HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So killing in self defens...

Fri Nov 19, 2021, 11:38 PM

So killing in self defense is not about saving your own life anymore.

Feeling scared is plenty of justification to murder someone.

You used to have to prove that your life was unquestionably and imminently in jeopardy to escape punishment.
Now you just have to claim fear and you are free to go.

-- If you are white that is.
If you are black, self defense is not an option.
You kill someone, you are guilty of a crime. Period.

We are going to see a lot of Zimmerman/Rittenhouse murderers walking free I'll bet.
And watch how they become heros to the disgusting right wing Republicans.
I wish there was a mirror that would let them really see who they have become.

90 replies, 5625 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 90 replies Author Time Post
Reply So killing in self defense is not about saving your own life anymore. (Original post)
Kablooie Nov 2021 OP
Bluethroughu Nov 2021 #1
Skittles Nov 2021 #3
unblock Nov 2021 #2
Hugh_Lebowski Nov 2021 #4
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #5
oasis Nov 2021 #9
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #11
oasis Nov 2021 #12
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #31
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #36
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #37
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #38
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #42
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #44
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #46
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #54
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #61
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #66
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #69
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #70
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #71
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #74
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #78
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #79
The Magistrate Nov 2021 #40
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #45
The Magistrate Nov 2021 #47
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #55
The Magistrate Nov 2021 #56
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #59
The Magistrate Nov 2021 #60
radius777 Nov 2021 #82
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #83
radius777 Nov 2021 #88
radius777 Nov 2021 #76
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #80
radius777 Nov 2021 #81
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #84
radius777 Nov 2021 #86
Steelrolled Nov 2021 #10
Tommy Carcetti Nov 2021 #13
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #32
keithbvadu2 Nov 2021 #6
Kaleva Nov 2021 #7
Elessar Zappa Nov 2021 #15
Solomon Nov 2021 #17
Devil Child Nov 2021 #20
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #27
Solomon Nov 2021 #29
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #30
Lucid Dreamer Nov 2021 #73
pfitz59 Nov 2021 #8
Name removed Nov 2021 #14
Amishman Nov 2021 #16
Kablooie Nov 2021 #21
Amishman Nov 2021 #25
Dr. Strange Nov 2021 #26
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #33
EX500rider Nov 2021 #67
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #68
Solomon Nov 2021 #18
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #39
cinematicdiversions Nov 2021 #75
Mad_Machine76 Nov 2021 #19
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #41
Initech Nov 2021 #22
WarGamer Nov 2021 #23
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #34
WarGamer Nov 2021 #48
The Magistrate Nov 2021 #43
WarGamer Nov 2021 #49
The Magistrate Nov 2021 #51
WarGamer Nov 2021 #52
The Magistrate Nov 2021 #53
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #58
Stuart G Nov 2021 #63
hardluck Nov 2021 #72
Kaleva Nov 2021 #24
fescuerescue Nov 2021 #28
WarGamer Nov 2021 #50
fescuerescue Nov 2021 #77
Zeitghost Nov 2021 #85
fescuerescue Nov 2021 #89
yagotme Nov 2021 #90
uponit7771 Nov 2021 #35
Iggo Nov 2021 #57
Stuart G Nov 2021 #65
Stuart G Nov 2021 #62
Stuart G Nov 2021 #64
Skittles Nov 2021 #87

Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Fri Nov 19, 2021, 11:47 PM

1. As the Judge stated after he interrupted the prosecutor,

The mere crowd itself could be threatening and could cause death...then a break...then rotten claiming he was threatened by the crowd coming toward him, but he acknowledged under oath he saw NO WEAPONS OF ANY KIND.

SO crowds are threatening and can scare people to shoot because they need to defend themselves.

The protestors were not on trial, a man who killed two unarmed people was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluethroughu (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 20, 2021, 12:07 AM

3. and if you were afraid of the crowd itself

why would you travel to put yourself there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Fri Nov 19, 2021, 11:53 PM

2. These people don't just think they're innocent; they think they're heroes

The whole gun fantasy of killing in self-defense is extraordinary dangerous.

I will a grant that in rare cases a gun might aid in self-defense. I will grant that in rare cases it might justify killing someone.

But those scenarios are rare and unfortunate and tragic. But popular gun mythology celebrates that situation. There's a lot of drama in it so Hollywood loves it as does the media.

And people being people, if it's such a compelling moment, some people will seek it out. So much of the drama and moral tension comes from the need for self-defense coming to you, not you to it.

But people being people....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 20, 2021, 02:07 AM

4. Sage words my friend (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sat Nov 20, 2021, 02:50 AM

5. Reasonable fear of death or bodily injury

It's been the standard for quite some time.

Anybody here want to let someone attack them with a skateboard and claim you're not in fear of being seriously injured? Anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 20, 2021, 06:09 AM

9. Kyle R. is a person who claimed "fear" of possible harm to himself

yet traveled across state lines with the intention of putting his sorry ass into the middle of a shitstorm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 20, 2021, 11:01 AM

11. So he asked for it?

That makes assaulting him legal? That negates his right to self defense? The law disagrees.

Your flawed argument is no different than telling a rape victim they should have stayed home and not went to that club with such a short skirt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 21, 2021, 04:34 PM

12. "assaulting him"?????.

Are you trying to sell us that Kyle R. is the victim and not the goddam provocateur and murderious shooter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:07 PM

31. After KR assaulted them by pointing his rifle at them? and WTF about rape man !? Rape victims don't

... go around assaulting their rapist first ?!

That's a fucked up analogy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:14 PM

36. If that happened

It would still not negate the self defense claim after KR began to retreat, which is clearly shown on video.


The analogy, in case it was not clear, is that putting yourself into a situation in which you may be assaulted does not mean you are culpable for your own assault. It's victim blaming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:17 PM

37. KR didn't retreat shooting at unarmed people running away. That's not "retreating" by the law the

... DAs REALLY screwed up in that trial leaving that point out

like in TM trial the DA's didn't call Zimmerman the aggressor.

ZMan didn't "retreat" from his threat either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:19 PM

38. Where are you getting your story from?

KR did not fire on people running away. All three men were advancing on him when shot. There is video, have you seen it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:24 PM

42. Yes he did turn around **REPOINTED** his weapon at Rosenbaum while he was running away ! We

... watched the same video, I know we did ...

Rosenbaum was able to get near his barrel cause KR turned around and pointed it at him then fired the damn thing while running away.

If KR was NOT running away then AFTER KR pointed his weapon at RB then he wasn't retreating was he?!

Watch the video from the beginning ... NOT ... just Rosenbaum chasing KR which is what FAUX mostly shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:26 PM

44. Yes

He turned and fired while fleeing from a man who threatened to kill him. That's legal self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:34 PM

46. Yes, AFTER KR pointed his weapon at him!! OMFG, why are people leaving that fact out of the picture

... that KR pointed his weapon first !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #46)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 07:00 PM

54. Because...

If it happened, it didn't matter according to Wisconsin law as soon as KR retreated. At the moment he retreated and Rosenbaum gave chase he would have regained the right to claim self defense.

You might disagree with the law, but it's still the law that must be followed to get a conviction.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #54)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 10:07 PM

61. He did NOT retreat, he turned around firing at those chasing him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #61)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 12:41 AM

66. Yes

After he retreated and was about to be caught, he turned and defended himself, legally. This is all on video tape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #66)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 01:08 AM

69. "about to be caught" is where the prosecutor failed ... It's not where the

... law says KR could use LETHAL FORCE after starting the altercation by brandishing his weapon.

KR would have to be clearly in danger of dying is what WI law says and "about to be caught" is not clearly about to die

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #69)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 01:13 AM

70. Not true at all

I think you should take another look at WI law. He needed to be in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. Even if he had brandished the weapon thus starting the altercation, WI law clearly gives him the right to self defense as soon as he stops and retreats. The moment he retreats and Rosenbaum advances on him (after threatening to kill him), Rosenbaum becomes the aggressor and Rittenhouse regains his right to defend himself with force. Despite what the prosecutor said, Rittenhouse was under no legal obligation to take his beating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #70)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 01:23 AM

71. Firing a weapon while running away is not retreating, to say that's retreating would give

... every active shooter in Wisconsin the legal way out even if they're not chased.

If Rosenberg caught up with him and grabbed him then I think one could argue a failed retreat, KR is literally using the Zimmerman defense of I was scared for my life while being armed with a firearm in the other person with their fist

Except KR head was never slammed through the ground as Zimmerman claims, KR's defense is weaker than Zimmerman's in this case even if he was caught.

but to turn around and start firing into a crowd of people that is not armed because KR thought he was "about to get caught" is not retreating.

Not even close, I think that's where the prosecutor failed miserably and the judge was a dumbass

Now one in Wisconsin can brandish a weapon run away turn around and start shooting at people thinking they were about to get caught and that would be a viable defense for the active shooter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #71)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 02:20 AM

74. You are under the impression

That he had to continue retreating. That is simply not true under WI law. He was under no legal obligation to allow Rosenbaum to strike or grab him before using force to protect himself.

If you are fleeing someone chasing you, who has threatened to kill you, you do not have to wait to be assaulted or injured, you must only be in reasonable fear of harm. This is the law in every state in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #74)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 08:56 AM

78. Duty to retreat is established law in Wisconsin, KR had to after he brandished his weapon and was

... still in the process of retreating when he brandished his weapon again.

There's no DTR cases where the defendant can say they reengaged to defend themselves cause they were "about to get caught."

They would've had to been caught first !!!

All the DA had to do is look at what cases that judge had decided on duty to retreat before KRs case... They didn't, they weren't into this cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #78)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 12:02 PM

79. Your opinion

Is not based in law or the facts of the case. Again, you are under no legal obligation in any state in the US to allow the person chasing you to grab, strike, or assault you in any way before using self defense. The legal threshold is a reasonable fear of death or injury, full stop. Even in states that require retreat if possible allow for this. You're simply, demonstrably, wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:23 PM

40. Your Flawed Argument, Sir

Is that any onlooker would have seen a punk who gunned one man down fleeing his crime, and my hat is off to a man who, with no more than a skateboard to hand, attempts to apprehend a fleeing felon who brandishes a firearm. That is a sense of civic duty, and a degree of personal courage, I hope I could display in such a circumstance.

The belief the punk was a murderous felon was quite reasonable for any person in the crowd who heard the shots and saw a body on the ground.

It may well be that the relevant law in that state is so poorly constructed that it required a jury to acquit, but that does alter the fact, which is that a punk with dreams of killing a man journeyed to a place he hoped would provide him some excuse, and found what he was looking for.

The verdict was a hideous injustice, for all that it may be a lawful one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:30 PM

45. It is entirely possible

That Mr. Huber reasonably believed KR had committed a crime and was a danger to himself or others when he assaulted him with a skateboard. Even if that belief was based on false information. Notice that the man seen on tape kicking KR in the head at the same time Huber was swinging his skateboard has not been charged with assault.

That does not mean that Rittenhouse did not also have a reasonable fear for his safety when Huber attacked him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:35 PM

47. And At That Point, Sir

The thing dissolves into a mist, in which the position taken depends on whether one approves of protests against police excesses or approves of punks and thugs who arrogate to themselves the right to enforce the law. The punk had no reason to be there, and any threat he faced he sought out and contrived.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 07:09 PM

55. The position taken

Should depend on the law and the evidence. The reason Kyle was down there does not legally matter. As soon as Rosenbaum threatened him and gave chase he had a legal right to self defense.

I personally think he's a moron who put himself in a bad situation. But so did the men he shot, especially Rosenbaum who wasn't even there for political/social reasons and was simply a violent criminal who stumbled upon a chance to get violent. The entire night was a series of bad choices by all involved. But at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what the law on the books in the state of Wisconsin says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #55)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 07:29 PM

56. I Understand What the Law Is, Sir

And this instance is one where the law is an ass.

He did not need to shoot, he shot because it was his fantasy come true. It's a damned shame Mr. Huber didn't manage to brain him, and that Mr. Grosskreutz didn't pull the trigger the moment he had his piece out.

And we both know that in most instances, persons adopting the view the punk ought to walk do so because they are in agreement with gunning down black and leftist protesters, or so fanatic about their possession of firearms, and their liberty to brandish them, that they are blind to any consequences of their fetish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 08:04 PM

59. And like those people

Your opinion is based in hatred of the political "other" and not the law and facts. Which is sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #59)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 08:09 PM

60. Based On Comprehension Of The World Around Me, Sir

I recommend it. Sometimes uncomfortable, but always bracing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #59)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 09:51 PM

82. This is a political forum for Democrats and liberals,

not a legal/law website.

