Did you watch any of the case? It’s all on YouTube - really interesting.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
Minnesota has no 3rd degree statute. These are reasons why there is so much miss information everywhere. All of the possible things Kyle could have been charged with, he was charged with.
Wisconsin has
First-degree intentional homicide
first-degree reckless homicide
felony murder
Abortion.
Second-degree intentional homicide
Second-degree reckless homicide.
Chapter 940.
Second degree doesn't even apply because according to everyone on the left Kyle went to the protest with the intent to kill someone. If you're of the mind that he's lying that he went to be helpful and. And lying that only brought gun for personal safety then your only avenue in Wisconsin is first Degree homicide. If you're convinced that Kyle went there with the soul purpose to murder protesters and his whole story of self defense is him lying out of his teeth then I don't understand how you go about changing anything other than first Degree when you go through the list of statues available to you in Wisconsin.
I think there's a different in these extremes. That would be taken as stirring shit up.
Kyle at least could stand behind the "he was there to help and took the gun for protection" argument.
I also don't think someone Dressing up in kkk outfit in a black neighbourhood would have much of a self defense case either which is another extreme example used.
Exactly, it wasn't an apology for what I said, but for what someone might have felt. I also didn't explicitly say that he was one of those I mentioned, but I was talking about (internet) society in general.
I can not tell you whose decision that is, I'd say noone should ever de-humanise anybody in court, honestly. So, all things considered, I get where you're coming from, but I don't see any dehumanization by not calling someone "victim" under the given circumstances. As far as I can tell, said persons were potential offenders, not victims, which is why a more neutral language seems appropriate to me.
Good grief, you and your mate were targeting one poster in particular and yet your comments were about no one in particular.
Maybe in your country you can label offenders by what they could potentially do, personally I think you wait until the verdict is in to decide who is or was what. Maybe it comes easier to you. The judge might as well have directed the jury to return a Not Guilty verdict.
It's common for all judges to ban the term victim be used by procecutors as obviously it implies that a crime was committed and that's factual.
You can obviously compare anything to anything if you like to and you might even find parallels, but this does not mean it's necessarily a good comparison. I stand by what I say. From what I've experienced in the US, from what I've studied during school and law school (actual WR/nazi verdicts), I do not think that this trial can be used to find a relevant connection between the WR and the current US.
Regarding your links, I have to say, interesting read. Yet not much I'd see as legitimately appliccable. " Accepting the logic of this new presidential system will put a definitive end to American democracy. If Trump is allowed to gain re-election by the same anti-democratic mechanism, under unfair conditions, and with illegal foreign support, it will not be possible to keep the constitutional order intact in a recognizable form."
Yea, that didn't happen. I also think that learning WR's lesson and rightfully talking about WR like events/states is something completely different. I still consider these statements hyperbolic.
I genuinely don't understand your last paragraph, as I feel like this is exactly what the judge did. Not jump to conclusions by labeling someone a victim before knowing, as this terminology means not being the offender.
yeah, so basically what I expected, right? Yet some here are using neutral terminology as a sign of bias...which merely shows their own.
And again, this is why in neutral terms you do not call them looters, arsonists, criminals (...rats). You say it is okay to label them under these terms because they 'potentially' were, and then you claim a neutrality! Bizarre.
I think you should take a bit of time to re-read your posts if you can't understand my last paragraph, it is specifically discussing what you have said.
The early 1930s vibes I'm getting (and yes, the use of "vibe" is not meant to be forceful, water-proof historiographical thesis @owlo which might have been noticeable in that I also coupled it with the expressed a feeling, that of being depressed..) is obviously not just down to what's going on in the US.
The loud re-emergence of people like you two AfD drones are an example of why I'm getting them, too. It's probably in actuality more because of you that I'm feeling depressed, not because of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial..
There's not need to project onto the US, that I concede.
Last edited:
calling them victims isn't neutral either, right?
I think there's some kind of misunderstanding here, honestly. Otherwise I'd advise you to reread my posts.
America is fecked
"AfD drones"
You genuinely don't have a clue about what and with whom you're talking...the way you react here simply shows incredible ignorance.
Just for the record, I don't know any "AfD drone" personally, let alone someone who studied law.
Edit: Regarding the WR comparisons, I have to say, expressing your feelings here is fine, but that connection between these still is hyperbolic. If we're talking about feelings here, I feel like people like you simply like hyperbolic statements because it feels more rewarding to live in "important and unsettling times" and to be part of major events than just every day life, as this seems to give your own situation more meaning from your pov.
Sometimes, some things simply aren't as major and big on a world history scale. This verdict isn't either.
Last edited:
The defence were required to have foundation in the record to call people rioters, arsonists etc.
There is also limited prejudice caused given they were not on trial.
Also the prosecution would be allowed to use evocative terms in closing if the evidence had foundation. The example used was 'cold blooded killer'.
The judge simply holds a view that its for the jury to determine if they were victims
Yeah, definitely you misunderstanding the terms of Neutrality and Bias. Maybe it's a country thing. We call all who die by violent means 'victims' and not what they might have potentially been.
Hardly because of this.
But the judge directed that they should be referred to as Arsonists and Looters. He did not specify that any foundation be needed.
This was also said in this thread:
Not sure if it's a country thing and how the typical practice in the US/UK is in these regards, but it seems like "victim" isn't a neutral word at all and that's why it shouldn't be used lightly in court by prosecutors.
It's like talking to a brick wall. If you cannot call them victims because it implies bias then why can you call them Rioters, Looters and Arsonists instead? And please, please don't say again because they 'Potentially' were. Good God man, it's not difficult.
That's not what was said at the pre trial hearing, unless I'm mistaken.
It was very much a could but based on evidence that was included in the exhibits.
The judge says that the prosecution cannot call them victims but alright, he advised the defence not to but they could call them Arsonists, Looters, etc
Um, I'm sorry Drainy, what was your point again?
I'm repeating myself here, which is starting to get frustrating, honestly. I won't say anything in the context of "victim=biased?" again. Thing is, you stated that the judge showed bias by forbidding the use of "victim" as a terminus regarding those who were killed/wounded. I merely said that this might not be due to bias, but due to neutrality.
Regarding your last question about specific legal US terminology, please bear in mind this was not what was discussed by the two of us beforehand, so I won't and can't answer.
Yeah, it kinda gets frustrating that you keep pretending that you didn't call people who were killed or injured 'potential offenders'.
We can leave all your misdirecting and my pointing out your so called 'neutrality, here.
No. If it had been a black boy, he would not have survived the night. Shot by cops, the most probable outcome.
This is correct. Judge said they could be classed as rioters but evidence to the fact would have had to be provided.
There wasn't a bias from the judge.
Generally the protesters were referred to as protesters or demonstrators, the protesters near car source 3 smashing cars were referred to as rioters and Ziminski and Rosenbaum were referred to as arsonists, because the video showed it all.
His opinion was that the jury were there to determine if the defendant was guilty and has a presumption of innocence within that trial.
You may disagree, but there is a reasonable rationale behind it.
Yet the only thing missing when these battle rattle cosplaying extremists show up to confront protestors is the white hood and robe.
Yeah, having the courtroom clap one of the defence's expert witnesses before they take the stand is a real indicator of an unbiased system, alright.
It was and has been pointed out to be a double standard that gave the defence team room to manoeuvre, while blocking the prosecution. Sure, someone threw a plastic bag with a toothbrush in it at Rittenhouse. There's the damning evidence.
I do disagree, although as he has been labelled a potential offender tell me, was Gaige Grosskreutz ever charged with any offences? Any potential offences? Was he a criminal or a victim?
Not much sense in continuing the first area of sparring, since obviously as little clue I have about you, as little you have about me (didn't keep you from conjuring up stuff about me either..)
"AfD drones"
You genuinely don't have a clue about what and with whom you're talking...the way you react here simply shows incredible ignorance.
Just for the record, I don't know any "AfD drone" personally, let alone someone who studied law.
Edit: Regarding the WR comparisons, I have to say, expressing your feelings here is fine, but that connection between these still is hyperbolic. If we're talking about feelings here, I feel like people like you simply like hyperbolic statements because it feels more rewarding to live in "important and unsettling times" and to be part of major events than just every day life, as this seems to give your own situation more meaning from your pov.
Sometimes, some things simply aren't as major and big on a world history scale. This verdict isn't either.
For example, I'm neither young nor do I read any reddit
But anyway.
Of course the mention of the end of Weimar is hyperbolic, as it refers to the story with the biggest, and most catastrophic climax in our (western, let's say) discoursivation of world history.
This makes it a wary, tired analogy by default, as it's always swinging a "Holzhammer", and also incorporates this lure of both quintessential historical relevance and apocalypticism which you rightly point out as a kind of narcissist way of constructing one's historical subject. It's a good point and I agree.
But then, because we know the end of this particular history, and its end is the most apocalyptic and most out-standing event our historiography conceives, can we never allude to it, refer to it, use it to admonish, use it to polemize, without having to be able to somehow justify the proportions of the allusion? (of course, @owlo 's objection of who makes the comparison when it's that hyperbolic, i.e. a German pointing the finger at US, is a valid one, but my initial post was in no way meant to point a finger).
If we were frogs inside a very slowly heating glass, whose temperature patterns are very complex and volatile, with release valves that may or may not function, pointing to the exploded frogs in the nearby microwave is indeed hyperbolic and apocalyptic, and possibly attention-seeking.
But maybe we might need to snap out of thinking everything will be tolerably ok.
By the way, that also refers to the climate catastrophy and the people who rail against 'alarmism'..
But then you don't think the glass is heating, do you? You're complaining about it getting colder.. So there's the crux of it.
Last edited:
By the way, during closing the prosecution was allowed to call Rittenhouse a murderer because of the policy of the judge towards argument in closing.
Grosskreutz wasn't charged with anything and defence only ever called him by his name or the complaining witness, as far as I know. He was carrying illegally on the night, but presumably agreed with the prosecution to not charge in exchange for his cooperation and testimony.
As I have said before, Grosskreutz would have had a valid self defence claim if he had been quicker, though it would be McMichaels/ Bryan -style determination of his state of mind at the time etc
Not much sense in continue the first area of sparring, since obviously as little clue I have about you, as little you have about me (didn't keep you from conjuring up stuff about me either..)
For example, I'm neither young nor do I read any reddit
But anyway.
Of course the mention of the end of Weimar is hyperbolic, as it refers to the story with the biggest, and most catastrophic climax in our (western, let's say) discoursivation of world history.
This makes it a wary, tired analogy by default, as it's always swinging a "Holzhammer", and also incorporates this lure of both quintessential historical relevance and apocalypticism which you rightly point out as a kind of narcissist way of constructing one's historical subject. It's a good point and I agree.
But then, because we know the end of this particular history, and its end is the most apocalyptic and most out-standing event our historiography conceives, can we never allude to it, refer to it, use it to admonish, use it to polemize, without having to be able to somehow justify the proportions of the allusion?
If we were frogs inside a very slowly heating glass, whose temperature patterns are very complex and volatile, with release valves that may or may not function, pointing to the exploded frogs in the nearby microwave is indeed hyperbolic and apocalyptic, and possibly attention-seeking.
But maybe we might need to snap out of thinking everything will be ok.
By the way, that also refers to the climate catastrophy and the people of rail against 'alarmism'..
But then you don't think the glass is heating, do you? You're complaining about it getting colder.. So there's the crux of it.
Very good.Life isn't simple.
GG does have a criminal record, he was committing a misdemeanour illegal possession, but understandably the prosecution prioritised the Rittenhouse trial
He's probably not a bad guy, made bad decisions on the night
We're talking about the events not his record, or should I have outlined that? Who knows?
So, what are your feelings on the other two? Criminals or victims?
I like your frog analogy, as this was a very commonly used analogy in my childhood. Never heard it nowadays, so thanks for that (this is meant honestly and not in any way ridiculing you for using an argument which I just connected to a child).Not much sense in continue the first area of sparring, since obviously as little clue I have about you, as little you have about me (didn't keep you from conjuring up stuff about me either..)
For example, I'm neither young nor do I read any reddit
But anyway.
Of course the mention of the end of Weimar is hyperbolic, as it refers to the story with the biggest, and most catastrophic climax in our (western, let's say) discoursivation of world history.
This makes it a wary, tired analogy by default, as it's always swinging a "Holzhammer", and also incorporates this lure of both quintessential historical relevance and apocalypticism which you rightly point out as a kind of narcissist way of constructing one's historical subject. It's a good point and I agree.
But then, because we know the end of this particular history, and its end is the most apocalyptic and most out-standing event our historiography conceives, can we never allude to it, refer to it, use it to admonish, use it to polemize, without having to be able to somehow justify the proportions of the allusion? (of course, @owlo 's objection of who makes the comparison when it's that hyperbolic, i.e. a German pointing the finger at US, is a valid one, but my initial post was in no way meant to point a finger).
If we were frogs inside a very slowly heating glass, whose temperature patterns are very complex and volatile, with release valves that may or may not function, pointing to the exploded frogs in the nearby microwave is indeed hyperbolic and apocalyptic, and possibly attention-seeking.
But maybe we might need to snap out of thinking everything will be ok.
By the way, that also refers to the climate catastrophy and the people of rail against 'alarmism'..
But then you don't think the glass is heating, do you? You're complaining about it getting colder.. So there's the crux of it.
No, it doesn't mean you can never allude to it, but I'd say it's important to only use these comparisons if the quality of the incident is at least close to what happened in the 1930s. Otherwise, this argument loses it's sharpness - as it did here. You say yourself (bolded part!), it's a Totschlagargument and hyperbolic. I like to keep weapons of this magnitude in a safe until I really intend to use them properly. But after reasoning a bit with you, I understand that we are simply having a different understanding of how to use these comparisons and not what the comparison actually brings as a result, so that's fine by me.
No idea why you bring up climate change here (maybe because of my posts about speed limits in germany?) but all I can say is that I'm fully aware of said problem and by no means would say that drastic actions isn't necessary to fight it.
the same cops that sent him home after he'd gunned down a few people.