Takashi Miike
6:28 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
they (the media) protect their own, he's already done the obligatory crying interview with the abc government asset. he'll be lined up for an oscar by 2025
|
Far Cough
6:28 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Yeah, I've used .303 dummy rounds in a Lee Enfield rifle and Bren Gun in the army cadets, they were painted red and silver
I've also fired blanks at the army range in Thetford
|
mashed in maryland
6:23 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Dummy rounds are usually brightly coloured. I mean you could just paint them normal bullet colour. As I said, its mental that no ones thought up a better way of doing it, considering the risks of fucking about with live ammo.
|
Mike Oxsaw
6:22 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
They can CGI Jabba the Hutt, an army of Orcs in Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter's flying car but can't do the same for a bullet fired from a gun?
Hmmmm. Sounds like a load of ballistics to me.
|
Far Cough
6:11 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Mashed, yeah blanks are missing the bullet but dummy rounds look the same as live rounds, they could have used those
|
Far Cough
6:08 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
I don't know that and she doesn't know that but you have to assume he's in control of the vehicle in fact a lot of PDs have policies that stop you using deadly force on someone who is in control of their vehicle
|
Hermit Road
5:57 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Fifth,
The comparison with Baldwin didn’t come out of nowhere. A few posters have said that she killed someone so needs to pay the price. Based on that logic, Baldwin has to get sent down.
As for his foot being on the gas FC, how do you know that she knew that?
As I said originally I understand that she could be guilty of something, I think it is a stretch that she should be guilty of manslaughter and she shouldn’t do a day in prison.
Just for some perspective, Wright permanently disabled a man mentally and physically by shooting him in the head, he also beat his girlfriend senseless and pointed a gun at her head. He wasn’t in prison. It’s a fucked up system that sees her do more time than him.
|
mashed in maryland
5:53 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Far Cough 5:16 Fri Dec 24
I wondered that.
Turns out they use live ammo for scenes involving revolvers as blanks are instantly recognisable.
Similar happened with Brandon Lee.
Genuinely baffled me that there isn't a safer way of making a gun look loaded!!
As for Baldwin, its not just cos he's producer, its pretty much rule #1 among gun types that if you're holding it, its YOUR responsibility.
|
nychammer
5:35 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
have wonder whether Trayvon Shaw and Elliot Knox will receive a trial by media for ambushing a Baltimore Cop last week.
Dosent fit the media narrative so very much doubt it
|
Far Cough
5:16 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Fifth, as producer, Baldwin was ultimately responsible on set
The question should be, how the fuck live ammo got onto the set in the first place
|
Far Cough
5:13 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Apart from the fact she shot him while he had his foot on the gas thereby sending an out of control vehicle which ended up smashing into an elderly couple's car and injuring them, it was reckless due the fact she shot into the car while another cop was leaning in on the passenger side, she could have shot the copper as well, it was reckless all round
|
Fifth Column
5:09 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
And Hermit the comparison to Baldwin is ludicrous in relation to his direct actions on the basis he thought the gun was unloaded and didn't even mean to shoot it.
Whether anyone else is responsible from the film company for "corporate manslaughter" type offence I don't know - you'd think they'd have clear guidelines to follow and it appears those weren't followed so is someone responsible for that mistake on set, legally? I don't know.
|
Fifth Column
5:06 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Hermit
Firstly, in relation to the US case, legal commentary stated throughout that intent to cause unlawful harm of any kind did not need to be proven. The defence's case was it was a mistake and we don't punish mistakes. The prosecution's case was that it doesn't matter that it was a mistake as it was reckless. I can't comment in detail on US law beyond what I watched and read of the trial.
In English law I was referring to the intent to kill which is exactly what you're talking about ie if you don't have the intent to kill then it can't be murder. Therefore if you recklessly kill someone with an act that you know is likely to cause bodily harm then you are guilty of manslaughter even without the intent.
Having said this, there are actually two types of manslaughter charge in English law based on the 1957 Homicide Act and the 2009 Justice Act. One requires an act likely to cause bodily harm that ends up in death so requires some intent.
The other is manslaughter by gross negligence. This requires no intent at all. So again you can be found guilty of manslaughter with no intent whatsoever.
Would a copper get done for manslaughter in the same situation in England? Deaths in custody have been prosecuted for manslaughter by gross negligence so I am speculating that a copper could get done in the same scenario.
|
mashed in maryland
5:01 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Don't think I've seen ANYONE defend Duante Wright on here
|
Mike Oxsaw
5:00 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Daunte Wright and George Floyd are clearly the only (ONLY) victims here.
They probably didn't get all they wanted for Christmas when they were 7 or 8 years old and that so traumatised them that they ended up as they did.
Their families and anybody who knows how to spell their name should immediately be handed everything any white man or woman owns - and if that's not enough, everything owned by anyone in America of Chinese, Indian, Arab or native American descent - Especially those selfish free loading native Americans with their reservations and stuff.
|
mashed in maryland
4:57 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
5th/Hermit
A very cynical take would be she KNEW she had the gun in her hand cos she wanted to kill him but shouted "taser taser taser" to make it look like an accident......
(I'm not suggesting this btw, just saying how impossible proving intent would be)
IMO it was deadly negligence/incompetence and she deserves lifing off. These people shouldn't be making these mistakes. It undermines the whole system. I'm not "anti police", just if society gives them such power then they also need full responsibility. Think that's totally reasonable.
|
nychammer
4:46 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
She made a bad mistake when confronted by a dangerous criminal. Feel bad for her and shes clearly distraught and remorseful - totally different from the Chauvin situation. Bad mistake, never the less and she'll pay for it.
Police are put under the microscope and have to get it right when they have already been derided and defunded, must be thankless task when faced with the increasing number of brazen armed gang bangers roaming our cities.
Cannot stand those glorifying criminals like Daunte Wright and George Floyd, they need to take a look at themselves.
|
Hermit Road
4:31 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
The presence or absence of intent does matter when it comes to the difference between manslaughter and murder but not in the way you think Fifth.
Intent has to be present in both, with murder though you had to intend to kill whereas with manslaughter whilst your intention was to commit a crime, it wasn’t your intent to kill someone.
Regarding intent of course you can’t read minds and you don’t need to. You look at what happened and try and weigh whether there was an intention or not.
No doubt you would all send Baldwin down for life too.
|
Fifth Column
4:28 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
MiM
I generally agree with you. I would just say though that "prove" in a legal sense means "prove beyond reasonable doubt". It's true that you can never prove intent 100% unless someone explicitly says "I intended to do X".
But there are multiple ways you can prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Witness statements, CCTV, clearly planned actions... all indicate intent.
Though in this case it's irrelevant anyway as the prosecution were not seeking to prove intent, they were just seeking, effectively, to prove recklessness leading to death ie manslaughter.
|
Far Cough
4:28 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
He wasn't shot in the head, he was shot in the chest
|
mashed in maryland
4:02 Fri Dec 24
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse trial
|
Few things...
"Intent" imo is literally impossible to prove or disprove because humans cannot read minds. All a jury/trial/testimony can do is take a guess based on evidence.
Secondly if someone paid you to drill a hole in a wall and you came back with a kango and smashed it down, the fact that the homeowner was a cunt or the wall was old anyway is no defence.
Thirdly, plod need to be held to the highest of standards. They're given the right to kill citizens if they feel its appropriate along with loads of other god-like powers we don't have. If they fuck up on it, they need punishing.
|
| 
