|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 16, 2021 17:36:06 GMT
I love how you ignore the rest of her factually correct statement and pick on the one thing that isn’t. Pardon me, but, Rittenhouse did in fact NOT cross state lines with a weapon. In fact, it was his friend Dominick David Black that both bought and transported the weapon. leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-kyle-rittenhouse-did-not-cross-state-lines-with-an-ar-15.htmlnightnurse said: Is it self defense if I break into my neighbor’s house and I only shoot him after he throws a brick at md and points a gun at me?
Kyle crossed state lines with a weapon with the intent of indulging his absurd male power fantasy. How lucky for him that opportunity so miraculously presented itself.And what "factually correct statement" are you saying she missed? Everything she said barring the comment about the gun is conjecture, lol. Only in the minds of his sick defenders. |
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 16, 2021 17:36:16 GMT
I love how you ignore the rest of her factually correct statement and pick on the one thing that isn’t. We know that's what Kyle and his friend said. But we also know they both lie. Prove it. |
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 16, 2021 17:38:02 GMT
Pardon me, but, Rittenhouse did in fact NOT cross state lines with a weapon. In fact, it was his friend Dominick David Black that both bought and transported the weapon. leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-kyle-rittenhouse-did-not-cross-state-lines-with-an-ar-15.htmlnightnurse said: Is it self defense if I break into my neighbor’s house and I only shoot him after he throws a brick at md and points a gun at me?
Kyle crossed state lines with a weapon with the intent of indulging his absurd male power fantasy. How lucky for him that opportunity so miraculously presented itself.And what "factually correct statement" are you saying she missed? Everything she said barring the comment about the gun is conjecture, lol. Only in the minds of his sick defenders. I take it back. EVERYTHING she said is conjecture because it has not been proven that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with the gun in hi possession. |
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,675
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Nov 16, 2021 18:02:36 GMT
We know that's what Kyle and his friend said. But we also know they both lie. Prove it. Prove what? That he lied? If you watched the trial he admitted he lied about somethings. |
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 16, 2021 18:09:40 GMT
Prove what? That he lied? If you watched the trial he admitted he lied about somethings. "he admitted he lied about somethings" Did he lie about transporting a weapon? You have to prove that he lied specifically about that one thing before you get to convict him on that count. Believe it or not, it is still "innocent until proven guilty" in America. I know it's an inconvenient truth for some, lol. |
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,675
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Nov 16, 2021 18:29:28 GMT
Prove what? That he lied? If you watched the trial he admitted he lied about somethings. "he admitted he lied about somethings" Did he lie about transporting a weapon? You have to prove that he lied specifically about that one thing before you get to convict him on that count. Believe it or not, it is still "innocent until proven guilty" in America. I know it's an inconvenient truth for some, lol. Sorry you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. He is not charged with transporting a weapon. He won't be convicted on that. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. There is no proof that he did or that he didn't. Just what he and his friend said happened. What I do know is that he is a liar. |
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Nov 16, 2021 18:40:58 GMT
"he admitted he lied about somethings" Did he lie about transporting a weapon? You have to prove that he lied specifically about that one thing before you get to convict him on that count. Believe it or not, it is still "innocent until proven guilty" in America. I know it's an inconvenient truth for some, lol. Sorry you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. He is not charged with transporting a weapon. He won't be convicted on that. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. There is no proof that he did or that he didn't. Just what he and his friend said happened. What I do know is that he is a liar. Do you not think the police/investigators looked into the gun purchase? You don't think they investigated and confirmed the friend bought it, when, where, and for how much? The fact that the friend was then charged and faces 6 years in prison means nothing? Does this help you:
"A 19-year-old Wisconsin man has been charged with illegally providing the gun that prosecutors say Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, used to fatally shoot two men and injure a third during a protest this summer in Kenosha, Wis.
Dominick David Black allegedly obtained the Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, after Rittenhouse gave him money for the purchase. Black signed paperwork indicating he was buying the gun for himself, prosecutors say. Because Rittenhouse was underage, he was unable to buy the gun himself.
Black was charged with two felony counts of intentionally selling a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18, resulting in the death of another, according to Wisconsin Circuit Court records posted online. He made his initial appearance in court on Monday."
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862 
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 16, 2021 18:45:37 GMT
I went to the Wisconsin statute as I was surprised that it was dismissed as it seemed like a no brainer that if nothing else minor possessing dangerous firearm would hold - it's a freaking mess. Basically they exempted long guns. That’s what it seems. I mean, I understand the prosecutor’s argument that if you interpret the two statutes and all the subsections in a way that minors can carry guns that are not short-barreled, it negates the main purpose of the law which is to prohibit minors from carrying weapons to begin with! In any case, it wasn’t worth confusing the jury on this when it’s just a misdemeanor. Of course, of graver concern are the felonies, which I’m afraid were overcharged. I’m not condoning or cheering Rittenhouse’s actions, but I think the state’s decisions were not wise. There’s also the issue of provocation which seems like it’s what the state is hanging its hat on. I’m dismayed by the fact that several well-known media have been claiming that once you decide Rittenhouse provoked the events, he can no longer claim self-defense. But that’s erroneous and not at all helpful. That’s not what’s in Wisconsin’s statutes. |
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,675
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Nov 16, 2021 19:00:37 GMT
Sorry you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. He is not charged with transporting a weapon. He won't be convicted on that. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. There is no proof that he did or that he didn't. Just what he and his friend said happened. What I do know is that he is a liar. Do you not think the police/investigators looked into the gun purchase? You don't think they investigated and confirmed the friend bought it, when, where, and for how much? The fact that the friend was then charged and faces 6 years in prison means nothing? Does this help you:
"A 19-year-old Wisconsin man has been charged with illegally providing the gun that prosecutors say Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, used to fatally shoot two men and injure a third during a protest this summer in Kenosha, Wis.
Dominick David Black allegedly obtained the Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, after Rittenhouse gave him money for the purchase. Black signed paperwork indicating he was buying the gun for himself, prosecutors say. Because Rittenhouse was underage, he was unable to buy the gun himself.
Black was charged with two felony counts of intentionally selling a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18, resulting in the death of another, according to Wisconsin Circuit Court records posted online. He made his initial appearance in court on Monday." you still don't seem to understand. Yes Black bought the gun. That doesn't mean Kyle didn't have the gun at the time and bring it with him that night. Just because Black said he had it at his house, doesn't mean he did. No one is disputing that Black bought it. |
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 16, 2021 19:01:38 GMT
"he admitted he lied about somethings" Did he lie about transporting a weapon? You have to prove that he lied specifically about that one thing before you get to convict him on that count. Believe it or not, it is still "innocent until proven guilty" in America. I know it's an inconvenient truth for some, lol. Sorry you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. He is not charged with transporting a weapon. He won't be convicted on that. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. There is no proof that he did or that he didn't. Just what he and his friend said happened. What I do know is that he is a liar. I think we understand each other just fine. You believe he's a liar and that he is lying about the gun issue. "That doesn't mean he didn't do it". It also means it doesn't mean that he did. Your belief that he did doesn't make it so. Fun Fact: we are all liars. |
|
rodeomom
Pearl Clutcher
Refupee # 380 "I don't have to run fast, I just have to run faster than you."
Posts: 3,675
Location: Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma
Jun 25, 2014 23:34:38 GMT
|
Post by rodeomom on Nov 16, 2021 19:07:50 GMT
Sorry you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. He is not charged with transporting a weapon. He won't be convicted on that. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. There is no proof that he did or that he didn't. Just what he and his friend said happened. What I do know is that he is a liar. I think we understand each other just fine. You believe he's a liar and that he is lying about the gun issue. "That doesn't mean he didn't do it". It also means it doesn't mean that he did. Your belief that he did doesn't make it so. Fun Fact: we are all liars. I never said that I believe he did, just that there is no proof either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 16, 2021 19:43:45 GMT
I went to the Wisconsin statute as I was surprised that it was dismissed as it seemed like a no brainer that if nothing else minor possessing dangerous firearm would hold - it's a freaking mess. Basically they exempted long guns. That’s what it seems. I mean, I understand the prosecutor’s argument that if you interpret the two statutes and all the subsections in a way that minors can carry guns that are not short-barreled, it negates the main purpose of the law which is to prohibit minors from carrying weapons to begin with! In any case, it wasn’t worth confusing the jury on this when it’s just a misdemeanor. Of course, of graver concern are the felonies, which I’m afraid were overcharged. I’m not condoning or cheering Rittenhouse’s actions, but I think the state’s decisions were not wise. There’s also the issue of provocation which seems like it’s what the state is hanging its hat on. I’m dismayed by the fact that several well-known media have been claiming that once you decide Rittenhouse provoked the events, he can no longer claim self-defense. But that’s erroneous and not at all helpful. That’s not what’s in Wisconsin’s statutes. Would you mind helping me understand the statute? I have lawyer friends/family who disagree with you. This is the wording of the WI statute that I found online: I have not watched every moment of the trial, so I'm not aware of what evidence the defense showed that Rittenhouse had "exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid" the attack. Is there room for doubt on this issue? |
|
anonaname
Full Member
Posts: 256
Aug 18, 2021 0:04:22 GMT
|
Post by anonaname on Nov 16, 2021 20:08:20 GMT
edited>>>> I'd like to point out here that Binger is a moron for pointing an AR-15 in open court with no trigger discipline whatsoever. Fucking idiot. He handled that gun the same way he's handled this case.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 16, 2021 20:12:57 GMT
That’s what it seems. I mean, I understand the prosecutor’s argument that if you interpret the two statutes and all the subsections in a way that minors can carry guns that are not short-barreled, it negates the main purpose of the law which is to prohibit minors from carrying weapons to begin with! In any case, it wasn’t worth confusing the jury on this when it’s just a misdemeanor. Of course, of graver concern are the felonies, which I’m afraid were overcharged. I’m not condoning or cheering Rittenhouse’s actions, but I think the state’s decisions were not wise. There’s also the issue of provocation which seems like it’s what the state is hanging its hat on. I’m dismayed by the fact that several well-known media have been claiming that once you decide Rittenhouse provoked the events, he can no longer claim self-defense. But that’s erroneous and not at all helpful. That’s not what’s in Wisconsin’s statutes. Would you mind helping me understand the statute? I have lawyer friends/family who disagree with you. This is the wording of the WI statute that I found online: I have not watched every moment of the trial, so I'm not aware of what evidence the defense showed that Rittenhouse had "exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid" the attack. Is there room for doubt on this issue? My pleasure to do so. And again, I’m stating that I neither condone nor cheer Rittenhouse’s actions. Media should not say/write that if Rittenhouse provoked the incidents, he cannot claim self-defense. It’s erroneous specifically because of what’s in your post: reasonableness. It’s true that provocation makes it harder to claim self-defense; however, provocation does not automatically nullify self-defense. Were Rittenhouse’s actions reasonable in this situation? That’s basically what’s being debated. Could he have run away? Could he have kicked instead of shot, etc? And this was borne out in the jury instructions. Per judge: “You should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use threatened force and self-defense against that attack. However, if the attack that follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or bodily harm, he may lawfully act in self-defense.” |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 16, 2021 21:00:34 GMT
Would you mind helping me understand the statute? I have lawyer friends/family who disagree with you. This is the wording of the WI statute that I found online: I have not watched every moment of the trial, so I'm not aware of what evidence the defense showed that Rittenhouse had "exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid" the attack. Is there room for doubt on this issue? My pleasure to do so. And again, I’m stating that I neither condone nor cheer Rittenhouse’s actions. Media should not say/write that if Rittenhouse provoked the incidents, he cannot claim self-defense. It’s erroneous specifically because of what’s in your post: reasonableness. It’s true that provocation makes it harder to claim self-defense; however, provocation does not automatically nullify self-defense. Were Rittenhouse’s actions reasonable in this situation? That’s basically what’s being debated. Could he have run away? Could he have kicked instead of shot, etc? And this was borne out in the jury instructions. Per judge: “You should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use threatened force and self-defense against that attack. However, if the attack that follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or bodily harm, he may lawfully act in self-defense.”I see; thank you. Clearly I have strict divisions in my head between what is in the law and what I think is just, and they don't align here. I would be a terrible juror, I suppose. Some of the other lawyers on my feed who have been following the case closely seem to feel that Rittenhouse could reasonably have run away when the attacks first started, and that nullifies the self defense argument. I guess we'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 21:01:55 GMT
Did you actually look at or read any of the links I posted? None of them were from CNN or MSNBC. The majority of the articles were posted after the riots after careful analysis of the data. Yes, there was violence and looting. No one is disputing that. But not to the extent that right wing news media reported. My initial comment was:
"Maybe Kyle Rittenhouse was just another idiot that fell for the left-wing media (CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPO) narrative that the fiery, violent, deadly riots last year were nothing more than "peaceful protests." I mean...people here were saying (believing?) that, maybe he did too."
What I said about CNN/MSNBC directly is correct--they stood in front of fires burning declaring the riots as mostly peaceful. Maybe YOU think burning buildings, looting, rioting, etc. is mostly peaceful. I don't.
Did you actually see a clip of the report? The chyron was obviously a mistake, but the reporter talked about the burning buildings behind him. He was trying to draw an important distinction between the peaceful protests during the day and the looting and burning that happened at night. A distinction that Fox and many Republicans fail to recognize. Despite what you might think, the evidence shows that the protests were mostly peaceful. "What you're seeing behind me is one of multiple locations that have been burning in Kenosha, Wisconsin, over the course of the night," Jimenez said during his report. "What you're seeing now, these images... come in stark contrast to what we saw over the course of the daytime hours in Kenosha and into the early evening, which were largely peaceful demonstrations in the face of law enforcement. "It wasn't until night fell that they began to get a little bit more contentious, things were thrown back and forth, police started using some of those crowd dispersal tactics like tear gas." www.newsweek.com/cnn-mocked-calling-kenosha-riots-fiery-mostly-peaceful-protests-1527997And as Merge pointed out and many of the articles that I linked showed that in some cases, the police response escalated the situation instead of de-escalating. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 21:24:01 GMT
What responsibility do you think police and military should bear for the financial cost where they were the ones who instigated violence? How much taxpayer money do you think has been spent defending police who killed black people with excessive force in the line of duty? How many families have been driven into poverty by the loss of a breadwinner at the hands of violent police? How much taxpayer money spent on unjust incarceration? With conservatives, it's always somebody else's fault. You all don't take responsibility for the damage our police and military do here and abroad, and you're mad when the victims and their supporters fight back in a way you don't like. You applaud those who go in to shoot them (or separate them from their families, or detain them indefinitely, or bomb them into oblivion) when they fight back. It's easy for you to say, oh, violence isn't the answer and you need to work for change peacefully. But you all are systematically rigging our political system in your own favor, making peaceful change impossible. Don't be surprised when violence is the response. People will only be oppressed for so long before they fight back. Jason Van Dyke was arrested, tried and convicted for killing Laquan McDonald.
Derek Chauvin was arrested, tried and convicted for killing George Floyd.
More than 675 people from 40 different states have been charged following the Capitol attack.
Is justice always fair, absolutely not. However, immediate lashing out by rioting, looting, burning, attacking and killing before all of the facts can even be determined isn't the way. I'll never condone, justify or condone any of that.
