George Floyd Protests

facepollution 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?

I'm torn on this because I absolutely understand why people are doing that, and I'm sure there are countless examples of racial disparity in the system.  However, I don't think that in itself changes the facts of this case, and morally it wouldn't be right, in my opinion, to ignore the facts to make a particular political statement.  Kind of a two wrongs don't make a right situation.  I don't think it's really reasonable either to expect jurors interpreting an existing justice system with all its rules and regulations to somehow fix the broken, underlying laws that allowed for a situation like this to occur in the first place.

This event was a perfect storm of bad decisions and law-making all coming together in a pressure cooker environment.  You have lax laws in terms of gun control, lax policing, rioting and destruction of businesses and property, and a highly emotive central cause in terms of racial inequality.  It would be easy to blame Kyle Rittenhouse for what happened, but there were many poor decisions made that night, by many people.  Making Rittenhouse a scapegoat for the whole situation feels totally inadequate to me, and it's just pushing him and people who support him into the arms of the far right.  

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Blame and hold “responsible” everyone and everything but Kyle Rittenhouse. What a fucking country.

You're talking about two different things here.  A jury acquitted under the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  Rittenhouse is responsible for putting himself in a stupid situation.  The two 'victims' also acted like morons.  The third man that was shot admitted he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.  All of these people are stupid.  

And if Rittenhouse had just stayed home or not gone to Kenosha with an AR15 strapped across his chest, it wouldn’t even be discussed. He’s the only dipshit of all the armed folks that night that pulled the trigger when “threatened.”  It’s a stupid country we’re living in. FreeDUMB.

That’s actually wrong.  Someone fired a shot just before him and may have been the catalyst for this whole event.

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

60 cases of BS made up out of whole cloth and/or election fraud committed by POOTWH’ers versus the results of the Rittenhouse trial with 2 deaths and a serious injury. Same-same.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/politics/fact-check-republicans-voter-fraud-kirk-hartle/index.html

The criticism seems to be the rules of procedure from you. No one has articulated a specific,  critical piece of evidence that was not allowed.  You're talking about the prosecution not allowed to use what is likely a prejudicial statement,  but one unlikely to swing 12 jurors. 

This started with an AOC statement that had nothing to do with this case.  And no one has grounded any of these complaints with actual arguments.  Hence my comparison to the complaints by the right wing after the election.  

AOC has nothing to do with it. You made a bad analogy. If the repub voter fraud cases had had ample evidence of fraud or tampering or vote changing, like they claimed, and the cases were still dismissed, then you’d have a point.

It doesn’t bother you that the judge thought enlargement of an iPhone screen altered the images of the video? This judge was anything but partial.

AOC does, in this case, because Hobbes posted her tweet.  That's how we went down this path to start.  

And the analogy works, sorry you don't get it.  The analogy is that neither the right (in the case of voter fraud) and the left (in this really long stretch about prejudicial statements) like it when the rules of procedure don't benefit them.  That's the point.  

and I appreciate that you are busy scanning the reddit and other boards looking for reasons why this case wasn't fair.  So far was have the phrase 'victims' and now some Iphone images.  If the judge is so impartial, then the prosecution should have moved for a mistrial.  

What’s reddit? I watched portions of the trial, namely Rittenhouse’s testimony and I’ve read the transcripts of the closing arguments.

Im not Hobbes and in this instance, I haven’t paid any attention to what AOC says. Rittenhouse claims someone said “kill him” yet no video or audio tape to that effect was introduced. A guy who repeatedly lied about his credentials that night, on tape, and we’re expected to believe him when he says someone said “kill him.” How convenient.

Did you watch the trial? Specifically Rittenhouse on the stand?

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.  

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.

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.  

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.  

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.

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!

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.

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.  

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.