- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: No Murder Charge for Robber Who Allegedly Shot Clerk Dead
Posted on 12/2/22 at 1:39 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 12/2/22 at 1:39 pm to AggieHank86
You are a liar.
You called young Rittenhouse a murderer.
You called young Rittenhouse a murderer.
1
Posted on 12/2/22 at 1:40 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
You called young Rittenhouse a murderer.
Hes autistic and cannot understand the meaning of things not in legal terms
He even fricked up the legal term
Posted on 12/2/22 at 1:58 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Here's the biggest problem for the prosecutor dismissing the case, especially the reason given for doing so....the prosecutor is telling us that had the clerk lived, he could have been charged with aggravated assault and/or attempted murder and murder if he had killed the robber. If the robber was acting in self-defense, that's saying the clerk was the primary aggressor and not within his rights to do what he did. So had he lived, we'd be looking at the robber getting off and the clerk who was robbed being charged with a class A felony. That is the justice system in California.
Posted on 12/2/22 at 2:20 pm to ProjectP2294
quote:Indeed.
Seems like this is something the jury should decide, not the prosecutor.
But tell that to the Keltner family, after Doloff murdered Lee Keltner
Tell it to Ashli Babbitt's after her murder in the Capitol.
Justice is not impartial. (D)ifferent cases are (D)ealt with (D)ifferently
Posted on 12/2/22 at 4:17 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:A “true believer” in the positions that I actually argue? Yes
I tend to not post in the threads where I agree with the majority, because it is boring.quote:
Which is why youre in every tranny/child, or pedo thread. You're a true believer.
In the hystrical, histrionic hyperbole that you people attribute to me? No
Example of actual position
A parent should get to decide whether his or her child has a story read to the child by a man wearing a dress.
Hysterical histrionic hyperbole
“Reeeeee!!! You support trannies diddling little kids!!! Reeeee!!”
On and on it goes, on issue after issue. You people clutch your pearls so tightly that one wonders how you’re able to breathe.
This post was edited on 12/2/22 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 12/2/22 at 4:25 pm to dafif
quote:Your experience is clearly limited. You see “grooming“ where none exists. I suspect that you also see scary monsters under your bed.
If you look closely, you’ll see that I only participate in maybe 10 or 15% of threads.quote:
Interesting observations… they appear to all be in support of grooming by my experience
I tend to participate in threads related to interesting legal issues.
For the most part, the posters on this forum are Statists to the core of their being, with a strong desire to impose their mores upon those who do not share them.
I tend to me more an “individual rights” kind of guy.
Posted on 12/2/22 at 4:56 pm to AggieHank86
well I can tell you that if it were my family member that was killed, that guy would be a dead man walking!
Posted on 12/2/22 at 5:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:so he was a murderer according to you. No trial. No presumption of innocence. No further questions.
responded, somewhat sarcastically, “because he committed a murder?“
Posted on 12/2/22 at 5:02 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Interesting from a peds-psych perspective.
A parent should get to decide whether his or her child has a story read to the child by a man wearing a dress.
So IYO, what are the limits, and why?
Staged S&M w/ no nudity?
Straight strip shows?
Tranny strip shows?
R-rated movies?
X-rated movies?
XXX-rated movies?
Attending NAMBLA meetings?
Or do you just prefer parental limits to kids being subjected to induced gender confusion?
Posted on 12/2/22 at 5:04 pm to UncleFestersLegs
I said that he killed two people, that he was legally justified and that he would not be convicted.
How is this confusing?
How is this confusing?
Posted on 12/2/22 at 5:08 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Depending upon local law, I can see an argument that his fleeing the scene might mean that the crime of theft was complete and that the shots fired at him as he was fleeing become a separate attempted assault by the clerk. If so, self-defense WOULD perhaps come into play. Barry?
So now we are treating murder like the continuation foul rule in the NBA. Sounds like proper moral baseline to continue running a 1st world country.
