|
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 |
On November 20 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[quote]
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," and 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. #lawyered To me the big missing link here for the people who think Kyle was in the right, what good did him traveling there with his weapon do, and do you want others (from all teams) doing the same thing?
What good did Joseph Rosenbaum threatening to kill, chasing and attacking Kyle do? Do you want others doing the same? Why do you hold somebody defending themselves to such a higher standard than somebody attacking somebody else?
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 20 2021 23:59 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 23:48 KwarK 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. 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.
I say “suggest” because “prove objectively for all time” would be a mischaracterization of my opinion as objective fact. Suggest is the correct word. In my opinion he intended to kill people and came armed for that purpose. That’s why I disagree with him walking free.
|
On November 21 2021 00:02 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[quote]
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," and 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. #lawyered To me the big missing link here for the people who think Kyle was in the right, what good did him traveling there with his weapon do, and do you want others (from all teams) doing the same thing? What good did Joseph Rosenbaum threatening to kill, chasing and attacking Kyle do? Do you want others doing the same? Why do you hold somebody defending themselves to such a higher standard than somebody attacking somebody else?
It's not at all inconsistent to state that Rittenhouse should have lost the right to claim self-defense while also maintaining that Rosenbaum would have similarly lost the right were the outcome reversed.
|
On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Kyle was very clearly and obviously (on video) retreating during all three shootings. He was straight up running away.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 21 2021 00:02 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[quote]
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," and 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. #lawyered To me the big missing link here for the people who think Kyle was in the right, what good did him traveling there with his weapon do, and do you want others (from all teams) doing the same thing? What good did Joseph Rosenbaum threatening to kill, chasing and attacking Kyle do? Do you want others doing the same? Why do you hold somebody defending themselves to such a higher standard than somebody attacking somebody else?
Nobody is arguing for Kyle to be held to a different standard. Nice attempt at deflection rather than addressing what Kyle did wrong but everyone here is agreed that the people attacking Kyle were also breaking the law.
Gonna have to find a different bad faith argument but you clearly have plenty.
|
On November 21 2021 00:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 23:59 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:48 KwarK 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. 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. I say “suggest” because “prove objectively for all time” would be a mischaracterization of my opinion as objective fact. Suggest is the correct word. In my opinion he intended to kill people and came armed for that purpose. That’s why I disagree with him walking free.
I am thankful the court is run by breaking down the facts of the case and analysing the actions performed by the people involved and not you doing a little mind reading.
|
On November 21 2021 00:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:02 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[quote]
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," and 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. #lawyered To me the big missing link here for the people who think Kyle was in the right, what good did him traveling there with his weapon do, and do you want others (from all teams) doing the same thing? What good did Joseph Rosenbaum threatening to kill, chasing and attacking Kyle do? Do you want others doing the same? Why do you hold somebody defending themselves to such a higher standard than somebody attacking somebody else? Nobody is arguing for Kyle to be held to a different standard. Nice attempt at deflection rather than addressing what Kyle did wrong but everyone here is agreed that the people attacking Kyle were also breaking the law. Gonna have to find a different bad faith argument but you clearly have plenty.
It's not a bad faith argument. Rephrashing "He should be guilty just for being there!!!!" is a bad faith argument if you only apply it to Kyle and not his attackers. "He should be guilty just for being there" is a bad argument that has been addressed many times.
|
On November 20 2021 23:30 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2021 23:24 EnDeR_ 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. 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?
Honestly? All of them, and all blades and anything that goes "boom". It's the middle of a riot and someone's breaking curfew. Mixing deadly weapons in that kind of situation just makes lives infinitely harder for law enforcement.
|
On November 21 2021 00:12 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:07 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 00:02 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[quote]
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," and 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. #lawyered To me the big missing link here for the people who think Kyle was in the right, what good did him traveling there with his weapon do, and do you want others (from all teams) doing the same thing? What good did Joseph Rosenbaum threatening to kill, chasing and attacking Kyle do? Do you want others doing the same? Why do you hold somebody defending themselves to such a higher standard than somebody attacking somebody else? Nobody is arguing for Kyle to be held to a different standard. Nice attempt at deflection rather than addressing what Kyle did wrong but everyone here is agreed that the people attacking Kyle were also breaking the law. Gonna have to find a different bad faith argument but you clearly have plenty. It's not a bad faith argument. Rephrashing "He should be guilty just for being there!!!!" is a bad faith argument if you only apply it to Kyle and not his attackers. "He should be guilty just for being there" is a bad argument that has been addressed many times.
