|
|
Post by t-bob on Nov 20, 2021 21:27:12 GMT -5
"All the news that fits on One Page"
11/20/21 Volume No. 272
An excerpt......
"Guns and the Defense: The jury in the Kenosha, Wisconsin trial of 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse found him not guilty of any crimes in the killing of two men and wounding of a third during street demonstrations in August of 2020.
Rittenhouse broke into tears and nearly collapsed on hearing five verdicts of not guilty. Outside the courthouse, supporters cheered.
He was 17 when he went to the demonstrations armed with an AR-15 assault rifle saying he was there to protect private property and act as a medic, if needed.
The jury evidently accepted his claim that he had fired his gun only in self-defense even though the two men he killed were not armed. The legal standard is that be believed he was saving himself from death or serious injury.
Rittenhouse is already the darling of the gun-loving right wing. He’s scheduled for an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Monday and Fox camera crews were with him during the trial.
In the bigger picture, although it was not the issue on trial, the case feeds the national debate about gun rights, gun carrying, and actually using them.
NY Times columnist Farhad Manjoo wrote that, “The gun transformed situations that might have ended in black eyes and broken bones into ones that ended with corpses in the street.”
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 20, 2021 22:11:18 GMT -5
What an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marty on Nov 20, 2021 23:27:53 GMT -5
I will stand firm on the issue, it is not about the Right to Bear Arms, it's about the Responsibility of Bearing Arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 21, 2021 1:39:03 GMT -5
You are on the jury. You are instructed that the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
You don't support a single thing the kid has done or believes in, the opposite, based on what you have read and seen on TV and Facebook, you abhor the kid and everything you think he represents...
But the money charges are premeditated murder and attempted murder
And after considering the presented evidence and testimony, you have come to believe that the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the kid left home that night planning on killing someone and you have grudgingly come to believe that the defense has established that there was a possibility, a possibility, that in the heat of the moment, the kid may have believed that he was at risk of death or great bodily harm and that perceived self defense may have been the reason he pulled the trigger, not intent to murder.
What do you do?
1) vote to acquit as justice system demands that you do.
2) vote guilty as it is more important to deliver what you believe to be the correct message on guns, racial justice, vigilantism, white supremacy, and other stuff than to follow a foundational principle of our justice system, plus you really don't like the kid and can't stand what you think he represents based on what you've read and seen on TV and Facebook, so fuck him, he can rot in jail.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 21, 2021 2:02:20 GMT -5
This case was a local case concerning one local incident and nothing else. It does not establish any kind of legal precedence, not a whiff. No legal message has been sent. Nothing that is being yelped about by either "side" has been supported, denied, or confirmed legally by this case, not nationally, not locally. The legal influence of this case does not extend beyond this one case. In all regards legally, this case ended with the judge's final gavel. Legally, it heralds nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 21, 2021 2:21:29 GMT -5
If I were to look for something in this case that would qualify as a "miscarriage of justice", I would start with the prosecution. What prompted the DA to go for 1st degree murder? The evidence would seem to clearly indicate that some type of manslaughter or reckless endangerment charge should have been the headliner. Claiming that a premeditation, a prior intent to commit murder, existed was clearly an overreach (an overreach that proved to doom the case).
What prompted the DA's decision to go for 1st Degree Murder? The evidence they had gathered? Or social/political pressure?
This "overreach" will come to dominate the legal autopsy of this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by t-bob on Nov 21, 2021 3:16:48 GMT -5
ePaul, you're still thinking about legal case.... dominate gun violent murderers
1. guilty
2. acquit
3. looney bin
4. other planet with bad crazies
I think ... number three or four
I should flip a coin
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Nov 21, 2021 9:09:58 GMT -5
The focus of all of this should really be on the Self Defense and Open Carry laws in the state of Wisconsin (and Arizona, Texas, Florida). These laws taken together, made clear by these jury rulings, do in fact make vigilantism legal (only if you are the right color however).
The police are the only ones who get to decide who will be given privilege to use these laws.
Many of the laws we have on the books tend to appear harmless until they get tested in court. Only then do we get to see the potential harm the laws have. Especially in combination.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 21, 2021 9:14:11 GMT -5
Maybe, but in that case the police had already said that they wouldn't be there to protect private property -- they were going to let the riots run their course. And the national press (and many here) still say that they weren't riots -- that they were peaceful protests. Many here supported the riots as did the national Democratic Party and its press.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Nov 21, 2021 9:18:05 GMT -5
Maybe, but in that case the police had already said that they wouldn't be there to protect private property -- they were going to let the riots run their course. And the national press (and many here) still say that they weren't riots -- that they were peaceful protests. Many here supported the riots as did the national Democratic Party and its press. My point is that now that the rules of engagement legally have been laid out, the next time there is a protest, there will very likely be AK-47s on both sides. The only one who would do anything illegal to start the firefight would be whomever points their gun first. After that, virtually all the rest of what happens is currently "legal". |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 21, 2021 9:20:09 GMT -5
The only one who would do anything illegal to start the firefight would be whomever points their gun first. . But you do understand that that very question and answer was part of this case? ...and that Rittenhouse did not, in fact, point his gun first. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Nov 21, 2021 9:31:21 GMT -5
The only one who would do anything illegal to start the firefight would be whomever points their gun first. . But you do understand that that very question and answer was part of this case? ...and that Rittenhouse did not, in fact, point his gun first. Oh sure. I realize he didn't point first. He was supposedly threatened first. Again, it is that all it took to legally allow him to open fire and kill is a menacing threat. Not with another gun even, just a menacing threat. Once he responded with gun fire, the other side is now legally free to return fire. The legal right to carry deadly force, combined with a very low bar for what constitutes a threat sets the stage for legalized vigilantism. Even if it wasn't vigilantism in this case, it sets legal precedence for it in the future. Furthermore, in most states like Wisconsin, to prosecute self-defense, the prosecutor has to prove a negative. He has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter was NOT in fear of his life. How do you "prove" a negative. All in all, the laws currently favor vigilantism. But you'll probably still want to have a lawyer on speed dial. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 21, 2021 9:43:59 GMT -5
He was supposedly threatened first. Not "supposedly". The overwhelming evidence -- even the testimony of the guy who was shot -- is that Rittenhouse did not point his gun first. It is not "supposedly". |
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Nov 21, 2021 9:54:20 GMT -5
He was supposedly threatened first. Not "supposedly". The overwhelming evidence -- even the testimony of the guy who was shot -- is that Rittenhouse did not point his gun first. It is not "supposedly". Okay. For my point, that doesn't matter. The jury said he was clearly justified to shoot, but that isn't my point. Whether he likes it or not, this case laid bare the serious flaws in current laws. |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 21, 2021 10:49:51 GMT -5
Not "supposedly". The overwhelming evidence -- even the testimony of the guy who was shot -- is that Rittenhouse did not point his gun first. It is not "supposedly". Okay. For my point, that doesn't matter. The jury said he was clearly justified to shoot, but that isn't my point. Whether he likes it or not, this case laid bare the serious flaws in current laws. You're guilty on all counts, not Rittenhouse. The trial proved that the laws work as they should. Additionally, the guy who was shot but lived was a felon with a Glock. He should be back in prison but your side probably won't let that happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 21, 2021 10:51:11 GMT -5
The Atlanta trial is the more important one. More egregious. If that one acquits, there will be big uproar
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 21, 2021 10:53:38 GMT -5
The Atlanta trial is the more important one. More egregious. If that one acquits, there will be big uproar I agree with Marshall. It must be Sunday. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 21, 2021 11:06:18 GMT -5
The Atlanta trial is the more important one. More egregious. If that one acquits, there will be big uproar I agree with you on the Atlanta trial. Hopefully the justice system works like it's supposed to again. But the trial to watch is the Ghislaine Maxwell trial which is unforetuneatly untelevised. I'm guessing the Clintons and other powerful liberals are sweating bullets over that. |
|
|
|
Post by John B on Nov 21, 2021 12:21:11 GMT -5
The Atlanta trial is the more important one. More egregious. If that one acquits, there will be big uproar I agree with you on the Atlanta trial. Hopefully the justice system works like it's supposed to again. But the trial to watch is the Ghislaine Maxwell trial which is unforetuneatly untelevised. I'm guessing the Clintons and other powerful liberals are sweating bullets over that. "Sweating" bullets? |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 21, 2021 12:45:36 GMT -5
The focus of all of this should really be on the Self Defense and Open Carry laws in the state of Wisconsin (and Arizona, Texas, Florida). These laws taken together, made clear by these jury rulings , do in fact make vigilantism legal (only if you are the right color however). Where does "only if you are the right color" come from? Where does "these jury rulings" come from? I can't think of any other trial similar to the Kenosha case off the top of my head, so I don't know what other trials of this type you are referring to and how race would have been involved. What colors were involved in the Rittenhouse trial? How have you determined there was a right or wrong color in the Kenosha case without resorting to making up a color that wasn't there and then making up a result that wasn't reached? Have there been other trials in which a person claiming to be protecting a business during a mass protest/riot/disorder situation killed someone in what was claimed to be self defense? Was there a trial somewhere where a young black was guarding a business during a protest/riot/disorder situation who when confronted violently by the protesters shot one in what he claimed was self defense? The only somewhat similar case situation I can come up with, protecting property during a protest, was that white couple in the fancy enclave who pointed their guns at some protesters they claimed were threatening their house. The jury ruled against them. Other than that, I don't know what trials you are referring to and how they can be compared and connected to the Rittenhouse trial. |
|
