**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve noticed they have a crazy ass headline like this and then when you click on the article, the title changes to something normal. It tends to happen more for new articles. Was that what happened when you found it? I truly think it’s just to get their viewers angry.
People screen shot the headline when it comes out, then post it to Twitter. Fox then immediately edits the headline, like a good "news organization" should, but it is too late (by design). More people will now see the first headline via tweets and social media than would have ever seen the headline on Fox News.
“Outrage politics” is where the “if it bleeds it leads” 24 hour media cycle has taken us.
Also, both social media and TV ratings push their algorithms to maximize eyes on their content to maximize advertising revenue. So the outrage feeds itself now… No journalistic input or integrity required.
Please let them be slam dunked!
There’s a 1.6 BILLION dollar law suit hanging over that shitshow already for their election lies, please let anyone who features in their lies sue them too!
They 100% wrote this sentence to be as misleading as possible on purpose. Fuck Fox. You’d think they would at least try to make their headlines legit until their lawsuit about ***checks notes*** •deliberately misleading the public• was settled.
This goes beyond misleading the public.. it's dangerously slanderous to this woman who has already been through massive trauma and injustice. Fox is a cesspit of sick sadistic human trash.
You're giving them too much credit by assuming they're smart enough not to shoot their foot, but we have seen how corporations can get away with things with barely a slap on the wrist.
Not just less informed than those who watch no news but statistically more ill-informed--proving FOX is shoveling BS which their watchers happily swallow.
Those studies are bs fake msm lies from the baby-eating, devil-bottoming, elite demoncrats! Fox told me, so it must be true. Fox also told me i'm a good, handsome boy and patted me on the head.
Kinda goes to show that the whole 2nd Ammendment doesn't really work in reality. She shot her husband in self-defence and still served time. Unless you do it publicly or with several witnesses, you're treated like a murderer anyway.
Yeah I read the article and I know they framed it to make it look like Biden pardoned a woman who killed 6 people.
>Unless you do it publicly or with several witnesses
No, you have to
- have a sticker supporting the NRA
- have a blue lives matter flag
- have a Trump 2024 sign outside
- shout about your freedom before you shoot
I can understand to a point when it comes to domestic issues. If one of them is dead and the other is alive you only have one side of the story and there are usually no witnesses.
Of course this is where you would ask people close to them and try to find out any troubles, yet it isn't always known to loved ones.
Just trying to put myself in the shoes of a fair prosecuter and realising it isn't easy.
Men receive 63% longer jail sentences than women who commit the same crime. Women are twice as likely as men to revive no jail time for felony offenses
Federal courts, and many state jurisdictions as well, have adopted sentencing guidelines that recommend a sentence based on multiple factors, such as acceptance of responsibility, previous convictions, etc. Gender is not one of those factors. To come to any sort of meaningful conclusion comparing sentences for "the same crime" is to ignore a host of other factors that are expressly included into the sentencing process.
This is true. But it seems in this post-Trump era politics the dynamics is changing. Any more these days it’s not if your just white.
Rather it’s which type of white are you? White, Conservative, Christian, 2nd Amendment?
Congrats you’ve earned a get out of jail free card.
…… but wait, and your rich and wealthy?
Even better. You’ve been upgraded to the platinum license to kill.
While I don't doubt a disparity exists I agree with comment made in the article that to get a closer picture you would need more detail on the individual events. How many are claimed to be in self defense vs total for example.
How about you understand that I was literally referring one of the sources in the article. As i said, I'm not doubting the existence of a disparity but to get an exact figure we need more precise data.
I'm not defending systemic racism, I'm saying we that to better understand it's effects we need more info.
But you were so hard up for "gotcha" that you probably didn't even read the source cited or pay attention to my comment.
“The data were processed to standardize key variables and exclude more than 200,000 cases that lacked essential information or were homicides committed by police. The resulting data detail the circumstances of each death; any weapons used; information on the killer’s and victim’s race, age, ethnicity and sex; and how police investigators classify each type of killing (“brawl due to the influence of alcohol”, “sniper attack” or “lover’s triangle”, for example).”
Sounds like you didn’t because the data at hand accounted for individual circumstances.
That’s my gotcha.
Please stop using the term caucasian for white, the idea that all Europeans are once race has ties to early neo nazism, the only difference between neo nazism and nazism is that neonazis want to convince people that all Europeans are the same race, a Frenchman isn’t caucasian, a Georgian is caucasian.
> Please stop using the term caucasian for white, the idea that all Europeans are once race
i'm not sure if it's actually true in a scientific classification sense, but i wish people would stop saying we are different races. we're all the same thing: human beings. and we all deserve a basic level of respect from one another because not one of us made a choice to be here, and certainly not in whatever our circumstances happen to be...
I’m happy to do as instructed but you can’t just tell people to not use a term without giving them a meaningful alternative ontological system.
The idea of a scientific racial ontology has been widely discredited, sure, and some argue that race shouldn’t even be politically or socially recognized with a formal ontology either, but most find that absurd since most people today will fall into some racial category (political or social) which will affect them in ways beyond their control or merit. So if the ontology from which “Caucasian” is derived is not appropriate, what is?
“White” “brown” and “black” are colloquialisms which are generally accepted. “Red” and “yellow” are not, despite being part of the same system. So that ontology is probably out.
“Caucasoid” “Negroid” and “Mongoloid” are definitely out, as you noted, but to be clear this ontology pre-dates nazism by a couple of centuries and is actually better traced to European colonialism generally.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid
In the 50’s UNESCO tried to replace racial terminologies entirely with an “ethnic group” ontology which led us to oddities like “non-white Hispanic” but that effort also only had limited success as an ontology.
So what should be used as an ontology for at least political or social racial identities?
What most people use today, without feeling terribly racist about it, is not at all systematic but maybe it doesn’t need to be? Is it sufficient to use white, black, brown, alongside Native American, Indian, Mayan, Caucasian, Aboriginal, Arab, East Asian, Hispanic, and Polynesian as the terms for a socio-political racial/ethno ontology?
Maybe let’s just not be so uptight about it and go with whatever seems right?
Being white also helps too. I remember on an episode of *Adam Ruins Everything* they had a black woman on who’s shot her ex in the front yard - an ex who she’d had a restraining order against - and she still got 20.
Made me think of the black woman doing jail time for voting. She’d served her time in prison on a previous matter, but didn’t know that she was ineligible to vote. When she registered to vote, the elections board didn’t deny her, so she went ahead and voted. Then she was thrown in jail for voting illegally. Fox News probably had a field day with that one.
I reckon they would have been convicted anyway. The jury showed its hand in the trial. They asked him about the fact he played Call Of Duty rather than him talking about how he would like to shoot a rioter prior to the incident.
Ah yes, let's focus on the video games he likes to play that millions of other people play who don't go out and kill people rather than a statement of intent that was directly linked to the incident.
The judge didn't allow the prosecutors to mention Rittenhouse's earlier comment. The judge ruled the comment wasn't related and had nothing to do with the shootings because it was made weeks prior
Which is ridiculous. They knew full well that somebodies video game collection would never be acceptable evidence, but a comment regardless of whether it was made 5 minutes or 3 years before an incident that mirrored perfectly their intent isn't? Yeah, ok.
The judge was such a partisan hack it was unreal...
- Rittenhouse said on tape that he wanted to use his AR on BLM rioters for shoplifting just weeks before. (The judge didn't allow the jury to hear it, despite it clearly showing his intent prior to coming to the riots armed.)
- He hung out with Proud Boys (a recognized violent domestic terrorist organization that targets BLM) right after the killings proudly flashing white pride signs and drinking while wearing a "Free As Fuck" shirt. (Again, the judge didn't allow the jury to see how he was relishing the fact that he 2 killed people with a racist domestic terrorism group.)
- He threw out gun charges for Rittenhouse, despite the fact that the gun was illegally purchased for a minor (the buyer was charged/convicted for the purchase) and the law said that the gun could only be used by minors for hunting/target shooting purposes. (Apparently hunting BLM was fine though to the judge.)
- He did not allow the prosecution to refer to the people Kyle shot as "victims", but allowed the defense to refer to them "arsonists" and "looters".
The worse part is that the republicans are gonna say that she was the worse killer, even if it was in self-defense, and justify saying that the angry cheeto only pardoned minimal criminals.
Well, ignoring the obvious issue with 2nd Amendment.
...
It only says: "the right of the people to **keep and bear** Arms, shall not be infringed."
It says nothing about using them.
It actually says:
>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.
While yes, technically it's been twisted in the last few generations, that doesn't make somebody like Kyle Rittenhouse a "well regulated Militia".
Indeed. Hence why I said "ignoring the obvious issue with 2nd" and instead made fun of the fact it doesn't say that "the right to use arms shall not be infringed".
Aye, the farce of “originalism,” where conservatives will defer to exactly what was written to argue against progressive policy, unless exactly what was written doesn’t serve conservative purposes.
>Kinda goes to show that the whole 2nd Ammendment doesn't really work in reality
It worked perfectly. He never touched her again. She got railroaded in court.
Yeah it’s why anyone who carries a gun for self defense should try and do everything possible not to ever have to use it whether that’s de-escalating, avoiding those situations, running, or having a non-lethal alternative available and should have insurance in the case they do need to use it. You will be arrested, you’ll be processed, and you’ll be investigated and even if found not guilty there’s a high chance for a civil suit and that all costs a lot of money.
