Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening

[lil devils x]

A gang isn't gonna mind its business if you don't do anything dumb and only cause harm if you do something to the gang members. A gang will be engaged in crimes and sell drugs and what have you, which is why they get treated differently.

If people don't riot and damage property, auto shop owners won't have to vigilantize random 17 year olds, and then the 17 year olds will continue being neighborhood lifeguards and washing schools.

Selling drugs and engaging in petty crime is not the same as being a lifeguard and cleaning vandalized walls.

LMAO.. You really don't know much about gangs... Lots of different gangs here with different reasons. Some gangs in the hood are essentially just " neighborhood watch" that exist only to protect people from the other gangs. PROTECTION is the number one reason gangs exist in the hood. We have all the different types of gangs in the hood, you just don't realize that because you see them as as " being the same" when they are far from it. Funny you actually brought up AUTOSHOPS specifically, because THAT is where my cousins actually worked. And yea, they really do have to vigilantize one group in the hood in order to protect them from another...

 

[Dreiko]

LMAO.. You really don't know much about gangs... Lots of different gangs here with different reasons. Some gangs in the hood are essentially just " neighborhood watch" that exist only to protect people from the other gangs PROTECTION is the number one reason gangs exist in the hood. We have all the different types of gangs in the hood, you just don;t realize that because you see them as as " being the same" when they are far from it. Funny you actually brought up AUTOSHOPS specifically, because THAT is where my cousins actually worked. And yea, they really do have to one group in the hood in order to protect them from another...

If you are a neighborhood watch, you are a neighborhood watch. Gang by definition means you do violence and sell black market items and traffic sex abuse victims and that sorta thing.

If, by some miracle, some idiot decided to call his neighborhood watch group a gang, they need to be told to quit it and to just call themselves what they actually are.


Not sure what your cousin has to do with any of this. The auto shop just happened to be the ones who called this kid for help. It coulda been any shop.



Anyhow, if they need to form a gang to make themselves safe from a gang, then that other gang they wanna protect themselves from, is that too just a "neighborhood watch"?

 

[Buyetyen]

A gang isn't gonna mind its business if you don't do anything dumb and only cause harm if you do something to the gang members. A gang will be engaged in crimes and sell drugs and what have you, which is why they get treated differently.

Speaking of drugs, I feel like that's what this argument is on. And I kind of wish I was.

If people don't riot and damage property, auto shop owners won't have to vigilantize random 17 year olds, and then the 17 year olds will continue being neighborhood lifeguards and washing schools.

Selling drugs and engaging in petty crime is not the same as being a lifeguard and cleaning vandalized walls.

Vigilantism is illegal. You are arguing that 2 wrongs make a right.

 

[lil devils x]

If you are a neighborhood watch, you are a neighborhood watch. Gang by definition means you do violence and sell black market items and traffic sex abuse victims and that sorta thing.

If, by some miracle, some idiot decided to call his neighborhood watch group a gang, they need to be told to quit it and to just call themselves what they actually are.

LOL they don't call it neighborhood watch in the hood... That is how you get your house shot up. Gang by definition means:
" an organized group of criminals" Not that they are selling black market items or related to sex abuse at all. Just that they are considered " criminals" either they could have served time already or their violence upon other gangs is criminal activity. Sort of like that militia at the protest right?

It is criminal for them to take firearms and go look for the bad guys. It is criminal for them to use violence on the other criminal gangs. The militias that these stupid white kids in are no different.

You act like these kids in the hood don;t do good things as well. They do, just like everyone else. They may spend most of their time taking care of an elderly grandparent, work as a lifeguard or washed graffiti off their neighbors apartment. Then they still go out and beat up some guy who someone said smashed some windows in the same day.. That is just life. You act like they are somehow different groups doing this. They are not.

 

[Dreiko]

Speaking of drugs, I feel like that's what this argument is on. And I kind of wish I was.



Vigilantism is illegal. You are arguing that 2 wrongs make a right.

It's more that the harm of being an illegal vigilante is lower than the harm of someone's life work being destroyed or stolen. Ideally the cops would just fully protect all the shops everywhere, I agree.

LOL they don't call it neighborhood watch in the hood... That is how you get your house shot up. Gang by definition means:
" an organized group of criminals" Not that they are selling black market items or related to sex abuse at all. Just that they are considered " criminals" either they could have served time already or their violence upon other gangs is criminal activity. Sort of like that militia at the protest right?

