|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Nov 19, 2021 12:53:12 GMT -8
You, and others like yourself, love to fan the flames of race issues. Way to go!!! You must be extremely proud of yourself. I'd rather live in a world where we acknowledge injustice rather than deny it and pretend that "white is right." I'm proud to have a standard for equal rights and justice for all, rather than a select few. Was Kyle innocent or guilty of murder? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 19, 2021 12:53:26 GMT -8
You have no clue whether that's true or not. You're guessing, in poor faith judgment, because you have no sense of anything that deals with this topic. Historical proof is on my side in a landslide. I'm glad you're admitting that you're a Rittenhouse supporter. Great moral judgment there. I'm not watering down anything. You are, by insisting that justice is equal in this country. I get it, you always talk about stats from long ago and I agree that it was horrible back then. Fortunately, times have changed some and all walks of life are getting more fairly judged. What the hell are you talking about? Long ago? Ahmaud Arbery was killed in 2020. That was last year. Are you this ignorant, truly, that you really think the scales of justice have balance to them? On average, Black offenders get sentenced 19.1% longer than similarly situated White offenders. 19.1%. But please, pretend that we live in a utopia where punishment is exacted in a fair and equal manner. You're kidding yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 19, 2021 12:54:34 GMT -8
I'd rather live in a world where we acknowledge injustice rather than deny it and pretend that "white is right." I'm proud to have a standard for equal rights and justice for all, rather than a select few. Was Kyle innocent or guilty of murder? He murdered two people. "Not guilty" doesn't equal innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 19, 2021 12:58:01 GMT -8
Sounds logical, afterall it's San Diego, there are a lot of dangerous skate boarders on the streets and sidewalks. well...Poway is a bit boring ..in a good way I guess. However, I avoid any confrontation with another driver..or any stranger in a potential confrontation situation ..but I'm just smart and old!! I hear ya. I assume everyone has a gun, so unlike the 60's and 70's, I'm less likely to confront anybody out there. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Nov 19, 2021 12:58:26 GMT -8
Come on William, you've been around awhile. Remember Lyndon Johnson looking out the White House windows with much of DC on fire?..Detroit? Watts? Rodney King?..and many more..We have survived many riots..nowyou can remind me how many times the Capitol has been attacked..while in session? False equivalence. Well, Germany and Japan survived World War II, but you might want to ask elderly Germans and Japanese what it was like living in their countries in the 1944-1949 period. I believe that the greatest threat to the U.S.A. comes from far-left activists who reject the legitimacy of the basic structure and history of the country. They would, if they could, turn it into a highly authoritarian land in which individual rights would be treated in the same way that they were treated in the Soviet Union and are currently treated in Communist China. Fortunately for Germany and Japan, they lost to countries with no interest in treating the losers as the winners treated Germany in 1919. Instead, the USA, Britain, and France deliberately helped the losers recover and adopt a system of government that respected the observance of individual rights and the ability to vote for their leaders. AzWm "Turn into highly authoritarian"? Are you talking about trump and the far right? The far left is poorly organized. and actually less of a threat than in the late 60's. The right has many organizations and sources of money..the left is ragtag. I know the goto is George Soros....but that's been the goto for 30 years.. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 19, 2021 12:59:20 GMT -8
Was Kyle innocent or guilty of murder? He murdered two people. "Not guilty" doesn't equal innocent. Somewhere on here, you admitted that you didn't think he was guilty of murder. Is that correct? After looking it up, you said that you can make a case that he wasn't guilty of murder. Thats a far cry from you now saying that he's a murderer. And, you said that before the trial even started, a trial that blew the theory that it was murder, and not self defense, out of the water. You be you, though. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 19, 2021 13:07:47 GMT -8
