Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Ammunition Ignorance

  1. #21
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Central Front Range, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    "Someone should write a terminal ballistics primer for lawyers."

    We have--most simply don't care.

    See comments above; for many it is about winning the case, irrespective of fact, truth, or justice.

    A few years ago I was asked to speak at a Federal Bar Council Program--the facts of terminal ballistics and firearms effects were not well received by most of the attorneys or judges, as the truth did not match their preconceived feelings and erroneous opinions about the subject....
    It’s sad, but I’m not surprised.
    Reminded me of this quote from John Adams:

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

    You’d think that lawyers would be familiar with that concept.

  2. #22
    Gray Hobbyist Wondering Beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The Coterie Club
    Quote Originally Posted by GyroF-16 View Post
    It’s sad, but I’m not surprised.
    Reminded me of this quote from John Adams:

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

    You’d think that lawyers would be familiar with that concept.
    One of the first year classes in law school is legal writing. It's basically a class on how to go around that quote.
    " La rose est sans pourquoi, elle fleurit parce qu’elle fleurit ; Elle n’a souci d’elle-même, ne demande pas si on la voit. » Angelus Silesius
    "There are problems in this universe for which there are no answers." Paul Muad'dib

  3. #23
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    Quote Originally Posted by GyroF-16 View Post
    It’s sad, but I’m not surprised.
    Reminded me of this quote from John Adams:

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

    You’d think that lawyers would be familiar with that concept.
    It’s best to disabuse yourself of any notions of facts or reality as you think you know them. They are, and I suspect have always been, almost wholly irrelevant. And, sadly, it is often the losing side that clings to them.

    We are pretty much all born into, and raised in, a Matrix of sorts. Facts matter. “Good people” don’t lie. Hard work wil, get you everything. Etc.

    I have come to believe that the sooner you take the red pill, the more successful you are likely to become, and the longer you cling to a strict interpretation of facts, morals, etc. the less so (of course, there are other routes to failure besides this, I’m speaking specifically of generally mainstream, “law-abiding”, career-minded people). It’s all in how you frame it in your own mind. People will almost always structure their mental framework starting with base wants and desires (assuming the first rung or two in the hierarchy of needs has been met already, which for almost everyone in modern American society, it has) and then back their way into justification. From screwing over a business partner to “needing” a Rattler or a Raptor.

    To my mind you have a few archetypes here, listed from least-successful to most-successful
    1. The ignorant moralist
    2. The cognizant moralist
    3. The ignorant amoralist
    4. The cognizant amoralist


    I could argue that the cognizant moralist is really the lowest, since they tend to be the most tortured. Having taken the red pill, but having rejected the Zion reality, they are living in the Matrix fully aware of that fact but unwilling to enjoy the spoils.

    I would say the lions share of upper-middle to lower-upper ( think “director” or “vp” or “associate”) management are #3, while the owners, ceos, presidents, partners, etc are #4.

    To circle back to the context of the thread, the prosecutor is certainly a 3 at minimum, perhaps even a 4.

    So he either has convinced himself of Kyle’s guilt and has backed his way into “facts” that aren’t really because bad man needs to be punished, or he knows full well what he’s doing (to one degree or another) and is willing to do it anyway to get the W.
    Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.

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
  •