- 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: Looking at young Rittenhouse from another Angle
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:37 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
Why do you like to pontificate on issues you clearly haven’t researched in the slightest? Just a brief search of this board and you would have seen the video where the young mane was chased into the parking lot by a group of individuals that carried pipes. Additionally, one of those aggressors may have been holding a handgun and there may have been shots fired before he shot the ANFITA/BLM thug in the head.
So now that I have laid that information out what are your thoughts?
2
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:37 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
Well those two shouldn't have been out there either
Oh, I agree. Trust me, I'm not shedding any tears for the antifa scum.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But here I am more concentrating on the shooting of Molotov guy.
Did that guy own the car lot? Protecting it with Molotov cocktails..
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:38 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Again, I have not researched Wisconsin law
Then no one needs to listen to you
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:38 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The possession question is entirely distinct and not related to this "self-defense" issue. But thanks for posting it over there, where it WAS relevant.
So you concede that he was not illegally in possession then?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:38 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
here is no doubt in my mind that he was ACTUALLY defending himself. The question I raise is whether the LAW will allow him to present that defense. I anticipate 10:1 downvotes for even asking the question, but this thread still might generate some interesting analysis.
When did the shooting he is charged with occur? Wasn't it prior to the incident in the streets? Did someone threaten him with a skateboard prior to the initial shooting?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:39 pm to AggieHank86
Pretty much every self-defense law states that the self-defense doctrine is forfeited when the person claiming self-defense is the initial agressor in a way that the other person reasonably would feel threat of death or great bodily harm.
What happens before the Molotov throwing guy attacked Rittenhouse will be what the prosecution will have to depend on for sure. Because from the Molotov throwing video through the end, Rittenhouse was in the right. Prosecution will have to prove Rittenhouse did something before this to be the initial agressor in a way that would forfeit his self-defense. I'm sure they will come up with something and plenty of "witnesses" to say Rittenhouse was out there threatening to shoot a bunch of "peaceful protestors."
What happens before the Molotov throwing guy attacked Rittenhouse will be what the prosecution will have to depend on for sure. Because from the Molotov throwing video through the end, Rittenhouse was in the right. Prosecution will have to prove Rittenhouse did something before this to be the initial agressor in a way that would forfeit his self-defense. I'm sure they will come up with something and plenty of "witnesses" to say Rittenhouse was out there threatening to shoot a bunch of "peaceful protestors."
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:39 pm to SSpaniel
quote:Take a simpler hypo.
Is that about what you are saying?
I do not like your shirt, so I walk up and punch you in the face without provocation. You pull a knife on me, so I pull a gun and shoot you dead. I am charged with murder.
Because I was the initial aggressor when I punched you in the face, I cannot LEGALLY claim that I shot you in self-defense vis-a-via the knife. That justification is simply not available to me in a court of law.
This is the law in most jurisdictions with which I am familiar.
Surely you see the analogy from there.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:39 pm to AggieHank86
He didn't use deadly force to defend a car lot, he used it to defend himself. You suck
This post was edited on 8/26/20 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:40 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Because I was the initial aggressor when I punched you in the face, I cannot LEGALLY claim that I shot you in self-defense vis-a-via the knife. That justification is simply not available to me in a court of law.
You sure about this? I'd like to see some case law that backs that up
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:40 pm to AggieHank86
Now add in which person ran away. To your idiotic t-shirt hypo.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:40 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
189 downvotes minimum
I'm assuming you use the standard, "OP's IQ X 3 formula for this?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I do not like your shirt, so I walk up and punch you in the face without provocation. You pull a knife on me, so I pull a gun and shoot you dead. I am charged with murder.
ummm...this relates to the case at hand in what way?
I'd suggest the hypothetical is:
A gang has been beating people up in the area. You show the gang that you have a gun...the gang member pulls a knife and steps toward you...you shoot him.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
Just likes to hear herself talk. You and boosie are a pair.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
"Deadly force" is usually defined to include threatening the use of ACTUAL deadly force. If young Rittenhouse used that sort of "implied" deadly force to defend the car lot, he might be considered the initial aggressor, even if Molotov guy was the first to actually commit a PHYSICAL use of deadly force.
...the moltov cocktail is a threat of deadly force itself. If there weren't people already throwing them and rioting maybe you have a point. But it seems that he was responding to a potential deadly force, not initiating it. Someone didn't go make a moltov cocktail because they saw someone with a gun defending property.
You do get my downvote for the mental gymnastics of swapping the roles of the defender vs initiators.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I anticipate 10:1 downvotes for even asking the question, but this thread still might generate some interesting analysis.
quote:Gotta hand it to you, when you're right, you're right
upvote 4 downvote 39
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:43 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:Not necessarily.
What's your point. The gun was never used in defense of property, only in defense of his own life.
Let's assume that young Kyle did NOT discharge his weapon before Molotov guy threw his dysfunctional projectile, but that he DID point the gun at the "protesters."
Under the law in SOME jurisdictions, he would arguably have committed an act of "deadly force" just by pointing the weapon without legal justification (not defending HIS property).
FACTUALLY, he would still have been acting in self defense vis-a-vis Molotov guy, but LEGALLY he might not have access to that justification/defense ... because he was LEGALLY the initial aggressor.
I think it is an interesting question.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:44 pm to AggieHank86
Skateboard to the head, molotov cocktail to burn and disfigure you, and third assailant pulls a gun on you and you defend yourself.
Make any legal argument you want, it's self defense.
Make any legal argument you want, it's self defense.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:44 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I walk up and punch you in the face without provocation. You pull a knife on me, so I
run away in full retreat, knife-man pursues, then later at a considerable distance from the initial confrontation, pursuee shoots pursuer.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:45 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:That is the argument that I would make as well. Break the car lot confrontation into two separate confrontations. Young Kyle retreated from the first one and was thus freed from designation as the initial aggressor. It might even hold water. I have never researched it, and the Bar was decades ago.
I would suggest that if I am the initial aggressor and then RUN AWAY while you chase me....then, that "initial" stuff is out the window
Page 2 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News