Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Maik Jeaunz

Recommended Posts

On 3/7/2021 at 1:04 PM, Mr.Pack said:
On 3/7/2021 at 12:42 PM, The Commish said:

Congrats....you've been promoted!!  You are now!!!!!!!

:oldunsure:

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.

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2021 at 2:31 PM, moleculo said:

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.

Of course.....not enough law enforcement there to prevent people from acting on their instincts.  It's the new bar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.

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.  

All of the classic generalizations, making stuff up, backpedaling and victimization on full display.

You don't know what you're talking about.  All you know is that you want to defend this murderer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Zow said:

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. 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, the rover 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.  

All of the classic generalizations, making stuff up, backpedaling and victimization on full display.

You don't know what you're talking about.  All you know is that you want to defend this murderer.

That was not shown to be wrong.  You chase someone down who is armed, it is suicidal and the intent is almost certainly deadly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

That was not shown to be wrong.  You chase someone down who is armed, it is suicidal and the intent is almost certainly deadly. 

Suicidal/crazy is a reasonable assumption, but homicidal seems like a major leap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickies said:

Suicidal/crazy is a reasonable assumption, but homicidal seems like a major leap.

You can legally use deadly force even if it is not homicidal. You just have to have a reasonable fear of being severely harmed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.  

Serious question, because I haven't watched all the videos - how do you know this? What set off Rosenbaum to start running at Rittenhouse?

I find it unlikely that Rittenhouse was quietly administering first aid to someone lying on the ground and Rosenbaum randomly picked him out to go after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

You can legally use deadly force even if it is not homicidal. You just have to have a reasonable fear of being severely harmed.  

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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. 

1. I didn't say prosecutions are never political - I stated it is rare. 

2. I'll remain neutral on your allegation that the state lacked probable cause to charge Zimmerman. Nonetheless, my memory is that the facts were learned over time (I recall the 911 tapes coming out in spurts, witnesses coming forward after time, etc.). That situation was also very challenging and complicated given that only one side of the story was immediately available (since Martin was dead) and it really was a very close call of a situation for self-defense from a legal perspective. As such, I don't agree that the eventual decision to charge was "very political." 

3. I don't know what "fraudulent evidence" you're referring to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

You can legally use deadly force even if it is not homicidal. You just have to have a reasonable fear of being severely harmed.  

This is likely very jurisdiction specific. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

That was not shown to be wrong.  You chase someone down who is armed, it is suicidal and the intent is almost certainly deadly. 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zow said:

1. I didn't say prosecutions are never political - I stated it is rare. 

2. I'll remain neutral on your allegation that the state lacked probable cause to charge Zimmerman. Nonetheless, my memory is that the facts were learned over time (I recall the 911 tapes coming out in spurts, witnesses coming forward after time, etc.). That situation was also very challenging and complicated given that only one side of the story was immediately available (since Martin was dead) and it really was a very close call of a situation for self-defense from a legal perspective. As such, I don't agree that the eventual decision to charge was "very political." 

3. I don't know what "fraudulent evidence" you're referring to. 

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zow said:

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?

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zow said:

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?

I am saying an angry mentally unstable person with little regard for life is very dangerous and being in fear of them doing serious harm is more than reasonable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

I am saying an angry mentally unstable person with little regard for life is very dangerous and being in fear of them doing serious harm is more than reasonable. 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, the rover said:

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."

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I am saying an angry mentally unstable person with little regard for life is very dangerous and being in fear of them doing serious harm is more than reasonable.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, the rover said:

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. 

Nonsense.  Nothing that Rittenhouse did up to the point of Rosenbaum chasing him down indicated any of the BS you spew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Z Machine said:

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.

As did Rittenhouse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I am saying an angry mentally unstable person with little regard for life is very dangerous and being in fear of them doing serious harm is more than reasonable. 

This isn't exactly the self-defense standard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, the rover said:

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."

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.). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zow said:

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.). 

He did flee in both cases.  First he was cornered and the second he fell to the ground where he was assaulted by two people before firing, one kicked him the other hit him in the head with a skateboard.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

He did flee in both cases.  First he was cornered and the second he fell to the ground where he was assaulted by two people before firing, one kicked him the other hit him in the head with a skateboard.  

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He did flee in both cases.  First he was cornered and the second he fell to the ground where he was assaulted by two people before firing, one kicked him the other hit him in the head with a skateboard.  

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. 

I respectfully disagree though with your assertions that the prosecution is "very political," that there isn't probable cause, and that Rittenhouse shouldn't consider a plea to anything greater than manslaughter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zow said:

This isn't exactly the self-defense standard. 

It is a contributing elements to it.  You nitpick what I say, but Rover the lawyer is not even relying on required elements of what justifies self-defense.  In his expertise it seems you can only use self-defense when your opponent uses deadly force.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dawgtrails said:

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? 

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zow said:

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. 

I respectfully disagree though with your assertions that the prosecution is "very political," that there isn't probable cause, and that Rittenhouse shouldn't consider a plea to anything greater than manslaughter. 

That is a reasonable disagreement.  I don't understand how one can be accused of 1st degree murder which required intent when they were not the aggressor.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

That is a reasonable disagreement.  I don't understand how one can be accused of 1st degree murder which required intent when they were not the aggressor.  

