Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:28 PM, 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.

Expand  

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:30 PM, David Dennison said:

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

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:46 PM, 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.

Expand  

I mean, it's no skateboard.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:46 PM, 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.

Expand  

Except where it is.

Posted (edited)
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:35 PM, Chuckie Finster said:

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

Logically?  He knew what he was getting into.  

Expand  

 

  On 11/12/2021 at 9:44 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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 by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:54 PM, Brisketexan said:

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

Expand  

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).

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:59 PM, 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).

Expand  

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

Expand  

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:28 PM, 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.

Expand  

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

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:54 PM, 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.

Expand  

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

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:30 PM, David Dennison said:

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

Expand  

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

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 9:28 PM, 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.

Expand  

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?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
  On 11/12/2021 at 11:45 PM, 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

Expand  

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 by conVINCEd
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 11:45 PM, 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

Expand  

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):

 

  Reveal hidden contents

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

Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:01 AM, washparkhorn said:

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

Expand  

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?

Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:21 AM, 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?

Expand  

More reasonable than someone toting a skateboard. 

Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:21 AM, 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?

Expand  

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.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:27 AM, Fudge Nuggets said:

More reasonable than someone toting a skateboard. 

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:37 AM, 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

Expand  

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

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:21 AM, 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?

Expand  

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.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

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. 

Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 10:54 PM, henrygandorf said:

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

Expand  

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.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:37 AM, 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

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:21 AM, 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?

Expand  

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:55 AM, 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.  

Expand  

You should start open carrying then

Posted
  On 11/12/2021 at 8:31 PM, Johnny Sack said:

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

Expand  

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

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:34 AM, 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.

 

Expand  

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.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted

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.  

Posted
  On 11/13/2021 at 12:21 AM, 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?

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.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...