You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No, not a movie (other than a script I'm running through my head..)
With the mid terms in mind as well as the pending verdict on that murderous mama's boy I'm thinking that those who think that the US dodged a bullet with the atempted Capitol Building insurrection are in for a rude awakening next year.
Couple of predictions;
There will be blood.
The Army will be called out.
There will be a ban on long guns and/or open carry by the end of next year.
Or;
The United States ceases to be a functioning democracy (stop laughing at the back)
Counterfactual argument; the US would have been better off if Trump had succeeded with his insurrection (say the insurrectionist had managed to kill a few politicians) as the Army would have stepped in and instituted martial law as an interim measure until Biden was inaugurated.
Trump and sons, Rudi and a few congressmen and women would be rotting in jail already.
You need a time machine in your predictions too
Meant to say 2022! Can't edit thread titles unfortunately.
As a society, I’m wondering if America isn’t already fractured beyond saving; the divisions seem to be almost too great to repair now.
While the ‘religious right’ is relatively small in number, it is usually among the wealthiest, and overwhelmingly Republicans, and they have access to ways of spreading their conspiracist propaganda through a whole variety of media that’s either owned by those who support their aims, or sympathetic to them.
I read an interesting dissection today on the ‘manifesto’ published by the ‘shaman’ who was one of those who stormed the White House and Oval Office. It’s scary reading, especially when you consider how many ‘Murcans appear to sincerely believe this stuff!
https://lithub.com/a-close-reading-of-the-qanon-shamans-conspiracy-manifesto/
America is over
That Qanon film is beyond scary!
Brilliant Jon Ronson podcast on bbc sounds on the culture wars!
^^ link please. Tried searching, but to no avail.... Thanks.
This podcast by Robert Evans gives a very insightful look at what the USA might become, admittedly less likely now that the orange skinned clown has left the oval office...
While I'm a fan of Robert Evans, you need to be a bit choosy with "It Could Happen Here" I think because it airs daily the quality of both guests, subjects and arguments can be a bit patchy
Couple of predictions;
There will be blood.
The Army will be called out.
There will be a ban on long guns and/or open carry by the end of next year.
I think the Republicans will gain some ground in the mid-terms leaving Biden's government even more ineffectual but enough to keep any lid on things boiling over.
Federal vs State always presents issues trying to change the law on something as polarising as guns. Also if the Democrats do lose the Senate in the mid-terms they've got bob hope of doing much except via executive order and I doubt they'd want to go down that route.
Or;
The United States ceases to be a functioning democracy (stop laughing at the back)
It's only a barely-functioning democracy now but I think to go from there to anarchy/revolution/civil war is a massive step that I can't see happening without much more significant events than we've already seen (and without Trump as President it's hard to see those happening). US society will no doubt become increasingly polarised (as are we) but the numbers of absolute nut-jobs that really want a civil war I expect are tiny.
Conservatism / Republicanism is starting to become a busted flush in America.
Trump only got close (well in reality not even that close) to challenging Biden due to the historical weirdness of the Electoral College. Demographics and immigration are pushing the electorate in the other direction.
This election cycle might be the last serious opportunity the Republicans have of power
There will be a ban on long guns and/or open carry by the end of next year.
This is 100% not possible in America.
As to the US being a functioning democracy - it depends what you mean by functioning. As I've said before *good* democracy needs good debate, and the quality of public debate in the US is already at zero. Nearly every media channel is being used for political purposes. Hardly any of it is concerned with how best to run the country, it's all about how to get one team to win at any cost.
This election cycle might be the last serious opportunity the Republicans have of power
And what do unscrupulous, desperate people with lots of money and influence do when they see their power waning...
The US is just a completely different social set up from the UK, you sometimes forget that, could you imagine a right wing 17 year old wandering round the UK during some type of riot/demonstration with an assault rifle, even if we had gun rights like the old days?
And what do unscrupulous, desperate people with lots of money and influence do when they see their power waning…
Put on a blue rosette at election time?
Pull of a lurch to the left in republican politics?
Fulfil their keyboard warrior bloodlust and storm the capitol building with a few thousand other nutjobs taken from a pool of 350million?
Fuzzy Wuzzy,
The Republicans don't need to gain ground in the mid terms to take control of Congress. Gerrymandering (redistricting) conducted by the Republicans over the last year means that an identical turn out to the last election would flip the house for Republicans. Stop the steal eh...
Molgrips,
Anything is possible. No one was carrying assault rifles around before the early 2000's when Bush repealed the laws regarding long guns and the country became flooded with AR 15's. Whatever Bush's intentions the outcome is that you now have millions of heavily armed mayonnaise militia ready to take their country back.
The ban on long guns was instituted in the 60's when Black community groups, especially the Black Panthers, took up arms to defend themselves against lynch mobs and Police brutality. What we have now is a perfect recipe for history repeating itself. Back then the National Guard was called out. Today, the terroristic insurectionist bastards are much better armed so likely the Army will be needed.
Ultimately, these militias need to be taken down by force. There's just too many military weapons out there for something not to explode in the next 12 months. And as grum points out, desperate people do desperate things. There's many a Republican politician reminding the electorate of their 2nd Amendment rights, should the government come knocking on your door asking if you want a vaccine and suchlike.
The camel's back will be broken. Too many guns on it's hump.
Well, we have a few ingredients that add up to the Cake of War:
No debate is possible on Social Media
Everyone gets their information from Social Media
Media owned by politics and / or religion
Religion stamps out any form of debate
Commercial interest stamps out any form of debate
Economy under extreme pressure
Climate change will exacerbate economic pressure
Poor job security is normal in the US
No safety net for unemployed, uninsured in the US
Race problems in the US also hinder debate
Pressure from refugees will make things worse
Its a large country with diverse needs
So actually the more you think about it, the harder it is to see a stable outcome.
Things are so fundamentally entrenched in extreme positions a lot has to break before it gets fixed.
The culture is just so different over there its hard for us to comprehend.
"thisisnotaspoon -
Fulfil their keyboard warrior bloodlust and storm the capitol building with a few thousand other nutjobs taken from a pool of 350million?"
You are playing down an attempted murderous insurrection with all the flair of Andrew Neil..."nothing to see here" (as the beast of tweet street tweeted as the insurrection commenced.)
To argee's point, there's a difference between a UK keyboard warrior and an American one who can put the keyboard down and pick up an assault weapon when their fingers get a little itchy.
You seem rather blase, did you know the attack on the Capitol was coming, or were you at least a little bit surprised? Some of us knew it was coming and posted on here to that effect a couple of days before January 6th. The fact that it didn't 'succeed' is the biggest red herring, it was only a beginning.
Ergo my initial point, that had the attack succeeded in the short term, the Military would have taken control and the traitors dealt with. American democracy might ultimately depend upon where the allegiance of the Military command lies more than it does on Judicial process.
I predict Vlad the Emailer will be bouncing up and down, clapping and shouting "Bol'she botov! Bol'she botov!"
Whatever Bush’s intentions the outcome is that you now have millions of heavily armed mayonnaise militia ready to take their country back.
Do they? How many people are actually prepared to take up arms against their own country? I mean real numbers not handwavey probablies and opinions.
Trimix,
Plus guns, lots and lots and lots of them. A semblance of stability is still possible even when all the conditions that you mention are met.
It's the guns and the laws that currently exist around them that tip the balance. Its the last gasp for White supremacist America and the Republican party, their motto is fast becoming 'when all else fails (especially reason) shoot someone.
Whilst all of those conditions can be seen as fuelling the divisions and stoking up tensions, Id argue that its the other way round. If you furnish an ignorant, belligerent mob of pudgy mediocrity and entitlement with military assault weapons they are going to look for enemies to put in their sights.
This election cycle might be the last serious opportunity the Republicans have of power
I wouldn’t be too certain of that, like their counterparts here in the U.K., they think nothing of using any type of propaganda necessary in order to get votes, along with various tactics to wreck opportunities for opposition voters to vote, also happening here. And then there’s the obsessive tribalism of Republicans:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/house-censure-vote-paul-gosar-shows-how-rarely-gop-breaks-n1284070
What a load of nonsense. As has been pointed out the percentage of people who would consider raising arms is tiny
There will quite possibly be isolated terrorist events, and maybe even a repeat of small scale insurrection such as what we saw in Washington, but a civil war?? Don’t be daft..
What a load of nonsense. As has been pointed out the percentage of people who would consider raising arms is tiny
Pretty much. Heard people going on about it being on the cusp here, I almost died laughing it's even less likely in the UK. A bit of mild disapproval maybe.
"There will quite possibly be isolated terrorist events, and maybe even a repeat of small scale insurrection such as what we saw in Washington, but a civil war?? Don’t be daft.."
The Civil War thing was click bait by the way, I don't expect one in the immediate future as I believe the Armed forces are still on the side of the constitution but should the Republican Party ultimately succeed in their efforts to destroy democracy (see Count Zero's post) then whose to say what might happen down the road. Never say never and all that...
A question for tpbiker and Chester: Were you expecting an event like Jan 6th to occur or we're you at least a little bit surprised?
Also, we're you expecting almost the entire Republican Party to rally around Trump within days of the insurrection, either denying it ever happened or categorizing it as 'a tourist visit'? How many elected Republicans do you think are prepared to take America to the brink given the choice and if they thought they had the support of a sizeable contingent within the Army?
"Pretty much. Heard people going on about it being on the cusp here, I almost died laughing it’s even less likely in the UK. A bit of mild disapproval maybe."
The right wing here in the UK are copycatimg a lot of Trumpist strategies but they don't have heavily armed militia to defend statues etc, they have to rely on pissed up football hooligans to do their bidding.
Now if you were to imagine those football hooligans policing the Parliament Square BLM protest clad in body armour, holding a machine gun and exchanging fist bumps rather than fists with the police then you might see a little more danger in what's occurring over in the States.
My argument is very crude, if you arm millions of plastic patriots with military grade weaponry there will inevitably be consequences. At the end of the day, (crass football analogy) those hooligans got the shit kicked out of them on their way home. Those American gun toting patriots who turn up to protests to'protect and serve' would also likely get the shit kicked out of them if they didn't have guns.
Were you expecting an event like Jan 6th to occur or we’re you at least a little bit surprised?
Not massively surprised no. Let’s not blow what happened out of proportion. A couple of thousand angry red necks and nut jobs turned up at the capitol building to protest and pushed there way in for an afternoon before being kicked out again. This wasn’t exactly an armed militia taking over government.
Think of the US as Squid Games 2 and just enjoy it.
You can't change it. Well not with a post here at any rate.
tpbiker,
That's certainly one way of looking at it and one that chimes with those who saw it as a tourist visit. ('tis but a flesh wound.)
Anyone care to answer the counterfactual question;
What would have happened if Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi had been killed?
Think of the US as Squid Games 2 and just enjoy it.
Never seen it, so not sure about the comparison, but while I certainly don’t see the mass taking up of arms by a bunch of poorly educated mall ninjas, I do see much more local conflict between ever more marginalised people, and an increasingly militant and militarised police with no fear of repercussions when they openly abuse anyone who isn’t white.
"Think of the US as Squid Games 2 and just enjoy it.
You can’t change it. Well not with a post here at any rate."
Now you tell me, I thought all the World Leaders checked in at STW for policy ideas. Certainly Donald Trump seemed to be following Chewkw's advice to a tee.
What would have happened if Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi had been killed?
Someone would have been charged with murder. And I imagine the condemnation would have been far greater from the republicans than it was.
But they weren’t so it’s totally irrelevant.
Were you expecting an event like Jan 6th to occur or we’re you at least a little bit surprised?
Surprised not really. America has always had more than it's fair share of nutters. It was a protest (founded on bullshit), a building got smashed up and one person died. None of the functions of government were severely affected and it wasn't state wide or supported by the majority of the populace.
It was pretty ineffectual and just a showpiece. Looked good on the showing off, gossip and stupidity network if you're into that kind of thing.
"But they weren’t so it’s totally irrelevant."
It's only irrelevant for those who have no imagination (or foresight)
Irrelevant or not, you still offered a counterfactual version of events, albeit one that is rather simplistic.
Do you really think the Military would have stood by waiting for Trumps orders at that point? Once the Military disobey a presidential order you have a coup in some shape or form.
If Mike Pence hadn't been killed but other politicians had, then Trump and cohorts would have been detaimed and Pence installed as President.
Had Pence Been killed and Pelosi survived, Pelosi would have been installed as leader with the backing of the Military. They would have been standing visibly by her side, givimg the optics of a coup, obstructing any Republican attempt to filibuster.
Of course this is all predicated on the belief that Senators and Congresspersons we're actually in any danger.
I would also add that I think that had no politician been killed but some dragged out onto the lawn or others assaulted then the Army would have still stepped in. I reckon that they were a moment away from stepping in and taking control.
Still, Love to know your thoughts on the Munic beer hall putsch tp.
"It was pretty ineffectual and just a showpiece. Looked good on the showing off, gossip and stupidity network if you’re into that kind of thing."
Love to know your thoughts on the Munic beer hall putsch too chester..
The insurrection was a symptom of what America is. We haven't got to the result yet. America has a history of this. Mccarthyism
What gloomy says.
What we see in America is just history repeating itself. The last decade has been a carbon copy of the Mccarhy and Civil Rights eras.
Just as Jim Crow was payback for the abolition of slavery, White America is now looking for payback for the granting of the Civil and voting rights acts. Back then Bull Connor used to beat people trying to register to vote in the South with a Billy club. Now the Republicans are swinging that club nationwide.
Love to know your thoughts on the Munic beer hall putsch too chester..
As a compare and contrast exercise. Hmmm if you like start another thread.
Barely a whimper after the verdict, probably a good time to have this trial end, the week before thanksgiving and black friday!
Rittenhouse.... How TF. How does he get off.
If ever people needed an excuse to get ****ing angry this is surely it.
How can they call it a justice system?
Even the judge was a known Trumper. Not even considering a charge for running around with an assault rifle, let alone not being charged for murder.
It ****ing stinks.
Rittenhouse…. How TF. How does he get off.
Looks to me from the footage that at the time he fired, he probably was genuinely acting in fear of his life.
However, any system that let's what appeared to be a vulnerable teenager arm himself with an automatic rifle and go looking for trouble is completely messed up.
And of course, had he been black, he wouldn't have got as far as giving himself up.
Rittenhouse…. How TF. How does he get off.
Because he had a pretty good case for self defence - this seems to be a pretty good summary of the facts which sadly have largely been unreported.
Because he had a pretty good case for self defence
You missed out the "and he is white" bit.
Having a pretty good case for self-defence but being black definitely doesn't carry as much weight in the USA.
This goes back decades :
I am not sure how relevant an article about killings of black men by whites is in this context, his victims were all white - although the Independent was running a headline to the contrary. Not denying that there is plenty of injustice particular against the Blacks in the US, sadly a bang to rights example will no doubt come along in the near future - but this case doesn't seem to be nearly what it was made out to be in much of the media and as the author of the piece I linked pointed out that increases divisions.
