Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening
- Thread starter Iron
- Start date
- Status
My objection is purely for the killings. I do not condone the kid being out there at night, with a weapon, carrying the weapon while underage, or trying to take the law into his own hands. But people chasing him down with intent to harm and kill is also not right. He deserves to be charged for the crimes he did commit, which may very well be murder of the first person he shot if the details come out that way, but the other two are clearly self-defense.
Related, but you live in Michigan right? This hasn't spilled over into your state yet has it?
Wait... so the mob was going to kill him? Are we just making stuff up again?
There has been plenty of mobs at these protests. They have hunted down and captured people. And there has been some people being beaten up. That doesn’t mean this mob was out to kill him.
They were trying to defend other people. My response is the same as before. If he really wanted help, he should have done nothing, but stayed the fuck home in Wisconsin.
People already know, but there is no rioting going on. And him doing that shit has not stopped protestors here, in the states, or across the globe.
Last edited:
What's important is what he was thinking (or what a reasonable person would be thinking in that situation). If he thought that the mob was going to kill him, then it could be considered self-defense.
I heard of a case where there was a mob surrounding, bashing, and rocking a guy's car, so he floored it an ran over some people. It was ruled as self-defense.
Would you trust a mob not to kill you?
Did you use a Ouija board to contact the ghosts of the people he murdered to get this testimony?
I don't think that whether or not he ever expected to use his weapon is relevant. People wear guns on their person all the time, perhaps because they think the world is a dangerous place. That doesn't rule out self-defense when they are used.
Here's another fun part - apparently this kid didn't have a drivers licenses and was even ticketed for it last week.
Thanks, not gonna lie, I needed that. It's too goddamn hot here at work (107° F, inside with the shit AC this building has on).Have some puppies.
It does if you intentionally approach a dangerous situation. You can only use self defense pleas if you weren't intentionally approaching a situation where you knew you would be in danger.
It's normally difficult to prove this, but he crossed state lines with that gun because he wanted to use it in a riot, so he can't make any claim to self defense.
I've seen posts saying he had been arrested for drug possession and resisting arrest, and had the charges dropped in court. I don't know how true it is though.
I...don't think you understand how self-defense works.
Let me put it this way: Let's say I'm jabbing you. You respond by punching me in the nose. I deck you and then claim it was self-defense because you punched me. That's a bullshit defense, as I was the one who instigated the conflict. Indeed, if anyone has a self-defense argument in that scenario, it would actually be you, not me, as you were responding to the act of violence I instigated against you. I did not get a mulligan on self-defense when you socked me in the nose. I do not get to claim that knocking you flat was self-defense in response to that punch.
The question is not and is never whether or not I can say that any of your punches after the conflict started preceded any of my later punches. It is better characterized (if a bit oversimplified) as "who threw the first punch in a given altercation?" In playground terms, self-defense is the "he started it" of defense arguments. If I started the fight, I do not get to claim self-defense. If I provoked you into throwing the first punch, I do not get to claim self-defense. If I am harming or about to harm your or others and you attack me to stop it, I do not get to claim self-defense. And this brings us back around to the subject of discussion. Self-defense does not apply in this case because the people were trying to apprehend him in response to his shooting of someone. Therefore attacking the people trying to apprehend him is not self-defense.
You can't be an accessory to a crime that's being committed against you. But if a gunman was just walking into a school, fully loaded and you saw him and didn't call the police or try to stop him or warn people, you absolutely can be charged.
That's why the guard at the Parkland shooting was charged with child endangerment and neglect when he hid under his desk instead of engaging the shooter.
Now he's charged with neglect because it was his job to stop the shooter. As civilians we're not expected to stop shooters. We are however expected to report them, and failing to report a crime can lead to accessory charges. Depends on the state. In Texas is a misdemeanor to fail to report, in Ohio its a felony, etc...
What's important is what the people were thinking (or what a reasonable person would be thinking in that situation). If they thought that the man with the gun who had already shot one of them was going to kill more of them, or leave then go kill other people, then it could be considered self-defense and defense of others to rush him and take away the gun.
I heard of a case where there was a man with a run shooting someone, leaving, then going to kill more people, and when other people jumped him in a group to stop him, It was ruled as self-defense.
Would you trust a man who had just shot someone in front of you not to kill you?
You're right, it could.
One's man's thoughts don't cancel out those of another, or anything... What they were thinking has no relation to what he was thinking.
So, basically, best case scenario:
Dude murders a guy, then both he and the protestors feared for their lives, and both took action, leading to another death because the guy had a gun and it made it easiwer for him to act when he felt endangered.
Even in this best case scenario, the first killing makes him a murderer.
- Status