Page 3 of 45 [ 709 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 45  Next

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,269
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Oct 2021, 10:10 pm

Brictoria wrote:
It's rather insightful that his views (and those of others on the site) appear to align so well with what Mr Lincoln wrote about in 1837:
Quote:
In 1837 Abraham Lincoln wrote about lynching and "the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country – the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule


Yes, though I'm sure the irony is completely wasted on them.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,269
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Oct 2021, 10:11 pm

auntblabby wrote:
people who should know better, side with the perpetrator of evil, indeed acting as cheerleaders for it. there is no justification for what that kid did. none. and people here with their smartassed self-impressed wordplay who belittle me as "not an adult" can go suck eggs for all i care.


Oh no, don't deprive us of your insightful commentary.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,044
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

28 Oct 2021, 12:28 am

The prosecution is arguing the FBI surveillance plane video shows Rittenhouse armed with a rife chasing unarmed Rosenbaum before the incident, so Rittenhouse provoked the incident, and cannot claim self-defense.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Last edited by TheRobotLives on 28 Oct 2021, 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,609

28 Oct 2021, 12:29 am

Dox47 wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
It's rather insightful that his views (and those of others on the site) appear to align so well with what Mr Lincoln wrote about in 1837:
Quote:
In 1837 Abraham Lincoln wrote about lynching and "the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country – the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule


Yes, though I'm sure the irony is completely wasted on them.


"Them" includes many millions of people who see these proceedings as lunacy. The defense are drawing on archaic Wisoncsin laws like stand your ground that hark back to the days of cowboys and Indians.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,609

28 Oct 2021, 12:31 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution is arguing the FBI surveillance plane video shows Rittenhouse armed with a rife chasing unarmed Rosenbaum before the incident, so Rittenhouse provoked the incident, and cannot claim self-defense.


Is the judge allowing witness testimony? I know the judge is trying to shutdown evidence that Shittenhouse was terrorising people prior to the shooting.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 105,702
Location: the island of defective toy santas

28 Oct 2021, 12:38 am

if he gets away with this, we can only expect more, many more such. the tone will have been set.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,609

28 Oct 2021, 12:44 am

auntblabby wrote:
if he gets away with this, we can only expect more, many more such. the tone will have been set.

Opens the door for right wing militia to walk into a left wing protest with a loaded weapon then claim protestors threatened them so they open fire killing a few and then claim self-defense based on the shittenhouse Rittenhouse case.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,269
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Oct 2021, 12:52 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution is arguing the FBI surveillance plane video shows Rittenhouse armed with a rife chasing unarmed Rosenbaum before the incident, so Rittenhouse provoked the incident, and cannot claim self-defense.


Gotta source besides the prosecution PR? I can find references claiming that that's what they're going to argue, but nothing regarding any actual video, or what is shows.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,269
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Oct 2021, 12:57 am

cyberdad wrote:
"Them" includes many millions of people who see these proceedings as lunacy. The defense are drawing on archaic Wisoncsin laws like stand your ground that hark back to the days of cowboys and Indians.


Millions of people think a lot of stupid things, don't they? Like thinking stand your ground goes back to the Old West period, when it's actually a relatively recent legal development, originating in Florida in the late 90s or early 2000s IIRC.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,044
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

28 Oct 2021, 1:10 am

Dox47 wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution is arguing the FBI surveillance plane video shows Rittenhouse armed with a rife chasing unarmed Rosenbaum before the incident, so Rittenhouse provoked the incident, and cannot claim self-defense.


Gotta source besides the prosecution PR? I can find references claiming that that's what they're going to argue, but nothing regarding any actual video, or what is shows.

This was discussed on Court TV today since the trial starts soon.

The video has not been released.

It doesn't seem unreasonable, because Rosenbaum was starting fires in dumpsters, and Rittenhouse had a fire extinguisher and was putting them out.

Possibly, Rittenhouse got angry/frustrated and chased down Rosenbaum to make him stop, or go to where the next fire will be.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,419
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Oct 2021, 1:56 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution is arguing the FBI surveillance plane video shows Rittenhouse armed with a rife chasing unarmed Rosenbaum before the incident, so Rittenhouse provoked the incident, and cannot claim self-defense.

I saw mention of the "newly disovered" footage a few days ago from a member of the defence team, on who it had been sprung at the last minute (I can't find the video at present where it was discussed)... Seperately, "Armed with a rifle" doesn't specify how he carried it (in hand\slung over shoulder while carrying a fire extinguisher\etc.) so it's difficult to determine what affect this may have on the trial.

Assuming there was provocation (and it wasn't Mr Rittenhouse simply running behind Mr Rosenbaum while carrying a fire extinguisher to put out a fire), the following would apply:
Quote:
939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Source: https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48/

Given he was running from Mr Rosenbaum (related to the first shooting):
939.48(2)(a) - "In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant." could apply, given Mr Rosenbaum was trying to grab the barrel of his gun\take possesion of it... The prosecutors would also need to demonstrate the "unlawful conduct" Mr Riittenhouse engaged in, in order to "provoke" the attack - lawful action provoking an attack does not appear to affect "self defence" claims under this section.

Similarly, under 939.48(2)(b), given he was running from (withdrawing from) the "fight", this would permit self defence to become available (Mr Rosenbaum did not have to pursue Mr Rittenhouse, yet made a conscious decision to do so)

This of course leaves 939.48(2)(c), which would require the prosecution to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that Mr Rittenhouse intended to "cause death or great bodily harm" to Mr Rosenbaum, and would require an explanation as to what Mr Rittenhouse could have done to ensure Mr Rosenbaum would pursue him when he ran away from him.

In the later incidents, the people who were shot were the assailants, with no provocation appearing to have been made towards any of them prior to their attacks upon him, where he appears to have been defending himself.

Off Topic
Why does this seem like a return to past explanations?


_________________
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,419
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Oct 2021, 2:02 am

Dox47 wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution is arguing the FBI surveillance plane video shows Rittenhouse armed with a rife chasing unarmed Rosenbaum before the incident, so Rittenhouse provoked the incident, and cannot claim self-defense.


Gotta source besides the prosecution PR? I can find references claiming that that's what they're going to argue, but nothing regarding any actual video, or what is shows.


I recall hearing about this in the past few days from a member of the defence team who had it appear as "newly discovered" evidence by the prosecution...I can't find the link at present, though.

The impression I got was that it likely showed Mr Rittenhouse running with a fire extinguisher towards a fire, but I'm not certain on that. Given he was there with a rifle, anything he did would have been "armed with a rifle", unless he was expected to leave it unattended\trust someone else to take care of it (and hope he could find them later to reclaim it)...


_________________
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,419
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Oct 2021, 2:30 am

Dox47 wrote:
Millions of people think a lot of stupid things, don't they? Like thinking stand your ground goes back to the Old West period, when it's actually a relatively recent legal development, originating in Florida in the late 90s or early 2000s IIRC.


Out of curiosity, can you think of any logical explanation as to why someone would believe that "stand your ground" would have any bearing on the events which occurred (even if it existed in Wisconsin statutes - which it does not, the closest thing being "Castle doctrine", which only applies within a person's home\vehicle\place of business - https://gamino.law/is-wisconsin-a-stand-your-ground-state/), given that in each instance Mr Rittenhouse was attempting to flee (following the "duty to retreat") from his assailants?

Off Topic
I do recall that a previous discussion about the events (https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=389886&p=8601454#p8601454) discussed how it would not apply, with regards to provocation\self defence.


_________________
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,269
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Oct 2021, 4:59 am

Brictoria wrote:
Out of curiosity, can you think of any logical explanation as to why someone would believe that "stand your ground" would have any bearing on the events which occurred (even if it existed in Wisconsin statutes - which it does not, the closest thing being "Castle doctrine", which only applies within a person's home\vehicle\place of business - https://gamino.law/is-wisconsin-a-stand-your-ground-state/), given that in each instance Mr Rittenhouse was attempting to flee (following the "duty to retreat") from his assailants?


Honestly? Most of these people invoking it have no idea what they're talking about, and just fling talking points around without actually knowing what they mean, and "stand your ground" is just a generic term for "self defense standard I don't like". It's pretty common with a certain type of liberal, they're the same geniuses who call any gun that isn't a revolver an "assault weapon" (and sometimes also revolvers), and think "fascism" is any ideology to the right of Joe Manchin, i.e. not serious people.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,269
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Oct 2021, 5:11 am

Brictoria wrote:
I recall hearing about this in the past few days from a member of the defence team who had it appear as "newly discovered" evidence by the prosecution...I can't find the link at present, though.

The impression I got was that it likely showed Mr Rittenhouse running with a fire extinguisher towards a fire, but I'm not certain on that. Given he was there with a rifle, anything he did would have been "armed with a rifle", unless he was expected to leave it unattended\trust someone else to take care of it (and hope he could find them later to reclaim it)...


I'm open to having my mind changed if it provides more context for the first encounter, like I've said previously, the whole thing really depends on what happened there.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,419
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Oct 2021, 5:15 am

Dox47 wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Out of curiosity, can you think of any logical explanation as to why someone would believe that "stand your ground" would have any bearing on the events which occurred (even if it existed in Wisconsin statutes - which it does not, the closest thing being "Castle doctrine", which only applies within a person's home\vehicle\place of business - https://gamino.law/is-wisconsin-a-stand-your-ground-state/), given that in each instance Mr Rittenhouse was attempting to flee (following the "duty to retreat") from his assailants?


Honestly? Most of these people invoking it have no idea what they're talking about, and just fling talking points around without actually knowing what they mean, and "stand your ground" is just a generic term for "self defense standard I don't like". It's pretty common with a certain type of liberal, they're the same geniuses who call any gun that isn't a revolver an "assault weapon" (and sometimes also revolvers), and think "fascism" is any ideology to the right of Joe Manchin, i.e. not serious people.


Ah... The sort of person who believes the "AR" in the AR-15 name means "Assault Rifle"?


_________________
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell