re: Bucks and Magic are boycotting tonight's game UPDATE All games postponed

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.

---

Because you keep implying that him retreating somehow magically allows him a hall pass to shoot someone coming at him, it doesn’t. And that somehow people coming to disarm him after he killed someone gives him further hall passes to keep murdering, it doesn’t.

Kyle will need to convince a jury, one that he didn’t instigate the confrontation, that the reason these people were rushing the gunman wasn’t because he did what he said he was planning to do earlier, which is threaten people with lethal force and take them to the police. Two, that he had exhausted reasonable non-lethal means of deescalating the situation, and that he had a reasonable fear for imminent mortal danger. Having a plastic bag thrown at you and a lunge is a hard sell on imminent mortal danger when you have an ar-15. Let alone if loose reports of him instigating are true.

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?

---

No, if Kyle threatens them with lethal force unless they comply with his orders, and the protestors attempted to disarm him out of fear, Kyle is no longer in a position to claim self defense, he broke the law and threatened to murder people with an illegally brandished weapon(see the section of the law I quoted for you).

Now if that wasn’t the case, instead if the protestors just randomly decided to pick on the armed militia man, so bold to chase him unarmed, the threshold for lethal force still needs to be met, simply retreating and feeling cornered is not enough from what I am reading. The first pursuer has no weapon, was not a clear imminent mortal threat, and Kyle seemingly reacts reflexively to an unrelated gunshot and shoots victim 1, including in the back after he is down. You seem to continue to apply a casual, loose, broad definition of self defense when what is in question here is whether Kyle demonstrated the legal threshold for using lethal force in Wisconsin. The first pursuer at no point made contact with his gun, and even if he did, it’s not clear that would meet the threshold either, especially if the context was of Kyle as criminal instigator.

The logic you seem to be leaning toward is one where if I threaten you with a gun, then you try to disarm me, I now have a right to shoot you. That would be insane. It would mean I could go around threatening anyone with murder, wait for them to try and subdue me, than claim self defense and murder them with impunity, than if anyone tries to disarm me, I can again claim self defense in perpetuity and kill whoever comes at me. And the only crime I would be potentially guilty of is the initial threat, everything is is now justified homicide in that scenario. It is my understanding that is absolutely not how Wisconsin works.

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.

---

I said it wouldn’t shock me based on my research of the department and their prosecutors office, and it wouldn’t. It’s not like overloading cases is some unheard of tactic to tilt a jury toward a non-conviction.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yeah, if they are shutting down peaceful protests that is absolutely a problem. As it’s simply state sanctioned suppression of the constitutional right to free assembly. If there are out of control riots? Yeah, that is grounds to enforce an appropriate and commensurate level of dispersion. That, however, is also often not what the police have done during this period. But ideally when it occurs the appropriate response would coincide.

I'm not talking myself into anything. Any idiot can watch the video one time and deduce that its 100% clear cut and dry self defense.

Also, any other idiot that's not showing obvious bias or blindness can see with all the evidence coming out about Blake that it is a 100% justified shooting. Not sure if you seen the press release yesterday so I'll link it for you to read.

LINK

Again, you haven't even watched the videos. Talk to me again after you've sat and watched them with an open mind and not being pigeonholed into an opinion you developed the second you heard a kid shot some rioters.

There is a video of Kyle beating on a girl but as soon as you mention Jacob you are bringing up his history

You sound like the guy who said Kyle was hunting for rats!

quote:

---

What I'm saying is you have been defending this kid for 5 plus pages

---

I'll just go ahead and ask again since you didn't answer:

So to confirm, anyone who thinks the Blake shot was justified and Kyle's shots were justified is biased.

But anyone who thinks the Blake shot and the Kyle shots are not justified is not biased?

Is that what you're saying?

quote:

---

and the thing that bothers me... the first thing you do is look at his criminal history and try to say he had stuff in his system

---

Why does that bother you since I never said anything remotely like that?

You're just making things up right now.

I totally disagree.

Kyles past is irrelevant. He was defending himself and that is 100% clear. Why would anything else matter. Armed people attacked him and he defended his life.

Blake’s past matters. The cops were there because someone he assaulted in the past called the police on him, he had an arrest warrant, and cops were aware he had both used a firearm in the past and resisted arrest.

The two situations are completely different. Context matters.

He doesn’t have a duty to retreat but he does have to prove his body or life was in imminent mortal harm and it needs to be under the condition where he was not engaging in criminal activity initially. On the latter that is unresolved and on the former it continues to be a bar I don’t see him as having met.

quote:

---

Except they weren't trying to simply disarm him, something you still ignore no matter how many times I tell you that.

---

quote:

---

Nope, I did nothing of the sort. I said he has a duty to retreat, and he did. That's it, you inferred something more that I never said, that's on you.

---

Who is they? What Kyle has to prove is how his life was in imminent danger from the person he killed and that he exhausted all reasonable options to deescalate before using lethal force. So far, from what the video shows, that is a very hard ask.

quote:

---

Actually especially if you have an AR-15. Given the situation, there is zero chance you can argue beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy was not going to shoot Kyle with Kyle's gun once he stole it from him, as from all reports, he was trying to take the gun from him. Again, you will have to argue that Kyle should have known beyond a reasonable doubt he was in no imminent danger. Again, logically speaking, you know the answer to that.

---

In Wisconsin law the person using lethal force has to justify his action, not the other way around. The law does not state that the court presumes your right to use lethal force unless proven otherwise. The law does not state that by default anyone attempting to disarm a person had intent to kill and must prove otherwise. The law does not state that the person subject to lethal force is guilty unless proven innocent. That’s fricking absurd

Why do you keep invoking self defense having to be proven by the victims??? That is not how this works and that is not what is being said.

I think you need to step back, let your triggering subside and come back when you can have a clear, rational discussion....if possible

You do not have a right to lethal force, presumption of guilt on the part of the deceased is not a thing, and you clearly haven’t bothered to read any of the Wisconsin laws because you keep invoking things like retreating that aren’t actually part of it.

Kyle has to justify lethal force, with a pretty high bar, and the prosecution in no way has to prove innocence of the deceased based on presumption of guilt. If Kyle can not do so, and based on the video it is hard to make that case, he is going to have a tough road against a competent jury. And if it turns out he also instigated and engaged in criminal activity that set the whole series of events off? Good luck