Do you really think the arrest and conviction of 2 police officers is a sufficient response to the hundreds of black Americans, many of them unarmed that have been shot by the police? www.npr.org/2021/01/25/956177021/fatal-police-shootings-of-unarmed-black-people-reveal-troubling-patternsSince 2015, police officers have fatally shot at least 135 unarmed Black men and women nationwide, an NPR investigation has found. NPR reviewed police, court and other records to examine the details of the cases. At least 75% of the officers were white. For at least 15 of the officers, such as McMahon, the shootings were not their first — or their last, NPR found. They have been involved in two — sometimes three or more — shootings, often deadly and without consequences. An examination of individual cases reveals the myriad ways that law enforcement agencies fail to hold officers accountable and allow them to be in a position to shoot again. In many instances, the criminal justice system refuses to prosecute, often resulting in departments putting officers back on the street instead of desk jobs where they have little contact with the public. Other times, police unions protect officers from accountability. And sometimes, departments are so desperate to recruit officers that they ignore warning signs such as an officer's troubled past and hire them anyway. How is the arrest and conviction of 2 officers a sufficient response to centuries of systematic racism? Of redlining, voter suppression, health disparities, income inequality etc? www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/new-voter-suppressionldi.upenn.edu/our-work/research-updates/the-ties-between-structural-racism-voting-rights-and-health-equity/www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/the-end-of-denial/614194/And I'm not sure how the insurrection on Jan 6 is relevant to racial justice, police reform and the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 16, 2021 21:26:58 GMT
When you're outnumbered 3 against one, with a mob forming behind the 3, they're also armed too, they threatened to kill him twice, he was bashed in the head with a skateboard twice, had a running kick to the face, (the guy was off the ground completely as his feet made contact to Kyle's face), they chased him, advanced on him and POINTED A GUN AT KYLE. On video. The "victim"/aggressor/witness for the prosecution testified that he only got shot after he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse and advanced on him. Also on video. It was self defense. Is it self defense if I break into my neighbor’s house and I only shoot him after he throws a brick at md and points a gun at me? Kyle crossed state lines with a weapon with the intent of indulging his absurd male power fantasy. How lucky for him that opportunity so miraculously presented itself. Who's house did Kyle break into? He did not cross state lines with a weapon. And you left out the part where they threatened to kill him several times, and attempted to do so, several times. On video. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 16, 2021 21:27:42 GMT
What part are you calling phooey? That is literally, exactly what that witness said on the stand. Did you watch his testimony? I read his testimony and I watched the video of the chase not once but twice. And in my opinion it wasn’t self defense. He set off a chain of events that night that ultimately led to him shooting three people two of them who died. As much as he wants to portray it, he’s no victim. And he should be held accountable for his actions that night and not be given a pass because he cried and claimed he was a victim. He set off a chain of events that night that ultimately led to him shooting three people two of them who died. What is it that you think he did to set off the chain of events? Not your opinion of what he did, what did he do that is backed up by facts that it set off the chain of events? |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 16, 2021 21:34:00 GMT
My pleasure to do so. And again, I’m stating that I neither condone nor cheer Rittenhouse’s actions. Media should not say/write that if Rittenhouse provoked the incidents, he cannot claim self-defense. It’s erroneous specifically because of what’s in your post: reasonableness. It’s true that provocation makes it harder to claim self-defense; however, provocation does not automatically nullify self-defense. Were Rittenhouse’s actions reasonable in this situation? That’s basically what’s being debated. Could he have run away? Could he have kicked instead of shot, etc? And this was borne out in the jury instructions. Per judge: “You should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use threatened force and self-defense against that attack. However, if the attack that follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or bodily harm, he may lawfully act in self-defense.”I see; thank you. Clearly I have strict divisions in my head between what is in the law and what I think is just, and they don't align here. I would be a terrible juror, I suppose. Some of the other lawyers on my feed who have been following the case closely seem to feel that Rittenhouse could reasonably have run away when the attacks first started, and that nullifies the self defense argument. I guess we'll see. Re your second paragraph, I can understand. That’s one of the reasons people hate lawyers until they need them. I might also add that provocation needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt so the bar is high. Which then circles back to my earlier opinion re overcharging. If the state had instead charged, for example in the Huber shooting, a felony that does not have self-defense as an affirmative defense, then the prosecutors would not have the burden of proving provocation. That’s why I think it was unwise. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 16, 2021 21:38:10 GMT
And as Merge pointed out and many of the articles that I linked showed that in some cases, the police response escalated the situation instead of de-escalating. In many instances the police have been told "to stand down", have been told to not wear protective gear so as not to be intimidating and they didn't. They had fire starters thrown at them, bricks, frozen water bottles, etc. all while not wearing protective gear so they didn't "intimidate" the people that were there to intimidate them. Hundreds of police were injured in these peaceful protests. Hundreds. Please point out the exact verbiage in the link that show that police response escalated the situation. Do you really think the arrest and conviction of 2 police officers is a sufficient response to the hundreds of black Americans, many of them unarmed that have been shot by the police? It wasn't a response to the hundreds of black Americans at all. It was a response to those 2 cases and those 2 cases only. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 21:46:38 GMT
Of course not everybody out protesting turned to looting, violence, and arson. The facts remain that the riots are on track to be the most costly in our history, upwards of $1 billion. There were riots in at least 140 cities, national guard was activated in 21 states, hundreds and hundreds of businesses were burned and/or looted. That's just after George Floyd's death. Then there's Kenosha. Don't forget Portland and Seattle.
We may be a big country, but the violence, death and destruction was felt from coast to coast, and it was real. Leave it to CNN and MSNBC to send in their clowns to declare peaceful rioting while standing in front of burning buildings.
Did you actually look at or read any of the links I posted? None of them were from CNN or MSNBC. The majority of the articles were posted after the riots after careful analysis of the data. Yes, there was violence and looting. No one is disputing that. But not to the extent that right wing news media reported. Just wanted to emphasize this point www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/12/critics-claim-blm-was-more-violent-than-1960s-civil-rights-protests-thats-just-not-true/But during last year’s BLM protests, when many Americans were at home under pandemic lockdown orders, people sought information from a far more diverse set of broadcast and social media. Some conservative media outlets or social media feeds overemphasized images of burning buildings and violent confrontations between protesters and police, making those aberrations appear to be the norm. President Donald Trump and some conservative pundits then insisted that the protests were dominated by “thugs” and “anarchists.” These tactics seemed to have worked. According to the Pew Research Center, American support for the Black Lives Matter movement dropped from 67 percent in June 2020 to 55 percent in September 2020. Fully 60 percent of Whites said they supported Black Lives Matter in June 2020, but declined to 45 percent by September; among Republicans, support dropped from 37 percent to 16 percent from June to September 2020. Survey results from Civiqs show that Republican support declined and opposition increased just after Trump spoke about the protests to the nation on June 1. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 21:57:01 GMT
And as Merge pointed out and many of the articles that I linked showed that in some cases, the police response escalated the situation instead of de-escalating. In many instances the police have been told "to stand down", have been told to not wear protective gear so as not to be intimidating and they didn't. They had fire starters thrown at them, bricks, frozen water bottles, etc. all while not wearing protective gear so they didn't "intimidate" the people that were there to intimidate them. Hundreds of police were injured in these peaceful protests. Hundreds. Please point out the exact verbiage in the link that show that police response escalated the situation. additional links time.com/5849839/police-brutality-george-floyd-protests-spreadsheet/www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/us/protests-policing-george-floyd.htmlwww.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/08/usa-law-enforcement-violated-black-lives-matter-protesters-human-rights/www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/us-police-brutality-protestwww.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2020/12/23/police-escalated-violence-while-protesters-tried-to-incite-video-showswww.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/police-infiltration-protests-undermines-first-amendmentFrom the ones I initially posted www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-findsPolice were reported injured in 1% of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summers-black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelming-peaceful-our-research-finds/In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence, but some observers nevertheless blame the protesters. The claim that the protests are violent — even when the police started the violence — can help local, state and federal forces justify intentionally beating, gassing or kettling the people marching, or reinforces politicians’ calls for “law and order.” How the news media frame protests influences how the public perceives them. Ambiguous framings — such as those describing “clashes” between protesters and police — can convey false information about which side is violent. For instance, an extensive archive reveals that police themselves allegedly instigated a number of reported “clashes,” which also likely led to more arrests, participant injuries and possibly even property damage. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 22:13:08 GMT
Do you really think the arrest and conviction of 2 police officers is a sufficient response to the hundreds of black Americans, many of them unarmed that have been shot by the police? It wasn't a response to the hundreds of black Americans at all. It was a response to those 2 cases and those 2 cases only. Yes, I am aware of that. My post was in response to this post by sunshine that seemed to suggest those 2 convictions were sufficient and we should be content. Jason Van Dyke was arrested, tried and convicted for killing Laquan McDonald. Derek Chauvin was arrested, tried and convicted for killing George Floyd. More than 675 people from 40 different states have been charged following the Capitol attack. Is justice always fair, absolutely not. However, immediate lashing out by rioting, looting, burning, attacking and killing before all of the facts can even be determined isn't the way. I'll never condone, justify or condone any of that. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 22:17:10 GMT
This sounds like a good summary of the case www.npr.org/2021/11/16/1056181659/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-bruce-schroeder-kenosha"This is a case that brings to the fore a lot of matters of public concern - gun rights, the use of force by police officers - and it makes sense that people are paying attention, then, to what's happening in the courtroom and the manner in which conversations are occurring," said Cecelia Klingele, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 16, 2021 22:24:26 GMT
In many instances the police have been told "to stand down", have been told to not wear protective gear so as not to be intimidating and they didn't. They had fire starters thrown at them, bricks, frozen water bottles, etc. all while not wearing protective gear so they didn't "intimidate" the people that were there to intimidate them. Hundreds of police were injured in these peaceful protests. Hundreds. Please point out the exact verbiage in the link that show that police response escalated the situation. additional links time.com/5849839/police-brutality-george-floyd-protests-spreadsheet/www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/us/protests-policing-george-floyd.htmlwww.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/08/usa-law-enforcement-violated-black-lives-matter-protesters-human-rights/www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/us-police-brutality-protestwww.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2020/12/23/police-escalated-violence-while-protesters-tried-to-incite-video-showswww.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/police-infiltration-protests-undermines-first-amendmentFrom the ones I initially posted www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-findsPolice were reported injured in 1% of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summers-black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelming-peaceful-our-research-finds/In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence, but some observers nevertheless blame the protesters. The claim that the protests are violent — even when the police started the violence — can help local, state and federal forces justify intentionally beating, gassing or kettling the people marching, or reinforces politicians’ calls for “law and order.” How the news media frame protests influences how the public perceives them. Ambiguous framings — such as those describing “clashes” between protesters and police — can convey false information about which side is violent. For instance, an extensive archive reveals that police themselves allegedly instigated a number of reported “clashes,” which also likely led to more arrests, participant injuries and possibly even property damage. police reportedly began or escalated the violence, — even when the police started the violence — You should point out what it is in those articles that YOU THINK says the above. I'm not going to read through all of those articles to try to determine what YOU THINK. Is justice always fair, absolutely not. However, immediate lashing out by rioting, looting, burning, attacking and killing before all of the facts can even be determined isn't the way. I'll never condone, justify or condone any of that.You sure do spend a lot of time and effort dismissing and/or downplaying it all. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 22:28:28 GMT
police reportedly began or escalated the violence, — even when the police started the violence — You should point out what it is in those articles that YOU THINK says the above. I'm not going to read through all of those articles to try to determine what YOU THINK. Is justice always fair, absolutely not. However, immediate lashing out by rioting, looting, burning, attacking and killing before all of the facts can even be determined isn't the way. I'll never condone, justify or condone any of that.You sure do spend a lot of time and effort dismissing and/or downplaying it all. You asked for exact verbiage and I did post quotes from the articles I initially linked about how police escalated the violence. I'm not going to read the articles for you. The 2nd quote - those are not my words. Sunshine wrote them. |
|
|
|
Post by pixiechick on Nov 16, 2021 22:37:40 GMT
You should point out what it is in those articles that YOU THINK says the above. I'm not going to read through all of those articles to try to determine what YOU THINK. You sure do spend a lot of time and effort dismissing and/or downplaying it all. You asked for exact verbiage and I did post quotes from the articles I initially linked about how police escalated the violence. I'm not going to read the articles for you. The 2nd quote - those are not my words. Sunshine wrote them. Your quotes -all of them- were written in your posts as if they were your words. If they're not your words you should put quotation marks to indicate you're quoting someone. In the second one I realize that your words indicate she said it. And nothing you supposedly quoted show that police response escalated the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Nov 16, 2021 22:42:07 GMT
You asked for exact verbiage and I did post quotes from the articles I initially linked about how police escalated the violence. I'm not going to read the articles for you. The 2nd quote - those are not my words. Sunshine wrote them. Your quotes -all of them- were written in your posts as if they were your words. If they're not your words you should put quotation marks to indicate you're quoting someone. In the second one I realize that your words indicate she said it. And nothing you supposedly quoted show that police response escalated the situation. If you read my post, I did say the quote was from Sunshine. These are my exact words. My post was in response to this post by sunshine that seemed to suggest those 2 convictions were sufficient and we should be content.
Now who needs to read more carefully? |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 16, 2021 22:57:40 GMT
|
|
