14 ms·

Let's compare this experience to that of Amir Locke [1]. To summarize: the Minneapolis PD was executing a no-knock warrant in a homicide investigation. Locke w

• imgabe 5y ago
  The suspect in this case was Tarek Abou-Khatwa, who, maybe I’m making assumptions here, doesn’t sound like he’s white. Are you saying that the super-racist FBI agents decided to cut Mr. Abou-Khatwa a break because he’s a member of the good ol’ boys club?
  • Epiphany21 5y ago
    The way people of a certain political persuasion are talking about race recently reminds me of this scene from an old Family Guy skit. https://i.imgflip.com/2oxj8k.jpg https://i.imgflip.com/2oxj8k.jpg
  • foldr 5y ago
    As the article explains, the FBI agents were doing this more for a the benefit of his neighbors.
• solarhoma 5y ago
  The defense brought up one of the rittenhouse attackers was a sex offender to show they are an individual with less than good morals. Someone who would be willing to attack someone with the crowd. So, no, this piece of evidence is not immaterial. Everything in this world is not race based. There are other nuances to the world that the MSM is hiding to push their race based fear mongering.
  • woodruffw 5y ago
    You’re missing the point. We place people on trial for committing crimes, not for having “less than good morals.” Criminal courts typically exclude references to a victim’s character for precisely this reason: the goal is to determine whether a crime was committed, not whether the jurors would have personally liked the victim.
    • dahfizz 5y ago
      Character witnesses are extremely common[1]. The issue isn't whether the jury would have liked the victim. The question was "did the victim attack Kyle?". The fact that the victim had a known violent past is very relevant to that question. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/character_witness https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/character_witness
      • woodruffw 5y ago
        The requirement for a victim’s character witness is that it be a “pertinent” trait. It’s not clear to me that a sexual crime (even an extremely serious one) provides is pertinent to an individual’s homicidal capacity, even if Rittenhouse was somehow aware of the victim’s prior conviction. Which brings us back to the parent’s original point.
        • jdkee 5y ago
          A convicted child molester chasing and attacking a child on a public street at night does seem relevant.
    • 5y ago
• dahfizz 5y ago
  I agree that the justice system is racist. I am tired of Rittenhouse being used as race bait. Everyone involved in that story was white. Kyle, and all the people that he shot / attacked him. I don't even see how your point about Rittenhouse applies at all. There are plenty of examples of white people getting off easy, but you're instead nitpicking the legal defense of this one case. You're instigating a fight more than making a salient point.
  • woodruffw 5y ago
    You’re omitting the part where the shooter went to a civil rights protest with a rifle. The fact that he happened to kill two white people rather than black ones isn’t an overriding consideration.
    • dontcare007 5y ago
      That's rich, trying to make exercising one right at a gathering of people exercising another right seem like a bad thing.
      • millzlane 5y ago
        I think it's the fact that he went to that civil rights protest with a weapon and the idea of policing the protestors that was probably a bad thing. Most responsible gun owners would argue that he shouldn't have even been there with weapons. No one is attacking the exercising of one's right. They're pointing out the poor decision making of rittenhouse. It would be no different than showing up to a freedom rally/protest with weapons and the idea to police the area.
        • fastball 5y ago
          It was a riot.
      • Spivak 5y ago
        Legal right or not, showing up to a protest with weapons is a show of force, intimidation, and in my view enough threat to life to justify self-defense in basically any case where the armed person does basically anything other than stand like a statue. Like we're not 6 years old, surely we're not so naive to believe "I'm not shoooting youuu. I'm not shooooting youuuu" is somehow peaceful.
• throwaway040922 5y ago
  Duncan Lemp was white, and was similarly awoken in the middle of the night by police, reached for a gun, and was shot dead (unlike Locke, I don't think he even pointed the gun at them). It actually happened the day before the Breonna Taylor shooting (another similar situation), but received almost no media attention. Even around the area where Duncan Lemp was killed, you will find a lot of posters for Breonna Taylor, none for Duncan Lemp. This kind of violence affects everyone. Some people, particularly those in the media, have worked hard to elevate certain shootings while almost completely ignoring others in order to push a specific racial narrative.
  • Bilal_io 5y ago
    I believe Duncan Lemp should have received the media attention he deserves. That being said: 1- You said "This kind of violence affects everyone" and this is disingenuous when we look at the ratio of black vs white being murdered by police. [1] 2- The media attention Breonna et al. received was not about the individuals but for the community in general due to my previous point. [1]https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821204116 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821204116
    • throwaway040922 5y ago
      > You said "This kind of violence affects everyone" and this is disingenuous when we look at the ratio of black vs white being murdered by police. If you want to argue that this kind of violence affects certain races more, that's fine. But why downplay the fact that it affects all races? The percentages are higher for Black Americans, but White Americans still make up the majority of people shot by police[1]. If people actually cared about creating a broad coalition to address this, they would want to highlight both facts, not hide the latter fact. You actually see the a similar attitude when racists attack social programs. If members of a minority group are more likely to benefit from a program, they treat it as a program for minorities, even if the majority of beneficiaries are non-minorities. It's also interesting to see how people divide the demographic information. If you look at the breakdown by sex, you'll find that the divide between men and women when when it comes to these shootings is much, much greater than the divide between races. Yet the latter is talked about a lot all over the media, and while I don't think I've ever seen the latter treated as an issue. My guess is that we'd also see another large divide if we divided the numbers by wealth (and this article is a good example of that). [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic...
• lkxijlewlf 5y ago
  Begs the question: If you can be startled away by the someone breaking into your home and you reach for you gun and are shot dead by the police, do you really have the right to bear arms? I would really love to see some laws that allow us to defend ourselves against police. If they decide to just beat my ass, they can and I can't defend myself. WTF!?
  • AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
  • gradschool 5y ago
    The declaration of independence can be interpreted to mean that the government forfeits its legitimacy when it violates anyone's human rights. If the declaration of independence is considered legally binding then theoretically you could have a basis in law for fighting back against the police when they exceed their remit. I'm no lawyer but I remember something similar being brought up in the courtroom scene in the movie Good Will Hunting.
    • shadowfacts 5y ago
      The Declaration of Independence is not legally binding.
  • njovin 5y ago
    At some point there needs to be a supreme court decision that reconciles the legality of no-knock warrants with castle doctrine/self-defense/second-amendment. My understanding of the current state of things is that in some jurisdictions it's simultaneously legal for armed police to violently enter your home without identifying themselves and for you to defend your home by firing a weapon at them. Basically, we have legalized gunfights, as long as the police have a warrant. In almost all of these cases the police will "win" and therefor we essentially we have legalized murder where the police at least know they're about to get into a firefight whereas the suspect likely does not.
    • 5y ago
• LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  > Yet you can't bring the above up without some (predominantly white) people getting offended at the mere suggestion that the system is inherently racist. Well, I am sorry, but bringing it up in a thread about a wealthy insurance broker Tarek Abou-Khatwa from D.C. definitely makes it sound like an alarmist racebait by a nutter. Like, sure, government hides some stuff from the public. But it doesn’t make people who talk about UFOs and Zone 51 look reasonable when declassification is discussed.
• boredumb 5y ago
  If you are trying to explain to a jury that your client was in danger and needed to defend himself against people, mentioning that the people had committed sexual assault and domestic violence would help with your case that they needed to be defended against and weren't "peaceful protesters" but, actually proven violent criminals that corroborate their violence against your client. The fact he shot three people and all of which happened to be 1. A person released from prison recently for disorderly conduct and a domestic abuse charge 2. An arsonist and convicted child molester 3. Convicted felon affiliated with the "Peoples Revolution" group best known for attacking a police officer, and pointing a loaded gun at your client. These facts demonstrate without even showing the video footage, that all 3 had the capacity for violence and are the type of people that you may find yourself having to defend yourself against (as other have had to in the past)
• Epiphany21 5y ago
  >Let's also compare to Kyle Rittenhouse. Attorneys wanted to use the fact that one of his victims was a sex offender as a defense It's relevant because it proves that the guy who was killed already had a lengthy violent criminal record. This helps to build up the case for a self-defense shooting. In most countries past offenses are taken into consideration when prosecuting a wide variety of crimes, meaning this is nothing new. Also, I have zero pity for someone who raped children, and neither does any jury. Why wouldn't the defense bring it up?
• Clubber 5y ago
  >You'd think the NRA would be all over this: a legal gun owner killed in his home by police? Nope [2]. I wonder why. The NRA is horribly corrupt and self serving. It seems many organizations have come to this demise in the US the past few decades. I've heard of many gun owners abandon them. >Let's also compare to Kyle Rittenhouse. Attorneys wanted to use the fact that one of his victims was a sex offender as a defense [3]. I assume it's a tactic to show he was a "bad guy," which was used to prove that Rittenhouse wasn't the initial aggressor. I believe the person in question had also been discharged from a mental facility that day and had quite a few issues with the law. >I bring this up because I want to highlight the different worlds people live in when it comes to law enforcement. While I completely agree with what you are saying, there are many different law enforcement organizations in the US (each city/town has one) and in those departments there are many different officers. Some of those organizations are highly corrupt and shouldn't exist and some of those officers are highly corrupt and shouldn't be employed or be jailed. Having said that, any organization that tries to cover up the actions of a bad officer shouldn't exist and is part of the problem. All of this is the result of the 50+ year drug war our government has been waging against its citizens.
• ambrozk 5y ago
  I would be find what you wrote much more convincing if I didn't have sufficient knowledge of the Rittenhouse case to know you were deliberately misleading us by selectively presentating and omitting key facts. 1. You omit the defense's stated reasoning for bringing up Rosenbaum's prior convictions. Their theory was not "pedophiles bad kill pedophiles good." They wanted to argue that Rosenbaum lunged at Rittenhouse in order to take his firearm, because, as a convicted felon, Rosenbaum was not legally able to purchase that firearm. It was important that they show evidence that Rosenbaum had a pernicious motive to lunge at Rittenhouse, because the prosecution was alleging the only reason he did so was in self-defense. 2. More crucially, you omit the fact that the judge prevented his defense from mentioning these convictions in court for fear it would be prejudicial. Because of this, the jury never found out about Rosenbaum's extensive criminal history. [1] This craters the relevance of this example. It doesn't demonstrate any sort of double standard. [1]: https://www.insider.com/details-the-kyle-rittenhouse-jury-wont-consider-during-deliberations-2021-11 https://www.insider.com/details-the-kyle-rittenhouse-jury-wo...
  • jmyeet 5y ago
    > They wanted to argue that Rosenbaum lunged at Rittenhouse in order to take his firearm ... That reason provides the moral cover for mudslinging at the victim but we all know what's going on. From the perspective of those around Rittenhouse, they had no knowledge if this was about to turn into a mass shooting or not. Disarming him may well have saved lives (and would've as it turns out). Defenders of these "stand your ground" type laws ignore the consequences of cases like this. Here's the lesson from the Rittenhouse case: as soon as he pulled out a gun, someone else should've shot and killed him and then argued (with some justification, honestly) they were in fear of their life. The extreme here is the case of Curtis Reeves [1], who started an altercation with another man who was texting during the previews to a move. When the man stood to confront him, Reeves shot and killed him and successfully argued he was in fear of his life. Take that further: the victim can reasonably argue he feared for his life when confronted by Reeves so, if he had a gun, he should've pulled it out and shot Reeves dead. Like, this is just absolutely bananas. [1]: https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investigates/i-think-theres-going-to-be-more-gun-violence-legal-experts-weigh-in-on-acquittal-of-former-cop-in-movie-theater-shooting https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investi...
• HideousKojima 5y ago
  >Let's also compare to Kyle Rittenhouse. Attorneys wanted to use the fact that one of his victims was a sex offender as a defense [3]. There are two possibilities here: >1. Rittenhouse didn't know of this, in which case it's immaterial; and >2. Rittenhouse knew, in which case this was a targeted killing (ie murder). >No one is arguing Rittenhouse knew. The whole point here is post facto justification. This is for the court of public opinion and to give the jury something to hang their hat on with an acquittal. That's it. No, the whole point is arguing that Rosenbaum likely instigated the altercation, using his repeated violent behavior in the past as character evidence to show this. If Rittenhouse had instigated the fight then he would have had to additionally prove in court that he attempted to retreat in order for his shooting to be considered self-defense, if Rosenbaum instigated then it remains simple self-defense.
  • chipsa 5y ago
    > he would have had to additionally prove in court that he attempted to retreat in order for his shooting to be considered self-defense I mean, he would have been able to, since we have video of the time period leading up to the shooting, where he's running away from Rosenbaum before he turns around right before the shooting, and the prosecution witness testified Rosenbaum appeared to be trying to take the rifle.
• screye 5y ago
  > is for the court of public opinion Agreed, > with an acquittal Disagree. It was the other way round for the Rittenhouse case. (I watched the entire stream. So for once, I can say I know about the case). Bringing their integrity into the conversation was a hail-mary play for conviction by the prosecutor, because they suspected they'd lose. The Rittenhouse trial had gone from a cut-n-dry innocence case to one that was attempting to make his trial appear as if it was a hate crime. The prosecutors actively tried to make Rittenhouse look like an out-for-blood killer, the victims look like the nicest people alive and make it appear impossible that the victims could've threatened his life (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary). It makes complete sense for the defense to counter accusations of bad character with the same when trying to establish plausible threat from the rioters. This was a white-on-white crime, and I still don't understand why the left chose this case as their 'systemic racism' hill-to-die-on. > mere suggestion that the system is inherently racist It isn't the mere suggestion is it? It is an active effort to defund and abolish the police. The lasting legacy of the BLM protests was the murders seen in emancipated-zones (CHAZ) and the massive spike in homicides following police defunding. The BLM movement was an ideological package, and I can see why someone would reject the combo-deal even if they agreed with certain aspects of it. Just because I agree with the general direction of the identified problems, doesn't mean I agree with the solution. Kyle Rittenhouse's trial occurred alongside Ahmaud Arbery's, and his white killers were sentenced to life in prison by a grand jury of eight white people, three black people and one hispanic person. As long as we are looking at anecdotes, there are plenty on either sides, making grand claims rather hard to substantiate. ___________ The American police system has a problem. It ties into the availability of guns, astronomical gun homicide numbers [1] and the general atmosphere of fear in this nation. I am certain that stereotypes amounting to racism are a part of the greater victimization of black men in 2022 America and that every unarmed killing by police is a tragedy. But, both those issues are nowhere close to the biggest problems in American law enforcement. Its hyper amplification plays into the current political polarization of the US, such that the only acceptable & amplified opinions are ones on the fringes. It reminds me of Germany's Greens banning all nuclear power in their scorched-earth approach towards imperfect renewables; and that leading to greater CO2 emissions and Russian willingness to invade Ukraine. Unless American society is willing to accept that their opponents come from a place of good-faith, they will never be able to work towards a mutual-compromise solution. In my experience, those are the only solutions that work in a democracy. [1] https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/pdf#:~:text=The%20US%20total%20homicide%20rate,0.30%20homicides%20per%20100%2C000%20population)%20 https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/pdf#:~:...(
• ryanmarsh 5y ago
  You'd think the NRA would be all over this: a legal gun owner killed in his home by police? Nope In the gun community the NRA is generally seen has having failed gun owners. There are many cases similar to Amir Locke's. One in particular is Duncan Lemp.
  • Maursault 5y ago
    > In the gun community the NRA is generally seen has having failed gun owners. NRA accomplished some wicked and absurd goals (one might not think it possible if it hadn't already happened) and I think by proxy accomplished a huge one through Justice Scalia which significantly, drastically and fundamentally changed the meaning of the 2nd Amendment from a selfless right to stand guard against tyranny to an intensely and grotesquely selfish right to legally murder in defense of trivial things such as property and indulgences such as pride. This was illegal, unconstitutional, and a massive overreach by Scalia, because obviously he undermined the Founders' expressed requirement for a Constitutional convention and 2/3rds both houses of Congress or of State legislatures to change the Constitution. That this defacement of the Constitution occurred in the way that it did, the 2nd was vandalized without altering the literal words, is interesting, but I believe it only a matter of time before parts of DC v Heller (2008) are overturned for lack of accuracy, overreach, and flippantly reversing a hundred plus years of court precedent with garbage reasoning. Scalia claims knowledge of what most Americans believe, without any support or any evidence whatsoever, which is what he bases his argument and ruling that the right of self-defense is inclusive in the 2nd (a small part of the decision which was entirely skewed to the rest and the case before the Court). First of all, even one Supreme Court Justice claiming to know what all Americans think and basing decisions on that... is crazy, so he was probably a little senile by then. But I think Scalia knew (or knew once) and we also know from the minutes of the Constitutional Convention that the Founders debated including self-defense in the 2nd and intentionally left it out, and we also know that the 2nd specifically concerns militia (to guard against any tyranny from a professional military) and not a personal right to firearms, which it never meant until the NRA made up that it did and ran propaganda to manipulate others into believing what they, really, just invented, which itself is merely a lie. So the NRA succeeded in campaigns they ran, I think starting in the early 1900s and onwards to try to get Americans to believe the 2nd Amendment meant self-defense and guaranteed it. But by 2008, contrary to Scalia's claimed omnipotence, I suspect most Americans were far better educated and aware of, at least, the fact that that the NRA's propaganda regarding their claims the right of self-defense was guaranteed by 2nd, was false, and knew and know that the right of self-defense is a natural right that would be redundant to include in the Bill of Rights, and is far older than the 2nd, which concerns militia. Personal gun ownership, right to carry permits, and all other ownership of guns beyond beyond militia (hunting, collecting, engineering & manufacturing, etc.) is really covered by the 10th Amendment. I don't know why the NRA, and everyone that listened to them, got hung up on the 2nd, and obsessively tried to, in large part successfully, mindcontrol Americans into believing literal BS and the NRA's wet dream, which of course could only have led to a needless increase in gun deaths since 2008. Sure the close knit and loving gun community blames the NRA when it's gun owners that failed America by being duped by the NRA into shirking their 2nd Amendment duties, and falling down on the job by not being well-regulated militia, but instead playing with guns, or leaving guns unsecured resulting in tragedy, or being vigilantes, or intentionally placing themselves where they might get antagonized to use lethal force when such situations could easily have been avoided.
• rayiner 5y ago
  I assume the FBI tip-toed around to the back of “Tarek Abou-Khatwa’s” house because he’s one of those white Arabs? Also, as to the Rittenhouse case, you’re missing option 3: > Rittenhouse’s attorneys wanted the jury to know that Rosenbaum was a low-life who was in Kenosha to riot and not for social justice protests.
• zionic 5y ago
  The rittenhouse bit is entirely irrelevant. The sex offender you're discussing is on video, from multiple angles, attacking him. He's also on video acting like an unhinged lunatic prior to the altercation. (He's a white dude at a BLM protest shouting the N word at another white person... uh ok). You can't threaten to kill someone then violently attack them and expect them not to defend themselves. If you're this woefully uninformed about the rittenhouse situation, have you considered that your sources of information are misleading you?
• monocularvision 5y ago
  At this point, I look at the NRA in the same way I look at the ACLU. Both were issue advocacy groups but both have expanded into a general partisan / left-right fundraising machine thanks to more and more polarization. Many gun-owning folks I know have joined other pro-second amendment advocacy groups in disappointment.