The government backs private member's bill to raise the legal age of marriage to 18, what's the betting that Chope objects to it using some tortured logic.
Problem is a lot of politicians are in favour of dropping the voting to 16 at the same time. I don't understand their logic.
The logic of the advocates is that teenagers are more likely to vote for political parties to which they belong or of which they approve. Nothing more than that.
Is it pure coincidence that Lewis Hamilton criticises Qatar as being amongst the worst in the region for human rights and wears a one-off rainbow design helmet and the FIA make the most ridiculous decision Re Mercedes appeal?
I know that F1 is totally moral and upstanding and we never see in any sport the governing authorities bowing to pressure and dollar signs - see FIFA and the upcoming World Cup being decided clearly on purely sporting merits - but maybe just maybe there might have been a slight nudge by someone….?
F1 can be quite independent of governments at times. A few years back, a female engineer accepted the constructor's trophy on the podium at the Bahrain grand prix from a Bahraini royal. Scuttlebutt has it that all the teams unanimously agreed not to race unless something like that happened, after an event earlier in the week involving a female staff member.
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
The government’s attitude also ignores the fact that the decisions that are taken now will help to shape the post-pandemic recovery. For example, if services are cut due to a lack of funding, people’s work from home habits are likely to become more deeply entrenched as their initial attempts to return to work and leisure activities in person turn out to be a degraded and dispiriting experience.
Is there a suggestion that services are going to be cut?
I was in London yesterday and it felt a bit busier than the last time. But the world has changed and the old world isn’t coming back no matter how many trains they run.
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
The government’s attitude also ignores the fact that the decisions that are taken now will help to shape the post-pandemic recovery. For example, if services are cut due to a lack of funding, people’s work from home habits are likely to become more deeply entrenched as their initial attempts to return to work and leisure activities in person turn out to be a degraded and dispiriting experience.
Is there a suggestion that services are going to be cut?
I was in London yesterday and it felt a bit busier than the last time. But the world has changed and the old world isn’t coming back no matter how many trains they run.
Bus services have already been cut.
It’s likely TfL will need to cut tube services as part of the next funding round with the government.
The last figures I saw had London at 70% of pre-pandemic volume, and this is without significant tourism traffic of course.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
The government’s attitude also ignores the fact that the decisions that are taken now will help to shape the post-pandemic recovery. For example, if services are cut due to a lack of funding, people’s work from home habits are likely to become more deeply entrenched as their initial attempts to return to work and leisure activities in person turn out to be a degraded and dispiriting experience.
Is there a suggestion that services are going to be cut?
I was in London yesterday and it felt a bit busier than the last time. But the world has changed and the old world isn’t coming back no matter how many trains they run.
Bus services have already been cut.
It’s likely TfL will need to cut tube services as part of the next funding round with the government.
The last figures I saw had London at 70% of pre-pandemic volume, and this is without significant tourism traffic of course.
Overall London is reviving, but it's probably only about 40% of what it was in some places. The City for example. (Might be less - feels less)
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
The government’s attitude also ignores the fact that the decisions that are taken now will help to shape the post-pandemic recovery. For example, if services are cut due to a lack of funding, people’s work from home habits are likely to become more deeply entrenched as their initial attempts to return to work and leisure activities in person turn out to be a degraded and dispiriting experience.
Is there a suggestion that services are going to be cut?
I was in London yesterday and it felt a bit busier than the last time. But the world has changed and the old world isn’t coming back no matter how many trains they run.
Bus services have already been cut.
It’s likely TfL will need to cut tube services as part of the next funding round with the government.
The last figures I saw had London at 70% of pre-pandemic volume, and this is without significant tourism traffic of course.
Overall London is reviving, but it's probably only about 40% of what it was in some places. The City for example. (Might be less - feels less)
I was at Puttshack at Bank last night and it was pretty busy. No W&C after 19:00 (I think), so I had to go Northern alone to London Bridge and then Jubilee to Waterloo. But I read the W&C is going back to normal(-ish) next week.
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
TFL is basically bankrupt. As it already has absurdly high fares compared to most other transit systems we can look forward to that cost gal being further extended
They need to tackle the tube drivers wages, which could be just about justified pre-pandemic but aren't now
The root cause is lack of sufficient subsidy.
A public transportation system can be one of two things: glossy, efficient and backed by huge stacks of taxpayer's cash, or cheap shoddy shit. You can't have a glossy, efficient public transport system paid for by extortionate fares because poorer people can't afford to use it and wealthier people will get in their cars instead (or, as is increasingly the case with former commuters, of course, dump the journeys completely and work from home.)
Drivers' wages and working patterns will doubtless come under pressure; however, those battles are symbolically important but of quite marginal effect in practical terms. TfL can either be propped up by the Treasury or it can be shit. So it'll probably be shit.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
Rittenhouse was clearly innocent of the charges brought. He was about to be brutally attacked and probably killed by a dangerous and violent mob. Some of them armed. Some of them with a history of extreme violence and cruelty
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not. Did he have some intent to stir trouble? Maybe, but we can’t see inside his soul
Of the charges he faced, he was innocent. It was obviously self defence. All else is verbiage
The prosecution fucked this up by not bringing charges that might have succeeded
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
TFL is basically bankrupt. As it already has absurdly high fares compared to most other transit systems we can look forward to that cost gal being further extended
They need to tackle the tube drivers wages, which could be just about justified pre-pandemic but aren't now
The root cause is lack of sufficient subsidy.
A public transportation system can be one of two things: glossy, efficient and backed by huge stacks of taxpayer's cash, or cheap shoddy shit. You can't have a glossy, efficient public transport system paid for by extortionate fares because poorer people can't afford to use it and wealthier people will get in their cars instead (or, as is increasingly the case with former commuters, of course, dump the journeys completely and work from home.)
Drivers' wages and working patterns will doubtless come under pressure; however, those battles are symbolically important but of quite marginal effect in practical terms. TfL can either be propped up by the Treasury or it can be shit. So it'll probably be shit.
You forgot a third option for public transportation, “non-existent”. See Leeds for more details.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
It might well be, but a jury of his peers found him innocent, presumably on grounds of self-defence.
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
TFL is basically bankrupt. As it already has absurdly high fares compared to most other transit systems we can look forward to that cost gal being further extended
They need to tackle the tube drivers wages, which could be just about justified pre-pandemic but aren't now
The root cause is lack of sufficient subsidy.
A public transportation system can be one of two things: glossy, efficient and backed by huge stacks of taxpayer's cash, or cheap shoddy shit. You can't have a glossy, efficient public transport system paid for by extortionate fares because poorer people can't afford to use it and wealthier people will get in their cars instead (or, as is increasingly the case with former commuters, of course, dump the journeys completely and work from home.)
Drivers' wages and working patterns will doubtless come under pressure; however, those battles are symbolically important but of quite marginal effect in practical terms. TfL can either be propped up by the Treasury or it can be shit. So it'll probably be shit.
You forgot a third option for public transportation, “non-existent”. See Leeds for more details.
I doubt that services in Leeds are non-existent. That is an urbanite point of view. If you want to experience non-existent public transport - or a service that's as close to it as scarcely makes a difference - then go to virtually any village in the land.
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
The government’s attitude also ignores the fact that the decisions that are taken now will help to shape the post-pandemic recovery. For example, if services are cut due to a lack of funding, people’s work from home habits are likely to become more deeply entrenched as their initial attempts to return to work and leisure activities in person turn out to be a degraded and dispiriting experience.
Is there a suggestion that services are going to be cut?
I was in London yesterday and it felt a bit busier than the last time. But the world has changed and the old world isn’t coming back no matter how many trains they run.
Bus services have already been cut.
It’s likely TfL will need to cut tube services as part of the next funding round with the government.
The last figures I saw had London at 70% of pre-pandemic volume, and this is without significant tourism traffic of course.
Overall London is reviving, but it's probably only about 40% of what it was in some places. The City for example. (Might be less - feels less)
I was at Puttshack at Bank last night and it was pretty busy. No W&C after 19:00 (I think), so I had to go Northern alone to London Bridge and then Jubilee to Waterloo. But I read the W&C is going back to normal(-ish) next week.
