Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Page 50 of 60 [ 954 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 ... 60  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

07 Dec 2021, 10:16 pm

Pepe wrote:
This will probably follower him for the rest of his life.


It will, and his trajectory has, no doubt, been forever changed. But it hasn't all been bad, he's also received new opportunities (forget what any of us think of the opportunities and who offers them; it only matters if he thinks they are good, and that we don't know). Hard to say what the net to him will be.


_________________
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).


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

07 Dec 2021, 10:20 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
This will probably follower him for the rest of his life.


It will, and his trajectory has, no doubt, been forever changed. But it hasn't all been bad, he's also received new opportunities (forget what any of us think of the opportunities and who offers them; it only matters if he thinks they are good, and that we don't know). Hard to say what the net to him will be.


Why are you being so nice to me?
<Pepe squints his eyes suspiciously at mom> :mrgreen:



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Dec 2021, 10:20 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Like I said, I don't mind that the guy was acquitted. I still wish he hadn't gone to Wisconsin with that gun.

^ How to tell the person discussing the case has little-to-no understanding of the events behind\surrounding the case...

As was determined at trial, the rifle was only ever in Wisconsin. No-one "went to Wisconsin" with that gun.

Edit: In fact, this has probably also been posted in this (and other) threads at least a dozen times, suggesting that those who persist in making such statements aren't interested in what truely happened, prefering a fictional series of events to the known facts, and so intentionally attempting to spread misinformation.


It has, I think we all know it, but I think failures to be clear and precise about it are hasty writing more than lack of knowledge. On this board at this point, at least.

Rittenhouse left his home with an intent to acquire a weapon before arriving at the protest. While which state he picked up the gun in makes a legal difference, but it doesn't change the fact that a child brought a gun to a situation he should have stayed out of. Don't we all wish he hadn't shown up at the protest in Wisconsin with that gun? It would have saved him at least a year of stress and two people their lives.


I could be mistaken, but my understanding was that he had stayed the night before the protest at a friend's place in Wisconsin. The day of the protest (where he did not return to his home\home state), he was trying to "clean up" the town (graffiti removal, for example), and was asked to help protect certain businesses at some point during the day - He didn't head to the city with any expectation of protecting businesses from protests, let alone to get a weapon to do so.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

07 Dec 2021, 10:25 pm

Pepe wrote:
Where are our resident lawyers when you need them? :mrgreen:


Do we have any actual lawyers resident, or just some people with legal training and/or interest?

I do get letters after my name, but they aren't JD. I do have an advanced degree that required coursework exclusively in law, but it was all tax law; doesn't allow me to sit for the bar. Just to be precise.


_________________
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).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

07 Dec 2021, 10:28 pm

Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Like I said, I don't mind that the guy was acquitted. I still wish he hadn't gone to Wisconsin with that gun.

^ How to tell the person discussing the case has little-to-no understanding of the events behind\surrounding the case...

As was determined at trial, the rifle was only ever in Wisconsin. No-one "went to Wisconsin" with that gun.

Edit: In fact, this has probably also been posted in this (and other) threads at least a dozen times, suggesting that those who persist in making such statements aren't interested in what truely happened, prefering a fictional series of events to the known facts, and so intentionally attempting to spread misinformation.


It has, I think we all know it, but I think failures to be clear and precise about it are hasty writing more than lack of knowledge. On this board at this point, at least.

Rittenhouse left his home with an intent to acquire a weapon before arriving at the protest. While which state he picked up the gun in makes a legal difference, but it doesn't change the fact that a child brought a gun to a situation he should have stayed out of. Don't we all wish he hadn't shown up at the protest in Wisconsin with that gun? It would have saved him at least a year of stress and two people their lives.


I could be mistaken, but my understanding was that he had stayed the night before the protest at a friend's place in Wisconsin. The day of the protest (where he did not return to his home\home state), he was trying to "clean up" the town (graffiti removal, for example), and was asked to help protect certain businesses at some point during the day - He didn't head to the city with any expectation of protecting businesses from protests, let alone to get a weapon to do so.


