- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bucks and Magic are boycotting tonight's game UPDATE All games postponed
Posted on 8/29/20 at 10:20 am to Bronc
Posted on 8/29/20 at 10:20 am to Bronc
quote:Based on the videos, this is factually incorrect by law.
If the multiple reports of Kyle initiating aggressive behavior toward vandals are accurate(which are outlined in his charges as well), specifically, if he approached and confronted with threats and gun in hand, Which he had no legal right to brandish, possibly raised at one point(recklessly endangering safety), toward people at the gas station, which no video I am aware of corroborates or debunks, but if accurate, that makes it very difficult to claim he was the one responding in self defense. If he threatened someone with a loaded weapon it would be the person being threatened, if anything, that had the justification to act in retaliation.
Even if Kyle was the initial aggressor, the Wisconsin law states you have to feel you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Who the aggressor is can change at any moment. Even if Kyle were the initial aggressor, we can easily see the 1st video where Kyle is now retreating and the bald red shirt guy is the aggressor. With Kyle retreating, that can no longer has the defense of stating he felt imminent danger.
Basically, you don't get to do whatever you want for as long as you want and say it's justified, the dynamics of the encounter. And let's remember, we don't know if Kyle was the initial aggressor. But even if he was, we know the guy he shot was the aggressor at the moment he was shot.
Then we know by seeing/hearing it on video people are going after Kyle, not to subdue, but to physically harm. one guy swung a skateboard. One guy went at him with a gun, and his friend posted on FB that the guy's only regret is that he didn't empty his clip into Kyle sooner. So again, they're not trying to subdue, they're trying to hurt/kill him. So again, the 2nd video would very clearly seem to show self defense.
1
Posted on 8/29/20 at 10:58 am to shel311
Here's a video I'm seeing for the very first time.
LINK
I've always wondered about this 1st shooting after the bald/red shirt guy throws the object at Kyle, you hear a gunshot but I never knew where it was coming from.
This video seems to show where it did come from. Considering in this moment Kyle is retreating and the other dude is the aggressor, this would only serve to strengthen the self defense argument.
One thing we still haven't really touched on much is that he was charged with 1st degree murder.
Bronc, have you seen anything, one shred of evidence that points Kyle planning in a premeditated way to shoot these guys...who were clearly attacking him?
LINK
I've always wondered about this 1st shooting after the bald/red shirt guy throws the object at Kyle, you hear a gunshot but I never knew where it was coming from.
This video seems to show where it did come from. Considering in this moment Kyle is retreating and the other dude is the aggressor, this would only serve to strengthen the self defense argument.
One thing we still haven't really touched on much is that he was charged with 1st degree murder.
Bronc, have you seen anything, one shred of evidence that points Kyle planning in a premeditated way to shoot these guys...who were clearly attacking him?
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 11:06 am
Posted on 8/29/20 at 12:36 pm to shel311
That isn’t going to help his case at all I dont think,
Basically Kyle hears something and turns around and wildly fires his gun 4 times(and according to an autopsy, shot the first victim in the back afterwards)
That is not self defense in response to identifiable mortal harm, that is reactionary and indiscriminate gunfire. And chasing someone is not identifiable mortal harm. I can not say enough, this is NOT a stand your ground state. Simply saying I felt he might try to kill me, I was tired of retreating, or a I was worried that gunfire was aimed toward me, or the gunfire startled me, despite not being in a position to see it or orientate anything, is not justification to start indiscriminately shooting at someone.
Furthermore, as the reporter points out, he has a lot to answer for for why he was seen 4 blocks from the dealership he was supposedly there to protect. And if you are someone that just saw this kid shoot someone in the head, he is a murderer and a threat, but the logic some seem to be imploring is absurd, that because he feels threatened by people that might try to disarm him for killing someone, he can then shoot everyone that tries. But of course if feeling threatened is a justifiable reason to kill, then the other side is true, if you feel Kyle shot this guy in cold blood, hell, if you just thought this guy was stalking you with a gun in approaching you, under that logic, you have the right to shoot him because you feel mortally threatened. It’s absurd and gets to the absurdity of a lot of self defense logic based on thought and feelings....and many poorly written laws.
