Also in the news

[Carl the Llama]

To be clear, are we taking all Visa cards or just credit cards (ie. Not debit ones)?

[Suzie the Fox]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

To be clear, are we taking all Visa cards or just credit cards (ie. Not debit ones)?

Had a quick google and it seems its just the credit cards.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/amazon-visa-credit-cards-mastercard-christmas-b966647.html

 

[String fellow]

58 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

To be clear, are we taking all Visa cards or just credit cards (ie. Not debit ones)?

Apparently, Visa credit cards won't be accepted but Visa debit cards will continue to be accepted. I favour the use of credit cards for such purchases, basically because I don't like internet companies having my bank details.   

[surrifox]

18 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Apparently, Visa credit cards won't be accepted but Visa debit cards will continue to be accepted. I favour the use of credit cards for such purchases, basically because I don't like internet companies having my bank details.   

Credit cards give a whole layer of consumer protection on the goods purchased which extends far beyond merely shielding bank details 

[BKLFox]

Is there a wider issue with Visa as a few banks have also been switching their Debt cards over from Visa to Mastercard, i'm sure it'll be a make more money with mastercard thing.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-mastercard-natwest-idUSKBN2A40XK

[leicsmac]

Two days of deliberation and no verdict in the Rittenhouse case.

 

Hung jury?

[Leicester_Loyal]

I wonder if Amazon are going to be releasing their own credit card or something similar, as competition for credit cards? The Amazon card maybe.  
 

Probably not but you never know! 

[Sly]

2 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I wonder if Amazon are going to be releasing their own credit card or something similar, as competition for credit cards? The Amazon card maybe.  
 

Probably not but you never know! 

I think they already have them. 

[Dunge]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Two days of deliberation and no verdict in the Rittenhouse case.

 

Hung jury?

I haven’t been following this case nearly as much as you have, but is there a worrying suggestion here that jury members are putting their politics over facts and law?

[Paninistickers]

My crowing the other day about Notts losing its train track appears to have been premature. 

 

Hs2 will join the midland mainline at em parkway and continue onwards to Sheffield (and presumably nottm occasionally) 

 

Which, I guess, will mean a slashing of services from Leicester to London, as many Sheffield and nottm trains will bypass us and go on the hs2 fast track to london via Brum. 

 

I never quite get why the north moans about lack of investment. Successive governments have shovelled infrastructure and/or regeneration  money into Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle.

 

 

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I haven’t been following this case nearly as much as you have, but is there a worrying suggestion here that jury members are putting their politics over facts and law?

It's possible.

 

As per the earlier discussion though, it's up due debate exactly how worrying that is and what it means.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

56 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I haven’t been following this case nearly as much as you have, but is there a worrying suggestion here that jury members are putting their politics over facts and law?

I think is pretty certain to be the case. The defence made a massive blunder on jury selection first of all. They didn't anticipate how likely it was that there would be some proportion of the jury who had already made their minds up about Rittenhouse's guilt and would not change their mind even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They underestimated this danger and there are clearly one or two holdouts in the jury room who are reluctant to budge. 

 

Another issue is they pretty much know that acquittal means their lives with be threatened and there will be more violence, rioting, looting etc. People are already threatening to dox the jurors. It's likely they can hear the protests outside the court. I think the judge is surprised about how much he's been vilified in the press as well which has made him a bit nervous about granting the motion for dismissal. I think he's hoping full acquittal will come back so it takes the decision out of his hands.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

21 hours ago, leicsmac said:

"Rittenhouse testified he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed when he ran at the teenager and said he pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum in an attempt to deter him, adding he knew pointing a rifle at someone is dangerous."

 

I hope that would be sufficient to suggest that Rittenhouse testified that he fired his weapon to get him to back off.

 

 

Pointed = fired?

 

By the way, about Grosskreutz, he was disastrous for the prosecution unfortunately. He admitted that Kyle did not shoot him until he pointed a gun at him and moved towards him. It resulted in this viral pic of the prosecution lawyer facepalming:

 

 

Basically destroyed the case against Kyle on that count. The prosecution essentially told the jury to ignore their own witness.

 

Quote

With respect to the last paragraph, I fear I might be repeating myself but I'm highlighting an inconsistency between believing written laws and the definitions it contains are immutable whereas everyday definitions for words are somehow significantly more flexible. Both are rather important definitives in how we live our lives in different ways and I honestly don't know why beyond ideological bias in this case you would prize one so much over the other.

 

This is not inconsistent. It is literally my entire point. Why would you expect or want legal definitions to change in line with colloquial usage? That would be INSANE. Our legal system would totally collapse, it would be impossible for lawyers to represent clients, nobody could have a fair trial, and there would be no such thing as judicial precedent. We need stable, consistent, as you say "immutable" legal definitions because they are used as the basis for criminal convictions and depriving individuals of basic rights. 

[Dunge]

36 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

Pointed = fired?

 

By the way, about Grosskreutz, he was disastrous for the prosecution unfortunately. He admitted that Kyle did not shoot him until he pointed a gun at him and moved towards him. It resulted in this viral pic of the prosecution lawyer facepalming:

 

 

Basically destroyed the case against Kyle on that count. The prosecution essentially told the jury to ignore their own witness.

 

 

This is not inconsistent. It is literally my entire point. Why would you expect or want legal definitions to change in line with colloquial usage? That would be INSANE. Our legal system would totally collapse, it would be impossible for lawyers to represent clients, nobody could have a fair trial, and there would be no such thing as judicial precedent. We need stable, consistent, as you say "immutable" legal definitions because they are used as the basis for criminal convictions and depriving individuals of basic rights. 

…so it was an insurrection? 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

24 minutes ago, Dunge said:

…so it was an insurrection? 

Eh? Do you mean does it meet the legal definition of "insurrection" under US Law? I don't know, I have no idea how the statute or case law defines the actual crime of "Insurrection". All I know is that no charges for that particular crime have been brought against anybody for January 6th (yet). If you mean "does it match what most laypeople imagine the word "insurrection" to mean in everyday use?" then you have my answer already, I said I don't think it does. 

Edited 18 November 2021 by MarshallForEngland
typos

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I think is pretty certain to be the case. The defence made a massive blunder on jury selection first of all. They didn't anticipate how likely it was that there would be some proportion of the jury who had already made their minds up about Rittenhouse's guilt and would not change their mind even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They underestimated this danger and there are clearly one or two holdouts in the jury room who are reluctant to budge. 

 

Another issue is they pretty much know that acquittal means their lives with be threatened and there will be more violence, rioting, looting etc. People are already threatening to dox the jurors. It's likely they can hear the protests outside the court. I think the judge is surprised about how much he's been vilified in the press as well which has made him a bit nervous about granting the motion for dismissal. I think he's hoping full acquittal will come back so it takes the decision out of his hands.

.... the obvious assertion here being that there would be no such violence, rioting or looting if there was a conviction?

 

Interesting.

 

Equally interesting is the assertion that two human beings on a jury cannot look at the same set of facts regarding an incident and come to different conclusions regarding it, you know, being human and all.

 

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

Pointed = fired?

 

By the way, about Grosskreutz, he was disastrous for the prosecution unfortunately. He admitted that Kyle did not shoot him until he pointed a gun at him and moved towards him. It resulted in this viral pic of the prosecution lawyer facepalming:

 

 

Basically destroyed the case against Kyle on that count. The prosecution essentially told the jury to ignore their own witness.

 

 

This is not inconsistent. It is literally my entire point. Why would you expect or want legal definitions to change in line with colloquial usage? That would be INSANE. Our legal system would totally collapse, it would be impossible for lawyers to represent clients, nobody could have a fair trial, and there would be no such thing as judicial precedent. We need stable, consistent, as you say "immutable" legal definitions because they are used as the basis for criminal convictions and depriving individuals of basic rights. 

Yes, pointed *and* fired. Testimony is very clear on that.

 

Regarding Grosskreutz, so what? My point, one again, is that if Rittenhouse argued he feared for his life when he opened fire on Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz could argue exactly the same self defence for the same reasons, because "feared for one's life" is such a nebulous term.

 

And dictionary definitions have an equally important role to play in some areas of human society and interaction as legal definitions do, yet that didn't stop you from trying to argue that they are somehow far more subjective themselves. Again, I'm just looking for a little consistency.

 

15 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Eh? Do you mean does it meet the legal definition of "insurrection" under US Law? I don't know, I have no idea how the statute or case law defines the actual crime of "Insurrection". All I know is that no charges for that particular crime have been brought against anybody for January 6th (yet). If you mean "does it match what most laypeople imagine the word "insurrection" to mean in everyday use?" then you have my answer already, I said I don't think it does. 

Purely for the record, how *would* you define the actions of people who entered a government building during a critical session of government with the clearly and previously stated aim (numerous examples via the internet) of overturning a free and fair election and installing their own leader, even though they were (thankfully) incompetent? Misguided?

Edited 18 November 2021 by leicsmac

[Dunge]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

.... the obvious assertion here being that there would be no such violence, rioting or looting if there was a conviction?

 

Interesting.

 

Equally interesting is the assertion that two human beings on a jury cannot look at the same set of facts regarding an incident and come to different conclusions regarding it, you know, being human and all.

 

Yes, pointed *and* fired. Testimony is very clear on that.

 

Regarding Grosskreutz, so what? My point, one again, is that if Rittenhouse argued he feared for his life when he opened fire on Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz could argue exactly the same self defence for the same reasons, because "feared for one's life" is such a nebulous term.

 

And dictionary definitions have an equally important role to play in some areas of human society and interaction as legal definitions do, yet that didn't stop you from trying to argue that they are somehow far more subjective themselves. Again, I'm just looking for a little consistency.

 

Purely for the record, how *would* you define the actions of people who entered a government building during a critical session of government with the clearly and previously stated aim (numerous examples via the internet) of overturning a free and fair election and installing their own leader, even though they were (thankfully) incompetent? Misguided?

Heroic freedom-fighters battling against the abject tyranny of moderate democrats.

[leicsmac]

44 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Heroic freedom-fighters battling against the abject tyranny of moderate democrats.

Evidently seeking the same societal standards as the rest of the OECD in many areas is "abject tyranny".

[HighPeakFox]

It's fascinating observing this debate - a debate I am woefully short of knowledge to take part in.

[ealingfox]

Anyone else think it actually is quite hard to pity child sex traffickers?

[leicsmac]

Related to the above:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/evan-neumann-capitol-riot-belarus-political-asylum/

 

Should we judge a man by the company they keep?

[ealingfox]

The game was somewhat given away by repeatedly referring to the defendant by his first name tbf.

[leicsmac]

The above trial is not the only one at which societal matters are at stake going on right now:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59335011

 

I wonder if what the McMichaels did counts as self-defence?

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

Rittenhouse acquitted on all counts. Justice and common sense prevail. 

[Wymsey]

Coilin Pitchfork has been re-arrested.