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.
Sorry...there's no room for dissension in the ranks of the GOP....if you dare speak against posters here, you're officially "the left" in their eyes...welcome...both pie AND cake are at the table at the back of the room.Mr.Pack said:The Commish said:
Of course.....not enough law enforcement there to prevent people from acting on their instincts. It's the new barmoleculo said:
They are factors to whether it is reasonable. You falsely stated that "You do not start chasing someone down who is a wielding a gun unless you intend to kill them. " Then, since that was shown to be clearly wrong, you switched to saying Rosenbaum was unstable. You were then told that doesn't matter either. Now you're trying to create a new standard for self-defense.
There was legitimate reasons why the original investigators and DA allowed Zimmerman to walk. They lacked probable cause. It escalated into politics with Obama making statements and the sending a team of Holder and the Justice Department to investigate. Charges were only brought after Benjamin Crump hoisted a phoney witness up to create some shaky grounds for probable cause. So under all the pressure from the public, the white house and fraudulent evidence, charges were finally made. That is very political IMHO.
That was not shown to be wrong. You chase someone down who is armed, it is suicidal and the intent is almost certainly deadly.
You can legally use deadly force even if it is not homicidal. You just have to have a reasonable fear of being severely harmed.
Serious question, because I haven't watched all the videos - how do you know this? What set off Rosenbaum to start running at Rittenhouse?
And had he killed Rittenhouse after chasing him down, I don't think you'd see people in here claim that it was a reasonable use of force.
1. I didn't say prosecutions are never political - I stated it is rare.
Are you trying to say that a person's suicidal thoughts (assuming arguendo that's what the victim had here) amounts to the same as a reasonable display of an imminent threat of deadly force?
On number 3, there is a case going through the Florida courts right now which Zimmerman is suing Crump and the DA for putting up a false witness. That obese inintelligible first witness 'Diamond' was not Treyvon's girlfriend who was on the phone, it was her step-sister. The real one did not want to testify, so Crump convinced the sister to stand in her place. Someone pieced together a documentary in painstaking details with phone records and interviews of classmates and proved it rather conclusively. The DA in their response is claiming ignorance and pointing fingers. No one is denying the facts of the claim. Of course the media is ignoring the case and says it has no merit, but the case is really opening a can of worms.
Even though the video showed both murder victims trying to disarm the killer, jon wants to infer from the fact that they were trying to take his gun that they must have wanted to kill him. Since all of his facts and arguments get proven wrong, he's gone from "it's delusional to suggest that it was intentional homicide" to "the left loves the victim" to "I can read the minds of the victims and determine their intent."
Rittenhouse was an angry mentally unstable person with little regard for life and is very dangerous. So the victims trying to disarm him before he murdered people is more than reasonable.
What possible justification does the first guy have in chasing him down simple to disarm him. You have nothing. I have some sympathy for guy number two, but he was part of a mob which included an armed gentleman who had his finger on the trigger and most definitely was going to shoot. Rittenhouse had reasonable fear.
That sounds like a very dangerous precedent. I've been within arms reach of quite a few mentally unstable people people yelling all sorts of stuff. Typically, I move away quickly. I do not engage in lethal self defense.
Nonsense. Nothing that Rittenhouse did up to the point of Rosenbaum chasing him down indicated any of the BS you spew
It seems he's gone even a step farther though: that it's reasonable - to the extent that one can use deadly force - to presume that somebody who is recklessly going after another gun must be suicidal and is therefore presents the threat of deadly force (albeit ignoring whether one has a duty to flee, whether the threat is imminent, etc.).
I honestly don't doubt that Rittenhouse feared for his life. Isn't the more important question about his actions that led up to it?
Jon, I concede that I need to re-watch the videos again and am going off my memory of what i watched months ago so it's probably unfair for me to try to argue the actual facts here.
What in your view was that? He was verbally assaulted by some psychopath and chased down when he tried to flee. You may not agree with what Rittenhouse was doing, but Rosenbaum aggressively instigated the conflict.
It only takes a moment to develop the requisite mens rea (intentional) associated with first degree murder under most definitions.
You have demonstrated zero knowledge of the facts or law, so I have no idea why you are talking.
But then you are fine with the kid being tried as an adult? Crossing the state line has zero bearing on anything. He was breaking the law by carrying the weapon because the only exception is for hunting, which obviously he wasn't. Otherwise the gun was legal. But Rittenhouse being underage and carrying does not have any bearing on the self-defense.
Nope. He shouldn't be charged as an adult. I'm generally against minors being charged as adults in all cases.
1. Probably isn't terribly relevant that he isn't native. That fact would likely have to be tied in to some other circumstantial evidence re: his motive. I don't think it's a fact that should be precluded, I just don't think it carries much weight.
One thing different from Florida to Wisconsin is the burden of proof for a self-defense claim. In Florida the defendant must prove self-defense by preponderance of evidence, while in Wiscinsin the state must establish by beyond reasonable doubt it was not self-defense. I don't believe the prosecution can do that. There would have to be an overwhelmingly sympathetic jury to the victims to have a chance.
Are you sure that the defendant doesn't first have to make a prima facie showing by a preponderance then it flips back to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense?
That jury instruction specifically says it is only for instances of self defense that do no involve deadly force, so it doesn’t apply.
Here is another one. Wisconsin law seems very friendly concerning the presumption of innocence in self-defense cases.
Those are pretty typical/standard jury instructions explaining those legal concepts. They’re likely given in most criminal trials.
That is not what it says. It talks about if the defendant does something illegal which provokes an attack, the defendant can not use deadly force. But then that even goes on to make the exception if once again the defendant believes he is in imminent danger. You would have to believe that Rittenhouse was using his underage status to provoke Rosenbaum, but how would Rosenbaum even know his underage status. And even then if Rittenhouse believed he was in imminent danger he could still claim self-defense.
Which part? The part in all capital letters that says the jury instruction you posted doesn’t apply?
You were correct about the jury instruction applies to. You are full of crap in your interpretation of what the statue says and how it applies to this case.
What’s your experience with applying statutes in jury trials? Got some case law to support your completely unsupported opinion? You literally just make things up, get proven wrong and move on to making up something else. It’s weird how desperate you are to be on the side of a murderer.
