Red Mosquito

the way i read it, victims is out entirely, but the other descriptors are still in play for closing arguments.

spike wrote:the way i read it, victims is out entirely, but the other descriptors are still in play for closing arguments.

I think this is correct, but that wont stop the Twitter headline from implying otherwise!

The legal process takes suuuuch a long time.

Why did they wait to hold this trial until everyone had pretty much forgotten about it.

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:the way i read it, victims is out entirely, but the other descriptors are still in play for closing arguments.

I think this is correct, but that wont stop the Twitter headline from implying otherwise!

We’re going in circles here. Rittenhouse hasn’t been convicted of murdering these individuals, so they cannot be termed victims. But at the same time, these individuals have not been convicted of rioting/looting/arson, but they can be termed these things. It’s a double standard with racist undertones.

spike wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:the way i read it, victims is out entirely, but the other descriptors are still in play for closing arguments.

I think this is correct, but that wont stop the Twitter headline from implying otherwise!

We’re going in circles here. Rittenhouse hasn’t been convicted of murdering these individuals, so they cannot be termed victims. But at the same time, these individuals have not been convicted of rioting/looting/arson, but they can be termed these things. It’s a double standard with racist undertones.

'Racist' is anything I don't like. Was Rosenbaum First Nations or something?

Its not about convicting anyone. Its about biasing jurors prior to any fact pattern being presented.

After opening statments, either side can use whatever terms they can provide fact patterns to justify using. The prosecution is going to call Rittenhouse a murderer or assailant or whatever in closing. You really think they have to wait for a conviction to do so?

The defense, if they have evidence to support it can call the decedents arsonists or whatever after presenting said evidence. Oh no, the terrible injustice of not calling anyone a piece of shit before presenting facts!

spike wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:the way i read it, victims is out entirely, but the other descriptors are still in play for closing arguments.

I think this is correct, but that wont stop the Twitter headline from implying otherwise!

We’re going in circles here. Rittenhouse hasn’t been convicted of murdering these individuals, so they cannot be termed victims. But at the same time, these individuals have not been convicted of rioting/looting/arson, but they can be termed these things. It’s a double standard with racist undertones.

Race card? Seriously? Come on man.

Bammer wrote:

spike wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:the way i read it, victims is out entirely, but the other descriptors are still in play for closing arguments.

I think this is correct, but that wont stop the Twitter headline from implying otherwise!

We’re going in circles here. Rittenhouse hasn’t been convicted of murdering these individuals, so they cannot be termed victims. But at the same time, these individuals have not been convicted of rioting/looting/arson, but they can be termed these things. It’s a double standard with racist undertones.

Race card? Seriously? Come on man.

The real crime was trying to prevent arson and looting. These three white guys were doing the lords work fighting for racial justice, somehow.

spike wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:the way i read it, victims is out entirely, but the other descriptors are still in play for closing arguments.

I think this is correct, but that wont stop the Twitter headline from implying otherwise!

We’re going in circles here. Rittenhouse hasn’t been convicted of murdering these individuals, so they cannot be termed victims. But at the same time, these individuals have not been convicted of rioting/looting/arson, but they can be termed these things. It’s a double standard with racist undertones.

Sorry if that was confusing, I was pointing out that if all joe internet user saw on this was the Twitter headline they would think the judge was protecting Kyle

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:the way i read it, victims is out entirely, but the other descriptors are still in play for closing arguments.

I think this is correct, but that wont stop the Twitter headline from implying otherwise!

We’re going in circles here. Rittenhouse hasn’t been convicted of murdering these individuals, so they cannot be termed victims. But at the same time, these individuals have not been convicted of rioting/looting/arson, but they can be termed these things. It’s a double standard with racist undertones.

Sorry if that was confusing, I was pointing out that if all joe internet user saw on this was the Twitter headline they would think the judge was protecting Kyle

Its almost as if the coverage is bad and lacking in nuance on purpose.

Rittenhouse trial day 3. A witness heard the first decedent (Rosenbaum) threaten a group including Rittenhouse that if he caught any of them alone, he would, "fucking kill them".

Prosecutor repeatedly implies that Rosenbaum was not a threat because he was only 5'3". Should we call it the manlet pass?

Notable from previous days evidence was some livestream footage that included text to speech comments from those following the livestreamer. Every few moments a chime with a robotic female voice announcing a tip from whatever user and the contents of their comment. Kinda undermined the seriousness of the undertaking. Definitely a comment in there about "social workers shooting each other"

simple schoolboy wrote:Rittenhouse trial day 3. A witness heard the first decedent (Rosenbaum) threaten a group including Rittenhouse that if he caught any of them alone, he would, "fucking kill them".

Prosecutor repeatedly implies that Rosenbaum was not a threat because he was only 5'3". Should we call it the manlet pass?

Notable from previous days evidence was some livestream footage that included text to speech comments from those following the livestreamer. Every few moments a chime with a robotic female voice announcing a tip from whatever user and the contents of their comment. Kinda undermined the seriousness of the undertaking. Definitely a comment in there about "social workers shooting each other"

The witnesses for the prosecution do not seem to be helping the prosecution much.

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Rittenhouse trial day 3. A witness heard the first decedent (Rosenbaum) threaten a group including Rittenhouse that if he caught any of them alone, he would, "fucking kill them".

Prosecutor repeatedly implies that Rosenbaum was not a threat because he was only 5'3". Should we call it the manlet pass?

Notable from previous days evidence was some livestream footage that included text to speech comments from those following the livestreamer. Every few moments a chime with a robotic female voice announcing a tip from whatever user and the contents of their comment. Kinda undermined the seriousness of the undertaking. Definitely a comment in there about "social workers shooting each other"

The witnesses for the prosecution do not seem to be helping the prosecution much.

Why exactly was the FBI involved?

simple schoolboy wrote: Prosecutor repeatedly implies that Rosenbaum was not a threat because he was only 5'3"

Nutjob-Twitter suggests that the Rittenhouse trial is basically over... what the hell happened?

Prosecution's witness lied to the cops in all his interviews, established himself as unreliable and proved Rittenhouse acted in self defense when shooting Huber and Grosskreutz (the witness in question).

Grosskreutz's buddy was subpeona-ed for Wednesday, where he will either purjure himself or testify that Grosskreutz told him after the shooting that he intended to kill Rittenhouse.

And we have yet to start on the defenses' witnesses.

Its possible that the defense will somehow fall apart, but its hard to imagine how it could do so worse than the prosecution.

In the interest of avoiding further civil unrest, we can expect the media to do nuanced, even handed coverage, right?

simple schoolboy wrote:Its possible that the defense will somehow fall apart, but its hard to imagine how it could do so worse than the prosecution.

In the interest of avoiding further civil unrest, we can expect the media to do nuanced, even handed coverage, right?

There won’t be riots over dead white guys.

macphisto wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Its possible that the defense will somehow fall apart, but its hard to imagine how it could do so worse than the prosecution.

In the interest of avoiding further civil unrest, we can expect the media to do nuanced, even handed coverage, right?

There won’t be riots over dead white guys.

Whoa whoa whoa there. Spike said this was a racist shooting.

I’m so confused.

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Its possible that the defense will somehow fall apart, but its hard to imagine how it could do so worse than the prosecution.

In the interest of avoiding further civil unrest, we can expect the media to do nuanced, even handed coverage, right?

There won’t be riots over dead white guys.

Whoa whoa whoa there. Spike said this was a racist shooting.

I’m so confused.

This white supremacist interrupted the grieving process of a traumatized city. He needs to be punished for this, not for killing some crackers.