If there is a 'metric shit ton' I guess I can find something, so I'll look. — I like sushi

Yeah, you had to look harder to actually get the trial transcripts than you will to find all the facts omitted from the trial. Assuming the prosecutor was even trying, he was hog tied by the judge.

I found something that basically agreed with what I said — I like sushi

Yeah, beware of confirmation bias. Keep looking. Take a few days.

The 'transcripts'? I watched large segments of the live recording. If you cannot say what you are referring to then what am I meant to do?

If there is so much evidence then just point some out for me. Is that too much to ask? You asked me to google search so what words do I need to put in to find what you are referring to?

I'll trying with 'evidence omitted from Rittenhouse trial' now ...

Still only finding what I said above about use of excessive force:

"I definitely believe the prosecutors could have made different choices that would have resulted in some convictions. I think that the way that the prosecution presented their case, forced the jury to either say 'self-defense is real or self-defense is not'. I just don't think that's the right way to approach it," says Martinez.

Many fear the verdict will embolden so-called vigilantes to come armed to protests or even kill more people at protests.

Martinez explains, "To the extent to which right wing believers are going to be emboldened by this, I think is up in the air right now. I can tell you that from what I've seen online It's definitely the case that they take this as a total victory and a total vindication of their position."

https://www.wuwm.com/2021-11-22/discussing-the-implications-of-rittenhouse-trial

and this:

The defence rested its case Thursday, but not before arguing with prosecutors about whether an enlarged image taken from a drone video could be admitted into evidence. Schroeder, following arguments held without the jury present, said he would allow the image, while admitting he didn't understand the technology used by a state crime lab employee to enlarge it.

"With all due respect to your honour, I think the defence is trying to take advantage of your lack of knowledge about technology," Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney James Kraus said.

Kraus argued that the way the images were enlarged was the "industry standard" and for the defence to "then try to pretend this is all voodoo magic is preposterous." He said the defence attempt to get the evidence tossed out because it shows "their client is lying ... they are stooping to this level to try to keep it out."

Prosecutors wanted to use the image to rebut Rittenhouse's testimony that he didn't point his gun at protesters just before he was chased by Joseph Rosenbaum, whom Rittenhouse shot and killed. Rittenhouse argues he shot him in self-defence.

Wisconsin crime lab employee James Armstrong testified, under questioning from defence attorney Corey Chirafisi, that the software program adds pixels to the image and he cannot say with certainty what colour the added pixels are.

"If it is not the same as the original and colours were added to that, that is a distortion of what, in fact, the original photograph was," Chirafisi said in arguing to keep out the image.

Kraus called that a "canard" and a "dishonest argument."

"This is just not the age we're in," Kraus argued. "We are in an age where software is able to enlarge and do things."

Schroeder used a magnifying glass to examine the image in question and also walked right up to a large screen to get a better look. He ultimately allowed the image to be admitted, but Rittenhouse's defence attorney was also permitted to question the crime lab analyst about the software used to enlarge it with the jury present.


The judge said he was leaving it up to the jury to decide how much weight to give the image.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/blow-up-at-rittenhouse-trial-over-enlarging-photos-and-video-1.5663622

Which I did actually know about having watched the live recording of the trial. I watched practically all of Rittenhouse's account and Gauge's account. If I missed something else where feel free to tell me exactly what. I'd like to know.

Keep looking. Take a few days. — James Riley

Here, you can have this as an "LOOK! This guy cannot be bothered!" statement. Here it comes ...

I googled and found nothing substantial. You said there is a 'metric shit ton' of evidence. I have asked for links and cannot find anything substantial. I have also asked what exactly I should type into the search engine to get the results you won't tell me about.

I spent time (hours) watching the accounts of the persons mentioned above (both now more than twice, but admittedly not in there entirety - you can cry out about that if it serves you). I am not going to spend time looking for evidence you say exists but are not willing to share. Apparently you are referring to the 'transcripts' so you will understand that if I watched the live recording of their accounts I will have heard what the judge protested about. If there were details NOT recorded what was said, what evidence was omitted and why would it change the outcome of the trial?

I understand that it is easier to paint me as ignorant and unwilling if you wish to but that isn't likely to hold up if you yourself are willing to point to some items, from an apparent 'metric shit ton,' that should cause me to review the acts played out as they did.

I remember the prosecution trying to show 'threat' and make out Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people to intimidate them. There are claims and tenuous evidence that he did point his gun at some people. That is literally the only thing I can see that you might be referring to from the searches? Let's say he did briefly point his weapon at some people. It that a justifiable reason to run at him and try and wrestle the gun from him and say you want to kill him. Provocation? Something there slightly at best. It would be more substantial if there was some dialogue involved and action (walking towards someone with gun and/or stopping to exchange words). But I haven't seen this shown in the evidence. Was there some evidence that didn't make it into the trial that showed this explicitly or otherwise?

It goes on and on. I can't believe you can't find anything. Maybe that's because you still have your head stuck in the trial. FUCK the trial. Focus on what happened before, during and after the shooting; not just the shooting. I'll do your job for you on two only:

Google "get some". Who said "get some" to who?

Check this out: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/29/fact-check-video-police-thanked-kyle-rittenhouse-gave-him-water/5661804002/

The reason I'm not giving you more is because I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole with someone who's mind is made up; confirmation bias, like talking to anti-vaxxers about science. They have a spin and denial and a nit pic for everything. They are confirmation bias idiots. And so is anyone who limited their scope of review to the the mental state of R in the nanno-second before he pulled the trigger.

Maybe as a non-American you don't understand or what to understand the context. Context is everything. That is why context was not allow in the trial. Let me simplify it for youL

If the mental state of the shooter in the moment of pulling the trigger is all that mattered in a self-defense claim, then Travis McMichael would have been found not guilty. If you don't know who he is, or what happened in the one or two seconds before he pulled the trigger, then you don't know BLM and context.

But you go ahead and keep justifying the trial judge and the cops. Just like an anti-vaxxer. Ignore context and facts that don't fit your narrative.

. Context is everything. That is why context was not allow[sic] in the trial. — James Riley

You're not gonna get off scot-free with that metric shit ton you pulled. lol. :smile:

You're not gonna get off scot-free with that metric shit ton you pulled. lol. :smile: — Caldwell

If I was charged in WI and had that judge I would.

Everyone with their eyes open saw it. Not the jury. Thanks to the judge and a questionable prosecution.

The reason I'm not giving you more is because I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole with someone who's mind is made up; confirmation bias, like talking to anti-vaxxers about science. — James Riley

You think that is fair statement I guess. It precisely these kind of reactionary accusations I hoped to avoid rather than things to turn into 'You're just biased/stupid or whatever'.

My bias is that I think carrying guns around for safety is ridiculous and that US laws in this area are pretty messed up.

I will look for sure. Thanks for having a little faith in humanity :) It doesn't hurt to inform other about information when they are asking for it after failing to find anything much.

I can't believe you can't find anything. Maybe that's because you still have your head stuck in the trial. FUCK the trial. Focus on what happened before, during and after the shooting; not just the shooting. — James Riley

I genuinely couldn't. I looked at the trial and accounts from Gauge and Rittenhouse because that seemed like a sensible place to start to get evidence from. I wouldn't call that an error.

Any law that allows a 17 yr old to run around the streets with a rifle is crazy imo. The law is the law though and my bias is (to repeat) that I think carrying guns around is not the norm in my life experience (even for police). The US is the US though.

The water thing I knew about too (from the trial).

The 'get some Rittenhouse' shows nothing atm but I'll look later.

Now you're not even being consistent with yourself, let alone testimony. I have noticed that obfuscation via verbiage is definitely your thing. I bailed early when your description of the first shooting appeared as fictional as the post I was originally responding too. No need to correct it as I'd already done that.

You have issues. Sorry.

Anyway, will look into this 'get some' comment and see if I can find anything given you're unwilling to simply offer a link to it and it doesn't appear in my google bubble.

If anyone can tell me who said 'get some' to who let me know. Cannot find anything.

Now you're not even being consistent with yourself, let alone testimony. I have noticed that obfuscation via verbiage is definitely your thing. — Kenosha Kid

I am just asking for evidence. You've shown me nothing new to date just hinted that I missed something. You said 'FUCK the trial' (incorrect you didn't @James Riley did) but do you not find this telling that the things you linked were in the parts of the trial I watched? Maybe, just maybe, you didn't watch more than 2-3 minutes of it out of context to the whole? I certainly admit, and have admitted, to only watching a few hours where Rittenhouse and Gauge give their accounts. It feels a bit like you are suggesting I shouldn't have watched the trial at all and tried to inform myself. Instead, correct me if I'm wrong, you want me shout out that Rittenhouse is a racist and murderer and went out that night to shoot black people and/or people supporting BLM.

The context that matters is running at someone who has a gun and who you've threatened to kill - who is actively trying to get away from you - and this person then raises his weapon to stop your approach, yet you just slow a little then keep running at them .. well, it is asking for trouble. As for Rittenhouse simply being where he was at the time, yeah, I can say he was 'asking for trouble' too but to a far lesser degree. Simply carrying a weapon - in the context of what had happened previously and what led to the protests - doesn't effect the way the law is carried out. The protests were in reaction to the police using excessive force and worthy protests. They were not protests about people (members of the public) owning firearms. If he took his gun to an anti-gun rally and mingled with the crowds then we have an entirely different context. Yeah, context matters.

IN context to Jacob Blake the law (which exists whether you like it or not) does give police officers WAY too much immunity IMO. I am not going to argue that at all. Nor am I going to argue that there are hundreds of cases showing how even police officers don't really know the law and act in a manner that is baffling.

For reason 'excessive force' is something the police are allowed to use if there is even a slight suggestion of a slight threat to them. It is dumb. The problem is in the way the laws are written and interpreted.

Nothing I have said here has been in defense of anyone. I have merely attempted to report what happened in the trial of Rittenhouse without bleeding it into the reasons for the protests and vandalism.

There was vandalism and there were protests. I know that. Why people were out there is not massively important as it bears no significant context to whether Rittenhouse shot people out of an intent to kill or an intent to protect himself. The general view seems to be exactly what mine was. He should've been charged with a lesser charge because the evidence (as the law works over there) wasn't nearly enough to expect an outcome other than what happened.

We can certainly question the WHY the charges laid out were the charges laid out. Use of excessive force would've protected a police officer in his situation - no doubt at all because the law biases police officers from what I've learnt - but he wasn't a police officer so shooting someone FOUR times even in quick succession would be the most obvious point to focus on when it came to prosecuting.

Why didn't that happen? Could it be because there was public pressure through social media with people like yourself screaming murderer and the prosecution acting far too quickly? Or could it be due to some conspiracy to have him acquitted of all charges to bolster some pro-weapons ambition of the government? Or could it have been in order to show that this guy can shoot people and get away with it as a message to any civil disorder as BAD unless the police say otherwise?

We can speculate ALL these things and discuss it. We cannot claim the evidence in the trial is somehow biased because evidence isn't biased. We can profess that some evidence was missed out or that there is new evidence. If we cannot show such evidence and rely on someone saying there is 'a metric shit ton' alone then I think we need to check ourselves. I even took the 'metric shit ton' seriously (and maybe there is?), but if there are piece of evidence out there that could have effected this case then you need to present it not simply say it is there. I even tried to look for it and didn't find anything much, and the one piece you linked referred to something I heard in the trial (Rittenhouse's account when probed by the prosecution).

I'm not really hoping to reach you anymore tbh but hope that some of this will be read by others here and that they may think twice about blindly accusing someone of something when they've only seen pieces of evidence. I am willing to admit that there are possibly huge pieces of evidence relating to this case that I didn't see/hear in the few hours I've watched.

Overall the whole thing was a mess. It will continue to be a mess until the next time someone gets shot in the US (likely a few seconds/minutes ago) and then continue to be a mess again in a slightly different way. Eventually maybe things will turn around for the better if people keep protesting or making their voices heard in some other way.

NOTE : I made an error in confusing what James said with what you said. mistakes happen. They don't need to be covered up though.

It’s true, high murder rates are not a good thing, but neither is a monopoly on violence, the inability to equalize force, the inability to defend one’s property, an so on. At each step, from the shooting of Jason Blake onward, the professionals failed in Wisconsin. Frankly, I would much rather take my chances. — NOS4A2

Of course a monopoly on violence is a good thing. The ability to equalize force... as if that's gonna happen. A bunch of trained professionals will always outgun the untrained masses wielding AR rifles, not to mention their access to truly heavy weaponry such as tanks and armored vehicles. Defending one's own property... nahh, ridiculously inefficient. A. Most people do not even have property worth defending B. Allowing everyone guns just ups the ante because also your attackers will be armed as well. and C. isn't defense of public order and property not a public good? We pay something called taxes (maybe you should look up the concept) and pay it to the government in order to arrange for cetralized property defense. Much more efficient then everyone trying to build their own little fortress and with less chances for error. "Ohhh golly, I thought he was tresspassing, I did not know he sold bibles! sorry for the holes in your head".

Really NOS you are not a stupid guy, but your ideology is so incredibly erroneous, down from its metaphysics up to its practical results, You must be a masochist to defend it. Libertarians are just hopeless romantics I guess.

You can find the transcripts online very easily. The course of events I described seems pretty accurate. Yours seem... well, invented tbh. I've countered the dishonesty, that's all I'm interested in doing. I'm not here to keep anyone company in their fantasy world.

Transcripts of the parts of the trial I watched? I heard them why would I bother to read them.

Yours seem... well, invented tbh. — Kenosha Kid

How so? Because I don't mention Mr. Blake? You're not making sense anymore so I'll just leave it at that for now if you have nothing of substance to offer other than 'look online'.

Perhaps you'd have a better idea if you had taken the time to watch the witness accounts (both Rittenhouse and Gauge). There is no way you have and refute what I said today as it was a blow by blow account from re-viewing the account of Gauge.

I merely interjected a page or two back to add detail to something Frank said (cannot even recall what it was?) and you or some other person jumped in and pointed out a mistake I had made (I think?) because I hadn't looked at the evidence for a while and confused who the paramedic was with someone else other than Gauge.

To make sure I didn't say anything misleading I reviewed Gauge's account and then gave it - it was not 'invented'.

↪Kenosha Kid It is. One mistake is he had his gun out already then rushed into a dangerous situation with gun in hand looking to help Rittenhouse. — I like sushi

That was the mistake^^ Are you saying this is a 'fiction'? I am happy to provide time marks and links to the live recording if that will help assure you?

List everything I said you view as 'fiction' and I'll post link to video here with appropriate time stamps to each instance. I am willing and able to do the work if you cannot. No problem. This might sound like I am trying to be annoying but all I am doing is trying not to show something false and correct mistakes if I see them.

The law is the law though and my bias is (to repeat) that I think carrying guns around is not the norm in my life experience (even for police). The US is the US though. — I like sushi

As a general principle, it is NOT the law that a person could do what Rittenhouse did. What Rittenhouse did, and your myopic focus on the trial about what he did, is an aberration. It is NOT par for the course in the U.S. for people to do what Rittenhouse did. It is NOT normal for a trial to be conducted the way it was. But none of that is the point.

The point is:

1. It is NOT normal for law enforcement to conduct themselves they way they did in relation to Rittenhouse, before and after the shooting. It is NOT normal for law enforcement to allow a boy to walk around with an AR at port arms, especially on public rights-of-way (i.e. not private property or his own property) in the lead-up to a protest/riot. It's NOT normal for law enforcement to direct such people, unchallenged, to aid stations. It is NOT normal for law enforcement to tell such people to go "get some" in the lead up to a protest/riot that the police were there to address. It is NOT normal for law enforcement to buddy up with strangers from out of town conducting themselves as Rittenhouse did, EVEN IF (and especially if) law enforcement is a bunch of unsophisticated Barny Fifes. And it is NOT normal for anyone (you) to say the evidence of all that is not "substantial" or for anyone to pretend they can't find it. (It is normal on the internet generally, however, to ask for proof, receive it, and then pivot. In this case it would be your subjective finding that the proof was not "substantial." I'm not going to play that game).

2. Notwithstanding the fact that #1 is true, and the aberration occurred anyway, there is no fucking way in hell that it would occur with a 17 year old black kid. But then you'd have to have a clue about the whole reason anyone at all was there in the first place. You don't have a clue because your myopic view is locked on the myopic, aberrant trial. A similarly situated black kid would have been shot down immediately, with little or no warning, at first sight, or, at the very least, he would have received the face-plant in the asphalt and a knee on the neck.

Now I don't for one second believe your allegedly innocent curiosity. I don't care if you're not from around here. You have all the innocent desire to inform yourself here as Rittenhouse had to help out that night. You have all the innocent desire to inform yourself here as the prosecution had of winning. You have all the innocent desire to inform yourself here as the judge had in seeing justice.

The OP by was spot-the-fuck-on. :100: :fire:

Anyway, I'm going to cede the floor to you. I don't want to play into what I perceive as faux concern and curiosity.

I’ll just say that there is a fine line between efficiency on the one hand and laziness and ignorance on the other. You would rather delegate the right to bear arms and to defend yourself to other people. You don’t know where your tax money is spent—out of sight, out of mind—but are confident authority will spend it on some “public good”. Your sense of justice has been reduced to strict legalism. In short, Tobias, your ideology is servile and unjust and immoral.

But again, thanks for the funny video.

I’ll just say that there is a fine line between efficiency on the one hand and laziness and ignorance on the other. — NOS4A2

Well, what woudl be an indicator of ignorance? Hard to pick, but say, literacy rates. And lo and behold, you are right there literacy levels or so much higher in the US than in the Netherlands. Ohh... they aren't? Could have fooled me. Ohh that is right because we use tax money to fund education.

Compare these two reports:
https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Country%20note%20-%20United%20States.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Country%20note%20-%20Netherlands.pdf

You would rather delegate the right to bear arms and to defend yourself to other people. — NOS4A2

One does not have a right to bear arms granted by nature. And yes, I think allocating the defense of my rights to others is indeed practical. Just like I delegate my right to bake bread to others and my right to search for clean drinking water.

You don’t know where your tax money is spent—out of sight, out of mind—but are confident authority will spend it on some “public good”. — NOS4A2

Well, not always. We have our problems with the tax service. However we also have reasonably transparent instritutions and a judicial system that is in general open. The Netherlands is a rather pleasurable country to live in, our infrastructure is not crumbling, so indeed, I think it is reasonably well spent most of the time. What is true is that most of our European defense is borrowed from the US which is an Achilles heel. In general though yes the distribution of public goods is of a high quality.

Your sense of justice has been reduced to strict legalism. — NOS4A2

Huh? Where does that come from? Can someone explain to me what NOS means? In any case, if not I just point out the non-sequitur and let it rest.

In short, Tobias, your ideology is servile and unjust and immoral. — NOS4A2

Who am I serving? I feel the creation of public goods is not servile. It is called working together. And yes, working together is usually more efficient when coordinated through the media of well ordered institutions, with democratic checks and balances. I thought that was what countries were ideally made of. To what standard of justice is that ideology unjust or immoral?

It was only a criticism of the idea that by paying tax dollars you are somehow working with others, coordinating your defence. That’s not the case, to me. It appears more like ignorance, in the sense of “not knowing”. Since one is unable to follow his tax-dollars to their final destination, so he is unable to say he is coordinating education, a police force, or the toilet paper in a public washrooms. Far from coordination, he is ignorant of it, and has no say in all coordinating aspects of its application.

Some would rather delegate the responsibilities and the means for their defence on to others, to “professionals”. So in times when defence is required, he has long absolved himself of any responsibility and can let others handle it for him. Far from efficient, it’s laziness. It isn't without irony that we find a dutch John Oliver ridiculing Americans and their guns while benefiting from the liberation and defence of American firepower.

And since they confer their responsibilities to the state, they correspondingly confer it the power to govern their own lives. The monopoly on violence hints at who is serving whom.

I used legalism in the pejorative sense. I mean that ethics is dismissed in favor of appeals to law and authority. Law shapes the "mindset of the people", rather the other way about. I fear we cannot discuss the ethics of defending oneself from a mob or a right to bear arms without limiting ourselves to state-sanctioned principles, many of which are younger than the disco era.

The point, anyways, was that in the view of my erroneous ideology I have yet to see anything better on offer.

It isn't without irony that we find a Dutch John Oliver ridiculing Americans and their guns while benefiting from the liberation and defense of American firepower.... I fear we cannot discuss the ethics of defending oneself from a mob or a right to bear arms without limiting ourselves to state-sanctioned principles, many of which are younger than the disco era. — NOS4A2

It may be that you like stew for dinner - I do. And it may be that a guest at your dinner might ask what the dinner is, you of course answering stew. And your guest persevering might agree that indeed it's stew, but ask what is in it, what the ingredients are. To which you answer, it's just stew; that's all I know.

And your sentence above just such a stew, but in this case a confused conflation of different things. Too many to sort out quickly and simply, and ultimately not worth the trouble, because as it is, a stew of confusion, it is not itself a consumable stew.

What does American firepower have to do with an incompetently wielded pistol or rifle? How does an inferred (presumably absolute) right of self-defense yield a right to have, carry, and use a gun? What does having, carrying, using a gun have to do with any right to bear arms? And what is a right to bear arms if not state-sanctioned? And just for the heck of it, what exactly is a right? I can think of no right that is absolute; that is, assertable under all conditions. Can you? And of what relevance is the age of a principle?

Hilarious. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking anything while watching. Probably would have ruined my keyboard. John Oliver has done stories on the NRA but he mixes humor and being informative.

It was only a criticism of the idea that by paying tax dollars you are somehow working with others, coordinating your defence. That’s not the case, to me. It appears more like ignorance, in the sense of “not knowing”. Since one is unable to follow his tax-dollars to their final destination, so he is unable to say he is coordinating education, a police force, or the toilet paper in a public washrooms. Far from coordination, he is ignorant of it, and has no say in all coordinating aspects of its application. — NOS4A2

Well, that is the case you are working with others. everyone pays taxes so everyone chips in to a pool of resources which are then use to facilitate the creation of public good. It is a simple reduction of transaction costs because if you would have to contract and negotiate with everyone individually it would cost you enormous time and resources. In addition somehow you will have to deal with the problem of free riders, a notorious economic conundrum when it comes to the creation of pubic goods.

Of course, you do not know everything that happens to your tax dollars. However, that is a situation we are in since the onset of modern society. You do not know what happens to your tax dollars, but also not what technology corporations install in your mobilie phones, or god forbid, in coronav accines or in basically everything we use for modern living. It always requires a leap of faith scary though it may be.

Some would rather delegate the responsibilities and the means for their defence on to others, to “professionals”. So in times when defence is required, he has long absolved himself of any responsibility and can let others handle it for him. Far from efficient, it’s laziness. It isn't without irony that we find a dutch John Oliver ridiculing Americans and their guns while benefiting from the liberation and defence of American firepower. — NOS4A2

Well, actually in every naton state we delegate the defense against foreign invasion to professionals. And no that not necessarily absolves you from responsibility as you may be indeed drafted into the army in times of acute crisis. That is another civic duty coordinated by the state and for good reason. If every hamlet had to organise their own defense force and negotiate procedures with every other hamlet, your country would not last long. Yes, the Netherlands has benefitted and still benefits from US firepower and - aside - when the US complains about the Eruopean countries not pulling their fair weight they are right! However that oly goes to show how tenacious the problem of collective action is. As Tin Wood pointed out, it simply has nothing to do with gun laws since the US army would be equally strong if there was no second amendment.

And since they confer their responsibilities to the state, they correspondingly confer it the power to govern their own lives. The monopoly on violence hints at who is serving whom. — NOS4A2

Well in a democratic state we both serve and are being served. That is the reason why democracy demands people having votes and being eligible for political functions. I am not working in the sevice of the Dutch state. Well in some sense I am, but everyone that is employed in education in the Netherlands is. The point is trivial, I could just as well say the state is serving me because it basically pays me to think.

I used legalism in the pejorative sense. I mean that ethics is dismissed in favor of appeals to law and authority. Law shapes the "mindset of the people", rather the other way about. I fear we cannot discuss the ethics of defending oneself from a mob or a right to bear arms without limiting ourselves to state-sanctioned principles, many of which are younger than the disco era. — NOS4A2

Still, I have no idea why you attrribute this view to me. I think the point of view is eminently ethical in as far as it takes the relationships with other people into account. The libertarian ideology, at least in the variation you espouse, seems to do no such thing. Instead it believes in some God given rights. Also it is not the case that law shapes the mindset of the people but comes out of thin air itself. It is actually also shaped by the mindset of the people as well as by other things, like technological development. Law is, here it is again, a social practice. The problem is in your world view there is no accounting for that, therefore law must come out of nowhere. Like your right to bear arms seems to come out of nowhere. Your view though leads to that absurd assumption though, not mine.

The point, anyways, was that in the view of my erroneous ideology I have yet to see anything better on offer. — NOS4A2

Well, NOS, you live in something better, the lord be praised! No society holds on to your ideology as it would revert us back to the stone age. Look around you at all the things tax money got you. Just for one minute comtemplate the traffic light and consider what a boon it is that central planners have limited your freedom and that of everyone else on the intricate system of roads we have...

My apologies for derailing the thread. I should not debate this kind of stuff in the Rittenhouse thread so, by all means go back on topic if you like. I belief that such a discussion with NOS4A2 is something like a broken record on the forums, it is still a bit new for me, but again sorry to derail the thread. I will from now on only answer points of law in this thread.

No, neither deserved death if justice were served in a deliberate way. That is, had they not been shot, they would have faced some charges, not none deserving terribly long sentences, and certainly not death.

Saying the self defense was justified is not equivalent to saying he got his just dessert. — Hanover

Did R deserve to be chased down by a mob and assaulted?

It's not a matter of what someone deserved. It's a matter of do you have the right to defend yourself from being killed?

It's not a matter of what someone deserved. It's a matter of do you have the right to defend yourself from being killed? — Harry Hindu

And the answer to that question as offered up so often in this thread is sometimes you have and sometimes you do not.

And the answer to that question as offered up so often in this thread is sometimes you have and sometimes you do not. — Tobias

This doesn't tell me anything useful. What are the circumstances in which it is OK to defend yourself vs not being OK to defend yourself?

It seems to me that if you have the right to life, liberty and happiness, then you have the right to defend yourself from others trying to take these things away from you.

This doesn't tell me anything useful. What are the circumstances in which it is OK to defend yourself vs not being OK to defend yourself?

It seems to me that if you have the right to life, liberty and happiness, then you have the right to defend yourself from others trying to take these things away from you. — Harry Hindu

Well now Harry, think, think.... what could those circumstances be.... Ohh I know. Say you are in the process of brutally raping my wife, choking her (I am divorced by the way, but that's beside the point, it is not a real scenario, but a hypothetical you see) and I come to her rescue wielding a lead pipe. You out of fear for your life stab me in the eye with the long hair pin conveniently located on my wive's night stand. The pin penetrates my eyeball, enters the brain which sibsequently causes my legs to quake and I collapse to the floor.... dead!

Now, witness hwat happens in court... You get convicted for manslaughter (non-premeditated murder) or even felony murder. So no, unfortunately Harry you did not have the right of self defense in that situation.

By the way, it is not my duty to tell you anything useful. You frame it as a demand, but normally I get paid to provide legal education. You could have found this information in the thread.

Well now Harry, think, think.... what could those circumstances be.... Ohh I know. Say you are in the process of brutally raping my wife, choking her (I am divorced by the way, but that's beside the point, it is nota real scenario, but a hypothetical you see) and I come to her rescue wielding a lead pipe. You out of fear for your life stab me in the eye with the long hair pin conveniently located on my wive's night stand. The pin penetrates my eyeball, enters the brain which sibsequently causes my legs to quake and I collapse to the floor.... dead! — Tobias

Then your position is that all rapists deserve to be killed by their victim's (X-)husband?

By the way, it is not my duty to tell you anything useful. You frame it as a demand, but normally I get paid to provide legal education. You could have found this information in the thread. — Tobias

Strange that you interpret a factual statement as a demand. Maybe the information in this thread is inaccurate, biased, or doesn't take into consideration all facts that have been given. There is no problem in asking questions. You didn't have to answer.