- 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 4:46 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 8/26/20 at 4:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
If young Rittenhouse used that sort of "implied" deadly force to defend the car lot
Is "being armed" implied deadly force? You are a lawyer, right?
Of the two, carrying a rifle or carrying a Molotov cocktail, which of those, in a public place implies more ill intent to you. I know you're going to equivocate and play the "property" versus "personal" thing, but honestly, there is no recourse under what I presume will be your analysis.
quote:
There is no doubt in my mind that he was ACTUALLY defending himself.
Thank you.
1
Posted on 8/26/20 at 4:52 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:Of course not. I have said that probably a dozen times, so I am assuming that you've not read the thread.
Is "being armed" implied deadly force?
quote:Well, you are correct. A Molotov is more for burning/destroying property, and a firearm is more for shooting another person. What is your point?
Of the two, carrying a rifle or carrying a Molotov cocktail, which of those, in a public place implies more ill intent to you. I know you're going to equivocate and play the "property" versus "personal" thing, but honestly, there is no recourse under what I presume will be your analysis.
quote:OK. You're welcome. But I don't understand what you are thanking me for. I have said from the first (and all day) that this was the case. This thread was intended t examine a LEGAL point.quote:Thank you.
There is no doubt in my mind that he was ACTUALLY defending himself.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 4:53 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Well, you are correct. A Molotov is more for burning/destroying property, and a firearm is more for shooting another person. What is your point?
Which is easier to use in self-defense?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 4:54 pm to AggieHank86
Legally, you probably realize it’s going to be just about impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt he wasn’t defending himself and was defending property when you’ve stated you have no doubt he was defending himself.
This entire exercise of yours is pointless mental masturbation, except there is no finish.
This entire exercise of yours is pointless mental masturbation, except there is no finish.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 4:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:You inspired me to go back and look at several of the videos.
NC_Tigah
We have long-known that headshot guy and "Shoot me ****" guy are one and the same, but in reviewing the "Shoot me ****" video I noticed that skateboard buy was right there beside him in most of that video.
Now I am looking for kung-fu kick guy and amputated arm guy at the "Shoot me ****" show. I haven't spotted them yet.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 4:56 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
We could argue whether that second confrontation was a distinct one (making your question relevant) or a continuation (making it irrelevant).
The molotov guy that was chasing him?
I honestly dgaf what you think he was doing, he was fleeing several armed attackers and was in fact struck multiple times prior to popping of a few WELL placed rounds.
This is constitutionally protected self defense all the live long day.
Sorry your Antifa bitches ran up on the wrong teenager but someone taught that boy how to handle himself
Posted on 8/26/20 at 4:59 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:Gotcha now. You said
Which is easier to use in self-defense?
quote:I read that as "which ... implies more ill intent TOWARD you," whereas you apparently intended it to mean "which ... (to you) implies more ill intent ... in a general sense."
which of those, in a public place implies more ill intent to you
Reading it the latter way, I now understand your point.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:01 pm to Tiguar
quote:but that is not the burden of the prosecutor. The prosecutor only has to prove that he killed someone, which will not be very difficult. The DEFENDANT has the burden of proving the elements of his affirmative defense.
it’s going to be just about impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt he wasn’t defending himself
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:02 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
Well those two shouldn't have been out there either
Hey! What could be wrong with out of state rioters looting, rioting and burning down businesses in a dem run town?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:04 pm to More&Les
quote:Where do you see this "right?"
constitutionally protected self defense
The Constitution protects your right to own/bear a firearm. State law determines when you get to use it (self-defense, etc). As just one example, this is the reason that self-defense laws vary so much from one jurisdiction to the next.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:06 pm to AggieHank86
You are literally a dumb frick with no credibility. I wish I could meet you in person to deliver proper justice to your ignorance. That's all.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:08 pm to pbro62
quote:
pbro62
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:09 pm to AggieHank86
It's a FACT, not opinion, that you are a POS
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Where do you see this "right?"
Wouldn't it fall under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:12 pm to AggieHank86
This is not my area of expertise, but the fact that he was not allowed to carry that weapon (commiting a crime when the shooting happened) and crossed a state line to do so would effect the charges.
A shooting while committing a crime is definitely gonna take some self defense charges off the table, even if it was.
A shooting while committing a crime is definitely gonna take some self defense charges off the table, even if it was.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:13 pm to SSpaniel
quote:You may be confusing two different founding documents there.
Wouldn't it fall under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:13 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You may be confusing two different founding documents there.
You say that like it's surprising or something.
And yes, yes I am indeed. Brain fart.
This post was edited on 8/26/20 at 5:18 pm
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:14 pm to OnwardToMAyhem
Pretty sure the law states he can carry as a 17 year old as long as he’s under adult supervision. Which he was...until he got separated and attacked.
The question is how did he become separated and what happened in the meantime.
The question is how did he become separated and what happened in the meantime.
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:16 pm to OnwardToMAyhem
quote:Are you thinking about the felony-murder rule? If so, it does not apply for a number of reasons ... not least the fact that the weapon violation is only a misdemeanor.
This is not my area of expertise, but the fact that he was not allowed to carry that weapon (commiting a crime when the shooting happened) and crossed a state line to do so would effect the charges
Posted on 8/26/20 at 5:16 pm to OnwardToMAyhem
It’s a strange scenario. Do you charge a 10 year old who went and grabbed his dads gun and shoots a home intruder when he’s home alone?
By letter of Wisconsin law, he is in violation.
If you don’t charge the 11 year old in that situation, what is materially different in this scenario?
Does crossing state lines make this worse? What if he was in the vehicle with his parents or a supervising adult with the weapon? The gun wasn’t in his possession when it crossed state lines.
Lots of questions
By letter of Wisconsin law, he is in violation.
If you don’t charge the 11 year old in that situation, what is materially different in this scenario?
Does crossing state lines make this worse? What if he was in the vehicle with his parents or a supervising adult with the weapon? The gun wasn’t in his possession when it crossed state lines.
Lots of questions
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News