quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
The other DA is now saying that guns aren’t “handed” ie left or right handed…

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
...if Kyle is convicted then no citizen is safe to defend himself with deadly force, instead having to analyze fleeting circumstances to satisfy the legal class.

Umm...no. I don't know what they do in UT, but that "no citizen" nonsense ain't happening in a lot of places.

My perspective is based on the nature of progressivism. All they need is a precedent established and they work from there. You and I may be safe where we are now, but when the Left changes the culture far enough and in enough States then our safe sense is left vulnerable. I’m done with it. No more progress toward captivity in a pseudo free country. Not one more step.

Sounds like a defeatist mentality to me. Oh that's the way it is. It's gonna happen anyway. I get it. There are times I feel that way, too. But, I came to my sense. Freedom, liberty and the right to self preserve are worth fighting tooth and nail with these commies for. And dying for. They take a mile, we take back two.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
If the Jury returned something stupid, would it be too late for the Judge to declare a Mistrial with Prejudice or a miscarriage of justice ? In the case of a miscarriage of justice ruling, could Rittenhouse be retried ?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
wouldn't those same arguments apply to the people he shot?

Yes, and it’s something we could ask ourselves, but it’s not a good idea to raise them as a defense. By saying, “Well, those guys shouldn’t have been there either,” it legitimizes the entire “He shouldn’t have been there” argument, and the shootees aren’t on trial. We don’t have to have a reason to be anywhere it’s legal to be, and it’s no different than the, “Why do you need a gun?” assault on our rights. I don’t have to have a reason to need a gun; it’s my right without a reason. On a level that perhaps more people can understand (women, anyway), it’s the same as asking why a rape victim was someplace she “shouldn’t” have been or why was she wearing “provocative” clothes.

“He had no reason …” is an illegitimate argument and should be treated as such. That said, I fully realize that short of the judge smacking it down and preventing its even being raised, it’s something the prosecution can get away with. But wrong or not, if someone like a juror is thinking about it, trying to push it back on the guys who were shot can backfire: “Yeah, nobody should have been there, including the accused.”

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
His team has no choice but "to push it back on the guys who were shot". They have to change those guys from victims to instigators.

quote:

He was pretty brutal there and I was surprised to hear him say, "and I'm glad he did".