Saying that everyone in that situation should be charged with some kind of crime is not a bad faith argument.
|
On November 21 2021 00:20 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:12 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 00:07 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 00:02 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:41 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
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," and 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. #lawyered To me the big missing link here for the people who think Kyle was in the right, what good did him traveling there with his weapon do, and do you want others (from all teams) doing the same thing? What good did Joseph Rosenbaum threatening to kill, chasing and attacking Kyle do? Do you want others doing the same? Why do you hold somebody defending themselves to such a higher standard than somebody attacking somebody else? Nobody is arguing for Kyle to be held to a different standard. Nice attempt at deflection rather than addressing what Kyle did wrong but everyone here is agreed that the people attacking Kyle were also breaking the law. Gonna have to find a different bad faith argument but you clearly have plenty. It's not a bad faith argument. Rephrashing "He should be guilty just for being there!!!!" is a bad faith argument if you only apply it to Kyle and not his attackers. "He should be guilty just for being there" is a bad argument that has been addressed many times. Saying that everyone in that situation should be charged with some kind of crime is not a bad faith argument.
People are not suggesting he be charged with breaking a curfew. They are suggesting he be charged with premeditated murder because "just being there" constitutes a planned mass shooting and precludes self defence. This is absolutely not the same thing as saying "everyone committed some kind of crime" and it's absolutely a bad faith argument to suggest otherwise.
On November 21 2021 00:26 KwarK wrote:
It’s a bad faith argument because nobody is applying it to Kyle only.
It only applies to Kyle because Kyle didn't attack Rosenbaum.
Making it out like "self defence wouldn't have applied for either of them" is some kind of neutral argument is as bad faith as it gets. "Oh sure, Rosenbaum attempted murder of Kyle first, but when Kyle fought back that was also attempted murder because they both shouldn't have been there."
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 21 2021 00:12 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:07 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 00:02 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[quote]
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," and 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. #lawyered To me the big missing link here for the people who think Kyle was in the right, what good did him traveling there with his weapon do, and do you want others (from all teams) doing the same thing? What good did Joseph Rosenbaum threatening to kill, chasing and attacking Kyle do? Do you want others doing the same? Why do you hold somebody defending themselves to such a higher standard than somebody attacking somebody else? Nobody is arguing for Kyle to be held to a different standard. Nice attempt at deflection rather than addressing what Kyle did wrong but everyone here is agreed that the people attacking Kyle were also breaking the law. Gonna have to find a different bad faith argument but you clearly have plenty. It's not a bad faith argument. Rephrashing "He should be guilty just for being there!!!!" is a bad faith argument if you only apply it to Kyle and not his attackers. "He should be guilty just for being there" is a bad argument that has been addressed many times.
It’s a bad faith argument because nobody is applying it to Kyle only.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 21 2021 00:09 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:05 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 23:59 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:48 KwarK 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. 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. I say “suggest” because “prove objectively for all time” would be a mischaracterization of my opinion as objective fact. Suggest is the correct word. In my opinion he intended to kill people and came armed for that purpose. That’s why I disagree with him walking free. I am thankful the court is run by breaking down the facts of the case and analysing the actions performed by the people involved and not you doing a little mind reading.
In this case the mind reading is just taking his own statement of intent at face value. It’s a pretty common form of mind reading. The first person holds an idea in their mind. Then they express it out loud as words. Then the second person knows what was in their mind.