Posted on 12/2/22 at 5:10 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
IF the original felony is defined as being complete, he would not have still been engaged in a felony when he fired the shots.
This is getting lost in the word weeds.
Posted on 12/2/22 at 5:12 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I said that he killed two people,
quote:your words counselor
he committed a murder
Posted on 12/2/22 at 5:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Should be felony murder
But this is a great reminder to not shoot criminals running away from you
There are definitely some lessons to be learned, but that isn't one.
Posted on 12/2/22 at 5:44 pm to ItNeverRains
quote:those sorts of distinctions have formed the basis for Anglo American law for about four centuries.
Sounds like proper moral baseline to continue running a 1st world country.
Posted on 12/2/22 at 5:52 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Wait. Sorry. Let's not limit this to Wisconsin.
I responded, somewhat sarcastically, “because he committed a murder?“
In what state (or country) is self-defense referred to as "murder"?
Posted on 12/2/22 at 6:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:You are really getting wrapped around the axle on semantics.
In what state (or country) is self-defense referred to as "murder"?
State laws vary in a lot of ways.
In some states, the crime is defined as “murder,“ and in other states it is defined as “homicide“ (both usually of varying degrees).
In most states, the elements of the crime (whether it is called “murder“ or “homicide“) are essentially the “intentional killing of another person.”
In every jurisdiction, self defense is an “affirmative defense“ which must be pleaded by the defendant.
If it is pleaded by the defendant, the burden of proof varies from state to state. Sometimes the state must disapprove the affirmative defense. Sometimes, the defendant must prove that it is applicable.
In both types of jurisdiction, however, the entire legal basis for an affirmative defense is an admission of the underlying offense, but establishing that the defendant’s actions were legally justified by the circumstances.
In the Rittenhouse case, the defendant did commit a “murder” or a “homicide,” but would not be convicted of the offense due to the justified nature of his actions.
Yes, that seems contrary to the way a lay person looks at the matter. I understand that. I have said that 1000 times. But, legally, that is the way it works.
This post was edited on 12/2/22 at 6:18 pm
Posted on 12/2/22 at 6:21 pm to AggieHank86
quote:quote:In some states, the crime is defined as “murder,“
In what state (or country) is self-defense referred to as "murder"?
In what states is self-defense referred to as "the crime"?
Posted on 12/2/22 at 7:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:murder and homicide aren't interchangeable.
In the Rittenhouse case, the defendant did commit a “murder” or a “homicide
This post was edited on 12/2/22 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 12/2/22 at 7:16 pm to NC_Tigah
Are you being intentionally obtuse? I know that my communication skills are far better than you seem to be pretending.
The offense is defined in some states, as “murder“ and in other states has “homicide.“ In Texas, for instance, Rittenhouse would have been charged with “murder,“ rather than whatever homicide offense it is that he was charged with in Wisconsin.
In other words, the “unlawfully“ language that you (as a layperson) associate with the word “murder“ is NOT a part of the legal definition.
The “unlawful“ concept comes into play in the… wait for it… affirmative defenses.
An individual can violate section 19.02, but still not be convicted of a crime if he is able to establish a legal justification for his actions.
The offense is defined in some states, as “murder“ and in other states has “homicide.“ In Texas, for instance, Rittenhouse would have been charged with “murder,“ rather than whatever homicide offense it is that he was charged with in Wisconsin.
quote:That is what Rittenhouse DID, and the statute does NOT contain all the caveats that you see in Mirriam Webster (“the crime of unlawfully killing a person”).
Sec. 19.02. MURDER.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
In other words, the “unlawfully“ language that you (as a layperson) associate with the word “murder“ is NOT a part of the legal definition.
The “unlawful“ concept comes into play in the… wait for it… affirmative defenses.
An individual can violate section 19.02, but still not be convicted of a crime if he is able to establish a legal justification for his actions.
quote:
Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE.
It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(a) … a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
This post was edited on 12/2/22 at 7:34 pm
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News