Values and opinions are not informed by a literal reading of the law. The law once held that black people and women were property. Such a view (even when it was supported by law) was wrong then and wrong now. Rittenhouse is a terrorist despite what (one interpretation) of the law found. And judges and juries have often nullified the laws, and if required could've done so here - but were clearly on the racist cry baby's side from the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radius777 (Reply #82)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 10:01 PM

83. Last time I checked

Liberals valued the rule of law and did not support convictions not based in the law.

Jury nullification means acquitting when the law says convict. It NEVER means convicting when the law says acquit, ever. To do so is a miscarriage of justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #83)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 10:48 PM

88. Liberals value justice, and

the law throughout American history often was/is unjust.

Judges and juries have often simply done whatever they wanted, and could've done so here, which would've been to deliver actual justice. And it would've not really been nullification but simply a more just interpretation.

The authorities and the judge from the beginning showed favoritism and led the jury down that path.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #56)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 04:48 AM

76. Agree completely, the victims should've offed him in self defense,

however I doubt the judge/jury would've viewed them favorably, being perceived (whether they were or not is inconsequential) as supporters of BLM.

Agree about Shittenhouse's thought process. He went down there to 'do battle with the left/antifa/BLM' and was an aggressor in the entire situation. The police/authorities were on his side from the beginning, as they are generally on the side of RW militia types, which Rittenhouse clearly is.

Recall that there was a similar situation in Portland, involving antifa activist Michael Reinoehl - who claimed he shot a far-right protester in self defense. Reinoehl then went on the run and was later gunned down in cold blood (IMO, based on what I've seen) by US Marshalls, who never gave him a chance to surrender and have due process. Law Enforcement in this country is fundamentally right wing and racist, and until we reform them, as well as the entire criminal justice system, there really will be no justice in America, as the forces of oppression will always resist reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radius777 (Reply #76)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 12:06 PM

80. Reinoehl

Is on camera lying in wait for his victim. It was cold blooded murder. He claimed his victim tried to stab someone, despite not having a knife on him. The two cases have nothing in common. Try again...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #80)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 09:30 PM

81. RW talking points. We don't know the facts (and full context) of the case

because Reineohl never got due process and was executed by US Marshalls (which Trump called 'retribution') as witnesses attest and as well as investigations by NYT/WaPo also found.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to radius777 (Reply #81)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 10:05 PM

84. A predictable end

For a violent murderer who choose to attempt and shoot it out with the police trying to apprehend him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #84)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 10:36 PM

86. That's not what witnesses or the NYT report says.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl
A review by the New York Times found that the local investigators discounted key pieces of evidence that contradicted the notion that Reinoehl fired his weapon; for example, Reinoehl had a full magazine in the gun found on him.[14] Officer reports, released after the initial summary of the investigation, also reveal that none of the officers describe Reinoehl pointing or firing a weapon at officers before he was shot and killed. Several officers did report Reinoehl reaching for his waist before the police opened fire.[15] Witnesses stated that officers opened fire without warning.[16] President Donald Trump commended the U.S. Marshals for shooting Reinoehl[17] and described his death as "retribution"


Again, you appear to be attempting to further pro-police and right wing narratives about Reinoehl, Rittenhouse etc - which is against the terms of service of DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 20, 2021, 06:17 AM

10. Well, according to the prosecution "everybody takes a beating sometimes."

 

What a way to get the jurors on your side - was the prosecution secretly working for the defense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 21, 2021, 04:40 PM

13. I love how some people like to imagine the 2nd and 3rd shootings happened first

And the first shooting was “something something plastic bag/reached for his gun something something.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy Carcetti (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:08 PM

32. RIGHT ! Even the M$M wants leave out the fact that KR pointed his weapon first and then the crowd

... reacted.

