IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Kyle Rittenhouse , murder cases

Reply
Old Yesterday, 02:12 PM   #2801
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,265
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
You're the Mountie, correct? I mean, you must be, up there on that high horse! And a gun-shooting teacher all full of tacticool how-to! Man, your humble opinion is waaaaay too humble!

I just wish you wouldn't pile all that disparaging language on Karl now that the ball game is safely over and won. A skeptical person might take it for backpedalling.

A skeptical person would actually know a fact or two before being so uncivil and attacking me personally.


I have never praised or commended Rittenhouse's actions in taking a firearm to the protest. I have always condemned him for that fact.

Before the trial I posted about the law as it stands and how his actions may have been within the parameters of self defense. I also posted that I didn't think he had much chance of being found not guilty as he came across as a very immature fool that was looking for a thrill and would self-destruct if he took the stand.

As the evidence in the trial came out that contradicted much of the narrative as to what actually transpired in the specific times he used his firearm - it became apparent to me that Rittenhouse was most likely acting within the law as written during that specific period. His justifications for shooting became much stronger than I originally thought.
That is not backpedaling - that is adjusting one's opinion in the face of new evidence.


edited to ad: Pssst...his name is Kyle - not Karl.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:24 PM   #2802
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,265
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
You guys are a hard to keep straight, but you're the one whose heart beat fast for Karl Outhouse because people threw things at you in Israel. Right? And your old poopy-head officer wouldn't let you set your assault gun on rock n roll?

When you heard The Great Verdict, did you ejaculate a joyful hosanna?

This entire post is nothing but a very racist personal attack on a forum member. I would hope that our moderating team takes a very serious stand against this type of vileness.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt

Last edited by rockinkt; Yesterday at 02:26 PM.
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:03 PM   #2803
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,434
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
An argument I saw well expressed recently:

Kylie Pudgybutt barged into a civil disturbance. Nobody sent for him, nobody deputized him. That made him a combatant, even without his beloved gun -- which he thought was a magic wand, but alas! when he waved it around, nothing changed. He was just another armed insurgent, and a menace to life and limb; as was shown by events.

The Kenosha Kopps egged the sorry little bastard on, and are as criminal as he is. Maybe some of them will answer for it.

What in hell your adventures in Israel have to do with this sadly American story is pretty obscure. A cynic might wonder if you just like to puff yourself up as a fightin' fighter-man who knows ALL about it.

I think why you're perhaps misleading yourself is because you don't understand the legal doctrine of self-defence as written in Wisconsin law (and the way it's written in Wisconsin law is pretty standard compared with how it's written into law in any state of the US or a whole host of other adversarial-law nation states).

All Rittenhouse's defence team had to do was convince the court that he had even the slightest reason ("reason" in the legal sense) for believing that in each of the three occasions, he was in very serious danger, and that a proportionate response was to fire his weapon as he did. So, in effect, it was the job of the prosecution to convince the court that Rittenhouse had to have been lying when he claimed to have been acting in (proportionate) self-defence on each of those three occasions.

The evidence and testimony showed clearly, right from way before the trial started, that it was going to be more-or-less impossible for the prosecution to convince the court that Rittenhouse did not have a basis in reason for believing he needed to act in self-defence. As someone else just said: had Rittenhouse fallen apart under cross, and had said something like "I didn't care that they weren't immediately threatening me - I had to put them on the ground with my gun long before things ever reached that point!", then the court probably would have (rightfully) dismissed his "self-defence" defence.

But that didn't happen. Rittenhouse proved to be unimpeachable in court. Was he a stupid, irresponsible, impetuous, provocative child who went there looking to be the big-guy Sheriff? Absolutely. Would any of the three men in question have made to attack Rittenhouse if he hadn't been carrying his gun? Very possibly not. Might he be a morally-reprehensible person who is likely to cause more serious trouble in the future? Perhaps. But none of that actually matters/mattered when it came down to the narrow legal test of whether Rittenhouse had even the slightest right in law to fire his rifle in self-defence. The court (rightly) decided that he did.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:13 PM   #2804
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 31,664
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I don't know everything his future holds...but I think his odds of getting laid just went way, way up.
It may well have done, but in that case he would also be advised to remember to not stick it in the crazy, and you can bet that “I killed some people” is attractive to the crazy.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:55 PM   #2805
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 18,434
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
It may well have done, but in that case he would also be advised to remember to not stick it in the crazy, and you can bet that “I killed some people” is attractive to the crazy.

Ugh that reminds me of a notorious murder case in the UK in the early 90s - the horrific murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common in front of her young child.

The police convinced themselves (provably erroneously, as it turned out) that a local oddball (and he was major-league oddball) Colin Stagg was the murderer. But they had scant evidence, and certainly nowhere near enough to charge him. So they set about devising what they (extremely stupidly) thought was a genius plan, in conjunction with a now-disgraced (and thoroughly out-of-work) criminal profiler.

They knew Stagg - who was socially inept around women - had used "lonely hearts" newspaper adverts in the past. So they set a female police officer up to play the role of a lonely heart who responded to a Stagg advert. She told him (as part of the plan) that she knew who he was and what people were saying he'd done, but that not only did she not mind about that, she actually found it something of a turn-on.

The end-game was to extract a usable confession from Stagg that he'd murdered Nickell. The climax to the plan was a first face-to-face meeting between the two in Hyde Park (or maybe St James' Park nearby?) with the female stooge wearing a wire. She was primed to tell him that she'd really want to have sex with him if he told her it was true that he'd murdered Nickell. Stagg didn't respond how the police had hoped - ie he didn't confess to the murder - but nor did he flat-out deny it either. With hindsight this was for the (obvious) reason that he wanted to keep the woman interested in him, and he'd come to the (equally obvious) conclusion that any firm denial of the murder on his part might have served as an immediate - and probably permanent - passion-killer.

Anyhow.... the police and prosecutors decided that the weak responses and non-denials from Stagg were good enough to go to court with. Fortunately, the trial judge saw the police's tactics for exactly what they were: nothing more than a honeytrap, and completely out of order. He more-or-less immediately threw the case out of court and directed an acquittal.


(The post-script is that many years - some 15 years - later, advances in DNA typing proved that the real murderer of Nickell was a serial rapist and murderer who was already serving life for other murders by that stage. The police could and should have linked him to the Nickell case, but they'd become far too easily fixated on Stagg, and were riddled with confirmation bias and tunnel vision.)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.