|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Jesus, still on with this "shoot to wound" bullshit.
Of course. The 17 year old defendant, just having been told that he's gonna get killed, hearing how reinforcements are called when he's retreating, is expected to fire a single round while is rifle is already being grabbed, double check whether or not he disabled the target, and then.. what? Give it a medical examination, then pick the rifle back up and fire two more if not sufficiently disabled?
Some people are actually idiots. Of course he didn't stop shooting, these were four shots in quick succession - he didn't even know whether or not he hit in the first place.
What is a "justifiable belief of a fear for your life," you seem to be arbitrarily deciding these things as it suits you? Can you tie it to some sort of action? Where in this situation was Rittenhouse the one who had a justifiable belief in a fear for his life that superseded anyone else's?
I dunno, lets think. Do you think, if i tell you that i'm going to kill you, then run after you while actively rallying backup, you could be in danger? I certainly would. Beggars belief at your inability to make an objective observation.
You argue that "a dude with a weapon" is already life threatening enough to attack him, but somehow a guy being actually attacked, with multiple deadly weapons (lets not forget that he got slammed over the head with a skateboard), isn't?
This is what happened.
The first person Kyle was Joseph Rosenbaum.
Earlier in the evening Rosenbaum threatened Kyle that if he found him alone he would kill him.
Immediately prior to the shooting Rosenbaum yelled "Let's get him!" and "Get him, get him, get him!" while another nearby person yelled "You won't do shit motherfucker" at Kyle. Kyle yelled "Friendly, friendly, friendly!" in return.
Kyle runs away and Rosenbaum gives chase. Rosenbaum quickly catches Kyle and yells "Fuck you!" as he lunges at him. Kyle fires all four rounds in one volley, there is no initial round that removes the threat followed by a deliberate three round execution as you imply.
None of this relies on testimony or interpretation and anybody can verify these events for themselves by watching the video evidence.
This is factual. This is what you see in the video, objectively. There can't be any dispute, that's why you guys try to establish that Rittenhouse is guilty by "being there" in the first place.
And further, yes. Gaige would have had a point in shooting Rittenhouse, in my opinion.
The main takeaway for me is the ridiculousness of the american justice system. It's absolutely idiotic. Lets be very clear and very real, Rittenhouse was always gonna walk on this. That's not even a question, anyone who thought that he gets convicted on those charges was delusional.
Here's what would've happened in germany. He gets tried for murder. Murder doesn't stick, so he gets convicted for manslaughter (which i personally think he should've been convicted on). In the US, because of an absolutely inept prosecution that did nothing correctly, from charging for the wrong crime, to calling witnesses for the defendant, this was a political shitshow on both sides. The judge was awful too. This was a political show.
Rittenhouse should've been charged with manslaughter, or a variation thereof, and he would've been convicted on that. Even with that judge, or at the very least it would've been much harder for the judge to make up bullshit to protect Rittenhouse, with potential consequences afterwards for him.
People seem to understand that he's found to be innocent, and on paper (due to said idiotic US justice systems) he is. In reality, he isn't. He just got charged with the wrong crime from the start, which meant that a conviction for the actual crime wasn't possible. You can argue that it'd be better to find him guilty on the wrong crime than walking free, i'd argue that that would be equally stupid. Laws aren't up for debate (well, after seeing the weapons charge dropped, lets say usually aren't up for debate), it's up to the prosecution to do their job proper, rather than for political gains.
Ah btw. We do have law people here. Let me ask a serious question. As a judge, would you allow video evidence that does not show Rittenhouse actually saying what is claimed, with no expert to testify/analysis to show that it actually is Rittenhouse speaking? To be clear, i believe it is him - but i don't have to judge people (other than for their ignorance on the internet). Not to mention that the reasoning to bring the video was to show "state of mind". If it was on the day, absolutely. If it was 15 days prior, no. It takes less than an hour to change the state of mind. Hell, i probably have got a recording of me on my dashcam saying that i wish i could run those bloody bicyclists blocking the entire lane in a 50 zone over. That doesn't mean i've got murderous intent or a murderous state of mind. In fact, i bet for almost everyone here there's a time and place where they said something "violent", without actually meaning it. And as long as you can't establish whether or not it's a firm belief, or a "thing of the moment", no. You shouldn't be judged on it. Especially not if something happens 15 days later.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this.
