Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Page 48 of 60 [ 954 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 ... 60  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,149

06 Dec 2021, 8:28 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
it's interesting that the bulwark of Kyle supports meticulously avoid the whole "17 year old breaks a curfew and illegally possesses an loaded AR-15 and walks into warzone". The whole reason he bought the gun was because he "wanting to shoot looters". What does everyone expect? He wanted to sit down and have tea and crumpets with BLM?



Ahh, so we're back to "is cyberdad dumb or dishonest?" again, as this was resolved both at trial, and in this thread multiple times already, the weapon being legal for him to possess, and the curfew charge being dismissed as inapplicable to the situation. Also, fleeing from aggression until being forced to shoot is hardly the behavior of someone who wanted to shoot anyone, but apparently that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

So, what is it, dumb or dishonest?

Image


It didn't take you long to stick the old knife in.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

06 Dec 2021, 9:23 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
it's interesting that the bulwark of Kyle supports meticulously avoid the whole "17 year old breaks a curfew and illegally possesses an loaded AR-15 and walks into warzone". The whole reason he bought the gun was because he "wanting to shoot looters". What does everyone expect? He wanted to sit down and have tea and crumpets with BLM?



Ahh, so we're back to "is cyberdad dumb or dishonest?" again, as this was resolved both at trial, and in this thread multiple times already, the weapon being legal for him to possess, and the curfew charge being dismissed as inapplicable to the situation. Also, fleeing from aggression until being forced to shoot is hardly the behavior of someone who wanted to shoot anyone, but apparently that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp.

So, what is it, dumb or dishonest?

Image


It didn't take you long to stick the old knife in.

I was merely responding to Dox47's legitimate question:
When, within a couple of weeks of a judge dismissing charges against a person for "breaking a curfew" and "illegally possesses an loaded AR-15" (thereby indicating the person had not done such things), a regular participant in a discussion on the subject asserts the person had done those very same things, it does call into question the cause\motive behind such assertions, given the person who made the assertions was well aware\informed they were false prior to making them... In fact they would, given the dismissal of charges, be venturing quite closely towards the area of (if not well inside the boundaries of) defamation\libel against the person for whom the charges were so recently dismissed.

As you may have noted, I was simply suggesting it could be a combination of causes, not a singular cause (from an informed selection) as Dox47's post could be read to suggest - If you feel that only one of Dox47's suggestions is correct, I'm certainly happy to be corrected\enlightened, and I'm fairly certain he would be as well, having posed the initial question to which I was responding and to which he had yet to receive an answer.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,149

06 Dec 2021, 9:33 pm

I am also familiar with double enrendres but I am feeling charitable and will give you the benefit of doubt.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,149

07 Dec 2021, 5:32 am

Ok here's a question for the legal eagles.

Under US common law there is a principle of the Castle doctrine. it stems of Anglo-Saxon law that a man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend it.

The “castle doctrine” permits the use of lethal force in self-defense without imposing a duty to retreat in the home. Over time, states began to expand the non-retreat rule to spaces outside of the home.

In the case of 17 year old Trayvon Martin he was walking home after buying Skittles from a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police after spotting Martin. Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin.

In the Zimmerman case, for example, under traditional self-defense law, the combination of first-aggressor limitation and duty to retreat would not have allowed Zimmerman to follow Martin (who was trying to get home) around and kill him without being liable for murder.

Under common law When the defendant (Zimmerman) provoked this incident, he lost the right to self-defense. Under common law "You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.”


Now when you look at the Rittenhouse trial he crossed state lines and entered a place of protest armed with an AR-15. His action in carrying a loaded weapon at a protest. Under common law Rittenhouse (like Zimmerman) is not justified in using deadly force if he had an opportunity to retreat to safety unless they are in their home or workplace. Since Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a loaded weapon he contravened this law and was never justified to use deadly force.

My question is how the judge and jury in both cases ignored existing castle law and allowed "Stand your ground": rules to apply in a context where both Zimmerman and Rittenhouse went out of their way to put their victims in harm after i.) they travelled to a place where they knew they were not supposed to be in the place of the incident ii) using a loaded weapon and iii) created the situation where lethal force was used.

Conservative Americans are sticklers for constitution and the rule of law. Yet in these instances they purposefully prop up self-defense to circumvent existing law in order to (evidently) allow vigilanteism against their natural enemy.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

07 Dec 2021, 3:45 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Ok here's a question for the legal eagles.

Under US common law there is a principle of the Castle doctrine. it stems of Anglo-Saxon law that a man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend it.

The “castle doctrine” permits the use of lethal force in self-defense without imposing a duty to retreat in the home. Over time, states began to expand the non-retreat rule to spaces outside of the home.

In the case of 17 year old Trayvon Martin he was walking home after buying Skittles from a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police after spotting Martin. Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin.

In the Zimmerman case, for example, under traditional self-defense law, the combination of first-aggressor limitation and duty to retreat would not have allowed Zimmerman to follow Martin (who was trying to get home) around and kill him without being liable for murder.

Under common law When the defendant (Zimmerman) provoked this incident, he lost the right to self-defense. Under common law "You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.”


Now when you look at the Rittenhouse trial he crossed state lines and entered a place of protest armed with an AR-15. His action in carrying a loaded weapon at a protest. Under common law Rittenhouse (like Zimmerman) is not justified in using deadly force if he had an opportunity to retreat to safety unless they are in their home or workplace. Since Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a loaded weapon he contravened this law and was never justified to use deadly force.

My question is how the judge and jury in both cases ignored existing castle law and allowed "Stand your ground": rules to apply in a context where both Zimmerman and Rittenhouse went out of their way to put their victims in harm after i.) they travelled to a place where they knew they were not supposed to be in the place of the incident ii) using a loaded weapon and iii) created the situation where lethal force was used.

