RITTENHOUSE

[DIDO.1 22,856]

1 hour ago, SheepChaser said:

Not necessarily “my view” but something I’ve been thinking about.

Whenever people look at these Kind of events they always focus on the individuals - who did the killing / shooting and who got killed / shot. That isn’t really the point I don’t think, or at least is only part of the point.

When these kind of cases go to Court they do or try to do two things - firstly get to the bottom If the individual incident and also to act as a test case for looking at the law / and to pave way for similar future incidents.

Whilst the two lads who got killed and the other fella are probably drongos of the highest order, I think to focus on that is to miss the point of what is probably worrying a lot of people in American society.

 

I think the only people in American society who are worried are people who would consider rioting as a form of protest and/or the people who rely on scum like that for votes 

[Welsh_red 4,986]

4 hours ago, SheepChaser said:

Not necessarily “my view” but something I’ve been thinking about.

Whenever people look at these Kind of events they always focus on the individuals - who did the killing / shooting and who got killed / shot. That isn’t really the point I don’t think, or at least is only part of the point.

When these kind of cases go to Court they do or try to do two things - firstly get to the bottom If the individual incident and also to act as a test case for looking at the law / and to pave way for similar future incidents.

Whilst the two lads who got killed and the other fella are probably drongos of the highest order, I think to focus on that is to miss the point of what is probably worrying a lot of people in American society.

 

I think they probably need some sort of serious way to deal with these protest riots. It was carnage not just there but other places aswell. People just walking qround burning stuff, knocking stuff and god knows what else without any sort of opposition.  Id like to have seen the military roll in , cant see many fanciyng their chances causing trouble with them around . But also can see its not really their job .

Having a tighter reign on media who fan the flames of all this wouldnt be a bad idea . Maybe having outlets having accountability for what they publish would be a good start . Its possible to get stuff wrong when they publish stuff but they just write what they want and get away with it . It gets everybody riled up and shit like this happens. Like somebody winding up 2 people in a pub until those 2 start scrapping then standing back and saying how terrible it is that they resort to violence 

[Ken's Deputy 4,462]

[green lurchers 17,052]

4 hours ago, SheepChaser said:

Not necessarily “my view” but something I’ve been thinking about.

Whenever people look at these Kind of events they always focus on the individuals - who did the killing / shooting and who got killed / shot. That isn’t really the point I don’t think, or at least is only part of the point.

When these kind of cases go to Court they do or try to do two things - firstly get to the bottom If the individual incident and also to act as a test case for looking at the law / and to pave way for similar future incidents.

Whilst the two lads who got killed and the other fella are probably drongos of the highest order, I think to focus on that is to miss the point of what is probably worrying a lot of people in American society.

 

Two lads is not a great way to describe them. Let the facts stand out first and for most  one a nonce the other not a savoury type lad.  Them lads cnts hero’s  or whatever took umbrage at a kid with a gun , could easily be a kid in the army  same age hav guns them lads see an easy target   And got the good news. And saved the system paying for shitbags  in the future  one won’t get another chance to fiddle with kids the other won’t get a chance to beat some one with his skate board the other who  pointed the gun at the kid got a sore  arm hel always think about lol 

Edited November 23, 2021 by green lurchers

[THE STIFFMEISTER 16,787]

6 hours ago, SheepChaser said:

I know that obviously on the THl general talk section there can only be one view point but does no one see the issue with this in any way whatsoever? Just curious. Not really worth offering an alternative view as it will be wrong and left wing  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really , I think he should face some jail time purely as he fired a weapon in public spaces . I think that’s actually insane . 
 

However the actual reality is that according to the law , the system of judgement in place , is that there really isn’t an alternative view , he was tried and cleared . 
 

What can you do ??   

[THE STIFFMEISTER 16,787]

5 hours ago, SheepChaser said:

Not necessarily “my view” but something I’ve been thinking about.

Whenever people look at these Kind of events they always focus on the individuals - who did the killing / shooting and who got killed / shot. That isn’t really the point I don’t think, or at least is only part of the point.

When these kind of cases go to Court they do or try to do two things - firstly get to the bottom If the individual incident and also to act as a test case for looking at the law / and to pave way for similar future incidents.

