Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Rittenhouse Trial vs IOS

Rittenhouse Trial vs IOS (Page 3)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2021, 02:15 PM
 
Before Rittenhouse, in America, had a protester who brought an assault rifle to a protest shot another protester?

If not, I see an incongruity between “this result is so obvious Rittenhouse forfeits any claim to self defense” and “this result had quite literally never happened before”.

Hindsight is 20/20. Blisteringly obvious results are rarely as obvious as they appear until they’ve happened at least once.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2021, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Before Rittenhouse, in America, had a protester who brought an assault rifle to a protest shot another protester?
There's a pretty strong history of local police deputizing armed citizens to fight against miners, labor movements, and civil rights protests. The line drawn from the KKK to the Proud Boys, Three Percenters, and Oath Keepers is a pretty straight line.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ory-180978520/

https://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do...rights-martyrs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klu...o_civil_rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola_Liuzzo
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2021, 03:12 PM
 
What jumps out at me is the most recent example I could find in that list is over 40 years old.

Also, I qualified my question.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2021, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What jumps out at me is the most recent example I could find in that list is over 40 years old.
Totally - though when's the last time there were demonstrations this widespread that went on for this long? Even the Rodney King riots were mostly limited to LA.

Also, I qualified my question.
With "assault rifle"? What's the history of private assault rifle ownership in America? I'd assume most private gun owners 40 years ago had various handguns and hunting rifles, but probably not assault rifles as are so popular today, if you can even call the pedestrain AR15s "assault rifles."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2021, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Totally - though when's the last time there were demonstrations this widespread that went on for this long?
That’s sort of the point. The straight line I’m being asked to draw has a 40+ year gap to bridge.

That’s not necessarily impossible, I mean, I can bridge the gap between WWI and WWII, but is this situation analogous? Was the Civil Rights Movement merely an armistice?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2021, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Before Rittenhouse, in America, had a protester who brought an assault rifle to a protest shot another protester?
I wouldn’t just look at shootings, I’d look more broadly at using guns for intimidation. And there you have plenty of recent and historical examples. You had armed protestors break into Oregon’s state capitol while it was in session, armed protests at several other state capitols and armed protestors intimidating elected state officials. The protestors in Rittenhouse’s groups, including obviously Rittenhouse himself, did the same here.

If you want a nuanced take from someone who comes more from your side, have a look at David French’s piece on his substack and the one he wrote for The Atlantic. While he thinks the jury got it right, writing that what Rittenhouse did “was foolish, but not illegal”. But he also also criticizes that the ever expanding meaning of “reasonable force” in the context of self-defense, the intimidation of people by openly displaying weapons and “immense difference between quiet concealed carry and vigilante open carry, including in ham-handed and amateurish attempts to accomplish one of the most difficult tasks in all of policing—imposing order in the face of civil unrest”.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If not, I see an incongruity between “this result is so obvious Rittenhouse forfeits any claim to self defense” and “this result had quite literally never happened before”.
That flies in the face of common sense. And there is plenty of historical precedent.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That’s sort of the point. The straight line I’m being asked to draw has a 40+ year gap to bridge.

That’s not necessarily impossible, I mean, I can bridge the gap between WWI and WWII, but is this situation analogous? Was the Civil Rights Movement merely an armistice?
I can think of plenty of armed protests in the recent past, including some that ended in death. For example, I remember the standoffs between the Bundy family and the government, including the take-over of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016 where one armed protestor tried to flee and was shot by the police. That wasn’t the first armed confrontation between the Bundy family and their supporters and the US government. I can think of several other instances off the top of my head, too, from the KKK to the 1960s to the recent past to events from a few years ago. I can also dig up examples from other countries. What about 1920s Germany?

I don’t want to get bogged down into a discussion how similar event A is to event B, though. Two events are never completely alike. But there is a very long history of armed protestors, very often from right wing groups, using guns for intimidation. And in some cases violence escalated and it became deadly.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2021, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That’s sort of the point. The straight line I’m being asked to draw has a 40+ year gap to bridge.

That’s not necessarily impossible, I mean, I can bridge the gap between WWI and WWII, but is this situation analogous? Was the Civil Rights Movement merely an armistice?
That was the whole point of the Southern Strategy - we can no longer be 100% open with our racism, so we'll develop a codified language and push policies specifically designed to target "undesirable" groups. Forty years later, we're seeing the very real consequences of those choices and policies played out in the militarization of police, incarceration of black men, and widening wealth inequality of all classes, but especially minorities. There's a natural ebb and flow of drastic progress, then a pushback against progress, buildup of tension, and release of that tension in some way.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2021, 03:37 AM
 
Just wanted to mention I haven’t dropped this and apologize for the delay. It’s a combo of being swamped, and working out my thoughts on the subject.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2021, 12:20 PM
 
Marjorie Taylor Green submitted a proposal to give Rittenhouse the congressional medal of honor.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2021, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Forty years later, we're seeing the very real consequences of those choices and policies played out in the militarization of police, incarceration of black men, and widening wealth inequality of all classes, but especially minorities.
Would you agree the state charging Rittenhouse with first degree murder isn’t representative of these choices and policies?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2021, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Marjorie Taylor Green submitted a proposal to give Rittenhouse the congressional medal of honor.
Rittenhouse was not in the military, making him ineligible. Perhaps she means the Congressional Gold Medal. Which is awarded for particular service to Congress, the US, or the world.

I'm unclear on what service Rittenhouse offered to Congress, the US, or the world. How to smoke strangers? How to get away with murder? On 2nd thought, that last part could be useful to any politician.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2021, 08:15 PM
 
Just to add to the discussion that illustrates how problematic the current conception of self-defense is and how quickly weapons escalate can situations: a pregnant woman in Florida intentionally hit a motorcycle and fled. The motorcyclist followed her home and confronted her. She came out with a weapon and the motorcyclist, who apparently has a concealed carry permit, shot her dead. The motorcyclist is claiming self-defense. And if the woman had shot the motorcyclist first, I reckon she would also claim the shooting was in self-defense.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2021, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Rittenhouse was not in the military, making him ineligible. Perhaps she means the Congressional Gold Medal. Which is awarded for particular service to Congress, the US, or the world.
I guess they want to cash in on Rittenhouse and his reputation (by soliciting donations to their campaigns and/or the GOP).
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I'm unclear on what service Rittenhouse offered to Congress, the US, or the world. How to smoke strangers? How to get away with murder? On 2nd thought, that last part could be useful to any politician.
I think this is just another “own the libs” story for these Congresspeople, because they and part of their constituency get off on that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2021, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Just to add to the discussion that illustrates how problematic the current conception of self-defense is and how quickly weapons escalate can situations: a pregnant woman in Florida intentionally hit a motorcycle and fled. The motorcyclist followed her home and confronted her. She came out with a weapon and the motorcyclist, who apparently has a concealed carry permit, shot her dead. The motorcyclist is claiming self-defense. And if the woman had shot the motorcyclist first, I reckon she would also claim the shooting was in self-defense.
Hot take: motorcyclist was justified. Librarian left her residence, which means she doesn’t get a castle doctrine defense, and pulled a gun on people just standing there.


Bonus edit hot take: if things occurred the way the police claim, she fled the scene of a crime, which puts a further crimp in her defense claim.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 26, 2021 at 09:52 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2021, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I wouldn’t just look at shootings, I’d look more broadly at using guns for intimidation.
The intimidation value of open-carrying a rifle to a protest or a state capitol building is based on the implied threat the bearer will use it.

The number of shootings is an objective measure of how often the implied threat is carried out.

I posit we can find no instances of the threat being carried out in recent history (except for Rittenhouse) because the people implying the threat are in fact highly unwilling to carry it out, as doing so would almost inevitably lead to murder charges.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 01:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
the people implying the threat are in fact highly unwilling to carry it out
We have a few options actually.

