Justice served for Arbery!

Apologies, I missed that "You" when I re-wrote the hypothetical to be in the third person instead of the second person.  It should read "They".

I think we fundamentally disagree with the notion that "it was only a meme".  Plausible deniability is the shield of a racist.  It is how they recruit.  As someone else pointed out, the ADL has no association with the government.  They also have their own history of controversies, but I am not going to fault them for raising awareness about potential or perceived messages of hate.  Although, as I stated previously, I was critical of the response to blanketly associate the okay symbol as hate speech.

We do know that Rittenhouse did meet with "Proud Boys".  Although some people were saying they were not Proud Boys, but rather white nationalists.  To be fair, Proud Boys are pretty much synonymous with white nationalism and supremacy, even if their official stance is against that.  It's the whole plausible deniability thing again.  Proud Boys as an organization is not officially racist, even if most of its members are.  Kyle is now coming out saying (after the trial?) that this was all a setup by his old attorney, who was fired over the incident.  So I can guess you just have to choose who you believe.

I have never seen anything related to him surrendering his phone (let alone willingly).  If police had search warrants, it is not like he would have had much choice in that decision.  It is important to note that evidence that may have indicated Kyle Rittenhouse as racially motivated (which was not really relevant) or desiring to shoot people (which seemed more relevant) were not allowed to be presented in the trial.  For example, footage of him saying the following in regard to a theft: "Bro, I wish I had my fucking AR. I'd start shooting rounds at them."  So there may have very well been questionable content they found on his phone/facebook that we will never know about, because it would not have been legally admissible evidence.  But that last detail is PURELY speculation on my part, and I will not let it color my opinion on the situation.

... we have gotten far off topic.  I do not even think Kyle is overtly racist, so I apologize if that was the conclusion you drew from my previous posts.  I simply was stating WHY this was a racially charged trial.  The photo with the Proud Boys/White Nationalists, where he made the okay sign, only served to elevate the racial undertones of the trial.

Edit:  Sorry, I should have re-read the second to last paragraph.  Cleaned it up a bit.

Nearly but not quite I still want to see those who tried to shield the McMichaels from justice being convicted for obstruction at the very least.

I find it a bit strange some here are suggesting the result of Rittenhouse case is a somekind of sweeping precedent that there are no laws of engagement. I was discussing this case when it happened, all it took was a quick look on Wisconsins laws and knowledge of justice system to tell he most likely won't/shouldn't be found guilty. The only question was if there was evidence of provocation by Rittenhouse before the shooting.

The idea that you'd now have a right to walk around with a gun and shoot anyone who's aggressive towards you without fear of being convicted is utter nonsense. It's still a case by case thing depending circumstances as a whole. Just because Wisconsin laws were upheld doesn't change it.

And then I read how "seld defence" is no more because this scateboard guy's right of self-defence was disregarded or something bizarre. Well, say he managed to knock out Rittenhouse and subdue him. He could face assault charges of course, for hitting someone with a scateboard. And he would claim it was self-defence because he feared for safety of other people. Then the court would evaluate  whether his actions were justified and he had a reason to fear.

Now it's another discussion if US laws are too accepting of guns and using deadly force to defend yourself. I think they are and it's part of the "culture" why there's so much violence in US. 

Some good news for you https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ahmaud-arbery-prosecutor-jackie-johnson-charged-obstruction/#app

Police department wanted to arrest these fuckers before but this DA shot it down.

I would agree that Rittenhouse case does not really change anything as far as laws are concerned but it does change temperament.  Meaning, everyone will become armed because this case gives them the green light that as long as you can justify a threat lethal force is approved.

First and foremost, Rittenhouse is just one case of many of exactly that, where people have been shot because someone was aggressive towards them and used the exact same self defense logic.  I do not know if this is the only real case you have ever noticed but there are dozen of them in the US all the time.  People using deadly force for every incident and claim fear for my life.  

The statement I am making is that if you are the killer you get to tell your story, you get to claim whatever you want, the dead hopes there is any video showing something different.  Lets take the Rittenhouse drone footage as an example.  What if the video was very clear that Rittenhouse was walking around pointing his gun at protestors. Wisconsin law still would allow him to claim self defense since he retreated from the scene but even in that part, any cagy person would be able to exploit that line in the law. I can retreat into a kill zone which limits my ability to retreat any further and thus have a reason to use deadly force to protect myself.

As to your last statement, that is the exact issue.  This is just another case that gives the green light to deadly force to resolve just about everything.  So that means in order for me to come out on top if I find myself in any type of jeopardy, I must be armed and ready to shoot first and ask questions later.

So what we are going to see is protestors being armed and anti protestors being armed and then those idiots in between who would love to strike that match and see both sides go to town.  Then we have people on the GOP front in congress telling their constituents to be armed and dangerous keeping that fire nice and lit.

It isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be and never was. Naturally many defentants will claim self-defence and naturally many of them are still found guilty of murder. Pre-trial investigation and courtroom are there even though you can't hear both sides of the story. And both could be lying anyway. People trying to cover up their crimes in various ways isn't anything new you know.

Not sure even in Wisconsin simply retreating would be enough to claim self-defence if you are the one provocing the situation to begin with. Had Rittenhouse been pointing his gun or threatening to kill someone I'd say he'd been convicted. Don't know what difference this makes now as there was no evidence of him doing it. That maniac was assaulting him while Rittenhouse was retreating. 

No it doesn't give green light to resolve everything with deadly force. And if you find yourself in jeopardy, use extreme means only if you feel your life is immediate danger and there's no other options to exhaust. You don't have to live your life thinking you could've done something differently or risk a life in prison. In US I bet there's thousands of conflicts and fights resolved every day without deadly force.

So if a kid charges you with a fork, don't shoot him :P even if already existing law was upheld in Rittenhouse case.

As for your last statement, way ahead of you. I called this would happen when rioting started and people turned on police not wanting them to do their job. It's not like this was the first time there's armed people shooting at protests either. 

Oh one more question @Machiavellian

Just to be clear, are you critizizing/worried about your current laws of self-defence or the outcome of Ritterhouse trial? If it's the former then yeah, I can somewhat see where you're coming from but if it's the latter, I'm not sure what you wanted to happen. This guy to spend his life in prison even though there wasn't enough evidence to deem him act against the law, just because someone uninformed tool might think this'll be a loophole to kill people without consequences?

Just saying, I've been critical about Rittenhouse, but I don't believe he should be spending his entire life behind bars. One or two years would likely be enough for me. 

In general, sentencing should be much more forward looking than backwards looking, in my opinion. There is little reason to assume that Rittenhouse will be a significant danger to the public so there is no need to keep him behind bars for a huge portion of his life.

The mass murder of 6 innocent people in Waukesha Wisconsin is so sad. People out in an Xmas parade trying to just have a good time, 50 of which were injured by someone driving though the parade in an SUV, who shouldn't have been. That may not be clear based on most of the coverage though.

Media blasted for referring to Waukesha parade attack as 'crash' | Fox News

I've seen the Ford Escape meme, and it's one of the few times I couldn't even laugh due to the sad circumstances. Hopefully justice can somewhat help heal some wounds for this community.