Opinion: Kyle Rittenhouse verdict violates these 5 standards for claiming self-defense
In a two-week trial that reignited debate over self-defense laws across the nation, a Wisconsin jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse for shooting three people, two fatally, during a racial justice protest in Kenosha.
The author probably did watch the videos like all the rest of the Liberal assholes, but they'd never let the truth stand in the way of promoting their Commie agenda to destroy the constitution.
Truth, facts, law....none of that is relevant to leftists unless it serves their agenda. This pseudo professor needs to be introduced into the concept of violence....up close and personal. He needs a good curb stomping so he understands the real risk of being targeted for harm.
Going to have to disagree with him on a number of fronts... The ability/opportunity/jeopardy theory of self defense seems more accurate than his wishful interpretations of the law. And I continue to be amazed at how many people selectively misremember facts of the Trayvon Martin case... Which is likely to happen to Rittenhouse with all the mistruths written about it.
I'll be happy to lend the author, a Harvard law professor, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., my spectacles; I've been badly myopic my entire life. Whether or not this will correct his cock-eyed view of matters legal, I'm not quite certain.
I can think of no better way to say it: The "shi*t-to-shinola ratio" just threw a floating point exception. This guy is a professor at Harvard Law School and he gets every one of the "Five elements of self-defense" wrong?!? Did he not bother to look at the video? Welp, here we are back in the Twilight Zone. Time to turn up Golden Earring. -Joely
re -- mis-optica . I made-up a medical-sounding diagnosis to describe something I see while visiting elderly shut-ins. . We can watch televisionprogramming side-by-side simultaneously... and see opposite stories. Occasionally, I re-wind to verify my remembrance, but discover I am wrong. . In my experience, mis-optica happens about 50/50. Sometimes, I 'remember' in alignment with my values. Sometimes, the other folks 'remember' in alignment with their values. . I am at the point I do not know what to believe anymore...
"Duty to retreat" What the hell is that? If you make me believe you intend to kill me I'm not going to run away. I'm going to go on the attack and do my damndest to kill you.
I stopped a little before you, when the moron said, '“Stand your ground” laws came under national scrutiny during the trial of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin.'
That case had precisely fuck-all to do with Florida's SYG law.
The author is guilty of a red herring fallacy, defined loosely as "This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first."
He declares Florida is stand your ground while Wisconsin is duty to retreat. Then he uses an analysis of a Florida case to refute the findings in the Rittenhouse account. I don't see how the Zimmerman case is relevant because the central elements of the defense are contrary in the two states.
In Rittenhouse, the duty to flee was satisfied. He tried to flee, yet was relentlessly pursued by a mob intent on killing him. The video evidence in the WI trial is clear and demonstrates the premise completely. The duty to flee is not absolute; when you are cornered and driven to the ground by those pursuing you with stated intent to inflict injury or death, you are entitled to defend yourself.
If the author would have extracted his head from his butt and discarded his preconceived notions of the outcome, then he would have seen the justice in the verdicts rendered.
The author probably did watch the videos like all the rest of the Liberal assholes, but they'd never let the truth stand in the way of promoting their Commie agenda to destroy the constitution.
ReplyDeleteBingo!
DeleteMadMarlin
Truth, facts, law....none of that is relevant to leftists unless it serves their agenda. This pseudo professor needs to be introduced into the concept of violence....up close and personal. He needs a good curb stomping so he understands the real risk of being targeted for harm.
ReplyDeleteGoing to have to disagree with him on a number of fronts... The ability/opportunity/jeopardy theory of self defense seems more accurate than his wishful interpretations of the law. And I continue to be amazed at how many people selectively misremember facts of the Trayvon Martin case... Which is likely to happen to Rittenhouse with all the mistruths written about it.
ReplyDeleteI'd say they teach a special kind of law at Harvard that doesn't include we little people defending ourselves from violent agression.
ReplyDeleteErroneous! Untrue! The law we teach at Harvard doesn't include you little people at all.
Delete- Harvard Law Faculty
Andrew Branca would take exception to this argument. See his coverage at Legal Insurrection.
ReplyDeleteMarket watch is an absolutely gutter website.
ReplyDeletelibtard professor. Seriously. Nothing more cogent needs to be added.
ReplyDeleteA vicious fisking of a similar idiots' opinion is on Larry Corrieas' blog, monsterhunternation.com
ReplyDeleteSecond the recommendation of Branca.
John in Indy
I'll be happy to lend the author, a Harvard law professor, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., my spectacles; I've been badly myopic my entire life. Whether or not this will correct his cock-eyed view of matters legal, I'm not quite certain.
ReplyDeleteI can think of no better way to say it: The "shi*t-to-shinola ratio" just threw a floating point exception. This guy is a professor at Harvard Law School and he gets every one of the "Five elements of self-defense" wrong?!? Did he not bother to look at the video? Welp, here we are back in the Twilight Zone. Time to turn up Golden Earring. -Joely
ReplyDeletere -- mis-optica
ReplyDelete.
I made-up a medical-sounding diagnosis to describe something I see while visiting elderly shut-ins.
.
We can watch televisionprogramming side-by-side simultaneously... and see opposite stories.
Occasionally, I re-wind to verify my remembrance, but discover I am wrong.
.
In my experience, mis-optica happens about 50/50.
Sometimes, I 'remember' in alignment with my values.
Sometimes, the other folks 'remember' in alignment with their values.
.
I am at the point I do not know what to believe anymore...
"Duty to retreat"
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell is that? If you make me believe you intend to kill me I'm not going to run away. I'm going to go on the attack and do my damndest to kill you.
"... Zimmerman instead confronted Martin."
ReplyDeleteI stopped reading when he lied.
I stopped a little before you, when the moron said, '“Stand your ground” laws came under national scrutiny during the trial of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin.'
DeleteThat case had precisely fuck-all to do with Florida's SYG law.
Opinions are like, um, anuses. . .
ReplyDelete[rocketride]
The author is guilty of a red herring fallacy, defined loosely as "This fallacy consists in diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on an issue having only a surface relevance to the first."
ReplyDeleteHe declares Florida is stand your ground while Wisconsin is duty to retreat. Then he uses an analysis of a Florida case to refute the findings in the Rittenhouse account. I don't see how the Zimmerman case is relevant because the central elements of the defense are contrary in the two states.
In Rittenhouse, the duty to flee was satisfied. He tried to flee, yet was relentlessly pursued by a mob intent on killing him. The video evidence in the WI trial is clear and demonstrates the premise completely. The duty to flee is not absolute; when you are cornered and driven to the ground by those pursuing you with stated intent to inflict injury or death, you are entitled to defend yourself.
If the author would have extracted his head from his butt and discarded his preconceived notions of the outcome, then he would have seen the justice in the verdicts rendered.
He's an evil white, not a goodwhite; therefore, he is guilty. Absolutely nothing else matters.
ReplyDelete- The Left