• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,906
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You (plural) seem to think property damage is transcendentally important, superseding concerns of life and limb, "law and order" or any of the other sacred calves of the right.
Do I?
Sometimes I am grateful for this forum. My golden retriever, second best friend in this world, died in my arms less than an hour ago. Ask me how much propterty damage I'd suffer to have him back.
Property damage won't get anyone's life back.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,457
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
You (plural) seem to think property damage is transcendentally important, superseding concerns of life and limb, "law and order" or any of the other sacred calves of the right.
Do I?
You mean "we". Yes you (plural) do so seem. That's why God invented wars, right?

Sometimes I am grateful for this forum. My golden retriever, second best friend in this world, died in my arms less than an hour ago. Ask me how much propterty damage I'd suffer to have him back.
Property damage won't get anyone's life back.
I'm familiar with the "logic". Property damage won't get anyone's life back, but sacrificing (someone else's) life can (sometimes) preserve property, or rights associated therewith. Hard to argue with that - just a matter of priorities. Also, property damage can be quantified, whereas some lives might be worth more than others, but none of them can really be objectively valued.
Some might blather about morality or ethics, but it's pretty straightforward.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,906
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You mean "we". Yes you (plural) do so seem. That's why God invented wars, right?
God does not exist so she can't have invented anything.
I'm familiar with the "logic". Property damage won't get anyone's life back, but sacrificing (someone else's) life can (sometimes) preserve property, or rights associated therewith.
Did the Kenosha riots preserve future lives? Would more property damage have preserved more lives?

Hard to argue with that - just a matter of priorities. Also, property damage can be quantified,
The market value of the property can be quantified. The sentimental value of the property cannot-or, at least, its value is dismissed by people who think the property destruction was warranted.

whereas some lives might be worth more than others, but none of them can really be objectively valued.
Some might blather about morality or ethics, but it's pretty straightforward.
It isn't straightforward at all.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,749
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?
Well, therein lies the rub. The prosecution’s entire theory rests on his pointing the gun at Ziminski just before Rosenbaum chases him. But remember, they must prove that is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So what’s the evidence of that? Rittenhouse sure as hell didn’t admit it. It’s all based on a grainy video that the prosecution enhanced. Even then the judge admitted he couldn’t determine if it showed what they purport. Here’s the still.

D04F4966-D384-47E8-B4F0-2C1145A4CF0F.jpeg

There’s a couple of problems with this picture. One, Rittenhouse is not left handed As this shot would seem to imply. He’s a right handed shooter. Second, the white blob above the arrow is supposed to be Rittenhouse’s right hand on the weapon, but the white blob is there before Rittenhouse ever shows up. here’s a screenshot from a split second before Rittenhouse shows up.

39BD2222-3C3E-4B57-81A7-5A149140540A.jpeg
The same white blob can be seen to the left of the pole before he walks to that point. This is part of a vehicle that is parked there. it can’t be his hand. And thus this picture does not depict Rittenhouse pointing a rifle at anyone. It’s just way too unclear what this is. It’s got to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

there are other problems as well. Supposedly Zaminski is the one targeted. But Zaminski admits he was armed and had fired a shot in the air. Zaminski doesn’t go after Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum did. And Zaminski denies knowing Rosenbaum.

The whole thing is insane. You’ve got a kid with a weapon, another guy with a handgun, and a third guy whose made violent threats before and just been released after a suicide attempt. IMHO, they’re all a bunch of losers. Rittenhouse is no hero. Now he’ll have to live with the consequences of his stupid decision to go down there. But in the end he gets off on self defense.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,640
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?
Well, therein lies the rub. The prosecution’s entire theory rests on his pointing the gun at Ziminski just before Rosenbaum chases him. But remember, they must prove that is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So what’s the evidence of that? Rittenhouse sure as hell didn’t admit it. It’s all based on a grainy video that the prosecution enhanced. Even then the judge admitted he couldn’t determine if it showed what they purport. Here’s the still.

View attachment 36092

There’s a couple of problems with this picture. One, Rittenhouse is not left handed As this shot would seem to imply. He’s a right handed shooter. Second, the white blob above the arrow is supposed to be Rittenhouse’s right hand on the weapon, but the white blob is there before Rittenhouse ever shows up. here’s a screenshot from a split second before Rittenhouse shows up.

View attachment 36093
The same white blob can be seen to the left of the pole before he walks to that point. This is part of a vehicle that is parked there. it can’t be his hand. And thus this picture does not depict Rittenhouse pointing a rifle at anyone. It’s just way too unclear what this is. It’s got to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

there are other problems as well. Supposedly Zaminski is the one targeted. But Zaminski admits he was armed and had fired a shot in the air. Zaminski doesn’t go after Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum did. And Zaminski denies knowing Rosenbaum.

The whole thing is insane. You’ve got a kid with a weapon, another guy with a handgun, and a third guy whose made violent threats before and just been released after a suicide attempt. IMHO, they’re all a bunch of losers. Rittenhouse is no hero. Now he’ll have to live with the consequences of his stupid decision to go down there. But in the end he gets off on self defense.
I was not discussing the implications of evidence but instead the structure of law. Various claims of self-defense regarding each criminal charge are dependent upon a lot of things, including in this case whether or not his actions were illegal which plays into it in a nuanced way. The jury looks at evidence and makes decisions. My point was that at each turn, the judge has been removing the things that structurally apply to the prosecution's case prior to a jury evaluating the charges and evidence. My other point that I've been making for pages is to argue for a reasonable middle ground of reckless endangerment and NOT murder, and so I do not want to be in a position of trying to argue against self-defense wholesale in all instances of all things. If you look at my exchanges with the particular poster, I'd ask that you put those things in that initial context--i.e., I am discussing the judge's bias to remove elements from the prosecutor's case, even though I do not necessarily (I don't actually) agree with the extent and intensity of the prosecutor's case.

That said, I am noticing a common trend of an error being made by persons on the Internet referring to the prosecutor's evidence. They are tending to show video or stills of videos or stills. They then look at the qualities of the videos of videos or stills of stills and claim those qualities are applicable to the original evidence. So, for example, they take a snapshot of the judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer in the courtroom in front of the video in question and ask skeptically, "how can anyone see that?"
VideoOfVideo.PNG

... but the thing that they are displaying and looking at is a video of a video where the outside frame is some 4 times less resolution (twice the height and twice the length) than the video inside the video. And that's a minimum because we don't know the actual resolution of the most internal image applicable. Again, I am not arguing for a definite conclusion that the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt anything--that's not my point--but instead that the opposition in this case as trending on the Internet has some flaws in this regard.

So, here is a second example of this sort of trend:
ImageAnalysis.PNG

At this point, when you look at your screen, your screen is an image and within that I have put an image that is of another image containing an image, and blah blah blah such nesting of images: image [of an image]n . The claim from this right-wing site defending Rittenhouse is that the image is blurry, but it's the image of the image that is blurry that they have put on display. You can tell because of the words that are blurry but that wouldn't be blurry to an observer of the actual evidence.

I am not claiming that all their arguments are invalid, but it's difficult to trust the rest of their analysis if I cannot trust the source of the images they are using. I remain agnostic on some of these points but that also doesn't mean I think that is the position a jury ought to come to when analyzing the evidence since they would have the actual evidence and be best suited to examining and thinking about it in total...assuming they had all such things to begin with and could make choices.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,457
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The market value of the property can be quantified. The sentimental value of the property cannot-

Oh, but it can be compared - to the "sentimental value" of a human life.
And guess what?
Right wingers have made that comparison, and determined that the sentimental value of any given inanimate object may very well exceed the sentimental value of a human. Especially a black human. Sometimes they even cite dollar values as "proof".

"Damn those property damagers - free the murderers!"
- Trumpsucker credo
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,749
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?
Well, therein lies the rub. The prosecution’s entire theory rests on his pointing the gun at Ziminski just before Rosenbaum chases him. But remember, they must prove that is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So what’s the evidence of that? Rittenhouse sure as hell didn’t admit it. It’s all based on a grainy video that the prosecution enhanced. Even then the judge admitted he couldn’t determine if it showed what they purport. Here’s the still.

View attachment 36092

There’s a couple of problems with this picture. One, Rittenhouse is not left handed As this shot would seem to imply. He’s a right handed shooter. Second, the white blob above the arrow is supposed to be Rittenhouse’s right hand on the weapon, but the white blob is there before Rittenhouse ever shows up. here’s a screenshot from a split second before Rittenhouse shows up.

View attachment 36093
The same white blob can be seen to the left of the pole before he walks to that point. This is part of a vehicle that is parked there. it can’t be his hand. And thus this picture does not depict Rittenhouse pointing a rifle at anyone. It’s just way too unclear what this is. It’s got to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

there are other problems as well. Supposedly Zaminski is the one targeted. But Zaminski admits he was armed and had fired a shot in the air. Zaminski doesn’t go after Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum did. And Zaminski denies knowing Rosenbaum.

The whole thing is insane. You’ve got a kid with a weapon, another guy with a handgun, and a third guy whose made violent threats before and just been released after a suicide attempt. IMHO, they’re all a bunch of losers. Rittenhouse is no hero. Now he’ll have to live with the consequences of his stupid decision to go down there. But in the end he gets off on self defense.
I was not discussing the implications of evidence but instead the structure of law. Various claims of self-defense regarding each criminal charge are dependent upon a lot of things, including in this case whether or not his actions were illegal which plays into it in a nuanced way. The jury looks at evidence and makes decisions. My point was that at each turn, the judge has been removing the things that structurally apply to the prosecution's case prior to a jury evaluating the charges and evidence. My other point that I've been making for pages is to argue for a reasonable middle ground of reckless endangerment and NOT murder, and so I do not want to be in a position of trying to argue against self-defense wholesale in all instances of all things. If you look at my exchanges with the particular poster, I'd ask that you put those things in that initial context--i.e., I am discussing the judge's bias to remove elements from the prosecutor's case, even though I do not necessarily (I don't actually) agree with the extent and intensity of the prosecutor's case.

That said, I am noticing a common trend of an error being made by persons on the Internet referring to the prosecutor's evidence. They are tending to show video or stills of videos or stills. They then look at the qualities of the videos of videos or stills of stills and claim those qualities are applicable to the original evidence. So, for example, they take a snapshot of the judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer in the courtroom in front of the video in question and ask skeptically, "how can anyone see that?"
View attachment 36095

... but the thing that they are displaying and looking at is a video of a video where the outside frame is some 4 times less resolution (twice the height and twice the length) than the video inside the video. And that's a minimum because we don't know the actual resolution of the most internal image applicable. Again, I am not arguing for a definite conclusion that the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt anything--that's not my point--but instead that the opposition in this case as trending on the Internet has some flaws in this regard.

So, here is a second example of this sort of trend:
View attachment 36094

At this point, when you look at your screen, your screen is an image and within that I have put an image that is of another image containing an image, and blah blah blah such nesting of images: image [of an image]n . The claim from this right-wing site defending Rittenhouse is that the image is blurry, but it's the image of the image that is blurry that they have put on display. You can tell because of the words that are blurry but that wouldn't be blurry to an observer of the actual evidence.

I am not claiming that all their arguments are invalid, but it's difficult to trust the rest of their analysis if I cannot trust the source of the images they are using. I remain agnostic on some of these points but that also doesn't mean I think that is the position a jury ought to come to when analyzing the evidence since they would have the actual evidence and be best suited to examining and thinking about it in total...assuming they had all such things to begin with and could make choices.
You can see the original videos online. The very picture you show is where the judge is stating he can’t make it out either. You can’t. But what the picture is purported to show is someone with his left hand on the trigger and the gun up against the left shoulder. But numerous other videos he has a sling draped over his left shoulder and his medical kit draped under his left. That a right handed person wearing a sling like this would do this is nonsense. It would be an extremely awkward way for someone to point it like that. It makes no sense. Again it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s just not there. Rittenhouse is undeniably a right handed shooter. He shot Rosenbaum with his right hand. That means he would have had to almost immediately shift his hand around a second time. While running away. Sorry. The prosecution’s theory just doesn’t hold water.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,640
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?
Well, therein lies the rub. The prosecution’s entire theory rests on his pointing the gun at Ziminski just before Rosenbaum chases him. But remember, they must prove that is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So what’s the evidence of that? Rittenhouse sure as hell didn’t admit it. It’s all based on a grainy video that the prosecution enhanced. Even then the judge admitted he couldn’t determine if it showed what they purport. Here’s the still.

View attachment 36092

There’s a couple of problems with this picture. One, Rittenhouse is not left handed As this shot would seem to imply. He’s a right handed shooter. Second, the white blob above the arrow is supposed to be Rittenhouse’s right hand on the weapon, but the white blob is there before Rittenhouse ever shows up. here’s a screenshot from a split second before Rittenhouse shows up.

View attachment 36093
The same white blob can be seen to the left of the pole before he walks to that point. This is part of a vehicle that is parked there. it can’t be his hand. And thus this picture does not depict Rittenhouse pointing a rifle at anyone. It’s just way too unclear what this is. It’s got to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

there are other problems as well. Supposedly Zaminski is the one targeted. But Zaminski admits he was armed and had fired a shot in the air. Zaminski doesn’t go after Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum did. And Zaminski denies knowing Rosenbaum.

The whole thing is insane. You’ve got a kid with a weapon, another guy with a handgun, and a third guy whose made violent threats before and just been released after a suicide attempt. IMHO, they’re all a bunch of losers. Rittenhouse is no hero. Now he’ll have to live with the consequences of his stupid decision to go down there. But in the end he gets off on self defense.
I was not discussing the implications of evidence but instead the structure of law. Various claims of self-defense regarding each criminal charge are dependent upon a lot of things, including in this case whether or not his actions were illegal which plays into it in a nuanced way. The jury looks at evidence and makes decisions. My point was that at each turn, the judge has been removing the things that structurally apply to the prosecution's case prior to a jury evaluating the charges and evidence. My other point that I've been making for pages is to argue for a reasonable middle ground of reckless endangerment and NOT murder, and so I do not want to be in a position of trying to argue against self-defense wholesale in all instances of all things. If you look at my exchanges with the particular poster, I'd ask that you put those things in that initial context--i.e., I am discussing the judge's bias to remove elements from the prosecutor's case, even though I do not necessarily (I don't actually) agree with the extent and intensity of the prosecutor's case.

That said, I am noticing a common trend of an error being made by persons on the Internet referring to the prosecutor's evidence. They are tending to show video or stills of videos or stills. They then look at the qualities of the videos of videos or stills of stills and claim those qualities are applicable to the original evidence. So, for example, they take a snapshot of the judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer in the courtroom in front of the video in question and ask skeptically, "how can anyone see that?"
View attachment 36095

... but the thing that they are displaying and looking at is a video of a video where the outside frame is some 4 times less resolution (twice the height and twice the length) than the video inside the video. And that's a minimum because we don't know the actual resolution of the most internal image applicable. Again, I am not arguing for a definite conclusion that the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt anything--that's not my point--but instead that the opposition in this case as trending on the Internet has some flaws in this regard.

So, here is a second example of this sort of trend:
View attachment 36094

At this point, when you look at your screen, your screen is an image and within that I have put an image that is of another image containing an image, and blah blah blah such nesting of images: image [of an image]n . The claim from this right-wing site defending Rittenhouse is that the image is blurry, but it's the image of the image that is blurry that they have put on display. You can tell because of the words that are blurry but that wouldn't be blurry to an observer of the actual evidence.

I am not claiming that all their arguments are invalid, but it's difficult to trust the rest of their analysis if I cannot trust the source of the images they are using. I remain agnostic on some of these points but that also doesn't mean I think that is the position a jury ought to come to when analyzing the evidence since they would have the actual evidence and be best suited to examining and thinking about it in total...assuming they had all such things to begin with and could make choices.
You can see the original videos online. The very picture you show is where the judge is stating he can’t make it out either. You can’t.

I am open-minded. Can you show the original?

But what the picture is purported to show is someone with his left hand on the trigger and the gun up against the left shoulder. But numerous other videos he has a sling draped over his left shoulder and his medical kit draped under his left.

Marching around with a weapon on your shoulder can be tiring and I have switched shoulders as a result of long marches. I have done the same thing with book bags (in high school) or laundry bags when I used to walk miles to get laundry done. One side is more comfortable, more natural feeling, and the other is backup, in my experience.

That a right handed person wearing a sling like this would do this is nonsense. It would be an extremely awkward way for someone to point it like that. It makes no sense.
I am military trained and right-handed. YES, I definitely pull the trigger with my right hand and hold the gun steady with my left hand from the bottom. I am a great shot, too. If I were in a town with people acting chaotically, I wouldn't bring the rifle, I wouldn't buy it illegally, I wouldn't be out after curfew, etc, but moreover if I DID point it at someone for some reason as a threat or whatever, it might easily not be really in the same manner as I normally would hold the gun when shooting, especially if it was to communicate to move along or a message, "hey I have a gun" as opposed to "hey I am about to shoot you." Such message, however, by the receiver isn't necessarily the same message that is intended and such action can easily turn into an accident regardless of intent.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,136
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The jury has been deliberating for over 3 hours, so I guess it was not a clear cut case of self-defense to 12 jurors.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,897
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
What I am going to recognize here is that no matter what the word of the law says about technicalities of rifle size or who was attacking who in the situation:

He went into a place of unrest, knowing there was unrest, and he brought a weapon.

There is intent there, in the knowing of unrest and the bringing of the weapon, to use it and see violence.

What arguments are made for the innocence of this person for some specific thing of rote matter not against the reality of dark intent, to see and act in violence.

You will not that they don't even try to argue against that. They won't. They can't. All they can do is pretend to ignore it while the lawful evil spirit dances on technicalities.

