Kyle Rittenhouse

[workswithseed 2,103]

37 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah but where does all the cocaine come into play? 

I've never seen a fat doctor, but I've seen fat lawyers. I don't think they're the ones with coke.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I've never seen a fat doctor, but I've seen fat lawyers. I don't think they're the ones with coke.

Doctors don’t need to get illegal drugs to get high though. 
 

As for lawyers, booze is by far the preferred drug. With coke probably a distant second along with weed. 

[jimmyjazz 45,926]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are wrong.  See if you can figure out how I know that.

[StassneyHorn 6,575]

Dentists have the best coke

also, the dating pool for Rittenhouse is going to SUCK. Whole world thinking you’re  a loser murderer racist at 17 ain’t great. At least Zimmerman already had some strange.

[jimmyjazz 45,926]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

You have yet to articulate a single argument that supports this position other than claiming it is obvious and everyone agrees with you when in fact everyone disagrees because everyone besides you seems to know what a conflict of interest is. At this point you are just talking because you like to hear yourself talk.

This will probably get me a time out for doxxing a poster, but fuck it.  I ran into @Anastasis at a West Campus bar tonight, and surreptitiously snapped this:

Edited November 19, 2021 by jimmyjazz

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

This will probably get me a time out for doxxing a poster, but fuck it.  I came across @Anastasis at a West Campus bar tonight, and surreptitiously snapped this:

My boy’s wicked smaht.

[Brisketexan 105,130]

Pretty funny seeing which of the lawyers here are particularly triggered by a discussion of ethics and financial conflict of interest. 

I mean….other than the fact that nobody here has seen any discussion of any “financial conflict of interest” yet. Your solo ipse dixit declaration isn’t a “discussion.” Embarrassingly inept mental masturbation, yes. Discussion? No.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

10 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Dentists have the best coke

90 percent of dentists under the age of 60 I’ve met seem to be cokeheads.

Present company excepted of course. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Holy shit! Thursday night football just ended and Scott Fisher has apparently lost a bunch of weight and has been reduced to doing the weather on Fox.

Must be cocaine.

[Anastasis 23,469]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are wrong.

Yes.  I have been told to be over my skis by you and JimmyJames, and Brisket, and wildcat, and DA, and a number of others on a number of occasions, with unflinching conviction, only for you to be demonstrably wrong time and time again. Mostly cause you/y'all are incapable of paying attention. But maybe this time is different. 

[Guest Lobo]

And Scott Fisher's teeth have never looked better.

His gums though?  Meh...not so much.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Lobo

[jimmyjazz 45,926]

I have to admit, it's fascinating to see someone take on any and all comers in a profession that is specifically trained to argue.

[jimmyjazz 45,926]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Yes.  I have been told to be over my skis by you and JimmyJames, and Brisket, and wildcat, and DA, and a number of others on a number of occasions, with unflinching conviction, only for you to be demonstrably wrong time and time again. Mostly cause you/y'all are incapable of paying attention. But maybe this time is different. 

God damn you are a fucking easy mark.

Quote

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.

Now, work with me here.  How would I know with 100% certainty that your statement is false?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have to admit, it's fascinating to see someone take on any and all comers in a profession that is specifically trained to argue.

Sheriff Ed Tom Bell: These people will kill Anastasis, Carla Jean. They won't quit.

Carla Jean Moss: He won't neither. He never has. Anastasis, he can take all comers.

 

[Anastasis 23,469]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

God damn you are a fucking easy mark.

I think that the post stands well in it's totality. 

 

2 hours ago, TDunk said:

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.  That's why we carve out certain legal proceedings explicitly from such arrangements, because they create obvious ethical conflicts where the ethical principle of Justice is paramount.  Now I guess that if you want to argue that there are a vast majority of legal proceedings where the principle of Justice is not really paramount, or that there are situations where other ethical principles (maybe Automony, Equal access, etc,) should be over weighted, those might be reasonable points to consider.  Seems like Justice should always get a strong shake though, given how closely our society depends on the legal system to effect it.   

 

[jimmyjazz 45,926]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that the post stands well in it's totality. 

I think it does nothing of the sort, and I think you have been pantsed, yet again.  But kudos for trying.

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by jimmyjazz
speling

[Anastasis 23,469]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I think it does nothing of the sort, and I think you have pantsed, yet again.  But kudos for trying.

Well OK. But you have a poor track record when it comes to judgment, so not particularly worried about it. 

[jimmyjazz 45,926]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Well OK. But you have a poor track record when it comes to judgment, so not particularly worried about it. 

Perhaps.  It beats having a dismal track record when it comes to recognizing that one has lost an argument.

[Incredulity 11,670]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Perhaps.  It beats having a dismal track record when it comes to recognizing that one has lost an argument.

“No, you are!”

 

pretty fucking compelling 

[Guest Lobo]

The young man should walk, and I'm totally fine with trusting the jury.  I hope Kenosha feels the same way.  Hope 35% of our nation feels the same way about other cases.  

But let's be honest...it's a bummer he won't serve any jail time because the care packages/letters sent to him by Johnny Sack and Anastasis would have been epic.

[C-Man 27,223]

I've never seen a fat doctor, but I've seen fat lawyers. I don't think they're the ones with coke.

Then you’re as clueless there as you are in other areas

[Anastasis 23,469]

Just now, Incredulity said:

“No, you are!”

 

pretty fucking compelling 

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

Then you’re as clueless there as you are in other areas

My neurologist is fat as fuck and basically worthless. She only does telehealth encounters now, so gonna be interesting to see how that neurological assessment actually works out. 

[henrygandorf 29,190]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You are so far over your skis on this it ain’t even funny.

 

55 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

As for lawyers, booze is by far the preferred drug. With coke probably a distant second along with weed. 

your honor, if i may…

[fattyflattie 4,639]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

My neurologist is fat as fuck and basically worthless. She only does telehealth encounters now, so gonna be interesting to see how that neurological assessment actually works out. 

Based on the last 2 pages, I’m a bit intrigued as well. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Based on the last 2 pages, I’m a bit intrigued as well. 

Just a formality, plugging the CPAP into the reader every couple years.

 

Not like a real life JimmyJames' parents make him wear a helmet every time he goes outside neurological assessment. 

[workswithseed 2,103]

34 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Then you’re as clueless there as you are in other areas

You didn't have to out yourself as a fat doctor. Good job getting the good drugs though.

[wildcat09 29,354]

[washparkhorn 9,939]

Ana is demonstrating what may be occurring in the jury room, with Ana portraying what negative jury nullification looks like when deliberating.

For a dramatic glimpse at positive jury nullification, see 12 Angry Men, with Henry Fonda using the threat of jury nullification. He encourages other jurors to ignore the mob (in and outside the jury deliberation room).

Juries play the vital role in the delivery of criminal justice. 

If a juror wants to bring home jury instructions, that's a good sign they are doing homework and reading the material the night before so deliberations pick up the next day. Smart. I am surprised it was allowed, but the judge appears to have trust in this jury. 

On to the movies . . .

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by washparkhorn

[C-Man 27,223]

59 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

You didn't have to out yourself as a fat doctor. Good job getting the good drugs though.

[washparkhorn 9,939]

impermissible negative jury nullification:

 

[workswithseed 2,103]

15 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

[Goredho 17,405]

THIS IS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE!!!

I mean this thread, now.  It’s kinda about justice, but mostly it’s a dead fetus stinking up the place.  You all are arguing legal ethics with a fence post.  Its not going to change its mind.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

This wait must be excruciating for poor Kyle, I hope it lasts. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 hours ago, Goredho said:

 You all are arguing legal ethics with a fence post.  Its not going to change its mind.

Nah, I think just a couple more posts and he’ll see the light. Almost there. 

[Macanudo 12,977]

8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Nah, I think just a couple more posts and he’ll see the light. Almost there. 

Maybe he'll see the it if you light him on fire.   Otherwise, nope.

[Azbadlands 109]

I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.

Based on what I saw in the trial, I don't think the prosecution even came close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt this was anything other than self defense.  Not sure what is taking the jury so long to come back with a verdict.

[South Austin 52,497]

4 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

Not sure what is taking the jury so long to come back with a verdict.

Maybe it's because after sitting through the entire trial they disagree with you. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

55 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This wait must be excruciating for this thread poor Kyle, I hope it lasts. 

 

[South Austin 52,497]

I wonder if the traffic on this and the DT thread would be lower if we didn't suck so bad at football.

[Azbadlands 109]

4 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Maybe it's because after sitting through the entire trial they disagree with you. 

You might be right, Or, maybe, due to how our society works today, they fear the repurcussions of setting this kid free even if they feel he is not guilty, which should not be part of the decision making...

[WhatTheBuck 28,780]

10 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.

Name one such situation. 

[El Diablo 4,232]

Is the jury also looking at lesser charges? Maybe they're going over the same evidence as it relates to each charge and taking their time to see if any fit. Maybe? 

[Anastasis 23,469]

9 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I wonder if the traffic on this and the DT thread would be lower if we didn't suck so bad at football.

If Sark posted here, which thread would he post on?

[Azbadlands 109]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Name one such situation. 

A lot of young people died defending their communities from Tyrrany in the Revolutionary War  that had just ended in 1783, just a few short years before the Constitution was signed..

[DDD Dad 14,339]

12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

But maybe this time is different. 

[South Austin 52,497]

9 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Name one such situation. 

At least two situations.

First, the more recent American Revolution, which followed the British government's attempt to disarm the colonists.

Second, the British legal history's own support of citizen militias.

I say this as someone who does not believe that the founders intended for an unconditional and unregulated right to bear arms.

Edited November 19, 2021 by South Austin

[DaysOff 7,948]

I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.
Based on what I saw in the trial, I don't think the prosecution even came close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt this was anything other than self defense.  Not sure what is taking the jury so long to come back with a verdict.

They were actually more concerned about slave uprisings than a new tyrannical government, so same same.

[Brisketexan 105,130]

I wonder if the traffic on this and the DT thread would be lower if we didn't suck so bad at football.

We have a football team?

[South Austin 52,497]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If Sark posted here, which thread would he post on?

I'm pretty sure if Sark posted on Surly it would be a conflict of interest.