He was literally not retreating running away from the shooting at unarmed people, that's all kinds of screwed up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sat Nov 20, 2021, 05:01 AM

6. What they see in the mirror

What they see in the mirror

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sat Nov 20, 2021, 05:15 AM

7. It's been that way for a very long time. Going back to English Common Law I believe.

Stand your Ground is relatively new but that didn't apply in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 08:20 AM

15. Traditionally,

if you killed someone and claimed self-defense, you had to actually show that you legitimately believed your life was in danger. Just saying so generally didn’t cut it. For instance if I’m 6’0 230 lbs and my 5’4, 120 lb wife was beating me and I shot her dead, the authorities would arrest me for murder even if I said I feared for my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elessar Zappa (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 09:04 AM

17. Yep. The old reasonable fear of imminent death

has been watered down, way way down. Years ago i doubt a skateboard would have been justification. And in the Zimmerman case, it was Trayon "armed with a sidewalk."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Solomon (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 03:16 PM

27. Reasonable fear of death...

Or serious bodily injury has been the standard in most jurisdictions for some time. Sidewalks, skateboards and fists are all capable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 03:40 PM

29. Let's see. If i'm in a fight, would i want a skateboard

or an Ar-15? Yes, I think I'd rather have a sidewalk than a pistol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 03:43 PM

30. I'm not sure what point you're making

A firearm is certainly a more effective weapon. So would a bat, a knife or any number of other items. None of which means a skateboard isn't easily capable of severely injuring someone or even killing them or that someone in possession of a firearm must not use it when his attacker has an inferior weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 01:56 AM

73. Zeitghost, you've done a pretty good job of explaining the situation.

It is hard to explain to people how the situation changes dynamically in many self-defense situations.

[In most states] you can't have the claim of innocence if you start a fight. But if you abandon the conflict and retreat, then you regain your innocence. If the target of your attack then pursues you and threatens you with death or great bodily harm your right to self defense is restored.

You write in your post #70:
WI law clearly gives him the right to self defense as soon as he stops and retreats. The moment he retreats and Rosenbaum advances on him (after threatening to kill him), Rosenbaum becomes the aggressor and Rittenhouse regains his right to defend himself with force


My state is very similar. I teach self-defense classes in a state a little farther south of WI, but the laws in both states have the same impact. The posters here that have prejudged the case are unlikely to change their minds ever. They make entertaining posts as uninformed social justice warriors. But they would make lousy jurors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Sat Nov 20, 2021, 05:38 AM

8. The 'Castle Doctrine' morphed into 'Stand Your Ground'

into "I'm a whiny little pissant playing dress-up and just shit myself"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 08:58 AM

16. Its not quite that simple

The key to the Rittenhouse case is his being chased. The law skews hard in favor of the one trying to flee.

We will see this shortly in the Arbery case. The fact that the three dirtbags chased their victim is going to ensure a guilty verdict there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 01:44 PM

21. That's an interesting take.

We'll see if it plays out that way in Georgia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 02:50 PM

25. and it did, all three guilty as predicted

If you read into the evidence and laws, a lot of high profile jury decisions make a lot more sense than the popular narrative would suggest. (That being said you still do get some shockers once in a while, Casey Anthony being a notable example)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 02:52 PM

26. Exactly.

All three guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amishman (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:10 PM

33. Arbery didn't assault his killers first by pointing a weapon at them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #33)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 12:56 AM

67. You are confusing brandishing with assault

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #67)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 01:03 AM

68. Both crimes and threatening

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 09:10 AM

18. It all started with Clint Eastwood: "Go ahead. Make my day".

I remember the ominous feeling that crept over me when that movie and philosophy came out during the Reagan era.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:22 PM

39. The fundamentals of self defense law

Goes back much farther than Dirty Harry. Especially the ones at play in the most recent cases being discussed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 03:53 AM

75. You mean Reagan the Governor. Cause Dirty Harry is from 1971.

 

We were not in Vietnam when Reagan was president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)


Response to Mad_Machine76 (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:23 PM

41. WI has no Stand Your Ground Law

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 01:50 PM

22. No, this is what the NRA has wrought on society.

They are a cancer. It's time to deliver a dose of some much needed chemo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 01:53 PM

23. Two of the three victims literally had their hand on the barrel of the rifle...

Last edited Wed Nov 24, 2021, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

And one struck KR with a skateboard to the head.

The Rittenhouse case isn't the best case to argue against self-defense laws as they're written today.

But I think everyone should support their State Legislature modifying State Laws regarding open carry, guns at protests and self defense laws itself.