It is criminal for them to take firearms and go look for the bad guys. It is criminal for them to use violence on the other criminal gangs. The militias that these stupid white kids in are no different.

Shot by whom? The neighborhood watch? Or just random unaffiliated criminals who feel attached to the locale enough to shoot a house.


Before you first take arms, you're not yet a criminal, so then, at that point, it's dumb to call yourself a gang unless you've already done some of the other criminal acts I listed.

 

[Buyetyen]

It's more that the harm of being an illegal vigilante is lower than the harm of someone's life work being destroyed or stolen. Ideally the cops would just fully protect all the shops everywhere, I agree.

Lower to whom? Because this kid played vigilante and didn't destroy someone's life's work so much as he destroyed 2 lives. You're arguing that property has more value than human life.

 

[lil devils x]

It's more that the harm of being an illegal vigilante is lower than the harm of someone's life work being destroyed or stolen. Ideally the cops would just fully protect all the shops everywhere, I agree.


Shot by whom? The neighborhood watch? Or just random unaffiliated criminals who feel attached to the locale enough to shoot a house.


Before you first take arms, you're not yet a criminal, so then, at that point, it's dumb to call yourself a gang unless you've already done some of the other criminal acts I listed.

My cousin wasn't a criminal until he blew up that gangs house for them sexually assaulting his little sister either. He was part of " the gang" that protected the autoshop that my other cousin worked at prior to going to prison from blowing the house up..

One person isn't a " gang" not everyone in a gang is even a criminal in the first place. We have active military that are in these gangs. We have cops that are in these gangs..

Houses get " shot up" all the time in the hood by either individuals or other gangs. The " neighborhood watch" gets targeted by most of them..

This kid is no different. "militia" in the US Is just a fancy name given to a gang by white people.

 

[Dreiko]

My cousin wasn't a criminal until he blew up that gangs house for them sexually assaulting his little sister either. He was part of " the gang" that protected the autoshop that my other cousin worked at prior to going to prison from blowing the house up..

One person isn't a " gang" not everyone in a gang is even a criminal in the first place.

Houses get " shot up" all the time in the hood by either individuals or other gangs.

Sorry you just said above that a gang is a group of criminals by definition, not sure what is what.

Either way, we have the police for a reason, you don't need to blow someone's house up and go to jail you just file a complaint against the sexual abuser. The equivalent would be for the militia to come out en masse and hunt down everyone who destroyed or stole stuff. They may want to do that but they certainly aren't doing it.

Lower to whom? Because this kid played vigilante and didn't destroy someone's life's work so much as he destroyed 2 lives. You're arguing that property has more value than human life.

No, these 2 people destroyed their own lives. Meanwhile the owner of the auto shop did nothing wrong. His life's work matters more because he is innocent, whereas they were gambling with their lives.

 

[Buyetyen]

No, these 2 people destroyed their own lives. Meanwhile the owner of the auto shop did nothing wrong. His life's work matters more because he is innocent, whereas they were gambling with their lives.

Exactly, you're saying that 2 wrongs make a right and that property has more rights than people.

 

[Houseman]

Wisconsin state law. You're allowed self defense, but

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

And it's going to be quite hard to argue that intentionally going to a protest armed, out of his way to get there, and then killing 2 people and shooting a third when his defense was "he was asked to and illegally armed to do so" is self defense. He doesn't qualify.

Was Rittenhouse, just by being there, provoking an attack? I find that doubtful.

Oh, and you cherry-picked around the parts of the law that destroy your argument. You quoted 2.c, but what does 2.b say?
It says " 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. "

Oh hey, just like Louisiana law. Running away is withdrawing from the fight, and should also be adequate notice.

So EVEN IF he did "provoke" the attacks, every video clearly shows him running away.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

 

[lil devils x]

Sorry you just said above that a gang is a group of criminals by definition, not sure what is what.

Either way, we have the police for a reason, you don't need to blow someone's house up and go to jail you just file a complaint against the sexual abuser. The equivalent would be for the militia to come out en masse and hunt down everyone who destroyed or stole stuff. They may want to do that but they certainly aren't doing it.


No, these 2 people destroyed their own lives. Meanwhile the owner of the auto shop did nothing wrong. His life's work matters more because he is innocent, whereas they were gambling with their lives.

