George Floyd Protests
Comments
-
It was Trumps walkout song at his rallies, the Lee Greenwood song, and the asian food joke was a fairly blatant right wing dog whistle. Just the overall behavior of the judge in some of the exchanges directl involving Rittenhouse like calling for a recess when his fake crying act didn’t seem to be going over well and allowing him to stand behind the bench. Upholding that nonsense objection frommrussel1 said:
Really? This is your evidence that a white guy was favored over three white victims... God Bless America, ring tones, Asian food..Hobbes said:
"God Bless America" ringtone, not allowing "victims" but "arsonists," "rioters," and "looters" are okay, applauding a veteran who also happened to be a witness for the defense, off-color joke about Asian food, getting angry, citing the bible, scolding the prosecutors... The judge's personal values were on full display and had influence on the court proceedings and ultimately the verdict. Getting an idea of what if means to be White in America? Rittenhouse was a patriot. Them others? Well, they were looters who supported BLM. Not same-same.mrussel1 said:
The "victims" were white too, including the one on the stand.Hobbes said:
The jury was presented evidence in a highly biased court. The judge was partial to Rittenhouse being White and he benefited because of it. Blacks are historically at a disadvantage for being black. Hell, George Floyd didn't even make it off the street.mrussel1 said:
Ok, and I also think he's probably guilty, but what we think is not the standard in the legal system.Hobbes said:
Given the evidence presented, in the way it was presented, no. Do I think he was guilty? Hell yes!mrussel1 said:
Ok I'm pretty sure I asked you that question yesterday but let's try it again.Hobbes said:
You forgot to add the question you posed: "So you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty because of historic racial disparity or not?"mrussel1 said:
No, let's be clear. I asked you if you thought there should have been a guilty verdict, there was no assumption. In fact, I assumed the opposite . Here's my quote: "If the answer is no, how about using actual cases where a minority is found guilty, unjustly, as your example. Otherwise it makes no sense. White guys shoots three white guys and is found innocent. This proves racism! "Hobbes said:
Yikes! Triggered?mrussel1 said:
Whatever dude. Get off your high douchebag horse.Hobbes said:
Because everything should be viewed through the lens of race. But I forgot, you don't see the need. Yet another example of your white privilege.mrussel1 said:
Except it's not. Unless every white person that goes free is now an example of racial disparity, then the point holds no merit. Funny that someone brought up OJ, who went free. And posted the other Black guy who was acquitted on teh same day, using self defense.Hobbes said:
How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!
Oh and this is exactly the answer to your question above. This is the left leveraging this tragedy to their own benefit... viewing every thing through the lens of race, no matter how great the pains are to get there.
And while you're at it, make sure you give away all of your possessions to minorities and resign the job you have. Otherwise you just recognize your white privilege but you're too cowardly to do anything about it. Just keep gnashing your teeth and pointing your finger while you sit on the sideline like a self righteous pussy.
I find it odd that you assume I wanted a guilty verdict to make up for historic racial disparity. That would be absurd. I have actually never weighed in on the verdict itself. My position is that there is racial disparity within the criminal justice system. Rittenhouse benefited from being White. You, however, do not see race playing a part.
So I find it odd that you read something I wrote and interpreted exactly the opposite from the way in which I wrote it. Learn to read for comprehension.
And no, I don't see how race played a part in a trial involving, basically, 4 white people.
What an odd dichotomy. You did not ask me my opinion on the verdict. Only if it applied to historic racial disparity or not.
Do you think that the defendant was proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
So if you don't think the prosecution proved its case, then why would this case be used to highlight racial disparity in the justice system? You yourself are saying the jury came back with the correct verdict
You have represented no evidence that the court was biased. Share it with us and then explain why the judge wasn't biased for the white victims, or the white prosecutor.
Make your case.
And all of this prevented even one juror from thinking he was guilty, even the POC who was on the randomly selected jury...
yhe defense of the iPad video.0 -
Self defense is paramilitary/militia friendly now? Dear lord what a slanted view.mickeyrat said:0 -
That songs been out forever.. I remember it was played at Bucs home games back in teh 90s.DewieCox said:
It was Trumps walkout song at his rallies, the Lee Greenwood song, and the asian food joke was a fairly blatant right wing dog whistle. Just the overall behavior of the judge in some of the exchanges directl involving Rittenhouse like calling for a recess when his fake crying act didn’t seem to be going over well and allowing him to stand behind the bench. Upholding that nonsense objection frommrussel1 said:
Really? This is your evidence that a white guy was favored over three white victims... God Bless America, ring tones, Asian food..Hobbes said:
"God Bless America" ringtone, not allowing "victims" but "arsonists," "rioters," and "looters" are okay, applauding a veteran who also happened to be a witness for the defense, off-color joke about Asian food, getting angry, citing the bible, scolding the prosecutors... The judge's personal values were on full display and had influence on the court proceedings and ultimately the verdict. Getting an idea of what if means to be White in America? Rittenhouse was a patriot. Them others? Well, they were looters who supported BLM. Not same-same.mrussel1 said:
The "victims" were white too, including the one on the stand.Hobbes said:
The jury was presented evidence in a highly biased court. The judge was partial to Rittenhouse being White and he benefited because of it. Blacks are historically at a disadvantage for being black. Hell, George Floyd didn't even make it off the street.mrussel1 said:
Ok, and I also think he's probably guilty, but what we think is not the standard in the legal system.Hobbes said:
Given the evidence presented, in the way it was presented, no. Do I think he was guilty? Hell yes!mrussel1 said:
Ok I'm pretty sure I asked you that question yesterday but let's try it again.Hobbes said:
You forgot to add the question you posed: "So you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty because of historic racial disparity or not?"mrussel1 said:
No, let's be clear. I asked you if you thought there should have been a guilty verdict, there was no assumption. In fact, I assumed the opposite . Here's my quote: "If the answer is no, how about using actual cases where a minority is found guilty, unjustly, as your example. Otherwise it makes no sense. White guys shoots three white guys and is found innocent. This proves racism! "Hobbes said:
Yikes! Triggered?mrussel1 said:
Whatever dude. Get off your high douchebag horse.Hobbes said:
Because everything should be viewed through the lens of race. But I forgot, you don't see the need. Yet another example of your white privilege.mrussel1 said:
Except it's not. Unless every white person that goes free is now an example of racial disparity, then the point holds no merit. Funny that someone brought up OJ, who went free. And posted the other Black guy who was acquitted on teh same day, using self defense.Hobbes said:
How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!
Oh and this is exactly the answer to your question above. This is the left leveraging this tragedy to their own benefit... viewing every thing through the lens of race, no matter how great the pains are to get there.
And while you're at it, make sure you give away all of your possessions to minorities and resign the job you have. Otherwise you just recognize your white privilege but you're too cowardly to do anything about it. Just keep gnashing your teeth and pointing your finger while you sit on the sideline like a self righteous pussy.
I find it odd that you assume I wanted a guilty verdict to make up for historic racial disparity. That would be absurd. I have actually never weighed in on the verdict itself. My position is that there is racial disparity within the criminal justice system. Rittenhouse benefited from being White. You, however, do not see race playing a part.
So I find it odd that you read something I wrote and interpreted exactly the opposite from the way in which I wrote it. Learn to read for comprehension.
And no, I don't see how race played a part in a trial involving, basically, 4 white people.
What an odd dichotomy. You did not ask me my opinion on the verdict. Only if it applied to historic racial disparity or not.
Do you think that the defendant was proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
So if you don't think the prosecution proved its case, then why would this case be used to highlight racial disparity in the justice system? You yourself are saying the jury came back with the correct verdict
You have represented no evidence that the court was biased. Share it with us and then explain why the judge wasn't biased for the white victims, or the white prosecutor.
Make your case.
And all of this prevented even one juror from thinking he was guilty, even the POC who was on the randomly selected jury...
yhe defense of the iPad video.
These all seem like major stretches here. I think you could make the argument that it was a stretch to bring this up as a prosecutable case to start. There's an argument that it was made due to political pressure. Do I have proof of that? Nope. But that's the same standard as I'm reading here about how he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, were it not for the judge.
BTW, this is the Asian food joke... This is a right wing joke? Really? It's a reference to the cargo from Asia stacked up in LB. Again, huge stretches here.
I hope the Asian food isn't coming... isn't on one of those boats from Long Beach Harbor,"
Post edited by mrussel1 on0 -
facepollution said:
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.Merkin Baller said: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.
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.
0 -
You honestly don't see this verdict emboldening right wing cosplayers to go to any event/protest they don't agree with and go looking for "self defense"?tempo_n_groove said:
Self defense is paramilitary/militia friendly now? Dear lord what a slanted view.mickeyrat said:Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
I don't think like that because it's nuts. Now that you mention it I can see it though.static111 said:
You honestly don't see this verdict emboldening right wing cosplayers to go to any event/protest they don't agree with and go looking for "self defense"?tempo_n_groove said:
Self defense is paramilitary/militia friendly now? Dear lord what a slanted view.mickeyrat said:
They have done shit like this in the past though and nothing came of it. Let's hope it stays that way.
If it becomes a new thing then the laws will change hopefully.0 -
Is that accurate, that the judge allowed THOSE specific men to be called looters? Because that would be prejudicial. There was certainly looting and rioting but to call the shooting victims that would be going too far. Lots of misinformation that's why I'm asking.Merkin Baller said:facepollution said:
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.Merkin Baller said: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.
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.0 -
And there wasn’t any evidence of fraud being committed, thus dismissed for lack of merit. Good grief.mrussel1 said:
Trump vs city of Philadelphia board of electionsHalifax2TheMax said:
Not one POOTWH filing went to trial. In fact, SCOTUS put a kabosh on two cases, I believe. Whereas the Rittenhouse trial judge put a kabosh on the least serious of a charge. Jeez, wish justice was blind.mrussel1 said:
1. There were cases where the plaintiffs presented actual evidence and lost on the merits. Whenever the Trump campaign filed, they had standing. You keep focusing on one part, the frivolous suits. If you think there were no cases where there was evidence both successfully and unsuccessfully entered into the record, then you're wrong. Ergo it's precisely an apt analogy because trial procedure was in play. So give it a fucking rest in the analogy argument. It isn't important.Halifax2TheMax said:
No it’s a fucking stupid analogy. The rules apply when you have “standing” or “facts” or “evidence” a crime or wrong/injury was committed. Your example, after The repubs’ 60 tries, established neither. That has nothing to do with trial procedure.mrussel1 said:
This is a dumb argument. You know exactly the point I'm making. The reason no shitty facts were presented in the voting cases is because they lacked standing or violated the evidentiary rules (affidavits with no direct knowledge, etc ). The point... one last time... is both sides are claiming to be wronged due to the established rules of the court. I have no sympathy for either side. If it was so unfair to the Kenosha prosecutor, then they should have moved for a recusal or mistrial.Halifax2TheMax said:
I didn’t make an analogy, you made a bad one. I’m not arguing process because one process had a shit ton of facts introduced and the one you compared it to didn’t have any. “Standing” or a claim of fraud in the absence of facts can’t share the same “procedure.” Unless you want to will it to? Or you’ve made a bad analogy.mrussel1 said:
That's your difference, that's not the point I was making. You want to make your analogy, go ahead and do it. My point was about the rules of procedure. Either you accept them all the time, or it's hypocritical.Halifax2TheMax said:And back to your analogy, the repubs have never, to this day, entered or submitted to the court one scintilla of evidence that the election was stolen or there was widespread voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. We know Rosenbaum was unarmed. We know he was approximately 4’ away from Rittenhouse when he was shot 4 times. We know the first shot dropped him like a sack of rocks and that the 4th shot was the kill shot. We know Rittenhouse was reckless when he loaded his AR15 with the type of ammo he used. See the difference? No facts, none, zero versus lots of facts.
You admitted you think Rittenhouse is guilty. Of what and why?
2. I think Rittenhouse probably bears the most responsibility for the events that night. Probably not murder, but maybe man slaughter. He likely had opportunities to escape the situation. But he didn't. But these are my feelings which I can disconnect from the legal side. Still has to be proven.I look forward to Sidney Powell’s defamation suit and particularly her deposition.
Hamm vs Boockvar
Kelly vs PA
Ziccharelli vs Allegheny
These were but a few litigated on the merits. No they weren't jury trials because that was waived due to urgency. But they weren't thrown out over standing..
Good grief.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
I don’t see anyone defending Rittenhouse here in the sense saying he’s a good example or even that he did the right thing. I rarely see that outside of here with the exception of the few very far right.brianlux said:It all seems straightforward to me. Rittenhouse traveled to a a chaotic scene with a highly lethal weapon. No one else was shot or died until he showed up. So why did he supposedly need this highly dangerous weapon in the first place? Because some white people automatically think black people are "scary". And why was he there for in the first place? To cause trouble. He was there armed to engage is battle.Race is not an issue? Blake, a black man, gets shot because he had a pocket knife. Rittenhouse, a white man, carrying a firearm, walks right past cops and they do nothing. Black=scary. Not black= not scary.
And the laws, as Hobbes pointed out, are made by white men to protect whites.And the hand picked jury. And the inappropriate behavior of the judge.
We know all of things. All of this and yet, strangely enough, some here appear to defend Rittenhouse. So strange.The argument for race is about specifically the accusations of white bias in this trial. I and others have asked what specifically happened in this trial. The only answers I’ve seen are the ringtone, not calling them victims and a hand picked jury.
Youre the first to mention a jury that I saw. It was hand picked by both sides. Are you suggesting that both sides picked people who they though would acquit Kyle because he’s white? That’s seems like a stretch to think both sides would agree on 12 openly biased strangers. The non-victim seems to be common practice in self defense cases and has been done many times, it’s not unique. The ringtone? People want me to believe that the judge’s personal ringtone that accidentally went off once is going to influence a jury and an example of white privileged in the courtroom? These all seem like incredible stretches. I look at all that and come to the conclusion that 12 people agreed upon by both sides sat and listened to testimony for over 2 weeks and came to the conclusion that in the moment Kyle pulled the trigger he acted in self defense.
What wasn’t on trial was is Kyle a good citizen, was he smart in being there, did he make smart choices that night? Fortunately for many, there’s nothing illegal about being stupid. But that’s not what he was on trial for. When he pulled the trigger he met the criteria for self defense. I wouldn’t hire him if I was an employer, I wouldn’t want him hanging around my kids. He’s a dumb kid/young adult who made some bad decisions.He did show up to a chaotic scene with a weapon. So did many others that night. And it wasn’t illegal for him, some of the others it was though based on their gun. I hope they change some of their gun laws in that state.
0 -
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/1049458617/kyle-rittenhouse-victims-arsonists-looters-judge-ruledmrussel1 said:
Is that accurate, that the judge allowed THOSE specific men to be called looters? Because that would be prejudicial. There was certainly looting and rioting but to call the shooting victims that would be going too far. Lots of misinformation that's why I'm asking.Merkin Baller said:facepollution said:
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.Merkin Baller said: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.
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.
"Meanwhile, the defense will be allowed to refer to the three people Rittenhouse shot as "arsonists," "looters" or "rioters" so long as they took part in those activities, Schroeder ruled — a decision prosecutor Thomas Binger called "a double standard."
"Let the evidence show what the evidence shows," Schroeder said. "And if the evidence shows that any or more than one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting, or looting — then I'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that."
It seems like an odd decision in a country where we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers.
0 -
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.Merkin Baller said:facepollution said:
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.Merkin Baller said: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.
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.0 -
BTW, the jury wasn't hand picked on the way the word seems. The 18 prospective jurors were put in a hat and Kyle chose from the hat. It was randommace1229 said:
I don’t see anyone defending Rittenhouse here in the sense saying he’s a good example or even that he did the right thing. I rarely see that outside of here with the exception of the few very far right.brianlux said:It all seems straightforward to me. Rittenhouse traveled to a a chaotic scene with a highly lethal weapon. No one else was shot or died until he showed up. So why did he supposedly need this highly dangerous weapon in the first place? Because some white people automatically think black people are "scary". And why was he there for in the first place? To cause trouble. He was there armed to engage is battle.Race is not an issue? Blake, a black man, gets shot because he had a pocket knife. Rittenhouse, a white man, carrying a firearm, walks right past cops and they do nothing. Black=scary. Not black= not scary.
And the laws, as Hobbes pointed out, are made by white men to protect whites.And the hand picked jury. And the inappropriate behavior of the judge.
We know all of things. All of this and yet, strangely enough, some here appear to defend Rittenhouse. So strange.The argument for race is about specifically the accusations of white bias in this trial. I and others have asked what specifically happened in this trial. The only answers I’ve seen are the ringtone, not calling them victims and a hand picked jury.
Youre the first to mention a jury that I saw. It was hand picked by both sides. Are you suggesting that both sides picked people who they though would acquit Kyle because he’s white? That’s seems like a stretch to think both sides would agree on 12 openly biased strangers. The non-victim seems to be common practice in self defense cases and has been done many times, it’s not unique. The ringtone? People want me to believe that the judge’s personal ringtone that accidentally went off once is going to influence a jury and an example of white privileged in the courtroom? These all seem like incredible stretches. I look at all that and come to the conclusion that 12 people agreed upon by both sides sat and listened to testimony for over 2 weeks and came to the conclusion that in the moment Kyle pulled the trigger he acted in self defense.
What wasn’t on trial was is Kyle a good citizen, was he smart in being there, did he make smart choices that night? Fortunately for many, there’s nothing illegal about being stupid. But that’s not what he was on trial for. When he pulled the trigger he met the criteria for self defense. I wouldn’t hire him if I was an employer, I wouldn’t want him hanging around my kids. He’s a dumb kid/young adult who made some bad decisions.He did show up to a chaotic scene with a weapon. So did many others that night. And it wasn’t illegal for him, some of the others it was though based on their gun. I hope they change some of their gun laws in that state.0 -
"Rioters, arsonists & looters" also have specific legal meanings.facepollution said:
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.Merkin Baller said:facepollution said:
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.Merkin Baller said: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.
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.
0 -
Working in construction I hear quite often about how people want to go hunting Libs, Dems, what have you because they are destroying the country. It is disgusting really. Unfortunately a lot of these goobers are allowed to legally own and carry guns and usually harmless outside of their words. How harmless they continue being after seeing someone purposefully enter these types of situations and get away without even a weapons charge really has me alarmed.tempo_n_groove said:
I don't think like that because it's nuts. Now that you mention it I can see it though.static111 said:
You honestly don't see this verdict emboldening right wing cosplayers to go to any event/protest they don't agree with and go looking for "self defense"?tempo_n_groove said:
Self defense is paramilitary/militia friendly now? Dear lord what a slanted view.mickeyrat said:
They have done shit like this in the past though and nothing came of it. Let's hope it stays that way.
If it becomes a new thing then the laws will change hopefully.
I just do not like that people in consumer tactical gear can now run around and claim self defense. For instance if anyone perceives them as a threat/aggressor etc. and tries to protect themselves or others they can just say they felt in fear of serious bodily harm and or death and now the shooting is justified. Because no reasonable person would think that someone strapped with plates and carrying around an AR or SKS that wasn't in LE uniform was a threat.
This is our functioning justice system so I will have to abide by the decision, because if we undermine this then the whole thing falls apart.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
I will disagree in that people will want to claim self defense and put themselves in a similar situation. Rittenhouse is lucky that there was video footage. If there wasn't this trial would have gone very differently IMO.static111 said:
Working in construction I hear quite often about how people want to go hunting Libs, Dems, what have you because they are destroying the country. It is disgusting really. Unfortunately a lot of these goobers are allowed to legally own and carry guns and usually harmless outside of their words. How harmless they continue being after seeing someone purposefully enter these types of situations and get away without even a weapons charge really has me alarmed.tempo_n_groove said:
I don't think like that because it's nuts. Now that you mention it I can see it though.static111 said:
You honestly don't see this verdict emboldening right wing cosplayers to go to any event/protest they don't agree with and go looking for "self defense"?tempo_n_groove said:
Self defense is paramilitary/militia friendly now? Dear lord what a slanted view.mickeyrat said:
They have done shit like this in the past though and nothing came of it. Let's hope it stays that way.
If it becomes a new thing then the laws will change hopefully.
I just do not like that people in consumer tactical gear can now run around and claim self defense. For instance if anyone perceives them as a threat/aggressor etc. and tries to protect themselves or others they can just say they felt in fear of serious bodily harm and or death and now the shooting is justified. Because no reasonable person would think that someone strapped with plates and carrying around an AR or SKS that wasn't in LE uniform was a threat.
This is our functioning justice system so I will have to abide by the decision, because if we undermine this then the whole thing falls apart.0 -
Poor Jojo, taken from us too soon....
Even if you truly feel that Rittenhouse is a murderer, and that legal system is white supremacy, and that this acquittal devalues black lives, would you call a man named Joseph that you've never met "Jojo?" Especially if "Jojo" is a convicted child molester?
