US Current Events November: D&D's Afghanistan

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Current Events November: D&D's Afghanistan

bloodysabbath: May 1, 2004; OH NO!

Armed protestors on the left should use their own second amendment rights and hold a round the clock vigil outside the judge�s residence while gripping their own assault rifles.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 11:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The NDAA is currently stuck in the Senate because several Senators want changes and are filibustering.

The Senate can't vote on the BBB bill until they pass bills to authorize a continuing resolution to fund the government in order to avoid a shutdown, authorize the 2022 NDAA, and raise the debt ceiling.

The holdout amendments are:

Sanders: An amendment to reduce the total cost of the bill by $25 billion by reducing an annual increase in maintenance and replacement spending.

Rubio: An amendment to ensure that goods made with Uyghur forced labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) do not enter the United States.

Daines: An amendment to forbid the distribution of any funds as part of a compensatory payment to migrant families impacted by family separation policies in place between 2018 and 2021.

Toomey: An amendment to penalize foreign countries that fail to limit the flow of illicit fentanyl into the United States.

Risch: An amendment to require the United States State Department to consider the construction of the NORD STREAM 2 pipeline a national security threat.

Cruz: An amendment to reverse the United States State Department's decision to waive sanctions under the Countering America�s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) and require the United States State Department to implement economic sanctions on all individuals and organizations involved in the completion of the NORD STREAM 2 pipeline.

Sullivan: An amendment to rescind the requirement for all active service military members and contractors to receive the vaccine for the novel coronavirus.

Lankford: An amendment to require the Department of Homeland security to utilize the $2 billion in funds allocated for the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border that the Department has refused to disburse.

Am I correct in believing that these are all Republicans other than Sanders?

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:04

thehandtruck: Mar 5, 2006; the thing about the jews is,

Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:

Here's a great unbiased video of the events if anyone has anyone questions about what happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYjG4uequWQ

Very clearly shows he wasn't just trying to kill everyone, only shooting the people actively attacking him.

Should he have been there, probably not since hes a 17 year old kid, but neither should the protesters. Legally he could be there with a gun though. The whole 'crossing state lines' thing is such a meme, he lived like 5-10minutes from the border, and 20-30minutes from Kenosha. His dad and grandparents lived there and I'm pretty sure he worked there.

the protesters shouldn't be there protesting? lmao libs are just fascists with more superhero stickers. gently caress you

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:06

TulliusCicero: Jul 29, 2017

ReidRansom posted:

Even if the jury had ruled the other way, which wasn't likely since the judge disallowed any evidence pointing to his guilt, he still had that mistrial ruling in his pocket. That'd have probably come out if he was found guilty.

Whole thing is hosed, always has been.

This "judge" should have every skeleton in his closet thoroughly explored

You dipshits really want to see cancel culture? Find this gently caress's Nazi past and bring it to the light of day hacktivists

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:06

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

TulliusCicero posted:

This "judge" should have every skelton in his closet throughly explored

You dipshits really want to see cancel culture? Find this gently caress's Nazi past and bring it to the light of day hacktivists

Yeah, given the way he acted, I wanna know what is in that judge's past. There's no way he doesn't have a history.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:07

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

thehandtruck posted:

the protesters shouldn't be there protesting? lmao libs are just fascists with more superhero stickers. gently caress you

Whos the lib? Because it's not who you quoted.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:08

Wild Horses: Oct 31, 2012; There's really no meaning in making beetles fight.

Groovelord Neato posted:

The second person he killed and third he shot had as much a self-defense claim as he did. They thought they were dealing with an active shooter.

Protestors are fine being there. He wasn't.

Why would you ever run towards an �active shooter� (who doesn�t shoot anymore) and engage him in close quarters battle?
the perp is running towards the police.

The claim of self defense goes out the window if you are the person actively pursuing and attacking.
Kyle Rittenhouse tried to run until he was tripped and fell on the ground.
Rioter #2 and #3 chased him and tried to dogpile and got shot.
Not self defense

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:09

PhazonLink: Jul 17, 2010

TulliusCicero posted:

But he's not left. He never was. Not remotely

Being anti-government doesn't make you left: for gently caress sake the Branch Davidians and Timothy McVeigh were anti-government.

If you read almost everything the shithead has ever wrote it's nationalist xenophobic drivel. Like, dude is famous for another person's bravery.

You mean Snowdan right?

iirc Snowden said of the journos he contacted for his leak, Gleen was the smuggest and dumbest POS about being being properlly secure with communication and was the weakest link to the secret.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:09

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

Wild Horses posted:

Why would you ever run towards an �active shooter� (who doesn�t shoot anymore) and engage him in close quarters battle?
the perp is running towards the police.

The claim of self defense goes out the window if you are the person actively pursuing and attacking.
Kyle Rittenhouse tried to run until he was tripped and fell on the ground.
Rioter #2 and #3 chased him and tried to dogpile and got shot.
Not self defense

Wrong yet again.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:10

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

thehandtruck posted:

the protesters shouldn't be there protesting? lmao libs are just fascists with more superhero stickers. gently caress you

wierd insert of "the libs" on the covid denying rittenhouse defender my dude

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:11

Zeron: Oct 23, 2010

TulliusCicero posted:

This "judge" should have every skeleton in his closet thoroughly explored

You dipshits really want to see cancel culture? Find this gently caress's Nazi past and bring it to the light of day hacktivists

There's nothing special about this judge. I'm fairly certain you could bring this to 9/10 judges in the US and get the same outcome. Despite the fact that he was clearly out to commit murder and did in fact murder 3 people. The entire criminal justice system in the US is rotten to the core. Laws are only enforced when it's convenient and when it's against the "right kinds of people."

Any white male who murders/rapes minorities or women deserves a second chance, but the family who is going to lose everything if they are evicted can eat poo poo.

If the defenders here actually think the verdict was just, why are you here arguing about it? This kind of "justice" happens literally everyday, why wouldn't you just nod your head and move on? This is the way things have always been, we're mad about it because it's the norm, not because we didn't expect this outcome.

Edit:

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Agreed on the overall point, but all of the people he shot were white.

Yeah, I generally consider leftists to fall under the "right kinds of people" for them to prosecute against, sorry.

Zeron fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Nov 19, 2021

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:12

Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr: Jul 4, 2008

Groovelord Neato posted:

The second person he killed and third he shot had as much a self-defense claim as he did. They thought they were dealing with an active shooter.

Protestors are fine being there. He wasn't.

An active shooter who was running away, not shooting anyone until they attacked him, OK. Watch the whole video I posted breaking down the events if you havent. Watch at 2:15 for example. Watch the guy in the orange backpack, he tries to run at Kyle then back up when Kyle points the gun at him. Kyle doesn't shoot him despite just being swarmed and attacked. Orange backpack then just goes to attack instead of simply walking away which is when he gets shot. If hes just trying to kill protesters like you said, why isn't he just gunning everyone down?

Can you explain why the protesters are 'fine being there' but he is not? Some of the people who shot came from farther away than Kyle did without any connection to the area. There was also a curfew that affected everyone but lets not get into that.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:12

virtualboyCOLOR: Dec 22, 2004

TulliusCicero posted:

This "judge" should have every skeleton in his closet thoroughly explored

You dipshits really want to see cancel culture? Find this gently caress's Nazi past and bring it to the light of day hacktivists

Once again, the courts aren�t legitimate and the longer it takes the decorum crew and pearl clutchers to realize that, the more rulings like this we are going to see.

Unless democrats are willing to either remove terrible judges, reform the judicial system, or straight up ignore terrible rulings, I find those outraged over the ruling to be at least somewhat disingenuous. This ruling perfectly aligns with what the Dems want: another fundraiser opportunity.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:14

Srice: Sep 11, 2011

TulliusCicero posted:

This "judge" should have every skeleton in his closet thoroughly explored

You dipshits really want to see cancel culture? Find this gently caress's Nazi past and bring it to the light of day hacktivists

The sad truth is that this judge isn't an outlier at all.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:14

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Zeron posted:

There's nothing special about this judge. I'm fairly certain you could bring this to 9/10 judges in the US and get the same outcome. Despite the fact that he was clearly out to commit murder and did in fact murder 3 people. The entire criminal justice system in the US is rotten to the core. Laws are only enforced when it's convenient and when it's against the "right kinds of people."

Any white male who murders/rapes minorities or women deserves a second chance, but the family who is going to lose everything if they are evicted can eat poo poo.

If the defenders here actually think the verdict was just, why are you here arguing about it? This kind of "justice" happens literally everyday, why wouldn't you just nod your head and move on? This is the way things have always been, we're mad about it because it's the norm, not because we didn't expect this outcome.

Agreed on the overall point, but all of the people he shot were white.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:15

hydrocarbonenema: Mar 4, 2017; Fun Shoe

If libs start ejecting proud boy brains onto concrete there may be some new momentum on stopping vigilantism.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:16

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Stop trying to re-litigate the self-defense case

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:16

Decon: Nov 22, 2015

I'm just eagerly looking forward to being told that I can't criticize his actions whatsoever "because he was found not-guilty" as though court conclusions determine our collective thoughts/feelings on events because "legal does not equal good" is apparently too abstract a thought for most people.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:17

skylined!: Apr 6, 2012; THE DEM DEFENDER HAS LOGGED ON

Oxyclean posted:

Wasn't it not his gun, and wasn't he not legally old enough to own a gun or some poo poo?

But sure, hope someone legally stands around near his house with a gun they legally own, noone better complain or do anything about that.

e: Didn't the judge also says the people killed couldn't be called victims, but then was okay with the defense calling them "looters"?

Per reporting:

It was not legally his gun. He gave the money to his friend to purchase in Wisconsin in May 2020, and it was stored at his friend's step-dad's until the night of the shootings, in Wisconsin. It never crossed state lines. If it can't be proved that he took ownership of the gun, it was not a crime for him to have it in WI, or apparently deemed a straw purchase, at least by the DOJ.

The judge said that the victims could not be called victims because it could prejudice the jury. The issue here is not that this occurred - this is the right call, the state has not proven that the defendant is guilty yet, you can't pre-judge that the victims he shot were victims. The issue is that this legality is hardly afforded to every other case. It would absolutely be worth researching how many times this judge set such a standard in place for all of his other trials, especially with non-white defendants.

I am personally torn here, though probably an outlier. The facts of the case did not unambiguously point to murder, in a legal definition. I think the prosecution over-charged, and I am still confused why DOJ didn't prosecute instead. I am not sure I am comfortable with *either* a guilty or not guilty ruling, because our justice system doesn't provide for what I think *should* have happened - that he be treated both as a perpetrator and a victim, treated for the illness of lifelong exposure to white supremacist propaganda, and given a choice of either ostracization or engaging in actual community service for the community he harmed. In the absence of that, though, I am not sure I am OK with the state being able to lock up someone (anyone, not just a white 17 year old) without being able to put together a convincing case.

The implications of *either* verdict are fraught and I wouldn't be celebrating a guilty verdict.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Afaik: Wisconsin gun laws have a very, very stupid loophole. Rittenhouse was not legally able to own a gun, but he could give an older Wisconsin friend money to purchase a gun, and the friend could then legally lend Rittenhouse the gun. It's notionally supposed to be a hunting and target shooting exemption. The wording of the law is Bad.

It's not really a stupid loophole - gun trusts are relatively common. The stupid loophole was that if the barrel of the rifle was 6" shorter or whatever the judge wouldn't have been able to throw out the charge of illegal open carry and his claims to self-defense would have cracked a little more.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:18

Flayer: Sep 13, 2003; by Fluffdaddy; Buglord

Rittenhouse was never guilty, it was the correct verdict regardless of politics. The fact he is being made into a cultural icon by the bickering from both sides is however extremely damaging.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:22

HonorableTB: Dec 22, 2006

CommieGIR posted:

Stop trying to re-litigate the self-defense case

What the gently caress are we supposed to talk about with relation to this then if we can't discuss the central issue of the case which is "the justice system is hosed and here are the reasons why as displayed in the case" which is incredibly relevant to US current events

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:26

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

HonorableTB posted:

What the gently caress are we supposed to talk about with relation to this then if we can't discuss the central issue of the case which is "the justice system is hosed and here are the reasons why as displayed in the case" which is incredibly relevant to US current events

Discuss the verdict, discuss the issue with self-defense in general, but if we're going to just piss on the dead by justifying Rittenhouse, this is going to get out of hand. I'm not saying don't discuss the case, but if its going to be "Rittenhouse was right to murder two people", there's no way that ends on a good note discussion wise.

