Ongoing Trials in Ahmaud Arbery and Kyle Rittenhouse Cases.

[AU9377 5,035]

21 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Rittenhouse was acquitted not because he was white but because the evidence overwhelmingly supported the case for self defense.

I do agree with this, but I also believe that more than one thing can be true at the same time.  I don't think we have to pretend that being a young clean cut white kid had no benefit.  I'm certain it did.  That doesn't mean that the State didn't fail to prove their case.

[jj3jordan 2,060]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I do agree with this, but I also believe that more than one thing can be true at the same time.  I don't think we have to pretend that being a young clean cut white kid had no benefit.  I'm certain it did.  That doesn't mean that the State didn't fail to prove their case.

Weren’t the dead people young clean cut white people too?

[AU9377 5,035]

7 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Weren’t the dead people young clean cut white people too?

Not particularly.  Regardless, my comment was about Rittenhouse, not the three that he shot.  One of the three was a documented creep, but that doesn't have anything to do with what I was pointing out.

[cole256 17,084]

13 hours ago, Farmer Brown said:

Here is my answer to Homersapien....

 

Other fusion processes are important for solar energy and for the creation of elements up to A = 58 in stellar environments. The falloff in binding energy per nucleon above A = 58 implies that most of these nuclei can spontaneously decay into lighter products. The most common of these decay processes are alpha decay, where a 4He is emitted, and fission, where the nucleus breaks up into two roughly equal mass fragments. The fission products are usually accompanied by neutrons. Intermediate decay modes, where light fragments such as 14C are emitted, are also possible and have also been observed, but their decay rate relative to alpha decay is extremely small. Although most heavy nuclei have a positive Q value for spontaneous decay, many of them have lifetimes on the order of the age of the universe and thus exist in nature, due to the hindrance of tunneling through the Coulomb barrier.

This isn't correct

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

1) Is it legal for a 17 year old to buy an assault style rifle from out of state?  Who bought it?

2) Oh Puleeze.    It's got a high capacity magazine that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger (faster with a few illegal mods.  Fully automatic capability doesn't prevent it from being an assault rifle,  Heck, this one even had an extendable stock if it's a MP15.

3) Irrelevent

4) Also irrelevant.  But if he was there to "help", why take an assault rifle?  If he was deputized, fine, but he wasn't. 

5) Of course they made poor choices.  But if Rittenhouse - and armed vigilante hadn't made the trip they'd still be alive.  Rittenhouse made poor choices also, but he got away with it scott free.  That's a problem IMO.

 

Finally, I did make some false assumptions as I didn't really follow the trial.  I'll own up to every false assumption I made, in detail.  Being wrong or mistaken is not lying.  I made assumption is good faith, but I am open to correction.  I will readily admit ignorant statements when proven otherwise.

It was not illegal for Kyle to possess the gun. ( Again, you use made up terms by the gun grabbers and media) It was a shotgun/or a rifle with a barrel of at least 16 inches. 

A 30 round magazine is not a "high capcity" magazine. Again, a Term coined by gungrabbing idiots and mainstream media. A 30 round magazine is a standard magazine for that firearm. Of course it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. That's how semi-auto firearms work. That's how semi auto pistols work as well. Do you believe that a telescoping stock makes a gun more deadly or makes it an "assault rifle" ? What about the scary flash hider at the end? How did it aid in this situation? The pistol grip?  None of that stuff makes one bit of a difference other than aids in the use of the gun

The things you say were irrelevant are absolutely relevant. Facts matter. Details matter. That's why half the country is so brainwashed as it is because they trust a lying media more than their own two eyes and video evidence. When you say "he went out of state looking for trouble" it matters that the distance traveled is 20 minutes away. That is basically his home. How do you say details and context do not matter? 

You do not have to be deputized to carry a weapon. I would say he carried a rifle because he was aware of the danger he was going into and wanted to protect his self. Makes sense to me. 

Do you realize how stupid this argument of "if he wasn't there then the deceased would still be alive" sounds? LIterally no different than you being in a hotel room, and some guy attacks you in the lobby and you shoot them in self defense and it's your fault because if you hadn't been at the hotel that POS attacker would still be alive. Such a flawed argument.  The only place blame lies in this case is at the feet of the deceased attackers. Period. People can say it was a bad choice for Kyle to choose to go try and help, that is irrelevant. It was still his legal right to be there. Kyle did not one thing morally, ethically, or legally wrong.  

