Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I've never seen a fat doctor, but I've seen fat lawyers. I don't think they're the ones with coke.

Doctors don’t need to get illegal drugs to get high though. 
 

As for lawyers, booze is by far the preferred drug. With coke probably a distant second along with weed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are wrong.  See if you can figure out how I know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

You have yet to articulate a single argument that supports this position other than claiming it is obvious and everyone agrees with you when in fact everyone disagrees because everyone besides you seems to know what a conflict of interest is. At this point you are just talking because you like to hear yourself talk.

This will probably get me a time out for doxxing a poster, but fuck it.  I ran into @Anastasis at a West Campus bar tonight, and surreptitiously snapped this:

NOW HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES - YouTube

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty funny seeing which of the lawyers here are particularly triggered by a discussion of ethics and financial conflict of interest. 

I mean….other than the fact that nobody here has seen any discussion of any “financial conflict of interest” yet. Your solo ipse dixit declaration isn’t a “discussion.” Embarrassingly inept mental masturbation, yes. Discussion? No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are wrong.

Yes.  I have been told to be over my skis by you and JimmyJames, and Brisket, and wildcat, and DA, and a number of others on a number of occasions, with unflinching conviction, only for you to be demonstrably wrong time and time again. Mostly cause you/y'all are incapable of paying attention. But maybe this time is different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anastasis said:

Yes.  I have been told to be over my skis by you and JimmyJames, and Brisket, and wildcat, and DA, and a number of others on a number of occasions, with unflinching conviction, only for you to be demonstrably wrong time and time again. Mostly cause you/y'all are incapable of paying attention. But maybe this time is different. 

God damn you are a fucking easy mark.

Quote

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.

Now, work with me here.  How would I know with 100% certainty that your statement is false?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have to admit, it's fascinating to see someone take on any and all comers in a profession that is specifically trained to argue.

Sheriff Ed Tom Bell: These people will kill Anastasis, Carla Jean. They won't quit.
Carla Jean Moss: He won't neither. He never has. Anastasis, he can take all comers.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

God damn you are a fucking easy mark.

I think that the post stands well in it's totality. 

 

2 hours ago, TDunk said:

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.  That's why we carve out certain legal proceedings explicitly from such arrangements, because they create obvious ethical conflicts where the ethical principle of Justice is paramount.  Now I guess that if you want to argue that there are a vast majority of legal proceedings where the principle of Justice is not really paramount, or that there are situations where other ethical principles (maybe Automony, Equal access, etc,) should be over weighted, those might be reasonable points to consider.  Seems like Justice should always get a strong shake though, given how closely our society depends on the legal system to effect it.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The young man should walk, and I'm totally fine with trusting the jury.  I hope Kenosha feels the same way.  Hope 35% of our nation feels the same way about other cases.  

But let's be honest...it's a bummer he won't serve any jail time because the care packages/letters sent to him by Johnny Sack and Anastasis would have been epic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Based on the last 2 pages, I’m a bit intrigued as well. 

Just a formality, plugging the CPAP into the reader every couple years.

 

Not like a real life JimmyJames' parents make him wear a helmet every time he goes outside neurological assessment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ana is demonstrating what may be occurring in the jury room, with Ana portraying what negative jury nullification looks like when deliberating.

For a dramatic glimpse at positive jury nullification, see 12 Angry Men, with Henry Fonda using the threat of jury nullification. He encourages other jurors to ignore the mob (in and outside the jury deliberation room).

Juries play the vital role in the delivery of criminal justice. 

If a juror wants to bring home jury instructions, that's a good sign they are doing homework and reading the material the night before so deliberations pick up the next day. Smart. I am surprised it was allowed, but the judge appears to have trust in this jury. 

On to the movies . . .

 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.

Based on what I saw in the trial, I don't think the prosecution even came close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt this was anything other than self defense.  Not sure what is taking the jury so long to come back with a verdict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Maybe it's because after sitting through the entire trial they disagree with you. 

You might be right, Or, maybe, due to how our society works today, they fear the repurcussions of setting this kid free even if they feel he is not guilty, which should not be part of the decision making...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.

Name one such situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Name one such situation. 

At least two situations.

First, the more recent American Revolution, which followed the British government's attempt to disarm the colonists.

Second, the British legal history's own support of citizen militias.

I say this as someone who does not believe that the founders intended for an unconditional and unregulated right to bear arms.

Edited by South Austin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.
Based on what I saw in the trial, I don't think the prosecution even came close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt this was anything other than self defense.  Not sure what is taking the jury so long to come back with a verdict.

They were actually more concerned about slave uprisings than a new tyrannical government, so same same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...