Flayer posted:

Rittenhouse was never guilty, it was the correct verdict regardless of politics. The fact he is being made into a cultural icon by the bickering from both sides is however extremely damaging.

You travelled a long way just to let us know to stop resisting, friend.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Nov 19, 2021

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:27

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

skylined! posted:

It's not really a stupid loophole - gun trusts are relatively common. The stupid loophole was that if the barrel of the rifle was 6" shorter or whatever the judge wouldn't have been able to throw out the charge of illegal open carry and his claims to self-defense would have cracked a little more.

We might need to back track a bit but are we saying that for the State of Wisconsin you gun use your "gun trust" to transfer weapons to 17 year olds? My other source of confusion, did the prosecutor or judge ever allow for lesser charges such as 2nd degree murder?

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:28

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

CommieGIR posted:

Stop trying to re-litigate the self-defense case

This never would have happened if Bernie beat Hillary.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:28

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

HonorableTB posted:

What the gently caress are we supposed to talk about with relation to this then if we can't discuss the central issue of the case which is "the justice system is hosed and here are the reasons why as displayed in the case" which is incredibly relevant to US current events

Trust the system, friend.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:28

Republicans: Oct 14, 2003; - More money for us

- Fuck you

Well if that's the way it works I'm looking forward to the acquittal of that private security guard who domed the MAGA guy who punched him and tried to pepper spray him.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:32

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

So I guess we�re just going to ignore how the judge blatantly favored the defense then

https://twitter.com/kevinliptakcnn/status/1461778760273956865?s=21

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:34

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

It absolutely does not work lol

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:36

Drone_Fragger: May 9, 2007

So sounds like, if I'm understanding this correctly, you could now just turn up to a protest armed and if anyone does anything remotely provocative you can just shoot them? And then shoot anyone else who tries to stop you shooting them? And then cite this moronic precedent of this case as a defence?

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:37

rare Magic card l00k: Jan 3, 2011

FlamingLiberal posted:

So I guess we�re just going to ignore how the judge blatantly favored the defense then

https://twitter.com/kevinliptakcnn/status/1461778760273956865?s=21

Sounds like Biden is now banned from the thread.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:37

thehandtruck: Mar 5, 2006; the thing about the jews is,

Groovelord Neato posted:

It absolutely does not work lol

I'd argue the system is working perfectly as designed and as intended. It just doesn't work for us.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:37

RealityWarCriminal: Aug 10, 2016

Another victory for the Rule of Law.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:37

skylined!: Apr 6, 2012; THE DEM DEFENDER HAS LOGGED ON

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

We might need to back track a bit but are we saying that for the State of Wisconsin you gun use your "gun trust" to transfer weapons to 17 year olds? My other source of confusion, did the prosecutor or judge ever allow for lesser charges such as 2nd degree murder?

IANAL but as I understand it:

Rittenhouse gave Black money in May 2020 to buy the rifle in Wisconsin
The rifle was bought in Wisconsin and then kept at Black's dad's house, in Wisconsin
Black was of-age to buy and own the gun in Wisconsin, and as an adult it would be legal to allow Rittenhouse to use the gun in his presence (for things like target practice, hunting etc) even though Rittenhouse was under-age
Because the gun was stored in Black's step-dad's house, and never transferred ownership to Rittenhouse, this essentially created a gun trust. The trust would be fulfilled once Rittenhouse was of legal age and standing to own the gun and then took possession of it, did the proper paperwork in Illinois, etc.
The gun trust was never fulfilled; i.e. the gun never legally passed on to Rittenhouse. As I understand it, the judge did not see Rittenhouse carrying the gun that night as proof of obtaining possession - it was no different than him open carrying the gun at a range or whatever, and since he was with an 'adult' it was legal
This, evidently, is also the basis for the state in charging Black with providing a firearm to a minor that was then used to kill someone else
It is illegal for someone under 18 to open carry in Wisconsin, however there is an exception for rifles and shotgun, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt

No idea on the lesser charge question; it is my understanding that the state prosecutors charged what they thought they had a case for.

