Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

A big relief is that both the left and right were mostly united in the guilty verdict for those men who murdered (lynched) Ahmad Aubrey.

It was chilling to watch the video evidence of Ahmad being cornered and shot as he was finally forced to make a feeble attempt to defend himself.

Finally in the deep South, people are saying no more.

I am for sure not a believer in the Tucker _ucker.

PAL wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:34 pm Tucker Carlson interviews Kyle. He is a "sweet boy" according to Carlson.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774712 ... ox-s-lawye



"You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers"

"Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way."

Tucker Carlson interviews Kyle. He is a "sweet boy" according to Carlson.

Headline;

"The next Kyle Rittenhouse legal battle? The $2 million bail posted after his arrest."

"Rittenhouse’s attorneys filed a motion shortly after the verdict, arguing that the money should be given to the teenager because it was raised on his behalf.

Another party, however, thinks the money belongs to them and staked their claim to it even before Rittenhouse’s attorneys did.

The Fightback Foundation — an organization run by right-wing lawyer Lin Wood — filed a motion shortly after the verdict Friday asking that the money be refunded to that group. "

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct- ... story.html

Well, one thing for certain, it was a messed up scene all the way around.
Did Kyle actually think he would end up shooting and killing 2 people. He does have to live with this the rest of his life, even though he did what he thought was right and maybe he really did feel like his life was threatened. I do think he must have panicked as well. Was scared, so shot.
And now some politicians want him as an intern. Aaagh. Why not?

PAL wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 2:23 pm I didn't see a "mob" chasing him, maybe 10 or even less. But I couldn't see the whole picture.

Maybe I should have said "members of a mob chased him".

From Google search

"A mob is an unruly and often violent group of people, especially one engaged in a riot or other lawless violence. Some mobs organize intentionally to engage in violence and destruction, but sometimes people assemble spontaneously and turn into a mob, such as in reaction to some event."

By watching the video, it was hard to tell what was happening as it was all happening so fast. I'm sure they slowed that video way down. I didn't see a "mob" chasing him, maybe 10 or even less. But I couldn't see the whole picture.
The jury did their job, but did Kyle learn anything from this?
What I want to know, where is the parent in this? I think he was just with his mother? Father? He was a minor at the time. Did they know he had such a weapon? Did they care? Has no bearing on the trial now.
But...what wasn't on trial was the police and guard giving him water, telling him they were glad he was there.
There is a civil suit now and it is including the law enforcement people as well as others.
Again, what has Kyle learned?
Pearl

The problem is that it isn't clear to me where the lines are. I agree that "threat of death or serious bodily injury to oneself or others" is a necessary criteria for use of deadly force, but I do not think it sufficient.

Under the logic of this verdict, I could load up a shotgun and an AR-15 and cruise around a rough neighborhood (e.g. South Hill in Tacoma) until somebody threatened me, then I could shoot them because I was reasonably in fear of my life. How is such a rule or such "logic" different from a license to hunt people?

Or, for that matter, some black kids from Seattle could come to Omak and cruise around until somebody confronted them aggressively (and we all know that would happen soon enough) and then they could open fire? Would that be okay too?

For another thought experiment, consider: I often ride my bike to town to buy groceries. What if someone steals my bike? I duly report it to the police but Winthrop is a small town and word gets out. I find out who stole my bike and drive by and sure enough, my bike is there. So I call the police and tell them where the bike is, and they regretfully tell me that they don't have the resources to recover my bike.

At this point, if I go to recover my bike armed, and get in a confrontation with someone there and shoot them, am I justified in using deadly force? If the people at that house encounter a belligerent armed person saying something about a stolen bike are they justified in shooting me? Both of them can't be right. Or would it be whoever shoots first wins?

Well yea David, I wouldn't have been there either, I would have moved to the Methow to the get away from the risks that occur when too many humans are crammed into one area such as a city.

I'm saying, put yourself in his shoes. Your young, locked and loaded, thinking that you are doing good for the community and then you get in over your head and are about to be over taken by an angry mob as you are trying to flee a dangerous situation.

I agree though, the laws governing peaceful protests need to change.

Mob mentality is known to be unpredictable.

Perhaps everyone leave the weapons at home?

Maybe I am naive, but I wouldn't have gone to a riot armed with an AR-15 in the first place. Apparently he claimed he went there to protect other people's property.

It doesn't any make sense for civilians to be able to use deadly force to protect property, and it makes even less sense for civilians to use deadly force to protect somebody else's property.

The Rittenhouse case sets a deranged and lawless precedent. I don't fault the jurors or even the judge, it is the law that is an arse here.

The court of public opinion doesn't get to see and hear all the relevant testimony that is presented during a trial.

But from what I saw of the videos, that miss-guided 17 year old was running away from an angry mob during an escalating full blown riot.

If I remember correctly, the day before, one man trying to defend his property had his jaw broken by that mob. He was hit with a concrete filled plastic bottle (we all carry those at peaceful protests right?).

That teenager only fired his weapon when he was about to be overtaken by that angry mob, twice.

The jury found that according to Wisconsin law that 17 year old had a right to defend himself in that situation.

Put yourself in that situation. Your adrenaline is overflowing and you are fearing for your life at that point.

What would you have done?

“None of whom were actually protesting”? Once again you prove you know actually nothing about what you speak. ‘Expert level researcher’, ha you’re a joke!

Verdict just in;

Rittenhouse found not guilty on all counts.

Nice detective work, there!

In these decadent and fallen times, it is very important to run down malevolent disinformation such as this.

I see the Washington Examiner is at it again. Point 1, Google tells me that it was not George McKelvey that made this tweet, it was GREGORY McKelvey who is a Portland political activist not a public servant. The context of why Gregory McKelvey made the tweet makes sense since the riot/protest where Rittenhouse shot and killed two people was about the larger issue of black people being shot by the police. I find it amazing how intentional disinformation once again accomplishes conversations that promote tribalism.

https://www.thefocus.news/culture/who-i ... -mckelvey/

Also, for the record, now that I think about it if I thought that giving people a day off was going to prevent a riot with people being killed or injured or property damage I would think that would be a reasonable thing to do. But I don't think giving anyone a day off is going to prevent that from happening.

Like I said previously, there are serious questions around what constitutes reasonable self-defense in both the Rittenhouse case (and the Ahmaud Arbery case in Georgia) and I'm not impressed with how either trial is dealing with those questions.

You’ll need to ‘selfie’ the “meltdown” part, I’ll probably get a beer for it!

dorankj wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:30 am Happy too, with my Loren Culp hat on too. Probably get applause in Hanks.

Please let me know when. Youtube pays well for public meltdown videos, and I can donate the proceeds to help homeless trans undocumented people.

Happy too, with my Loren Culp hat on too. Probably get applause in Hanks.

Stupidity isn't confined to one political party.

I do have a problem with the liberal definition of "self-defense" being used in many contexts today. And I think most sane, civilized people would as well. While I do agree it should be legal to kill people, the situations where it is legal need to be very specifically defined and unambiguous and it should be full-on illegal outside of those situations. Choosing to travel, fully armed, to what was apparently a riot isn't one of those situations. And protecting private property, most especially someone else's private property, certainly isn't one of those situations either.

(And I mean "liberal" not in the political sense, but more in the sense that it is excessively broad and generous).

File this under “truth is stranger than fiction.” We have now reached a point where Democrats are calling for black workers to receive time off work because of the verdict in a case where white people were killed by a white person.

This sentence in the post is an example of a generalization and I consider poor reporting. He uses the plural, Democrats, lumping, I guess, a bunch of Democrats together. Hopefully this is just one misguided Democrat and not the whole lot.

Ken, I see you have latched onto the meme, the crowd so cleverly thought up in Florida, "Let's Go Brandon". The Republican party can now snigger like a bunch of junior high kids, thinking they are pulling one over on us. One daren't say what they really mean. Be bold, be brave, say, "f*** Joe Biden" if you want. In the middle of Hanks. Dare ya.

Maybe our illustrious, most popular President in American history shouldn’t have called the defendant a “white supremacist”! But no mean tweets, Let’s go Brandon!

Democrat wants employers to let black workers take the day off after the Rittenhouse verdict

Washington Examiner
Christopher Tremoglie 8 hrs ago


File this under “truth is stranger than fiction.” We have now reached a point where Democrats are calling for black workers to receive time off work because of the verdict in a case where white people were killed by a white person.

Gregory McKelvey, vice chair of the Oregon Democrats Black Caucus and host of the podcast “Your Neighborhood Black Friends,” thinks employers should give black employees “a day or two off” after the Rittenhouse verdict is announced.

This is not wokeness. This is just stupid. It's almost insulting to blacks.

“Employers, consider giving your Black employees a day or two off after the Rittenhouse verdict,” McKelvey tweeted. "Regardless of the outcome, it’s going to be hard for Black people to work and it isn’t fair to expect them to."

In the Rittenhouse trial, the accused is not black. The victims are not black. The lawyers are not black. The judge is not black.

It is hogwash to assert that the trial or verdict has any meaningful effect on the black community. And I am guessing that outside the fever swamps of cable news, the overwhelming majority of black people do not even care about the trial or its outcome.

Only in American can you find a person who feels the black community is so traumatized by a white teenager shooting white people in self-defense that they need mental health days off from work.

This epitomizes the lazy, fragile, cowardly, race-obsessed sycophancy of the Democratic Party. They pretend to care about and help the black community, but their actions do irreparable harm.

Several black Republicans took issue with McKelvey’s statement. Former California gubernatorial candidate Larry Elder found the statement nonsensical and hypocritical. “How many white people were given the day off after a jury allowed double murderer O.J. Simpson to walk?” Elder told me.

YG Nyghtstorm, the Godchild of Dr. Alveda King and candidate for Georgia’s 7th Congressional District, was also very critical of the tweet.

“So a white kid that defends himself from other white people attacking him from other white people is somehow white supremacy,” Nyghtstorm said. “This is ridiculous and to say that black people are too emotionally weak where we cannot go to work due to his verdict is just plain stupid. I’ve seen racism and this ain’t it.”