Maybe i am a bad person but I don't see why it would be such an imposition for the law to simply say 'such overt and obvious provocations cannot then be used in a claim of self defense'. Perhaps then it is treated more like two people willfully fighting and one beating the other to death and the type of charge they would face.

Do you think the 'Fire' in a crowded theatre is a bad one and if not, why do you not think such similar logic could apply where the law considers the foreseeable intent of your actions?

The problem is that there is a lot of gray area. Few situations in the real world would resemble my St. Louis street corner scenario. I'll give you an example.

I know an old guy who lives in Florida. He is a self-avowed gun nut. He is a huge right-derper. If you believe him, he is dying for someone to break into his home so he can avail himself of Florida's stand your ground law. I think that he would get pleasure from shooting a home invader. But he isn't going to do anything nearly as provocative as count thousands of dollars in cash on a crime ridden street corner. But man oh man is he keen for someone to try and invade his home.

He reminds me of this:

Properly instructed juries, I think can and do deal with grey areas.

For instance I think a grey area that should be fairly easy to deal with would be if you saw an announcement that there was a protest action where some major city streets were being blocked and via GPS data the jury was presented with the facts that these individuals had an agreement they talked about on line that they would immediate get themselves in the midst of the protests in their vehicles and then if surrounded and feeling threatened they would proceed to run over protesters and kill any that tried to stop them.


Those same actions may be found to be self defense and stand your ground worthy if the person was just accidentally caught up in the area (drove out of their office parking and Oops) but not self defense when the person can be shown to have purposefully put themselves in those spots to then act.

I think I have provided two very clear instances that the law could fairly easily distinguish between and juries would then be able to examine and determine all the grey in between and which side it falls more to.

Or do you think even in the clearest of instances (my example 1) it is still tough for a law to provide any definition?

And by tough, I am not speaking to the political climate currently where it is tough to get any agreement. I am speaking more to an academic legal consideration of 'balancing freedoms with responsibilities' which is how I believe the 'Fire in a Theatre' laws came in to being. A clear Violation to the right of Free Speech. A clear violation of the concept that one person is not responsible for the actions of another person. But balanced by an understanding that persons purposefully taken actions can be taken into account and considered criminal by looking at the 'Predictable Outcome', and produce a Guilty verdict even when the actions alone and taken on their face are legal.

Hi, stupid Canadian here not sure how the case is looking right now.

But in theory someone who killed two people with an AR is usually 100% guilty, but twitter lawyers seem to think the odds arent 100%.

What are the current guilty/not-guilty odds you think right now?

Holy crap they put the defendant on the stand to testify. Don't think this is a smart move at all.

I don't think you can make a valid case that you were in immediate fear for you life just because peaceful protestors surround you. That's going to be something that would need to play out if it happened but can a state allow the standard to be so low ? There certainly would be unintended legal consequences once precedents were set.

Society IMO is going thru a stage where the Elite feel frustrated that they do not have adequate measures to push back the voices of Injustice that are demanding and getting some concessions for change.

In the past they would literally send in the jack booted thug police to beat down and disperse the protestors no matter how just the cause so that the issue could be left on the back burner and not dealt with. 'Status Quo' protected!

Society has decided such measures are not acceptable now and as such we see the elites allowing for and turning a blind eye to White supremist and other such groups who are happy to fight for the status quo instead becoming the jack booted thug police from days gone by. They are allowing them to act as a proxy and they intellectualize reasons why they cannot act against them , even if they dislike the face of them, because they like the results they get.

Just as the Texas abortion law was a way to get around the law and intellectualized to be something 'we cannot stop' by Texas elites, so to is are these expanding acceptance and protections of vigilante type enforcement something they hope can intimidate future protestors to stay home. They know if they can silence the peaceful protest on the sidelines (kneeling during the national anthem) and they can silence the peaceful protests in the streets (send in trucks to run them over) then the issue will not be aired to the masses and the Status Quo is protected and no change needs to happen.

I absolutely think it is foreseeable in Florida that at some big protest in the near future we will see a bunch of vehicles deliberately driven in amongst the crowds and then if/when protestors move to block the vehicles (deliberately or just by continuing their march and thus filling the road around them blocking their path) that with any perceived provocations (someone hits the vehicle damaging it) that we will see a mass casualty event. Numerous protestors run over and killed.

What happens to society if that is a peaceful George Floyd type protest and the guys running over the citizens get let off because the law allows for that? How big of a new protest do you think that spawns when protestors perceive the gov't has declared open season on them for protesting?

Is it a stretch to see then many within the protest movements arming themselves to defend against proactively against such future deaths via being run over in the future?

I think the escalation is obvious and almost certain and the law will be forced to engage it one way or the other eventually. The question is 'can they do it proactively'?

In today's climate, maybe not.

I would have bet him 90% to walk but then the below news was just reported and i think a good prosecutor might move it to 50/50 now.

That is ludicrously bad lawyering if true.

I cannot see what he can say that the jury should not already be inferring ('he felt threatened' etc) but if his testimony opens the door to the Prosecutor getting a chance to delve in to his motivations and his embrace currently from known white supremist and hanging out with them and being treated like a hero and the money he has raised from such groups, it could be a real disaster for him.

I think it is fairly predictable that if someone perceived to be a Dixiecrat type southern purposely positions his jacked up pickup truck in the path the protestors must pass by or abandon their approach and that vehicle then becomes surrounded by passerby's, some of the passerby's will begin banging and perhaps even damaging the vehicle.

I think with his road forward or back barred, some horn blasts and shouts to clear the way, and the mounting damage and view that if the vehicle is disabled I am then at the mercy of a crowd already attacking my vehicle, that the person would have a good case for self defense as they plowed over the people.

And it would be a valid case to say they were at risk in that moment, just as Rittenhouse as in the moment he shot the others.

So the question again becomes can we treat purposely courted and intended and desired risk differently??

It's going to be a hung jury.

Prosecutor going full character assassination right now. You bought this gun because it looks like a gun from Call of Duty. You kill people in Call of Duty!

The prosecutor's cross until now was mere incompetence, but this is going off the rails now.


The kid is doing alright on the stand; he has an air of naive credibility. I wish all my witnesses would testify as well as this guy.

I am not a criminal lawyer, but I would assume that a defendant is more likely to testify when the defendant's entire case is that he acted in self-defense.

This was not a surprise. Rittenhouse's lawyers told the jury in opening statements that they would hear directly from the defendant. You don't make that sort of promise to a jury unless you are 100% certain that you are putting your client on the stand.

I didn't hear the opening, so it was a surprise to me.

This prosecutor is really on the cusp of causing a mistrial.

It's amusing to think about how "Big Data" might affect things like this in the future. The Call of Duty angle is dumb, but if you couple it with spicy in-game chat logs...

Can your online rantings be used against you in a court of law?

Ahhh i did not know that.

Seems foolish to put that out before seeing if the Prosecution could make its case.

I have not followed the trial directly but all the talking head legal experts I have seen opine said they struggled to see the Prosecution had made their case and felt Rittenhouse was in a good position and they did not expect him to take the stand for that reason saying you never want your client a chance to make the case the Prosecution could not.

I just put it on in the background and think there will likely be lots of grounds for appeal or mistrial for both sides.

I think the prior video suggestion I posted by the ex Prosecutor and Law Professor that this judge is trying to micromanage the trial is correct. And while that may not be a bad thing by default I think if not done perfectly and you end up disallowing things that should have been allowed a mistrial or appeal becomes much easier.

your boy rittenhouse shot someone because he saw the guy with a gun. if that's not "hyperventilating and panicing[sic]" then i'm not sure what is.

eta- this is also amusing considering every cop ever put on trial has said "well i saw a gun so i FEARED and shot him.." should every single one of those cops leave the situation of being a cop? i assume you were fully on board with convicting everysingle one of them.

how big of a f up was it for the prosecutor to screw up the 5th amendment stuff like that? can he be disbarred?

I didn't listen to the opening, but I heard a talking head say yesterday that the Rittenhouse's lawyers had told the jury that they should expect to hear from Rittenhouse. I assume that was teased in the opening.

One reason that defense lawyers avoid putting their clients on the stand is that many defendants are terrible witnesses. I assume that Rittenhouse's lawyers have concluded that he will hold up decently under cross-examination. That's a little surprising given Rittenhouse's age, but I guess it's possible.

How so?

It's impossible to know at this point whether it is even a mistake.

For this sort of strategic decision? Definitely not.

Well, that and they're usually factually guilty.

i assume he's talking about the fact that the prosecutor was bringing up how kyle was actually using deadly force to protect property. like every sane person can intuit. but the judge had previously declined to allow that line of questioning, so the judge excused the jury to admonish the prosecutor.