So, with the trial over, there is now a fight over the $2 million bail posted for Rittenhouse. Apparently his mother raised about half a million, and Lin Wood’s Fightback Foundation raised the rest. Both sides have submitted claims for the money.
Caught in the middle is John Pierce, Rittenhouse’s former attorney and the guy who actually posted the bail. Since he holds the receipt, he’s the one the courts will likely give the money back to. He’s afraid of being sued by one or both sides, so he is desperately requesting a judge make the determination before the funds are released.
The whole thing is just a glorious, slow-motion train wreck. Personally, I’m hoping that the entire amount gets eaten up by the legal costs of fighting over it.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+45
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
So, with the trial over, there is now a fight over the $2 million bail posted for Rittenhouse. Apparently his mother raised about half a million, and Lin Wood’s Fightback Foundation raised the rest. Both sides have submitted claims for the money.
Caught in the middle is John Pierce, Rittenhouse’s former attorney and the guy who actually posted the bail. Since he holds the receipt, he’s the one the courts will likely give the money back to. He’s afraid of being sued by one or both sides, so he is desperately requesting a judge make the determination before the funds are released.
The whole thing is just a glorious, slow-motion train wreck. Personally, I’m hoping that the entire amount gets eaten up by the legal costs of fighting over it.
Yeah honestly I have zero concerns over that two million and also hope it gets eaten to the point where the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
are YOU on the beer list?
+16
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
You'd think that lawyers would have a written agreement about $2 million in bail money. The fact that they don't should be cause to have them immediately disbarred.
You'd think that lawyers would have a written agreement about $2 million in bail money. The fact that they don't should be cause to have them immediately disbarred.
At the least, the money goes back to whomever paid it in.
If they don't have fucking receipts, what the fuck? Was it just two dufflebags of cash?
This should be the simplest argument to arbitrate. That it might go to a lawsuit is just the height of stupidity.
+11
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
You'd think that lawyers would have a written agreement about $2 million in bail money. The fact that they don't should be cause to have them immediately disbarred.
At the least, the money goes back to whomever paid it in.
If they don't have fucking receipts, what the fuck? Was it just two dufflebags of cash?
This should be the simplest argument to arbitrate. That it might go to a lawsuit is just the height of stupidity.
And these are lawyers, it's literally their fucking jobs to work the contracting out for this. who contributed the money for the bail, was it the Lin Woods Grift foundation? or Kyles Mom, whatever the amounts they paid, should go back to them. And why aren't there receipts and contracts in place. Jesus. How did these dickheads even pass the bar? The only one who probably didn't know any better was Kyle's mom.
You'd think that lawyers would have a written agreement about $2 million in bail money. The fact that they don't should be cause to have them immediately disbarred.
At the least, the money goes back to whomever paid it in.
If they don't have fucking receipts, what the fuck? Was it just two dufflebags of cash?
This should be the simplest argument to arbitrate. That it might go to a lawsuit is just the height of stupidity.
They know who put up what money, but it was all given to Rittenhouse's original lawyer, who posted bail. So he has the receipt, and the court will most likely release the money to him. The problem is that both Mark Richards and Lin Wood have filed to have the money released to them, with Richards arguing that the money was raised on behalf of Rittenhouse, and Wood arguing that most of the money was raised by his foundation, which has also incurred significant costs in defense of Rittenhouse.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
They replied that Grosskreutz should have called 911 if he thought Rittenhouse was a threat.
It's always comical how close those people get to the hard reality behind an event without ever realizing it. There was no 911 to call because the Kenosha police basically declared it a purge zone for the night and sat back to let the white supremacists have some fun.
I think the disconnect here is more "Why couldn't Rittenhouse just call 911 then?". Or "Then what good is having a gun to stop an active shooter?".
The problem is that these kind of scenarios cause the whole justification of carrying a gun for self-defence or to stop a "bad guy with a gun" to fall apart.
shryke on
+12
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So, with the trial over, there is now a fight over the $2 million bail posted for Rittenhouse. Apparently his mother raised about half a million, and Lin Wood’s Fightback Foundation raised the rest. Both sides have submitted claims for the money.
