state politics in that country is in.

I'd disagree that it sets a precedent. The gun laws are so loony out there that these things have already been happening. Those proud boy idiots who travelled from protest to protest were armed in lots of cases. Lots of armed militias were at numerous protests, on a broad spectrum from people dedending their businesses, to white power militias, to black panthers.

The main difference here is that a mentally ill criminal seemed to decide he'd try and commit suicide by attacking a pasty, out of his depth, armed loser. Bit of sympathy for the 2nd and 3rd lads who got involved, they may well have thought they were challenging a roving gunman. As you say though, when gun laws are so ridiculous this kind of thing ca happen all to easily.

[life on mars]

Don't be so stupid, all it needs is the dEmocRAts To GrOW A pAir oF bAlLs

Yep.

Even if they just banned semi automatic weapons which lets be fair are a military weapon and not mentioned as a specific gun to carry 🤔

Or as a starting point only allow small hand guns , that don't take or fire metal bullets , and find a less damaging bullet to fire .

2nd amendment is not then infringed as it states the right for "people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

Suppose that may effect funding and voting of all parties, unless the Democrats disarm itself .

[lardy]

Yep.

Even if they just banned semi automatic weapons which lets be fair are a military weapon and not mentioned as a specific gun to carry ��

Or as a starting point only allow small hand guns , that don't take or fire metal bullets , and find a less damaging bullet to fire .

2nd amendment is not then infringed as it states the right for "people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

Suppose that may effect funding and voting of all parties, unless the Democrats disarm itself .

Maybe you should look again at the comments you're replying to with a fresh pair of eyes.

[delmbox]

Yep.

Even if they just banned semi automatic weapons which lets be fair are a military weapon and not mentioned as a specific gun to carry ��

Or as a starting point only allow small hand guns , that don't take or fire metal bullets , and find a less damaging bullet to fire .

2nd amendment is not then infringed as it states the right for "people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

Suppose that may effect funding and voting of all parties, unless the Democrats disarm itself .

Did you miss this or are deliberately ignoring it?

it is very difficult to amend the Constitution. For an amendment to be approved, two-thirds of both houses of Congress must pass the amendment. ... Then, three-fourths of all states must ratify the amendment, either in their statehouses or at a special convention.

[The Hooded Claw]

The fact is that if he hadn’t been walking around a city that he didn’t live, carrying an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, then none of this would have happened.
That weapon has to go down as severe provocation, as it shows serious intent.
I’m not condoning the other party carrying a weapon at all (I’m staunchly anti-gun) and then apparently threatening him at all, but there’s a big visual difference between carrying a larger weapon and a handgun.
It’s as if the boy fancied himself being in a game of ‘Call of Duty’.

[Tokyo Blue]

The fact is that if he hadn’t been walking around a city that he didn’t live, carrying an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, then none of this would have happened.
That weapon has to go down as severe provocation, as it shows serious intent.
I’m not condoning the other party carrying a weapon at all (I’m staunchly anti-gun) and then apparently threatening him at all, but there’s a big visual difference between carrying a larger weapon and a handgun.
It’s as if the boy fancied himself being in a game of ‘Call of Duty’.

To be fair...
He lives only 20 minutes away, he works in Kenosha and half of his family live there.

If the other loons hadn't chased him down and assaulted him after he was trying to put out a dumpster fire, then they'd still be free to roam the streets. I don't understand how their role in this is so underplayed by some people.

If I see someone carrying a rifle, my initial inclination is to move in the opposite direction, and not chase them and whack them with a skateboard, and then pull a gun on them when they're on the ground.

Also, the Call of Duty line was tried by the prosecution out of absolute desperation and is completely laughable. Traditionally (and ironically) it's the conservative types who try that line, and are the same ones who vociferously defend the US' gun laws.

[Dorcus]

The fact is that if he hadn’t been walking around a city that he didn’t live, carrying an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, then none of this would have happened.
That weapon has to go down as severe provocation, as it shows serious intent.
I’m not condoning the other party carrying a weapon at all (I’m staunchly anti-gun) and then apparently threatening him at all, but there’s a big visual difference between carrying a larger weapon and a handgun.
It’s as if the boy fancied himself being in a game of ‘Call of Duty’.

Absolutely correct and it shows how insane America is. At the very least this judgment will vindicate and encourage armed vigilantism. Surely the US police need this judgment like a hole in the head. You can just see the right wingers promoting this case as "Kyle's Law".

As for Shittenhouse, what's the bet he can look forward to a hugely lucrative future in US Republican politics.

[Gofer Blue]

I thought it wouldn't be long in coming, the Trump endorsement:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ttenhouse.html

[Croesy Blue]

I'd disagree that it sets a precedent. The gun laws are so loony out there that these things have already been happening. Those proud boy idiots who travelled from protest to protest were armed in lots of cases. Lots of armed militias were at numerous protests, on a broad spectrum from people dedending their businesses, to white power militias, to black panthers.

The main difference here is that a mentally ill criminal seemed to decide he'd try and commit suicide by attacking a pasty, out of his depth, armed loser. Bit of sympathy for the 2nd and 3rd lads who got involved, they may well have thought they were challenging a roving gunman. As you say though, when gun laws are so ridiculous this kind of thing ca happen all to easily.

Was he a mentally ill criminal?

It’s very similar to the Trayvon martin “self defence” if you want to kill someone in America you just need to wind them up into attacking you and then you can legally shoot them. How does this not create a precedent for that?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...veway-n1282285

That happened since. Some people are desperate to shoot someone and this encourages them because it gives a potential way out.

[chrisp_1927]

Was he a mentally ill criminal?

It’s very similar to the Trayvon martin “self defence” if you want to kill someone in America you just need to wind them up into attacking you and then you can legally shoot them. How does this not create a precedent for that?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...veway-n1282285

That happened since. Some people are desperate to shoot someone and this encourages them because it gives a potential way out.

I think if you watch the video of Rosenbaum attacking and chasing him it will show that. This case doesn't quite fit with the established left v right, black v white type arguments that people want to have. It was quite a unique case

[Croesy Blue]

I think if you watch the video of Rosenbaum attacking and chasing him it will show that. This case doesn't quite fit with the established left v right, black v white type arguments that people want to have. It was quite a unique case

I don’t see how that goes against anything I’ve said or how one video of someone shows they’re a mentally ill criminal.

All I’ve said is carrying a gun and killing someone shouldn’t pass without punishment otherwise you’ll get all sorts of “self defence” situations created as an excuse to kill.

And a gun escalates situations like this into people getting killed when in most countries it would just be a normal altercation.

I don’t have a dog in the fight I just can’t believe carrying a gun and using it to kill someone can pass with 0 punishment and even people supporting him as some kind of hero all because of bonkers politicisation.

[chrisp_1927]

I don’t see how that goes against anything I’ve said or how one video of someone shows they’re a mentally ill criminal.

All I’ve said is carrying a gun and killing someone shouldn’t pass without punishment otherwise you’ll get all sorts of “self defence” situations created as an excuse to kill.

And a gun escalates situations like this into people getting killed when in most countries it would just be a normal altercation.

I don’t have a dog in the fight I just can’t believe carrying a gun and using it to kill someone can pass with 0 punishment and even people supporting him as some kind of hero all because of bonkers politicisation.

He was a mentally ill criminal, he then chased and tried to beat up a bloke with a gun.

Like I said, I disagree that this case sets a precedent , as there have been mobs of loons with guns at all the protests. The gun laws out there are utterly ridiculous, I don't really see how this case sets a precedent.

[blue matt]

I know a ex-marine in the US ( we met buying a pair of chuck Taylor's, He spotted a pair with the Union Flag on, which was strange in the US and he passed them to me and said " here you go Bud, represent ", we got chatting and ended up meeting for a beer one night )

He is 100% behind the right to bare arms, and I truly believe that he would Die fighting for that right, if he thinks like that, I can only imagine a lot more do in the USA, talk of taking away that right is just not going to happen any day soon, it honestly is just crazy talk, we talk about civil wars, if they tried the ban the right to carry, thats going to push it right over the edge

[the other bob wilson]

I know a ex-marine in the US ( we met buying a pair of chuck Taylor's, He spotted a pair with the Union Flag on, which was strange in the US and he passed them to me and said " here you go Bud, represent ", we got chatting and ended up meeting for a beer one night )

He is 100% behind the right to bare arms, and I truly believe that he would Die fighting for that right, if he thinks like that, I can only imagine a lot more do in the USA, talk of taking away that right is just not going to happen any day soon, it honestly is just crazy talk, we talk about civil wars, if they tried the ban the right to carry, thats going to push it right over the edge

As I said, bonkers.

[blue matt]

As I said, bonkers.

Indeed

He is on Facebook and the amount of hardware he has is scary, even has a 50 cal that he used in Afghanistan ( of course not the same gun ) which I am pretty sure is the M107

Bonkers

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I know a ex-marine in the US ( we met buying a pair of chuck Taylor's, He spotted a pair with the Union Flag on, which was strange in the US and he passed them to me and said " here you go Bud, represent ", we got chatting and ended up meeting for a beer one night )

He is 100% behind the right to bare arms, and I truly believe that he would Die fighting for that right, if he thinks like that, I can only imagine a lot more do in the USA, talk of taking away that right is just not going to happen any day soon, it honestly is just crazy talk, we talk about civil wars, if they tried the ban the right to carry, thats going to push it right over the edge

Is he a vest wearer?

[jeepster]

Is he a vest wearer?

i never noticed that

[blue matt]

Is he a vest wearer?

No, more a muscle vest type of guy

[Croesy Blue]

He was a mentally ill criminal, he then chased and tried to beat up a bloke with a gun.

Like I said, I disagree that this case sets a precedent , as there have been mobs of loons with guns at all the protests. The gun laws out there are utterly ridiculous, I don't really see how this case sets a precedent.

But who incited it? Because it seems you can wind someone up wait until they attack you then kill them and call them a criminal.

If I wanted to kill someone that’s exactly what I’d do. Then make it very political and the idiots will lap it up.

Do you know what setting a precedent means? Because what you’ve said is completely unrelated.

[chrisp_1927]

But who incited it? Because it seems you can wind someone up wait until they attack you then kill them and call them a criminal.

If I wanted to kill someone that’s exactly what I’d do. Then make it very political and the idiots will lap it up.

Do you know what setting a precedent means? Because what you’ve said is completely unrelated.

Why are you so weirdly combative? Yes I understand what setting a precedent means.

As I explained, I don't think this sets a precedent as it was a very unique situation. You know it's perfectly fine for us to disagree? That's kinda what a discussion is about. Why so defensive?

[Croesy Blue]

Why are you so weirdly combative? Yes I understand what setting a precedent means.

As I explained, I don't think this sets a precedent as it was a very unique situation. You know it's perfectly fine for us to disagree? That's kinda what a discussion is about. Why so defensive?

Not being defensive just your post seemed completely unrelated. It’s you who read it as defensive, don’t use it an excuse to shoot me

[chrisp_1927]

Not being defensive just your post seemed completely unrelated. It’s you who read it as defensive, don’t use it an excuse to shoot me

Well thankfully for the pair of us we have more enlightened gun laws in this country !!

[Croesy Blue]

Well thankfully for the pair of us we have more enlightened gun laws in this country !!

I think that’s why I find it all so frustrating, it just all seems absolute madness to me.