The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Texacon on November 12, 2021, 06:11:40 PM
-
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216039656
Hope this guy is never my lawyer.
Patton French
Okay, as a lawyer, I feel a need to interject
The prosecution blew it. It’s a given that this nut job went to WI looking for trouble. OMG, but let’s turn it into whether this poor teenager can protect himself? That’s not what it was about and any objective observer should see that. It was never about self defense! Why would he have to defend himself from a situation he should never have injected himself into? But the prosecutor fell into the “there are riots” trap and focused on whether the defendant felt threatened. Of course he did, subjectively, but of course he created the threat. And the prosecutor exacerbated the problem by not seeking leave to address evidence that had previously been excluded. Rookie mistake by a non-rookie. Sorry, the prosecutor seemed woefully unprepared. This is just the tip of my analysis. Sorry for being contrarian.
Crazy replies.
KC
-
That's a shitty lawyer.
-
Crazy replies.
KC
crazy OP as well. Apparently in DUmpass lawyer land, rioters can go where they please and do whatever they want, and no one else can try to stop them, or.. MURDERER!
-
Oh look, another #KyleRittenhouseIsGuilty droid who is grossly ignorant of the basic facts of the case.
That's not an analysis, it's moralizing. And not good moralizing; twisted, backwards moralizing. You can't acknowledge the rioting, but maintain that Kyle created the trouble. Those who came from hundreds of miles away to burn things and beat people have no right to claim they were provoked by people protecting what they wanted to destroy.
That's a shitty lawyer.
Have we found Thomas Binger's DU account? :-)
-
Another DUmmy pretending to be something he is not. most likely he is on disability and never went to law school.
-
That's a shitty lawyer.
No kidding. KR was charged with murder, not being someplace he shouldn't be.
He was charged with violating curfew but that charge that was dropped.
-
It would have been very entertaining to see the prosecution try to make a case based on, "He shouldn't have been there!" Basically claiming the rioters had a right to assault, burn, and loot.
-
Another DUmmy pretending to be something he is not. most likely he is on disability and never went to law school.
Similar to PCIntern claiming to be a dentist when he actually is the janitor in an office building with Dental offices.
-
Response to Patton French (Reply #22)Wed Nov 10, 2021, 11:03 PM
LiberatedUSA (795 posts)
25. One of those be shot had a gun.
If brining a gun for Kyle means he was going to use it, then the same standard must be put on the others who brought guns.
Response to LiberatedUSA (Reply #25)Wed Nov 10, 2021, 11:12 PM
cadoman (389 posts)
28. the protester with a gun had a reason to be there--Kyle didn't
The protesters aren't on trial. Kyle Shittenhouse is.
The protesters didn't fire their weapons. Kyle Shittenhouse did.
The protesters had defensive handgun weapons, not thirty round mass murder weapons like Kyle Shittenhouse did.
The protesters tolerated the assault weapon carrying terrorists there for as long as they felt safe and eventually they no longer felt safe and had to disarm Kyle Shittenhouse out of, wait for it, SELF DEFENSE. Instead of peacefully accepting a citizen's arrest of his terrorist actions, that would have brought safety to the area the level of prior nights, he elected to become an active shooter and go full on Call of Duty.
Response to cadoman (Reply #28)Wed Nov 10, 2021, 11:36 PM
LiberatedUSA (795 posts)
30. All I just read was...
…”if our side brings a gun, it is ok.” That is what I get from your post.
Low post count troll on low post count mole violence.
-
Another DUmmy pretending to be something he is not. most likely he is on disability and never went to law school.
But he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
-
LiberatedUSA (795 posts)
30. All I just read was...
…”if our side brings a gun, it is ok.” That is what I get from your post.
MIRT Alert! MIRT Alert!! MIRT Alert!!!
Can a real Prog get away with that degree of clarity of thought on DU without at least 5000 posts?
But he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...
In the Section 8 Housing wing? :rimshot:
-
That’s not what it was about and any objective observer should see that. It was never about self defense! Why would he have to defend himself from a situation he should never have injected himself into?
Now do the woman who gets raped walking through a dark park at night.
-
Now do the woman who gets raped walking through a dark park at night.
That was my take. These prosecutors are definitely using the blame the victim stance and the DUmmies are cheering that strategy.
KC
-
Why would he have to defend himself from a situation he should never have injected himself into?
The legal fact is:
Legally he had as much right to be there as the rioters did. It's still a free country.
He had to defend himself because he was attacked. Repeatedly.
He has that right.
-
The legal fact is:
Legally he had as much right to be there as the rioters did. It's still a free country.
He had to defend himself because he was attacked. Repeatedly.
He has that right.
AND
The "victims" were:
A wife beater and convicted felon.
A level 3 sex offender and convicted felon.
A burglar, probation violator and a convicted felon.
None of them should have had a gun but they did.
-
Okay, now that I have some time, let's break this down.
Patton French
Okay, as a lawyer, I feel a need to interject
The prosecution blew it. It’s a given that this nut job went to WI looking for trouble.
No, that cannot be said. You're asserting facts not in evidence.
OMG, but let’s turn it into whether this poor teenager can protect himself? That’s not what it was about and any objective observer should see that. It was never about self defense!
The defendant gets to assert his own self-defense. The prosecutor does not get to tell a defendant whether or not he is allowed to assert self-defense, the prosecutor has to prove it was not self-defense.
Why would he have to defend himself from a situation he should never have injected himself into?
Rittenhouse had a legal right to be there. The prosecution tried to claim Rittenhouse had violated curfew as part of your argument but the judge struck that argument noting that the curfew order had been subsequently ruled unlawful by a separate court.
But the prosecutor fell into the “there are riots” trap and focused on whether the defendant felt threatened.
There was no trap. There were riots, your people attacked Rittenhouse and he's allowed to assert self-defense.
Of course he did, subjectively, but of course he created the threat.
This argument is divorced from everything seen in the videos and the testimony of witnesses.
The standard is not whether Rittenhouse subjectively felt threatened, but whether or not a reasonable person would also feel threatened. A lawyer ought to know this.
And the prosecutor exacerbated the problem by not seeking leave to address evidence that had previously been excluded. Rookie mistake by a non-rookie.
If the judge tells you evidence is excluded, it's excluded. I don't know how much you think you have to gain from challenging a judge's ruling but - whatever.
Sorry, the prosecutor seemed woefully unprepared. This is just the tip of my analysis. Sorry for being contrarian.
Ain't no way in hell this moron is an attorney arguing in front of a court, let alone a criminal court.
-
Patton French
Okay, as a lawyer, I feel a need to interject
okay, as a lawyer, tell me what this means...
(https://hotair.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/facepalm-prosecutor-1110x740.jpg)
-
Another DUmmy pretending to be something he is not. most likely he is on disability and never went to law school.
Most likely it is in prison studying law.