Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Chap]

I'm sorry if this sounds naïve - but surely we are not expected to believe that a representative of the prosecution team in the Rittenhouse case is posting on this forum under the name of Binger?

And if he is not, what is the point of Binger's posts?

It's been clear since early on in this series of posts that the point of them is to indulge the taste of the poster (whoever he or she is) for what he conceives to be irony.

The only problem is that he is not very good at that particular rhetorical technique. It would be rather more effective if he simply stated clearly what he thinks are the main flaws in the prosecution's case against Rittenhouse.

[Edited once for typo]

[Some Schmo]

It's been clear since early on in this series of posts that the point of them is to indulge the taste pf the poster (whoever he or she is) for what he conceives to be irony.

The only problem is that he is not very good at that particular rhetorical technique. It would be rather more effective if he simply stated clearly what he thinks are the main flaws in the prosecution's case against Rittenhouse.

I've been ignoring him since about his 4th post.

[Gadianton]

In that scenario, an unexpected move would not even justify use of non-lethal force. You don’t get to shoot someone’s because they made an unexpected move toward you.

thanks for clarifying this point so many times. It's one I also have been confused over because while what you say makes sense, certain things had made me wonder if the ldsfaqs doctrine really might have legal merit. So while I do believe open carry laws are completely stupid, the situation is a little better than what I was beginning to come to believe about the law.

Tacking on "with intent to kill" to an otherwise mundane scenario isn't helpful since we can't read minds. We must surmise intent.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Hawkeye]

In that scenario, an unexpected move would not even justify use of non-lethal force. You don’t get to shoot someone’s because they made an unexpected move toward you.

And I would add that just because a bigger and stronger person chooses to beat you within an inch of your life you're still not justified in returning this violence with gunfire. Bullies should be allowed to dish out physical abuse upon those they prey upon without having to fear being fatally shot return. If the victim cannot defend himself or herself with her own fists, than she must take the beating that the bully decides to inflict upon her. This has been settled law in the Blue States of America since the Travon Martin case.

[canpakes]

Rittenhouse reportedly agreed, but apologized in advance for shooting any juror who might make an unexpected move towards him.

What if the unexpected move is an attempt to kill him? Will he be allowed to defend himself, or does he need to let himself be killed?

How do we best determine that the intent is to kill?

This is the problem with walking around carrying long guns in a nation where folks doing so oftentimes like to shoot into crowds, at schools or at random folks. It’s not like such a thing hasn’t happened enough times already. If we’re worried for the guy carrying the long gun, how should the folks not carrying firearms feel when they see the person carrying a long gun?

[canpakes]

Acquittal, all counts.

[Jersey Girl]

Verdict watch. I despise this part of a trial. Still...going to record my own predictions here.

Not guilty on all counts.

And we'll just see how that goes...

And...it went.

[canpakes]

If the victim cannot defend himself or herself with her own fists, than she must take the beating that the bully decides to inflict upon her. This has been settled law in the Blue States of America since the Travon Martin case.

You mean the one where Zimmerman approached Martin to accost him, but then needed a firearm to save his arse from something Martin didn’t start?