Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[Tigeraholic1]

13 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Are students at Brandeis not allowed to have feelings or opinions on current events?

I get that students in higher education may not be the median voters, but that doesn't mean that their feelings or opinions are somehow invalid or worthy of dismissal either.

Agreed, I was not trying to say that. 

[Tiger337]

17 minutes ago, Archie said:

Feel free to look up your state laws on the internet.  Laws are different in each state.  

Thank God I live in a civilized state.  I'll watch my back next time I go hiking in New Hampshire though!

[Archie]

25 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Are students at Brandeis not allowed to have feelings or opinions on current events?

I get that students in higher education may not be the median voters, but that doesn't mean that their feelings or opinions are somehow invalid or worthy of dismissal either.

Everyone should be allowed their feelings and opinions but should be allowed to have the whole story and the truth too.  Its hard to get that these days from the media.

[mtutiger]

3 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Agreed, I was not trying to say that. 

Understood.

I would imagine that the feelings about this particular trial are probably complicated, even for the average person. Because the circumstances are complicated.

[mtutiger]

Just now, Archie said:

Everyone should be allowed their feelings and opinions but should be allowed to have the whole story and the truth too.  Its hard to get that these days from the media.

You realize that two different people can work from the same set of information and come to different conclusions or have different feelings, right?

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, Archie said:

Everyone should be allowed their feelings and opinions but should be allowed to have the whole story and the truth too.  Its hard to get that these days from the media.

Where do you get your truths?  

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Understood.

I would imagine that the feelings about this particular trial are probably complicated, even for the average person. Because the circumstances are complicated.

Sure enough, at least according to Morning Consult, it's not exactly clear cut.

 

[Archie]

9 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

You realize that two different people can work from the same set of information and come to different conclusions or have different feelings, right?

Absolutely, but when you have media like CBS who said once again yesterday that Rittenhouse broght his gun accross state lines is just inflaming the situation.  

[gehringer_2]

31 minutes ago, Archie said:

So much for Wisconsin getting out of the crime and drama spotlight. The guy that drove through the parade has several felony charges pending and was allowed to walk on $1k bail. Apparently he drove through the parade running from another crime he had just committed. In Wisconsin they don't have a no bail option so hopefully they will set it a little higher this time since he's being charged with several more crimes including five murders.

Even better (or worse?) - one of the things he was on bail from was a charge of using a car to try to run over a woman with whom he had been involved.

[ewsieg]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

We just had a meeting at work where students and staff could express their feelings about the Rittenhouse verdict.  Every Black at the meeting is scared that we now have a license to be vigilantes.  I don't blame them.  It sets a terrible precedent.  

It is sad that Americans feel this way, but 1) we don't have a license to be a vigilante just because in one case, people looked at the situation, and made a judgement call and 2) this is where I get upset at the media narrative that if you're black, white people are allowed to kill you.   

And even if that was true in the past, things change.  I mean today, a black man can run down his girlfriend, resist arrest, get bail, and then run down a bunch of old white people and still not get killed by police.  Considering that prior to this, 100% of all black men that have interactions with police are shot, we must be heading in the right direction.

1 hour ago, oblong said:

Yes.  All you have to do is get a gun, go pick a fight with an unarmed black guy, get your ass kicked, then shoot him and claim self defense.

Unfortunately this is exactly what happened with Trayvon Martin.   

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

I am sorry, but I don't see it as self defense.  It was maybe self defense in the moment, but he deliberately put himself in this situation.  He was looking for trouble and he found it.  

He was legally doing nothing wrong.  Rather you don't think it should be legal or don't feel sympathy for him regardless, I can understand that, but I don't understand the claim that it's not self defense because he shouldn't have been there in the first place or shouldn't have exercised a right that state affords to him is ridiculous IMO.

My analogies never work out, but let's try it.

A 'karen' is giving someone a hard time and that someone pushes her away.  Situation ends.  That someone doesn't have the right to put their hands on 'karen', but if Karen complains to the manager, i'm probably sticking around until Karen leaves to let the manager know both sides.

A guy is spewing some hateful words towards a black man, immediately after using the n-word, the black man clocks him, laying out the asshole.  Assuming the asshole is OK right away, just got his bell rang, i'm probably laughing at him as i'm telling the black guy it might be good for him to walk away in case anyone calls the police.   If the guy dies from the punch though and i'm called to testify, i'm not lying about what I saw and I believe that's manslaughter.  During sentencing, I certainly hope the judge would allow me to speak on behalf of the defendant though.

 

[Tiger337]

31 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

It is sad that Americans feel this way, but 1) we don't have a license to be a vigilante just because in one case, people looked at the situation, and made a judgement call and 2) this is where I get upset at the media narrative that if you're black, white people are allowed to kill you.   

And even if that was true in the past, things change.  I mean today, a black man can run down his girlfriend, resist arrest, get bail, and then run down a bunch of old white people and still not get killed by police.  Considering that prior to this, 100% of all black men that have interactions with police are shot, we must be heading in the right direction.

Unfortunately this is exactly what happened with Trayvon Martin.   

He was legally doing nothing wrong.  Rather you don't think it should be legal or don't feel sympathy for him regardless, I can understand that, but I don't understand the claim that it's not self defense because he shouldn't have been there in the first place or shouldn't have exercised a right that state affords to him is ridiculous IMO.

My analogies never work out, but let's try it.

A 'karen' is giving someone a hard time and that someone pushes her away.  Situation ends.  That someone doesn't have the right to put their hands on 'karen', but if Karen complains to the manager, i'm probably sticking around until Karen leaves to let the manager know both sides.

A guy is spewing some hateful words towards a black man, immediately after using the n-word, the black man clocks him, laying out the asshole.  Assuming the asshole is OK right away, just got his bell rang, i'm probably laughing at him as i'm telling the black guy it might be good for him to walk away in case anyone calls the police.   If the guy dies from the punch though and i'm called to testify, i'm not lying about what I saw and I believe that's manslaughter.  During sentencing, I certainly hope the judge would allow me to speak on behalf of the defendant though.

 

Legally, it's complicated, but his actions caused two people to die.  Nobody else killed anybody there.  From my view, he was looking for trouble and he found it.  This incident is the reason I think we need more gun control.  He was a kid with a gun who made a bad decision getting involved in something he couldn't handle.  It seems he is the type of person who shouldn't be carrying a gun.

The vigilante act was him going into a powder keg with a gun.  I realize he didn't necessarily go there to kill anyone, but his taking the law in his own hands caused two people to die.      

Edited November 22, 2021 by Tiger337

[mtutiger]

21 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

It is sad that Americans feel this way, but 1) we don't have a license to be a vigilante just because in one case, people looked at the situation, and made a judgement call and 2) this is where I get upset at the media narrative that if you're black, white people are allowed to kill you.   

Your first point sorta gets undermined by the fact that one half of the media ecosystem seems to be working to turn Rittenhouse into a real-life Paul Kersey.

In that context, I absolutely understand the concern.

Edited November 22, 2021 by mtutiger

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Your first point sorta gets undermined by the fact that one half of the media ecosystem seems to be working to turn Rittenhouse into a real-life Paul Kersey.

In that context, I absolutely understand the concern.

Yes, that is probably my biggest concern.  Innocent or not, he has been turned into a hero.  He is in no way a hero.  By making him a hero, you encourage others to go out there and play wild west vigilante and that frightens people.   

[Tiger337]

x

Edited November 22, 2021 by Tiger337

[mtutiger]

57 minutes ago, Archie said:

Absolutely, but when you have media like CBS who said once again yesterday that Rittenhouse broght his gun accross state lines is just inflaming the situation.  

I'd argue that Fox News giving Rittenhouse a whole hour on Tucker Carlson probably does more to inflame the situation than CBS making a factual statement.

Edited November 22, 2021 by mtutiger

[CMRivdogs]

Just now, mtutiger said:

I'd argue that Fox News giving Rittenhouse a whole hour on Tucker Carlson probably does more to inflame the situation, honestly.

Not to mention the infomercial they filmed during the trial. They should just let Mr Rittenhouse continue his on line medical career so can help on line people

[oblong]

Where’s the self defense opportunity for people seeing a guy with a gun walking around?  Didn’t one or two of the victims see him shoot?  This is the problem with vigilante justice. How is someone to know he’s there to “keep law and order” and not to just kill people?  How are they to know he’s not an active shooter?  What’s the difference?   There is none. 

[oblong]

4 hours ago, Archie said:

@oblong nice job race baiting.  That's something democrats do very well.  Check out the story in the quote.  It ruins the whole racism narrative.

I guess the blacks can shut up now. Archie solved the race problem. 

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Where do you get your truths?  

Donald Trump.

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Where do you get your truths?  

Also...

If you watch Archie Bunker every single night... you will get the whole truth and nothing but the truth about how this world actually works....

[Archie]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

I'd argue that Fox News giving Rittenhouse a whole hour on Tucker Carlson probably does more to inflame the situation than CBS making a factual statement.

CBS did not make a factual statement.  It was a flat out lie that he took the gun with him.  It doesn't matter if he had the gun with him or not because it wasn't illegal.  The issue is CBS knowing full well it wasn't true and they push false information to try to push their agenda and inflame the situation. Its just one of many things the so called media does to  cause problems in this country.  All of us would be better off and we would have a lot less problems if the news media would report the facts, no matter what they are.  Blowing up situations with half truths and false information hurts us all.

Also some of you have mention that some of the media calls him a hero.  The liberal media labels him a criminal.  I don't think he's neither and should be treated as such.  He should just blend back into society and go about trying to live a normal life.  Maybe he will after his celebrity status no longer makes money.

[Archie]

16 minutes ago, oblong said:

I guess the blacks can shut up now. Archie solved the race problem. 

There would be a lot less race problems if politicians and the media would stop exploiting it.  There are certain groups that continue to push racism because they feel it gives them power and other people make a lot of money from it.  I don't look at people by race like you do.  I look at us all as Americans.  Liberals like to divide and separate by race.  I suppose they can't get too far from their roots in racism.

[Archie]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Even better (or worse?) - one of the things he was on bail from was a charge of using a car to try to run over a woman with whom he had been involved.

Reading all the info on this is shocking.

[ewsieg]

6 minutes ago, oblong said:

Where’s the self defense opportunity for people seeing a guy with a gun walking around?  Didn’t one or two of the victims see him shoot?  This is the problem with vigilante justice. How is someone to know he’s there to “keep law and order” and not to just kill people?  How are they to know he’s not an active shooter?  What’s the difference?   There is none. 

By this standard, what if two people are in a place they shouldn't be, both with guns, and one shoots first.  Is the other allowed to return fire in an act of self defense or do you just sit there and hope you don't die, but don't shoot under the hopes the attackers will stop?

[ewsieg]

7 minutes ago, Archie said:

CBS did not make a factual statement.  It was a flat out lie that he took the gun with him.  It doesn't matter if he had the gun with him or not because it wasn't illegal.  The issue is CBS knowing full well it wasn't true and they push false information to try to push their agenda and inflame the situation. Its just one of many things the so called media does to  cause problems in this country.  All of us would be better off and we would have a lot less problems if the news media would report the facts, no matter what they are.  Blowing up situations with half truths and false information hurts us all.

Also some of you have mention that some of the media calls him a hero.  The liberal media labels him a criminal.  I don't think he's neither and should be treated as such.  He should just blend back into society and go about trying to live a normal life.  Maybe he will after his celebrity status no longer makes money.

A year of lazy journalism is certainly worse than an hour of Tucker, but two wrong's don't make a right.  And i'll bet my first born there are a ton of half truths that will come out of this Tucker thing, which is just as bad as an outright lie when you've had a year, and a trial full of testimony, to truly dig into it and get it right.