For example, some States don't even require a "duty to retreat" for self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:11 PM

34. He pointed his weapon at them first, I love how so many people are leaving that out of narrative!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 06:24 PM

48. Apparently the Jury, after reviewing the evidence... didn't find that to be accurate or relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:26 PM

43. And It's A Shame That Blow Didn't Kill The Punk, Sir

The little shit went looking to kill and got his wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 06:27 PM

49. The irony is...

If the skateboard blow HAD killed KR...

Huber would have ALSO had a legitimate right to "self-defense" and deserved acquittal.

The letter of the Law suggests that KR, Huber and Grosskreuz ALL had the right to self-defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 06:51 PM

51. I Agree, Sir

Which makes Wisconsin law on the subject something of a circle-jerk.

Personally, I do not think the punk deserved a right to self-defense after shooting a man he did not have to shoot.

I've been in some tight scrapes, and would not be surprised if you have too, so I expect we both understand the difference between what a man can do and what he needs to do.

And it's best not to get me started on the idiocy of Mr. Grosskreuz --- if you take out a gun, be ready to pull the trigger. If you can get the thing out in the face of a man who's got one in his hands already, that is a sign of some deity's favor, and insults same if you do not take advantage to the fullest of such Heaven-sent opportunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 06:53 PM

52. I like to think of my home state of California

Anyone with a gun in public is a 9-1-1 call waiting to happen.

We need to restrict public firearm carry NOT expand it...

State legislatures can do this.

How about a "no-carry" exception for all protests and demonstrations? No good can come from being armed in a charged environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 06:56 PM

53. Hear Hear, Sir

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 08:02 PM

58. You can open carry here in CA

Anywhere it is legal to discharge that firearm or on private property with the consent of the owner. Which makes a lot of sense compared to Wisconsin's anywhere, anytime which in my opinion directly caused this mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 10:15 PM

63. Letter of the Law?..IN THE CONSTITUTION...WHAT IS THAT?..WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 01:55 AM

72. Most states do not require a duty to retreat

Stand your ground, either by case law for statute, is the majority rule in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 02:22 PM

24. It's been that way for quite awhile. English Common Law days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 03:35 PM

28. This kid would have carried a pistol if he was truly just afraid

and wanted a form a self-defense.

Like one one of his victims did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 06:29 PM

50. But that'd be illegal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WarGamer (Reply #50)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 08:18 AM

77. Why? It was legal to carry a machine gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Reply #77)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 10:07 PM

85. No

It was legal to open carry a rifle. No machine guns were involved. Unlicensed concealed carry of a handgun would have also been illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #85)

Fri Nov 26, 2021, 01:58 PM

89. I thought that KH had an AR15

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Reply #89)

Fri Nov 26, 2021, 02:20 PM

90. Correct. If you mean KR.

An AR-15 is not a machine gun. It is a semi-automatic rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 04:12 PM

35. K&R, Zimmerman and KR assaulted their victims FIRST !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 07:32 PM

57. America's been breeding cowards for quite some time now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 10:35 PM

65. Maybe...but we also breed the ..."GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY"..do you know who Jonas Salk is? I do.

Where does he fall in?...How about someone named George Washington? Do you know who he was?

A guy from Illinois who could really write..."Four Score and Seven Years Ago.." Do you know who wrote that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 10:09 PM

62. Always up to the jury....Always..!!!!!...Bill of Rights!! Entitled to .."Trial by Jury"

See the U.S. Constitution...something called...Bill of Rights...trial by jury?

Is that correct? Or am I making that up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Wed Nov 24, 2021, 10:19 PM

64. Does it say somewhere that the Constitution...Is the "Supreme Law of the Land"

Who the hell made that up?....Some fool?..Stupid fool?

These fools that made up the Constitution couldn't have done anything right?...

Were they really that smart in creating a set of laws..that would last a while?

Really?....



for a small nation to become a great nation, you got to be kidding?...

And....did this nation admit people from other nations seeking freedom, justice and life.........................
.

..................LIKE MY GRANDPARENTS WHO CAME HERE IN 1910?...WHAT WAS THE REQUIREMENT TO GET IN?

....................TO BE ABLE TO READ A LANGUAGE..(ANY LANGUAGE)... (do you get the picture?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Original post)

Thu Nov 25, 2021, 10:43 PM

87. gun humping cowards are always skeered

fuck them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread