Here's a video of the main armed white dude (who was seen several times with Rittenhouse), telling a reporters “Do you know what the cops told us today? We’re going to push them to you, because you can deal with them, then we’re going to leave.”
This is backed up by people on the ground as well as a review of video:
You can certainly claim self defense if someone is trying to cause bodily harm to you on private property. He was friend of the business, and there's nothing in the law that says you cannot do that. Hell, even the Koreans were doing this during the 1992 riots.
You can, but apparently not if you are breaking the law yourself while on that private property...or at least that is how it has been explained to me.
And tbh, i dont think either shooting actually occured on the private property he claims to he defending, it was near it, but not on it from what i can see in videos.
I think the bigger issue here is, we have people who think they are entitled to violence based on a political reasons (the definition of terrorism). Why are people not talking about this? Simply because they are company men on the left and support these rioters. Very disturbing that people promote burning cars and murder because it's on "their side". This is why I'm not on either side -- I can see the unbiased truth for what it is.
There was a Trump supporter who was shot for no reason in Portland over the weekend. He was wearing the "wrong" hat. Almost no media coverage and no one cares because he wasn't black and because he was on the wrong side. This is disgusting.
You mean the guy allegedly spraying bear mace into the crowd of protestors?
That you would use the term "unbiased truth" is crazy. At least own your shit. You bitched about ignoring crimes and then said the guy who reports claim was assaulting people with bear mace was shot "for no reason". In the same post.
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:48 am
i spoke with a lawyer friend of mine who is familiar with Wisconsin state laws about guns/etc....basically he said self defense is not something you can claim while committing a crime. Being in the process of committing a crime nullifies any self defense argument. Defending a business is legal, but you have to be an owner/operational manager, not a kid from 20min away who has no association with the business.
You can certainly claim self defense if someone is trying to cause bodily harm to you on private property. He was friend of the business, and there's nothing in the law that says you cannot do that. Hell, even the Koreans were doing this during the 1992 riots.
You can, but apparently not if you are breaking the law yourself while on that private property...or at least that is how it has been explained to me.
And tbh, i dont think either shooting actually occured on the private property he claims to he defending, it was near it, but not on it from what i can see in videos.
I'm pretty sure the self defense laws were not drafted, and cases were not decided, in contemplation of one day some teen with a military-style rifle would go out of his way to insert himself into a confrontation.
Re: Kenosha
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:32 pm
by sdoyel
What a cowardly piece of shit.
Re: Kenosha
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:34 pm
by jfish26
He's not cowardly (well, in this particular instance), he's craven. He has determined (and perhaps correctly so) that his best chance of winning is to stoke this sort of American carnage.
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:48 am
i spoke with a lawyer friend of mine who is familiar with Wisconsin state laws about guns/etc....basically he said self defense is not something you can claim while committing a crime. Being in the process of committing a crime nullifies any self defense argument. Defending a business is legal, but you have to be an owner/operational manager, not a kid from 20min away who has no association with the business.
You can certainly claim self defense if someone is trying to cause bodily harm to you on private property. He was friend of the business, and there's nothing in the law that says you cannot do that. Hell, even the Koreans were doing this during the 1992 riots.
You can, but apparently not if you are breaking the law yourself while on that private property...or at least that is how it has been explained to me.
And tbh, i dont think either shooting actually occured on the private property he claims to he defending, it was near it, but not on it from what i can see in videos.
Per the criminal complaint, one occurred on or around private property.
I don't think it's too relevant tho. Generally, you cannot kill to protect other's places of work. If you own/operate the business, then you might have a Castle Doctrine/statutory defense claim. That's just going to be very attenuated on these set of facts. I read Kyle's lawyer's set of facts, and he claims the car dealership "called for action" to protect:
...Later in the day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed by mob violence. The business owner needed help to protect what he had left of his life’s work, including two nearby mechanic’s shops. Kyle and a friend armed themselves with rifles due to the deadly violence gripping Kenosha and many other American cities, and headed to the business premises....Kyle returned to the gas station until he learned of a need to help protect the second mechanic’s shop further down the street where property destruction was imminent with no police were nearby. As Kyle proceeded towards the second mechanic’s shop, he was accosted by multiple rioters who recognized that he had been attempting to protect a business the mob wanted to destroy. ...
