BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Feisar

Anyone that runs at someone with a gun wasn't going to live long anyway. That level of stupid can't.

It was dumb to rock up with a rifle and think that'd go down well. He should have done a bit of work on being a grey man in between the rifle classes. Once things went live he handled himself well, those people weren't running up to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

He seems a bit mentally "off". There's a twitter clip earlier on the thread before the shooting and he seemed to be about to instruct people to move back? Like who the hell do you think you are? Well the man with the gun I suppose.

Feisar

Cordell wrote: »

It's very hard to justify the self defense when you go somewhere where there might be trouble, and you do that by your own choice, and you bring a gun with the intent to use it.
Maybe his victims were scumbags, but he's one of those too.

Free country and all that, strong case to say he was entitled to be there (gun aside).

However what sort of clown invites that sort of trouble on themselves?

Frankie Machine

Deleted User wrote: »

I was going to say "this can't be true" but it checks out. The US is such a ****hole. Still doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered.

You're not the judge of that.

biko

Is it not poetic justice in that a person that uses the N-word ends up shot?

Cordell

Feisar wrote: »

Free country and all that, strong case to say he was entitled to be there (gun aside).

However what sort of clown invites that sort of trouble on themselves?

He was free to be anywhere, but a case can be made that he went there armed and with the intent to to use it. He brought a gun to a fist fight, which makes it very difficult to claim self defense.

weldoninhio

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And that exonerates him?

You claimed he was scared for his safety. The above shows that he was in no way, shape or form scared.

BattleCorp

Foxtrol wrote: »

Because they lead into each other.

If a group of people try to chase a person they see murdering someone the murderer doesn't get to claim 'self defense' to shoot all those people trying to stop him.

Back up there a bit. There's no proof at this stage that he murdered anybody. In fact there is witness testimony that he was being chased, cornered, had someone try grab his gun in the lead up to the first shootin so that would lead to a credible argument to be made that he acted in self-defence.

I'm not saying 100% that it was self-defence but certainly an argument can be made.

I guess a judge and jury will be able to decide that if it gets that far.

RasTa

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's not the way the law works. He doesn't lose his right to self-defence because he had a gun with him that he wasn't legally allowed to have.

Nope, as explained already

Broadstone Bob

Also anyone pushing this tragic incident as some sort of "white supremacy terrorist attack" should note that in the court papers the 17 year olds ethnicity is ....... Hispanic

Frankie Machine

Cordell wrote: »

He was free to be anywhere, but a case can be made that he went there armed and with the intent to to use it. He brought a gun to a fist fight, which makes it very difficult to claim self defense.

The intent may have been to use it - in self defence.

He knew who he was up against though. Convicted felons, armed 'paramedics'. Not a 'fist fight' at all, as you portray it.

Around and around it goes.

BattleCorp

RasTa wrote: »

Nope, as explained already

And I disagree with that explanation.

BattleCorp

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

Also anyone pushing this tragic incident as some sort of "white supremacy terrorist attack" should note that in the court papers the 17 year olds ethnicity is ....... Hispanic

He looks white as fcuk to me.

jam_mac_jam

BattleCorp wrote: »

He looks white as fcuk to me.

Hispanics can be white.

Overheal

shutup wrote: »

That doesn’t matter to the Murder versus self defence decision in the court case.
He could be charged with a separate gun carry offence if he broke that law by having the gun in the first place.

Self defense laws are rendered null if you are already engaged in a criminal act, which he was, by illegally possessing the weapon and carrying it illegally across the state line.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

Self defense laws are rendered null if you are already engaged in a criminal act, which he was, by illegally possessing the weapon and carrying it illegally across the state line.

Does it not depend on the level of criminality that Rittenhouse was engaged in? I doubt you'd lose your right to claim self-defence if someone attacked you just because you were parked on a double yellow line.

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

I actually hope he gets life times three.

Then a presidential pardon, just to see the absolute meltdown on the left.

