Police shooting black man in the back ... again (Kenosha, WI)

#3,576
#3,576
BeardedVol said:
Have you every been on a jury, federal or state? A jury is given explicit instructions on what they can and can't consider when delivering a verdict on the charges. This idea that you are going to be sitting there with a bunch of yokels who think just like you and can just use 'how they feel' about the scenario, as the basis for their verdict, is just simply not accurate.
Click to expand...

I have served twice, and yes it is highly accurate. By all means though ... feel free to come to my neighborhood and start destroying property so you can test your incorrect assumption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and Behr
#3,578
#3,578
MontyPython said:
Heh. Mmmmmmkkkkkay.

Police tried to keep these idiots from driving downtown to antagonize the protesters, but they managed to do it anyway.

Then they shot the protesters with paint ball guns and sprayed them with mace or tear gas. See the video on the link below.

Trump... calls them "PATRIOTS".

SMH.

The Flag-Covered Assault Truck is ‘Trump 2020’ Ad
Click to expand...


Are they not allowed to protest as well? Can't allow one and not the other. How is one group of protestors any different from the other?
 
#3,581
#3,581
Orangeslice13 said:
so I’m your world the police,who the protesters are trying to eliminate should get to determine who gets to exercise their 1A rights?

And who is this “They”. The facts don’t match your narrative. Kyle has an AR given to him by the owner of the business he was protecting. The same guy Kyle works for. He’s on video supporting the protesters saying he’s only there to prevent damage to the auto shop. He’s also on video offering aid to an injured protester before the mob turned on him.

Living in your world would truly suck
Click to expand...

Lies.

Lie #1: Kyle Rittenhouse didn't work at the auto dealership he was "protecting". Kyle was a lifeguard. He had NO relationship whatsoever with the auto dealer owner.

Lie #2: The auto dealer didn't give him his gun. Per Kyle's attorney, "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident."

Lie #3: Kyle wasn't there for "support" or "aid". He shot a man in cold blood, ran away, then shot 2 more men.

And, oh BTW, what business owner would ever ask a 17-year-old armed with AR-15 to "protect" his business?

This is redneck insanity.
 
#3,582
#3,582
KB5252 said:
Are they not allowed to protest as well? Can't allow one and not the other. How is one group of protestors any different from the other?
Click to expand...

How'd that turn out then? You OK with 2 dead in WI? Another 1 shot in WI?

Common sense, broseph.
 
#3,584
#3,584
#3,585
#3,585
MontyPython said:
How'd that turn out then? You OK with 2 dead in WI? Another 1 shot in WI?

Common sense, broseph.
Click to expand...
Horribly, but that's what happens when politicians are scared to stand up for rule of law. Apparently they'd rather govern a heap of ash than upset the bad actors. If they had done their jobs and allowed the police to do theirs the second group of protestors would have never mobilized.

I don't see why this is hard for people to understand.
 
#3,586
#3,586
MontyPython said:
How'd that turn out then? You OK with 2 dead in WI? Another 1 shot in WI?

Common sense, broseph.
Click to expand...
You'd rather spend your time defending 3 WHITE thugs, but didn't utter a peep about a retired BLACK police chief David Dorn who was murdered....you sir are either hypocritical or a racist.....see how that works?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, davethevol, Behr and 3 others
#3,587
#3,587
BeardedVol said:
Yeah, you're wrong but feel free to continue to be so, no skin off my back.
Tennessee Supreme Court Concludes That A Jury Must Be Instructed On Self-Defense Only When That Defense Has Been Fairly Raised By The Proof | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts
Click to expand...

What part of a jury being instructed vs a jury convicting are you having trouble with ? Again feel free to test your assumption around here anytime. I'm sure your next of kin will be aware of the results of the verdict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and golfballs
#3,588
#3,588
MontyPython said:
Lies.

Lie #1: Kyle Rittenhouse didn't work at the auto dealership he was "protecting". Kyle was a lifeguard. He had NO relationship whatsoever with the auto dealer owner.

Lie #2: The auto dealer didn't give him his gun. Per Kyle's attorney, "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident."