Was Kyle innocent or guilty of murder? He murdered two people. Your post is disappointing. You know very well that Kyle Rittenhouse was found innocent. To call him a murderer is to reject the jury system. Clearly, this case was much, much more complicated than much of the media reported at first. When even one of the prosecution witnesses supports the defense, you know that something is wrong with the original narrative. Also, the prosecutor claimed at first that Rittenhouse chased one the the victims. It quickly became clear that the reverse was actually true. Again, either you accept the verdict of the court, or you don't. Juries are not immune from error, but in the main, I think our system is pretty good. Could be better, of course, but in this case it's clear that a verdict of not guilty did not come our of think air. You could back to the sham of a trial of the accused killers of Emit Till if you'd like to cite an unjust verdict. But --- let's see --- that's when I was in junior high, and I now have grand children in their 20s. Check the calendar; it's 2021, not 1955. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 19, 2021 13:13:42 GMT -8
Your post is disappointing. You know very well that Kyle Rittenhouse was found innocent. To call him a murderer is to reject the jury system. Clearly, this case was much, much more complicated than much of the media reported at first. When even one of the prosecution witnesses supports the defense, you know that something is wrong with the original narrative. Also, the prosecutor claimed at first that Rittenhouse chased one the the victims. It quickly became clear that the reverse was actually true. Again, either you accept the verdict of the court, or you don't. Juries are not immune from error, but in the main, I think our system is pretty good. Could be better, of course, but in this case it's clear that a verdict of not guilty did not come our of think air. You could back to the sham of a trial of the accused killers of Emit Till if you'd like to cite an unjust verdict. But --- let's see --- that's when I was in junior high, and I now have grand children in their 20s. Check the calendar; it's 2021, not 1955. AzWm Ryan will say that he's on the justice train, but he's actually on the irresponsible thoughts train, and trying to be the best, look at me I'm the best SJW out there!!! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 19, 2021 13:20:44 GMT -8
Your post is disappointing. You know very well that Kyle Rittenhouse was found innocent. To call him a murderer is to reject the jury system. Clearly, this case was much, much more complicated than much of the media reported at first. When even one of the prosecution witnesses supports the defense, you know that something is wrong with the original narrative. Also, the prosecutor claimed at first that Rittenhouse chased one the the victims. It quickly became clear that the reverse was actually true. Again, either you accept the verdict of the court, or you don't. Juries are not immune from error, but in the main, I think our system is pretty good. Could be better, of course, but in this case it's clear that a verdict of not guilty did not come our of think air. You could back to the sham of a trial of the accused killers of Emit Till if you'd like to cite an unjust verdict. But --- let's see --- that's when I was in junior high, and I now have grand children in their 20s. Check the calendar; it's 2021, not 1955. AzWm Every post of yours is disappointing, including the ones where you continue to disrespect reality and try to equate civil unrest of assassinations of unarmed minorities with an unlawful attack on a body of Congress like they are somehow the same thing. But who are we kidding, you're not interested in truth, you just want to advance your warped agenda. Disrespect the jury system? Are we supposed to believe that every verdict is honorable and just? Is there not a single person in this country wrongfully convicted or acquitted? The absurdity of your notion is enormous and laughable, but also sadly the norm. Eric Garner - Dead Philando Castile - Dead Tamir Rice - Dead Laquan McDonald - Dead Oscar Grant - Dead Ronnell Foster - Dead George Floyd - Dead Jacob Blake - Dead Willie McCoy - Dead (Shot by the same officer who killed Ronnell Foster) Those men didn't get a jury, they got a bullet, or in McCoy's case, 55 of them. None of those occurred in 1955. But, yes, let's uphold the notion that we have to respect "the system" because...why again? The system is corrupt and broken, a total joke. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Nov 19, 2021 13:21:14 GMT -8
Was Kyle innocent or guilty of murder? He murdered two people. "Not guilty" doesn't equal innocent. Do you mean he killed two people? There is a difference between Murder (The killing of another person without justification or excuse) and killing, yes? If you think he murdered two people then you think he is guilty of murder. Is he innocent or guilty of murder? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 19, 2021 13:21:29 GMT -8
Your post is disappointing. You know very well that Kyle Rittenhouse was found innocent. To call him a murderer is to reject the jury system. Clearly, this case was much, much more complicated than much of the media reported at first. When even one of the prosecution witnesses supports the defense, you know that something is wrong with the original narrative. Also, the prosecutor claimed at first that Rittenhouse chased one the the victims. It quickly became clear that the reverse was actually true. Again, either you accept the verdict of the court, or you don't. Juries are not immune from error, but in the main, I think our system is pretty good. Could be better, of course, but in this case it's clear that a verdict of not guilty did not come our of think air. You could back to the sham of a trial of the accused killers of Emit Till if you'd like to cite an unjust verdict. But --- let's see --- that's when I was in junior high, and I now have grand children in their 20s. Check the calendar; it's 2021, not 1955. AzWm Ryan will say that he's on the justice train, but he's actually on the irresponsible thoughts train, and trying to be the best, look at me I'm the best SJW out there!!! Sorry if the truth offends you. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 19, 2021 13:30:00 GMT -8
Well, Germany and Japan survived World War II, but you might want to ask elderly Germans and Japanese what it was like living in their countries in the 1944-1949 period. I believe that the greatest threat to the U.S.A. comes from far-left activists who reject the legitimacy of the basic structure and history of the country. They would, if they could, turn it into a highly authoritarian land in which individual rights would be treated in the same way that they were treated in the Soviet Union and are currently treated in Communist China. Fortunately for Germany and Japan, they lost to countries with no interest in treating the losers as the winners treated Germany in 1919. Instead, the USA, Britain, and France deliberately helped the losers recover and adopt a system of government that respected the observance of individual rights and the ability to vote for their leaders. AzWm "Turn into highly authoritarian"? Are you talking about trump and the far right? The far left is poorly organized. and actually less of a threat than in the late 60's. The right has many organizations and sources of money..the left is ragtag. I know the goto is George Soros....but that's been the goto for 30 years.. I have much more to say on this topic, but for now I'll stand by my statement. I made a bet with myself as to how soon Trump's name would come up. I do not reject the idea that Trump, under the right circumstances, might threaten to seize power. (Perhaps with a presidential pronouncement declaring the two turn limit for presidents invalid.) It would be a long shot even if that's what he really wanted to do. One of the circumstances to which I referred above would be if the same percentage of our news media were far right as opposed to the current far left. I don't see that happening. (I'd be satisfied to have news media that there honest and not determined to champion one side of the other.) By the way, I'd like to comment on Donald Trump versus Adolf Hitler. It takes someone with the discipline and will power of a Hitler to dominate a country. Trump lacks those. Also, it would take a population so upset by their country's current situation and history (thinking here of the Germans' anger aimed at the Treaty of Versailles) that they would welcome a savior such as Hitler. Fortunately, the American people are not like the German people of 1932. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 19, 2021 13:32:29 GMT -8
Your post is disappointing. You know very well that Kyle Rittenhouse was found innocent. To call him a murderer is to reject the jury system. Clearly, this case was much, much more complicated than much of the media reported at first. When even one of the prosecution witnesses supports the defense, you know that something is wrong with the original narrative. Also, the prosecutor claimed at first that Rittenhouse chased one the the victims. It quickly became clear that the reverse was actually true. Again, either you accept the verdict of the court, or you don't. Juries are not immune from error, but in the main, I think our system is pretty good. Could be better, of course, but in this case it's clear that a verdict of not guilty did not come our of think air. You could back to the sham of a trial of the accused killers of Emit Till if you'd like to cite an unjust verdict. But --- let's see --- that's when I was in junior high, and I now have grand children in their 20s. Check the calendar; it's 2021, not 1955. AzWm Every post of yours is disappointing, including the ones where you continue to disrespect reality and try to equate civil unrest of assassinations of unarmed minorities with an unlawful attack on a body of Congress like they are somehow the same thing. But who are we kidding, you're not interested in truth, you just want to advance your warped agenda. Disrespect the jury system? Are we supposed to believe that every verdict is honorable and just? Is there not a single person in this country wrongfully convicted or acquitted? The absurdity of your notion is enormous and laughable, but also sadly the norm. Eric Garner - Dead Philando Castile - Dead Tamir Rice - Dead Laquan McDonald - Dead Oscar Grant - Dead Ronnell Foster - Dead George Floyd - Dead Jacob Blake - Dead Willie McCoy - Dead (Shot by the same officer who killed Ronnell Foster) Those men didn't get a jury, they got a bullet, or in McCoy's case, 55 of them. None of those occurred in 1955. But, yes, let's uphold the notion that we have to respect "the system" because...why again? The system is corrupt and broken, a total joke. Okay, have it your way. If you do not like our current system, what is your suggestion for a replacement? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 19, 2021 13:33:36 GMT -8
Every post of yours is disappointing, including the ones where you continue to disrespect reality and try to equate civil unrest of assassinations of unarmed minorities with an unlawful attack on a body of Congress like they are somehow the same thing. But who are we kidding, you're not interested in truth, you just want to advance your warped agenda. Disrespect the jury system? Are we supposed to believe that every verdict is honorable and just? Is there not a single person in this country wrongfully convicted or acquitted? The absurdity of your notion is enormous and laughable, but also sadly the norm. Eric Garner - Dead Philando Castile - Dead Tamir Rice - Dead Laquan McDonald - Dead Oscar Grant - Dead Ronnell Foster - Dead George Floyd - Dead Jacob Blake - Dead Willie McCoy - Dead (Shot by the same officer who killed Ronnell Foster) Those men didn't get a jury, they got a bullet, or in McCoy's case, 55 of them. None of those occurred in 1955. But, yes, let's uphold the notion that we have to respect "the system" because...why again? The system is corrupt and broken, a total joke. Okay, have it you way. If you do not like our current system, what is your suggestion for a replacement? AzWm I'd like you to actually respond to the theme of injustice and admit you're not interested in impartial truth. Quit deflecting. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 19, 2021 13:36:00 GMT -8
Your post is disappointing. You know very well that Kyle Rittenhouse was found innocent. To call him a murderer is to reject the jury system. Clearly, this case was much, much more complicated than much of the media reported at first. When even one of the prosecution witnesses supports the defense, you know that something is wrong with the original narrative. Also, the prosecutor claimed at first that Rittenhouse chased one the the victims. It quickly became clear that the reverse was actually true. Again, either you accept the verdict of the court, or you don't. Juries are not immune from error, but in the main, I think our system is pretty good. Could be better, of course, but in this case it's clear that a verdict of not guilty did not come our of think air. You could back to the sham of a trial of the accused killers of Emit Till if you'd like to cite an unjust verdict. But --- let's see --- that's when I was in junior high, and I now have grand children in their 20s. Check the calendar; it's 2021, not 1955. AzWm Every post of yours is disappointing, including the ones where you continue to disrespect reality and try to equate civil unrest of assassinations of unarmed minorities with an unlawful attack on a body of Congress like they are somehow the same thing. But who are we kidding, you're not interested in truth, you just want to advance your warped agenda. Disrespect the jury system? Are we supposed to believe that every verdict is honorable and just? Is there not a single person in this country wrongfully convicted or acquitted? The absurdity of your notion is enormous and laughable, but also sadly the norm. Eric Garner - Dead Philando Castile - Dead Tamir Rice - Dead Laquan McDonald - Dead Oscar Grant - Dead Ronnell Foster - Dead George Floyd - Dead Jacob Blake - Dead Willie McCoy - Dead (Shot by the same officer who killed Ronnell Foster) Those men didn't get a jury, they got a bullet, or in McCoy's case, 55 of them. None of those occurred in 1955. But, yes, let's uphold the notion that we have to respect "the system" because...why again? The system is corrupt and broken, a total joke. People like you can't go on a case by case basis. You always have to make it a race issue. It must make you feel superior, which you always comes across as you think you are, which is very sad. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 19, 2021 13:40:22 GMT -8
Every post of yours is disappointing, including the ones where you continue to disrespect reality and try to equate civil unrest of assassinations of unarmed minorities with an unlawful attack on a body of Congress like they are somehow the same thing. But who are we kidding, you're not interested in truth, you just want to advance your warped agenda. Disrespect the jury system? Are we supposed to believe that every verdict is honorable and just? Is there not a single person in this country wrongfully convicted or acquitted? The absurdity of your notion is enormous and laughable, but also sadly the norm. Eric Garner - Dead Philando Castile - Dead Tamir Rice - Dead Laquan McDonald - Dead Oscar Grant - Dead Ronnell Foster - Dead George Floyd - Dead Jacob Blake - Dead Willie McCoy - Dead (Shot by the same officer who killed Ronnell Foster) Those men didn't get a jury, they got a bullet, or in McCoy's case, 55 of them. None of those occurred in 1955. But, yes, let's uphold the notion that we have to respect "the system" because...why again? The system is corrupt and broken, a total joke. People like you can't go on a case by case basis. You always have to make it a race issue. It must make you feel superior, which you always comes across as you think you are, which is very sad. People like you can't even come up with a factual rebuttal, you'd rather just attack me. It means you've already lost. You comment on a ton of things that you clearly have no informed opinion on and bring it on yourself. I'm not superior to you in any sense other than the fact I care about human beings and I'm not willfully ignorant of the truth that our country's justice system is a pile of manure. This IS a racial divide. Your failure to recognize that is your own fault. Going on a case by case basis would just lead you to come up with more fallacies and excuses, which I'm not interested in at all. "This case" is just another example of the pattern of white privilege in America. Rittenhouse himself is not special, he's just the latest person to walk free. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 19, 2021 13:58:21 GMT -8
People like you can't go on a case by case basis. You always have to make it a race issue. It must make you feel superior, which you always comes across as you think you are, which is very sad. People like you can't even come up with a factual rebuttal, you'd rather just attack me. It means you've already lost. You comment on a ton of things that you clearly have no informed opinion on and bring it on yourself. I'm not superior to you in any sense other than the fact I care about human beings and I'm not willfully ignorant of the truth that our country's justice system is a pile of manure. This IS a racial divide. Your failure to recognize that is your own fault. Going on a case by case basis would just lead you to come up with more fallacies and excuses, which I'm not interested in at all. "This case" is just another example of the pattern of white privilege in America. Rittenhouse himself is not special, he's just the latest person to walk free. Factual rebuttal? I've lost? The jury, who I believe was not all white, says differently. That means you lost. Sorry. The facts were all over your television set at the trial, and it's not an attack if it's a fact, and you've shown these tendencies. Going case to case is obviously the most fair way to go. I know you'll be proud of yourself when I say this, but your first response of going to the race card is obviously very irresponsible and reckless. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 19, 2021 14:02:47 GMT -8
We do not lose if the trial gives both sides a chance to present their arguments and the jury thoughtfully considers the evidence. I think that was the case in the Rittehouse trial.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Nov 19, 2021 14:06:29 GMT -8
We do not lose if the trial gives both sides a chance to present their arguments and the jury thoughtfully considers the evidence. I think that was the case in the Rittehouse trial. AzWm Stop it. You're making too much sense with all your posts. (Sarcasm) |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 19, 2021 14:10:08 GMT -8
We do not lose if the trial gives both sides a chance to present their arguments and the jury thoughtfully considers the evidence. I think that was the case in the Rittehouse trial. AzWm And this is completely blind to the reality of what happened in actuality. But if you can sleep comfortably, I guess that's great? We can/should do better than this. |
|
