Printable View
Agree up to the bold part.. yet in the aftermath he's not owning up to the results if his actions.. He's expressed zero remorse or responsibility for his actions. That's sociopathic behavior.. Instead they are trying to find legal loopholes to absolve him of responsibility for his actions and the damage done.. That's the same thing Rittenhouse and his goons are doing too..Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Grand Jury is making a statement here. Six felony counts of assault with a deadly weapon..
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ehp&li=BBnb7Kz
Pure supposition on my part, but what he intended to do (roll coal) is the same thing as what countless teen skiers and snowboarders do all winter long- spray someone with snow. Classic teenage dickhead move. But instead of losing his edge on some ice and crashing into a guy, he hit a group of people with a massive speeding hunk of metal. Prank was the same, but the way it was carried out had far more dire consequences for fucking up... but when have teenage boys been known to accurately assess risk and think of consequences?Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
No one in their right mind makes an outright admission of guilt when 40+ years in the penitentiary is on the table. No fucking way. Lawyer up, let the lawyer handle everything and you stay out of it. It will almost certainly lead to him pleading out, making individual apologies, working his ass off doing community service driver safety outreach. Him and his parents staying utterly silent and heads down is the right thing to do here... at least until a verdict comes down. Him or his parents making public apologies does nothing to benefit the victims and just makes his situation worse.
Rittenhouse is fucking being celebrated, and celebrating himself. He, at the behest of the millions of Alt-right fuckheads, is making light of the situation and proud of his despicable actions. He is a celebrated cult hero amongst many. He wasnt pulling a typical teenage dickhead prank gone horribly wrong. He kitted up for combat, brought a goddamn assault rifle to where people he despised were gathered, and then dared them to attack.
The reason attorneys recommend people be silent and request an attorney is your request for an attorney, and your silence, will (most likely) not be used against you at trial. Then, when the prosecution, who goes first, rests their case at trial, for the first time, the defendant can decide, tactically, if they should testify about their side of the case. To the jury, they have no idea that the defendant did not say anything at the scene of the crime and is speaking, for the first time, at trial (any questions asking that would not be permitted).
There could be a situation where a defendant being apologetic and taking responsibility right from the get go could be tactically smart, if you think it will help persuade a prosecutor to give you leniency. But again, probably better to consult an attorney first before you go this route, as the prosecutor could use your statements to throw the book at you. Just because someone declines to make any statements does not necessarily mean they are not apologetic and taking responsibility for their actions.
Also, even if the defendant wanted to have their insurance immediately pay restitution they have no power to make this happen. The insurance company will hire the defendant an attorney to represent the defendant's interests in the civil case. But there is a conflict of interest at play because even though the attorney is supposed to only represent the defendant in the civil case, the insurance company picks the attorney and the attorney will want the insurance company to continue to pick them for future cases (so they have allegiance to the insurance company as well, which is improper, but occurs in essentially all cases involving insurance companies). So you can end up in a situation where roll coal guy wants to settle the civil claim quickly but his attorney wants to drag it out.
So you're thinking the grand jury did him a favor with the harsh felony attempted murder charges???.. i.e. thinking the jury won't convict of that. Had they done involuntary manslaughter i.e. an accident that wasn't seen as the possible outcome when the act was launched he'd be more likely to be convicted??Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
A prosecutor can always charge lesser included charges, below what the grand jury approves of. For instance, if the grand jury says Theft 2nd Degree (more than $750), the prosecutor can, strategically, chose to charge both Theft 2nd and Theft 3rd (less than $750), or just Theft 3rd. They would do this if there some doubt the theft is above $750. That way they at least get something. But this is all trial strategy. Prosecutors normally go for broke because they don't want to allow jurors to split the baby. A great example of the prosecutor going for broke and having it backfire is the Ammon Bundy trial where he took over the wildlife refuge (he was aquitted when he most certainly committed some uncharged, federal offenses).
IDK. Probably... unless there is gopro/dashcam evidence showing him intimidating and then fully in control taking them all out. Its tough to prove intent. If i meant to ski spray you but lost my edge, took you out and you died, is that attempted murder? Or manslaughter, negligent homicide, or whatever lesser charge? But, im no lawyer... i just married and impregnated one.Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
"I didn't mean to" isn't a defense of having killed someone, even when combined with the ever-potent "I'm just a teenager." "and male."
CAgroin seems to think those make everything all right, though.
Look out! You might be on the hook for child supportQuote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
Spraying your friends with cold water versus spraying complete strangers with poisonous gas are not the same thing. Add in that those strangers are being sprayed with poisonous gas because they are participating in an activity that virtue signals a polar opposite political position of those who set up their vehicles to roll coal and do so..Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
There's even a legit argument that rolling coal and spraying noxious fumes on strangers who you see as the political enemy is domestic terrorism.. Same as walking in to a demonstration you disagree with while armed with weapons likely to intimidate those protestors.
I was thinking of spraying random gapers with snow FWIW, not necessarily friends and family (i did nearly take out my mother some years back actually). And in the land of freedom and oil that is Texas, youd have a hard time convincing people that breathing in 15 seconds of dense exhaust fumes is truly poisonous and/or amounts to terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
I just think that, due to the level and duration of planning, chain of conscious decisions each kid undertook, and the celebrity one of them seems to now enjoy, combined with the different weapons that were used (everyday car vs assault rifle made to look combat ready), the Rittenhouse homicides seems so much worse to me. Also, people didnt die in the Texas incident.
This is a true psychopath ten driver: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/tee...BKWPMROEINPLQ/
Based on my heavy consumption of law shows on TV and the occasional glance at Google, it is my understanding that intent is the main difference between the various degrees of homicide.Quote:
Originally Posted by spanghew
Sure, but intent to assault is pretty well established. Escalation was likely enough to make the assault more effective. Hell, look at our obtuse friend here always talking up the dangers.
Fire off a gun and accidentally kill someone while robbing a store and those law shows will put you away for life.
When a drivers license is bestowed upon us we are given a very serious responsibility. We are expected to work through our childish urges and to make mature decisions as to how we handle ourselves. This guy didn't follow through and broke that social contract. He purposely modified the truck beyond any reasonable need with the implied purpose of negatively affecting his fellow citizens. Then when he was controlling this illegally modified machine he made a bad decision and executed it poorly. For this he should receive a punishment equal to what anyone else over the age of consent would, his age shouldn't be a factor.
If you were one of these unnecessarily injured riders and you found out that the driver that ruined your world was going to be allowed to move on with his life while yours was on hold would you be ok with it? I'm pretty sure that if it was me I'd end up bitter and looking for retribution. It's different than if I fuck myself up doing any of the high risk things I do but if someone else takes me out through ignorance and carelessness I would make sure the payback is commensurate.
Is it illegal? maybe in some places, but i bet not in Texas. Not to mention any deisel car can "roll coal".Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
One of the funnier things ive seen is a VW TDI on a freeway on-ramp being tailgated by a lifted Ram truck with a big CUMMINGS decal on the back. IDK if the VW driver did it intentionally, but he tried to speed up and must have been in the wrong gear because he rolled coal super hard on that Ram truck haha. it was great.
back on the 00s when I was patrolling, there were so many ugly collisions resulting in injuries that we were supposed to get the person who had run into the injured party to accompany us to the patrol room to fil out a formal statement about the incident pending potential lawsuits or police involvement. The person responsible for the collision tended to be young and male and almost always said something like "I didn't mean to run into the old lady," said old lady writhing on the snow in pain nearby. I doubt many of these incidents were a 'spray the gaper' frolic spoken of with such reminiscent fondness by the upstream poster, but were more the out-of-control, reckless solipsist action also shrugged off as 'who hasn't done that . . .'Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
One more mature skier decided he could tuck a fairly steep run to get up enough speed to ski uphill to the bottom of the nearby chair, rather than skiing to the bottom and riding a chair high enough to ski down to that chair. The schusser had to intersect a milk run to the bottom of the chair he should have been going to, and while trying to make his big uphill turn, he ran into a man with enough force to burst the man's aorta and kill him on the spot.
The cops were called to that incident and reported that the guy who had killed the other guy was in the hospital with serious injuries of his own, which he thought would get him off the hook for killing the other guy.
IO wasn't privy to any legal results of these numerous incidents, but I responded to enough of them to get very tired of hearing the excuses and the tone of privilege they were spoken in.
The law does care about intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by spanghew
The victim likely doesnt care about intent.
Intent is usually the difference between an evil MFer and a dumb/selfish/ignorant/naive MFer. The later of which pretty well describes teenagers.
isn't "I didn't mean to...!" basically the excuse for 99% of "accidents"?
it seems irrelevant to assigning responsibility, if that's what justice is supposed to determine
Something like this would be an appropriate alternative to prison:Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob9QOxocDnM
A lot of states, including TX, have felony murder and misdemeanor manslaughter laws, which specifically say that if you commit or try to commit a felony and someone dies it's automatically murder, and if you commit or try to commit a misdemeanor it's manslaughter. So is harassing road bikers by rolling coal or driving too close a felony or misdemeanor in TX? Damn, I should be the judge on this case. But he can call me if he has any questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
Does anyone really believe that douchie coal rolling teen will learn anything from this other than the system favors uppity cyclists more than patriots like himself and people like him? Do you think his parents that own his stupid bro dozer are worried about the cyclists and their potentially life altering injuries? Do you think his family and friends are rallying around him in support? Do you think there’s remorse or only regret?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Yeah, considering his whole case for felony manslaughter is based on witness interpretations that the kid was trying to blow smoke at the bikers in the road [for which he very likely has no physical evidence], this prosecutor would be well advised to try this juvenile on lesser charges, or boogerbear him into a plea bargain.
Imagine hating cyclists so much that you stump for this douchebag all day on the internet. But anyway, I would guess that if the car isn't modified to roll coal that would sure help his case.Quote:
Originally Posted by highangle
You should offer to be a witness for the defense. Have you considered that the surviving victims might offer some testimony? How about the kid saying to the cops at the scene “I was just trying to roll a little coal on them and lost control”. Entirely plausible for a teenager realizing he’s in a lot of trouble. Doesn’t really matter though, the victims were only cyclists, they probably deserve it, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by highangle
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I were the judge I would sentence him to traffic school--on the road traffic school to practice his coal-rolling so he doesn't lose control next time.
It's highly plausible he didn't admit guilt at the scene. Back of all my auto insurance cards says, "Don't admit fault!"...Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
It's also highly plausible the kid called his Daddy and also got told not to admit fault. This before Daddy's attorney called Jr and told him to not say nothing whatsoever to nobody and have him on speaker when the cops get there.
but being a reckless routefinder gets judged more harshly:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/u...smid=url-share
"Once Mr. Lantis reached safety, the ranger issued him a citation for disorderly conduct alleging that he “knowingly or recklessly created a risk of public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy.”"
Our MN friend getting hit by a door:
https://youtu.be/AiUpbzIOFBQ
Stay off the sidewalk?
biking-home
”attempted education”…. heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by The SnowShow
heh old.reddit ftw!
Classy video. You guys going to carpool with signs to protest when rolling coal boy has to do time?
,Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ex-powderbroker
Cyclists are the worst, relax dude, nobody cares about your strava segment.
Perfect.
Good stuff.^^
Popped in here for some ml242 spew about cyclist this cyclist that blah blah but am leaving disappointed.
When he’s talking about junk you’ll find in the bike lane, pretty sure he’s says Jews, and then later ‘a person’, thereby implying Jews aren’t people. Don’t bother trying to convince me otherwise! Cancelled! :fmicon:
that's cool because literally nobody has ever clicked on a thread to see what you have to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki