Our justice system has shown to be shit twice this week. People think that because of the end, the beginning and the middle should be ignored. Many of those who have hailed the outcome of the Wisconsin trial, have lamented the need for it. "This is great, but shouldn't have been done," is not an endorsement for anything "holding up well" that I have ever seen.
I totally agree that the guys in Brunswick should have been arrested immediately and Rittenhouse charges should have been examined much more closely initially. In the end, both verdicts were correct, and the media caused most of the shit storm.
Yes, for the prosecutors to fall all over themselves in the Rittenhouse trial is damning of something, no matter what one believes. It didn't look right. Either overcharged, poorly argued, or some combination.
I do not believe both verdicts were correct. But I do not believe the verdict is the system, either. I do not find any system of justice that allows for 17 year old to be armed in a dangerous system, on a whim, and levy no punishment after the death of three individuals. Even if one or, even two of them, posed legitimate danger, because they did so, after the first. And since I do not find simply being yelled at, or "grabbed at" to be a legitimate threat, especially when armed, I do not find the first use self defense nor any that follows. And I find any system where these things are "correct" to be broken, much as I find any system that requires a long amount of deliberation, and then, whoops, public saw it, to initiate charges when three men, some of whom were armed, kill one unarmed man.
So they need to change the law in Wisconsin, or make it less ambiguous. That entire clown show was all 100% on bad prosecution.
"They need to change the law" is a pretty common statement, don't you find? Much too common for a system that works.
I think the same presumption that you make could also be applied to rioters….they shouldn’t be allowed to take a protest beyond a peaceful level…and when the begin to burn property they should be arrested immediately…and also assume some risk of bodily harm. I’m sure we could find all sorts of outdated laws that need changing. I think it’s a failure to enforce or selective enforcement of the law that causes stuff like this to happen.
Those who damaged property and conducted arson were arrested and charged, once identified. Do you really believe that there are those that destroyed property, that were identified, and then got off during trial?
Much like jan 6, the justice system is not swift but it is grinding. Those people are charged, convicted and in some cases locked up. But that doesn't generate clicks so...
I think that is positive, but it doesn’t address the risk a person assumes when the are a part of a destructive mob. Their are inherent risks on the left and right.
Yes, it does. If simply being "present" and in philosophical agreement with those that are a "destructive mob," but not actually "destroying" anything creates a "risk", then being present, and not in agreement creates the same risk. Because the only difference between one party not destroying anything, and another party not destroying anything is party. So if risk is equal, it doesn't apply. And for those that are destroying property, they'll get arrested and charged once identified. There aren't inherent risks on the left or the right. Risk isn't political. It is definitional. And BEING a risk, meaning, carrying a weapon, is different than being AT RISK.
Fire his ass. Saw where the kid drove himself to the hospital and was admitted with critical injuries and was further charged with assaulting the police officer, for *check notes- driving away as a cop shoots at him for no reason.
well either he was completely innocent eating a burger and a cop attempted to kill him or he was wanted and on the run, imo. I’d like to know.
Strange that the cop didn't follow standard procedure like parking his cruiser with lights flashing behind the car in question so it couldn't drive off, then walked up and yanked open a door without warning or prompt, then immediately started shooting when he wasn't greeted with instant 100% compliance. Clearly the guy is just misunderstood.
I’d like to know more before assuming. If he’s been on the run for raping a 12 yr old girl, our opinions will differ on what’s warranted
Gunning down an unarmed citizen sitting in his car eating food is never warranted, regardless of the crimes they committed previously.