Even holding a knife - unless he was actively attacking someone is not reason to pump seven bullets into someone Truth is there are too many shoootings in America you have become inured https://theconversation.com/austral...n-the-past-year-should-we-be-concerned-169354 So the Australian police have shot and killed 164 people over a 20 year period - is that better or worse than America?
I agree. Sadly, guns are almost worshipped among some Americans. Kyle was too young to even have a gun. He wasn't old enough to practice good judgement in that dangerous situation.
I take it you havn't watch Kyle's testimony on the stand then... are you really interested in the case... or just the verdict?
Really? I heard the knife was in his vehicle, but not in his hand. The reasoning for shooting him 7 times was the police were afraid he was reaching for the knife. Did I hear wrong?
BOTH. This is a very important case. It will help set a precedent for vigilante activity using a gun.
I just gotta wonder how you didn't know about the first aid if you're following the case... its kinda a central issue of the case.
Blake admitted it: https://www.kake.com/story/43183848...e-in-his-possession-on-day-of-police-shooting During his first television interview since police shot him in the back, Jacob Blake admitted that he not only had a knife in his possession at the time of the shooting, he had "dropped" it before picking it up once more. “I realized I had dropped my knife, had a little pocket knife. So I picked it up after I got off of him because they tased me and I fell on top of him,” Blake explained to ABC's Michael Strahan in an interview that aired on ABC’s Good Morning America (GMA). “I shouldn’t have picked it up, only considering what was going on,” he continued. “At that time, I wasn’t thinking clearly.” In early January, Kenosha County district attorney Michael Graveley said that he would not file charges against the officer who shot Blake seven times, because the he was acting in self-defense against an armed assailant. Blake had a history of resisting police arrest using a knife. Anyway, the Wisconsin trial you are assigning meaning to really is a self-defense case, not a race case. It will all boil down to how the jury sees the first shooting. The guy reportedly was an aggressive, mouthy person with a pedo record, but he never really touched KR. KR claims to have seen him with a chain earlier when he was mouthing off and he was pursuing him. The Georgia case has some implications, but Georgia has since changed its citizens arrest laws already in response to this case. They will be judged according to the law that existed at the time, not the new version (at least in theory). That this encounter created enough sentiment to get the laws changed so quickly probably doesn't bode well for the defendants. That said, IIRC from the video I watched at the time, the victim sort of charged around the truck at them before being shot so I am not sure what I would do as a juror with that. I would need a lot more detail about what lead up to it than has been reported.
So you are arguing that being criminally attacked is AOK because of being a free person in a free country?
Because the police were only protecting the government property while they stood down and watched the private property be destroyed.
Some people have said the Ahmaud Arbery case reminds them of the Treyvon Martin case. However, Ahmaud's case reminds me of the Emmitt Till case. They were both lynched horribly and shown no mercy. Emmitt Till was lynched in Mississippi in 1955 for whistling at a White woman. Ahmaud Arbrey was lynched in Georgia in 2020 for looking inside a house that was under construction. I guess we haven't come very far have we?
A defense attorney in the Arbery case certainly isn't helping their client, but they surely have the right case! When he saw Al Sharpton in the courtroom (open to the public) he said: "...the idea that we're going to be serially bringing these people in to sit with the victim's family, one after another, obviously there's only so many pastors they can have, and if their pastor is Al Sharpton right now, that's fine, but then that's it. We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here, or other, Jesse Jackson, whoever was in here earlier this week, sitting with the victim's family, trying to influence the jury in this case..." Heehee
Yes, I saw that. This attorney isn't very smart. He is not helping his client by saying hateful things like this. How could he think this was OK?
Your post doesn't show any logic imo. Based on the evidence displayed from media... Rittenhouse killed in self-defence and is innocent. Ahmaud Arbery was murdered. He may have tried to grab the attackers gun....but that would be expected as he was trying to defend himself. If Ahmaud Arbery HAD grabbed the gun of the person chasing him and shot his attacker...he would be innocent of murder. It would be self defense.
I don't understand why we need to wait for either or both of these trials to be completed to know that it's "open season" on African-Americans. It has always been open season on any non-white people in this country.
That is true, MJ Davies. It has always been open season on African-Americans. That is why those 3 guys in Brunswick, Georgia thought it was OK to chase a young African-American man and shoot him dead. Would they have chased and killed a young White man the same way? All for looking at a house under construction? In my opinion, No.
Probably not but there is racism in/from all directions. The only difference is non-whites do not have "a voice" when it comes to these matters. If you search on the Rittenhouse care and Ashli Babbitt in this forum, it is clear to see that a double-standard applies when the perpetrator or victim is white. The very same people that say a minority person was killed by a cop because they disobeyed a direct order are now saying that she was just a petite, unarmed woman. What about the black woman that was shot in her own house in her own bed doing NOTHING wrong? And, this type of double-standard is not only acceptable to them, but mandated. I knew several white people that were fired for NOT being racists and sticking to whatever lie their co-workers spun about specific racially charged mismanaged cases. It will continue until more people speak up and live authentically. The people that don't want that don't want it because they get the privilege. It's a direct overlay to what Trump is doing to continue to cause chaos and destruction. He had NO issues with election fraud when he won in 2016 but NOW it's an issue and he's bilking people for millions and millions of dollars based on a total lie. I don't have any answers. All I can do is what I've always done. I am not racist or sexist or homophobic and I have taught that to my children. I have always done advocacy type work and volunteering. I will always speak up for what is right versus what is popular. At the end of the day, I can easily look at myself knowing I've lived by the morals and values I espouse.
But do these trials really have to do with African-Americans? How much does race actually have to do with this? And even if race did have something to do with it, that still does not mean they should be guilty.
He falsely presented himself as an EMT while he was providing basic first aid to people, as he is not a certified EMT (he was only in a pre-EMT training program with his local fire department). This did not grant him any sort of official special access (at least none that was addressed at the trial), though I'm sure it increased his welcome in the perception of the various groups he encountered. This all based on what was addressed in court, anyway. There were some things that were not admissable and therefore not discussed in detail, but in their brief discussion it seemed mostly to be stuff that happened either long before or long after the night of the shootings.
