- 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 10:36 pm to Bronc
Posted on 8/29/20 at 10:36 pm to Bronc
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.
Because you keep implying that him retreating somehow magically allows him a hall pass to shoot someone coming at him
quote:Except they weren't trying to simply disarm him, something you still ignore no matter how many times I tell you that.
And that somehow people coming to disarm him after he killed someone gives him further hall passes to keep murdering,
quote:It'll help but you're wrong again, he does not HAVE to convince them of that, factually speaking by law.
Kyle will need to convince a jury, one that he didn’t instigate the confrontation,
quote:Probably shouldn't be too hard given the videos.
Two, that he had exhausted reasonable non-lethal means of deescalating the situation, and that he had a reasonable fear for imminent mortal danger
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.
and a lunge is a hard sell on imminent mortal danger when you have an ar-15.
quote:Again, could be important, but not necessarily since roles change in a situation and at the time of the shooting Kyle was retreating and the other guy was the aggressor. if Kyle was the aggressor before, then we know the bald red shirt guy would have a duty to retreat....we also know that did not happen.
Let alone if loose reports of him instigating are true.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 11:13 pm to shel311
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.
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.
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
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
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 11:25 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News