"The jury got it right—finding Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges. The fact that charges were brought before any serious investigation is evidence that the government was motivated by politics, which itself should be considered criminal."
AND: "Stop Racializing Everything":
पोस्ट्स
८२ टिप्पण्या:
Spot on. It is nearly a miracle that Democrats have not totally erased her socially if not physically. She tells too many inconvenient truths that interrupt their narratives.
we should just pick our leaders on physical attractiveness
prove me wrong
Although we have different political persuasions, Tulsi almost never fails to impress me.
Good for her - she's right. Look, this was a terrible thing - two people are dead and there were thousands (millions?) of dollars in damages done by rioters - people lost their livelihoods. Still this prosecution was a government-sponsored lynching. It reminds me of the Ossian Sweet case, or the prosecution of James Stephenson, a Black Navy veteran, who fought for the US in WWII. That prosecution nearly got Thurgood Marshall lynched in Columbia TN - see Devil in the Grove. Think of the burning of the Tulsa massacre of 1921. I could go on and on and on.
This shouldn't be happening in the 21st century.
Courage.
The left and the right are going to come together because people are figuring out that the fundamental aspects of our civilization are more important than both side's stupid attempts to use the government to force us to do things.
Howard Schultz & Tulsi Gabbard would make a fantastic Democrat ticket.
It won't ever happen because they are not corrupt party $$$$ insiders.
With substantial Republican majorities in the House and Senate Major Gabbard would make a damn fine President. It always been contention that America works best with a Democrat President and a Republican Congress.
She could be right about both cases. Wish she was the VP instead of Kamala.
Here in Hawaii, she is well liked. And a refreshing change from the usual machine politicians we get in this solid blue state.
She came out against HRC, and is one of the few politicians of either party to speak her mind about issues.
I disagree with her on many issues, but she is a refreshing change from the normal dem apparatchiks. Kind of like Daniel Patrick Moynihan was.
She destroyed Harris in the debates, which was beautiful to watch.
I don't agree with Tulsi on everything but I see that she is someone who does not appear to be possessed by any kind of extremist ideology, and she appears to believe in upholding the Constitution. I'll take that ANY DAY!
It is nearly a miracle that Democrats have not totally erased her socially if not physically. She tells too many inconvenient truths that interrupt their narratives.
If Republicans were smart, more of them would run as Democrats, just like so many Democrats infiltrate the Republican Party.
Arbery could have been a jogger wearing street clothes, but that would be highly unusual. He could have just been looking around in someone's property for a good reason, but it looks like like a typical Ring video of someone looking for something to steal. I'm assuming it's not racial.
The thing that surprised me was that the prosecution was done so badly. Self defense is as much a legal concept as a factual one, yet the only time they explored the provocation angle was in a video they got very late and provided to the defense in a greatly degraded form. Imagine getting a conviction relying on a highly ambiguous video using details that aren't visible on the version you provided the defense!
Their witnesses directly contradicted them on the stand. The judge made some middle of the road rulings about inadmissible evidence, which the lead prosecutor transparently tried to evade, then -- hard to use any other word -- pouted when the judge wouldn't allow it.
For such a high profile case, I would have expected the prosecutors to be better prepared.
Tulsi reminds me of a professor I had in college.
She had charm and a propensity to go against the grain.
And she was good in bed.
Anyway, that's what I think of when I see Tulsi.
Maybe you get it, maybe you don't.
-Loren
She is the one Democrat I could envision myself voting for, and that could truly "unite the country". So of course, the AOC wing will destroy her.
I know so little about the Arbery case that I can't have an opinion. Has anyone been watching the court proceedings? What "outdated" laws have come into play? Are those charged claiming self-defense?
It was very helpful to watch the court proceedings in Rittenhouse.
Tulsi says, "The truth? The Truth? You can't handle the truth."
