Could a black man be free from murder charges with self defense claim?
The answer is YES.
It happened in Florida.
On November 19, just hours after Rittenhouse's verdict was read, Andrew Coffee IV was found not guilty on all counts of murder, and attempted first-degree murder. The Indian River County Sheriff did register his disappointment, but like Rittenhouse, Coffee is now a free man, even though he is Black.
Coffee found not guilty over 2017 shooting
During an early-morning raid on Coffee's house in 2017, SWAT team members and Coffee exchanged gunfire, leading to his girlfriend Alteria Woods getting caught in the crossfire. Woods was hit by 10 bullets and died, leading to Coffee and two law enforcement officers being charged for her death. The two officers were later exonerated by a grand jury, leaving Coffee as the sole defendant in the case.
The jury deliberated for 11 hours following the trial, where Coffee insisted, that he fired in self-defense, the same argument Rittenhouse made. "Clearly, that there was some overreaction and overreach by the sheriff's department on that raid. They should have pulled back, they didn't. And this is what happens when you go into a volatile situation without all the information," said Coffee’s attorney Adam Chrzan after the verdict."
https://meaww.com/andrew-coffee-iv-foun … se-verdict
Where is the main stream media on this one? Where are all the liberal pundits? I guess it just doesn't fit their narrative .Geez, Mike, there is a big difference between defending your home verses being 40 miles away from it to stir up trouble as a provocation. I accept the Rittenhouse verdict, while I still have issues regarding provocation and the like.
Are black people denied the right to defend their own domicile, as well? I presume that the SWAT people had a warrant to raid the property? I am sure that they did. This case reminds me of the Brionna Taylor case in Kentucky.
It fits "our narrative" just fine. The differences to any reasonably discerning person is as clear as black and white.Ah, Cred, Rittenhouse was not 40 miles away from his home. It was only 17 miles from his mother's home. Rittenhouse had a father, grandfather, aunts, cousins and a job in Kenosha. He had strong ties to Kenosha. You do know he was asked by the owner of the car lot to help with protection because the police were not to be found? He didn't go to Kenosha to "stir up" trouble. He had worked the night before the riot at his job as a lifeguard and spent the night at a friends home. He was in Kenosha before the riots started, so he didn't cross state lines because of the riot.
Facts matter.
Both men were found innocent of killing people because of self defense. The similarity is the self defense is a viable legal defense no matter what race is involved.Ok, Mike, 17 miles, not 40. What sort of spin are you trying to gin up this time?
Haw can you compare an immediate threat breaking into your house and some damnable kid deliberately putting himself in harms way, knowingly so? This, making a specious comparison of the self defense principle.
Yes, it not about race, but circumstances and situations. Once again, it is about reasonable discernment and the ability to see the difference.
Deleted
CRT has been soundly debunked on many levels and in many ways.
"I do not believe it happens in every case though."
Yes, no system is perfect.
Have you ever traveled to other countries and learned about their judicial systems? Ours is far more fair than anything I've seen. In Italy, you are judged by a three judge panel. In Egypt and most of the Arab world, Shariah law plays a part in the verdict.
Our system is much like that in England, with some strong differences.
So, tell me what system judicial system in the world is better than the one we have now?
It sounds like Coffee was in his own house when the events took place. It's not like he was poncing about in public outside his own neighborhood brandishing a semi-automatic weapon, which is what Kittenmouse was doing. Entirely different circumstances, wouldn't you say?
You need to look at the facts of the case.
As I told Cred, Rittenhouse had many ties to Kenosha. It is where his father, grandfather, aunts, cousins all lived. He had a job in Kenosha and was worked a shift the day of the riots. He wasn't "outside" his neighborhood. He had many ties to Kenosha.
He didn't "Brandish" a semi-automatic weapon. He had one for self defense, and it is a good thing he did.He was 'attacked' because he took a gun to the party. Had he not done so, the situation would not have arisen. His poor choice led to unnecessary deaths. He was outside his neighbourhood. I have ties to Aberdeen but I don't take a gun there. Only delusional cowards act in such ways.
There is something very awry when someone behaves illegally and we put the blame on a second party because they were simply "out of their neighborhood" even though behaving in a completely legal manner.
Sometimes 'legality' doesn't correlate with common sense. If the law says it's fine for a 17-year-old to take a semi-automatic weapon to a public gathering, then the law is patently out of kilter with common sense. My point is clear enough. Kittenmouse's poor choices resulted in fatalities. Hiding behind 'legality' is no better than hiding behind a gun. One is moral cowardice, the other, physical cowardice.
Fortunately our legal system does not rely on "common sense" as you see it. The law does not assign blame based on exercising our rights, it does not assign blame based on whether an individual somewhere feels a person should not have been on a public street.
And it certainly does not assign blame for defending ones self against lethal attacks.
I would likely agree that it wasn't real bright to be there at all...but then it wasn't my neighborhood, or [/i]my[/i] workplace location that was destroyed earlier. But that is irrelevant as he had every right to be there.
I'd have to say it was a good thing Rittenhouse was armed; after suffering two potentially lethal attacks he needed a defense. That's why people carry weapons; to defend themselves, and Rittenhouse not only had the right to do so he was smart to do so.
The closest analogy I can think of to match your "point" is a young woman invited to, and attending, a drunken frat party. She is dressed provocatively (as young women at a party will be) but makes no untoward suggestions. She is attacked and raped; your scenario will blame her for not using common sense and staying away. And if she kills the attacker with that derringer hidden in her dress she is guilty of murder...because "common sense" says her poor choice of attending a party resulted in a murder.
I disagree. Neither Rittenhouse nor the young woman is responsible for the illegal actions of another person.I'm amazed at your 'analogy', not least at "She is dressed provocatively (as young women at a party will be)". Would you like to explain "provocatively"? Maybe you'd better not.
I am also surprised that you insist on hiding behind the 'legality' of a few moments while refusing to look at the poor choices made by Kittenmouse in taking the law into his own hands.I believe I said he made poor choices ("I would likely agree that it wasn't real bright to be there at all")...which has nothing to do with others deciding to attack him. No more than it would the woman in the analogy.
Rittenhouse "took the law into his own hands"? By defending himself against unprovoked attack? You have a very strange idea of what the law says.No, by taking on himself the right to bring force of arms to direct the behaviour of others.
"by taking on himself the right to bring force of arms to direct the behaviour of other"
Yeah, that pretty much covers the concept of self defense.
In the United States, you still have the right to use a weapon to defend yourself against those who would harm you.
Couldn't disagree with you more.
"take a semi-automatic weapon to a public gathering"
I would say trying to categorize a riot with looters burning businesses and destroying property as a "public gathering" is more than just a little off.
I would say the poor choices made by those who attacked him are the ones who made the poor choices.
The law says a person has a right to self defense. As far as I'm concerned, that is the ultimate in common sense."I would say the poor choices made by those who attacked him are the ones who made the poor choices."
You hit the nail with this one!I support the rule of law, by which I mean this: It is the duty of law enforcement to do just that, and for the courts to act accordingly. However, when it is clear that the 'correct' application of law is morally abhorrent in the eyes of many, then it is incumbent on society to push for revision of the law. After all, Jesus was legally crucified. Law must evolve through due process.
"'correct' application of law is morally abhorrent in the eyes of many"
That has nothing to do with the case involving Kyle Rittenhouse.
Implicit in this statement is the idea that one may not "flounce" (meaning walk down the street) wherever they wish, and that the constitutional rights afforded all of us are null and void - one may not "brandish" (meaning carry on a shoulder strap) a weapon.
Yes?
I have been observing these things happening in America for quite some time. Many blacks have been let off by a miss guided sense of justice and they are roaming free even after killing and murder. I think that famous baseball player also comes in this category. Simpson?, why is this happening? this is I think a guilt complex in which the white race is enmeshed after having exploited the blacks for a long time and now the blacks are hitting back with a vengeance. The net result is America is being eaten from inside by Ants.
No. Even before he was in any danger, he was openly carrying a semi-automatic weapon. By so doing he was trying to set himself in authority over others. It is no surprise that this caused resentment as he was clearly just a kid with inflated ideas of his importance.
Odd - I've never been "resentful" of someone carrying a weapon. Whether a machine gun, a semi-automatic hunting rifle, a pistol or a baseball bat I've never been resentful of them.
Perhaps the resentment was because some looting or burning was planned and the rifle might pose a threat to those plans?I don't know how much resentment there was since many of the protestors were also armed. One of them pointed his weapon at Kyle Rittenhouse and got shot.
OK, I've had enough of this discussion. You two have so hardened your hearts against 'the left' that you refuse even to consider that unnecessary deaths are in any way regrettable. You hide behind a narrow 'legality' so you don't have to consider morality, humanity or ethics. Some day you may see that there is no future in entrenched dogmatic posturing. I hope so.
Deleted
I agree fully. When it becomes clear that someone has no interest in seeking common ground in a discussion it is pointless to continue.
Excuse my butting in Paraglider, but what common ground have you sought?
After reading this thread I perceive you to be saying that Rittenhouse is morally responsible for those deaths because he took a gun with him. Your comments seem to paint that as an unmovable position.
The contrary comments seem to disagree. A simple black and white choice.
You have argued your `morally responsible' position by offering the proof that no one would have died—by Rittenhouse's hands—if he hadn't taken his gun. I think this is a very true statement. But, in this case, I don't think that action makes him morally responsible for the deaths of those that attacked him.
Hopefully, you would agree that he was attacked?
Where is the common ground you seek? That all must agree that that truth is the only thing that matters?
I would offer the common ground that it was a dumb thing for him to do. And I would also speculate that he was a 17-year-old that wanted to run with the `Big Dogs', which is also dumb, (but surely your life experience has shown you that's just part of human nature, especially among our young).
However, I would also offer the common ground that the trial evidence never indicated that Rittenhouse, (he), acted in any provocative way, beyond simply having the gun. Contrarily there was evidence he did just what he planned and said; offered first aid and property security. The trial also confirmed his presence and possession were legal and that his self-defense actions were valid.
Can you find any common ground to pursue in those thoughts?
GAI've already conceded a great deal of ground from my intuitive position as a European. In most countries, to step outside carrying a lethal weapon is an immediate felony. It is hard to plead self defence while engaging in criminal activity. However I acknowledge that US law is different. The common ground I was pursuing is that, legal or not, if amateurs sally forth with guns avoidable fatalities are possible, even likely. Therefore it is wholly reprehensible conduct. Your intervention concedes many of these points, more or less. The common ground might also be that this case is further evidence that gun-law reform is indicated or at least a grown up nuanced discussion about it.
Generally Europe is much more civilized when it comes to gun crimes and gun deaths.
Just having a gun a person has three times greater chance of killing themselves than killing someone else. Plus greater chance of killing someone they know than killing the robber.
Most killing in wars are gun, overall I agree with you. In Rome we must do what the Romans do. I wish all guns were removed,. Yet North America fears Tyranny more than anything and it is here and there by germ warfare of vaccines tyrannyI won't rise to your vaccine tyranny comment but I agree with everything else you said there.
"if amateurs sally forth with guns avoidable fatalities are possible"
I believe you have no idea how many people in the United States have guns and regularly go to gun ranges. I know many people who are just as knowledgeable on the use of a firearm as any police officer or person in the military. We are a very well-armed population. The only amateurs are the one who illegally own guns and don't get the proper training.
I know Kyle Rittenhouse talked about handling his AR-14. He knew how to operate it as good as anyone.More guns than US citizens. Not for me, I feel much more safer with hand to hand combat, not ever lost a fight. Traveled to six war zone countries. If I had a gun, I would not be talking to you guys on line today.
No problem even in Europe with taking a licenced firearm to a gun range, rifle club, or whatever, as long as you transport it as prescribed. You know very well I'm not talking about organised sport shooting. Also I don't doubt that Kittenmouse knew how to handle his gun technically. He just had no idea how to handle it responsibly. Thus, he was a rank amateur and no hero.
I don't agree with you. Kyle Rittenhouse knew how to handle it responsibly enough to use it to defend himself against people attacking him.
Have you ever been attacked? Have you ever faced imminent danger?
I know that in these situations, you are focused at survival and nothing else.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero to many. He stood up against a mob of criminals who attacked him. It took courage.I wouldn't expect you to agree with me. You are focused only on a few seconds of 'action' during which the kid discharged his gun. I am calling him irresponsible because of the bad decisions he took which led up to the shootings.
Where I live in the United States, we have a term called "Couch Quarterback" This refers to people who have no real experience in things and just sit on their couch in their home and give their opinion on sports or anything going on int the world they see on television.
I know what it is like to have to make split-second life or death decisions. I also know what it is like to face rioters and looters destroying things and coming for your neighborhood.
When the police can't protect you, it's up to you to protect yourself. It takes real courage to stand up against a mob.
With that said, I'm sure I can relate to Kyle Rittenhouse a bit more than you. I think that is the main reason we will never agree on this.That is a patronising response. You have no idea what I have experienced in my life. And I have no plan to tell you. I don't need to prove anything.
That was a fair response. It looks like there is, at least, a common understanding, if not common ground to work from.
By common understanding, I mean that it is understood that American and European views on guns are culturally oceans apart, (te hee, did you get that?) And I think that difference is the reason for our lack of common ground.
From my American perspective, I would offer that the European thought you expressed; it's a felony to step out of your door with a gun, is as repugnant to us as doing so is to you.
I have had enough conversations with you folks, (Brits and Europeans), to know that this cultural difference is a point we will never agree on.
But I think we all still benefit from these discussions. Now, if we could just convince you that personal responsibility is a big deal we might make some headway. (:-O just a friendly poke bud)
GARe "From my American perspective, I would offer that the European thought you expressed; it's a felony to step out of your door with a gun, is as repugnant to us as doing so is to you."
I have spoken to enough Americans to know that your use of 'us' to mean 'Americans' is unjustified. A large and, I think, growing number of US citizens would prefer open carry to be a felony.
And I think personal responsibility is indeed a big deal. That is why I insist that Kittenmouse was grossly irresponsible.Okay, You are right. I should have said, "us conservative Americans." My bad.
GAHave you seen how far the madness goes? Trump invites this adolescent along with his poor judgement to his Florida resort. We have a member of the House of Representives that want to bestow a medal upon Kittenmouse. Then, there are the congressmen that are offering him jobs as part of their staffs. None of this has anything to do with Rittenhouse's qualifications.
In America, the political right is ugly. There is no reason to make this kid a hero or to celebrate his poor judgement in the killing of these men, self defense or no. He was just acquitted of malice in his use of firearms, but not acquitted in regards to use of bad judgement, as well as the adult society here creating the conditions allowing for this to have occurred.I hadn't seen that, but Trump's doings no longer surprise me. I hope he remains out of office for the sake of the whole world. I have, by the way, dusted down and republished my 10-year-old hub page on the gun issue "Guns Don't Kill People... Really?" Sadly, it seems as relevant today as when I wrote it. Oh well. . .
I revisited your article and it is just as relevant today as the day you wrote it.
I was 17 once and felt the power of having a weapon in my hands during basic military training. But as an adolescent fantasy, it was only an illusion.
But the adolescent fantasy still seem to dominate in the lives of many "grown ups" these days.
Texas talks about concealed carry privileges for college students on campus, what an irresponsible mix for relatively inexperienced young adults: gasoline, alcohol and now, gunpowder.
The truly powerful People are those who prefer to settle disputes not resorting to violence and weapons when running out of ideas.
I lament in futility of human race, as I am reminded of a Star Trek episode( I am a Trekkie). Captain Picard rescues a 20th century man frozen in a cryonic state for almost 4 centuries. This man is concerned about his Wall Street Journal/ stock portfolio and his concept of power as having material control over people and their lives, how would he live?
the Captain replied that in this century, people are not obsessed with the acquisition of material things in a world of pattern replicators.
The technology that would make that possible, if it is, is remarkable and one that I most likely would not live to see.
Our species cannot evolve beyond its infancy and barbarism if we continue to look backward.
Sorry, to digress.
Killing is good for nothing.
Celebrity's for it, is MADD.Now, wait a minute there. I have heard a blip or two about internships, but not a word about this other medal and visit stuff.
Before you put your boots on, consider this: you have introduced Trump into a non-Trump thread just because it is current "negative" news. But since you did, I wouldn't doubt your claims at all. They sound just like Trump, and just like a bunch of ambitious politicians. I hope Rittenhouse has somebody smart and ethical that he can trust. I have seen some blurbs of an interview with Tucker Carlson, and it looks like he might not be being well served. (at least by what I think he should be doing to get on with his life)
However, you use this Rittenhouse/Right issue as a gauge of ugliness, and I can agree with that—confident in my thought that this issue is just one side of the coin. Had Rittenhouse been a Left icon I would predict we would see the same stuff. Your same gauge of ugliness would apply.
GALook it up, GA the stuff regarding Congress and MiroLargo resort has been reported. A disgusting political exploitation is in play. Rittenhouse visited Trump 2 days ago and Majorie Taylor Green was the representative associated with giving this kid a medal.
Until Trump extricates himself from the political scene and gets into the background like other ex-presidents have done, he remains fair game as far as I am concerned.
Regardless of your prediction, the Left did not do this, but the Right did. So, your confidence might well be misplaced.He didn't get a medal; he was recommended for one.
"Marjorie Taylor Green was the representative associated with giving this kid a medal."
"Rittenhouse tapped for Congressional Gold Medal"
"US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) is calling for teenager Kyle Rittenhouse, fresh from his acquittal on homicide charges, to be awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for “protecting” his community from rioters.
Greene introduced a bill that calls for awarding the prestigious medal to Rittenhouse because he “protected the community of Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a Black Lives Matter riot on August 25, 2020.” The legislation comes after at least two other Republicans in Congress – Representatives Matt Gaetz (Florida) and Madison Cawthorn (North Carolina) – made internship offers to Rittenhouse.
The Congressional Gold Medal marks the highest honor that Congress can award. Recent recipients have included police officers who defended the US Capitol during the January 6 riot and American troops who were killed by a terrorist bombing during the Pentagon’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August."
https://www.rt.com/usa/541252-rittenhou … old-medal/
I hope he gets it. What he did took real courage. When the Republicans take back the Congress next year, I could see him get the medal.
I also hope is files many lawsuits against the incompetent mainstream media. I hope it makes him insanely wealthy. I would cheer if he files a lawsuit against the senseless, babbling, fool that occupies the white house right now who intentionally defamed Kyle Rittenhouse. Intentionally lying about, him for political gain.
I hope President Donald Trump continues to be involved with politics. It is his right. He is an American citizen. He is still eligible to run for the office of president once again. He has the support of tens of millions of Americans. The stupid actions of the current resident of the white house are causing even more people to support President Donald Trump. I don't see this trend ending any time soon. He is more popular that the current resident of the white house.
"Donald Trump Would Trounce Joe Biden If Election Was Held Again, Polls Suggest"
"Former President Donald Trump would easily defeat President Joe Biden if the election were held again, according to recent polling that indicates the Republican could win with a substantial lead.
A Fabrizio, Lee & Associates poll conducted for the former president's Make America Great Again Committee showed Trump leading Biden in five swing states that the current president won in 2020.
Those states were Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and make up a total of 73 Electoral College votes. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan were also key to Biden's victory in November.
It found that Trump led Biden by 12 points in Michigan, 10 points in Wisconsin and six points in Pennsylvania."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-t … st-1653256But we know, Mike, that in politics 3 years may just as well be a century. So, don't count your chickens.....
A free press is a free press, there is nothing for Rittenhouse to make a case over.
Like I said Trump's continued presence makes him fair game for all, be it for good or ill."A free press is a free press, there is nothing for Rittenhouse to make a case over."
There is PLENTY for Kyle Rittenhouse to make a case. You need to look at successful court cases involving defamation. A free press doesn't mean you get to publish blatant and demonstratable lies about a person.
Like the case with Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann. He settled out of court for a $250 million defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post. He as a few others pending against other media outlets. The defamation of Kyle Rittenhouse was even worse than that of Nicholas Sandman.
Many attorneys have states Kyle Rittenhouse has a strong defamation case against biden. I hope he sues him for hundreds of millions.
I don't need to look it up bud, I believe you. I was just in a `be cute' mood. I also didn't want to engage in a bout of `whataboutism' with you because that isn't any kind of justification.
I just wanted to emphasize that your "ugliness" isn't owned solely by the Right. You claim it is, and I am not interested enough to go hunt for Democrat examples to disprove that. I am still confident in my thought on this.
So sue me. :-)
GA
Well, Paraglider, ALL Americans do not feel the same way as some of our more conservative members seem to indicate. We are not all on the same page.There is a certain barbarism associated with a "Dodge city" mentality about firearms, their accessibility, availability and possession.
That I know, very well. The 2nd Amendment, NRA, "Freedom" lobby fortunately is not representative of all US citizens. In fact they are a national embarrassment in the eyes of many.
"In most countries, to step outside carrying a lethal weapon is an immediate felony."
In the US more people are murdered with blunt objects (think baseball bats) than with all long guns combined and I expect europe is the same.
Do you forbid all "lethal weapons" then, or just the ones you don't like or that scare you? Or just the ones government fears to have in the hands of its populace?A US gun owner told me a hammer kills more people than a guns can do.
Can't imagine anything more bloody and personal than killing someone with a hammer. Please attack me with a hammer, for I no prayer against a gun.
A gun was designed for killing, it is number 1 killer in the world and any fool can pull the trigger. Remove it, or people will always be more afraid of cops and authoritian greater than the criminals. That's where Tyranny starts.Sorry, pal, but that "argument" is too childish for me to waste breath on. Must try harder. . .
Childlike
Don't want to take life too seriously.
I think being able to defend yourself against those who intend to do you harm is quite moral, very ethical and extremely human.
I have some personal experience in self-defense. So, yeah, I know what it feels like to be facing a direct threat to your life.Done some part-time security supervisor in dangerous riots and mugged in world traveled places. With a few life threatening situations.
Lucky nobody got seriously harmed.
From the film I saw where he shot another guy to death and injury to some others. There were a few death threats to kill Rittenhouse during the period by a gang. The one guy pulled out a gun to shoot Rittenhouse pointed at his head. By law one can use equal force to defend with equal force. In this case it was his life or the other guys life in self defense.
Personally, in general guns are far too dangerous for anyone. I got extreme Radar to stay out of this kind of situation.
I saw a liberal comparing Greta as a 17 year old liberal left environmentist, in a speaking engagements. Comparing Rittenhouse with his AK gun 17 year old rightwing riot.
Yet both are not old enough to vote.
It's why I'm an anarchist.
This is how the left treats criminals.
Let us not mention that the individual who currently holds the position as VP of the United States created a bail fund for rioters who were destroying cities.
The following story is an example of how the left treats criminals.
"Ax-Wielding Antifa Member Attacks GOP Senator's Office, Dems Give Him Money, FBI Returns Ax"
Far-left miscreant Thomas Alexander Starks, 31, of Lisbon, North Dakota, pleaded guilty to destruction of government property last April. Starks brought an ax to Sen. John Hoeven’s office in Fargo on December 21, 2020, and smashed an intercom and glass door. The attack was captured on video.
Federal guidelines suggested Starks should spend 10–16 months in the hoosegow, but because he is a protected member of Antifa, he was sentenced to mere probation and ordered to pay $2,784 in restitution.
Keep in mind that there are people still in solitary confinement for taking non-violent selfies in the Capitol on January 6.
Even better, the FBI returned the ax he used in the attack. Starks is bragging about it on Facebook, where he goes by the name “Paul Dunyan,” a reference to the axman Paul Bunyan.
Starks openly admits to being a member of Antifa and has a history of threatening violence online. In one picture, Starks is seen wearing a Socialist Rifle t-shirt. Socialist Rifle is a left-wing fringe group that had communicated with Antifa mass shooter Connor Betts before he murdered nine people in Dayton, Ohio, back in 2019.
Three North Dakota Democrats threw the fascist some dough. Democrat Party Executive Committee Representative Ellie Shockley donated $100, Democratic-Non-Partisan League (NPL) Chairwoman Kylie Oversen also gave $100, and Ellen Chaffee, the Democrat candidate for lt. governor in 2012, gave $500.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/k … x-n1535869After threating to kill him and cut his heart out. Then this gang of kids with criminals background attacked him with a skateboard, a rock, a jump kick, and a gun pointed to his head. This whole time Rittenhouse had a gun in his hand. This gang had to be very dumb or on meth.
I can't imagine running out of ideas to kill someone.
Yet protecting your own life in any situation is more honorable than a President winning a Nobel peace wail killing millions of poor People, exspeically mostly women and children.
Related Discussions
- 156
Zimmerman Conclusion
by Sooner28 11 years ago
http://www.kpho.com/story/22831147/zimm … ack-internThis is the last discussion I will start on this trial. I am just throwing this out there for those who insist that Zimmerman was a racist who profiled Martin. Zimmerman can be accused of paranoia, and jumping to conclusions...
- 33
Is Jodi Arias guilty of murdering Travis Alexander or is was it self-defense?
by Deborah 11 years ago
Is Jodi Arias guilty of murdering Travis Alexander or is was it self-defense?Jodi Arias admitted to brutally murdering her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander, but was it in self defense? Is she a true psychopath?
- 25
Would you keep a gun in your household for self defense or is this a bad idea?
by Cindy Lawson 10 years ago
Would you keep a gun in your household for self defense or is this a bad idea?Would you keep a gun in your household for self defense, or do you think this is where parts of the world are going wrong and make a snowballing type problem?
- 55
Dammed If We Do Dammed If We Don't Kenosha May Lose Either way
by Sharlee 2 years ago
'If Kenosha don't get it, shut it down: BLM protesters face-off with pro-Rittenhouse supporters outside court after jury finish for the night and deliberations enter second day: National Guard on standby" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … tions.htmlRight now the jury is...
- 11
Will Stand Your Ground Incidents Increase (based on Trayvon Verdict)
by mosaicman 11 years ago
Now that George Zimmerman has been found innocent, do you think this will have more people resorting to using supreme violence in defending themselves. Do you think more people will become more vigilant due to the fact that they think the law will be on their side and protect them if they have to...
- 10
Should I punish my 5 year old son for hitting a boy back in self defense?
by jennjenn519 12 years ago
Should I punish my 5 year old son for hitting a boy back in self defense?With bullying being so prevalent in the news now, many schools are adopting new rules for it. My problem is that my 38 pound 5 year old son has been hit twice in the last week. He hit back, defending himself, and got in...