Kansas Crimson

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:56 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:55 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 8:15 pm

So, the legal system is null and void if it disagrees with your personal notions of right and wrong? That’s a special kind of arrogance. Congrats!

It doesn't take arrogance to find your statement ignorant because it is flat out not true. You can break the law and a prosecutor can fail to successfully prosecute the case against you. It happens all the time.

And yet, legally, that person is not guilty and cannot face the same charges again.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:06 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:56 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:55 am

It doesn't take arrogance to find your statement ignorant because it is flat out not true. You can break the law and a prosecutor can fail to successfully prosecute the case against you. It happens all the time.

And yet, legally, that person is not guilty and cannot face the same charges again.

Your simply trying to connect two dots that aren't related. There is the act of committing a crime, there is the act of investigating and arresting for the act, there is the act of charging for the act and there is the act of prosecuting for the act. They are all separate steps in the process. Failing to successfully prosecute does not mean that you didn't break the law. It can mean either you didn't break the law and that was proven, the prosecution didn't charge you with the right crime given the actions and the evidence (the Rittenhouse case), the prosecution didn't successfully prove beyond a reasonable amount that you committed the crime (even though you did) or that there were mistakes made in the process that broke the rules of the process, allowing you to go free whether or not you committed the crime.

If I shoot my neighbor and I get arrested but they fail prove that I shot my neighbor and I walk free on a Not Guilty verdict, it doesn't mean that I didn't break the law. It just means that I got away with breaking the law.

Cascadia wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:57 am

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:30 am I wonder what is the difference between Kyle and OJ?

I believe the correct answer is:

Kyle is white

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:16 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:06 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:56 am

And yet, legally, that person is not guilty and cannot face the same charges again.

Your simply trying to connect two dots that aren't related. There is the act of committing a crime, there is the act of investigating and arresting for the act, there is the act of charging for the act and there is the act of prosecuting for the act. They are all separate steps in the process. Failing to successfully prosecute does not mean that you didn't break the law. It can mean either you didn't break the law and that was proven, the prosecution didn't charge you with the right crime given the actions and the evidence (the Rittenhouse case), the prosecution didn't successfully prove beyond a reasonable amount that you committed the crime (even though you did) or that there were mistakes made in the process that broke the rules of the process, allowing you to go free whether or not you committed the crime.

If I shoot my neighbor and I get arrested but they fail prove that I shot my neighbor and I walk free on a Not Guilty verdict, it doesn't mean that I didn't break the law. It just means that I got away with breaking the law.

So, does that then give your neighbor's family the right to seek revenge, since the legal system failed to deliver a verdict that they find satisfactory? Seems like a pretty tenuous line between civilization and anarchy if the answer is yes.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:28 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:16 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:06 am

Your simply trying to connect two dots that aren't related. There is the act of committing a crime, there is the act of investigating and arresting for the act, there is the act of charging for the act and there is the act of prosecuting for the act. They are all separate steps in the process. Failing to successfully prosecute does not mean that you didn't break the law. It can mean either you didn't break the law and that was proven, the prosecution didn't charge you with the right crime given the actions and the evidence (the Rittenhouse case), the prosecution didn't successfully prove beyond a reasonable amount that you committed the crime (even though you did) or that there were mistakes made in the process that broke the rules of the process, allowing you to go free whether or not you committed the crime.

If I shoot my neighbor and I get arrested but they fail prove that I shot my neighbor and I walk free on a Not Guilty verdict, it doesn't mean that I didn't break the law. It just means that I got away with breaking the law.

So, does that then give your neighbor's family the right to seek revenge, since the legal system failed to deliver a verdict that they find satisfactory? Seems like a pretty tenuous line between civilization and anarchy if the answer is yes.

Why are you even asking that dumb question? Of course not. Are you trying to make a point back to the Rittenhouse case? Did the family of one of his victims go after him?

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:30 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:28 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:16 am

So, does that then give your neighbor's family the right to seek revenge, since the legal system failed to deliver a verdict that they find satisfactory? Seems like a pretty tenuous line between civilization and anarchy if the answer is yes.

Why are you even asking that dumb question? Of course not. Are you trying to make a point back to the Rittenhouse case? Did the family of one of his victims go after him?

Not yet. But the WokeMob around here seems to be very hopeful that it will happen.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:32 am I expect Kyle will end up in civil court at some point.

No one here except psych is hopeful for more violence.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:33 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:30 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:28 am
Why are you even asking that dumb question? Of course not. Are you trying to make a point back to the Rittenhouse case? Did the family of one of his victims go after him?

Not yet. But the WokeMob around here seems to be very hopeful that it will happen.

Do we agree that "not guilty" does not equal "did not commit the crime"?

ProudBoy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:08 am Some straight gold medal-worthy mental gymnastics going here today.

Cascadia wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 8:12 pm JK's a special kind of dumb.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:56 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:33 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:30 am

Not yet. But the WokeMob around here seems to be very hopeful that it will happen.

Do we agree that "not guilty" does not equal "did not commit the crime"?

In cases like that of O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake, yes, I agree. I disagree that Rittenhouse broke the law, regardless of what the WokeMob says.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:55 am

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:30 am I wonder what is the difference between Kyle and OJ?

Um, aside from the fact that O.J. was an adult, was a serial spousal abuser, and brutally murdered two people in cold blood who were no threat to him whatsoever? Nothing, I guess.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:26 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:55 am

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:30 am I wonder what is the difference between Kyle and OJ?

Um, aside from the fact that O.J. was an adult, was a serial spousal abuser, and brutally murdered two people in cold blood who were no threat to him whatsoever? Nothing, I guess.

TIME OUT!!!!
What am I missing here? Did you not post "Not guilty = Did not break the law" ?
Is brutally murdering two people not breaking the law?

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:02 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:26 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:55 am

Um, aside from the fact that O.J. was an adult, was a serial spousal abuser, and brutally murdered two people in cold blood who were no threat to him whatsoever? Nothing, I guess.

TIME OUT!!!!
What am I missing here? Did you not post "Not guilty = Did not break the law" ?
Is brutally murdering two people not breaking the law?

Sure, but last I checked, he’s walking around free, casing golf courses all over Southern California for the “real killers”.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:26 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:55 am

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:30 am I wonder what is the difference between Kyle and OJ?

Um, aside from the fact that O.J. was an adult, was a serial spousal abuser, and brutally murdered two people in cold blood who were no threat to him whatsoever? Nothing, I guess.

TIME OUT!!!!
What am I missing here? Did you not post "Not guilty = Did not break the law" ?
Is brutally murdering two people not breaking the law?

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:11 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:02 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:26 pm

TIME OUT!!!!
What am I missing here? Did you not post "Not guilty = Did not break the law" ?
Is brutally murdering two people not breaking the law?

Sure, but last I checked, he’s walking around free, casing golf courses all over Southern California for the “real killers”.

Please forgive me. Do you feel "not guilty = did not break the law" is or is not true?

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:02 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:11 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:02 pm

Sure, but last I checked, he’s walking around free, casing golf courses all over Southern California for the “real killers”.

Please forgive me. Do you feel "not guilty = did not break the law" is or is not true?

Technically, yes. In practice, no.

However, I go back to my original assertion, which is that I have a mancrush on Rittenhouse

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:02 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:11 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 1:02 pm

Sure, but last I checked, he’s walking around free, casing golf courses all over Southern California for the “real killers”.

Please forgive me. Do you feel "not guilty = did not break the law" is or is not true?

Technically, yes. In practice, no.

However, I go back to my original assertion, which was that Rittenhouse did not break the law.