Caporegime
Regardless of all what happened, I bet if one if the guys who got shot was diverse, then everyone putting forward an objective argument in defence of the shooting would be called a racist.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Soldato
He shot and killed someone who would still be alive if he hadn’t decided to go out larping and antagonising people. He then ran away from some people who were trying to apprehend him and shot 2 more people
You can’t just go out trying to trigger people, shoot someone who you successfully triggered and then play the victim, that isn’t how it works.
You can’t just go out trying to trigger people, shoot someone who you successfully triggered and then play the victim, that isn’t how it works.
Antagonising people vandalising and rioting, who then proceeded to physically attack him? Heaven forbid he did that.
Soldato
I don't know the ins and outs of it - and maybe he did antagonise them I dunno but the videos show a crowd going after him before he shot the first person - even when they were aware he had a gun some were threatening him with violence and trying to attack him and hedged him into a situation where he would have felt his life was threatened. At the very least they are all as crazy as each other.
Second shooting he was running towards the sirens - no need for anyone to actually try and lunge for him like they did - if assuming their intention was to bring him to the law all they needed to do was keep him running down the street towards the flashing lights and sirens.
Your point? People are trying to paint the kid as some gun loving saint who was just defending himself and had every right to be there apparently.
Except that entire premise is wrong.
Castle doctrine apply when you are breaking the law and confronting people with an illegal rifle?
Sorry not following the thread so dunno if it has been mentioned - just seen the videos showing the press tagged people, etc. where the injured are making sure they get a pose with the cameras before medical attention :s what a messed up situation.
Soldato
lol, imagine comparing someone running AWAY from confrontation like Kyle was initially as shown in the video.... to someone randomly stabbing people to death. You seriously need to take a look at yourself.
Castle doctrine is irrelevant here (save for possibly the first one as they were there on behalf of the business owner).
It’s not needed though as he didn’t stand his ground using deadly force to defend the business, he retreated and was simply defending himself using deadly force.
Soldato
Please stay factual. The video evidence given in the link I provided shows that it was lit. Did you watch the video before claiming it wasn't lit?
Again, please stay factual. The "Threat to life" justification you use repeatedly is not the only justification to invoke Self Defense. As shown in the US "Self Defense definition" I provided, it says that a person may "When the use of deadly force is involved in a self defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death" - so if the shooter sees an action which they "reasonably believe" could inflict "great bodily harm" to them (and not solely a "threat to life" as you've posted) then they can "claim" Self Defense. However at that point it is now up to the Police to investigate, the DA to prosecute and finally the court & jury system to make the final decision on whether that "claim" is actually justified, which is correct.
So in this case, as per my initial post, in every case where the shooter fired he can say that he "reasonably believed" an action which could inflict "great bodily harm" to him was about to occur, allowing him to make the Self Defense "claim", at which time the above mentioned investigation, prosecution and courts then take over to see if the "claim" was actually justified.
Again, please stay factual. I have never said that "man who is following him with a gun" was a "greater threat" than the shooter himself was so I'm confused as to where in my post you believe I've stated or implied that the "pistol" guy was a "greater threat" than the shooter. If you could explain what made you think I said that I'll gladly clear up any misunderstanding.
Once more, please stay factual. You said that I'm "ignoring the vigilante premeditated nature of the crime..............." which is given as a statement of fact. It is not, it is only your opinion of the event and not a fact. Your opinion hasn't been proved to true or false in a court yet so please try to remember not to confuse opinions with facts. Regarding my "ignoring" of any alleged vigilantism, I specifically gave my opinion about it in my last paragraph and gave the reasons why in my opinion I didn't believe it was a vigilante case but as mentioned above, my opinion is also just an opinion and not a fact, however I haven't phrased my opinion as a direct statement of fact i.e. I have said "I think he......" etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned, I've very happy to debate but please stay factual when making claims otherwise the discussion is useless.
That isn’t clear, he might have been, in which case that misdemeanour charge could hold up. He might have a defence for it via his older brother being a guardian (according to witness on the radio interview).
Regardless of that, it doesn’t prevent him from being allowed to defend himself with it.
I’m not sure it does. It seems to be a bag containing a bottle (or maybe a brick or something?).
It’s not particularly important though - main thing is that he was being chased by someone trying to physically attack him and - he was trying to avoid the attack and got cornered.
Associate
Looked at the breakdown videos (NY Times I think), all looked like self defence to me.
Everyone there is just as stupid as each other, no sympathy what so ever.
Everyone there is just as stupid as each other, no sympathy what so ever.
Soldato
I've read the entire thread. Is that a point that should be left alone because it has been mentioned previously?
It's a very important point that shouldn't be buried. It paints a picture as to what was happening on the day.
This day did not start at the point he was supposedly defending himself.
The US is a country which has laws like felony murder.
Yes, those are two correct and fairly generic statements. The concept of time exists, the day didn’t start at night time and the US is a country with laws.
I’m not sure what they add to the thread though?
I’m not being funny but if you’re going to quote a post then at least make an attempt at discussion.
That video is pretty enlightening. I can't believe the attitude of some of those protestors (some seriously antagonistic and violent quotes in there) but kudos to the ones trying to de-escalate.
Who honestly brings their kids up allowing them to think burning down mom & pop stores and the local gas station is acceptable. Maybe they don't understand the concept of private business - or maybe they do, given it's a very AntiFa-like crowd. They do, after all want to dismantle capitalism and so on...
I could understand targeting municipal buildings to make a point of protest but beyond that I'm confused.
Who honestly brings their kids up allowing them to think burning down mom & pop stores and the local gas station is acceptable. Maybe they don't understand the concept of private business - or maybe they do, given it's a very AntiFa-like crowd. They do, after all want to dismantle capitalism and so on...
I could understand targeting municipal buildings to make a point of protest but beyond that I'm confused.
That video is pretty enlightening. I can't believe the attitude of some of those protestors (some seriously antagonistic and violent quotes in there) but kudos to the ones trying to de-escalate.
Who honestly brings their kids up allowing them to think burning down mom & pop stores and the local gas station is acceptable. Maybe they don't understand the concept of private business - or maybe they do, given it's a very AntiFa-like crowd. They do, after all want to dismantle capitalism and so on...
I could understand targeting municipal buildings to make a point of protest but beyond that I'm confused.
Many of them are being manipulated, their prejudices preyed upon, for other people's agendas. The last few years, but 2020 especially, has reinforced for me just how lacking self-awareness is in general.
Caporegime
@omnomnom nice to see someone change their mind based upon facts instead of just doubling down.