US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Oh. Speaking of. Ladies and gents, today’s GOP:

Click to expand...

The competition is unfair, though, because so many strong competitors don’t have video clips of them readily available!

Oh, and let’s not forget the Senate, where douchebags like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul & Ron Johnson (a smattering of a significantly incomplete list) reside.

The make my stomach turn and I fear for the future of my children with these morons having their hands on the levers of power.
 
domalino said:
I just finished listening to a 2 hour long deep dive on a law podcast (Opening Arguments, always excellent) which goes almost 100% against this, and I'm inclined to trust them more than an op-ed on The Hill, especially having perused the authors twitter feed.

In particular they point out that bringing additional lesser charges to the jury at the end of a case is completely routine in these cases, and it strikes me as very disingenuous for the op-ed author to not acknowledge that and instead present it as a failure.
Click to expand...
It's not routine. But it isn't out of order either. It happens. Yes, it was a bit overplayed by the Op-ed writer.
domalino said:
Their overarching points were

- The Judge has behaved really fairly. When he got mad at the prosecutor it was well deserved and he'd actually let a few things go beforehand. There's a disconnect with the media because we all saw him rip the prosecutor a new one, but the jury (who get sent in and out all the time over really small things) had no idea.
Click to expand...
The ripping of the judge in the media has been unfortunate. He has been quite fair. As most judges tend to be.

domalino said:
- The prosecutor hasn't been terrible. He had a really bad opening 10mins on the cross examination of Rittenhouse, but that's the time to go for a risky line of questioning that might backfire because the important thing is how you finish 4+ hours later, that's what the jury tend to remember.
Click to expand...
The prosecutors have been poor. Partly coz they have a weak case and party coz they were just not well prepared often.
domalino said:
-Trying to impeach Rittenhouse for his silence after was shot down by the judge like the Hill article says, but they didn't mention that he very nearly allowed it when he was told that Rittenhouse has been giving loads of interviews about the case and the events of that night.
Click to expand...
No matter how you dice this, it was stupid of the Prosecutor. And the Judge went ballistic. Rightly so.
domalino said:
Also OA is at odds with The Hill writer thinking Rittenhouse would be tempted to not put Rittenhouse on the stand because self-defence is an affirmative defence, so he has to prove to the jury he was in danger and had to protect his life. Almost impossible to do that without direct testimony.
Click to expand...
True

domalino said:
There's a lot of things in this Op-ed they've debunked before, a year ago, with the overcharging and the simultaneous charging as an adult and u18 weapons violations - those two things do not contradict each other, the law is really clear you can be tried as an adult under 18.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Op-ed was contending it was contradictory. Just looks wierd on it's face. And the whole line of argument that he was a kid excited to kill people because of first person video games also had that vibe. On one hand, you are arguing he knew what he was doing and this had the sense of an adult, while on the other hand arguing he was reenacting video game play... Just came of incongruous.
domalino said:
The end of the cross went really well for the prosecution. He nailed Rittenhouse on quite a few really important point in particular for not giving any medical aid to the 2 men he shot, even though he told the court there was no one near him at that point, he was in direct sight of the police who could protect him so he wasn't in danger, he had his medical kit and the surviving victim was calling for medical help.
Click to expand...
I've heard people say this, I suppose it must be those who want Rittenhouse convicted. It's insane that anyone thinks Rittenhouse should be giving aid to men he shot. It's a silly point. Rittenhouse claim of giving aid or wanting to mostly encompasses the period before he ended up in a confrontation and firing shots.
domalino said:
The prosecutors also won the absolutely massive point that Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people before they threatened him, and got him to contradict himself over whether holding a gun is provocation or not.
Click to expand...
No. The prosecutor didn't win this point at all. He argued Rittenhouse pointed a gun at a couple ( who they suspiciously chose not to bring on as a witness) and that pointing caused Rosenbaum to get mad and accost Rittenhouse them chase him. At best it was a stretch.

But the bigger problem is the issue of Rosenbaums character, mental state, agitative nature (all documented on video), and his girlfriend testifying he may have been off his meds, all point to the likelihood that he was the aggressor and not a defender of someone else who got a gun pointed at them.
domalino said:
To be honest 2 hours is a bloody long podcast and but I'll post it here when it's released tomorrow and you might find it worthwhile. It made me much more optimistic about the outcome than the recent press coverage.
Click to expand...
You are right, 2 hours is bloody long. But following most of the case over a 10-11 days period is even longer. Juries are a riddle, but on the facts, anything other than an acquital would be quite surprising.

It was a mostly one sided case.
 
mat said:
Rittenhouse found not guilty on all counts.


It's gonna kick off.
Click to expand...
Anyone who watched the trial could see this from a mile away. The most one sided trial I've ever seen.

Frankly, if it wasn't for politics, I doubt they'd have brought a case.

There was just too much video evidence.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Mistrial from start to finish.

White privilege on full display. Totally setting a president with this.
Click to expand...
There's some agent provocateurs in the crowd outside.

As soon as people were being interviewed out side they started triggering people around the man being interviewed.

My money is on Gaetz stoking it up in the next hour nationally.
 

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.
youtube.com youtube.com

Here we go…!

AR-15
Open carry state
Any “aggressive advance” (active shooter???) and “BOOM, you’re dead! I acted in self defence!”

This is a concept I have spoken about regarding police officers protecting themselves and their weapons from “unarmed” attackers in the past.

Now, it appears it can apply to vigilante, active shooters, on the streets of America!

Time to tool up and stake your turf, America!
 
Dax777 said:
Anyone who watched the trial could see this from a mile away. The most one sided trial I've ever seen.

Frankly, if it wasn't for politics, I doubt they'd have brought a case.

There was just too much video evidence.
Click to expand...
1) Bullshit!
2) Everything related to guns and murder is politics.
3) Font forget this was a protest in response to another black man being shot! The PRESIDENT said bad things about the cops (Idiotic!) and people took to the streets, where a white man shot other unarmed who’re men, and now walks free!!!

There is a certain irony to it all, but let’s watch and see what happens from here. I doubt we have seen the tip of this iceberg yet, because it’s still forming!!
 
Sounds totally fucked up. Person goes into a different town armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shoots 3 people who were unarmed and it’s OK to do so?

The very fact that he was going equipped says it all. But, eh, that’s the rules in the US.
 
CNN being very balanced for a change.

Quoting various lawyers and politicians trying to use the verdict for political gain and breaking down their statements using the facts submitted in court.


When (or if) the emotions cool down I'd like to revisit this case with cool head.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Sounds totally fucked up. Person goes into a different town armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shoots 3 people who were unarmed and it’s OK to do so?

The very fact that he was going equipped says it all. But, eh, that’s the rules in the US.
Click to expand...
1. Crossing State lines isn't a crime. Don't know why so many repeat this.
2. Only 1 of the 3 men he shot was unarmed. But again, being unarmed doesn't mean you aren't a danger.
3. Yes it's okay to shoot people who physically attack you. I don't understand why anyone will think it's not.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
1) Bullshit!
Click to expand...
What part? It was a decidedly one sided trial. The evidence favored the defense and the Prosecutors we're very poor. Are least 1 was. The other was ok.
ChicagoBlue said:
2) Everything related to guns and murder is politics.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose that's why a case was brought. Coz the facts didn't support bringing one.
ChicagoBlue said:
3) Font forget this was a protest in response to another black man being shot! The PRESIDENT said bad things about the cops (Idiotic!) and people took to the streets, where a white man shot other unarmed who’re men, and now walks free!!!
Click to expand...
Yes. Kyle's shooting had little to so with the protest though. I don't know why you are pointing out Rittenhouse race. You do know he shot 3 white men right?

I know there is an attempt to racialize this event. But the facts are not cooperating. Nor were those men unarmed. One had a pistol. The other had a skateboard that he used (twice) on the defendant.
ChicagoBlue said:
There is a certain irony to it all, but let’s watch and see what happens from here. I doubt we have seen the tip of this iceberg yet, because it’s still forming!!
Click to expand...
Hopefully nothing would happen. But I must say for someone who waxes lyrical often about how Trump and his minions are trying to undermine America.

I am shocked you've said very little of about the attempts to intimidate the jury. By video taping them and some MSNBC activist tailing their bus.

Thw attempts to influence the jury through mob like intimidation should be the biggest story of this trial. Not the outcome.

There was nothing surprising about the acquital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top