George Floyd Protests
Comments
-
The prosecution was pathetic, they looked and sounded like terrible lawyers from a tv crime drama. I’m sure that didn’t help. It’s crazy that we now have a real precedent for inserting yourself into an unstable situation while armed and being able to claim self defense if when things are sure to go sideways. I think our justice system functioned as it is supposed to, and I also think we will se more provoked self defense incidents going forward.mrussel1 said:
This is a dumb argument. You know exactly the point I'm making. The reason no shitty facts were presented in the voting cases is because they lacked standing or violated the evidentiary rules (affidavits with no direct knowledge, etc ). The point... one last time... is both sides are claiming to be wronged due to the established rules of the court. I have no sympathy for either side. If it was so unfair to the Kenosha prosecutor, then they should have moved for a recusal or mistrial.Halifax2TheMax said:
I didn’t make an analogy, you made a bad one. I’m not arguing process because one process had a shit ton of facts introduced and the one you compared it to didn’t have any. “Standing” or a claim of fraud in the absence of facts can’t share the same “procedure.” Unless you want to will it to? Or you’ve made a bad analogy.mrussel1 said:
That's your difference, that's not the point I was making. You want to make your analogy, go ahead and do it. My point was about the rules of procedure. Either you accept them all the time, or it's hypocritical.Halifax2TheMax said:And back to your analogy, the repubs have never, to this day, entered or submitted to the court one scintilla of evidence that the election was stolen or there was widespread voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. We know Rosenbaum was unarmed. We know he was approximately 4’ away from Rittenhouse when he was shot 4 times. We know the first shot dropped him like a sack of rocks and that the 4th shot was the kill shot. We know Rittenhouse was reckless when he loaded his AR15 with the type of ammo he used. See the difference? No facts, none, zero versus lots of facts.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
The jury was presented evidence in a highly biased court. The judge was partial to Rittenhouse being White and he benefited because of it. Blacks are historically at a disadvantage for being black. Hell, George Floyd didn't even make it off the street.mrussel1 said:
Ok, and I also think he's probably guilty, but what we think is not the standard in the legal system.Hobbes said:
Given the evidence presented, in the way it was presented, no. Do I think he was guilty? Hell yes!mrussel1 said:
Ok I'm pretty sure I asked you that question yesterday but let's try it again.Hobbes said:
You forgot to add the question you posed: "So you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty because of historic racial disparity or not?"mrussel1 said:
No, let's be clear. I asked you if you thought there should have been a guilty verdict, there was no assumption. In fact, I assumed the opposite . Here's my quote: "If the answer is no, how about using actual cases where a minority is found guilty, unjustly, as your example. Otherwise it makes no sense. White guys shoots three white guys and is found innocent. This proves racism! "Hobbes said:
Yikes! Triggered?mrussel1 said:
Whatever dude. Get off your high douchebag horse.Hobbes said:
Because everything should be viewed through the lens of race. But I forgot, you don't see the need. Yet another example of your white privilege.mrussel1 said:
Except it's not. Unless every white person that goes free is now an example of racial disparity, then the point holds no merit. Funny that someone brought up OJ, who went free. And posted the other Black guy who was acquitted on teh same day, using self defense.Hobbes said:
How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!
Oh and this is exactly the answer to your question above. This is the left leveraging this tragedy to their own benefit... viewing every thing through the lens of race, no matter how great the pains are to get there.
And while you're at it, make sure you give away all of your possessions to minorities and resign the job you have. Otherwise you just recognize your white privilege but you're too cowardly to do anything about it. Just keep gnashing your teeth and pointing your finger while you sit on the sideline like a self righteous pussy.
I find it odd that you assume I wanted a guilty verdict to make up for historic racial disparity. That would be absurd. I have actually never weighed in on the verdict itself. My position is that there is racial disparity within the criminal justice system. Rittenhouse benefited from being White. You, however, do not see race playing a part.
So I find it odd that you read something I wrote and interpreted exactly the opposite from the way in which I wrote it. Learn to read for comprehension.
And no, I don't see how race played a part in a trial involving, basically, 4 white people.
What an odd dichotomy. You did not ask me my opinion on the verdict. Only if it applied to historic racial disparity or not.
