Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[laughing dog]

I agree that Rittenhouse will not learn anything from this trial if he is found not guilty. Look how much George Zimmerman learned from his "ordeal".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The jury wasn't in the room, it's not a big deal. The prosecutor earned it.

Agreed. Still, a bit odd getting angry at the prosecution for trying to find the shooter guilty. The judge is acting more like a defense attorney than a judge.

 

[Toni]

It is assholes like Rittenhouse — or the adults who filled him with hatred and gave him access to a gun — who have helped turn the U.S.A. into a shit-hole country.

No, it is assholes like Rosenberg, Huber and Grosskreutz, as well as elsewhere assholes like Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman that are threatening to turn this country into a shithole country with their regular violent rioting whenever they feel upset about something.

If there weren't violent unrests in Kenosha over several days, Rittenhouse would have just chilled and we all would not know his name

If cops hadn’t shot up some unarmed guy whose small children were in the back of the car, there wouldn’t have been unrest in Kenosha. If there were not dozens and dozens and dozens of other instances of cops shooting unarmed people, there would not be these demonstrations and protests that turn into riots with collateral damage, both property and human.

It is hard to have peace without justice.

 

[Trausti]

It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?

 

[Toni]

It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?

Nobody said it was?

When the world seems unjust, when those charged with keeping law abs order, with keeping the peace seem unfair, unjust, anger builds and boils over.

Perceived (and actual) injustice sometimes leads to unrest which sometimes leans into destruction of property and sometimes, loss of life.

 

[Metaphor]

For fuck sakes! I went to help... with my gun. Just like when the ambulance showed up when my Dad was suffering a seizure, the medics carried in their medical equipment and several guns.

Your dad had a seizure in the middle of some violent riots?

So clearly and unambiguously self defense that when Rittenhouse immediately sees a police car, he tells then about him shooting of three people and surrenders.

Anti-rape activists often say 'there's no one way for a trauma victim to behave', meaning victims may engage in behaviours that to rational people seem incompatible with having been raped (e.g. messaging the alleged raper the next morning to see if they want to hang out that day, pursuing them romantically and sexually for weeks afterwards)

Take yourself out of this Rittenhouse case--which you've already judged--and imagine a circumstance where you have shot and killed two people in self-defence. Do you think you'd be A-OK afterwards, and act like the 'perfect self-defense victim'? Do you think everybody would?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?

Umm...to get the dinosaurs back for murdering all those prehistoric God-fearing Christians, duh.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?

About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For fuck sakes! I went to help... with my gun. Just like when the ambulance showed up when my Dad was suffering a seizure, the medics carried in their medical equipment and several guns.

Your dad had a seizure in the middle of some violent riots?

So clearly and unambiguously self defense that when Rittenhouse immediately sees a police car, he tells then about him shooting of three people and surrenders.

Anti-rape activists often say 'there's no one way for a trauma victim to behave', meaning victims may engage in behaviours that to rational people seem incompatible with having been raped (e.g. messaging the alleged raper the next morning to see if they want to hang out that day, pursuing them romantically and sexually for weeks afterwards)

Take yourself out of this Rittenhouse case--which you've already judged--and imagine a circumstance where you have shot and killed two people in self-defence. Do you think you'd be A-OK afterwards, and act like the 'perfect self-defense victim'? Do you think everybody would?

Most likely, I'd be suffering trauma. This person didn't seem to show any signs of mental trauma. In fact, he continues to act like nothing wrong happened. He faked crying while under questioning by his own lawyer. He has no remorse at all. This is how a sociopath acts.

 

[Metaphor]

Most likely, I'd be suffering trauma. This person didn't seem to show any signs of mental trauma. In fact, he continues to act like nothing wrong happened. He faked crying while under questioning by his own lawyer. He has no remorse at all. This is how a sociopath acts.

These are your interpretations of his actions, not facts. What you believe is 'fake crying' could be actual crying, or a panic attack, or something else. You made up your mind about this before the first moment of the trial. I would hope the selected jury has not.

 

[KeepTalking]

Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Most likely, I'd be suffering trauma. This person didn't seem to show any signs of mental trauma. In fact, he continues to act like nothing wrong happened. He faked crying while under questioning by his own lawyer. He has no remorse at all. This is how a sociopath acts.

These are your interpretations of his actions, not facts.

They are actually are mostly facts, though the interpretive part is factual as well.

What you believe is 'fake crying' could be actual crying, or a panic attack, or something else.

If the prosecution was questioning him, and he got defensive... yeah, I could still think it was fake, but there would have to be an opening that could allow for legitimate tears. This kid was being questioned by his own attorney, something that was rehearsed and practiced... what you say, who you are looking at when saying it, how you are saying... it is all theater. His entire defense rests on his own safety being at risk. That he starts crying when he testifies about being cornered and about to be killed with his own gun.... So the tears, no. He wasn't crying because he was reliving the moment. He was crying to sell that he felt his life was about to end... which is why he shot the person.

You made up your mind about this before the first moment of the trial. I would hope the selected jury has not.

Now that is an interpretation!

 

[Metaphor]

Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.

It's true that if you already believe he is guilty, all his behaviour afterwards is compatible with being guilty.

 

[KeepTalking]

Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.

It's true that if you already believe he is guilty, all his behaviour afterwards is compatible with being guilty.

What does that have to do with what I posted?

 

[Metaphor]

Most likely, I'd be suffering trauma. This person didn't seem to show any signs of mental trauma. In fact, he continues to act like nothing wrong happened. He faked crying while under questioning by his own lawyer. He has no remorse at all. This is how a sociopath acts.

These are your interpretations of his actions, not facts.

They are actually are mostly facts, though the interpretive part is factual as well.

You have not established as fact that he 'faked crying', nor would fake crying on the stand mean he did not shoot in self-defense.

What you believe is 'fake crying' could be actual crying, or a panic attack, or something else.

If the prosecution was questioning him, and he got defensive... yeah, I could still think it was fake, but there would have to be an opening that could allow for legitimate tears. This kid was being questioned by his own attorney, something that was rehearsed and practiced... what you say, who you are looking at when saying it, how you are saying... it is all theater. His entire defense rests on his own safety being at risk. That he starts crying when he testifies about being cornered and about to be killed with his own gun.... So the tears, no. He wasn't crying because he was reliving the moment. He was crying to sell that he felt his life was about to end... which is why he shot the person.

So....let's say I believe you (I don't), but let's say I do. Is using a tactic in your own defense mean that you are guilty of a crime?

 

[Metaphor]

Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.

It's true that if you already believe he is guilty, all his behaviour afterwards is compatible with being guilty.

What does that have to do with what I posted?

Nobody believes that crying on the witness stand should get you out of murder, or crying after getting a speeding ticket should get you out of the fine. Why do you think anyone believes that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Most likely, I'd be suffering trauma. This person didn't seem to show any signs of mental trauma. In fact, he continues to act like nothing wrong happened. He faked crying while under questioning by his own lawyer. He has no remorse at all. This is how a sociopath acts.

These are your interpretations of his actions, not facts.

They are actually are mostly facts, though the interpretive part is factual as well.

You have not established as fact that he 'faked crying', nor would fake crying on the stand mean he did not shoot in self-defense.

What you believe is 'fake crying' could be actual crying, or a panic attack, or something else.

If the prosecution was questioning him, and he got defensive... yeah, I could still think it was fake, but there would have to be an opening that could allow for legitimate tears. This kid was being questioned by his own attorney, something that was rehearsed and practiced... what you say, who you are looking at when saying it, how you are saying... it is all theater. His entire defense rests on his own safety being at risk. That he starts crying when he testifies about being cornered and about to be killed with his own gun.... So the tears, no. He wasn't crying because he was reliving the moment. He was crying to sell that he felt his life was about to end... which is why he shot the person.

So....let's say I believe you (I don't), but let's say I do. Is using a tactic in your own defense mean that you are guilty of a crime?

Of course not. Definitely goes a long way to showing he has no remorse for his actions, which is telling because killing someone isn't an easy thing to get over. It causes many people life long trauma.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course not. Definitely goes a long way to showing he has no remorse for his actions, which is telling because killing someone isn't an easy thing to get over. It causes many people life long trauma.

Again, you are merely inventing a 'correct trauma response' and applying it to Rittenhouse. I know people who have gone through severe trauma but did not cry even when relaying that trauma. I also believe that the clip you are referring to looks like an anxious panic attack to me, not 'fake crying'.

 

[none]

maybe he was realizing he had to either grunt the truth or portray for the sympathies of those observing him.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.

It's true that if you already believe he is guilty, all his behaviour afterwards is compatible with being guilty.

What does that have to do with what I posted?

Nobody believes that crying on the witness stand should get you out of murder, or crying after getting a speeding ticket should get you out of the fine. Why do you think anyone believes that?

If the crying shows remorse then that would seem to be more of an issue for sentencing rather than trial, which should stick to the facts of the case and the incident in question.