Page 2 of 45 [ 709 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 45  Next

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,268
Location: Northern California

27 Oct 2021, 4:43 am

Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
My problem is that we don’t have another word for it. In the English language, the person who took a bullet is a shooting victim, without regard to his innocence or guilt in other matters, and without regard to whether or not there was justification for the shooting.


I don't think that tracks, we don't say someone was attacking someone when they were the victim of self defense, we usually just say they were shot, or stabbed, or bludgeoned, etc. "Rosenbaum was pursuing Rittenhouse and attempting to wrest his rifle away when he was shot" is a perfectly coherent sentence without the word "victim", which would actually sound strange in that formulation.


“When he was shot” works.

But we use “victim” with all sorts of violent actions. Stabbing victim. Assault victim. It takes gymnastics to never use the word.

The person who holds the gun is the shooter, and the person who gets shot is the victim. For whatever reason it never took off to call them the “gunshot recipient.”


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,212
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Oct 2021, 4:58 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
“When he was shot” works.

But we use “victim” with all sorts of violent actions. Stabbing victim. Assault victim. It takes gymnastics to never use the word.

The person who holds the gun is the shooter, and the person who gets shot is the victim. For whatever reason it never took off to call them the “gunshot recipient.”


It's different in a court of law, the word does carry prejudicial connotations. When would it ever be necessary to use the word? It's always "X was doing Y when they were shot", not "X was doing Y when they were the victim of a gunshot wound", it's almost like that thing reporters do to soften police negligence, "the officers were re-holstering their firearms when one discharged" rather than "One of the officers negligently fired their weapon". The name escapes me at the moment, but it's generally recognized as a fallacy.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,268
Location: Northern California

27 Oct 2021, 5:42 am

Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
“When he was shot” works.

But we use “victim” with all sorts of violent actions. Stabbing victim. Assault victim. It takes gymnastics to never use the word.

The person who holds the gun is the shooter, and the person who gets shot is the victim. For whatever reason it never took off to call them the “gunshot recipient.”


It's different in a court of law, the word does carry prejudicial connotations. When would it ever be necessary to use the word? It's always "X was doing Y when they were shot", not "X was doing Y when they were the victim of a gunshot wound", it's almost like that thing reporters do to soften police negligence, "the officers were re-holstering their firearms when one discharged" rather than "One of the officers negligently fired their weapon". The name escapes me at the moment, but it's generally recognized as a fallacy.


Running scenarios in my head, I can see how the descriptive testimonies can work.

In many ways, I’m just fascinated to realize that the one word we commonly use to describe the recipient side of the action is a also word with clear implications that won’t always fit.

I won’t touch the whole set of words the defense will be allowed to use beyond saying it makes me uncomfortable.

And I definitely won’t touch the potential for a self-defense argument.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,485
Location: Long Island, New York

27 Oct 2021, 10:17 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
I won’t touch the whole set of words the defense will be allowed to use beyond saying it makes me uncomfortable.
.

I will go there. It seems inconsistent for the judge to not allow a potentially prejudicial word to be used at all by the prosecutors but allow a number of potentially prejudicial words to be used by the defense albeit conditionally.

Off Topic
Non legal personal feelings discussion to follow.

For arguments sake assume Rittenhouse is legally innocent.
I have been anti BLM, scoffed at the “mostly peaceful protest” arguments since the whole “George Floyd Riots” started.

Rittenhouse traveled 21 miles to intentionally go to the scene of a riot. He is a vigilante with a hero complex. Morally this has some similarities to a person who shoots his parents and not only complains about being an orphan but gains a whole segment of the population that rallies to his side.

I would feel sympathy for the owner of the dealership if he killed rioters attempting to burn down his business. Rittenhouse should have stayed home and minded his own business. The rallying of support for this guy is all about the perception that Rittenhouse is symbolic member of ones “team”, no different for the often misplaced sympathy for the rioters.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,212
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Oct 2021, 1:50 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
I will go there. It seems inconsistent for the judge to not allow a potentially prejudicial word to be used at all by the prosecutors but allow a number of potentially prejudicial words to be used by the defense albeit conditionally.


It's perfectly consistent considering who is on trial, and that they're only allowed to use the words in question if they can demonstrate that they're accurate. If Grossenkruetz where on trial for being a felon in possession and/or rioting related offenses, I'm sure he would receive the same considerations to avoid a mistrial.

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Rittenhouse traveled 21 miles to intentionally go to the scene of a riot. He is a vigilante with a hero complex. Morally this has some similarities to a person who shoots his parents and not only complains about being an orphan but gains a whole segment of the population that rallies to his side.


Lots of unsupported assumptions there, as KR was documented cleaning graffiti and otherwise peacefully volunteering earlier in the day, so a better characterization would be someone who wanted to help out, and chose to do so while armed (prudently, as it turned out). Not a soul would have been harmed had they not attacked KR first, as can be seen in the numerous videos of the incident, he just would have gone home after standing around with a slung rifle for a few hours, no big deal.

ASPartOfMe wrote:
I would feel sympathy for the owner of the dealership if he killed rioters attempting to burn down his business. Rittenhouse should have stayed home and minded his own business. The rallying of support for this guy is all about the perception that Rittenhouse is symbolic member of ones “team”, no different for the often misplaced sympathy for the rioters.


Again, many unsupported assumptions there, I initially came to this story fully expecting to see a bad shooting after the headlines along the lines of "MAGA Teen Guns Down Peaceful Protestors!", only to look at the video and go "hmm, this actually looks like legit self defense" after seeing how he was attempting to flee and being actively attacked when all three shooting occurred. You can argue all you want about what a bad idea his going there was, I won't disagree, it was stupid to put himself in harms way, but that cuts both ways, as the 3 that he shot also shouldn't have been there, and they definitely shouldn't have attacked a kid who was actively trying to get away from them. If you watch very carefully, Huber actually shoots himself after hitting KR with his skateboard, as you can clearly see that he's got his hand on the rifle barrel and pulling it towards himself when he's shot in the abdomen, which would fire the gun if a finger was on the trigger (which was the case).

Tldr; I don't care what team the kid is on, the video shows legit self defense, and people have been tying themselves in rhetorical knots for over a year now trying to say otherwise, most of whom know nothing about guns, law, or self defense statutes.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,485
Location: Long Island, New York

27 Oct 2021, 7:23 pm

Dox47 wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
I will go there. It seems inconsistent for the judge to not allow a potentially prejudicial word to be used at all by the prosecutors but allow a number of potentially prejudicial words to be used by the defense albeit conditionally.


It's perfectly consistent considering who is on trial, and that they're only allowed to use the words in question if they can demonstrate that they're accurate. If Grossenkruetz where on trial for being a felon in possession and/or rioting related offenses, I'm sure he would receive the same considerations to avoid a mistrial.

This was unusual consideration given. The odds of a mistrial had the word “victim” been allowed seems minute.

Dox47 wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Rittenhouse traveled 21 miles to intentionally go to the scene of a riot. He is a vigilante with a hero complex. Morally this has some similarities to a person who shoots his parents and not only complains about being an orphan but gains a whole segment of the population that rallies to his side.


Lots of unsupported assumptions there, as KR was documented cleaning graffiti and otherwise peacefully volunteering earlier in the day, so a better characterization would be someone who wanted to help out, and chose to do so while armed (prudently, as it turned out). Not a soul would have been harmed had they not attacked KR first, as can be seen in the numerous videos of the incident, he just would have gone home after standing around with a slung rifle for a few hours, no big deal.

ASPartOfMe wrote:
I would feel sympathy for the owner of the dealership if he killed rioters attempting to burn down his business. Rittenhouse should have stayed home and minded his own business. The rallying of support for this guy is all about the perception that Rittenhouse is symbolic member of ones “team”, no different for the often misplaced sympathy for the rioters.


Again, many unsupported assumptions there, I initially came to this story fully expecting to see a bad shooting after the headlines along the lines of "MAGA Teen Guns Down Peaceful Protestors!", only to look at the video and go "hmm, this actually looks like legit self defense" after seeing how he was attempting to flee and being actively attacked when all three shooting occurred. You can argue all you want about what a bad idea his going there was, I won't disagree, it was stupid to put himself in harms way, but that cuts both ways, as the 3 that he shot also shouldn't have been there, and they definitely shouldn't have attacked a kid who was actively trying to get away from them. If you watch very carefully, Huber actually shoots himself after hitting KR with his skateboard, as you can clearly see that he's got his hand on the rifle barrel and pulling it towards himself when he's shot in the abdomen, which would fire the gun if a finger was on the trigger (which was the case).

Tldr; I don't care what team the kid is on, the video shows legit self defense, and people have been tying themselves in rhetorical knots for over a year now trying to say otherwise, most of whom know nothing about guns, law, or self defense statutes.

Yes unsupported, that is why I put it in an off topic box and said first thing it was about personal feelings. A person can want to help a business by washing graffiti and come to the scene with the hope of being attacked so he can shoot some rioters or more likely threaten them. His trying to run away does not disprove play hero intent. Getting into an actual situation is different.

When I mentioned teams it was not about you personally.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,268
Location: Northern California

27 Oct 2021, 7:36 pm

The more I dug into the case, the more complex I realized it was. Which is why I want to trust the judicial process. Yes I have opinions, but I don’t see them as solid enough to share. What I also don’t see are any heroes, just misguided idealists that I remember feeling (mostly) unintentionally worked together to escalate the situation.

What I am solid on: KR should have stayed home, and no one needed to die.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,409

27 Oct 2021, 8:05 pm

Regardless of the outcome of this trial, one thing is for sure....Kyle Rittenhouse is a psychopathic little s**t.

Hi defense team have been rather busy burying evidence that incriminates the little psycho

1. He has an association with the far right Proud boys
2. He has an association with the far right Kenosha Militia
3.a cellphone video taken weeks before the shootings in Kenosha in which Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot men leaving a pharmacy.
4.In September, the judge denied a request from prosecutors to admit a video taken several months before the shooting that showed Mr. Rittenhouse hitting a teenager in the midst of a fight that involved his sister.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/us/k ... ctims.html



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,408
Location: Melbourne, Australia

27 Oct 2021, 9:18 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
What I am solid on: KR should have stayed home, and no one needed to die.


The same could also be said for those who were shot...


_________________
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,212
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Oct 2021, 9:23 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Regardless of the outcome of this trial, one thing is for sure....Kyle Rittenhouse is a psychopathic little s**t.


Shhh, adults are talking.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 105,624
Location: the island of defective toy santas

27 Oct 2021, 9:37 pm

disgusting legalistic hair-splitting.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,212
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Oct 2021, 9:40 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
The more I dug into the case, the more complex I realized it was.


Yes and no, the self defense claim is fairly straightforward, the only iffy part is the start of the incident involving Rosenbaum, but I'm fairly confident that is going to be ruled justified based on the video and other video of Rosenbaum aggressively provoking other people that night. I think it's going to come down to the fact that KR was actively fleeing at the point of all 3 shootings, even the most restrictive states allow lethal self defense when cornered, nothing else really matters. Given his age and inexperience, it's actually pretty remarkable that KR only shot the people who directly attacked him, that he held fire on Grossenkreutz even though he had a pistol in his hand until Grossenkreutz made a move first, and that all 3 had previous criminal records (which doesn't make them guilty but provides insight into their character and lack of impulse control).

People just want to project their own politics onto this and can't get past the fact that it's not illegal to walk around with a slung rifle, aside from a potential minor in possession charge here due to the age of KR at the time.

DW_a_mom wrote:
What I am solid on: KR should have stayed home, and no one needed to die.


The same could be said of everyone present that night.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,212
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Oct 2021, 9:41 pm

auntblabby wrote:
disgusting legalistic hair-splitting.


Adults are talking.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,212
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Oct 2021, 9:48 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
This was unusual consideration given. The odds of a mistrial had the word “victim” been allowed seems minute.


No, it's actually not, it's a common ruling in criminal defense trials:

https://reason.com/2021/10/27/giving-ky ... a-scandal/

Quote:
Andrew Fleischman, an Atlanta attorney at Ross & Pines LLC who specializes in appeals, tells Reason the request is fairly "boilerplate," and the decision to grant it is "not necessarily a sign of favor." The Kenosha News reported earlier this month that disallowing the term "victim" is Schroeder's "standard practice in criminal cases and is not unique to his handling of the Rittenhouse case." Anecdotally, other defense attorneys have weighed in that in their respective jurisdictions, it is perfectly common to disallow the term "victim." The Chicago Tribune explained that such rulings were "not uncommon in self-defense cases where there is a dispute over who bears responsibility."

Links in the piece.

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Yes unsupported, that is why I put it in an off topic box and said first thing it was about personal feelings. A person can want to help a business by washing graffiti and come to the scene with the hope of being attacked so he can shoot some rioters or more likely threaten them. His trying to run away does not disprove play hero intent. Getting into an actual situation is different.

When I mentioned teams it was not about you personally.


I understand it's not about me, but the mind reading annoys me, you don't know what he was thinking and have no way of knowing, and I find people projecting their own beliefs onto others to be an irritating fallacy with this case in particular. Why would a person who just wants to shoot people show up with a med kit and a spend the day cleaning graffiti first? Such a person could easily have taken pot shots from a building or from a distance and gotten away with it in the confusion and chaos of the riot, rather than standing guard at a business and hoping someone attacked them. The evidence doesn't fit your conclusion, so I suspect you're bending the evidence to fit a predetermined narrative.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,408
Location: Melbourne, Australia

27 Oct 2021, 10:03 pm

Dox47 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
disgusting legalistic hair-splitting.


Adults are talking.


It's rather insightful that his views (and those of others on the site) appear to align so well with what Mr Lincoln wrote about in 1837:
Quote:
In 1837 Abraham Lincoln wrote about lynching and "the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country – the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule


_________________
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 105,624
Location: the island of defective toy santas

27 Oct 2021, 10:07 pm

people who should know better, side with the perpetrator of evil, indeed acting as cheerleaders for it. there is no justification for what that kid did. none. and people here with their smartassed self-impressed wordplay who belittle me as "not an adult" can go suck eggs for all i care.