Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Page 43 of 60 [ 954 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 ... 60  Next

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,690
Location: Seattle-ish

04 Dec 2021, 7:22 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Having no allowance for that all in the old days was just wrong, IMHO.


Yeah, it's kinda weird in retrospect how seriously certain aspects of the rules were taken, everything feels much more casual now, like no one is lurking with the hammer waiting for someone to slip up and mention a banned member or violate some other odd forum rule, and permanent bans were all they ever handed out.


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


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,948
Location: canada

04 Dec 2021, 12:47 pm

Dox47 wrote:
ironpony wrote:
One thing I am curious about when comes to Gaige Grosskreutz, is he pulls out his gun and moves towards Rittenhouse to attack him but why not just shoot Kyle? I mean Kyle has a gun pointed at him does it make any logical sense to charge at someone who has a gun on you, when you have a gun yourself?


He might have been trying to get off the X and out of the line of fire before deploying his pistol, but he moved the wrong way and Rittenhouse was quicker. Fun gunfight tip: action will usually beat reaction, but if you're trying to get out of the way of a gun pointed at you, move to the shooter's outside, so to the right of a right handed shooter or the left of a lefty, as it's more difficult to track that way than across your own body with a weapon, and blade your body so as to present a narrower target to the shooter.


Oh okay I see.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 37
Posts: 3,948
Location: canada

04 Dec 2021, 12:48 pm

Dox47 wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh yes I thought so. Why did he contradict himself? Like why didn't Gaige just say in his police report that he tried to use his gun to disarm Rittenhouse instead of hiding it?


He wasn't legally allowed to carry the gun, so he may have been trying to escape prosecution himself.


Did he make a deal with immunity on that with the prosecution though so he could testify without having to worry about that? And if not, why not then?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

04 Dec 2021, 6:24 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
You treat Dox with respect, as you "should".


To be fair, DW and I go back more than a decade, she's the one who let me back in here after I was banned a million years ago; I don't know if either of us thinks that was a good idea in retrospect... :lol:


It was obvious to me that you two treat each other with respect.
Mom did say she only came back because of you, so the connection was explicit, right from the beginning. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

04 Dec 2021, 6:32 pm

Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Having no allowance for that all in the old days was just wrong, IMHO.


Yeah, it's kinda weird in retrospect how seriously certain aspects of the rules were taken, everything feels much more casual now, like no one is lurking with the hammer waiting for someone to slip up and mention a banned member or violate some other odd forum rule, and permanent bans were all they ever handed out.


Could it be that "culling the herd", to the point of near extinction, had something/k to do with toning it down?
Could it be a case of: "The operation was a success, but the patient died"? :scratch: :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,552
Location: Northern California

04 Dec 2021, 6:36 pm

Pepe wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Pepe wrote:
You treat Dox with respect, as you "should".


To be fair, DW and I go back more than a decade, she's the one who let me back in here after I was banned a million years ago; I don't know if either of us thinks that was a good idea in retrospect... :lol:


It was obvious to me that you two treat each other with respect.
Mom did say she only came back because of you, so the connection was explicit, right from the beginning. 8)


I was visiting and browsing in order to notice Dox was posting, obviously. That we are so different makes debating issues fun for me. I also like seeing a piece of someone’s journey, where they take challenges from a decade ago, how it all plays out.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,728

04 Dec 2021, 6:40 pm

Pepe wrote:
I used reason, rather than emotionalism to come to this conclusion.
And politics had nothing to do with my opinion.

Could it possibly be that the judge was simply seeing the political BS for what it was?
That he felt sorry the kid had to be dragged through the mud?


Well I didn't want to interrupt the love fest between DW and Dox but we should return to the topic huh.

Yes, you have a point, but in order to qualify the premise you need empirical evidence. Perhaps he (Schroeder) was a stickler for impartial judgement/adherence to the literal interpretation of the law, in which case both he and the jury collectively bought the defense argument that all of the events leading to/during the shootings were sufficiently ambiguous to throw doubt. However, using my NT wired brain I picked up a pattern that judge Schroeder followed which makes me think he was at least sympathetic to protecting Rittenhouse from the prosecution. Perhaps he saw in Rittenhouse somebody who reminded him of his own son?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

04 Dec 2021, 6:48 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I used reason, rather than emotionalism to come to this conclusion.
And politics had nothing to do with my opinion.

Could it possibly be that the judge was simply seeing the political BS for what it was?
That he felt sorry the kid had to be dragged through the mud?


Well I didn't want to interrupt the love fest between DW and Dox but we should return to the topic huh.

Yes, you have a point, but in order to qualify the premise you need empirical evidence. Perhaps he (Schroeder) was a stickler for impartial judgement/adherence to the literal interpretation of the law, in which case both he and the jury collectively bought the defense argument that all of the events leading to/during the shootings were sufficiently ambiguous to throw doubt. However, using my NT wired brain I picked up a pattern that judge Schroeder followed which makes me think he was at least sympathetic to protecting Rittenhouse from the prosecution. Perhaps he saw in Rittenhouse somebody who reminded him of his own son?


The hard core point that the prosecution employed unethical procedure might also have had something/k to do with it.
I haven't investigated this, just heard it mentioned several times.


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,728

04 Dec 2021, 6:54 pm

Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I used reason, rather than emotionalism to come to this conclusion.
And politics had nothing to do with my opinion.

Could it possibly be that the judge was simply seeing the political BS for what it was?
That he felt sorry the kid had to be dragged through the mud?


Well I didn't want to interrupt the love fest between DW and Dox but we should return to the topic huh.

Yes, you have a point, but in order to qualify the premise you need empirical evidence. Perhaps he (Schroeder) was a stickler for impartial judgement/adherence to the literal interpretation of the law, in which case both he and the jury collectively bought the defense argument that all of the events leading to/during the shootings were sufficiently ambiguous to throw doubt. However, using my NT wired brain I picked up a pattern that judge Schroeder followed which makes me think he was at least sympathetic to protecting Rittenhouse from the prosecution. Perhaps he saw in Rittenhouse somebody who reminded him of his own son?


The hard core point that the prosecution employed unethical procedure might also have had something/k to do with it.
I haven't investigated this, just heard it mentioned several times.


It probably helped Rittenhouse that the prosecution conducted themselves in a manner that opened themselves to invalidating their arguments/evidence.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

04 Dec 2021, 7:02 pm

Dox47 wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh yes I thought so. Why did he contradict himself? Like why didn't Gaige just say in his police report that he tried to use his gun to disarm Rittenhouse instead of hiding it?


He wasn't legally allowed to carry the gun, so he may have been trying to escape prosecution himself.


Are you evading my question?
Was Rittenhouse lawful in carrying his AR 15 during that riot?


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

04 Dec 2021, 7:09 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I used reason, rather than emotionalism to come to this conclusion.
And politics had nothing to do with my opinion.

Could it possibly be that the judge was simply seeing the political BS for what it was?
That he felt sorry the kid had to be dragged through the mud?


Well I didn't want to interrupt the love fest between DW and Dox but we should return to the topic huh.

Yes, you have a point, but in order to qualify the premise you need empirical evidence. Perhaps he (Schroeder) was a stickler for impartial judgement/adherence to the literal interpretation of the law, in which case both he and the jury collectively bought the defense argument that all of the events leading to/during the shootings were sufficiently ambiguous to throw doubt. However, using my NT wired brain I picked up a pattern that judge Schroeder followed which makes me think he was at least sympathetic to protecting Rittenhouse from the prosecution. Perhaps he saw in Rittenhouse somebody who reminded him of his own son?


The hard core point that the prosecution employed unethical procedure might also have had something/k to do with it.
I haven't investigated this, just heard it mentioned several times.


It probably helped Rittenhouse that the prosecution conducted themselves in a manner that opened themselves to invalidating their arguments/evidence.


I don't see it this way.
To me, it was obviously a case of self-defense, once the facts were revealed, regardless of the shenanigans of that pathetic prosecution team. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,728

04 Dec 2021, 8:18 pm

Pepe wrote:
To me, it was obviously a case of self-defense, once the facts were revealed


There was at the commencement of the trial a clear double standard being applied which in my view muddied the waters to begin with. Schroeder went out of his way to declare that the prosecution could not refer to the dead as "victims" yet he allowed the defense to apply pejorative terms such as rioter, looter or arsonist. This demonstrates the judge was not impartial and his interpretation was not based on evidence for Grosskreutz or Huber where there was no evidence either man was a rioter, looter or arsonist.

Judges should be held to some level of scrutiny and in my Schroeder paved the way for the prosecution to fail.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,524
Location: Melbourne, Australia

04 Dec 2021, 8:29 pm

Pepe wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh yes I thought so. Why did he contradict himself? Like why didn't Gaige just say in his police report that he tried to use his gun to disarm Rittenhouse instead of hiding it?


He wasn't legally allowed to carry the gun, so he may have been trying to escape prosecution himself.


Are you evading my question?
Was Rittenhouse lawful in carrying his AR 15 during that riot?


Yes, he was legally carrying it.
From a couple of past posts here (I have posted a few other times as well):
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=401169&p=8904547#p8904547
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=401169&p=8904354#p8904354
Most people look at the title of the statute (which is meaningless in legal terms).

They then see the first section (definition of "dangerous weapon" as used in the statute), and the second section (reasons for which one can be found guilty).

At this point, having found what they desire to see, they stop reading, ignoring the third portion of the statute which outlines the "exceptions" - Should any one of these be applicable, then the person would be behaving legally.

In this case, the exception (c) plainly states that the applicable law ("Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18") only applies to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle (or shotgun) if certain conditions are met - Either they have a "short barrel" weapon (941.28) or they are both under 16 and without applicable hunting licences (29.304 and 29.593) - Given the prosecution witness stated the rifle was of standard length, and he was over 16, he was legally entitled to carry the rifle.

The law (or at least the exception for rifles\shotguns) appears likely to have been written in order to allow 16/17 years olds in rural areas to be able legally carry\use such weapons, which is why there is no similar exception for hand-guns, as those would not be a commonly used\needed firearm in those situations - It would have been much clearer had rifles\shotguns been removed from the list of dangerous wepons in this statute, and an additional statute created which dealt with those, outlining specifically what was illegal, rather than relying on exclusions to show what wasn't - But that would have required more work on the part of the legislators, and also comes with the risk of changes (penalties for breaches, for example) to one statute not also being aplied to the second, despite the similar reasons behind each.


_________________
Quote:
"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it" - Edith Sitwell
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


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,167
Location: Australia

04 Dec 2021, 8:37 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh yes I thought so. Why did he contradict himself? Like why didn't Gaige just say in his police report that he tried to use his gun to disarm Rittenhouse instead of hiding it?


He wasn't legally allowed to carry the gun, so he may have been trying to escape prosecution himself.


Are you evading my question?
Was Rittenhouse lawful in carrying his AR 15 during that riot?


Yes, he was legally carrying it.
From a couple of past posts here (I have posted a few other times as well):
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=401169&p=8904547#p8904547
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=401169&p=8904354#p8904354
Most people look at the title of the statute (which is meaningless in legal terms).

They then see the first section (definition of "dangerous weapon" as used in the statute), and the second section (reasons for which one can be found guilty).

At this point, having found what they desire to see, they stop reading, ignoring the third portion of the statute which outlines the "exceptions" - Should any one of these be applicable, then the person would be behaving legally.

In this case, the exception (c) plainly states that the applicable law ("Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18") only applies to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle (or shotgun) if certain conditions are met - Either they have a "short barrel" weapon (941.28) or they are both under 16 and without applicable hunting licences (29.304 and 29.593) - Given the prosecution witness stated the rifle was of standard length, and he was over 16, he was legally entitled to carry the rifle.

The law (or at least the exception for rifles\shotguns) appears likely to have been written in order to allow 16/17 years olds in rural areas to be able legally carry\use such weapons, which is why there is no similar exception for hand-guns, as those would not be a commonly used\needed firearm in those situations - It would have been much clearer had rifles\shotguns been removed from the list of dangerous wepons in this statute, and an additional statute created which dealt with those, outlining specifically what was illegal, rather than relying on exclusions to show what wasn't - But that would have required more work on the part of the legislators, and also comes with the risk of changes (penalties for breaches, for example) to one statute not also being aplied to the second, despite the similar reasons behind each.


Is this a freebee, or do I have to reimburse you for your professional time? :mrgreen:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,552
Location: Northern California

04 Dec 2021, 9:39 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I used reason, rather than emotionalism to come to this conclusion.
And politics had nothing to do with my opinion.

Could it possibly be that the judge was simply seeing the political BS for what it was?
That he felt sorry the kid had to be dragged through the mud?


Yes, you have a point, but in order to qualify the premise you need empirical evidence. Perhaps he (Schroeder) was a stickler for impartial judgement/adherence to the literal interpretation of the law, in which case both he and the jury collectively bought the defense argument that all of the events leading to/during the shootings were sufficiently ambiguous to throw doubt. However, using my NT wired brain I picked up a pattern that judge Schroeder followed which makes me think he was at least sympathetic to protecting Rittenhouse from the prosecution. Perhaps he saw in Rittenhouse somebody who reminded him of his own son?


I heard from a lawyer that the judge has a long history of being an advocate for defendants. So it also possible he was simply acting true to form, we just weren’t used to seeing it.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,728

04 Dec 2021, 9:46 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
I heard from a lawyer that the judge has a long history of being an advocate for defendants. So it also possible he was simply acting true to form, we just weren’t used to seeing it.


Then he is not acting impartially as his job description requires