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Nah, serious journalists don't write for the New European. It's a joke of a paper, he's just trying to keep it relevant by jumping onto the bandwagon. Has anyone in the country thought about their article until today, or even the newspaper? He's achieved what he's set out to do and he's also done it in a way where he doesn't have to show his working. It's a smart move, but ultimately I don't buy it.
He was the night editor of the Mirror.
You are missing the rather simple logic of the situation. Either what he says is true - big story - or it is false but he is being allowed to get away with it - big story.
+1 - if the story isn't 100% true why aren't No 10 / Jack Doyle suing them - it would be a very open and shut case.
The fact Jack Doyle isn't suing them tells you a great deal
1) the original story is true and equally 2) Boris and No 10 are so desperate that they are attempting to bully complete non entities of a paper for reasons unknown...
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
It might well be, but a jury of his peers found him innocent, presumably on grounds of self-defence.
Considering anyone who thinks racism is a problem was dismissed from the juror pool, it well and truly was a jury of his peers!
Incredible stuff. Banana Republic both in intent and execution.
If you believe it. The whole scenario is laughable and a desperate attempt by a dead newspaper to seem relevant.
You find it unbelievable that he would make such a comment and authorize such a phone call?
I find the coincidence that when the PM is having a tough time of it elsewhere this newspaper suddenly gets a legal threat for something no one really cared about in the first place tough to believe. They're a joke and you want to believe them. I have no love for the PM, in fact I think I probably loathe him more than you do, this just strikes me as extremely unlikely.
In that case Matt Kelly has defamed the PM and the PM's head of comms to an extent worth millions in costs and damages and destroyed his own reputation as a serious journalist.
Or, a known betrayer, liar and bully has committed a couple more betrayals and lies and commissioned another bit of bullying.
Tricky one.
Nah, serious journalists don't write for the New European. It's a joke of a paper, he's just trying to keep it relevant by jumping onto the bandwagon. Has anyone in the country thought about their article until today, or even the newspaper? He's achieved what he's set out to do and he's also done it in a way where he doesn't have to show his working. It's a smart move, but ultimately I don't buy it.
He was the night editor of the Mirror.
You are missing the rather simple logic of the situation. Either what he says is true - big story - or it is false but he is being allowed to get away with it - big story.
+1 - if the story isn't 100% true why aren't No 10 / Jack Doyle suing them - it would be a very open and shut case.
The fact Jack Doyle isn't suing them tells you a great deal
1) the original story is true and equally 2) Boris and No 10 are so desperate that they are attempting to bully complete non entities of a paper for reasons unknown...
Meanwhile it seems Tim Paine has resigned because of what looks like an entirely consensual, if dirty, text message conversation...
... wondering how far back my texts go
He's a married man.
Cheating men are degenerates.
It says a lot about how bad our standards that we have a persistent adulterer as PM but the Aussies realise a potential adulterer cannot captain their cricket team and they've had that cheat Steve Smith as captain.
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
The government’s attitude also ignores the fact that the decisions that are taken now will help to shape the post-pandemic recovery. For example, if services are cut due to a lack of funding, people’s work from home habits are likely to become more deeply entrenched as their initial attempts to return to work and leisure activities in person turn out to be a degraded and dispiriting experience.
Is there a suggestion that services are going to be cut?
I was in London yesterday and it felt a bit busier than the last time. But the world has changed and the old world isn’t coming back no matter how many trains they run.
Bus services have already been cut.
It’s likely TfL will need to cut tube services as part of the next funding round with the government.
The last figures I saw had London at 70% of pre-pandemic volume, and this is without significant tourism traffic of course.
Overall London is reviving, but it's probably only about 40% of what it was in some places. The City for example. (Might be less - feels less)
I was at Puttshack at Bank last night and it was pretty busy. No W&C after 19:00 (I think), so I had to go Northern alone to London Bridge and then Jubilee to Waterloo. But I read the W&C is going back to normal(-ish) next week.
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
It might well be, but a jury of his peers found him innocent, presumably on grounds of self-defence.
Considering anyone who thinks racism is a problem was dismissed from the juror pool, it well and truly was a jury of his peers!
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Philip - even from my limited understanding of it all there was a riot going on.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
Is that what he's made out to be ? I thought he's the poster child for vigilantism.
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
Meanwhile it seems Tim Paine has resigned because of what looks like an entirely consensual, if dirty, text message conversation...
... wondering how far back my texts go
He's a married man.
Cheating men are degenerates.
It says a lot about how bad our standards that we have a persistent adulterer as PM but the Aussies realise a potential adulterer cannot captain their cricket team and they've had that cheat Steve Smith as captain.
As sending a dick pic is technically a criminal offence in the UK, and probably also in Oz, he seems an ideal guy to lead the convicts.
Separately TFL are now planning to run their current Jubilee and Bakerloo line trains to the 2050s (up from the late 2030s).
The government’s attitude also ignores the fact that the decisions that are taken now will help to shape the post-pandemic recovery. For example, if services are cut due to a lack of funding, people’s work from home habits are likely to become more deeply entrenched as their initial attempts to return to work and leisure activities in person turn out to be a degraded and dispiriting experience.
Is there a suggestion that services are going to be cut?
I was in London yesterday and it felt a bit busier than the last time. But the world has changed and the old world isn’t coming back no matter how many trains they run.
Bus services have already been cut.
It’s likely TfL will need to cut tube services as part of the next funding round with the government.
The last figures I saw had London at 70% of pre-pandemic volume, and this is without significant tourism traffic of course.
Liverpool Street station was heaving last Saturday when I was there.
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
Don't want to seem like a snowflake but can you explain what's relevant about someone being 5 foot 3.
Good evening all. Rather controversial announcement in Austria regarding compulsory covid jabs. The EU reaction will be interesting. Recently the EU has made much of its values, especially in the context of Poland and Hungary, so their view on how Austria compelling its citizens to have a medical intervention sits with EU values should be noteworthy.
Why should the EU be any more concerned about that than it currently is for the multiple cases where vaccinations for common diseases have long been mandatory in EU countries?
Because there is a very significant anti covid vax constituency in the EU, and the Austrian opposition are calling the move dictatorial. Ring any bells?
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
Search function works OK
Re: politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Oh Jeremy Corbyn Pulpstar by Pulpstar · August 2020 · Home› General Both Reinoehl (The Portland/BLM shooter) and Rittenhouse (The Trump supporter/Kenosha shooter) will succesfully claim self defense in court I reckon.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
That the witness had been nobbled.
Next?
From zero to conspiracy theories in two posts. May as well argue the prosecution threw the trial because they didn't want to pay Grosskreutz the $10m he's claiming from the city of Kenosha.
I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse case but I can absolutely see why he was acquitted of murder.
What confuses me is the absence of a manslaughter count, but I guess that is the DA’s decision.
Many are posting on Twitter that no black man would receive the same treatment but that surely doesn’t mean Rittenhouse should be treated unjustly.
Finally, I prefer a jury trial that lets a guilty man go free than various alternatives.
"Jurors deliberated for roughly 27 hours over the course of four days before pronouncing Rittenhouse not guilty on all five counts: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree attempted intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. The jury was also asked to consider lesser versions of several counts, but were not swayed."
Apparently French Fisherfolk are accusing their government of dropping their pants in the dispute, at least according to the Daily Mail.
Macron himself has just posted an impassioned clip with him saying they are fighting day and night to get the licences and to get the Commission to support them.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
That the witness had been nobbled.
Next?
From zero to conspiracy theories in two posts. May as well argue the prosecution threw the trial because they didn't want to pay Grosskreutz the $10m he's claiming from the city of Kenosha.
I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse case but I can absolutely see why he was acquitted of murder.
What confuses me is the absence of a manslaughter count, but I guess that is the DA’s decision.
Many are posting on Twitter that no black man would receive the same treatment but that surely doesn’t mean Rittenhouse should be treated unjustly.
Finally, I prefer a jury trial that lets a guilty man go free than various alternatives.
You aren't going to like it, the answer is wokism gone mad, the prosecution wanted to keep the Twatter mob on side so went for murder in the first degree rather than a lesser charge which would have probably got him a 5-10 year sentence.
I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse case but I can absolutely see why he was acquitted of murder.
What confuses me is the absence of a manslaughter count, but I guess that is the DA’s decision.
Many are posting on Twitter that no black man would receive the same treatment but that surely doesn’t mean Rittenhouse should be treated unjustly.