Tulsi Gabbard is the voice of reason in the Democratic Party. That’s why she will never get anywhere. She has several things going for her, female, minority, ex-military. But, she’s not regurgitating the woke agenda, so she’s out! She is also very likable and speaks in a calm, rational way. She obviously has not gone to the same drama school as AOC where everything is a racial or climate “crisis” and one must rant and flail their arms around with eyes bulging out of your head for emphasis. Tulsi, come over to the Republican side and bring Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema with you.
I would love to have a transcript of those three videos.
Maybe Tulsi Gabbard should re-assess her accusation that Arbery was the victim on an unwarranted "racist murder"?
Here's a link to the full unedited video (14 minutes) of Glynn County (GA) police officers' body and dash cameras showing their encounter with Mr. Arbery in 2017...
https://vimeo.com/647957977
(if this URL was deleted by Althouse's blog management software, try Googling "Glynn County Police Department 2017-11-07, T13 59 152" or contacting them directly.)
Arberry was bizarrely dressed, his vehicle registration and/or his drivers license were suspended/expired, and the Glynn County, Georgia (c. 70% white and predominantly rural) cops were exceedingly polite, conciliatory, and non-confrontational until one felt threatened enough by Arbery's in-his-face combativeness that he took out his taser and made Arbery kneel for no more than a minute until he calmed down, at which point when the cop re-holsterd his taser. In the end, because of his vehicular papers being defunct, Arbery had to leave his car in situ and walk out of there. The cops' treatment of this clearly dangerous and crazed character was impeccably profesional from beginning to end.
I thought that Tulsi had been un-personed since she pointed out that Kamala Harris attempted to block a death row inmate's request for examination of DNA evidence, back in 1983 as a prosecutor. Well, you won't see Tulsi's face in the main stream media after a slap to the narrative like that.
"For such a high profile case, I would have expected the prosecutors to be better prepared."
I would agree except we'll always have the OJ trial to remind us that high profile doesn't equate to high quality.
Tulsi strikes me as an Evan Bayh type Democrat. Evan gave up politics in disgust. Let's see if Gabbard enters the ring again. If given the chance I just might vote for her.
Biden said ahead of time he would pick a woman POC for VP. A totally stupid limitation on his choices, obviously. However, he still could have picked Tulsi. That he did not shows that the woman POC standard was not really the operative one. Too bad for him, and the Democrats.
I would agree except we'll always have the OJ trial to remind us that high profile doesn't equate to high quality.
They had the opposite problem: "If I have to read all this $%#$#, it's definitely going in front of the jury!" 10% of the evidence presented in 10% of the time should have been enough to convict OJ -- they just refused to pick the best 10%.
These guys acted like they had researched their own case by watching a segment on MSNBC and figured they could bluff their way through the trial.
Here's a link to the full unedited video (14 minutes) of Glynn County (GA) police officers' body and dash cameras showing their encounter with Mr. Arbery in 2017...
However oddly he may have acted with the cops, he had every right to not want to interact with two armed private citizens who accosted him on a public street.
We are under no obligation to stop and follow the orders of random people. We are under no obligation to behave "normally" when someone tries to stop us at gunpoint.
I usually rail at conservatives for repeatedly picking the wrong hill to die on. When I am calmer, I acknowledge that all partisans pretty much do that. It's how you show you are a foxhole friend, staying true even when you are guilty as hell.
But this time they got it right. Rittenhouse is a good hill to die on.
The Arbery murder defendants have a much tougher claim than Rittenhouse. They saw a guy and thought he might have been responsible for recent home break-ins. They have admitted that they did not see him committing any crime. They boxed him in with their cars and pulled guns on him. The self-defense claim is that after they'd cornered him and drawn down on him, he tried to grab the gun. This seems to me like clear provocation and failure to retreat; you're not allowed to use deadly force on someone you think might have been a burglar at one time.
I've come to wonder if the new theory of provocation, "should have taken a beating" and the repeated slander of words like "active shooter" and "murdered" by the prosecutor in the closing, bereft of any actual evidence presented in their case, seems to have been more to give the media/Democrats talking points post trial rather than legitimate prosecutorial purpose.
"The jury got it right—finding Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges."
