Rittenhouse Trial

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
The thread itself is the read really. All those others on there talking about similar stuff waking them up to the media lies.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Yeah, but if it were and out and out MAGA person, it wouldn't be interesting in the slightest. It only gets interesting because the account positions itself as a former liberal waking up to media bias. If that part isn't true, and the account's history makes it seem like it isn't, then it's just another "lamestream" media and "fake news, lying liberal media" take. That's insanely boring and reductive.
So I read back along her thread. It looks like somewhere along September, or maybe just a little bit before, is when she started to change her ideas. She said people are trying to call her out for being a bot and she said she has the receipts. She used to run an anti-racism Instagram and that she could show people her party donation receipts from 2020 if they wanted to see them. So it seems to me like she's on the up and up.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,132
21,177
1,743
This is insane. I haven't watched the whole trial but I saw the disastrous testimony the other day for the prosecution....so I watched some of KR's testimony and the takeaways are he is a) lying b) so dangerous even holding the gun he shouldn't be outside his house much less going to defend a business or whatever his stated goal was. He acted like he knew nothing about an AR or its ammo. He stated he got it because it "looked cool" and didn't know the difference in what hollow points and FMJ does. Every 2A advocate (myself included) in country should have cringed at that. He didn't take a toy to town that night.....so what do you think we need more of.....people that lie about incidents involving the death of people or people carrying weapons they know nothing about other than the aesthetics? For the record I think he was lying.
And if he wasn’t lying, would you consider that RECKLESS conduct?

I’m asking you because I know your political leanings, and I have watched a minute of this trial. I get enough of trials at work.

I trust judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense counsel to take their responsibilities seriously without political bias or fear of consequences for doing the right thing. I trust that is true because I’ve personally seen it in action without fail.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
tons of people shouldn't have been there...probably more fair to say Rosen AND Ritten caused the whole chain of events...if neither one were there...
How exactly did Rittenhouse cause the chain of events? He started nothing but was attacked by the rioters?
The real question is, why was he attacked?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,132
21,177
1,743
Laws vary from state to state, but regular citizens are typically allowed to make citizens arrests if they see someone committing a felony. It isn't illegal for someone to stop an individual from burning down a building. Vigilante justice is dangerous, but it isn't necessarily illegal.

The ultimate goal should probably be to respond with an adequate police and national guard presence so that regular citizens don't feel a need to step up to protect their community.
Laws vary from state to state, but regular citizens are not typically allowed to use lethal force to make citizens arrests if they see someone committing a felony.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
26,819
22,888
1,743
And if he wasn’t lying, would you consider that RECKLESS conduct?

I’m asking you because I know your political leanings, and I have watched a minute of this trial. I get enough of trials at work.

I trust judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense counsel to take their responsibilities seriously without political bias or fear of consequences for doing the right thing. I trust that is true because I’ve personally seen it in action without fail.
I haven’t watched the videos so I don’t know how he was handling the gun. It doesn’t matter to me though because leaving your home and carrying a gun to that environment is about as reckless as one can get. This was all so incredibly avoidable.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
I haven’t watched the videos so I don’t know how he was handling the gun. It doesn’t matter to me though because leaving your home and carrying a gun to that environment is about as reckless as one can get. This was all so incredibly avoidable.
Agreed, people shouldn't riot, burn buildings, attack and threaten others lives.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,132
21,177
1,743
I haven’t watched the videos so I don’t know how he was handling the gun. It doesn’t matter to me though because leaving your home and carrying a gun to that environment is about as reckless as one can get. This was all so incredibly avoidable.
That was my question....would you characterize the totality of his behavior from beginning to end...as reckless? Not really talking about individual incidents.

And you answered. Thanks.
 

swamppoke

ole 3 putt.
A/V Subscriber
Feb 11, 2004
9,085
6,367
1,743
The Sand Shaker
And if he wasn’t lying, would you consider that RECKLESS conduct?

I’m asking you because I know your political leanings, and I have watched a minute of this trial. I get enough of trials at work.

I trust judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense counsel to take their responsibilities seriously without political bias or fear of consequences for doing the right thing. I trust that is true because I’ve personally seen it in action without fail.
OJ.jpg
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,132
21,177
1,743
A POTENTIAL notable exception...admittedly.

But I believe that if it is absolutely clear that any police officer lies on the stand at trial....no matter how peripherally they were involved....the potential for a jury to find reasonable doubt despite a mountain of other evidence fairly exists.

Mark Furman scuttled that prosecution. I’m not convinced that is a jury nullification decision.
 

swamppoke

ole 3 putt.
A/V Subscriber
Feb 11, 2004
9,085
6,367
1,743
The Sand Shaker
A POTENTIAL notable exception...admittedly.

But I believe that if it is absolutely clear that any police officer lies on the stand at trial....no matter how peripherally they were involved....the potential for a jury to find reasonable doubt despite a mountain of other evidence fairly exists.

Mark Furman scuttled that prosecution. I’m not convinced that is a jury nullification decision.
Oh, I know.
And I mostly agree with you.

But, still, I could NOT resist. ;)
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,371
4,206
1,743
Laws vary from state to state, but regular citizens are not typically allowed to use lethal force to make citizens arrests if they see someone committing a felony.
That's very true. The laws I've seen typically say that you're only justified in using lethal force if you fear for death or great bodily harm for yourself or someone else. So you can't use lethal force in a citizen's arrest unless their crime meets that criteria.

That being said, if you try to arrest someone for starting a fire and they react violently, the situation could escalate to the point where lethal force is justified. This is why it's best for trained professionals like the police and National Guard to handle these altercations as opposed to regular citizens.

BTW, I expect this to be the defense claimed by the McMichael's in the Arbery case. They claimed that they were trying to make a citizen's arrest when he charged them and tried to grab their gun. The problem with that claim is that they didn't witness him committing a felony, so they had no legal right to make a citizen's arrest. That's why I expect them to be convicted.
 
May 31, 2007
2,458
529
1,743
Concord
Agreed, people shouldn't riot, burn buildings, attack and threaten others lives.
I’ve noticed now that the the case against KR has fallen apart that the new mantra of the MSM is that “he shouldn’t have been there in the first place”. I guess the intimation being that he forfeits his right to defend himself against people that want to murder him.
 
May 31, 2007
2,458
529
1,743
Concord
That's very true. The laws I've seen typically say that you're only justified in using lethal force if you fear for death or great bodily harm for yourself or someone else. So you can't use lethal force in a citizen's arrest unless their crime meets that criteria.

That being said, if you try to arrest someone for starting a fire and they react violently, the situation could escalate to the point where lethal force is justified. This is why it's best for trained professionals like the police and National Guard to handle these altercations as opposed to regular citizens.

BTW, I expect this to be the defense claimed by the McMichael's in the Arbery case. They claimed that they were trying to make a citizen's arrest when he charged them and tried to grab their gun. The problem with that claim is that they didn't witness him committing a felony, so they had no legal right to make a citizen's arrest. That's why I expect them to be convicted.
I am on record saying I think these guys in the Arbery case will be convicted on all charges but I did learn today that the DA that recused himself wrote a letter prior to that where he said the following (which makes me wonder if this all isn’t more gray area than I originally thought):

“It appears Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and Bryan William were following, in ‘hot pursuit’, a burglary suspect, with solid first hand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and asking/ telling him to stop. It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived. Under Georgia Law this is perfectly legal.”

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf
 

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,835
475
713
How exactly did Rittenhouse cause the chain of events? He started nothing but was attacked by the rioters?
The real question is, why was he attacked?
'Helped' cause it by carrying an AR15 to a hostile situation, and apparently was not skilled, ready for, trained for any type of encounter that did happen...a former Marine said he saw Rosen as 'not a threat' (that could be because he was actually more trained/prepared for this, or Rosen acted differently when encountering Ritten)...as to why he was attacked? nobody knows the exact interaction that occurred between Ritten and Rosen except those two, so there is no way anyone can say that Ritten did not help cause and/or escalate a tense situation. We only "saw" what was captured by drone and not what "started" the interaction and subsequent shooting.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,371
4,206
1,743
I am on record saying I think these guys in the Arbery case will be convicted on all charges but I did learn today that the DA that recused himself wrote a letter prior to that where he said the following (which makes me wonder if this all isn’t more gray area than I originally thought):

“It appears Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and Bryan William were following, in ‘hot pursuit’, a burglary suspect, with solid first hand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and asking/ telling him to stop. It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived. Under Georgia Law this is perfectly legal.”

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf
From the letter:
It appears Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and Bryan William were following, in pursuit burglary suspect, with solid firsthand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and asking/ telling him to stop. It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived. Under Georgia Law this is perfectly legal,

OCGA 17 -4 -60 A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion .”


I would disagree with the statement that this was perfectly legal under Georgia law, because what Arbery did wasn't a felony. Trespassing is a misdemeanor offense in Georgia.
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
23,139
15,533
1,743
No, I absolutely do not. Certainly no more than he will “become a target” of the right if he allows this to go to the jury and Rittenhouse gets convicted. Or the Prosecutor has become a target of the right for filing charges in the first place.

And I don’t think the Judge gives an eff about that and your suggestion that he won’t follow the law and his best judgment, no matter the consequences is BORING and completely expected.

Thus...the Zs.
I never suggested anything about what he should do. If I did please post it using the quote feature.

And yes the jury will be a target by whoever loses, but they are anonymous, it's not just one person to point the finger at, and many people understand that is their task to render a decision even if they disagree with the decision.

I don't know how you manage to read partisanship into a post that, I would think, most of us would agree with. Taking the decision out of the hands of the jury by 1 person, would cause quite an outcry regardless of the result.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,132
21,177
1,743
That's very true. The laws I've seen typically say that you're only justified in using lethal force if you fear for death or great bodily harm for yourself or someone else. So you can't use lethal force in a citizen's arrest unless their crime meets that criteria.

That being said, if you try to arrest someone for starting a fire and they react violently, the situation could escalate to the point where lethal force is justified. This is why it's best for trained professionals like the police and National Guard to handle these altercations as opposed to regular citizens.

BTW, I expect this to be the defense claimed by the McMichael's in the Arbery case. They claimed that they were trying to make a citizen's arrest when he charged them and tried to grab their gun. The problem with that claim is that they didn't witness him committing a felony, so they had no legal right to make a citizen's arrest. That's why I expect them to be convicted.
But if you use potentially lethal force to enforce an arrest when you aren’t authorized to do so, you may end up the unlawful aggressor and aren’t entitled to to self defense if stuff goes sideways for you.

Alleged self defense cases are very complicated and nuanced. Never clear cut at all for the most part.