11-12-2021, 09:48 AM
|
#61
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Austria, NOT Australia
|
nm
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 09:49 AM
|
#62
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Slinger
Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the killings. That doesn't absolve him at all, but at that age most people are idiots (that does not absolve him). The real issue is the system that allows (or encourages) this to happen. The relationship that the US has with guns, power, violence and crime is demented.
|
Yeah I agree. Rittenhouse himself (I personally believe) is a dangerous psychopath. But the real problem here is that the United States has devolved to such an extent where a teenager wielding a military grade assault rifle with no training was enabled to attend these protests as part of a "militia" and no one is really targeting any of that part for change.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Monahammer For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-12-2021, 09:51 AM
|
#63
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
Interesting thread. Getting powerful defending George Zimmerman vibes. It’s curious to see how the letter of the law and common sense don’t intersect.
To me as a simple man I would think if you show up with an AR15 looking for trouble, find said trouble, and then two people end up dead and another injured, why should you be absolved from the repercussions?
|
This.
If Rittenhouse shows up to that protest sans AR15 then the need to defend himself probably never arises.
He himself created the circumstances in which he would be required to defend himself by creating the escalation that led to the events.
If you wander into an open crowd with a gun, and I'm talking a rifle strapped to your chest in open view, you're going to create some problems that never existed in the first place.
I know its America and guns are more commonplace, but wandering through a protest with a rifle is going to scare some people into actions they likely otherwise wouldnt take.
If he'd just been some unarmed guy, he'd just have been another face in the crowd. Nobody told him to wander through a protest with a gun.
American or otherwise, guns scare people. Add that to an already high-tension situation and you're just lighting the match.
He is absolutely the author of these circumstances through his own actions.
But of what I've seen, this Judge appears to have a desire to see him exonerated.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something. - The Dread Pirate Roberts
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-12-2021, 09:57 AM
|
#64
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
This.
If Rittenhouse shows up to that protest sans AR15 then the need to defend himself probably never arises.
He himself created the circumstances in which he would be required to defend himself by creating the escalation that led to the events.
If you wander into an open crowd with a gun, and I'm talking a rifle strapped to your chest in open view, you're going to create some problems that never existed in the first place.
I know its America and guns are more commonplace, but wandering through a protest with a rifle is going to scare some people into actions they likely otherwise wouldnt take.
If he'd just been some unarmed guy, he'd just have been another face in the crowd. Nobody told him to wander through a protest with a gun.
American or otherwise, guns scare people. Add that to an already high-tension situation and you're just lighting the match.
He is absolutely the author of these circumstances through his own actions.
But of what I've seen, this Judge appears to have a desire to see him exonerated.
|
I think your are right morally, the question is what is right legally. Since there is video and essentially no disputing of the facts of what happened the only question is does the law care whether Rittenhouse put himself into the situation or not.
This is a really simple case and should have a very clear outcome.
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 10:25 AM
|
#65
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Lots of people at the riot had firearms, including one of the people Rittenhouse shot. Were they all combatants? According to Wisconsin law they weren’t. Though once a riot reaches the torching buildings phase, the risk of violence to everyone involved - including lethal violence - goes way up. Participants who don’t want to expose themselves to that risk should take that as a cue to leave the streets to the mobs of young men looking for trouble.
|
Yes. I can buy the holstered handgun as self defense for the folks who were part of the riot. I cannot buy the "walking around with an AR trying to beat back the rioters"" as self defense. I'm sorry, but on no planet does someone drive that far and pick up an assault rifle while a violent riot is ongoing for self defense. That's not believable
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 10:28 AM
|
#66
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
The other part that wasn't mentioned was the first person who was shot grabbed at the barrel of his gun as Rittenhouse was backing up against the vehicles in the car lot, even as he was falling after the first shot.
This stuff has already been testified to by many eye witnesses.
|
He also shot one of the guys 4 times, including once in the head. The first shot or two may have been self defense, but the following kill shots could still be considered murder at that point.
It will be interesting to see the decision. I don't think anything is clear cut in this case.
Whack jobs who go into public areas with assault weapons should be confronted and disarmed.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-12-2021, 10:46 AM
|
#67
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
I'm sorry, but on no planet does someone drive that far
|
Maybe you're aware of this, but it was something I only recently found out, but he lives 25 minutes away. Knowing nothing about USA geography and hearing he travelled across state lines, I assumed he had made like a weekend road trip to get there. Certainly doesn't absolve him of anything, but this was pretty much his backyard. You can travel in Calgary from the NW to the SE and take much longer.
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 10:50 AM
|
#68
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
He also shot one of the guys 4 times, including once in the head. The first shot or two may have been self defense, but the following kill shots could still be considered murder at that point.
It will be interesting to see the decision. I don't think anything is clear cut in this case.
Whack jobs who go into public areas with assault weapons should be confronted and disarmed.
|
Which seems effectively what happened. And the people who tried wound up getting shot.
It reminds me of that South Park episode.
"Oh my God! Its coming right for us!!"
Open fire.
He was 'afraid for his life.' But he himself created that fear. Its insane.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something. - The Dread Pirate Roberts
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 11:19 AM
|
#69
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
But of what I've seen, this Judge appears to have a desire to see him exonerated.
|
The Judge has been pretty "by the book" with his comments and actions. He's admonished the Prosecutors several times because they have been trying to ask questions to witnesses that he's already ruled was inadmissible. The State lawyers know their case has been destroyed and they have been reaching from early in the trial. Good on the Judge for not putting up with that crap.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPLovecraft
I am beginning to question the moral character of those who cheer for Vancouver.
|
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 11:36 AM
|
#70
|
Participant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
The Judge has been pretty "by the book" with his comments and actions. He's admonished the Prosecutors several times because they have been trying to ask questions to witnesses that he's already ruled was inadmissible. The State lawyers know their case has been destroyed and they have been reaching from early in the trial. Good on the Judge for not putting up with that crap.
|
The judge has been criticized plenty for his bizarre conduct and apparent bias.
Why pretend any different?
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-12-2021, 11:41 AM
|
#71
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
The judge has been criticized plenty for his bizarre conduct and apparent bias.
Why pretend any different?
|
Among the criticisms are the ring tone on his phone, and that he mentioned the Jury having "Asian food" for lunch one day. Oh and also having a round of applause for veterans yesterday....on Veterans Day. Seems reasonable.
His rulings and his anger with the Prosecutors attempts to skirt said rulings, in bad faith, should not be controversial.
As I said, the people wanting Rittenhouse convicted seem to be reaching for anything because they don't see this going well for their cause.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPLovecraft
I am beginning to question the moral character of those who cheer for Vancouver.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Mayer For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-12-2021, 12:02 PM
|
#72
|
Participant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
Among the criticisms are the ring tone on his phone, and that he mentioned the Jury having "Asian food" for lunch one day. Oh and also having a round of applause for veterans yesterday....on Veterans Day. Seems reasonable.
His rulings and his anger with the Prosecutors attempts to skirt said rulings, in bad faith, should not be controversial.
As I said, the people wanting Rittenhouse convicted seem to be reaching for anything because they don't see this going well for their cause.
|
And, you know, saying the victims were not allowed to be referred to as "victims" but were allowed to be referred to as "rioters, looters, and arsonists", refused a new arrest warrant when Kyle violated his bond, not allowing the prosecution to present video of Kyle saying he wanted to shoot looters (among other photos and videos that give evidence of motive and sincerity) and not allowing them to present an enlarged image but allowing the defence to present a video of police saying they appreciate Kyle, not allowing the prosecution to ask why Kyle needed an AR-15 for self defence, etc.
Again, why lie and pretend? These are completely fair and reasonable criticisms that seriously call into question the judge's bias.
We can just as easily say that just because you want Rittenhouse to go free you and his supporters are painting him and the judge in the best light possible and ignoring pretty blatant issues.
|
|
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-12-2021, 12:05 PM
|
#73
|
Franchise Player
|
Mayer as someone who was in the military, it is often thought of as an aggressive organization built upon a certain level of accepted violence. To highlight that, within a court room, in a trial with a defendant who used a military weapon in the commission of an alleged crime, is a significant misstep when it comes to an arbiter of justice in the courtroom.
It was unnecessary and could easily lead to eyebrows being raised in the lens of the general public.
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 12:23 PM
|
#74
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
And, you know, saying the victims were not allowed to be referred to as "victims" but were allowed to be referred to as "rioters, looters, and arsonists", refused a new arrest warrant when Kyle violated his bond, not allowing the prosecution to present video of Kyle saying he wanted to shoot looters (among other photos and videos that give evidence of motive and sincerity) and not allowing them to present an enlarged image but allowing the defence to present a video of police saying they appreciate Kyle, not allowing the prosecution to ask why Kyle needed an AR-15 for self defence, etc.
Again, why lie and pretend? These are completely fair and reasonable criticisms that seriously call into question the judge's bias.
We can just as easily say that just because you want Rittenhouse to go free you and his supporters are painting him and the judge in the best light possible and ignoring pretty blatant issues.
|
I can agree on one thing in there. Ones political views could certainly have an effect on how you view the Judges potential bias or not.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPLovecraft
I am beginning to question the moral character of those who cheer for Vancouver.
|
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 12:25 PM
|
#75
|
Lifetime In Suspension
|
Only one thing? The entire first paragraph is facts and not particularly editorialized. You disagree with facts or do you have another interpretation of them?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-12-2021, 12:26 PM
|
#76
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
Mayer as someone who was in the military, it is often thought of as an aggressive organization built upon a certain level of accepted violence. To highlight that, within a court room, in a trial with a defendant who used a military weapon in the commission of an alleged crime, is a significant misstep when it comes to an arbiter of justice in the courtroom.
It was unnecessary and could easily lead to eyebrows being raised in the lens of the general public.
|
I don't agree at all. I don't see a connection between people being appreciative of their men and women in the Armed Forces and somehow attributing that as a bias because the defendant used violence in defending himself.
I could maybe see your point if Rittenhouse was a veteran himself, but otherwise it seems like a huge reach.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPLovecraft
I am beginning to question the moral character of those who cheer for Vancouver.
|
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 12:29 PM
|
#77
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
Only one thing? The entire first paragraph is facts and not particularly editorialized. You disagree with facts or do you have another interpretation of them?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
Ones political views could certainly have an effect on how you view the Judges potential bias or not.
|
He answered your already
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 12:33 PM
|
#78
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
Among the criticisms are [...] having a round of applause for veterans yesterday....on Veterans Day. Seems reasonable..
|
Is it reasonable, keeping in mind the only person in the room who was applauded as such was a prosecution witness about to take the stand? I think that's pretty ####ed. He could have made it an acknowledgement of Veteran's Day, but instead he encouraged the courtroom to applaud other individuals in the courtroom.
Bizarre behaviour.
|
|
|
11-12-2021, 12:34 PM
|
#79
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
And, you know, saying the victims were not allowed to be referred to as "victims" but were allowed to be referred to as "rioters, looters, and arsonists", refused a new arrest warrant when Kyle violated his bond, not allowing the prosecution to present video of Kyle saying he wanted to shoot looters (among other photos and videos that give evidence of motive and sincerity) and not allowing them to present an enlarged image but allowing the defence to present a video of police saying they appreciate Kyle, not allowing the prosecution to ask why Kyle needed an AR-15 for self defence, etc.
Again, why lie and pretend? These are completely fair and reasonable criticisms that seriously call into question the judge's bias.
We can just as easily say that just because you want Rittenhouse to go free you and his supporters are painting him and the judge in the best light possible and ignoring pretty blatant issues.
|
The bolded part would be funny if the situation wasn't so tragic. The judge even admitted that he wasn't tech savvy and didn't understand enlarging technology. That should disqualify him from being able to preside over any trials in the information age.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
|
|
11-12-2021, 12:37 PM
|
#80
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
Only one thing? The entire first paragraph is facts and not particularly editorialized. You disagree with facts or do you have another interpretation of them?
|
I should have specified. I have followed this entire trial and when the Judge has made decisions and provided an explanation, including the ones mentioned by Pepsi, I have accepted it as reasonable, even if I didn't necessarily agree.
As I said, if you believe Rittenhouse is a gun loving, blood thirsty murderer, then I can certainly see how you'd view the Judge as having a bias.
If you believe that Rittenhouse used deadly force to defend himself, regardless of why he was down there, then the judges rulings seem pretty reasonable.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPLovecraft
I am beginning to question the moral character of those who cheer for Vancouver.
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:04 PM.
|
|