Impossible. They've got him that night, on tape, lying about his credentials.
I'm watching a bad ideological battle happening - between left and right - and it's fascinating how dumb it makes both sides. How they throw logic out the window for their convenience. Sure, lying is wrong and Kyle lied - BUT KYLE'S A HERO. Those other guys were bad - SO KYLE'S A HERO. The cops weren't there - until Kyle needed to find them after shooting people - SO KYLE'S A HERO.
It really is "Manifest Destiny" in action: Americans seeing what they want to see. Winning the "World Series" without allowing the world to participate.
We're a crazy nation right now.
“Although we have different political persuasions, Tulsi almost never fails to impress me.”
Giving people attaboys for observing that the sky appears to be blue is absurd. Reinforcing the low bar merely serves to excuse what doesn’t quite meet it.
Tulsi’s an ignorant Lefty meathead. Just because she’s slightly less of an ignorant Lefty meathead than the average ignorant Lefty meathead is not cause for celebration.
In a better world, I would have been able to cast a vote for Tulsi Gabbard in a national election. Perhaps in the future, but unlikely.
She talks too much sense.
I read people say, "well, I don't agree with her on everything..."
Is there anyone you agree with 100%?
Compromise is the nature of our republic; I don't agree with her on everything (duh!) but just seeing a Democrat who doesn't lie with every word is so refreshing, like a rain-scented tropical breeze.
Re: Drake 8:
Arbery could have been a jogger wearing street clothes, but that would be highly unusual. He could have just been looking around in someone's property for a good reason, but it looks like like a typical Ring video of someone looking for something to steal. I'm assuming it's not racial.
I haven't followed the case closely, but the circumstances under which ordinary civilians are allowed to use lethal force to apprehend someone are pretty limited. Unless that too turns out to be a self-defense case (which it might be -- maybe there's credible evidence Arbery rushed the defendants or something) I would think acquittal unlikely.
Whether it's racial or not -- who knows? I think we generally leap to racialised explanations too quickly in the US. On the other hand a suspicious looking Black man in White neighbourhood is going to be a lot more identifiable than an equally suspicious looking White man in a White neighbourhood, the latter being surrounded by other Whites who all mostly look alike from a distance or through a surveillance camera. So race was probably a meaningful factor there one way or another.
Somewhat off topic, but I am puzzled by all these media reports characterising Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz as "Black," given that they have such Germanic names (as does Rittenhouse, for that matter). Mentally, I read their names as Rosenbaum, Hüber, Großkreutz, und Rittenhaus.
"Impossible. They've got him that night, on tape, lying about his credentials."
He wasn't charged with that. He was charged with various crimes related to the shooting of three men who he claims were trying to kill him. One doesn't have to see Rittenhouse as a hero (I don't) to see the self defense claim may have some validity. The prosecution's own (star) witness helped make that claim plausible. The jury (who unlike us, actually sat through the whole trial) decided that self defense was plausible enough to vote not guilty. It's possible those of us who sat on the sidelines have a better grasp on what really happened than the jury, but I wouldn't bet on it.
"I haven't followed the case closely, but the circumstances under which ordinary civilians are allowed to use lethal force to apprehend someone are pretty limited."
One would think so. If they weren't cops or didn't identify themselves as such, pointing guns at someone sounds like a lethal threat that can be met with lethal force. Had the victim been faster than them, HE could have reasonably claimed self defense.
Sounds to me that Tulsi is setting herself up to welcome the Democrats when they come back from their self-imposed Leftist ghetto.
Crack Emcee,
When you say Rittenhouse "lied," I am assuming that you mean that he said he had EMT training when he didn't. No, he just had a lifeguard's First Aid training. What, you think he ought to have stopped to stipulate exactly what training he did have? In that environment?
The police were there, sure, but they weren't enforcing the law; they were standing back while lots of "peaceful protesters" set about burning a whole neighborhood to the ground. Rittenhouse appears to have been defending a particular business, and offering first aid to those who needed it. He shot only when people pursued him, yelling that they were going to kill him.
You will say that none of this would have happened if he weren't armed in the first place. Perfectly true: If he were not armed, he'd be dead. Let's please remember that the first shot in this case wasn't shot by Rittenhouse at all, and that the guy he "maimed" was pointing an illegally carried Glock at him when he fired.
I'm voting for Gabbard/Sinema in '69!
Seriously though, I think that a lot of Dems, such as Gabbard, Sinema, Manchin, etc., see a disaster coming for the party, and are trying to position themselves to take the lead once it occurs and sweeps away the radical progressive activists.
we should just pick our leaders on physical attractiveness
prove me wrong
This isn't wrong. Physical attractiveness is only partially genetic. Much of our attractiveness is based on having the self-discipline to not stuff our faces with junk food, to work out regularly, to know how to dress appropriately for the situation, and to have the proper aesthetic sense to wear makeup that is attractive to others (in the case of women). Self-discipline, situational awareness, and empathy are useful traits in a leader.
Balfegor, I think that's one part malice and maybe three parts cluelessness. Rittenhouse was supposed to be a "white supremacist"; even Biden said so. So who would he be shooting at, if not Black people? When this all turned out to be, shall we say, white-on-white crime, no one was gonna go back and correct their reports.
I could listen to Tulsi all day--she has a rich, mezzo speaking voice, nicely modulated and invariably calm. She also looks great on camera. She is smart to focus her comments on civilizational issues at the micro level (that is, maintaining the ordered liberty to which we have always aspired). And who can forget her ripping up Kamala Harris in that Dem debate?
I believe, however, that her position on the welfare state is more Bernie than not, and I get no sense that she thinks incentives are important. Ah, well, she won't go anywhere as a Dem. If she moved a little to the right on spending issues, she could become RINO, or even a compassionate conservative.
A guy can dream...
'we should just pick our leaders on physical attractiveness...'
She's really kind of average-looking. I see hotter babes at Starbucks.
And we clearly don't choose our 'leaders' on attractiveness (hint: they're our employees).
Trump, Biden, Hillary, Obama...not exactly fashion catalog material.
But Tulsi has been making a very strong play lately.
I think she's angling for a Trump 'unity' pick as VP, or is ready to switch to the GOP.
The Crack Emcee said...
"I am Rachel Dolezal."
Zach writes, "10% of the evidence presented in 10% of the time should have been enough to convict OJ -- they just refused to pick the best 10%."
Ah, yes... the bloody gloves. Unfortunately, if the State had ignored them, had not entered the gloves into evidence, OJ's team almost certainly would have. Simpson hired a veritable army of eminent criminal defense lawyers, jury-selection specialists, psychologists, and forensic scientists and technicians -- Johnny Cochran was just the face the jurors saw. He had about as much to do with the red meat of the OJ's defense as Michael Jordan had to do with the design of the AirJordan shoe.
Leather gloves have a nasty habit of shrinking and hardening when soaked with water (or blood) and then neglected. I recall a pair of leather gloves I owned that did the same trick. They were lined with angora fur and wonderfully warm, but they got soaking wet during a snowy morning's walk to class. They got hard as bricks and completely unwearable. Pre-trial OJ's team demanded and received all the data they needed to stage that dramatic demonstration with complete confidence of an obvious non-fit on Simpson's bruin-like dukes. (OJ may have performed some discrete hand-swelling exercises just to make sure doubly sure. Houdini is said to have perfected the technique to help him make his famous escapes.)
If the prosecution had ignored the glove evidence, Cochran would have introduced it as a defense exhibit -- gloves soaked in Nicole Simpson's blood that don't fit OJ, how interesting for a jury predisposed to acquit to contemplate. Unfortunately, Marcia Clark did the service herself, thus allowing Cochran to hold her and the State of California up to ridicule.
Tulsi’s an ignorant Lefty meathead. Just because she’s slightly less of an ignorant Lefty meathead than the average ignorant Lefty meathead is not cause for celebration.
Yeah. It is cause for hope and celebration. Otherwise, we are totally fucked.
I wish I could bottle all the stupidity regarding the Arbery case and sell it. You have a right to make a citizen's arrest under GA state law. Arbery could have surrendered or he could have run away. Instead he decided, to attack. He tried to take the gun from one of the older men, punched him and the gun went off.
You don't get to attack someone and try to take their gun away. Sorry. That's pretty much it.
The McMichael's should never been charged. And they never would've been if Arbery had been white. Or they had been black.
As for Tulsi, she's a pretty brown women who occassionaly says conservative things, so all the libertarians and dumb conservatives want to make her Queen of the USA.
gilbar said...
we should just pick our leaders on physical attractiveness
prove me wrong" at 0846 AM
Justin Trudeau
"You don't get to attack someone and try to take their gun away."
You don't get to point a gun at someone who isn't threatening you if you aren't a member of the law enforcement community. They weren't cops. They could hold him down, but they aren't allowed to threaten him with lethal force to stop him.
Anitfa rioters are the real racists and white supremacists. Spurred on by white elites.
The Kenosha riots caused 50 million in property damage.
The rioters did that. The rioters burned and destroyed minority businesses in some cases. Why is this allowed? oh right - Trump hate.
In reality - the rioters are the real racists. Rittenhouse was the anti-racist.
gilbar said...
we should just pick our leaders on physical attractiveness
prove me wrong" at 0846 AM
Justin Trudeau
okay point taken :)
i more meant, who'd be better in the white house ugly jo, or Tulsi?
i think the Tulsi/Skinamax in '69 would be a good ticket
Lord knows, i'd watch
Cracked Emcee: "Impossible. They've got him that night, on tape, lying about his credentials."
LOL
With every comment you only dig your hole deeper.
Who cares what Rittenhouse said to some random person on the street. It's irrelevant.
That you would latch onto such a pathetic ploy employed by the corrupt prosecutors, well.
'nuff said.
You have a right to make a citizen's arrest under GA state law. Arbery could have surrendered or he could have run away. Instead he decided, to attack. He tried to take the gun from one of the older men, punched him and the gun went off.
I've not followed this case AT ALL. But if that was the evidence at trial, then the defendants are guilty. A person has no obligation to surrender to people on the street pointing a gun at him. And if he attempts to take their weapon, it is an act of self-defense, not an "attack." And guns just don't "went off," unless you want to try for the Alec Baldwin defense.
She has no political future. Maybe a gig on the new CNN after the old one is burned to the ground and the earth underneath salted…
MDT,
"You will say that none of this would have happened if he weren't armed in the first place"
No, I have NEVER said that. I said (over and over again) he never should have been there, and what everyone else was doing was irrelevant to that fact.
Why can't you guys comprehend the written word?
we should just pick our leaders on physical attractiveness
prove me wrong
And the leftist media will convince the sheep, Michelle Obama is a 10 and Melania Trump is a 3.
Joe Smith said...
'we should just pick our leaders on physical attractiveness...'
She's really kind of average-looking. I see hotter babes at Starbucks.
And we clearly don't choose our 'leaders' on attractiveness (hint: they're our employees).
Trump, Biden, Hillary, Obama...not exactly fashion catalog material.
-----------
Biden clothes fit Biden better than Trump's clothes fit Trump >>> some improvement there.
very true about Hillary as bag wearing lady.
Obama was clothes horse for suits
I pretty much agree. The cases aren't even close to being the same. But, the question I haven't found an answer to is whether the robberies in the area stopped after Arbery's death. Not making any excuses, but a loose end I'd like the answer to.
Zach said...
The thing that surprised me was that the prosecution was done so badly. Self defense is as much a legal concept as a factual one, yet the only time they explored the provocation angle was in a video they got very late and provided to the defense in a greatly degraded form. Imagine getting a conviction relying on a highly ambiguous video using details that aren't visible on the version you provided the defense!
Their witnesses directly contradicted them on the stand. The judge made some middle of the road rulings about inadmissible evidence, which the lead prosecutor transparently tried to evade, then -- hard to use any other word -- pouted when the judge wouldn't allow it.
For such a high profile case, I would have expected the prosecutors to be better prepared.
------------
I would say : not guilty verdict more than likely gives the leftists a better crisis not to waste and will rankle the base more since it cannot be appealed. thus making the legal system a target to be taken down which is the main agendum
The Crack Emcee said...
"The jury got it right—finding Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges."
Crack: Impossible. They've got him that night, on tape, lying about his credentials.
**************
What the EFF does that have to do with whether he committed murder? He may not have been an EMT, but he was certainly capable of giving First Adi, which he did.
And how about explaining to us, with your keen sense of logic, why the rioters 'should' have been there, but Rittenhouse "should" not have.
C'mon, genius, give it a go.
Re: Balfegor Just because race is often easily recognized doesn't mean that a suspicious person person is more or less suspicious. To assume that the white men were affected by the man's race is to pretend to be omniscient.
Re: rcocean:
You have a right to make a citizen's arrest under GA state law. Arbery could have surrendered or he could have run away.
Citizen's arrest is usually extremely narrowly circumscribed, for obvious reasons. I think the GA law you're referencing is this:
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
Again, I haven't been watching testimony or even testimony highlights, but it really doesn't sound like the conditions for a citizen's arrest were met here, particularly given that as far as I'm aware burglary hasn't been proven (let alone being committed in defendants' presence or immediate knowledge). And criminal trespass appears to be a misdemeanor, not a felony. Their citizen's arrest seems more like the traditional "hue and cry" of the middle ages (a bystander apparently pointed out Arbery to them, prompting them to chase) than the approach in an era of modern policing, such as did not exist in the reign of Edward I.
Furthermore, is it now disputed that Arbery did attempt to run away, and they chased him down in a pickup? Question isn't rhetorical -- I'm open to correction here since, after all, press reporting on the Rittenhouse case was full of completely made up facts.
There could be an argument for self defense if Arbery attacked them first, but I think the defense will still have difficulty with whether defendants were aggressors. Defendant loses on self defense if he was
the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
Chasing someone down in a motor vehicle and threatening him with a gun seems problematic, at the least.
effinayright said...
"How about explaining to us, with your keen sense of logic, why the rioters 'should' have been there, but Rittenhouse "should" not have.
C'mon, genius, give it a go."
Just because others are not displaying common sense gives Kyle no reason to do the same. He has the right, but it was a stupid thing to do. I'm on his side - I'd never put him in prison - but I'd put him on probation so he'd understand the American society grasps the true consequences of his stupid actions: he lkilled two Americans. Two people who may have been anything, in that moment, but matured into something else completely - he took that opportunity from them. And you so-called "good Americans" don't care - because you're as immature as they were.
I repeat: were. What those Americans could've been, we'll never know - thanks to Kyle.
"For such a high profile case, I would have expected the prosecutors to be better prepared."
You can't buff a turd. This case should never have been brought. They didn't have the evidence to convict. A few examples:
1. Richard McGinnis, a reporter for a news site, was a prosecution witness. When asked a series of questions about his knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of Rosenbaum's intentions as Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, McGinnis said: "Well, he said fuck you and grabbed Rittenhouse's gun." Bad question by Binger.
2. Grosekruetz testified that Rittenhouse did not fire at him until he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.
3. "Provocation" by Rittenhouse was not discussed in the opening statement or in the first several days of the trial. At the end, it appeared that it was the only thing the prosecutors wanted the jury to consider. The evidence of provocation was non-existent. Prosecutors kept describing something in grainy video freeze frames that no one else could see. They were flailing because they had failed to sustain the burden of proof on self-defense.
4. The judge tossed the gun possession charge because he could not figure out how the Wisconsin statute worked with respect to guns with barrels longer than 12 inches--and he noted that the prosecution could not figure it out, either.
5. The prosecutors, realizing that their proofs were inadequate, started to attack Rittenhouse's remaining silent prior to testifying. The judge blew his stack. Were they trying for a mistrial?
This is a case where all those cell phones and videos showed what happened, and there were enough of them to resolve ambiguities. The attempt to manufacture "provocation" from thin air was a symptom of the fact that Rittenhouse had an awfully strong self-defense claim.
How does the public feel about the right to self defense? Well, they are buying a lot of handguns, aren't they?
"I repeat: were. What those Americans could've been, we'll never know - thanks to Kyle."
There is that Clint Eastwood line in "The Unforgiven": "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
The two decedents were low-lifes. They attacked Rittenhouse, who I am sure looked like a soft target. They had a histories of violent behavior and worse. Rosenbaum was 36 years old. Huber was in his mid-twenties. This is who comes to a riot to destroy things--thieves and predators.
@The Crack Emcee: “ I repeat: were. What those Americans could've been, we'll never know - thanks to Kyle.”
You have cause and effect bass ackwards.
Thanks to them attacking Kyle, we will never know what Americans they could have been. After all, 100% of the alsofa who didn’t attack Kyle survived just fine.
"CWJ said...
Tulsi strikes me as an Evan Bayh type Democrat. Evan gave up politics in disgust."
LOL He retired from the Senate because he knew he couldn't win. He enriched himself on the way out. And then four years later ran for the Senate again...and lost.
Why are the rioters allowed "to be there"?
Self=righteous left-wing rage - spurred on by the hack press and white Nancy.
Hey Skipper said...
"100% of the alsofa who didn’t attack Kyle survived just fine."
And I can see, from his PTSD on the stand, that Kyle's gonna survive just fine, too. How short-sighted can you be? The whole nation is in an uproar and you think we're surviving just fine? All because a kid with a gun, and a fantasy life of "helping", made a mistake and was stupid?
You guys are weird.
Curious George,
Didn't know about Bayh's 2016 senate run. Thanks for the information.
Evan Bayh type Democrat. Evan gave up politics in disgust
Evan Bayh -- another daddy's boy in the oligarchy, where political office is owned by families and handed down to successive generations.
The disgust is when he ran in the first place.
Just because others are not displaying common sense gives Kyle no reason to do the same.
Yours is the "skirt to short, and neckline to low, to not have 'asked' for IT!
Or the the. "should not have gone to his hotel room alone" justification.
Rape is never asked for. Rape always is the fault of the rapist. Tut tutting is not a legal premise. That's what we have her. A legal question.
Besides the larger picture of a citizen giving aid to others in need. While it may not have been wise to attempt to render aide in that circumstance, it would have been insanity to make the decision to give aide, but not be smart enough to provide for his own protection.
Again, bad choices does not nullify the right to self defense. Even if a lawyer makes such a specious claim in open court.
The Arbery case is a self-defense case if and only if the defendants were making a lawful citizen’s arrest. If that were the case, they can argue that they were defending themselves against potentially deadly force when Arbery tried to grab their gun. However, if they were not making a lawful citizen’s arrest, then they were guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, and Arbery had the right to flee or fight, and they can’t claim self-defense. The citizen’s arrest claim turns on whether the defendants had a reasonable suspicion that Arbery was fleeing from a felony he had just committed. Merely recognizing him as someone they think committed a burglary a few days earlier doesn’t count. If you see someone walking down the street whose visage graces a wanted poster at the Post Office, you can’t make a citizens arrest. You can only call the cops. Reasonable suspicion would be if you’re walking down the street and hear someone shout, “Stop, thief!” and you look up and see a man running down the street away from the person who’s shouting and pointing at the runner. I haven’t been following the trial so I don’t know what evidence — if any — the defendants have offered to show that they had a reasonable suspicion that Arbery was fleeing from a felony, but that’s the key issue at trial.
Achilles said...
The left and the right are going to come together because people are figuring out that the fundamental aspects of our civilization are more important than both side's stupid attempts to use the government to force us to do things.
No, we are not "coming together". Because the Left wants to destroy all the "fundamental aspects of our civilization" (individual rights, reason and logic over feelings and will to power, rule of law), and the Right wants to protect them.
Tulsi is not an incompetent lying blowjob queen, but she got nowhere in teh Democrat Primary. Because there's no market among Democrat voters for what she's selling
"The Crack Emcee: “ I repeat: were. What those Americans could've been, we'll never know - thanks to Kyle.”
Given their violent criminal pasts, I'm guessing at least one of them missed out on an exciting career as someone's prison bitch. That's just a guess though.
iowan2 said...
Yours is the "take responsibility for your actions" argument.
The Crack Emcee said...
Hey Skipper said...
"100% of the alsofa who didn’t attack Kyle survived just fine."
And I can see, from his PTSD on the stand, that Kyle's gonna survive just fine, too. How short-sighted can you be? The whole nation is in an uproar and you think we're surviving just fine? All because a kid with a gun, and a fantasy life of "helping", made a mistake and was stupid?
The whole nation is in an uproar because asshole scumbag worthless pile of shit Antifa and BLM rioters were trashing towns and cities last year, and Democrat Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs, and DAs refused to stop them.
Kyle shooting those scumbags was a good thing, and killing two of them made it even better.
You will notice there's been essentially no violent rioting about he verdicts. That's because the evil scumbag leftists now know that even if the cops, prosecutors, Mayor and Governor are on their side, the people who aren't on their side are free to shoot them if they get out of line.
You're upset about Kyle shooting people? Take it out on the Democrat Mayor of Kenosha who allowed the rioters to run wild, Democrat Gov Tony Evers who didn't call out the National Guard to stop the rioters, and the scumbag Democrat prosecutor who wasn't charging any arrested rioters and fighting to keep them in jail until the riots were all done.
There is nothing done to the 1/6 "insurrectionists" that should not have been done to the George Floyd / Jacob Blake rioters.
Bitch at the Democrats, not us
"I know so little about the Arbery case that I can't have an opinion. Has anyone been watching the court proceedings? What "outdated" laws have come into play? Are those charged claiming self-defense?"
The claim is that Arberry lunged at Travis McMichael and attempted to get control of his weapon. Just like Rosenbaum. But I'm sure Ms. Gabbard would explain that, while the two cases have legal similarities, they poll very differently.
You want my prediction? She's getting an awful lot of air time for an out-of-office politician. How come?
What would happen if she was Trump's running mate in 2024?
@Jupiter: I'm afraid you missed my post above explaining why the Arbery case is not a self-defense case. I'll repost it here:
The Arbery case is a self-defense case if and only if the defendants were making a lawful citizen’s arrest. If that were the case, they can argue that they were defending themselves against potentially deadly force when Arbery tried to grab their gun. However, if they were not making a lawful citizen’s arrest, then they were guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, and Arbery had the right to flee or fight, and they can’t claim self-defense. The citizen’s arrest claim turns on whether the defendants had a reasonable suspicion that Arbery was fleeing from a felony he had just committed. Merely recognizing him as someone they think committed a burglary a few days earlier doesn’t count. If you see someone walking down the street whose visage graces a wanted poster at the Post Office, you can’t make a citizens arrest. You can only call the cops. Reasonable suspicion would be if you’re walking down the street and hear someone shout, “Stop, thief!” and you look up and see a man running down the street away from the person who’s shouting and pointing at the runner. I haven’t been following the trial so I don’t know what evidence — if any — the defendants have offered to show that they had a reasonable suspicion that Arbery was fleeing from a felony, but that’s the key issue at trial. But based solely on the pre-trial information that was available, they're toast.
That's why the Arbery and Rittenhouse cases are so different.
"I know so little about the Arbery case that I can't have an opinion. Has anyone been watching the court proceedings? What "outdated" laws have come into play? Are those charged claiming self-defense?"
Pull up and subscribe to "Nate the Lawyer" on youtube and he will bring you fully up to speed with solid understanding of criminal defense law and really smart strategy takes.
Of course, I wouldnt recommend him to Crack because there is far too much wisdom and consistency and rationality and logic offered there so, clearly, it ain't a Crack thing.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा