It is not that they have not just evolved beyond it but rather that there is a segment, mostly in the US South who feels they were done wrong and are victims of injustice and they see this as a way to correct it.

They see POC and especially African Americans as lesser citizens who do not have a right to protest any injustice because they simply refuse to accept that it is possible to be unjust to them. Too many will not examine any issue from the 'other' side and instead jump instantly to defend anyone white in any conflict with anyone who is a POC.

Trump found an old deep seated prejudice and feeling of victimhood and ignited and told them they were right and that they needed to fight to restore what they perceive to be balance, which for many is for African American's to shut up and just accept any circumstances they find themselves in as they likely did something wrong at some point (or many points) that makes this Just regardless.

So if a police officer kills George Floyd stop paying attention to the specifics, if it is not a good shoot, as we know Floyd has probably done lots in the past that justify this anyway.

Personally, I think any country/culture where it's perfectly legal and normalised for civilians to roam the streets with military assault rifles is batshit insane already.

I think the number of people who believe this is a lot smaller than you do. And even most of those people do not harbor ideas as extreme as what you are ascribing to them. Furthermore another "segment" to be concerned about are the ones who have your opinion. They alienate those who are unjustly put into this extreme racist category. Also harboring such opinions is probably a symptom of a problem. Paranoia is an obvious possibility. More likely it is simply a desire to for life to be more interesting than it is without such dramatic thoughts.

I am not as convinced as you David as we see a push thru much of the US South doing things like infiltrating as many School Boards as possible with people who will enact agenda's to cleanse US history of any mention or teachings of slavery or any injustices done to black American's while promoting the idea that black American's are in the difficulties they are in due to personal choices and a lack of responsibility.

David, I grew up above the Mason Dixon line....and lived in a large community in south GA for a little more than a decade during the 90's and 00's. My neighborhood was upscale. FULL! of KKK members to this day.

You may think there is no widespread racism..... but my opinion is, you are wrong.

Is there really such a thing a non-extreme racism?

Im guessing you scored pretty poorly on your SAT

thats not why he crossed state lines tho. as he posted on his social media, he crossed state lines so that he could murder leftists.

everyone has some bias and racism.

I would define non extreme racism or bigotry of any type as someone who may hold such beliefs but never act upon them because they also believe generally in a more libertarian principle of 'let others live as they wish as long as they are doing no harm'.

I see the sidekick is doing all the talking today in the jury instructions arguments, Binger probably recognised that the judge ****ing hates him and decided to fall back.

Just stopping by to say we need more heros like Rittenhouse. If every incel would just pick up arms and have their mommy drive them across state lines to protect businesses from the brown and black menace then this world would be a better place

You think it's normal to have free access to healthcare.

Soft euro boy.

Very apropos

I often wondered why US corporations fought so hard against any form of Medicare for All, after all that expense socialized would remove a big cost for corporations and competitive consideration for many top International workers the US trying to entice who first must scrutinize they will have adequate insurance.

Why not let the masses pool their tax money and pay for it and save us, the corporations, from doing so.

I realized that answer is that it is the biggest factor in creating Wage Slaves out of the lower income people.

A shitty job that pays poorly becomes much harder to quit and walk away from if you and your family are reliant on that employers health care insurance. Bumping one crap paying job for another in Canada is not so scary as you risk no bad health care outcomes if that second job does not work out and you end up unemployed for a while. If you have a family that relies on your health care it becomes a much more risky gamble.

So the corporations will accept that 'cost' to keep tighter on the bottom end of the work force.

We saw this directly during covid as a tactic the Trump Admin employed when they were desperate to force people back to jobs despite the risk to boost the economy before the election.

Specifically I remember an interview with a Trump spokesperson talking about Meat packing plants having workers refuse to go back into unsafe situations and the Trump Admin's response was to make it so the employer could 'order them back', 'get immunity even if they work place was not safe and ignoring Covid protocols', and lastly 'make so if they still refused to go back they could be fired and it would be accepted as 'with cause'. The Trump spokesperson said 'they have to understand they will lose their health insurance if fired that way. So go back into a plant that was ignoring covid protocols and work or get fired and lose your family health care during a pandemic.

They felt they had the workers pinned in and cornered.

KS,

You experience was very atypical. I grew up in the deep South 15 years before you lived in south GA. Casual racism was fairly common, but I never heard of anyone who had any connection to the KKK. I never met anyone who claimed to know anyone who was connected to the KKK.

I don't disagree with any of that but I honestly think the main reason is that the health insurance lobby bribes US politicians too much to turn down for the simple reason that selling insurance is literally like printing money for them.

Sure that is why Big Insurance fights and lobbies against it.

In a normal world you would think all other businesses would fight and lobby for it and try to beat Big Insurance.

The alignment was what confused me.

i enjoyed how arizona state was QUICK to put out that kyle rittenhouse was NOT a nursing student at their university like he attempted to testify. that he had simply started the process for a non degree seeking online study..

lol. they wanted no part of that ****.

don't they have to though, all the other thing they can charge him with are a bit more difficult to stick as some will stick to him others the defense can easily say what about person x,y,z who was there

they needed to have a hefty charge like that i think

"Naive credibility" is a nice turn of phrase, and accurate to boot. I watched most of the cross, and Rittenhouse seemed to be not too bright or quick, but fairly genuine. He admitted to lying when he told people at the scene he was a medic, etc. etc.

I thought Binger's style towards Rittenhouse was tone-deaf. Binger is snide. That can and does work with overly defensive or aggressive witnesses, but Rittenhouse isn't that guy. Just my two cents, and a very subjective two cents at that.

I think the one thing that everyone on both sides of this case agree on is how all round terrible Binger has been.

Nor am I, although I'm sure I billed twenty hours on a criminal case in around 1992. My understanding is that defendants in self-defense cases testify much more often than defendants who don't raise that defense. Here, I think it is important for Rittenhouse to tie together what he saw and felt that night. I don't think there's any question whether he actually felt in fear for his life, particularly with Huber and Grosskreutz. The real jury question is whether that fear was reasonable.

Rosenbaum was a different circumstance. He was an aggressive POS, getting in people's faces, saying "shoot me, (n-word)" and threatening to kill people. But he didn't actually strike Rittenhouse (unlike Huber) and didn't pull a gun and point it at him (like Grosskreutz).

Grosskreutz's testimony was dramatic. I believe him when he said that he had no intention of shooting Rittenhouse. But I don't think that testimony is actually relevant to any issue at trial. Question instead is whether Rittenhouse was reasonable to think that Grosskreutz intended to do exactly that, and I think the testimony easily established that Rittenhouse was -- but I can see a jury finding that Rittenhouse's (subjective) feeling wasn't reasonable given that he's a teenager who brought a rifle to a riot.

Can a jury find second-degree as a lesser-included charge to first degree reckless homicide? Or is it first-degree-or-nothing as far as this jury is concerned?

@cuepee, trolly, pleasure: I have you all on ignore, so don't bother responding.

i want to be upset with him. but i've been in front of terrible judges like this one before and it is INSANELY frustrating. you're constantly having to explain the law and how things work and it makes you want to rip your hair out.

I don't think that's true. I believe Grosskreutz when he testified that he didn't have any intention of killing Rittenhouse. But that's not really relevant under the law; the question instead is whether Rittenhouse believed that at the time.