The judge says that the prosecution cannot call them victims but alright, he advised the defence not to but they could call them Arsonists, Looters, etc
Um, I'm sorry Drainy, what was your point again?
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
Um, I'm sorry Drainy, what was your point again?
I'm repeating myself here, which is starting to get frustrating, honestly. I won't say anything in the context of "victim=biased?" again. Thing is, you stated that the judge showed bias by forbidding the use of "victim" as a terminus regarding those who were killed/wounded. I merely said that this might not be due to bias, but due to neutrality.
Regarding your last question about specific legal US terminology, please bear in mind this was not what was discussed by the two of us beforehand, so I won't and can't answer.
Yeah, it kinda gets frustrating that you keep pretending that you didn't call people who were killed or injured 'potential offenders'.
We can leave all your misdirecting and my pointing out your so called 'neutrality, here.
No. If it had been a black boy, he would not have survived the night. Shot by cops, the most probable outcome.
This is correct. Judge said they could be classed as rioters but evidence to the fact would have had to be provided.
There wasn't a bias from the judge.
Generally the protesters were referred to as protesters or demonstrators, the protesters near car source 3 smashing cars were referred to as rioters and Ziminski and Rosenbaum were referred to as arsonists, because the video showed it all.
His opinion was that the jury were there to determine if the defendant was guilty and has a presumption of innocence within that trial.
You may disagree, but there is a reasonable rationale behind it.
Yet the only thing missing when these battle rattle cosplaying extremists show up to confront protestors is the white hood and robe.
Yeah, having the courtroom clap one of the defence's expert witnesses before they take the stand is a real indicator of an unbiased system, alright.
It was and has been pointed out to be a double standard that gave the defence team room to manoeuvre, while blocking the prosecution. Sure, someone threw a plastic bag with a toothbrush in it at Rittenhouse. There's the damning evidence.
I do disagree, although as he has been labelled a potential offender tell me, was Gaige Grosskreutz ever charged with any offences? Any potential offences? Was he a criminal or a victim?
Not much sense in continuing the first area of sparring, since obviously as little clue I have about you, as little you have about me (didn't keep you from conjuring up stuff about me either..)
"AfD drones"
You genuinely don't have a clue about what and with whom you're talking...the way you react here simply shows incredible ignorance.
Just for the record, I don't know any "AfD drone" personally, let alone someone who studied law.
Edit: Regarding the WR comparisons, I have to say, expressing your feelings here is fine, but that connection between these still is hyperbolic. If we're talking about feelings here, I feel like people like you simply like hyperbolic statements because it feels more rewarding to live in "important and unsettling times" and to be part of major events than just every day life, as this seems to give your own situation more meaning from your pov.
Sometimes, some things simply aren't as major and big on a world history scale. This verdict isn't either.
For example, I'm neither young nor do I read any reddit
But anyway.
Of course the mention of the end of Weimar is hyperbolic, as it refers to the story with the biggest, and most catastrophic climax in our (western, let's say) discoursivation of world history.
This makes it a wary, tired analogy by default, as it's always swinging a "Holzhammer", and also incorporates this lure of both quintessential historical relevance and apocalypticism which you rightly point out as a kind of narcissist way of constructing one's historical subject. It's a good point and I agree.
But then, because we know the end of this particular history, and its end is the most apocalyptic and most out-standing event our historiography conceives, can we never allude to it, refer to it, use it to admonish, use it to polemize, without having to be able to somehow justify the proportions of the allusion? (of course, @owlo 's objection of who makes the comparison when it's that hyperbolic, i.e. a German pointing the finger at US, is a valid one, but my initial post was in no way meant to point a finger).
If we were frogs inside a very slowly heating glass, whose temperature patterns are very complex and volatile, with release valves that may or may not function, pointing to the exploded frogs in the nearby microwave is indeed hyperbolic and apocalyptic, and possibly attention-seeking.
But maybe we might need to snap out of thinking everything will be tolerably ok.
By the way, that also refers to the climate catastrophy and the people who rail against 'alarmism'..
But then you don't think the glass is heating, do you? You're complaining about it getting colder.. So there's the crux of it.
Last edited:
By the way, during closing the prosecution was allowed to call Rittenhouse a murderer because of the policy of the judge towards argument in closing.
Grosskreutz wasn't charged with anything and defence only ever called him by his name or the complaining witness, as far as I know. He was carrying illegally on the night, but presumably agreed with the prosecution to not charge in exchange for his cooperation and testimony.
As I have said before, Grosskreutz would have had a valid self defence claim if he had been quicker, though it would be McMichaels/ Bryan -style determination of his state of mind at the time etc
Not much sense in continue the first area of sparring, since obviously as little clue I have about you, as little you have about me (didn't keep you from conjuring up stuff about me either..)
For example, I'm neither young nor do I read any reddit
But anyway.
Of course the mention of the end of Weimar is hyperbolic, as it refers to the story with the biggest, and most catastrophic climax in our (western, let's say) discoursivation of world history.
This makes it a wary, tired analogy by default, as it's always swinging a "Holzhammer", and also incorporates this lure of both quintessential historical relevance and apocalypticism which you rightly point out as a kind of narcissist way of constructing one's historical subject. It's a good point and I agree.
But then, because we know the end of this particular history, and its end is the most apocalyptic and most out-standing event our historiography conceives, can we never allude to it, refer to it, use it to admonish, use it to polemize, without having to be able to somehow justify the proportions of the allusion?
If we were frogs inside a very slowly heating glass, whose temperature patterns are very complex and volatile, with release valves that may or may not function, pointing to the exploded frogs in the nearby microwave is indeed hyperbolic and apocalyptic, and possibly attention-seeking.
But maybe we might need to snap out of thinking everything will be ok.
By the way, that also refers to the climate catastrophy and the people of rail against 'alarmism'..
But then you don't think the glass is heating, do you? You're complaining about it getting colder.. So there's the crux of it.
Very good.Life isn't simple.
GG does have a criminal record, he was committing a misdemeanour illegal possession, but understandably the prosecution prioritised the Rittenhouse trial
He's probably not a bad guy, made bad decisions on the night
We're talking about the events not his record, or should I have outlined that? Who knows?
So, what are your feelings on the other two? Criminals or victims?
Not much sense in continue the first area of sparring, since obviously as little clue I have about you, as little you have about me (didn't keep you from conjuring up stuff about me either..)
For example, I'm neither young nor do I read any reddit
But anyway.
Of course the mention of the end of Weimar is hyperbolic, as it refers to the story with the biggest, and most catastrophic climax in our (western, let's say) discoursivation of world history.
This makes it a wary, tired analogy by default, as it's always swinging a "Holzhammer", and also incorporates this lure of both quintessential historical relevance and apocalypticism which you rightly point out as a kind of narcissist way of constructing one's historical subject. It's a good point and I agree.
But then, because we know the end of this particular history, and its end is the most apocalyptic and most out-standing event our historiography conceives, can we never allude to it, refer to it, use it to admonish, use it to polemize, without having to be able to somehow justify the proportions of the allusion? (of course, @owlo 's objection of who makes the comparison when it's that hyperbolic, i.e. a German pointing the finger at US, is a valid one, but my initial post was in no way meant to point a finger).
If we were frogs inside a very slowly heating glass, whose temperature patterns are very complex and volatile, with release valves that may or may not function, pointing to the exploded frogs in the nearby microwave is indeed hyperbolic and apocalyptic, and possibly attention-seeking.
But maybe we might need to snap out of thinking everything will be ok.
By the way, that also refers to the climate catastrophy and the people of rail against 'alarmism'..
But then you don't think the glass is heating, do you? You're complaining about it getting colder.. So there's the crux of it.
I like your frog analogy, as this was a very commonly used analogy in my childhood. Never heard it nowadays, so thanks for that (this is meant honestly and not in any way ridiculing you for using an argument which I just connected to a child).
No, it doesn't mean you can never allude to it, but I'd say it's important to only use these comparisons if the quality of the incident is at least close to what happened in the 1930s. Otherwise, this argument loses it's sharpness - as it did here. You say yourself (bolded part!), it's a Totschlagargument and hyperbolic. I like to keep weapons of this magnitude in a safe until I really intend to use them properly. But after reasoning a bit with you, I understand that we are simply having a different understanding of how to use these comparisons and not what the comparison actually brings as a result, so that's fine by me.
No idea why you bring up climate change here (maybe because of my posts about speed limits in germany?) but all I can say is that I'm fully aware of said problem and by no means would say that drastic actions isn't necessary to fight it.
the same cops that sent him home after he'd gunned down a few people.
isnt that the issue full stop. surely the circumstances that led him into that position carry some weight?
