|
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 |
United States41989 Posts
On November 21 2021 00:55 micronesia wrote:
I didn't watch the court case, but just to be clear, is there any type of a census 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?
Those two are central to the debate. Kyle testified that he cared so deeply about small businesses that his love of small business damage mitigation compelled him to break the curfew and be there. Regarding why he brought the AR-15, again, he thought it would be somehow useful for cleaning up damage and repairing broken windows.
|
On November 21 2021 00:55 micronesia wrote:
I didn't watch the court case, but just to be clear, is there any type of a census 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?
He was there during the day because that is his local community and he was cleaning graffiti. He was there during the night because he was performing private security for a local business. During this time he was putting out fires and offering first aid. (He was a volunteer firefighter and volunteer lifeguard.)
He had an AR-15 on his person because he wanted to and as it's fully legal he simply did. Why he wanted to speaks to his state of mind which is obviously up for debate. Some would say it was for personal safety, others would say it was because he was looking to murder people.
|
United States24578 Posts
On November 21 2021 01:05 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:55 micronesia wrote:
I didn't watch the court case, but just to be clear, is there any type of a census 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? He was there during the day because that is his local community and he was cleaning graffiti. He was there during the night because he was performing private security for a local business. During this time he was putting out fires and offering first aid. (He was a volunteer firefighter and volunteer lifeguard.) He had an AR-15 on his person because he wanted to and as it's fully legal he simply did. Why he wanted to speaks to his state of mind which is obviously up for debate. Some would say it was for personal safety, others would say it was because he was looking to murder people.
That underline is new to me (as someone who didn't follow the issue closely) and raises a few more questions:
- Was he officially hired to perform private security?
- If not, did he have explicit permission from the business owner(s) to provide private security?
- In either case, what were his qualifications to competently provide private security, if any?
For the bolded statement, it's impossible for anyone but him to know for sure, but this answer also seems like a bit of a cop out. What was his stated reason (after the event) for carrying his AR-15, at least?
|
On November 21 2021 01:05 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:55 micronesia wrote:
I didn't watch the court case, but just to be clear, is there any type of a census 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? He was there during the day because that is his local community and he was cleaning graffiti. He was there during the night because he was performing private security for a local business. During this time he was putting out fires and offering first aid. (He was a volunteer firefighter and volunteer lifeguard.) He had an AR-15 on his person because he wanted to and as it's fully legal he simply did. Why he wanted to speaks to his state of mind which is obviously up for debate. Some would say it was for personal safety, others would say it was because he was looking to murder people.
If only there were a video of him clearly explaining why he might want to bring a gun to a scene like this...
|
On November 21 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[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? 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.
Why not add in the part where they attempt to flee from the father and the father chases them down in an attempt to grab the gun or the death threads from the father to the guy?
Anyway, most likely breaking the restraining order and showing up with a gun, and certainly if they brandish the gun, would render a self-defence argument as invalid.
However, adding in the running away to bring it more in line with the Kyle case, if he ran away from the father that would constitute and stopping point in the threat from the point of view of the father, unless the father can argue otherwise, like if the father perceived the guy to be running around the back of the house to enter another way rather than running away. This also reestablishes the guy's right to self defence.
If it's just straight up running away like in the Rosenbaum situation then the father no longer has the right to run after and attack or disarm the guy. If the father was also yelling "I will kill you" and "Get him!" at the guy prior to or during the chase as in the Rosenbaum situation then the guy would be right to fear for his life and firing on the father may be justified. (As he now has a right to self defence and a credible fear for his life.)