As to the charges, this is a racist police department and racist city, I suspect, and would not be surprised, if most of those charges are actually designed to be unprovable and therefore allow him to get off.
Basically Kyle hears something and turns around and wildly fires his gun 4 times(and according to an autopsy, shot the first victim in the back afterwards)
That is not self defense in response to identifiable mortal harm, that is reactionary and indiscriminate gunfire. And chasing someone is not identifiable mortal harm. I can not say enough, this is NOT a stand your ground state. Simply saying I felt he might try to kill me, I was tired of retreating, or a I was worried that gunfire was aimed toward me, or the gunfire startled me, despite not being in a position to see it or orientate anything, is not justification to start indiscriminately shooting at someone.
Furthermore, as the reporter points out, he has a lot to answer for for why he was seen 4 blocks from the dealership he was supposedly there to protect. And if you are someone that just saw this kid shoot someone in the head, he is a murderer and a threat, but the logic some seem to be imploring is absurd, that because he feels threatened by people that might try to disarm him for killing someone, he can then shoot everyone that tries. But of course if feeling threatened is a justifiable reason to kill, then the other side is true, if you feel Kyle shot this guy in cold blood, hell, if you just thought this guy was stalking you with a gun in approaching you, under that logic, you have the right to shoot him because you feel mortally threatened. It’s absurd and gets to the absurdity of a lot of self defense logic based on thought and feelings....and many poorly written laws.
As to the charges, this is a racist police department and racist city, I suspect, and would not be surprised, if most of those charges are actually designed to be unprovable and therefore allow him to get off.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 8/29/20 at 2:16 pm to Bronc
quote:I know the "we must have watched different videos" joke gets thrown around a lot but I'm truly wondering if you watched a different video to come to these opinions. Everything you say is just not rational at all based on the video.
That isn’t going to help his case at all I dont think,
quote:Like this, for example. Did you not watch the video where he retreated until he could no longer retreat then shot his gun at the very last moment before the attacker attacked him?
Basically Kyle hears something and turns around and wildly fires his gun
quote:If you can't logically say he could reasonably for great bodily harm in that mob with that dude chasing him, you're not even striving for objectivity at this point.
That is not self defense in response to identifiable mortal harm, that is reactionary and indiscriminate gunfire. And chasing someone is not identifiable mortal harm.
quote:Yep, and Kyle did NOT stand his ground, he retreated from his aggressor until he could not retreat any more and the aggressor was about to attack him. That happened, factually. It's on video. Kyle 100% did not stand his ground, he had a duty to retreat, and he did retreat.
I can not say enough, this is NOT a stand your ground state
quote:I don't think indiscriminately means what you think it means. He shot the guy chasing him trying to attack him. I don't think he missed, I think all shots hit the guy trying to attack him. That's almost literally the opposite of indiscriminately shooting. He shot at one specific guy, the attacker.
I was tired of retreating, or a I was worried that gunfire was aimed toward me, or the gunfire startled me, despite not being in a position to see it or orientate anything, is not justification to start indiscriminately shooting at someone.
quote:What? He is not automatically a murderer. It very well could be self defense.
And if you are someone that just saw this kid shoot someone in the head, he is a murderer and a threat
quote:Did you watch the video? They were not trying to disarm him, they were attacking him. One dude hit him with a skateboard, the other dude had a gun and said he wished had had unloaded his entire clip sooner on Kyle. They were not trying to subdue, so why are you trying to say that is what they were trying to do? Very disingenuous on your part, one guy even admitted to it and you're STILL saying the guy didn't have that intention?
but the logic some seem to be imploring is absurd, that because he feels threatened by people that might try to disarm him for killing someone
quote:Yes or no, was Kyle under a threat of physical attack in both videos? Yes or no...
But of course if feeling threatened is a justifiable reason to kill
quote:Didn't you reference the law earlier? The law says you have a duty to retreat. They were literally going towards him and after him. Everything you're saying is irrelevant to what we saw in the video, nothing is logical about any of these points you've made in this post, almost everything you've said is the complete opposite of what we can see in videos.
if you just thought this guy was stalking you with a gun in approaching you, under that logic, you have the right to shoot him because you feel mortally threatened.
quote:Are you on record saying Kyle was never under any threat of physical harm in both videos? Yes or no...
It’s absurd and gets to the absurdity of a lot of self defense logic
quote:You're just trying to set up your next excuse. You know darn well 1st degree murder isn't in play here, so now you'll just set up an excuse to say the city is racist so he got off, nevermind that the racist city just overcharged this dude with 1st degree murder for shooting guys who were clearly attacking him while he retreated, again factually speaking.
As to the charges, this is a racist police department and racist city, I suspect, and would not be surprised, if most of those charges are actually designed to be unprovable and therefore allow him to get off.
It is an indisputable fact that he is retreating in both videos, and also indisputable that he shot guys who were physically attacking him. You trying to pretend he should have never felt any danger whatsoever is disingenuous, to say the least.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 8/29/20 at 2:33 pm to shel311
How many times must this be repeated: Wisconsin IS NOT A STAND YOUR GROUND STATE!
You do not automatically have the right to unleash lethal force because someone is running at you or you hear a gunshot. You MUST demonstrate your life was in imminent mortal danger or imminent grave bodily harm. You must demonstrate you had no ability to further retreat. Chasing someone, especially without further context, Lunging at someone, especially without further context, deciding you don’t want to retreat anymore, is not that. Let alone when you swing around and fire indiscriminately and apparently shoot someone in the back after they are down.
The rest of your post largely becomes irrelevant because you are propping up arguments on unsupportable assumptions or injecting straw men. It seems clear you want certain narrative to be true, one that conforms to the points i made earlier, white guy hero, black people allies bad guys. Despite still not having any initial context for the situation, despite having to bend over backwards to claim jumping or chasing someone constitutes imminent mortal danger.
You do not automatically have the right to unleash lethal force because someone is running at you or you hear a gunshot. You MUST demonstrate your life was in imminent mortal danger or imminent grave bodily harm. You must demonstrate you had no ability to further retreat. Chasing someone, especially without further context, Lunging at someone, especially without further context, deciding you don’t want to retreat anymore, is not that. Let alone when you swing around and fire indiscriminately and apparently shoot someone in the back after they are down.
The rest of your post largely becomes irrelevant because you are propping up arguments on unsupportable assumptions or injecting straw men. It seems clear you want certain narrative to be true, one that conforms to the points i made earlier, white guy hero, black people allies bad guys. Despite still not having any initial context for the situation, despite having to bend over backwards to claim jumping or chasing someone constitutes imminent mortal danger.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 8/29/20 at 2:39 pm to Bronc
quote:He didn't stand his ground, he retreated... Both videos.
How many times must this be repeated: Wisconsin IS NOT A STAND YOUR GROUND STATE!
quote:Don't think that'll be hard to do, considering one guy had a gun and wishes he had shot sooner
You MUST demonstrate your life was in imminent mortal danger or imminent grave bodily harm
quote:Here we go with indiscriminately again. That word doesn't mean what you think it does. He shot the exact guy who was attacking him, literally the opposite of what you're disingenuously insinuating.
deciding you don’t want to retreat anymore, is not that. Let alone when you swing around and fire indiscriminately and apparently shoot someone in the back after they are down
quote:Says the guy who thinks being attacked with a swinging skateboard and by a gun with a gun who admitted to wishing he had shot Kyle doesn't constitute a threat to his life.
The rest of your post largely becomes irrelevant because you are propping up arguments on unsupportable assumptions.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 8/29/20 at 2:52 pm to shel311
Stand your ground is more than just not having a duty to retreat, it is typically a very vague definition of justifiable lethal force that basically includes feeling threatened and creates an enormous issue in terms of establishing clear legal lines and precedents. In such a state, yeah, Kyle could probably leverage such a shitty, counter-productive law to claim self defense. In Wisconsin? Not likely going to be so easy.
In Wisconsin the threshold is higher. You must be able to demonstrate your life was in imminent mortal danger or bodily harm.Complicated further if Kyle was the initial antagonist. It would be a stretch of an order of magnitude to think you are in imminent mortal danger if, speaking to the first murder, an unarmed person is simply running at you or lunging at you with only a fist.
You might be able to get some warped jury or some exceptional lawyer to make some absurd case that his client is such a pussy that he felt, despite having a gun, that this skinny kid lunging at him unarmed was gonna punch him to death and he had no other capable avenue before resorting to lethal force, but it’s stretching it by quite a lot.
And AGAIN, you and I DO NOT know the context in which led to that chase. Wisconsin law also states clearly:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
Again, lunging, chasing, hearing a gunshot you cant orientate, not even trying to physically restrain the pursuer before resorting to lethal force, that is a stretch of enormous proportions to claim justifiable lethal force in the name of self defense.
He is going to have a tough go claiming self defense on the first murder, probably, likely going to be able to get out of the second one, but I am not the jury.....Still none of that changes the points made yesterday, or the larger issue of the disproportionate way the police uphold the law based on color of skin and prejudice in the community, and the handling of Kyle brings to bear I clear and concisely that systemic failure that are continuing to gloss over to prop up your boy the militia racist.
In Wisconsin the threshold is higher. You must be able to demonstrate your life was in imminent mortal danger or bodily harm.Complicated further if Kyle was the initial antagonist. It would be a stretch of an order of magnitude to think you are in imminent mortal danger if, speaking to the first murder, an unarmed person is simply running at you or lunging at you with only a fist.
You might be able to get some warped jury or some exceptional lawyer to make some absurd case that his client is such a pussy that he felt, despite having a gun, that this skinny kid lunging at him unarmed was gonna punch him to death and he had no other capable avenue before resorting to lethal force, but it’s stretching it by quite a lot.
And AGAIN, you and I DO NOT know the context in which led to that chase. Wisconsin law also states clearly:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
Again, lunging, chasing, hearing a gunshot you cant orientate, not even trying to physically restrain the pursuer before resorting to lethal force, that is a stretch of enormous proportions to claim justifiable lethal force in the name of self defense.
He is going to have a tough go claiming self defense on the first murder, probably, likely going to be able to get out of the second one, but I am not the jury.....Still none of that changes the points made yesterday, or the larger issue of the disproportionate way the police uphold the law based on color of skin and prejudice in the community, and the handling of Kyle brings to bear I clear and concisely that systemic failure that are continuing to gloss over to prop up your boy the militia racist.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 8/29/20 at 3:07 pm to Bronc
Posted on 8/29/20 at 3:43 pm to Soggymoss
Not really interested in listening to what an NRA lobbyist and paid activist has to say.
That’s like appealing to Jonnie Cochran’s law firm to offer legal analysis on OJ’s guilt.
That’s like appealing to Jonnie Cochran’s law firm to offer legal analysis on OJ’s guilt.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 3:56 pm to Bronc
Then you are not interested in how the law works and the intricacies of what makes it a legal self defense shooting with the evidence that is plain as day caught on video.
Which means all the bullshite you are sitting here spewing is for nothing because you have already formed a false opinion and will die on that sword due to your refusal to look at things objectively.
Which means all the bullshite you are sitting here spewing is for nothing because you have already formed a false opinion and will die on that sword due to your refusal to look at things objectively.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 4:13 pm to Soggymoss
quote:
Then you are not interested in how the law works and the intricacies of what makes it a legal self defense shooting with the evidence that is plain as day caught on video.
No, I’m not interested in hearing the legal interpretation of a non-practicing, bottom tier law school graduate from a different state, who’s actual job is a full-time paid propagandist for a corrupt gun lobby that’s only permissible position is to craft positions that encourage the greater proliferation of guns and use conservative culture wars to foster brand loyalty.
Next you are gonna tell me I don’t want to learn about the truth of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s innocence because I don’t find Alan Dershowitz to be a reliable and objective analyst on the matter.
If you have some sources and commentary that are of a more credible, non-advocacy, non agenda driven nature, I will gladly look a them, If you are just going to link me to stuff that got re-posted on The Gateway Pundit or by Mike Cernovich’s twitter, save yourself the trouble.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 8/29/20 at 5:06 pm to Bronc
quote:With this, you may as well just come out and say you don't even want to try to discuss this rationally. It's not irrational in the least to think this was self defense.
You might be able to get some warped jury or some exceptional lawyer to make some absurd case that his client is such a pussy that he felt, despite having a gun, that this skinny kid lunging at him unarmed was gonna punch him to death and he had no other capable avenue before resorting to lethal force, but it’s stretching it by quite a lot.
quote:Whoa, you know this how? Funny how earlier you sarcastically stated one of my points was a conservative talking points and how you're passing shite off as fact that you absolutely do not know if it is fact. For every report that he was the aggressor, there are reports that he was not, you're choosing to believe one side because you're not even remotely trying to view this through an unbiased lens.
harm.Complicated further if Kyle was the initial antagonist.
quote:What has been proven with regards to Kyle provoking others to attack him?
A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack
I saw a video of rioters trying to push a burning garbage into a gas station and Kyle extinguishing that fire, and making the mob angry with him. Is that what you're saying is provoking? If not, then what was?
quote:Like I said, you're showing here that you already know the charges are BS, so you're making preemptive excuses as to why he'll get off when the reality is, he'll probably get off because this wasn't 1st degree murder.
Still none of that changes the points made yesterday, or the larger issue of the disproportionate way the police uphold the law based on color of skin and prejudice in the community, and the handling of Kyle brings to bear I clear and concisely that systemic failure that are continuing to gloss over to prop up your boy the militia racist
Posted on 8/29/20 at 5:08 pm to Bronc
quote:Watch and state what you disagree with that he said.
Not really interested in listening to what an NRA lobbyist and paid activist has to say.
That’s like appealing to Jonnie Cochran’s law firm to offer legal analysis on OJ’s guilt.
Like I said, you're tuning out info you don't like, and pointing things out as facts that support your opinion that aren't facts.
Basically the opposite of what you should be doing, which is using evidence to form an opinion, you've formed an opinion and will reject any evidence to the contrary.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 5:27 pm to shel311
Well of course putting out a fire these rioters started is cause to make them angry and provoke a fight. I mean, a man was justifiably shot by police, people should be able to riot nd burn property peacefully without fear of being stopped.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 5:49 pm to Soggymoss
It’s crazy that y’all have to talk yourselves into thinking that what this kid did was justified and then turn around and say Jacob got what what he deserved... this little kid gets un touched while the Jacob while is not only paralyzed but also was handcuffed to the hospital bed!!!! Like where can he go??? Keep talking yourself into thinking a kid who isn’t even legal to drink is ok in having an Ak... and the guy who said the 17 year old was probably hunting for rats...grow up
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 8/29/20 at 5:52 pm to DMCfan1331
Comparing the 2 situations makes zero sense given how different they are.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 5:53 pm to shel311
quote:
With this, you may as well just come out and say you don't even want to try to discuss this rationally. It's not irrational in the least to think this was self defense.
Feel free to demonstrate to me where Kyle will be able to clearly establish imminent mortal danger from an unarmed plastic bag thrower. Again, this is not stand your ground territory, the threshold for self defense is much higher.
quote:
Whoa, you know this how? Funny how earlier you sarcastically stated one of my points was a conservative talking points and how you're passing shite off as fact that you absolutely do not know if it is fact. For every report that he was the aggressor, there are reports that he was not, you're choosing to believe one side because you're not even remotely trying to view this through an unbiased lens.
Read those words again. IF Kyle was the initial antagonist, which loose reports suggest may be the case, than what you have is a situation where Kyle was threatening people with lethal force and people attempted to intervene and disarm him(keeping in mind interviews from earlier that night have him and people with him explicitly saying they would and were threatening perceived lawbreakers with lethal force until police arrive, for which they have no authority to do so, as the sheriff explicitly refused to deputize these people). To which he would become the aggressor and a plastic bag would not in anyway become a justification to murder someone after being the instigator(see the law section I pasted for you and you ignored). And if he murdered someone in that context, he is also now an active shooter. And self defense really falls apart then.
A lot is going to come down to what prompted the chase, what instigating factors were at play, and from everything you have shown me, and the letter of Wisconsin law, it seems very hard for Kyle to claim self defense during the first murder.
quote:
Like I said, you're showing here that you already know the charges are BS, so you're making preemptive excuses as to why he'll get off when the reality is, he'll probably get off because this wasn't 1st degree murder.
No, it just seems you can’t engage on the merits of a conversation so you are reaching for ad hominems and straw men.
Larger point doesn’t go away because of it, the situation exists because the Kenosha police department failed to apply justice equitably in their community. Had they done so Kyle would have been told to go home for breaking curfew, potentially charged with a misdemeanor for illegal firearm brandishing as a minor, his life wouldn’t be upside down facing murder charges, and three people would still be alive. Racist policing affects more than just black people. Would be better if some of you so blinded by your tribalism could see it.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 5:54 pm to shel311
Yea you are right it ...just clears the view on how biased ppl are.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 5:56 pm
Posted on 8/29/20 at 6:09 pm to Bronc
quote:Not sure why you keep bringing this up, Kyle retreated until the attacker was going to make contact. Stand your ground is irrelevant here for multiple reasons, no clue why you keep bringing it up.
Again, this is not stand your ground territory
quote:So you're arguing that Kyle retreating isn't self defense but an attacker stalking him and chasing him down is self defense, is that what you're doing here?
Read those words again. IF Kyle was the initial antagonist, which loose reports suggest may be the case, than what you have is a situation where Kyle was threatening people with lethal force and people attempted to intervene and disarm him(keeping in mind interviews from earlier that night have him and people with him explicitly saying they would and were threatening perceived lawbreakers with lethal force until police arrive, for which they have no authority to do so, as the sheriff explicitly refused to deputize these people).
Even if Kyle was the aggressor, which again other reports suggest he was not also so keep that in mind, the roles of aggressor change and clearly changed, and you 100% cannot claim self defense when self defense maintains a duty to retreat and you're clearly doing the literal opposite of retreating. So how can you claim self defense while on the attack?
quote:Not at the time of the shooting, so...
To which he would become the aggressor
quote:But as you can see from what I stated above, there is zero way to argue the bald/red shirt guy was acting in self defense, none whatsoever. You do agree with that, right?
And if he murdered someone in that context, he is also now an active shooter. And self defense really falls apart then.
quote:Duty to retreat, done. Attacker, from what I've read was trying to take his gun, that's a clear indication of imminent danger. Seems the 2 main bases are covered here.
A lot is going to come down to what prompted the chase, what instigating factors were at play, and from everything you have shown me, and the letter of Wisconsin law, it seems very hard for Kyle to claim self defense during the first murder.
quote:Oh, I'm reaching, but you're not by saying you think they over charged him so he can get off? LOL. That's funny.
No, it just seems you can’t engage on the merits of a conversation so you are reaching for ad hominems and straw men.
quote:Try harder with your troll, you look foolish right now. You've proven over and over you can't have a rational discussion with someone disagreeing with you without going to the lowest form and claiming racists and tribalism. It's a fundamental lack of an ability to see how others can simply have a different viewpoint than you with no malicious intent. That's something you should really check, that is not a good mentality to live by.
Would be better if some of you so blinded by your tribalism could see it.
quote:100% agree here. Any protest that turns into riots should be shut down immediately. Whatever legal tactics these PDs can take should be taken to get rid of these rioteres immediately and arrest ones that warrant, and yes, like Kyle for being underage and carrying a gun.
Had they done so Kyle would have been told to go home for breaking curfew, potentially charged with a misdemeanor for illegal firearm brandishing as a minor, his life wouldn’t be upside down facing murder charges, and three people would still be alive.
Problem is, the moment the cops shut these down, based on your posts in this thread, it's a pretty fair assessment from me that you'd probably complain that they're not allowing peaceful protestors, so you'd find a way to slam them either way.
Page 7 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News