The spirit of lawful good may look at this and say "and so the law must change to prevent such shenanigans!" And then it would be changed. Instead the same people crying crocodile tears for this "poor self defending soul" are in there tearing up a couple black boys over a girl a cop shot.

I will give zero fucks for the concerns of lawful evil in retaining the law.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,327
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
The jury has been deliberating for over 3 hours, so I guess it was not a clear cut case of self-defense to 12 jurors.
I'm so glad I'm not on that jury. So messy. So much vague evidence. So much hearsay. So much political bullshit.

So much death and destruction, and those poor folks have to decide what to do about.

If I were the praying type, I'd be praying for the jury.
Tom
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,412
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would.

Not quite at this point, but pretty close.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,412
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The jury has been deliberating for over 3 hours, so I guess it was not a clear cut case of self-defense to 12 jurors.
Jury also asked to see the other jury's notes... apparently they didn't pay much attention during the trial. ;)

They did ask for additional copies of the instructions which is at least telling us, they are going through the charges from top to bottom. I have absolutely no idea how they'll find.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,640
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
The jury has been deliberating for over 3 hours, so I guess it was not a clear cut case of self-defense to 12 jurors.
Jury also asked to see the other jury's notes... apparently they didn't pay much attention during the trial. ;)

They did ask for additional copies of the instructions which is at least telling us, they are going through the charges from top to bottom. I have absolutely no idea how they'll find.

I am perhaps wrong but I am making an inference that they have been heavily debating some of the charges and those particular charges are related to the first 6 pages. This is because they asked for extra copies of those first 6 pages. So someone had the packet and someone else (or others) felt they should equal time with it and read along directly at their paces and point out things themselves to examine the very technical language...etc in those charges. Those pages seem related to the reckless homicide section. This is not to say they will not eventually have a consensus.

Update:"Jurors in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse have asked the judge for extra copies of the jury instructions, specifically pages 1 through 6.
In this case, attorneys from both sides did arrive, until the clerk learned the simplicity of the question, according to the courtroom pool reporter. The matter was not seen on courtroom pool cameras.

The jury was provided 11 additional copies, according to the courtroom pool reporter.
Pages 2 through 3 of the jury instructions focus on the self-defense and provocation instructions. Page 4 of the jury instructions focuses on crimes requiring intent to kill. Pages 5 and 6 focus on the first count of first-degree reckless homicide for the fatal shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum.

Jurors began deliberating at 10:15am ET on Tuesday.
"
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,906
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
The market value of the property can be quantified. The sentimental value of the property cannot-

Oh, but it can be compared - to the "sentimental value" of a human life.
And guess what?
Right wingers have made that comparison, and determined that the sentimental value of any given inanimate object may very well exceed the sentimental value of a human. Especially a black human. Sometimes they even cite dollar values as "proof".

"Damn those property damagers - free the murderers!"
- Trumpsucker credo
Is there a particular comparison you have in mind that someone here made?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,412
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The jury has been deliberating for over 3 hours, so I guess it was not a clear cut case of self-defense to 12 jurors.
Jury also asked to see the other jury's notes... apparently they didn't pay much attention during the trial. ;)

They did ask for additional copies of the instructions which is at least telling us, they are going through the charges from top to bottom. I have absolutely no idea how they'll find.

I am perhaps wrong but I am making an inference that they have been heavily debating some of the charges and those particular charges are related to the first 6 pages. This is because they asked for extra copies of those first 6 pages. So someone had the packet and someone else (or others) felt they should equal time with it and read along directly at their paces and point out things themselves to examine the very technical language...etc in those charges. Those pages seem related to the reckless homicide section. This is not to say they will not eventually have a consensus.

Update:"Jurors in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse have asked the judge for extra copies of the jury instructions, specifically pages 1 through 6.
In this case, attorneys from both sides did arrive, until the clerk learned the simplicity of the question, according to the courtroom pool reporter. The matter was not seen on courtroom pool cameras.

The jury was provided 11 additional copies, according to the courtroom pool reporter.
Pages 2 through 3 of the jury instructions focus on the self-defense and provocation instructions. Page 4 of the jury instructions focuses on crimes requiring intent to kill. Pages 5 and 6 focus on the first count of first-degree reckless homicide for the fatal shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum.

Jurors began deliberating at 10:15am ET on Tuesday.
"
I read that as the foreman thought it'd be a good idea everyone had a copy, so they could go down the list. I wouldn't read any more into it than that.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,741
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
[edited for consistency]
Stay classy, champ.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,457
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Wondering when “laws were protective” and who they protected from whom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,031
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
I haven't been following this that much. My little knowledge of Rosenbaum was that he was a mentally ill person who got out of the hospital, had nowhere to go, and joined the chaos without a defining ideology. Further, he felt agitated by the paramilitary types and so kept taunting them, even using racial slurs, which some of the supremacists probably hated, but that a BLMer wouldn't be doing. He also allegedly dared them to shoot him. His fiance denied him a place to stay in her hotel room due to domestic violence I think and he seems more of an incidental participant in chaos than an ideologue. However, I am open to hearing relevant information. Does anyone have info on his political organization membership?

JR's ideolgy was Beavism, the movement to wear your shirt on your head and start a fire fire fire.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,540
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
The jury has been deliberating for over 3 hours, so I guess it was not a clear cut case of self-defense to 12 jurors.
There's a lot of charges to go over, even after the judge threw some of them out for weird reasons.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,031
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
The judge and prosecutor deserve some blame each for why the gun charge was dropped. It's an ambiguously written law that they should have gotten outside ruling on, but they first needed this judge to give a decision. It has been a known issue in the case for a long time, but they waited till the end of the trial for the judge to decide on it.

 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,540
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
The judge and prosecutor deserve some blame each for why the gun charge was dropped. It's an ambiguously written law that they should have gotten outside ruling on, but they first needed this judge to give a decision. It has been a known issue in the case for a long time, but they waited till the end of the trial for the judge to decide on it.

And the judge waited until just before closing arguments therefore precluding the opportunity of an outside ruling. I find that, and other things this judge has done, suspicious.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,258
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The judge and prosecutor deserve some blame each for why the gun charge was dropped. It's an ambiguously written law that they should have gotten outside ruling on, but they first needed this judge to give a decision. It has been a known issue in the case for a long time, but they waited till the end of the trial for the judge to decide on it.


Actually, I agree with the judge on this.

Law is effectively a contract of adhesion. In case of ambiguity in a contract of adhesion you choose the interpretation beneficial to the other side.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,031
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
I had to see if that was real, and it is, the guy is doubling down on it.

 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,540
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,906
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I had to see if that was real, and it is, the guy is doubling down on it.


Who is Gregory McKelvey?

A Twitter blue check mark who co-founded Portland Resistance, and was arrested under suspicion of strangling and kidnapping an ex-girlfriend.

So, a nobody then.

I notice you failed to mention the charges were dismissed and his record expunged.

Yes, it's true I was silent on that point.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
3,749
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Basic Beliefs
Freethinker


The video allegedly showing Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Zaminski. Per someone’s request above. Feel free to slow it down. View at your leisure.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,666
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Guilty or not, Kyle is now his family's bread-winner:
The Kyle Rittenhouse Defense Fund, also known as FreeKyleUSA, said on its Twitter account in June that it had raised $464,111 since March 1.

According to its website, FreeKyleUSA is controlled by Wendy Rittenhouse. It sells branded Rittenhouse merchandise to raise funds.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
21,859
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
He went into a place of unrest, knowing there was unrest, and he brought a weapon.
So did Grosskreutz, but he is not being admonished for that. Quite the contrary, he is being called a "hero", even by the prosecutor.

There is intent there, in the knowing of unrest and the bringing of the weapon, to use it and see violence.
Simply bringing a weapon does not in itself imply any intent to engage in violence.

It is also funny how in 2020, the Left loved it when heavily armed black militias like NFAC were marching around.

What arguments are made for the innocence of this person for some specific thing of rote matter not against the reality of dark intent, to see and act in violence.
The fact is that he was attacked and defended himself.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
21,859
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
They are more into maim and murder. You know … Charlottesville, Washington DC …
Far more people were maimed and murdered during #BLM/Antifa rioting, even if we limit ourselves to 2020 alone. In Atlanta for example, an 8 year old girl was murdered in the "Rayshard Brooks Autonomous Zone" that was occupied by #BLM rabble after drunk driver Rayshard Brooks was shot after attacking police officers, stealing a taser and firing it at them.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,640
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
He went into a place of unrest, knowing there was unrest, and he brought a weapon.
So did Grosskreutz, but he is not being admonished for that. Quite the contrary, he is being called a "hero", even by the prosecutor.
It doesn't seem like these things are equivalent. Grosskreuz brought a weapon for self-defense not with an intent to shoot looters and others. Grosskreuz kept the weapon concealed until he thought it was needed, too. KR, on the other hand, said he wanted to shoot people who were looting and was running around with a weapon out in the open. Then, in the final moments when Grosskreutz had a gun out in the open, he thought about using and gave a benefit of a doubt valuing human life.
 
