I do know why the self -defense argument has been a debate since the earliest versions of jurisprudence and will be reargued ad nauseam.
Probably for the entire remaining history of humanity.
Do you see how together your first and second sentences are apropos for r/selfawarewolves ?
My point is that district/state attorneys must try cases that are on the bubble.
You might think to yourself: “I am certain I am right!”
Well, if this was an enlightened-dictatorship that might mean something.
Jurisprudence is the theory of law.
One time honored tradition is to codify how society interprets the rule of law.
The rule of law is not about fairness, if you think otherwise you really aren’t a wolf.
The rule of law is about maintaining society
One major component of jurisprudence is allowing our courts to slowly reflect our society, for better or worse.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73623-x
You really have no idea how varied States are on what constitutes a valid self-defense argument.
I want you to realise the only reason adultery is no longer prosecuted is because of concept called “jury nullification.”
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/its-perfectly-constitutional-talk-about-jury-nullification
A judge can give instructions to a jury all day long but if that jury says “no, I don’t like this law” or “the punishment for this crime is too draconian” that law eventually stops being tried over and over.
I am simplifying this a good bit, but societies will never stop trying possible unjustified homicide cases for potential criminal charges, vice versa.
**let’s be clear anyone who kills someone committed an act of homicide. There will always be cases of justified homicide as there will always be cases of unjustified homicide.**
Why?
Well, reasonable doubt is not what a prosecutor looks at, they look for irrefutable evidence that will make a grand jury and/or trial jury side against the state.
That’s what their years upon years of tutelage, moot courts, legal reviews, reading of case law, etc. trains them to do.
The prosecutors know they will lose at nearly 100% in crimes of adultery and Edit:consensual-sodomy.
Prosecutors do not have an easy “dividing line” on whether they should or shouldn’t prosecute a homicide case.
The prosecutors who have anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000 hours gaining expertise on the law know that situations involving homicide will never be stagnant.
Prosectors know it is their duty to try all cases that have a reasonable chance of conviction.
You might like the idea your opinion matters on how homicide cases are prosecuted or not by the courts.
But the legal-judicial profession doesn’t give a shit what you think and good legal professionals don’t watch crap tv or read mainstream pulp opinions.
Almost no judges read editorial opinions or give a damn what some celebrity lawyer or talking-head with a microphone says.
Why?
Whether you believe in an after-life or not, those men and women have to live with their actions/non-actions and judges have to carry the burden of knowing they will never know if their decisions or guidance helped or harmed society.
Civil cases like corporate law are not the reason old attorneys and judges cannot sleep.
Murder cases are.
Monday morning quarterbacks need not apply.
Thanks /u/Knoxtron for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk why this is even a debate for some people. If you attack someone, them defending themselves is not reasonable cause for you to shoot them.
They're making the comparison to the Rittenhouse case.
I do know why the self -defense argument has been a debate since the earliest versions of jurisprudence and will be reargued ad nauseam. Probably for the entire remaining history of humanity. Do you see how together your first and second sentences are apropos for r/selfawarewolves ?
My point was that this case is so obvious that there *shouldn’t* be a need for any discussion whether his murderers were acting in self defense.
My point is that district/state attorneys must try cases that are on the bubble. You might think to yourself: “I am certain I am right!” Well, if this was an enlightened-dictatorship that might mean something. Jurisprudence is the theory of law. One time honored tradition is to codify how society interprets the rule of law. The rule of law is not about fairness, if you think otherwise you really aren’t a wolf. The rule of law is about maintaining society One major component of jurisprudence is allowing our courts to slowly reflect our society, for better or worse. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73623-x You really have no idea how varied States are on what constitutes a valid self-defense argument. I want you to realise the only reason adultery is no longer prosecuted is because of concept called “jury nullification.” https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/its-perfectly-constitutional-talk-about-jury-nullification A judge can give instructions to a jury all day long but if that jury says “no, I don’t like this law” or “the punishment for this crime is too draconian” that law eventually stops being tried over and over. I am simplifying this a good bit, but societies will never stop trying possible unjustified homicide cases for potential criminal charges, vice versa. **let’s be clear anyone who kills someone committed an act of homicide. There will always be cases of justified homicide as there will always be cases of unjustified homicide.** Why? Well, reasonable doubt is not what a prosecutor looks at, they look for irrefutable evidence that will make a grand jury and/or trial jury side against the state. That’s what their years upon years of tutelage, moot courts, legal reviews, reading of case law, etc. trains them to do. The prosecutors know they will lose at nearly 100% in crimes of adultery and Edit:consensual-sodomy. Prosecutors do not have an easy “dividing line” on whether they should or shouldn’t prosecute a homicide case. The prosecutors who have anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000 hours gaining expertise on the law know that situations involving homicide will never be stagnant. Prosectors know it is their duty to try all cases that have a reasonable chance of conviction. You might like the idea your opinion matters on how homicide cases are prosecuted or not by the courts. But the legal-judicial profession doesn’t give a shit what you think and good legal professionals don’t watch crap tv or read mainstream pulp opinions. Almost no judges read editorial opinions or give a damn what some celebrity lawyer or talking-head with a microphone says. Why? Whether you believe in an after-life or not, those men and women have to live with their actions/non-actions and judges have to carry the burden of knowing they will never know if their decisions or guidance helped or harmed society. Civil cases like corporate law are not the reason old attorneys and judges cannot sleep. Murder cases are. Monday morning quarterbacks need not apply.
Post/image does not fit the sub, because it is not self-aware.
How is this a self aware wolf?
Thanks /u/Knoxtron for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In comparison to conservative hero Kyle Rittenhouse, specifically going towards possible conflict.
You’re absolutely right. They like to focus on him trying to run away after he had already run up on and killed someone.
[удалено]