Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[ajax18]

Kamala Harris was Acting President of the USA when Mr. Rittenhouse was acquitted. This should help.

DOJ is considering taking the case against Mr. Rittenhouse.

I do wish reasonable viewers over at CNN would evaluate what the media told them in beginning about this case, and the Jacob Blake case, and ask themselves if CNN is really being honest with them? And yet the mainstream media continues to lie about this case and too many people still believe them.

[K Graham]

Kamala Harris was Acting President of the USA when Mr. Rittenhouse was acquitted. This should help.

DOJ is considering taking the case against Mr. Rittenhouse.

I do wish reasonable viewers over at CNN would evaluate what the media told them in beginning about this case, and the Jacob Blake case, and ask themselves if CNN is really being honest with them? And yet the mainstream media continues to lie about this case and too many people still believe them.

Whats with your obsession with CNN being dishonest when your preferred sources are far, far worse? Oh thsts right. Its because you mindlessly accept all the anti-CNN crap you see from them. They can't stay in business unless they can convince their viewers that "everyone else" is lying to them.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Kishkumen]

I am grateful for CNN and all they do. When the Kenosha police shot and killed an unarmed black man, CNN was there. When BLM protestors rightfully convened in Kenosha and expressed their indignation over the killing of an unarmed black man, CNN was there. When Mr. Rittenhouse shot three black men, killing two, because he is a white supremacist, CNN was there. Nobody beats Jeffery Toobin like Jeffery Toobin and nobody beats CNN. When this verdict was delivered and a white supremacist was allowed to go free instead of spending the rest of his life in prison, CNN was there. And to be honest, I wish CNN was the only source of news because of information we need juries and the public to have so we can prosecute cases that are on the news.

Well, the part about Toobin was funny at least.

[K Graham]

Your prime example of Jacob Blake having a knife on him doesn't make CNN dishonest. CNN accurately reported what witnesses on the ground said, along with the attorney said, coupled with the police dept's refusal to state whether he was armed. The fact that further investigation revealed he did in fact have a small knife on him at the time doesn't change the fact that cops shot him in the back seven times. The difference between CNN and FOX or Brietbart couldn't be more stark. FOX News' main guy admits lying to his audience when he feels cornered, a network that argues in court that they cannot be held accountable for lying because no one should take them seriously. Just this past week FOX was busted for deceptively editing a video of President Biden to make it sound like he was randomly calling someone a negro.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Kishkumen]

Funny, but true. Which is why I love CNN so much.

Yes, I remembered Toobin's embarrassment. It was pretty funny and mortifying at the same time.

[Res Ipsa]

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

The CNN legal analyst presented a view that doesn't quite line up with Res Ipsa's. Does he have reasonable belief to think his life is in danger in that moment, without respect to whatever bad actions of his own had led up to that moment?

Guy1 prances around a crowd in an urban setting with a semi-auto rifle capable of killing a lot of people and having words here and there with individuals from the crowd. Guy2 moves abruptly toward guy1. Guy1 reasons that guy2 must have the capability either by gun, knife, or fight skills to cause himself serious harm -- unless insane, nobody would move abruptly toward a guy with an assault rifle unless the person believed themselves to be a serious threat to an armed individual. Further, even had he not trolled the crowd, guy2 moving abruptly toward guy1 could trigger the crowd into believing guy1 is a threat.

That would be correct for an LEO raising qualified immunity as a defense. I’m not confident that would be correct under the self defense privilege. Why wouldn’t a reasonable person consider all the facts that provide context? And why would your choice to carry a firearm allow you to use deadly force in circumstances that you could not if you weren’t armed? You mean the armed guy who can deploy deadly force with a squeeze of his hands has a broader right to deploy deadly force than an unarmed guy?

I dunno who this expert was, but what he’s claiming is that guns come with a special license to kill.

[ajax18]

Your prime example of Jacob Blake having a knife on him doesn't make CNN dishonest. CNN accurately reported what witnesses on the ground said, along with the attorney said, coupled with the police dept's refusal to state whether he was armed. The fact that further investigation revealed he did in fact have a small knife on him at the time doesn't change the fact that cops shot him in the back seven times. The difference between CNN and FOX or Brietbart couldn't be more stark. FOX News' main guy admits lying to his audience when he feels cornered, a network that argues in court that they cannot be held accountable for lying because no one should take them seriously. Just this past week FOX was busted for deceptively editing a video of President Biden to make it sound like he was randomly calling someone a negro.

So you see no problem with the media stirring up a violent and destructive riot over a case where ultimately there wasn't enough evidence of any police malfeasance to even charge the officer?