Mefty,
It wasn't a trial it was a procedure, a complete shit storm. I read that article and there was nothing in it that wasn't fairly common knowledge. I notice the article doesn't mention all the evidence that the prosecution wasn't allowed to present to the 'jury', especially that the killer had been recorded a few weeks earlier saying how he wanted to kill a looter coming out of a store.
There's also the fact that under Wisconsin law it is illegal to shoot someone in the defence of property, but that's a moot point because if you are a white child with self esteem issues it's legal to swap out your security blanket for a machine gun.
The most important trial for years and we get a Judge and a prosecutor straight out of South Park and a Jury selected from the cast of the Simpsons, with at least one of the jurors showing white supremacist leanings. You'd think they'd vet the jury for such an important trial.....Doh, my bad, they did vet the jury didn't they!
This is where the story is, if it was about wether the defendant acted in self defence or not the court wouldn't have been stacked so heavily in the little shits favour.
This trial wasn't about a 17 year old kid, it was about legitimizing militia style activity.
An assault weapon is exactly that. It's not for defending yourself it's for assaulting others, the clue's in the name.
Sorry mefty, just saw your other post.
Trying to process what you mean by "increasing divisions"?
Wether division's are increased or not should have nothing to do with how the trial was conducted. You are contradicting yourself. It's either about truth or perception, which one is it? What the media thinks should have no bearing, what the public thinks should have no bearing.
The only increase in division that matters in this case is the division between life and death.
I don't think there's any doubt that this emotionally immature teenager wanted to be a gun toting vigilante hero, and went looking for that chance.
Rightly or wrongly, that put him in a situation where he ended up in a situation where it was easy to play the self defence card.
He wasn't charged with being a dangerous wannabe, he was charged with murder and had a plausible defence, which the jury - for any number of reasons - accepted.
Like a lot of people, my emotional half would have been happy to see him convicted, at the risk of giving the right wing gun lobby a martyr.
My rational half remembers I keep telling you all to read Fake Law by The Secret Barrister, which warns how knee jerk reactions to media reporting of cases is usually a bad thing politically and legally.
I am not sure how relevant an article about killings of black men by whites is in this context
Because it points out how self-defence is considered far less justified if the killer is black.
The article is several years old and is obviously not relevant to this particular case but it makes all the points concerning reasonable fear, justified self-defence, etc, and how the courts disproportionately accept self-defence from white killers.
It is not reasonable to automatically assume that the result would have been the same had Rittenhouse been black, whatever the colour of his victims. He had a pretty good case for self-defence and he is white.
The Rittenhouse story is a thoroughly depressing example of how messed up things are in the states today.
He got off on self defence, because that's exactly what happened.
He was chased down the street by a gang of thugs and didn't shoot until he had been knocked down and a gun pointed at him.
The sheer volume of lies told by the media about the case is shocking.
I must confess I hadn't heard about the case until I stumbled upon it when listening to a Bari Weiss podcast the other day. Her podcast is excellent, well worth a listen.
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-medias-verdict-on-kyle-rittenhouse
One of the more mind boggling things about the case is that there was nothing at all illegal about him being out on the street with that gun that night. 🤯
An lot of you on here seem keen to blame the media rather than the way this trial was set up.
Why was he charged with multiple counts of murder rather than some form of manslaughter?.... Because it was obvious that he would get off on a murder charge but much less certain that he would get off with manslaughter charges against him.
But yeah, the media....
Why were the lesser charges related to gun possession dropped?....because he would have definitely have got 9 months in prison for that charge but then again.....the media.
Everything about this case was constructed to make sure the killer wasn't going to go to prison. This case was a shit storm due to how the judge, the Prosecutor and the Jury were appointed, but let's all talk about the media shall we....
A quote from Bernice King;
"Justice is not just about verdicts. It is a continuum".
It's in that spirit that I started this thread a couple of days ago, I didn't want to put the name of the killer up in lights in the thread title, I wanted a title that would put the trial in context.
Republican politicians calling him a hero and offering him jobs etc. America is a seriously messed up place.
bedmaker,
"gang of thugs"....eh? That's a bit pejorative.
Some of the protesters thought they were dealing with an active shooter, (they were)
"One of the more mind boggling things about the case is that there was nothing at all illegal about him being out on the street with that gun that night. 🤯"
There's was, he was underage (illegal ownership of a firearm) and he crossed state lines with said firearm.
Why were the lesser charges related to gun possession dropped?….because he would have definitely have got 9 months in prison for that charge but then again…..the media.
Why would he have definitely gone down for that? My understanding of that particular law is that a subsection specifically states that for the offense to be committed the weapon has to be "short barrelled", and Rittenhouse's rifle did not fall under the legal definition of "short barrelled".
I'm not defending that law in particular, I think it's batshit crazy, but the charge was dropped for a reason and that reason is made explicitly clear in the law.
Fair point Ox regarding the tape measure thing, still underage though and still crossed State lines and not even a misdemeanor charge
This verdict sends out the message that if you are a white adolescent you can carry a machime gun anywhere you want and point it in peoples faces.
And if you end up killing someone youll likely be offered a job as an intern in congress.
he crossed state lines with said firearm.
Incorrect. The sworn and unchallenged testimony was that the rifle was kept at Rittenhouse's father's house in Kenosha.
It's OK to be not OK with the verdict. It's not OK to be OK with perpetuating already-debunked falsehoods about the facts of the case.
still underage though
He's not underage though. The wording of the law about being underage is cancelled out by the wording about barrel length - for the underage element to apply the barrel must be shorter than 16". It's a ridiculous qualifier and the Judge admitted he was uneasy about dismissing the charge as the law basically negates itself, but the law is the law. And the law is very much an ass.
100% agree about the verdict and how certain elements of US society will take it as a green light to patrol the streets tooled up and looking for an excuse. And I don't like how those on the right are trumpeting Rittenhouse as a hero either - there are lots of things that I simply don't understand with how the trial and prosecution was conducted: the gun was illegally purchased, how is that not relevant?
So the gun was licenced to the owner in Kenosha then Ox? I guess thats ok then.
It wasn't 'proven' that the gun was kept at his father's house. To be a debunked falsehood it would have to be proven as a falsehood and it wasn't, it just went uncontested.
But yes, I am speculating that the child went to bed every night cuddling his AR 15, I have no evidence for that. There does seem to be a fair amount of evidence that he was underage and had no licence for the firearm though and he faced no consequences for that, (other than being offered internships in Congress).
It’s only a barely-functioning democracy now but I think to go from there to anarchy/revolution/civil war is a massive step that I can’t see happening without much more significant events than we’ve already seen
Not really. The issue is the US operates under a multi-layered democratic state and federal system that was envisaged as a way of providing checks and balances and prevent too much power resting with one individual or group. But that system has steadily been gamed, undermined, filibustered and gerrymandered in every way and at every level at every opportunity to prevent exactly that. Republicans have put more energy distorting the democratic process in their favour than in to actually doing anything with the power they've acquired.
For instance - currently the Senate is pretty much split 50 50 between parties in terms of seat (with the vice president's casting vote just edging the Senate over to the Democrats). To be split so evenly in that way in terms of Senate seats the Democratic Party have poled 41 million more votes than the Republicans.
You'd expect the point of a democratic system would be to elect representatives on the basis of the being a majority of voters acting in support of those representatives. And you'd expect a party who seek to lead, would seek the support of most of the people in the country - to seek consensus for their cause or at least have that ambition. But America's system can work in a way that power can instead rests with a minority - thats not how it was designed but its how it can work. The Republican Party has decided that outcome is the better strategy and in more intent on gaining power that way - suppressing opposition, moving boundaries, disenfranchingung and de-registering voters in order to win power with the support of a minority- than by trying to win support by having a vision of unity and appealing to a wider majority.