I can appreciate your last paragraph though. I think that is one of the biggest problems and dividers in this country today around many different subjects is people who are ignorant to things spout it out as fact before ever trying to learn what really happened or looking at the actual details. The media and political left is the worst about it. More responsible reporting would keep so many people from getting riled up over things that they have been led to believe and often times are not true. 

 

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

9 hours ago, cole256 said:

🤡

Cole I am confused. Are you saying I am a clown or that he is a clown?

Edited November 21, 2021 by Tigerpro2a

[cole256 17,084]

1 hour ago, Tigerpro2a said:

Cole I am confused. Are you saying I am a clown or that he is a clown?

Whoever said it, and that logic in general. Actually people who don't even have to go through the stuff but are there fighting and arguing every single case of racism to say it doesn't exist....or it does but coincidentally NEVER a case that's seen

[DKW 86 7,440]

42 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Whoever said it, and that logic in general. Actually people who don't even have to go through the stuff but are there fighting and arguing every single case of racism to say it doesn't exist....or it does but coincidentally NEVER a case that's seen

I am sure racism is pervasive in most cultures and very much a 24-7 proposition in America. 

I think most people can also see that there are tons of folks like NBA stars that profit off of Chinese Slave Labor and WONT SAY ONE ******* WORD ABOUT THE SLAVES THEY ARE PROFITING OFF OF are just s*** libs. They SAY a lot and DO nothing.

KR should never have been there. The three pieces of white trash he shot, they werent there for any racial protests. If any of those dirtbags give a damn about racism I would be shocked. They were there to loot, or burn, or who knows what.

 

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

1 hour ago, cole256 said:

Whoever said it, and that logic in general. Actually people who don't even have to go through the stuff but are there fighting and arguing every single case of racism to say it doesn't exist....or it does but coincidentally NEVER a case that's seen

Well, I don't exactly know who is arguing every case or saying that it doesn't exist. Racism will always exist. I don't see a pattern in human behavior for thousands of years being "evolutionized" out, but we can always improve as we have.

I just don't see how taking things that aren't about race or racism and trying to make it about race by using hypotheticals and non relevant information helps actual racism one bit. 

[homersapien 11,440]

It was not illegal for Kyle to possess the gun. ( Again, you use made up terms by the gun grabbers and media) It was a shotgun/or a rifle with a barrel of at least 16 inches. 

Did Kyle purchase it or did his "friend"?  Regardless, this exemplifies the problem with our gun laws.  That specific provision was passed to allow for children to hunt. (And yes, he's a child.  Males don't become adults until their mid-twenties.)  It was not intended for children to show up at protests - or riots - to help out the police.  If the police cannot handle the situation, get more police or deploy the national guard.  We don't need children acting as vigilantes.

If a 17 year old grabs any sort of gun to defend his family and home from invaders that's fine.  But something is seriously wrong when we say it's OK for him to show up at a protest with an assault rifle.

Now if you want to argue this incident wouldn't have been substantially altered in it's nature had he been armed with a shotgun, I would agree.  My point about the type of weapon he used simply reinforces his intent, which was he went out of his way to be ready to shoot other people who were attacking someone else's property.

 

A 30 round magazine is not a "high capcity" magazine. Again, a Term coined by gungrabbing idiots and mainstream media. A 30 round magazine is a standard magazine for that firearm. Of course it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. That's how semi-auto firearms work. That's how semi auto pistols work as well. Do you believe that a telescoping stock makes a gun more deadly or makes it an "assault rifle" ? What about the scary flash hider at the end? How did it aid in this situation? The pistol grip?  None of that stuff makes one bit of a difference other than aids in the use of the gun

I totally knew you were going to make the argument this is not an assault rifle.   That's just another BS pedantic  argument.

Automatic capability is a relatively minor difference between a military grade assault rifle and a semi auto.  And yes, I understand the difference.  I have frequently shot auto-loading shotguns (skeet) and owned tubular feed semi-auto .22s.  In fact, I currently own a scoped BAR deer rifle.  While all of those weapons are just as lethal for killing someone - well except maybe for the .22, which is simply just lethal - you cannot crank off 30 rounds in less than 10 seconds and then reload with a fresh 30 rounds in a few more seconds. The lack of auto fire is a essentially irrelevant distinction, practically speaking.