Letting someone leave the scene after killing two and injuring one feels absolutely insane to me.
it has to be said, some of the posts on this thread do reek of privilege and in these circumstances 'white' privilege.
Guess the misunderstanding (and since various people misunderstood it that's on me) is that I wasn't aiming my comment specifically at the individual trial, but I used this specific trial as an occasion to make a broad, vague, emotional comment.
That comment was aimed at the specter of a fractured society with sizeable, militant, aggressive, hostile and by no means powerless anti-democratic elements, and with no overarching grasp on the kind of fabric of reality that is needed for democratic infrastructure to survive.
And justice that is "blind on the right eye", which is where the allusion comes into it. Which the US system is, too, no fecking ifs and buts.
And I won't need to wait for a successful Nazi coup to dare to make an allusion.. maybe saying "early 1920s vibes" would have been better though.
Yes
Looks like he was having the time of his life.
You might have called him an AfD drone again, I thought that was good value for money.Guess the misunderstanding (and since various people misunderstood it that's on me) is that I wasn't aiming my comment specifically at the individual trial, but I used this specific trial as an occasion to make a broad, vague, emotional comment.
That comment was aimed at the specter of a fractured society with sizeable, militant, aggressive, hostile and by no means powerless anti-democratic elements, and with no overarching grasp on the kind of fabric of reality that is needed for democratic infrastructure to survive.
And justice that is "blind on the right eye", which is where the allusion comes into it. Which the US system is, too, no fecking ifs and buts.
And I won't need to wait for a successful Nazi coup to dare to make an allusion.. maybe saying "early 1920s vibes" would have been better though.
Yes
That's a different issue. Just because the cops are giving preference to white boys doesnt make kyle a murderer. The shot was 100% self defence.
Apologies accepted
Without the shadow of a doubt!
Yes
Man, that stung!
I'm happy that you were amused at my costs.
Fortunately for the whole world, my political views and the ones of the AfD differ heavily.I never said this was the same issue. On the contrary, I merely reacted to a user posting about him leaving promptly after the incident with the approval of the police. Which obviously is a completely different issue. And as you can read in this thread, I deemed the verdict the most plausible and justifiable outcome.
It is. Because the crux of the matter is whether kyle was justified for shooting him.
And before the court rules yes or no he's not a victim per se.
Naming him as one means kyle is indeed the perpetrator by default.
Take it to Hull guys.
They should, but apparently didn't. Really does set a worrying precedent for future conflicts
All three were aggressors against Rittenhouse who was fleeing, but naturally I feel sympathy for them since the mob were saying Rittenhouse was an active shooter which they could have reasonably believed. If they were criminal or not will be down to the laws in Wisconsin and since it wasn't a factor in this trial I'm not familiar with it.
They are not victims.
I feel like this won't be the last time I've read those two sentences on the caf. But I feel for you, it sucks that you can't just shoot people, like sweet Kyle did.
Very ironic the guy trying to defend Rittenhouse as innocent, first default is to imply he’s going to shoot someone for insulting him a little..
I didn't insult him at all. Just provoked him by pointing out what buddying up ring to it that use of first names has, and I think it's a valid thing to point out.
It's similar to when that guy murdered those Asian women and the police chief sympathized with him 'having a bad day'..
It was verbal self defense!
It is. It is also very odd that seemingly normal posters here go out of their way to defend a chubby little Trump fan - bloody hell.
Have to agree with a few others who mentioned that the prosecution aimed too high. However given how politicized this trial was going to be perhaps they had no other option, but they did a poor job either way, and based on the evidence permitted it was an inevitable outcome.
Insane, but inevitable. US is fecked, 17 year olds allowed to walk around the streets living out their vigilante fantasies, just imagining the next major protest with all the wannabe copy cats. US police rightly take a lot of criticism, but how do you police this place with deadly weapons everywhere?
Insane, but inevitable. US is fecked, 17 year olds allowed to walk around the streets living out their vigilante fantasies, just imagining the next major protest with all the wannabe copy cats. US police rightly take a lot of criticism, but how do you police this place with deadly weapons everywhere?
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is...
...To contort the legal system in order to re-frame him as a good guy with a gun.
...To contort the legal system in order to re-frame him as a good guy with a gun.