Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 91011 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 350 of 396

Thread: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

  1. #316
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,325

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Like I said, sources vary. Others stress the punishment side of things, which is, I would say, how people interpret the word in modern usage. Using your definition I would say yes he fit that. But so would I. And nobody would call me vigilante.

  2. #317
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,325

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by TomF View Post
    There we disagree.

    Kyle testified that he went to "protect" a business owner's property from harm. From trouble. That was the kind of "help" he set out to offer - doing protection work against what he anticipated was going to be a violent crowd who'd be setting fires and doing other vandalism.

    Rittenhouse went there because he anticipated trouble. He aspired to help defend against it, or deter it. He wouldn't have gone at all if he didn't think there'd be trouble. He wouldn't have brought a weapon if he felt there'd be no potential need to protect himself in that trouble, though we can debate whether he went to Kenosha that day hoping to actually fire off any rounds. Personally, I think not - and that he just got in over his head ... while carrying a deadly weapon.

    But to say he "wasn't looking for trouble" - that trouble merely "found him" - is IMO ludicrous.
    He would have been happy if he had just been able to stand there and not had a confrontation. I wouldn’t call that “looking for trouble”. Entering a troubling situation? Yes.

    Considering what happened to at least one old man that tried to defend a business the night before (beaten within an inch of death) anyone going to stand in front of other business would have been foolish to not be able to defend themselves. So yes, he carried a weapon. Many did that night. During the time that Kyle was running, so from the moment that he shot Rosenbaum until he reached the police cars, there were 16 shots fired by others. Not at him, but within range of audio equipment. That night was chaos.
    Last edited by Decourcy; 11-29-2021 at 11:46 AM.

  3. #318
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    83,426

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    He would have been happy if he had just been able to stand there and not had a confrontation. I wouldn’t call that “looking for trouble”. Entering a troubling situation? Yes.
    1. You can't know that.

    2. He was clearly a confused, conflicted, mess of a youngster, so he may have felt that way in part.

    3. But you can't know that.

    4. You seem intent on using this issue to tip the scales decisively into Motivated Reasoning Dingbat territory.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    https://www.facebook.com/HarborWoodworks/

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  4. #319
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    20,994

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    look at all the benefit of doubt being granted rittenhouse.

    isnít that remarkable.

    he was no different than any hooligan on any street during any riot.

  5. #320
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    49,627

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    He would have been happy if he had just been able to stand there and not had a confrontation. I wouldn’t call that “looking for trouble”. Entering a troubling situation? Yes.
    Once again, he went to Kenosha only because he expected trouble, and sought to take one or more roles which put himself directly in the midst of it.

    He hoped perhaps that by virtue of him being there, the "trouble" would disperse peacefully. That's what the Sheriff and Marshal in old Westerns always hoped too, when they walked into the street towards the guys wearing black hats.

    Kenosha wasn't an old Western movie. And frankly, I don't give R that much benefit of the doubt either. I think he wanted at least to have his visible firearm deter bad guys from doing bad stuff. I don't think he set out that night with the intent of killing people, but accepted the possibility of it.
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  6. #321
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    20,994

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    we are such a pack of white male patriarchs here.

  7. #322
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,325

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    That is false. What would you do if Kyle were to stand in front of your house with his rifle, holding it by the pistol grip, somewhere in between low carry and low ready . . . How would you feel about this? You don't know him and he has no reason to be there.
    Although the car lot owners testified that they hadn’t asked him to be there, others testified that yes they did. And since a yes answer opens the owners up to liability for civil suits, I tend to believe that he was asked. So if I was in the same position, where I asked an armed group to stand in front of my house where houses around were torched and looted for two days, I’d be happier than not having them.

  8. #323
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,325

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by TomF View Post
    Once again, he went to Kenosha only because he expected trouble, and sought to take one or more roles which put himself directly in the midst of it.

    He hoped perhaps that by virtue of him being there, the "trouble" would disperse peacefully. That's what the Sheriff and Marshal in old Westerns always hoped too, when they walked into the street towards the guys wearing black hats.

    Kenosha wasn't an old Western movie. And frankly, I don't give R that much benefit of the doubt either. I think he wanted at least to have his visible firearm deter bad guys from doing bad stuff. I don't think he set out that night with the intent of killing people, but accepted the possibility of it.
    He actually went to Kenosha to work a shift as a lifeguard, then stayed overnight. Then cleaned graffiti, then met the car lot owners.

    Yes, he had watched too many good guy bad guy movies. As has much of society

  9. #324
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,524

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    I agree with posts 353 - 358, above, but we need to distinguish “going to Kenosha” and “going to the demonstration”.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  10. #325
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,325

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    Tend to believe? Or know? Please answer my other question too.
    No-one will know. But multiple witness’s say yes, and only the car lot owners say no.
    Sorry, which question?

    Do you mean the “low ready position”? I’d be fine with that in that situation.

  11. #326
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    20,466

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    It really doesn't matter if they were asked or not.

    Private Security Persons Requirements in Wisconsin

    Wisconsin regulates armed and unarmed security guards. They are termed “private security persons’. An individual must be credentialed unless he or she is exempt under state law. An individual hired to provide security services directly to a business may be exempt. An individual who works for a security agency will be credentialed.

    Security guards who will be armed will need firearms permits. Those who are in business for themselves must also apply for agency licenses. All credentials are issued by the Department of Safety and Professional Services.
    Even if they were asked to defend the dealership, there is no evidence that anyone asked to defend the dealership was "hired" to do so. They also didn't meet the standard for armed private security or the exemption of the required firearms permits in Wisconsin if they were - 34.01 sections 5-8.

    They weren't hired armed security. They weren't law enforcement officers. They were vigilantes.
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  12. #327
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    20,994

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by McMike View Post
    I agree 100% with one exception . . . Kyle killed two people.
    yes, it bears repeating.

    branding him a "teenage idiot" infantilizes the finality of what he did.

    so many straining so hard to absolve rittenhouse of any sort of actual culpability ("he was foolish, "he shouldn't have been there" etc.) trying to be reasonable, i guess.

    as if the act of killing two people is like a high school prank gone too far.

  13. #328
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,325

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    It really doesn't matter if they were asked or not.



    Even if they were asked to defend the dealership, there is no evidence that anyone asked to defend the dealership was "hired" to do so. They also didn't meet the standard for armed private security or the exemption of the required firearms permits in Wisconsin if they were - 34.01 sections 5-8.

    They weren't hired armed security. They weren't law enforcement officers. They were vigilantes.
    According to some definitions yes, and not to others. The old guy that was beaten up was trying to stop looters as well. Was he a vigilante?

  14. #329
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    20,466

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    The twists that you would go through to excuse this young person's poor judgement and bad behavior are really stunning, you know that? You have at least two unsupported statements in that last post.

    It really is clear that however you slice it, their actions were not wise, and based on their own claims, in violation of the law.
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  15. #330
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    49,627

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by L.W. Baxter View Post
    yes, it bears repeating.

    branding him a "teenage idiot" infantilizes the finality of what he did.

    so many straining so hard to absolve rittenhouse of any sort of actual culpability ("he was foolish, "he shouldn't have been there" etc.) trying to be reasonable, i guess.

    as if the act of killing two people is like a high school prank gone too far.
    Perhaps you misunderstand me. I think R is a murderer and attempted murderer.

    He went to the demonstration carrying a weapon he was not legally permitted to own, which he obtained through a straw purchase intended to subvert the law. Lied under oath about his knowledge of the destructive power of his ammunition. Intended to cosplay a LEO, with the firearm as the defining element of his costume, with the plan to use his physical presence as a deterrent - and his willingness to use his firearm, if necessary.

    It may be that the jury followed the Wisconsin law. That the laws about firearm use specifically and self defense more generally are actually written so badly that the defense eked out a legit decision, rather than the travesty and subversion of justice it appears. It's boggling to me that the charge related to underage carry of a dangerous weapon was dismissed - when R is underage, and the weapon was dangerous enough to kill 2 and maim another that evening. The laws involved seem designed to acquit, while providing the illusion of public accountability. That's on Wisconsin.

    But R? He's a killer. And IMO went to the demonstration that night kinda fired up by the opportunity to wear his AR "for reals." We'll hear from him in the courts again in the next few years, I figure.
    Last edited by TomF; 11-29-2021 at 12:30 PM.
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  16. #331
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    28,524

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    I think “teenage idiot” was my term, but I agree with TomF’s post #368 above.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  17. #332
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    4,325

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    The twists that you would go through to excuse this young person's poor judgement and bad behavior are really stunning, you know that? You have at least two unsupported statements in that last post.

    It really is clear that however you slice it, their actions were not wise, and based on their own claims, in violation of the law.
    Oh Iím not excusing his bad judgement. He was an idiot for sure. But not a murderer. Thatís what the laws say. Donít like it, change the laws. Whether he was a vigilante is open to interpretation. Your interpretation is very broad and in fact covers Gaige as well. As well as other armed rioters/protestors, as well as all the others like Rittenhouse that were there.

    Youíll have to point out my unsupported statements if you want me to address them.

    The twists and turns have been on your ďsideĒ of this discussion (not necessarily from you), where it goes from blatant lies (heís a rioter) to mistakes (he went there only because of the demonstration or his mother drove him). When one point is shown to be false, another is grasped and I do my best to point out where I think itís wrong. Your definition of vigilante covers a lot of people that others wouldnít consider vigilantes, so Iím pointing that out.
    Ive been very clear on my position from the beginning. But discussions with you guys is like whack a mole where one of you complains that Iím addressing a point that another of you made.
    Last edited by Decourcy; 11-29-2021 at 02:03 PM.

  18. #333
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    29,997

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Expect this is one of 'agree to disagree' moments. Not much support for your position, here. Recognize you feel you've 'defended your turf' pretty well. Most here wouldn't agree - regardless how vociferously you push back.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  19. #334
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    20,466

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    Oh I’m not excusing his bad judgement. He was an idiot for sure. But not a murderer. That’s what the laws say. Don’t like it, change the laws. Whether he was a vigilante is open to interpretation. Your interpretation is very broad and in fact covers Gaige as well. As well as other armed rioters/protestors, as well as all the others like Rittenhouse that were there.

    You’ll have to point out my unsupported statements if you want me to address them.

    The twists and turns have been on your “side” of this discussion (not necessarily from you), where it goes from blatant lies (he’s a rioter) to mistakes (he went there only because of the demonstration or his mother drove him). When one point is shown to be false, another is grasped and I do my best to point out where I think it’s wrong. Your definition of vigilante covers a lot of people that others wouldn’t consider vigilantes, so I’m pointing that out.
    Ive been very clear on my position from the beginning. But discussions with you guys is like whack a mole where one of you complains that I’m addressing a point that another of you made.
    I haven't seen a dictionary definition posted by you or a piece of law on the subject that would excuse the vigilantism by Rittenhouse. I think that the definition I posted is clear. I think the stated purpose Rittenhouse himself made about being present to defend private property is vigilantism - with or without the gun. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that carrying the firearm wasn't the problem - it was the stated purpose for them to be there. Introducing the gun adds another layer of problems - was he acting as "private security"? If he was acting as "private security" or "private armed security", he didn't meet the requirements under Wisconsin law - that would make him a vigilante again - armed or not.

    No - Gaige's stated reason to be there was to provide first aid - this would not make him a vigilante. He, like Rittenhouse, was carrying a firearm "for his self-defense" per his own admission. The difference is in their purpose for their actions. Gaige's later actions to stop an "active shooter" that he deemed a threat to himself and others were likely misguided, but wasn't he being a "good guy with a gun" in that case by your own definitions? He had just observed an individual shoot two others, killing them.

    RE : your unsupported statements, I know nothing about "The old guy that was beaten up was trying to stop looters as well. Was he a vigilante?" - smacks of whataboutism and you don't make clear who he was, whether or not he was defending his own property, what his actions were, and whether or not he was carrying a firearm. So yeah - as I see it, unsupported. Cite a source if you think it worthy of discussion. The same with your nebulous, "I'm going to make my own definition of vigilantism", which you clearly have done and attempt to use to say that "Kyle wasn't a vigilante by my definition". I see that having no merit, other than to be evasive. While also acknowledging that per the OED definition, Rittenhouse is a vigilante.
    Last edited by Canoez; 11-29-2021 at 02:31 PM.
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  20. #335
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    20,994

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Decourcy View Post
    Oh Iím not excusing his bad judgement. He was an idiot for sure. But not a murderer. Thatís what the laws say. Donít like it, change the laws. Whether he was a vigilante is open to interpretation....
    "the law" didn't say it.

    a particular jury, led by a particular judge, given a selected view of evidence, considering a redacted body of laws, found him not guilty of the charges. some people said it, that is all.

    another jury might have found otherwise. even this jury might have found otherwise if the defendent had been of, let's just say, another type, presented differently, or if the judge had been merely impartial.

    in fact, given a particular appearance "kyle" might well have been shot on the street by an officer of "the law". which, funnily enough, was the nominal reason for riots in kenosha that night.

    so one might say, that kyle rittenhouse actually took to the streets of kenosha to riot in defense of the white male privilege in our system of law and order. and guess what? he "won".

  21. #336
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    16,855

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Canoez View Post
    I haven't seen a dictionary definition posted by you or a piece of law on the subject that would excuse the vigilantism by Rittenhouse. I think that the definition I posted is clear. I think the stated purpose Rittenhouse himself made about being present to defend private property is vigilantism - with or without the gun. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that carrying the firearm wasn't the problem - it was the stated purpose for them to be there. Introducing the gun adds another layer of problems - was he acting as "private security"? If he was acting as "private security" or "private armed security", he didn't meet the requirements under Wisconsin law - that would make him a vigilante again - armed or not.

    No - Gaige's stated reason to be there was to provide first aid - this would not make him a vigilante. He, like Rittenhouse, was carrying a firearm "for his self-defense" per his own admission. The difference is in their purpose for their actions. Gaige's later actions to stop an "active shooter" that he deemed a threat to himself and others were likely misguided, but wasn't he being a "good guy with a gun" in that case by your own definitions? He had just observed an individual shoot two others, killing them.

    RE : your unsupported statements, I know nothing about "The old guy that was beaten up was trying to stop looters as well. Was he a vigilante?" - smacks of whataboutism and you don't make clear who he was, whether or not he was defending his own property, what his actions were, and whether or not he was carrying a firearm. So yeah - as I see it, unsupported. Cite a source if you think it worthy of discussion. The same with your nebulous, "I'm going to make my own definition of vigilantism", which you clearly have done and attempt to use to say that "Kyle wasn't a vigilante by my definition". I see that having no merit, other than to be evasive. While also acknowledging that per the OED definition, Rittenhouse is a vigilante.
    Cambridge English Dictionary:

    vigilante (noun) A person who tries in an unofficial way to prevent crime, or to catch and punish someone who has committed a crime, especially because they do not think that official organizations, such as the police, are controlling crime effectively. Vigilantes usually join together to form groups.

    Merriam-Webster:

    vigilante (noun) A member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)

    Collins English Dictionary:

    [b]vigilantep/b] (countable noun) Vigilantes are people who organize themselves into an unofficial group to protect their community and to catch and punish criminals.

    This paper, "What Is Vigilantism?", by Les Johnston, published in the The British Journal of Criminology in 1996 has a more detailed (and nuanced) definition. From the abstract:

    ...vigilantism has six necessary features:

    [Rittenhouse? ] (i) it involves planning and premeditation by those engaging in it;
    [Rittenhouse? ] (it) its participants are private citizens whose engagement is voluntary;
    [Rittenhouse? ] (iii) it is a form of 'autonomous citizenship' and, as such, constitutes a social movement;
    [Rittenhouse? ] (iv) it uses or threatens the use of force;
    [Rittenhouse? ] (v) it arises when an established order is under threat from the transgression, the potential transgression, or the imputed transgression of institutionalized norms;
    [Rittenhouse? ] (vi) it aims to control crime or other social infractions by offering assurances (or 'guarantees') of security both to participants and to others.

    This approach is distinct from attempts to define vigilantism as mere ‘establishment violence’ and neither assumes vigilante engagement to be extra-legal nor to involve the necessary imposition of punishment on victims.
    You would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound. ó P.G. Wodehouse (Carry On, Jeeves)

  22. #337
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    21,792

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    So how come the police did not stop the riot (not demonstration)?

    Were they too defunded?

  23. #338
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    49,627

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    They were there. Even chatted on camera with R and a bunch of similarly dressed cosplayers, handingthem water bottles. But somehow didn't see fit to intervene in the rioting, or to ask any questions of R as he strolled past them following the night's big events. That is part of the issue here.

    Fwiw, the families of the 2 dead have filed a suit against the Kenosha police department on pretty much that exact question.
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  24. #339
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    n.c. tn
    Posts
    10,149

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by L.W. Baxter View Post
    "the law" didn't say it.

    a particular jury, led by a particular judge, given a selected view of evidence, considering a redacted body of laws, found him not guilty of the charges. some people said it, that is all.

    another jury might have found otherwise. even this jury might have found otherwise if the defendent had been of, let's just say, another type, presented differently, or if the judge had been merely impartial.

    in fact, given a particular appearance "kyle" might well have been shot on the street by an officer of "the law". which, funnily enough, was the nominal reason for riots in kenosha that night.

    so one might say, that kyle rittenhouse actually took to the streets of kenosha to riot in defense of the white male privilege in our system of law and order. and guess what? he "won".
    there it is.

  25. #340
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    59,389

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    So how come the police did not stop the riot (not demonstration)?

    Were they too defunded?
    Total lack of gronicles?
    Dereliction of duty?
    The SCOTUS has ruled that they are not obliged to do anything but eat doughnuts?

    Compare and contrast.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  26. #341
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    50,976

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    It's interesting that one trial is named for the perpetrator, Rittenhouse, while the other, Aubury, is named for the murder victim. Perhaps it's as simple as one name is easier. Anyway, I'll stick to that usage.

    The prosecution in Rittenhouse lost the case by poor witness preparation, cluttered presentation, and diffuse argument. Closing was better in terms of hitting the points but fatally wounded by the judge's nullification of part of the law, a part essential to establishing the criminality of all else. Here the defense did a good job of obfuscation that the prosecution simply fell stupidly into.

    By contrast, the Aubury prosecutor stayed on focus despite contemporary news hits saying they were blowing it, avoided racial table pounding, and getting the salient facts firmly in the jury's mind.

    The two trials are valuable lessons in how to, or not to, lawyer cases of this sort.

    Always remember that Rittenhouse was not found innocent. He was found "not guilty" of specific crimes. What's not at issue is the simple facts that Rittenhouse carried a quasi-military weapon that he used to kill two and wound a third.

  27. #342
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    50,976

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Not an attorney, but theological training in exegesis is very like legal research, I've written laws and regulations, and I've been an administrative law judge. As an advocate I argued lots of welfare, housing, social security, and utility law on behalf of low income clients. I have trained attorneys in some aspects of law, and my younger brother along with my best friend are defense attorneys. So I get them but I'm really and organizer, trouble maker, and could not fit myself to the detail work of being a working attorney.

    My attorney and physician friends are among the smartest and most open minded folk one could imagine. But there are also too many attorneys and physicians who are small minded idiots. The credential means little.

  28. #343
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    21,792

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian McColgin View Post
    . . . Always remember that Rittenhouse was not found innocent. He was found "not guilty" of specific crimes. . . .
    What other terms are there in a court - other than guilty or not guilty?

    Is there an ‘innocent’ verdict that a court in the USA can formally issue?
    Does one have to prove one’s innocence?

    What happened to ‘innocent until proven guilty’ ?
    Does that not apply any more?

    Does the USA court have a ‘not proven’ alternative like the Court in Scotland?

    Is it that once one is taken to court in the USA and found not guilty that one always has that ‘albatross’ hanging round one’s neck for the rest of one’slife?

  29. #344
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    20,466

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    "As we say in Germany, if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis."

    - Dr. Jens Foell

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  30. #345
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    119,396

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    wow, this is the world in which you live?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    It depends. If you've been called a white supremacist by CNN and Joe Biden's teleprompter text-generation team, you're guilty even if proven innocent.

    Even if you say that you are not a white supremacist and that you support BLM, you're obviously lying, because otherwise CNN and Joe would have to have been lying, and we already know dogmatically that that cannot have happened...

    And if you're a suicidal child rapist whose girlfriend says does not support BLM, but you think that going to a protest and screaming threats at guys with rifles and then chasing one of them for a few hundred yards in order to lunge at his gun might get you killed, which is what you obviously want, then you will be deemed an innocent bystander by the same people who seemed so judgemental and unimaginative a few moments ago...
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  31. #346
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    49,627

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Aquinas would disapprove, FWIW.
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  32. #347
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    -
    Posts
    620

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    The promoters of race hatred are very busy investigating social media, lifting every rock and peering into every cave. They couldn't find so much as a hint that Rittenhouse was political, let alone "white supremacist" or anything similar.
    There are few things more political than engaging in protest/riots/whatever armed with a rifle, regardless of how you contextualize it. You're openly bringing a weapon into public life in a charged political moment. That's right on the cusp of realizing Clauswitz's "other means".

  33. #348
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    29,997

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    The apologists for Rittenhouse know that full well - and care not a whit.
    There's a lot of things they didn't tell me when I signed on with this outfit....

  34. #349
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    119,396

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Remarkable.
    forsooth
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  35. #350
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    20,994

    Default Re: Rittenhouse Verdict Coming

    anthony huber

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •