- 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: Rittenhouse self defense
Posted on 8/29/20 at 7:41 am to Antonio Moss
Posted on 8/29/20 at 7:41 am to Antonio Moss
Could they go after him on a felony murder basis?
That because someone was killed in the commission of another crime (him illegally carrying) that he should be held legally culpable for the deaths and injuries?
That because someone was killed in the commission of another crime (him illegally carrying) that he should be held legally culpable for the deaths and injuries?
2
Posted on 8/29/20 at 7:44 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Could they go after him on a felony murder basis?
That because someone was killed in the commission of another crime (him illegally carrying) that he should be held legally culpable for the deaths and injuries?
He still has the right to pursue self-defense even in a felony murder standpoint.
Although most states have clearly defined crimes which constitute “felony murder” and they don’t include non-violent offense like illegal possession.
ETA: just looked up Wisconsin’s felony murder laws and illegal possession of a firearm is not included
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 7:48 am
Posted on 8/29/20 at 7:49 am to Jellyham
quote:DA may very well decide to announce the charges dropped on Nov. 3 or 4th for all the Election hubbub and commotion to cover. Or could be Xmas or NYE or some such for the Holidays to cover.
I don’t think it will ever go to trial. The DA probably knows he has very little chance to get any of the charges to stick. He is going to wait around till the country has forgotten about it and moved on to the next left wing cause and then offer a plea to try and save face.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 7:52 am to AggieHank86
quote:
By this, our resident genius Clames means that a large number of folks with no legal knowledge or experience disagree with the analysis of a couple of lawyers.
Your degree in extra English doesn't mean you have a clue here.
quote:
Clames is not very ... objective. And he could not analyze his way out of a wet paper bag. He would rip the bag to shreds in an emotional tantrum, then assert that he won through analysis.
I'm not only more objective than you but understand the prevailing legal statutes and theories better than you. You're a piss poor lawyer that attemps to cover his inadequacies with verbosity. Neither you nor your clown buddy have made a substantive observation on this topic.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 7:53 am to cajunbama
I can...shut up fatass
Posted on 8/29/20 at 7:56 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I still suspect that the prosecutor will attempt (unsuccessfully) to portray Rittenhouse as an affirmative aggressor (related but distinct issue vs provocation)
good chance that is what the DA will try
I too don't believe it will work, especially when you read the Daily Caller witness account. The guy that first got to JoJo.
He started to try and help JoJo and Kyle circled back behind him. The DC guy didn't realize that it was Kyle and asked him to call for help. Kyle got his phone out and tried to do so before the rest of the mob ran him off.
A stone cold killer doesn't come back and try to assist with the guy he just shot.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 8:00 am to Clames
quote:
I'm not only more objective than you but understand the prevailing legal statutes and theories better than you. You're a piss poor lawyer that attemps to cover his inadequacies with verbosity. Neither you nor your clown buddy have made a substantive observation on this topic.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 8:01 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Let’s look at it this way. If you go by the strict letter of the law, a 10 year old kid can’t posses a firearm under any circumstances. Now let’s says an intruder breaks into the home and the kid gets his dads gun and kills the perp. So if a kid can’t be in possession of a fire arm, is self defense off the table because technically his possession of the weapon was a crime??? Absolutely not, that’s absurd..
you have a legal right to defend yourself, period. Furthermore, the kid fled from the first attacker and was pursued until he was cornered. Once cornered, he used deadly force. This wasn’t an instance where 2 people are talking shite and a gun gets pulled. He fled and was pursued and was forced to use deadly force. Secondly, the other shooting. Again you have clear video evidence of the defendant being attacked by multiple people. One guy tried to stomp him, another attacks him with a skate board and a third pulls a pistol on him, all within seconds of each other. So while he technically may have been breaking the law in possessing a weapon, he was within his legal rights to defend himself with deadly force.. there will be zero convictions for murder of any sort, period. I also doubt they jury will convict him on possession under 18 because possessing the weapon is literally what saved this kids life from multiple attackers.
I'm no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, so I have a question. If it is illegal for a minor to possess a firearm, how are all the kids hunting? I believe a person must purchase a hunting licence if they are 16 years old in most States.
Before someone throws up "bow hunting", don't be that guy. We all know 10 year old kids that hunt with firearms.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 8:03 am to Clames
quote:Always the angry little fellow.
Clames
Posted on 8/29/20 at 8:06 am to cajunbama
He won't be convicted of anything. Don't listen to Facebook idiots.
ETA: Don't listen to Hank oklahog either. They both don't know what they're talking about.
ETA: Don't listen to Hank oklahog either. They both don't know what they're talking about.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 8:09 am
Posted on 8/29/20 at 8:11 am to BamaScoop
quote:
I wonder if reciprocity applies in this case. If he is allowed to have a weapon in his state does that carry over to the state he was in, it’s an interesting question
He didn't cross state lines with the rifle. He was given the rifle when he joined the militia there to defend businesses. He's going to beat the misdemeanor.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 8:15 am to imjustafatkid
quote:The Fat Kid is correct. Hank thinks young Kyle will prevail on self-defense. Definitely do NOT listen to Hank.
Don't listen to Hank
God forbid that you understand the hurdles and why those hurdles will likely be ineffective. Base your opinions entirely upon your emotional reactions. That is a much more sound approach.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 9:45 am
Posted on 8/29/20 at 8:16 am to greygoose
Wisconsin law says a minor is to be under the supervision of an adult, and even then it specifies "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult". So I'm reading that to disallow a minor to hunt alone. "Target practice" and "course of instruction". Whomp whomp. Hell with that malarkey!
Posted on 8/29/20 at 8:17 am to imjustafatkid
quote:The “state line” argument is a red herring. It has no bearing whatsoever on the state charges filed against him, though it may simply be used as an argument regarding his intent.
He didn't cross state lines with the rifle.
The important issue in analyzing the misdemeanor charge lies in the exceptions, not in the red herring.
The relevant exceptions are as follows:
quote:941 addresses short-barrel weapons and 29 addresses hunting licensure.
This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
The net effect is that a 17yo may not carry a short-barrel and may carry a long barrel only if he has obtained a Wisconsin hunting license and has completed a Wisconsin hunter safety course.
How long was the barrel?
Did Kyle have a Wisconsin hunting license and had he completed the Wisconsin safety course?
Since young Kyle lived in another state, it seems unlikely that he completed a Wisconsin safety course. If not, he would be precluded from carrying a long gun in Wisconsin under age 18yo.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 8:52 am
Posted on 8/29/20 at 8:35 am to AggieHank86
quote:
quote:
I'm sure he and his attorneys will at least explore the possibility of waiving jury trial in favor of judge/bench trial. That's a complicated decision, to put it mildly.
Yep
To me, this is one you want a jury if you have any doubt about the legal right to claim self defense as an affirmative defense. If that’s the case, you want the possibility of jury nullification. I don’t know the law but from the videos I’ve seen self defense is a logical and reasonable cause of the shooting. If the law doesn’t allow that for some reason, you need someone on the jury to allow it anyway.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 9:00 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Since young Kyle lived in another state, it seems unlikely that he completed a Wisconsin safety course. If not, he would be precluded from carrying a long gun in Wisconsin under age 18yo.
Nah. Federal law concerning militias would override this. Everyone is universally agreeing he was with a militia.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 9:02 am to imjustafatkid
quote:You are thinking of the doctrine of federal preemption. It is narrower than you think.
Nah. Federal law concerning militias would override this. Everyone is universally agreeing he was with a militia.
It will not apply here, because young Kyle could very easily have carried a long weapon as a member of a militia, by simply taking a gun safety course.
This post was edited on 8/29/20 at 9:07 am
Posted on 8/29/20 at 9:10 am to cajunbama
I’m gonna call BS on this.
There may be certain instances where self-defense can’t be claimed depending on the crime. In Louisiana, I think, you can’t claim self-defense if you’re engaged in a drug deal.
There may be certain instances where self-defense can’t be claimed depending on the crime. In Louisiana, I think, you can’t claim self-defense if you’re engaged in a drug deal.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 9:21 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
(b) 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.
Young Kyle repeatedly attempted to flee the fight. The law couldn’t be more clear on his right to use self defense.
Posted on 8/29/20 at 9:23 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Well is it self defense if you rob a bank police shoot first and you shoot the police?
I’m sorry. I must’ve missed the part where Kyle was robbing a bank.
And the only cops I saw were the ones he was trying to give himself up to.
Fail.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News