On an actually related to the trial note, the third person shot testified in court today. Many are calling the following statement a trial ender for the prosecution;
The moment in question starts at 2:07, but feel free, of course, to watch the whole video.
The odd thing, to me, is that this was patently obvious for anyone who actually watched the publicly available video evidence. Regardless, accounts are that one of the prosecution team was visibly distressed/disheartened at the moment this question was answered.
(11-08-2021, 10:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On an actually related to the trial note, the third person shot testified in court today. Many are calling the following statement a trial ender for the prosecution;
The moment in question starts at 2:07, but feel free, of course, to watch the whole video.
The odd thing, to me, is that this was patently obvious for anyone who actually watched the publicly available video evidence. Regardless, accounts are that one of the prosecution team was visibly distressed/disheartened at the moment this question was answered.
EDIT: sorry, can't link a time stamped video
I will say, depending on your side of this situation there are different takes on how that went.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-05-2021, 09:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I see what you're saying, here, but we also must keep in mind that modern conservatism has moved far from the idea of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism rests on the idea of individual liberty and is more akin to the libertarian values of today. I tend to view this all through the lens of the original and modern dilemmas. The original dilemma being freedom v. societal order, and the modern being freedom v. equality.
Classical liberalism, or libertarianism of today, tends to fall in the freedom category for both. They oppose government intervention to promote either order or equality. Conservatism, though, favors government intervention to promote societal order. This is where my statement that gun control is inherently a conservative ideal comes into play. Gun control is about control, about order. One the other end, though, modern liberalism favors government intervention to promote equality, but not order. We know that gun control policies are not equitable, so the modern liberal take should not be in favor of these measures.
Bels, I’ve been thinking some more about whether gun control is conservative because it is about “about order.”
I think you may be trading on two different senses of “order,” here, one politically neutral, the other not. Same for your deployment of the terms “conservative” and “progressive.”
Social contract theorists from Hobbes to Rousseau have argued that “freedom” for persons in a so-called natural state is pretty limited--“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” as Hobbes put it. So, as the contractarians believed, people readily give up the freedom of that natural state for the security government brings, and the apparently greater freedom and opportunities which come with its social order, as well as the security.
If most of the freedoms we value are conditioned by some form/degree of order, then original dilemma cannot be a rigid binary, though many of our right wing friends operate it that way—i.e., where government order is, freedom is not. Either/or. "Keep your damn masks!"
Basically, ALL forms of government promote social order, and even the more sophisticated anarchists do not imagine absence of government to be absence of order. So “order,” in itself, as an abstraction, is neither right nor left, and can be as enabling, a foundation of free action, as it can be restricting. In theory and practice, however, it tends to be very specific, as in, say, de Maistre's essay on constitutions--an ORGANIC, hierarchical, and sacred order. Or in the "profane" and wholly material order of the classical liberals and Marx.
If both “conservative” or “progressive” laws promote social order, then one cannot define specific laws as the former simply because they "promote order." Whether they are one, the other, or something else altogether, can only be decided by the kind of order promoted or envisioned. How to characterize conservative, liberal or progressive ends/order in the context of gun laws would be my next move, but before I go there, I’d like to hear what you make of this so far. Have I misunderstood your point? Am I actually addressing your argument, or have I substituted something else for your terms/claims? Don’t want to move forward unless I am clear about that.
As the prosecution has rested their case I would like to take this opportunity to ask any of the "Rittenhouse is guilty" crowd to bolster their position with the facts and arguments advanced by the prosecution. I eagerly await your response(s).
(11-10-2021, 11:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As the prosecution has rested their case I would like to take this opportunity to ask any of the "Rittenhouse is guilty" crowd to bolster their position with the facts and arguments advanced by the prosecution. I eagerly await your response(s).
People are deceased who would not be if a child had not taken a firearm to riotous predicament.
I’ve read the thread and appreciated the veil of civility, but I honestly don’t want to engage as a result of the hostility.
Yes, I'm aware that has nothing to do with the legality involved in the trial. Yes I realize that a lot of people are found not guilty but the public still thinks they are.
I'm just not a fan of putting him on the stand. They had all the evidence they needed apparently but opened him up to looking bad.
Yes, I am aware that it could have been his choice.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-11-2021, 10:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know if putting Rittenhouse on the stand helped with the trial or not but the crocodile tears should didn't help his public image.
Yes, I'm aware that has nothing to do with the legality involved in the trial. Yes I realize that a lot of people are found not guilty but the public still thinks they are.
I'm just not a fan of putting him on the stand. They had all the evidence they needed apparently but opened him up to looking bad.
Yes, I am aware that it could have been his choice.
I believe that was the prosecutor putting him on the stand as the state just wrapped their case. I mean, yeah, the defense could have refused, but other than the horrible crying thing, he didn't do too bad from my understanding.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-11-2021, 10:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I believe that was the prosecutor putting him on the stand as the state just wrapped their case. I mean, yeah, the defense could have refused, but other than the horrible crying thing, he didn't do too bad from my understanding.
