Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bottomfeeder Sports

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


2,522 Excellent

About Bottomfeeder Sports

  • Birthday 04/10/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

13,049 profile views
  1. I hope that there is such video that confirms what happened. I don't really want it to show that Rittenhouse started the whole mess for a bunch of reasons. Starting with enough lives were lost already. Ending with if he ultimately prevails on the self defense defense then I would like to believe when all is said and done that this was appropriate justice.
  2. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The defense keeps telling you that "an aggressor regains the right to assault, even murder those chasing him once he flees from the scene". They tell you this as an absolute. In all of my zero years as a lawyer, as a prosecutor I have seldom heard something this absurd. So murderer fleeing the scene of that first horrible crime is free to murder a second , a third, a hundredth person and it is "a okay" because there was an absolute right to self-defense once the murderer "retreated". What nonsense! You would think that they would draw a line and say that this "privilege of self-defense" is lost when you do a bad enough thing, but they don't. Because of course that is the law. Murders, rapists, armed robbers, etc. don't gain the privilege to murder just because they are retreating. No one really believes such a thing. No one really believes that this is what the text says. Come one! But the defense needs it to read this way of course because the defendant wasn't just innocently minding his own business. If he was the defense would say accurately that someone minding their own business has a right to self defense if they are chased. But they don't say that. Instead they make this absurd claim that if you just turn tail and run that what you did to be chased is now irrelevant. How convenient! How absurd! Don't believe that this is what the law states for one minute. When was the last time you heard of someone committing a serious crime getting off the hook for murdering because "they retreated and was scared for their life and limb". My guess is never. And we can all guess as to why that is! Because it just isn't so. Lets not fall for these absurd legal theories and let this murderer walk away because when the fight he picked was going bad he got scared and started shooting. I know it is absurd. They know it is absurd. Show them that you know it is absurd! Because it is!
  3. I'm not sure that this is what you are really saying but I can easily read this as - "The one public defender was handling six cases that day and there were another six or eight cases where one lawyer was handling one case each"
  4. No! I'm saying that local governments have limited resources. You need to divide up those resources between police, public defenders, and health resources. It seems from your description of what happened that the resources primarily went to the police such they had plenty of time to waste on a minor traffic violation and then to go fishing for other crimes. From your description it sounds like the public defender's office is stretched thin and thus not providing enough time to the defense of those using those services. Even the alternative being that they have an office filled with incompetent types just collecting paychecks is evidence that not enough resources are being allocated here. From your description it sounds like no one even considered for a second that your daughter's case really belonged in the healthcare realm rather than being placed in the criminal justice system. While "defund the police" is a terrible moniker in part because it means different things to different people, if we for sake of argument take it to mean determining how those limited resources should be allocated with an obvious bias in believing that too much has historically gone to policing and not enough to other things (those I mentioned and there are others) then I think your example supports this position that is being obfuscated behind the terrible slogan. At the very least this experience should cause pause and rethinking.
  5. Assuming there isn't something we don't know or thought of I think @jon_mx's conclusions ultimately prevail. In fact absent something else I could imagine that I (not a lawyer, not in Wisconsin) the losing closing arguments will be attacking the "absurdity" of the defense's (and the respected lawyers here) interpretation of the laws. "The defense would have you believe that no matter how bad of a crime you just committed the second you start to flee, or in their words retreat you are free to shoot anyone you like and just say you were 'scared'. .... The defense would have you believe that you can walk into any situation, any place, any time armed to the teeth and it cannot be provocative. ... The defense will have you believe that you can pick fight against an unarmed opponent, run a little bit and gain the privilege of 'self defense' ... The defense called an expert witness on "justifiable shootings" or exactly the type of expert opinion that created the protests. ... The defense wants to play 'what aboutism' saying that 'if Kyle was illegally there, so was everyone else', 'there were others with guns there', etc. so what Rittenhouse did prior to these events was okay and irrelevant. Yet none of these others there illegally and/or with guns had the need to kill anyone'". I think its a loser, but I think it is what my untrained, no legal experience me as prosecutor would go with based on what we know.
  6. can only wonder if @Sandis thinking along these lines, or a completely different approach but if I was forced to make an argument I would make it along the lines of the corporations (including media outlets) are making endorsements out of their own money, but charities and churches are, at least in a small part using "my money" to make the endorsements. That some of "my money" is being collected in taxes because none of their money is. Thus I don't want my money being used to endorse candidates without my explicit consent. Another potential fear is that depending on the candidates that win and hold office the IRS will favor or exact revenge on churches and charitable organizations. Now you'll poke a million holes in that, some really big. I would lose if I tried to close those holes which is why I stated earlier that you covered the "should it be legal piece". But maybe others feel more passionate about it and can be more creative in those areas or ones I haven't thought of.
  7. You have never once in your entire life supported tax cuts? And the public defender's job is what we allow it to be by providing the resources to that office. With enough time to allocate to each case being one of those resources.
  8. Isn't it a fundamental weakness to the defenses case that the fact that he killed two people and wounded a third is not up for debate? That he unquestionably committed the acts that constitute the crimes he is being charged with? That the option to raise doubt that they got the wrong person is not available? That the entire case is built around at least one juror being found that will stubbornly hold out that it was okay to do this because he got scared? The entire case is built around siding with someone that paraded around all night as some tough guy maintaining law and order with a gun was ultimately a coward when push came to shove? While the law might be solidly in favor of these things happening, I think depending on jurors siding with a coward that killed multiple people because he crumbled when the situations he interjected himself in went sour is a weakness. I think it can be overcome especially since it seems to be a good chunk of the population that sees Rittenhouse as a "righteous dude" doing God's work, but it is still weakness defending the one person in all that chaos that got scared and started shooting and killing people. And while I'm sure you'll find my narrative unfair and/or devoid of the facts that matter to you, that doesn't really matter all that much as the fact that I can offer that narrative is by itself a weakness for the defense.
  9. Maybe we should "defund the police" a little bit and have one fewer tank in your rural community and allocate a little bit more to the public defenders office? Because that is what you are seeing here. The choices of voters that spent more on policing, wanted "law and order" and "broken window" policies. Maybe privatized the prisons and need to keep the profits rolling in. But most of all voters that don't give a about "bottom cases" because those are those "other people". There are forty hours in a work week, surely a public defender can handle 36 case (I made that number up). That is until it hits home.
  10. I think the same desperate need to get the world back on the right track that put Kyle Rittenhouse there to begin with is at play for those that desperately need for Rittenhouse to have been just stepping and going above and beyond his civic duty where "no good deed goes unpunished." It is also in play for those that simply cannot accept a self appointed vigilante can go around shooting people. Things are different for those that either don't see this as another sign of the world spinning out of control, or for those that just accept that the world is going to do its thing and there is no getting under control.
  11. I think based on your first paragraph we are in agreement that the answer is that it "depends". (At least in a place where it was okay legally to carry a weapon into that situation.)
  12. It may have been the morally right thing to do, but I think that extinguishing the dumpster fire in front of those setting it was not doing everything to avoid a confrontation. However, he was depending on his gun to keep from being confronted. That ultimately didn't work.
  13. I'm going to an extreme here. He committed the most serious crime imaginable (whatever that is for you) and is running away. He realizes someone is chasing him and he his about to be cornered. Is he free to shoot whoever is threatening him out of self defense? I think few really thinks this. And I get that there is a line between "minding his own business" and "most serious crime imaginable" but the argument we keep getting is that as soon as he retreats he can do whatever in self defense. Can he shoot a police officer? A child that just happens to be running behind him? So I get what you are saying to a degree, but I think that the opposite is just as absurd. At some point, at least for some crimes it is all just one continuous event. I don't know that the prosecutors can show this or not, but I think it is wrong to divvy up the events of the night into clean standalone events where he was being chased and threatened and ignoring why he was being chased and threatened. Maybe we find out it was because he innocently rubbed a raged maniac the wrong way. But maybe we find out that he pushed over the first significant domino that lead to all that followed. And in that case, depending n how serious that act was I think he could be just guilty in the same way as the guy fleeing from the worst crime imaginable.
  14. We all knew! Most of us (me included) just didn't think it mattered. And if the administration that ran for office explicitly rejecting "nation building" didn't get us started in two endless nation building projects we might still think that way, but....
  • Create New...