Kyle Rittenhouse

[Anastasis 23393]

The CR's affinity for FAFO has its limits I guess. 

[RomaVicta 29775]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Serious question: Did Kyle have any self-defense right that night, in your mind, given the context you are referring to (i.e., bringing a gun to a volatile situation, etc.)? In other words, is your contention that no matter what happened, Kyle lost the right to defend himself the moment he arrived?

If that is your argument, then that is contrary to the law. If that isn't your argument, then your "context" is irrelevant.

Roma -- he was putting out fires.  And rendering medical aid.  He only shouldered his weapon when attacked for putting out a fire by a crazy unstable felon who previously threatened to kill him and chased him down.

Is all of this directed at me? I state clearly that I don't know what the law is for this particular case nor do I know what the verdict should be. I don't have all the evidence, and I haven't watched the trial. 

"He put out fires and rendered medical aid!" I point to the picture. What do your eyes tell you? Why is he patrolling an area heavily armed when neither law enforcement nor the National Guard have deemed that action to be necessary? 

Who cares if he rendered aid or tried to put out fires? The issue is that he chose to do a combat patrol as what can only be called vigilantism. Again, look at the picture.

Where you address me, you rely on the societal and legal flaw I decry. Persons have a right to defend themselves. I raise my voice against laws that allow heavily armed persons to political events or walk through discount stores. 

I don't want a stick of paramilitary clowns patrolling my street with heavy weapons even if they have a red cross on their absurd body armor. They are more dangerous to me than an occasional wandering negro or the possibility of a mass casualty fire breaking out.

Big. Picture. 

[Incredulity 11559]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The CR's affinity for FAFO has its limits I guess. 

Covid and conservatives on a Venn diagram.

[Anastasis 23393]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I haven't watched the trial.

All you had to say really. 

 

I caught pieces.  Enough to come to the conclusion that KR was a dipshit among a sea of dipshits that night. Some of the dipshits FAFO. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It is not unreasonable to feel threatened by a private citizen walking down the street open carrying an assault rifle.

I would not suggest attacking someone for merely open carrying.  You win the confrontation, and you are going to be guilty of assault.   You lose, and you will be laying out in the street with bullet holes in you.  Open carrying a rifle is not illegal.  You don't get to attack someone for merely legally openly carrying, not matter how much it scares you.

[Chuckie Finster 22598]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

I would not suggest attacking someone for merely open carrying.  You win the confrontation, and you are going to be guilty of assault.   You lose, and you will be laying out in the street with bullet holes in you.  Open carrying a rifle is not illegal.  You don't get to attack someone for merely legally openly carrying, not matter how much it scares you.

I mean, it's no skateboard.

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I would not suggest attacking someone for merely open carrying.  You win the confrontation, and you are going to be guilty of assault.   You lose, and you will be laying out in the street with bullet holes in you.  Open carrying a rifle is not illegal.  You don't get to attack someone for merely legally openly carrying, not matter how much it scares you.

Except where it is.

[workswithseed 2035]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Except where it is.

In the street? 

[South Austin 52130]

Just now, workswithseed said:

In the street? 

On a plane and on a train.

[workswithseed 2035]

Just now, South Austin said:

On a plane and on a train.

Are you shooting Sam?

[Captainant 27442]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Open carrying a rifle is not illegal

It is if you're under 18 and not hunting. But rittenhouse was hunting so I can see your side of the argument

[Brisketexan 104561]

20 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Legally?  Sure, that's why he's gonna walk.

Logically?  He knew what he was getting into.  

 

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

All you had to say really. 

 

I caught pieces.  Enough to come to the conclusion that KR was a dipshit among a sea of dipshits that night. Some of the dipshits FAFO. 

This.

In terms of intent and FA, Kyle fantasized about getting to shoot someone, and that's a material part of why he was down there.

And then three absolute fucking idiots gave him a legally justifiable situation for doing just that - the FO part of our story.

This story doesn't have any heroes.  Just varying types of dipshits.  Two of whom paid for their dipshittery with death, another with pain, and the last one with.....well, not much.  I don't think that KR much cares that he shot people, I think he is being fed enough "you're a hero" bullshit that it's what he's going to choose to ingest.

Oh, and I absolutely think that the cops beforehand used some selective reasoning.  You had a guy strapped, going towards a volatile situation.  What cop thinks that's a good idea, and encourages it?  And would they have thought the same if Kyle was a black dude, or wearing a BLM shirt?  Of course not (and they'd have been right - it's a really shitty thing to have civilians go charging into a volatile situation with an AR).  The cops encouraged and thus functionally deputized a kid to go do what they couldn't.  That's bad shit.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Brisketexan

[South Austin 52130]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Are you shooting Sam?

Well, the fucker came at me with a skateboard when I offered him some of my green eggs and ham.

[South Austin 52130]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This story doesn't have any heroes.  Just varying types of dipshits. 

This is my point all along.  Fucksticks with questionable character all around going out for a night on the town wearing Bad Idea Jeans.  Nobody wins.  Except Surly rep whores (like me).

[Incredulity 11559]

Huh, who would think not enforcing the law would lead to situations like this.

Truly mind bottling.

[Brisketexan 104561]

2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

This is my point all along.  Fucksticks with questionable character all around going out for a night on the town wearing Bad Idea Jeans.  Nobody wins.  Except Surly rep whores (like me).

Also, I just realized that I could have written this alternate version and it would be just as true:

Quote

This board doesn't have any heroes.  Just varying types of dipshits

 

[South Austin 52130]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This board doesn't have any heroes.  Just varying types of dipshits

Hey man, plenty of heroes on the Sugar Baby thread.

[Brisketexan 104561]

2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Hey man, plenty of heroes on the Sugar Baby thread.

Follow it closely.  Eventually, all of your heroes will let you down.

[South Austin 52130]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Follow it closely.  Eventually, all of your heroes will let you down.

Heroes don't always bang 10s.  Or 5s.

[washparkhorn 9935]

43 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Serious question: Did Kyle have any self-defense right that night, in your mind, given the context you are referring to (i.e., bringing a gun to a volatile situation, etc.)? In other words, is your contention that no matter what happened, Kyle lost the right to defend himself the moment he arrived?

If that is your argument, then that is contrary to the law. If that isn't your argument, then your "context" is irrelevant.

An initial aggressor loses the right to claim self-defense. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and I absolutely think that the cops beforehand used some selective reasoning.  You had a guy strapped, going towards a volatile situation.  What cop thinks that's a good idea, and encourages it?  And would they have thought the same if Kyle was a black dude, or wearing a BLM shirt?  Of course not (and they'd have been right - it's a really shitty thing to have civilians go charging into a volatile situation with an AR).  The cops encouraged and thus functionally deputized a kid to go do what they couldn't.  That's bad shit.

The cops actions aiding and abetting his trek to the violence was certainly sus.

Edited November 12, 2021 by washparkhorn

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 hours ago, Gourmand said:

ICYMI

 

looks like pop-pop got into the cough syrup again.

[Fudge Nuggets 19146]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

looks like pop-pop got into the cough syrup again.

This asshole makes Judge Ito look like John Marshall.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

The police could have issued citations to protestors and militia alike for violating the curfew, but instead funneled people away from the public buildings and down the street. Which happened to be where the 'militia' were guarding the commercial buildings. Anyone with any brains got out of there by that time.

[Sawbonz 27398]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It is not unreasonable to feel threatened by a private citizen walking down the street open carrying an assault rifle.

The word reasonable used here has a specific meaning in the legal sense. I don’t think the reasonable person standard would allow for physically attacking someone simply carrying a long gun because you fear that person may shoot you personally

[Bullneck 18987]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Serious question: Did Kyle have any self-defense right that night, in your mind, given the context you are referring to (i.e., bringing a gun to a volatile situation, etc.)? In other words, is your contention that no matter what happened, Kyle lost the right to defend himself the moment he arrived?

If that is your argument, then that is contrary to the law. If that isn't your argument, then your "context" is irrelevant.

Roma -- he was putting out fires.  And rendering medical aid.  He only shouldered his weapon when attacked for putting out a fire by a crazy unstable felon who previously threatened to kill him and chased him down.

He should have stayed home.  None of this was his business.  Let the people hired for situations like this take care of it.  This isn't the wild west.

You really don't want to understand this, do you?

[henrygandorf 29174]

53 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This asshole makes Judge Ito look like John Marshall.

are you saying he is to jurisprudence what dr seuss is to medicine?

[conVINCEd 21468]

18 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

The word reasonable used here has a specific meaning in the legal sense. I don’t think the reasonable person standard would allow for physically attacking someone simply carrying a long gun because you fear that person may shoot you personally

If you feel the need to carry a long gun with you wherever you go, you are a pussy of the highest order and I really don’t give a fuck what happens to you.  The world would be a better place if these people ceased to exist.

Edited November 13, 2021 by conVINCEd

[washparkhorn 9935]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

The word reasonable used here has a specific meaning in the legal sense. I don’t think the reasonable person standard would allow for physically attacking someone simply carrying a long gun because you fear that person may shoot you personally

That is the law in Wisconsin and it is a question for the jury:

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. 

The Wisconsin laws on self-defense, first aggressor, and defense of property (so we are on the same page):

 

Spoiler

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (a) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
History: 1987 a. 399; 1993 a. 486; 2005 a. 253; 2011 a. 94.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (3) is amended by conforming references to the statute titles as affected by this bill. [Bill 191-S]
When a defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot or use force, he could not claim self-defense. Cleghorn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 466, 198 N.W.2d 577 (1972).
Sub. (2) (b) is inapplicable to a defendant if the nature of the initial provocation is a gun-in-hand confrontation of an intended victim by a self-identified robber. Under these circumstances the intended victim is justified in the use of force in the exercise of the right of self-defense. Ruff v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 713, 223 N.W.2d 446 (1974).
Whether a defendant's belief was reasonable under subs. (1) and (4) depends, in part, upon the parties' personal characteristics and histories and whether events were continuous. State v. Jones, 147 Wis. 2d 806, 434 N.W.2d 380 (1989).
Evidence of prior specific instances of violence that were known to the accused may be presented to support a defense of self-defense. The evidence is not limited to the accused's own testimony, but the evidence may not be extended to the point that it is being offered to prove that the victim acted in conformity with his or her violent tendencies. State v. Daniels, 160 Wis. 2d 85, 465 N.W.2d 633 (1991).
Imperfect self-defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).
The reasonableness of a person's belief under sub. (1) is judged from the position of a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the same situation as the defendant, not a person identical to the defendant placed in the same situation as the defendant. A defendant's psycho-social history showing past violence toward the defendant is generally not relevant to this objective standard, although it may be relevant, as in spousal abuse cases, where the actors are the homicide victim and defendant. State v. Hampton, 207 Wis. 2d 369, 558 N.W.2d 884 (Ct. App. 1996).
The right to resist unlawful arrest is not part of the statutory right to self-defense. It is a common law privilege that is abrogated. State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), 96-0914.
While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. A jury instruction to that effect was proper. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739.
When a defendant fails to establish a factual basis to raise self-defense, prior specific acts of violence by the victim have no probative value. The presentation of subjective testimony by an accused, going to a belief that taking steps in self-defense was necessary, is not sufficient for the admission of self-defense evidence. State v. Head, 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9, 99-3071.
Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st-degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.
When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, [his] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.
When the circuit court instructed the jury to “consider the evidence relating to ... defense of others, in deciding whether defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk.... If the defendant was acting lawfully in defense of others, his conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another," the instruction on the state's burden of proof on defendant's defense of others defense was wholly omitted and the instructions were erroneous. State v. Austin, 2013 WI App 96, 349 Wis. 2d 744, 836 N.W.2d 833, 12-0011.
Sub. (1m) does not justify continued use of deadly force against an intruder when that intruder is no longer in the actor's dwelling. The applicable definition of the actor's dwelling, s. 895.07 (1) (h), requires that the part of the lot or site in question be “devoted to residential use." While s. 895.07 (1) (h) lists several parts of a residential lot that are part of a “dwelling," it does not include a parking lot. The common denominator of the listed parts of dwellings is that all are property over which the actor has exclusive control. An apartment building parking lot is not exclusive to one tenant or devoted to the residential use of any one tenant. State v. Chew, 2014 WI App 116, 358 Wis. 2d 368, 856 N.W.2d 541, 13-2592.
Wisconsin law establishes a low bar that the accused must surmount to be entitled to a jury instruction on the privilege of self-defense. The accused need produce only “some evidence" in support of the privilege of self-defense. State v. Stietz, 2017 WI 58, 369 Wis. 2d 222, 880 N.W.2d 182, 14-2701.
The jury instruction for self-defense in this case was not erroneous. The circuit court gave the jury a general instruction on the state's burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because self-defense is a negative defense, the state disproves self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt if the state proves the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically criminal negligence. Therefore, the jury was aware that the state had to prove criminal negligence—the element that self-defense would negate—beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409.
A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79 (1975).
Self-defense — prior acts of the victim. 1974 WLR 266.
State v. Camacho: The Judicial Creation of an Objective Element to Wisconsin's Law of Imperfect Self-defense Homicide. Leiser. 1995 WLR 742.
Home Safe Home: Wisconsin's Castle Doctrine and Trespasser Liability Laws. Hinkston. Wis. Law. June 2013.
939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48 (public access). 

[JimmyJames 12271]

I hereby move that we change the name of this thread to “Johnny Sack explains why choir boy Kyle killed some leftists.”
 

Much more accurate. 

[Sawbonz 27398]

17 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Are you suggesting that one could reasonably believe a random person simply walking down the street carrying a long gun is an imminent threat to do great bodily arm or kill them, and therefore they are legally justified in attacking that person?

[Fudge Nuggets 19146]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you suggesting that one could reasonably believe a random person simply walking down the street carrying a long gun is an imminent threat to do great bodily arm or kill them, and therefore they are legally justified in attacking that person?

More reasonable than someone toting a skateboard. 

[conVINCEd 21468]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you suggesting that one could reasonably believe a random person simply walking down the street carrying a long gun is an imminent threat to do great bodily arm or kill them, and therefore they are legally justified in attacking that person?

I would prefer to live in a place where people are not allowed to have assault rifles next to me when I’m trying to eat some enchiladas.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

This open carry idea is fucking ridiculous.  And the people that support open carry have small penises.  Sorry, but if you need to carry your gun to feel safe, fuck you.  You make the area around you LESS safe in the process.

[DigglerontheHoof 21053]

3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

You're the one crying. 

You are a pussy.  I’ve seen your picture, I’ve seen your posts, I’ve seen you beg for money.

You make a pussy look like a badass.

 

[Sawbonz 27398]

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

More reasonable than someone toting a skateboard. 

Are you suggesting that the video evidence of the dude swinging the skateboard at the guys head was faked? Rittenhouse is clearly a dumbass who should have stayed home. He’s probably a scumbag as well. He also was clearly physically attacked by the second guy he shot and had a gun pulled on him by the third guy. I don’t know if the first guy assaulted him or not, but if the video and third party testimony show he did, even scumbags who have no reason to be in a given public location have a legal right to self defense. If the first guy didn’t attack him, or if he menaced the guy with his weapon, leading to the attack, then rittenhouse is culpable for all that follows. If there is evidence of the latter I have not seen or heard it

[henrygandorf 29174]

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you suggesting that the video evidence of the dude swinging the skateboard at the guys head was faked? Rittenhouse is clearly a dumbass who should have stayed home. He’s probably a scumbag as well. He also was clearly physically attacked by the second guy he shot and had a gun pulled on him by the third guy. I don’t know if the first guy assaulted him or not, but if the video and third party testimony show he did, even scumbags who have no reason to be in a given public location have a legal right to self defense. If the first guy didn’t attack him, or if he menaced the guy with his weapon, leading to the attack, then rittenhouse is culpable for all that follows. If there is evidence of the latter I have not seen or heard it

i think the whole point is that reason goes out the window once he shoots somebody.

dude walks down the street carrying an assault rifle = uncomfortable and stupid

dude walks down the street carrying an assault rifle that just shot somebody = active shooter situation and everybody should feel threatened

[Judge Roybeanbag 11807]

30 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you suggesting that one could reasonably believe a random person simply walking down the street carrying a long gun is an imminent threat to do great bodily arm or kill them, and therefore they are legally justified in attacking that person?

Yeah.   With the proliferation of long guns, and the number of shootings involving them, there  is no reason for doubt that someone with such a weapon is a threat and needs to be taken out.  I’m a good guy with a gun.  Fight me.  

[elfenix 34171]

i think brisket postulated that someone walking into a place at low ready is going to get blasted one day and it will be an interesting (horrifying) case. 

[Nivek 16853]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

looks like pop-pop got into the cough syrup again.

This idiot is in charge of people's future.   (Why I hate lawyers Exhibit 1,000,003.)   I am still waiting to meet a lawyer who isn't somewhat fucked in the head.  

[Nivek 16853]

25 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you suggesting that the video evidence of the dude swinging the skateboard at the guys head was faked? Rittenhouse is clearly a dumbass who should have stayed home. He’s probably a scumbag as well. He also was clearly physically attacked by the second guy he shot and had a gun pulled on him by the third guy. I don’t know if the first guy assaulted him or not, but if the video and third party testimony show he did, even scumbags who have no reason to be in a given public location have a legal right to self defense. If the first guy didn’t attack him, or if he menaced the guy with his weapon, leading to the attack, then rittenhouse is culpable for all that follows. If there is evidence of the latter I have not seen or heard it

I am surprised that a doc has the eyes of a B12 ref.  it hit him in the shoulder according to the picture above.   

[Nivek 16853]

42 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you suggesting that one could reasonably believe a random person simply walking down the street carrying a long gun is an imminent threat to do great bodily arm or kill them, and therefore they are legally justified in attacking that person?

Yes.  So if you saw the (insert school shooter name) here walking around with a gun, do you think he is a threat especially if you heard shots fired?  Or do you think he is a good guy with a gun running away?   Johnny Sack remarked on here that Kyle was there to provide medical aid, well, did he provide medical aid to the individual he shot or did he run?   And if you hear shots fired and see some kid running and pointing guns at people do you automatically think he is a good guy with a gun? 

yeah I am drunk,  listening to sponge bob and eating fucking enchiladas verde that I made, so fuck Futureman.

[gmr548 16491]

I’ve seen you beg for money

I try to stay away from the truly personal stuff but this will never not be hysterical given the context

[Sawbonz 27398]

15 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yeah.   With the proliferation of long guns, and the number of shootings involving them, there  is no reason for doubt that someone with such a weapon is a threat and needs to be taken out.  I’m a good guy with a gun.  Fight me.  

You should start open carrying then

[Judge Roybeanbag 11807]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

You should start open carrying then

I don’t walk around with my dick out either, so no.  First do no harm.  I suspect that also means project doing no harm.   But you’re a doc so figure it out.

[Nivek 16853]

4 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

If you are not threatening anyone and they threaten to kill you twice if they catch you alone,

If he was alone, then there would be no video.  If there is video he is not alone.   Aren't you a lawyer? 

[workswithseed 2035]

43 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

You are a pussy.  I’ve seen your picture, I’ve seen your posts, I’ve seen you beg for money.

You make a pussy look like a badass.

 

I've seen you cry over a post that had nothing to do with you. It hurt you so much you had to lash out. Hey, you project what you want, Billy badass.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11807]

If I’m walking down the street with a stick of dynamite in one hand, and a Zippo in the other, well what conclusions are going to be drawn?  I’d expect someone would take me as a threat, even though I hadn’t lit it, yet.  

[washparkhorn 9935]

41 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I am still waiting to meet a lawyer who isn't somewhat fucked in the head.  

 

[Brisketexan 104561]

Are you suggesting that one could reasonably believe a random person simply walking down the street carrying a long gun is an imminent threat to do great bodily arm or kill them, and therefore they are legally justified in attacking that person?

Depends. Are you a cop? And is the person with the gun black? Because in that sort of situation, it’s been established that the cop can roll right up on that person and open fire.

I’m pointing to the worst examples, but there’s a real point in there. If Kyle had been a black guy in a BLM shirt, walking the same direction carrying the same weapon…think the cops would have treated him like they treated Kyle, and told him go forth and do good? I mean, maybe the black guy heard that there were some white boogaloo types heading down there, planning on starting fires and mayhem and blaming it on the locals. He’s even trained in CPR and likes putting our fires. Do you think he even makes it to the scene? Or is he taken down and arrested as soon as the local PD sees him. We all know the answer.

And again, I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with it. I think that might be a good common sense move for the cops - stop all civilians heading into a powder keg who happen to be carrying a visible firearm.