16 Nov 2021, 10:49 pm
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
And I think you are discounting how shock and all the far right voices in the short term might have affected him, while time and contemplation can take their toll and change one’s insight. .
He met with the proud boys in celebration so he appears to enjoy the attention
If you were facing a trial, wouldn't you want to be supported emotionally?
If you had killed two people, wouldn't you want to be supported emotionally if you felt you did it in self-defence?
I'm surprised you are neglecting these considerations.
Hardly an objective approach.
I have not jumped come to a conclusion, at this stage.
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
You are also ignoring the evidence of stress and instability early on, like throwing up in jail.
Yes but that's my point, as with Oscar Pistorious it's the fear of jail not any sympthaty/empathy for the families of the deceased. I don't see any remorse in his behavior and I am not sure why you think he is remorseful??
Well, we don't *really* know what is going on in his head, do we?
You *do* understand this, right?
Have you personally done a psychological assessment in person?
We can only speculate at a distance, hence the need for a trial by a jury who are given all the facts available.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
That means all facts need to be considered *objectively*.
Why is this concept so hard to understand?
16 Nov 2021, 10:51 pm
16 Nov 2021, 10:53 pm
16 Nov 2021, 10:58 pm
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
And I think you are discounting how shock and all the far right voices in the short term might have affected him, while time and contemplation can take their toll and change one’s insight. .
He met with the proud boys in celebration so he appears to enjoy the attention
DW_a_mom wrote:
You are also ignoring the evidence of stress and instability early on, like throwing up in jail.
Yes but that's my point, as with Oscar Pistorious it's the fear of jail not any sympthaty/empathy for the families of the deceased. I don't see any remorse in his behavior and I am not sure why you think he is remorseful??
Again, I never commented on if I think he is or isn’t remorseful. I said your reasons for ruling it completely out ignore quite a lot of human factors.
I am going by the evidence. Rittenhouse's behavior following the shooting does not equate with "naturally" showing emotion in court for his victims,
Is it possible the magnitude of what he has done hit him? possibly after listening to the prosecution, But again its not coming from a place of sympthaty/empathy for the victims, it's more like Oscar Pistorius which is a selfish fear of jail. Like Fnord said, crying in his pillow in prison.
If you believed someone was going to kill you, you might see the situation as self-defence.
If you were actively running away and was being hunted down, you might see the situation as self-defence.
Isn't "running away" a giveaway as to his mindset at the time?
If your intention was to kill "progressives", you wouldn't try to avoid the situation when push comes to shove.
Seriously, how can you not see this?
Did he unjustifiably overreact?
This is what is being determined.
16 Nov 2021, 11:12 pm
16 Nov 2021, 11:20 pm
Well, this case got even more interesting - It appears the prosecution deliberately withheld evidence from the defence team until after the trial concluded, despite having used it themselves.
Paragraph 12 from a recently lodged "motion to dismiss (with prejudice)" by the defence team... So far I have only seen the first 4 of the 7 pages in this document (pages 3 and 4 are the images above).
16 Nov 2021, 11:21 pm
Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Regardless, referencing the statement at all after the discussion on it here bothers me.
He's a frequent flyer with those type of comments, here he is from earlier in the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=401169&start=64#p8894737
I have been talking about sanctimonious hatefests since before the last American election.
I don't understand why it is allowed to continue.
It reflects poorly on WP.
16 Nov 2021, 11:24 pm
Pepe wrote:
Did he unjustifiably overreact?
This is what is being determined.
This is what is being determined.
The big question is .. PROVOCATION.
Rittenhouse is not entitled to legal self-defense if he provoked these events.
As the prosecutor said, like a bank robber fleeing a crime scene, the bank robber cannot use self-defense as a legal shield to kill intervening citizens.
The prosecutor made the argument that Rittenhouse provoked everything.
The prosecutor argued FBI drone footage shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at someone, and this angers Rosenbaum, who chases him, and says, "Shoot ME .. N****ER" ... possibly, as a warning to Rittenhouse not to point his rifle at people.
