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

Jesus dude, take the night, you’re flailing.

No, he isn’t on trial for self defense, he’s being charged for murder. There are three dead bodies that attest to it. If the charges don’t change and he wants to convince a jury he didn’t commit murder he will have to convincingly check off all the boxes in Wisconsin’s self defense clauses and convince that jury. I see that as difficult at this point for the first murder. Much more so if he instigated the confrontation.

He is innocent til proven guilty in a court of law, but he has three bodies to his name, to classify that as justifiable homicide he will need to make a very strong case, especially in the first murder where the victim did not have a lethal object, may have been acting out of concern for others, and the murder happened in response to a split reaction that the video evidence we have so far does not show the victim posing a mortal threat, which also involved a double tap in the victims back, suggesting a vindictiveness to go with a earlier interview in the iight confessing he planned to threaten violence against protestors.

Yea why would a 17 year old holding an AK mean anything??? its not like he's not level headed... wait there is a video showing him throwing Haymarkers at a female making un level headed moves...but yall trust him with an AK. Lol yea ok

quote:

---

Yea why would a 17 year old holding an AK mean anything??? its not like he's not level headed... wait there is a video showing him throwing Haymarkers at a female making un level headed moves...but yall trust him with an AK. Lol yea ok

---

Just curious if you two libs had a gun in your hand and I ran up on you while you were on the ground and I hit you in the head with a bat, would you shoot? And if my friend ran up on you after and had a gun pointed straight at you, would you shoot then? Just curious.

I’d say he showed remarkable restraint, and to bad for you commies, it’s on video to prove it. He doesn’t shoot the asswipe that drop kicked him in the head, (who should be arrested for battery btw) but more hypocrisy from the poster crying about curfew violaters not being arrested, yet we see a violent crime caught on tape yet no arrest.

And he doesn’t shoot the third subject that ran up on him after witnessing his two comrades shot. He backs up and retreats with his hands up, and guess what doesn’t get shot.

If someone was retreating you cannot attack them. They were the aggressors. Funny you mention about Riddenhouse acting like he was deputized, but you are trying to portray these career criminals as heroes because they were trying to act like the police? Pretty sure they were gonna kill him if they could get his gun away considering their past. Can you be more hypocritical lol???

Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state, however that does not mean you cannot defend yourself. The difference between stand your ground and self defense is with stand your ground laws you do not have a duty to retreat. Wisconsin's law however states as follows

quote:

---

A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

---

Kyle was being attacked by multiple people, including those trying to take his gun. He had every reason to reasonably believe that his life was in danger. Now, I realize he was already in violation of the law by carrying as a 17 year old, however that does not preclude him from being able to defend himself, as stated in 939.48 section 2 subsection A

quote:

---

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.

---

And lastly, even IF he initially was the aggressor and provoked a fight, he his still covered in subsection B because he began retreating

quote:

---

The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

---

The one provoking has no right to self defense claims (Kyle's attackers) as stated in subsection C

quote:

---

A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

---

Again, under Wisconsin law, it is a clear cut 100% self defense.

LINK

Welcome to the discussion being had for the last two pages Soggy. See, I knew you could do it! Have a discussion instead of spamming partisan nonsense.

Now, let’s start at the beginning here.

Key being reasonable belief lethal force was necessary to stop imminent death and the claim of self defense or justifiable homicide.

So let’s go to the beginning.

Kyle may or may not have threatened several protestors with what amounted to kidnapping and lethal force(reports out of the local paper are now also that earlier in the night his group was pointing their guns at multiple passing protestors and threatening them, this will be important in any self defense claim because if Kyle was engaging in that and agitating earlier or indicating he wanted confrontation, self defense looks more like opportunity, especially when combined with his call to his friend, not authorities, that he killed someone). Regardless, Kyle is apparently blocks away from where he supposedly was called in to guard, conflict happened and Kyle has a plastic bag thrown at him, Kyle was then pursued by an unarmed person. Upon reaching a new location Kyle stops near a car, hears a gunshot, quickly turns and fires four shots in the direction of the crowd and pursuer, Including a shot that would appear to be a double tap to the victims back.

Now I don’t know about you, but an unarmed person running at me is not imminent death. Maybe you are a pussy but if I have an AR, there are several options I have before using lethal force. Including continuing to run away. Kyle is going to have to convince a jury for why lethal force was justifiable against an unarmed pursuer he may have given reason to believe intended to harm. From my perspective you have a kid responding to a call to implicit violence on Facebook, obtaining and carrying an illegal weapon to a protest, potentially across state lines, reportedly involved directly with a group making statements to the effect they would shoot people multiple times, potentially threatened protestors with lethal force throughout the night, who then temporarily evaded people that saw him as enough of a threat to try and disarm him, then reflexively reacted and shot toward a crowd and his pursuer. Self defense requires more than just the immediate moment as well. All of that leading up will be taken into account. Again, his initial context will be as a vigilante and outside agitator responding to an implicit call to violence/confrontation through social media. Who may have been agitating up to and including the moment the conflict with a Rosenbaum began. A lot of you want to make this woman assaulting criminal into a hero because he killed some libs and racist Tucker praised him, not sure it is going to be that easy in a court of law when all the extenuating circumstances are brought into context for a jury.

That aside, the larger matter still stands, even more so as that same local report today seemingly confirms the police were in fact funneling protestors to the militia and for all intents and purposes instigating violence and conflict, while disproportionately enforcing the curfew and the law only toward protestors. Essentially proving in real time the grievances being expressed by the protests....It all comes back to the failure of America’s police here, who if instead of acting like a gang of thugs, simply did their jobs impartially, would have kept Kyle out of a murder charge and allowed three people to come home alive or not severely injured.

quote:

---

Jesus dude, take the night, you’re flailing.

---

quote:

---

There are three dead bodies

---

quote:

---

but he has three bodies to his name

---

I knew you didn't watch the videos, I called that shite pages ago, and now you've confirmed it.

You're talking a whole lot about this and telling me I'm flailing and you literally don't even have a simple grasp of what happened here.

Go learn what actually happened. Until then, you've proven to be way too uninformed to discuss this topic with me.

Mistyping isn’t a gotcha. He does have three bodies Though. Two cold, one apparently lost an arm. I’ve seen every video I could multiple times now.

this is the sort of shite people do though when they know they’ve lost, they reach for technicalities to try and hand wave away arguments they can’t defeat honestly or through direct engagement. It’s the sort of shite my 5 year old nephew does

quote:

---

See, I knew you could do it! Have a discussion instead of spamming partisan nonsense.

---

quote:

---

he killed some libs and racist Tucker praised him,

---

Funny how you're bringing up politics while crying about others bringing up politics in a reply to a post that said nothing about politics.

You've completely lost your mind in this thread.

quote:

---

As stated above in the law even the agitator has a right to self defense as long as gives him/herself up and begins retreating, which means EVEN if Kyle was antagonistic towards them, he still began to retreat and run away. Again, clear cut self defense

---

I told him that yesterday, he just refuses to believe as he keeps going with the same talking points and not addressing this fact.

quote:

---

You stated the EXACT reason he has to have fear for his life. He hears a gunshot behind him turns around and a guy is chasing him trying to take his AR. There's plausible reason to believe the gunfire came from the guy chasing him, even if you cannot visibly see the gun.

---

zero chance Bronc can logically argue Kyle was beyond any reasonable doubt not in imminent danger.

quote:

---

As stated above in the law even the agitator has a right to self defense as long as gives him/herself up and begins retreating, which EVEN if Kyle was antagonistic towards them, he still began to retreat and run away. Again, clear cut self defense.

You stated the EXACT reason he has to have fear for his life. He hears a gunshot behind him turns around and a guy is chasing him trying to take his AR. There's plausible reason to believe the gunfire came from the guy chasing him, even if you cannot visibly see the gun.

---

You are leaving out the “reasonable” component. If Kyle simply heard a shot and blindly fired without confirming anything(which that seems like what happened), he wasn’t making a reasonable determination now was he? He was instead making a reactionary one. If he claims he thought his victim had a gun, that will only compound the idea he was reacting, not reasonably responding to identifiable mortal or bodily harm. But so far his defense seems to be taking a different posture, that Rosenbaum was attempting to take the gun, but from there they would have to make the case Rosenbaum intended to kill him with it, not just disarm a threat.

That line of defense to me also becomes a stretch given the reactionary nature we saw. Especially with an autopsy showing bullets in the groin, hand, and grazing the right side of the forehead, and then crucially, one entering the back. That’s not the markings of someone making a calculated decision to defined imminent mortal danger, that’s someone that heard a noise and reacted with deadly force toward the sound and then double tapped his pursuer. Which the video seems to align with. 4 shots initially then three more after already killing the victim. 5 total hitting the victim.

Again, all in the larger context that I mentioned prior. A hot headed woman assaulter responding to a call to violence on social media, illegally obtaining and brandishing a weapon, and potentially engaging in multiple incidents of threatening protestors with lethal force before the initial fatal conflict.

All gonna come into play with the jury.

But again, the people that should be punished here are the police. Who failed this community again and again and through their prejudice and corrupted enforcement of the law not only allowed this situation to happen, but now apparently, actively strategized toward it by pushing protestors toward the outside agitating militia.