Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening

[Houseman]

I said somebody who was armed to go into a violent protest

Here's another tidbit. You said it was a "violent protest".
So what were the "protesters" there to do? Commit acts of violence. You said it, not me.

And now you're trying to argue that the protesters had no violent intent toward Rittenhouse that would have justified his use of self-defense?
Well then you contradict yourself.

Either the protest was peaceful, in which case, Rittenhouse didn't place himself in a dangerous situation.
Or the protest was violent, in which case, Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

This is mostly an irrelevant tangent because it doesn't matter either way, due to clause 2.b

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Here's another tidbit. You said it was a "violent protest".
So what were the "protesters" there to do? Commit acts of violence. You said it, not me.

And now you're trying to argue that the protesters had no violent intent toward Rittenhouse that would have justified his use of self-defense?
Well then you contradict yourself.

Either the protest was peaceful, in which case, Rittenhouse didn't place himself in a dangerous situation.
Or the protest was violent, in which case, Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

This is mostly an irrelevant tangent because it doesn't matter either way, due to clause 2.b

Again, self-defense doesn't matter because he used a weapon he should not have had. To use an example, in the state of AZ, it is illegal for you to carry a set of brass knuckles/knuckle dusters. So say I get into a fight with someone, and he pulls a knife on me, but I manage to punch him in the face with my dusters, but I accidentally kill him with the blow. While I probably still wouldn't catch a murder charge (due to self-defense if it can be established, and also white dude), I would still catch a manslaughter charge of some kind still due to the illegal weapon I used to defend myself.

EDIT: ok, before anyone wants to pounce on my error, apparently brass knuckles aren't illegal to have, but they are considered deadly weapons like firearms and therefore need to be kept in a holster/scabbard of some sort (and who the fuck has one anyway?).

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You're claiming that a person who is RUNNING AWAY is doing the OPPOSITE OF RETREATING.
The jury is desperately trying to stifle their laughter. The defense and Rittenhouse high-five.

Laugh at your peril. If he were truly wanting to not be attacked, he should have went home after work, not armed to a violent protest.

Here's another tidbit. You said it was a "violent protest".
So what were the "protesters" there to do? Commit acts of violence. You said it, not me.

And now you're trying to argue that the protesters had no violent intent toward Rittenhouse that would have justified his use of self-defense?
Well then you contradict yourself.

Either the protest was peaceful, in which case, Rittenhouse didn't place himself in a dangerous situation.
Or the protest was violent, in which case, Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

I, once again, didn't say that. You're the one who wants to paint him as noble and guiltless. I'm saying he threw himself into a violent situation to escalate it, which negates any self-defense plea.

This is mostly an irrelevant tangent because it doesn't matter either way, due to clause 2.b

Clause 2.c

 

[lil devils x]

Again, self-defense doesn't matter because he used a weapon he should not have had. To use an example, in the state of AZ, it is illegal for you to carry a set of brass knuckles/knuckle dusters. So say I get into a fight with someone, and he pulls a knife on me, but I manage to punch him in the face with my dusters, but I accidentally kill him with the blow. While I probably still wouldn't catch a murder charge (due to self-defense if it can be established, and also white dude), I would still catch a manslaughter charge of some kind still due to the illegal weapon I used to defend myself.

EDIT: ok, before anyone wants to pounce on my error, apparently brass knuckles aren't illegal to have, but they are considered deadly weapons like firearms and therefore need to be kept in a holster/scabbard of some sort (and who the fuck has one anyway?).

In some places they are illegal to have though.
Prior to 2019, they were illegal in Texas to even have..

Brass Knuckles Legality by State 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

This still says their illegal in Arizona, did that change?

 

[Mister Mumbler]

In some places they are illegal to have though.
Prior to 2019, they were illegal in Texas to even have..

Brass Knuckles Legality by State 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

This still says their illegal in Arizona, did that change?

I did a quick Google search which said legal, but are considered deadly weapons, which restricts how they can be carried like my edit says.

EDIT: I think I see you where your confusion came from, AZ is Arizona.

 

[lil devils x]

I did a quick Google search which said legal, but are considered deadly weapons, which restricts how they can be carried like my edit says.

EDIT: I think I see you where your confusion came from, AZ is Arizona.

Ah ok. Like anyone needs to be walking around with brass knuckles anyways..

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I did a quick Google search which said legal, but are considered deadly weapons, which restricts how they can be carried like my edit says.

In some places they are illegal to have though.
Prior to 2019, they were illegal in Texas to even have..

Brass Knuckles Legality by State 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

This still says their illegal in Arizona, did that change?

Fist loads and the like vary so much between legal and not the smartest move is to just assume they're illegal and be done with it.

 

[Houseman]

Again, self-defense doesn't matter because he used a weapon he should not have had. To use an example, in the state of AZ, it is illegal for you to carry a set of brass knuckles/knuckle dusters. So say I get into a fight with someone, and he pulls a knife on me, but I manage to punch him in the face with my dusters, but I accidentally kill him with the blow. While I probably still wouldn't catch a murder charge (due to self-defense if it can be established, and also white dude), I would still catch a manslaughter charge of some kind still due to the illegal weapon I used to defend myself.

Of course. Nobody is arguing that.

I'm saying he threw himself into a violent situation to escalate it, which negates any self-defense plea.

Your interpretation of the law is wrong.

Clause 2.c

Like I said before, 2.b overrides 2.c
2.b deals with intent. If someone is withdrawing from a altercation in good faith, then their intent is established.
2.c relies on intent being malicious. 2.c only matters if the intent is to provoke someone in to attacking you.

If 2.b, then the intent is not malicious.
If the intent is not malicious, then it can't possibly be 2.c.

If you are making a good faith withdrawal, then you have no malicious intent.
If you have no malicious intent, then you don't "intend to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm".
This is just simple logic.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Of course. Nobody is arguing that.



Your interpretation of the law is wrong.



Like I said before, 2.b overrides 2.c
2.b deals with intent. If someone is withdrawing from a altercation in good faith, then their intent is established.
2.c relies on intent being malicious. 2.c only matters if the intent is to provoke someone in to attacking you.

If 2.b, then the intent is not malicious.
If the intent is not malicious, then it can't possibly be 2.c.

If you are making a good faith withdrawal, then you have no malicious intent.
If you have no malicious intent, then you don't "intend to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm".
This is just simple logic.

Nobody is arguing it, then you proceed to argue about it. Again, all arguments about whether this was a justified self-defense killing are irrelevant because he used a weapon that was illegal for him to carry, it's simple logic.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Of course. Nobody is arguing that.



Your interpretation of the law is wrong.



Like I said before, 2.b overrides 2.c
2.b deals with intent. If someone is withdrawing from a altercation in good faith, then their intent is established.
2.c relies on intent being malicious. 2.c only matters if the intent is to provoke someone in to attacking you.

If 2.b, then the intent is not malicious.
If the intent is not malicious, then it can't possibly be 2.c.

If you are making a good faith withdrawal, then you have no malicious intent.
If you have no malicious intent, then you don't "intend to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm".
This is just simple logic.

I'm arguing there is no good faith withdraw. He engineered himself into the situation to cause harm, which is why 2.c applies. He created for himself an opportunity to shoot people, and then did so. 3 of them, on 2 separate occasions. Self-defense does not apply.

 

[Asita]

He's getting his character assassinated by people who google state laws.

And what, praytell, do you think the would-be defenders on here are doing with arguments that largely amount to "he didn't throw all the punches, therefore self-defense" and "fleeing the scene of a crime is a good faith attempt at disengaging from a conflict" are doing if not googling state laws to find some way to excuse this senseless loss of life and then claiming that their recent googling gives them greater expertise?

 

[Houseman]

Nobody is arguing it, then you proceed to argue about it.

I'm arguing about murder, not manslaughter or having an illegal weapon. I'm not saying he's totally innocent, and needs to get off non-guilty on all charges. I'm only talking about the one charge.

I'm arguing there is no good faith withdraw. He engineered himself into the situation to cause harm

So, consider this hypothetical situation:

Kenny explicitly wants to kill people, he even says as much in his journal, so he inserts himself into this violent protest. After being there for a few hours, he gets cold feet and realizes this isn't a good idea, and that he wants no part in this, so then he runs for his life. The mob chases after him, but he isn't fast enough to outrun them. He raises his gun and fires.

In this hypothetical scenario, where one changes his mind from "I want to kill people" to "this isn't a good idea and I want no part in this", would you consider this a good-faith attempt at withdrawal?

What do you think is necessary for there to be a "good faith withdrawal"?

Because it seems to me that you think that people aren't ever allowed to change their mind on the subject. Like, if at first they decide upon a course of action, they can't ever bail out, and they must be held accountable for everything that happens from that point on. Even if they are being chased and end up beaten within an inch of their life, they can't ever act in self-defense (legally speaking, if they did act it would be a crime) because "they put themselves in that situation".

It seems to me that you're saying that a "good faith withdrawal" was impossible for Kyle.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm arguing about murder, not manslaughter or having an illegal weapon. I'm not saying he's totally innocent, and needs to get off non-guilty on all charges. I'm only talking about the one charge.



So, consider this hypothetical situation:

Kenny explicitly wants to kill people, he even says as much in his journal, so he inserts himself into this violent protest. After being there for a few hours, he gets cold feet and realizes this isn't a good idea, and that he wants no part in this, so then he runs for his life. The mob chases after him, but he isn't fast enough to outrun them. He raises his gun and fires.

In this hypothetical scenario, where one changes his mind from "I want to kill people" to "this isn't a good idea and I want no part in this", would you consider this a good-faith attempt at withdrawal?

What do you think is necessary for there to be a "good faith withdrawal"?

I don't. He already passed the point of no return when he went armed. Just like it's a touch too late for the murdered for the murderer to be having regrets.

It seems to me that you're saying that a "good faith withdrawal" was impossible for Kyle.

His last chance for a good faith withdraw was when he got off work and could have went home. When asked to go armed into a violent protest, he should have said no. And as a fan of the police, he should have known he doesn't have any legal authority on any protest, violent or otherwise.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I'm arguing about murder, not manslaughter or having an illegal weapon. I'm not saying he's totally innocent, and needs to get off non-guilty on all charges. I'm only talking about the one charge.

Well, at least three charges for one thing, what with the double homicide and assult with a deadly weapon on a third person, and then being out after curfew, and again the whole sorts of charges just for having the firearm in the first place.

 

[Iron]

And what, praytell, do you think the would-be defenders on here are doing with arguments that largely amount to "he didn't throw all the punches, therefore self-defense" and "fleeing the scene of a crime is a good faith attempt at disengaging from a conflict" are doing if not googling state laws to find some way to excuse this senseless loss of life and then claiming that their recent googling gives them greater expertise?

I'm playing along. I said repeatedly that this ought to be resolved in court.

 

[Houseman]

I don't. He already passed the point of no return when he went armed. Just like it's a touch too late for the murdered for the murderer to be having regrets.

His last chance for a good faith withdraw was when he got off work and could have went home. When asked to go armed into a violent protest, he should have said no. And as a fan of the police, he should have known he doesn't have any legal authority on any protest, violent or otherwise.

What you are saying seems to be explicitly at odds with what the law says. The law says:
"The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight..."

You're saying "he should have withdrew before the fight ever began. After the fight began, it was too late".
But the law here explicitly states that this clause applies after the fight has already begun. See how this is a direct contradiction to what you said?
"...withdraws from the fight..."

There is a fight.
A participant withdraws in good faith.
If the participant is pursued, any further actions the person takes to defend themselves is considered self-defense.

You're saying "once a fight starts, there can be no good-faith withdrawals".
The law explicitly contradicts you.

So no, this argument that "he passed the point of no return" contradicts the letter and spirit of the law. There is no "point of no return" according to the law. The law would prefer that you withdraw so as to live and let live, as opposed to "in for a penny, in for a pound, time to die!". This is the spirit of the law.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

What you are saying seems to be explicitly at odds with what the law says. The law says:
"The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight..."

You're saying "he should have withdrew before the fight ever began. After the fight began, it was too late".
But the law here explicitly states that this clause applies after the fight has already begun. See how this is a direct contradiction to what you said?
"...withdraws from the fight..."

There is a fight.
A participant withdraws in good faith.
If the participant is pursued, any further actions the person takes to defend themselves is considered self-defense.

You're saying "once a fight starts, there can be no good-faith withdrawals".
The law explicitly contradicts you.

So no, this argument that "he passed the point of no return" contradicts the letter and spirit of the law. There is no "point of no return" according to the law. The law would prefer that you withdraw so as to live and let live, as opposed to "in for a penny, in for a pound, time to die!". This is the spirit of the law.

Only if you ignore the part of the law that self-defense is waived entirely if you've put yourself in a situation explicitly to hurt and kill, which is what he did here. There is no contradiction, you're just ignoring a part of the law.

 

[Houseman]

Only if you ignore the part of the law that self-defense is waived entirely if you've put yourself in a situation explicitly to hurt and kill

2.b overrides 2.c. I'm not ignoring 2.c, I just recognize that 2.b overrides it. You're the one who is ignoring this.

I've provided lengthy logical breakdowns that prove how this is the case and all you can do is say "nuh-uh!"

If you want to continue this argument, please get on my level. Let's see your 200-word argument for why your interpretation of the law is correct.

 

[SupahEwok]

it's simple logic.

And yet we're on page 27.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

2.b overrides 2.c. I'm not ignoring 2.c, I just recognize that 2.b overrides it. You're the one who is ignoring this.

I've provided lengthy logical breakdowns that prove how this is the case and all you can do is say "nuh-uh!"

If you want to continue this argument, please get on my level. Let's see your 200-word argument for why your interpretation of the law is correct.

>on your level
How very condescending.

However you never actually showed why 2.b overrides. However I have a hypothetical for you, since you like them. If a school shooter stalks the halls and a teacher starts trying to get the gun away from them, can the shooter claim self defense?