Full Stop? LOL. No it is not a full stop. It is a public building. Our elected officials are not kings, they are elected servants. The vast majority of people there were there to peacefully protests. The over the top fear and criminalization of anything right is a serious problem.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
January 6th - what will happen? (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Maik Jeaunz
- Start date
- Status
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
This is such a bizarre take.
For people who entered the Capitol you cannot enter the Capitol with the intent to stop their work.
I’m sure you’ll agree their were much worse offenses among many people in the crowd who forcefully entered the building.
For the entire protest in general they were there for the nonsense peddled by Trump. Have at it but be prepared to be ridiculed
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
If you mean he gave his friend the money to buy it and keep it in WI for him, then yes, his friend "held" it for him.
squistion
Footballguy
Well, yes, but no one has been charged with just entering a public building, most of the charges have been:
Knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority
https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
FairWarning
Footballguy
Desert_Power
Footballguy
This is even stranger than Tim joining the left honestly. I don't mind a big tent.
Mr.Pack
Footballguy
Rittenhouse has admitted it and so did the friend who bought it for him
Witz
Footballguy
the rover
Footballguy
moleculo
Footballguy
Seriously?
The capital was (poorly) guarded by a police force, over-come by the mob. You don't get to be a part of the mob that crossed the barricade, or entered via a smashed window and pretend you are a tourist.
This is some amazing gymnastics on display here, especially just hours from arguing minutiae of other legalities. So very odd.
A three year-old could have crossed that 'barricade'. Did you not watch any of the hearings and how woefully the security was understaffed that day? You had a mob of 10,000 people met by a police force of 5 officers.
The General
Footballguy
You do and then blame “the left” and media for your actions. Completely ignore Trump’s role. Blame the cops. Mix in some talk about BLM riots.
The General
Footballguy
the rover
Footballguy
FairWarning
Footballguy
His friend will get in big trouble also.
Rittenhouse has admitted it and so did the friend who bought it for him
moleculo
Footballguy
Does that make it ok?
I mean, if you are trying to argue that it's OK for people to break laws because it's easy to do so, go for it. But don't try to tell me you support law and order.
sho nuff
Footballguy
A mob of 10,000...hmm, but I thought it was just a small part that was violent and going in to the Capitol.You’ll be arguing it was entrapment soon
Just because they outnumbered the police does not make their actions any less illegal. How someone can still be arguing is one of the most disingenuous things ive seen in some time
dawgtrails
Footballguy
A three year old most assuredly couldn't have dragged police officers down the steps or nearly crushed another police officer to death. Yes, the barricades along the steps were incredibly lame. But you are completely ignoring the locked doors with officers with guns drawn inside and the smashing of windows by protestors and the beatings given with flag poles, etc.
It's not as if once the barricades were knocked over everyone just strolled in peacefully
It's not as if once the barricades were knocked over everyone just strolled in peacefully
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Somebody left the back door to the Brink's Truck open, a child could have taken that bag of cash.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. And also image the Brink's truck driver was warned there were theives in the area and still left the doors wide open.
the rover
Footballguy
Zimmerman waived a separate pretrial hearing on the stand your ground defense, but it was part of the trial and was in the jury instructions. Jurors polled after the trial also said they considered it. Once again, your facts are wrong.
The General
Footballguy
Apple Jack
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo
Footballguy
"Your honor, the level of maturity and responsibility was so lacking on Jan 6 I request my client be tried as a minor."
Sea Duck
Footballguy
Yep.
Trump is the Brink's truck driver in this analogy, and the so-called "theives" are his violence-inclined supporters.
The General
Footballguy
You have blameless 3 year old rioting bank robbers running around, and that’s just on this pagethis place is a delusional echo chamber.
Zow
Footballguy
Trying to get caught up here (both on the thread exchange and with the facts of the incident itself as I hadn't looked at it or thought about it in some time) and will provide some input ASAP.the rover said:
Also, who'd have thought 15 years ago you may have actually wanted my opinion on something some day?
the rover
Footballguy
Tough love.Trying to get caught up here (both on the thread exchange and with the facts of the incident itself as I hadn't looked at it or thought about it in some time) and will provide some input ASAP.
Also, who'd have thought 15 years ago you may have actually wanted my opinion on something some day?
Zow
Footballguy
So after reading the thread, after reviewing some online articles about the incident, and based on my memories of the videos, I'll say the following:Trying to get caught up here (both on the thread exchange and with the facts of the incident itself as I hadn't looked at it or thought about it in some time) and will provide some input ASAP.
Also, who'd have thought 15 years ago you may have actually wanted my opinion on something some day?
1. Criminal law is very jurisdictional-specific. I am not licensed in Wisconsin nor do I know any of its unique laws related to this issue. I can only approach this from the perspective of general criminal law principles and the hypothetical of if this happened in my jurisdiction.
2. While it is not that difficult to obtain an indictment (see: Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe indicting Maricopa County Board members and the current indictments against the protesters in Maricopa County), it would be fair to say that there has to at least be some evidence to suggest that a reasonable person could conclude the defendant committed the act(s) alleged (i.e. probable cause). So I find it hard pressed to say that it would be "delusional" to think a conviction is possible on some count in the indictment.
3. In my experience, the state will make a plea offer in over 99% of cases. Now, there is no right to a plea offer and certainly no right to a favorable plea offer. But I would expect one to be made here after lengthy discussions within the particular prosecuting agency. There are often many factors at play in plea negotiations that can dictate the outcome of the offer that range from sensical (e.g. proof issues, suppression issues, meaningful/impactful mitigation, quality of defense attorney) to the borderline frustratingly unfair (e.g. luck of the draw with the particular prosecutor, some external pressures, the court's calendar, a particular judge who is quick to reject plea offers, etc.).
4. The decision whether to accept a plea offer is left entirely to a defendant. In other words it's nonsensical, unless the speaker knows Rittenhouse intimately, to try to make a statement such as "it won't plead out if homicide is included" or something like that. Now, ideally, the defendant makes this decision upon listening to the advice of counsel - but ultimately the decision whether to accept a plea agreement rests solely with the defendant and, of course, defendants are not always rational.
5. Based on the charges I find it unlikely that a plea agreement to less than, say, ten years will be offered. I say this because there are three victims and prosecutors generally have some duty to listen to victim input. As such, I cannot imagine any of the families happy with a dismissal of the charge associated with their particular loved one and, therefore, it seems likely than any counts will be dismissed and/or run concurrent to each other making it a practical challenge for a sentence of only a few years (note: Wisconsin's sentencing scheme may have something unique here that I don't know that could change my line of thinking here). I say this as I currently am working on a double-homicide case with some significant mitigating factors yet I'm running into these challenges in plea negotiations. Put differently, when there are dead bodies that people care about, the state is not likely to be willing to "deal" like they would in some other cases and may simply be willing to go to trial and risk losing on some of the more serious counts rather than run afoul of victim input or lose credibility of a judge who may reject the plea agreement.
6. Analyzing the case for self-defense, we have to remind ourselves that there are three victims here. As such, it requires multiple analyses. As others have pointed out earlier in this thread, the use of deadly force is limited to situations where the imminent threat of proportionate deadly force is reasonably deduced by the defendant. I imagine Wisconsin, through either its statutes or through case law or some combination thereof, has some particular jury instruction on this issue for the jury to consider. I will say this, as it relates to self-defense, when it's a defense that I assert with vigor usually the corresponding prosecutor will cease plea negotiations. The reason this happens is because, unlike mitigating circumstances (e.g. heat of passion, some mental defects, etc.), a self-defense is a claim of actual innocence. Therefore, usually, a prosecutor will feel uncomfortable negotiating with somebody who is affirmatively asserting actual innocence because there could be an issue with the allecution. Now, this isn't to say that it never happens (and as a defense attorney my job is to try to massage this sort of situation and craft a factual basis both sides can live it), but in my experience prosecutors may not negotiate as much as they would in a true self-defense situation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
In fairness, whether the alleged victim or Rittenhouse has a prior history of or convictions for acts of domestic violence/assault it almost certainly irrelevant to the self-defense analysis because it's not like Rittenhouse or the victims knew that about the other.
Zow
Footballguy
No.
In my experience, prosecutions are rarely politically driven. Further, the mechanism that our criminal justice system provides in close situations (e.g. Zimmerman) is a trial before a person's peers with a very high burden of proof. Using the Zimmerman case as an example, I analyzed (and posted on here) that I believed he had a strong defense. However, that thought is not mutually exclusive to the thought that I also believed the state had more than probable cause to bring the charge and it was not unethical to prosecutor.
Similarly, here with Rittenhouse we have the very public shootings (with significant portions caught on video) of multiple people and two ended up dead. It would have likely been unethical of the state not to at least bring the facts before a grand jury to determine whether probable cause existed to charge. Further, it would then likely be unethical to dismiss the obtained indictment and its corresponding counts.
Zow
Footballguy
I say this acknowledging I'm not entirely sure what you're referencing here and cannot recall it myself if I've seen the video, but it's likely that the guy's "activities" moments before the shooting would only be admissible/relevant if Rittenhouse saw them or had reason to know about them.
the rover
Footballguy
Nobody who has ever tried to disarm someone has a motivation other than trying to kill them? Each of the people Rittenhouse murdered were trying to take his gun away.
How can you say that about the first guy. There were dozens and dozens of armed people. Why did Rosenbaum take it upon himself to disarm Rittenbouse before he fired or threatened to fire a shot.
Zow
Footballguy
I'm not sure why the bold would be terribly relevant.
What is primarily relevant is whether a reasonable person in Rittenhouse's shoes would have take Rosenblaum's actions towards him as an imminent threat a serious bodily harm or death (or whatever the Wisconsin standard is).
the rover
Footballguy
Doesn't really matter why--I assume to try to protect people in the crowd from this kid who was aiming a gun at them. Rosenbaum had previously thrown a plastic bag at Rittenhouse. He didn't use deadly force or any weapon.
Rittenhouse was running away, when he heard a warning shot from another vigilante and turned and aimed at people in the crowd. Rosenbaum tried to take his gun away and Rittenhouse fired 4 shots, hitting Rosenbaum 3 times and killing him. Rosenbaum never used deadly force nor did he display a weapon.
You said that Rosenbaum was trying to kill him. Again, you're making stuff up. The only fact we know is that he was trying to take his gun away when he was murdered.
Zow
Footballguy
A juror could possibly agree with you.
ETA: But being chased is certainly not as clear of a demonstration of the imminent threat of deadly force as, say, somebody pointing a gun or a knife at you or screaming, "I'm going to kill you" while chasing you. As such, this appears to be a true factual issue - which is why we have juries.
Last edited by a moderator:
You accuse me of making stuff up. This is total fiction. Rittenhouse did not point his gun at anyone. Rosenbaum had been triggered all day screaming at numerous people to 'shot me n---a'. Rittenhouse was trying to help people offering first aid, your boy Rosenbaum on the other hand had been verbally assaultive and aggressive towards numerous people which Rittenhouse being the latest.
You don't have to wait for someone to use deadly force to defend yourself. None of those are requirements for a reasonable person to be in fear of being killed or severely harmed.
- Status
