Rittenhouse Trial

[wilberforce15]

Did they act in an orderly fashion? Running a man down who MAY have done something wrong, resulting in his death because they weren't trained professionals doesn't sound orderly to me. Years ago I stayed at my mother's for awhile. I walked my dog every night and about a week into doing that, in a country neighborhood, a deputy sheriff pulled along side of me and started quizzing me about someone's pickup in the area being messed with. Told him I was walking my dog, off leash out in the country, lived right around the corner, was out there every night. After trying several times to get me to say something that might incriminate me he drove on. Having seen one guy step outside with his pistol and glare at me that week I have wondered what would've happened if armed neighbors who didn't like me walking up and down the road for whatever reason had taken upon themselves to confront and detain me? People who aren't used to such situations and are emotionally hyped up may make irreparable mistakes. Leave law enforcement to professionals and control your fantasies of glory.

So you're scared of this doctrine because nothing happened to you?

Seriously?

 

[vantexan]

Irony:

Judicial supremacy is what's not in the constitution.

The judges are not the last say in the matter. And the supreme court doesn't make law or give the final determination what is constitutional. The courts usurped that power.

The Supreme Court doesn't give the final determination of what's constitutional? You keep telling me I need to read something but apparently you haven't read the Constitution.

 

[wilberforce15]

The Supreme Court doesn't give the final determination of what's constitutional? You keep telling me I need to read something but apparently you haven't read the Constitution.

Yeah, that's literally not in the constitution.

It didn't exist until the supreme court granted itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.

 

[vantexan]

So you're scared of this doctrine because nothing happened to you?

Seriously?

I'm scared of ignorant yahoos whose guns are extensions of their penises running around trying to prove how manly they are. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[wilberforce15]

I scared of ignorant yahoos whose guns are extensions of their penises running around trying to prove how manly they are. Is that clear enough for you?

Your entire supposed problem was theoretical in what somebody might have done. And a sheriff talked to you and let you go. The system worked well.

If one of the country boys confronts you, suspects you, and calls the sheriff, it's very easy.

Politely wait for the sheriff. Then he'll arrest or release you. This is not hard. It's not dangerous until YOU decide to make it dangerous.

 

[vantexan]

Yeah, that's literally not in the constitution.

It didn't exist until the supreme court granted itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.

That gave Federal courts that power. The Supreme Court already had that power but after their Marbury vs. Madison ruling lower courts were able to strike down laws and statutes they deemed unconstitutional. Those rulings can still be appealed to higher courts, ultimately to the Supreme Court, which may choose to rule on the lower court's decision or not. The Supreme Court always had the power constitutionally to make such rulings. Nice try.

 

[wilberforce15]

These Georgia guys were unbelievably patient and controlled.

They didn't kill Arbery at 20 feet away, when he was clearly going to attack them. They didn't kill him when he rounded the truck, clearly going to attack them. They didn't kill him at 3 feet away, when he was clearly attacking them. They didn't even kill him when contact was first established.

They let themselves get in mortal danger because of how hesitant they were to pull the trigger.

Arbery could've solved this problem by:

Turning around. Or doing nothing. Or literally anything but trying to kill those guys.

 

[wilberforce15]

That gave Federal courts that power. The Supreme Court already had that power but after their Marbury vs. Madison ruling lower courts were able to strike down laws and statutes they deemed unconstitutional. Those rulings can still be appealed to higher courts, ultimately to the Supreme Court, which may choose to rule on the lower court's decision or not. The Supreme Court always had the power constitutionally to make such rulings. Nice try.

The supreme court never had that power until Marbury v. Madison. The court invented the power, and established it. You've done a really nice job of not citing the constitution for what you say is in the constitution.

 

[vantexan]

Your entire supposed problem was theoretical in what somebody might have done. And a sheriff talked to you and let you go. The system worked well.

If one of the country boys confronts you, suspects you, and calls the sheriff, it's very easy.

Politely wait for the sheriff. Then he'll arrest or release you. This is not hard. It's not dangerous until YOU decide to make it dangerous.

Not the country boy's right to pull out a gun and detain someone he THINKS may have committed a crime. It's why property owners have rights on their property to protect themselves and their property but don't have the right to walk outside, see their car messed with, make assumptions about a couple of teenagers half a block away walking along, and deciding to go grab their gun and give chase. And if you think you have that right I hope you never try to exercise it.

