George Floyd Protests
Options
Comments
-
mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:facepollution said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:facepollution said:cblock4life said:facepollution said:Halifax2TheMax said:mrussel1 said:mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said: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 -
mickeyrat said:0
-
DewieCox said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:Hobbes said:facepollution said:Hobbes said:mrussel1 said:facepollution said:cblock4life said:facepollution said:Halifax2TheMax said:mrussel1 said:mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said: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: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 -
tempo_n_groove said:mickeyrat said:Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
static111 said:tempo_n_groove said: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 -
Merkin Baller said:facepollution said: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 -
mrussel1 said:Halifax2TheMax said:mrussel1 said:Halifax2TheMax said:mrussel1 said:Halifax2TheMax said:mrussel1 said: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 -
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 -
mrussel1 said:Merkin Baller said:facepollution said: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 -
Merkin Baller said:facepollution said: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 -
mace1229 said: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 -
facepollution said:Merkin Baller said:facepollution said: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 -
tempo_n_groove said:static111 said:tempo_n_groove said: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 -
static111 said:tempo_n_groove said:static111 said:tempo_n_groove said: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 -
tempo_n_groove said:static111 said:tempo_n_groove said:static111 said:tempo_n_groove said: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 -
mace1229 said:tempo_n_groove said:static111 said:tempo_n_groove said:static111 said:tempo_n_groove said: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 -
Merkin Baller said:facepollution said:Merkin Baller said:facepollution said: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:Merkin Baller said:facepollution said:Merkin Baller said:facepollution said: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
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K 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
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help