This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
US politics
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Matov  20 Nov 21 7.20am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wilesy01
Can't help but think a dangerous precedent has been set with this verdict. It gives licence to ordinary US folk to arm themselves and go wading into protests/civil disobediences and shoot people under the pretext of self defence.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 20 Nov 21 7.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
I think the media presentation of the case prior to trial, formed a lot of people's opinions regarding the likely verdict. The fact that Biden has given his opinion is really quite shocking. The political system and Legal system are totally independent, and one shouldn't influence the other. That's the theory. My knowledge of the case is sketchy, so i have no opinion on the verdict. but looking at the guy's reaction to the verdict, he seemed to be expecting a very long time in jail. Remember, there are a lot of nutters with guns out there !
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 20 Nov 21 8.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Exactly. I am not condoning what this guy did but Americans have a very different view of self defence to what our legal system does. Interesting that President Biden weighed in before and after the verdict if Trump had said something similar the media would have been all over it. Apparently after being called a white supremacist the evidence for this accusation is non existent. America has a long history of vigilantism again something I don't agree with. However the mayor of that city has a lot to answer for he failed to tackle the riots properly, refused President Trump offer of National guards and basically left the citizens and store owners to defend themselves. If you don't enforce law and order sooner or later the public will take matters into their own hands and as this has shown that never ends well.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 20 Nov 21 8.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The trial judge does have something of a reputation, and his rulings during this case did nothing to modify it. I, too, am glad we don't permit the widespread possession of gums. This would not have happened here. It is also my fear that, whatever the truth in this case, that it will encourage the boneheads in the "Proud Boys", and similar movements, to believe they can go shoot a few protestors and claim self defence. I hope I am wrong. Time alone will tell. Next though, wait for some pot stirring by Trump. Unlike President Biden and many other politicians and the media convicting this guy before trial and then complaining when he got off.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 20 Nov 21 8.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
If you don't enforce law and order sooner or later the public will take matters into their own hands and as this has shown that never ends well. The Democrats openly encouraged violence and destruction. That is why the US is now on course for some kind of partition. There is no middle ground anymore when you have a major political party encouraging people to loot and attack the police.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 20 Nov 21 8.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
The Democrats openly encouraged violence and destruction. That is why the US is now on course for some kind of partition. There is no middle ground anymore when you have a major political party encouraging people to loot and attack the police. I am just reading a book about John Quincy Adams who grew up during the American revolution and became President. What surprised me is the events before and after the war with England. There were moves for each state to be an independent country which I knew, there was also moves for several northern states to combine into one country separate from the rest of the US. This leads to riots and and armed clashes between various groups including federalists, pro French, pro south versus pro north over several decades before things settled down. In other words the US was born out of violence and not just against the British but against each other. So nothing new to what is happening now. Edited by Badger11 (20 Nov 2021 8.52am)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Nov 21 8.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Unlike President Biden and many other politicians and the media convicting this guy before trial and then complaining when he got off. Did you follow the trial? It was quite a circus and very unlike ours. The whole thing was politicised. Whilst I don't like to see any politician, whatever "side" they represent, commenting, he first called for calm and then made this statement:- "While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken." He didn't state what he is angry about. It's the truth. People are angry that a kid can carry a gun across a state line, travel a long distance and act as an uninvited vigilante. That would make me angry. If he wasn't there, he wouldn't have had to defend himself!
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Nov 21 9.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
BS! What the Second Amendment actually says is:- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Unsurprisingly, this is capable of a variety of interpretations and has been argued over by constitutional scholars ever since it was written. So for anyone to claim they know "the entire point" is arrogant nonsense. No-one does. That's the problem.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 20 Nov 21 9.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
BS! What the Second Amendment actually says is:- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Unsurprisingly, this is capable of a variety of interpretations and has been argued over by constitutional scholars ever since it was written. So for anyone to claim they know "the entire point" is arrogant nonsense. No-one does. That's the problem. Seems perfectly clear to me. But then again, I am not retarded.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 20 Nov 21 9.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Did you follow the trial? It was quite a circus and very unlike ours. The whole thing was politicised. Whilst I don't like to see any politician, whatever "side" they represent, commenting, he first called for calm and then made this statement:- "While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken." He didn't state what he is angry about. It's the truth. People are angry that a kid can carry a gun across a state line, travel a long distance and act as an uninvited vigilante. That would make me angry. If he wasn't there, he wouldn't have had to defend himself! We have had this argument when Trump was in office and he was losing various court cases over all sorts of things. I pointed out then that US courts are political which is why the the Democrats were cherry picking the court to bring their cases e.g. a court in Hawaii over migrants crossing the border from Mexico when a US border state court would have been more logical.. Any way glad to see that we agree on this point that the courts can be political.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wilesy01 Bristol 20 Nov 21 9.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
The applications of the second amendment, as set out in the late 18th century, have tenuous relationships with cases like these happening in the modern day with modern weapons. I also notice you haven't referenced the first amendment, you know the one about free speech.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Nov 21 9.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Seems perfectly clear to me. But then again, I am not retarded. Are you suggesting all the highly qualified constitutional scholars who write books on this are retarded? That's exactly the kind of remark that Trump would make. Now, you probably think that is a compliment. Trump would. If you are willing to read alternative views to your "perfectly clear" one, you can find a few here:-
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.