The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 20, 2021, 08:57 PM   #101
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
I'm not saying they're the same.

The whole point of using the Ersland case as an example is precisely because it's very easy to see how they are two separate incidents from a legal standpoint even though they happened quite close together in time and all stemmed from one initial action. The whole Ersland sequence was instigated by an armed robbery and took much less time than than the interval between the first Rittenhouse shooting and the the other two. Yet the instigator of the armed robbery in which Ersland was the victim was, only seconds later, the victim of a murder which Ersland perpetrated.

The point is that it's possible for what seems to initially be all one continuous event to be legally distinct events, each of which has its own set of circumstances, each of which will be evaluated separately from the others that precede or succeed it.

That is, it's a mistake to assume that all three of the Rittenhouse shootings will be treated as if they are simply pieces of one big incident--it's quite likely that they could be separated into two, or possibly even three different incidents each of which could have legally distinct outcomes for Rittenhouse.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old October 20, 2021, 09:28 PM   #102
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
I'm not saying they're the same.
Exactamundo. I don't think (hope) anyone would.
In fact the two cases are pretty good examples of diametric opposites.
(I hope... again)
mehavey is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 10:56 AM   #103
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Update

Looks like the defenses self defense expert witness will get to testify but in a limited capacity and the prosecution will not call there expert to rebut . In that same hearing the prosecution was trying to stop the defense from labeling the victims as pedophiles , arsonist and/or whatever they’ve been convicted of prior . It was an interesting exchange with the judge and the prosecutor where the judge asked do you think it’s OK if you call Rittenhouse a cold-blooded killer in your closing arguments and the prosecution said I believe I have a right to . The judge responded , then why can’t the defense say similar things about other people if they believe they can prove it or something like that I forget his exact wording . This seems to indicate that although the defense cannot bring up the victims specific prior convictions they can refer to them as being people that would do such things . That actually seems kind of interesting to me I don’t know how you get away with calling somebody an arsonist or a pedophile without introducing evidence that would indicate they are guilty of those very things . The judge might have just been talking about what they can say in closing arguments I’m not sure .

It appears jury selection is still set to start on Monday . Not sure how long that would take but I’m assuming a few days . Barnes I believe is leading the jury selection for the defense. He has indicated he has some big time experts to help choose the jury which based on everything I’ve seen in his videos likely means he will have behavioral and body language experts monitoring each potential juror .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK5_2imyfo8
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; October 28, 2021 at 06:05 PM. Reason: Because Siri can't listen worth a ....
Metal god is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 11:24 AM   #104
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,652
I also do not believe "things" that belong to other people rise to the level of using deadly force to protect. Pretty sure the law sees it that way too.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!

Last edited by Tom Servo; October 28, 2021 at 07:42 PM. Reason: Removed reference to deleted post
stagpanther is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 11:54 AM   #105
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
No--but I also do not believe "things" that belong to other people rise to the level of using deadly force to protect. Pretty sure the law sees it that way too.
C-mon , you know he never used deadly force to protect others property . As john has pointed out , the situation can change every second . Yes he was there to protect someone else property but he never acted violently towards anyone that was there starting fires or trying to vandalize the property . Only after he tried to escape and run from the protesters did he use his firearm in self defense .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 01:06 PM   #106
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
No--but I also do not believe "things" that belong to other people rise to the level of using deadly force to protect. Pretty sure the law sees it that way too.
That's a wonderful modern attitude and works most of the time in our modern world. However, there are exceptions, even in our modern world and the law (generally) does recognize them.

I note you state "things that belong to other people". does this mean you feel differently about things that belong to you???

Back in the days before the insurance industry, the theft or destruction of a person's "things" could result in their death, just slower and crueler than shooting them. There was no "social safety net" other than church charity, were and as it existed, and that was the reason you shot robbers, rustlers, and horse thieves, or hung them if you caught them alive.

today, its much different, but there are still situations where "things" can have immediate life or death consequences. One of those things, worth using deadly force to protect is something everyone on this forum will (or should) instantly recognize, and that is firearms.

Not because of the monetary value of the firearm but because of what it is capable of doing. If someone tries to take (steal) your gun(s), I think its wrong to consider them just things the insurance company will give you a check to buy a replacement with. Somebody wants to walk off with my TV or even my car, that's one thing. Taking a gun? No BARKING WAY! and, I think the law recognizes this, and considers it justified to use deadly force to stop the threat.

Of course every case is an individual, but in general stopping someone from stealing and/or using the gun they stole from you is considered a a situation where using deadly force can be a reasonable act.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 01:55 PM   #107
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by stagpanther
No--but I also do not believe "things" that belong to other people rise to the level of using deadly force to protect. Pretty sure the law sees it that way too.
Three observations:

1) As MG noted, Rittenhouse doesn't appear to have used deadly force in defense of property.

2) Shooting someone solely for stealing something that isn't his has all sorts of problems, but it also seems rare. A thief who does his thing while someone is present to resist is not merely a thief. It's an aggressive act, and the aggression isn't toward a mere thing.

3) Attempted arson isn't merely a property problem; it gives rise to an event that is itself routinely deadly.

Last edited by Tom Servo; October 28, 2021 at 07:42 PM. Reason: Removed reference to deleted post
zukiphile is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 03:44 PM   #108
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,272
Even though arson is sometimes justification to shoot the arsonist,
KR did not shoot anybody for arson or property. (As far as I know) So why bring it up as a red herring? Seems like hyperbole,propaganda. Fake news,lies,and BS. I have zero respect for those who play that game. They are not interested in the truth.


The arsonist and his friends were highly PO'd that Good Citizen KR used a fire extinguisher to put out the fire.

I'm not perfectly clear on exactly what happened immediately next. There is something about a handgun,a gunshot, a threatening and perhaps drugged character...
I'm under the impression that KR acted because he was under threat of crowd retaliation. He feared death or great bodily harm.

It matters,IMO,that he did not put several people down. If he was there to kill people,he could have killed 20 right off the bat. He mostly just tried to leave.

IMO, the folks who attacked him played stupid games and won stupid prizes.

IMO, KR probably deserves a "Good Citizen Certificate of Appreciation"

But that might not be seen as "Woke"

Last edited by HiBC; October 28, 2021 at 06:59 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 05:19 PM   #109
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
This thread really should be closed. It's just going to be a continuous shout down party on anyone not voting the party line.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 06:00 PM   #110
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
This thread really should be closed. It's just going to be a continuous shout down party on anyone not voting the party line
I disagree completely How's that for a shout down lol JK . I think this thread is awesome because the trial is about to start and the very things we are debating here are very likely going to be what is presented in court . I've seen interviews with local officials saying many of the things Stag and others have said here . Kyle should have never been there , Kyle should not have had a gun , Kyle was looking for a fight etc .

These things are almost certainly going to be a big part of the prosecutions argument . Quite frankly how is saying those things not shouting others down when not towing the party line ? Last I checked there are in fact two party's to this trial .

I don't disagree that this thread can get out of hand but don't think we've even came close to that yet . My hope was to start this thread for us all to comment as we followed the trail daily . It will be fully covered on court TV so We all can follow along .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; October 28, 2021 at 10:10 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 06:32 PM   #111
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
This is a interesting take on the recent hearing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpjlTMmkoVs
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 06:34 PM   #112
BornFighting88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2021
Posts: 455
I stand with MG on this one. Shutting down the entire thread consisting of other peoples thoughts and opinions because of how YOU feel?? Kind of defeats the purpose of a forum. Don’t gotta stay, friend.

This thing has been interesting to me to the n’th degree. I only read clips and bits of KR’s situation, and being able to see how everyone feels and sees it, its been really helpful to me to understand what is going on. I am now more interested to see what happens with this.

I do not take a side with this, merely an impartial viewer.
BornFighting88 is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 07:25 PM   #113
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
I am amused (have to be amused, or ticked off) at the reaction to the judge's rule about not being able to refer to those shot as "victims".

And what amuses me most is some supposed legal expert referring to the ruling as both correct and incorrect.

This is yet again another example of the press reporting only that PART of the information that supports their point of view.

They are making a big deal about how the judge is preventing the use of the word "victim" by the prosecution but is "allowing" the defense to call them rioters or arsonists, which they see as unfair.

Yet its not unfair, they just want you to THINK it is, because they are failing to mention what ELSE the judge said. And that that was, essentially, that the defense could call them rioters or arsonists, IF THERE WAS PROOF THAT THEY ACTED IN THAT MANNER.

SO, once again the press wants you to think something other than what the judge said. Can't call the people shot "Victims" during the trial, because, simply they can't BE victims until after the trial establishes there was a crime. Can call them looters, rioters or arsonists IF you can prove that they did that, but not if you can't proove it. Judge isn''t requiring a conviction as proof that they were rioters or arsonists, only "proof" and in his court he IS the judge.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 28, 2021, 10:07 PM   #114
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
I believe this is the pre-trial hearing on motions that took place on Monday .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M4_uDwmMq4

EDIT : Wow the last 30 or 40 min was crazy . The prosecution REALLY got on the judges nerves when talking about one of the "victims" being the aggressor and that having no relevance in the case . The prosecution would not let that go and the judge got visibly upset . To the point it carried over to the next motion .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; October 28, 2021 at 11:52 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 05:07 AM   #115
ballardw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2008
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post

And what amuses me most is some supposed legal expert referring to the ruling as both correct and incorrect.
I thought that was standard behavior for "legal experts". There has to be two views, at least, prosecution and defense. If they agreed would there need to be a trial? [Tongue planted firmly in cheek]
__________________
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
All data is flawed, some just less so.
ballardw is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 06:12 AM   #116
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,652
Interesting analysis by NYT.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 03:22 PM   #117
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
So what's your all's feeling on not calling the people shot victims

After watching that whole hearing I think I disagree with the judge . Not so much with his reasoning but more so that he is literally the only judge in that state with that rule .

If all other courts in the state , all other documents , all other local authorities , pretty much every person in all situations can refer to the people who die in an incident as victims . How is it far to restrict it in one and only one place ?

I get the argument made but it seems that same argument can be made for anyone not proven to be something and yet the judge is going to allow the prosecution to call KR a cold blooded killer and I'm sure many other variations of something similar will be allowed . There is no proof of that , it's not been established .

I don't like to use or even trust definitions found on Google anymore because many have clearly changed from what they were just 10 years ago based on which ever way the wind is blowing . That said

From Google
Victim : ( a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. )

Seems pretty clear the word victim does not include guilt of any crime or even an intent . This issue seems like something the lawyers should hash out in front of a jury . If one side keeps using the word/term the other side should then help the jury understand the meaning as they see it .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 03:23 PM   #118
langenc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,551
Looks like he is getting the train treatment, railroaded...

Cant say this, or do that,hat the hexx ever happened to the judges oath of office. I guess it went the way of 50 or more US Senators, 4 or 5 Supreme Court justices on many issues.
langenc is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 03:48 PM   #119
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,272
Quote:
So what's your all's feeling on not calling the people shot victims
The word "Victim" implies the GUILT of another party. Its not appropriate to a fair trial. Its meant to prejudice the jury.

OK,MG, lets imagine you are home,on your computer,posting onTFL.
Your door is kicked in. An athletic 6 ft 4 in wild eyed person with a Katana rushes you ,sword raised above his head.
It just so happens you have a loaded 1911 next to your computer mouse.
You are quick an accurate with 4 rounds and he drops and dies.
The whole thing seems clear cut to you,but the prosecutor decides a trial is in order.
Is it appropriate,or fair to you,for the Prosecutor to refer to the late Mr Attacker as "Victim?"

How would YOU feel about that?

It would seem more accurate to describe the people KR shot as "Attackers" according to my perception of the event.

Now,if KR shot wildly,and an innocent person was accidently hit,I'd call that person a "Victim"

If KR just decided to chop down any masked person dressed in black, I'd call them "Victims"

But the guy who tried to bash KR with a skateboard, is an assaillant,not a victim. Remember,KR was trying to retreat .

So,MG, Are you sympathetic to the people rioting,smashing glass,burning out businesses,throwing molotov cocktails at police cars ,looting,and beating down old people with MAGA hats?

I'm just trying to understand the folks who want to lynch KR.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you object to the words I chose to state my case, I might have made my point. The words seem unfair when YOU are on the receiving end.

To use the word "Victim" in KR's SD case is akin to asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Last edited by HiBC; October 29, 2021 at 04:09 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 04:05 PM   #120
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
OK,MG, lets imagine you are
No lets not , my poor little feelers don't matter . Isn't that one of our biggest problems right not , feelings matter more then reality ?

