Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[PhaelixWW]

Reasonable people can have unreasonable fears. And when you are paniciking you are :

Panic is a very strong feeling of anxiety or fear, which makes you act without thinking carefully.

Thus making you less accountable for your actions. so i would be a bit more carefull with that word

The fact that you think panic in this situation would be exculpatory is just hilarious.

But more importantly, it's also wrong.

Having the firearm in hand, confronting him in the first place, those are proof of premeditation. You don't get excused because you panicked at that point.

[DKjaigen]

There's no way journalist misconduct would lead to a mistrial with prejudice. Whose ass are you pulling this from?

Dont be obtuse about this Endus. The prosecution has F up more times then i can count and each and every single one of those mistakes can be used to declare a mistrial. The judge will take this into account.

[Deus Mortis]

The fact that you think panic in this situation would be exculpatory is just hilarious.

But more importantly, it's also wrong.

Having the firearm in hand, confronting him in the first place, those are proof of premeditation. You don't get excused because you panicked at that point.

Exactly, they literally drove to him. If they were so panicked they would of not done that and just called police.

[DKjaigen]

If that panic is driven by your own racism, that's not much of a defense. Me calling them stupid and panicky in no way, shape, or form detracts from the fact that they murdered an unarmed man who was presenting no threat to them.

great you are a mindreader.

[Edge-]

Man, we've sure gone from, "Lawl, prosecutors are dumb and Rittenhouse gonna get off."

to

"Oh man, we need a mistrial with prejudice so a jury can never deliver a verdict on these charges!"

pretty damned quickly.

- - - Updated - - -

great you are a mindreader.

No, I'm looking at their actions and their beliefs - which include their use of a racial slur - and coming to a conclusion.

[DKjaigen]

The fact that you think panic in this situation would be exculpatory is just hilarious.

But more importantly, it's also wrong.

Having the firearm in hand, confronting him in the first place, those are proof of premeditation. You don't get excused because you panicked at that point.

No but you can get a reduced sentence. It would be way better if their was no emotion involved into this.

[PhaelixWW]

Dont be obtuse about this Endus. The prosecution has F up more times then i can count and each and every single one of those mistakes can be used to declare a mistrial. The judge will take this into account.

And most of the prosecution screw-ups hurt the prosecution, not the defense. It's hard to imagine that those could even be grounds for a mistrial.

Also, you're admitting that you can't really count very high.

[Captain N]

Strange pivot there from our Rittenhouse defender. Accuses Edge of being a mind reader as a bad thing but somehow thinks that Rittenhouse's mind reading abilities to justify shooting Rosenbaum is a good thing. Sometimes the jokes just write themselves...

[DKjaigen]

No, I'm looking at their actions and their beliefs - which include their use of a racial slur - and coming to a conclusion.

And thats the reason why we dont have unqualified people like yourself have any power over others.

[Endus]

Reasonable people can have unreasonable fears. And when you are paniciking you are :

Panic is a very strong feeling of anxiety or fear, which makes you act without thinking carefully.

Thus making you less accountable for your actions. so i would be a bit more carefull with that word

This has no legal basis whatsoever.

Being a panicky, paranoid, overly-frightened individual is a description of your motive to commit a crime, not a defense of that crime. It's literally a description of how unreasonable your conduct is.

Unless it stemmed to the level of actual insanity, as in complete disconnection from reality into a psychotic break or delusion in a manner a psychiatrist can confirm and will testify to, it isn't a legal defense at all. And in the case where it does fall under such breaks from reality, we'd be discussing whether you deserve prison or to be held against your will in a mental institution for your own protection and that of others. Which is worse than prison, since you stay there "until you're better and will never act like that again", rather than a set sentence.

[PhaelixWW]

No but you can get a reduced sentence. It would be way better if their was no emotion involved into this.

No, because again, this was premeditated. If they decided, while not in a panicked state, to put themselves willingly in a position in which, during a panicked state, they shot and killed a man, then that panic doesn't absolve the premeditation.

Their conscious, unpanicked decisions led to his death, plain and simple.

[Deus Mortis]

And thats the reason why we dont have unqualified people like yourself have any power over others.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of people in power with power over others that are very unqualified for their job.

[DKjaigen]

Do they allow private citizens to murder them without repercussion?

Because let's be clear; Rosenbaum was convicted and served his time. His past crimes have no relevance whatsoever. Literally all you're trying to do is identify "undesirables", so that they can be extrajudicially murdered for no crimes, simply because you have deemed them "undesirable".

That's fascism. That attitude can fuck off.

You should leave safe and progressive Canada for a change. Not many people think like you do

[Edge-]

And thats the reason why we dont have unqualified people like yourself have any power over others.

This is an internet forum dude, not a court of law.

[PhaelixWW]

And thats the reason why we dont have unqualified people like yourself have any power over others.

This is a joke, right?

<confused travolta meme>

On what grounds do you (amusingly) declare yourself to be more qualified in this discussion than anyone else?

[Endus]

Dont be obtuse about this Endus. The prosecution has F up more times then i can count and each and every single one of those mistakes can be used to declare a mistrial. The judge will take this into account.

The only legitimate grounds for a mistrial with prejudice is if the prosecution has fucked up so egregiously it's clear they weren't approaching the prosecution in good faith. Normal errors or attempts to use disallowed lines of argument aren't grounds for mistrials with prejudice; they're grounds for the opposing team to object, and the judge to exclude that line of inquiry/evidence.

Mistrials with prejudice are more about cases where, say, the prosecution has exculpatory evidence that they know clears the accused, but they do not turn that over in discovery to the defense and in fact try to conceal it, and prosecute anyway. Which isn't comparable to what's happened in the Rittenhouse trial, at any level.

The Rittenhouse prosecutors are pretty terrible, but they're reacting to a judge who's equally terrible, and there's no real grounds for a mistrial with prejudice on this.

A mistrial in general is almost certainly a boon to the prosecution, here, since they can shore up the weak points of their argument and get the technical bullshit worked out for next time, and possibly get new prosecutors in here who know what the fuck they're doing. It won't help the defense, unless it's with prejudice, and there's really no legitimate grounds for that here.

[Egomaniac]

Shit like this is going to result in a mistrial. perhaps even with prejudice

Not likely. Unless they can show that the freelancer had any contact with members of the jury. Which, thus far, they have not. So far they can't even be sure he was even following the jury... just that he was nearby.

and even if the dude was following the Jury van around... that, by itself, shouldn't have any impact on the jury's deliberations.

[DKjaigen]

No, because again, this was premeditated. If they decided, while not in a panicked state, to put themselves willingly in a position in which, during a panicked state, they shot and killed a man, then that panic doesn't absolve the premeditation.

Their conscious, unpanicked decisions led to his death, plain and simple.

No. I doubt they can find anything that would make this a first degree murder

[PhaelixWW]

You should leave safe and progressive Canada for a change. Not many people think like you do

Not many people in your far-right echo chamber do, perhaps. The rest of the world would beg to differ.

[Endus]

You should leave safe and progressive Canada for a change. Not many people think like you do

I've travelled internationally a fair bit. I've also worked internationally with people from a couple dozen different countries, on all six continents that matter (as Antarctica, y'know, no native population). So spare me your attempts at normalizing brutal fascism.