Racism in Southern America..

[Jack the Sipper]

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

‘Letter of the law’ is such a loaded comment. It wasn’t a fucking loophole he exploited. The case was shit right from the outset.   It’s all there in the thread but still people like you are trying to make something out of this that isn’t there.  FFS we’ve even had a bloke claim n***** is ok to use.  I’ve followed this right from the start and it’s been taken up by people as a racist shooter narrative by people right up to the fucking President so take your honest observer shite and stick it up Mooks hoop. 

 

As I've said already, I'm not arguing against the verdict, I'm arguing against the idea, the claim put forward on here and elsewhere, that most defendants of this racist thug don't have a vested interest in the outcome of this case that goes beyond seeing the law rightly applied. 

 

 

[Rico1304]

4 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

if you're not of the bizarre belief that the little shit, photographed in the company of members of the Proud Boys was doing nothing more than 'making an ok sign, and then giving an exclusive to someone who promotes the idea of a 'replacement theory' on his primetime show across America, then I think that's already been established.

 

 

So once again, it’s other people doing stuff that makes him racist. Other than him making the ok sign. But the guy calling Rittenhouse n****** isn’t?  
 

Remind me again of the thread where we are told that hanging out with terrorists all over the world absolutely shouldn’t stain your character?  

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

As I've said already, I'm not arguing against the verdict, I'm arguing against the idea, the claim put forward on here and elsewhere, that most defendants of this racist thug don't have a vested interest in the outcome of this case that goes beyond seeing the law rightly applied. 

 

 

But no comment or acknowledgment that people who are decrying the verdict don’t have a vested interest in the outcome of this case beyond seeing the law incorrectly applied.  

[Jack the Sipper]

14 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

So once again, it’s other people doing stuff that makes him racist. Other than him making the ok sign. But the guy calling Rittenhouse n****** isn’t?  
 

Remind me again of the thread where we are told that hanging out with terrorists all over the world absolutely shouldn’t stain your character?  

 

Who made him do a well-known white supremacist gesture? Who made him hang out with the Proud Boys, or Tucker fucking Carlson? who made him turn up at a BLM protest with a fucking gun? 

[CapeRed]

47 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Had the roles been reversed and a young black man had been charged with unlawfully killing two white protesters at a white supremacist protest, with self-defence being the black gunman's defence, I very much doubt we'd see the likes of Tucker Carlson and other far-right commentators, never mind some of the posters on here, arguing voraciously that their concern is that the principles of justice, fair play and the letter of the law are applied, and that they have no more skin in the game than that. 

 

As I said above, disingenuous bollocks.

 

 

If the roles were reversed surely it would be a young black guy charged with unlawfully killing 2 black protestors using self defence as a plea? It would be interesting to see both Tucker Carlson and Joy Reids take on it.

[Jack the Sipper]

14 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

But no comment or acknowledgment that people who are decrying the verdict don’t have a vested interest in the outcome of this case beyond seeing the law incorrectly applied.  

 

Of course the same applies to them, although I can't say I've seen anyone on here defend the protester who supposedly called a white man 'n*gger' with anything like the ferocity that you've been defending your man Rittenhouse against claims of being racist.

 

I'd like to believe that this latest episode is just another example of your inability to concede a point. 

 

At least, I fucking hope it is.

[Rico1304]

7 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Who made him do a well-known white supremacist gesture? Who made him hang out with the Proud Boys, or Tucker fucking Carlson? who made him turn up at a BLM protest with a fucking gun? 

He made the ok sign. He didn’t wear a KKK outfit or call someone n*****.  Looks like he was in restaurant and some cocks asked him for a picture.  Tucker is the highest profile pundit on American tv and sympathetic to his politics. He doesn’t have to act the way you fucking expect him to. Why would he go on a liberal channel? Why would he face a hostile interview? He’s done nothing wrong.  
 

Why did the paedo and the wife beater attend the riot? Why did they attack him? Why did the bloke point his gun at him (Darwinism in play)?  

[Jack the Sipper]

1 minute ago, CapeRed said:

If the roles were reversed surely it would be a young black guy charged with unlawfully killing 2 black protestors using self defence as a plea? It would be interesting to see both Tucker Carlson and Joy Reids take on it.

Which is why I added 'two white protesters' to the role reversal.

 

Had a black man been charged with killing two black protesters, however, I suspect that Carlson and his ilk would be siding with whoever seemed the more conservative in outlook but ultimately considering it as a win-win.

[Jack the Sipper]

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

He made the ok sign.

 

And with that, I'm out.

[Rico1304]

4 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Of course the same applies to them, although I can't say I've seen anyone on here defend the protester who supposedly called a white man 'n*gger' with anything like the ferocity that you've been defending your man Rittenhouse against claims of being racist.

 

I'd like to believe that this latest episode is just another example of your inability to concede a point. 

 

At least, I fucking hope it is.

Oh right, so I’m racist too?  We got there in the end.  
 

If someone is called a racist, you’d expect their to be clear evidence of them being racist.  I mean like people he’d been racist to, or things he’d said.  Until that point I’ll just assume he isn’t. Sorry if that’s an amazing and unnatural position to take.  I mean we have the Covington kid as an example where the media jump all over a story and it turns out not to be true.  

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

And with that, I'm out.

