Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[BlackDruid96]

The evidence was presented in this thread.

Did you fail to read it, again?

You can scroll back up and read it

- - - Updated - - -

What I understand, that you apparently don't, is that a "not guilty" verdict is not a declaration of innocence.

It's a statement that the court could not determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence that was admitted into the court proceedings.

Nothing more. People who committed a crime get a "not guilty" verdict all the time, and that's intentional.



That's exactly what I'm talking about. Neither of those options are represented by a "not guilty" verdict. There is no declaration of innocence in a "not guilty" verdict.



Even in legal terms, there was no exoneration, but yes, English exists outside the court room and you're just moving goalposts. Which you seem to understand.



Given that we have video from multiple angles? You'd need to demonstrate that video was incorrect somehow. Otherwise, I'll trust my own eyes, thanks.

Particularly as I have absolutely zero obligation, ethical or otherwise, to hold myself to the standards of evidence of criminal proceedings. Those have no relevance outside of said proceedings. They exist specifically to let guilty parties walk free without conviction, to try and reduce the number of false convictions of innocent people that may occur.

- - - Updated - - -



I do. Presented in dozens if not hundreds of posts in this thread. You just can't be arsed to catch up, and I don't want to repeat myself re-debunking already-debunked commentary, just because you are too lazy to inform yourself properly.

My responses are already in the thread here. Get back to me when you have a new argument.

Also, you can stuff the "inherent biases" shit. I gave Rittenhouse a lot more benefit of the doubt before the court case came out. My current stance is because of the improved video coverage that came out during the trial. Before, I was willing to allow that Rosenbaum actually attacked Rittenhouse, unarmed. With the better video, it's clear he never did, and Rittenhouse admitted to that on the stand openly.

I guess you should have been the prosecuting attorney since you seem to know more than what the rest of the world does. I have yet seen you post a valid counter argument, I have only seen you post bias things that doesn't dispute the facts of the case.

[Machismo]

You can scroll back up and read it

- - - Updated - - -



I guess you should have been the prosecuting attorney since you seem to know more than what the rest of the world does. I have yet seen you post a valid counter argument, I have only seen you post bias things that doesn't dispute the facts of the case.

I did, you already admitted to refusing to be bothered to read the posts before, while trying to argue that those posts you refused to read weren't enough to sway you.

[Easo]

Yes, the cops investigating the cops will surely find out what's what.

/s

*eyeroll*
Yeah yeah, they are all bad, blah blah...

[Endus]

The problem here is that,

There's no such thing as a "declaration of innocence" in a court. Which you seem to agree with but keep bringing up anyway.

I bring it up because Rittenhouse supporters keep pretending his verdict was exactly that.

And it wasn't.

You have a completely different interpretation of the facts which 12 jurors disagreed with. They were under obligation to be ethical and professional and most importantly, rid themselves of their biases. Which you seem completely incapable of even entertaining(which is fine because you're a forum poster on a video game forum, not a juror on a court of law)

Jurors are normal people, dude. They don't get special training. That's kind of the point of a jury.

And jurors are obliged to hold to certain standards, like the standards of evidence, that nobody outside of a court is expected or required to abide by.

I guess you should have been the prosecuting attorney since you seem to know more than what the rest of the world does. I have yet seen you post a valid counter argument, I have only seen you post bias things that doesn't dispute the facts of the case.

You only haven't seen it because you refuse to read the thread. That's a you problem.

[draynay]

(which is fine because you're a forum poster on a video game forum, not a juror on a court of law)

There's a difference?

[Orange Joe]

No it is not. We dont do guilt by association . And i have no interest discussing this with progressives who are wailing white supremacy to stay relevant while their movement is dying around them.

- - - Updated - - -



we will see now wont we.

Who is we? In the US guilt by association is 100% a thing in law.

[tikcol]

I bring it up because Rittenhouse supporters keep pretending his verdict was exactly that. And it wasn't.

It wasn't because there's no such thing to begin with. The real reason you bring it up is because you didn't like the verdict. It is you who are pretending that anyone that agreed with the verdict somehow thinks he got exonerated of all his sins, perceived or otherwise. Simply because it's a convenient place to derail the conversation to.

Jurors are normal people, dude. They don't get special training. That's kind of the point of a jury.

Exactly right. 12 normal people reached a conclusion that goes against your own interpretation of the facts. Are we pretending they were 12 normal people biased towards the wrong side?

And jurors are obliged to hold to certain standards, like the standards of evidence, that nobody outside of a court is expected or required to abide by.

What evidence wasn't allowed that you believe would have swayed the jurors towards a different verdict?

- - - Updated - - -

There's a difference?

Even taking your post at face value, the difference is that a juror on a court is ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not someone will spend a long time in prison, potentially the rest of their lives.

I'm sure even a sociopath could see the difference

[Orange Joe]

He's exonerated of wrongdoing in my eyes. See how it goes? This is the crux of the problem right here.

Just because he wasn't found guilty?


So how do you feel about OJ Simpson? Casey Anthony? Do you think those 2 were exonerated of wrongdoing?

[tikcol]

Just because he wasn't found guilty?


So how do you feel about OJ Simpson? Casey Anthony? Do you think those 2 were exonerated of wrongdoing?

I was just using Endus's logic there. As far as I know the US isn't a theocracy

[Endus]

It wasn't because there's no such thing to begin with.

Take it up with the Rittenhouse supporters claiming that the verdict means he was only acting in self defense and was totally in the right to kill two people.

They are the ones making that case. Not me.

The real reason you bring it up is because you didn't like the verdict. It is you who are pretending that anyone that agreed with the verdict somehow thinks he got exonerated of all his sins, perceived or otherwise. Simply because it's a convenient place to derail the conversation to.

Or those people really exist and I'm not making it up. Go back and check; anyone making an argument that Rittenhouse could sue for defamation for people calling him a "white supremacist" or "murderer" are implicitly (if not explicitly) making that argument; you can't claim it's "defamation" when there's legitimate grounds to think he's guilty and got away with his crimes at trial.

Exactly right. 12 normal people reached a conclusion that goes against your own interpretation of the facts. Are we pretending they were 12 normal people biased towards the wrong side?

Skippin' right past the whole "special instructions and standards of evidence" bit, are we?

What evidence wasn't allowed that you believe would have swayed the jurors towards a different verdict?

The evidence where he was talking about wanting to shoot protesters shortly before the day of the shooting.
The video evidence that clarified the detail of him brandishing his weapon and provoking Rosenbaum.
The character evidence about Rittenhouse's propensities towards violence.

Y'know, for starters, for actual evidence the prosecution sought to bring and which was excluded by the Judge. And that's not a complete list, even.

And regardless; the jury is obliged to look to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Literally no one else is, and it's an unreasonable expectation outside of a criminal court. Even civil court cases don't hold to that standard.

[Orange Joe]

I was just using Endus's logic there. As far as I know the US isn't a theocracy

So you don't think he was exonerated? Then what exactly are you arguing here? Just being devils advocate or?

[Endus]

I was just using Endus's logic there. As far as I know the US isn't a theocracy

I mean, you aren't. You're not using "logic" at all.

You're free to think he's innocent, of course. Doesn't mean he is, and doesn't mean anyone else should take your claims seriously without argument and reason behind it. I've provided plenty of such already in the thread to back up my position, and really don't want to waste time dredging it all up to repeat it for people who can't be arsed to do their own homework.

[draynay]

Even taking your post at face value, the difference is that a juror on a court is ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not someone will spend a long time in prison, potentially the rest of their lives.

I'm sure even a sociopath could see the difference

So I'm a sociopath now, but if I get selected to a jury I become a saint, I think I get it.

[tikcol]

I mean, you aren't. You're not using "logic" at all.

You're free to think he's innocent, of course. Doesn't mean he is, and doesn't mean anyone else should take your claims seriously without argument and reason behind it. I've provided plenty of such already in the thread to back up my position, and really don't want to waste time dredging it all up to repeat it for people who can't be arsed to do their own homework.

I believe your real problem is with the judicial system. Your disdain for it is apparent and somewhat justified but you're taking it too far and that's why you lose me.

That's because in this particular trial, in your opinion, nothing worked correctly. Which is very convenient when the verdict was against your beliefs.

Your answer to the question of

What would be an exoneration of wrongdoing in your eyes? Is that even possible?

Given that we have video from multiple angles? You'd need to demonstrate that video was incorrect somehow. Otherwise, I'll trust my own eyes, thanks.

Renders most of what you said afterwards completely moot. Because you're basing everything on the interpretation of a video that was watched countless times by those 12 jurors and they couldn't, not even one of them, reach the same conclusion as you.

[BlackDruid96]

I bring it up because Rittenhouse supporters keep pretending his verdict was exactly that.

And it wasn't.



Jurors are normal people, dude. They don't get special training. That's kind of the point of a jury.

And jurors are obliged to hold to certain standards, like the standards of evidence, that nobody outside of a court is expected or required to abide by.



You only haven't seen it because you refuse to read the thread. That's a you problem.

I have gone through it, haven't seen anything that contradicts eye witness testimony or video, the only thing I have read is your made up narrative.

[shimerra]

I have gone through it, haven't seen anything that contradicts eye witness testimony or video, the only thing I have read is your made up narrative.

No one's surprised you haven't seen it. You seem far more included to responding to the narrative you wish you were being presented with rather than what is actually being said. The issue is it's there. Very obvious for anyone with an ounce of gray matter rolling around between their ears.

[Endus]

I believe your real problem is with the judicial system. Your disdain for it is apparent and somewhat justified but you're taking it too far and that's why you lose me.

I mean, the American judicial system is arguably the most corrupt in the developed world, and it isn't even a close race. Incompetent justices who get their position through politics, not career performance or excellence, whopping amounts of systemic bias, prosecutors who are deeply corrupt and complicit in defending and protecting criminal police officers, etc.

I didn't bring any of that up with regards to this case, however, not until you did.

Your answer to the question of

What would be an exoneration of wrongdoing in your eyes? Is that even possible?

Renders most of what you said afterwards completely moot. Because you're basing everything on the interpretation of a video that was watched countless times by those 12 jurors and they couldn't, not even one of them, reach the same conclusion as you.

Is there any particular reason you keep pretending that standards of evidence and jury instructions don't exist?

Because the counterpoint you're trying to make here is completely nonsensical once you acknowledge those exist.

I have gone through it, haven't seen anything that contradicts eye witness testimony or video, the only thing I have read is your made up narrative.

Nah.

You can't even bring up specifics. You're just engaging in lazy bait and I'm bored with it.

[tikcol]

I mean, the American judicial system is arguably the most corrupt in the developed world, and it isn't even a close race. Incompetent justices who get their position through politics, not career performance or excellence, whopping amounts of systemic bias, prosecutors who are deeply corrupt and complicit in defending and protecting criminal police officers, etc.

I didn't bring any of that up with regards to this case, however, not until you did.



Is there any particular reason you keep pretending that standards of evidence and jury instructions don't exist?

Because the counterpoint you're trying to make here is completely nonsensical once you acknowledge those exist.



Nah.

You can't even bring up specifics. You're just engaging in lazy bait and I'm bored with it.

Those standards exist for a reason..

[Egomaniac]

Does this mean Hillary Clinton is a part of the KKK since she was friends of Robert Byrd who was part of the KKK? I don't believe in guilt by associations is well thought out argument. I have friends that do things I don't condone but that doesn't make me a part of their culture.

Really terrible example. Byrd had been out of the KKK for decades before he even met Hillary.

Rittenhouse wasn't chumming up to former white supremacists. They were buying him drinks because he killed protestors. He could have said "No thanks guys... I don't feel like killing people is something I should be celebrating or be celebrated for".

[Orange Joe]

So you don't think he was exonerated? Then what exactly are you arguing here? Just being devils advocate or?

@tikcol


Can't answer or what?