They aren’t federal charges. No pardon is coming for him.

Broadstone Bob

BattleCorp wrote: »

He looks white as fcuk to me.

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1299083068083494912?s=20

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

AR-15 fires about 10 rounds per second, so sounds about right. One short pull of the trigger.

It’s semi automatic. It’s not a fully automatic.

Broadstone Bob

BattleCorp wrote: »

Does it not depend on the level of criminality that Rittenhouse was engaged in? I doubt you'd lose your right to claim self-defence if someone attacked you just because you were parked on a double yellow line.

Having the gun is a class A misdemeanour in Wisconsin. Not a big deal by the sounds of it.

JaCrispy

BattleCorp wrote: »

He looks white as fcuk to me.

Nice passive racism

Cupatae

Broadstone Bob wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1299083068083494912?s=20

Talk about an og by BLM lmao friendly fire!! Calm the hype train his not white his one of our own

They can't be racist about it now because they can't attack white people amazing how it wasn't just a shooter BLM scum had to bring color into absolute racists

1800_Ladladlad

Others spat at and antagonised walking from the convention. Listen to venom in these people BLM supporters and the constant use homophobic slurs.

https://twitter.com/BrandonStraka/status/1299223473009631232

BattleCorp

JaCrispy wrote: »

Nice passive racism

How is it racism to say he looks white? Unless of course it is a negative slur to say someone looks white?

Cupatae

He will be charged for carrying the gun that's about it his innocent of all other charges as it's completely self defense .

Sand

Cordell wrote: »

It's very hard to justify the self defense when you go somewhere where there might be trouble, and you do that by your own choice, and you bring a gun with the intent to use it.
Maybe his victims were scumbags, but he's one of those too.

No, hes a dumb kid/libertarian most likely.

Engaging in a criminal act affects your right to self defence, but it doesn't remove it and it can be fully regained if you retreat. From the state laws on self defence:

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(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,

So first point is the prosecution has to prove the crime was *likely* to provoke an attack and *did* provoke the attack. The crime in question here is the kid was 17 and crossed state lines. Even if that was accepted as reasonable provocation, the mob cant have known that so how does the prosecutor prove that was the provocation?

But even if that is somehow proven, there are exeptions:

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.

Even if proven, he still has a right to self defence if he reasonably believes he is imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape.

Given a gang of grown men were chasing him and he heard shots fired, that is a reasonable belief on his part.

939.48(2)(b)(b) 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.

And even if again, even if the court somehow rules it wasn't reasonable he still regains the right to self defence by running away from the fight. Which he clearly was doing.

So the kid is going to face total lawfare from the state, but if he has a reasonably good lawyer his self defence argument will stand and exonerate him.

Retr0gamer

weldoninhio wrote: »

You claimed he was scared for his safety. The above shows that he was in no way, shape or form scared.

No it doesn't. People react differently when scared.

LessOutragePlz

Great breakdown of what happened and how certain media outlets are pushing a certain narrative of what happened similar to the narrative that a number of posters are trying to push on this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFQP6dTZG3k

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's not the way the law works. He doesn't lose his right to self-defence because he had a gun with him that he wasn't legally allowed to have.

Actually that’s probably exactly how it works under the relevant statute. In SC for example I recall looking up the knife laws because we were having that discussion: I can legally carry a knife for self defense, it’s a protected action under the state law. However that same law also clearly stipulates that the right to do so completely goes out the window with the bath water if I am engaged in any sort of criminal activity.

Overheal

Foxtrol wrote: »

Looks like the kid never had a chance. What utter terrible parenting and if it was a black or brown kid this picture would be all over the media

https://twitter.com/NotHoodlum/status/1298697814449573888?s=20

If this was a photo of a brown child the right wing would be apoplectic.

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

If this was a photo of a brown child the right wing would be apoplectic.

If it was a brown kid it wouldn't even be news, like every other week in Chicago.