|
On November 21 2021 00:25 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On November 21 2021 00:12 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 00:07 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 00:02 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:41 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:
[quote]
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," and 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. #lawyered To me the big missing link here for the people who think Kyle was in the right, what good did him traveling there with his weapon do, and do you want others (from all teams) doing the same thing? What good did Joseph Rosenbaum threatening to kill, chasing and attacking Kyle do? Do you want others doing the same? Why do you hold somebody defending themselves to such a higher standard than somebody attacking somebody else? Nobody is arguing for Kyle to be held to a different standard. Nice attempt at deflection rather than addressing what Kyle did wrong but everyone here is agreed that the people attacking Kyle were also breaking the law. Gonna have to find a different bad faith argument but you clearly have plenty. It's not a bad faith argument. Rephrashing "He should be guilty just for being there!!!!" is a bad faith argument if you only apply it to Kyle and not his attackers. "He should be guilty just for being there" is a bad argument that has been addressed many times. Saying that everyone in that situation should be charged with some kind of crime is not a bad faith argument. People are not suggesting he be charged with breaking a curfew. They are suggesting he be charged with premeditated murder because "just being there" constitutes a planned mass shooting and precludes self defence. This is absolutely not the same thing as saying "everyone committed some kind of crime" and it's absolutely a bad faith argument to suggest otherwise. Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:26 KwarK wrote:
It’s a bad faith argument because nobody is applying it to Kyle only. It only applies to Kyle because Kyle didn't attack Rosenbaum. Making it out like "self defence wouldn't have applied for either of them" is some kind of neutral argument is as bad faith as it gets. "Oh sure, Rosenbaum attempted murder of Kyle first, but when Kyle fought back that was also attempted murder because they both shouldn't have been there."
You're misrepresenting the argument regarding the role of rule breaking relative to the charges at issue. There is no doubt that Rittenhouse killed those people, that's not at issue, what is at issue is how his claims of self defense interact with the circumstances under which he killed them. You're taking an extremely narrow view of those circumstances and others are asserting that they should be large enough to include what led up to the short-in-time scenario that immediately preceded Rittenhouse's use of deadly force, including prior statements of intent and the fact that basically everyone present on the street was breaking laws in being there. You can maintain that those things still don't interrupt the claim of self-defense, but there's plenty of room to assert otherwise, room that the self-defense statute itself contemplates.
|
On November 21 2021 00:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:09 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 00:05 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 23:59 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:48 KwarK 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. 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. I say “suggest” because “prove objectively for all time” would be a mischaracterization of my opinion as objective fact. Suggest is the correct word. In my opinion he intended to kill people and came armed for that purpose. That’s why I disagree with him walking free. I am thankful the court is run by breaking down the facts of the case and analysing the actions performed by the people involved and not you doing a little mind reading. In this case the mind reading is just taking his own statement of intent at face value. It’s a pretty common form of mind reading. The first person holds an idea in their mind. Then they express it out loud as words. Then the second person knows what was in their mind.
A statement of intent would be saying "I am going to kill Joseph Rosenbaum" before killing Joseph Rosenbaum. This didn't happen. Two weeks earlier he said he said "I wish I had my fucking AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them." This is nowhere near good enough to convict somebody running away who did everything possible to not fire solely on the grounds that they showed up in the first place.
What did happen though was Joseph Rosenbaum said, earlier that same evening, that he would kill Kyle if he found him alone and then later attacked him as soon as he found him alone. That is much clearer intent and intent that shows a reasonable justification for self defence.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 21 2021 00:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:05 farvacola wrote:On November 21 2021 00:02 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[quote]
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," and 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. #lawyered To me the big missing link here for the people who think Kyle was in the right, what good did him traveling there with his weapon do, and do you want others (from all teams) doing the same thing? What good did Joseph Rosenbaum threatening to kill, chasing and attacking Kyle do? Do you want others doing the same? Why do you hold somebody defending themselves to such a higher standard than somebody attacking somebody else? It's not at all inconsistent to state that Rittenhouse should have lost the right to claim self-defense while also maintaining that Rosenbaum would have similarly lost the right were the outcome reversed. ^this. Sorry to break it to you but there is not good and evil like they show on the movies. It is a lot messier than that. Often it is 2 guilty people. Everyone there with a gun by choice was a bad guy, everyone who shot their gun was worse. If you look at how you could have this situation not happen, which is what the goal should be, it is that Kyle does not show up armed looking to kill some bad guys. Kyle endangered lives by his actions before the shooting even started, this is proven by both his own statements and the results. If Kyle had wound up dead I'd be pushing for those people to be prosecuted as well.
You can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he showed up looking to kill some bad guys and that's what your whole argument is based on. His actions directly before the shootings were running away, the only actions of his you have a problem with are showing up and being armed.
He does not deserve to die because he showed up there armed. He does not deserve to die because he showed up there armed even after having said "I wish I had my fucking AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them" 15 days ago.
Rosenbaum presented him with the choice of kill or die. He did not deserve to be stuck with die just because he showed up hours ago.
|
On November 21 2021 00:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:39 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 00:32 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 00:09 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 00:05 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 23:59 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:48 KwarK 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. 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. I say “suggest” because “prove objectively for all time” would be a mischaracterization of my opinion as objective fact. Suggest is the correct word. In my opinion he intended to kill people and came armed for that purpose. That’s why I disagree with him walking free. I am thankful the court is run by breaking down the facts of the case and analysing the actions performed by the people involved and not you doing a little mind reading. In this case the mind reading is just taking his own statement of intent at face value. It’s a pretty common form of mind reading. The first person holds an idea in their mind. Then they express it out loud as words. Then the second person knows what was in their mind. A statement of intent would be saying "I am going to kill Joseph Rosenbaum" before killing Joseph Rosenbaum. This didn't happen. Two weeks earlier he said he said "I wish I had my fucking AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them." This is nowhere near good enough to convict somebody running away who did everything possible to not fire solely on the grounds that they showed up in the first place. What did happen though was Joseph Rosenbaum said, earlier that same evening, that he would kill Kyle if he found him alone and then later attacked him as soon as he found him alone. That is much clearer intent and intent that shows a reasonable justification for self defence. Why are you living in a mind space where only one of them can be guilty? There can be two bad guys.
One of them is guilty of breaking curfew, threatening, chasing and attacking a human being.
One of them is guilty of breaking curfew, being threatened, running and lethal self defence.
I don't think either of them are good. I don't think Kyle is guilty of murder.
|
United States24578 Posts
I didn't watch the court case, but just to be clear, is there any type of a consensus on why he was there in the vicinity of the protests, and why he had an AR-15 on his person? Are these two facts part of what is being debated?
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 21 2021 00:49 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:40 JimmiC wrote:On November 21 2021 00:05 farvacola wrote:On November 21 2021 00:02 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On November 20 2021 23:56 farvacola wrote:On November 20 2021 23:49 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 23:41 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2021 16:18 Lachrymose wrote:On November 20 2021 16:09 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
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," and 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. #lawyered To me the big missing link here for the people who think Kyle was in the right, what good did him traveling there with his weapon do, and do you want others (from all teams) doing the same thing? What good did Joseph Rosenbaum threatening to kill, chasing and attacking Kyle do? Do you want others doing the same? Why do you hold somebody defending themselves to such a higher standard than somebody attacking somebody else? It's not at all inconsistent to state that Rittenhouse should have lost the right to claim self-defense while also maintaining that Rosenbaum would have similarly lost the right were the outcome reversed. ^this. Sorry to break it to you but there is not good and evil like they show on the movies. It is a lot messier than that. Often it is 2 guilty people. Everyone there with a gun by choice was a bad guy, everyone who shot their gun was worse. If you look at how you could have this situation not happen, which is what the goal should be, it is that Kyle does not show up armed looking to kill some bad guys. Kyle endangered lives by his actions before the shooting even started, this is proven by both his own statements and the results. If Kyle had wound up dead I'd be pushing for those people to be prosecuted as well. You can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he showed up looking to kill some bad guys and that's what your whole argument is based on. His actions directly before the shootings were running away, the only actions of his you have a problem with are showing up and being armed. He does not deserve to die because he showed up there armed. He does not deserve to die because he showed up there armed even after having said "I wish I had my fucking AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them" 15 days ago. Rosenbaum presented him with the choice of kill or die. He did not deserve to be stuck with die just because he showed up hours ago.
Let's present an hypothetical fact pattern. A guy made death threats against their ex to the point that a judge issued a restraining order. They show up at their ex's house with a gun. Their ex's father confronts them and attempts to grab the gun. They shoot the father.
They made no threat against the father, when asked in court they explain they were worried about whether their ex had sufficient insurance coverage and that's why they were there, a video clearly shows the father attempting to grab the gun.
To me the fact that they were there against a court order, that they had previously made threats of violence, and that they brought the killing tool they said they were going to use, would be sufficient to find them guilty of something. I would not contest that they were in danger during the confrontation itself, I would take issue with the context of the confrontation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