What would be the alternative - find him guilty on the wrong charges? Who's at fault?
|
On November 20 2021 21:34 m4ini wrote: Rittenhouse should've been charged with manslaughter, or a variation thereof, and he would've been convicted on that. Even with that judge, or at the very least it would've been much harder for the judge to make up bullshit to protect Rittenhouse, with potential consequences afterwards for him.
This is pretty much absolutely false. It can't be self defence and manslaughter. The same legal defence would have been applied and the same verdict would have been reached for the same reason.
A manslaughter charge may have been applicable if the court rejected his claim of self defence but found the killing did not amount to murder for some other reason.
|
The jury was instructed on lesser includeds relative to one of the two men who was killed, so it’s basically a moot point anyway, they acquitted him on those all the same.
|
On November 20 2021 21:21 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 21:05 EnDeR_ wrote: We are going around in circles a bit here.
I think that most posters here would agree that, if you ignore context and only look at the events during the riot, kyle was justified in using his AR in self-defence under current US law.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this. The alternative is much, much worse. The idea that you can argue Kyle was 'asking for it' and therefore not entitled to defend himself would lead to much worse outcomes. Nobody was forced to attack Kyle and it's not his fault if they did, regardless of his politics. If you show up to counter-protest at a KKK rally are you still a vigilante who is looking for trouble and therefore not entitled to defend yourself or are you just a counter-protester who still has your legal rights? For me, if you do that and the facts come out that you didn't provoke or threaten and only defended yourself then you absolutely have a right to be there and defend yourself same as Kyle. Because intent matters. If Kyle was driving home from work and was attacked and defended himself in the process this discussion might not exist.
But that isn't what happened. Kyle expressed desire to shoot rioters, then went to a riot. Illegally acquired a gun and proceeded to shoot rioters.
If you go to counter protest a KKK rally saying you want to shoot some racists and then goat said racists into charging you and shoot them I'm not going to call it self defence either.
And just for good measure once again. I don't care about what the law allows. US law, especially in relation to guns is insane. The law might determine he is innocent. But he shouldn't be, and in every other first world country he would be.
|
On November 20 2021 22:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 21:21 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 21:05 EnDeR_ wrote: We are going around in circles a bit here.
I think that most posters here would agree that, if you ignore context and only look at the events during the riot, kyle was justified in using his AR in self-defence under current US law.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this. The alternative is much, much worse. The idea that you can argue Kyle was 'asking for it' and therefore not entitled to defend himself would lead to much worse outcomes. Nobody was forced to attack Kyle and it's not his fault if they did, regardless of his politics. If you show up to counter-protest at a KKK rally are you still a vigilante who is looking for trouble and therefore not entitled to defend yourself or are you just a counter-protester who still has your legal rights? For me, if you do that and the facts come out that you didn't provoke or threaten and only defended yourself then you absolutely have a right to be there and defend yourself same as Kyle. Because intent matters. If Kyle was driving home from work and was attacked and defended himself in the process this discussion might not exist. But that isn't what happened. Kyle expressed desire to shoot rioters, then went to a riot. Illegally acquired a gun and proceeded to shoot rioters. If you go to counter protest a KKK rally saying you want to shoot some racists and then goat said racists into charging you and shoot them I'm not going to call it self defence either. He did not illegally acquire a gun. You have been lied to. He was legally entitled to open carry a gun of that size. The expression you reference was 15 days before the shooting, not during or directly before.
Nobody said anything about goading the racists. I specifically mentioned no provocation. Kyle did not goad or provoke any rioters into attacking him.
|
On November 20 2021 22:12 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 22:03 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2021 21:21 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 21:05 EnDeR_ wrote: We are going around in circles a bit here.
I think that most posters here would agree that, if you ignore context and only look at the events during the riot, kyle was justified in using his AR in self-defence under current US law.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this. The alternative is much, much worse. The idea that you can argue Kyle was 'asking for it' and therefore not entitled to defend himself would lead to much worse outcomes. Nobody was forced to attack Kyle and it's not his fault if they did, regardless of his politics. If you show up to counter-protest at a KKK rally are you still a vigilante who is looking for trouble and therefore not entitled to defend yourself or are you just a counter-protester who still has your legal rights? For me, if you do that and the facts come out that you didn't provoke or threaten and only defended yourself then you absolutely have a right to be there and defend yourself same as Kyle. Because intent matters. If Kyle was driving home from work and was attacked and defended himself in the process this discussion might not exist. But that isn't what happened. Kyle expressed desire to shoot rioters, then went to a riot. Illegally acquired a gun and proceeded to shoot rioters. If you go to counter protest a KKK rally saying you want to shoot some racists and then goat said racists into charging you and shoot them I'm not going to call it self defence either. He did not illegally acquire a gun. You have been lied to. He was legally entitled to open carry a gun of that size. The expression you reference was 15 days before the shooting, not during or directly before. Nobody said anything about goading the racists. I specifically mentioned no provocation. Kyle did not goad or provoke any rioters into attacking him. Kyle is(was?) a minor. His friend bought the gun for him, which is also illegal. The possession charges got dropped because of barrel size because Wisconsin law is, surprise, stupid.
So yes I stand by my statement he went out of his way to illegally acquire an gun.
And so your saying that if I express how boyfriends should be allowed to shoot their ex 3 weeks before I kill my stupid ex that can't be used to show that I committed pre-meditated murder? Going to have to disagree there.
He expressed a desire to shoot people, went out of his way to illegally acquire a gun to shoot people with and then shot people. Yet I am somehow supposed to believe they are not connected.
|
On November 20 2021 22:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 22:12 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 22:03 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2021 21:21 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 21:05 EnDeR_ wrote: We are going around in circles a bit here.
I think that most posters here would agree that, if you ignore context and only look at the events during the riot, kyle was justified in using his AR in self-defence under current US law.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this. The alternative is much, much worse. The idea that you can argue Kyle was 'asking for it' and therefore not entitled to defend himself would lead to much worse outcomes. Nobody was forced to attack Kyle and it's not his fault if they did, regardless of his politics. If you show up to counter-protest at a KKK rally are you still a vigilante who is looking for trouble and therefore not entitled to defend yourself or are you just a counter-protester who still has your legal rights? For me, if you do that and the facts come out that you didn't provoke or threaten and only defended yourself then you absolutely have a right to be there and defend yourself same as Kyle. Because intent matters. If Kyle was driving home from work and was attacked and defended himself in the process this discussion might not exist. But that isn't what happened. Kyle expressed desire to shoot rioters, then went to a riot. Illegally acquired a gun and proceeded to shoot rioters. If you go to counter protest a KKK rally saying you want to shoot some racists and then goat said racists into charging you and shoot them I'm not going to call it self defence either. He did not illegally acquire a gun. You have been lied to. He was legally entitled to open carry a gun of that size. The expression you reference was 15 days before the shooting, not during or directly before. Nobody said anything about goading the racists. I specifically mentioned no provocation. Kyle did not goad or provoke any rioters into attacking him. Kyle is(was?) a minor. His friend bought the gun for him, which is also illegal. The possession charges got dropped because of barrel size because Wisconsin law is, surprise, stupid. So yes I stand by my statement he went out of his way to illegally acquire an gun. And so your saying that if I express how boyfriends should be allowed to shoot their ex 3 weeks before I kill my stupid ex that can't be used to show that I committed pre-meditated murder? Going to have to disagree there. He expressed a desire to shoot people, went out of his way to illegally acquire a gun to shoot people with and then shot people. Yet I am somehow supposed to believe they are not connected. You can stand by whatever you want but the fact is he was legally allowed to have that gun. Being 17 would have mattered if he were using the gun for hunting without a permit or supervision or if he were concealed carrying a handgun. Neither of those things were the case.
The reason the gun charge got dropped "because of the barrel size" is not because the law is "stupid" it's because concealed carry is much more restricted than open carry and rifles with short barrels are considered suitable for concealed use. The prosecution tried to charge him with having a short-barrelled-rifle because that would have been an instant felony and self-defence doesn't apply while committing felonies. The barrel was of course legal and the charge was thrown out, as it should have been.
I am saying if you said "if I had my gun I'd shoot my ex" casually to your friend and then 15 days later your ex attacked you unprovoked and tried to kill you then you would have a right to self defence and shouldn't be expected to just sit down and die.
|
Northern Ireland23843 Posts
@m4in yes, I’m unsure if an angry video is necessarily proof of actual murderous intent. We’ve all (probably) been angry and expressed murderous sentiment that doesn’t equate with an actual desire to do such a thing.
What I think could be relevant, in this or a similar video is the expression of other intent, relevant to other motives.
For example, a desire to keep local businesses and citizens safe vs something more charged politically. If you’re there talking about standing against your perceived political enemies.
I must stress I haven’t seen this particular footage, nor a transcript so I’m talking more in generalities.
So I believe it could be relevant, albeit the law seems to basically allow you to do whatever and shoot people provided the events immediately preceding necessitate self-defence.
Likewise there’d be a difference in plausibility if I ended up shooting someone at a protest I’d gone to having posted a video extolling the virtues of the cause vs if I shot someone having posted videos about how I was looking forward to bashing the Fash
How the law appears to work and how that feeds into the wider political climate seems a recipe for disaster
|
On November 20 2021 22:35 WombaT wrote: So I believe it could be relevant, albeit the law seems to basically allow you to do whatever and shoot people provided the events immediately preceding necessitate self-defence.
Generally no, depending on what you mean by 'do whatever'.
If you for instance punch somebody and then use them punching you back to justify shooting them in self defence it won't work. If you threaten somebody and then use their response to that threat to justify shooting them in self defence it also generally won't work.
Depending on exactly what state you're in you may legally have somewhere between a 'duty to retreat' (ie. you can't be considered to be acting in self defence if you didn't try to run away) or the right to 'stand your ground' (ie. the prosecution can't argue it wasn't self defence just because you didn't run away.) Wisconsin has neither.
|
On November 20 2021 21:21 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 21:05 EnDeR_ wrote: We are going around in circles a bit here.
I think that most posters here would agree that, if you ignore context and only look at the events during the riot, kyle was justified in using his AR in self-defence under current US law.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this. The alternative is much, much worse. The idea that you can argue Kyle was 'asking for it' and therefore not entitled to defend himself would lead to much worse outcomes. Nobody was forced to attack Kyle and it's not his fault if they did, regardless of his politics. If you show up to counter-protest at a KKK rally are you still a vigilante who is looking for trouble and therefore not entitled to defend yourself or are you just a counter-protester who still has your legal rights? For me, if you do that and the facts come out that you didn't provoke or threaten and only defended yourself then you absolutely have a right to be there and defend yourself same as Kyle.
I don't think that Kyle was asking for it. An alternative that would be acceptable to me would be to restrict the types of weapons that can be brought into a civil unrest situation.
|
On November 20 2021 23:24 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 21:21 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 21:05 EnDeR_ wrote: We are going around in circles a bit here.
I think that most posters here would agree that, if you ignore context and only look at the events during the riot, kyle was justified in using his AR in self-defence under current US law.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this. The alternative is much, much worse. The idea that you can argue Kyle was 'asking for it' and therefore not entitled to defend himself would lead to much worse outcomes. Nobody was forced to attack Kyle and it's not his fault if they did, regardless of his politics. If you show up to counter-protest at a KKK rally are you still a vigilante who is looking for trouble and therefore not entitled to defend yourself or are you just a counter-protester who still has your legal rights? For me, if you do that and the facts come out that you didn't provoke or threaten and only defended yourself then you absolutely have a right to be there and defend yourself same as Kyle. I don't think that Kyle was asking for it. An alternative that would be acceptable to me would be to restrict the types of weapons that can be brought into a civil unrest situation. Handguns are much more dangerous in civil unrest. The accuracy and stopping power of a rifle is meaningless in this kind of situation. On the other hand a handgun being more manoeuvrable and concealable is actually beneficial.
What kind of gun do you have in mind of restricting down to?
|
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote: Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon. His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because they want to, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun. People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people. Your interpretation of all that is meaningless. He has as much right to be there as anybody else. You have no authority to tell him to stay home or whether he has an acceptable reason to attend. He does not require a stake. Stop arguing just being there removes his legal right to self-defence when it categorically does not and find something to argue that actually does, like he provoked the attacks or wasn't really attacked. That’s some interesting word play. He had no right to be there, there was a curfew. All law abiding citizens were home. But yes, he had as much right to be there as anyone else. Technically true. Zambrah doesn’t have the authority to issue a curfew. Technically true.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 20 2021 21:21 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 21:05 EnDeR_ wrote: We are going around in circles a bit here.
I think that most posters here would agree that, if you ignore context and only look at the events during the riot, kyle was justified in using his AR in self-defence under current US law.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this. The alternative is much, much worse. The idea that you can argue Kyle was 'asking for it' and therefore not entitled to defend himself would lead to much worse outcomes. Nobody was forced to attack Kyle and it's not his fault if they did, regardless of his politics. If you show up to counter-protest at a KKK rally are you still a vigilante who is looking for trouble and therefore not entitled to defend yourself or are you just a counter-protester who still has your legal rights? For me, if you do that and the facts come out that you didn't provoke or threaten and only defended yourself then you absolutely have a right to be there and defend yourself same as Kyle. If I go to a counter protest and my intention is just to shout slogans or whatever then I leave my gun at home. It’s just not necessary to bring a tool for efficient killing for that task.
If I’m on video saying I want to shoot any KKK member I see and then then bring my gun to the KKK rally and then I don’t actually do any counter protesting but I do shoot a bunch of KKK members with the gun that I brought it sounds a whole lot like I showed up to commit a mass shooting, not to counter protest.
The context of me being a wannabe mass shooter who showed up armed for a mass shooting at a place where the people I fantasized about killing would suggest that the “self defence” happened during my attempted mass shooting.
|
On November 20 2021 23:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2021 08:24 WombaT wrote: Fuck this.
Not so much the verdict, I’m pretty sure most of us were expecting a full acquittal, or maybe him copping a minor charge.
It’s pretty hard to ignore the rather celebratory tone on the internet, and not of the sober ‘justice was done’, but actively celebrating the actions and outcomes and the lack of consequences.
Two markedly different things, to be clear I have no problem with anyone who thinks on the balance of things (especially if they’re au fait with the actual law), a not guilty was appropriate
But people are somehow weighting the ‘leftist media agenda’ and ‘owning the libs’ above you know, celebrating some kid shooting some dirty Commies as if he’s some hero.
Fuck that noise.
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not. Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same. Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon. His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because they want to, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun. People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people. Your interpretation of all that is meaningless. He has as much right to be there as anybody else. You have no authority to tell him to stay home or whether he has an acceptable reason to attend. He does not require a stake. Stop arguing just being there removes his legal right to self-defence when it categorically does not and find something to argue that actually does, like he provoked the attacks or wasn't really attacked. That’s some interesting word play. He had no right to be there, there was a curfew. All law abiding citizens were home. But yes, he had as much right to be there as anyone else. Technically true. Zambrah doesn’t have the authority to issue a curfew. Technically true. Breaking a curfew doesn't remove your legal right to self defence.
The interesting wordplay is phrasing things such that breaking a curfew and defending yourself is somehow much worse than breaking a curfew and attacking somebody.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 20 2021 22:35 Lachrymose wrote: I am saying if you said "if I had my gun I'd shoot my ex" casually to your friend and then 15 days later your ex attacked you unprovoked and tried to kill you then you would have a right to self defence and shouldn't be expected to just sit down and die. To be clear about this metaphor, in this metaphor your ex, who you previously threatened to kill, is attacking you unprovoked after you showed up at their house with your gun and no good reason to be there while also in violation of a curfew.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 23:41 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote: [quote]
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not.
Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same.
Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon. His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because they want to, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun. People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people. Your interpretation of all that is meaningless. He has as much right to be there as anybody else. You have no authority to tell him to stay home or whether he has an acceptable reason to attend. He does not require a stake. Stop arguing just being there removes his legal right to self-defence when it categorically does not and find something to argue that actually does, like he provoked the attacks or wasn't really attacked. That’s some interesting word play. He had no right to be there, there was a curfew. All law abiding citizens were home. But yes, he had as much right to be there as anyone else. Technically true. Zambrah doesn’t have the authority to issue a curfew. Technically true. Breaking a curfew doesn't remove your legal right to self defence. The interesting wordplay is phrasing things such that breaking a curfew and defending yourself is somehow much worse than breaking a curfew and attacking somebody. You’re deliberately failing to comprehend the sentence. I didn’t say that breaking a curfew removes the right to self defence. That’s a straw man you’re making up because you can’t respond to the statement of fact, that a curfew did exist. Not a statement of opinion, that there is no self defence during a curfew, just the basic fact.
What was said by you is that he had as much right to be there as anyone. That is misleading. What is factually accurate is that he had no right to be there. I called you out on your lying about the situation and now you’re making more shit up. Stop straw manning and stop lying about shit.
|
On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 23:41 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 16:03 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:37 Zambrah wrote:On November 20 2021 15:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 14:50 BlackJack wrote:On November 20 2021 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote: [quote]
Yup. This guy wanted to kill people so he went and killed people. 'Happy for him and his family' type posts border on a psychopathic misunderstanding of what is good and what is not.
Personally I'm picturing a black man turning up to something like a KKK meeting with the intention of killing some KKK folk and then shooting a bunch of them, and the outcome and reaction on the internet not being quite the same.
Its one thing if its just internet kids celebrating the murder of some people because of their stupid nihilistic bloodlust, but this is more an outpouring of support for political violence against their perceived enemies, and its fucking sick. If a black man showed up to a KKK rally with a gun and the Klansmen chased and attacked him while saying they were going to kill him you would also think the black man should rot in prison if he used the gun to defend himself? Was he at the KKK rally explicitly hoping to kill Klansmen? If yes he’s still a vigilante. What a defendant hoped for is irrelevant. Either he provoked or not. Either he was attacked or not. Intent is perfectly relevant to establishing whether or not something was self defense. His intent for being there or carrying a weapon is irrelevant unless being there or carrying a weapon constitutes provocation in or of themselves. His intent around any actions that might constitute provocation are relevant, if you can show he provoked the attacks expressly to justify firing then go for it. His intent for his actions related to his self defence argument is relevant, like his intent behind running away and/or firing his weapon. His previously expressed intent that he'd like to shoot people with his gun, and then the subsequent insertion of himself into a dangerous situation with his gun are the actions of someone less interested in defending themselves, those are the actions of someone trying to find a situation that they think may justify them killing people because they want to, as they previously said, want to kill people with their gun. People who are interested in defending themselves don't profess to wanting to shoot people and then drive somewhere with their gun and insert themselves into dangerous situations. People who are interested in self defense stay at home away from the danger that they have no real stake in. Rittenhouse didn't stay at home, he sought out the dangerous situation that he had no real stake in in order to kill people, because as he said, he wanted to shoot people. Your interpretation of all that is meaningless. He has as much right to be there as anybody else. You have no authority to tell him to stay home or whether he has an acceptable reason to attend. He does not require a stake. Stop arguing just being there removes his legal right to self-defence when it categorically does not and find something to argue that actually does, like he provoked the attacks or wasn't really attacked. That’s some interesting word play. He had no right to be there, there was a curfew. All law abiding citizens were home. But yes, he had as much right to be there as anyone else. Technically true. Zambrah doesn’t have the authority to issue a curfew. Technically true. Breaking a curfew doesn't remove your legal right to self defence. The interesting wordplay is phrasing things such that breaking a curfew and defending yourself is somehow much worse than breaking a curfew and attacking somebody. This is not categorically true, it depends on whether breaking a curfew is considered a "criminal activity" or "unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her" that interrupts the presumption that retreat should not be considered. In some jurisdictions, it is, especially in the emergency curfew context. Below is the relevant Wisconsin law for those curious.
+ Show 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. (1m) (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. (ar) 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. (ar) 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. 939.48(6) (6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
|
|
On November 20 2021 23:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 21:21 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 21:05 EnDeR_ wrote: We are going around in circles a bit here.
I think that most posters here would agree that, if you ignore context and only look at the events during the riot, kyle was justified in using his AR in self-defence under current US law.
This argument has already been made a few pages back but I think it clearly needs restating: the issue for most of us disappointed with the verdict is that this effectively encourages vigilantes to show up at events and put themselves in situations where they are justified in using their AR in self-defence. No good outcomes will come out of this. The alternative is much, much worse. The idea that you can argue Kyle was 'asking for it' and therefore not entitled to defend himself would lead to much worse outcomes. Nobody was forced to attack Kyle and it's not his fault if they did, regardless of his politics. If you show up to counter-protest at a KKK rally are you still a vigilante who is looking for trouble and therefore not entitled to defend yourself or are you just a counter-protester who still has your legal rights? For me, if you do that and the facts come out that you didn't provoke or threaten and only defended yourself then you absolutely have a right to be there and defend yourself same as Kyle. If I go to a counter protest and my intention is just to shout slogans or whatever then I leave my gun at home. It’s just not necessary to bring a tool for efficient killing for that task. If I’m on video saying I want to shoot any KKK member I see and then then bring my gun to the KKK rally and then I don’t actually do any counter protesting but I do shoot a bunch of KKK members with the gun that I brought it sounds a whole lot like I showed up to commit a mass shooting, not to counter protest. The context of me being a wannabe mass shooter who showed up armed for a mass shooting at a place where the people I fantasized about killing would suggest that the “self defence” happened during my attempted mass shooting. If you leave your gun at home and then you are attacked and killed that's your business. There's nothing wrong with your decision but there's also nothing wrong with people being prepared to defend themselves if somebody else makes it necessary.
He wasn't there to counter protest. He was there as private security. What he did do was clean up graffiti, put out a fire and offer first aid.
"Sounds like" "Suggest". Who is doing interesting word play now?
If you run away from people threatening, chasing and attacking you and only fire at them at the last possible moment it not only "sounds like" and "suggests" you acted in self defence but you actually did.
The self defence didn't happened during an "attempted mass shooting" because he was attacked before ever firing a bullet or even brandishing. He was first attacked while shouting "Friendly!" and running away.
|
|
|
|