|
|
Post by james on Nov 21, 2021 20:37:45 GMT -5
Cool story bro.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 21, 2021 20:38:40 GMT -5
"[T]arring wide swaths of people with the same broad brush is insulting." Yes, very, but also very common here. Don't I know it. |
|
|
|
Post by John B on Nov 21, 2021 20:41:45 GMT -5
A year of riots that were described as peaceful protests, and then one riot happens in DC, and suddenly the very ones who couldn't bring themselves to admit there even were riots all year suddenly leapfrogged immediately over "riot" to "insurrection". Well, because it was a direct attack on our Democracy, so yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 21, 2021 20:44:06 GMT -5
And the all year riots weren't?
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 21, 2021 20:47:29 GMT -5
And the all year riots weren't? Of course not. It was the Summer of Love TM. Didn't you get the memo? |
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Nov 21, 2021 20:53:02 GMT -5
BULLSHITI daresay that no one on this forum supported throwing rocks and bottles, spray-painting buildings, or assaulting police officers. Perhaps many here supported the right to protest the treatment of black people by police, in light of the murder of George Floyd and the murders and assaults of other black men (some of whom were shot while specifically obeying the instructions of police officers). It is also quite possible for peaceful protesters and violent assholes to be present in near proximity. This was certainly the case in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Nonetheless, tarring wide swaths of people with the same broad brush is insulting. Agreed, Don. Wholeheartedly. |
|
|
|
Post by robjh22 on Nov 21, 2021 20:54:17 GMT -5
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. On edit: while it is true that the jury instructions say that the state had the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self defense (see pages 2-3 here: www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-jury-instructions-in-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/e32f975c-0af3-4382-80fa-5f4edc8003cc/), the defendant for all practical purposes has to do something, once the killing is proved, to show that he reasonably believed that force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. That's why he testified. The "reasonable" qualifier there means that it's not enough for him to convince the jury that he genuinely (i.e., subjectively) believed force was necessary. The jury gets to decide if his response was objectively reasonable. That's really two separate burdens (it sounds like one, but it's really two) that the defense has when asserting self defense. Anyway, the way a prosecutor can knock all this down ("prove a negative," if we have to call it that), is to show that Rittenhouse made belligerent statements as he fired, was charging the other guys, the other guys had their hands up, that Rittenhouse was lying in wait, that he had a clear way of safely retreating or escaping, had a history of assaults, fired an excessive number of bullets, shot the guys in the back, fled the scene, any of which might have caused the jury to believe it wasn't a reasonable belief. |
|
|
|
Post by John B on Nov 21, 2021 21:15:00 GMT -5
And the all year riots weren't? Correct. Even if every event was a riot, and even if they occurred "all year." |
|
|
|
Post by david on Nov 21, 2021 23:04:09 GMT -5
I suspect the jury decided the way that I would - innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For those who think that this will open floodgates to crossing state lines with your gun to participate or protect your side's part in a political rally, I think you are wrong. #1, This case does not set a new standard. It was a jury decision. No other jury is required to follow it. #2 Prosecutors on this type of case will be a bit smarter about the charges they bring against the accused.
#3 I don't think anyone would enjoy what Kyle went through, wondering if he was going to get life imprisonment or be free.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Nov 21, 2021 23:45:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by John B on Nov 22, 2021 13:32:24 GMT -5
That's how we always rolled in Detroit. I was expecting "stockpiling." |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 22, 2021 13:53:51 GMT -5
That's how we always rolled in Detroit. I was expecting "stockpiling." That would be Virginia where we live now. |
|
