Probably time for a Kyle Rittenhouse thread.

[unsunghero]

..

[Jibartik]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From Washington post: “Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans. That’s far fewer than even a decade ago”

But no, Politibias is completely objective

[Trexller]

that schmuck just gave facebook and twitter the answers they wanted, not the truth of reality.

as if those companies give a shit about reality. its their narrative or nothing.

"We choose truth over fact" - Joe Biden

[Castle2.0]

The only law that matters in this case is self-defense: https://law.justia.com/codes/wiscons...ection-939-48/

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.

It's just one question:

In each of the 3 instances did Rittenhouse reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself?

Easy answer: yes.

A mob that is looting and burning the city says to "kill him" and "get him" and chases you.

• One of them grabs your gun. You are justified in shooting and killing them.
• One hits you over the head with a skateboard. You are justified in shooting and killing them.
• One of them pulls a gun on you and points it at you. You are justified in shooting and killing them.

Retreat is not required.
Trying to start with lower levels of force and increasing those levels of force is not required.

Open. Shut. Hope the jury doesn't drop the ball because of politics or personal bias.

Youngsters are getting some great lessons here:

• Do not threaten someone who has a gun
• Do not attack someone who isn't aggressive who has a gun
• Do not attack someone with a mob who isn't aggressive who has a gun
• Do not point a gun at someone who has a gun and expect them not to shoot you
• Do not be a part of a mob that loots and burns a city

Good lessons.

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[*]Do not point a gun at someone who has a gun and expect them not to shoot you

Similarly, if you point your gun at someone and they react aggressively, you can't shoot them and claim it was self-defense.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Whale biologist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Similarly, if you point your gun at someone and they react aggressively, you can't shoot them and claim it was self-defense.

See: the Ahmaud Arbery case. Applies to that one much better than Kyle's in my opinion. Ahmaud, regardless of any past transgressions, was pursued and then cut off by men in a pickup truck brandishing guns at him. Regardless of his skin color or the skin color of the people in the truck...if you are doing your thing, and all of a sudden a vehicle with men holding guns cuts you off, that suggests you are now in a flight or fight scenario with your life hanging in the balance. Ahmaud chose to fight, and died for it

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

See: the Ahmaud Arbery case. Applies to that one much better than Kyle's in my opinion. Ahmaud, regardless of any past transgressions, was pursued and then cut off by men in a pickup truck brandishing guns at him. Regardless of his skin color or the skin color of the people in the truck...if you are doing your thing, and all of a sudden a vehicle with men holding guns cuts you off, that suggests you are now in a flight or fight scenario with your life hanging in the balance. Ahmaud chose to fight, and died for it

I think if you did that in bootcamp, drill sergeant would let the whole squad hit.

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only law that matters in this case is self-defense: https://law.justia.com/codes/wiscons...ection-939-48/



It's just one question:

In each of the 3 instances did Rittenhouse reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself?

Easy answer: yes.

A mob that is looting and burning the city says to "kill him" and "get him" and chases you.

• One of them grabs your gun. You are justified in shooting and killing them.
• One hits you over the head with a skateboard. You are justified in shooting and killing them.
• One of them pulls a gun on you and points it at you. You are justified in shooting and killing them.

Retreat is not required.
Trying to start with lower levels of force and increasing those levels of force is not required.

Open. Shut. Hope the jury doesn't drop the ball because of politics or personal bias.

Is it not a good lesson to youngsters:

• Do not threaten someone who has a gun
• Do not attack someone who isn't aggressive who has a gun
• Do not attack someone with a mob who isn't aggressive who has a gun
• Do not point a gun at someone with a gun and expect them not to shoot you
• Don't be a part of a mob that loots and burns

Good lessons.

Cannot shoot a gun 4 times to kill a person you provoked to attack you. Who is unarmed. In a place only law enforcement are supposes to be in. The shooter isn’t protecting property. It was murder from a youth playing vigilante.

Castle this is actually a very important lesson for gun owners.

You aren’t legally entitled with your gun. Just because you have one.
You can’t brandish it at all times and anywhere you go legally.
You can’t use your gun lawfully to protect yourself in some states.
You CAN have your gun taken away if you mess up regardless of the 2nd amendment.
And if you are protecting your home and family in some states and if you kill an intruder you can be prosecuted.

It is almost like it really is not worth it, legally, to having a gun in some states.

And maybe we will have true gun control when one day it is again legal to sue gun manufacturers. Yeah, you heard me.

I can practically hear you all ‘as Elizundo’ would say in his tired 2016 MAGA cliche lingo rearing back your heads saying “REEEEEEEEEEE!!!!”

LOL

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/28/10220...y-be-consideri

[Elizondo]

Originally Posted by Botten [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cannot shoot a gun 4 times to kill a person you provoked to attack you. Who is unarmed. In a place only law enforcement are supposes to be in. The shooter isn’t protecting property. It was murder from a youth playing vigilante.

Castle this is actually a very important lesson for gun owners.

You aren’t legally entitled with your gun. Just because you have one.
You can’t brandish it at all times and anywhere you go legally.
You can’t use your gun lawfully to protect yourself in some states.
You CAN have your gun taken away if you mess up regardless of the 2nd amendment.
And if you are protecting your home and family in some states and if you kill an intruder you can be prosecuted.

It is almost like it really is not worth it, legally, to having a gun in some states.

And maybe we will have true gun control when one day it is again legal to sue gun manufacturers. Yeah, you heard me.

I can practically hear you all ‘as Elizundo’ would say in his tired 2016 MAGA cliche lingo rearing back your heads saying “REEEEEEEEEEE!!!!”

LOL

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/28/10220...y-be-consideri

npr is fake news bro