Even on the lawyer's skewed set of facts, he is still breaking curfew, holding illegal weapons, and it's questionable what right he had to be on the private property.
You can certainly claim self defense if someone is trying to cause bodily harm to you on private property. He was friend of the business, and there's nothing in the law that says you cannot do that. Hell, even the Koreans were doing this during the 1992 riots.
You can, but apparently not if you are breaking the law yourself while on that private property...or at least that is how it has been explained to me.
And tbh, i dont think either shooting actually occured on the private property he claims to he defending, it was near it, but not on it from what i can see in videos.
Per the criminal complaint, one occurred on or around private property.
I don't think it's too relevant tho. Generally, you cannot kill to protect other's places of work. If you own/operate the business, then you might have a Castle Doctrine/statutory defense claim. That's just going to be very attenuated on these set of facts. I read Kyle's lawyer's set of facts, and he claims the car dealership "called for action" to protect:
...Later in the day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed by mob violence. The business owner needed help to protect what he had left of his life’s work, including two nearby mechanic’s shops. Kyle and a friend armed themselves with rifles due to the deadly violence gripping Kenosha and many other American cities, and headed to the business premises....Kyle returned to the gas station until he learned of a need to help protect the second mechanic’s shop further down the street where property destruction was imminent with no police were nearby. As Kyle proceeded towards the second mechanic’s shop, he was accosted by multiple rioters who recognized that he had been attempting to protect a business the mob wanted to destroy. ...
Even on the lawyer's skewed set of facts, he is still breaking curfew, holding illegal weapons, and it's questionable what right he had to be on the private property.
Kyle was the deadly violence gripping Kenosha.
Re: Kenosha
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:42 pm
by Deleted User 318
jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:29 pm
I'm pretty sure the self defense laws were not drafted, and cases were not decided, in contemplation of one day some teen with a military-style rifle would go out of his way to insert himself into a confrontation.
This is a really good point. I usually don't get into the policy side of criminal laws, but usually self-defense is a good faith defense that you are where you are legally, and should be there. They are meant for if you are minding your own business, and someone attacks you, you don't have to choose life in prison or death.
Injecting yourself into an already fraught situation, having a certain mindset, breaking laws, you lose a lot of that good faith. We don't want to give a pass to those looking for trouble, finding it, and then turning their guns on people. We want self defense to be for those with truly no other option. Kyle had an option last week. He could've gone home, played Fortnite, and smoked some weed instead of playing militia.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:29 pm
I'm pretty sure the self defense laws were not drafted, and cases were not decided, in contemplation of one day some teen with a military-style rifle would go out of his way to insert himself into a confrontation.
This is a really good point. I usually don't get into the policy side of criminal laws, but usually self-defense is a good faith defense that you are where you are legally, and should be there. They are meant for if you are minding your own business, and someone attacks you, you don't have to choose life in prison or death.
Injecting yourself into an already fraught situation, having a certain mindset, breaking laws, you lose a lot of that good faith. We don't want to give a pass to those looking for trouble, finding it, and then turning their guns on people. We want self defense to be for those with truly no other option. Kyle had an option last week. He could've gone home, played Fortnite, and smoked some weed instead of playing militia.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:29 pm
I'm pretty sure the self defense laws were not drafted, and cases were not decided, in contemplation of one day some teen with a military-style rifle would go out of his way to insert himself into a confrontation.
This is a really good point. I usually don't get into the policy side of criminal laws, but usually self-defense is a good faith defense that you are where you are legally, and should be there. They are meant for if you are minding your own business, and someone attacks you, you don't have to choose life in prison or death.
Injecting yourself into an already fraught situation, having a certain mindset, breaking laws, you lose a lot of that good faith. We don't want to give a pass to those looking for trouble, finding it, and then turning their guns on people. We want self defense to be for those with truly no other option. Kyle had an option last week. He could've gone home, played Fortnite, and smoked some weed instead of playing militia.
100% agreed. Otherwise a claim of "self defense" could be made if a mass murderer carries an automatic weapon into a concert and starts firing as soon as someone makes any attempt to take that weapon away from them.
People are interjecting themselves into dangerous situations and then murdering people because they felt threatened by the dangerous situation. It's crazy.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:29 pm
I'm pretty sure the self defense laws were not drafted, and cases were not decided, in contemplation of one day some teen with a military-style rifle would go out of his way to insert himself into a confrontation.
This is a really good point. I usually don't get into the policy side of criminal laws, but usually self-defense is a good faith defense that you are where you are legally, and should be there. They are meant for if you are minding your own business, and someone attacks you, you don't have to choose life in prison or death.
Injecting yourself into an already fraught situation, having a certain mindset, breaking laws, you lose a lot of that good faith. We don't want to give a pass to those looking for trouble, finding it, and then turning their guns on people. We want self defense to be for those with truly no other option. Kyle had an option last week. He could've gone home, played Fortnite, and smoked some weed instead of playing militia.
100% agreed. Otherwise a claim of "self defense" could be made if a mass murderer carries an automatic weapon into a concert and starts firing as soon as someone makes any attempt to take that weapon away from them.
People are interjecting themselves into dangerous situations and then murdering people because they felt threatened by the dangerous situation. It's crazy.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:29 pm
I'm pretty sure the self defense laws were not drafted, and cases were not decided, in contemplation of one day some teen with a military-style rifle would go out of his way to insert himself into a confrontation.
This is a really good point. I usually don't get into the policy side of criminal laws, but usually self-defense is a good faith defense that you are where you are legally, and should be there. They are meant for if you are minding your own business, and someone attacks you, you don't have to choose life in prison or death.
Injecting yourself into an already fraught situation, having a certain mindset, breaking laws, you lose a lot of that good faith. We don't want to give a pass to those looking for trouble, finding it, and then turning their guns on people. We want self defense to be for those with truly no other option. Kyle had an option last week. He could've gone home, played Fortnite, and smoked some weed instead of playing militia.
100% agreed. Otherwise a claim of "self defense" could be made if a mass murderer carries an automatic weapon into a concert and starts firing as soon as someone makes any attempt to take that weapon away from them.
People are interjecting themselves into dangerous situations and then murdering people because they felt threatened by the dangerous situation. It's crazy.
That is a terrible example (automatic weapons are illegal, and most concert venues dont allow weapons, so already breaking the law in that scenario), but yes you have to be acting in good faith/following the law. LOL.
Your 2nd part...."people" as in plural? Or 1 person? Who besides this Kyle kid has done this?
Re: Kenosha
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:55 pm
by Walrus
The only "trouble" started when people thought they were entitled to loot, murder and set fire to businesses. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I go to a friend's home and he has a gun there waiting for me. Some entitled terrorists think they can burn down his home. But according to some on here, "I'm looking for trouble."
Re: Kenosha
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:58 pm
by ousdahl
Your example, once again, does not apply.
Re: Kenosha
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:59 pm
by Deleted User 318
ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:58 pm
Your example, once again, does not apply.
You missed the plot twist. His friend is the head of ANTIFA, and a BLM organizer. And they kissed.
Re: Kenosha
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2020 2:01 pm
by Sparko
Kyle punching that woman in the abdomen while his friend held her in a headlock was also self defense. He was defending his lack of principles.
jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:29 pm
I'm pretty sure the self defense laws were not drafted, and cases were not decided, in contemplation of one day some teen with a military-style rifle would go out of his way to insert himself into a confrontation.
This is a really good point. I usually don't get into the policy side of criminal laws, but usually self-defense is a good faith defense that you are where you are legally, and should be there. They are meant for if you are minding your own business, and someone attacks you, you don't have to choose life in prison or death.
Injecting yourself into an already fraught situation, having a certain mindset, breaking laws, you lose a lot of that good faith. We don't want to give a pass to those looking for trouble, finding it, and then turning their guns on people. We want self defense to be for those with truly no other option. Kyle had an option last week. He could've gone home, played Fortnite, and smoked some weed instead of playing militia.
Doesn't seem like the proposed rationale for Kyle works even in Florida, where the NRA has already created some laws that result in bizarre circumstances.
Re: Kenosha
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:04 pm
by ousdahl
Isn’t “stand your ground” why Zimmerman walked after he killed Trayvon?
I remember thinking it was fishy that the guy with a gun chased the kid around a neighborhood, then after the fact claimed, “HE started it!”
