Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Res Ipsa]

I think you make a compelling argument, and I stand, for the most part, corrected. Spank you very much.

- Doc

You're welcome. It used to be a fairly simple concept. The newer stand your ground laws can really complicate the analysis. It looks to me like, in the CA statute, B, C, and D were tacked on later. As a result, there are two different castle paragraphs and then stand your ground added. As with the Wisconsin statute, it could be rewritten to make it much clearer. Just my opinion, but when one can and cannot use deadly force against another person is something that should be exceptionally clear.

[ajax18]

That sounds like your opinion on how things should be, not the law.

It's what I think partly explains why the law distinguishes between persons and property when it comes to the use of deadly force. And if you spend some time studying the law, you'll find that it does.

What state law are you referring to? Louisiana is slightly different because it's based on Napoleonic law. The castle doctrine was the actual law enforced until fairly recently.

I'm certain the founding fathers would have never believed a man should have to watch his business be burned to the ground lest a conflict escalate to deadly force.

[K Graham]

KG,

Why did he have it dismissed?

- Doc

Dunno. Here is an interesting take by two legal experts...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxN2CB0zdIg&t=3s

[Jersey Girl]

Up front apologies for not knowing as I haven’t had the chance to watch any part of the trial, but are there separate charges against Rittenhouse per victim, or just a single comprehensive charge regarding self defense?

ETA: found them, here:

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles ... house-face

Oh you found something. Here is Scott Reisch anyway. I don't know how long the KR commentary lasts. I forget. It's not the whole video. I time stamped it for you where the KR stuff begins.

https://youtu.be/k2x8WSH366M?t=206

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

KG,

Why did he have it dismissed?

- Doc

Dunno. Here is an interesting take by two legal experts...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxN2CB0zdIg&t=3s

What’s the time stamp where they discuss the reason why the judge dismissed that particular charge? 8:47 of talking heads bouncing around topics is too onerous to bother with.

eta: Jesus Christ



- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

Dunno. Here is an interesting take by two legal experts...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxN2CB0zdIg&t=3s

What’s the time stamp where they discuss the reason why the judge dismissed that particular charge? 8:47 of talking heads bouncing around topics is too onerous to bother with.

- Doc

Here's Scott Reisch on the dismissed charge. Time stamped for you. Maybe you can compare explanations.

https://youtu.be/k2x8WSH366M?t=222

[Res Ipsa]

It's what I think partly explains why the law distinguishes between persons and property when it comes to the use of deadly force. And if you spend some time studying the law, you'll find that it does.

What state law are you referring to? Louisiana is slightly different because it's based on Napoleonic law. The castle doctrine was the actual law enforced until fairly recently.

I'm certain the founding fathers would have never believed a man should have to watch his business be burned to the ground lest a conflict escalate to deadly force.

Pick one. We haven’t seen one yet that refers to protection of property as justifiable homicide. If you catch me keying your car, you don’t get to shoot me to make me stop.

That doesn’t mean you can’t use force to make me stop. The law distinguishes between use of force and use of deadly force.

What the Founding fathers thought about self defense was that it was an issue for states to decide. Which they do. Other than that, what the founders may have thought their states should do is irrelevant. If you’re willing to put the time in, your can trace each states law of self defense back to the founding of that state. But what you can and can’t believe the founders thought doesn’t count.

[ajax18]

Pick one. We haven’t seen one yet that refers to protection of property as justifiable homicide. If you catch me keying your car, you don’t get to shoot me to make me stop.

That doesn’t mean you can’t use force to make me stop. The law distinguishes between use of force and use of deadly force.

Are you saying if I pepper sprayed someone keying my car that would be legal? Anytime you confront someone it has the potential to escalate to a deadly encounter even if you're unarmed. I know there's volumes written about this. Can you give me a summary answer based on your legal knowledge based on Florida or Texas law? For instance if BLM comes through with the intent to trash my optical, steal all the frames, and set fire to it, what exactly am I allowed to do to try to prevent this from happening? Or do I just have to sit back and accept that the DA will probably not charge them and if they do, I'll get no compensation from them due to their indigent and unemployed condition. I therefore am left with nothing but to accept a a higher property insurance rate in the future and whatever the insurance company decides to actually replace. You're right that stuff can be replaced, but in reality it rarely is replaced. How much of the $1 billion in damage BLM caused this past summer has been replaced in restitution to the shopkeepers from the rioters in restitution after they were brought to justice?

What the Founding fathers thought about self defense was that it was an issue for states to decide. Which they do. Other than that, what the founders may have thought their states should do is irrelevant. If you’re willing to put the time in, your can trace each states law of self defense back to the founding of that state. But what you can and can’t believe the founders thought doesn’t count.

When did the legal doctrine that deadly force is prohibited when protecting property arise? It certainly wasn't that way in English common law. It seems to me that this couldn't be much earlier than the 20th century.

[canpakes]

Pick one. We haven’t seen one yet that refers to protection of property as justifiable homicide. If you catch me keying your car, you don’t get to shoot me to make me stop.

That doesn’t mean you can’t use force to make me stop. The law distinguishes between use of force and use of deadly force.

Are you saying if I pepper sprayed someone keying my car that would be legal? Anytime you confront someone it has the potential to escalate to a deadly encounter even if you're unarmed. I know there's volumes written about this. Can you give me a summary answer based on your legal knowledge based on Florida or Texas law? For instance if BLM comes through with the intent to trash my optical, steal all the frames, and set fire to it, what exactly am I allowed to do to try to prevent this from happening? Or do I just have to sit back and accept that the DA will probably not charge them and if they do, I'll get no compensation from them due to their indigent and unemployed condition. I therefore am left with nothing but to accept a a higher property insurance rate in the future and whatever the insurance company decides to actually replace. You're right that stuff can be replaced, but in reality it rarely is replaced. How much of the $1 billion in damage BLM caused this past summer has been replaced in restitution to the shopkeepers from the rioters in restitution after they were brought to justice?

ajax, what’s the difference between killing someone, and pepper spraying them?

How does killing them make any of what you’re complaining about above better for you?

[Res Ipsa]

Pick one. We haven’t seen one yet that refers to protection of property as justifiable homicide. If you catch me keying your car, you don’t get to shoot me to make me stop.

That doesn’t mean you can’t use force to make me stop. The law distinguishes between use of force and use of deadly force.

Are you saying if I pepper sprayed someone keying my car that would be legal? Anytime you confront someone it has the potential to escalate to a deadly encounter even if you're unarmed. I know there's volumes written about this. Can you give me a summary answer based on your legal knowledge based on Florida or Texas law? For instance if BLM comes through with the intent to trash my optical, steal all the frames, and set fire to it, what exactly am I allowed to do to try to prevent this from happening? Or do I just have to sit back and accept that the DA will probably not charge them and if they do, I'll get no compensation from them due to their indigent and unemployed condition. I therefore am left with nothing but to accept a a higher property insurance rate in the future and whatever the insurance company decides to actually replace. You're right that stuff can be replaced, but in reality it rarely is replaced. How much of the $1 billion in damage BLM caused this past summer has been replaced in restitution to the shopkeepers from the rioters in restitution after they were brought to justice?

What the Founding fathers thought about self defense was that it was an issue for states to decide. Which they do. Other than that, what the founders may have thought their states should do is irrelevant. If you’re willing to put the time in, your can trace each states law of self defense back to the founding of that state. But what you can and can’t believe the founders thought doesn’t count.

When did the legal doctrine that deadly force is prohibited when protecting property arise? It certainly wasn't that way in English common law. It seems to me that this couldn't be much earlier than the 20th century.

Ajax, your intuition about English common law are exactly backwards. Originally, life was sacrosanct and only the king had the power to take a life. When faced with a threat, you had an affirmative duty to retreat rather than use deadly force to defend yourself. The castle doctrine was an exception to the retreat requirement — you had no duty to retreat from your home and could use deadly force to defend yourself. But it did not permit use of deadly force to protect the castle itself.

The notion that property is as sacrosanct as life is a modern invention, as are the very recent attempts to allow you to take someone’s life to protect your stuff.

https://time.com/4664242/caroline-light ... ground-qa/

What I’m saying is that the law permits you to use reasonable force to protect your property. I don’t know whether there are laws in your state that govern the use of pepper spray. But, you could grab me and pull me away from your car, which would otherwise be some sort of an assault. But the force would have to be reasonable and necessary to stop me from keying your car.

As for the rest of your bigoted rant, it has nothing to do with what the law permits or the history of self defense law. In Seattle, three police cars were torched, not by BLM, but by a white woman identified as an anarchist. She was hunted down, arrested, and prosecuted. As she should have been.