FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Lathum]

Verdict is in...

[NobodyHere]

I just hope that people can peacefully accept the verdict and it doesn't lead to more trouble.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I just hope that people can peacefully accept the verdict and it doesn't lead to more trouble.

This, but as with most things political these days, probably ain't gonna happen, at least not if he gets off on all charges.

[Lathum]

The judge just announced there is to be no reaction in the courtroom regardless of the decision.

[Lathum]

America just became a weaker nation

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Lathum

America just became a weaker nation

Not watching, I assume not guilty on all charges?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Not watching, I assume not guilty on all charges?

Looks like it.

[BYU 14]

Just saw the verdict, no surprise and while it may be legally correct, it really opens the door to increased vigilantism in the future.

In terms of America being weaker, that has long been happening and until we get honest, accountable and sincere leadership, that ain't changing. And there is nobody on the horizon that fits that description.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Just saw the verdict, no surprise and while it may be legally correct, it really opens the door to increased vigilantism in the future.

.

Thats my point. We are going to see people who think it is ok to show up at protests, cause trouble, then shoot a few "rioters" because they feel threatened.

[PilotMan]

I sincerely doubt that had all facts remained the same, except for race, and that reversed in all circumstances, that the outcome and response to all of this would have been the same.

The biggest concern I have is the expansion of extremist militia groups and them feeling not only emboldened, but outright aggressively challenging government entities and private citizens. The extremist right is a major threat already.

[GrantDawg]

The fact that the vast majority of people have such a bad take on this verdict is the real problem.

[Lathum]

This kid is going to grift off this for the rest of his life.

[cuervo72]

He'll have a presidential medal within five years.

[GrantDawg]

This is the heart of the issue. You have to make something illegal BEFORE it happens.




Also, taking a gun to a protest should absolutely be illegal without some special permit. But *it isn't currently illegal*.

That's a policy problem, not a basis for a criminal conviction

— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) November 19, 2021

[Lathum]

If the steps of the courthouse are any indication shits gonna get bad out there.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, this is really a gun law and self-defense law issue. Not to mention how certain laws are enforced for certain demographics.

He's this generation's Bernard Goetz. We know why he was there. We know why he got favorable treatment. And we know the strategy that certain demographics can use to kill others legally. It's not really about him, but the laws and whether we want to continue living in one of the most violent advanced nations in the world.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If the steps of the courthouse are any indication shits gonna get bad out there.

I really hope you're wrong here, but you're probably right.

[cuervo72]

Pretty sure the Wisconsin legislature is not about to make taking a gun to a protest illegal.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, this is really a gun law and self-defense law issue. Not to mention how certain laws are enforced for certain demographics.

He's this generation's Bernard Goetz. We know why he was there. We know why he got favorable treatment. And we know the strategy that certain demographics can use to kill others legally. It's not really about him, but the laws and whether we want to continue living in one of the most violent advanced nations in the world.

Agreed.

[Lathum]

So how soon until he is on Tucker Carlson?

Tonight or will they at least have enough shame to wait until Monday?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If the steps of the courthouse are any indication shits gonna get bad out there.

I know this is going to sound flippant but I don’t mean it to. Haven’t recent events made it anyone out there who is scared or feels threatened can kill those that made them feel that way?

EDIT: To clarify, I don’t know where the legal line is between being able to defend yourself and taking the opportunity to remove yourself from a dangerous situation.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So how soon until he is on Tucker Carlson?

Tonight or will they at least have enough shame to wait until Monday?

I think he might become his side kick. Sort of an armed Andy Richter.

[Flasch186]

I agree with the verdict but the slippery slope argument of "if I go put myself in danger, feel scared, and have a gun" I can kill someone slope is real and makes me nervous to know how you can determine when someone feels scared for their life. I'm not sure how to legislate that either.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I know this is going to sound flippant but I don’t mean it to. Haven’t recent events made it anyone out there who is scared or feels threatened can kill those that made them feel that way?

EDIT: To clarify, I don’t know where the legal line is between being able to defend yourself and taking the opportunity to remove yourself from a dangerous situation.

It really depends on a lot of factors. Are you in a gang that is supported by police? Are you white? Does the judge agree with your politics?

And that's the main issue. No one can really describe what self-defense is in this country. Is it shooting an intruder in your home? Is it picking a fight with someone and then shooting them when they threaten you? Is it both? And who gets the leeway and who doesn't?

Like I said earlier, you rarely get the same kind of leeway in other types of gang shootings. We know why but that's just how it is.

[GrantDawg]

Of the bad legal takes, the worst I have seen is the number of people that believe the prosecution can appeal an acquittal.

[GrantDawg]

I bet the defense is glad that the judge didn't grant the mistrial they asked for.

[CrimsonFox]

fuck this kid to hell

[CrimsonFox]

sue him into the poorhouse
his whole family

[GrantDawg]

I do wonder what is going to happen in the civil cases that are bound to come.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So how soon until he is on Tucker Carlson?

Tonight or will they at least have enough shame to wait until Monday?

and the answer is Monday

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

sue him into the poorhouse
his whole family

This, as it was really ever going to be the only viable option for accountability from day 1.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Verdict is in...

So did anyone else read this line in the Scott Stapp voice?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

To clarify, I don’t know where the legal line is between being able to defend yourself and taking the opportunity to remove yourself from a dangerous situation.

I don't think the law has ever been clear on this. Even in a perfect world where we could have a single standard and apply it everywhere, it will still be exceptionally thorny where to draw that line and in what cirumstances.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I sincerely doubt that had all facts remained the same, except for race, and that reversed in all circumstances, that the outcome and response to all of this would have been the same.

I just don't buy this argument. I think the outcome is the same and only the narrative changes. It becomes about how police and prosecutors failed the investigation/prosecution for the racialized victims.

I mean, if race was the issue in this case, why didn't the race of the victims play a factor? You're suggesting that police, prosecutors, judge and jury didn't care about the white people that were killed and injured?

Bah gawd the system's racist! It only cares about justice for BIPOC victims and not white victims!

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think the law has ever been clear on this. Even in a perfect world where we could have a single standard and apply it everywhere, it will still be exceptionally thorny where to draw that line and in what cirumstances.

That is depressing because I feel like I have been told and given out the wrong advice for my entire adult life.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I know this is going to sound flippant but I don’t mean it to. Haven’t recent events made it anyone out there who is scared or feels threatened can kill those that made them feel that way?

EDIT: To clarify, I don’t know where the legal line is between being able to defend yourself and taking the opportunity to remove yourself from a dangerous situation.

I don't know the answer, but this guy seems to have a solid feel for it.

Opinion: Kyle Rittenhouse verdict violates these 5 standards for claiming self-defense - MarketWatch

[GrantDawg]

That article didn't live up to the title. It gave the standards, but Rittenhouse arguably met the standards. This wasn't a "stand your ground" case.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I agree with the verdict but the slippery slope argument of "if I go put myself in danger, feel scared, and have a gun" I can kill someone slope is real and makes me nervous to know how you can determine when someone feels scared for their life. I'm not sure how to legislate that either.

Yes, agree with you on the verdict and also agree on the slippery slope. Just didn't think the prosecution/evidence presented met the bar. Maybe they should have brought some lesser charges that stood a better chance of conviction.

[Vegas Vic]

I'd be interested in hearing from some of the jurors on how they reconciled the point driven home by the prosecution, "You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create". It seems to me this would have been the key element in obtaining a guilty verdict.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I'd be interested in hearing from some of the jurors on how they reconciled the point driven home by the prosecution, "You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create". It seems to me this would have been the key element in obtaining a guilty verdict.

The George Zimmerman case taught us that is not true.

[GrantDawg]

Lost in all this is Andrew Coffee was found not guilty on all accounts for shooting a deputies during the botched SWAT raid.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

How did Rittenhouse create the danger?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

How did Rittenhouse create the danger?

By wielding a semiautomatic weapon and striding through a crowd of protesters, after appointing himself as the guardian of someone else’s property.

[GrantDawg]

That is not legally enough to be "creating a danger." Nothing in that was unlawful. And the evidence was that when the first man shot threatened kill Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse retreated and was chased. The burden of proof that Rittenhouse was the danger was on the prosecution, and it wasn't there.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Carrying a gun is a lawful activity. It does not waive your right to self defense. I know people don't like that fact, but you would have to change the law to make that the case.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Drake]

Given the laws in play, I don't think think there was ever really any doubt the verdict was going to be NG in this case.

It would have been a much more interesting case if Grosskreutz had finished his logical action and shot Rittenhouse, then have Grosskreutz claim self-defense from the perspective of someone who assumed they were putting down an active shooter in the chaos.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

I mean, if race was the issue in this case, why didn't the race of the victims play a factor? You're suggesting that police, prosecutors, judge and jury didn't care about the white people that were killed and injured?

First off, a black man would never have been allowed to walk around Kenosha like that with a rifle. And the minute his gun went off in self-defense, he would have been fired on by every police officer within range. There is no chance he would have just walked by a bunch of officers afterwards and gotten a ride back to Illinois without a second thought from police. There would not have been millions in donations to a black man's defense or the government actively putting out talking points in support of him.

Regardless, it isn't just about race. Political ideology matters too (maybe moreseo). The terrorist attack on the Capitol showed us how right-wing protesters are treated as opposed to left-wing protesters. Police have shown through their statements and actions that they do not believe people should be seen as equals under the law.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That is not legally enough to be "creating a danger." Nothing in that was unlawful. And the evidence was that when the first man shot threatened kill Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse retreated and was chased. The burden of proof that Rittenhouse was the danger was on the prosecution, and it wasn't there.

The Matthew Dolloff case in Colorado is an interesting parallel (although I believe Dolloff was working at the time and not there for shooting). This time a right-wing protester was shot. The judge has already ruled the defense is not allowed to bring up the fact the victim used racial slurs and was trying to start a fight. Stark contrast to the Rittenhouse trial where the victims were allowed to be called looters and arsonists.

The federal government did not come out in support of the defendant in this trial. Politicians are not offering him internships. He was arrested at the scene. And there was certainly not millions of dollars in donations for his defense fund.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out, although we are already seeing some differences in how the defendant is being treated by the courts.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Lost in all this is Andrew Coffee was found not guilty on all accounts for shooting a deputies during the botched SWAT raid.

Worth noting he was charged with felony murder despite not killing anyone. Stark contrast to those at the Capitol who aided Babbitt in her crime.

Also, no cops were charged in the murder of an innocent person.

I see what you're saying, but it also shows the bias in our justice system.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

I just don't buy this argument. I think the outcome is the same and only the narrative changes. It becomes about how police and prosecutors failed the investigation/prosecution for the racialized victims.

I mean, if race was the issue in this case, why didn't the race of the victims play a factor? You're suggesting that police, prosecutors, judge and jury didn't care about the white people that were killed and injured?

Agree with you. There is certainly some racial injustice in the criminal system. But this specific case, with this set of facts, seemingly blunders/overreach by the prosecution etc. nah.