I added more to the above, because it should be clear, we have cops and military members that are also in these same gangs in the hood as well. You can be in a gang and not have a criminal record. Depending on " the hood" you are in. the cops only come to collect the bodies after everyone else left. My uncle ( who the gang tried to shoot and hit my other cousin instead) had called the cops hundreds of times.. they don't do anything about it. That was WHY my cousin blew up their house.

Either way, we have the police for a reason

EXACTLY the point here. The KID was the criminal here and should be held 100% responsible for murdering people because he wanted to play cop. Just like my cousin was for blowing up the gangs house. My cousin went to prison, and so should he. They really are no different here.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Was Rittenhouse, just by being there, provoking an attack?

Yes, when he's armed to shoot protesters, as that is what he was explicitly there to do. So 2.b doesn't apply, but 2.c does.

 

[Dreiko]

Exactly, you're saying that 2 wrongs make a right and that property has more rights than people.

Property is an extension of people. When you damage property, the law treats that as the same as you harming its owner.

 

[lil devils x]

Property is an extension of people. When you damage property, the law treats that as the same as you harming its owner.

No it does not and for good reason. When my drunk cowboy neighbor shot our mailbox, the police most certainly did not treat it like he shot a person. That is insane to think they would.

Show me ANYWHERE that has laws that way. That is crazy.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Property is an extension of people. When you damage property, the law treats that as the same as you harming its owner.

No it doesn't. At least not in Wisconsin. The laws for defense are explicitly separate for people and property. For one, there's absolutely no excuse for killing people in defense of property.

 

[Buyetyen]

Yes, when he's armed to shoot protesters, as that is what he was explicitly there to do. So 2.b doesn't apply, but 2.c does.

People scoff when I say that open carry is an explicit threat, but the people who open carry keep proving me right.

Property is an extension of people. When you damage property, the law treats that as the same as you harming its owner.

Joking aside, you're basically just proving me right about what your argument is: property has more rights than people and 2 wrongs make a right. Effectively, you just argued that you cannot tell the difference between vandalism and murder. That kicking the side mirror off of someone's car is just as serious and injurious a crime as cutting that person's ear off with a straight razor.

 

[lil devils x]

No it doesn't. At least not in Wisconsin. The laws for defense are explicitly separate for people and property. For one, there's absolutely no excuse for killing people in defense of property.

I can't imagine anywhere on the planet that treats property the same as people. That is madness.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I can't imagine anywhere on the planet that treats property the same as people. That is madness.

Ancapistan

 

[Houseman]

Yes, when he's armed to shoot protesters, as that is what he was explicitly there to do. So 2.b doesn't apply, but 2.c does.

EVEN IF he did provoke the attacks, 2.B overrides that.

"The privilege lost by provocation" - acknowledging that the actor provoked the attack in question
"may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight" - The person can still claim self-defense if the actor withdraws

That's what the law says.

2.C does not override 2.B.
2.B overrides 2.C

If you're withdrawing from a fight in good faith, then you don't intend to kill them. 2.C covers intent to provoke in order to kill in self defense. 2.B rules out intent.

And then there's 2.A
" A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."

Trying and failing to outrun your assailants should count as exhausting every other reasonable means of to escape, unless he had rocket boots or a FULTON device.

So even if everything you said is true, that Rittenhouse, just by standing there menacingly, either directly provoked an attack or was engaging in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him, as long as he was:

A) in imminent danger
B) Fleeing

Then he's in the clear. That's what the law says.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

EVEN IF he did provoke the attacks, 2.B overrides that.

"The privilege lost by provocation" - acknowledging that the actor provoked the attack in question
"may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight" - The person can still claim self-defense if the actor withdraws

That's what the law says.

2.C does not override 2.B.
2.B overrides 2.C

And then there's 2.A
" A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."

So even if everything you said is true, that Rittenhouse, just by standing there menacingly, either directly provoked an attack or was engaging in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him, as long as he was:

A) in imminent danger
B) Fleeing

Then he's in the clear. That's what the law says.

2.c overrides since he was there with the intent to commit violence. Further, 2.a shoots him in the foot because he killed before a single instance of harm befell him. He didn't need to kill anyone over a plastic bag, but he did. He intentionally went into a dangerous situation with the intent to commit violence and then committed it. There's no reasonable self-defense plea to make. That he further shot two people trying to disarm him only makes it worse.