Whilst the two lads who got killed and the other fella are probably drongos of the highest order, I think to focus on that is to miss the point of what is probably worrying a lot of people in American society.

 

I dint get that to be fair . 
the man committed a crime , against human beings . 

How can you hope to proceed against anyone without focusing on the criminal , the act and the victims ? 
 

does it really matter the root cause analysis of the act? 

[WILF 49,623]

6 hours ago, SheepChaser said:

I know that obviously on the THl general talk section there can only be one view point but does no one see the issue with this in any way whatsoever? Just curious. Not really worth offering an alternative view as it will be wrong and left wing  

 

I’d be interested to read your view for sure.

I genuinely can’t see a thing wrong with any of it.

I think gun ownership and the right to defend yourself with lethal force is just something ingrained in America. 

[WILF 49,623]

5 hours ago, SheepChaser said:

Not necessarily “my view” but something I’ve been thinking about.

Whenever people look at these Kind of events they always focus on the individuals - who did the killing / shooting and who got killed / shot. That isn’t really the point I don’t think, or at least is only part of the point.

When these kind of cases go to Court they do or try to do two things - firstly get to the bottom If the individual incident and also to act as a test case for looking at the law / and to pave way for similar future incidents.

Whilst the two lads who got killed and the other fella are probably drongos of the highest order, I think to focus on that is to miss the point of what is probably worrying a lot of people in American society.

 

Sorry mate, hadn’t scrolled down.

I get that point totally but I think it’s a very British way of looking at it.

I refer you to my answer above, guns and being able to defend yourself is as much part of America as Bangers and Mash to the British.

Remember, it wasn’t that long ago in the span of time they were a new world, frontier country and I think that spirit still lingers in your average American.

[green lurchers 17,052]

The place is awash with innocent family folk getting rolled over by scum bags if your in a position where the scum see you as a potential easy roll but see ya pal holding a deterrent they will leave you in peace if they get the jump on you they will harm you that’s a fact 

[WILF 49,623]

27 minutes ago, THE STIFFMEISTER said:

Not really , I think he should face some jail time purely as he fired a weapon in public spaces . I think that’s actually insane . 
 

However the actual reality is that according to the law , the system of judgement in place , is that there really isn’t an alternative view , he was tried and cleared . 
 

What can you do ??   

I don’t know but I get the impression that the phrase “public space” don’t mean much in some places in the US, it’s their community and they will defend it is the impression I get and an attitude I rather like to be honest brother.

[WILF 49,623]

1 minute ago, green lurchers said:

The place is awash with innocent family folk getting rolled over by scum bags if your in a position where the scum see you as a potential easy roll but see ya pal holding a deterrent they will leave you in peace if they get the jump on you they will harm you that’s a fact 

I think Washington proves that point rather well, they did the experiment and the facts spoke for themselves

[WILF 49,623]

The Last American Man is a good book that provides a little insight into the American historical mindset 

[green lurchers 17,052]

If thers ever a place you get the feeling it’s coming your way it’s in the not so nice bits of town it all changes if the folk ya with are holding Them same folk hold no fears it’s exactly wat the liberal left hate them for and will do ther utmost to leave them with insecurity  

[SheepChaser 8,091]

Ok. . . . . here goes . . . .  

 

Firstly I need to state that I dont necessarily have an issue with the three guys getting shot, or dying. The world is full of arseholes. This isn't really about 'my view' just some thoughts i had when reading through some of the stuff on this case and some of the other commentary that has gone on about / in American Law.

As I said before, and as has been shows by some of the posts following my initial comment - things are often /always seen by most folk based upon the individual characters of those involved - i.e. the guys who got shot were 'scum', had bad records of previous crimes etc, and they may well (rightly or wrongly) have deserved to die at some point, possibly then, and are probably no great loss to society.

The issues I was talking about dont really pertain to the specific individuals involved in this incident. 

Those folk who are seeing this as a negative or worrying event do split into two categories - those who have an issue with those individuals being shot and the individual who did the shooting - these mostly surround race, class, etc and may or may not have validity. . . . . but that side isn't what I'm talking about.

What I'm trying to articulate (possibly badly) is the other group of worried individuals (both within wider american society and also within the legal system).

It all comes back to the self defence laws in the USA, which obviously vary from state to state, and as WIlf has said are heavily tied to the ingrained idea of citizens bearing arms.

Defence laws in the USA largely fit into two types - 'Duty to retreat' and 'Stand your ground' laws. The former says that if you are under threat and it is possible to retreat in full safety (i.e. you dont get hurt at all) then it is your duty to opt for that option and hope / allow the powers that be to sort it out. Now I know that doesn't sit well with many, but the idea is you do away with the murky issue of what is an acceptable level of threat etc and also the fact that it can be 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. The caveat to this is the 'castle' factor - if you are in your own home, and in some states your place of work or vehicle, then you dont have to retreat, which seems fair. The second type of defence law 'stand your ground' - means that in any situation where you are going about your lawful business and are then put or find yourself in a situation where you perceive a threat, which can be of physical harm but can also be robbery etc, then you can stand your ground and open fire.

Now as questionable as the latter may be at times, its the law in some states. The issue is it comes down to the individual 'perceiving' themselves to be at threat. Thats a pretty tenuous an contentious issue. . . . .  has been for a while.

Now breaking down this particular situation - a child (considered a minor in the USA) is able to hold a semi automatic weapon and ammunition (ostentatiously for hunting), this child is then able to make the decision to travel to somewhere he perceives there to be potential of threat to himself, he is able to go there by choice, and he is able to take his semi automatic weapon with him. He is able to travel to a public place where he makes the judgement that there may be wrong doing and he may feel or be threatened. He goes there and gets involved in the situation. He finds himself through whatever actions, in a situation where he (a child) feels threatened. He then makes the decision to point and discharge his weapon at someone and kill them. This then escalates and he continues to feel threaten, and so fires at two more people. Two die and one is badly injured. He goes to court and he walks because it is deemed self defence, using the above stand your ground law.

 

OK . . . so for this specific incident it may or may not be a justifiable course of events. However by him waling, it opens up a whole can of legal worms, for the wider system and the wider concept of self defence. 

 

Essentially if you made it a simpler situation its a bit like this -

Situation one - You are in your house putting a shelf up hammer in hand and a man smashed your door down to kill you and rape your wife and you smash his head in with the hammer. 

Situation two - You are in your house putting a shelf up hammer in hand, see on your cctv a man down the bottom of your lane breaking into you / a car. You creep out shout at him to stop, he keeps trying to start the car and screams at you to f**k off - you pull him out, he swings for you and you beat him to death with your hammer.

Situation three - You're going out in town and town centre can get a bit messy and you never know but you may well find yourself in a barny with someone, so you go out with a hammer down the back of your pants. You're out and about, some fella bumps into you, you tell him to f**k off, he squares up to you and you smash his head in with a hammer and kill him.

Situation four - You're going out in town etc and might see some lads you dont like and take a hammer downpour pants. You see the lads and start calling them noncy fat c**ts across the street, one comes over to give you a hiding and you smash him with the hammer and kill him.

 

You can see why this legal case starts to blur the lines. Up until now 'going equipped for defence' has sort of been a thing but only in your day to day normal activities by which you may have a back up plan for threatening situations but do not deem one any more likely than any other time. But a child taking a semi automatic weapon to an obvioulsy volatile situation in a public place, carrying it openly, ending in conflict, feeling threatened, and killing some people . . . .  is pushing the boundaries a lot.

Where does it stop ? How far does it go? If an armed militia perceive themselves to be a threat, how militant can they be etc. Forget about the individuals killed and think about the wider precedent. 

[DIDO.1 22,856]

There's video of this kid scrubbing walls of graffiti and I believe of him carrying a blm protestor to safety. He went there to help and do his duty. 

Much has been made about him being a child. If he was a year older would it of changed things. Much has been said about the strangeness of him being allowed an assault weapon. Well he was allowed to open carry an assault weapon....he can't be found guilty of being allowed to open carry a legal weapon in a legal way. Would it of been different if he was carrying a bolt action. Probably would of been the same outcome. 

In an increasingly worrying world to hear the news that 3 scumbags got shot at a black rights scumbag riot I think is a chink of light and reason to be happy. 

The only people to be angry or upset with him walking free are people worried that more scumbag left wingers will one day get what's coming to them. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by DIDO.1