The prosecutor pointed out that Rittenhouse FIRST pointed his rifle at Huber, and Ggrosskreutz BEFORE they used their weapons.
The prosecutor argued Huber, and Ggrosskreutz both had to make a life-and-death decision when Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at them (provoked them).
Do they hope Rittenhouse doesn't kill them, or do they act and try and disarm him? They choose to try and disarm him.
The prosecutor even pointed a rifle at the jury so they can feel what provocation feels like.
16 Nov 2021, 11:40 pm
Pepe wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Regardless, referencing the statement at all after the discussion on it here bothers me.
He's a frequent flyer with those type of comments, here he is from earlier in the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=401169&start=64#p8894737
I have been talking about sanctimonious hatefests since before the last American election.
I don't understand why it is allowed to continue.
It reflects poorly on WP.
It doesn't just reflect upon WP... It also reflects upon those presenting (or endorsing) such views as well.
Off Topic
The only reason I can see for such actions to be permitted to continue would be that those with the power to prevent it either endorse the views themselves, or wish to "protect" those putting forward such views.
16 Nov 2021, 11:42 pm
TheRobotLives wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Did he unjustifiably overreact?
This is what is being determined.
This is what is being determined.
The big question is .. PROVOCATION.
Rittenhouse is not entitled to legal self-defense if he provoked these events.
As the prosecutor said, like a bank robber fleeing a crime scene, the bank robber cannot use self-defense as a legal shield to kill intervening citizens.
The prosecutor made the argument that Rittenhouse provoked everything.
The prosecutor argued FBI drone footage shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at someone, and this angers Rosenbaum, who chases him, and says, "Shoot ME .. N****ER" ... possibly, as a warning to Rittenhouse not to point his rifle at people.
The prosecutor pointed out that Rittenhouse FIRST pointed his rifle at Huber, and Ggrosskreutz BEFORE they used their weapons.
The prosecutor argued Huber, and Ggrosskreutz both had to make a life-and-death decision when Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at them (provoked them).
Do they hope Rittenhouse doesn't kill them, or do they act and try and disarm him? They choose to try and disarm him.
The prosecutor even pointed a rifle at the jury so they can feel what provocation feels like.
Well, we here in Australia aren't used people carrying weapons openly, but wouldn't a better approach have been to report having weapons pointed at them to the authorities?
In addition to this, videotaping the intimidation would be my go-to, as others did on the scene.
I have been threatened many times in the decades of being gang-stalked.
I eventually installed a camera in my car, and now wear a bodycam every time I go out of the house.
This effectively castrates the criminals harassing me since it can be used to identify the perpetrators.
Being justifiably offended by having a gun pointed at "you" is one thing.
Charging a person with a gun who is trying to run away from you is another.
Have you heard the expression of not cornering a rat?
Quote:
“Don’t corner a rat” refers to the fact that rats will jump at you when cornered. Basically meaning to be careful when pushing people too far or giving them no other option but to fight back in some way.
FYI, I will never charge at a person who is threatening me with a weapon.
"Discretion is the better part of valour", in my book.
Last edited by Pepe on 16 Nov 2021, 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
16 Nov 2021, 11:43 pm
16 Nov 2021, 11:55 pm
16 Nov 2021, 11:56 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Well, this case got even more interesting - It appears the prosecution deliberately withheld evidence from the defence team until after the trial concluded, despite having used it themselves.
Paragraph 12 from a recently lodged "motion to dismiss (with prejudice)" by the defence team... So far I have only seen the first 4 of the 7 pages in this document (pages 3 and 4 are the images above).
Paragraph 12 from a recently lodged "motion to dismiss (with prejudice)" by the defence team... So far I have only seen the first 4 of the 7 pages in this document (pages 3 and 4 are the images above).
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
16 Nov 2021, 11:57 pm
17 Nov 2021, 12:09 am
17 Nov 2021, 12:23 am