Lie #3: Kyle wasn't there for "support" or "aid". He shot a man in cold blood, ran away, then shot 2 more men.

And, oh BTW, what ******* business owner would ever ask a 17-year-old armed with AR-15 to "protect" his business?

This is redneck insanity.
Click to expand...

It’s wasn’t a dealership. It was a mechanic shop owned by the same guy who had the dealership destroyed.

The friend is the son of the dealership owner.

And videos taken before he had to defend himself support the facts I presented.

I’ve been well trained and responsible with a gun since I was 11 years old. 17 bad but 18 can die for his country because a few months are such a big difference.

But spin away.
It’s not like you’re concerned about what actually happened
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, 0nelilreb, volinsd and 4 others
#3,589
#3,589
MontyPython said:
Lies.

Lie #1: Kyle Rittenhouse didn't work at the auto dealership he was "protecting". Kyle was a lifeguard. He had NO relationship whatsoever with the auto dealer owner.

Lie #2: The auto dealer didn't give him his gun. Per Kyle's attorney, "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident."

Lie #3: Kyle wasn't there for "support" or "aid". He shot a man in cold blood, ran away, then shot 2 more men.

And, oh BTW, what ******* business owner would ever ask a 17-year-old armed with AR-15 to "protect" his business?

This is redneck insanity.
Click to expand...

# 3 is completely ignorant and highly inaccurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, Y9 Vol and Behr
#3,590
#3,590
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#3,591
#3,591
JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! said:
What part of a jury being instructed vs a jury convicting are you having trouble with ? Again feel free to test your assumption around here anytime. I'm sure your next of kin will be aware of the results of the verdict.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't actually read the ruling.

If you shoot a guy for beating up your jazzy scooter with a baseball bat, while not threatening you are your family, but only doing damage to the property, you aren't going to be able to claim 'self-defense', as their is no proof, and the jury is not even going to be able to consider 'self-defense' because it was not raised by the proof?

Do you understand that, or do I need to break it down further?
 
#3,592
#3,592
Orangeslice13 said:
It’s wasn’t a dealership. It was a mechanic shop owned by the same guy who had the dealership destroyed.

The friend is the son of the dealership owner.

And videos taken before he had to defend himself support the facts I presented. But spin away.

It’s not like you’re concerned about what actually happened
Click to expand...
I’d actually like to read the background of how he got the gun and who engaged him to be there. I didn’t find any detail but it sounds like you’ve read some links? I’d like to read the back story on how he got to be in that place at that time. TIA
 
#3,594
#3,594
BeardedVol said:
I see you didn't actually read the ruling.

If you shoot a guy for beating up your jazzy scooter with a baseball bat, while not threatening you are your family, but only doing damage to the property, you aren't going to be able to claim 'self-defense', as their is no proof, and the jury is not even going to be able to consider 'self-defense' because it was not raised by the proof?

Do you understand that, or do I need to break it down further?
Click to expand...
You literally just offered a link to a ruling pertaining to assault and battery and then went back to screeching on personal property. You can’t even stay focused on your own bull 💩
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and hog88
#3,596
#3,596
Juries are frequently instructed on claims even w the slightest bit of proof in order to prevent overruling on appeal.
 
#3,597
#3,597
MontyPython said:
Lies.



Lie #3: Kyle wasn't there for "support" or "aid". He shot a man in cold blood, ran away, then shot 2 more men.

QUOTE]

Speaking of lies.

The guy that was shot want killed in cold blood. The guy that was shot had repeatedly threatened him, committed battery against him and otherwise acted like a complete lunatic. He also chased the shooter down and grabbed at his gun.

The guy killed was a lunatic, try to paint him any other way and you've lost all credibility. The facts I've outlined above can't be disputed, but I'm sure you'll try.
Click to expand...
 
#3,598
#3,598
NorthDallas40 said:
You literally just offered a link to a ruling pertaining to assault and battery and then went back to screeching on personal property. You can’t even stay focused on your own bull 💩
Click to expand...

You still struggling maintain your attention span when reading beyond the character limit of 'Tweets'?

The Tennessee Supreme Court has clarified that a trial court is required to charge a jury on self-defense only when the issue has been fairly raised by the proof at trial.

The defendant, Antonio Benson, was charged with first-degree premeditated murder. The evidence presented at trial suggested that he and the victim became involved in a physical altercation, during which the unarmed victim punched the defendant and caused his nose to bleed. In response, the defendant shot the victim five times. At trial, the defendant argued that the jury should be allowed to consider whether he was lawfully defending himself. The trial court found that nothing in the proof at trial raised the issue of whether the defendant lawfully used deadly force in defending himself against a punch in the nose by a petite, unarmed woman. The trial court, therefore, refused to charge the jury on self-defense. The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to decide whether the defendant lawfully defended himself with the use of deadly force. The Supreme Court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to consider the gatekeeping function of a trial court when assessing whether self-defense has been fairly raised by the proof and to further evaluate the quantum of proof necessary to require a trial court to charge a jury on self-defense.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that the trial court, not the jury, must make the threshold determination of whether self-defense has been fairly raised by the proof. The Court determined that the trial court properly exercised its gatekeeping function in this case and was not required to charge the jury on the issue of self-defense because the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant including all reasonable inferences that could be drawn, did not fairly raise an issue of whether the defendant was lawfully defending himself when he used deadly force. The Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstated the judgment of the trial court.

Pertinent parts in bold since I know that paragraphs are a struggle for you. The court itself decides whether the jury can consider 'self-defense', the jury cannot take it upon itself to do so unless instructed by the court.
 
#3,599
#3,599
BeardedVol said:
I see you didn't actually read the ruling.

If you shoot a guy for beating up your jazzy scooter with a baseball bat, while not threatening you are your family, but only doing damage to the property, you aren't going to be able to claim 'self-defense', as their is no proof, and the jury is not even going to be able to consider 'self-defense' because it was not raised by the proof?

Do you understand that, or do I need to break it down further?
Click to expand...

*sigh*




Come on over to my neighborhood and test out your theory of what's going to happen, then if you live and recover enough you can break it down further to me. Best deal for proof you are ever going to get.
 
#3,600
#3,600
BeardedVol said:
You still struggling maintain your attention span when reading beyond the character limit of 'Tweets'?

The Tennessee Supreme Court has clarified that a trial court is required to charge a jury on self-defense only when the issue has been fairly raised by the proof at trial.

The defendant, Antonio Benson, was charged with first-degree premeditated murder. The evidence presented at trial suggested that he and the victim became involved in a physical altercation, during which the unarmed victim punched the defendant and caused his nose to bleed. In response, the defendant shot the victim five times. At trial, the defendant argued that the jury should be allowed to consider whether he was lawfully defending himself. The trial court found that nothing in the proof at trial raised the issue of whether the defendant lawfully used deadly force in defending himself against a punch in the nose by a petite, unarmed woman. The trial court, therefore, refused to charge the jury on self-defense. The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to decide whether the defendant lawfully defended himself with the use of deadly force. The Supreme Court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal to consider the gatekeeping function of a trial court when assessing whether self-defense has been fairly raised by the proof and to further evaluate the quantum of proof necessary to require a trial court to charge a jury on self-defense.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that the trial court, not the jury, must make the threshold determination of whether self-defense has been fairly raised by the proof. The Court determined that the trial court properly exercised its gatekeeping function in this case and was not required to charge the jury on the issue of self-defense because the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant including all reasonable inferences that could be drawn, did not fairly raise an issue of whether the defendant was lawfully defending himself when he used deadly force. The Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstated the judgment of the trial court.

Pertinent parts in bold since I know that paragraphs are a struggle for you. The court itself decides whether the jury can consider 'self-defense', the jury cannot take it upon itself to do so unless instructed by the court.
Click to expand...
LMFAO I pointed out the lack of relevance in an assault and battery case YOU offered and used as basis in personal property defense and I’m the one struggling on reading comprehension 😂

Also as was pointed out this was sentencing no?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top