And saying to a friend "I would shoot at them" is not anywhere in the same league of threat as a judge granting a restraining order for direct threats of violence.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 21 2021 01:17 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 00:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why not add in the part where they attempt to flee from the father and the father chases them down in an attempt to grab the gun or the death threads from the father to the guy? Anyway, most likely breaking the restraining order and showing up with a gun, and certainly if they brandish the gun, would render a self-defence argument as invalid. However, adding in the running away to bring it more in line with the Kyle case, if he ran away from the father that would constitute and stopping point in the threat from the point of view of the father, unless the father can argue otherwise, like if the father perceived the guy to be running around the back of the house to enter another way rather than running away. This also reestablishes the guy's right to self defence. If it's just straight up running away like in the Rosenbaum situation then the father no longer has the right to run after and attack or disarm the guy. If the father was also yelling "I will kill you" and "Get him!" at the guy prior to or during the chase as in the Rosenbaum situation then the guy would be right to fear for his life and firing on the father may be justified. (As he now has a right to self defence and a credible fear for his life.) And saying to a friend "I would shoot at them" is not anywhere in the same league of threat as a judge granting a restraining order for direct threats of violence.
So they're not directly comparable. We can certainly change the hypothetical to make it more comparable if you like.
The point is that you agree that zooming in on the confrontation and identifying that one of the parties was clearly an aggressor and the other one was acting in self defence isn't always seeing the full picture. Both can be in the wrong.
|
On November 21 2021 01:09 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:05 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 00:55 micronesia wrote:
I didn't watch the court case, but just to be clear, is there any type of a census 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? He was there during the day because that is his local community and he was cleaning graffiti. He was there during the night because he was performing private security for a local business. During this time he was putting out fires and offering first aid. (He was a volunteer firefighter and volunteer lifeguard.) He had an AR-15 on his person because he wanted to and as it's fully legal he simply did. Why he wanted to speaks to his state of mind which is obviously up for debate. Some would say it was for personal safety, others would say it was because he was looking to murder people. That underline is new to me (as someone who didn't follow the issue closely) and raises a few more questions: - Was he officially hired to perform private security?
- If not, did he have explicit permission from the business owner(s) to provide private security?
- In either case, what were his qualifications to competently provide private security, if any?
For the bolded statement, it's impossible for anyone but him to know for sure, but this answer also seems like a bit of a cop out. What was his stated reason (after the event) for carrying his AR-15, at least?
1. No, not at all.
2. This is contested. The owner's son since claimed otherwise, but several witnesses testified they were asked to attend.
3. Police cadet training and weapons training. No specific security services training as far as I know.
His stated reason for having the gun was "Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit."
|
|
|
United States41989 Posts
You have to be really bad at first aid if you're using a gun during it. Knife, sure, maybe, if you're using it to cut off clothes or something but a gun? That's not generally part of the kit EMTs bring. Either Kyle is on the cutting edge of first aid and knows something all EMTs don't or the justification doesn't hold water.
|
|
|
On November 21 2021 01:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:17 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 00:57 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 00:49 Lachrymose wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Why not add in the part where they attempt to flee from the father and the father chases them down in an attempt to grab the gun or the death threads from the father to the guy? Anyway, most likely breaking the restraining order and showing up with a gun, and certainly if they brandish the gun, would render a self-defence argument as invalid. However, adding in the running away to bring it more in line with the Kyle case, if he ran away from the father that would constitute and stopping point in the threat from the point of view of the father, unless the father can argue otherwise, like if the father perceived the guy to be running around the back of the house to enter another way rather than running away. This also reestablishes the guy's right to self defence. If it's just straight up running away like in the Rosenbaum situation then the father no longer has the right to run after and attack or disarm the guy. If the father was also yelling "I will kill you" and "Get him!" at the guy prior to or during the chase as in the Rosenbaum situation then the guy would be right to fear for his life and firing on the father may be justified. (As he now has a right to self defence and a credible fear for his life.) And saying to a friend "I would shoot at them" is not anywhere in the same league of threat as a judge granting a restraining order for direct threats of violence. So they're not directly comparable. We can certainly change the hypothetical to make it more comparable if you like. The point is that you agree that zooming in on the confrontation and identifying that one of the parties was clearly an aggressor and the other one was acting in self defence isn't always seeing the full picture. Both can be in the wrong.
No, I don't agree to that. In my post I break down the possible points where the confrontation escalates to a shooting and who would be responsible, who is the aggressor and who is entitled to what degree of self defence specifically at that moment and how it changes back and forth based on the specific actions of the two people.
Whether the guy or father is in the right or wrong in life or the situation outside the escalation is not my concern.
|
On November 21 2021 01:29 KwarK wrote:
You have to be really bad at first aid if you're using a gun during it. Knife, sure, maybe, if you're using it to cut off clothes or something but a gun? That's not generally part of the kit EMTs bring. Either Kyle is on the cutting edge of first aid and knows something all EMTs don't or the justification doesn't hold water.
Remember when you were criticising about bad faith arguments? You don't believe the implication of that quote is that the AR-15 is for medical care.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 21 2021 01:37 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:29 KwarK wrote:
You have to be really bad at first aid if you're using a gun during it. Knife, sure, maybe, if you're using it to cut off clothes or something but a gun? That's not generally part of the kit EMTs bring. Either Kyle is on the cutting edge of first aid and knows something all EMTs don't or the justification doesn't hold water. Remember when you were criticising about bad faith arguments? You don't believe the implication of that quote is that the AR-15 is for medical care.
So what was it for?
|
On November 21 2021 01:32 JimmiC wrote:
So if a person is guarding a drug den, and a group of people come up to steal those drugs with guns of their own and a bunch of people die. Is it all self defense? Or just the guys guarding the drug den get to use the self-defense defense?
Generally you don't have a legal right to self defence during the commission of a felony. In all likelihood in the situation you describe nobody would have the right to shoot anybody and everybody should simply attempt to run away as best they can.
In general security can carry guns for personal safety as can any non-felon but they should only use them for self defence. For law enforcement they should call the police.
|
On November 21 2021 01:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:37 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:29 KwarK wrote:
You have to be really bad at first aid if you're using a gun during it. Knife, sure, maybe, if you're using it to cut off clothes or something but a gun? That's not generally part of the kit EMTs bring. Either Kyle is on the cutting edge of first aid and knows something all EMTs don't or the justification doesn't hold water. Remember when you were criticising about bad faith arguments? You don't believe the implication of that quote is that the AR-15 is for medical care. So what was it for?
"to protect myself"
Are you selectively losing your ability to read?
On November 21 2021 01:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:42 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:39 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 01:37 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:29 KwarK wrote:
You have to be really bad at first aid if you're using a gun during it. Knife, sure, maybe, if you're using it to cut off clothes or something but a gun? That's not generally part of the kit EMTs bring. Either Kyle is on the cutting edge of first aid and knows something all EMTs don't or the justification doesn't hold water. Remember when you were criticising about bad faith arguments? You don't believe the implication of that quote is that the AR-15 is for medical care. So what was it for? "to protect myself" Are you selectively losing your ability to read? If his goal was self preservation then why was he there?
To protect a local business he was asked to provide security for, to put out fires and to offer first aid to anybody who needed or requested it.
The gun was for the personal safety to allow him to be there and provide those things that he considered civic responsibility.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 21 2021 01:42 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:39 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 01:37 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:29 KwarK wrote:
You have to be really bad at first aid if you're using a gun during it. Knife, sure, maybe, if you're using it to cut off clothes or something but a gun? That's not generally part of the kit EMTs bring. Either Kyle is on the cutting edge of first aid and knows something all EMTs don't or the justification doesn't hold water. Remember when you were criticising about bad faith arguments? You don't believe the implication of that quote is that the AR-15 is for medical care. So what was it for? "to protect myself" Are you selectively losing your ability to read?
If his goal was self preservation then why was he there? Just try to follow his logic through for a second. He was there to help anyone who got hurt but in the likely scenario that he needed the ability to hurt people he needed to bring his hurty stick with him.
If he thought that him needing to hurt people was very unlikely then he didn’t need to bring the tool for hurting people. If he thought it was likely then he’s actively planning to make the situation worse and increase the number of people hurt. The only rational choice would be to stay home.
“I’m here because I want to make things better but I’ve come prepared to make them a lot worse”
|
United States24578 Posts
On November 21 2021 01:26 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:09 micronesia wrote:On November 21 2021 01:05 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 00:55 micronesia wrote:
I didn't watch the court case, but just to be clear, is there any type of a census 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? He was there during the day because that is his local community and he was cleaning graffiti. He was there during the night because he was performing private security for a local business. During this time he was putting out fires and offering first aid. (He was a volunteer firefighter and volunteer lifeguard.) He had an AR-15 on his person because he wanted to and as it's fully legal he simply did. Why he wanted to speaks to his state of mind which is obviously up for debate. Some would say it was for personal safety, others would say it was because he was looking to murder people. That underline is new to me (as someone who didn't follow the issue closely) and raises a few more questions: - Was he officially hired to perform private security?
- If not, did he have explicit permission from the business owner(s) to provide private security?
- In either case, what were his qualifications to competently provide private security, if any?
For the bolded statement, it's impossible for anyone but him to know for sure, but this answer also seems like a bit of a cop out. What was his stated reason (after the event) for carrying his AR-15, at least? 1. No, not at all. 2. This is contested. The owner's son since claimed otherwise, but several witnesses testified they were asked to attend. 3. Police cadet training and weapons training. No specific security services training as far as I know. His stated reason for having the gun was "Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit."
Thank you for the additional information. Thinking it about it some more, if he was "running away" leading up to the self defense situations, is it fair to say he was not providing private security as part of the immediate initiating events to the violence encounters? If I'm right, and if we disregard any recorded statements from prior to the day of, then the situation seems to mostly boil down to, "He went into area of likely-violent protests, after curfew, in order to help people with his medical abilities, and to offer a shoulder to an injured citizen as needed, but chose to carry an AR-15 to protect himself as he did this."
In that case, I have some reservations about what he did beyond just violating curfew. If your goal is to altruistically help the locals and local businesses, don't open carry an AR-15. He likely wouldn't have been violently attacked if all he was doing was applying first aid and putting out garbage fires next to local businesses. If your goal is to protect yourself, then don't go into that environment as an unsanctioned citizen-vigilante. By trying to have it both ways, the situation ended up with multiple people dead/shot. It could have been him just as easily as the people who did end up getting shot.
Just going off of the above, I don't see him as guilty of first or second degree murder, but likely lesser charges if things were just. I don't know the local laws that are applicable where the event occurred, but we really shouldn't encourage everyone to carry AR-15s into charged riots just to "protect themselves, obviously."
When you take his earlier statements into account, that might be an argument for increasing the severity of the charges, but I don't see it as changing the fact that criminal behavior, at some level, occurred here (above simply violating a curfew).
|
|
|
On November 21 2021 01:48 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:26 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:09 micronesia wrote:On November 21 2021 01:05 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 00:55 micronesia wrote:
I didn't watch the court case, but just to be clear, is there any type of a census 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? He was there during the day because that is his local community and he was cleaning graffiti. He was there during the night because he was performing private security for a local business. During this time he was putting out fires and offering first aid. (He was a volunteer firefighter and volunteer lifeguard.) He had an AR-15 on his person because he wanted to and as it's fully legal he simply did. Why he wanted to speaks to his state of mind which is obviously up for debate. Some would say it was for personal safety, others would say it was because he was looking to murder people. That underline is new to me (as someone who didn't follow the issue closely) and raises a few more questions: - Was he officially hired to perform private security?
- If not, did he have explicit permission from the business owner(s) to provide private security?
- In either case, what were his qualifications to competently provide private security, if any?
For the bolded statement, it's impossible for anyone but him to know for sure, but this answer also seems like a bit of a cop out. What was his stated reason (after the event) for carrying his AR-15, at least? 1. No, not at all. 2. This is contested. The owner's son since claimed otherwise, but several witnesses testified they were asked to attend. 3. Police cadet training and weapons training. No specific security services training as far as I know. His stated reason for having the gun was "Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit." Thank you for the additional information. Thinking it about it some more, if he was "running away" leading up to the self defense situations, is it fair to say he was not providing private security as part of the immediate initiating events to the violence encounters? If I'm right, and if we disregard any recorded statements from prior to the day of, then the situation seems to mostly boil down to, "He went into area of likely-violent protests, after curfew, in order to help people with his medical abilities, and to offer a shoulder to an injured citizen as needed, but chose to carry an AR-15 to protect himself as he did this." In that case, I have some reservations about what he did beyond just violating curfew. If your goal is to altruistically help the locals and local businesses, don't open carry an AR-15. He likely wouldn't have been violently attacked if all he was doing was applying first aid and putting out garbage fires next to local businesses. If your goal is to protect yourself, then don't go into that environment as an unsanctioned citizen-vigilante. By trying to have it both ways, the situation ended up with multiple people dead/shot. It could have been him just as easily as the people who did end up getting shot. Just going off of the above, I don't see him as guilty of first or second degree murder, but likely lesser charges if things were just. I don't know the local laws that are applicable where the event occurred, but we really shouldn't encourage everyone to carry AR-15s into charged riots just to "protect themselves, obviously." When you take his earlier statements into account, that might be an argument for increasing the severity of the charges, but I don't see it as changing the fact that criminal behavior, at some level, occurred.
Re: Private security. Yes, this is correct, the security had already disbanded and at the time he was walking the streets offering first aid. (You might find this a bit incredulous, but there is very clear video of him walking along shouting "Medical" and offering medical aid.)
Re: Open carry. I disagree and I think you might too if you had more of the facts. He wasn't set upon by a random person who saw him open carrying and found it provocative. There were many people armed in the streets. There was a dispute earlier in the night where the person was actively attempting to use a dumpster fire to commit arson at a petrol station and Kyle's group put the fire out. At this point the person threatened that he would kill Kyle if he found him alone. When he later found him alone that is when he attacked Kyle and the shooting happened. I don't think putting out an arson attempt constitutes vigilante justice.
I don't think we should encourage anybody to carry AR-15s into riots at all. But just because I don't encourage it or think it's good doesn't mean I think that if somebody chooses to do so they automatically forfeit their rights. I don't think it's illegal or pseudo-illegal just because I don't think it's a good idea.
|
On November 21 2021 01:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2021 01:42 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:39 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2021 01:37 Lachrymose wrote:On November 21 2021 01:29 KwarK wrote:
You have to be really bad at first aid if you're using a gun during it. Knife, sure, maybe, if you're using it to cut off clothes or something but a gun? That's not generally part of the kit EMTs bring. Either Kyle is on the cutting edge of first aid and knows something all EMTs don't or the justification doesn't hold water. Remember when you were criticising about bad faith arguments? You don't believe the implication of that quote is that the AR-15 is for medical care. So what was it for? "to protect myself" Are you selectively losing your ability to read? If his goal was self preservation then why was he there? Just try to follow his logic through for a second. He was there to help anyone who got hurt but in the likely scenario that he needed the ability to hurt people he needed to bring his hurty stick with him. If he thought that him needing to hurt people was very unlikely then he didn’t need to bring the tool for hurting people. If he thought it was likely then he’s actively planning to make the situation worse and increase the number of people hurt. The only rational choice would be to stay home. “I’m here because I want to make things better but I’ve come prepared to make them a lot worse”
"I'm here because I want to make things better, but I've come prepared in case somebody else wants to make them a lot worse."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
