Sky1981
Fending off the urge
For what it's worth if kyle is black the verdict would have been different. Ditto if he's asian, korean, or any other non white
Yeah it's very obvious.
Frightening is though, that there are so many like these kind of guys in our country right now and most media are backing them.
So... Do you play Leisure Suit Larry?@AllGoodNamesRGone was just looking for posts about my bum and boobs but it can be used for other research.
You and your mate's posts bother me.Yes, our society, especially the younger members, read too much reddit and know too few who had lived their lives in actual dictatorship. Bashing the US and talking in hyperboles only in these regards is extremely popular, somehow. Everybody knows the US have many issues, but comparing the US with the WR is irrational at best, especially considering he was talking about the early 1930s, not just the WR (most likely meaning the rise of the NSDAP as well) in general.
Funny enough, from my own POV, it seems like this trial‘s outcome shows the opposite of a biased judicial system, regardless of the masses personal opinion. By law, this seems proper. But unpopular.
Do we have the data to back this up? Are there really more people who think Kyle should have been punished than those who think he did nothing wrong?But unpopular.
This is all just too fu**** up. Thankfully American gun culture is one disease that won't infect the world. Even most developing countries have very sensible laws around that.They would have been justified if they decided to take the law into their own hands and think they were killing a murderer. Rosenbaum reached for his gun and got shot. Skateboard guy tried the same and got shot. The guy with the glock pointed at Kyle's head got shot in the arm. They all attacked him and got shot in return.
Do we have the data to back this up? Are there really more people who think Kyle should have been punished than those who think he did nothing wrong?
I don't live there, so it's not possible for me to really know the feeling on the ground but I'd be interested to know if this really is an unpopular decision, and we can be at least be sure that this will be very popular with certain sections of the country. The talks of this guy joining politics aren't far fetched.Judging by the media and the internet, so that's basically an assumption made by me, correct. I don't have any data but yet I think under Biden and with the general (necessary) outrage caused by the death of George Floyd, I assumed this is a rather unpopular opinion amongst most people (in the US especially).
You and your mate's posts bother me.
By the by the Judge's instructions not to call the victims, 'victims' appears biased and yes, very reminiscent of (mentioning Godwin's Law next for the faint hearted) 1930s and 40s Germany. There's vibes there alright.
I don't live there, so it's not possible for me to really know the feeling on the ground but I'd be interested to know if this really is an unpopular decision, and we can be at least be sure that this will be very popular with certain sections of the country. The talks of this guy joining politics aren't far fetched.
It really is. 17 year-olds running round the streets with assault rifles. It grows more and more ridiculous with every passing yearThis is all just too fu**** up. Thankfully American gun culture is one disease that won't infect the world. Even most developing countries have very sensible laws around that.
I wouldn't be surprised if he comes after Biden. Didn't he call him a murderer or something? Not he's been found guilty surely Biden has opened himself up to one?I think they've started looking into it but nothing against KR (yet). I also read that KR may be taking civil action against people for defamation...
Yes, our society, especially the younger members, read too much reddit and know too few who had lived their lives in actual dictatorship. Bashing the US and talking in hyperboles only in these regards is extremely popular, somehow. Everybody knows the US have many issues, but comparing the US with the WR is irrational at best, especially considering he was talking about the early 1930s, not just the WR (most likely meaning the rise of the NSDAP as well) in general.
Funny enough, from my own POV, it seems like this trial‘s outcome shows the opposite of a biased judicial system, regardless of the masses personal opinion. By law, this seems proper. But unpopular.
In the immediate build up to this, had he not just put out a fire and was about to put out another one or is that lies I've read online?A mixture of dumb luck and restraint. He was acting pretty suspiciously beyond wandering around with a rifle.
You meant no offense? You and your mate set out to belittle @Hansi Fick by determining that his generation read too much Reddit, talked in Hyperbole etc etc. That's the sort of post, making up stuff about another poster which you actually have no knowledge of that bothers me. Then you apologise and try to justify your post. Not so much an apology.Well, I'm sorry for bothering you and I meant no offense by posting what I posted. My understanding of the anglo-american legal (judicial) system is not as deep as I would like it to be (it's extremely different from german law, so I can't focus on both systems), so I can not tell you whether calling the possible offenders "victims" or not is proper or not. As far as I can tell, not calling the persons who were shot "victims" leads to neutrality and prevails necessary objectivity, as the word "victim" directly implies not only being someone who is injured, but someone who is wrongfully injured/damaged. So, my assumption is, that the judge didn't want language lead to any kind of bias. But someone please enlighten me, as I am talking out of my arse right now.
Exactly. This ruling says that at the next "Unite the Right" rally, I can go down there with an AR-15 and maybe a banner that reads "Proud Boys Suck Balls". Then I can just stand around aiming my AR-15 at Proud Boys until one of them confronts me in an aggressive manner. At that point, I can let the bullets fly.
This ruling is outrageous.
Minnesota has no 3rd degree statute. These are reasons why there is so much miss information everywhere. All of the possible things Kyle could have been charged with, he was charged with.I know there were 2 lesser-included but Wisconsin seems to work differently than what I've seen. I've seen cases more like 3 charges, say 3rd-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide and the jury would deliberate on each charge from greatest to least based on the set of criteria. From what I heard of the jury instructions Wisconsin or maybe just this judge instructed a bit differently than what I've personally seen before.
.
I think there's a different in these extremes. That would be taken as stirring shit up.Why don't lots of black people wander around 'white' areas brandishing uzis..surely they'd be cheered on by the locals?
You meant no offense? You and your mate set out to belittle @Hansi Fick by determining that his generation read too much Reddit, talked in Hyperbole etc etc. That's the sort of post, making up stuff about another poster which you actually have no knowledge of that bothers me. Then you apologise and try to justify your post. Not so much an apology.
The judge in my view did what the Nazis did, exactly what other groups do to their victims and that is to de-humanise them, painting them as criminals. Is that his decision to make or the jury's?
Good grief, you and your mate were targeting one poster in particular and yet your comments were about no one in particular.Exactly, it wasn't an apology for what I said, but for what someone might have felt. I also didn't explicitly say that he was one of those I mentioned, but I was talking about (internet) society in general.
I can not tell you whose decision that is, I'd say noone should ever de-humanise anybody in court, honestly. So, all things considered, I get where you're coming from, but I don't see any dehumanization by not calling someone "victim" under the given circumstances. As far as I can tell, said persons were potential offenders, not victims, which is why a more neutral language seems appropriate to me.
It's common for all judges to ban the term victim be used by procecutors as obviously it implies that a crime was committed and that's factual.Exactly, it wasn't an apology for what I said, but for what someone might have felt. I also didn't explicitly say that he was one of those I mentioned, but I was talking about (internet) society in general.
I can not tell you whose decision that is, I'd say noone should ever de-humanise anybody in court, honestly. So, all things considered, I get where you're coming from, but I don't see any dehumanization by not calling someone "victim" under the given circumstances. As far as I can tell, said persons were potential offenders, not victims, which is why a more neutral language seems appropriate to me.
This trial didn't necessarily make me thing about a democracy under threat (though the judge having a MAGA rally ringtone certainly raised my eyebrows), but the Weimar comparison is something that I've seen before and I wonder whether you think the bolded part also applies to these historians:
e.g. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/06/weimars-lessons-for-bidens-america/
https://www.shankerinstitute.org/bl...nd-fracturing-americas-constitutional-order-0
Good grief, you and your mate were targeting one poster in particular and yet your comments were about no one in particular.
Maybe in your country you can label offenders by what they could potentially do, personally I think you wait until the verdict is in to decide who is or was what. Maybe it comes easier to you. The judge might as well have directed the jury to return a Not Guilty verdict.
It's common for all judges to ban the term victim be used by procecutors as obviously it implies that a crime was committed and that's factual.
And again, this is why in neutral terms you do not call them looters, arsonists, criminals (...rats). You say it is okay to label them under these terms because they 'potentially' were, and then you claim a neutrality! Bizarre.I genuinely don't understand your last paragraph, as I feel like this is exactly what the judge did. Not jump to conclusions by labeling someone a victim before knowing, as this terminology means not being the offender.
At least you admit that you just got exposed.
Yeah it's very obvious.
Frightening is though, that there are so many like these kind of guys in our country right now and most media are backing them.
The early 1930s vibes I'm getting (and yes, the use of "vibe" is not meant to be forceful, water-proof historiographical thesis @owlo which might have been noticeable in that I also coupled it with the expressed a feeling, that of being depressed..) is obviously not just down to what's going on in the US.Yes, our society, especially the younger members, read too much reddit and know too few who had lived their lives in actual dictatorship. Bashing the US and talking in hyperboles only in these regards is extremely popular, somehow. Everybody knows the US have many issues, but comparing the US with the WR is irrational at best, especially considering he was talking about the early 1930s, not just the WR (most likely meaning the rise of the NSDAP as well) in general.
Funny enough, from my own POV, it seems like this trial‘s outcome shows the opposite of a biased judicial system, regardless of the masses personal opinion. By law, this seems proper. But unpopular.
And again, this is why in neutral terms you do not call them looters, arsonists, criminals (...rats). You say it is okay to label them under these terms because they 'potentially' were, and then you claim a neutrality! Bizarre.
I think you should take a bit of time to re-read your posts if you can't understand my last paragraph, it is specifically discussing what you have said.
The early 1930s vibes I'm getting (and yes, the use of "vibe" is not meant to be forceful, water-proof historiographical thesis @owlo which might have been noticeable in that I also coupled it with the expressed a feeling, that of being depressed..) is not just down to what's going on in the US.
The re-emergence of people like you two AfD drones are an example of why I'm getting them, too.
And again, this is why in neutral terms you do not call them looters, arsonists, criminals (...rats). You say it is okay to label them under these terms because they 'potentially' were, and then you claim a neutrality! Bizarre.
I think you should take a bit of time to re-read your posts if you can't understand my last paragraph, it is specifically discussing what you have said.
Yeah, definitely you misunderstanding the terms of Neutrality and Bias. Maybe it's a country thing. We call all who die by violent means 'victims' and not what they might have potentially been.calling them victims isn't neutral either, right?
I think there's some kind of misunderstanding here, honestly. Otherwise I'd advise you to reread my posts.
America is fecked
But the judge directed that they should be referred to as Arsonists and Looters. He did not specify that any foundation be needed.The defence were required to have foundation in the record to call people rioters, arsonists etc.
There is also limited prejudice caused given they were not on trial.
Also the prosecution would be allowed to use evocative terms in closing if the evidence had foundation. The example used was 'cold blooded killer'.
The judge simply holds a view that its for the jury to determine if they were victims
Yeah, definitely you misunderstanding the terms of Neutrality and Bias. Maybe it's a country thing. We call all who die by violent means 'victims' and not what they might have potentially been.
It's common for all judges to ban the term victim be used by procecutors as obviously it implies that a crime was committed and that's factual.
It's like talking to a brick wall. If you cannot call them victims because it implies bias then why can you call them Rioters, Looters and Arsonists instead? And please, please don't say again because they 'Potentially' were. Good God man, it's not difficult.This was also said in this thread:
Not sure if it's a country thing and how the typical practice in the US/UK is in these regards, but it seems like "victim" isn't a neutral word at all and that's why it shouldn't be used lightly in court by prosecutors.
But the judge directed that they should be referred to as Arsonists and Looters. He did not specify that any foundation be needed.