That's not even the point in this specific situation . I'd feel the same way if everything was reversed . If the judge was the only judge that allowed the use of the word victim in the state , that would be just as wrong . It's not so much about the word and it's connotation . It's about the judge being the only judge with this opinion/rule . I even started my earlier post saying I understand the argument . Not sure why you think using me in an example would change my opinion ?

Quote:
Interesting analysis by NYT.
I finally was able to watch Stag's NYT linked video , It would not load on my phone so I had to watch on my PC . In general it seems to track with my understanding of events . The parts I found interesting was the opinions of those being interviewed . One that sticks out is the military guy that was there that night armed and hooked up with KR for a short time . This also goes to how the piece was edited together to maybe push a narrative . Right before the military guy says in the interview that Kyle was running wildly down the street with a gun and one of the "victims" basically was a hero for trying to stop him . Right before that scene they aired a video with a guy off camera saying/suggesting Kyle should have disarmed him self right after the first shooting , Basically give him self up right then .

Who thinks that's reasonable ? Someone fires a gun with in yards if not feet of Kyle as he's being chased right before Kyle fired and then 3 shots fired
immediately after and Kyle is supposed quickly render him self defenseless in all that confusion ? Can't wait for that cross-examination in court .

The one thing I'm most looking forward to is footage that has never been seen before . FBI overhead fixed wing surveillance is one I can't wait to see . The prosecutions states it proves Kyle was chasing Rosenbaum while the Defense says the same video shows Kyle running towards Rosenbaum and ultimately passing him which would indicate they both just happed to be running in the same direction in the same area . If that same video shows Kyle run past Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum immediately upon seeing Kyle start chasing him , I think that would be game over .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; October 29, 2021 at 04:48 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 04:33 PM   #121
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,272
IMO, the REALITY is somebody attacking KR was shot.

Somebody from the Oprah School of "Feelings" sees a "Victim" (Time for Kleenex and a group hug)

Its sad when anyone gets killed, but I have zero sympathy for a person who attacks a person fleeing a mob .He is running and fighting for his life. Try to stop him? Stupid games,stupid prizes.
No "feelings"

Kudos to the Judge who insists his courtroom maintain a decorum of Justice.

The Media and Rioters want a lynching.
HiBC is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 04:34 PM   #122
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,652
Quote:
But the guy who tried to bash KR with a skateboard, is an assaillant,not a victim. Remember,KR was trying to retreat .
And what of the first guy shot and killed by KR--he was unarmed, made no contact, though he was a loudmouth and previously had yelled at him--was he just at the wrong place at the wrong time, a shot was fired by someone else in the confusion and therefore deserved to be sent on his less than merry way to his maker? KR appeared to empty coup de grace shots into the guy too, wasn't just a "stop deadly force threat" (there wasn't one anyway).
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 04:39 PM   #123
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,272
Time and the jury will tell. Giving you the benefit of the doubt,its possible there was ONE victim.

Till there is a verdict, I'll stick with "Presumed Innocent till Proven Guilty"

The NYT has proven over time they have no regard for Truth. They are an agenda driven rag . NO credibility.
HiBC is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 04:41 PM   #124
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
Stupid games,stupid prizes.
I love that saying ( people who play stupid games win stupid prizes ) I'm going to use that all the time now when appropriate ;-)
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old October 29, 2021, 05:03 PM   #125
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
There was another thing the judge mentioned in that hearing about the timing of shots fired . He referenced an officer involved shooting where the LEO fired two shots with in one second and the first shot was deemed justified and the second shot was not .

I'd love to understand that ruling better because if they split up Kyle's first 4 shots as individual incidents . Then try to figure out if each shot was justified keeping in mind I believe the record shows those first 4 shots were fired in under 1 sec . That could confuse the jury big time

I understand if you fire look around then look back and see the "victim" down
then reengage and fire more shots how that could be problematic but a double tap and view each shot as a separate event ??? I know when I practice "double taps" it's much slower then you see on TV . I can shoot but I'm not world class so it takes a tad longer for me to reacquire the sights on target and fire again . It's still fast but not movie fast . I don't see how it's reasonable to differentiate between shot when it's only a couple and very close together .

If they break down those first 4 shots like that I think Kyle is in big trouble . The only thing that might change things is the Reporters eye wittiness account where each shots POI was and which shot was likely the one that stopped Rosenbaum's aggression . This is a very interesting and maybe a very troubling way to break down an incident like this .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.14404 seconds with 9 queries