I have a few of those details different in my head but ... does it matter? I wrote "Don't we all wish he hadn't shown up at the protest in Wisconsin with that gun? It would have saved him at least a year of stress and two people their lives." How and why he got there doesn't change the wish.


_________________
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).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

07 Dec 2021, 10:31 pm

Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
This will probably follower him for the rest of his life.


It will, and his trajectory has, no doubt, been forever changed. But it hasn't all been bad, he's also received new opportunities (forget what any of us think of the opportunities and who offers them; it only matters if he thinks they are good, and that we don't know). Hard to say what the net to him will be.


Why are you being so nice to me?
<Pepe squints his eyes suspiciously at mom> :mrgreen:


Don't worry, different day, different moods on either of our sides, and it might feel different.

But I'm also trying to pay more attention to the tone I use when I write to you. In case you are my internet board equivalent of a co-worker I've been told by my family I have a unique tone for.


_________________
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).


Last edited by DW_a_mom on 07 Dec 2021, 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

07 Dec 2021, 10:31 pm

Well it seems to me with all the rioting and looting and burning going on in Wisconsin, and now the deaths by the runaway van recently, it just seems that Wisconsin has become the wild west, and a place of lawlessness. And so people are forced to fend for themselves, and take up arms to protect businesses, when there doesn't seem to be much of a police and government presense to do so.

And as a consequence of this lawlessness Rittenhouse was forced to shoot to keep from being attacked by 3 people. But he is charged with it, which seems like the government wants to have it's cake and eat it too, since they are a land of lawnessness, but trying to deny that and save face at the same time.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Dec 2021, 10:32 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
This will probably follower him for the rest of his life.


It will, and his trajectory has, no doubt, been forever changed. But it hasn't all been bad, he's also received new opportunities (forget what any of us think of the opportunities and who offers them; it only matters if he thinks they are good, and that we don't know). Hard to say what the net to him will be.


Last I have heard was him saying he is now looking to become a lawyer, to help stop seemingly dishonest prosecutors like Mr Binger and Mr Krauss treating others in a similar manner.

For those who watched the trial, there were quite a number of dubious, if not unconstitutional, things which the prosecutors did in this case. The fact that they felt able to do so in such a high-profile case suggests that they (and others) have engaged in such acts in other cases of lower profile, which may have resulted in innocent people being jailed\otherwise penalised (most likely poorer\lower class people), so this change of planned career seems like one which should help benefit society.

Off Topic
He is also intending to have the rifle he used that night destroyed, BTW, not wanting any person or group to have it as a "souvenir"\item to "rally around".



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Dec 2021, 10:41 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Like I said, I don't mind that the guy was acquitted. I still wish he hadn't gone to Wisconsin with that gun.

^ How to tell the person discussing the case has little-to-no understanding of the events behind\surrounding the case...

As was determined at trial, the rifle was only ever in Wisconsin. No-one "went to Wisconsin" with that gun.

Edit: In fact, this has probably also been posted in this (and other) threads at least a dozen times, suggesting that those who persist in making such statements aren't interested in what truely happened, prefering a fictional series of events to the known facts, and so intentionally attempting to spread misinformation.


It has, I think we all know it, but I think failures to be clear and precise about it are hasty writing more than lack of knowledge. On this board at this point, at least.

Rittenhouse left his home with an intent to acquire a weapon before arriving at the protest. While which state he picked up the gun in makes a legal difference, but it doesn't change the fact that a child brought a gun to a situation he should have stayed out of. Don't we all wish he hadn't shown up at the protest in Wisconsin with that gun? It would have saved him at least a year of stress and two people their lives.


I could be mistaken, but my understanding was that he had stayed the night before the protest at a friend's place in Wisconsin. The day of the protest (where he did not return to his home\home state), he was trying to "clean up" the town (graffiti removal, for example), and was asked to help protect certain businesses at some point during the day - He didn't head to the city with any expectation of protecting businesses from protests, let alone to get a weapon to do so.


I have a few of those details different in my head but ... does it matter? I wrote "Don't we all wish he hadn't shown up at the protest in Wisconsin with that gun? It would have saved him at least a year of stress and two people their lives." How and why he got there doesn't change the wish.


When you start out from a position of "Rittenhouse left his home with an intent to acquire a weapon before arriving at the protest", the fact that he didn't leave his home (which would also imply he had crossed state lines with the intention to be there that night, which was not the case) with any intention to be at a protest over 24 hours in the future, for which he had no knowledge would occur, and that he was staying at the house of the person who owned the rifle the night prior to (and planning on staying at on the night of the protest as well, I believe), it does make a big difference.

Put simply, your statement implied longer term planning\intent behind his presence there, whereas the trial produced evidence showing it was a spontaneous decision for him to be there.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

07 Dec 2021, 10:42 pm

Brictoria wrote:

Off Topic
He is also intending to have the rifle he used that night destroyed, BTW, not wanting any person or group to have it as a "souvenir"\item to "rally around".


So it won't be on ebay? :scratch:
Bugger. :mrgreen:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

07 Dec 2021, 10:46 pm

ironpony wrote:
Well it seems to me with all the rioting and looting and burning going on in Wisconsin, and now the deaths by the runaway van recently, it just seems that Wisconsin has become the wild west, and a place of lawlessness. And so people are forced to fend for themselves, and take up arms to protect businesses, when there doesn't seem to be much of a police and government presense to do so.

And as a consequence of this lawlessness Rittenhouse was forced to shoot to keep from being attacked by 3 people. But he is charged with it, which seems like the government wants to have it's cake and eat it too, since they are a land of lawnessness, but trying to deny that and save face at the same time.


I suggest they defund the police more.
*That* will fix things. :thumright: <facetiousness> :mrgreen:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

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

07 Dec 2021, 10:48 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
This will probably follower him for the rest of his life.


It will, and his trajectory has, no doubt, been forever changed. But it hasn't all been bad, he's also received new opportunities (forget what any of us think of the opportunities and who offers them; it only matters if he thinks they are good, and that we don't know). Hard to say what the net to him will be.


Why are you being so nice to me?
<Pepe squints his eyes suspiciously at mom> :mrgreen:


Don't worry, different day, different moods on either of our sides, and it might feel different.

But I'm also trying to pay more attention to the tone I use when I write to you. In case you are my internet board equivalent of a co-worker I've been told by my family I have a unique tone for.


Shirley Surely you jest? 8O :mrgreen:
Show Spoiler



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

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

07 Dec 2021, 11:22 pm

To say that Wisconsin is “lawless,” like a Dirty Harry movie, is patently ridiculous.

I would go to Wisconsin, sans weapon, and hang out with my friends there.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

08 Dec 2021, 12:25 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
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.


There seems to be a pattern in red states (such as Wisconsin) passing laws that permit open or concealed carry which trumps any existing case laws pertaining to "castling"

It's interesting that under Wisconsin legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

I'm curious why Rittenhouse wasn't even subject to this paltry misdemeanour



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

08 Dec 2021, 12:57 am

cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
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.


There seems to be a pattern in red states (such as Wisconsin) passing laws that permit open or concealed carry which trumps any existing case laws pertaining to "castling"

It's interesting that under Wisconsin legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

I'm curious why Rittenhouse wasn't even subject to this paltry misdemeanour


If you keep reading the statute, you get to a list of exceptions. They determined one applied. You can never stop looking just because you found a sentence that seems to apply. You always have to search for qualifiers and exceptions. Sometimes they aren’t even in the same law section.


_________________
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).


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

08 Dec 2021, 1:08 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
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.


There seems to be a pattern in red states (such as Wisconsin) passing laws that permit open or concealed carry which trumps any existing case laws pertaining to "castling"

It's interesting that under Wisconsin legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

I'm curious why Rittenhouse wasn't even subject to this paltry misdemeanour


If you keep reading the statute, you get to a list of exceptions. They determined one applied. You can never stop looking just because you found a sentence that seems to apply. You always have to search for qualifiers and exceptions. Sometimes they aren’t even in the same law section.


I'm fairly sure I have explained this to Cyberdad at least half a dozen times across multiple threads, and others have similarly done so - As a result, he is (or should be) well aware of those details, and the fact that he pretends to not know this information does lead to the question of why he is so persistant in trying to push deliberate falsehoods about the specific law in question.