Page 35 of 93 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 923

Thread: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial.

  1. #341
    Name:  4F877ED6-30F5-4464-B5E9-53386A08D78B.jpg
Views: 527
Size:  56.3 KB
    #RESIST
    13
     

  2. #342
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerrero View Post
    Another interesting overview/retrospective

    https://hwfo.substack.com/p/rittenho...tmus-for-adult
    When you put it in context...
    Further, if you're going to pick a side culturally, you have to choose between a boy scout medic who came to a town to prevent it from being burned, and a roaming band of rapists, wife beaters, and robbers trying to burn a town down.
    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
    14
     

  3. #343
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyGBiv View Post
    When you put it in context...
    I have to admit, that’s a good point.
    ”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
    3
     

  4. #344
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerrero View Post
    Another interesting overview/retrospective

    https://hwfo.substack.com/p/rittenho...tmus-for-adult
    It. [the truth]

    Would.

    Get.

    No.

    Clicks.
    Holy shit, how many times have I said some version of that reference so many things. The 24 hour news cycle and infinite media has done an incredible amount of damage to our culture based purely on controversy = attention and attention = $$$.
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
    15
     

  5. #345
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Without putting the kid on a pedestal, or knocking him off, (which is the reason why a lot of alleged historical "character" information, both good and bad, is excluded), I just want to see a verdict rendered on the merits.

    We can all debate the wisdom of his being there, and whether he was in violation of state and local ordinances for his possession of the firearm under the circumstances of his being there...but at the end of the day, what matters is "were his actions justified given the level of threat encountered from the individuals who pursued and attacked him?"

    I can find lots of things to not like about his being there and his "role playing"...but I will not deny his right to defend himself from those who sought to do grave bodily harm or worse.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron
    21
     

  6. #346
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    I have a lawyer, rights question. I heard the DA wanted to add the possibility of new and lesser charges to the jury options. Is this legit? Naively, it seems to me that if you add new charges that negates the defense's ability to speak to the legal nuances of those charges. Might have you conducted your defense differently to include those possibilities?

    It seems a ploy to get some kind of felony conviction on Rittenhouse (which is life disrupting) in any way you can.

    My overall:

    1. He is not guilty.
    2. He was stupid to go there
    3. The motive to defend society is understandable, might be crossed with some political views (so what, the law is what counts).
    4. The fault is that government has failed to protect civil society through incompetence or political catering (I note that this can be found in both conservative and liberal governments throughout history who let their folks get away with violence). This leads to citizens arming up and leading to a tribal vs. justice society.
    5. Don't dress like a clown and have a snarky, sneering intonation when you speak.

    Aside - DA tried to show that video games make you a killer. Was he trying to say that Kyle was driven to violence by them? Or that his playing of them indicated a motivational intent to be a killer?

    The connection between games and violence is tenuous at best from the literature. My alma mater did a online seminar on this and the presenter concluded that there is no direct link, any if at all is indirect. One finding that was interesting is that they gave small kids a don't touch a gun presentation, had them play a video game with no guns, sword or guns. Then the kids had access to find a gun (not loaded - no firing pin). The sword kids and gun kids touched the gun 50 to 60% of the time. No gun kids about 40%. The majority of all groups did not tell an adult, has instructed. This finding is not unknown, point being many little kids don't pay that much attention to lectures.
    2
     

  7. #347
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Missouri
    From what I've gathered here and other places, the first shooting seems to be the one that is the hardest to defend. I'm not saying it's indefensible, just less clear than "guy pointing gun at me" and "being beaten with skateboard". Does a hypothetical conviction on the first event put him in more legal jeopardy for the subsequent events?

    Put another way, it's relatively easy to justify defending oneself with a gun when being hit in the head with a skateboard, but if the skateboard guy attacked you because you shot someone, are you considered to still have "started" that fight? Can you still claim self defense in that situation? I understand that laws vary, and there might not be a cut and dry answer, and ultimately, the jury decides anyway.

    Just curious.
    0
     

  8. #348
    Site Supporter NEPAKevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    No, it's a court room. Attorneys are not required to believe their own arguments or premise and their job is to build a narrative the jury latches on to. There's a reason I and others talk about things mattering that seem inconsequential to the "if it's a good shoot it's a good shoot" crowd who universally have no experience in these matters but think their opinion matters.
    This trial is almost like someone took every "cute lawyer trick" from Ayoob's "Self Defense and the Law" articles and made them into a play book.
    "You can't win a war with choirboys. " Mad Mike Hoare
    3
     

  9. #349
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Bio View Post
    From what I've gathered here and other places, the first shooting seems to be the one that is the hardest to defend. I'm not saying it's indefensible, just less clear than "guy pointing gun at me" and "being beaten with skateboard". Does a hypothetical conviction on the first event put him in more legal jeopardy for the subsequent events?

    Put another way, it's relatively easy to justify defending oneself with a gun when being hit in the head with a skateboard, but if the skateboard guy attacked you because you shot someone, are you considered to still have "started" that fight? Can you still claim self defense in that situation? I understand that laws vary, and there might not be a cut and dry answer, and ultimately, the jury decides anyway.

    Just curious.
    But they aren't individual distinct events. If the first shooting is unjustified, then, hypothetically, Kyle could reasonably appear to be a murderer who needs to be stopped and hitting him in the head with a skateboard or pointing a gun at him could be justified. Because our use of force laws are based on reasonableness (rather than being actually right), it's possible for two people to lawfully use force against each other. I think that's a pretty hard sell in this case since Kyle only used force when absolutely necessary and attempted to flee before using force. Those who chased him down could simply have not done so to avoid violence.
    8
     

  10. #350
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by joshs View Post
    But they aren't individual distinct events. If the first shooting is unjustified, then, hypothetically, Kyle could reasonably appear to be a murderer who needs to be stopped and hitting him in the head with a skateboard or pointing a gun at him could be justified. Because our use of force laws are based on reasonableness (rather than being actually right), it's possible for two people to lawfully use force against each other. I think that's a pretty hard sell in this case since Kyle only used force when absolutely necessary and attempted to flee before using force. Those who chased him down could simply have not done so to avoid violence.
    @Bio

    Been wondering the same thing. We have an ugly murder trial in GA down in Brunswick where the defendents are arguing self defense also. I'm hearing a lot of analysis about how if you were committing an illegal assault then the victim resisted, you don't get to call self defense for killing him. Not a direct analogy to mis-guided Kyle because his offense if any for being there were not as severe to begin with. FWIW I thought early on Kyle had a decent SD argument but there's more about the law I don't know than a I do.
    “Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
    0
     

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •