Video emerges of Minneapolis police killing a citizen - - Riots

[mapuc]

An American has the right to defend them self. Are the rules when it comes to this self defend the same as in many other countries like Denmark and Sweden.

Here it says you are allowed to use so much force needed to pacify a person and not more.

Markus

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by August

Just what the prosecution wants. If those numbers are true and i have a hard time believing that a US Marshal would throw away his career like that, then hopefully the holdouts will be convinced to do the right thing by the others in the morning.



Meanwhile I just can't understand why the jury is not sequestered.

Apparently the defense has filed a moron to dismiss (mistrial with prejudice) because the State knowingly and purposely gave them a different version of the video evidence, which is prejudicial to the defendant's rights. That gave them a smaller filesize video with lower resolution than what they played at trial and then when confronted by the defense, have them the a larger file size video with higher resolution - 2 days after the evidence was closed. The judge needs to throw the case out and have Lunch Box and Littlebinger frog-marched to a cell.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

Apparently the defense has filed a moron to dismiss (mistrial with prejudice) ...

That's a new judicial action, is it?

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

So any self-declared private militia can grab their guns, travel to whatever they see fit and have a good time "defending" american values or what they think that is? While they just want some action, but not at home of course. What is the police and any official law enforcement for?

Way over simplified but yeah. Free country and all that.

To do private intentional riot tourism with a loaded half-automatic gun seems like a case of intentionally looking for action and trouble.

What self defense weapon would you pick instead? Personally I see the AR as a fine choice for several reasons.

What about some black 17-year-olds with guns, patrolling the streets in other cities than their own due to their right of free movement, to quench riots, how do (white) people look at that?

We had whole companies of them marching around last summer. This Person of a Lighter Shade for one is fine with it.

Pleading not guilty, not even a hint of self-doubt "I did nothing wrong, i was defending myself"?
If this "poor, harmless kid" gets out free i am sure we will hear of him again, probably after his next provocation.

Yeah yeah wishing ain't gonna make it so. The facts are that he was defending himself from people trying to kill him and in my country that is not wrong.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

That's a new judicial action, is it?

Well, my fat fingers aside, Lunchbox and Littlebinger *are* morons. The judge is now hearing how they purposely sent a different video to the defense than the one shown in court - the one piece of evidence that the whole prosecution is relying on. With indications of a "day of reckoning" for the State. The problem is the defense are decent people who just asked for a mistrial WITHOUT prejudice, rather than with prejudice. They need to recognize that the prosecutors aren't incompetent - they're evil and spiteful.

[Sean C]

Originally Posted by mapuc

An American has the right to defend them self. Are the rules when it comes to this self defend the same as in many other countries like Denmark and Sweden.

Here it says you are allowed to use so much force needed to pacify a person and not more.

Markus

It varies from state to state. Some states have what is known as "castle doctrine" (a man's home is his castle and he has every right to defend it). However, in some cases the property owner is required to retreat to a place of safety and only use deadly force when no other option is available.

Some states have a "stand your ground" law. This essentially means that deadly force can be used without retreating - as long as there is a reasonable fear for one's life or the life of other innocent people.

Still other states have neither of these laws and a person could get into a lot of trouble for using deadly force for any reason.

In any case it is usually a requirement that there was no other option and that the person had good reason to believe that their life was in imminent danger.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Sean C

It varies from state to state. Some states have what is known as "castle doctrine" (a man's home is his castle and he has every right to defend it). However, in some cases the property owner is required to retreat to a place of safety and only use deadly force when no other option is available.

Some states have a "stand your ground" law. This essentially means that deadly force can be used without retreating - as long as there is a reasonable fear for one's life or the life of other innocent people.

Still other states have neither of these laws and a person could get into a lot of trouble for using deadly force for any reason.

In any case it is usually a requirement that there was no other option and that the person had good reason to believe that their life was in imminent danger.

I think the video and testimony more than established that he met the threshold for use of deadly force in a self-defense situation. For Lunchbox to even state that he should have let them beat him before he fired would have dragged the deal for me as a juror. They want people to think that they aren't allowed to resist an angry leftist mob.

[August]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

I think the video and testimony more than established that he met the threshold for use of deadly force in a self-defense situation. For Lunchbox to even state that he should have let them beat him before he fired would have dragged the deal for me as a juror. They want people to think that they aren't allowed to resist an angry leftist mob.

Well it seems pretty clear cut to me too but if it's that way to the jury then why are they now going into day 3 of deliberations?

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by August

Well it seems pretty clear cut to me too but if it's that way to the jury then why are they now going into day 3 of deliberations?

Simple! meals are on the county!

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

...but the kid needs to go where they keep an eye on him until he turns 30. Where were the parents; not monitoring their 17 yr. old offspring trotting off to riots, mayhem and civil unrest with an AR-15!!?? The kid may O.J. the criminal beef but there's still the civil suits coming up; marionetted by circumcised $hyster$ as bad as the prosecutor...and mommy and daddy are liable.

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

My only criticism of this kid is he's too young to be involved in this kind of situation. Where were his parents? I'm all for defending property against the mob but he should have been studying algebra at home. There aren't enough 30-60 year olds in Wisconsin to handle this?

[August]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Simple! meals are on the county!

You know at first I thought this might be deliberate. Everyone was so ready for a fight that first night of deliberations and maybe they were trying to defuse the situation by not giving them the spark but it's getting close to the weekend and if that was their strategy it's not going to work out if they don't come back with a verdict by this morning.

[Catfish]

so it is about politics and strategy..
Does the judge have to accept what the jury says, does he have a veto right?

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

so it is about politics and strategy..
Does the judge have to accept what the jury says, does he have a veto right?

It probably varies from state to state. I have heard of such a thing though. I doubt that would happen here.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Catfish

so it is about politics and strategy..
Does the judge have to accept what the jury says, does he have a veto right?

It's rare but a judge can refute the verdict: IE: jury nullification or more properly: judgement non objecto verdicto: JNOV; but the reasoning must be clear cut, nonpolitical, and utterly lawful. This trial is a complete showcase farce. My ex D.A. wife says both attournys got 'mail order law degrees' and should be disbarred. My college buddy/best man & former LA criminal prosecutor, says the whole matter never should have gone to court. The motion for a mistrial over the undersized video (the copter FBI infra-red video)is ridiculous. So the defense had to squint a little harder! As I said before, a showcase knee-jerk trial. Good thing the National Guard is in position so two "less-than-well-ordered militias" don't do it again...

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Catfish

so it is about politics and strategy..
Does the judge have to accept what the jury says, does he have a veto right?

Judges can and do issue JNOVs where they can set aside the jury's verdict. The *big* thing is that, unlike some states, in Wisconsin, the jury is *not* involved in sentencing. They could find him guilty and the judge could set it aside out let it stand but sentence him to time served. Under the circumstances, there is no mandatory minimum sentence.