Kansas Crimson

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 6:00 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:47 pm

While i agree that whites do get treated better....lets not vilify good/well trained cops for not shooting people who dont deserve it (the objective isnt for them to start killing more white people, it is to stop killing black people unless it is truly deserved). There are white people who are killed unnecessarily too...i suggest watching the video from a few years ago where a cop shoots a white person in the head while he is on his knees crawling towards the office (crying/begging for his life) in a hotel hallway.

No one is villifying the cop for being well trained. It is offered as a contrast and as a display that excessive force is not the only option.

It just feels like too many (not all) cops have less patience with black people than they do with white people. It doesn't matter that you can also find a video of a shitty cop shooting a white person. I am sure that there is video of a black person being given wide latitude in a situation as well. No one is claiming it is 100% on either end. It's just happening at a far too high of a percentage with black people.

Zis go here?

Think zis goes here.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... VHh_OzV3og

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:21 am Not the shooting, but a video of the pro-Trump 4x4 parade in Portland

2020 USA in a nutshell.
Approximately 50% of Americans "support" those guys in the trucks.

Hey lawyer folks on here....

I just read - That 17 year old in Kenosha was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

True? False?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:21 am Not the shooting, but a video of the pro-Trump 4x4 parade in Portland

Trump literally tweeted that these people are “great patriots”

Grandma wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 8:35 am Hey lawyer folks on here....

I just read - That 17 year old in Kenosha was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

True? False?

I’m curious about this as well, and have asked as much one way or another.

I’m not sure one can make a lawful self-defense claim with an unlawful weapon.

sdoyel wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 9:06 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:21 am Not the shooting, but a video of the pro-Trump 4x4 parade in Portland

Trump literally tweeted that these people are “great patriots”

I'm literally posting that Trump is a "complete and total fucking asshole".
Something I have never said about any other President we have had.

I think most of the lawyers work in these cases, in these divided and uncertain times is directing the jury selection.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 9:11 am

Grandma wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 8:35 am Hey lawyer folks on here....

I just read - That 17 year old in Kenosha was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

True? False?

I’m curious about this as well, and have asked as much one way or another.

I’m not sure one can make a lawful self-defense claim with an unlawful weapon.

He can claim self-defense, but you need to weigh the arguments if he doesn't have a statutory claim. Generally, you need to thread the needle to get a statutory defense, which I doubt he has. He would likely need to make a case law claim.

For Self Defense:
Someone may have thrown a plastic bag that landed several feet from him

Against Self Defense:
He was there illegally (past curfew), which is big. Most self defense claims require you being there legally
May not have been properly open-carrying
Crossed state lines to do all this
Claims to be defending other's property (all courts value life over property)
That gun doesn't seem to be on the up-and-up (too young to own, mom didn't claim it on recent bankruptcy)
His mindset based on interviews leading up was that he was "looking for trouble"
By some accounts, he seems to be the agitator, which nearly nixes all self defense claims (you cannot escalate, then kill, and call it self defense)

Basically, it's for a jury to decide, and lawyers to argue. Not for internet dweebs to adjudicate. Does open-carrying wrong nix a legitimate self-defense claim (i.e. you didn't realize your permit was expired, but you justifiably killed someone who was attacking you and your family) probably not. But this kid does not have many things going his way. Also, using self defense doesn't alleviate from other crimes the kid committed. If he has a legitimate self defense claim, but did other illegal things (illegal guns cross state borders) he is still liable for that. The prosecution has signaled with the initial charging docs that the prosecutor has the law and facts on their side. It's much easier to prove a lesser crime (murder two, manslaughter, reckless homicide), and still get justice.

Thanks, good post.

I saw somewhere his defense lawyer claims the gun belongs to his friend in WI, and the gun never crossed state lines. But I dunno where the cops recovered the gun. And if he did cross state lines with it the argument against him may be worse, though if he didn’t, I dunno if his argument is really made any better. (And could maybe whoever furnished the gun to a minor be in any trouble?)

What about self-defense for the second murder? Dude hit him with a skatebored, and in the process, kid popped dude in the chest. That one seems to maaaybe be a more legit claim than the initial murder, where the dude threw a plastic bag and the kid sprays him from behind as he runs. If the first charge is indeed murder, does that have a bearing on the second? I’m sure the prosecutors will argue that dude is trying to disarm him? And again, is an illegal (or any) assault rifle a “reasonable” defense against a skatebored?

And where’s the property owner? If the car lot owner came out and said, we didn’t want any armed vigilantes protecting our property, that could have a lot different bearing than, yeah we asked these rednecks to march around our lot with their assault rifles.

But yeah, the kid’s best defense is to prob keep crying SeLfDeFeNsE and stack the jury with a bunch of lobsters who are willing to condone all the other shit he did to satisfy their “make my day” fetish.

And yeah, man prosecutors were quick to bring, and add to, the charges. They seem confident.

Meanwhile, prosecutors are quiet about Jacob Blake, who still lays paralyzed while the dude who shot him 7 times in the back is on paid vacation.

Thought experiment: fast forward like 5 years, to when Kyle would have presumably been a legit cop. Would he too have been able to hide behind qualified immunity for this shit?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:52 am Thanks, good post.

I saw somewhere his defense lawyer claims the gun belongs to his friend in WI, and the gun never crossed state lines. But I dunno where the cops recovered the gun. And if he did cross state lines with it the argument against him may be worse, though if he didn’t, I dunno if his argument is really made any better. (And could maybe whoever furnished the gun to a minor be in any trouble?)

What about self-defense for the second murder? Dude hit him with a skatebored, and in the process, kid popped dude in the chest. That one seems to maaaybe be a more legit claim than the initial murder, where the dude threw a plastic bag and the kid sprays him from behind as he runs. If the first charge is indeed murder, does that have a bearing on the second? I’m sure the prosecutors will argue that dude is trying to disarm him? And again, is an illegal (or any) assault rifle a “reasonable” defense against a skatebored?

And where’s the property owner? If the car lot owner came out and said, we didn’t want any armed vigilantes protecting our property, that could have a lot different bearing than, yeah we asked these rednecks to march around our lot with their assault rifles.

But yeah, the kid’s best defense is to prob keep crying SeLfDeFeNsE and stack the jury with a bunch of lobsters who are willing to condone all the other shit he did to satisfy their “make my day” fetish.

I don’t know enough about the chain of custody of the gun, but the kid was posing with similar guns for his social media accounts, so I’m under the assumption he has reasonable easy access to guns he should not be handling. Also, his “friend,” if supplying a gun illegally that was used in a murder, better hope he has a good lawyer, because I believe he can be liable for the murder as well. The crossing state lines is less of an issue for liability, but when you start doing crimes that cross state lines, you bring a federal aspect into the situation.


The skateboard dude I think depends on the facts of the first murder. The skateboard dude was trying to apprehend the killer because he just shot someone. The skateboard dude should have just informed law enforcement, but if the apprehension was lawful (which it may have been, you can use force, including a skateboard, to apprehend if it’s not reasonably going to cause death) then the killer probably can’t use self defense argument. Based on the prosecution charging docs, since everyone was screaming the kid just shot someone, probably not going to be a very good defense. Again, you cannot escalate and kill, and call it self defense.

I don’t know of any liability of the property owner. I haven’t heard anything, but unless he was inciting the kid, probably doesn’t really matter here.

Cool, thanks again.

I wasn’t really thinking of liability for the property owner, but maybe.

I was more so thinking if the property owner said he DIDN’T want armed vigilantes on his property, that’s one more hole in the kid’s defense.

Heck, it would prob be in the property owner’s best interest to say so, and even allege the kid was trespassing, right? Put some distance between that shit.

(Unless, I suppose, the property owner too is some kinda second amendment magahead, that would be a twist...but once again, prob not in the property owner’s best interest)

I just don’t see the property owner being a factor for the kid at all. Maybe the kid would say that but for the call to action to protect the car lot, the kid goes home at 8 pm and all is well. But I think we have enough interviews of the kid leading up to the killing that he wanted to be in the mix no matter what. The killings happened away from the lot, and doesn’t seem to have any bearing on the facts.

Can’t wait for Lobster’s YouTube video response to NiceDC’s comments!

I would hope that, should it not yet exist, the result here is the creation of precedent that you can’t claim self defense if you drive 30 miles to pick a fight with someone.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:36 pm I would hope that, should it not yet exist, the result here is the creation of precedent that you can’t claim self defense if you drive 30 miles to pick a fight with someone.

The stupid thing is, I do think the kid had most of the right intentions. He drove to a hurting community, helped repair damaged property, reportedly rendered aide to injured protesters, and reportedly handed out snacks and water to both sides. I would do the same thing. The issue is he did this with a weapon of war on his back, and was likely brainwashed, both which probably put him in whatever situation led to him shooting three, killing two people..

Right winger blue lives guy killed in portland last night. This country's situation isnt going to improve quickly. This is going to be a long term deal....thats if we are lucky and we dont end up embroiled in a civil war.

TDub wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:54 pm Right winger blue lives guy killed in portland last night. This country's situation isnt going to improve quickly. This is going to be a long term deal....thats if we are lucky and we dont end up embroiled in a civil war.

That’s a case of getting what you asked for. Parade of folks shooting paintball guns and macing protestors. One took a 9mm to the chest. If you are going to front, probably should’ve had more than a Tippman 98 at your side.