Were the deceased proven to have been rioting or looting at the time Rittenhouse engaged them?
If not, it’s a curious double standard for the judge to allow them to be referred to as rioters & looters, but not victims.
Well, Rosenbaum certainly was, and if we're going to get technical here, they all engaged him. Even if Rittenhouse did somehow engage in a confrontation with Rosenbaum initially, of which there's no proof that he did, he chose to run away to avoid the confrontation and Rosenbaum chased him down and lunged for his gun. Huber was hitting him with a skateboard, and Grosskreutz aimed a gun in the vicinity of his head.
I'm not debating how Rittenhouse shooting them was considered self defense, I'm curious as to why the judge allowed the deceased to be referred to as rioters and looters, but not victims.
If they were indeed proven to have been rioting & looting, it makes sense, but if not, then it is a double standard.
I'd imagine the word 'victim' holds a specific legal meaning? It was also the central point of the case - were they perpetrators of violence against Rittenhouse, or were they victims of his? As I said before, Rosenbaum is caught on video behaving in an aggressive and destructive way, using racial slurs etc. The second two individuals, it could be argued, were taking the law into their own hands by trying to apprehend Rittenhouse.
"Rioters, arsonists & looters" also have specific legal meanings.
They're also unambiguous terms, either they were or weren't partaking in certain behaviours. Once again, Rosenbaum was clearly shown behaving in a way that most reasonable people would describe as 'rioting'. It was far less clear whether they were 'victims', hence the trial. .
It's a curious decision for the judge to make when they could have simply referred to those who were shot by their last names.
I heard them referred to by their last names by the defence, prosecution and judge, to be fair.
I don't know if they were referred to with the labels in question, I didn't watch the trial.
Regardless, on its face, the decision to disallow the label "victim" while at the same time allowing those other labels in the absence of the three men having been convicted of those crimes strikes me as odd, to say the least.
I'm curious about Rittenhouse's interview with Fucker Carlson.
He supposedly states his support of BLM.
I'll give the kid credit....he's well spoken.
I saw a few clips. I wonder how he explains flashing the white power sign in that bar then?
This may be a dumb question, but how well known is that sign? I had no idea that’s what it was. My dad texts me that emoji every time he wants to say “okay.” Had I seen that picture on my own I wouldn’t have given it a second that.
At this point it’s fairly well known. I believe it actually started as a troll tactic from the right on 4chan, but was then actually picked up by white nationalist groups et al. It’s still fine depending on the context. A quick signal to say “ok” in a text or across a room isn’t the same as new face against BLM hanging in a bar with a gaggle of bikers fresh out on bail.
I heard some discussion this weekend about how the defense had tried to get the gun charge dropped prior to the trial. That the judge waited until midway through the trial to drop it does seem very prejudicial now.
He dropped the charge last Monday, shortly before the closing arguments. It wasn't mid trial
I'm curious about Rittenhouse's interview with Fucker Carlson.
He supposedly states his support of BLM.
I'll give the kid credit....he's well spoken.
I saw a few clips. I wonder how he explains flashing the white power sign in that bar then?
This may be a dumb question, but how well known is that sign? I had no idea that’s what it was. My dad texts me that emoji every time he wants to say “okay.” Had I seen that picture on my own I wouldn’t have given it a second that.
I'm curious about Rittenhouse's interview with Fucker Carlson.
He supposedly states his support of BLM.
I'll give the kid credit....he's well spoken.
I saw a few clips. I wonder how he explains flashing the white power sign in that bar then?
This may be a dumb question, but how well known is that sign? I had no idea that’s what it was. My dad texts me that emoji every time he wants to say “okay.” Had I seen that picture on my own I wouldn’t have given it a second that.
Look at this disgusting white supremacist. He flashes the sign wherever he goes!
sure, yeah, that's the same.
Do we actually know those guys are white supremacists, or is everyone just assuming that since they’re overweight white dudes they are?
I'm curious about Rittenhouse's interview with Fucker Carlson.
He supposedly states his support of BLM.
I'll give the kid credit....he's well spoken.
I saw a few clips. I wonder how he explains flashing the white power sign in that bar then?
This may be a dumb question, but how well known is that sign? I had no idea that’s what it was. My dad texts me that emoji every time he wants to say “okay.” Had I seen that picture on my own I wouldn’t have given it a second that.
At this point it’s fairly well known. I believe it actually started as a troll tactic from the right on 4chan, but was then actually picked up by white nationalist groups et al. It’s still fine depending on the context. A quick signal to say “ok” in a text or across a room isn’t the same as new face against BLM hanging in a bar with a gaggle of bikers fresh out on bail.
this is just it. most of us are smart enough to know when it's used as ok and when it's used as a dog whistle. I personally don't think even trump used it as a dog whistle. it's just how he uses his hands when he talks. he's too off the cuff to be that deliberate.
but a group of guys posing for a picture aren't all signing "ok".
Were the deceased proven to have been rioting or looting at the time Rittenhouse engaged them?
If not, it’s a curious double standard for the judge to allow them to be referred to as rioters & looters, but not victims.
Well, Rosenbaum certainly was, and if we're going to get technical here, they all engaged him. Even if Rittenhouse did somehow engage in a confrontation with Rosenbaum initially, of which there's no proof that he did, he chose to run away to avoid the confrontation and Rosenbaum chased him down and lunged for his gun. Huber was hitting him with a skateboard, and Grosskreutz aimed a gun in the vicinity of his head.
I'm not debating how Rittenhouse shooting them was considered self defense, I'm curious as to why the judge allowed the deceased to be referred to as rioters and looters, but not victims.
If they were indeed proven to have been rioting & looting, it makes sense, but if not, then it is a double standard.
I'd imagine the word 'victim' holds a specific legal meaning? It was also the central point of the case - were they perpetrators of violence against Rittenhouse, or were they victims of his? As I said before, Rosenbaum is caught on video behaving in an aggressive and destructive way, using racial slurs etc. The second two individuals, it could be argued, were taking the law into their own hands by trying to apprehend Rittenhouse.
"Rioters, arsonists & looters" also have specific legal meanings.
They're also unambiguous terms, either they were or weren't partaking in certain behaviours. Once again, Rosenbaum was clearly shown behaving in a way that most reasonable people would describe as 'rioting'. It was far less clear whether they were 'victims', hence the trial. .
It's a curious decision for the judge to make when they could have simply referred to those who were shot by their last names.
I heard them referred to by their last names by the defence, prosecution and judge, to be fair.
I don't know if they were referred to with the labels in question, I didn't watch the trial.
Regardless, on its face, the decision to disallow the label "victim" while at the same time allowing those other labels in the absence of the three men having been convicted of those crimes strikes me as odd, to say the least.
I've not watched all of the coverage, but I didn't hear any of the key players refer to those people specifically in that way. I take your point, but I'd still assert that the entire case was to decide if these people were in fact victims, not whether they were rioters, arsonists etc, those are the descriptors of behaviour. Frankly, given the collective criminal histories of those shot, I'd suggest being falsely accused of rioting would be the least of the defence's problems in terms of upholding their reputations.
White supremacists are loathsome but are not automatically guilty of crimes either. I'm not connecting how that is relevant to the case, tbh. He wasn't accused of a hate crime.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
I heard some discussion this weekend about how the defense had tried to get the gun charge dropped prior to the trial. That the judge waited until midway through the trial to drop it does seem very prejudicial now.
He dropped the charge last Monday, shortly before the closing arguments. It wasn't mid trial
Regardless....dropping it during the trial seems very prejudicial now
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Were the deceased proven to have been rioting or looting at the time Rittenhouse engaged them?
If not, it’s a curious double standard for the judge to allow them to be referred to as rioters & looters, but not victims.
Well, Rosenbaum certainly was, and if we're going to get technical here, they all engaged him. Even if Rittenhouse did somehow engage in a confrontation with Rosenbaum initially, of which there's no proof that he did, he chose to run away to avoid the confrontation and Rosenbaum chased him down and lunged for his gun. Huber was hitting him with a skateboard, and Grosskreutz aimed a gun in the vicinity of his head.
I'm not debating how Rittenhouse shooting them was considered self defense, I'm curious as to why the judge allowed the deceased to be referred to as rioters and looters, but not victims.
If they were indeed proven to have been rioting & looting, it makes sense, but if not, then it is a double standard.
I'd imagine the word 'victim' holds a specific legal meaning? It was also the central point of the case - were they perpetrators of violence against Rittenhouse, or were they victims of his? As I said before, Rosenbaum is caught on video behaving in an aggressive and destructive way, using racial slurs etc. The second two individuals, it could be argued, were taking the law into their own hands by trying to apprehend Rittenhouse.
"Rioters, arsonists & looters" also have specific legal meanings.
They're also unambiguous terms, either they were or weren't partaking in certain behaviours. Once again, Rosenbaum was clearly shown behaving in a way that most reasonable people would describe as 'rioting'. It was far less clear whether they were 'victims', hence the trial. .
It's a curious decision for the judge to make when they could have simply referred to those who were shot by their last names.
I heard them referred to by their last names by the defence, prosecution and judge, to be fair.
I don't know if they were referred to with the labels in question, I didn't watch the trial.
Regardless, on its face, the decision to disallow the label "victim" while at the same time allowing those other labels in the absence of the three men having been convicted of those crimes strikes me as odd, to say the least.
I've not watched all of the coverage, but I didn't hear any of the key players refer to those people specifically in that way. I take your point, but I'd still assert that the entire case was to decide if these people were in fact victims, not whether they were rioters, arsonists etc, those are the descriptors of behaviour. Frankly, given the collective criminal histories of those shot, I'd suggest being falsely accused of rioting would be the least of the defence's problems in terms of upholding their reputations.
My point still stands, it was a curious decision made by the judge if he was, in good faith, concerned about specific labels influencing the jury.
I heard some discussion this weekend about how the defense had tried to get the gun charge dropped prior to the trial. That the judge waited until midway through the trial to drop it does seem very prejudicial now.
He dropped the charge last Monday, shortly before the closing arguments. It wasn't mid trial
Regardless....dropping it during the trial seems very prejudicial now
I didn’t hear the reasoning behind not dropping it sooner, but I did see the video of when he actually did. It sounded like it was the first time the defense brought up the statute and barrel length. The judge asked everyone if the barrel length was disputed and the prosecution said no. So if that is how it played out then that was a tactic on the defense, not the judge. And if anyone thinks dropping it at the end of the trial benefits him then that’s why defense attorneys are so expensive.
Were the deceased proven to have been rioting or looting at the time Rittenhouse engaged them?
If not, it’s a curious double standard for the judge to allow them to be referred to as rioters & looters, but not victims.
Well, Rosenbaum certainly was, and if we're going to get technical here, they all engaged him. Even if Rittenhouse did somehow engage in a confrontation with Rosenbaum initially, of which there's no proof that he did, he chose to run away to avoid the confrontation and Rosenbaum chased him down and lunged for his gun. Huber was hitting him with a skateboard, and Grosskreutz aimed a gun in the vicinity of his head.
I'm not debating how Rittenhouse shooting them was considered self defense, I'm curious as to why the judge allowed the deceased to be referred to as rioters and looters, but not victims.
If they were indeed proven to have been rioting & looting, it makes sense, but if not, then it is a double standard.
I'd imagine the word 'victim' holds a specific legal meaning? It was also the central point of the case - were they perpetrators of violence against Rittenhouse, or were they victims of his? As I said before, Rosenbaum is caught on video behaving in an aggressive and destructive way, using racial slurs etc. The second two individuals, it could be argued, were taking the law into their own hands by trying to apprehend Rittenhouse.
"Rioters, arsonists & looters" also have specific legal meanings.
They're also unambiguous terms, either they were or weren't partaking in certain behaviours. Once again, Rosenbaum was clearly shown behaving in a way that most reasonable people would describe as 'rioting'. It was far less clear whether they were 'victims', hence the trial. .
It's a curious decision for the judge to make when they could have simply referred to those who were shot by their last names.
I heard them referred to by their last names by the defence, prosecution and judge, to be fair.
I don't know if they were referred to with the labels in question, I didn't watch the trial.
Regardless, on its face, the decision to disallow the label "victim" while at the same time allowing those other labels in the absence of the three men having been convicted of those crimes strikes me as odd, to say the least.
I've not watched all of the coverage, but I didn't hear any of the key players refer to those people specifically in that way. I take your point, but I'd still assert that the entire case was to decide if these people were in fact victims, not whether they were rioters, arsonists etc, those are the descriptors of behaviour. Frankly, given the collective criminal histories of those shot, I'd suggest being falsely accused of rioting would be the least of the defence's problems in terms of upholding their reputations.
My point still stands, it was a curious decision made by the judge if he was, in good faith, concerned about specific labels influencing the jury.
Yeah, I'd agree, it could be a curious decision, though I'm not sure at this point whether those terms were used specifically towards them. I'll take it in good faith that they were though, maybe someone who's seen more of the trial footage could enlighten us.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Haha, I remember the ass-hole thing. Also if you made that sign somewhere not obvious and someone saw it, you got to hit them.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Haha, I remember the ass-hole thing. Also if you made that sign somewhere not obvious and someone saw it, you got to hit them.
How we did it was you'd hold it down at your side and say "look," and if they looked, then they were in fact, an asshole.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
I've seen LOADS of pictures, usually group photos of proud boy/proud boy types. Often in military gear.
And it's not "maybe". They DID hijack the symbol. The far left can be blamed for pointing the finger at everyone who gets their picture taken using it, but the far right are the ones who coopted it.
