Senate Gun Control

Here is a "responsible gun owner" at the airport:




In many other countries this is a top story and one that would be condemn by politicians. In America? It's called Saturday. Anyone still wonder why foreign companies are pulling their money out here and going to Canada still?

 

The issue with the copycat offenders isn't that they are going to win a trial. The issue is that they are going to murder people.

 

Both issues are in fact the same issue though. If you believe that a Rittenhouse conviction would have had the effect of discouraging this kind of behaviour in future then at least the conviction of a copycat offender might discourage this kind of behaviour in future.

 

I agree which was the point of my post that it’s not helpful to draw broad, general conclusions from a criminal court case which is focused on super narrow and nuanced issues irrespective of what “side” you are on. Criminal law is so ridiculously narrow that justice is rarely served particularly in self defence cases.

 

Those cases won't catch the public's attention, or discourage more copycats, because they won't have the same level of interest unless they do something truly egregious. We've already had people going "Yawn, this was just another shooting case. Both sides, am I right?". The general public's boredom with gun massacres is so well known it's a bit of reoccuring gallows humor by the Onion.
And there's a strong feeling that - and I can't say that's it wrong - if a non-white person or a leftist had done what he did, he'd already be on death row. Who could blame people for thinking that?

 

I agree completely and didn’t suggest otherwise. I said that “if you believe that a conviction would have had the effect of discouraging that kind of behaviour” but clearly you do not believe it would have. Neither do I. The court system is completely irrelevant because nobody cares about it anyway. The Rittenhouse case reflects systemic and deeply held social, cultural and political divisions in the US. This case means nothing in the bigger context.

 

@LostOnHoth George Zimmerman getting off did not become a cautionary tale for gun touting manics, it embolden them. I have zero doubt this will do the same especially Rittenhouse spokesman as made it clear he plans on trying to cash in on this. I did like how his lawyer said he was disgusted that Republicans are trying to cash in on it. Look at your client first there buddy.

 

I’m not sure how escaping a conviction could ever become a cautionary tale for gun toting maniacs? Of course any acquittal is going to embolden gun nuts. The point I’m trying to make over and over again is that the trial focused on one very narrow aspect of criminal law which in this case was self defence. The outcome would have been different if the facts and evidence were different. Nobody should take this case as being an example of the judicial approval of vigilante gun violence nor should it be taken as a “win” for the lunatic fringe far right just as a conviction shouldn’t have been taken as a “win” for the left. All of these cases are based upon the admissible evidence and that does not necessarily mean justice is done. Rittenhouse could have confessed his guilt but his confession could have been struck out of evidence on legal grounds and the case would proceed without it. Trials are not interested in “truth” they follow the archaic and sometimes bizarre laws of evidence and truth be damned.

 

I think the danger isn't so much that there will be "copy cats," but rather that right wing and left wing agitators will be more on edge and more likely to come armed to protests, and there will be an increased likelihood for deadly violence. There was a lot of violence at protests along the west coast this summer including shootings, it didn't get a lot of media attention but there does seem to be an escalation that was occurring even before the Rittenhouse verdict.

 

To me the danger is that enough of us aren't standing up to make changes to the laws so similar things don't keep happening. This includes me, I've been to one anti-gun protest several years ago after the Parkland incident, but besides that all I do is vote for the candidate more likely to support stricter gun laws.

 

Better, sensible gun laws don’t feel like communism to me. Unless that’s not what you meant….? And I’m a multiple gun owner.

Agree here, at least somewhat. This is just one case and it has no real bearing on future cases. If the evidence had shown that the shooter wasn’t justified in using force then it would have went the other way. That’s all. There is no social movement angle here except for those who are constantly harping on such things. No precedence was set. It isn’t the first self defense trial in the USA and won’t be the last. As you said, it was simply a case of a lack of evidence to convict of the charges. Even Biden said the system worked and the jury findings have to be accepted.

IMO, The main reason some here and in the media are mad is only because Rittenhouse shot people who were protesting/rioting for something they believed in. If the those who were shot had been anti abortion protestors, for example, I’d bet a good few bucks it wouldn’t even have come up here and some media outlets would have less coverage about it.

This is possible but both fringe groups are already armed, angry and ready to cause big trouble. Remember, this entire situation is very likely avoided if the protests didn’t get out of control. There is a fine line between a protest and a riot. Clearly last summer, along the west coast and really many major cities, it was leaning towards riots. Then, when that happens you not only incite those left wingers with "too much free time" to join the "fun" you also incite the hard right "we’ll come and defend you" crowd. Bad mix. Very bad mix. If the protests remain calm and peaceful then neither fringe group has anything to "feed" on if that makes sense.

 

I am against the killing of all people. I don't even support the death penalty for the worst criminals. So no, I am not just worked up because who got shot. I am worked up every time anyone gets shot. Citizens should not carry guns

It is not fun (quotes or not) to go to a protest. You have to cancel your regular plans to spend a day marching around for the simple human right not to go to any event in America and not be afraid of getting in the crossfire of some one else's gunfight. 100% ridiculous.

 

That just opens things up, again, to distractionary tactics of something like the shooting of David Dorn while protests were taking place in St Louis.

Or, for that matter, the shooting of Aaron Danielson by Michael Reinoehl, a man that had posted stuff like as "100% ANTIFA all the way!". That man had said that it was self-defense as Danielson had a knife, but no knife was found. (That man, incidentally, was also killed under mysterious circumstances by the police, as the report said he shot first, but the officer statements released earlier didn't involve claims that he had). Reinoehl's shooting of Danielson didn't get all that much attention comparatively, nor did Reinoehl's shooting by police.

 

I didn't know about any of this. That brings a chill down my spine.

 

The problem is that, even if you accept the 'both sides equally' argument, there's certainly no 'both sides' for law enforcement.

We had the contrasting responses of 'protests' in Washington DC, where we had massive amounts of police in riot gear surrounding the Lincoln Memorial, and a token presence when violent protestors were coming on January 6th.
We had Rittenhouse wandering around at night during a curfew with a visible gun, and you had cops giving him water and a judge dismissing a curfew violation charge because 'it couldn't be proven he violated it'.
We had the federal government send in unmarked vans with law enforcement personnel with no visible forms of identification grabbing people off the streets without cause and holding them with charges.
We have conservative lawmakers reacting to people murdering protestors by hitting them with cars passing laws to legalize murdering protestors by hitting them with cars.

The latter didn't, but I heard all about the Danielson shooting at the time. Here's one from radical right-wing news network CNN with a piece on how the guy going along with the MAGA intimidation protest in Portland was just some 'ordinary guy' who wasn't at all a radical. Oddly missing from the article - that the MAGA 'caravan' was shooting people with paintball guns and deploying toxic bear repellent as well.
And you summed up the difference quite well - you had a radical who killed someone at a protest under dubious circumstances while claiming self-defense, and yet his story ended up very different from Rittenhouse.

 

I'm sure that lawyer is totally hurtin' for cash too.

 

Definitely not a story that wasn't covered, the comparatively was in reference to the attention to Rittenhouse, so it seemed more of a flash in the pan story.

And I did make it a point to cover the ending on that because there's still some very good reasons why we *should* be paying attention to that. Though that's reflective of my much broader stance that I think a disservice is done by people that want to discard huge numbers of cases of questionable behavior by the police so that they can only have compartively few incidents that can be treated as a narrow narrative. That and I don't think "accused of shooting someone" justifies the police killing them later in an independent event, but then, that separates me from most Americans.

 

I'm going to have to say that a lot of the anger by BLM protesters towards police is justified. It doesn't mean that using violence is justified, but it does make it more understandable when some of these protests spill over into violence. By contrast, these right-wing vigilantes, their actions are based on lies and hysteria and are completely unjustified. So no, this isn't a case of both sides being equally bad...one of these groups is a lot more sympathetic than the other.

 

No, no sympathy is awarded to violent, destructive rioters. Saying it’s understandable is a back door way of condoning it, IMO. That’s fine if so but once we get to that state of things then people are going to get hurt and or killed. As for BLM being angry with police, yes, I can understand that. So, use the proper means to enact change, get your message across, shine a light on the situation. Once it gets ugly though, all bets are off and any sympathy fades away.

@anakinfansince1983 - no, Kenosha was not all peaceful. Especially at night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest

I will pay for your beer but not the rest of your groceries.

 

Thinking that sympathy equates to condoning may explain QGM's inability to show compassion in many cases. Or vice versa.

 

There were literally thousands of protest marches across the US (and the rest of the world) for over a hundred days. Hours upon hours of footage and a library's worth of written material is out there calling for change, but clearly you aren't interested in it. Riots happen because they're the only thing you pay attention to.