Partly what dave said, but the racism was in the Arbery case was outloud and present for everybody to see (and criticize). Also, this was claimed to be vigilante justice, which I would guess most people are uncomfortable with. In the KR case, the racism was not so clear, and the argument of self defense is easier. In the eyes of supporters, KR was being a protector, and they were able to make that argument from the beginning. This. Also, it seems that the defense attorney's argument was such an obvious racist trope and she got lambasted for it in the media. (Of course, it wouldn't surprise me that it was an intentional phrase meant to make the defense look bad and make it easier to convict.)
Really? Isn't "self defense" generally "proactively attacking someone," except that you feel that you are in "imminent threat/danger"? If you wait until after you are attacked, it likely may be too late. The claim of self-defense is always about one's feelings and personal definition of imminent threat/danger. The standard, at least, should be about that mythical "reasonable person" standard. That is, there must be a "reasonable" threat about imminent danger, before self-defense can be invoked. It would appear that many self-defense cases (the case in Kenosha notwithstanding), are exactly as you describe. Somebody is attempting to break into your house. You have a gun. You do not know if the person breaking into the house has a gun. You shoot the person, killing them. That is a "proactive" attack, is it not? The perpetrator has not "attacked you" at all. Sure, they were trying to break into your place, but they have not attacked you. Are you "defending anyone," to use your term? This is what the "castle doctrine" is about and it puts your things above the lives of people, since it does not require the perpetrator to be armed before deadly force may be justified as "self-defense." Essentially, it is predicated on it being "reasonable" that someone would be under imminent threat if a person broke into the house. It does not, however, require the threat to be an actual attack, just a "reasonable" perception of an attack. You see someone pointing a gun at your relative/friend/neighbor. You shoot them. That would be a "proactive attack," would it not? Is "pointing a gun" an "attack" to you? I ask this, as you have not determined if the gun was loaded or even real. This is one of the many issues I have police shootings. See Tamir Rice. It is your "feelings and personal definition of imminent threat/danger" that form the sole basis for your actions. You perceive that the person pointing a gun at someone to be an imminent threat, whether or not it is an actual attack. You are reacting to that perception, but you act proactively in this situation. The current mass expansion of the "castle doctrine" (basically the concept behind "stand your ground" laws, allowing the "castle doctrine" to extend to places of business, and things like the bill being introduced in Pennsylvania by State Senator Pat Stefano) are predicated on NOT having to wait for an "actual attack" to "proactively attack" somebody and claim self-defense.
Self defence everyone Here’s a news report about the shooting. The shooter is arguing it was self-defense and hasn’t been arrested, which seems insane but we’re not a sane country. https://t.co/0ipUI1YmFi— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 26, 2021
He may get away with it as he said all the necessary things to justify his shot. Though the whole situation is preposterous and his addition of a gun to the wholesituation is what made him have to use it. Plus it's Texas.
I think the mother of the children will lose custody though. I am not a family court attorney but it can be argued he violation of the court mandated time led to the situation and all the shooting maybe legal it would have been a completely avoidable matter had she complied.
I understand what you're saying. When I said "your feelings don't matter" , I obviously meant that it has to be found reasonable to a jury. Obviously that may differ from person to person.
This is quite interesting. Rittenhouse's proactive mention of support BLM cause probably pissed them off. He also said somewhere I believe that the Proud Boys picture was something setup by his first lawyer. I wonder if that was a plan to raise money for his bail/defense fund.
Well, sure he "supports" BLM causes. The protests provided so many targets for him. Juat like many hunters "support" conservation of wolves...and then kill them.
Of course, it was not obvious at all what you meant. It is also not even what you said. You said one's feelings of imminent threat and danger were not justification for "proactively" attacking someone. However, as I stated that is precisely why we have the affirmative defense of "self-defense."
Ken White (@popehat on twitter) had some excellent commentary on KR this week. 1. Highly unlikely KR can make out any defamation claims. 2. Calling KR a murderer is protected speech. What laypeople often don't grasp is that burden of proof and standard of proof only apply in the courtroom. So the prosecution must prove guilt to BARD standard. KR was not found innocent. Self defence wasn't "proved" as such - rather the jury found the case not proved beyond reasonable doubt. As the jury is a black box, we don't know to what extent they believed he acted in self defence, or just that reasonable doubt existed. Outside the courtroom, we are all allowed our opinion. This is most obvious with the state itself which of course allege he was guilty - the prosecutor does say the accused is innocent till proven guilty - rather the prosecutor says that the state believes KR is guilty and continues to so believe.
Lot's of this stuff is epic grift to raise funds - i listened to some interesting stuff about the 1/6 defendants. Especially if you get lots of 1/6 clients, then you can heavily profit
That's why I raised the Vallow case. He probably ill get away with it - despite it being obviously absurd.
Dumbshit in Oklahoma has written Kyle's Law. "Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, has filed legislation to ensure Oklahomans who use self-defense won’t have to face trial for political reasons. If the measure becomes law, victims of malicious prosecution would be able to receive compensation for expenses and damages. Dahm filed Senate Bill 1120, called Kyle’s Law, on Tuesday." Sen. Dahm files Kyle’s Law | Oklahoma Senate (oksenate.gov)
So, he is going with the "police shoot first and face no prosecution by claiming self-defense" move for non-police? Got it. “Kyle Rittenhouse should never have been charged. The video evidence from early on showed it was lawful self-defense,” Dahm said. “It is our duty to protect the rights of the people we represent, and the right to self-defense is paramount. This bill will ensure that what happened to Kyle Rittenhouse cannot happen to the people of Oklahoma.” Under Dahm’s legislation, if a person is charged with murder but is found not guilty due to justifiable homicide, the state would have to reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of wages, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in their defense. When a homicide is determined to be justified and the accused establishes that they had sustained injury due to malicious prosecution, then that person will be awarded “fair and just compensation.” 1. Hey, Dahmass, "video evidence" is only evidence once it is in court. If he is not charged, there is no evidence, there is just video and that video has not passed any level of legal muster to be introduced as evidence. Essentially, you want police action/criminal court action (or lack thereof) by social media. Do you REALLY think that is a good idea, Senator Dahm? Think about that a minute, Senator. Also, I really do not trust cell phone video as the sole piece of evidence, as it may not capture the totality of the situation. 2. Why is the "right to self-defense is paramount"? That makes no sense. If it was "paramount," would it not be enshrined in the Constitution? Right, Justice Thomas? You cannot find the right of privacy in the Constitution, but will you find the "right" to shoot somebody and claim self-defense? 3. What happened TO the defendant in Kenosha? What about what happened TO the three people he shot? Two are DEAD and one is maimed. 4. Okay, just wait until the very first black or indigenous person in Oklahoma shoots somebody who is threatening him and argues self-defense. I hope there is cell phone "video evidence" so that person "should never be charged." A bit about Senator Nathan Dahm. He was homeschooled at a "Christian Academy" in Romania. He never attended college. Has a history of saying very stupid Apparently, he is running for Senate from Oklahoma. He is also "known" for making sex innuendos about VP Kamala Harris. Something about "sucking" through a paper straw because of her "vast experience" and her "start" in politics (an "affair"). And, then, when he was called out on it, he doubled down (of course).
Yes, yes, it should be crossed posted there. I think @superdave it put it here as this thread has become all things about the defendant in Kenosha.