Drone_Fragger posted:

So sounds like, if I'm understanding this correctly, you could now just turn up to a protest armed and if anyone does anything remotely provocative you can just shoot them? And then shoot anyone else who tries to stop you shooting them? And then cite this moronic precedent of this case as a defence?

You would want to refer to your state statutes before assuming this. Also make sure your gun wasn't obtained via straw purchase, or came from out of state. Also this isn't really what happened in this case.

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

Provided you are shooting the same people the cops want to shoot.

This is a key component of making it to trial, however.

skylined! fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Nov 19, 2021

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:38

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

Drone_Fragger posted:

So sounds like, if I'm understanding this correctly, you could now just turn up to a protest armed and if anyone does anything remotely provocative you can just shoot them? And then shoot anyone else who tries to stop you shooting them? And then cite this moronic precedent of this case as a defence?

Provided you are shooting the same people the cops want to shoot.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:39

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Republicans posted:

Well if that's the way it works I'm looking forward to the acquittal of that private security guard who domed the MAGA guy who punched him and tried to pepper spray him.

I have no loving clue about the details of the shooting, but in a fight between a MAGA guy and a literal Pinkerton, I'm not sure I'd even want to take a side.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:39

Zore: Sep 21, 2010; willfully illiterate, aggressively miserable sourpuss whose sole raison d�etre is to put other people down for liking the wrong things

Drone_Fragger posted:

So sounds like, if I'm understanding this correctly, you could now just turn up to a protest armed and if anyone does anything remotely provocative you can just shoot them? And then shoot anyone else who tries to stop you shooting them? And then cite this moronic precedent of this case as a defence?

*If you're white.

If you had a non-white person do this at say an anti-mask or vaxx protest they would be getting life or the death penalty.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:40

Numlock: May 19, 2007; The simplest seppo on the forums

Drone_Fragger posted:

So sounds like, if I'm understanding this correctly, you could now just turn up to a protest armed and if anyone does anything remotely provocative you can just shoot them? And then shoot anyone else who tries to stop you shooting them? And then cite this moronic precedent of this case as a defence?

As long as your white, and right wing.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:40

Eric Cantonese: Dec 21, 2004; You should hear my accent.

skylined! posted:

I am personally torn here, though probably an outlier. The facts of the case did not unambiguously point to murder, in a legal definition. I think the prosecution over-charged, and I am still confused why DOJ didn't prosecute instead. I am not sure I am comfortable with *either* a guilty or not guilty ruling, because our justice system doesn't provide for what I think *should* have happened - that he be treated both as a perpetrator and a victim, treated for the illness of lifelong exposure to white supremacist propaganda, and given a choice of either ostracization or engaging in actual community service for the community he harmed. In the absence of that, though, I am not sure I am OK with the state being able to lock up someone (anyone, not just a white 17 year old) without being able to put together a convincing case.

The implications of *either* verdict are fraught and I wouldn't be celebrating a guilty verdict.

It's not really a stupid loophole - gun trusts are relatively common. The stupid loophole was that if the barrel of the rifle was 6" shorter or whatever the judge wouldn't have been able to throw out the charge of illegal open carry and his claims to self-defense would have cracked a little more.

Is there a piece about why the DOJ did not step in. Maybe they would have had a hard time fitting the fact pattern into a federal crime, but I'm not an expert on that stuff.

Republicans posted:

Unless he did bring a gun across state lines, which he didn't, I'm not sure what jurisdiction the feds would have in the case.

This is what I was thinking.

Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Nov 19, 2021

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:44

TGLT: Aug 14, 2009

Zore posted:

*If you're white.

If you had a non-white person do this at say an anti-mask or vaxx protest they would be getting life or the death penalty.

poo poo Michael Reinoehl was white and the feds just murdered him.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 11:36

Republicans: Oct 14, 2003; - More money for us

- Fuck you

Eric Cantonese posted:

Is there a piece about why the DOJ did not step in. Maybe they would have had a hard time fitting the fact pattern into a federal crime, but I'm not an expert on that stuff.

Unless he did bring a gun across state lines, which he didn't, I'm not sure what jurisdiction the feds would have in the case.

# ? Nov 19, 2021 20:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Current Events November: D&D's Afghanistan

«‹›188 »