1. Those implying the threat are unwilling to follow through when challenged.
2. The implied threat is extremely effective and the behavior of the threatened is what the threatener wants.
3. The threateners are operating based on bad information (They're burning our cities to the ground! It's chaos! Looting and rioting everywhere!), and what they find at the vast majority of peaceful protestors that weren't going to cause any trouble, armed "watchmen" or not.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 01:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Would you agree the state charging Rittenhouse with first degree murder isn’t representative of these choices and policies?
It could easily be argued that the choice to charge him with something that he would clearly walk free on is right in line with this country's history of the justice system giving white people loopholes.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 01:31 AM
 
Could the same be said about the reckless homicide charge (Rosenbaum), or the reckless endangerment charges for shooting in the first place?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 01:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
We have a few options actually.

1. Those implying the threat are unwilling to follow through when challenged.
2. The implied threat is extremely effective and the behavior of the threatened is what the threatener wants.
3. The threateners are operating based on bad information (They're burning our cities to the ground! It's chaos! Looting and rioting everywhere!), and what they find at the vast majority of peaceful protestors that weren't going to cause any trouble, armed "watchmen" or not.
I think the first two apply in almost every instance.

The third undoubtedly happens, and when it isn’t happening, see number two (with the exception of the minority of times people do actually start wrecking shit).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 02:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
2. The implied threat is extremely effective and the behavior of the threatened is what the threatener wants.
As an aside, I’m not going to knock people who don’t like guns. There are plenty of legit reasons not to.

Many people who don’t like guns see it as a valid reason to remain willfully ignorant of them and the culture surrounding them. I’m not going to knock that either, but it’s totally being taken advantage of here.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 03:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
It could easily be argued that the choice to charge him with something that he would clearly walk free on is right in line with this country's history of the justice system giving white people loopholes.
I also wanted to add that if a person rejects the idea of white privilege, and instead thinks it’s minorities who are the one with privilege, they won’t see this as a loophole they have on their side.

What’s the Venn diagram of “people who reject the idea of white privilege” and “people who open-carry rifles at protests”?
     
Doc HM
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 05:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
they won’t see this as a loophole they have on their side.
They will simply see the system operating as it is supposed to.

That seems a decent working example of white privilege? (not to them obviously)
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Hot take: motorcyclist was justified. Librarian left her residence, which means she doesn’t get a castle doctrine defense, and pulled a gun on people just standing there.
I know, but that wasn’t my point: one person and a fetus unnecessarily died.
Is that really what you want for society?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The intimidation value of open-carrying a rifle to a protest or a state capitol building is based on the implied threat the bearer will use it.

The number of shootings is an objective measure of how often the implied threat is carried out.
That’s assuming someone is stupid enough to test that. Do you really want to test your theory the other person is not going to shoot? How far are you willing to go? Why wasn’t law enforcement evicting them? The answer is quite obvious: there’d be a very realistic chance of a blood bath.

Why didn’t the federal government force their way on the various occasion the Bundy family and their (armed) supporters protested? I think the institutional memory of Ruby Ridge and Waco is still strong.

So usually nobody tests armed protestors. So being armed “pays off”. It is ridiculous that these people face less consequences than unarmed protestors often do.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I posit we can find no instances of the threat being carried out in recent history (except for Rittenhouse) because the people implying the threat are in fact highly unwilling to carry it out, as doing so would almost inevitably lead to murder charges.
I gave an example from 2016 in an earlier post.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Nov 27, 2021 at 09:43 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 12:28 PM
 
To quantify recent, I meant in the last two or three years… the time period across which this tactic has seen its ascent in popularity.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
They will simply see the system operating as it is supposed to.

That seems a decent working example of white privilege? (not to them obviously)
The point is if they don’t see it as white privilege, they won’t see it as an example of how the state will support them if they shoot someone.

To put this another way, they’re going to take what happened to Rittenhouse at face value. They’re going to think “if I shoot someone the state will try to put me away for life”. The Rittenhouse case will discourage them from shooting people.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I know, but that wasn’t my point: one person and a fetus unnecessarily died.
Is that really what you want for society?
Yes?

I want it where the librarian doesn't have a right to point a gun at the motorcyclist, which she didn’t.

I want it where if the librarian unlawfully points a gun at the motorcyclist, he has the right to defend himself, which he did.

The fetus isn’t relevant.

I get the point, however this is a bad example with which to make it, since one party is completely justified, and the other has no justification. The point is about when the scenario is not this cut and dried, no?
( Last edited by subego; Nov 27, 2021 at 02:15 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 04:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Why wasn’t law enforcement evicting them?
Is this question about the Bundy ranch? Protests? State capitols? All three?

I was assuming the last two, but then it hit me it’s possible I’m supposed to take “evicting” as meaning the Bundy deal.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2021, 10:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I want it where the librarian doesn't have a right to point a gun at the motorcyclist, which she didn’t.

I want it where if the librarian unlawfully points a gun at the motorcyclist, he has the right to defend himself, which he did.
I’m quite sure that if the woman who was killed had shot the motorcyclist, she would be able to legally claim self-defense as well and win.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The fetus isn’t relevant.

I get the point, however this is a bad example with which to make it, since one party is completely justified, and the other has no justification. The point is about when the scenario is not this cut and dried, no?
You don’t seem to get it.
The fault is not with either of them. Both of them acted like idiots. Road rage against weaker road users (cars > motorcycles) is bad. Following people back home and then confronting them is a stupid idea. Get their tags and a description. If you want, get their address and jot it down. Give the information to the police. Drawing a gun over this is stupid. Shooting a woman instead of retreating is stupid yet again. They were both behaving like idiots, never stepping back and thinking whether it is worth it or smart. Even if you are right, is the risk worth it? (My father would always say “Do you want to put ‘I was right.’ on your gravestone?”

And IMHO no matter who lived, under current laws and the point in time where we are, I am sure both would have/will successfully claim self-defense to justify shooting the other person.

The fault lies with a society that took out “responsible” out of responsible gun ownership and fetishized guns. People use guns for intimidation and are never willing to retreat.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is this question about the Bundy ranch? Protests? State capitols? All three?
Evicting was in reference to the protests in state capitols. But evidently, the protests by the Bundy family weren’t dispersed with force either for the same reason: the protestors were armed and trying to disperse the protests would come with a serious risk of a blood bath.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 08:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I also wanted to add that if a person rejects the idea of white privilege, and instead thinks it’s minorities who are the one with privilege, they won’t see this as a loophole they have on their side.

What’s the Venn diagram of “people who reject the idea of white privilege” and “people who open-carry rifles at protests”?


Originally Posted by subego View Post
The point is if they don’t see it as white privilege, they won’t see it as an example of how the state will support them if they shoot someone.

To put this another way, they’re going to take what happened to Rittenhouse at face value. They’re going to think “if I shoot someone the state will try to put me away for life”. The Rittenhouse case will discourage them from shooting people.
No way - just look at the increase in vehicles striking protestors since Charlottesville. And look at the Republican response to propose laws protecting those drivers. What do you want to bet in the next year or so we'll start seeing proposed laws relating to firearm self defense and stand-your-ground, the kind that when looked at assuming good faith seem like a good idea, but in practice would protect people like Rittenhouse and signal to others like him that the law has their back.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 08:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I get the point, however this is a bad example with which to make it, since one party is completely justified, and the other has no justification. The point is about when the scenario is not this cut and dried, no?
This seems like a bold conclusion to jump to, no? We don't know the details of the traffic altercation - did he cut her off? Sideswipe her? Was he driving recklessly? Maybe, maybe not. Did he pull his gun on her from the bike so she ran? We don't know.

But she saw an angry mob there to confront her and grabbed a weapon. If they were on her property, did she not have a right to protect that property from trespassers?

There are a lot of questions here that I don't see answers to, enough that it'd be aggressive to slam the gavel on what's justified.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 12:09 PM
 
None of the examples given allow her to intentionally hit him, which cops and witnesses seem to confirm is what happened. I submit this meets the standard of evidence for an Internet hot take.

FWIW, I did actually look up the law before I made my comment. Florida does not allow her to protect her property with deadly force, only her “dwelling”. She can’t shoot a mob for merely being on her property. They have to go on her porch, or attempt a B&E on the dwelling itself. Once she left her dwelling, she forfeit her castle doctrine claim.


Edit: this relates to the greater discussion in that it’s an example of how if you want to have a gun, you really should know under what circumstances you have the right to blow someone away, and what circumstances you don’t.

The “assault rifle at a protest” types talk about this shit constantly. Usually to grouse about it. That’s one of the ironies here. The more bloodthirsty these motherfuckers are, the more they tend to be aware of what laws stand between them and fulfilling their fantasy.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
None of the examples given allow her to intentionally hit him, which cops and witnesses seem to confirm is what happened. I submit this meets the standard of evidence for an Internet hot take.
Well hey, if the cops say that's what happened, that's good enough for me.

FWIW, I did actually look up the law before I made my comment. Florida does not allow her to protect her property with deadly force, only her “dwelling”. She can’t shoot a mob for merely being on her property. They have to go on her porch, or attempt a B&E on the dwelling itself. Once she left her dwelling, she forfeit her castle doctrine claim.
Right - castle doctrine doesn't help if they're outside. But now we have two armed people standing outside mad at each other. Who gets to claim self defense? Whoever unholsters second?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 01:29 PM
 
The person who was assaulted (by having a gun pointed at them for example) gets to claim self-defense.

If we have to assume the cops are potentially lying to make the point, I submit it only strengthens my claim this makes for a poor example.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The fault is not with either of them.
It is alleged the librarian committed three crimes, two directly against the motorcyclist, and the motorcyclist committed none.

If this is true, the fault self-evidently lies with the guilty party, not the innocent one.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Well hey, if the cops say that's what happened, that's good enough for me.
I noticed this in the article. The cops say it was an intentional traffic hit, even though the cops were not present. This makes me think they have it on a traffic cam or someone's surveillance DVR. If so, I'd like to see that video.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Well hey, if the cops say that's what happened, that's good enough for me.
I should have qualified what I said with “assuming it’s true” or the like.

I honestly wasn’t trying to imply we can trust what the police say, or the press for that matter.


Edit: I’m only taking things at face value for purposes of coming up with an on-the-spot legal analysis. If any of that is untrue, my analysis is voided.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The person who was assaulted (by having a gun pointed at them for example) gets to claim self-defense.

If we have to assume the cops are potentially lying to make the point, I submit it only strengthens my claim this makes for a poor example.
Here's the info I'm going off of (I didn't want to click a Daily Mail link):

https://wgntv.com/news/pregnant-hit-...nt-police-say/

Orange City Police Department officials alleged that 35-year-old Sara Morales “intentionally hit” Andrew Derr, then fled.
This is coming from the motorcyclist and the witnesses. We've jumped to assuming intent of the car driver without the possibility of that person's side of the story.

Derr was uninjured and remained on the motorcycle.
That's some amazing driving where you could intentionally hit someone but they magically stayed on the bike? It's definitely possible, I guess, but wow.

He and witnesses tried to get Morales to stop.
At this point you're being chased by an angry mob. Do you stop for them?

She refused to pull over and they followed her in an effort to identify her, according to a police news release.
That's what license plates are for. Write it down, call it in.

Morales drove to her home and called 911.
Correct.

She allegedly grabbed a gun from the house and went back outside to confront Derr and the witnesses, according to the release.
Bad move.

Derr had a handgun on him, and he drew the weapon and opened fire on Morales, hitting her multiple times
I've mostly stayed out of this thread because this case is generally a shitshow because people keep confusing the dictionary definition of "self defense" with the legal definition of "self defense." I have no idea what the difference is either, but obviously it matters when it comes to the course cases.

But in this case, if she held the gun at her side and he pointed first, does she get to shoot and claim self defense? She was just chased down by an angry mob. If she points at him first in fear for her life, and then he points at her, can she shoot then? Or does she forfeit self defense by pointing first?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
But in this case, if she held the gun at her side and he pointed first, does she get to shoot and claim self defense?
Absolutely. 100%.

I just singled this part out, but I wanted to reaffirm what I said in the post I made while you were writing this.

I’m honestly not making any of these assumptions except for immediate analysis purposes. You’re making totally valid points.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 28, 2021 at 04:28 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 04:12 PM
 
To put it another way, my argument is “if X happened, the law says Y”.

I’m in no way, shape, or form arguing X happened.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2021, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
She was just chased down by an angry mob. If she points at him first in fear for her life, and then he points at her, can she shoot then? Or does she forfeit self defense by pointing first?
My (perhaps worthless) legal take is what sinks her self-defense claim is she left her house to confront the mob. She can’t do that and say she was in fear for her life.

If she was put in fear for her life, it would have to be due to something the mob did then and there. Going in her house and leaving metaphorically hit the reset button.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2021, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My (perhaps worthless) legal take is what sinks her self-defense claim is she left her house to confront the mob. She can’t do that and say she was in fear for her life.

If she was put in fear for her life, it would have to be due to something the mob did then and there. Going in her house and leaving metaphorically hit the reset button.
That's fair. Like you said, if she's really that much into guns, she should know the castle doctrine rules. She should have stayed in her house and waited for the police that she had already called. If they came at her there, then she's in the right. Nothing good was going to happen by going outside, armed or not.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2021, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
That's fair. Like you said, if she's really that much into guns, she should know the castle doctrine rules. She should have stayed in her house and waited for the police that she had already called. If they came at her there, then she's in the right. Nothing good was going to happen by going outside, armed or not.
I’d advocate to be careful here and clearly separate is and ought: it seems to me that subego and you think you know how to interpret the Castle Doctrine in Florida and the current jurisprudence. I don’t. AFAIK in some states it extends to a certain distance around your home. In others it covers your car, too, and not just your home.

I wouldn’t be surprised if in an alternate universe where the woman shot the motorcyclist the woman would be able to claim self-defense for her. AFAIK a lot of problems in current self-defense statutes is that they feature the word “reasonable” and focus on the state of mind: would you, as a pregnant woman, be afraid if a scary, armed (!) motorcyclist followed you home?

Now if you followed this thread, then you know I’m not a fan of the laws as they are.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2021, 10:28 PM
 
I wouldn’t be surprised if in an alternate universe where the woman shot the motorcyclist the woman would be able to claim self-defense for her.

Which raises an interesting conundrum. In a state like Oklahoma, which has passed a law allowing drivers to drive into crowds of protestors (using the “feared for my life” argument), what happens if someone in the crowd, in fear of their own life, shot the driver? I feel for any jury trying to unravel that knot.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2021, 06:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Which raises an interesting conundrum. In a state like Oklahoma, which has passed a law allowing drivers to drive into crowds of protestors (using the “feared for my life” argument), what happens if someone in the crowd, in fear of their own life, shot the driver? I feel for any jury trying to unravel that knot.
I think it always boils down to the same thing: can the survivor expect equal application of the law? The Ahmed Arbery case seems completely open and shut, right? Except that it took the video surfacing, public pressure building until things almost burst and three prosecutors (the first two resigned/recused themselves).

PS They created such a law in Oklahoma? WTF for?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2021, 12:01 PM
 
It was precipitated by an event where protesters blocked a pickup with a trailer in Tulsa, and the pickup pushed through.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2021, 01:56 PM
 
So drivers can challenge (liberal) protestors who block roads. Or otherwise inconvenience cars that don't want to hear their message.

I figure it will be repealed the first time it's used against a protest / assembly that conservatives approve of.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2021, 02:02 PM
 
Here’s the law:

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf...1674%20ENR.PDF

It’s section 2, bottom of page 2 to top of 3.

By my quick reading, what theoretically attempts to inject reasonableness into it is that the driver must be “exercising due care” at the moment of injury or death.

Taken on its face, they’re trying to design a legal framework where you can flee by slow-rolling it through protesters, but not by plowing into them.


Edit: I should also add the protest in question must meet the Oklahoma legal definition of a “riot”.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 30, 2021 at 02:27 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2021, 02:16 PM
 
By my reading, the solution to Thorzdad’s scenario hinges on the precise circumstances which lead the shooter being in fear for their life at the same time the driver was exercising due care.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:16 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,