Depends on context to some degree.
But I'm more interested in whether by "stick" you mean a stump or a bat. The bat would be much better for smashing someone's head in - much sturdier and heavier.
Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
But I'm more interested in whether by "stick" you mean a stump or a bat. The bat would be much better for smashing someone's head in - much sturdier and heavier.
The bat, like Casey used in TMNT.
"Cricket? Nobody understands cricket! You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket!"
Edit: In regards to this particular event, I believe that every time Rittenhouse shot someone that night that it was justified self-defense unless we get some new information that shows he threatened Rossenbaum. That doesn't mean I don't think he's guilty of other crimes and shouldn't be punished for them. But I would not call this murder and I don't think it sets a good precedent if we consider this murder.
Last edited:
Are you harmed when you get vaccinated, because you are pricked by a needle, which constitutes harm to your arm, or are you protected by the prick because to give you immunity against a virus we have to prick your skin?
It's the same principle here, when you protect a greater value, the lesser value that has to be trampled is considered part of the protection, even if in a vacuum it would constitute harm.
Nuance; pricking people with needles in the context of a vaccine, and in the context of just some dude randomly stabbing people with needles for no reason, is drastically different. If you are vaccinating people, we do not consider the injury as "harm" but as "help".
So, much in the same vein the shooting of those people was in service of innocents, it was not harm, it was the upholding of fairness and justice. You just have to see it from the perspective of those who would be harmed by them, both people and principles and systems, and it all makes sense.
So your argument is that vigilante justice is okay because it's ostensibly done in the service of protecting other people?
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
It's certainly not the line I'd take if I was a big old danger. Own petard and all that.
Not vigilante justice, self-defense and answering the request for protection of vulnerable gas station owners. If you can show that there was real threat being posed by the aggressors, which the guy who initiated the shooting by firing in the air does, it more than meets any reasonable criteria to justify counter-attacking.
We can debate about whether this criteria is reasonable or not but to tackle this discussion by proclaiming that saying that believing any such criteria even exists makes you a fascist is just as absurd as believing any random idiot who is trying to be a vigilante and ends up killing random innocent people going home because they looked funny to him is justifiable. Both are wrong extremes.
We're talking about this within the context of a court trial. If someone is on trail for murder (whether self-defense or not) then the victim of said murder should be refered to as 'the victim'. It doesn't matter if it was actually self-defense, or completely by accident, if it's a murder trail it means the one murdered is 'the victim'. The defense can then make their case that it wasn't actually murder in the first or second degree, and that their client is innocent or it was actually sef-defence or murder in the third degree.
Considering Rittenhouse is on trial for murder (whether you agree with it being murder or not), the ones he killed should be refered to as 'the victims'.
What's your take on not using the word victim? You, a legal professional in the US, know a lot more about this than I do. So I'd be interested in hearing what you think the logic behind it is and if it holds water.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
In my personal opinion, not legal opinion, this is the biggest tempest in a teapot I've seen the lay press cover about a court decision in quite a while. At least in regards to saying that you can't call the victims "victims." The only thing that made me raise an eyebrow is the judge allowing the defense to use the terms "arsonists" and "looters."
He has not been proved guilty yet. The term "victim" is, in the judge's opinion, unfairly prejudicial as it presupposes that a crime was committed. I think the term "decedent" is better
Okay then. Mostly I was just wondering would this be unusual or not. So I'm guessing not?
As far as I'm concerned, the ************ is guilty and the people he shot are victims. The biatch don't even live in the same state where all of this happened and went after people expressing their rights to protest and free speech without causing trouble. He started killing people on the grounds of them being "terrorists" and not having the same skin color. Or those that white siding with the "wrong people". A wanna be cop and "patriot" doing there duty. It is not self-defense on his end when he's antagonizing first.
The fact you're defending on this makes you come off as dense and oblivious in this regard. If all of the victims had been whites only or someone you have an actual shit about, you would be condemning the shit out him right now. The same applies to Dreiko too. Don't give me this whole, "they shouldn't have been there in the first place". The only reason some of them went after the domestic terrorist (which is what that monster is) was to protect the other protesters and their loved ones. That is true self-dense. Not killing someone specifically for their political beliefs or because they happened to be born with a different skin color. I have not forgotten your defense of the guy last time. He did not commit self-defense. All of it was murder in the first degree. If Rittenhouse truly cared for human life or empathy for others that are non-white, he wouldn't have packed that AR-15 in the first place and cross two state lines to cause murder for daring to fight right racism and police corruption. We have nothing left to discuss, because I don't wanna hear yours or Dreiko's bullshit.
Note how they're considered "arsonists and looters", because most of them dark skin or black. Had all of them been whites, the judge would have called them victims on the spot. The judge can die and rot with Rittenhouse as far as I am concerned. He sees the bastard as a bigger victim than those he killed, and sure as hell don't give a damn about my black ass or nearly anyone else non-white.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
I was not shocked in the slightest with this ruling saying that the "decedents" should be referred to as such.
I was somewhat surprised with his allowance for the defense. But only somewhat.
I think neither of these are grounds for an interlocutory appeal (i.e. an appeal before the trail is complete). However, I have never filed for an interlocutory appeal and I've seen a variety of opinions from my legal friends.
Mr. Rittenhouse is on trial for, in part, the homicide of both Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum. Those are the only two men he killed.
Both of these men are, as far as I can tell, white. You can google yourself and take a look at their photos and decide for yourself.
That's what this is about. Not the other people engaged in actions on that fateful night, just these two individuals and the proper way to refer to them in a court of law.
You know what, I gotten him mixed up with Jacob Blake. My bad.
Okay. Thanks for that update, I still find that way too suspicious. Not after all the crazy crap that's been going on. Rittenhouse is still I would not call innocent nor victim.
17-year-old arrested after 2 killed during unrest in Kenosha
KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) — A white, 17-year-old police admirer was arrested Wednesday after two people were shot to death during a third straight night of protests in Kenosha over the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake.
apnews.com
Last edited:
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
Maybe, maybe not.
But is this really the example you're going to hang your hat on?
That's fine.
I just urge everyone to temper their outrage for just a second. I also think people who are saying this will mean Rittenhouse will walk (which is on other sites) have jumped the gun by quite a bit. Just because the prosecutor can't use the term "victim" does not mean he is constrained from pointing out that Kyle shot those two men.
BTW, as a reminded, the fucker is posing with the Proud Boys, a well known racists group and glorified neo-Nazis.
www.wpr.org
www.nbcchicago.com
Jury Won't Hear Evidence Of Kyle Rittenhouse's Proud Boys Connections
A jury in the trial of a man who fatally shot two people during protests in Kenosha won’t hear evidence that a far-right nationalist group rallied to the defense of […]
www.wpr.org
Judge: Prosecutors Can't Show Kyle Rittenhouse Link to Proud Boys
Prosecutors won’t be allowed to argue at trial that a man who shot three people during a Wisconsin protest against police brutality believes in the Proud Boys’ violent tactics or was affiliated with the white nationalist group the night of last year’s shootings, a judge ruled Friday.
www.nbcchicago.com