Finally, I prefer a jury trial that lets a guilty man go free than various alternatives.
"Jurors deliberated for roughly 27 hours over the course of four days before pronouncing Rittenhouse not guilty on all five counts: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree attempted intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. The jury was also asked to consider lesser versions of several counts, but were not swayed."
I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse case but I can absolutely see why he was acquitted of murder.
What confuses me is the absence of a manslaughter count, but I guess that is the DA’s decision.
Many are posting on Twitter that no black man would receive the same treatment but that surely doesn’t mean Rittenhouse should be treated unjustly.
Finally, I prefer a jury trial that lets a guilty man go free than various alternatives.
You aren't going to like it, the answer is wokism gone mad, the prosecution wanted to keep the Twatter mob on side so went for murder in the first degree rather than a lesser charge which would have probably got him a 5-10 year sentence.
But any number of lesser charges were up for grabs
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
The Woke have chosen a really bad hill to die on, with Rittenhouse. There are plenty of examples of egregious injustice in the USA (as elsewhere) and, sadly, many of them are racialised.
This really is not one of them. A foolish young man decided to defend his hometown against rioters burning it down, and he did it with a rifle. He was walking into trouble and bound to provoke it. However he really was then set on by criminal White Rioters, armed and dangerous, who looked set to murder him. Was he meant to just lie down and accept execution, because the riot was “on behalf” of BLM?
What a load of wank. The American Left would do well to move on and forget this tragic diversion
I haven’t followed the Rittenhouse case but I can absolutely see why he was acquitted of murder.
What confuses me is the absence of a manslaughter count, but I guess that is the DA’s decision.
Many are posting on Twitter that no black man would receive the same treatment but that surely doesn’t mean Rittenhouse should be treated unjustly.
Finally, I prefer a jury trial that lets a guilty man go free than various alternatives.
You aren't going to like it, the answer is wokism gone mad, the prosecution wanted to keep the Twatter mob on side so went for murder in the first degree rather than a lesser charge which would have probably got him a 5-10 year sentence.
But any number of lesser charges were up for grabs
No the lesser murder/manslaughter charges like murder of the second/third degree or maybe even negligent homicide. The evidence bar for a murder one conviction is, understandably, very high and beyond reasonable doubt is also a very high bar in a situation that can fairly be described as self defence. Yet the prosecution went for the big win and ended up with a big loss.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
That the witness had been nobbled.
Next?
From zero to conspiracy theories in two posts. May as well argue the prosecution threw the trial because they didn't want to pay Grosskreutz the $10m he's claiming from the city of Kenosha.
OOooooooo ! Big news. Politician makes a minor slip up. Not exactly slapping a female colleague on the arse is it?
Blimey these threads would be very short if minor political news and observations were banned.
But it does show he panics, waffles and makes mistakes when pressed. Stuff as a board. He also made a mess of the interview when sky caught him out over his Mishcon job last week
He probably does. OH, look - look - look! You wrote stuff instead of stiff! Goodness me. What should be interpret from that?
On the panic waffle and making mistakes stakes, how well does that blond haired object of your uncritical devotion stack up? Not too well does he?
If you are referring to the PM, I think I’ve noticed it mentioned on here when he errs. It dominates the day! When anyone mentions Sir Keir’s rickets we have to set up a safe space for people to sob in
Really? That's news to me. I couldn't really give a toss about SKS. You clearly do. Seem a bit obsessed. If he is so crap I am surprised you wouldn't like to keep him in place, so that Johnsonian populism can have it's version of the 1000 year Reich.
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
The Woke have chosen a really bad hill to die on, with Rittenhouse. There are plenty of examples of egregious injustice in the USA (as elsewhere) and, sadly, many of them are racialised.
This really is not one of them. A foolish young man decided to defend his hometown against rioters burning it down, and he did it with a rifle. He was walking into trouble and bound to provoke it. However he really was then set on by criminal White Rioters, armed and dangerous, who looked set to murder him. Was he meant to just lie down and accept execution, because the riot was “on behalf” of BLM?
What a load of wank. The American Left would do well to move on and forget this tragic diversion
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
One of them had a gun which he aimed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse even fired his first shot. This is absurd
The Prosecution failed as soon as that admission was made. When you aim a handgun at someone - during a violent riot - you are likely to get shot in response. Especially in America. That’s it
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
Be as glib as you like. These were not peaceful protesters. That was the implication. You do not need to be armed with a weapon to protest in a none peaceful manner.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
One of them had a gun which he aimed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse even fired his first shot. This is absurd
The Prosecution failed as soon as that admission was made. When you aim a handgun at someone - during a violent riot - you are likely to get shot in response. Especially in America. That’s it
He was not guilty of murder.
He was (as were the people he shot) guilty of taking an assault weapon to a riot. That should be a very serious offence punishable by many years in prison.
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
The Woke have chosen a really bad hill to die on, with Rittenhouse. There are plenty of examples of egregious injustice in the USA (as elsewhere) and, sadly, many of them are racialised.
This really is not one of them. A foolish young man decided to defend his hometown against rioters burning it down, and he did it with a rifle. He was walking into trouble and bound to provoke it. However he really was then set on by criminal White Rioters, armed and dangerous, who looked set to murder him. Was he meant to just lie down and accept execution, because the riot was “on behalf” of BLM?
What a load of wank. The American Left would do well to move on and forget this tragic diversion
Rittenhouse drove 80 miles and across a state border to bring an assault rifle to a riot.
It's like drinking and driving. There's no guarantee that someone ends up dead, but you are significantly increasing the chance that something bad happens, and it should be punished accordingly.
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
The Woke have chosen a really bad hill to die on, with Rittenhouse. There are plenty of examples of egregious injustice in the USA (as elsewhere) and, sadly, many of them are racialised.
This really is not one of them. A foolish young man decided to defend his hometown against rioters burning it down, and he did it with a rifle. He was walking into trouble and bound to provoke it. However he really was then set on by criminal White Rioters, armed and dangerous, who looked set to murder him. Was he meant to just lie down and accept execution, because the riot was “on behalf” of BLM?
What a load of wank. The American Left would do well to move on and forget this tragic diversion
Wasn't his home town over the state line?
He lived in Antioch Illinois which is about 20 miles from Kenosha Wisconsin. The state line shit is a red herring. Kenosha was where many of Rittenhouse’s family lived and where Rittenhouse worked
Rittenhouse sounds like a sad character - a bit of a lonely kid wanting to be a cop - but he wasn’t some mad loon driving 1000 miles to take out black people
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
The Woke have chosen a really bad hill to die on, with Rittenhouse. There are plenty of examples of egregious injustice in the USA (as elsewhere) and, sadly, many of them are racialised.
This really is not one of them. A foolish young man decided to defend his hometown against rioters burning it down, and he did it with a rifle. He was walking into trouble and bound to provoke it. However he really was then set on by criminal White Rioters, armed and dangerous, who looked set to murder him. Was he meant to just lie down and accept execution, because the riot was “on behalf” of BLM?
What a load of wank. The American Left would do well to move on and forget this tragic diversion
Rittenhouse drove 80 miles and across a state border to bring an assault rifle to a riot.
It's like drinking and driving. There's no guarantee that someone ends up dead, but you are significantly increasing the chance that something bad happens, and it should be punished accordingly.
Absolutely, but apparently that is totally fine in Wisconsin.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
One of them had a gun which he aimed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse even fired his first shot. This is absurd
The Prosecution failed as soon as that admission was made. When you aim a handgun at someone - during a violent riot - you are likely to get shot in response. Especially in America. That’s it
He was not guilty of murder.
He was (as were the people he shot) guilty of taking an assault weapon to a riot. That should be a very serious offence punishable by many years in prison.
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
The Woke have chosen a really bad hill to die on, with Rittenhouse. There are plenty of examples of egregious injustice in the USA (as elsewhere) and, sadly, many of them are racialised.
This really is not one of them. A foolish young man decided to defend his hometown against rioters burning it down, and he did it with a rifle. He was walking into trouble and bound to provoke it. However he really was then set on by criminal White Rioters, armed and dangerous, who looked set to murder him. Was he meant to just lie down and accept execution, because the riot was “on behalf” of BLM?
What a load of wank. The American Left would do well to move on and forget this tragic diversion
Rittenhouse drove 80 miles and across a state border to bring an assault rifle to a riot.
It's like drinking and driving. There's no guarantee that someone ends up dead, but you are significantly increasing the chance that something bad happens, and it should be punished accordingly.
He drove, as I understand it, from Antioch to Kenosha. That’s twenty miles. Not 80
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
The Woke have chosen a really bad hill to die on, with Rittenhouse. There are plenty of examples of egregious injustice in the USA (as elsewhere) and, sadly, many of them are racialised.
This really is not one of them. A foolish young man decided to defend his hometown against rioters burning it down, and he did it with a rifle. He was walking into trouble and bound to provoke it. However he really was then set on by criminal White Rioters, armed and dangerous, who looked set to murder him. Was he meant to just lie down and accept execution, because the riot was “on behalf” of BLM?
What a load of wank. The American Left would do well to move on and forget this tragic diversion
Wasn't his home town over the state line?
He lived in Antioch Illinois which is about 20 miles from Kenosha Wisconsin. The state line shit is a red herring. Kenosha was where many of Rittenhouse’s family lived and where Rittenhouse worked
Rittenhouse sounds like a sad character - a bit of a lonely kid wanting to be a cop - but he wasn’t some mad loon driving 1000 miles to take out black people
And the second point is the issue, American wokists have turned this guy into some kind of extraordinary evil white supremacist when the reality is that he's just a bit of a sad kid who made poor decisions on an evening when a lot of those were made. I mean imagine being stupid enough to point a gun and approach someone with a fucking assault rifle. How idiotic can you get.
It's a remarkable assumption to make that his behaviour must be a result of his height.
Never heard of the "Napoleon Complex," then. But if you'd like a less facetious answer, I do in fact suspect that Rosenbaum's behaviour was linked not to his height but to whatever mental health issue that led him to be sentenced to ten years for eleven counts of orally and anally sodomising minors, and while in prison also led him to rack up 40 disciplinary offences including nine assaults on guards and one assault with a weapon.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
Man Found Guilty in Skateboard Attack Death of Good Samaritan Wed, May 5, 2021
A Humboldt County jury today found a man guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Bernhard “Ben” Bertain, who died on Christmas in 2018, three days after interceding in an altercation at the Burre Center in Eureka.
Bertain, 58, was struck several times with a skateboard by Jason Ryan Barnes, now 48, while coming to the side of a laundromat employee who was standing between Barnes and a woman he was screaming in the parking lot...
"An autopsy by Napa County Forensic Pathologist Joseph Cohen determined that Mr. Bertain’s spleen had ruptured due to an expanding hematoma caused by blunt force trauma to the torso," the district attorney's office release states.
Rittenhouse drove 80 miles and across a state border to bring an assault rifle to a riot.
This is an interesting phrasing - because of course Rittenhouse didn't bring the rifle with him across state lines, and he wasn't the one causing the riot. The people causing the riot were also the ones who attacked him, one of whom - the aforementioned defence star witness who tried to execute a man while fake surrendering - was concealed-carrying a pistol without a concealed carry license.
The government backs private member's bill to raise the legal age of marriage to 18, what's the betting that Chope objects to it using some tortured logic.
Problem is a lot of politicians are in favour of dropping the voting to 16 at the same time. I don't understand their logic.
The logic of the advocates is that teenagers are more likely to vote for political parties to which they belong or of which they approve. Nothing more than that.
I'm against moving the min age of marriage to 18. It should match the age of consent, as the two issues are interlinked, particularly for some religious traditions. Otherwise all you'll achieve is unregistered religious marriages which will come with less safeguards than proper marriage, or more people going abroad (we recognise marriages legally conducted abroad regardless of the ages of the partners - you might be surprised how many married 14/15 years olds there are in the UK).
I'd have some sympathy for a move to limit both marriage and consent for under 18s to partners with an age gap of say <10 years - that would filter out most of the really abusive cases. We'd still have to deal with the "what if the girl just gets flown to the 3rd world to be married instead" problem somehow.
My brother married a 17 year old, whilst aged 19. So far they haven't killed each other, and they've been married long enough for the novelty to have worn off a bit.
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
The Woke have chosen a really bad hill to die on, with Rittenhouse. There are plenty of examples of egregious injustice in the USA (as elsewhere) and, sadly, many of them are racialised.
This really is not one of them. A foolish young man decided to defend his hometown against rioters burning it down, and he did it with a rifle. He was walking into trouble and bound to provoke it. However he really was then set on by criminal White Rioters, armed and dangerous, who looked set to murder him. Was he meant to just lie down and accept execution, because the riot was “on behalf” of BLM?
What a load of wank. The American Left would do well to move on and forget this tragic diversion
Rittenhouse drove 80 miles and across a state border to bring an assault rifle to a riot.
It's like drinking and driving. There's no guarantee that someone ends up dead, but you are significantly increasing the chance that something bad happens, and it should be punished accordingly.
Absolutely, but apparently that is totally fine in Wisconsin.
That’s the real insanity here.
I thought the testimony was that he drove 20 miles (in rural USA that is local) and that he did NOT bring the rifle with him but was provided that once he got there.
The sad thing about this scenario is that all the actors could with little stretch see themselves as the hero. Rittenhouse in protecting businesses against rioters and acting in self-defense against a 'mob' attacking him; the 'mob' heroically attacking him without regard for their own safety out of a sense of duty to remove an 'active shooter'.
It's a remarkable assumption to make that his behaviour must be a result of his height.
Never heard of the "Napoleon Complex," then. But if you'd like a less facetious answer, I do in fact suspect that Rosenbaum's behaviour was linked not to his height but to whatever mental health issue that led him to be sentenced to ten years for eleven counts of orally and anally sodomising minors, and while in prison also led him to rack up 40 disciplinary offences including nine assaults on guards and one assault with a weapon.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
Man Found Guilty in Skateboard Attack Death of Good Samaritan Wed, May 5, 2021
A Humboldt County jury today found a man guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Bernhard “Ben” Bertain, who died on Christmas in 2018, three days after interceding in an altercation at the Burre Center in Eureka.
Bertain, 58, was struck several times with a skateboard by Jason Ryan Barnes, now 48, while coming to the side of a laundromat employee who was standing between Barnes and a woman he was screaming in the parking lot...
"An autopsy by Napa County Forensic Pathologist Joseph Cohen determined that Mr. Bertain’s spleen had ruptured due to an expanding hematoma caused by blunt force trauma to the torso," the district attorney's office release states.
Rittenhouse drove 80 miles and across a state border to bring an assault rifle to a riot.
This is an interesting phrasing - because of course Rittenhouse didn't bring the rifle with him across state lines, and he wasn't the one causing the riot. The people causing the riot were also the ones who attacked him, one of whom - the aforementioned defence star witness who tried to execute a man while fake surrendering - was concealed-carrying a pistol without a concealed carry license.
I regard the people whom Rittenhouse shot - who also brought weapons to a riot - as equally guilty. And if they were on trial, they should be sent down for the ultimate act of provocation: taking weapons to a riot.
The government backs private member's bill to raise the legal age of marriage to 18, what's the betting that Chope objects to it using some tortured logic.
Problem is a lot of politicians are in favour of dropping the voting to 16 at the same time. I don't understand their logic.
The logic of the advocates is that teenagers are more likely to vote for political parties to which they belong or of which they approve. Nothing more than that.
I'm against moving the min age of marriage to 18. It should match the age of consent, as the two issues are interlinked, particularly for some religious traditions. Otherwise all you'll achieve is unregistered religious marriages which will come with less safeguards than proper marriage, or more people going abroad (we recognise marriages legally conducted abroad regardless of the ages of the partners - you might be surprised how many married 14/15 years olds there are in the UK).
I'd have some sympathy for a move to limit both marriage and consent for under 18s to partners with an age gap of say
I just wish this nation would make up its mind as to what the age of becoming an adult, with all the concomitant rights and responsibilities actually is. At the moment it is a totally bizarre mish-mash that we waste shed loads of time debating for each and every particular case. I'm in favour of one age for everything. Which I guess would be 18.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
One of them had a gun which he aimed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse even fired his first shot. This is absurd
The Prosecution failed as soon as that admission was made. When you aim a handgun at someone - during a violent riot - you are likely to get shot in response. Especially in America. That’s it
He was not guilty of murder.
He was (as were the people he shot) guilty of taking an assault weapon to a riot. That should be a very serious offence punishable by many years in prison.
I think the fact that he was cleared of all charges - and is being celebrated as some kind of hero - makes repeats of such shootings almost inevitable.
The government backs private member's bill to raise the legal age of marriage to 18, what's the betting that Chope objects to it using some tortured logic.
Problem is a lot of politicians are in favour of dropping the voting to 16 at the same time. I don't understand their logic.
The logic of the advocates is that teenagers are more likely to vote for political parties to which they belong or of which they approve. Nothing more than that.
I'm against moving the min age of marriage to 18. It should match the age of consent, as the two issues are interlinked, particularly for some religious traditions. Otherwise all you'll achieve is unregistered religious marriages which will come with less safeguards than proper marriage, or more people going abroad (we recognise marriages legally conducted abroad regardless of the ages of the partners - you might be surprised how many married 14/15 years olds there are in the UK).
I'd have some sympathy for a move to limit both marriage and consent for under 18s to partners with an age gap of say
I just wish this nation would make up its mind as to what the age of becoming an adult, with all the concomitant rights and responsibilities actually is. At the moment it is a totally bizarre mish-mash that we waste shed loads of time debating for each and every particular case. I'm in favour of one age for everything. Which I guess would be 18.
At school anyone under the age of 18 is considered a child, and for practical purposes quite a few 18 year old Y13s are as well.
To my mind some of the more junior teachers should probably be treated as children as well, but that’s just me feeling my age.
This FBI training video describes how to employ the run, hide, and fight tactics to survive an active shooter incident... RUN if you can. It makes you a harder target and puts distance between you and the attacker. Don't hesitate. Seconds matter.
If running is too risky, HIDE in a secure place. Lock or barricade yourself in. Turn off the lights and silence phones, then plan an attack strategy in case the shooter enters.
FIGHTING is always your last resort.
Rittenhouse was running away from his attackers: Rosenbaum, Huber, "Jumpkick man", Grosskreutz were all running towards him.
More evidence of the use or abuse of numbers - the London Evening Standard leads with a report claiming "2.7 million Londoners aged 16 or over have not had any form of vaccination".
As might be expected, this is not all it seems. The Mayor of Hackney claims there are 100,000 unvaccinated adult sin his Borough and other areas such as Westminster, Newham, Brent and Camden are, so the report states. operating with at least a third of the adult population completely unvaccinated.
Indeed, go on to the UK Government's own website and in my area it's 63% with first vaccination and 55% doubly vaccinated. The Government website is using MSOA population data, not ONS.
The 2.7 million has come from one Professor Kevin Fenton, the public health chief for the capital and health adviser to Sadiq Khan. Add the 12-15 age group who have yet to be vaccinated and Fenton is claiming 3 million unvaccinated Londoners.
Get right to the end of the article (the power of propaganda?) and NHS England are claiming the true figure for unvaccinated adults 16 and over in London is only 1.2 million. That's a huge difference - there's a throwaway sentence claiming "experts" believe the true figure for unvaccinated adults 16 and over in London is between 1.2 and 2.7 million.
Thus is the debate (such as it is now) couched in a fog of misconception, misunderstanding and possibly (and I stress possibly) misinformation or disinformation.
The Austrian decision to re-impose restrictions is presumably predicated on the fact that with only two thirds of their population doubly vaccinated, there is still a huge potential pressure on the country's health facilities from the remaining unvaccinated as they succumb to the Delta variant.
We know every person double or triple vaccinated is much less likely to require hospitalisation - the problem remains the relatively small number of ICU beds means it doesn't take that many cases to overwhelm the available capacity which in turn has consequences throughout the health sector.
Are you his mum? Quite bizarre to be remembering how many likes each post got about him 15 months ago.
When you don't make twelve thousand posts in two years, it becomes a lot easier to use your post history to travel back down memory lane and remind yourself of the nonsense people talked.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
I agree: charges should never have been brought in the first place. Even on the basis of the footage available in August 2020, your claim that he was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic" was patent rubbish. What's most worrying is that you cling to it in the face of both easily available primary evidence and a legal verdict to the contrary.
It's genuinely scary that people will confuse the conclusions of an American jury with the truth.
What were the jury meant to conclude, when the lead defence witness confessed on the stand that Rittenhouse had him cold in his sights but held fire until the point at which the witness stopped faking a surrender and pulled a gun to execute him?
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not.
As none of them should have been there, I prefer to side with the person who spent the evning offering medical treatment and putting out fires than the 5 foot 3 convicted paedophile recently released from a mental asylum who spent the evening setting fires and threatening to cut out people's hearts.
The Woke have chosen a really bad hill to die on, with Rittenhouse. There are plenty of examples of egregious injustice in the USA (as elsewhere) and, sadly, many of them are racialised.
This really is not one of them. A foolish young man decided to defend his hometown against rioters burning it down, and he did it with a rifle. He was walking into trouble and bound to provoke it. However he really was then set on by criminal White Rioters, armed and dangerous, who looked set to murder him. Was he meant to just lie down and accept execution, because the riot was “on behalf” of BLM?
What a load of wank. The American Left would do well to move on and forget this tragic diversion
Rittenhouse drove 80 miles and across a state border to bring an assault rifle to a riot.
It's like drinking and driving. There's no guarantee that someone ends up dead, but you are significantly increasing the chance that something bad happens, and it should be punished accordingly.
He drove, as I understand it, from Antioch to Kenosha. That’s twenty miles. Not 80
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
One of them had a gun which he aimed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse even fired his first shot. This is absurd
The Prosecution failed as soon as that admission was made. When you aim a handgun at someone - during a violent riot - you are likely to get shot in response. Especially in America. That’s it
He was not guilty of murder.
He was (as were the people he shot) guilty of taking an assault weapon to a riot. That should be a very serious offence punishable by many years in prison.
I think the fact that he was cleared of all charges - and is being celebrated as some kind of hero - makes repeats of such shootings almost inevitable.
This is the inevitable result of the American left making out that this guy is some 18 year old proto Überhitler who wants to murder all black people in the US.
I think that the lack of acceptance and recognition that BLM protestors decided to burn down business and generally riot last summer is what rankles for the American right. The "mostly peaceful" memes from CNN still get a lot of play among right wingers and frankly they've got a point. The US liberal class has become willing to accept some kind of violence, it's hardly a surprise that the American right has responded in kind.
It's on all of them to sit down and just talk to each other, close down twitter, close down Facebook, close down Fox news, close down CNN. All of these companies exist to drive clicks, views and controversy and they do it by sowing division and hatred. The algorithms don't care that they are serving right wing conspiracy content to someone who liked a picture of a cat on a Trump supporters group and CNN don't care about reporting the truth. Everyone in the game just wants to profit from what they see as an easy way to do so. The lack of ethics and morals of corporate America are behind this and now America as a nation will pay the price.
Biden says he's "angry and concerned" about the verdict.
The Jury has decided. It's not appropriate for Biden to say he's angry about the verdict as that is tantamount to him saying the Jury got it wrong. But he did not hear all the evidence, and even if he did it's still not appropriate.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
One of them had a gun which he aimed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse even fired his first shot. This is absurd
The Prosecution failed as soon as that admission was made. When you aim a handgun at someone - during a violent riot - you are likely to get shot in response. Especially in America. That’s it
He was not guilty of murder.
He was (as were the people he shot) guilty of taking an assault weapon to a riot. That should be a very serious offence punishable by many years in prison.
I think the fact that he was cleared of all charges - and is being celebrated as some kind of hero - makes repeats of such shootings almost inevitable.
This is the inevitable result of the American left making out that this guy is some 18 year old proto Überhitler who wants to murder all black people in the US.
I think that the lack of acceptance and recognition that BLM protestors decided to burn down business and generally riot last summer is what rankles for the American right. The "mostly peaceful" memes from CNN still get a lot of play among right wingers and frankly they've got a point. The US liberal class has become willing to accept some kind of violence, it's hardly a surprise that the American right has responded in kind.
It's on all of them to sit down and just talk to each other, close down twitter, close down Facebook, close down Fox news, close down CNN. All of these companies exist to drive clicks, views and controversy and they do it by sowing division and hatred. The algorithms don't care that they are serving right wing conspiracy content to someone who liked a picture of a cat on a Trump supporters group and CNN don't care about reporting the truth. Everyone in the game just wants to profit from what they see as an easy way to do so. The lack of ethics and morals of corporate America are behind this and now America as a nation will pay the price.
Whether the BLM protestors chose to burn down businesses is beside the point.
It wouldn't have been OK for black men from DC to trek to Charlottesville and shoot 'Unite the Right' protestors either.
You shouldn't be travelling to riots with a gun.
Rittenhouse was clearly not guilty of murder.
But it's pretty fucked up to say 'Hey! It's OK to take a gun to a civil disturbance.' Because that way leads to people getting in positions where they feel (understandably) threatened, and then people die.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
Rittenhouse was clearly innocent of the charges brought. He was about to be brutally attacked and probably killed by a dangerous and violent mob. Some of them armed. Some of them with a history of extreme violence and cruelty
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not. Did he have some intent to stir trouble? Maybe, but we can’t see inside his soul
Of the charges he faced, he was innocent. It was obviously self defence. All else is verbiage
The prosecution fucked this up by not bringing charges that might have succeeded
Rittenhouse said he only pointed the gun at the people after they started chasing him.
That was the key plank of his defence.
We have video, shown in court, that he pointed the gun at them before they started chasing him. If you provoke people by pointing a gun at them is it then self defence to shoot them? The jury decided yes, you can point a loaded weapon at people then claim self defence if an altercation ensues.
The prosecution had an absolute slam dunk gun possession charge that the judge threw out because he thought the law was too confusing for normal people to understand despite the prosecution providing evidence of the people involved in supplying the gun understanding the law.
That the prosecution was also deeply incompetent is a whole other thing.
Biden says he's "angry and concerned" about the verdict.
The Jury has decided. It's not appropriate for Biden to say he's angry about the verdict as that is tantamount to him saying the Jury got it wrong. But he did not hear all the evidence, and even if he did it's still not appropriate.
That's not what he has said about the jury. Which was this: "I stand by what the jury has to say. The jury system works, and we have to abide by it.”
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
One of them had a gun which he aimed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse even fired his first shot. This is absurd
The Prosecution failed as soon as that admission was made. When you aim a handgun at someone - during a violent riot - you are likely to get shot in response. Especially in America. That’s it
He was not guilty of murder.
He was (as were the people he shot) guilty of taking an assault weapon to a riot. That should be a very serious offence punishable by many years in prison.
I think the fact that he was cleared of all charges - and is being celebrated as some kind of hero - makes repeats of such shootings almost inevitable.
This is the inevitable result of the American left making out that this guy is some 18 year old proto Überhitler who wants to murder all black people in the US.
I think that the lack of acceptance and recognition that BLM protestors decided to burn down business and generally riot last summer is what rankles for the American right. The "mostly peaceful" memes from CNN still get a lot of play among right wingers and frankly they've got a point. The US liberal class has become willing to accept some kind of violence, it's hardly a surprise that the American right has responded in kind.
It's on all of them to sit down and just talk to each other, close down twitter, close down Facebook, close down Fox news, close down CNN. All of these companies exist to drive clicks, views and controversy and they do it by sowing division and hatred. The algorithms don't care that they are serving right wing conspiracy content to someone who liked a picture of a cat on a Trump supporters group and CNN don't care about reporting the truth. Everyone in the game just wants to profit from what they see as an easy way to do so. The lack of ethics and morals of corporate America are behind this and now America as a nation will pay the price.
Whether the BLM protestors chose to burn down businesses is beside the point.
It wouldn't have been OK for black men from DC to trek to Charlottesville and shoot 'Unite the Right' protestors either.
You shouldn't be travelling to riots with a gun.
Rittenhouse was clearly not guilty of murder.
But it's pretty fucked up to say 'Hey! It's OK to take a gun to a civil disturbance.' Because that way leads to people getting in positions where they feel (understandably) threatened, and then people die.
I agree with your latter point, but it clearly isn't the law in the US and you're falling into the same trap as so many others. The law isn't the same as moral right and wrong, it's the law. UK law has the concept of mens rea, I don't think the US law really covers it to the same degree as over here. Maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment to allow prosecution of intent to commit a crime.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
One of them had a gun which he aimed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse even fired his first shot. This is absurd
The Prosecution failed as soon as that admission was made. When you aim a handgun at someone - during a violent riot - you are likely to get shot in response. Especially in America. That’s it
He was not guilty of murder.
He was (as were the people he shot) guilty of taking an assault weapon to a riot. That should be a very serious offence punishable by many years in prison.
I think the fact that he was cleared of all charges - and is being celebrated as some kind of hero - makes repeats of such shootings almost inevitable.
This is the inevitable result of the American left making out that this guy is some 18 year old proto Überhitler who wants to murder all black people in the US.
I think that the lack of acceptance and recognition that BLM protestors decided to burn down business and generally riot last summer is what rankles for the American right. The "mostly peaceful" memes from CNN still get a lot of play among right wingers and frankly they've got a point. The US liberal class has become willing to accept some kind of violence, it's hardly a surprise that the American right has responded in kind.
It's on all of them to sit down and just talk to each other, close down twitter, close down Facebook, close down Fox news, close down CNN. All of these companies exist to drive clicks, views and controversy and they do it by sowing division and hatred. The algorithms don't care that they are serving right wing conspiracy content to someone who liked a picture of a cat on a Trump supporters group and CNN don't care about reporting the truth. Everyone in the game just wants to profit from what they see as an easy way to do so. The lack of ethics and morals of corporate America are behind this and now America as a nation will pay the price.
Whether the BLM protestors chose to burn down businesses is beside the point.
It wouldn't have been OK for black men from DC to trek to Charlottesville and shoot 'Unite the Right' protestors either.
You shouldn't be travelling to riots with a gun.
Rittenhouse was clearly not guilty of murder.
But it's pretty fucked up to say 'Hey! It's OK to take a gun to a civil disturbance.' Because that way leads to people getting in positions where they feel (understandably) threatened, and then people die.
Rittenhouse was fortunate, if he hadn't spotted the gun after Grosskreutz's fake surrender he'd have been killed. Not sure Grosskreutz would have had a legitimate self defence claim as he pursued Rittenhouse and attacked him whilst floored.
Biden says he's "angry and concerned" about the verdict.
That is beyond irresponsible. There was a trial. The jury deliberated for several days. They reached an entirely understandable conclusion (even if you disagree you can see why they reached this verdict)
Justice was done. And the PRESIDENT casts doubt on the verdict and says he is ‘angry’?
So why not go out and riot against the judicial system. It’s rigged. The president says so
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
The jury, the defendant and the victims were all white. A white jury delivered a verdict on a white bloke who shot white people. I don’t know if they came to the right decision, maybe not, but this misbegotten child is not the poster boy for white supremacism many make him out to be.
He shot white people who were protesting against violence against black people.
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
He didn’t just shoot peaceful protesters which is your implication.
Indeed, one was armed with a lethal...er...skateboard.
One of them had a gun which he aimed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse even fired his first shot. This is absurd
The Prosecution failed as soon as that admission was made. When you aim a handgun at someone - during a violent riot - you are likely to get shot in response. Especially in America. That’s it
He was not guilty of murder.
He was (as were the people he shot) guilty of taking an assault weapon to a riot. That should be a very serious offence punishable by many years in prison.
I think the fact that he was cleared of all charges - and is being celebrated as some kind of hero - makes repeats of such shootings almost inevitable.
This is the inevitable result of the American left making out that this guy is some 18 year old proto Überhitler who wants to murder all black people in the US.
I think that the lack of acceptance and recognition that BLM protestors decided to burn down business and generally riot last summer is what rankles for the American right. The "mostly peaceful" memes from CNN still get a lot of play among right wingers and frankly they've got a point. The US liberal class has become willing to accept some kind of violence, it's hardly a surprise that the American right has responded in kind.
It's on all of them to sit down and just talk to each other, close down twitter, close down Facebook, close down Fox news, close down CNN. All of these companies exist to drive clicks, views and controversy and they do it by sowing division and hatred. The algorithms don't care that they are serving right wing conspiracy content to someone who liked a picture of a cat on a Trump supporters group and CNN don't care about reporting the truth. Everyone in the game just wants to profit from what they see as an easy way to do so. The lack of ethics and morals of corporate America are behind this and now America as a nation will pay the price.
Whether the BLM protestors chose to burn down businesses is beside the point.
It wouldn't have been OK for black men from DC to trek to Charlottesville and shoot 'Unite the Right' protestors either.
You shouldn't be travelling to riots with a gun.
Rittenhouse was clearly not guilty of murder.
But it's pretty fucked up to say 'Hey! It's OK to take a gun to a civil disturbance.' Because that way leads to people getting in positions where they feel (understandably) threatened, and then people die.
Well yes. But that seems to be the top and bottom of much of America's view of itself as the world's freest nation. Freedom to wave around death weapons. Other freedoms not so important.
Biden says he's "angry and concerned" about the verdict.
This kind of statement isn't going to bring the country together at all, it is provocative; just as was his mid trial condemnation of Chauvin.
People who were concerned about the woke voted for Biden as they thought he was sensible and might reign them in. I may well have done so myself. But the more I think about it, this was an error. The only thing that has been rolled back were the actual riots that took place in 2020, but they will start up again if we get a republican president. Under Biden, the woke are effectively in power and this will be the way until they are defeated.
We have video, shown in court, that he pointed the gun at them before they started chasing him. If you provoke people by pointing a gun at them is it then self defence to shoot them?
Yes. Under Wisconsin law, only in a case where someone provokes a violent response with the deliberate attempt of having the excuse of using deadly force against the person provoked do they lose the right of self defence (provocation with intent). Someone who engages in unlawful conduct that would be reasonably likely to provoke a violent response (Simple provocation) now has the legal duty to retreat (avoidance) - they must withdraw from the confrontation and effectively communicate their withdrawal to the other party. Withdrawing makes self defence legal: Rittenhouse did not provoke with intent, and he retreated with Rosenbaum pursuing him. That's if you believe the video shows him raising his rifle at all, of course - I don't see it myself, not least because he would have had to hold his rifle the opposite way round to every other shot of him that night.
Biden says he's "angry and concerned" about the verdict.
That is beyond irresponsible. There was a trial. The jury deliberated for several days. They reached an entirely understandable conclusion (even if you disagree you can see why they reached this verdict)
Justice was done. And the PRESIDENT casts doubt on the verdict and says he is ‘angry’?
So why not go out and riot against the judicial system. It’s rigged. The president says so
Biden is as bad as Trump
It's a really rubbish statement, Trump undermined the election system, Biden is undermining the judicial system. What the fuck is he thinking.
You know, I remember back in the heady days of August 2020 when the learned pundits of PB.com were telling me that Rittenhouse was "a juvenile white supremacist, 'blue lives matter' fanatic armed with an illegal firearm" (4 likes), compared to Anders Breivik (1 like), whose attendance at a Trump rally was evidence of "a disturbed young person's budding white racism and desire to kill in its name". And now, here we are: gun charge dismissed, not guilty on the other six charges. And this was after GoFundMe shut down the campaigns to contribute to his legal defence.
@DAlexander's comment still holds true (and could indeed be the site's motto): "It's genuinely scary that people will believe the opposite of reality if they don't like the politics of someone."
All of that's still true.
The gun charge being dismissed was because the judge "doesn't like the law".
Also dismissed were any jurors who think racism is a problem, leading to an almost all-white jury. Not just white, but whites who think racism isn't a problem.
This trial was a farce and brings shame upon America's judicial system.
Rittenhouse was clearly innocent of the charges brought. He was about to be brutally attacked and probably killed by a dangerous and violent mob. Some of them armed. Some of them with a history of extreme violence and cruelty
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not. Did he have some intent to stir trouble? Maybe, but we can’t see inside his soul
Of the charges he faced, he was innocent. It was obviously self defence. All else is verbiage
The prosecution fucked this up by not bringing charges that might have succeeded
Rittenhouse said he only pointed the gun at the people after they started chasing him.
That was the key plank of his defence.
We have video, shown in court, that he pointed the gun at them before they started chasing him. If you provoke people by pointing a gun at them is it then self defence to shoot them? The jury decided yes, you can point a loaded weapon at people then claim self defence if an altercation ensues.
The prosecution had an absolute slam dunk gun possession charge that the judge threw out because he thought the law was too confusing for normal people to understand despite the prosecution providing evidence of the people involved in supplying the gun understanding the law.
That the prosecution was also deeply incompetent is a whole other thing.
We have video, shown in court, that he pointed the gun at them before they started chasing him.
Haven't seen that video myself, certainly nothing particularly clear.
Comments
(I *think* it was Bahrain and not Abu Dhabi...)
Is there a suggestion that services are going to be cut?
I was in London yesterday and it felt a bit busier than the last time. But the world has changed and the old world isn’t coming back no matter how many trains they run.
It’s likely TfL will need to cut tube services as part of the next funding round with the government.
The last figures I saw had London at 70% of pre-pandemic volume, and this is without significant tourism traffic of course.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2021/10/28/waterloo-city-line-is-restoring-its-full-weekday-service/
A public transportation system can be one of two things: glossy, efficient and backed by huge stacks of taxpayer's cash, or cheap shoddy shit. You can't have a glossy, efficient public transport system paid for by extortionate fares because poorer people can't afford to use it and wealthier people will get in their cars instead (or, as is increasingly the case with former commuters, of course, dump the journeys completely and work from home.)
Drivers' wages and working patterns will doubtless come under pressure; however, those battles are symbolically important but of quite marginal effect in practical terms. TfL can either be propped up by the Treasury or it can be shit. So it'll probably be shit.
Should he have been there, aged 17, with a rifle? Surely not. Did he have some intent to stir trouble? Maybe, but we can’t see inside his soul
Of the charges he faced, he was innocent. It was obviously self defence. All else is verbiage
The prosecution fucked this up by not bringing charges that might have succeeded
If you think that's got nothing to do with white supremacism then I've got a bridge to sell you.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1461777196020867073?s=21
LAB: 39% (+3)
CON: 38% (-3)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
GRN: 6% (+1)
via
@PanelbaseMD
, 10 - 19 Nov
Chgs. w/ 16 Sep
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1461777196020867073?s=21
... wondering how far back my texts go
Cheating men are degenerates.
It says a lot about how bad our standards that we have a persistent adulterer as PM but the Aussies realise a potential adulterer cannot captain their cricket team and they've had that cheat Steve Smith as captain.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2021/11/05/london-underground-to-close-part-of-the-northern-line-next-year/
But that was happening anyway with the investment being made at Bank.
I guess we’ll see what happens next Spring when the Northern Line reopens.
I thought he's the poster child for vigilantism.
Next?
https://twitter.com/CBeaune/status/1461707645015019525
What confuses me is the absence of a manslaughter count, but I guess that is the DA’s decision.
Many are posting on Twitter that no black man would receive the same treatment but that surely doesn’t mean Rittenhouse should be treated unjustly.
Finally, I prefer a jury trial that lets a guilty man go free than various alternatives.
Re: politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Oh Jeremy Corbyn
Pulpstar
by Pulpstar · August 2020 · Home› General
Both Reinoehl (The Portland/BLM shooter) and Rittenhouse (The Trump supporter/Kenosha shooter) will succesfully claim self defense in court I reckon.
Well I was correct about Rittenhouse !
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057288807/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges-verdict?t=1637352364861
Reckless homicide = manslaughter I would think
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1461778741395443717
Wikipedia describes something called “negligent homicide” which seems closer.
I think those reckless endangerment counts should perhaps have stuck, but as you go on to say, the jury was not up for it at all.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-charges-kyle-rittenhouse-face-81208625
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057288807/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges-verdict?t=1637352364861
This really is not one of them. A foolish young man decided to defend his hometown against rioters burning it down, and he did it with a rifle. He was walking into trouble and bound to provoke it. However he really was then set on by criminal White Rioters, armed and dangerous, who looked set to murder him. Was he meant to just lie down and accept execution, because the riot was “on behalf” of BLM?
What a load of wank. The American Left would do well to move on and forget this tragic diversion
The Prosecution failed as soon as that admission was made. When you aim a handgun at someone - during a violent riot - you are likely to get shot in response. Especially in America. That’s it
He was (as were the people he shot) guilty of taking an assault weapon to a riot. That should be a very serious offence punishable by many years in prison.