Caught in the middle is John Pierce, Rittenhouse’s former attorney and the guy who actually posted the bail. Since he holds the receipt, he’s the one the courts will likely give the money back to. He’s afraid of being sued by one or both sides, so he is desperately requesting a judge make the determination before the funds are released.
The whole thing is just a glorious, slow-motion train wreck. Personally, I’m hoping that the entire amount gets eaten up by the legal costs of fighting over it.
Jarndyce and Jarndyce is exactly what these assholes deserve
They replied that Grosskreutz should have called 911 if he thought Rittenhouse was a threat.
It's always comical how close those people get to the hard reality behind an event without ever realizing it. There was no 911 to call because the Kenosha police basically declared it a purge zone for the night and sat back to let the white supremacists have some fun.
I tried to bring that up in the last thread, the whole “good guy with a gun” fairy tale. It’s absolutely bananas that Rittenhouse advocates (read: white supremacist fascists) try to pull that narrative as a defense. The whole thing depends on the permission structure of “if you see an active shooter, it’s the good guy with a gun’s responsibility to stop them.” So here, where Rittenhouse presented as an active shooter, the people that attempted to stop him were wrong? The active shooter was the good guy and the people trying to stop him were the bad guys? It’s fucking maddening. It doesn’t make sense but it isn’t supposed to. It’s a Schrödinger’s cat of an argument, only meant to be applied to one very specific situation at a time, never to be examined in any other context aside from the convenient one at present.
It's almost like being able to just own an AR-15 and worse, just wander around the streets with it is a fucking fruitloop bananas insane thing to allow people to do.
The officer was convicted of the crime and sentenced to 12.5y in 2019, but has since appealed and it's been reduced to less than 5.
*Reasons* being he was spooked by the noise she made approaching the police car, and so he shot her.
I was aware of the stated reason. It's just bullshit that either someone that jumpy was allowed to be a cop, or that's an acceptable standard for cops.
Neither is a sufficient reason for shooting someone.
The jumpiness is by design. That stupid "killology" bullshit pushed on police forces by Dave Grossman, where society is a literal war zone, every interaction should be treated like a potential firefight, and slaying your enemies makes you perform better in bed.
I wish I was being hyperbolic on the last of those, but yeah.
Someone that jumpy was allowed to be a cop because the standard is to train them to that level of paranoid twitchiness.
I tried to bring that up in the last thread, the whole “good guy with a gun” fairy tale. It’s absolutely bananas that Rittenhouse advocates (read: white supremacist fascists) try to pull that narrative as a defense. The whole thing depends on the permission structure of “if you see an active shooter, it’s the good guy with a gun’s responsibility to stop them.” So here, where Rittenhouse presented as an active shooter, the people that attempted to stop him were wrong? The active shooter was the good guy and the people trying to stop him were the bad guys? It’s fucking maddening. It doesn’t make sense but it isn’t supposed to. It’s a Schrödinger’s cat of an argument, only meant to be applied to one very specific situation at a time, never to be examined in any other context aside from the convenient one at present.
I think what we are seeing here is a language barrier issue.
When we say "good guy with a gun", we are referring to someone who is bound by morals and ethics and is trying to minimize harm and the loss of innocent lives.
When they say "good guy with a gun", what they mean is "white supremist fascist with a gun".
Taken in that context, their arguments are logically consistent. 100% wrong, but logically consistent.
(The fact that cops are very often held up as an example of "good guy with a gun" in these arguments seems to just prove the point).
"Let's take a look at the scores! The girls are at the square root of Pi, while the boys are still at a crudely drawn picture of a duck. Clearly, it's anybody's game!"
The thing with the "good guy with a gun" fantasy is that people always consider themselves to be the good guy and/or assume that if it's someone else the good guy will always be obvious. It's a simplistic fantasy, which is why it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Which is why the people who espouse it generally just ignore ignore anyone trying to scrutinize it.
The thing with the "good guy with a gun" fantasy is that people always consider themselves to be the good guy and/or assume that if it's someone else the good guy will always be obvious. It's a simplistic fantasy, which is why it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Which is why the people who espouse it generally just ignore ignore anyone trying to scrutinize it.
To anybody other than the person shooting, the man with a gun is an active shooter.
The good guy with a gun that pulled his to shoot someone that was shooting people? The only thing everyone around them knows is that they are a second active shooter.
Like that's it. They are just more people shooting. Who's the attacker, who's defending? Nobody knows!
The good guy with a gun narrative is really just fantasy.
If i'm in a situation where somebody is shooting and somebody i don't know pulls out another gun and fires back the only thing in my panic stricken mind is that now there are two people with guns shooting which means that's twice as many chances of me seeing a game over screen.
I attended an active shooter training session led by a cop once, and he said that if he responds to reports of an active shooter, shows up, and sees you holding a gun, he will shoot you, and that is a sacrifice you need to be willing to make if you want to be a good guy with a gun.
+19
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
I attended an active shooter training session led by a cop once, and he said that if he responds to reports of an active shooter, shows up, and sees you holding a gun, he will shoot you, and that is a sacrifice you need to be willing to make if you want to be a good guy with a gun.
That's as appealing a choice as what the 2-on-the-take cops offer Fletch:
"You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to have your face kicked in by me. You have the right to have your balls stomped by him."
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I attended an active shooter training session led by a cop once, and he said that if he responds to reports of an active shooter, shows up, and sees you holding a gun, he will shoot you, and that is a sacrifice you need to be willing to make if you want to be a good guy with a gun.
Just went through active shooter for a new job and some points they hammer home
When responders arrive, don't point anywhere
Do NOT approach them unless told to do so
Do not run
Do not make sudden movements
The priority of police that arrive on scene first are not to help you, they're to stop the shooter
Which is a long way of saying "They're here to stop the shooter, so don't give them a reason to mistakenly think you are the shooter."
The good guy with a gun narrative is really just fantasy.
If i'm in a situation where somebody is shooting and somebody i don't know pulls out another gun and fires back the only thing in my panic stricken mind is that now there are two people with guns shooting which means that's twice as many chances of me seeing a game over screen.
And remember, the big issue is, if you don't see the first thing (someone shooting), and only see the second thing (a guy with a gun and shooting), and miss seeing him draw that gun after hearing the first thing, that second guy, is, to your mind, the active shooter.
That's the whole fucking problem with the argument. Unless you're omniscient from the first shot, every single person you see with a weapon already drawn when you see them, is possibly the "bad guy with a gun".
More armed people = more danger to everybody. Anyone who says differently is full of shit. I can see the argument for self protection in a one-on-one situation (even if I might disagree that it's helpful), but in a crowd situation, like a school/mall/theatre/stadium, more guns = more confusion = more likely to have more accidental casualties than prevented casualties.
The thing with the "good guy with a gun" fantasy is that people always consider themselves to be the good guy and/or assume that if it's someone else the good guy will always be obvious. It's a simplistic fantasy, which is why it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Which is why the people who espouse it generally just ignore ignore anyone trying to scrutinize it.
To anybody other than the person shooting, the man with a gun is an active shooter.
The good guy with a gun that pulled his to shoot someone that was shooting people? The only thing everyone around them knows is that they are a second active shooter.
Like that's it. They are just more people shooting. Who's the attacker, who's defending? Nobody knows!
I've had several "good guy with a gun" supporters tell me they believe they would be able to be the good guy in an active shooter situation. Despite having no training at all. When asked if they would lay down their guns and submit to the police when one of their bullets inevitably kills an innocent, every one of them has stated that would never happen. They can't even conceive of it. They all think they live in a John Wick movie.
The good guy with a gun narrative is really just fantasy.
If i'm in a situation where somebody is shooting and somebody i don't know pulls out another gun and fires back the only thing in my panic stricken mind is that now there are two people with guns shooting which means that's twice as many chances of me seeing a game over screen.
And remember, the big issue is, if you don't see the first thing (someone shooting), and only see the second thing (a guy with a gun and shooting), and miss seeing him draw that gun after hearing the first thing, that second guy, is, to your mind, the active shooter.
That's the whole fucking problem with the argument. Unless you're omniscient from the first shot, every single person you see with a weapon already drawn when you see them, is possibly the "bad guy with a gun".
More armed people = more danger to everybody. Anyone who says differently is full of shit. I can see the argument for self protection in a one-on-one situation (even if I might disagree that it's helpful), but in a crowd situation, like a school/mall/theatre/stadium, more guns = more confusion = more likely to have more accidental casualties than prevented casualties.
I always just think of this incident out of Chicago a few years ago. Active shooter walks into bar, armed security guard stops them and detains them while waiting for police to arrive, police arrive and shoot the armed security guard.
+23
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
edited November 2021
If you're concealed carrying and you need to defend yourself - to stop an active shooter or otherwise - you should be unholstering, firing, and then reholstering.
If you get shot by police when they show up, you've fucked up because you've been prowling for 1-15 minutes (depending on police response time) with a gun in your hands, which is a terrible idea.
If police are already / immediately there you should just be fleeing
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
The thing with the "good guy with a gun" fantasy is that people always consider themselves to be the good guy and/or assume that if it's someone else the good guy will always be obvious. It's a simplistic fantasy, which is why it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Which is why the people who espouse it generally just ignore ignore anyone trying to scrutinize it.
To anybody other than the person shooting, the man with a gun is an active shooter.
The good guy with a gun that pulled his to shoot someone that was shooting people? The only thing everyone around them knows is that they are a second active shooter.
Like that's it. They are just more people shooting. Who's the attacker, who's defending? Nobody knows!
I've had several "good guy with a gun" supporters tell me they believe they would be able to be the good guy in an active shooter situation. Despite having no training at all. When asked if they would lay down their guns and submit to the police when one of their bullets inevitably kills an innocent, every one of them has stated that would never happen. They can't even conceive of it. They all think they live in a John Wick movie.
I find this both totally realistic and deeply ironic considering the very first thing the instructor at my first CCW Class told everyone was "Carrying a gun does not make you John Wick." But then again he also stressed things like the idea that carrying a gun is a responsibility and your gun should never leave it's holster unless someone's life is in immediate danger and sadly large parts of the gun community don't want to hear shit like that.
If you're concealed carrying and you need to defend yourself - to stop an active shooter or otherwise - you should be unholstering, firing, and then reholstering.
If you get shot by police when they show up, you've fucked up because you've been prowling for 1-15 minutes (depending on police response time) with a gun in your hands, which is a terrible idea.
If police are already / immediately there you should just be fleeing
Except this is also based on knowledge you just don't have.
You have no idea if the shooter is alone
If you heard the shots and arrived with your gun drawn to see someone with a weapon out, you don't know if that is the original shooter or another person who drew their weapon in response.
You can't make an informed decision about what to do because you don't have that info. It is a gamble with yours and others lives. Just book it if even slightly plossible.
The problem with GGWAG is that there's enough anecdotes where it totally worked for a true believer to hold onto. It doesn't matter if the stats say one thing, it worked one time and that's all that's needed for it to be seen as valid.
+11
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
The thing with the "good guy with a gun" fantasy is that people always consider themselves to be the good guy and/or assume that if it's someone else the good guy will always be obvious. It's a simplistic fantasy, which is why it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Which is why the people who espouse it generally just ignore ignore anyone trying to scrutinize it.
To anybody other than the person shooting, the man with a gun is an active shooter.
The good guy with a gun that pulled his to shoot someone that was shooting people? The only thing everyone around them knows is that they are a second active shooter.
Like that's it. They are just more people shooting. Who's the attacker, who's defending? Nobody knows!
I've had several "good guy with a gun" supporters tell me they believe they would be able to be the good guy in an active shooter situation. Despite having no training at all. When asked if they would lay down their guns and submit to the police when one of their bullets inevitably kills an innocent, every one of them has stated that would never happen. They can't even conceive of it. They all think they live in a John Wick movie.
I find this both totally realistic and deeply ironic considering the very first thing the instructor at my first CCW Class told everyone was "Carrying a gun does not make you John Wick." But then again he also stressed things like the idea that carrying a gun is a responsibility and your gun should never leave it's holster unless someone's life is in immediate danger and sadly large parts of the gun community don't want to hear shit like that.
That's a good instructor, and we need far more like them, especially here in the Mid-West and Deep South where most of the wannabe Rambo's live.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I wish we could put those folks through, like, a simulation of a realistic active shooter situation that could show them how thoroughly wrong they are.
So, with the trial over, there is now a fight over the $2 million bail posted for Rittenhouse. Apparently his mother raised about half a million, and Lin Wood’s Fightback Foundation raised the rest. Both sides have submitted claims for the money.
Caught in the middle is John Pierce, Rittenhouse’s former attorney and the guy who actually posted the bail. Since he holds the receipt, he’s the one the courts will likely give the money back to. He’s afraid of being sued by one or both sides, so he is desperately requesting a judge make the determination before the funds are released.
The whole thing is just a glorious, slow-motion train wreck. Personally, I’m hoping that the entire amount gets eaten up by the legal costs of fighting over it.
Why do lawyers represent conservatives in America?
Every time I see this shit come up, they try to find some way to fuck the legal represtation out of getting paid even if they win.
Surely they know by now they're not going to get paid.
So, with the trial over, there is now a fight over the $2 million bail posted for Rittenhouse. Apparently his mother raised about half a million, and Lin Wood’s Fightback Foundation raised the rest. Both sides have submitted claims for the money.
Caught in the middle is John Pierce, Rittenhouse’s former attorney and the guy who actually posted the bail. Since he holds the receipt, he’s the one the courts will likely give the money back to. He’s afraid of being sued by one or both sides, so he is desperately requesting a judge make the determination before the funds are released.
The whole thing is just a glorious, slow-motion train wreck. Personally, I’m hoping that the entire amount gets eaten up by the legal costs of fighting over it.
Why do lawyers represent conservatives in America?
Every time I see this shit come up, they try to find some way to fuck the legal represtation out of getting paid even if they win.
Surely they know by now they're not going to get paid.
I feel like this is more of a Trumper thing than a general conservative thing. Conservatives know the money they invest in their legal team pays out in spades; Trump and those who seek to emulate him, just think with short term greed. Money now is money now; money later doesn't even enter into it.
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I don't believe, in general, that bail money has anything to do with billable hours.
Bail money is to ensure the defendant shows up. That’s the intent (it’s a bullshit thing that allows the prosecution to put their thumb on the poor, but that’s the intent).
The reason Lin Wood is talking about billable hours and legal fees is he is trying to take the money Kylea mom put into the bail as well. Instead of paying himself out of the money raised by his foundation, out of the bail money they get back. He wants to get that back and the money Kyles mom put in, and maybe try to bill another 223k or something. It’s a shitty cash grab. I would be real pissed if I gave a shit about any of them. But if Kyle ends up bankrupt or Lin Wood ends up bankrupt, or they all end up bankruptcy. The amount of fucks I give is 0.
So, with the trial over, there is now a fight over the $2 million bail posted for Rittenhouse. Apparently his mother raised about half a million, and Lin Wood’s Fightback Foundation raised the rest. Both sides have submitted claims for the money.
Caught in the middle is John Pierce, Rittenhouse’s former attorney and the guy who actually posted the bail. Since he holds the receipt, he’s the one the courts will likely give the money back to. He’s afraid of being sued by one or both sides, so he is desperately requesting a judge make the determination before the funds are released.
The whole thing is just a glorious, slow-motion train wreck. Personally, I’m hoping that the entire amount gets eaten up by the legal costs of fighting over it.
Why do lawyers represent conservatives in America?
Every time I see this shit come up, they try to find some way to fuck the legal represtation out of getting paid even if they win.
Surely they know by now they're not going to get paid.
I feel like this is more of a Trumper thing than a general conservative thing. Conservatives know the money they invest in their legal team pays out in spades; Trump and those who seek to emulate him, just think with short term greed. Money now is money now; money later doesn't even enter into it.
I don't think it's a Trumper thing, I think it's a conservative grifter thing. As long as it ain't their lawyer, the grifters are always looking to skim off the top.
So, with the trial over, there is now a fight over the $2 million bail posted for Rittenhouse. Apparently his mother raised about half a million, and Lin Wood’s Fightback Foundation raised the rest. Both sides have submitted claims for the money.
Caught in the middle is John Pierce, Rittenhouse’s former attorney and the guy who actually posted the bail. Since he holds the receipt, he’s the one the courts will likely give the money back to. He’s afraid of being sued by one or both sides, so he is desperately requesting a judge make the determination before the funds are released.
The whole thing is just a glorious, slow-motion train wreck. Personally, I’m hoping that the entire amount gets eaten up by the legal costs of fighting over it.
Why do lawyers represent conservatives in America?
Every time I see this shit come up, they try to find some way to fuck the legal represtation out of getting paid even if they win.
Surely they know by now they're not going to get paid.
I feel like this is more of a Trumper thing than a general conservative thing. Conservatives know the money they invest in their legal team pays out in spades; Trump and those who seek to emulate him, just think with short term greed. Money now is money now; money later doesn't even enter into it.
I don't think it's a Trumper thing, I think it's a conservative grifter thing. As long as it ain't their lawyer, the grifters are always looking to skim off the top.
Corporate America is still part of conservative america, and they have a major hard-on for lawyers.
+7
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
I wish we could put those folks through, like, a simulation of a realistic active shooter situation that could show them how thoroughly wrong they are.
Jordan Klemperer actually did something like this during his time with the daily show; the result was that even when he knew the active shooter was coming and had time to get in cover for an ambush he still got shot.
He demonstrates the institutionalism that blinds a lot of lawyers to the actual ramifications of court rulings in order to say "no, really, it's not that bad." For example, throughout the video he admonishes Rittenhouse's supporters that this ruling shows that his victims would be protected had things gone the other way - which is ignorant of decades of courts taking a hard line on leftists.
He demonstrates the institutionalism that blinds a lot of lawyers to the actual ramifications of court rulings in order to say "no, really, it's not that bad." For example, throughout the video he admonishes Rittenhouse's supporters that this ruling shows that his victims would be protected had things gone the other way - which is ignorant of decades of courts taking a hard line on leftists.
It's also quite noticeable that he really doesn't bring up the weapons charge that was dropped/throw out by the judge on very shaky grounds using the "hunting/short barrel" reasoning (he mentions very quickly about barrel/overall length and that Wisconsin has "loose" firearms laws, but nothing else), even though it was a straw purchase ( which is a federal crime, not state) and outside of the AR's length, Kyle didn't meet the rest of the criteria for using the hunting rifle exception for minors.
I understand that "thinking like a lawyer" means you've gotta take it on a case-by-case basis and are at the mercy of what charges the judge/court allows into the jury instructions and final dispensation of the case, but that doesn't mean it can't be horseshit.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
+3
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
I wish we could put those folks through, like, a simulation of a realistic active shooter situation that could show them how thoroughly wrong they are.
Jordan Klemperer actually did something like this during his time with the daily show; the result was that even when he knew the active shooter was coming and had time to get in cover for an ambush he still got shot.
It illustrated the very simple problem of being 'the good guy with the gun.' You don't know who your target is, while the active shooter is free to shoot anyone he wants. It was a long time ago that I saw the clip, but IIRC it was a simulated office building, so lots of innocent people scurrying around in a panic. So just trying to identify if someone was a fleeing bystander or the shooter kept getting Jordan shot.
Posts
Caught in the middle is John Pierce, Rittenhouse’s former attorney and the guy who actually posted the bail. Since he holds the receipt, he’s the one the courts will likely give the money back to. He’s afraid of being sued by one or both sides, so he is desperately requesting a judge make the determination before the funds are released.
The whole thing is just a glorious, slow-motion train wreck. Personally, I’m hoping that the entire amount gets eaten up by the legal costs of fighting over it.
- John Stuart Mill
Yeah honestly I have zero concerns over that two million and also hope it gets eaten to the point where the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
At the least, the money goes back to whomever paid it in.
If they don't have fucking receipts, what the fuck? Was it just two dufflebags of cash?
This should be the simplest argument to arbitrate. That it might go to a lawsuit is just the height of stupidity.
They know who put up what money, but it was all given to Rittenhouse's original lawyer, who posted bail. So he has the receipt, and the court will most likely release the money to him. The problem is that both Mark Richards and Lin Wood have filed to have the money released to them, with Richards arguing that the money was raised on behalf of Rittenhouse, and Wood arguing that most of the money was raised by his foundation, which has also incurred significant costs in defense of Rittenhouse.
- John Stuart Mill
I think the disconnect here is more "Why couldn't Rittenhouse just call 911 then?". Or "Then what good is having a gun to stop an active shooter?".
The problem is that these kind of scenarios cause the whole justification of carrying a gun for self-defence or to stop a "bad guy with a gun" to fall apart.
Jarndyce and Jarndyce is exactly what these assholes deserve
I tried to bring that up in the last thread, the whole “good guy with a gun” fairy tale. It’s absolutely bananas that Rittenhouse advocates (read: white supremacist fascists) try to pull that narrative as a defense. The whole thing depends on the permission structure of “if you see an active shooter, it’s the good guy with a gun’s responsibility to stop them.” So here, where Rittenhouse presented as an active shooter, the people that attempted to stop him were wrong? The active shooter was the good guy and the people trying to stop him were the bad guys? It’s fucking maddening. It doesn’t make sense but it isn’t supposed to. It’s a Schrödinger’s cat of an argument, only meant to be applied to one very specific situation at a time, never to be examined in any other context aside from the convenient one at present.
The jumpiness is by design. That stupid "killology" bullshit pushed on police forces by Dave Grossman, where society is a literal war zone, every interaction should be treated like a potential firefight, and slaying your enemies makes you perform better in bed.
I wish I was being hyperbolic on the last of those, but yeah.
Someone that jumpy was allowed to be a cop because the standard is to train them to that level of paranoid twitchiness.
I think what we are seeing here is a language barrier issue.
When we say "good guy with a gun", we are referring to someone who is bound by morals and ethics and is trying to minimize harm and the loss of innocent lives.
When they say "good guy with a gun", what they mean is "white supremist fascist with a gun".
Taken in that context, their arguments are logically consistent. 100% wrong, but logically consistent.
(The fact that cops are very often held up as an example of "good guy with a gun" in these arguments seems to just prove the point).
To anybody other than the person shooting, the man with a gun is an active shooter.
The good guy with a gun that pulled his to shoot someone that was shooting people? The only thing everyone around them knows is that they are a second active shooter.
Like that's it. They are just more people shooting. Who's the attacker, who's defending? Nobody knows!
If i'm in a situation where somebody is shooting and somebody i don't know pulls out another gun and fires back the only thing in my panic stricken mind is that now there are two people with guns shooting which means that's twice as many chances of me seeing a game over screen.
That's as appealing a choice as what the 2-on-the-take cops offer Fletch:
"You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to have your face kicked in by me. You have the right to have your balls stomped by him."
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Just went through active shooter for a new job and some points they hammer home
When responders arrive, don't point anywhere
Do NOT approach them unless told to do so
Do not run
Do not make sudden movements
The priority of police that arrive on scene first are not to help you, they're to stop the shooter
Which is a long way of saying "They're here to stop the shooter, so don't give them a reason to mistakenly think you are the shooter."
And remember, the big issue is, if you don't see the first thing (someone shooting), and only see the second thing (a guy with a gun and shooting), and miss seeing him draw that gun after hearing the first thing, that second guy, is, to your mind, the active shooter.
That's the whole fucking problem with the argument. Unless you're omniscient from the first shot, every single person you see with a weapon already drawn when you see them, is possibly the "bad guy with a gun".
More armed people = more danger to everybody. Anyone who says differently is full of shit. I can see the argument for self protection in a one-on-one situation (even if I might disagree that it's helpful), but in a crowd situation, like a school/mall/theatre/stadium, more guns = more confusion = more likely to have more accidental casualties than prevented casualties.
I've had several "good guy with a gun" supporters tell me they believe they would be able to be the good guy in an active shooter situation. Despite having no training at all. When asked if they would lay down their guns and submit to the police when one of their bullets inevitably kills an innocent, every one of them has stated that would never happen. They can't even conceive of it. They all think they live in a John Wick movie.
I always just think of this incident out of Chicago a few years ago. Active shooter walks into bar, armed security guard stops them and detains them while waiting for police to arrive, police arrive and shoot the armed security guard.
If you get shot by police when they show up, you've fucked up because you've been prowling for 1-15 minutes (depending on police response time) with a gun in your hands, which is a terrible idea.
If police are already / immediately there you should just be fleeing
Except this is also based on knowledge you just don't have.
You have no idea if the shooter is alone
If you heard the shots and arrived with your gun drawn to see someone with a weapon out, you don't know if that is the original shooter or another person who drew their weapon in response.
You can't make an informed decision about what to do because you don't have that info. It is a gamble with yours and others lives. Just book it if even slightly plossible.
That's a good instructor, and we need far more like them, especially here in the Mid-West and Deep South where most of the wannabe Rambo's live.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/560798-police-chief-hails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Why do lawyers represent conservatives in America?
Every time I see this shit come up, they try to find some way to fuck the legal represtation out of getting paid even if they win.
Surely they know by now they're not going to get paid.
I feel like this is more of a Trumper thing than a general conservative thing. Conservatives know the money they invest in their legal team pays out in spades; Trump and those who seek to emulate him, just think with short term greed. Money now is money now; money later doesn't even enter into it.
The reason Lin Wood is talking about billable hours and legal fees is he is trying to take the money Kylea mom put into the bail as well. Instead of paying himself out of the money raised by his foundation, out of the bail money they get back. He wants to get that back and the money Kyles mom put in, and maybe try to bill another 223k or something. It’s a shitty cash grab. I would be real pissed if I gave a shit about any of them. But if Kyle ends up bankrupt or Lin Wood ends up bankrupt, or they all end up bankruptcy. The amount of fucks I give is 0.
I don't think it's a Trumper thing, I think it's a conservative grifter thing. As long as it ain't their lawyer, the grifters are always looking to skim off the top.
Corporate America is still part of conservative america, and they have a major hard-on for lawyers.
This happened like a mile from me. Everyone knew something fucked up happened because the police didn't release any details for like a week.
xbl - HowYouGetAnts
steam - WeAreAllGeth
Jordan Klemperer actually did something like this during his time with the daily show; the result was that even when he knew the active shooter was coming and had time to get in cover for an ambush he still got shot.
He demonstrates the institutionalism that blinds a lot of lawyers to the actual ramifications of court rulings in order to say "no, really, it's not that bad." For example, throughout the video he admonishes Rittenhouse's supporters that this ruling shows that his victims would be protected had things gone the other way - which is ignorant of decades of courts taking a hard line on leftists.
It's also quite noticeable that he really doesn't bring up the weapons charge that was dropped/throw out by the judge on very shaky grounds using the "hunting/short barrel" reasoning (he mentions very quickly about barrel/overall length and that Wisconsin has "loose" firearms laws, but nothing else), even though it was a straw purchase ( which is a federal crime, not state) and outside of the AR's length, Kyle didn't meet the rest of the criteria for using the hunting rifle exception for minors.
I understand that "thinking like a lawyer" means you've gotta take it on a case-by-case basis and are at the mercy of what charges the judge/court allows into the jury instructions and final dispensation of the case, but that doesn't mean it can't be horseshit.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
It illustrated the very simple problem of being 'the good guy with the gun.' You don't know who your target is, while the active shooter is free to shoot anyone he wants. It was a long time ago that I saw the clip, but IIRC it was a simulated office building, so lots of innocent people scurrying around in a panic. So just trying to identify if someone was a fleeing bystander or the shooter kept getting Jordan shot.