He was there with a group who were asked to protect businesses and, as he said under cross examination, his father lives in Kenosha. He was legally allowed to carry the gun and having the gun does not mean he loses the right to claim self defense. He was attacked every time he fired and the jury deemed that he was defending himself. The prosecution had no case and he should never have been charged so was acquitted. The judge didn't need to dismiss the case as there is a double jeopardy law so he cannot be tried again for the same offence. This all came up in the trial but if you watched CNN or MSNBC you only got opinion, not facts. I know that because I did. The behaviour of Joy Reid in particular was disgusting and she should be admonished for the things she said. Justice was done.
If this is allowed to stand then other vigilantes, from whichever fraction one considers, will use the same logic to defend their actions. Just think it through to its logical conclusion.
This thread is a cesspit of bile and indignation and should be assigned to history. If our club ever knew that the views annunciated here were done under their name they would be ashamed.
So the mayor want's the law changed because he didn't like the verdict, sounds very sour grapes doesn't it, a bit like Brexit here then where every possible obstacle has been thrown to try and stop it......more riot's Mr mayor......new I phone anyone
He was tried, the jury saw and heard all the evidence and, unanimously, found him not guilty. At the time Kenosha was burning to the ground. There were mobs of rioters and looters burning down buildings and setting fire to anything they could find. The Police weren't doing anything so groups of locals had to stand up to the mob, they're not vigilantes, they're doing what the Police should have been doing. If the jury thought he was a vigilante they would have convicted him. If you look at the evidence you might change your mind, it's compelling.
I apologise for having a second bite but..... a specific thread for all this stuff just focuses the indignation, a bit like a stew marinating all the flavours, but in a bad way. just letting it occur on any old thread lets it dissipate naturally without the longevity. Well that's my thoughts anyway
Yes. If they’d just let our hardworking government make it up as they go along then it would be fine.
He's a joke. The Law is underpinned by the basic idea that you are tried in front of a group of your peers. In his position he should not be making any comments on this at all. Even Biden has stepped back his viewpoint after the verdict
You are, by any known standard, semi-literate but I'm afraid that last post has me totally confused. Is there any change that you could explain what it means?
Education, sensible debate, laying a seed of doubt… Shutting someone up, closing someone down, forcing opinions onto an individual or trying to yell louder will just create more anger and more hatred and that individual will never change. Instead putting a view over in a sensible educated non enforcing fashion (as you do yourself many times) will do far more good. Just planting that one seed of food for thought, getting someone to at least question a belief will do far more good than shutting them down. I posted the other day that the approach to racism is all wrong, it’s all headless chicken decision making, non thought through instead all rush decisions. Taking the knee, it’s associated with BLM political movement. Why did we not come up with a less divisive gesture? Why did we not say okay, we’ve not got everyone on board, instead we’ll walk out with t-shirts on, we’ll support our own kick it out campaign. I don’t wish to get into a lengthy debate over the taking the knee, I’m just pointing out it was divisive, it had the opposite effect, it wasn’t thought through, it was rushed through.
And there are members who just don’t want to see any kind of political or religious based chat continuously creeping in. We either allow it contained in one place, or we listen to one half and allow threads to take a natural course in any direction it pleases or we listen to the other half that don’t want to trawl through 4-5 pages of “banter” before finding the football discussion. It has to be said though, the so called “Banter” often had an unsavoury undertone, it was a kind of “I’ll say anything I want and if it offends I’ll pull the banter card out of my pocket”. It was still racist and you’d always see “Paddy” and “Jock” put downs. I’ll tell you what, if this thread starts to die a death and we end up with just the same 2-3 people posting in it I’ll message the other two mods and discuss closing it with them. It’s really simple, anyone who hates this thread and wants to see it closed don’t fuel it, don’t visit it.
No one will ever change their mind by reading posts on a football forum and nor should they, but I've read posts on here that have caused me to read up on things I didn't know about. Because it's an open thread you can post pretty much anything and get an opinion. The problem is that, like it has become in the Western World, politics has become insanely polarised. One side doesn't want to listen to the other because they just don't understand. The problem on here is that it's gone past discussion and into vitriol. The visitors from the PL board, in my opinion, had an agenda to wind up the "knuckle draggers on the Leeds board" so the past week it's been just lots of huge arguments. Regular posters have joined in and it's just been pages of insults and rubbish. I hope it improves but....
No, he was a vigilante and he was walked down the street waving a semi automatic around, he was seen as an ‘active shooter’ and people tried to take him down. The people he shot were white.