Frustrating being asked to prove shit isn’t it? Maybe we should just do away with it altogether.  

[CapeRed]

11 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Which is why I added 'two white protesters' to the role reversal.

 

Had a black man been charged with killing two black protesters, however, I suspect that Carlson and his ilk would be siding with whoever seemed the more conservative in outlook but ultimately considering it as a win-win.

Why do you only criticise one side of US media?  They are both guilty of putting out some horrendous stuff which stoke the fires of intolerance and hatred.

[Rico1304]

Also worth pointing out that the FBI had access to all of his social media, his computer and his phone.  Nothing other than a selfie in a bar after he’d been bailed. 

[CapeRed]

16 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Which is why I added 'two white protesters' to the role reversal.

 

Had a black man been charged with killing two black protesters, however, I suspect that Carlson and his ilk would be siding with whoever seemed the more conservative in outlook but ultimately considering it as a win-win.

In terms of role reversal as per previous you would change the parties from 1 white guy and 2 white bodies to 1 black guy and 2 black bodies.? Mixing it as in your example changes the dynamics completely and IMO is the wrong comparison.

[Kevin D]

On 20/11/2021 at 09:02, Anubis said:

Via some of the more reliable US lawyers on Twitter who provided commentary on salient points of evidence. I stayed away from news reports as they seemed pretty partisan from both sides.

 

Did you follow the particulars of the case?

 

I know you're a solicitor( you, Martin, Andrew and I think Nelly-Torres) so just curious what you made of it all? The American culture war stuff makes everything hard to follow and I've only seen headlines here and there.

[TD_LFC]

49 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

He made the ok sign.

And Wayne Hennessey waved and shouted at the person taking the picture to get on with it and put his hand over his mouth to make the sound carry.

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

And Wayne Hennessey waved and shouted at the person taking the picture to get on with it and put his hand over his mouth to make the sound carry.

He made the ok sign. What would you call it?  
 

This one - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ok-sign-white-power-supremacy-alt-right-4chan-trolling-hoax-a9249846.html

 

 

[TD_LFC]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

He made the ok sign. What would you call it?  

I'm just backing up your point, it's very easy for these poor boys to have there actions misconstrued by people wanting to see what isn't there

 

 

[Pureblood]

29 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

 

Did you follow the particulars of the case?

 

I know you're a solicitor( you, Martin, Andrew and I think Nelly-Torres) so just curious what you made of it all? The American culture war stuff makes everything hard to follow and I've only seen headlines here and there.

I agree with everything Rico has said. 

 

Politics doesn't come into it, for me.

 

He's plainly not guilty of the charges against him. The jury did well to concentrate on the evidence, put other influences aside and come to their verdict accordingly.

[Kevin D]

3 minutes ago, Pureblood said:

I agree with everything Rico has said. 

 

Politics doesn't come into it, for me.

 

He's plainly not guilty of the charges against him. The jury did well to concentrate on the evidence, put other influences aside and come to their verdict accordingly.

 

Nice one, Martin.

 

As I said, i only saw bits and bobs from the headlines, but do you mean the prosecutors fucked up and didn't present the case properly, or that nothing he did was a crime? As I understand it, he was armed and recklessly provoked a deadly confrontation?

[Pureblood]

10 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

 

Nice one, Martin.

 

As I said, i only saw bits and bobs from the headlines, but do you mean the prosecutors fucked up and didn't present the case properly, or that nothing he did was a crime? As I understand it, he was armed and recklessly provoked a deadly confrontation?

I'm not well versed with the facts, but my understanding is that he felt under immediate threat for his life and was able to prove as such in court, so I don't have a problem with the verdict.  Not every homicide is a murder.

 

From a UK perspective, it is difficult for us to understand the legal nuances because we don't have the gun culture. But put it this way; if someone's pointing a gun at me, and I have a split second to decide what to do and I'm also armed, I'd probably pull the trigger to save my own life.

 

Whether I would put myself in the same situation as Rittenhouse did, or I whether I should be allowed to, is another argument.

 

[TD_LFC]

Fucking Rambo over here, won't even take his medicine because he's scared of needles but he's duelling people in the streets.

[Kevin D]

8 minutes ago, Pureblood said:

I'm not well versed with the facts, but my understanding is that he felt under immediate threat for his life and was able to prove as such in court, so I don't have a problem with the verdict.  Not every homicide is a murder.

 

From a UK perspective, it is difficult for us to understand the legal nuances because we don't have the gun culture. But put it this way; if someone's pointing a gun at me, and I have a split second to decide what to do and I'm also armed, I'd probably pull the trigger to save my own life.

 

Whether I would put myself in the same situation as Rittenhouse did, or I whether I should be allowed to, is another argument.

 

 

Wouldn't being armed and actively choosing to put yourself in a dangerous scenario prove intent? Manslaughter, no?

[Pureblood]

7 minutes ago, Kevin D said:

 

Wouldn't being armed and actively choosing to put yourself in a dangerous scenario prove intent? Manslaughter, no?

That's not what the jury had to decide.  As far as I'm aware, it wasn't illegal for him to be armed or in attendance at the protest. 

[Bjornebye]

IT WASN"T A FUCKING "OK" SIGN IT WAS A WHITE POWER GESTURE!!!!!! Fuck sake