Judges have way too much power

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Gob »

About 200 protesters in Portland, Oregon, broke windows and threw objects at police on Friday night as reaction poured in after a jury cleared Kyle Rittenhouse over the shooting deaths of two people at an anti-racism protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year.
Hmmmm... "some people got shot in a riot, let's protest this by having a riot!!" It's getting worse over there, isn't it?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Econoline »

Jarlaxle wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:51 am
So...did you not actually pay any attention to the trial?
Yes. I did.

Grosskreutz had a gun. If he had shot and killed Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him, he could have used EXACTLY the same defense, probably with EXACTLY the same verdict. Doesn't it bother you at least a little bit that anyone with a gun can kill someone and say "I feared for my life"? The survivor (shooter) gets a fair trial; the victim gets a death sentence without benefit of a defense.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Econoline wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:48 am
Jarlaxle wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:51 am
So...did you not actually pay any attention to the trial?
Yes. I did.

Grosskreutz had a gun. If he had shot and killed Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him, he could have used EXACTLY the same defense, probably with EXACTLY the same verdict. Doesn't it bother you at least a little bit that anyone with a gun can kill someone and say "I feared for my life"? The survivor (shooter) gets a fair trial; the victim gets a death sentence without benefit of a defense.
No, you didn't. Rittenhouse was neither chasing, attacking, nor shooting at Grosskreutz (or anyone else). Grosskruetz decided to be a vigilante and attack Rittenhouse. Which proved to be a dumb move. And if he HAD shot the teen, he'd not have a self-defence argument because he wasn't defending himself against any attack.

Had he shot Rittenhouse in the act of shooting someone else, to prevent a death, he might have a leg to stand on (or an arm to pull the trigger). But his own testimony is that he "thought" Rittenhouse was an "active" shooter - not a person who HAD shot someone but a person in the act of shooting. Face it, he was grandstanding as much as Rittenhouse - or as scared or as angry or as unthinking . . . there's a long list.

Rittenhouse was walking away, fell to the ground while trying to escape, and was assaulted by two people. I guess he should have waited to see if he was killed before he fought back?

And please understand - Rittenhouse should be in jail for being a moral delinquent (IMO) stupid-ass moronic soldier-wannabe. He should not have been there.

But quite frankly, a few more dead rioters would not be a bad price to pay to get the street-assholes to stay home or protest peaceably, as is their right. Just as it was (apparently) his right to walk down a street in fatigues, bp vest and armed with semi-auto rifle. I don't understand how that can be legal in any sane society - but it is.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:16 am
ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:30 pm
Mr/Ms Juror, if I walk into your house bearing a big gun which you have just seen me use to kill someone, and you make a not unreasonable attempt to stop me by hitting me with a skate board, am I then entitled to shoot you because I feared for my safety? Yes or no, please.
Have you stopped setting up false scenarios? Yes or no, please. He wasn't in anybody's "house"
I stretched a point to make a point. I would like to know where (my house? my yard? my street? my zip code?) Wisconsin law draws the line. Of course my stretch was far less than the one required to include Rittenhouse into the 'well-regulated militia' thing.

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

According to CNN:
"If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people," he testified.
Seriously? I've never been in a courtroom in my life (well OK there was that time when I was supposed to be doing 81 in a 70 limit) so what I have seen is based on Perry Mason, Law & Order etc. But would a judge have let that statement from the defendant stand? It's obviously at best speculation but Rittenhouse stated it as a fact - 'he would have used it and killed me' - when there can be no evidence to support that statement.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by BoSoxGal »

ex-khobar Andy wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:46 pm
According to CNN:
"If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people," he testified.
Seriously? I've never been in a courtroom in my life (well OK there was that time when I was supposed to be doing 81 in a 70 limit) so what I have seen is based on Perry Mason, Law & Order etc. But would a judge have let that statement from the defendant stand? It's obviously at best speculation but Rittenhouse stated it as a fact - 'he would have used it and killed me' - when there can be no evidence to support that statement.
The way the law is written in Wisconsin and other stand your ground states, what’s relevant is the defendant’s state of mind and perception of imminent threat. He doesn’t have to prove Rosenbaum’s intent, he only has to prove what he perceived it to be and it is up to the jury to determine if that perception was within the realm of reasonableness.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13927
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Joe Guy »

Wisconsin is not a 'stand your ground' state. I guess it doesn't really matter though.

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Econoline »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:13 pm
Rittenhouse was neither chasing, attacking, nor shooting at Grosskreutz (or anyone else).
BoSoxGal wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:48 pm
The way the law is written in Wisconsin and other stand your ground states, what’s relevant is the defendant’s state of mind and perception of imminent threat. He doesn’t have to prove Rosenbaum’s Rittenhouse's intent, he only has to prove what he perceived it to be and it is up to the jury to determine if that perception was within the realm of reasonableness.
^THIS^
And keep in mind the fact that Rittenhouse had just shot and killed two (unarmed) men, and if Rittenhouse had been killed at that point the jury would have had to determine the reasonableness of Grosskreutz's perception, not Rittenhouse's.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by BoSoxGal »

Joe Guy wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:06 pm
Wisconsin is not a 'stand your ground' state. I guess it doesn't really matter though.
No it’s not technically, it’s castle doctrine which is very similar and again as I detailed, requires the state in prosecuting to disprove the defendant’s claimed state of mind. It’s a nearly impossible burden.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 13927
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Joe Guy »

I thought the Castle Doctrine only applied to someone entering your home or business. No matter, the jury obviously saw threats to Rittenhouse's life which is why they ruled the way they did.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18303
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by BoSoxGal »

Joe Guy wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:17 pm
I thought the Castle Doctrine only applied to someone entering your home or business. No matter, the jury obviously saw threats to Rittenhouse's life which is why they ruled the way they did.
The castle doctrine does apply to home business and vehicle - no duty to retreat from an imminent threat therein.

However Wisconsin’s self defense laws beyond the castle also place limits on the expectation to retreat from an imminent harm if safe retreat isn’t possible. Clearly the jury here believed it wasn’t and that Rittenhouse wasn’t the provocateur, which negates self defense.

Just like the Zimmerman case, the problem here isn’t with the jury but with the law they were instructed to apply. I don’t hold out much hope for seeing those laws reformed.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Scooter »

I have to assume that four days of deliberations means that the jury took their time to assess the facts in light of the law. I have to wonder if they might have decided differently if they had heard and seen any of the material excluded by the judge, that gave a view into his state of mind.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Jarlaxle »

Econoline wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:11 pm
And keep in mind the fact that Rittenhouse had just shot and killed two (unarmed) men, and if Rittenhouse had been killed at that point the jury would have had to determine the reasonableness of Grosskreutz's perception, not Rittenhouse's.
No, that is an out-and-out LIE!

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Jarlaxle »

Image

liberty
Posts: 4409
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by liberty »

No one won or lost here; the trial was not some war or political contest; it was about justice. The only thing that won was the concept of self-defense which should be universal. My Lord, even cats, and dogs have the right to defend themselves. So get a grip; why should this child be arrested and face life in prison for defending himself. There should be certain principles that we all can agree on, and it would seem that self-defense would be one of them. No one should have to take a beating that only empowers thugs. Just because someone is stronger than you does not give him the right to beat you; if you believe that they do, you should believe that an abusive husband has a right to beat his wife because he’s bigger than her.

Here is how I would apply the principle: If a husband is beating his wife and she stabbed him, and he survives. He is charged with assault and battery; she faces no charges because it’s not a crime to defend oneself.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Gob »

FElM2s9WUAE4oF_.jpg
Oopsy!!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by Econoline »

guns,books.jpg
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
datsunaholic
Posts: 1791
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:53 am
Location: The Wet Coast

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by datsunaholic »

Did you know...

That half those "facts" in your list are false?

Under Wisconsin Law, Legal possession of firearms under the age of 18 is restricted to hunting and target practice WHEN UNDER ADULT SUPERVISION. So no, Rittenhouse did not have a legal right to be carrying a rifle alone in public.

Gaige Grosskreutz is not a convicted felon. If he was, he would not be allowed to have a concealed carry permit. While his was allegedly expired it was not decades expired. Note that while he was charged with at least one felony count he was never CONVICTED of any, and was in fact permitted to own firearms, and the Glock he had was registered... to him.

Anthony Huber was never convicted for suffocating women. He was convicted for suffocating his BROTHER, and again for kicking his sister.

And... did you know that Grosskreutz, Huber, and Rosenbaum's past run ins don't make an ounce of difference? Rittenhouse didn't know any of that, and even if he did it still wouldn't have been legal. Past mistakes don't mean it's open season for vigilantes.
Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20707
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

datsunaholic wrote:
Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:56 am
Under Wisconsin Law, Legal possession of firearms under the age of 18 is restricted to hunting and target practice WHEN UNDER ADULT SUPERVISION. So no, Rittenhouse did not have a legal right to be carrying a rifle alone in public.
Then why did the defense attorney, prosecutor and judge conclude that the gun charge had to be dropped?
Though the (weapons) charge was only a misdemeanor — punishable by a maximum nine months in jail — it might have offered the jury a way to convict Rittenhouse of a lesser crime if they were persuaded by his self-defense claims but agreed with prosecutors that he made a poor decision to carry a rifle on the streets of Kenosha.

So what happened? Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled. I guess they mean the gun rather than the minor

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/exp ... e-81285031
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
datsunaholic
Posts: 1791
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:53 am
Location: The Wet Coast

Re: Judges have way too much power

Post by datsunaholic »

I don't know what section they used to show an exception, this is an excerpt directly from the Wisconsin code:
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

The Wisconsin code for HUNTING sets the age at 16, but that's for hunting, not walking the streets with a firearm.
Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down.

Post Reply