Kyle Rittenhouse and Julius Jones

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Katy said:

DH says he doesn’t remember when, he thinks it was in anti-crime movements of the 80’s in 90’s when pistols and revolvers started to be treated differently than rifles, mostly because handguns are more easily concealed. He first said 1985 but then said he wasn’t sure.

For longer distances, such as for hunting or war, longer barrels are more accurate.

Apparently in Wisconsin it wouldn’t have mattered if KR had a handgun.  The only thing that matters is a short barrel rifle, which has extra regulations because it’s more easy to conceal. 

Interesting. It raises more questions for me tho. If we no longer care whether weapons are concealed or open, again, why do we continue to have/allow disparities?

[Katy]

My thoughts, and even though I was raised around guns I don’t like them, so I’m not sure I’m plugged in…. I think before various states moved to a constitutional right to concealed carry it was often thought that hiding a gun was more dangerous than open carry.  But now that in many states everyone who can pass a background check can concealed carry the culture is moving towards concealed making people more comfortable. 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Katy said:

My thoughts, and even though I was raised around guns I don’t like them, so I’m not sure I’m plugged in…. I think before various states moved to a constitutional right to concealed carry it was often thought that hiding a gun was more dangerous than open carry.  But now that in many states everyone who can pass a background check can concealed carry the culture is moving towards concealed making people more comfortable. 

Isn't this worth re-thinking? What evidence do we have that either is safe or more/less safe? We have sooooo many laws in place that we need to be willing to examine the underpinnings of (like the fugitive-slave era law that gave rise to citizens arrests in GA).

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Interesting. It raises more questions for me tho. If we no longer care whether weapons are concealed or open, again, why do we continue to have/allow disparities?

DH says there are some people suing to make the weapons equal, and to make everything at age 18, because it’s denying people their second amendment rights. We’re driving back from a holiday lights drive through so he can’t look up the cases but that’s definitely the way things are moving.  Many of the city anti-gun laws have been made unconstitutional.  In country areas many cops consider it a moral imperative to have a gun to defend your family, so laws are unevenly applied.

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Katy said:

DH says there are some people suing to make the weapons equal, and to make everything at age 18, because it’s denying people their second amendment rights. We’re driving back from a holiday lights drive through so he can’t look up the cases but that’s definitely the way things are moving.  Many of the city anti-gun laws have been made unconstitutional.  In country areas many cops consider it a moral imperative to have a gun to defend your family, so laws are unevenly applied.

It definitely looks like SCOTUS is headed that way with it's docket this year. Lord help us then. I've said before, I don't like where this is going. More access isn't better IMO. ETA: We have to be prepared for urban youth to invoke self-defense and legal carry too b/c that's what's coming.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It definitely looks like SCOTUS is headed that way with it's docket this year. Lord help us then. I've said before, I don't like where this is going. More access isn't better IMO.

I'm not sure more access is bad, but kids in the country are generally enrolled in gun safety classes at least once a year by their parents, and I know my elementary school taught it annually too.  What's missing is gun safety classes for kids in cities. Maybe they should be provided in every school.  Or maybe they should just be part of the requirements in every state to legally carry, concealed or not.

[Syllieann]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

I'm not sure more access is bad, but kids in the country are generally enrolled in gun safety classes at least once a year by their parents, and I know my elementary school taught it annually too.  What's missing is gun safety classes for kids in cities. Maybe they should be provided in every school.  Or maybe they should just be part of the requirements in every state to legally carry, concealed or not.

Yes, and I'll add that city kids often lack access to mentors who teach them how to handle the gun safely.  Money matters too. It costs a few hundred dollars to store guns and ammo in a way that is truly safe.  Also, if you don't live rural, target ammo and a lane at the gun range can add up.

[Sneezyone]

14 minutes ago, Katy said:

I'm not sure more access is bad, but kids in the country are generally enrolled in gun safety classes at least once a year by their parents, and I know my elementary school taught it annually too.  What's missing is gun safety classes for kids in cities. Maybe they should be provided in every school.  Or maybe they should just be part of the requirements in every state to legally carry, concealed or not.

I am 110% sure it's bad. Kids/juveniles are immature and impulsive. Their brains are not fully formed. There's a reason why Rittenhouse was the only one who shot/killed people that day. He wasn't the only one armed. He was the only armed JUVENILE. Even military personnel have to undergo extensive training at 18 and they make mistakes too. None of the country kids I knew in AR were enrolled in gun safety classes. They learned from their families. The training in urban environs won't be provided either. Gun enthusiast programs/organizations do not target those communities with safety programs. It'll just be another excuse to pathologize youth who lack the same maturity/judgment and gun-safety training as Mr. Rittenhouse..

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Syllieann]

@Sneezyone I don't generally want to see a bunch of kids running around with guns, but Rosenbaum had pledged to kill any of them if he got them alone.  Rittenhouse got separated from his group when he went to help someone and the police forced the group to move.  Maybe someone more mature wouldn't have allowed themself to get separated.  He clearly has had a lot of training though.  You can see it especially with Grosskreutz, who was much older but had no idea how to properly handle a gun.

[Katy]

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

None of the country kids I knew were enrolled in gun safety classes. They learned from their families. The training in urban environs won't be provided either. Gun enthusiast programs/organizations do not target those communities with safety programs. It'll just be another excuse to pathologize youth who lack the same maturity/judgment and gun-safety training as Mr. Rittenhouse..

I don't know any country kids who weren't, but then again a lot of cops do side jobs as NRA instructors, or at least they did before the NRA imploded.  I wonder if it's a lot like little league... dads sign up to become an instructor and give the classes.

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

@Sneezyone I don't generally want to see a bunch of kids running around with guns, but Rosenbaum had pledged to kill any of them if he got them alone.  Rittenhouse got separated from his group when he went to help someone and the police forced the group to move.  Maybe someone more mature wouldn't have allowed themself to get separated.  He clearly has had a lot of training though.  You can see it especially with Grosskreutz, who was much older but had no idea how to properly handle a gun.

What he pledged to do and what he actually did are two different things. Do you live in a rural area? In AR, I often had classmates leave loaded weapons in their cars in the school parking lot during hunting season. In my urban neighborhood, many families had open/accesible loaded handguns. I fail to see the difference between the two. I do believe adults are capable of better judgment most of the time. I do not believe Rittenhouse demonstrated good judgment/training that day.  If so, he wouldn't have been there.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Katy said:

I don't know any country kids who weren't, but then again a lot of cops do side jobs as NRA instructors, or at least they did before the NRA imploded.  I wonder if it's a lot like little league... dads sign up to become an instructor and give the classes.

Maybe. Many that I knew (and I didn't meet these people until I moved from a city to the country) went out shooting random shit (including metal targets) for fun in HS. There was no parental supervision or oversight whatsoever.

[Syllieann]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Do you live in a rural area? In AR, I often had classmates leave loaded weapons in their cars in the school parking lot during hunting season. In my urban neighborhood, many families had open/acceible loaded handguns. I fail to see the difference between the two. I do believe adults are capable of better judgment most of the time. I do not believe Rittenhouse demonstrated good judgment that day. 

I was talking specifically about carrying a gun for the purpose of self defense.  And I don't think any gun should ever be left open/accessible.  The point was that training is a lot more important than age of you are going to carry a gun for self defense.  A forty year old with the minimum two hour class who doesn't practice is going to be shot of disarmed before he remembers how to take the safety off.  A 20 year old who practices frequently and runs through multiple mental scenarios is going to maintain control of the gun, only shoot when they can't retreat, and be way less likely to hit an innocent bystander.  Generally speaking, I'd like to see way more training required for guns that aren't kept for hunting.  I'm fine with age limits, but age limits without more training isn't going to be super helpful.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I was talking specifically about carrying a gun for the purpose of self defense.  And I don't think any gun should ever be left open/accessible.  The point was that training is a lot more important than age of you are going to carry a gun for self defense.  A forty year old with the minimum two hour class who doesn't practice is going to be shot of disarmed before he remembers how to take the safety off.  A 20 year old who practices frequently and runs through multiple mental scenarios is going to maintain control of the gun, only shoot when they can't retreat, and be way less likely to hit an innocent bystander.  Generally speaking, I'd like to see way more training required for guns that aren't kept for hunting.  I'm fine with age limits, but age limits without more training isn't going to be super helpful.

I'm sorry. I do not believe that. Not for a second. That's ridiculous, see Tamir Rice. Children are not adults. This sounds like a justification to protect rural 'hunters' from accountability whether they are pursuing human or animal prey. Standards need to be universal, regardless of the purpose for carrying or kind of gun involved. It would allow LEOs to better discern good/bad actors too. The differentiation you're trying to make is guaranteed to perpetuate racial inequalities in our justice system. That's not OK with me.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Syllieann]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  Let me try to explain better.  I'm not saying children should be able to carry rifles in residential neighborhoods (that would not be for hunting) but rather that it you're not out hunting during hunting season in a place you're allowed to hunt, you are carrying a gun (regardless of the barrel length) for self defense.  That means you need a boatload of training regardless of whether you are twenty or forty.

 

Haha, some how my tablet changed "training regardless" to frankincense

Edited November 21, 2021 by Syllieann

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  Let me try to explain better.  I'm not saying children should be able to carry rifles in residential neighborhoods (that would not be for hunting) but rather that it you're not out hunting during hunting season in a place you're allowed to hunt, you are carrying a gun (regardless of the barrel length) for self defense.  That means you need a boatload of frankincense you are twenty or forty.

I understood completely, I just TOTALLY disagree. I do not think children should be carrying guns of ANY KIND, whether in residential or rural communities, without parents/guardians present. The offense/penalty should be exactly the same under the law.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Syllieann]

In that case I don't understand the reference to Tamir Rice.  How could anyone think that hunting, regardless of the race?

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

In that case I don't understand the reference to Tamir Rice.  How could anyone think that hunting, regardless of the race?

The reference was because a) I do not believe anyone that young should have realistic or real guns given LEO inability to distinguish the two and b) black kids his age do not receive the automatic presumption of innocence or get the right to self defense, even when they are NOT pointing a gun at the LEO. What we're about to exacerbate is a world in which handguns are presumably threatening in the hands of non-white youth and long-guns are presumably benign in the hands of white youth. It won't end well. That inequity is intolerable.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Frances]

51 minutes ago, Katy said:

I'm not sure more access is bad, but kids in the country are generally enrolled in gun safety classes at least once a year by their parents, and I know my elementary school taught it annually too.  

I think this varies by area of the country. This was not and is not the norm in the rural part of the Midwest where I grew up.

[Syllieann]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The reference was because a) I do not believe anyone that young should have realistic or real guns given LEO inability to distinguish the two and b) black kids his age do not receive the automatic presumption of innocence or get the right to self defense, even when they are NOT pointing a gun at the LEO. What we're about to exacerbate is a world in which handguns are presumably threatening in the hands of non-white youth and long-guns are presumably benign in the hands of white youth. It won't end well. That inequity is intolerable.

I think there is still a misunderstanding somewhere.  I'm not suggesting children should be allowed to carry guns for self defense if they've received sufficient training.  Are you saying you think a LE would go onto hunting land during hunting season and shoot a black kid with a rifle because that would seem threatening to the LE?

 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I think there is still a misunderstanding somewhere.  I'm not suggesting children should be allowed to carry guns for self defense if they've received sufficient training.  Are you saying you think a LE would go onto hunting land during hunting season and shoot a black kid with a rifle because that would seem threatening to the LE?

 

I'm saying children should not be allowed to carry weapons, period, without a parent or guardian present. I'm saying an LEO would find a black kid with a gun a 'reasonable' threat whether they were hunting, in Wal-Mart buying the gun, jogging down the street, or sitting on a park bench. Yes, that black kid would likely be shot. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant of history (like the last ten years worth).

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Syllieann said:

@Sneezyone I don't generally want to see a bunch of kids running around with guns, but Rosenbaum had pledged to kill any of them if he got them alone.  Rittenhouse got separated from his group when he went to help someone and the police forced the group to move.  Maybe someone more mature wouldn't have allowed themself to get separated.  He clearly has had a lot of training though.  You can see it especially with Grosskreutz, who was much older but had no idea how to properly handle a gun.

But who killed two people and shot a third? No one would have died had Rittenhouse not been running around with a gun. So how much good did his training do?

eta: heck, for that matter, look how many unjustified police shootings we have every year, despite the loads of training they do. If trained officers can't get it right, why do we trust every day people to do so?

Edited November 21, 2021 by KSera

[Katy]

8 minutes ago, KSera said:

But who killed two people and shot a third? No one would have died had Rittenhouse not been running around with a gun. So how much good did his training do?

eta: heck, for that matter, look how many unjustified police shootings we have every year, despite the loads of training they do. If trained officers can't get it right, why do we trust every day people to do so?

KR got away with it because he knew the rules and verbiage and how to speak to police.  I think we all agree that it was stupid for him to have been there in the first place, especially displaying a gun. This line of conversation started because he was privileged to know how to speak to police as an ally rather than a criminal, and many kids are not given either the training or the privilege.

We trust people only because the constitution guarantees the right.  I've always been a very good shot (or at least I was when my dad was alive to insist I practice).  But I don't think anyone should ever carry without enough training that it is muscle memory to shoot well under stress.  And I have no desire to spend that sort of time or money honing that skill.  And I've lived in places where police response is more rapid that it would be for me to go dig weapons and ammo out of separate locked safes in the event that I needed to, so I don't personally see the point.

But many people live either in inner city or extremely country locations where there isn't fast police response, and they might genuinely need a weapon to protect their family.

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Katy said:

KR got away with it because he knew the rules and verbiage and how to speak to police.  I think we all agree that it was stupid for him to have been there in the first place, especially displaying a gun. This line of conversation started because he was privileged to know how to speak to police as an ally rather than a criminal, and many kids are not given either the training or the privilege.

We trust people only because the constitution guarantees the right.  I've always been a very good shot (or at least I was when my dad was alive to insist I practice).  But I don't think anyone should ever carry without enough training that it is muscle memory to shoot well under stress.  And I have no desire to spend that sort of time or money honing that skill.  And I've lived in places where police response is more rapid that it would be for me to go dig weapons and ammo out of separate locked safes in the event that I needed to, so I don't personally see the point.

But many people live either in inner city or extremely country locations where there isn't fast police response, and they might genuinely need a weapon to protect their family.

I largely agree, particularly with the bolded, but not the italicized part. We trust people who fit our image of non-threatening regardless of their legal/constitutional rights. Everyone doesn’t fit that mold. We have to start modifying our laws to disallow the ‘reasonable’ white man/woman to define what is/isn’t threatening. It puts everyone else on the wrong end of the proof/burden stick. John Crawford, literally, did nothing wrong. Tamir Rice committed no crimes. There were no prosecutions because our legal system continues to preference what is normative (fear) for white people over what is constitutional for others (open carry).

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I largely agree, particularly with the bolded, but not the italicized part. We trust people who fit our image of non-threatening regardless if their legal/constitutional rights. Everyone doesn’t fit that mold.

Hopefully the prevalence of cameras will change that.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

Hopefully the prevalence of cameras will change that.

I doubt it. Rodney King’s assailants are still welcome on national TV. You have to acknowledge a problem before you can change it. Hearts are hardened right now.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

18 minutes ago, Katy said:

But I don't think anyone should ever carry without enough training that it is muscle memory to shoot well under stress.  And I have no desire to spend that sort of time or money honing that skill. 

The point I’m making is that amount of training doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with people being able to exercise appropriate judgment on when they should or should not deploy that training. The problem wasn’t that Rittenhouse wasn’t a good shot. The conversation turned to people needing better gun training as an answer, and I’m saying I don’t see how that would’ve helped in this situation. The person who killed people was the person who had the training and the desensitization to guns.

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

The point I’m making is that amount of training doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with people being able to exercise appropriate judgment on when they should or should not deploy that training. The problem wasn’t that Rittenhouse wasn’t a good shot. The conversation turned to people needing better gun training as an answer, and I’m saying I don’t see how that would’ve helped in this situation. The person who killed people was the person who had the training and the desensitization to guns.

The conversation had turned, it wasn't about training to be a good shot or not.  It's about the disparity in how some groups (young white men) are trusted with guns, and speak the language of police because of their training, and others (primarily black men) are never trusted with a weapon at all, and are often prosecuted with city laws that target them.  It turns out that these discriminatory laws aren't a factor in Wisconsin, but they are in many areas.

Rittenhouse had clearly had the training.  According to the jury what he did was self-defense.  It was incredibly bad judgment to be there, carrying a weapon at all, but it wasn't illegal.

If we want that to change the law needs to change.  And with that you're at a political impasse, and that conversation would probably need to switch over to the politics board.

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

The conversation had turned, it wasn't about training to be a good shot or not.  It's about the disparity in how some groups (young white men) are trusted with guns, and speak the language of police because of their training, and others (primarily black men) are never trusted with a weapon at all, and are often prosecuted with city laws that target them.  It turns out that these discriminatory laws aren't a factor in Wisconsin, but they are in many areas.

Rittenhouse had clearly had the training.  According to the jury what he did was self-defense.  It was incredibly bad judgment to be there, carrying a weapon at all, but it wasn't illegal.

If we want that to change the law needs to change.  And with that you're at a political impasse, and that conversation would probably need to switch over to the politics board.

These discriminatory laws *are* a factor in Wisconsin as they are most everywhere else. It’s not just city laws. It’s white fear being prioritized over black constitutional rights. Sawed off shotguns became a symbol of urban crime in the 80s/90s. That they are distinguished from regular long guns and handguns is intentional and problematic but that’s not the only issue. John Crawford’s killer was never prosecuted due to the LEOs ‘reasonable fear’. Same with Jermaine McBean. This is not OK. We are not OK. I get that it’s inconvenient for KR champions to engage on these issues but they’re not going away no matter how public threatening people are/become.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

@Sneezyone

I didn't know that about sawed off shotguns.  I thought it was from the era when concealed weapons were more dangerous & that they shoot so widely they are more likely to have collateral damage.

[Sneezyone]

10 minutes ago, Katy said:

@Sneezyone

I didn't know that about sawed off shotguns.  I thought it was from the era when concealed weapons were more dangerous & that they shoot so widely they are more likely to have collateral damage.

The statute, as best I can tell, dates back to 1979 and was updated in 2012.

[Sneezyone]

Well now, in a COMPLETELY unexpected twist...

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/582568-kyle-rittenhouse-i-support-the-blm-movement

I don't know what to make of all those who gave this kid money on the assumption that he was a like-minded culture warrior.

[Terabith]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Well now, in a COMPLETELY unexpected twist...

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/582568-kyle-rittenhouse-i-support-the-blm-movement

I don't know what to make of all those who gave this kid money on the assumption that he was a like-minded culture warrior.

Unexpected is definitely the word.  

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Unexpected is definitely the word.  

It's kinda not.

Apparently he was a Yang fan, and his sister had been to BLM protests before Kenosha. 

The NY Times? article I posted goes into all this background.

It's a complete tragedy, the whole thing. Hopefully the family are now getting good advice, because some real snakes apparently showed up to 'help' in the aftermath. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Unexpected is definitely the word.  

It’s definitely gonna be a shock to the people following Tuckums and sending donations. Maybe this is part of the strategy to ensure he is dropped from their airwaves posthaste. That’s one way to immediately lower his profile. 🤷🏽‍♀️

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

I’ll have to dig around, but I read an article today that contained on of the few interviews the family gave before the trial. It contained a lot of background information on them.  Lower middle class people, both parents have had minor involvement with law enforcement(assault and such). Mom is a CNA and has struggled to pay the bills and provide enough supervision. One sister, Faith,  was a staunch Bernie Sanders supporter and had participated in BLM marches.  They seemed bewildered by the white supremacist accusations and pointed out they have African American loved ones and supported BLM as a family, just not riots.  Kyle wanted to be a police officer or paramedic; he seemed drawn to the kind of macho men he thought were in those careers.  He was a lifeguard and worked to help pay bills.  He participated in protective forces cadet programs, both police and fire department, all through high school. His lead attorney is well known as a liberal Democrat in the area.

Kyle is not a Political Party hero boy.  He’s a kid who made some tragic decisions and comes from a family trying to make ends meet and not providing enough supervision.  His mother is the one who made him turn himself in to the police as soon as he told her. 

After reading the article today, his support of BLM doesn’t surprise me.  I have given up on mainstream media anyway.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Mrs Tiggywinkle

[Sneezyone]

16 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I’ll have to dig around, but I read an article today that contained on of the few interviews the family gave before the trial. It contained a lot of background information on them.  Lower middle class people, both parents have had minor involvement with law enforcement(assault and such). Mom is a CNA and has struggled to pay the bills and provide enough supervision. One sister, Faith,  was a staunch Bernie Sanders supporter and had participated in BLM marches.  They seemed bewildered by the white supremacist accusations and pointed out they have African American loved ones and supported BLM as a family, just not riots.  Kyle wanted to be a police officer or paramedic; he seemed drawn to the kind of macho men he thought were in those careers.  He was a lifeguard and worked to help pay bills.

After reading the article today this doesn’t surprise me.  I have given up on mainstream media anyway.

I’m not sure how/why they could possibly have been bewildered given their public socializing with actual white nationalists. The cynic in me says that may have been to fund the defense but that did, in fact, happen. They also authorized RW media to basically shadow him throughout the case. He was photographed flashing proud boys hand signals. It’s not a figment of public imagination that his cause was championed by some really, really bad actors and the family embraced/accepted that support. Maybe it’s just the ultimate grift. Who knows. It’s clear that it wasn’t some misapprehension. They embraced the characters sending $$$ their way. 🤷🏽‍♀️

Edited November 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Syllieann]

22 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I’m not sure how/why they could possibly have been bewildered given their public socializing with actual white nationalists. The cynic in me says that may have been to fund the defense but that did, in fact, happen. They also authorized RW media to basically shadow him throughout the case. He was photographed flashing proud boys hand signals. It’s not a figment of public imagination that his cause was championed by some really, really bad actors and the family embraced/accepted that support. Maybe it’s just the ultimate grift. Who knows. It’s clear that it wasn’t some misapprehension. They embraced the characters sending $$$ their way. 🤷🏽‍♀️

The judge disallowed the proud boys photo because the evidence available suggested he didn't know who they were and it just turned out the were in the same place and wanted a photo.  I've only ever known that sign to mean anything other than ok and the same goes for every white person I discussed the symbol with.  They looked really hard for race related stuff and didn't find any.  I guess you could say the judge is just racist and lying about the evidence and the prosecutor is just racist and so pretended not to find anything.

 The Democratic governor and mayor are the ones who did nothing while a majority poc neighborhood burned.  A black woman with her kids were trapped in a burning apartment.  Many of the businesses were minority-owned.  The people in that neighborhood are no longer able to get the things they need without taking a bus to somewhere much farther.  The business Rittenhouse was at was poc-owned.  He was literally putting out fires set by white people to try to protect a poc owned business.

The only reason it might be surprising to you is because the media has gone out of their way to portray him as racist.  You can't blame someone for letting a different media get some truth out when the other available media is just calling you a white supremacist.

[Sneezyone]

21 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

The judge disallowed the proud boys photo because the evidence available suggested he didn't know who they were and it just turned out the were in the same place and wanted a photo.  I've only ever known that sign to mean anything other than ok and the same goes for every white person I discussed the symbol with.  They looked really hard for race related stuff and didn't find any.  I guess you could say the judge is just racist and lying about the evidence and the prosecutor is just racist and so pretended not to find anything.

 The Democratic governor and mayor are the ones who did nothing while a majority poc neighborhood burned.  A black woman with her kids were trapped in a burning apartment.  Many of the businesses were minority-owned.  The people in that neighborhood are no longer able to get the things they need without taking a bus to somewhere much farther.  The business Rittenhouse was at was poc-owned.  He was literally putting out fires set by white people to try to protect a poc owned business.

The only reason it might be surprising to you is because the media has gone out of their way to portray him as racist.  You can't blame someone for letting a different media get some truth out when the other available media is just calling you a white supremacist.

Again, I’m talking about things BEYOND the photo and his actions that day. The family deliberately cozied up to RW media and allowed the perception of a RW culture warrior to persist. That may have been a very shrewd decision to help fund the defense but there was zero attempt made to dissociate themselves from that perception/portrayal until after the trial. Prominent nationalist members of congress aren’t offering jobs because he’s a talented youth with an interest in politics and fantastic grades. They all got the same message. This young man didn’t get a dime from me so I don’t feel hornswaggled one way or the other. These other folks tho? I’ll be stunned if his name doesn’t disappear entirely from their mouths within a week. They were had.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[AnotherNewName]

On 11/20/2021 at 9:49 PM, Frances said:

I think this varies by area of the country. This was not and is not the norm in the rural part of the Midwest where I grew up.

Ohio Valley area and the same.  None of my friends in the south ever had this either.

[AbcdeDooDah]

10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Again, I’m talking about things BEYOND the photo and his actions that day. The family deliberately cozied up to RW media and allowed the perception of a RW culture warrior to persist. That may have been a very shrewd decision to help fund the defense but there was zero attempt made to dissociate themselves from that perception/portrayal until after the trial. Prominent nationalist members of congress aren’t offering jobs because he’s a talented youth with an interest in politics and fantastic grades. They all got the same message. This young man didn’t get a dime from me so I don’t feel hornswaggled one way or the other. These other folks tho? I’ll be stunned if his name doesn’t disappear entirely from their mouths within a week. They were had.

That’s their own fault they didn’t do due diligence(kind of like the prosecutor). I doubt Rittenhouse could talk about much anyway. It seems like his first attorneys were the ones that orchestrated that whole mess. His attorney wasn’t happy about it. 

I hope Rittenhouse takes the advice of his attorney and thinks carefully about his decisions. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

That’s their own fault they didn’t do due diligence(kind of like the prosecutor). I doubt Rittenhouse could talk about much anyway. It seems like his first attorneys were the ones that orchestrated that whole mess. His attorney wasn’t happy about it. 

I hope Rittenhouse takes the advice of his attorney and thinks carefully about his decisions. 

You may be entirely correct. I agree. Suckers are born everyday. I am simply enjoying a small measure of schadenfreude at their expense. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Carrie12345]

I’ve said before, in relation to other cases, that I would do anything for my kids. Excluding running from the law, including ensuring the best legal representation I could acquire. Yeah, I could see taking money from gross people in the “right” context and finding some sort of poetic justice in it. If I needed to. (And let’s be real, how many of us could actually afford that big a case on our own?)

My thoughts on the incident itself remain the same.

[Fritz]

10 hours ago, Syllieann said:

The judge disallowed the proud boys photo because the evidence available suggested he didn't know who they were and it just turned out the were in the same place and wanted a photo.  I've only ever known that sign to mean anything other than ok and the same goes for every white person I discussed the symbol with.  They looked really hard for race related stuff and didn't find any.  I guess you could say the judge is just racist and lying about the evidence and the prosecutor is just racist and so pretended not to find anything.

 The Democratic governor and mayor are the ones who did nothing while a majority poc neighborhood burned.  A black woman with her kids were trapped in a burning apartment.  Many of the businesses were minority-owned.  The people in that neighborhood are no longer able to get the things they need without taking a bus to somewhere much farther.  The business Rittenhouse was at was poc-owned.  He was literally putting out fires set by white people to try to protect a poc owned business.

The only reason it might be surprising to you is because the media has gone out of their way to portray him as racist.  You can't blame someone for letting a different media get some truth out when the other available media is just calling you a white supremacist.

I do hope he takes Nicholas Sandmann's advice and sues the crap out of all the MSM and politicians that slandered him and are continuing to do so. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Fritz

[Scarlett]

On 11/20/2021 at 8:14 PM, Sneezyone said:

What he pledged to do and what he actually did are two different things. Do you live in a rural area? In AR, I often had classmates leave loaded weapons in their cars in the school parking lot during hunting season. In my urban neighborhood, many families had open/accesible loaded handguns. I fail to see the difference between the two. I do believe adults are capable of better judgment most of the time. I do not believe Rittenhouse demonstrated good judgment/training that day.  If so, he wouldn't have been there.

Late to the party but I wanted to say I grew up in rural AR and MANY boys I knew had guns in their trucks on school property.  It was never even a thought that it was a problem.  And no one was shooting up the school or killing their friends.  They absolutely WERE taught gun safety from very young ages---although I never heard of a gun safety actual class until I was grown. 

All that to say I am not a gun fan at all, and I am not a hunting for sport fan.  Deer and wild hogs especially are big big problems that need to be thinned out and there are a lot of hungry people in the country who could benefit by the meat so I am not against hunting.....but it is a complex problem that I doubt will be solved.    

To your point that the disparity over gun size laws is not logical---I agree.  Less guns in fewer hands would be ideal.  I can't see that happening though.  

[Sneezyone]

5 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I’ve said before, in relation to other cases, that I would do anything for my kids. Excluding running from the law, including ensuring the best legal representation I could acquire. Yeah, I could see taking money from gross people in the “right” context and finding some sort of poetic justice in it. If I needed to. (And let’s be real, how many of us could actually afford that big a case on our own?)

My thoughts on the incident itself remain the same.

I don’t disagree at all. I’m just internally chuckling at the people who thought they were buying a horse of a different color. It was a decidedly shrewd move.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

30 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Late to the party but I wanted to say I grew up in rural AR and MANY boys I knew had guns in their trucks on school property.  It was never even a thought that it was a problem.  And no one was shooting up the school or killing their friends.  They absolutely WERE taught gun safety from very young ages---although I never heard of a gun safety actual class until I was grown. 

All that to say I am not a gun fan at all, and I am not a hunting for sport fan.  Deer and wild hogs especially are big big problems that need to be thinned out and there are a lot of hungry people in the country who could benefit by the meat so I am not against hunting.....but it is a complex problem that I doubt will be solved.    

To your point that the disparity over gun size laws is not logical---I agree.  Less guns in fewer hands would be ideal.  I can't see that happening though.  

A minor quibble, they were shooting up the school, even then. You don’t remember the middle schooler who laid in wait for his teachers and classmates? I think it was Paragould. I will check. Nope, Jonesboro.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

A minor quibble, they were shooting up the school, even then. You don’t remember the middle schooler who payed in wait for his teacher and classmates? I think it was Paragould. I will check.

Are you thinking of Jonesboro? That was 1998.  Long after I graduated high school. 

Something definitely changed at some point.  

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Are you thinking of Jonesboro? That was 1998.  Long after I graduated high school. 

Something definitely changed at some point.  

Yep, that one. My sister was still enrolled then, in middle school. Neither of the shooters/planners was incarcerated past adulthood. One recently died in a car crash. I graduated in ‘94 but she graduated in ‘04.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

39 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Late to the party but I wanted to say I grew up in rural AR and MANY boys I knew had guns in their trucks on school property.  It was never even a thought that it was a problem.  And no one was shooting up the school or killing their friends.  They absolutely WERE taught gun safety from very young ages---although I never heard of a gun safety actual class until I was grown. 

All that to say I am not a gun fan at all, and I am not a hunting for sport fan.  Deer and wild hogs especially are big big problems that need to be thinned out and there are a lot of hungry people in the country who could benefit by the meat so I am not against hunting.....but it is a complex problem that I doubt will be solved.    

To your point that the disparity over gun size laws is not logical---I agree.  Less guns in fewer hands would be ideal.  I can't see that happening though.  

The ‘training’ my peers received was sus at best, mostly hand me down wisdom and not at all standardized or LEO-like. One of my son’s kindergarten classmates came to show and tell with his face smeared with dried blood, ready to proudly display pics of his first kill. I only learned about it afterward when the teacher wrote a note to the whole parent group apologizing. My son refused to talk about it. And that was at a posh private school in LR. It was gross.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Sneezyone