White privilege and other matters

[Random1]

Interesting article.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ds-beckett

Tl;dr - an academic is no longer working with a university as she tweeted about right wing black people being coconuts etc. And is now suing the uni.

I find myself agreeing with the thrust of her argument - she should be able to say what she wants, and it should prompt a debate, as for me, they are racist terms.

First time I’ve seen a cancel culture in this context.

[Uncle fester]

The judge in the Rittenhouse case is some piece of work.
The dead cannot be called "victims" in court but they can be called "arsonists" and "looters".

[Rinkals]

The judge in the Rittenhouse case is some piece of work.
The dead cannot be called "victims" in court but they can be called "arsonists" and "looters".

Yes.

His phone ringtone is Trump's campaign song.

Not bothering to hide his allegiance.

But I suppose, if your judicial system is based on political appointees, this is inevitable.

[convoluted]

The judge in the Rittenhouse case is some piece of work.
The dead cannot be called "victims" in court but they can be called "arsonists" and "looters".

Yes.

His phone ringtone is Trump's campaign song.

Not bothering to hide his allegiance.

But I suppose, if your judicial system is based on political appointees, this is inevitable.

I know you just can't help yourself, but you'll find that in fact he was a Democrat appointee ...

And if you are paying any attention you will note that a whole lot of always-Democrats voters are doing a very hard rethink ... and that's not to mention the hordes more who have woken up but are lying low about it so as not to jeopardize their employment or study.

[troglodiet]

Although if you were non-binary...

By proclaiming to be non-binary, they are creating a system whereby you have 2 types of people: binary and non-binary.

Which is by definition a binary system.

[petej]

The judge in the Rittenhouse case is some piece of work.
The dead cannot be called "victims" in court but they can be called "arsonists" and "looters".

Yes.

His phone ringtone is Trump's campaign song.

Not bothering to hide his allegiance.

But I suppose, if your judicial system is based on political appointees, this is inevitable.

I know you just can't help yourself, but you'll find that in fact he was a Democrat appointee ...

And if you are paying any attention you will note that a whole lot of always-Democrats voters are doing a very hard rethink ... and that's not to mention the hordes more who have woken up but are lying low about it so as not to jeopardize their employment or study.

USA media cycle is totally insane on the right and rapidly catching up on the left. Mostly because by making people feel shit and scared, highlighting extremes is very profitable and keeps people coming back. Their politics is so dominated by money neither republican or democrat voters actually get economic changes they want and get forced fed junk news about culture crap to distract them. Some of the antivaccine crap is ridiculous - Fox news for example has very strict covid protocols on vaccination and testing and an owner who was one the first to get his vaccine from socialised medicine. Rittenhouse is a murderer but still a stupid young adult egged on to do something stupid by a bunch mostly very rich arseholes. It is sad.

[Rinkals]

The judge in the Rittenhouse case is some piece of work.
The dead cannot be called "victims" in court but they can be called "arsonists" and "looters".

Yes.

His phone ringtone is Trump's campaign song.

Not bothering to hide his allegiance.

But I suppose, if your judicial system is based on political appointees, this is inevitable.

I know you just can't help yourself, but you'll find that in fact he was a Democrat appointee ...

And if you are paying any attention you will note that a whole lot of always-Democrats voters are doing a very hard rethink ... and that's not to mention the hordes more who have woken up but are lying low about it so as not to jeopardize their employment or study.

So what?

By telling us that he was a Democrat Appointee, you acknowledge that the appointment carries with it an obligation to deliver verdicts along political lines.

The Democrats were clearly unaware of this when they appointed him.

It's the reason that Donald Trump expects the SCOTUS to rule in his favour.

In other news, I see that the Jury selection in the Arbery murder case has only allowed one non-white jury member, so I suspect that the result is pre-ordaned. I await to be surprised, though, as I was when Cauvin was convicted.

[FalseBayFC]

In other news nearly all Saffer posters know about Rittenhouse but zero about a mass shooting on the West Rand with 7 dead and 5 wounded. Police have just arrested 5 suspects.
This is the power of the modern media. No wonder we are so fucked up. We seem to be so engaged with US news that we completely ignore what's happening under our noses.

[Rinkals]

In other news nearly all Saffer posters know about Rittenhouse but zero about a mass shooting on the West Rand with 7 dead and 5 wounded. Police have just arrested 5 suspects.
This is the power of the modern media. No wonder we are so fucked up. We seem to be so engaged with US news that we completely ignore what's happening under our noses.

Are we comparing American cops and the SAPS attitude to race?

If you are referring to the title of this thread and instances of white privilege, then you definitely have a point.

The shooting you refer to was in a West Rand township, and, as black on black violence, it's not out of the ordinary.

If it was white people in a white suburb, then yes, I'm pretty sure it would be much more prominently covered in the media.

Which brings into focus the slogan "Black Lives Matter". Clearly they do, but not as much as white lives.

[convoluted]

Yes.

His phone ringtone is Trump's campaign song.

Not bothering to hide his allegiance.

But I suppose, if your judicial system is based on political appointees, this is inevitable.

I know you just can't help yourself, but you'll find that in fact he was a Democrat appointee ...

So what?

By telling us that he was a Democrat Appointee, you acknowledge that the appointment carries with it an obligation to deliver verdicts along political lines ...

Ummm ... it was your very self who introduced the notion of judicial appointment carrying "an obligation to deliver verdicts along political lines".
i.e. you clearly implied that because the Rittenhouse trial has turned into a complete rout for the Left then the judge must have been a Republican appointee acting on their behalf.
I merely pointed out the stepping-on-the-garden-rake buffoonery of your observation.

You lot repeatedly insist on making one absurd fcuk up after another.
You do it time after time.
It's like watching cars pile up in the fog.

[Hugo]

I know you just can't help yourself, but you'll find that in fact he was a Democrat appointee ...

So what?

By telling us that he was a Democrat Appointee, you acknowledge that the appointment carries with it an obligation to deliver verdicts along political lines ...

Ummm ... it was your very self who introduced the notion of judicial appointment carrying "an obligation to deliver verdicts along political lines".
i.e. you clearly implied that because the Rittenhouse trial has turned into a complete rout for the Left then the judge must have been a Republican appointee acting on their behalf.
I merely pointed out the stepping-on-the-garden-rake buffoonery of your observation.

You lot repeatedly insist on making one absurd fcuk up after another.
You do it time after time.
It's like watching cars pile up in the fog.

That would be my take too.

If democrats appointed a Trump supporting judge it would tend to suggest he was given the job because he was the best, most qualified candidate not for reasons of political partisanship.

George HW Bush appointed a judge (Souter) to the supreme court who ended up voting a lot more in line with the liberals and I know conservatives hated it. I think Bush ended up regretting the nomination. To me that is actually a good sign in that it demonstrates that judges don't feel an obligation to toe the line and will act with impartiality and independence.

[convoluted]

... If democrats appointed a Trump supporting judge it would tend to suggest he was given the job because he was the best, most qualified candidate not for reasons of political partisanship ...

The judge was appointed in 1983, 30 plus years before Trump ever even got into politics.

Rinkals above shrieks about the judge's ringtone are because that is all he has left to cling to given that the Rittenhouse trial has exposed the MSM-Democrat narrative of the Kenosha events to be utter BS.

That ringtone is of a very popular patriotic song and is one that uncountable American have utilised. A flailing Rinkals is clutching at straws.

And the judge's local reputation is one of absolute fairness but with zero tolerance for nonsense, which accounts for his tart abruptness toward the politicized prosecution whose Leftist ineptitude has demolished their very own charges against Rittenhouse.

[Rinkals]

I know you just can't help yourself, but you'll find that in fact he was a Democrat appointee ...

So what?

By telling us that he was a Democrat Appointee, you acknowledge that the appointment carries with it an obligation to deliver verdicts along political lines ...

Ummm ... it was your very self who introduced the notion of judicial appointment carrying "an obligation to deliver verdicts along political lines".
i.e. you clearly implied that because the Rittenhouse trial has turned into a complete rout for the Left then the judge must have been a Republican appointee acting on their behalf.
I merely pointed out the stepping-on-the-garden-rake buffoonery of your observation.

You lot repeatedly insist on making one absurd fcuk up after another.
You do it time after time.
It's like watching cars pile up in the fog.

The appointment of judges IS politically based.

You admit as much when you say that he's a ""Democrat appointee".

The Judge has confirmed his support of Trump by using Trump's campaign song as his ringtone.

I didn't say that Schroeder was a Republican appointee, nor did I imply as much. I simply said judges were appointed on a political basis, something you, yourself, have confirmed. As such, I cast doubt on his ability to act impartially as a judge, particularly in politically charged cases such as this. It has nothing to do with "The Left getting routed". The fact is that an underaged teenager carried an automatic rifle to deliberately confront a hostile BLM demonstration and killed 2 people and injured a third.

I fully expect him to be acquitted.

[Edited to remove "across State lines", the implication being that he travelled a distance to get there, whereas his house is apparently located in the vicinity.]

[Rinkals]

So what?

By telling us that he was a Democrat Appointee, you acknowledge that the appointment carries with it an obligation to deliver verdicts along political lines ...

Ummm ... it was your very self who introduced the notion of judicial appointment carrying "an obligation to deliver verdicts along political lines".
i.e. you clearly implied that because the Rittenhouse trial has turned into a complete rout for the Left then the judge must have been a Republican appointee acting on their behalf.
I merely pointed out the stepping-on-the-garden-rake buffoonery of your observation.

You lot repeatedly insist on making one absurd fcuk up after another.
You do it time after time.
It's like watching cars pile up in the fog.

That would be my take too.

If democrats appointed a Trump supporting judge it would tend to suggest he was given the job because he was the best, most qualified candidate not for reasons of political partisanship.

George HW Bush appointed a judge (Souter) to the supreme court who ended up voting a lot more in line with the liberals and I know conservatives hated it. I think Bush ended up regretting the nomination. To me that is actually a good sign in that it demonstrates that judges don't feel an obligation to toe the line and will act with impartiality and independence.

When did the appointment take place?

Schroeder may well have been the most qualified candidate, but it's quite clear (from more than just a Trump ringtone) that his sympathies lie with the defendant.

In any case, I stand by my suggestion that appointing judges on a political basis is fundamentally flawed because it places an expectation for a judge to preside according to his political beliefs rather than in the interests of justice.

I take your point that a Democratic appointee should be expected to favour a Democrat line, but in this case he seems to have changed sides.

[Rinkals]

In addition, I'd like to remind anyone reading this thread that the post which elicited these attacks was my response to Fester's comment quoted below.

The judge in the Rittenhouse case is some piece of work.
The dead cannot be called "victims" in court but they can be called "arsonists" and "looters".

Yes.

His phone ringtone is Trump's campaign song.

Not bothering to hide his allegiance.

But I suppose, if your judicial system is based on political appointees, this is inevitable.

[Uncle fester]

AFAIK Judges are appointed by politicians in most countries.
The problem here is the poisoned political environment when even judges can't manage impartiality.

[Rinkals]

AFAIK Judges are appointed by politicians in most countries.
The problem here is the poisoned political environment when even judges can't manage impartiality.

Are they?

That surprises me.

[Ata Rangi]

He was initially appointed to a vacancy but subsequently has been required run for re_election to that role. Of course elected Judges carry a whole raft of other issues.

[Rinkals]

Since April 2006, judicial appointments have been the responsibility of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.

Before this appointments were made on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, who was a Government Minister. The Lord Chancellor’s Department made its own enquiries as to the most eligible candidates. It was considered that the appointment process was open to the criticism that a member of the government should not have the sole responsibility for appointing judges. It was also considered that judges were appointed in the image of existing judges rather than solely on merit from a pool of widely drawn eligible candidates.

Despite the criticisms levelled at it the former method of appointment in fact worked rather well. Candidates were selected on merit, there was no question of any political consideration being involved, and the Lord Chancellor usually acted on the advice of the senior judiciary, who were in a position to identify able practitioners. Selection was, however as critics pointed out, from a rather narrow pool and this did nothing for the diversity of the judiciary.

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judi ... jud-appts/

The United Kingdom, much unlike the United States, selects its justices through a process that emphasizes merit and experience. In the American system, a partisan president names a judge whose political views are well known to key members of that president’s party, and then the judge is confirmed (or denied a confirmation vote altogether) by a partisan Senate. The British system, by contrast, largely relies on senior members of the judiciary and other people who are intimately familiar with the judiciary to choose justices — with the added caveat that “selection must be on merit.”

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20881843/ ... ion-brexit

[convoluted]

So a Not Guilty verdict on all charges was announced 10 minutes ago.

I watched it on CNN. Their first commentator was a legal analyst who briefly said "It's over".
Second was a guy who'd been through countless such cases and he said flat out that the whole thing had been "a rush to judgement", ie an instant demand from the Left in the immediate aftermath of the shootings that Rittenhouse rot forever in jail even before any witnesses had been spoken to or evidence gathered. So he basically said there should never even have been a trial.

Third up was a female CNN court reporter who intoned, probably six or seven times, that "We have learnt ..." as she listed each prosecution charge and allegation then illustrated how the trial had exposed every single one of those as being total BS.

This is yet another utter humiliation for the easily-led useful idiots incapable of independent thought or reasoned rationale who once again have been manipulated by the Mainstream Media.

[Uncle fester]

Hol-eee shit

[Ymx]

What did they rule the shootings as? Self defence??

[Uncle fester]

What did they rule the shootings as? Self defence??

They don't rule it as anything other than guilty or not guilty.

[Tichtheid]

I haven't been following this to be honest but as I understand it the following facts are corrects

The young man who has been acquitted had brought an assault rifle on to the streets that night because of unrest due to BLM protests.

He was the only person to shoot people dead that night.

He was chased by others who had guns, two of whom he killed and another was shot in the arm

Is that right?

[Slick]

I haven't been following this to be honest but as I understand it the following facts are corrects

The young man who has been acquitted had brought an assault rifle on to the streets that night because of unrest due to BLM protests.

He was the only person to shoot people dead that night.

He was chased by others who had guns, two of whom he killed and another was shot in the arm

Is that right?

Pretty much. Totally normal country

[Tichtheid]

I haven't been following this to be honest but as I understand it the following facts are corrects

The young man who has been acquitted had brought an assault rifle on to the streets that night because of unrest due to BLM protests.

He was the only person to shoot people dead that night.

He was chased by others who had guns, two of whom he killed and another was shot in the arm

Is that right?

Pretty much. Totally normal country

Wyatt Earp would probably recognise the USA right now

[Kawazaki]

I'm not too au fait with this case other than the very broad strokes but is there much chance of a George Floydrsque reaction?

[Ymx]

I think all the BLM protesters shot were white. So perhaps not.

[Tichtheid]

I don't know anything about the two people who the defendant killed or the other one who was shot and injured.

However, a 17 year old roaming the streets with a loaded assault rifle is not against any law?

Even for the USA that seems very strange.

[Kawazaki]

I think all the BLM protesters shot were white. So perhaps not.

Is it wrong to admit I sniggered at the sheer Monty Pythonesqueness of your reply to my question?!

[notfatcat]

Common sense prevailed. The videos were put out there online from virtually day one last year so everyone could witness his exercising self-defence against all 4 people who attacked him. Perhaps the most amazing thing was that he was charged in the first place. Well, until you remember that he was charged 2 days after the incidents and therefore well before a thorough investigation had taken place. Clearly a political trial.

I suppose it's fair to ask how the heck can a 17 year old roam around with an assault rifle. I suppose the answer is that when you have crowds of scumbags, many armed with assault rifles and molotov cocktails, roaming around torching a city to the tune of $50m while law enforcement does fuck all you will inevitably get citizens who are prepared to try and do something for the community rather than sit there watching it on a livestream.

[notfatcat]

I don't know anything about the two people who the defendant killed or the other one who was shot and injured.

However, a 17 year old roaming the streets with a loaded assault rifle is not against any law?

Even for the USA that seems very strange.

Firstly it's an open carry state. As for his age - from what I understand the law is a little convoluted, vague and not well written. So the judge was pretty much forced to throw out that particular charge.

[Rinkals]

I haven't been following this to be honest but as I understand it the following facts are corrects

The young man who has been acquitted had brought an assault rifle on to the streets that night because of unrest due to BLM protests.

He was the only person to shoot people dead that night.

He was chased by others who had guns, two of whom he killed and another was shot in the arm

Is that right?

He was also assaulted with a skateboard: he should sue the survivor.

[Rinkals]

I haven't been following this to be honest but as I understand it the following facts are corrects

The young man who has been acquitted had brought an assault rifle on to the streets that night because of unrest due to BLM protests.

He was the only person to shoot people dead that night.

He was chased by others who had guns, two of whom he killed and another was shot in the arm

Is that right?

Pretty much. Totally normal country

Wyatt Earp would probably recognise the USA right now

Certainly, a boy is being fêted for shooting and killing protesters with an automatic rifle.

It does send out a message.

[petej]

America isn't very civilised. They love guns. Not overly surprised. An idiot child misled by other idiots.

[Blackmac]

I don't know anything about the two people who the defendant killed or the other one who was shot and injured.

However, a 17 year old roaming the streets with a loaded assault rifle is not against any law?

Even for the USA that seems very strange.

Firstly it's an open carry state. As for his age - from what I understand the law is a little convoluted, vague and not well written. So the judge was pretty much forced to throw out that particular charge.

As soon as the firearms charges were thrown out there was no likelihood of convictions. Even the CNN coverage was indicating that.

[petej]

Common sense prevailed. The videos were put out there online from virtually day one last year so everyone could witness his exercising self-defence against all 4 people who attacked him. Perhaps the most amazing thing was that he was charged in the first place. Well, until you remember that he was charged 2 days after the incidents and therefore well before a thorough investigation had taken place. Clearly a political trial.

I suppose it's fair to ask how the heck can a 17 year old roam around with an assault rifle. I suppose the answer is that when you have crowds of scumbags, many armed with assault rifles and molotov cocktails, roaming around torching a city to the tune of $50m while law enforcement does fuck all you will inevitably get citizens who are prepared to try and do something for the community rather than sit there watching it on a livestream.

Common sense hasn't prevailed. Common sense is not putting yourself in that position. Common sense is not having 17 year olds being able to access assault rifles. Common sense is training your police force properly. Common sense is having proper gun laws.

[Tichtheid]

Common sense prevailed. The videos were put out there online from virtually day one last year so everyone could witness his exercising self-defence against all 4 people who attacked him. Perhaps the most amazing thing was that he was charged in the first place. Well, until you remember that he was charged 2 days after the incidents and therefore well before a thorough investigation had taken place. Clearly a political trial.

I suppose it's fair to ask how the heck can a 17 year old roam around with an assault rifle. I suppose the answer is that when you have crowds of scumbags, many armed with assault rifles and molotov cocktails, roaming around torching a city to the tune of $50m while law enforcement does fuck all you will inevitably get citizens who are prepared to try and do something for the community rather than sit there watching it on a livestream.

Common sense hasn't prevailed. Common sense is not putting yourself in that position. Common sense is not having 17 year olds being able to access assault rifles. Common sense is training your police force properly. Common sense is having proper gun laws.

Quite.

I've read a little bit about the case this morning, as I understand it the demonstrations were against the police officer who had shot a black man in the back seven times.

Rittenhouse did travel 20 miles to city and he did cross state lines but not with the rifle, that was being kept at a friend's house who was keeping it for him until he turned 18. Rittenhouse had paid for the gun but his friend had bought it since he was 18 and it's illegal to buy these weapons under that age.
The gun was legal because it is classed as a hunting weapon, the barrel is a couple of inches longer than the otherwise same weapon which would have been illegal to have on the streets like that.

The friend is being charged, I don't know the exact details of the charge, but probably something like supplying a gun to a minor or whatnot.

[TB63]

FEm8hTPXEAAP3JX.jpeg (69.82 KiB) Viewed 735 times

FEmLUU6WQAYpGHa.jpeg (55.49 KiB) Viewed 735 times

FEmJyyqXoAcgfiM.jpeg (122.44 KiB) Viewed 735 times

FEmIsBlWUAIrqC8.jpeg (66.62 KiB) Viewed 735 times

FEnL0HNXsAEvb5W.jpeg (43.96 KiB) Viewed 735 times

[notfatcat]

Common sense prevailed. The videos were put out there online from virtually day one last year so everyone could witness his exercising self-defence against all 4 people who attacked him. Perhaps the most amazing thing was that he was charged in the first place. Well, until you remember that he was charged 2 days after the incidents and therefore well before a thorough investigation had taken place. Clearly a political trial.

I suppose it's fair to ask how the heck can a 17 year old roam around with an assault rifle. I suppose the answer is that when you have crowds of scumbags, many armed with assault rifles and molotov cocktails, roaming around torching a city to the tune of $50m while law enforcement does fuck all you will inevitably get citizens who are prepared to try and do something for the community rather than sit there watching it on a livestream.

Common sense hasn't prevailed. Common sense is not putting yourself in that position. Common sense is not having 17 year olds being able to access assault rifles. Common sense is training your police force properly. Common sense is having proper gun laws.

The jury applied common sense to their deliberations and verdict based on the evidence and the bleedin' obvious.

Also I note that your call for common sense doesn't include the authorities who allowed the riots to happen and the common or garden scum who did the rioting. I guess ultimately the Darwin award nominees were perhaps the ones who showed the least common sense. Rittenhouse's decision to arm himself seems like a very wise one in terms of his personal health.