Conservative Americans are sticklers for constitution and the rule of law. Yet in these instances they purposefully prop up self-defense to circumvent existing law in order to (evidently) allow vigilanteism against their natural enemy.


I believe your answer lies in the level of authority, the hierarchy assigned to the different components which make up the law.

"Common law" and "doctrine" tend to refer to concepts developed through case law, ie in courts.

Case law, however, falls below statutory law in the hierarchy.

In both cases you mentioned, I believe the state statutory law provided specific language addressing the concept of self-defense in sufficient detail to cover the situations under consideration, thus not requiring the proceedings to look beyond the statute and into case law.

State law trumps common law every time. In fact, laws often are written expressly to "fix" (going forward) court decisions legislators weren't happy with.

It is possible for such state laws to be challenged in court as exceeding the state's authority to make its own laws, or as being unconstitutional as drafted (federal statute trumps state statute, and the constitution trumps all), but I'm not aware that any legal experts are arguing that to be true with either of these state laws.


_________________
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).


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

07 Dec 2021, 8:19 pm

As far as crossing state lines go, I thought that in the states, you can just walk from state to state or drive from state to state, without needing any prior authorization from the government. Also the weapon he took in was legal to Wisconsin law, so there isn't anything the judge could have done about that legally, as far as I know.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Dec 2021, 8:23 pm

Of course, you can go from state to state without "authorization."

During COVID, though, back in 2020, you had to quarantine for 14 days in most states if you were coming from another state. Same thing with Canadian provinces, probably.

You can't bring a gun from one state to another if the "other" state has stricter gun laws. You can't bring a gun into New York from Texas, for example.

Also: it's a federal crime to "cross state lines" in order to commit a crime in another state. There's something called the Mann Act----wherein it's a serious federal felony, say, to bring a prostitute across state lines in order to "conduct business." Chuck Berry, the rock-n-roll pioneer, was jailed for that in the late 50s-early 60s.



Last edited by kraftiekortie on 07 Dec 2021, 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Dec 2021, 8:30 pm

Rittenhouse only travelled from very northern Illinois to very southern Wisconsin. I doubt he even went 50 miles north. Still, in Wisconsin, he was under the jurisdiction of Wisconsin. And subject to federal laws pertaining to guns, too.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

07 Dec 2021, 8:49 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Rittenhouse only travelled from very northern Illinois to very southern Wisconsin. I doubt he even went 50 miles north. Still, in Wisconsin, he was under the jurisdiction of Wisconsin. And subject to federal laws pertaining to guns, too.


Around 20 miles - not a huge distance by any means (For those who live in the country, it is short, and even for those in cities it can be the distance from the city centre\business area where a large number of people work and the middle-outer suburbs where they live. Melbourne, for example, has suburbs around twice that distance from the CBD, where people travel to\from work daily, and Chicago appears to be of similar geographical spread). I seem to recall from the trial that he hadn't even headed "across state lines" that day, having stayed the night before at a friend's place in Wisconsin.

The rifle was also located in Wisconsin, never having been taken to, nor stored in, Illinois (at least prior to that evening, I don't recall whether he had it with him following what occurred when he returned home, or if it was handed back to his friend who was the legal owner of it).



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

07 Dec 2021, 8:53 pm

But in court they said the rifle was legal to posess in Wisconsin though. So why do people keep making up a fake gun law that doesn't exist, when the court ruled there is no law on this particular weapon being illegal?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Dec 2021, 8:56 pm

In the vast majority of cases, people younger than 18 are not allowed to possess guns that are not shotguns or rifles within the State of Wisconsin. As far as I'm concerned, the judge searched mighty hard for a loophole, and he found it.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

07 Dec 2021, 9:01 pm

Is that bad if there is a loophole in the law though? If there is a loophole in the law, then there is a loophole, and that's the law that the people wanted to a degree if they voted and passed such law?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2021, 9:05 pm

ironpony wrote:
But in court they said the rifle was legal to posess in Wisconsin though. So why do people keep making up a fake gun law that doesn't exist, when the court ruled there is no law on this particular weapon being illegal?


I think you know the answer.

Some people are simply god darned ignorant...
And some are simply playing hyperpartisan politics... 8)

BTW, Blindly following a political narrative lowers a person's IQ by 30 points. :mrgreen:



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Dec 2021, 9:07 pm

I don't really mind it that Rittenhouse was acquitted.

What I do like is the potential for him to be used by Trump as some sort of symbol.

I don't like the path that Trump was following while he was President. He was taking the United States on a bad road, indeed.

I was not really "political" until Trump came on the scene.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

07 Dec 2021, 9:11 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
In the vast majority of cases, people younger than 18 are not allowed to possess guns that are not shotguns or rifles within the State of Wisconsin. As far as I'm concerned, the judge searched mighty hard for a loophole, and he found it.


Your political/ideological bias slip is showing, imo. 8O

Bottom line was and is, Rittenhouse lawfully had the weapon in his possession.
Why do you have difficulty with this?
Oh right, the bias thingy. :mrgreen:



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

07 Dec 2021, 9:13 pm

I always said that the "kids" were playing war games. Tragically, two people ended up dead, and one seriously injured.

I have excellent reasons for not wanting Trump to lead our nation. It has very little to do with the fact that he's a Republican.

I'm almost as irritated with the Wokeism which has become endemic here. I feel like this has the potential to be very harmful as well.

Yeah....if I'm biased, so be it!! !!



Last edited by kraftiekortie on 07 Dec 2021, 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.