Airsoft Forums UK

@EvilMonkee self-defense cases like these have been ongoing constantly, in fact at the same time in the same courthouse I believe, a case was on-going where the black defendant fired a gun at Police but got acquitted based on self-defense, however media doesn't want to report this case since it doesn't fit into the narrative. 

Florida Man, a convicted felon with an illegally held firearm (a wild pattern appears).  Still acquitted of everything but the firearms charge.

https://www.wptv.com/news/region-indian-river-county/alteria-woods-man-charged-for-murder-of-woman-during-swat-raid-found-not-guilty-mother-supports-jurys-decision

Well I disagree, there we go.  And If you note I wasn't speaking about Rittenhouse specifially but ANY OTHER right wing nutjob and the precedent it sets for them.

And yes it is moronic to go fully armed into a riot situation unless you are a member of the emergency services, so yes I would argue he isn't the smartest.

Frankly I am concerned at some of the political beliefs being espoused here but will doubtless get shouted down with faux legalese so will refrain from engaging further.

"Any other" implies that Kyle is one.  My main issue with this case is the trial-by-media (and by former Vice President Biden) which declared - or implied to the very cusp of actionable libel - Rittenhouse as being right wing (is that bad?), a white supremacist, and there to hunt black people and antifa.

From what I can see, he held no such views, had genuinely invested his youth in volunteering to help people, and had been doing that, and nothing else, in Kenosha. Up until a convicted paedophile just released from a mental institution openly and repeatedly threatened to kill him (because he was putting out fires), and then rushed him with clear intent to implement those threats.

Given that, I'd have thought it would be dafter to go into that area and start putting out fires unarmed.

I don't really have a political axe to grind, other than that if you're engaged in destruction, arson and looting, then you might be the baddies.

On faux legalese, the verdict is in.  I'm just happy that it was decided in a courtroom and not in the media.

@EvilMonkee I take it your political leanings are too the left correct ? Not a problem that’s the best thing about a capitalist system you can safely voice an opinion against the very system you rail against , BUT you aren’t backing up your statements with any kind of evidence to support your obvious ‘offense’ at the result of this case , you then say “Frankly I am concerned at some of the political beliefs being espoused here but will doubtless get shouted down with faux legalese so will refrain from engaging further.”
Sorry mate but that’s just one giant cop out ! 
you passive aggressively accuse the ones disagreeing with you of being right wing extremists (be honest that’s what your really saying) and when you are argued back at you repeat the same claims just slightly different wording and then rather than back up your argument you’ve taken the faux moral high ground as your reason for withdrawing from this discussion .

@Druid799Sorry not discussing it further, no point, don't want to upset people, and I didn't accuse anyone of being an extremist, please don't put words into my mouth.  Concern over political opinions, never said which ones....

Overall, my point was that as Frankie Boyle once said "The racist door has been opened for me and I am now free to walk through it..." or words to that effect.  The Rittenhouse verdict (which I believe was wrong) has had the 3rd party effect of now potentially justifying all sorts of actions by all sorts of people (who will likely be right wing given the propensity of this group to be armed in the USA) as self defense.  That's it. 

@Druid799 - It's the twitter defence. Works well in the absence of a factual counterargument.

“I didn't accuse anyone of being an extremist, please don't put words into my mouth” oh come off it mate , there’s only one way you can interpret your comment ;

”Frankly I am concerned at some of the political beliefs etc etc” ,

you stated your opinion which is the opinion being voiced by left leaning people(again not a problem everyone should be allowed political freedom) BUT yes you are accusing the ones disagreeing with you of being right wing .

To be clear, if Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, vigilante, or was there to kill people based on their skin colour or ideology, I would be the first to condemn him.

But memes aside, my point is he's not any of the above, and that the corporate media did a cracking job of trying to have him convicted by claiming otherwise.

This succeeded to the point where some folk still believe what they were told to believe about him, rather than what came out during the trial. The Independent even continued to publish inflammatory lies after the verdict, when they cannot possibly claim ignorance.

View attachment 81629

Where this is vaguely relevant to us is that our shared hobby makes us ripe for similar demonisation should any of us come to the media's attention for any reason.

The corporate media simply confects whatever outrage narrative that it can sell to its audience, and pushes it without the slightest regard for truth, or for the consequences to the people that they defame.

Most people lack the resources to fight back.  I hope that Rittenhouse rinses them for as much as Nick Sandmann got.

View attachment 81628

@RogerborgI don't disagree with any of that but it has nothing to do with the point I am making about the verdict and the 3rd party effects it could have.  Everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring that point or allowing it to pass them by.

Talk about Media lies in a nutshell , line one of their exclusive ‘exposes’ , the three of them where white FFS ! 

View attachment 81630

I mean, if we want to talk about how the verdict affects others, if he was found guilty, despite the evidence being pretty clear cut in self defense, then you can argue by the same logic that it would embolden potentially violent criminals as they'd know that if the person they're attacking fought back they'd be thrown in the gulag.

Every action has consequences, positive and negative. No action is wholly positive, no action is wholly negative. That said, it wou;d've been unjust to convict Rittenhouse after looking at the evidence (and that's not even going into how awful the prosecution were and how they flagrantly disregarded the Constitution multiple times)

@Impulse I don't think you can apply that logic.  Americans have always had access to firearms, this case isn't going to embolden a criminal anymore than they already would have been, they are a criminal afterall.  A criminal has always known that someone can act in self defence, the principal is well established.

The groups it MIGHT embolden are those willing to use violence (which as we all know from our Clauswitz, is the ultimate form of political statement) as a political statement.  People such as Proud Boys or some of the other militia groups which exist. 

Kyle Rittenhouse should have been jailed not because of the merits of his case, but because the media lied and said that he was a white supremacist, so his acquittal will embolden white supremacists?  Even though he isn't one.

That would be a very peculiar form of justice, and rather illustrates my point about the media trying to convict people in the court of public opinion by telling outright lies about them.

If it happened to you, if you found yourself demonised by the media as a far right gun nut, would you say "Oh, well, I'm not, but I agree that you have to convict me for the greater good, to send a message" ?

No, you are missing what I am saying, it has literally nothing to do with whether or not he is a white supremacist or the way the media has presented the case.   It is that the case may embolden those who are right wing to go and undertake similar actions as they can then provoke a confrontation and fall back on self defense.  Not sure how I can make what I am saying any clearer for you.  I just think it sets a dangerous precedent of how such actions can be interpreted.  Not a point about the merits or otherwise of his politics or indeed the case.

Its very clear as I have said that I hold completely opposite views from most commenting on this so not sure what is left to be gained by arguing other than people just shouting me down.

I get what you're saying, I'm just astonished by it.

Let me try to be clear about the power of media manipulation, without any shouting.

You believe that his acquittal will embolden right wing / militia groups. And only those groups.

You're not saying that it might embolden left wing / anarchist groups to go out and do the same thing (although I'm not sure how "similar actions" like cleaning graffiti and putting out fires would provoke anyone other than themselves).

But... why?  Given that Rittenhouse wasn't a Proud Boy / Neo-Nazi / Tiki-Torcher or similar.

So why would his acquittal only embolden them?

How did that association get into your head?

Not just them but more than likely to be them given the propensity of such groups to be armed.  

The association comes about through his now being the poster boy (whether he intends that/approves or not, I doubt he does) for these groups.  

The third point about 'similar actions' is where we differ fundamentally, you believe its ok to go wandering around a neighborhood with a weapon during a riot, I don't.  I think the lack of foresight is alarming.  Remember he wasn't on trial just for murder but reckless homicide (manslaughter in UK speak).  Given your propensity for legal argument I am assuming you understand the principle of recklessness (at least how it applies to UK law).  How can you argue that by going armed into a riot situation that he wasn't reckless as to the outcome?  Hardly takes a fortune teller to see it wouldn't end well.  He placed himself in the situation.  

I would be the first to argue for his acquittal if he had been at his own home, defending himself from rioters.  

"The association comes about through his now being the poster boy (whether he intends that/approves or not, I doubt he does) for these groups.  "

That's a fair point that they do view him as one of them.  But he's not.  That was a deliberate lie from the corporate media, and I can't see how it was anything other than a cynical attempt provoke exactly this argument, that he needed to be convicted to send a message to those groups, even though he wasn't associated with them.

Does he deserve to be jailed because the media lied about him?  That's the binary choice that the jury had to make, there's no equivocation possible on the verdict.  So, they either acquit on the evidence[*], or they convict on the lie, because of what unrelated people might do in the future.  I know which verdict I prefer.

[*]I think it was effectively over when the prosecution literally facepalmed when their star witness was on the stand.

View attachment 81641

"you believe its ok to go wandering around a neighborhood with a weapon during a riot"

I believe that it's OK to go around cleaning up graffiti, putting out fires, and rendering medical assistance, which is what he was doing for two nights.

I also believe that he had an absolute right to defend himself while doing so.

It's a great pity that he was attacked by a mentally deranged child sodomiser and arsonist who had threatened, repeatedly and explicitly, to kill him. But the precipitate cause for that appeared to be that he was carrying a fire extinguisher, rather than a paedophile extinguisher.

"How can you argue that by going armed into a riot situation that he wasn't reckless as to the outcome?"

Well, because he was acquitted of it. I agree with the jury's verdict.  And I see nothing negative in the outcome, except that Rittenhouse had to suffer through the anguish and cost of a trial.

We may be have differing views on what "a riot" implies.

It's not an act of nature, and there was nothing in the geography of the area that caused it.

Rittenhouse's situation required two pre-requisites.

1) Violent people were doing violent things.

2) The police declined to step up and stop them.

If we're looking at things that ought not to have happened, I'd start with either of those two first.

Rittenhouse was a symptom, not the cause.

"Well, because he was acquitted of it." Not guilty just means that they couldn't prove the case for the prosecution, not that he didn't do it.

I don't agree with what he did but I do agree that he had definitely been made into a whipping boy by the anti gun lobby. Of course, he has also become a poster boy for the rabid 2A supporters.