Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[ajax18]

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.

Weren't people hung for theft in the middle ages. The Anglo Saxon chronicle complains that William the Conqueror gouged out the eyes of any man caught hunting deer on the kings land. What was the penalty for theft in colonial America? When did imprisonment begin?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ajax,

When you talk about going back to a theocratic state, and by extension using deadly force to protect your property, I have to ask - within the narrative of your new country, would a man’s wife and children fall under the notion that they’re the patriarch’s property along the lines of early American legal thought?

- Doc

[ajax18]

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.

Of course she was hunted down and prosecuted. There's a two tiered justice system in Seattle dependent upon race and political affiliation. Show me a case where BLM protesters were hunted down, arrested, and prosecuted for the damage they caused this summer.

[Chap]

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.

Weren't people hung for theft in the middle ages. The Anglo Saxon chronicle complains that William the Conqueror gouged out the eyes of any man caught hunting deer on the kings land. [...]

Indeed yes. But only the king had the power to sentence someone to death - a power that he could delegate to judges he appointed, and who acted in his name.

You mention William the Conqueror, who ruled England from 1066 after his successful invasion from Normandy and seizure of the throne (or, as he would have put it, his assumption of the rightful inheritance of which King Harold had deprived him).

He is said to have made ten laws after the initial establishment of his rule. Have a look at law number 10:

Here is set down what William, king of the English, established in consultation with his magnates after the conquest of England:

1. First that above all things he wishes one God to be revered throughout his whole realm, one faith in Christ to be kept ever inviolate, and peace and security to be preserved between English and Normans.

2. We decree also that every freeman shall affirm by oath and compact that he will be loyal to king William both within and without England, that he will preserve with him his lands and honor with all fidelity and defend him against his enemies.

3. I will, moreover, that all the men I have brought with me, or who have come after me, shall be protected by my peace and shall dwell in quiet. And if any one of them shall be slain, let the lord of his murderer seize him within five days, if he can; but if he cannot, let him pay me 46 marks of silver so long as his substance avails. And when his substance is exhausted, let the whole hundred in which the murder took place pay what remains in common.

4. And let every Frenchman who, in the time of king Edward, my kinsman, was a sharer in the customs of the English, pay what they call "scot and lot", according to the laws of the English. This decree was ordained in the city of Gloucester.

5. We forbid also that any live cattle shall be bought or sold for money except within cities, and this shall be done before three faithful witnesses; nor even anything old without surety and warrant. But if anyone shall do otherwise, let him pay once, and afterwards a second time for a fine.

6. It was decreed there that if a Frenchman shall charge an Englishman with perjury or murder or theft or homicide or "ran", as the English call open rapine which cannot be denied, the Englishman may defend himself, as he shall prefer, either by the ordeal of hot iron or by wager of battle. But if the Englishman be infirm, let him find another who will take his place. If one of them shall be vanquished, he shall pay a fine of 40 shillings to the king. If an Englishman shall charge a Frenchman and be unwilling to prove his accusation either by ordeal or by wager of battle, I will, nevertheless, that the Frenchman shall acquit himself by a valid oath.

7. This also I command and will, that all shall have and hold the law of the king Edward in respect of their lands and all their posessions, with the addition of those decrees I have ordained for the welfare of the English people.

8. Every man who wishes to be considered a freeman shall be in pledge so that his surety shall hold him and hand him over to justice if he shall offend in any way. And if any such shall escape, let his sureties see to it that they pay forthwith what is charge against him, and let them clear themselves of any complicity in his escape. Let recourse be had to the hundred and shire courts as our predecessors decreed. And those who ought of right to come and are unwilling to appear, shall be summoned once; and if for the second time they refuse to come, one ox shall be taken from them, and they shall be summoned a third time. And if they do not come the third time, a second ox shall be taken from them. But if they do not come the fourth summons, the man who is unwilling to come shall forfeit from his goods the amount of the charge against him -- "ceapgeld" as it is called -- and in addition to this a fine to the king.

9. I prohibit the sale of any man by another outside the country on pain of a fine to be paid in full to me.

10. I also forbid that anyone shall be slain or hanged for any fault, but let his eyes be put out and let him be castrated. And this command shall not be violated under pain of a fine in full to me.

[ajax18]

Indeed yes. But only the king had the power to sentence someone to death - a power that he could delegate to judges he appointed, and who acted in his name.

That is interesting. Maybe you're right. Perhaps people in the middle ages weren't allowed to defend their property by deadly force. Perhaps my intuition was just wrong. It sure didn't seem that way when I watch historical movies.

[Kishkumen]

[ajax18]

When you talk about going back to a theocratic state,

We're getting off topic. I was talking about forming a country of believers and perhaps ecumenical movement to one general religion in that country. I don't think Michael Flynn was talking about the Pope becoming kinand by extension using deadly force to protect your property

According to what Res Ipsa was saying the use of deadly force to protect your property is unprecedented in human history, so I don't see how we'd be going back to that.

I have to ask - within the narrative of your new country, would a man’s wife and children fall under the notion that they’re the patriarch’s property along the lines of early American legal thought?

- Doc

No. But there'd be some big changes to how family law is currently adjudicated and how the for profit divorce industry operates.

[ajax18]

This is getting serious, breitbart is down.

Res Ipsa do you agree with the prosecution that Kyle Rittenhouse forfeited the right to self defense when he came to the rally armed?

[Gadianton]

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... 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?

If you ever try to use physical force against another human you'll end up in a ditch somewhere. Take advantage of law enforcement and your insurance policy, as imperfect as they may be. It's still way better then getting yourself owned and beaten.

What you don't get is that strategy changes as the laws change. You can't prove BLM is coming to trash your shop any more than BLM can prove Kyle showed up with a gun to kill people. Everyone is doing the same math: do I provoke the other guy into displaying aggression such that I can either respond with greater force or get him into legal trouble? Now that the other guy has shown aggression, how far can I go without going to jail?

What if skateboard guy had hit Kyle in the head hard enough to knock him to the asphalt and kill him? Then He'd be the one on trial.

If I were to give advice to BLM, I wouldn't say "go trash Ajax's optical". I'd advise with Ajax / alt-Right logic. I'd say, get your buddy with PSTD and bring rifles to Ajax's optical and stand outside all day to protect it. Maybe the buddy with PSTD will get confused over who is Ajax and who is the Deep State imposter.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Show me a case where BLM protesters were hunted down, arrested, and prosecuted for the damage they caused this summer.

-_-

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/6/15/ ... plea-deals

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/08/30/year-after-mass/

https://kutv.com/news/local/more-arrest ... -lake-city

There are dozens more covering dozens of rioters here in Utah. You can do the same for any city affected by BLM riots. I really wish you’d stop conflating your fantasies with reality, it’d help to take you more seriously. But then again, after 15 or so years you’ve been posting I understand that’s an impossible ask.

- Doc