- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 2:55 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If he was standing at the property boundary and pointing his weapon at them BEFORE the starting swinging pipes, it leads to the question presented in the OP.
You've now added this which was not part of the OP. Did you intend to suggest he'd have needed to actually do something proactive with the firearm to be seen as the aggressor, or merely have it there since potentially he could not defend another's property?
1
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
He was only in the car lot because Mr.ShootMeN**ga! chased him there while trying to set the kid on fire.
I hadn't even seen that one. Hank's gonna need a minute to come up with any type of response to that.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:56 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
State laws vary on the right to use deadly force to protect property. In Texas, for instance, you may use deadly force to protect YOUR OWN property, but NOT the property of another.
Stopped reading right there because you do not know what you are talking about.
The Joe Horn case shows how wrong you are.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:57 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:Case law will vary from state to state, but Wikipedia provides a decent precis.quote:You sure about this? I'd like to see some case law that backs that up
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.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:57 pm to AggieHank86
Man this is a TOUGH one. I think the kid was absolutely defending himself and I get that he has the right to be there. I don't know the laws in Wisconsin on open carry but it was probably legal for him to have the gun, but age my complicate that a little bit.
What I don't get is how this kid wound up in that situation and I think his parents have failed him. NO WAY I'd let my kid, if I had one, go into a situation like that. Now he's killed a couple of folks and he's got to deal with that, mentally, for the rest of his life.
I feel terrible for this kid and I think his parents have failed him BIGLY.
What I don't get is how this kid wound up in that situation and I think his parents have failed him. NO WAY I'd let my kid, if I had one, go into a situation like that. Now he's killed a couple of folks and he's got to deal with that, mentally, for the rest of his life.
I feel terrible for this kid and I think his parents have failed him BIGLY.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:58 pm to AggieHank86
This entire premise is stupid. It relies on wild suppositions and has no bearing on what actually happened. It's just another example of you trying to cloak your usual bullshite in legitimate debate.
You are literally concocting a scenario where this kid is illegally pointing his weapon at innocent people for shits and gigs and you are asking us to discuss that scenario, after we all saw video of a mob trying to kill him.
You are literally concocting a scenario where this kid is illegally pointing his weapon at innocent people for shits and gigs and you are asking us to discuss that scenario, after we all saw video of a mob trying to kill him.
This post was edited on 8/26/20 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:58 pm to AggieHank86
The DA will never bring to this to trial.
Rittenhouse is only being arrested to help prevent other people from protecting themselves from the BLM terrorists.
Rittenhouse is only being arrested to help prevent other people from protecting themselves from the BLM terrorists.
This post was edited on 8/26/20 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
likely occurred minutes earlier,
And here you are making stuff up again...
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:59 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Then a jury nullification education spree is warranted.
Yup, yup and yup
Posted on 8/26/20 at 2:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
"Deadly force" is usually defined to include threatening the use of ACTUAL deadly force.
Can you expand on this? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I've never heard this before, that the definition of "deadly force" includes the threat of deadly force.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 3:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Case law will vary from state to state, but Wikipedia provides a decent precis.
Only an intellectual featherweight cites Wikipedia itself instead of the actual sources.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 3:00 pm to AggieHank86
Are you seriously trying to argue that being armed makes him the initial aggressor? Do you do this just to make people hate you?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 3:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Case law will vary from state to state, but Wikipedia provides a decent precis.
Just stop. From your own link
quote:
A person who was the initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense as a justification unless they abandon the combat or the other party has responded with excessive force.
This post was edited on 8/26/20 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 8/26/20 at 3:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I anticipate 10:1 downvotes for even asking the question
As of now, you’re at 14:1.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 3:01 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Not exactly.
Maybe you've explained this further, but are you suggesting that merely being at the car lot while open carrying could potentially make him the aggressor, despite not having used force of any kind until attacked, because in some states (potentially Wisky) you don't have the right to use deadly force to protect another's property?
If he were just standing there with the weapon hanging across his body, no argument. But if he actually were to point it at the protesters in a threatening manner BEFORE they attempt to enter the premises ... all of this analysis may come into play.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 3:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:The molotov guy was angling to fight anyone carrying a rifle. Dollar against a dime he pulled the same BS after seeing Rittenhouse alone, showed him the Molotov, and Rittenhouse ran away. Running only emboldened the thug, and when he finally caught Rittenhouse, he got domed.
I am addressing events which likely occurred minutes earlier
Posted on 8/26/20 at 3:02 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:You read faster than I can type.
Still waiting for your response
Posted on 8/26/20 at 3:03 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:Because yours was one of five or six responses to that single post and (frankly) I did not find it particularly interesting.quote:Is that why you haven't responded for pages to it?
I would be glad to address that distinct question on the other thread. Thank you.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 3:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I did not find it particularly interesting.
I'm aware you have no interest in the many times people make you look like an arse.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 3:05 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:I do not have specific knowledge of the laws of Wisconsin, but I can certainly extrapolate broad concepts from the law of jurisdictions with which I AM familiar ... at least enough to ask the right questions.
But you don't know the law, so who gives a shite what you think?
At least half of legal analysis is recognizing, formulating and then asking the right questions.
You are a very combative fellow.
This post was edited on 8/26/20 at 3:07 pm
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News