1) Yes, they should have refused.
2) I only listened to the case yesterday and that was in the background or on the radio to go get lunch. He sounded ok but it still too big a risk IMHO.
The court of public opinion will be different than a court of law, obviously, but I'm saying that before someone jumps in to say I think any different.
And yes, most people probably made their mind up about what kind of person he is before he testified.
I'll add there were a couple good threads about how his defenders in the public forums are shocked...just SHOCKED that prosecutors tried to make him look bad! I got a chuckle out of that.
No one is more offended by something than someone who thinks it would never happen to them (or someone they like).
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-11-2021, 10:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: 1) Yes, they should have refused.
2) I only listened to the case yesterday and that was in the background or on the radio to go get lunch. He sounded ok but it still too big a risk IMHO.
The court of public opinion will be different than a court of law, obviously, but I'm saying that before someone jumps in to say I think any different.
And yes, most people probably made their mind up about what kind of person he is before he testified.
I'll add there were a couple good threads about how his defenders in the public forums are shocked...just SHOCKED that prosecutors tried to make him look bad! I got a chuckle out of that.
No one is more offended by something than someone who thinks it would never happen to them (or someone they like).
I would hope that most people wouldn't be that dumb. But I do know better than to be that naïve.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-11-2021, 10:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I believe that was the prosecutor putting him on the stand as the state just wrapped their case. I mean, yeah, the defense could have refused, but other than the horrible crying thing, he didn't do too bad from my understanding.
I saw him hyperventilating, not fake crying. But I suppose that's a matter of perspective. It's amazing how far some will go to paint an eighteen year old as some criminal mastermind. As for the "court of public opinion", that's a complete shit show. We've seen a microcosm of it in this very thread. There are a not insubstantial number of people who will insist upon his guilt despite all evidence showing otherwise. The social media posts on this topic are as willfully ignorant as they are disturbing.
As for letting Rittenhouse take the stand, I think they saw their case as already strong and during practice testimony Kyle probably acquitted himself very well (no pun intended). The prosecutor, on the other hand, engaged in some very questionable antics yesterday. His using Kyle invoking his 5th amendment rights to cast him in a poor light was really unethical, but his flat out ignoring a previous ruling and bringing up a topic he had been expressly told was not to be brought up was worse. Some have speculated that he knows his case is a dumpster fire and he's angling for a mistrial so he can blame his "loss" on the judge and not his garbage case and his poor performance.
(11-08-2021, 10:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's always apparent when you're struggling, you start to resort to the petty insults you criticize others for. That being said, I did exactly as you asked and rewatched it, again.
Odd, I see at least four people in frame trailing Rittenhouse. Of course, the footage is a bit grainy so I wouldn't swear to it. Odd that you failed to see the guy who discharges a firearm into the air. Or maybe not so odd, considering that would damage your position.
RE-direct from the Arbery thread: What I criticize others for is ad hominem and misrepresentation of other board members statements/arguments. A petty insult would be calling someone's argument "silly" or saying it makes me "sad" which I don't do. If I did, I wouldn't then flag others for injecting emotion and feelings into argument.
I have seen the guy discharging a firearm on other video's. Don't see him on the FBI. When he first appears, he is walking parallel to Rittenhouse before he begins to run. When Rittenhouse runs across the parking lot in front of him, he continues in the same direction at the same pace. He chases no one.
(11-08-2021, 10:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Odd, I see at least four people in frame trailing Rittenhouse. Of course, the footage is a bit grainy so I wouldn't swear to it. Odd that you failed to see the guy who discharges a firearm into the air. Or maybe not so odd, considering that would damage your position.
Ahh, yes, the semantic argument. How many people constitute a "mob", Dill? Do apparently invisible people who fire guns into the air count towards that number?
By the way, a "semantic argument" can only occur when people agree on the facts. If you agree there is only one person chasing Rittenhouse, but you still want to call him a "mob," then we have a semantic argument. There might be a semantic argument around the word "chase" if you want to draw anyone standing around when R runs by them into the chase. E.g., they are "trailing" him if they continue walking down the street, in the same direction, after he runs through them.
One can clearly see that only three people are running: Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum some 10 feet behind him, and then McGinnis following 20 feet behind Rosenbaum with a camera. No one else is pursuing Rittenhouse. A couple of people were standing in the otherwise empty parking lot before Rittenhouse ran through it. They make no pursuit. People walking along the street continue walking along the street. The were walking ahead of R before the chase and continue walking as R runs through them into the parking lot, Rosenbaum in pursuit. The guy who fires a "warning shot" was walking prior to the chase, which crosses his path, and continues walking. Not clear he is even in R's vision. In any case, R was focused on Rosenbaum, as his court testimony made clear, the one person he saw chasing him.
Unless your ideology can trump facts, you can't just recruit every bystander into your "mob" because they happen to be in the frame.
(11-08-2021, 10:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Suffice to say, you've offered zero, nothing, not a single factual point that shows Rittenhouse as the aggressor or disproves any of the arguments I and others have made regarding his valid self defense claim. You've got nothing and have therefore resorted to snarky posts not so subtly deriding the positions of those who have proven you wrong with fact based arguments and video evidence. Quite simply, your ideology can't trump facts, no matter how much you wish otherwise. In conclusion, and based on your very bad faith attempts to discuss this issue, I will no longer be entertaining your posts on this subject until you offer facts instead of partisan conjecture.
I've been too "subtle," apparently.
As far as whether Rittenhouse was "guilty," it might help to stop framing the division on this thread as between people who are trying to prove Rittenhouse guilty according to the law and people who are complaining that there is a problem with the law, which could very well allow a teen with an illegally purchased gun to cross state lines, violate a curfew to wander armed among protestors and rioters with police approval, shoot three people in "self defense" and go scott free because it was his "right" to cross state lines and open carry in a riot, defend himself, and afterwards be waived out of the danger area by police, still open carrying.
You are not "proving people wrong" when you explain how the law may let R walk if he shoots someone who grabs at the gun a friend illegally purchased for him because he thought it was cool and brought to a riot planning to "run towards danger."
(11-11-2021, 01:04 PM)Dill Wrote: You are not "proving people wrong" when you explain how the law may let R walk if he shoots someone who grabs at the gun a friend illegally purchased for him because he thought it was cool and brought to a riot planning to "run towards danger."
You will please forgive me for not addressing points I've already addressed numerous times. We are past the point of diminishing returns with this discussion. You've made several factually inaccurate statements and you're never even attempted to address facts based arguments made in return. You have a problem with me using the term "silly"? Please let me know what adjectives I am permitted to use that won't bruise your sensibilities.
As for your argument about the law in general, maybe make a thread about that instead of clogging up an actual fact based discussion on the trial itself? I would be fascinated to see how you think the law should be changed based on this event. I'm sure none of your "fixes" would be unconstitutional at all. In any event, I've exhausted my patience in this regard and, in the interest of maintaining civility I will bid you good day.
(11-11-2021, 10:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I believe that was the prosecutor putting him on the stand as the state just wrapped their case. I mean, yeah, the defense could have refused, but other than the horrible crying thing, he didn't do too bad from my understanding.
GOP darlings and crying during a hearing, name a more iconic duo
(11-11-2021, 12:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I saw him hyperventilating, not fake crying. But I suppose that's a matter of perspective. It's amazing how far some will go to paint an eighteen year old as some criminal mastermind. As for the "court of public opinion", that's a complete shit show. We've seen a microcosm of it in this very thread. There are a not insubstantial number of people who will insist upon his guilt despite all evidence showing otherwise. The social media posts on this topic are as willfully ignorant as they are disturbing.
As for letting Rittenhouse take the stand, I think they saw their case as already strong and during practice testimony Kyle probably acquitted himself very well (no pun intended). The prosecutor, on the other hand, engaged in some very questionable antics yesterday. His using Kyle invoking his 5th amendment rights to cast him in a poor light was really unethical, but his flat out ignoring a previous ruling and bringing up a topic he had been expressly told was not to be brought up was worse. Some have speculated that he knows his case is a dumpster fire and he's angling for a mistrial so he can blame his "loss" on the judge and not his garbage case and his poor performance.
I always thought that was flat out forbidden. Like a serious ethical offense and grounds for reversal on appeal or a mistrial. If he’s trying to get a mistrial then he should lose his job.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Once again, any piece of technology invented after the Texas Instruments calculator continues to baffle and befuddle Judge Schroeder. pic.twitter.com/Sli6ERB5ru
(11-11-2021, 11:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I always thought that was flat out forbidden. Like a serious ethical offense and grounds for reversal on appeal or a mistrial. If he’s trying to get a mistrial then he should lose his job.
(11-11-2021, 11:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I did not know that Grandpa Simpson was a judge.
Once again, any piece of technology invented after the Texas Instruments calculator continues to baffle and befuddle Judge Schroeder. pic.twitter.com/Sli6ERB5ru
This will probably be fobbed off as an attempt at humor in a serious thread. Regardless, this type of ageism is not acceptable. Is it really ok to be a bigot when the target is a person you perceive to be on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum?
To follow up on this, I haven't seen a single cogent argument against any of this judge's rulings. I suppose this level of mockery is the fifth best alternative.
![[Image: JS1OhuVPBgeLswX7XD1cuD8cHWfDgYX1giNSQ0I4...24c14bd777]](https://external-preview.redd.it/JS1OhuVPBgeLswX7XD1cuD8cHWfDgYX1giNSQ0I4u4Y.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e494e8e100152c235284f7c2a0f1f924c14bd777)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 7LNf.gif]](https://i.gifer.com/7LNf.gif)