It's like drinking and driving. There's no guarantee that someone ends up dead, but you are significantly increasing the chance that something bad happens, and it should be punished accordingly.
Rittenhouse sounds like a sad character - a bit of a lonely kid wanting to be a cop - but he wasn’t some mad loon driving 1000 miles to take out black people
That’s the real insanity here.
https://goo.gl/maps/LXJpnmsEN74mrwgj6
Con 40
Lab 43
LD 7
Grn 3
From 2017
Wed, May 5, 2021
A Humboldt County jury today found a man guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Bernhard “Ben” Bertain, who died on Christmas in 2018, three days after interceding in an altercation at the Burre Center in Eureka.
Bertain, 58, was struck several times with a skateboard by Jason Ryan Barnes, now 48, while coming to the side of a laundromat employee who was standing between Barnes and a woman he was screaming in the parking lot...
"An autopsy by Napa County Forensic Pathologist Joseph Cohen determined that Mr. Bertain’s spleen had ruptured due to an expanding hematoma caused by blunt force trauma to the torso," the district attorney's office release states.
Or, if you prefer, "A Security Worker Confronted the Skateboarders. He Ended Up With Brain Damage" from the New York Times. It has a very interesting photo of what the man looks now they've removed his frontal lobe. This is an interesting phrasing - because of course Rittenhouse didn't bring the rifle with him across state lines, and he wasn't the one causing the riot. The people causing the riot were also the ones who attacked him, one of whom - the aforementioned defence star witness who tried to execute a man while fake surrendering - was concealed-carrying a pistol without a concealed carry license.
I'd have some sympathy for a move to limit both marriage and consent for under 18s to partners with an age gap of say <10 years - that would filter out most of the really abusive cases. We'd still have to deal with the "what if the girl just gets flown to the 3rd world to be married instead" problem somehow.
My brother married a 17 year old, whilst aged 19. So far they haven't killed each other, and they've been married long enough for the novelty to have worn off a bit.
The latest #WaughOnPolitics is in your inbox.
Happy weekend everyone!
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/boris-johnson-tory-sleaze-backlash-mps-imagining-life-after-pm-1310824
Includes this peach of a quote from a former minister:
“What’s the mood? I’ll tell you: there’s been a big increase in the number of people who think Boris is a c**t.”
The sad thing about this scenario is that all the actors could with little stretch see themselves as the hero. Rittenhouse in protecting businesses against rioters and acting in self-defense against a 'mob' attacking him; the 'mob' heroically attacking him without regard for their own safety out of a sense of duty to remove an 'active shooter'.
At the moment it is a totally bizarre mish-mash that we waste shed loads of time debating for each and every particular case.
I'm in favour of one age for everything. Which I guess would be 18.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1461797269276172290
To my mind some of the more junior teachers should probably be treated as children as well, but that’s just me feeling my age.
This FBI training video describes how to employ the run, hide, and fight tactics to survive an active shooter incident... RUN if you can. It makes you a harder target and puts distance between you and the attacker. Don't hesitate. Seconds matter.
If running is too risky, HIDE in a secure place. Lock or barricade yourself in. Turn off the lights and silence phones, then plan an attack strategy in case the shooter enters.
FIGHTING is always your last resort.
Rittenhouse was running away from his attackers: Rosenbaum, Huber, "Jumpkick man", Grosskreutz were all running towards him.
More evidence of the use or abuse of numbers - the London Evening Standard leads with a report claiming "2.7 million Londoners aged 16 or over have not had any form of vaccination".
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/covid-vaccine-rate-london-millions-without-first-jab-b967188.html
As might be expected, this is not all it seems. The Mayor of Hackney claims there are 100,000 unvaccinated adult sin his Borough and other areas such as Westminster, Newham, Brent and Camden are, so the report states. operating with at least a third of the adult population completely unvaccinated.
Indeed, go on to the UK Government's own website and in my area it's 63% with first vaccination and 55% doubly vaccinated. The Government website is using MSOA population data, not ONS.
The 2.7 million has come from one Professor Kevin Fenton, the public health chief for the capital and health adviser to Sadiq Khan. Add the 12-15 age group who have yet to be vaccinated and Fenton is claiming 3 million unvaccinated Londoners.
Get right to the end of the article (the power of propaganda?) and NHS England are claiming the true figure for unvaccinated adults 16 and over in London is only 1.2 million. That's a huge difference - there's a throwaway sentence claiming "experts" believe the true figure for unvaccinated adults 16 and over in London is between 1.2 and 2.7 million.
Thus is the debate (such as it is now) couched in a fog of misconception, misunderstanding and possibly (and I stress possibly) misinformation or disinformation.
The Austrian decision to re-impose restrictions is presumably predicated on the fact that with only two thirds of their population doubly vaccinated, there is still a huge potential pressure on the country's health facilities from the remaining unvaccinated as they succumb to the Delta variant.
We know every person double or triple vaccinated is much less likely to require hospitalisation - the problem remains the relatively small number of ICU beds means it doesn't take that many cases to overwhelm the available capacity which in turn has consequences throughout the health sector.
21 more fishing boats for perfidious Albion, then...
Sean T....your Woke fucking bollocks Cancel Culture Crap doesn't transcribe that well this side of the Atlantic.
Why am I not surprised that you are siding with the populist Far Right in all it's grotesque dimensions....
I think that the lack of acceptance and recognition that BLM protestors decided to burn down business and generally riot last summer is what rankles for the American right. The "mostly peaceful" memes from CNN still get a lot of play among right wingers and frankly they've got a point. The US liberal class has become willing to accept some kind of violence, it's hardly a surprise that the American right has responded in kind.
It's on all of them to sit down and just talk to each other, close down twitter, close down Facebook, close down Fox news, close down CNN. All of these companies exist to drive clicks, views and controversy and they do it by sowing division and hatred. The algorithms don't care that they are serving right wing conspiracy content to someone who liked a picture of a cat on a Trump supporters group and CNN don't care about reporting the truth. Everyone in the game just wants to profit from what they see as an easy way to do so. The lack of ethics and morals of corporate America are behind this and now America as a nation will pay the price.
Jury trials will eventually come under attack, when they fail to deliver the current idea of justice.
In the other US court case, Travis McMichael looks guilty as sin to me.
It wouldn't have been OK for black men from DC to trek to Charlottesville and shoot 'Unite the Right' protestors either.
You shouldn't be travelling to riots with a gun.
Rittenhouse was clearly not guilty of murder.
But it's pretty fucked up to say 'Hey! It's OK to take a gun to a civil disturbance.' Because that way leads to people getting in positions where they feel (understandably) threatened, and then people die.
Rittenhouse said he only pointed the gun at the people after they started chasing him.
That was the key plank of his defence.
We have video, shown in court, that he pointed the gun at them before they started chasing him. If you provoke people by pointing a gun at them is it then self defence to shoot them? The jury decided yes, you can point a loaded weapon at people then claim self defence if an altercation ensues.
The prosecution had an absolute slam dunk gun possession charge that the judge threw out because he thought the law was too confusing for normal people to understand despite the prosecution providing evidence of the people involved in supplying the gun understanding the law.
That the prosecution was also deeply incompetent is a whole other thing.
As we don't allow folk to wander around with guns, riot or no.
Let's keep it that way.
Which was this:
"I stand by what the jury has to say. The jury system works, and we have to abide by it.”
Not sure Grosskreutz would have had a legitimate self defence claim as he pursued Rittenhouse and attacked him whilst floored.
Justice was done. And the PRESIDENT casts doubt on the verdict and says he is ‘angry’?
So why not go out and riot against the judicial system. It’s rigged. The president says so
Biden is as bad as Trump
But that seems to be the top and bottom of much of America's view of itself as the world's freest nation.
Freedom to wave around death weapons.
Other freedoms not so important.
In several US states they have regressed to the standards of the Wild West.
People who were concerned about the woke voted for Biden as they thought he was sensible and might reign them in. I may well have done so myself. But the more I think about it, this was an error. The only thing that has been rolled back were the actual riots that took place in 2020, but they will start up again if we get a republican president. Under Biden, the woke are effectively in power and this will be the way until they are defeated.
Haven't seen that video myself, certainly nothing particularly clear.