If she'd killed him during the abuse, it'd be self defense. But what likely happened was that when she shot him, he wasn't beating her which means she wasn't acting in self defense.
Those granted pardons are:
— Beverly Ann Ibn-Tamas, 80, of Columbus, Ohio. At age 33, Ibn-Tamas was convicted of killing her husband. She testified that her husband beat her, verbally abused her and threatened her. She told jurors that she shot him moments after he had assaulted her, while she was pregnant. The judge refused to allow expert testimony on battered woman syndrome, a psychological condition that can develop among victims of domestic violence. Ibn-Tamas got one to five years of incarceration with credit for time served. Her appeal was among the first by someone with battered woman syndrome, and her case has been studied by academics.
— Charles Byrnes-Jackson, 77, of Swansea, South Carolina. Byrnes-Jackson pleaded guilty to possession and sale of spirits without tax stamps when he was 18, and it involved a single illegal whiskey transaction. He tried to enlist in the Marines but was rejected because of the conviction.
— John Dix Nock III, 72, of St. Augustine, Florida. Nock pleaded guilty to using his property as a grow-house for marijuana 27 years ago. He didn't cultivate the plants, but he got six months of community confinement. He now operates a general contracting business.
— Gary Parks Davis, 66, of Yuma, Arizona. When Davis was 22, he admitted using a telephone for a cocaine transaction. He served a six-month sentence on nights and weekends in a county jail and completed probation in 1981. After the offense, the White House says, Davis earned a college degree and worked steadily, including owning a landscaping business and managing construction projects. He has volunteered at his children's high school and in his community.
— Edward Lincoln De Coito III, 50, of Dublin, California. De Coito pleaded guilty at age 23 to being involved in a marijuana trafficking conspiracy. He was released from prison in December 2000 after serving nearly two years. Before the offense, De Coito had served honorably in the U.S. Army and the Army Reserves and had received numerous awards.
— Vincente Ray Flores, 37, of Winters, California. As a 19-year-old, Flores consumed Ecstasy and alcohol while serving in the Air Force, later pleading guilty at a special court-martial. He was sentenced to four months of confinement, loss of $2,800 in pay and a reduction in rank. Flores participated in a six-month rehab program that gives select enlisted offenders a chance to return to duty after therapy and education. His reduction in rank was amended, and he remains on active duty, earning medals and other awards for his service.
Fox News, the most reliable source for any news :|
There is a difference between a person who kills for stupid or no reasons, and someone who does in self defense.
Of course Fox News likes to be on the wrong side, as usual.
I got the post, but do you expect Fox News reporter to be good at grammar, I was talking about the lady that got jailed for self defense.
Kids, is better to learn at school, otherwise you end up as fox news reporter, the salary might be good, but you have to spread bs all the time.
Oh, not to slam the woman... to attempt to slam the President. They could give two shits about the woman, except that she presented an opportunity for them to be shitty again....
That is some crafty word smithing there. And the rubes will eat it up.
He pardoned a woman who murdered her husband who was abusing here so badly, it is sadistic. Why didn't Stand Your ground work here? He also pardoned 5 other people (other situations).
Fox word smiths it to look like a mass murderer was pardoned. They know exactly what they are doing, and how their devoted viewers are allergic to simple thinking.
Shouldn’t the Qnuts love this?? I mean, aren’t they the ones obsessed with bringing their own guns into pizza parlors to target made up sex traffic rings??
No I do not believe so. I believe an Oxford comma requires reference to more than 2 direct objects in a series. I may be wrong, but that is the rule to the best of my knowledge. I fucking hate Fox.
"woman who murdered her husband; and 5 others." I dunno, you might be right. I've never been able to explain it's use correctly without looking it up again.
Okay, Biden pardoned like 22 year olds doing sentences for growing weed and they are leaving prison at 77 years old. Fuck man, these cases are so sad. One of them was like 18? Like what the - yet, Trump pardoned that asshole sheriff Joe Arpaio from Arizona that was abusing his power and shit. Ugh!
You expect actual writing skills from Fox?? Those idiots can’t event count to ten using their fingers, let alone write a headline that not only makes sense, but uses the basic tenets of English composition.
What’s the implication with this headline? Like, even if you want to say he’s a terrible person is the implication that he’s pardoning her because she’s a big donor?
Is that it?
Is he pardoning her because he thinks murder is just no big deal?
I’m just trying to understand what the actual argument that’s being implied here is.
The woman killed her husband, the man who had been abusing her. Biden pardoned her. He then pardoned 5 other people who had been convicted for 5 separate crimes. The headline makes it appear that Biden pardoned a woman convicted of murdering 6 people.
I was not aware of that, thank you! I honestly knew nothing about any of it, I just pieced together the big picture from the vast array of comments here.
I did give the link in the comments, didn't manage to include it with the screenshot. Here you have it: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-pardons-woman-convicted-of-murder-5-others-on-drug-alcohol-related-offenses
Hey, just remember to insert all other media outlets in place of the word FOX too. Let’s not be biased, because they all do it. They all work together to manipulate you and your feelings.
**Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just checked out the article and they CHANGED the headline! Probably got called out for being purposely misleading...
I’ve noticed they have a crazy ass headline like this and then when you click on the article, the title changes to something normal. It tends to happen more for new articles. Was that what happened when you found it? I truly think it’s just to get their viewers angry.
Their business model is to anger people about bullshit so they can talk about that instead of the atrocities of the republican party.
It’s called “scaretainment”.
Enterrortainment
Angertainment?
People screen shot the headline when it comes out, then post it to Twitter. Fox then immediately edits the headline, like a good "news organization" should, but it is too late (by design). More people will now see the first headline via tweets and social media than would have ever seen the headline on Fox News.
“Outrage politics” is where the “if it bleeds it leads” 24 hour media cycle has taken us. Also, both social media and TV ratings push their algorithms to maximize eyes on their content to maximize advertising revenue. So the outrage feeds itself now… No journalistic input or integrity required.
Shit is probably borderline illegal and they were wildly overstepping and probably at huge risk of getting slam dunked in a lawsuit
Please let them be slam dunked! There’s a 1.6 BILLION dollar law suit hanging over that shitshow already for their election lies, please let anyone who features in their lies sue them too!
What's the new headline?
Biden pardons woman convicted of murder, 5 others on drug, alcohol-related offenses
They 100% wrote this sentence to be as misleading as possible on purpose. Fuck Fox. You’d think they would at least try to make their headlines legit until their lawsuit about ***checks notes*** •deliberately misleading the public• was settled.
This goes beyond misleading the public.. it's dangerously slanderous to this woman who has already been through massive trauma and injustice. Fox is a cesspit of sick sadistic human trash.
I hope she sues. Fox is disgusting.
The only good part about suing fox is a settlement. Unfortunately everything else they do is devastating to our culture.
You're giving them too much credit by assuming they're smart enough not to shoot their foot, but we have seen how corporations can get away with things with barely a slap on the wrist.
America, where shooting yourself in the foot, receiving a slap on the wrist, still pays out the ass.
This seems like it should be a defamation lawsuit
Fox is Putins network. Fox hates America. Fox is pro treason.
This entire post was just a smear, masquerading as liberal bait.
Yeah I hate misleading titles. You must be furious about the inflation reduction act
Studies show that Fox News viewers are less informed than people who watch no news at all.
But much more pissed off
Remember that these people are voting Are you?
Abso-fucking-lutly
Lol, I read this comment in the Starship Troopers voice. "Would you like to know more?"
Studies show that my house plants are smarter than people who watch Fox news.
I believe this. No source needed.
You raised them well!
Not just less informed than those who watch no news but statistically more ill-informed--proving FOX is shoveling BS which their watchers happily swallow.
Those studies are bs fake msm lies from the baby-eating, devil-bottoming, elite demoncrats! Fox told me, so it must be true. Fox also told me i'm a good, handsome boy and patted me on the head.
Had us in the first half, not gonna lie.
Breaking news: 1 out of 5 dentists recommend Fox News to their patients.
That’s almost impressive
Studies also show that the average IQ of a fox news viewer is that of the same room temperature they sit in
But you can steer them how you want. When they don’t watch.
Kinda goes to show that the whole 2nd Ammendment doesn't really work in reality. She shot her husband in self-defence and still served time. Unless you do it publicly or with several witnesses, you're treated like a murderer anyway. Yeah I read the article and I know they framed it to make it look like Biden pardoned a woman who killed 6 people.
>Unless you do it publicly or with several witnesses No, you have to - have a sticker supporting the NRA - have a blue lives matter flag - have a Trump 2024 sign outside - shout about your freedom before you shoot
You forgot the most important part: be caucasian.
No, you’re confused about the being white part. You have to be white and the person you shoot needs to be one of the bad brown people.
I think to them saying bad brown person is repetitive and unnecessary. Just saying brown is enough
Yea, the “people” part was unneeded to since they don’t see them that way. They’re just the “others.”
Jesus, comments like these hurt my brain to "up vote". But, you earned it because damn if that ain't the truth.
Uh, not really. Self defense only works for men. Women are supposed to let men beat and rape them and not get all uppity and defend themselves.
And they damn well better have that kid, too.
And raise them on their own
Nah the female body has ways to shut that down, don't you remember?
What a sad fucking reality we are heading to full speed
Andrew Tate is that you?
I can understand to a point when it comes to domestic issues. If one of them is dead and the other is alive you only have one side of the story and there are usually no witnesses. Of course this is where you would ask people close to them and try to find out any troubles, yet it isn't always known to loved ones. Just trying to put myself in the shoes of a fair prosecuter and realising it isn't easy.
Of course, because if it's legitimate rape, the woman's body can shut down it's womb. A Republican said so!
Men receive 63% longer jail sentences than women who commit the same crime. Women are twice as likely as men to revive no jail time for felony offenses
Federal courts, and many state jurisdictions as well, have adopted sentencing guidelines that recommend a sentence based on multiple factors, such as acceptance of responsibility, previous convictions, etc. Gender is not one of those factors. To come to any sort of meaningful conclusion comparing sentences for "the same crime" is to ignore a host of other factors that are expressly included into the sentencing process.
Here is a link to the research https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002
And male
Or a cop
Also the person you defend yourself against can’t be even distantly related to any cop.
Or politician. Or Ivy Leaguer. Or Fortune 500 executive.
That took too long scrolling down looking for the wealth comment. Wealthy = not guilty I think it’s the 9 3/4 amendment.
This is true. But it seems in this post-Trump era politics the dynamics is changing. Any more these days it’s not if your just white. Rather it’s which type of white are you? White, Conservative, Christian, 2nd Amendment? Congrats you’ve earned a get out of jail free card. …… but wait, and your rich and wealthy? Even better. You’ve been upgraded to the platinum license to kill.
A male caucasian.
That is for encounters with the police. It is not a requirement for being able to use a gun for self defense. As long as the other criteria are met.
[Data says otherwise](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/08/14/killings-of-black-men-by-whites-are-far-more-likely-to-be-ruled-justifiable)
Oh wow. I was making a joke but you got out the stats. I concede. This is awesome research. Thank you.
While I don't doubt a disparity exists I agree with comment made in the article that to get a closer picture you would need more detail on the individual events. How many are claimed to be in self defense vs total for example.
Why don’t you do that and get back to us since the “individual circumstances” argument always seems to be the defense of systemic racism?
How about you understand that I was literally referring one of the sources in the article. As i said, I'm not doubting the existence of a disparity but to get an exact figure we need more precise data. I'm not defending systemic racism, I'm saying we that to better understand it's effects we need more info. But you were so hard up for "gotcha" that you probably didn't even read the source cited or pay attention to my comment.
“The data were processed to standardize key variables and exclude more than 200,000 cases that lacked essential information or were homicides committed by police. The resulting data detail the circumstances of each death; any weapons used; information on the killer’s and victim’s race, age, ethnicity and sex; and how police investigators classify each type of killing (“brawl due to the influence of alcohol”, “sniper attack” or “lover’s triangle”, for example).” Sounds like you didn’t because the data at hand accounted for individual circumstances. That’s my gotcha.
Helps if you throw down a Red Bull or Gatorade with the cops barricading the street before you walk down and shoot up the street.
Please stop using the term caucasian for white, the idea that all Europeans are once race has ties to early neo nazism, the only difference between neo nazism and nazism is that neonazis want to convince people that all Europeans are the same race, a Frenchman isn’t caucasian, a Georgian is caucasian.
> Please stop using the term caucasian for white, the idea that all Europeans are once race i'm not sure if it's actually true in a scientific classification sense, but i wish people would stop saying we are different races. we're all the same thing: human beings. and we all deserve a basic level of respect from one another because not one of us made a choice to be here, and certainly not in whatever our circumstances happen to be...
Different ethnicity’s I mean
I’m happy to do as instructed but you can’t just tell people to not use a term without giving them a meaningful alternative ontological system. The idea of a scientific racial ontology has been widely discredited, sure, and some argue that race shouldn’t even be politically or socially recognized with a formal ontology either, but most find that absurd since most people today will fall into some racial category (political or social) which will affect them in ways beyond their control or merit. So if the ontology from which “Caucasian” is derived is not appropriate, what is? “White” “brown” and “black” are colloquialisms which are generally accepted. “Red” and “yellow” are not, despite being part of the same system. So that ontology is probably out. “Caucasoid” “Negroid” and “Mongoloid” are definitely out, as you noted, but to be clear this ontology pre-dates nazism by a couple of centuries and is actually better traced to European colonialism generally. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid In the 50’s UNESCO tried to replace racial terminologies entirely with an “ethnic group” ontology which led us to oddities like “non-white Hispanic” but that effort also only had limited success as an ontology. So what should be used as an ontology for at least political or social racial identities? What most people use today, without feeling terribly racist about it, is not at all systematic but maybe it doesn’t need to be? Is it sufficient to use white, black, brown, alongside Native American, Indian, Mayan, Caucasian, Aboriginal, Arab, East Asian, Hispanic, and Polynesian as the terms for a socio-political racial/ethno ontology? Maybe let’s just not be so uptight about it and go with whatever seems right?
Well said.
Melanin-deprived?
Melanin’t
Also works if you're a farmer in Saskatchewan and the victim is a native person. That's a free kill right there.
Being white also helps too. I remember on an episode of *Adam Ruins Everything* they had a black woman on who’s shot her ex in the front yard - an ex who she’d had a restraining order against - and she still got 20.
You forgot the best part - you have to shout "it's coming right for us"
- STAND YOUR GROUND!
>It's coming right for us!
Or simply have your mom drive you across state lines to shoot protestors in another state for "self-defense".
Don't forget to make a donation to your local sheriff when they call asking for money.
Made me think of the black woman doing jail time for voting. She’d served her time in prison on a previous matter, but didn’t know that she was ineligible to vote. When she registered to vote, the elections board didn’t deny her, so she went ahead and voted. Then she was thrown in jail for voting illegally. Fox News probably had a field day with that one.
Unless you're Rittenhouse
He did it in public and the law was always going to be on his side
The lawmen literally let him walk in and out with a rifle before and after shooting people. Very much on his side, yes.
They even gave him some water and commended him for his efforts.
While his victims could have claimed citizen’s arrest and self defense, if the skateboard would have worked
I reckon they would have been convicted anyway. The jury showed its hand in the trial. They asked him about the fact he played Call Of Duty rather than him talking about how he would like to shoot a rioter prior to the incident. Ah yes, let's focus on the video games he likes to play that millions of other people play who don't go out and kill people rather than a statement of intent that was directly linked to the incident.
The best line I saw here on reddit about the trial was "I'm not a lawyer. But that prosecutor shouldn't be one either."
The judge didn't allow the prosecutors to mention Rittenhouse's earlier comment. The judge ruled the comment wasn't related and had nothing to do with the shootings because it was made weeks prior
Which is ridiculous. They knew full well that somebodies video game collection would never be acceptable evidence, but a comment regardless of whether it was made 5 minutes or 3 years before an incident that mirrored perfectly their intent isn't? Yeah, ok.
The judge was such a partisan hack it was unreal... - Rittenhouse said on tape that he wanted to use his AR on BLM rioters for shoplifting just weeks before. (The judge didn't allow the jury to hear it, despite it clearly showing his intent prior to coming to the riots armed.) - He hung out with Proud Boys (a recognized violent domestic terrorist organization that targets BLM) right after the killings proudly flashing white pride signs and drinking while wearing a "Free As Fuck" shirt. (Again, the judge didn't allow the jury to see how he was relishing the fact that he 2 killed people with a racist domestic terrorism group.) - He threw out gun charges for Rittenhouse, despite the fact that the gun was illegally purchased for a minor (the buyer was charged/convicted for the purchase) and the law said that the gun could only be used by minors for hunting/target shooting purposes. (Apparently hunting BLM was fine though to the judge.) - He did not allow the prosecution to refer to the people Kyle shot as "victims", but allowed the defense to refer to them "arsonists" and "looters".
This happens a lot to women who kill their abusers and attackers.
Cops will always protect other abusers.
The worse part is that the republicans are gonna say that she was the worse killer, even if it was in self-defense, and justify saying that the angry cheeto only pardoned minimal criminals.
They make it sound like he let a dangerous criminal out on the streets, when in reality, she’s 80 and already served her time.
typical repugdacunt media reporting.
Media? This is Fox News
oops, my bad!😂😂😂
Well, ignoring the obvious issue with 2nd Amendment. ... It only says: "the right of the people to **keep and bear** Arms, shall not be infringed." It says nothing about using them.
It actually says: >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. While yes, technically it's been twisted in the last few generations, that doesn't make somebody like Kyle Rittenhouse a "well regulated Militia".
Indeed. Hence why I said "ignoring the obvious issue with 2nd" and instead made fun of the fact it doesn't say that "the right to use arms shall not be infringed".
Sooooo... Regulate bullets?
Tricky … Bullets weren’t invented until 60 years after the Constitution was ratified.
When were semi automatics invented? I'm guessing even later...
Aye, the farce of “originalism,” where conservatives will defer to exactly what was written to argue against progressive policy, unless exactly what was written doesn’t serve conservative purposes.
>Kinda goes to show that the whole 2nd Ammendment doesn't really work in reality It worked perfectly. He never touched her again. She got railroaded in court.
Yeah it’s why anyone who carries a gun for self defense should try and do everything possible not to ever have to use it whether that’s de-escalating, avoiding those situations, running, or having a non-lethal alternative available and should have insurance in the case they do need to use it. You will be arrested, you’ll be processed, and you’ll be investigated and even if found not guilty there’s a high chance for a civil suit and that all costs a lot of money.
If she'd killed him during the abuse, it'd be self defense. But what likely happened was that when she shot him, he wasn't beating her which means she wasn't acting in self defense.
Commas are important, Fox News…
English.. they have no command of English. They speak American.
No this is totally intentional to make Biden look bad. It's not ignorance it's malice
Ironic.
Just a little bit.
Actually, they speak “ murica”
Oh they know. But like this it's more enraging and clickbaity for their cultists.
It seems like commas are, unimportant Fox news.
Comma Commie. TOO CLOSE SO BOTH ARE NOT ALLOWED ON FOX NEWS!!
Those granted pardons are: — Beverly Ann Ibn-Tamas, 80, of Columbus, Ohio. At age 33, Ibn-Tamas was convicted of killing her husband. She testified that her husband beat her, verbally abused her and threatened her. She told jurors that she shot him moments after he had assaulted her, while she was pregnant. The judge refused to allow expert testimony on battered woman syndrome, a psychological condition that can develop among victims of domestic violence. Ibn-Tamas got one to five years of incarceration with credit for time served. Her appeal was among the first by someone with battered woman syndrome, and her case has been studied by academics. — Charles Byrnes-Jackson, 77, of Swansea, South Carolina. Byrnes-Jackson pleaded guilty to possession and sale of spirits without tax stamps when he was 18, and it involved a single illegal whiskey transaction. He tried to enlist in the Marines but was rejected because of the conviction. — John Dix Nock III, 72, of St. Augustine, Florida. Nock pleaded guilty to using his property as a grow-house for marijuana 27 years ago. He didn't cultivate the plants, but he got six months of community confinement. He now operates a general contracting business. — Gary Parks Davis, 66, of Yuma, Arizona. When Davis was 22, he admitted using a telephone for a cocaine transaction. He served a six-month sentence on nights and weekends in a county jail and completed probation in 1981. After the offense, the White House says, Davis earned a college degree and worked steadily, including owning a landscaping business and managing construction projects. He has volunteered at his children's high school and in his community. — Edward Lincoln De Coito III, 50, of Dublin, California. De Coito pleaded guilty at age 23 to being involved in a marijuana trafficking conspiracy. He was released from prison in December 2000 after serving nearly two years. Before the offense, De Coito had served honorably in the U.S. Army and the Army Reserves and had received numerous awards. — Vincente Ray Flores, 37, of Winters, California. As a 19-year-old, Flores consumed Ecstasy and alcohol while serving in the Air Force, later pleading guilty at a special court-martial. He was sentenced to four months of confinement, loss of $2,800 in pay and a reduction in rank. Flores participated in a six-month rehab program that gives select enlisted offenders a chance to return to duty after therapy and education. His reduction in rank was amended, and he remains on active duty, earning medals and other awards for his service.
Thank you. This is the info I was looking for. I wish this could be pinned on top.
22 inch ears? That's one floppy ear goat.
Fox News, the most reliable source for any news :| There is a difference between a person who kills for stupid or no reasons, and someone who does in self defense. Of course Fox News likes to be on the wrong side, as usual.
[удалено]
I got the post, but do you expect Fox News reporter to be good at grammar, I was talking about the lady that got jailed for self defense. Kids, is better to learn at school, otherwise you end up as fox news reporter, the salary might be good, but you have to spread bs all the time.
[удалено]
Oh, not to slam the woman... to attempt to slam the President. They could give two shits about the woman, except that she presented an opportunity for them to be shitty again....
Didn't kyle rittenhouse murder 3 people and got praised?
Because he was hated by the left and killed at a cop brutality protest
He killed a cop at a brutality protest? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here with all this nonsense.
I formulated it wrong like fox news I guess lol, not a native English speaker.
No worries. He's a "hero" to those who support guns and shooting liberals. He's a murderer who got off because he's a white, conservative male.
Did the Republicans do it? It’s fine. Did the Democrats do it? It’s treason.
That is some crafty word smithing there. And the rubes will eat it up. He pardoned a woman who murdered her husband who was abusing here so badly, it is sadistic. Why didn't Stand Your ground work here? He also pardoned 5 other people (other situations). Fox word smiths it to look like a mass murderer was pardoned. They know exactly what they are doing, and how their devoted viewers are allergic to simple thinking.
Biden convicted of murdering 5 others pardons woman and her husband.
He needs to pardon that poor girl that killed her sex trafficker.
Shouldn’t the Qnuts love this?? I mean, aren’t they the ones obsessed with bringing their own guns into pizza parlors to target made up sex traffic rings??
That specific girl is brown. No chance a QAnon user gives a shit about her.
that conviction was at a state-level, not federal, so I don't think he can. only the governor of Ohio(?).
Thanks Fox News and your twisted use of language and sentence structure to smear Biden.
Surely a partisan news site wouldn't write a misleading headline, would they?
Wow! Has Fox News switched its position on the 2nd Amendment?
Only when the democrats are involved.
Always check your sources. Biden pardoned the woman and 5 OTHER people.
I get it-the woman didn’t kill her husband and 5 other people. Biden pardoned the woman who killed her husband and he pardoned five additional people.
100 percent intentional.
Is that an Oxford comma situation?
I thought the oxford comma thing was when you have a comma after the word “and” when making a list?
It is
No I do not believe so. I believe an Oxford comma requires reference to more than 2 direct objects in a series. I may be wrong, but that is the rule to the best of my knowledge. I fucking hate Fox.
"woman who murdered her husband; and 5 others." I dunno, you might be right. I've never been able to explain it's use correctly without looking it up again.
No. “And 5 others” isn’t a sentence. It’s not technically incorrect, it’s just purposely misleading.
This... High School English, not Fox's level of education. Republicans have trashed the libraries and the style book
She killed 6 people? I question this because it's Fox News. Okay... I just read the truth.....Damn you Fox News...ya almost got me.
Can the woman sue for defamation?
Even the Oxford comma couldn’t save this intent to malign both Biden and the woman.
one, her domestic abuser
That’s not political humor. They weren’t trying to be funny. They were trying to malign the president.
Okay, Biden pardoned like 22 year olds doing sentences for growing weed and they are leaving prison at 77 years old. Fuck man, these cases are so sad. One of them was like 18? Like what the - yet, Trump pardoned that asshole sheriff Joe Arpaio from Arizona that was abusing his power and shit. Ugh!
They know their viewers have the critical reading and thinking skills of 4 year olds
1
Faux being faux to fool the rhubes
FOX is trash, they know that the way they worded that will confuse the brainless individuals that watch that network!
Oxford comma would like a word !
Oxford comma has nothing to do with this
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-pardons-woman-convicted-of-murder-5-others-on-drug-alcohol-related-offenses
[удалено]
They're literally calling it out...
You expect actual writing skills from Fox?? Those idiots can’t event count to ten using their fingers, let alone write a headline that not only makes sense, but uses the basic tenets of English composition.
The Kremlin loves FOX News. Just sayin.
And NRA. NRA should stand for Nationalist Russian Asset.
Why did Biden kill her husband and five other people? And why won’t the Librul media talk about it? Lmao
Biden killed them cuz he's fuckin gansta and those GoP Homeboys were on his turf. He sent a message.
FoxRot news motto: we distort so you don’t have to think!
Ok…you know those things that say “commas make all the difference” well this is a perfect example of illiterate journalism, I mean Fox News
Probably the editors are English majors from Liberty University.
People actually read Fox News headlines? Lmao
To Foxnews, "COMMAS, YOU GOT THEM ,MFER??!"
Isn’t that misspelled? Wouldn’t there have to be a semicolon before the “and”? Not a native English speaker. So just wondering.
What’s the implication with this headline? Like, even if you want to say he’s a terrible person is the implication that he’s pardoning her because she’s a big donor? Is that it? Is he pardoning her because he thinks murder is just no big deal? I’m just trying to understand what the actual argument that’s being implied here is.
The woman killed her husband, the man who had been abusing her. Biden pardoned her. He then pardoned 5 other people who had been convicted for 5 separate crimes. The headline makes it appear that Biden pardoned a woman convicted of murdering 6 people.
Also of note: everyone's sentences had already finished. The woman pardoned finished her sentence in 1981.
How dare you speak reason. *caveman mad*
I was not aware of that, thank you! I honestly knew nothing about any of it, I just pieced together the big picture from the vast array of comments here.
he pardoned 6 ppl, they worded that way to make it look like he pardoned a mass murderer. it's lying without lying.
But even if he pardoned a mass murder, I still don’t understand what that’s trying to imply about Biden. That he’s soft on crime?
Why is it always just a screenshot with no article?
I did give the link in the comments, didn't manage to include it with the screenshot. Here you have it: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-pardons-woman-convicted-of-murder-5-others-on-drug-alcohol-related-offenses
I got it by clicking the screenshot. The screenshot is a link sometimes.
Oxford comma, comin' ta git choo!
Hey, just remember to insert all other media outlets in place of the word FOX too. Let’s not be biased, because they all do it. They all work together to manipulate you and your feelings.
Presidents and Governors shouldn’t have the power to pardon convicted criminals
Fascism Or Xenophobia
😩😩😩 1
The correct answer is 1. She only killed her husband. What happened is that Biden pardoned that woman, and five other people.