And LOL at the notion a 30 round mag is not a high capacity magazine.  What BS that is!  Who needs a 30 round magazine for any reason other than combat, playing army or shooting up appliances?  Regardless a 30 round magazine is most definitely a "high capacity" magazine.

And the collapsible stock is just another example of the intent of the basic design. While it may be a relatively insignificant distinction, it is meant for easier handling in close quarters or indoor combat.  (It is also handy for concealment.)  Don't see many deer rifles or shotguns with collapsible stocks. In this particular case, rolling around on the ground or grappling with the "enemy", a collapsible stock might have been an advantage,  which only further highlights it as a specifically combat design.

And I am glad you brought up the flash suppressor, another relatively insignificant design detail.  It's specifically meant to make it more difficult for the enemy to locate you in a firefight. It's not relevant in non-combat situations, but often or usually appears in modern guns designed for combat, i.e.: "assault rifles".

Bottom line don't come at me with your firearms expertise and pedantic arguments about what does or does not constitute an assault rifle.  I am sufficiently served by my own expertise and common sense.

And as far as auto-loading pistols,  Kyle WOULD  have been better served with one of those, if kept concealed. 

My understanding of what happened - again I didn't follow the trial - was the Rittenhouse essentially drew attention in the first place because he was brandishing or wearing a rifle in plain sight.  With a concealed pistol he would have been just another white guy walking around where he shouldn't have been.  Of course the MP15 would be his weapon of choice if you intended or were prepared to shoot other people.

Finally, I don't need the media to convince me what an assault rifle is or isn't.  I got my first gun at the age of 9 - a single shot .410 given to be by my father.  (It was stolen years later from my home, so it was figuratively the gun mentioned in the song "The Road Goes On Forever" )  I have owned and used a variety of rifles and shotguns and pistols since then

So insult the media if you want - they ARE pretty ignorant when it comes to firearms - but please don't insult me with such foolish assumptions.

 

The things you say were irrelevant are absolutely relevant. Facts matter. Details matter. That's why half the country is so brainwashed as it is because they trust a lying media more than their own two eyes and video evidence.

Well, I'd say you are the one who is brainwashed. 

You are trying to rationalize with irrelevant facts and details to whitewash the basic fact of this case, which is Kyle Rittenhouse when out of his way to involve himself in a protest for immature and stupid reasons and as a result, two people were killed and one was crippled. 

I am not saying that he should be found guilty of murder but the fact he simply walks free illustrates the depraved state we have found ourselves in concerning firearms.  Our laws - particularly the more recent "stand your ground" legislation as well as the apparent lack of laws focusing on intent and activity that leads to tragedy.  We're getting a prime example with the current Armed Aubrey trial.  Using your standards, these guys will walk also.

 

When you say "he went out of state looking for trouble" it matters that the distance traveled is 20 minutes away. That is basically his home. How do you say details and context do not matter?  

Yeah, 20 miles makes a HUGE difference .  You make it sound like he was just walking around his yard carrying an assault rifle and this all came down next to him.  20 miles may not be all that far, but I have seldom traveled even 15 miles without the intent to do so.

 

You do not have to be deputized to carry a weapon. I would say he carried a rifle because he was aware of the danger he was going into and wanted to protect hiself. Makes sense to me. 

And how did that work out? 

Of course it "makes sense" to you.  No doubt it make sense to all those Proud Boys and other white supremacists that brandish their assault rifles at protests.  You are making my point.  We have become depraved as a country concerning firearms.

 

Do you realize how stupid this argument of "if he wasn't there then the deceased would still be alive" sounds?

How can you call a basic factual statement stupid?  If you don't see this as a factual statement, then I submit you are the one with the cognitive problem. 

 

LIterally no different than you being in a hotel room, and some guy attacks you in the lobby and you shoot them in self defense and it's your fault because if you hadn't been at the hotel that POS attacker would still be alive. Such a flawed argument. 

That's a bizarre analogy.  Kyle Rittenhouse was not minding his own business in the lobby of a hotel.  He went out of his way to brandish an assault rifle in an emotional and violent venue.  He had no business being there.

 

 

The only place blame lies in this case is at the feet of the deceased attackers. Period. People can say it was a bad choice for Kyle to choose to go try and help, that is irrelevant. It was still his legal right to be there. Kyle did not one thing morally, ethically, or legally wrong.

No the deceased attackers don't bear all ALL of the blame.  There is blame to be shared.  Rittenhouse's actions directly led the situation in which lives were lost.  There needs to be accountability for that, even if not a murder charge. 

And moral and  ethical considerations aren't relevant.  Have you ever heard the term "contributory negligence".  That's exactly what Rittenhouse was guilty of - essentially stupidity.  And it's a shame the legal principle of contributory negligence was not or could not be applied in this case IMO. 

 

I can appreciate your last paragraph though. I think that is one of the biggest problems and dividers in this country today around many different subjects is people who are ignorant to things spout it out as fact before ever trying to learn what really happened or looking at the actual details. The media and political left is the worst about it. More responsible reporting would keep so many people from getting riled up over things that they have been led to believe and often times are not true. 

That's a great example of an argument from authority (a logical fallacy).  Similarly, I don't know of a single "fact" that I am getting wrong. 

Rittenhouse was found non-guilty and walked.  And I accept every "fact" that jury decision was based on, even if not all of the fact's in this case were considered.  That's a fault of our legal system and/or legislation IMO.  Nor do I agree with many of the so called "facts" you hold as the truth. 

That's human nature for you.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by homersapien

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

32 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It was not illegal for Kyle to possess the gun. ( Again, you use made up terms by the gun grabbers and media) It was a shotgun/or a rifle with a barrel of at least 16 inches. 

Did Kyle purchase it or did his "friend"?  Regardless, this exemplifies the problem with our gun laws.  That specific provision was passed to allow for children to hunt. (And yes, he's a child.  Males don't become adults until their mid-twenties.)  It was not intended for children to show up at protests - or riots - to help out the police.  If the police cannot handle the situation, deploy get more police or the national guard.  We don't need children acting as vigilantes.

If a 17 year old grabs any sort of gun to defend his family and home from invaders that's fine.  But something is seriously wrong when we say it's OK for him to show up at a protest with an assault rifle.

Now if you want to argue this incident wouldn't have been substantially altered in it's nature had he been armed with a shotgun, I would agree.  My point about the type of weapon he used simply reinforces his intent which was he went out of his way to be ready to shoot other people who were attacking someone else's property.

 

A 30 round magazine is not a "high capcity" magazine. Again, a Term coined by gungrabbing idiots and mainstream media. A 30 round magazine is a standard magazine for that firearm. Of course it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. That's how semi-auto firearms work. That's how semi auto pistols work as well. Do you believe that a telescoping stock makes a gun more deadly or makes it an "assault rifle" ? What about the scary flash hider at the end? How did it aid in this situation? The pistol grip?  None of that stuff makes one bit of a difference other than aids in the use of the gun

I totally knew you were going to make the argument this is not an assault rifle.   That's just another BS pedantic  argument.

Automatic capability is a relatively minor difference between a military grade assault rifle and a semi auto.  And yes, I understand the difference.  I have frequently shot auto shotguns (skeet) and owned tubular feed .22s.  In fact, I currently own a scoped BAR deer rifle.  While all of those weapons are just a lethal for killing someone - well except maybe for the .22, which is simply lethal - you cannot crank off 30 rounds in less than 10 seconds and then reload with a fresh 30 rounds in a few more seconds. The lack of auto fire is a essentially irrelevant distinction practically speaking.

And LOL at the notion a 30 round mag is not a high capacity magazine.  What BS that is!  Who needs a 30 round magazine for any reason other than combat, playing army or shooting up appliances?  Regardless a 30 round magazine is a "high capacity" magazine.

And the collapsible stock is just another example of the intent of the basic design. While it may be a relatively insignificant distinction, it is meant for easier handling in close quarters or indoor combat.  (It is also handy for concealment.)  Don't see many deer rifles or shotguns with collapsible stocks. In this particular case, rolling around on the ground or grappling with the "enemy", might have been an advantage,  which only further highlights it as a specifically combat design.

And I am glad you brought up the flash suppressor, another relatively insignificant design detail.  It's specifically meant to make it more difficult for the enemy from locating you in a firefight. It's not relevant in non-combat situations, but often or usually appears in modern guns designed for combat, i.e.: assault rifles.

Bottom line don't come at me with your firearms expertise and pedantic arguments about what does or does not constitute an assault rifle.  I am sufficiently served by my own expertise and common sense.

And as far as auto-loading pistols,  Kyle WOULD  have been much served with one of those, if kept concealed.  My understanding of what happened - again I didn't follow the trial - was the Rittenhouse essentially drew attention in the first place because he was brandishing or wearing a rifle in plain sight.  With a concealed pistol he would have been just another white guy walking around where he shouldn't have been.  Of course the MP15 would be his weapon of choice if you intended or were prepared to shoot other people.

Finally, I don't need the media to convince me what an assault rifle is or isn't.  I got my first gun at the age of 9 - a single shot .410 given to be by my father.  (It was stolen years later from my home, so it was figuratively the gun mentioned in the song "The Road Goes On Forever" )  I have owned and used a variety of rifles and shotguns and pistols since then

So insult the media if you want - they ARE pretty ignorant when it comes to firearms - but please don't insult me with such foolish assumptions.

 

The things you say were irrelevant are absolutely relevant. Facts matter. Details matter. That's why half the country is so brainwashed as it is because they trust a lying media more than their own two eyes and video evidence.

Well, I'd say you are the one who is brainwashed. 

You are trying to rationalize with irrelevant facts and details to whitewash the basic fact of this case, which is Kyle Rittenhouse when out of his way to involve himself in a protest for immature and stupid reasons and as a result two people were killed and one was crippled.  I am not saying that he should be found guilty of murder but the fact he simply walks free illustrates the depraved state we have become, especially concerning firearms.  Our laws - particularly the more recent "stand your ground" legislation as well as the apparent lack of laws focusing on intent and what leads to tragedy.  We're getting a prime example with the current Armed Aubrey trial.  Using your standards, these guys will walk also.

 

When you say "he went out of state looking for trouble" it matters that the distance traveled is 20 minutes away. That is basically his home. How do you say details and context do not matter?  

Yeah, 20 miles makes a HUGE difference .  You make it sound like he was just walking around his yard carrying an assault rifle and this all came down.  There's that pedantic style of argument again.  20 miles may not be all that far, but I have seldom traveled even 15 miles without the intent to do so.

 

You do not have to be deputized to carry a weapon. I would say he carried a rifle because he was aware of the danger he was going into and wanted to protect hiself. Makes sense to me. 

And how did that work out? 

Of course it "makes sense" to you.  No doubt it make sense to all those Proud Boys and other white supremacists that brandish their assault rifles at protests.  You are making my point.  We have become depraved as a country concerning firearms.

 

Do you realize how stupid this argument of "if he wasn't there then the deceased would still be alive" sounds?

How can you call a basic factual statement stupid?  If you don't see this as a factual statement, then I submit you are the one with the cognitive problem. 

 

LIterally no different than you being in a hotel room, and some guy attacks you in the lobby and you shoot them in self defense and it's your fault because if you hadn't been at the hotel that POS attacker would still be alive. Such a flawed argument. 

That's a bizarre analogy.  Kyle Rittenhouse was not minding his own business in the lobby of a hotel.  He went out of his way to brandish an assault rifle in an emotional and violent venue.  He had no business being there.

Again, it brings your cognitive ability into question.

 

The only place blame lies in this case is at the feet of the deceased attackers. Period. People can say it was a bad choice for Kyle to choose to go try and help, that is irrelevant. It was still his legal right to be there. Kyle did not one thing morally, ethically, or legally wrong.

No the deceased attackers don't bear all ALL of the blame.  There is blame to be shared.  Rittenhouse's actions directly led the situation in which lives were lost.  There needs to be accountability for that, even if not a murder charge.  And morality, ethically considerations aren't relevant.  Have you ever heard the term "contributory negligence".  That's exactly what Rittenhouse was guilty of - essentially stupidity.  And it's a shame the legal principle contributory negligence was not or could not be applied in this case IMO. 

 

I can appreciate your last paragraph though. I think that is one of the biggest problems and dividers in this country today around many different subjects is people who are ignorant to things spout it out as fact before ever trying to learn what really happened or looking at the actual details. The media and political left is the worst about it. More responsible reporting would keep so many people from getting riled up over things that they have been led to believe and often times are not true. 

That's a great example of an argument from authority (a logical fallacy).  Similarly, I don't know of a single "fact" that I am getting wrong. 

Rittenhouse was found non-guilty and walked.  And I accept every "fact" that jury decision was based on, even if not all of the fact's in this case were considered.  That's a fault of our legal system and/or legislation IMO.  Nor do I agree with many of the so called "facts" you hold as the truth. 

That's human nature for you.

 

 

A lot here to unpack and don't have the time right now to sort through and quote each section. I will try to respond with more later.

I am not sure why you said I insulted you. I am glad to know you have some knowledge about firearms. That's all great and I encourage it to everyone. You say that automatic capabilities are a small distinction between an AR-15 and Military grade weaponry. Correct, but that is a huge distinction. That is actually the exact distinction between an AR 15 and an assault rifle.  As for everything else, the flash hider, the stock, etc...None of that aids in making the gun more deadly or make it an assault rifle. You can argue all day, but that is a fact.   I have a multple firearms in my safe that have none of those features and are just as capable of doing just as much damage. They are not assault rifles, nor is an AR-15. 

You say he would have been better bringing a pistol concealed. I actually agree with you. The problem with that is then he would have been breaking the law. Maybe that is another law that should be looked at. 

No it wasn't his backyard, but it's not like he drove hours away either. He had family that lives there, too. To act like he just picked some random town and went there because they were protesting is not true. 

The reason I said it was a stupid argument to say If kyle stays home then they are still alive is because Kyle's decision to go was not what directly lead to their death. Them choosing to attack him is what lead to their deaths. You can argue they wouldn't have attacked him if he didn't have a gun all you want. I get that sentiment, but end of the day they attacked him and he did have a gun and he chose to use it to defend himself. That is on them. He didn't do anything to provoke them with the weapon. 

You ask why someone needs 30 rounds. In the case that 20 might not enough. If you get into a gun fight with multiple attackers, add in variable factors such as daylight or darkness, adrenaline, etc. and it is not hard to go through rounds with a quickness. 

"

And how did that work out? 

Kyle is alive. I can't speak for anyone else, but I would rather be alive than dead.

Of course it "makes sense" to you.  No doubt it make sense to all those Proud Boys and other white supremacists that brandish their assault rifles at protests.  You are making my point.  We have become depraved as a country concerning firearms.

I am not clear here if you are trying to align me with either of the groups you mentioned. If so, then you are so far off base. So White Supremacists groups are the only ones who carry Rifles to a protest? Ok. Wrong again, but you already know that!

No the deceased attackers don't bear all ALL of the blame.  There is blame to be shared.  Rittenhouse's actions directly led the situation in which lives were lost.  There needs to be accountability for that, even if not a murder charge.  And morality, ethically considerations aren't relevant.  Have you ever heard the term "contributory negligence".  That's exactly what Rittenhouse was guilty of - essentially stupidity.  And it's a shame the legal principle contributory negligence was not or could not be applied in this case IMO. 

I am well aware of contributory negligence. I don't see how that applies here. Kyle's choice of going there didn't force the deceased to attack him. They made that choice and it was costly. They broke the law and assaulted him and he used his legal right to defend himself.

You think he went for stupid and immature reasons. That's your opinion. You don't have to like the reasons and that is fine. I think he went with good intentions. 

 

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You are trying to rationalize with irrelevant facts and details to whitewash the basic fact of this case, which is Kyle Rittenhouse when out of his way to involve himself in a protest for immature and stupid reasons and as a result two people were killed and one was crippled.  I am not saying that he should be found guilty of murder but the fact he simply walks free illustrates the depraved state we have become, especially concerning firearms.  Our laws - particularly the more recent "stand your ground" legislation as well as the apparent lack of laws focusing on intent and what leads to tragedy.  We're getting a prime example with the current Armed Aubrey trial.  Using your standards, these guys will walk also.

 

 

Nope. Don't put that BS on me. There are GLARING differences in KR case and AA case. I am not even going any further, but if you can't see the differences then I question your cognitive abilities. 

 

Anywho. That's all I have time for right now. I appreciate your response though. At least you come on here and join the conversation as opposed to lingering in the background disliking every post. Nothing was ever cured or changed without dialogue.

[Grumps 3,704]

On 11/20/2021 at 3:06 PM, Tigerpro2a said:

You, like many others ITT and around the country, are just spewing BS that you wish to be true. There has been not one indication that Kyle was a "wannabe badass" and it is absolutely 100% false that he caused 2 people to lose their lives. 

I am not going to go out and make him into some kind of hero, but he is a hell of a lot closer than some of the POS that people want to make into Martyrs.

You are correct. I don't know if Rittenhouse is a wannabe badass or not. That was an assumption on my part.

[Grumps 3,704]

@Tigerpro2a& @PUB78

I am not trying to start anything. I am just really curious. Do you two (and any others who would like to comment) really not think that it is easier to be white in Alabama vs being black?

Every black friend I have asked says that they have been "shadowed" in a store to be sure that they were not going to shoplift. Every black friend I have asked says that they are legitimately uneasy when they get pulled over by the police. After the Ahmaud Arbery killing I had black friends have to consider whether it was safe for them to go for a walk.

I have never knowingly been "shadowed" and I have never been the least bit scared when I have been pulled over by the police. 

I don't feel guilty about being white and don't think I owe anyone anything because of my skin color. But I am quite sure that I have been treated better by others during my lifetime solely due to the color of my skin.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Grumps

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

24 minutes ago, Grumps said:

@Tigerpro2a& @PUB78

I am not trying to start anything. I am just really curious. Do you two (and any others who would like to comment) really not think that it is easier to be white in Alabama vs being black?

Every black friend I have asked says that they have been "shadowed" in a store to be sure that they were not going to shoplift. Every black friend I have asked says that they are legitimately uneasy when they get pulled over by the police. After the Ahmaud Arberry killing I had black friends have to consider whether it was safe for them to go for a walk.

I have never knowingly been "shadowed" and I have never been the least bit scared when I have been pulled over by the police. 

I don't feel guilty about being white and don't think I owe anyone anything because of my skin color. But I am quite sure that I have been treated better by others during my lifetime solely due to the color of my skin.

 I know everybody has their own struggles they go through. I do know that a lot of things that people try to blame on racism when there are other underlying issues does not help. I have been shadowed in a store multiple times in my life. Happened less than a week ago actually. 

I can't say that black people do not get an uneasy feeling when being pulled over, I don't know how they feel. I believe that fear probably is real, I just don't think the narrative that creates that fear is the way it is spun by the media. I don't think it's open season for cops on black people and they are just being hunted down and cops are killing unarmed black men and walking away scott free every day. To hear the media tell it, you would think that is exactly the case. Hell, I get uneasy around cops myself. I had a gun pointed at my head by one unjustifiably when I was 16 years old...slammed on the car and gun to back of head. I literally moved out of my hometown because It got to where I couldn't drive through town without being profiled and stopped for bogus reasons. The police issue is not exclusive to black people. As another poster said...we have a police overreach problem period. 

That's because the media pushes racist narrative before they even have the facts. They don't show where the same sh# happens to white, hispanic, and Asian people. They do not come back and correct themselves when they scream "police shot an unarmed black man in the street" when they later find out that he was resisting and pulled a gun from his pants. It's sad to me that people can't seem to fathom that the media would do such.

 I am not naive in thinking that there are not isolated incidents that happen, and I have never said it doesn't happen, but the stats don't match the narrative. I have seen some pretty racist treatment first hand towards my family over the years. Again...individual incidents.So when I see people scream racism at things that may not be actually racists, it diminishes actual racist events that people have endured, my family included.

 I think we have a problem in this country of blaming things on racism when often times there is way more to the story. I have often told people that I will stand beside anyone and fight racist groups or institutions, but just screaming racism without any evidence of such is not going to help that fight.

All in all,  I can not give you an answer on who struggles more. There are a lot of other factors that play into the struggles of people to say that anybody struggles more than another demographic solely because of their skin color in 2021. There have been a lot of things implemented to help give black folks better opportunities today. I feel like if we could get our focus on the right things as a country we could all come up and eat better as opposed to fighting every single person that someone thinks is racist for disagreeing. I would be curious to hear Dr. Kings thoughts on how America is Right this second. 

[PUB78 1,362]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

@Tigerpro2a& @PUB78

I am not trying to start anything. I am just really curious. Do you two (and any others who would like to comment) really not think that it is easier to be white in Alabama vs being black?

Every black friend I have asked says that they have been "shadowed" in a store to be sure that they were not going to shoplift. Every black friend I have asked says that they are legitimately uneasy when they get pulled over by the police. After the Ahmaud Arbery killing I had black friends have to consider whether it was safe for them to go for a walk.

I have never knowingly been "shadowed" and I have never been the least bit scared when I have been pulled over by the police. 

I don't feel guilty about being white and don't think I owe anyone anything because of my skin color. But I am quite sure that I have been treated better by others during my lifetime solely due to the color of my skin.

I don’t know Grumps. I am white and proud of my heritage just like a black , Latino or Asian should be of theirs.Probably have been treated better than most people of color, but I certainly did not grow up in White privilege. 

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

Just now, PUB78 said:

I don’t know Grumps. I am white and proud of my heritage just like a black , Latino or Asian should be of theirs.Probably have been treated better than most people of color, but I certainly did not grow up in White privilege. 

I think we have more of class privilege than race privilege by a long shot. Many people in poverty both black and white and in between have the same struggles.

[AUDub 11,182]

 

[DKW 86 7,440]

5 hours ago, AUDub said:

 

I think I have been saying this for 4 years or more on this forum. Even trump can have a point or two in his 5 years nasty twitter tirade. Just because you dont like someone doesnt mean they cant have a valid point from time to time.

[auburn41 492]

9 hours ago, AUDub said:

 

Spoken like a true WHITE SUPREMACIST!!!  No wonder he was labeled as such by the main stream media!!😳 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

The Arbery case has gone to the jury.

My swinging wild-assed guess is that there will be a verdict no later than tomorrow afternoon.

[PUB78 1,362]

14 hours ago, Tigerpro2a said:

I think we have more of class privilege than race privilege by a long shot. Many people in poverty both black and white and in between have the same struggles.

Very good statement.

[cole256 17,084]

15 hours ago, Grumps said:

@Tigerpro2a& @PUB78

I am not trying to start anything. I am just really curious. Do you two (and any others who would like to comment) really not think that it is easier to be white in Alabama vs being black?

Every black friend I have asked says that they have been "shadowed" in a store to be sure that they were not going to shoplift. Every black friend I have asked says that they are legitimately uneasy when they get pulled over by the police. After the Ahmaud Arbery killing I had black friends have to consider whether it was safe for them to go for a walk.

I have never knowingly been "shadowed" and I have never been the least bit scared when I have been pulled over by the police. 

I don't feel guilty about being white and don't think I owe anyone anything because of my skin color. But I am quite sure that I have been treated better by others during my lifetime solely due to the color of my skin.

It takes a special person to really understand. But unfortunately you have people who will go out of their way to try to make it that there isn't a big deal in what you may go through as well.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

16 hours ago, Grumps said:

@Tigerpro2a& @PUB78

I am not trying to start anything. I am just really curious. Do you two (and any others who would like to comment) really not think that it is easier to be white in Alabama vs being black?

Every black friend I have asked says that they have been "shadowed" in a store to be sure that they were not going to shoplift. Every black friend I have asked says that they are legitimately uneasy when they get pulled over by the police. After the Ahmaud Arbery killing I had black friends have to consider whether it was safe for them to go for a walk.

I have never knowingly been "shadowed" and I have never been the least bit scared when I have been pulled over by the police. 

I don't feel guilty about being white and don't think I owe anyone anything because of my skin color. But I am quite sure that I have been treated better by others during my lifetime solely due to the color of my skin.

My experience mirrors this.  Neither I nor any of my white friends have ever been pulled over by the cops without knowing pretty much why.  We were speeding, rolled through a stop, etc.  Sometimes the cop was being too nitpicky, but we pretty much knew we were borderline and got caught.  

But almost every single black friend I've asked (all guys) has experiences like this - at least one if not all of the ones you typically hear:  being pulled over for no discernible reason, being asked to step out of the car and subjected to a patdown and car search for no reason, being followed through retail stores by security, being accosted by people in the neighborhood while out on a walk asking where they live, etc.  And I don't have a bunch of (read: any) progressive activist types in my friend groups.  Most all are pretty conservative Christians.  They don't bring up race all the time or get easily offended by a careless remark.  Just normal folks.  It's a stark difference.  

And that's just one aspect of the differences in experiences.  There are the studies showing drastic differences in the number of call backs and interviews granted for applicants who had the same qualifications and relevant experience when the name on the resume sounded stereotypically "black" vs "white" (think names like Ladarrious or Lakisha  vs names like Michael or Hayley).  Or the experiences of black students at higher tier universities who get remarks about whether they got in because of their race rather than their academic record in high school.  It's got to be exhausting.  We could go on all day about this stuff and it doesn't all get explained away by appeals to "economic class" discrimination.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 hour ago, SLAG-91 said:

The Arbery case has gone to the jury.

My swinging wild-assed guess is that there will be a verdict no later than tomorrow afternoon.

To me it's pretty straightforward and anything other than a guilty verdict would be an injustice.  

[homersapien 11,440]

22 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Probably have been treated better than most people of color, but I certainly did not grow up in White privilege. 

You don't see the irony here?

Edited November 24, 2021 by homersapien