Last edited:

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,457
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
They are more into maim and murder. You know … Charlottesville, Washington DC …
Far more people were maimed and murdered during #BLM/Antifa rioting, even if we limit ourselves to 2020 alone. In Atlanta for example, an 8 year old girl was murdered in the "Rayshard Brooks Autonomous Zone" that was occupied by #BLM rabble after drunk driver Rayshard Brooks was shot after attacking police officers, stealing a taser and firing it at them.
Yeah I guess that's just as bad (qualitatively) as killing one cop, causing several others to subsequently commit suicide and maiming another 140 cops while causing 30+ million in PROPERTY DAMAGE. Of course that's if you ignore the scale... but that's not the worst of it.

No BLM rally, no antifa demonstration, NO protest EVER has constituted an direct attack on our Constitution, aka, a COUP ATTEMPT against the United States of America. Not until 1/6/2021 that is. But somehow, you conservotards can't seem to wrap what's left of your brains around the fact that the orange menace is a TRAITOR, those who follow him are insurrectionists and they are collectively (with much help from Putin, Xi, Duterte, and the rest of the Authoritarian Community) heading this Country down a path to totalitarianism.

My parents are rolling over in their graves, after fighting to preserve American democracy in three wars. I'm glad they didn't live to see the callous punks of right wing extremism dominating their former Party, with both tacit and active support from self procvlaimed "centrist" dullards who don't care enough to think about whether human life is truly worth less than their precious "property", and lack the character judgment to know and condemn a lifelong career criminal conman when he tells them what he knows they want to hear.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,897
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
They are more into maim and murder. You know … Charlottesville, Washington DC …
Far more people were maimed and murdered during #BLM/Antifa rioting, even if we limit ourselves to 2020 alone. In Atlanta for example, an 8 year old girl was murdered in the "Rayshard Brooks Autonomous Zone" that was occupied by #BLM rabble after drunk driver Rayshard Brooks was shot after attacking police officers, stealing a taser and firing it at them.
Yeah I guess that's just as bad (qualitatively) as killing one cop, causing several others to subsecommit suicide and maiming another 140 cops while causing 30+ million in PROPERTY DAMAGE. Of course that's if you ignore the scale... but that's not the worst of it.

No BLM rally, no antifa demonstration, NO protest EVER has constituted an direct attack on our Constitution, aka, a COUP ATTEMPT against the United States of America. Not until 1/6/2021 that is. But somehow, you conservotards can't seem to wrap what's left of your brains around the fact that the orange menace is a TRAITOR, those who follow him are insurrectionists and they are collectively (with much help from Putin, Xi, Duterte, and the rest of the Authoritarian Community) heading this Country down a path to totalitarianism.
They can and do wrap their heads around it... Then salivate at the idea that there might be a disequilibrium big enough for their fascist wet dreams to come true.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,412
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
They are more into maim and murder. You know … Charlottesville, Washington DC …
Far more people were maimed and murdered during #BLM/Antifa rioting, even if we limit ourselves to 2020 alone. In Atlanta for example, an 8 year old girl was murdered in the "Rayshard Brooks Autonomous Zone" that was occupied by #BLM rabble after drunk driver Rayshard Brooks was shot after attacking police officers, stealing a taser and firing it at them.
Why is #BLM blamed for the acts of people not affiliated with it? (that was rhetorical)

Goons and thugs were responsible for the rioting and destruction at night. The decentralized #BLM was responsible for the protests during the day that didn't result in much of any damage. While there was likely some overlap, it is literally day and night between protests / riots.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,457
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
They can and do wrap their heads around it... Then salivate at the idea that there might be a disequilibrium big enough for their fascist wet dreams to come true.
I wonder if they all see themselves as The Ruler in the totalitarian scenario of their wet dreams. Because if/when the time comes and some trumpish tinpot dictator gets hold of this Country, each one of them is going to be either slave to the State, or among The Privileged Few.
The vast majority of them are going to be very unhappy and dismayed with the lot assigned to them when they find out that the privileged few are in fact ... very very very few. The fact that The Few are all white, won't make all whites part of The Few.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,457
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated

Goons and thugs were responsible for the rioting and destruction at night. The decentralized #BLM was responsible for the protests during the day that didn't result in much of any damage. While there was likely some overlap, it is literally day and night between protests / riots.

That's true whether or not Derec and his ilk recognize the fact. The right wing regularly tries to infiltrate legitimate protests, incite violence and perpetrate it themselves if nothing else works, in order to discredit liberal efforts to effect democracy or enhance equality.
That's why I think the left needs to start "policing" right wing demonstrations and rallies with perfectly legal ranks of Patriots armed with assault weapons. Then it's just a matter of waiting for one or more of them to "feel threatened", and let the rest take its deadly (but perfectly legal, thanks to Republican legislators) course.
Let's get it over with!
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,897
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
They can and do wrap their heads around it... Then salivate at the idea that there might be a disequilibrium big enough for their fascist wet dreams to come true.
I wonder if they all see themselves as The Ruler in the totalitarian scenario of their wet dreams. Because if/when the time comes and some trumpish tinpot dictator gets hold of this Country, each one of them is going to be either slave to the State, or among The Privileged Few.
The vast majority of them are going to be very unhappy and dismayed with the lot assigned to them when they find out that the privileged few are in fact ... very very very few. The fact that The Few are all white, won't make all whites part of The Few.
Nor that the privileged few are... The people who are already privileged and few and who are still not them. There will just be fewer of them and they will have more privilege.
 

marc

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
1,841
Location
always on the move
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, skeptic, nerd
They are more into maim and murder. You know … Charlottesville, Washington DC …
Far more people were maimed and murdered during #BLM/Antifa rioting, even if we limit ourselves to 2020 alone. In Atlanta for example, an 8 year old girl was murdered in the "Rayshard Brooks Autonomous Zone" that was occupied by #BLM rabble after drunk driver Rayshard Brooks was shot after attacking police officers, stealing a taser and firing it at them.
Why is #BLM blamed for the acts of people not affiliated with it? (that was rhetorical)

Goons and thugs were responsible for the rioting and destruction at night. The decentralized #BLM was responsible for the protests during the day that didn't result in much of any damage. While there was likely some overlap, it is literally day and night between protests / riots.
Some people act like BLM is a tide of violence, when in reality 93% of BLM protests have been peaceful. Of ones where there was violence or vandalism, a number of them involve criminals who are not part of the protests taking advantage of them, racists trying to discredit the protests, and cops initiating the violence. At least one death of a bystander at a protest was later found to had been shot by a cop.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,412
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Y
They are more into maim and murder. You know … Charlottesville, Washington DC …
Far more people were maimed and murdered during #BLM/Antifa rioting, even if we limit ourselves to 2020 alone. In Atlanta for example, an 8 year old girl was murdered in the "Rayshard Brooks Autonomous Zone" that was occupied by #BLM rabble after drunk driver Rayshard Brooks was shot after attacking police officers, stealing a taser and firing it at them.
Why is #BLM blamed for the acts of people not affiliated with it? (that was rhetorical)

Goons and thugs were responsible for the rioting and destruction at night. The decentralized #BLM was responsible for the protests during the day that didn't result in much of any damage. While there was likely some overlap, it is literally day and night between protests / riots.
Some people act like BLM is a tide of violence, when in reality 93% of BLM protests have been peaceful. Of ones where there was violence or vandalism, a number of them involve criminals who are not part of the protests taking advantage of them, racists trying to discredit the protests, and cops initiating the violence. At least one death of a bystander at a protest was later found to had been shot by a cop.
Yeah, Derec always seems to gloss over alt-right white people starting fires in Ohio and Tennessee. Of course, violent rioting and destruction in inner cities was largely outside the realm of the alt-right, but there was definitely alt-right involvement with damages caused, some parts larger scale, during the protests.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,031
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
I watched the closings and thought both sides were mediocre. Binger was very organized and had nice slides, but he was very dry and gave too many obnoxious swipes at KR, like mocking him for helping someone with a sprained ankle, while minimizing the crimes of his victims. Richards had better delivery and used the videos and photos effectively, but he went way overboard with sniping at Binger. He was objecting too much during Binger's time too. And then the second prosecutor Krauss in rebuttal, sniped right back in kind. They made it way too personal as though it's all about them. Unimpressed with these efforts, Wisconsin did not send their best.

The lowlight was by Richards though, when he made a comparison to the Jacob Blake shooting, saying KR only shot JR 4 times, and it has already been decided that 7 shots is okay. WTF, that's not much different than the Blake joke that got a juror dismissed.


Oh, and the correct verdict is guilty on all but the charges on AH and GG.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,457
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Yeah, Derec always seems to gloss over alt-right white people starting fires in Ohio and Tennessee.
… among many other things.
But he (says he) didn’t vote for Cheato, so we must accept him as a liberal minded centrist (who defends or endorses every heinous, murderous act of right wingers and disparages “lib’ruls” for every imagined overstep of political correctness).
Surely hypocrisy knows no higher calling.
 
Top Bottom