Do you think that the defendant was proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
So if you don't think the prosecution proved its case, then why would this case be used to highlight racial disparity in the justice system? You yourself are saying the jury came back with the correct verdict0 -
No it’s a fucking stupid analogy. The rules apply when you have “standing” or “facts” or “evidence” a crime or wrong/injury was committed. Your example, after The repubs’ 60 tries, established neither. That has nothing to do with trial procedure.mrussel1 said:
This is a dumb argument. You know exactly the point I'm making. The reason no shitty facts were presented in the voting cases is because they lacked standing or violated the evidentiary rules (affidavits with no direct knowledge, etc ). The point... one last time... is both sides are claiming to be wronged due to the established rules of the court. I have no sympathy for either side. If it was so unfair to the Kenosha prosecutor, then they should have moved for a recusal or mistrial.Halifax2TheMax said:
I didn’t make an analogy, you made a bad one. I’m not arguing process because one process had a shit ton of facts introduced and the one you compared it to didn’t have any. “Standing” or a claim of fraud in the absence of facts can’t share the same “procedure.” Unless you want to will it to? Or you’ve made a bad analogy.mrussel1 said:
That's your difference, that's not the point I was making. You want to make your analogy, go ahead and do it. My point was about the rules of procedure. Either you accept them all the time, or it's hypocritical.Halifax2TheMax said:And back to your analogy, the repubs have never, to this day, entered or submitted to the court one scintilla of evidence that the election was stolen or there was widespread voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. We know Rosenbaum was unarmed. We know he was approximately 4’ away from Rittenhouse when he was shot 4 times. We know the first shot dropped him like a sack of rocks and that the 4th shot was the kill shot. We know Rittenhouse was reckless when he loaded his AR15 with the type of ammo he used. See the difference? No facts, none, zero versus lots of facts.
You admitted you think Rittenhouse is guilty. Of what and why?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 -
Hey but justice is blind and we should have faith in the system because if we don’t we’re as bad as POOTWH conspiracy theorists. Good thing Chris Christie’s book title points that out.Hobbes said:
The jury was presented evidence in a highly biased court. The judge was partial to Rittenhouse being White and he benefited because of it. Blacks are historically at a disadvantage for being black. Hell, George Floyd didn't even make it off the street.mrussel1 said:
Ok, and I also think he's probably guilty, but what we think is not the standard in the legal system.Hobbes said:
Given the evidence presented, in the way it was presented, no. Do I think he was guilty? Hell yes!mrussel1 said:
Ok I'm pretty sure I asked you that question yesterday but let's try it again.Hobbes said:
You forgot to add the question you posed: "So you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty because of historic racial disparity or not?"mrussel1 said:
No, let's be clear. I asked you if you thought there should have been a guilty verdict, there was no assumption. In fact, I assumed the opposite . Here's my quote: "If the answer is no, how about using actual cases where a minority is found guilty, unjustly, as your example. Otherwise it makes no sense. White guys shoots three white guys and is found innocent. This proves racism! "Hobbes said:
Yikes! Triggered?mrussel1 said:
Whatever dude. Get off your high douchebag horse.Hobbes said:
Because everything should be viewed through the lens of race. But I forgot, you don't see the need. Yet another example of your white privilege.mrussel1 said:
Except it's not. Unless every white person that goes free is now an example of racial disparity, then the point holds no merit. Funny that someone brought up OJ, who went free. And posted the other Black guy who was acquitted on teh same day, using self defense.Hobbes said:
How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!
Oh and this is exactly the answer to your question above. This is the left leveraging this tragedy to their own benefit... viewing every thing through the lens of race, no matter how great the pains are to get there.
And while you're at it, make sure you give away all of your possessions to minorities and resign the job you have. Otherwise you just recognize your white privilege but you're too cowardly to do anything about it. Just keep gnashing your teeth and pointing your finger while you sit on the sideline like a self righteous pussy.
I find it odd that you assume I wanted a guilty verdict to make up for historic racial disparity. That would be absurd. I have actually never weighed in on the verdict itself. My position is that there is racial disparity within the criminal justice system. Rittenhouse benefited from being White. You, however, do not see race playing a part.
So I find it odd that you read something I wrote and interpreted exactly the opposite from the way in which I wrote it. Learn to read for comprehension.
And no, I don't see how race played a part in a trial involving, basically, 4 white people.
What an odd dichotomy. You did not ask me my opinion on the verdict. Only if it applied to historic racial disparity or not.
Do you think that the defendant was proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
So if you don't think the prosecution proved its case, then why would this case be used to highlight racial disparity in the justice system? You yourself are saying the jury came back with the correct verdict09/15/1998 & 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 -
OJ was mentioned in the context that you can't just blanketly believe that 12 people in a jury box will always get it right, which is what you seemed to be suggesting.mrussel1 said:
Except it's not. Unless every white person that goes free is now an example of racial disparity, then the point holds no merit. Funny that someone brought up OJ, who went free. And posted the other Black guy who was acquitted on teh same day, using self defense.Hobbes said:
How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!
Oh and this is exactly the answer to your question above. This is the left leveraging this tragedy to their own benefit... viewing every thing through the lens of race, no matter how great the pains are to get there.
OJ also isn't the same as your average POC, obviously. rich football player celebrity doesn't exactly fit the mold we're talking about here.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
The "victims" were white too, including the one on the stand.Hobbes said:
The jury was presented evidence in a highly biased court. The judge was partial to Rittenhouse being White and he benefited because of it. Blacks are historically at a disadvantage for being black. Hell, George Floyd didn't even make it off the street.mrussel1 said:
Ok, and I also think he's probably guilty, but what we think is not the standard in the legal system.Hobbes said:
Given the evidence presented, in the way it was presented, no. Do I think he was guilty? Hell yes!mrussel1 said:
Ok I'm pretty sure I asked you that question yesterday but let's try it again.Hobbes said:
You forgot to add the question you posed: "So you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty because of historic racial disparity or not?"mrussel1 said:
No, let's be clear. I asked you if you thought there should have been a guilty verdict, there was no assumption. In fact, I assumed the opposite . Here's my quote: "If the answer is no, how about using actual cases where a minority is found guilty, unjustly, as your example. Otherwise it makes no sense. White guys shoots three white guys and is found innocent. This proves racism! "Hobbes said:
Yikes! Triggered?mrussel1 said:
Whatever dude. Get off your high douchebag horse.Hobbes said:
Because everything should be viewed through the lens of race. But I forgot, you don't see the need. Yet another example of your white privilege.mrussel1 said:
Except it's not. Unless every white person that goes free is now an example of racial disparity, then the point holds no merit. Funny that someone brought up OJ, who went free. And posted the other Black guy who was acquitted on teh same day, using self defense.Hobbes said:
How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!
Oh and this is exactly the answer to your question above. This is the left leveraging this tragedy to their own benefit... viewing every thing through the lens of race, no matter how great the pains are to get there.
And while you're at it, make sure you give away all of your possessions to minorities and resign the job you have. Otherwise you just recognize your white privilege but you're too cowardly to do anything about it. Just keep gnashing your teeth and pointing your finger while you sit on the sideline like a self righteous pussy.
I find it odd that you assume I wanted a guilty verdict to make up for historic racial disparity. That would be absurd. I have actually never weighed in on the verdict itself. My position is that there is racial disparity within the criminal justice system. Rittenhouse benefited from being White. You, however, do not see race playing a part.
So I find it odd that you read something I wrote and interpreted exactly the opposite from the way in which I wrote it. Learn to read for comprehension.
And no, I don't see how race played a part in a trial involving, basically, 4 white people.
What an odd dichotomy. You did not ask me my opinion on the verdict. Only if it applied to historic racial disparity or not.
Do you think that the defendant was proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
So if you don't think the prosecution proved its case, then why would this case be used to highlight racial disparity in the justice system? You yourself are saying the jury came back with the correct verdict
You have represented no evidence that the court was biased. Share it with us and then explain why the judge wasn't biased for the white victims, or the white prosecutor.
Make your case.0 -
well I just read about a rich white boy who plead guilty to several counts of rape and sexual assault of minor females who got 8 years probation.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
1. There were cases where the plaintiffs presented actual evidence and lost on the merits. Whenever the Trump campaign filed, they had standing. You keep focusing on one part, the frivolous suits. If you think there were no cases where there was evidence both successfully and unsuccessfully entered into the record, then you're wrong. Ergo it's precisely an apt analogy because trial procedure was in play. So give it a fucking rest in the analogy argument. It isn't important.Halifax2TheMax said:
No it’s a fucking stupid analogy. The rules apply when you have “standing” or “facts” or “evidence” a crime or wrong/injury was committed. Your example, after The repubs’ 60 tries, established neither. That has nothing to do with trial procedure.mrussel1 said:
This is a dumb argument. You know exactly the point I'm making. The reason no shitty facts were presented in the voting cases is because they lacked standing or violated the evidentiary rules (affidavits with no direct knowledge, etc ). The point... one last time... is both sides are claiming to be wronged due to the established rules of the court. I have no sympathy for either side. If it was so unfair to the Kenosha prosecutor, then they should have moved for a recusal or mistrial.Halifax2TheMax said:
I didn’t make an analogy, you made a bad one. I’m not arguing process because one process had a shit ton of facts introduced and the one you compared it to didn’t have any. “Standing” or a claim of fraud in the absence of facts can’t share the same “procedure.” Unless you want to will it to? Or you’ve made a bad analogy.mrussel1 said:
That's your difference, that's not the point I was making. You want to make your analogy, go ahead and do it. My point was about the rules of procedure. Either you accept them all the time, or it's hypocritical.Halifax2TheMax said:And back to your analogy, the repubs have never, to this day, entered or submitted to the court one scintilla of evidence that the election was stolen or there was widespread voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. We know Rosenbaum was unarmed. We know he was approximately 4’ away from Rittenhouse when he was shot 4 times. We know the first shot dropped him like a sack of rocks and that the 4th shot was the kill shot. We know Rittenhouse was reckless when he loaded his AR15 with the type of ammo he used. See the difference? No facts, none, zero versus lots of facts.
You admitted you think Rittenhouse is guilty. Of what and why?
2. I think Rittenhouse probably bears the most responsibility for the events that night. Probably not murder, but maybe man slaughter. He likely had opportunities to escape the situation. But he didn't. But these are my feelings which I can disconnect from the legal side. Still has to be proven.
0 -
If there's a doubt, that's innocent. I was young and certainly didn't watch the whole trial. So I don't KNOW they got it wrong. I definitely FEEL like he killed them.HughFreakingDillon said:
OJ was mentioned in the context that you can't just blanketly believe that 12 people in a jury box will always get it right, which is what you seemed to be suggesting.mrussel1 said:
Except it's not. Unless every white person that goes free is now an example of racial disparity, then the point holds no merit. Funny that someone brought up OJ, who went free. And posted the other Black guy who was acquitted on teh same day, using self defense.Hobbes said:
How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!
Oh and this is exactly the answer to your question above. This is the left leveraging this tragedy to their own benefit... viewing every thing through the lens of race, no matter how great the pains are to get there.
OJ also isn't the same as your average POC, obviously. rich football player celebrity doesn't exactly fit the mold we're talking about here.
OJ isn't average, but the convicted felon who was acquitted isn't the average either. Think maybe the jurors got it wrong? Who knows.0 -
it's obviously not going to be 100% either way. you're going to have white people convicted and POC found not guilty.mrussel1 said:
If there's a doubt, that's innocent. I was young and certainly didn't watch the whole trial. So I don't KNOW they got it wrong. I definitely FEEL like he killed them.HughFreakingDillon said:
OJ was mentioned in the context that you can't just blanketly believe that 12 people in a jury box will always get it right, which is what you seemed to be suggesting.mrussel1 said:
Except it's not. Unless every white person that goes free is now an example of racial disparity, then the point holds no merit. Funny that someone brought up OJ, who went free. And posted the other Black guy who was acquitted on teh same day, using self defense.Hobbes said:
How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!
Oh and this is exactly the answer to your question above. This is the left leveraging this tragedy to their own benefit... viewing every thing through the lens of race, no matter how great the pains are to get there.
OJ also isn't the same as your average POC, obviously. rich football player celebrity doesn't exactly fit the mold we're talking about here.
OJ isn't average, but the convicted felon who was acquitted isn't the average either. Think maybe the jurors got it wrong? Who knows.
my take on the whole AOC thing: you seem to be misunderstanding her point; no, there were no POC killed or on trial, but switch out Rittenhouse for a black man; you can surmise with great certainty (not 100%, but great) that he'd be found guilty. that is her point. you think the jury got it right; that's fair. the point is they often get it wrong when it's a black person.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Your analogy is bullshit because one, the POOTWH suits, are civil cases and the Rittenhouse case is criminal. BS comparison, full stop. To allege they are comparable, particularly with an allegation of comparing one of the two opposing sides As POOTWH conspiracy theorists is fucking irresponsible. Rittenhouse had evidence presented to a grand jury which resulted in indictment. In order for your BS analogy be correct, the grand jury wouldn’t have indicted or the judge hearing POOTWH’s evidence would have allowed a trial. Not same-same but BS analogy.mrussel1 said:
1. There were cases where the plaintiffs presented actual evidence and lost on the merits. Whenever the Trump campaign filed, they had standing. You keep focusing on one part, the frivolous suits. If you think there were no cases where there was evidence both successfully and unsuccessfully entered into the record, then you're wrong. Ergo it's precisely an apt analogy because trial procedure was in play. So give it a fucking rest in the analogy argument. It isn't important.Halifax2TheMax said:
No it’s a fucking stupid analogy. The rules apply when you have “standing” or “facts” or “evidence” a crime or wrong/injury was committed. Your example, after The repubs’ 60 tries, established neither. That has nothing to do with trial procedure.mrussel1 said:
This is a dumb argument. You know exactly the point I'm making. The reason no shitty facts were presented in the voting cases is because they lacked standing or violated the evidentiary rules (affidavits with no direct knowledge, etc ). The point... one last time... is both sides are claiming to be wronged due to the established rules of the court. I have no sympathy for either side. If it was so unfair to the Kenosha prosecutor, then they should have moved for a recusal or mistrial.Halifax2TheMax said:
I didn’t make an analogy, you made a bad one. I’m not arguing process because one process had a shit ton of facts introduced and the one you compared it to didn’t have any. “Standing” or a claim of fraud in the absence of facts can’t share the same “procedure.” Unless you want to will it to? Or you’ve made a bad analogy.mrussel1 said:
That's your difference, that's not the point I was making. You want to make your analogy, go ahead and do it. My point was about the rules of procedure. Either you accept them all the time, or it's hypocritical.Halifax2TheMax said:And back to your analogy, the repubs have never, to this day, entered or submitted to the court one scintilla of evidence that the election was stolen or there was widespread voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. We know Rosenbaum was unarmed. We know he was approximately 4’ away from Rittenhouse when he was shot 4 times. We know the first shot dropped him like a sack of rocks and that the 4th shot was the kill shot. We know Rittenhouse was reckless when he loaded his AR15 with the type of ammo he used. See the difference? No facts, none, zero versus lots of facts.
You admitted you think Rittenhouse is guilty. Of what and why?
2. I think Rittenhouse probably bears the most responsibility for the events that night. Probably not murder, but maybe man slaughter. He likely had opportunities to escape the situation. But he didn't. But these are my feelings which I can disconnect from the legal side. Still has to be proven.If it wasn’t important, why did you make such an inflammatory comparison, I.e. Rittenhouse opponents questioning trial procedure being the same as POOTWH conspiracy theorists?
Are “cases” the same as a trial? Did a jury or judge hear a full on case? Or was “evidence” presented and opposing counsel pointed out the lack of merit? Like we heard someone’s dead wife’s ballot was cast, in response to the first sentence of your paragraph? By her husband for POOTWH?Post edited by Halifax2TheMax on09/15/1998 & 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 -
Not one POOTWH filing went to trial. In fact, SCOTUS put a kabosh on two cases, I believe. Whereas the Rittenhouse trial judge put a kabosh on the least serious of a charge. Jeez, wish justice was blind.mrussel1 said:
1. There were cases where the plaintiffs presented actual evidence and lost on the merits. Whenever the Trump campaign filed, they had standing. You keep focusing on one part, the frivolous suits. If you think there were no cases where there was evidence both successfully and unsuccessfully entered into the record, then you're wrong. Ergo it's precisely an apt analogy because trial procedure was in play. So give it a fucking rest in the analogy argument. It isn't important.Halifax2TheMax said:
No it’s a fucking stupid analogy. The rules apply when you have “standing” or “facts” or “evidence” a crime or wrong/injury was committed. Your example, after The repubs’ 60 tries, established neither. That has nothing to do with trial procedure.mrussel1 said:
This is a dumb argument. You know exactly the point I'm making. The reason no shitty facts were presented in the voting cases is because they lacked standing or violated the evidentiary rules (affidavits with no direct knowledge, etc ). The point... one last time... is both sides are claiming to be wronged due to the established rules of the court. I have no sympathy for either side. If it was so unfair to the Kenosha prosecutor, then they should have moved for a recusal or mistrial.Halifax2TheMax said:
I didn’t make an analogy, you made a bad one. I’m not arguing process because one process had a shit ton of facts introduced and the one you compared it to didn’t have any. “Standing” or a claim of fraud in the absence of facts can’t share the same “procedure.” Unless you want to will it to? Or you’ve made a bad analogy.mrussel1 said:
That's your difference, that's not the point I was making. You want to make your analogy, go ahead and do it. My point was about the rules of procedure. Either you accept them all the time, or it's hypocritical.Halifax2TheMax said:And back to your analogy, the repubs have never, to this day, entered or submitted to the court one scintilla of evidence that the election was stolen or there was widespread voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. We know Rosenbaum was unarmed. We know he was approximately 4’ away from Rittenhouse when he was shot 4 times. We know the first shot dropped him like a sack of rocks and that the 4th shot was the kill shot. We know Rittenhouse was reckless when he loaded his AR15 with the type of ammo he used. See the difference? No facts, none, zero versus lots of facts.
You admitted you think Rittenhouse is guilty. Of what and why?
2. I think Rittenhouse probably bears the most responsibility for the events that night. Probably not murder, but maybe man slaughter. He likely had opportunities to escape the situation. But he didn't. But these are my feelings which I can disconnect from the legal side. Still has to be proven.I look forward to Sidney Powell’s defamation suit and particularly her deposition.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 -
"God Bless America" ringtone, not allowing "victims" but "arsonists," "rioters," and "looters" are okay, applauding a veteran who also happened to be a witness for the defense, off-color joke about Asian food, getting angry, citing the bible, scolding the prosecutors... The judge's personal values were on full display and had influence on the court proceedings and ultimately the verdict. Getting an idea of what if means to be White in America? Rittenhouse was a patriot. Them others? Well, they were looters who supported BLM. Not same-same.mrussel1 said:
The "victims" were white too, including the one on the stand.Hobbes said:
The jury was presented evidence in a highly biased court. The judge was partial to Rittenhouse being White and he benefited because of it. Blacks are historically at a disadvantage for being black. Hell, George Floyd didn't even make it off the street.mrussel1 said:
Ok, and I also think he's probably guilty, but what we think is not the standard in the legal system.Hobbes said:
Given the evidence presented, in the way it was presented, no. Do I think he was guilty? Hell yes!mrussel1 said:
Ok I'm pretty sure I asked you that question yesterday but let's try it again.Hobbes said:
You forgot to add the question you posed: "So you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty because of historic racial disparity or not?"mrussel1 said:
No, let's be clear. I asked you if you thought there should have been a guilty verdict, there was no assumption. In fact, I assumed the opposite . Here's my quote: "If the answer is no, how about using actual cases where a minority is found guilty, unjustly, as your example. Otherwise it makes no sense. White guys shoots three white guys and is found innocent. This proves racism! "Hobbes said:
Yikes! Triggered?mrussel1 said:
Whatever dude. Get off your high douchebag horse.Hobbes said:
Because everything should be viewed through the lens of race. But I forgot, you don't see the need. Yet another example of your white privilege.mrussel1 said:
Except it's not. Unless every white person that goes free is now an example of racial disparity, then the point holds no merit. Funny that someone brought up OJ, who went free. And posted the other Black guy who was acquitted on teh same day, using self defense.Hobbes said:
How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!
Oh and this is exactly the answer to your question above. This is the left leveraging this tragedy to their own benefit... viewing every thing through the lens of race, no matter how great the pains are to get there.
And while you're at it, make sure you give away all of your possessions to minorities and resign the job you have. Otherwise you just recognize your white privilege but you're too cowardly to do anything about it. Just keep gnashing your teeth and pointing your finger while you sit on the sideline like a self righteous pussy.
I find it odd that you assume I wanted a guilty verdict to make up for historic racial disparity. That would be absurd. I have actually never weighed in on the verdict itself. My position is that there is racial disparity within the criminal justice system. Rittenhouse benefited from being White. You, however, do not see race playing a part.
So I find it odd that you read something I wrote and interpreted exactly the opposite from the way in which I wrote it. Learn to read for comprehension.
And no, I don't see how race played a part in a trial involving, basically, 4 white people.
What an odd dichotomy. You did not ask me my opinion on the verdict. Only if it applied to historic racial disparity or not.
Do you think that the defendant was proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
So if you don't think the prosecution proved its case, then why would this case be used to highlight racial disparity in the justice system? You yourself are saying the jury came back with the correct verdict
You have represented no evidence that the court was biased. Share it with us and then explain why the judge wasn't biased for the white victims, or the white prosecutor.
Make your case.0 -
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.
Post edited by brianlux on"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Say what?!Halifax2TheMax said:
How has the party of POOTWH lost theIr position of strength by not being truthful?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!0 -
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.Post edited by Merkin Baller on0
-
Trump vs city of Philadelphia board of electionsHalifax2TheMax said:
Not one POOTWH filing went to trial. In fact, SCOTUS put a kabosh on two cases, I believe. Whereas the Rittenhouse trial judge put a kabosh on the least serious of a charge. Jeez, wish justice was blind.mrussel1 said:
1. There were cases where the plaintiffs presented actual evidence and lost on the merits. Whenever the Trump campaign filed, they had standing. You keep focusing on one part, the frivolous suits. If you think there were no cases where there was evidence both successfully and unsuccessfully entered into the record, then you're wrong. Ergo it's precisely an apt analogy because trial procedure was in play. So give it a fucking rest in the analogy argument. It isn't important.Halifax2TheMax said:
No it’s a fucking stupid analogy. The rules apply when you have “standing” or “facts” or “evidence” a crime or wrong/injury was committed. Your example, after The repubs’ 60 tries, established neither. That has nothing to do with trial procedure.mrussel1 said:
This is a dumb argument. You know exactly the point I'm making. The reason no shitty facts were presented in the voting cases is because they lacked standing or violated the evidentiary rules (affidavits with no direct knowledge, etc ). The point... one last time... is both sides are claiming to be wronged due to the established rules of the court. I have no sympathy for either side. If it was so unfair to the Kenosha prosecutor, then they should have moved for a recusal or mistrial.Halifax2TheMax said:
I didn’t make an analogy, you made a bad one. I’m not arguing process because one process had a shit ton of facts introduced and the one you compared it to didn’t have any. “Standing” or a claim of fraud in the absence of facts can’t share the same “procedure.” Unless you want to will it to? Or you’ve made a bad analogy.mrussel1 said:
That's your difference, that's not the point I was making. You want to make your analogy, go ahead and do it. My point was about the rules of procedure. Either you accept them all the time, or it's hypocritical.Halifax2TheMax said:And back to your analogy, the repubs have never, to this day, entered or submitted to the court one scintilla of evidence that the election was stolen or there was widespread voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. We know Rosenbaum was unarmed. We know he was approximately 4’ away from Rittenhouse when he was shot 4 times. We know the first shot dropped him like a sack of rocks and that the 4th shot was the kill shot. We know Rittenhouse was reckless when he loaded his AR15 with the type of ammo he used. See the difference? No facts, none, zero versus lots of facts.
You admitted you think Rittenhouse is guilty. Of what and why?
2. I think Rittenhouse probably bears the most responsibility for the events that night. Probably not murder, but maybe man slaughter. He likely had opportunities to escape the situation. But he didn't. But these are my feelings which I can disconnect from the legal side. Still has to be proven.I look forward to Sidney Powell’s defamation suit and particularly her deposition.
Hamm vs Boockvar
Kelly vs PA
Ziccharelli vs Allegheny
These were but a few litigated on the merits. No they weren't jury trials because that was waived due to urgency. But they weren't thrown out over standing..
Good grief.
0 -
Well, Rosenbaum certainly was, and if we're going to get technical here, they all engaged him. Even if Rittenhouse did somehow engage in a confrontation with Rosenbaum initially, of which there's no proof that he did, he chose to run away to avoid the confrontation and Rosenbaum chased him down and lunged for his gun. Huber was hitting him with a skateboard, and Grosskreutz aimed a gun in the vicinity of his head.Merkin Baller said:Were the deceased proven to have been rioting or looting at the time Rittenhouse engaged them?If not, it’s a curious double standard for the judge to allow them to be referred to as rioters & looters, but not victims.Post edited by facepollution on0 -
Really? This is your evidence that a white guy was favored over three white victims... God Bless America, ring tones, Asian food..Hobbes said:
"God Bless America" ringtone, not allowing "victims" but "arsonists," "rioters," and "looters" are okay, applauding a veteran who also happened to be a witness for the defense, off-color joke about Asian food, getting angry, citing the bible, scolding the prosecutors... The judge's personal values were on full display and had influence on the court proceedings and ultimately the verdict. Getting an idea of what if means to be White in America? Rittenhouse was a patriot. Them others? Well, they were looters who supported BLM. Not same-same.mrussel1 said:
The "victims" were white too, including the one on the stand.Hobbes said:
The jury was presented evidence in a highly biased court. The judge was partial to Rittenhouse being White and he benefited because of it. Blacks are historically at a disadvantage for being black. Hell, George Floyd didn't even make it off the street.mrussel1 said:
Ok, and I also think he's probably guilty, but what we think is not the standard in the legal system.Hobbes said:
Given the evidence presented, in the way it was presented, no. Do I think he was guilty? Hell yes!mrussel1 said:
Ok I'm pretty sure I asked you that question yesterday but let's try it again.Hobbes said:
You forgot to add the question you posed: "So you think Rittenhouse should have been found guilty because of historic racial disparity or not?"mrussel1 said:
No, let's be clear. I asked you if you thought there should have been a guilty verdict, there was no assumption. In fact, I assumed the opposite . Here's my quote: "If the answer is no, how about using actual cases where a minority is found guilty, unjustly, as your example. Otherwise it makes no sense. White guys shoots three white guys and is found innocent. This proves racism! "Hobbes said:
Yikes! Triggered?mrussel1 said:
Whatever dude. Get off your high douchebag horse.Hobbes said:
Because everything should be viewed through the lens of race. But I forgot, you don't see the need. Yet another example of your white privilege.mrussel1 said:
Except it's not. Unless every white person that goes free is now an example of racial disparity, then the point holds no merit. Funny that someone brought up OJ, who went free. And posted the other Black guy who was acquitted on teh same day, using self defense.Hobbes said:
How about using this incident to highlight racial disparity within the criminal justice system?facepollution said:
That's a really good question actually because it's hard to see what that benefit is. Having watched a lot of the trial, then reading what some of the left-wing media was saying, there was just so much misinformation, and I've seen opinions based on that misinformation spread all over social media. If the objective of the left is to push for better gun control and accountability, I don't think glossing over inconvenient facts has really helped the cause, it's just solidified the right's view that Rittenhouse is some kind of hero, allowing them to gloss over the absurdity of allowing people to roam the streets with guns. I understand the outrage, but anyone will lose their position of strength in an argument if they can't be truthful.Hobbes said:
What exactly is "their own benefit" for the far left?mrussel1 said:
This is the problem. Both the far left and right are trying to leverage this tragedy to their own benefit.facepollution said:
Thank you! I think it's important to be open to different ideas, though it's hard when an issue like this understandably sparks so much emotion. This is indeed an interesting place to navigate, some people seem to have very firm opinions, and I think I've learned over the years that productive conversation doesn't come from being antagonistic or insulting people. I just can't see anything useful and positive coming out of this situation if the right and left aren't prepared to have some kind of open dialogue.cblock4life said:
I meant to tell you were right when you said he was just a kid. You’re also correct above by simply flipping it. When you’re right people won’t respond, besides that they like to argue amongst themselves…6 or 7 of them, maybe more and don’t really respond to or include anyone else….or if you really pissed them off at one time or another they ignore you altogether. Many years ago I said it’s like the lunch table at school.facepollution said:
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?Halifax2TheMax said:
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.mrussel1 said:
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.mickeyrat said:
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.mrussel1 said:
Always a conspiracy.mickeyrat said:mrussel1 said:
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?brianlux said:I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?Anyway facepollution I enjoyed our correspondence. Be safe, well and happy!
Oh and this is exactly the answer to your question above. This is the left leveraging this tragedy to their own benefit... viewing every thing through the lens of race, no matter how great the pains are to get there.
And while you're at it, make sure you give away all of your possessions to minorities and resign the job you have. Otherwise you just recognize your white privilege but you're too cowardly to do anything about it. Just keep gnashing your teeth and pointing your finger while you sit on the sideline like a self righteous pussy.
I find it odd that you assume I wanted a guilty verdict to make up for historic racial disparity. That would be absurd. I have actually never weighed in on the verdict itself. My position is that there is racial disparity within the criminal justice system. Rittenhouse benefited from being White. You, however, do not see race playing a part.
So I find it odd that you read something I wrote and interpreted exactly the opposite from the way in which I wrote it. Learn to read for comprehension.
And no, I don't see how race played a part in a trial involving, basically, 4 white people.
What an odd dichotomy. You did not ask me my opinion on the verdict. Only if it applied to historic racial disparity or not.
Do you think that the defendant was proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
So if you don't think the prosecution proved its case, then why would this case be used to highlight racial disparity in the justice system? You yourself are saying the jury came back with the correct verdict
You have represented no evidence that the court was biased. Share it with us and then explain why the judge wasn't biased for the white victims, or the white prosecutor.
Make your case.
And all of this prevented even one juror from thinking he was guilty, even the POC who was on the randomly selected jury...0 -
This is the root of everything in this case. People can't understand why he gets off for killing 2 people and the other half clearly sees it as self defense.Halifax2TheMax said:
Are you sure it was a gunshot? Regardless, Rosenbaum was unarmed and Rittenhouse testified that he knew that he was. Rittenhouse claims he was cornered because someone possessed a handgun and was holding it by their side. Why would that make someone armed with an AR15 feel cornered by someone holding a gun, after spending most of the night amongst armed folks? That person didn’t raise his gun yet Rittenhouse turned and shot at Rosenbaum.tempo_n_groove said:
That’s actually wrong. Someone fired a shot just before him and may have been the catalyst for this whole event.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:Blame and hold “responsible” everyone and everything but Kyle Rittenhouse. What a fucking country.
Its astonishing to me that you can shoot and kill 2 people and injure a third and suffer zero consequences as a result of your actions that contributed to the situation. Zero.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help