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
I agree. I said before it seems like a very poor plan if someone wants to excuse to go on a killing spree to just antagonize a bunch of people, hope they don’t get injured or killed immediately, run away from the situation long enough to establish they are no longer a threat, hope the mob keeps attacking so they can defend themselves.tempo_n_groove said:
I will disagree in that people will want to claim self defense and put themselves in a similar situation. Rittenhouse is lucky that there was video footage. If there wasn't this trial would have gone very differently IMO.static111 said:
Working in construction I hear quite often about how people want to go hunting Libs, Dems, what have you because they are destroying the country. It is disgusting really. Unfortunately a lot of these goobers are allowed to legally own and carry guns and usually harmless outside of their words. How harmless they continue being after seeing someone purposefully enter these types of situations and get away without even a weapons charge really has me alarmed.tempo_n_groove said:
I don't think like that because it's nuts. Now that you mention it I can see it though.static111 said:
You honestly don't see this verdict emboldening right wing cosplayers to go to any event/protest they don't agree with and go looking for "self defense"?tempo_n_groove said:
Self defense is paramilitary/militia friendly now? Dear lord what a slanted view.mickeyrat said:
They have done shit like this in the past though and nothing came of it. Let's hope it stays that way.
If it becomes a new thing then the laws will change hopefully.
I just do not like that people in consumer tactical gear can now run around and claim self defense. For instance if anyone perceives them as a threat/aggressor etc. and tries to protect themselves or others they can just say they felt in fear of serious bodily harm and or death and now the shooting is justified. Because no reasonable person would think that someone strapped with plates and carrying around an AR or SKS that wasn't in LE uniform was a threat.
This is our functioning justice system so I will have to abide by the decision, because if we undermine this then the whole thing falls apart.
Seems much easier to just drove through a parade if you want to kill a bunch of people.0 -
I grew up in Northern Michigan at the height of the militia craze, Timothy McVeigh trained with some of those nuts. Even though you guys disagree that people would do this I can assure you that some of the less emboldened people will be less so now that they see that a Rottenhouse gets off scot free. Remember before Trump we never thought our aunts, uncles and friends would be so unhinged, then he came and made them all feel ok to bring out the worst in themselves. This verdict is that for wanna be citizen defenders, 3%ers, proud boys etc. Next time there is civil unrest there is sure to be more shots fired by these citizen "heroes" exercising their right to self defense.mace1229 said:
I agree. I said before it seems like a very poor plan if someone wants to excuse to go on a killing spree to just antagonize a bunch of people, hope they don’t get injured or killed immediately, run away from the situation long enough to establish they are no longer a threat, hope the mob keeps attacking so they can defend themselves.tempo_n_groove said:
I will disagree in that people will want to claim self defense and put themselves in a similar situation. Rittenhouse is lucky that there was video footage. If there wasn't this trial would have gone very differently IMO.static111 said:
Working in construction I hear quite often about how people want to go hunting Libs, Dems, what have you because they are destroying the country. It is disgusting really. Unfortunately a lot of these goobers are allowed to legally own and carry guns and usually harmless outside of their words. How harmless they continue being after seeing someone purposefully enter these types of situations and get away without even a weapons charge really has me alarmed.tempo_n_groove said:
I don't think like that because it's nuts. Now that you mention it I can see it though.static111 said:
You honestly don't see this verdict emboldening right wing cosplayers to go to any event/protest they don't agree with and go looking for "self defense"?tempo_n_groove said:
Self defense is paramilitary/militia friendly now? Dear lord what a slanted view.mickeyrat said:
They have done shit like this in the past though and nothing came of it. Let's hope it stays that way.
If it becomes a new thing then the laws will change hopefully.
I just do not like that people in consumer tactical gear can now run around and claim self defense. For instance if anyone perceives them as a threat/aggressor etc. and tries to protect themselves or others they can just say they felt in fear of serious bodily harm and or death and now the shooting is justified. Because no reasonable person would think that someone strapped with plates and carrying around an AR or SKS that wasn't in LE uniform was a threat.
This is our functioning justice system so I will have to abide by the decision, because if we undermine this then the whole thing falls apart.
Seems much easier to just drove through a parade if you want to kill a bunch of people.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
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. .Merkin Baller said:
"Rioters, arsonists & looters" also have specific legal meanings.facepollution said:
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.Merkin Baller said:facepollution said:
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.Merkin Baller said: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.
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.0 -
facepollution said:
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. .Merkin Baller said:
"Rioters, arsonists & looters" also have specific legal meanings.facepollution said:
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.Merkin Baller said:facepollution said:
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.Merkin Baller said: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.
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.
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help