Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening

[Specter Von Baren]

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.

If a protester had shot him first, they'd be up on murder charges and there'd be no claim of self defense either, even if the kid was illegally armed.

He was not the provoker, it was the guy with his shirt wrapped around his head that was initiating this. Even if it WAS, him that initially initiated this, it doesn't matter because he was running away and attempting to disengage. Even if he was the initial aggressor, deadly force is allowed if all means to escape injury or death have been exhausted. What do we see him doing in every video? Running away. Every time he was RUNNING AWAY. Even if he was the initial aggressor, every person that got shot would be trying to reengage which puts the onus on them.

Except when it is non white "thugs" or " gangs" doing it in the hood. Then they should all just be shot on sight and forgotten/s. It is the pretending that this kid was any different than the other " hoodlums" that take the law into their own hands that is the issue.

The same people defending this kid are perfectly fine with kids doing the same thing in the hood getting the death penalty, or even save the time and money, just let the cops shoot them as soon as they see them right?

You got video evidence of him shooting everyone? Cause all I see, and have been shown, over and over and over again from all the videos and testimony is that he ONLY shot people attacking him. If he wanted to just kill people then why are only two people dead when there were hundreds of people out there that night? What about all the people that ran up to him when he fell and he didn't shoot because they backed away from him? For someone that went there looking to kill as many people as he could he sure did a shitty job of that with only two people dead despite numerous opportunities to increase that number.

You are being completely partisan on this. You refuse to admit the obvious difference here that you see with your own eyes because that's "a win" for the right. "If I let this go then that's something the right wing can hold over my team". That kind of thinking is only going to lead to one place and that's everyone we know and love dying in a pointless civil war. Screw this "team" bullshit.

 

[Houseman]

2.c overrides since he was there with the intent to commit violence.

Sorry, I made an edit.

The edit included: "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."

But let's ignore that for now. I've got a better idea.

Okay so, you're the prosecution, and you're attempting to prove that Rittenhouse can't use the self-defense argument under clause 2.c, because he "provoked an attack with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm"


How are you going to convince the jury that A) Rittenhouse provoked an attack, and B) had intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm?

And I hope you're not going to say "because he was there, with a gun".

 

[Buyetyen]

Even if he was the initial aggressor, deadly force is allowed if all means to escape injury or death have been exhausted.

Wisconsin doesn't have a Stand Your Ground law. That defense is going to be trickier to play, especially considering he was wielding a firearm he was not legally able to possess. Probably why his lawyers are trying to paint him as an innocent cherubim who did us all a favor by summarily executing two former convicts who had already served their sentences.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

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.

So then it's completely null and void since the first guy and third guy all were there to incite violence. First guy was literally asking people to shoot him and the third guy brought a gun he was also not legally supposed to possess. And going back to distance, the skateboard guy also lived 30 minutes away from Kenosha while the guy with the gun lived about 50 minutes from Kenosha. They didn't need to be there. One of them had an illegal weapon too. Why were they there? They didn't have to go anywhere near those people with weapons so now what? You going to say they don't count? That them going out of their way to go where they don't need to to provoke violence is ok?

Wisconsin doesn't have a Stand Your Ground law. That defense is going to be trickier to play, especially considering he was wielding a firearm he was not legally able to possess. Probably why his lawyers are trying to paint him as an innocent cherubim who did us all a favor by summarily executing two former convicts who had already served their sentences.

Did you not read what Houseman and crimson have been talking about?! What does Stand Your Ground have to do with this?!

 

[Houseman]

This is fun, we should have a court role-playing forum game where people participate as judges, jury, witnesses, and members of the defense and prosecution, and we can conduct mock trials using real evidence and laws, and voir dire and everything.

Did you not read what Houseman and crimson have been talking about?!

He has me on ignore, so he probably only caught half of the conversation.

 

[tstorm823]

This is fun, we should have a court role-playing forum game where people participate as judges, jury, witnesses, and members of the defense and prosecution, and we can conduct mock trials using real evidence and laws, and voir dire and everything.

Dibs on stenographer!

 

[Iron]

Even if this is true, What authority did his friend have to give a firearm to a minor or supervise them? IS this not contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Is he his legal guardian? How does that in any way excuse the kid from breaking the law by open carrying the gun? As a parent or other legal guardian, you can supervise a minor on your own property or on private property, but breaking open carry laws would not be covered by that neither would it be somehow okay for some other adult to supervise you that is not your parent or legal guardian. That is like saying, "His friend gave him the gun he had when he went into the liquor store" and think that somehow would make a difference in his arrest. It doesn't.

WTF kind of statement of a kid illegally running around with a loaded gun at a protest " looks harmless?" Seriously? There IS NOTHING harmless about a kid running around with a loaded firearm at a protest. Is this the level of insanity that we have reached that this is somehow okay now? IS the US some third world war zone or something where child soldiers is the norm?

You give a gun to a friend when you go out hunting, or when you're training. He didn't break the law for open-carry in that state. It doesn't exist. It's because of the hunting that goes on there.
You saw the video with the kid's interviews, he seemed harmless. He's getting his character assassinated by people who google state laws. The law will take care of him. I think that in the end he'd get off with nothing and then sue all of the people who shit-talked him for defamation. MAGA-hat kid got like 80 million from CNN.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

He was not the provoker, it was the guy with his shirt wrapped around his head that was initiating this. Even if it WAS, him that initially initiated this, it doesn't matter because he was running away and attempting to disengage. Even if he was the initial aggressor, deadly force is allowed if all means to escape injury or death have been exhausted. What do we see him doing in every video? Running away. Every time he was RUNNING AWAY. Even if he was the initial aggressor, every person that got shot would be trying to reengage which puts the onus on them.

He has to prove that they were intending grievous bodily harm, which is hard when the first person he killed was unarmed and he was. Further, as what you quoted states, you don't get self-defense protection if you started a fight with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm or kill, which he did because he went armed to a protest specifically to fight protesters.

Sorry, I made an edit.

The edit included: "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."

But let's ignore that for now. I've got a better idea.

Okay so, you're the prosecution, and you're attempting to prove that Rittenhouse can't use the self-defense argument under clause 2.c, because he "provoked an attack with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm"


How are you going to convince the jury that A) Rittenhouse provoked an attack, and B) had intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm?

And I hope you're not going to say "because he was there, with a gun".

Because he was there on request to fight protesters, with a gun. That is the stated reason by the defense for him being there, that he was there to fight protesters.

So then it's completely null and void since the first guy and third guy all were there to incite violence. First guy was literally asking people to shoot him and the third guy brought a gun he was also not legally supposed to possess. And going back to distance, the skateboard guy also lived 30 minutes away from Kenosha while the guy with the gun lived about 50 minutes from Kenosha. They didn't need to be there. One of them had an illegal weapon too. Why were they there? They didn't have to go anywhere near those people with weapons so now what? You going to say they don't count? That them going out of their way to go where they don't need to to provoke violence is ok?

I'm going to say they didn't kill anybody, to our knowledge. If they had they'd have these same arguments against them. But Kyle killed people, they didn't. Kyle is the one up for murder, because he committed murder.

 

[lil devils x]

He was not the provoker, it was the guy with his shirt wrapped around his head that was initiating this. Even if it WAS, him that initially initiated this, it doesn't matter because he was running away and attempting to disengage. Even if he was the initial aggressor, deadly force is allowed if all means to escape injury or death have been exhausted. What do we see him doing in every video? Running away. Every time he was RUNNING AWAY. Even if he was the initial aggressor, every person that got shot would be trying to reengage which puts the onus on them.



You got video evidence of him shooting everyone? Cause all I see, and have been shown, over and over and over again from all the videos and testimony is that he ONLY shot people attacking him. If he wanted to just kill people then why are only two people dead when there were hundreds of people out there that night? What about all the people that ran up to him when he fell and he didn't shoot because they backed away from him? For someone that went there looking to kill as many people as he could he sure did a shitty job of that with only two people dead despite numerous opportunities to increase that number.

You are being completely partisan on this. You refuse to admit the obvious difference here that you see with your own eyes because that's "a win" for the right. "If I let this go then that's something the right wing can hold over my team". That kind of thinking is only going to lead to one place and that's everyone we know and love dying in a pointless civil war. Screw this "team" bullshit.

Show me where anyone said he shot everyone? No one implied such either. Why you even said that is odd.

He shot people chasing him while he was committing a crime, not actually attacking him. Do you have any evidence of them actually attacking him? They chase you when you stole some old lady's purse too. They chase you when you rob a liquor store. They chase you when you threaten to kill people...That is what happens when you are an active shooter as well. People will chase you to stop you from murdering people. How do we know this kid had not fired his weapon before this as well? There were gunshots before this incident too and no one seems to know who did that either.. They could have been chasing him to check his gun to see if it had been fired or to disarm him, what evidence do we actually have anyone actually attacking him? He panicked and killed people because he shouldn't have had a gun in the first place and he certainly shouldn't have been there with one. He was the instigator by bringing the gun there and putting himself into the action. The kid running away and then coming back to the " action" over and over again doesn't mean he was actually fleeing. He was running around a good deal prior to this happening in the first place form all the footage we have seen before this even happened. Wanting to kill as many people as possible is irrelevant. All you have to do is kill one for it to be murder. All you have to do is fire your gun in a populated to be considered an active shooter by the FBI

An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-resources

Actually you don't even have to fire your gun according to that definition, you just have to have to attempt to.

 

[Iron]

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-resources

Actually you don't even have to fire your gun according to that definition, you just have to have to attempt to.

lel, some dude walks around a walmart with a shitty AR15 and I start yelling "active shooter get down".

 

[Houseman]

Dibs on stenographer!

Okay, you'll take everything we type, and just retype it in a shorthand that only you know how to read. When one of us wants to go back over something, we'll just ask you to repeat what was said. That's the rule. No reading back except through you or our own notes.

Because he was there on request to fight protesters, with a gun

Objection, "fight" is a loaded term. Who said anything about "fighting" protesters?

From the link Specter posted, the quote is:

" Later that day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed, Pierce says. The business owner said he needed help defending his business. "

I don't see anything about "fighting protesters" here.

So please revise your language to not use such loaded and inaccurate terms.

 

[lil devils x]

lel, some dude walks around a walmart with a shitty AR15 and I start yelling "active shooter get down".

Having the gun in Walmart at all anymore can get you shot by cops since they banned open carry there after the walmart massacre.
Google "walmart massacre" and you will know why that is no longer legal

 

[Iron]

Having the gun in Walmart at all anymore can get you shot by cops since they banned open carry there after the walmart massacre.
Google "walmart massacre" and you will know why that is no longer legal

That's why I picked that place...

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Okay, you'll take everything we type, and just retype it in a shorthand that only you know how to read. When one of us wants to go back over something, we'll just ask you to repeat what was said. That's the rule. No reading back except through you or our own notes.




Objection, "fight" is a loaded term. Who said anything about "fighting" protesters?

From the link Specter posted, the quote is:

" Later that day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed, Pierce says. The business owner said he needed help defending his business. "

I don't see anything about "fighting protesters" here.

So please revise your language to not use such loaded and inaccurate terms.

I refuse when "defending his business" involves arming someone with a rifle. And the prosecution is going to tar the defense over this if they try your defense, the prosecution is going to say he willfully went into a dangerous situation armed and ready to kill. And since he was armed and he did kill, an unarmed protester at that, the defense will be sweating hard.

 

[lil devils x]

You give a gun to a friend when you go out hunting, or when you're training. He didn't break the law for open-carry in that state. It doesn't exist. It's because of the hunting that goes on there.
You saw the video with the kid's interviews, he seemed harmless. He's getting his character assassinated by people who google state laws. The law will take care of him. I think that in the end he'd get off with nothing and then sue all of the people who shit-talked him for defamation. MAGA-hat kid got like 80 million from CNN.

You can't legally give a gun to a minor unless you are their parent or guardian regardless of if you think it is okay and BTW, you shouldn't be giving a gun to anyone unless you can verify their background because giving a gun to a convicted felon can get you into trouble as well.

It is contributing to the delinquency of a minor to give a kid who isn't yours beer as well, you can go to jail for giving kids that are not your own stuff that is illegal for them to have period. If you go buy a beer and give it to a kid who is not your own, you can go to jail. Giving them a gun is even WORSE.

You keep saying the "kid was harmless" . That is insane. The kid murdered people and you think he looked harmless. He actually looks just like that kid who burned down his ex gf house while I was growing up, ( well not the whole house, just her bedroom for the most part before they got the fire out) so Yea I am not seeing any reason to think the kid harmless from the same footage you are viewing when he has a loaded gun at a protest in a populated area... there is NOTHING harmless about that and people are dead because people think they can judge a book by it's cover. The cops should have ID'd him because he obviously looked young period. They failed to do their job by not carding him the first time they saw him there.

Harmless would have him running around with a super soaker filled with water only. That was not the case here.

I think this idea that there are just " good kids" and "bad kids" is a load of BS.. They are all good kids who have done bad things too.

 

[Houseman]

I refuse when "defending his business" involves arming someone with a rifle.

Cops are armed.
Security guards are armed.
Farmers are armed.

These men and women were armed.

Just because someone has a rifle, it doesn't mean that they're there to "fight" someone, otherwise all the people in these pictures should have also been arrested for "provoking a fight", whatever law that might be.

So again, please revise your language to not use such loaded and inaccurate terms.

the prosecution is going to say he willfully went into a dangerous situation armed and ready to kill.

If that's the entirety of their argument in regards to 2.c, without being able to prove provocation or intent, then I don't think the defense has anything to worry about.
Your only argument is "but he was there, and he was armed!"

He has to prove that they were intending grievous bodily harm, which is hard when the first person he killed was unarmed and he was.

Why do you think that cops will react with deadly force when someone goes after their gun?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You give a gun to a friend when you go out hunting, or when you're training. He didn't break the law for open-carry in that state. It doesn't exist. It's because of the hunting that goes on there.

Incorrect


(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

All the exceptions require very specific situations and an adult nearby.

Cops are armed.
Security guards are armed.
Farmers are armed.

These men and women were armed.

Just because someone has a rifle, it doesn't mean that they're there to "fight" someone.
So again, please revise your language to not use such loaded and inaccurate terms.

He's not a cop or a security guard, and a farmer would be just as culpable as him if said farmer went to a car dealership to "defend" it. So no, I will not change my language because the prosecution isn't, they're going to point out he was there to be violent.

If that's the entirety of their argument in regards to 2.c, without being able to prove provocation or intent, then I don't think the defense has anything to worry about.
Your only argument is "but he was there, and he was armed!"

Because that's provocation and intent.

Why do you think that cops will react with deadly force when someone goes after their gun?

The first person wasn't going for his gun.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Found a new video. The second one is the new one


It seems that what triggered the confrontation at the gas station was someone putting out a dumpster fire the rioters were trying to push into it. I'll reply to people later. I need to take a break from this and destress, maybe go hang out with chickens for a while.

 

[Trunkage]

There wouldn't have even been a thread about it, just like there haven't been threads about the 20+ others killed by "protesters"

I don't see anyone answering this so I'll take it.

It's becuase we don't defend this sort of behavior. You do. This lifesaver should go to jail along with all the '20+ protestors who killed people'.

Remember everyone at the start when I said he'd get away with it scott free with BS stuff that's made up. It's about to happen.

 

[lil devils x]

The first person wasn't going for his gun.

Yea, I keep hearing people say that he was going for his gun too, when they have already established "HE DIDN'T HAVE A GUN". The first person shot was unarmed. The shooter shot an unarmed man first. Then tried to tell people he didn't shoot anyone..