I think we can all agree that far-(either side) is a problem.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Haha, I remember the ass-hole thing. Also if you made that sign somewhere not obvious and someone saw it, you got to hit them.
How we did it was you'd hold it down at your side and say "look," and if they looked, then they were in fact, an asshole.
Same, but then you’d get punched for being the asshole. Very solid logic.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
I've seen LOADS of pictures, usually group photos of proud boy/proud boy types. Often in military gear.
And it's not "maybe". They DID hijack the symbol. The far left can be blamed for pointing the finger at everyone who gets their picture taken using it, but the far right are the ones who coopted it.
I think we can all agree that far-(either side) is a problem.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Haha, I remember the ass-hole thing. Also if you made that sign somewhere not obvious and someone saw it, you got to hit them.
How we did it was you'd hold it down at your side and say "look," and if they looked, then they were in fact, an asshole.
Same, but then you’d get punched for being the asshole. Very solid logic.
Any excuse to punch someone in the arm was a worthwhile game. Also the "hand slap" game where you'd pull your hand from under the other person's. And if they flinched 3x, you got to whack them. Genius!
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Haha, I remember the ass-hole thing. Also if you made that sign somewhere not obvious and someone saw it, you got to hit them.
How we did it was you'd hold it down at your side and say "look," and if they looked, then they were in fact, an asshole.
i didn't actually know what you were talking about until this. haha. i remember that now. makes sense the symbol evolved from asshole to racist, now that I think about it.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Haha, I remember the ass-hole thing. Also if you made that sign somewhere not obvious and someone saw it, you got to hit them.
How we did it was you'd hold it down at your side and say "look," and if they looked, then they were in fact, an asshole.
Same, but then you’d get punched for being the asshole. Very solid logic.
Any excuse to punch someone in the arm was a worthwhile game. Also the "hand slap" game where you'd pull your hand from under the other person's. And if they flinched 3x, you got to whack them. Genius!
Another "let's hit the other person" game you guys may recall was "PEG" in hacky sack. So you'd do a volley with a hacky sack, and once it was hit three times without hitting the ground, a person can catch it and throw it at someone else. If you were hit, you got a "P." Get hit three times and that spelled "Peg," which meant you had to get against the wall with your back facing the other players, and the other players took turns throwing the hacky sack at your back.
The defense had asked for the dismissal months ago and the judge denied it. The defense filed a motion for reconsideration and – while the judge still was not granting the motion to dismiss the charge – "he wasn’t definitive," Gross said. "Nothing about the evidence at trial requires that decision," Gross said. "That should have been made six months ago. That did hurt the prosecution. ... It’s the only charge that they were absolutely going to get a conviction."
I heard some discussion this weekend about how the defense had tried to get the gun charge dropped prior to the trial. That the judge waited until midway through the trial to drop it does seem very prejudicial now.
He dropped the charge last Monday, shortly before the closing arguments. It wasn't mid trial
Regardless....dropping it during the trial seems very prejudicial now
I didn’t hear the reasoning behind not dropping it sooner, but I did see the video of when he actually did. It sounded like it was the first time the defense brought up the statute and barrel length. The judge asked everyone if the barrel length was disputed and the prosecution said no. So if that is how it played out then that was a tactic on the defense, not the judge. And if anyone thinks dropping it at the end of the trial benefits him then that’s why defense attorneys are so expensive.
It wasn't the first time....which has been my point.
See above
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Haha, I remember the ass-hole thing. Also if you made that sign somewhere not obvious and someone saw it, you got to hit them.
How we did it was you'd hold it down at your side and say "look," and if they looked, then they were in fact, an asshole.
Same, but then you’d get punched for being the asshole. Very solid logic.
Any excuse to punch someone in the arm was a worthwhile game. Also the "hand slap" game where you'd pull your hand from under the other person's. And if they flinched 3x, you got to whack them. Genius!
Another "let's hit the other person" game you guys may recall was "PEG" in hacky sack. So you'd do a volley with a hacky sack, and once it was hit three times without hitting the ground, a person can catch it and throw it at someone else. If you were hit, you got a "P." Get hit three times and that spelled "Peg," which meant you had to get against the wall with your back facing the other players, and the other players took turns throwing the hacky sack at your back.
Well you got me on that one.. It's like HORSE I guess.
I heard some discussion this weekend about how the defense had tried to get the gun charge dropped prior to the trial. That the judge waited until midway through the trial to drop it does seem very prejudicial now.
He dropped the charge last Monday, shortly before the closing arguments. It wasn't mid trial
Regardless....dropping it during the trial seems very prejudicial now
I didn’t hear the reasoning behind not dropping it sooner, but I did see the video of when he actually did. It sounded like it was the first time the defense brought up the statute and barrel length. The judge asked everyone if the barrel length was disputed and the prosecution said no. So if that is how it played out then that was a tactic on the defense, not the judge. And if anyone thinks dropping it at the end of the trial benefits him then that’s why defense attorneys are so expensive.
It wasn't the first time....which has been my point.
See above
Yes but my point was maybe the defense didn’t have a valid reason the first time. Since it appeared that the last time was the first time barrel length was brought up. I don’t know for sure, but based on the interaction that’s what it seemed like. And the barrel length was the reason it was deemed legal. So if that is correct, it’s not the judge’s fault it was throw out at the very end, but rather strategy on the defense
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Haha, I remember the ass-hole thing. Also if you made that sign somewhere not obvious and someone saw it, you got to hit them.
How we did it was you'd hold it down at your side and say "look," and if they looked, then they were in fact, an asshole.
Same, but then you’d get punched for being the asshole. Very solid logic.
Any excuse to punch someone in the arm was a worthwhile game. Also the "hand slap" game where you'd pull your hand from under the other person's. And if they flinched 3x, you got to whack them. Genius!
Another "let's hit the other person" game you guys may recall was "PEG" in hacky sack. So you'd do a volley with a hacky sack, and once it was hit three times without hitting the ground, a person can catch it and throw it at someone else. If you were hit, you got a "P." Get hit three times and that spelled "Peg," which meant you had to get against the wall with your back facing the other players, and the other players took turns throwing the hacky sack at your back.
Sounds like our game “butt ball.” A little different and with a tennis ball, but the end game being make someone stand there while you throw a ball at them. Good times.
Speaking of this stupid white supremacy hand gesture, are you guys familiar with the Latino man that lost his job as a truck driver for having this fingers in that position? He was stuck in traffic during a George Floyd protest (this was at the height of those protests). Someone took a picture of him, and his company fired him. Yep, a Latino man lost his job because they think he might be a white supremacist.
yep. that IS stupid. like I said, it should be obvious when it's used in context.
Frankly, other than that picture of Rittenhouse and his bar buddies, I've never seen this hand symbol used as a sign of white supremacy. I've heard of it being a white supremacy sign from folks on the left, but I never seen it. It's always meant "okay."
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Haha, I remember the ass-hole thing. Also if you made that sign somewhere not obvious and someone saw it, you got to hit them.
How we did it was you'd hold it down at your side and say "look," and if they looked, then they were in fact, an asshole.
i didn't actually know what you were talking about until this. haha. i remember that now. makes sense the symbol evolved from asshole to racist, now that I think about it.
Well, I haven’t heard that since middle school. Maybe to those who never evolved passed middle school it evolved. My reason for even bringing this up a while ago was how commonly known is that symbol? I had no idea until this picture came out.
And how do we know those other guys in the photo are white supremicists? This based on the fact their male, white and overweight? Or do we actually know?
Comments
I don't know if they were referred to with the labels in question, I didn't watch the trial.
Regardless, on its face, the decision to disallow the label "victim" while at the same time allowing those other labels in the absence of the three men having been convicted of those crimes strikes me as odd, to say the least.
He dropped the charge last Monday, shortly before the closing arguments. It wasn't mid trial
but a group of guys posing for a picture aren't all signing "ok".
www.headstonesband.com
SDG&E Worker Fired Over Alleged Racist Gesture Says He Was Cracking Knuckles – NBC 7 San Diego (nbcsandiego.com)
I actually donated to his GoFundMe.
Fundraiser for Emmanuel Cafferty by Melisa Cafferty Salazar : Emmanuel Cafferty vs SDGE (gofundme.com)
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
www.headstonesband.com
In fact, when I was in like middle school, the sign meant "asshole." The three fingers being A-S-S and the hole your thumb and pointer-finger make being, obviously, the hole.
I just don't like the idea of taking something that's always meant one thing, and changing it. You might say that "Well it's the far-right white supremacists that hijacked the hand symbol." Maybe. But it's far-left type of people/beliefs that caused that truck driver to be fired.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
And it's not "maybe". They DID hijack the symbol. The far left can be blamed for pointing the finger at everyone who gets their picture taken using it, but the far right are the ones who coopted it.
I think we can all agree that far-(either side) is a problem.
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
"Nothing about the evidence at trial requires that decision," Gross said. "That should have been made six months ago. That did hurt the prosecution. ... It’s the only charge that they were absolutely going to get a conviction."
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/11/16/why-judge-rittenhouse-trial-dropped-gun-possession-charge/8640342002/
"months ago"......
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
See above
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana