Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[doubtingthomas]

If he doesn't really have PTSD then it begs the question, did he really believe he was going to be killed?

It doesn't prove or disprove anything. "Most people recover fully after experiencing these kinds of events. Only small percentages are diagnosed with PTSD."
https://www.va.gov/vetsinworkplace/trai ... 3_hs01.htm

And false positives are common.
Overdiagnosis in Psychiatry: How Modern Psychiatry Lost Its Way While Creating a Diagnosis for Almost All of Life's Misfortunes, by Paris Joel Oxford University Press, 2015, xi-xix and 1-181 pp., US$50.36 (paperback), ISBN 978-0-19-935064-3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6818431/

"Good Grief: Don't Get Taken By the Trauma Industry"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100309452173501960

I simply think it is too convenient that Rittenhouse was diagnosed with PTSD.

[Jersey Girl]

No it's not a good question. The possible fact that he has PTSD has no bearing on the case whatsoever.

When the defendant defends his actions based on the claim that he had a credible fear for his life, then being diagnosed with PTSD could clearly be used to strengthen that argument. Being in real "life/death" situations is what causes PTSD. If he doesn't really have PTSD then it begs the question, did he really believe he was going to be killed? And if not, then why take the lives of others? Since that is the basis of his defense, it seems relevant to me. But the prosecutor sucks so badly one has to wonder if he's wanting a mistrial.

Let's be honest here, okay? You don't know where the disclosure of being diagnosed with PTSD even entered the trial, do you?

[ajax18]

It's supposed to be the boys in blue. Unless you're wearing a uniform, you look like an active shooter, no matter how well-intentioned you think you are.

The boys in blue had their hands tied. After $1 billion in property damage, don't be surprised if people start to step up and defend what belongs to them.

I hope the tears were real. I hope killing people made an impact on him. I hope he feels awful about it and that it haunts him forever, and not just because he's in trouble. Maybe he does have a conscience.

Exactly what does a conscience consist of under your belief/nonbelief system Schmo? When is the last time you ever felt remorseful about something you did or said?

[Gadianton]

This is what the F'ing gun nuts don't get: how is anyone supposed to know who the F'ing good guy with the gun is?

Can't they make out ethnicity?

[K Graham]

When the defendant defends his actions based on the claim that he had a credible fear for his life, then being diagnosed with PTSD could clearly be used to strengthen that argument. Being in real "life/death" situations is what causes PTSD. If he doesn't really have PTSD then it begs the question, did he really believe he was going to be killed? And if not, then why take the lives of others? Since that is the basis of his defense, it seems relevant to me. But the prosecutor sucks so badly one has to wonder if he's wanting a mistrial.

Let's be honest here, okay? You don't know where the disclosure of being diagnosed with PTSD even entered the trial, do you?

Why would it enter the trial if, as you say, it has no bearing on the trial?

Why would the defense attorney tell the judge that Rittenhouse is seeing a therapist for PTSD?

[Jersey Girl]

No it's not a good question. The possible fact that he has PTSD has no bearing on the case whatsoever.

It had to be a good enough question for you to answer it. Otherwise, why bother?

I answered that in a different post already.

Yes, fight or flight. PTSD has nothing to do with being a snowflake. Jesus, Schmo.

Fight or flight... while you're sporting a semi-automatic. OK, then. I mean, wtf did the kid expect? This is what the damned gun nuts don't get: how is anyone supposed to know who the damned good guy with the gun is?[/quote]

Yes, fight or flight while you're sporting a semi-automatic rifle. Do you think it's a very different situation than combat veterans face? I have no idea what the kid expected. In my view, he had no business being there to start with. He headed into trouble and he got it.

It's supposed to be the boys in blue. Unless you're wearing a uniform, you look like an active shooter, no matter how well-intentioned you think you are.

Yes, it is. Only I don't think the boys in blue were even on the scene. If they were, they were behind barricades, not engaging the conflict.

Because some folks have claimed he was faking it in court.

I hope the tears were real. I hope killing people made an impact on him. I hope he feels awful about it and that it haunts him forever, and not just because he's in trouble. Maybe he does have a conscience.

It's really hard to know where conscience enters in here. We can't see inside his head. We can't even know if he is old enough (brain development) to fully understand the depth of what he did outside of it's impact to him and his needs. I do think the tears were real and PTSD related. I feel the same as you, I hope he regrets the crap out of this for the rest of his whole life. Then again, he could flip and come out as someone who enjoys being an urban legend of sorts, a celebrity.

I do remember when I was a kid and in trouble, pouring on the waterworks never hurt my case. So there's that.

That's because you're not a good person and have no conscience.

[Jersey Girl]

Let's be honest here, okay? You don't know where the disclosure of being diagnosed with PTSD even entered the trial, do you?

Why would it enter the trial if, as you say, it has no bearing on the trial?

Why would the defense attorney tell the judge that Rittenhouse is seeing a therapist for PTSD?

Watch the trial that you purportedly wanted to discuss on this thread when you started it.

[Gadianton]

Imagine a guy who somehow gets aboard a commercial airline with a pistol. He walks to the front of the main section and draws, showing the passengers the gun. then he puts it loosely in his front pocket. He announces what "a tragedy" it would be if the plane were to crash into a building. Then he demands to speak to the captain, and claims that he's solved a Q riddle indicating the captain has been compromised, and so please, we need to unseal the door so that he can have a "peaceful discussion" with the pilot. He puts a hand to the hilt of his gun and warns there could be "consequences" should his order be ignored.

Now, some might suspect that he intends to get access to the pilot to force a crash. However, it's very possible he's sincere in both his belief that the pilot has been compromised, and that he only wants to talk; he's there to protect the plane. His words could also be interpreted to mean that if the pilot is compromised, that the "consequences" would be the pilot's actions of crashing the plane. And he only put his hand to the hilt of the gun to rest his hand as he has anxiety and PSTD and nervous about speaking in front of people.

The passengers need to make a decision, and as he's rushed, he pulls the gun and shoots anyone coming for him. You see, these passengers rushing him could also be compromised, and intending to get his gun so that they can either hijack the plane or shoot innocent passengers. Further, as he's rushed, some of the passengers shout, "kill him!" or "kick his ass!".

As Cultellus would say, It doesn't matter how he got the gun there, how reckless or illegal it was, he was there and did have a gun. After speaking words that could be construed as good faith to protect the plane even if misguided and cannot be construed as threats with certainty, he found his life threatened and had subjective reasons to believe other passengers were at risk should anybody get his gun.

Basically, right-wingers have found a formula to put themselves in God mode and exert their will by terror. It's just as ldsfaqs suggested years ago, to get into peoples faces with your guns and interpret any reactions to the provocations as threats that justify deadly force as an answer.

[K Graham]

Why would it enter the trial if, as you say, it has no bearing on the trial?

Why would the defense attorney tell the judge that Rittenhouse is seeing a therapist for PTSD?

Watch the trial that you purportedly wanted to discuss on this thread when you started it.

Purportedly?

Why not just answer the question?

[K Graham]

The boys in blue had their hands tied.

Hands tied huh. They were passing out water to armed vigilantes who were providing guns to minors illegally and hanging out after curfew. Par for the course. And then of course afterwards the Police Chief goes on camera to discourage private citizens from taking up arms. Cops generally hate it when people do this because it just makes a chaotic situation more volatile.

After $1 billion in property damage, don't be surprised if people start to step up and defend what belongs to them.

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't a business owner, so you're just out in left field again. No one is criticizing business owners for defending their businesses. But it does still remain unlawful to use lethal force to protect property.

Exactly what does a conscience consist of under your belief/nonbelief system Schmo? When is the last time you ever felt remorseful about something you did or said?

Is Schmo on trial or is Kyle?