Also "a guy who commited a murder has to commit more murders to get to a safe place to be arrested" is not as stirring a defense as you might have believed it to be.
Another Incident in Portland
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
Also "a guy who commited a murder has to commit more murders to get to a safe place to be arrested" is not as stirring a defense as you might have believed it to be.
USA
Then you need to reread. I said they needed to charge whoever gave kyle the gun repeatedly. I could care less if it was the lot owner or Mr Rogers. They were not his parent or guardian. The photo shows the kicking guy going for kyles arms /gun/ chest not his head. They were trying to disarm him. What the people who were trying to take down the active shooter were doing does not change that he was actually the active shooter in the first place. The people who tried to take down the sandy hook and parkland shooters did some violent actions towards him too. That is what happens once you start shooting people. Everyone tends to attack you after that.
Sure, but that's not the question.
Begging the question isn't the argument you think it is. It's a fallacy, in fact.
I wonder what would have happened in lil's world if the felon with the gun would have shot Rittenhouse? Would he be the new "active shooter?" Would people mob him and try to "disarm" him?
Last edited:
Ultimately it is. He’s an active shooter. Perhaps bringing him down doesn’t necessarily count as self-defense, but further killings by him in that scenario definitely don’t count as self-defense. It’s entirely possible for both parties in a violent exchange to be unjustified.
"He's an active shooter/murderer because he's an active shooter/murderer" is the best argument that people have against Kyle, apparently.
The defense doesn't have anything to worry about.
The defense doesn't have anything to worry about.
His arms are in front of his face.
Also disarming a person by jumping to stomp on his chest?
seems like a weird way to disarm a person that.
Also he had a guy lunge at him before he shot the first time so no he wasn't the aggressor it seems so far. Just a mob of people deemed him so after some-one lunged for him and he fired.
The crowd might don't know what happened before it's tribal mentality.
When he's withdrawing from the scene and not an active threat (which is the difference to what happens in normal active shooter / mass shooter situations) then he's not an active threat anymore as such to begin with.
Then if the first shooter was self defence too then he's not the active shooter to begin with anyway.
When there is an active shooter, I am not going to start a critque of the numskulls who are crazy enough to try to disarm them. That is the least of our concerns at that point. The teacher who died trying to disarm the school shooter didn't exactly have peek form either. Once someone starts killing people, you pretty much expect that to happen after that. He should have never gone down there. He should have never been given a gun. He should have never put himself in the middle of the action and he should have never used it. Shoulda coulda woulda but he did. People are dead and he is now a murderer and can't go back and change it now. The best we expect to happen from here?
The best we can hope for is that he is treated as a minor rather than an adult by the judge, even if not initially, it can be appealed and he could be ruled a minor later and have his sentence reduced on appeal. It may actually be better for him to get a harsh sentence initially to appease the mob and have it greatly reduced later on appea after people stopped noticing. he could get a lesser sentence overall that way. If they give him a medium sentence in the first place they are less likely to see it as overly harsh on appeal. He could get it reduced from harsh to mild though on appeal.
Last edited:
He ran and turned and started shooting last time, they have no idea if he is going to shoot people again. Once you are an active shooter, unless you already dropped the weapon and are face down on the concrete spread eagle unarmed expect much violence against you. But hey he is a stupid kid who shouldn't have been armed in the first place so he didn't even know that much. If he had been unarmed, face down screaming it was an accident no one else would have died and he would not have been harmed.
Like I said in the last topic: "This dog keeps biting whenever I kick it, clearly this is a dangerous dog that needs to be put down!"
How about don't kick the dog?
So just let the rioters execute you with your own weapon, then?
Oh my sweet summer child. How blissfully naive.
He still had the gun he killed someone with in his fucking hands
As long as he was armed he was a threat. He turned around and shot someone last time, there as no telling WHEN he as going to turn around and start shooting people again.
Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48(2)(b)
It doesn't matter whether or not he was armed. What matters was whether or not he was withdrawing.
The law has considered this subject with more care and attention than you have.
He's white, so it's more likely he'll be treated as a minor than if he were Black.
When the guy in Portland was shot, BLM-aligned street medics tried to save him, but OK.
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.
Oh yeah, the guy who was shot by the BLM-aligned protester? You're right. Good point.
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?
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?
Those aren't mutually exclusive statements.
Also, you're assuming that they were trying to disarm him, and you have no evidence for that. Even if they said "we don't want to hurt you. We just want to disassemble your weapon and hand you over to the police for a proper investigation because we totally trust the police to administer fair justice", why would any reasonable person believe them?
Because apparently taking down an active shooter who just murdered someone is only something that Trump supporters are allowed to do. Everyone else is just a bunch of shadowy thugs from airplanes that control the streets.