Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[Sassy Colombian]

Well, it's mob culture but I hardly feel any sympathy for the guy. Why the hell did he feel the need to do it? (But that's the issue with America and its obsession with a law created 250 years ago).

If Biden really wanted stuff like this to stop happening, he should do what no other president has had the balls to do and scrap the second amendment or at least have the balls to go up against the NRA. I understand that'd be career suicide - maybe that's what's needed?

Unfortunately Biden, nor any US President have such power. The Founding Fathers made it really hard, if not impossible to repeal the second amendment. First, you need to get supermajorities in Congress, two-thirds in both the House and the Senate. And that's an enormous hurdle, especially in the Senate. But even if you get it through Congress, you still need to get your amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states. That's at least 38 states. It's a big lift even before you start to talk about the popularity of guns and the power of the NRA.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Stored the gun in his Kenosha home. There was a probe which confirmed this as said by the state attorney.

As a 17 year old, he was legally able to carry the gun as it was over 12 inches long. The gun he held was 16 inches.

The whole "his mum drove him across state lines" etc story was made up by the media...and people in positions of 'power'...

Who are now "Outraged" for being wrong.

I hope the kid has big hitting lawyers calling him day and night to sue those people.

Thats not to say I agree with him going there in the first place, or carrying a gun.

I do think those people should be taught that accuasations have consequences.



Have you looked at the facts of the case?

Here he is.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Unfortunately Biden, nor any US President have such power. The Founding Fathers made it really hard, if not impossible to repeal the second amendment. First, you need to get supermajorities in Congress, two-thirds in both the House and the Senate. And that's an enormous hurdle, especially in the Senate. But even if you get it through Congress, you still need to get your amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states. That's at least 38 states. It's a big lift even before you start to talk about the popularity of guns and the power of the NRA.

That said, there's nothing saying that we can't have strict controls on who can own what where, and when. Sure, there's existing case law, but that can always be set aside if popular sentiment shifts enough. Roberts is smart - he recognizes that the Court's legitimacy with the American people is its biggest asset, so he's charted a fairly cautious course in the direction that he wants to go.

I've always put this one this way - if you don't want a hypothetical next-door neighbor with severe mental problems owning a bazooka, then you believe in some level of gun control. All we're quibbling about is where the line is. Sure, in a vacuum having a gun makes an individual safer in a conflict. The problem is that, if we all have guns, we collectively become less safe than we were when none of us had them. If these sorts of incidents start happening enough, what will happen is the left will arm and they will start shooting first, which is not exactly what the right has in mind.

 

[BlueToff]

Unfortunately Biden, nor any US President have such power. The Founding Fathers made it really hard, if not impossible to repeal the second amendment. First, you need to get supermajorities in Congress, two-thirds in both the House and the Senate. And that's an enormous hurdle, especially in the Senate. But even if you get it through Congress, you still need to get your amendment ratified by three-fourths of the states. That's at least 38 states. It's a big lift even before you start to talk about the popularity of guns and the power of the NRA.

aye I know, I'd just like to see a few of them try, and actually try, rather than token tweets or snap quotes

 

[BlueToff]

I wouldn’t say the outcome of his trial “proves” he was innocent. Just that the prosecution wasn’t able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions met a very narrow definition of murder. Does the verdict the jury rendered in the OJ Simpson trial 100% mean he didn’t kill two people?

The reason so many were quick to accuse him is because there was literally video of the entire incident. Then, he certainly didn’t help his public image by posing with members of a known domestic terror group while flashing white power signs in the immediate aftermath. At the end of the day, he went looking for trouble, found it, and should now count himself fortunate beyond all belief that US law has such broad definitions for what qualifies as self-defense.

Agree here but ultimately we do know he was 'attacked'. So even if he was attacking them himself, it'd be hard to argue that it wasn't self defence - as the prosecutors clearly found.

Again, not saying that's right.

 

[Zatara]

Absent a gun, Rittenhouse would never have had the notion of having his Mother drive him across state lines to "defend" anything at the protests.

He was a 17-year old doofus who wanted to play at freelance crowd control. He'd have never done any such fool thing without a gun.

His mother didnt drive him.

Good luck with that. He won't collect anything but nuisance payments which might cover the attorney's fees for his defense against civil suits the families of the people he shot will file against him.

Im not sure about "nuisance payments" but its pretty clear that those persons should be 'punished' for defamation/libel/slander or something similar.

Free speech is one thing but that was all about following the narrative to orchestrate blame using outright lies.

Id be surprised if there wasnt a large law firm offering to take his cases for free.

Well, it's mob culture but I hardly feel any sympathy for the guy. Why the hell did he feel the need to do it? (But that's the issue with America and its obsession with a law created 250 years ago).

If Biden really wanted stuff like this to stop happening, he should do what no other president has had the balls to do and scrap the second amendment or at least have the balls to go up against the NRA. I understand that'd be career suicide - maybe that's what's needed?

Well, its like those western movies isnt it? Gang comes into town to destroy peoples homes and torch everything they can.

Locals take up arms to dissuade the gang.

If that same gang of rioters went into a town in most Asian, African, Eastern European or South American countries with the aim of laying waste...they would be in serious trouble.

Its beyond me how these rioters are supported in the West.

What was their goal if not to cause harm and destruction?

I wouldn’t say the outcome of his trial “proves” he was innocent. Just that the prosecution wasn’t able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions met a very narrow definition of murder. Does the verdict the jury rendered in the OJ Simpson trial 100% mean he didn’t kill two people?