 

[wilberforce15]

Not the country boy's right to pull out a gun and detain someone he THINKS may have committed a crime. It's why property owners have rights on their property to protect themselves and their property but don't have the right to walk outside, see their car messed with, make assumptions about a couple of teenagers half a block away walking along, and deciding to go grab their gun and give chase. And if you think you have that right I hope you never try to exercise it.

Sure it's their right. That's what a citizen's arrest is. You don't like it because you don't like America. But it's clearly in the law.

Arbery is dead because Arbery tried to kill them.

 

[vantexan]

The supreme court never had that power until Marbury v. Madison. The court invented the power, and established it. You've done a really nice job of not citing the constitution for what you say is in the constitution.

How could the court invent it? What was the Court's purpose if not to make rulings? Marbury vs. Madison was about the power of lower courts, not the Supreme Court. Next you'll be telling you have the right to pull a gun on anyone you please.

 

[wilberforce15]

How could the court invent it? What was the Court's purpose if not to make rulings? Marbury vs. Madison was about the power of lower courts, not the Supreme Court. Next you'll be telling you have the right to pull a gun on anyone you please.

Willfully false or unreasonable citizen's arrest would be prosecuted as kidnapping or other violent crimes. But any reasonable attempted application of it is fine. And this is clearly reasonable suspicion of an active crime taking place.

The court's job is to make rulings based on the law for the parties involved, not determine what is constitutional That's the job of legislators and juries.

 

[vantexan]

Sure it's their right. That's what a citizen's arrest is. You don't like it because you don't like America. But it's clearly in the law.

Arbery is dead because Arbery tried to kill them.

Arbery was stupid for trying to fight armed men. But you can't legally go running around pulling guns on people on no more than a suspicion. Those guys are in a lot of hot water.

 

[wilberforce15]

Arbery was stupid for trying to fight armed men. But you can't legally go running around pulling guns on people on no more than a suspicion. Those guys are in a lot of hot water.

If the suspicion of an active crime is reasonable and apparent fleeing is taking place, you literally can legally pull guns on them.

And we come back to you just not liking the law or America or common law.

 

[vantexan]

Willfully false or unreasonable citizen's arrest would be prosecuted as kidnapping or other violent crimes. But any reasonable attempted application of it is fine. And this is clearly reasonable suspicion of an active crime taking place.

The court's job is to make rulings based on the law for the parties involved, not determine what is constitutional That's the job of legislators and juries.

A guy running down the road without witnessing him commit an actual crime isn't reasonable suspicion. Again, it's why we have professionals enforcing the law.

 

[vantexan]

If the suspicion of an active crime is reasonable and apparent fleeing is taking place, you literally can legally pull guns on them.

And we come back to you just not liking the law or America or common law.

How do you know it was fleeing? Did they see him leave the construction site?

 

[wilberforce15]

I would NEVER do what these brave, good Americans did. That's because I know I'm outnumbered 1000 to 1 with dingbats and yahoos and hippies and liberals and anti-American nutjobs these days. I know the media, prosecutor, and everyone else will hang me high for absolutely nothing.

That's why I won't do anything like that. But these guys are fully in the right.

 

[wilberforce15]

How do you know it was fleeing? Did they see him leave the construction site?

You think their suspicion wasn't reasonable, and yet their suspicion turned out to be correct? That he was a convicted thief leaving trespassed property?

lol. So they were not reasonably suspicious. But they just happened to get it right.

 

[vantexan]

I would NEVER do what these brave, good Americans did. That's because I know I'm outnumbered 1000 to 1 with dingbats and yahoos and hippies and liberals and anti-American nutjobs these days. I know the media, prosecutor, and everyone else will hang me high for absolutely nothing.

That's why I won't do anything like that. But these guys are fully in the right.

Yah, even the Supreme Court is full of hippies when they make a ruling you don't like. You're a walking stereotype.

 

[wilberforce15]

Yah, even the Supreme Court is full of hippies when they make a ruling you don't like. You're a walking stereotype.

They took power the constitution didn't give them.

Determining constitutionality is literally not in their job description. Cite it in the constitution if you think it's there.