Dumb question, and I’m sure it’s been asked a thousand times, but what good does telling the jury to disregard something do? If anything, it backfires and further implants the notion in their head (Streisand Effect.) You can’t tell someone not to think something, any more than my telling you right now “Don’t think about a blue apple” will make you not visualize a blue apple. You may make the jury pretend to disregard it but it could still play a role in their decision making.
Kenosha riots were of the left and by the left. The left hypocrisy in this situation is at least an order of magnitude greater than the norm and is only surpassed by the magnitude of willful doublethink.
All the anger and vitriol directed at Rittenhouse originates precisely from the fact that the presence of citizenry that can deter politically motivated and tolerated violence throws a wrench in the utility of said violence for radical political change.
Even the language used to describe events that occur on different parts of the political spectrum are telling of the overwhelming bias not just in theses forums but in radical-adjacent institutions such as the media.
They are not confused. You must realize by now that words and concepts have no objective meaning when it comes to this sort of discussion. They are merely tools to be used in any way possible to achieve a desired outcome.
And juries are almost always given a standardized instruction. The judge doesn’t typically craft their own. The judge does decide which ones apply, and sometimes might tweak an instruction if it’s needed under the particular circumstances.
By the way, according to Reuters, the jury will be instructed on provocation – that is, whether Rittenhouse provoked the attack.
You might want to at least look up what provocation means in a legal sense. It’s typically used as a potential mitigation for one charged with a crime.
That’s really clear:
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another - it is not a right
purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference - reasonably believes to be unlawful
may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself - reasonably believes such force is necessary
The LEGAL BAR is the judgement ‘reasonably believes’ by a 17 year old kid
Of course self defense is a right. It falls under the concept of natural rights.
Jesus Christ no it isn’t. It’s called the reasonable person standard. It’s not what Kyle Rittenhouse thinks is reasonable.
Crane who has repeatedly said blatantly incorrect things about American law and jurisprudence, very basic things, then calls a common element of self-defense instructions a “trope.” You may want to actually read up more on self-defense law before you continue to share your thoughts on it.
In addition to the threat being imminent, both self-defense and defense of others require that the fear that caused the criminal defendant to act with force was reasonable. This means that fear is assessed according to the reasonable-person standard, which asks what an ordinary and reasonable individual would do under the circumstances. Thus, for instance, a defendant may have been threatened by a man holding a toy gun and responded by assaulting or harming the man. If a “reasonable man” would also have believed that the toy gun was a real threat and have responded with fear as well, the defendant’s actions will likely be considered self-defense.
Not according to the law as quoted by Loach
The prosecutor ask why he got the AK. After a few responses Rittenhouse responded he only got it to look cool, i.e. not for hunting or target-practice.
It’s not an absolute standard. It is what the person (a 17 year old kid) believes.
Hey, all I know is your quote.
It doesn’t say what you think it’s saying. All it is saying is that self defense is an affirmative defense allowed by law.
Then you don’t understand the quote. At all.
The word used is specifically privilege
It’s unreasonable to expect anyone to quote the entirety of the legal code and the philosophical concepts that it’s derived from. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist in the United States. Now, as this trial being prosecuted and the majority of riots not being prosecuted demonstrates is that the real crime is more abstract and that is we have a radical movement that wants to change the fundamental axioms and logical conclusions which in part includes the legal code and the utilization or threat of utilization of natural rights is problematic to that. This is why we see the trouble the Missouri attorneys got into. This is why the language, efforts, prosecution, and punishment of the mostly peaceful capitol protest is so drastically different compared to the response to months long riots. These cases aren’t occurring in a vacuum. They are now part of politics.
Oh, then please enlighten me
It specifically refers to the mental state of the persons involved.
It’s a fancy word for allowed. Good lord.
Yes and you are making it abundantly clear that you do not want to understand legal definitions which are sometimes much different than plain English. Anyone who knows anything about the law knows exactly what to think when a statute uses a word like “reasonable.” You are refusing to understand because you want it to mean something else. You can have whatever personal definition you want but decades of caselaw disagree with you.