stagpanther
New member
We live in the golden age of making up whatever hooey we want to fit our agenda.
Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .
- Thread starter Metal god
- Start date
- Status
Nobody has made a claim to the contrary.
What you are calling the "Branca quote" was not a quote at all. Branca explicitly called it a "reasonable paraphrase".
You can disagree with his "reasonable paraphrase", but let's stop wasting effort on trying to find/contradict a quote that doesn't exist and was never claimed to exist.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/...ate-witness-richard-mcginnis-of-daily-caller/
linked article said:
stagpanther
New member
Sorry John, but if it walks like a lie and talks like a lie--it's probably a lie.
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you read what I posted? Because it doesn't seem like you did.
You can certainly disagree with Branca's paraphrase, his characterization of the exchange. You can even attempt to attribute a motive for why Branca might have constructed that paraphrase.
I am NOT arguing that Branca's paraphrase is accurate or making any assertions about his motivation in generating and posting that paraphrase on his blog.
What I'm saying is that it is incorrect to pretend that Branca or anyone else is claiming that's a quote from Binger or his "exact words".
And I'm saying that because it is true. You can look at the article yourself (link & quote provided) and verify that it is true.
Ironically, by mischaracterizing Branca's paraphrase as a quote, you are doing exactly what you accused him of doing. Putting words in someone else's mouth.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Reflexive statement?
Well aren’t we supposed to presume him not guilty . That’s how our justice system works innocent until proven guilty . I have yet to see anything to change my mind or to give me pause beyond a reasonable doubt .
I’ll add that I would need to go back and look at the charges and the jury instructions to be sure of my reasonable doubt belief . I think I’d also have to figure out what reckless means in this context because there is reckless in a lot of the charges . If it’s established that he was never asked to be there by the owners of the car lots and he did in fact inject himself where he was not wanted . Could that in itself be considered reckless ?
I’ll add that I would need to go back and look at the charges and the jury instructions to be sure of my reasonable doubt belief . I think I’d also have to figure out what reckless means in this context because there is reckless in a lot of the charges . If it’s established that he was never asked to be there by the owners of the car lots and he did in fact inject himself where he was not wanted . Could that in itself be considered reckless ?
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
A paraphrase that is explicitly acknowledged as being a paraphrase is a paraphrase, not a lie.stagpanther said:
Not applicable here, but a quotation from memory that is not remembered exactly correctly is a misquote, not a lie.
For a statement to be a lie, the speaker/writer must (a) know that the statement is untrue, AND (b) intend to mislead the listener/reader.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
If (and that is apparently subject to considerable debate) he was not asked to be there by the owners of that car lot, what if he was asked to be there by someone else? The fact that the owners of one particular car lot didn't specifically call up Kyle Rittenhouse and ask him -- personally -- to watch their car lot isn't evidence that he was not wanted there.Metal god said:
I fail to see how any of that speaks to the question of recklessness.
Just as a member of he peanut gallery, with no formal legal training, I would think that being asked or not, is not relevant to "reckless" and that unless specific actions are defined in the law as reckless then it will an opinion call, and that is ONE of the jury's functions.
Just for an example, suppose you are in a car wreck on a busy freeway. It could easily be argued that anyone stopping to help you is committing a reckless act. You didn't ask them for help, and they are putting their own personal safety at risk to help you. Someone who's not an EMT or Fireman (who help because its the job, besides being the right thing to do) putting themselves at risk or potential risk to stop your bleeding or get you out of a car (especially one on fire or about to be) is certainly "going in harm's way, unasked".
When people do that, the press almost never says "reckless" they say "selfless" and sometimes "heroic".
Why isn't this trial about "selfless" and "heroic"?? I think its because not only the prosecutor but also the mainstream press want a conviction, and so will not use language that might influence people against that. They are using language to influence people towards a "guilty" judgement.
That is the prosecutor's job, but its not the press's job. And while they always claim otherwise, from where I sit, it seems the mainstream media don't just do their job, they seem to delight in leading people to the conclusion the press desires.
Just note the uproar over the Judge's ruling about using the word "victim". I think he was right. And I found his reasoning (as stated in the press) to be valid. You can't have a crime victim unless there is a crime, and until there is a verdict in this case, there is no crime, and, depending on the verdict there may not be a crime.
just my opinion, and worth every bit of what you paid for it.
To the reckless question , I was asking a legit question so thanks for the feedback . I don’t know all the definitions to recklessness . I don’t know if it can be used in the way I may be suggesting . That’s why I would need to see the charges and the jury instructions as they pertain to each individual charge .
I guess my overall question is can your actions be considered reckless if you interject yourself into a situation you were not asked to be in . 44 makes a good point about stopping the car in the middle of the road to help even though you were not asked to be there . In that example which I think is a good one to discuss maybe . The selfless heroic person is not only putting himself in harms way but everybody else on the road . I believe that’s what makes it reckless it’s not that The person stopping the car to help is in harms way that makes it reckless it’s that all the subsequent things that can happen because of his reckless action that makes it reckless ???
I guess my overall question is can your actions be considered reckless if you interject yourself into a situation you were not asked to be in . 44 makes a good point about stopping the car in the middle of the road to help even though you were not asked to be there . In that example which I think is a good one to discuss maybe . The selfless heroic person is not only putting himself in harms way but everybody else on the road . I believe that’s what makes it reckless it’s not that The person stopping the car to help is in harms way that makes it reckless it’s that all the subsequent things that can happen because of his reckless action that makes it reckless ???
Based on the charges along with the links describing the legal definition of reckless . The fact Kyle was running away from each person that aggressively attacked him . Also the fact Kyle only firing a minimum amount of shots to stop each attack at the very last second possible . I don't find what he did as reckless at this time based on the evidence presented at trial to date .
I do not believe based on the charges and links describing reckless/ness . That Kyle simply being in those locations armed constitute recklessness as it is legally defined .
I do not believe based on the charges and links describing reckless/ness . That Kyle simply being in those locations armed constitute recklessness as it is legally defined .
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
The presence of law enforcement does not negate your right to self defense. But let's say law enforcement was 'on scene.' Did you see how they rushed right in and isolated combatants, made arrests, etc.? Nope. You know why? They weren't actually on scene. They were in the area, but not actually on scene.
As for being in the area, did you notice how when Rittenhouse approached the cops and people were following Rittenhouse and yelling he just shot people that the cops immediately went into action to stop the "shooter"? They may have been there, but not actually doing a whole lot unless they directly observed that they needed to do something.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Mainah said:
I can't say my opinion would be the same if I were an LEO. However, if I was, I would welcome any and all law abiding citizen lawfully carrying a weapon to be within my area of concern.
The county that I reside in employs deputies that welcome and advocate their residents to attain concealed carry permits. Their belief is the more law abiding residents they have doing so, the greater chance they have assistance nearby in case their situation is compromised. It isn't advocating vigilantism. Rather, it's to provide support to LEOs and anyone in need in the community. Too many times LEO lives have been compromised when innocent bystanders had no immediately effective means to aid in saving a life.
Chasing down and attacking a Man who is carrying an AR-15 is pretty flipping reckless.
There are a lot of places I do not go.Thats my choice.
Do I have any right to tell anyone THEY "should not be there"
I think we are all free to go to any public place. If someone says "We don't want you here" ...well Who the heck are you? What gives you he power?
KR has a First Amendment right,too.
There are a lot of places I do not go.Thats my choice.
Do I have any right to tell anyone THEY "should not be there"
I think we are all free to go to any public place. If someone says "We don't want you here" ...well Who the heck are you? What gives you he power?
KR has a First Amendment right,too.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status