The reason so many were quick to accuse him is because there was literally video of the entire incident. Then, he certainly didn’t help his public image by posing with members of a known domestic terror group while flashing white power signs in the immediate aftermath. At the end of the day, he went looking for trouble, found it, and should now count himself fortunate beyond all belief that US law has such broad definitions for what qualifies as self-defense.

Yes there was a video.

How does that point to the variety of lies which were displayed by people in positions of power?

Agree here but ultimately we do know he was 'attacked'. So even if he was attacking them himself, it'd be hard to argue that it wasn't self defence - as the prosecutors clearly found.

Again, not saying that's right.

For me, whats weird is that both Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz claimed to be there to 'help' people.

Both carried guns to 'help' people.

On the one hand I can see the argument why Rittenhouse carried a gun...as he wanted to protect himself from rioters.

As an 'instigator' or part of a mob of rioters, why did Grosskreutz carry a gun if he was there to 'help' ?

Makes no sense to me.

 

[BlueTX]

His mother didnt drive him.

Im not sure about "nuisance payments" but its pretty clear that those persons should be 'punished' for defamation/libel/slander or something similar.

Whether the mother drove him or not is beside the point. I'll retract the statement.

It's clear you don't understand the defamation/libel/slander laws in this country.

Perhaps Little EMT Rifleman will find some schmuck like Lin Wood to represent him as the douchy Catholic School kid who acted like an ass in DC did but, like that douchy kid, Rittenhouse will get nothing but nuisance payments from media outlets or lose in court.

Meanwhile, I'll be interested in watching the civil cases.

 

[TN Toffee]

Whether the mother drove him or not is beside the point. I'll retract the statement.

It's clear you don't understand the defamation/libel/slander laws in this country.

Perhaps Little EMT Rifleman will find some schmuck like Lin Wood to represent him as the douchy Catholic School kid who acted like an ass in DC did but, like that douchy kid, Rittenhouse will get nothing but nuisance payments from media outlets or lose in court.

Meanwhile, I'll be interested in watching the civil cases.

Me too. The burdens of proof are very different for those types of cases.

 

[Zatara]

Whether the mother drove him or not is beside the point. I'll retract the statement.

It's clear you don't understand the defamation/libel/slander laws in this country.

Perhaps Little EMT Rifleman will find some schmuck like Lin Wood to represent him as the douchy Catholic School kid who acted like an ass in DC did but, like that douchy kid, Rittenhouse will get nothing but nuisance payments from media outlets or lose in court.

Meanwhile, I'll be interested in watching the civil cases.

Nick Sandmann? The one who settled lawsuits of $275mil with CNN and $250mil with the Washington post?

That Nick Sandmann who is likely worth a fair amount in the millions now.

Seeing as you mentioned "its clear you dont understand the defamation/libel/slander laws in this country" then could you enlighten me as to why both of those companies settled out of court -- if it was obvious they would win then they would go to court.

"Nuisance payments" would be like those, in the millions ?

How about if he filed against Biden and individuals who have come out making false statements, surely in the US theres a way to sue people even if you dont suffer monetary loss?


Representing a private individual, I was under the impression that the lawyer just needs to prove negligence rather than actual malice in any actionable case against Biden for example.

 

[tsubaki]

Nick Sandmann? The one who settled lawsuits of $275mil with CNN and $250mil with the Washington post?

That Nick Sandmann who is likely worth a fair amount in the millions now.

Seeing as you mentioned "its clear you dont understand the defamation/libel/slander laws in this country" then could you enlighten me as to why both of those companies settled out of court -- if it was obvious they would win then they would go to court.

"Nuisance payments" would be like those, in the millions ?

How about if he filed against Biden and individuals who have come out making false statements, surely in the US theres a way to sue people even if you dont suffer monetary loss?


Representing a private individual, I was under the impression that the lawyer just needs to prove negligence rather than actual malice in any actionable case against Biden for example.

er - Biden hasn’t libelled Rittenhouse. An advert of his associated Rittenhouse with white supremacists, and there is quite a bit of evidence that supports that.

 

[Zatara]

er - Biden hasn’t libelled Rittenhouse. An advert of his associated Rittenhouse with white supremacists, and there is quite a bit of evidence that supports that.

What evidence?

 

[tsubaki]

What evidence?

Well the things that the judge declined as part of the criminal trial for a start.

 

[Zatara]

Well the things that the judge declined as part of the criminal trial for a start.

A: Agreeing to pose for photos with strangers?

B: Saying he would shoot shoplifters?

One of those two suddenly means he can be accused of being a white supremacist, racist, vigilante and domestic terrorist?

This is the now president describing a then 17 year old boy.

Its outrageous.

 

[tsubaki]

A: Agreeing to pose for photos with strangers?

B: Saying he would shoot shoplifters?

One of those two suddenly means he can be accused of being a white supremacist, racist, vigilante and domestic terrorist?

This is the now president describing a then 17 year old boy.

Its outrageous.

No, it’s the law around libel. Stand next to racists, have your defence funded by racists, be a cause celebre for racists and it’s going to be very easy for any lawyer to say “look at how he is associated with racists”.

 

[Walken]

No, it’s the law around libel. Stand next to racists, have your defence funded by racists, be a cause celebre for racists and it’s going to be very easy for any lawyer to say “look at how he is associated with racists”.

Can throw being supported by zatara in as further proof