And you were assuming they were going to shoot in the the head with his own rifle.Also, you're assuming...
And you were assuming they were going to shoot in the the head with his own rifle.Also, you're assuming...
I'm not. I just think it's not safe to assume that they weren't going to.And you were assuming they were going to shoot in the the head with his own rifle.
Cause what's he meant to do fucking drop it and let some-one in the crowd whisk it away or turn it on other people and him get the blame for other deaths too?He still had the gun he killed someone with in his fucking hands
I've seen BLM-aligned street medicsWhen the guy in Portland was shot, BLM-aligned street medics tried to save him, but OK.
So far his transfer between states is being blocked and on hold until a ruling over improper investigation of the case is carried out.Now that they have deemed him the far right's new action hero and have the $ flowing in, of course. However, they may not if they don't want the courthouse to burn down. not treating like the same way they treat black teens will have blow back for sure. Due to him being white though, it may actually work in his favor to have them be overly harsh initially and have it massively reduced on appeal to less than he would have otherwise. If they just go with " appropriate" on the initial sentence than it will be harder for them to prove that to be overly harsh to have it greatly reduced. If they go harsh, then they have grounds for greatly reducing it later to mild on appeal.
1) is he shooting more people?Ok, fuck it, since this is a Kenosha thread now...
How come Rittenhouse is in the right completely for self defense with thinking he might be absolutely torn apart by this killer mob like that guy towards the end of Shaun of the Dead, but the protestors are violent thugs for trying to disarm someone who they know just killed someone?
So it’s safe for him to assume he should use lethal force? Wtf?I'm not. I just think it's not safe to assume that they weren't going to.
Given he’s the one who shot someone to death it’s probably not reasonable for him to assume someone else would shoot someone to death with it. Probably reasonable assumption that he was the person who could be least relied on to avoid shooting people to death of anyone there at that point.Cause what's he meant to do fucking drop it and let some-one in the crowd whisk it away or turn it on other people and him get the blame for other deaths too?
Yes, if people are attacking you when you're running away, knocking you to the ground, kicking you, hitting you with skateboards, and pulling guns of their own on you, I think using lethal force is justified, but that's for the courts to decide.So it’s safe for him to assume he should use lethal force? Wtf?
You're telling me it's not reasonable to assume the crowd who just had some-one lunge at you unprovoked and you shot might be inclined to be angry enough to turn the gun on you when they've already been shown to have people angry enough to try and attack you while you're holding a gun.................Given he’s the one who shot someone to death it’s probably not reasonable for him to assume someone else would shoot someone to death with it. Probably reasonable assumption that he was the person who could be least relied on to avoid shooting people to death of anyone there at that point.
Well nobody there who had a gun shot him so maybe not.You're telling me it's not reasonable to assume the crowd who just had some-one lunge at you unprovoked and you shot might be inclined to be angry enough to turn the gun on you when they've already been shown to have people angry enough to try and attack you while you're holding a gun.................
What kind of logic is that?
If so, then why you only bringing up just letting the courts decide now after days of playing internet detective?Yes, if people are attacking you when you're running away, knocking you to the ground, kicking you, hitting you with skateboards, and pulling guns of their own on you, I think using lethal force is justified, but that's for the courts to decide.
I've been playing "internet detective" only to bring up the relevant laws that disprove the notion that "he had an illegal gun!" and "he put himself in a dangerous situation" are not grounds on which to dismiss self-defense.If so, then why you only bringing up just letting the courts decide now after days of playing internet detective?
Sure.I've been playing "internet detective" only to bring up the relevant laws that disprove the notion that "he had an illegal gun!" and "he put himself in a dangerous situation" are not grounds on which to dismiss self-defense.
B. How does one determine retreating in good faith when a ranged weapon is in play. What's the difference between running away to disengage and running to a different or better firing position.
You can't distinguish that, as such it cannot be a good faith withdrawal.
They didn't get chance cause he was quicker.Well nobody there who had a gun shot him so maybe not.
Not turning back is a good start.Quote of another post
One of them confessed to having been going to (the one with only the arm wound)If so, then why you only bringing up just letting the courts decide now after days of playing internet detective?
Except that he conducted a mini-interview with a cameraman who was running alongside him, and he ran towards the police, approaching them with hands up.words
Uh No, not being at a protest with loaded guns is a good start. Oh and I see this actually applies here:Not turning back is a good start
NFAC: " One of our concerns is we will not allow the NFAC to be SANDWICHED between protesters and the police." He said protesters were not supposed to be near them at Churchill Downs. " So when I saw that happening, somebody changed the gameplan, so I pulled by coalition out. The protesters aren't orderly. Protesters aren't organized. Protesters are emotional. Protesters are destructive, people can sneak in."
Yeah, that's not self-defense.They didn't get chance cause he was quicker.
UGH now we have people burning other people up. Whoever was responsible for the fire should be arrested and charged for burning those people. At first I thought they were lighting themselves on fire, but then the second one you showed shows someone else throwing it at them instead. Yea, they need to catch the people doing that before something even worse happens. I hope the people who were burned there were able to get to the hospital to receive proper treatment for their burns and will be okay.Well, on the topic of Portland we have stuff like this going on.
Edit:
The city is going to get set on fire if they keep up stuff like this.
Finally something we can easily agree on in this topic.UGH now we have people burning other people up. Whoever was responsible for the fire should be arrested and charged for burning those people. At first I thought they were lighting themselves on fire, but then the second one you showed shows someone else throwing it at them instead. Yea, they need to catch the people doing that before something even worse happens. I hope the people who were burned there were able to get to the hospital to receive proper treatment for their burns and will be okay.
Love essentially quoting old western lines to defend murder. “Quicker gun is the self-defending gun.”Yeah, that's not self-defense.
What would have been self-defense, according to you? If the gun had been fully drawn and aimed? If he had been shot?Yeah, that's not self-defense.