It works for them in the sense that they can either win elections, or that they can play the system to hamstring their opposition even when they lose and make it impossible for them to legislate- so they hold power of one sort or another - to lead or sabotage - all the time.
The US isn't alone in having a polical system that is skewed so heavily in favour a minority over the wider population. There are other countries that have operated in this way - Its not a long list but Rwanda, Iraq and Syria are all on it. What have all those countries got in common I wonder?
So for the US a 'Significant event' isn't what would cause the country to tip into civil war, significant events are what are required steer them back away from the precipice.
Agree with you Ox about relevant facts not being introduced into the case.
Given the way the case was set up and conducted I think its pretty fair to say the verdict came before the trial. For me it is not about being OK or not OK with the Verdict, as per the thread title, I'm more interested in what the whole affair signifies. The case was conducted in a kangaroo court where legalistic tautology trumped morality.
As crap as American law is I can't believe that there wasn't a course of action that would have seen the defendant held responsible for his actions in some way. You know if the defendant was black the defendant would either be dead already or beginning a life sentence. (I know you know this Ox)
The whole thing was an exercise in pissing on our backs and telling us it's raining.
I guess I'm more interested in the truth.
So the gun was licenced to the owner in Kenosha then Ox? I guess thats ok then.
In the eyes of the law, yes.
It wasn’t ‘proven’ that the gun was kept at his father’s house.
And therefore you confidently proclaim on more than one occasion that he definitely crossed state lines with it. No wonder you're annoyed with people blaming "the media": you're guilty of the same things as them.
It wasn't proven that he crossed state lines with the rifle, which is what was required for the offense to be committed. If it was the slam-dunk conviction you seem to think it was then sworn testimony to the contrary is unlikely to have gone unchallenged.
But yes, I am speculating that the child went to bed every night cuddling his AR 15, I have no evidence for that.
Evidence is kinda pivotal in whether or not a charge sticks, and a lack of it generally doesn't end up achieving things in a criminal trial.
There does seem to be a fair amount of evidence that he was underage and had no licence for the firearm though and he faced no consequences for that, (other than being offered internships in Congress).
I'm not arguing that the laws aren't daft, or that the charges brought were the correct ones, or that Rittenhouse might have faced a different verdict with a competent prosecution. Just that based on sworn testimonies and Wisconsin State Law, some of the things you've said directly contradict the legally accepted facts of the case.
The whole thing was an exercise in pissing on our backs and telling us it’s raining.
I guess I’m more interested in the truth.
100% agreed. I think it has all the hallmarks of a sham trial. Commentary about the prosecution's competence in particular are telling.
Interestingly I'm seeing all this on the news with the backdrop of being at work surrounded by 100% Southern-state, God-fearing, Biden-hating, COVID-skeptical, gun-loving Republicans and they are all very, very quiet on this matter. I think they know something might be a bit ****y with the whole thing.
Bloody hell Ox, posting on STW whilst being sat in that environment it must feel like you're in a parallel universe.
Interesting to note your observations of the reaction of those around you. When you say they might be thinking things might be a bit '****y' with all this, do you think that's because they are more scared of potential protests from progressives, potential escalation of militia activities or worried that there could potentially be changes to gun laws?
Obviously it could be a combination of all three but I'd be interested to hear which you thing matters most to them.
From talking to them they LOVE their guns. I have no doubt the guys I work with are responsible gun owners but reading between the lines I think they're most concerned about tightening gun laws. Not necessarily because of this incident but from the incidents that might follow as a result of Y'all Qaeda thinking they're now allowed to shoot folk for the slightest perceived slight. There are also a couple who I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been present on Jan 6th, and I think the more sensible ones don't want to get into any conversations with them.
Cheers Ox,
Strangely goes along with my polemic at the beginning of the thread. They, like me believe that the mayonnaise militias are going provoke incidents that will lead to the tightening of gun laws.
I asked "what are their fears" for a particular reason, (you know that too). They were looking at the trial in the way it affects themselves rather than issues of justice or safety. I'm assuming because you said they 'LOVE' their guns they are refering to their porn collection of military grade sex toys and not the pistol they have for self protection, (self defence meaning something entirely different in an age of 'stand your ground' etc.)
You won't be surprised that I find the terms 'responsible gun owner' and 'military assault weapon' somewhat mutually exclusive! I see private ownership of such weapons as the indulgence of a fetish.
I’m assuming because you said they ‘LOVE’ their guns they are refering to their porn collection of military grade sex toys and not the pistol they have for self protection
Don't forget that many, I suspect the majority of gun owners in large parts of the country view them as sporting equipment like fishing tackle or bikes, and they are used as such.
Bari Weiss podcast the other day. Her podcast is excellent, well worth a listen.
Bari Weiss?....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah, she's starting a non woke university of Austin with some very colourful characters (grifters)
molgrips, I'm not forgettimg that but what were talking about here is military assault weapoms, the kind you couldnt have legally between the 1960's and the early 2000's, when Bush re legalised them.
The kind of weapon the little shit took onto the streets of Kenosha.
I wouldn't want to conflate banning machine guns, open carry on city streets and the 'attached' stand your ground laws with the use of sporting rifles and concealed side arms but I understand many do.
One of the more mind boggling things about [s]the case [/s] [b]'merica[/b] is that there was nothing at all illegal about him being out on the street with that gun that night.
Ftfy.
This then is why the shooting happened. The events afterwards and the deaths were basically inevitable.
But in 'merica it seems more about taking sides, any side, on an issue than seeing the bigger picture that thier culture and laws are f*****d.
I guess thats ok then.
I don't think any of us have said it was anything like ok, I appreciate you are understandably angry and concerned by all the various awful legal shenanigans here, but I think a few deep breaths are in order.
Hope you don't have access to any weapons when you're that wound up.
Looks to me from the footage that at the time he fired, he probably was genuinely acting in fear of his life.
I'd agree with that, but it's a position he placed himself into. His position was to usurp the law.
Besides, wasn't the first guy he killed unarmed ?, and subsequent shootings came about after the crowd went after him, because of what he'd done.
It was stated that the first victim was part of a crowd that went after Rittenhouse, but is that credible. I mean how sane would it be for unarmed people to try to attack someone they can see is armed with an assault rifle.
The scenario could be said that if you were in a protest, and someone killed someone else, and you as a law abiding citizen went after that killer, the killer would be justified to kill or attack you and any others because he was in fear.
Hardly sounds a credible defence.
And I think if Rittenhouse had been black, he's have gotten life
This shows the mindset of many in positions of privilege and power in ‘Murika:
And if you want to see the fetishisation of weapons in action, take a look at the background of Rep. Lauren Boeber’s video cast. And I thing she also represents the mindset of far too many in ‘Murika.
My personal fave is
Win Marjorie Taylor Greenes 50 cal
Just what every household needs for personal protection 🙂
Don’t forget that many, I suspect the majority of gun owners in large parts of the country view them as sporting equipment like fishing tackle or bikes, and they are used as such.
Yep I have a feeling we’ve done this convo a few times before, it’s also a minority of people who own multiple guns, not everyone’s running around like Clint E.
^ I so want that to be a parody, not real.
And I think if Rittenhouse had been black, he’s have gotten life
If he was black he'd have been dead before he got to the Police lines.
Why did you post that comment adressed to me further up the page More cash?
I was going to suggest you're confusing a bit of sarcasm with anger. The comment wasn't even addressed to you and I don't think Ox needed your support. Your mock concern for my state of mind reads more like an attempt to wind me up personally.
I'm really offended by that comment and find it beyond patronising. The only temporary ban or censure I've had on here was for telling you to **** off one time.
I shan't say it again.