Rondeau is malicious yet ineffectual.
* * *
Zullo said it. Birthers elevate their beliefs, which are based on some sort of factual scrap, to above court rulings.
Rondeau is malicious yet ineffectual.
Killer Kyle is factually correct. Acquitted or not he did in fact kill 2 people.
Right, there's no question he killed people and committed a homicide. People distinguish justifiable homicide from murder. Self-defense is one of several reasons commonly acknowledged for a justifiable homicide.MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 8:21 pm This discussion reminds of a death in the past year or two in which the death certificate stated that the cause of death was "homicide." For coroners, "homicide" has a meaning which does not connote criminal liability.
This is reason #436 why I can't be a Criminal Lawyer. I'd call them "the now dead people who interrupted the path of the Defendant's projectiles."humblescribe wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 6:52 pm Thank you, Maybenaut, for that clarification.
I defer to the knowledge of you and your elk in these matters. But it does not mean that the arguments advanced by lawyers and sustained by the judiciary practicing their crafts are sound. I find it hypocritical of the courts that lawyers and witnesses can use strong modifiers and verbs in their argument and testimony, yet they cannot refer to a decedent whose life ended prematurely at the hands of another as a victim. In fact, it is insulting to the decedent, his family, and The People that we have to scrounge up euphemisms and fancy locutions in order to be Judicially Correct.
I am not trying to be smart. To me words like aggressive, attack, point, threaten, ridicule -- there are zillions -- should also be disallowed at trial. Yet, I have seen and heard lawyers and witnesses use them. If those words are permitted, then victim should be too.
Apologies for the rant.
Meh. I'm fully capable of believing someone in one case that was convicted is not actually a murderer, while believing someone in another case who was not convicted is one. The actual conviction is not necessarily what I base my belief on. It doesn't make me disingenuous or dishonest, it simply means that I don't always agree with a given verdict, guilty or innocent. And that's ok, and not actionable, I'm allowed my opinion.andersweinstein wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:14 pm Right, there's no question he killed people and committed a homicide. People distinguish justifiable homicide from murder. Self-defense is one of several reasons commonly acknowledged for a justifiable homicide.
To me, the issue is similar to the one raised about the term "victims". There is literal truth, and then there are the connotations and implications standardly evoked when you use this or that term. It is possible to create a very misleading impression through selection, juxtaposition and omission while stating only literal truths.
f you say someone was a "killer" and stop there, you may speak the literal truth so that no one can fault you on that score. But you imply lots of things that may -- arguably -- not be accurate. For when you use this term, I think your audience is very unlikely to be left with a lively sense that you might be talking about an innocent victim forced into a justified killing by a threat on his life.
If it were a different case, with someone you sympathized with, whom you fully accepted killed only in justifiable self-defense, I think you would be very unlikely to just keep describing them as a "killer" and leaving things at that.
For that reason I think it's often disingenuous to keep insisting on the literal truth of this or that terminology. It is pretending there is not rhetorical work willfully being done by these word choices. Have your opinion, sure. But be honest about it.
I don't see that what I said disagreed with any of that. But it could be the point was not clear.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:21 pm Meh. I'm fully capable of believing someone in one case that was convicted is not actually a murderer, while believing someone in another case who was not convicted is one. The actual conviction is not necessarily what I base my belief on. It doesn't make me disingenuous or dishonest, it simply means that I don't always agree with a given verdict, guilty or innocent. And that's ok, and not actionable, I'm allowed my opinion.
Video showed him shooting someone who was down after he shot him, then walking away. I didn't need a jury conviction to have an opinion about that.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 12:21 pm Meh. I'm fully capable of believing someone in one case that was convicted is not actually a murderer, while believing someone in another case who was not convicted is one. The actual conviction is not necessarily what I base my belief on. It doesn't make me disingenuous or dishonest, it simply means that I don't always agree with a given verdict, guilty or innocent. And that's ok, and not actionable, I'm allowed my opinion.
I don't have an answer to your question, but I do think that the word "victim" has certain inescapable connotations. If someone is a victim that means, in the minds of many, that someone did something bad to him. In this case, calling the deceased people victims in Rittenhouse's trial implies that someone murdered them, and since no was contesting the fact that the bullet that killed them came from a weapon fired by Rittenhouse, the implication is that Rittenhouse is the murderer. I think that is why the judge disallowed it.
My memory is foggy at times, but I do not believe Kyle and his pal were ever legally contracted to protect that business, verbally or otherwise.noblepa wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 4:25 pm [[ My personal opinion is that he was in a place he shouldn't have been, was hired by someone who shouldn't have hired him to do a job that shouldn't have been done, with a weapon he really shouldn't have had in the first place. Someone died because of all that. To me, it was less important whether or not he deliberately set out to kill someone.
BTW, have the families of any of the victims filed a wrongful death suit against the owner of the business (car dealership?), who allegedly hired Rittenhouse?
And if he needed protection, a sidearm would have been enough IMO. Nice summary.neonzx wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 5:01 pmMy memory is foggy at times, but I do not believe Kyle and his pal were ever legally contracted to protect that business, verbally or otherwise.noblepa wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 4:25 pm [[ My personal opinion is that he was in a place he shouldn't have been, was hired by someone who shouldn't have hired him to do a job that shouldn't have been done, with a weapon he really shouldn't have had in the first place. Someone died because of all that. To me, it was less important whether or not he deliberately set out to kill someone.
BTW, have the families of any of the victims filed a wrongful death suit against the owner of the business (car dealership?), who allegedly hired Rittenhouse?
And the altercations took place far away from the business -- he needed to roam the streets with an assault styled weapon over his shoulder. But he was there to help; a medic. With no training. See.
He couldn't legally, most states require you to be 21 to carry a pistol....unless you're in the military...pipistrelle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 5:50 pm
And if he needed protection, a sidearm would have been enough IMO. Nice summary.
It is Wisconsin. I think it's an anything goes state.Frater I*I wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:11 pmHe couldn't legally, most states require you to be 21 to carry a pistol....unless you're in the military...pipistrelle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 5:50 pm
And if he needed protection, a sidearm would have been enough IMO. Nice summary.
He's from Illinois though, 21 there...
You can possess a handgun and hunt(!) with it in Wisconsin when you are 18. Which he wasn't at the time.neonzx wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:38 pmIt is Wisconsin. I think it's an anything goes state.Frater I*I wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 6:11 pm He couldn't legally, most states require you to be 21 to carry a pistol....unless you're in the military...
Yes, but he was in Wisconsin when it went down.
The Rosenbaum shooting took place on Car Source property. The business had three locations which Richards referred to as Car Source 1 2, and 3. Car Source 1 had all the cars on the lot torched the night before. Rittenhouse wound up taking a position across the street from that at Car Source 2, the one where people stood on the roof and police rolled by and tossed them waters. He roamed in the immediate vicinity south of the police line in his search for takers for his first aid services ("anyone need Medical?" again and again). He got separated from his escort Balch, was stopped by the police from returning to his "base" and got a call about a fire in Car Source 3, so grabbed a fire extinguisher and headed down the road to that lot, continuing to call out "anyone need medical". That is where Rosenbaum accosted him and he fled into the lot. His testimony was that he was on the way to make himself useful by putting out the fire in the car owned by that business.
That was some initial speculation, but it was a little garbled. A little bit earlier in the evening there was a dustup between protestors and armed civilians at the Ultimate convenience store/gas station, captured on video. Someone from the gas station had walked over and extinguished a dumpster fire that folks including Rosenbaum and Ziminski had set, presumably to use as an obstacle against the slowly-advancing line of armored vehicles being used to push the protestors south, away from the courthouse/civic plaza where the protest started. And protestors crowded around them, erupting with shouts at the armed men gathered there, with Rosenbaum cursing and yelling at them ("shoot me, n***r") and acting like he wanted to start a fight.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:04 pm Correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn’t the whole reason Rosenbaum encountered Rittenhouse is because Rittenhouse was using the extinguisher to put out a dumpster fire Rosenbaum lit, pissing Rosenbaum off?