It only takes a moment to develop the requisite mens rea (intentional) associated with first degree murder under most definitions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting stuff Woz (Zow), thanks.  Does it matter that Rittenhouse was not local to Kenosha, WI?  Or, that it technically is illegal for a 17 yr old to open carry?

I am fine with the argument for self defense.  What I'm not fine with is him acting as a vigilante - a kid who isn't old enough to vote, buy a pack of cigarettes or join the Army is roaming the streets to LARP as a law enforcement officer.  He was not there to defend his home or his families business.  And again, he is just a kid and like all other teenagers, he doesn't have impulse control of an adult.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

That is a reasonable disagreement.  I don't understand how one can be accused of 1st degree murder which required intent when they were not the aggressor.  

We are well aware you don’t understand the law you keep arguing. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, the rover said:

We are well aware you don’t understand the law you keep arguing. 

You have demonstrated zero knowledge of the facts or law, so I have no idea why you are talking. 

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, moleculo said:

interesting stuff Woz (Zow), thanks.  Does it matter that Rittenhouse was not local to Kenosha, WI?  Or, that it technically is illegal for a 17 yr old to open carry?

I am fine with the argument for self defense.  What I'm not fine with is him acting as a vigilante - a kid who isn't old enough to vote, buy a pack of cigarettes or join the Army is roaming the streets to LARP as a law enforcement officer.  He was not there to defend his home or his families business.  And again, he is just a kid and like all other teenagers, he doesn't have impulse control of an adult.

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.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.

I think illegal possession of a gun should have something to do with the case when two people are dead.  It has to be relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, moleculo said:

interesting stuff Woz (Zow), thanks.  Does it matter that Rittenhouse was not local to Kenosha, WI?  Or, that it technically is illegal for a 17 yr old to open carry?

I am fine with the argument for self defense.  What I'm not fine with is him acting as a vigilante - a kid who isn't old enough to vote, buy a pack of cigarettes or join the Army is roaming the streets to LARP as a law enforcement officer.  He was not there to defend his home or his families business.  And again, he is just a kid and like all other teenagers, he doesn't have impulse control of an adult.

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. 

2. Your second question is very likely jurisdiction specific. I don't know Wisconsin law so maybe there's some felony murder component (although I assume if that was an option it'd be charged that way). Assuming not, if I were his defense attorney I would actually move to sever that count (and deal with it separately in another case and very likely look to plead it out) and then move to preclude that allegation from being mentioned in the murder trial pursuant to a rule that says if a piece of evidence has little evidentiary (meaning its arguably relevant but not case dispositive or significantly relevant) value it should be precluded if its value it substantially outweighed by the prejudice to the defendant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.  

The bold is probably accurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zow said:

The bold is probably accurate. 

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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?

I'm genuinely asking here because I don't know Wisconsin law and didn't look it up but my question describes the way it works in my jurisdiction and it wouldn't surprise me if it worked the same way in many others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zow said:

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?

I'm genuinely asking here because I don't know Wisconsin law and didn't look it up but my question describes the way it works in my jurisdiction and it wouldn't surprise me if it worked the same way in many others. 

Can't say for certain.  Just saw a couple examples of jury instructions and it placed that burden on the state.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/wi-wjic-800-privilege-self-defense-force-less-than-that-likely-to-cause-death-or-great-bodily-harm/

State’s Burden of Proof

The State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in 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.
The self defense statue also removes presumptions of self-defense where the person claiming self defense is committing a crime.  Since he’s been charged with two other crimes, he may not get the presumption.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/wi-wjic-800-privilege-self-defense-force-less-than-that-likely-to-cause-death-or-great-bodily-harm/

State’s Burden of Proof

The State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense.

That’s huge. 

Edit: Spoke too soon?

Edited by bigbottom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

That’s huge. 

Edit: Spoke too soon?

Here is another one. Wisconsin law seems very friendly concerning the presumption of innocence in self-defense cases. 

Reasonable Hypothesis

If you can reconcile the evidence upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant’s innocence, you should do so and return a verdict of not guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Here is another one. Wisconsin law seems very friendly concerning the presumption of innocence in self-defense cases. 

Reasonable Hypothesis

If you can reconcile the evidence upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant’s innocence, you should do so and return a verdict of not guilty.

Those are pretty typical/standard jury instructions explaining those legal concepts. They’re likely given in most criminal trials. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, the rover said:

That jury instruction specifically says it is only for instances of self defense that do no involve deadly force, so it doesn’t apply.
The self defense statue also removes presumptions of self-defense where the person claiming self defense is committing a crime.  Since he’s been charged with two other crimes, he may not get the presumption.

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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?

 Or the statute that specifically says the statute does not apply if  the claimed self defense is in the course of committing a crime?   

It’s tough to keep up when nearly everything you post is wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, the rover said:

Which part?  The part in all capital letters that says the jury instruction you posted doesn’t apply?

 Or the statute that specifically says the statute does not apply if  the claimed self defense is in the course of committing a crime?   

It’s tough to keep up when nearly everything you post is wrong.

 

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...