OK so you think it is fine to refer to them as 'rioters'.

Lets say in this case like this the guy is not dead, he is in a coma.

You say it is ok to refer to him as a 'rioter' if the merely THINK the evidence supports it. The trial proceeds against the Shooter who put him in coma. The shooter gets off.

But when the guy comes out of the coma he is charged with Rioting and found not guilty.


I still cannot understand what you are so willing to throw out his presumption of innocence just because someone THINKS they have evidence that may not survive in court?


Are you ok with that sequence and whatever part in labeling him a rioter when it was LATER proven he was not played in the guy getting an innocent verdict?

Agreed and I think most of us are saying that.

You seem to be saying one side of the ledger bias is fine to present in court (accusations of rioting with no verdict) but the other side is not (must have verdict first).

You guys really are not thinking about this correctly. The standard for admissibility of evidence (or motions in limine) is different than the standard for a criminal conviction. "You cannot refer to someone as X,Y,Z unless they have been convicted of X,Y,Z" isn't some sort of complete evidentiary argument.

All evidence is prejudicial in the sense that it tends to influence the outcome. The mere fact that evidence may influence the outcome (or make the jury think negatively about someone who was involved in the events in question) doesn't mean it is inadmissible.

You think be thinking about the following questions (i) Are words like rioter and looter justified by the facts? (i.e., has the defense proffered evidence that is convincing enough that the defense should be allowed to use those words in front of the jury?); (ii) Is the proposed characterization or description of the people who were shot actually relevant to the defenses of the person on trial?

(i) is obvious. If there is no evidence that these guys were throwing bricks through windows, torching cars, etc, then it would be outrageous for the judge to allow the defense to characterize them as rioters or looters.

(ii) is more complicated. If a negative characterization has nothing to do with any legitimate defense, it should not be allowed. Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers, for example, would have no business describing one of the shooting victims as a "sexually promiscuous." The sexual history of the people who were shot is completely irrelevant.

Rittenhouse's main argument is that he acted in self-defense. Self-defense obviously depends on whether Rittenhouse believed his life was in danger and whether that belief was reasonable. If Rittenhouse saw one of these guys jumping up and down on the hood of a car, is that relevant to whether he reasonably believed his life was in danger? Not especially, and if I were the judge, I would be skeptical about allowing defense counsel to use words like "rioter" on that basis. If Rittenhouse saw one of these guys hit a police officer in the head with a pipe and then that person came running at him, well, that's something different. In that case, I think the defense very likely would be allowed to describe the person who was shot as a violent rioter.

What hell is wrong with the people in this video? Regardless of what you think about Rittenhouse's legal defenses, he obviously acted deplorably and contributed to three deaths that need not have occurred. That's hardly cause for celebration.

As i pointed out in another thread, the law deals poorly with situations where someone goes looking for trouble, finds it, and then shoots someone.

i have a tough time getting overly interested in this case..

rittenhouse clearly armed himself and drove(had his mommy drive him) to a place he did not live in the hopes of fulfilling some kind of conservative red dawn fantasy about shooting and killing the "other", and deliberately attempted to put himself in a position in order to accomplish that agenda.

this is just about finding out if American jurisprudence can actually fit that into a criminal sized box to prevent this from happening again in the future(which it surely will if he gets acquited), without states having to specifically decide to codify conservative revenge 2A wet dream fantasies state by state.

but it was telling when that post was on reddit (who 90+% believe he is guilty) legit had a bunch of so called "progressive's" etc all think the trial is over due to that and prosecution now has no case. I was just chocked to read a lot of posts saying that hes now not guilty after months of saying he is

wasn't that a prosecution witness too? I think it was a huge win for defense but its not over yet. but overall It seems yesterday was prolly the biggest win for either side and it seemed to go for the defense

you are kinda clueless if you dont understand why these people are celebrating

I obviously understand why they were celebrating. It was a rhetorical question.

I also don't see why the trial should be over. The witness in question was the last person that Rittenhouse shot. Rittenhouse shot the other people before this witness did anything that could be construed as threating Rittenhouse's life.

I disagree. He defended his community against anarchist/communist rioters and looters who wanted to burn the whole town to the ground. His actions were heroic.

Rosenbaum literally told him earlier in the night, "If I catch you alone, I'm going to ****ing kill you". Then later on, Rosenbaum ambushed Rittenhouse, catching him alone. Rittenhouse tried to flee, Rosenbaum pursued him and cornered him. With no more avenue for escape, Rosenbaum went for his gun and Rittenhouse shot him. Clearcut self defense.


As for the Huber shooting, Rittenhouse was being pursued by an angry mob, with someone shouting "Cranium that boy". He was tripped, and Huber bashed him over the head with a skateboard. Again, clearcut self-defense.


It's important too to understand the context of Rosenbaum's actions. He had been released from a mental hospital the previous night, where he was sent after a suicide attempt. This is not a normal rational human being we are talking about, but a severely unbalanced, deranged, highly aggressive psycho with a long history of victimizing others.

his community in a different state? lol.

that's not how any of this works. you dont get to retcon in a bunch of random information that wasn't available previously..

i can't mug someone and then justify it because upon further review after the fact he was drug addict and had a history of mugging people himself, and i randomly had a foreshadowing psychic thought that he would mug me so i mugged him first and now im innocent..

Wait until the next big Protest Marches in Florida and a bunch of Pick up truck drivers show up en masse to test out Florida's new law to purposely put their vehicles in the middle on the protests and then run over anyone who blocks their way.


Florida ‘Anti-Rioting’ Law Will Make It Much Easier to Run Over Protesters With Cars
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the law, which includes civil immunity for people who drive their cars into crowds of protesters.

As of Monday in Florida, a gathering of three or more people can be labeled a “riot”—and if they’re blocking the road and you feel frightened, it’s generally OK to run them over with a car.

These are just some of the stipulations created by Florida’s new controversial anti-protest bill, which Gov. Ron DeSantis, f... signed into law on Monday.

“It’s the strongest anti-rioting pro-law enforcement piece of legislation in the country. There’s nothing even close,” DeSantis said ...

Just curious do you also think George Zimmerman was just a heroic guy trying to protect his neighborhood when he killed Trayvon?

He worked there. Had lots of friends there. His father lived there. And it is 15 minutes away from his house. But sure, keep repeating "muh state lines" as if that has any possible relevance.

The information may or may not be legally admissible depending on a number of factors, but I don't see why we as outside observers cannot try to appreciate the full context of the events.

I agree that some background context is important however isn't the prosecution charging for murder and just murder? so what you said is also true for the other side technically. therefore we are looking at this specific instance where the prosecution charged for this particular case in that instance.

im no law expert tho

I actually did not follow the Zimmerman trial and am unfamiliar with the evidence so I don't have an opinion on what happened.

But you're super familiar with this evidence. Incel goes out into the night with an automatic looking for hoods to shoot, becomes far right celebrity, finally gets laid in prison. Tell me about your coaching tho. How much are you paying for that lame color

it's a "reasonably believes" standard.. i haven't specifically looked up his jurisdiction but that generally means how an ordinary person with ordinary intelligence in the situation would react to what that reasonable person perceives as a imminent threat to his life.. i.e. no pyschic information about the victim being previously released from a mental institution and vague assumptions of his motivations..

it's also not his community by really any definition of community you can find. just say you enjoy that he shot and killed people that may have spray painted a wall with a slogan you dont like and be done with it.

The only people he killed were those who were actively trying to kill him. Do you not believe in the right to self defense?

Yes. If you have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger or you are in danger of grave bodily harm, then you can use lethal force in self defense. Like if some ******* brains you with a skateboard, or if a deranged lunatic who told you earlier in the night "If I catch you alone I'm going to ****ing kill you" chases you down and corners you and grabs for your gun.

agahaha, holy **** this guy

i dont personally believe that arming yourself and driving to ANOTHER community in the hope to attempt to shoot people with the gun you intentionally brought for that specific reason is anywhere near "self" defense.

obviously if i were his attorney i would be arguing that case to a hopefully all white jury that believes the biggest threat to america is BLM.org and CRT(whatever they think it may be)..


the second paragraph is just you admitting that all the extraneous information you previously posted is, like i said, irrelevant.

it's not a complex one. Zimmerman say a black person walking down the street. With no evidence began following him with his firearm. Called the police who questioned him and upon him saying he had not witnessed any crime told him to back off and stop following. He did not and continue to follow and approach the young man who then turned around and confronted him. During what escalated into a fight Zimmerman killed him and got off based on stand your ground laws. However stand your ground laws could have just easily applied to the guy being followed by the guy with the gun, if he felt threatened and compelled to defend his life.


Anyway what about the guys then who chased down and killed Ahmaud Arbery, then if you don't Zimmerman case?

Hero's protecting their community?

Do you have an opinion on how Zimmerman has conducted himself since his trial?