|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 30, 2020 15:25:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Aug 30, 2020 17:50:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 30, 2020 19:51:09 GMT -5
It seems accurate to me, and this source rates it as least biased/high factual reporting. My thoughts on the article: - Despite what Carlo thinks, mostly because he doesn't understand how laws are written or how to read them or what the differences between a "section" vs a "clause" vs a "paragraph" are, it was illegal for him to carry a gun. No, it doesn't matter if it was or wasn't a short-barrel or not as carlo's attempted defense was referencing target practice/hunting, not general open carry.
- I can agree that everyone involved in the shooting was an idiot, Rittenhouse was just the most dangerous/least and best "equipped" idiot who came spoiling for a fight.
- The idiot who fired the first shot was an idiot for doing so, but that doesn't give Rittenhouse the legal ground to start firing at people randomly despite what people on the right might otherwise say.
- Shocking, police fucked up. Again.
- The article also touches on the hunting/supervision "defense" people are bringing up, and called it bullshit too, but for different reasons than I do.
I think this the main issue I have with the article where it tries to pull what feels like a false equivalency imo. Without considering any evidence it says "If you believe that a few bad cops warrants defunding the whole of law enforcement..." without taking into account the overwhelming evidence of racism/bias in the police. (And that's not getting into any sort of other issues the police have, like a roughly 40% reported domestic violence rate from police's spouses/partners, which obviously means there are more unreported) Maybe I'm just misreading the message they're trying to get across, but it feels like they're trying to be neutral, and in doing so ignore the evidence of it being more than "a few bad apples" in the police force. Or maybe they're not using the term "a few bad apples" to just mean "a few" and are leaving it up to the reader to interpret what "a few bad apples" means. Maybe it's just the cost of trying to not appear like you're taking either side. Either way, I think that's my one complaint about the article. My favorite lines had to be the following though: I think the only example of white privilege being showcased better is either the trump family or Ethan Couch.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 30, 2020 23:23:06 GMT -5
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Aug 31, 2020 11:33:34 GMT -5
I sincerely hope that is a fake. The leader of a 3,000 strong armed milita referencing fucking infowars in a threatening letter to local police?
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 31, 2020 14:58:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 31, 2020 21:47:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theauldgrump on Sept 1, 2020 0:34:11 GMT -5
This is my SHOCKED face: -_-
I think I may die of not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Sept 1, 2020 3:46:49 GMT -5
So, the Breonna Taylor case has kinda dropped below the radar in light of more recent events, but here's an update on it, or at least related to it:
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Sept 1, 2020 8:37:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Sept 1, 2020 8:55:53 GMT -5
Well he didn't murder anyone like those other heroes, but he should try to apply for a Trump pardon anyway. You know his family sucks when they haven't gone on Fox to plead for him yet.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Sept 1, 2020 10:31:26 GMT -5
Yeah, it's just the gall of the prosecutor to try and paint Breonna Taylor as some kind of drug kingpin (or at least working for one) so they can justify police murdering her that gets me.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Sept 1, 2020 11:22:42 GMT -5
Yeah I understood what you meant. I'm just saying that few of us would really decline such an offer. Refusing to lie about a dead ex to avoid a 10 year prison sentence, that is quite the moral backbone in this circumstance.
That it was even on the table means all those involved in drafting it should be fired and/or disbarred from practising law.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Sept 1, 2020 11:43:51 GMT -5
I mean, even if she was guilty of helping him weigh product or drive him around or similar tasks that ex girlfriends of ex friends of mine have done in the past, that's still no reason to shoot her FFS.
I think the US needs to get together and cancel satire until it is collectively smart enough to understand it. Judge Dredd isn't a hero.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Sept 1, 2020 12:01:11 GMT -5
Yeah I understood what you meant. I'm just saying that few of us would really decline such an offer. Refusing to lie about a dead ex to avoid a 10 year prison sentence, that is quite the moral backbone in this circumstance. That it was even on the table means all those involved in drafting it should be fired and/or disbarred from practising law. Oh, no I get that. I view it as more of a desperate attempt to demonize Taylor because they have nothing else, and this might have been their only hope for a guilty sentence.
|
|