George Floyd Protests

Gern Blansten

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.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

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?

cblock4life

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?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....

Always a conspiracy. 

What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?

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.

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. 

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.

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? 

Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?

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. 

Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence.  Be safe, well and happy! 

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.

This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.

What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?

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.

How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?

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.  

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.  

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.

Whatever dude.  Get off your high douchebag horse.  

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.  

Yikes! Triggered?

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.

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!  "

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.  

You forgot to add the question you posed: "So you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty because of historic racial disparity or not?"

What an odd dichotomy. You did not ask me my opinion on the verdict. Only if it applied to historic racial disparity or not.

Ok I'm pretty sure I asked you that question yesterday but let's try it again. 

Do you think that the defendant was proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? 

Given the evidence presented, in the way it was presented, no. Do I think he was guilty? Hell yes!

Guilty of what based on the evidence presented/allowed?  You’re condemning the decision of 12 people whose numbers were picked by Rittenhouse.  

Want all this to change then get the gun, carry, type laws changed. 

The name calling makes people look no better than the causes you’re arguing about. 

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

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.

Ledbetterman10

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

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! 

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

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.

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

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. 

Ledbetterman10

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

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.

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

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. 

Oh see I disagree with you. I think Obama's really saying "okay" because that's what the hand sign has always meant. These guys might actually be white supremacists. 

facepollution

Merkin Baller said:

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. 

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.

DewieCox

mrussel1 said:

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?

The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?

or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....

Always a conspiracy. 

What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?

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.

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. 

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.

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? 

Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?

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. 

Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence.  Be safe, well and happy! 

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.

This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.

What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?

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.

How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?

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.  

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.  

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.

Whatever dude.  Get off your high douchebag horse.  

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.  

Yikes! Triggered?

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.

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!  "

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.  

You forgot to add the question you posed: "So you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty because of historic racial disparity or not?"

What an odd dichotomy. You did not ask me my opinion on the verdict. Only if it applied to historic racial disparity or not.

Ok I'm pretty sure I asked you that question yesterday but let's try it again. 

Do you think that the defendant was proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? 

Given the evidence presented, in the way it was presented, no. Do I think he was guilty? Hell yes!

Ok,  and I also think he's probably guilty,  but what we think is not the standard in the legal system.  

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 

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.

The "victims" were white too, including the one on the stand.  
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.  

"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.

Really? This is your evidence that a white guy was favored over three white victims... God Bless America,  ring tones, Asian food..

And all of this prevented even one juror from thinking he was guilty,  even the POC who was on the randomly selected jury... 

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 from
yhe defense of the iPad video. 

That songs been out forever.. I remember it was played at Bucs home games back in teh 90s.  

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,"

It’s a specific version of the song.

It seemed to be pretty in line with the right’s incessant blaming Biden and his communist agenda being behind the cargo sho[s and supply chain issues. That you can conveniently dispute that is what makes it a dog whistle.


There’s also his wording when he explained the hat draw for the jury selection and “the blacks” “THE black”. 

He seemed more sympathetic to one side’s perceived agenda over another’s.

Gern Blansten

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.

Merkin Baller

facepollution said:

Merkin Baller said:

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. 

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. 

DewieCox

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

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. 

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

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 

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

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.

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

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?

HughFreakingDillon

DewieCox said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

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". 

facepollution

Merkin Baller said:

facepollution said:

Merkin Baller said:

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. 

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. 

mrussel1

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. 

Ledbetterman10

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. 

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)

Gern Blansten

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

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

Merkin Baller

facepollution said:

Merkin Baller said:

facepollution said:

Merkin Baller said:

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. 

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.