Agnostic.com

2 4

LINK Rittenhouse Verdict Sets New Legal Precedent On White Privilege

This article speaks for itself. I don't want to bother arguing with morons but I will. I'd prefer if you'd just scroll on. Go post your nonsense on your Conservative Atheists group which thankfully I'm blocked from seeing.

barjoe 9 Nov 20
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

I disagree with the (black) lady who wrote this article. I listened to some of the testimony and I thought it credible and believable, and I'm neither conservative nor an atheist.
Though it can't be proven one way or the other, both who testified said the men were moving toward him aggressively and were threatening him with bodily harm and trying to grab his gun.
You can question his politics and overall belief system, but it seems to me in this particular instance Rittenhouse was acting in self defense.
Is this a case of reverse racism, that he is assumed guilty until proven innocent simply because he was not only out after curfew (like a whole lot of other people), but mostly because he is white?
I'm a staunch supporter of BLM and 99% of their cause, but this is a specific instance with it's own set of circumstances.
This is a very weak article, outrageous in its own way.

I agree with the author. I had no idea not do I care what race she is. How did you find out? Did you look it up? Do you think a black man would've gotten acquitted under these circumstances? I think those cops who let KR go the night in question, would've shot a black with a semi slung on his shoulder to death right on the spot. How is that not White Privilege?

@barjoe I don't know if a black would have been acquitted. I said I supported BLM, and on a related issue I think the underlying assumptions behind critical race theory are correct, that many laws are slanted against blacks.
And whites should look into it, instead of rejecting the notion outright. and if valid in some instances, change those laws.
That they don't do that proves there may be something to it. Seems obvious.
In THIS case, however, I'm just going by what was presented. The testimony was all there was on which to decide, right? Well, I thought Rittenhouse and the other guy were believable.
Putting aside everything else, they sounded like they were being truthful. The emotions conveyed seemed real. And how they came across WAS the bottom line, unless I'm missing something. I mean, WAS there anything else, really?
The prosecution had to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt Rittenhouse acted with intent, or malice, or in the heat of the moment with a prejudiced mindset, correct?
Manslaughter might've been a legitimate charge but, again, on the basis of what would there be a conviction?
It reminded me of what I thought about the George Zimmerman verdict.
I watched that whole thing on TV.
Some claim the prosecution did a lousy job in that case too. I don't know,; all I had to go by is what I DID see and hear, and on that basis, Zimmerman had to be found not guilty.
I heard tell Zimmerman was wrestled to the ground, and Martin got on top of him. They wrestled for his gun, and Zimmerman managed to get control of it and shoot him.
Is that what really happened? There was no evidence to the contrar,y, which in itself has to mean something.
I know most people assume Zimmerman was guilty, and maybe he was, but they didn't prove it, not to me.
I'm not disagreeing with you on the bigger picture. Yes, a black man MIGHT'VE been found guilty. Of that there was a better chance, no doubt in my mind. But that doesn't prove Rittenhouse's guilt.

@Storm1752 They don't need to prove it to you just a jury. This guy went to Kenosha with the intent to shoot somebody. I would vote guilty. The judge was definitely prejudicial for the defense. I respect a judges right to explain the law but not to decide the case. I would've nullified all six charges. OJ was guilty. Zimmerman was guilty Joren van der Sloot murdered that girl in Aruba. None of them were convicted for those crimes. There's a big difference between not guilty and innocent. I'm just sorry none of the protester were able to snuff Kyle Rittenhouse out.

@barjoe Well I don't know he went there to shoot somebody. You're assuming that. Besides, just going by the facts as I understood them, it sounded to ME It was self defense. I'm not stupid or naive and I could be wrong, but there you go! Hey I'm ultra-liberal, pro-BLM, but I understand why he got off.
I understand why George Zimmerman got off too. I watched the whole trial. It sounded like self defense to me that time too.
I don't think EVERY time a black person is killed it's racism.

@Storm1752 Why else did he go to Kenosha? For what other purpose did he go to the riot zone with a M&P slung on his shoulder? He shot 3 people. He got away with two murderers and an attempted murder.

@barjoe Okay I'll give that a go...you're asking me to guess, speculate, as if I was his defender. I'm not defending him. You could be right; it wouldn't surprise me. I was simply saying that based on the information given out in court, there was reasonable doubt, okay? That's all I'm saying.
So WHY? I'll Google for background information, but in the meantime, he's young, impressionable, in direct contact with older influencers, and thought he'd go to help law enforcement keep the peace. There was rioting, buildings were burning, etc.
You and I know much if not all of the arson and other destruction was done by "anarchists" and other radicals from the right, but what was his understanding, and where did those ideas come from? I can hazard a few guesses.
So maybe his mindset was, the blacks are rampaging, the police are being overrun, some group on the internet, or Newsmax or even Fox News, was sensationalizing it, making it sound like an insurrection or a civil war or whatever, his friends and family are reinforcing it, and he thought it was his "patriotic duty" to "do something."
So maybe his naive and romanticized intent was to "back up" law enforcement and help get things under control. Maybe he didn't have any specific plan.
So you say he went there with homicide in his heart, an intention aforethought to do bodily harm. Maybe, maybe not.
Okay? You asked me to speculate IF I was going to put the best spin on it possible. There you go.

@barjoe I just read an account of the sequence of events and Rittenhouse's background on Wikipedia, and my advice is to read it yourself. My "defense" was generally correct. According to this account, if accurate, he didn't go there with the express intent to kill anybody. You can believe that or not. It's not my job to sway you. But to make declarative statements without spending a few minutes reading about it may, in my opinion, lead to faulty conclusions. You be the judge of that.

2

Yes, Kyle the Killer Kook is a hero to some red necks, even on this site. I wish they'd stay in their red neck group as well. Reality just doesn't fit their style.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:634942
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.