2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Quin_Dub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the rifle was owned and registered in the state, it didn't cross state lines,

the hunting rule , for the 5th time is the intention, not the text, the text just clarifies it has to be a rifle or a shotgun of a certain length, which it was. Posters are now intentionally misrepresenting me to be obtuse.

The gun didn't cross state lines, as it was a rifle over 16" barrel it was legal to be loaned to Kyle as he was over 16, he had police cadet firearms training and was there to defend a building which covers the first shooting under castle laws.

the second two shootings are the ones open to debate.

No , no it doesn't.

Castle Doctrine does not apply here - It's not his property and the shooting occurred in a public area.

If he had been inside the building , then maybe - He wasn't, he was on the street out in front.


Here are details on the Castle Doctrine in Wisconsin

Wisconsin does not have a "Stand your ground" law either , but it does have laws around the "Duty to Retreat"

Duty to Retreat in Wisconsin – Provocation
While there is no specific statute addressing stand your ground, a few court cases have addressed whether individuals have a duty to retreat in Wisconsin. The general rule is that there is no affirmative duty to retreat, unless the individual provoked the confrontation. This general rule mirrors the self-defense statute. Let’s assume the individual provoked the attack. He is generally cannot claim self-defense. The only exception is when he believes he exhausted all other means of escape from the death or great bodily harm.

For example, in Wisconsin, you started a fight. Shooter pulls out a gun in response to your physical and verbal actions. Again, you started the fight. Because of that, you must have a duty to retreat because you provoked the confrontation.

Duty to Retreat in Wisconsin – No Provocation
When the individual did not provoke the confrontation, the feasibility of retreat from the assailant is handled as an aspect of the general self-defense statute – specifically, whether the individual reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. A jury will be instructed to consider whether the individual had the opportunity to retreat, whether the opportunity was feasible, and whether the individual knew of the opportunity to retreat.

Upon a satisfaction of the statutory requirements, courts should instruct juries that there is no duty to retreat. The jury will be instructed to not consider evidence relating to whether the individual had an opportunity to flee or retreat.

So the self-defence argument might come down to "who started it"

duploelabs

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

"Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html

I've worked many a summer as a lifeguard, never have I ever needed a rifle for my work

namloc1980

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

"Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html

Did you read the article?

1. It says: Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst. A YMCA spokeswoman told the Tribune that Rittenhouse was a part-time employee who has been furloughed since March because of the pandemic.

Uh oh. He hasn't worked there since March. Someone is telling lies.

2. Even better the YMCA is in Lindenhurst. Lindenhurst YMCA is in ILLINOIS. Not Wisconsin. https://g.page/HastingsLakeYMCA?share

Double uh-oh.

LessOutragePlz

Leroy42 wrote: »

BLM would say that they are defending themselves against the aggression of the state. You see how easy it is to justify whatever position if you try hard enough.

There is no justification for him going to that, there was no justification of him bringing gun. Self-defence is fine when you find yourself in a situation. Knowingly going into said situation, and bringing a gun because he was well aware of the risks, cannot be classed as self-defence.

under that logic pretty much any murder can be excused.

BLM saying it doesn't make it true though.

He was 100% justified in the actions he took that night as he was in fear for his life from the violent mob that was attacking him and chasing him down the street.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Leroy42

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

"Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html

Where is Sunbaran Lindenhurst in comparison to Kenosha?

ohnonotgmail

duploelabs wrote: »

I've worked many a summer as a lifeguard, never have I ever needed a rifle for my work

not even for the people who pee in the pool?

duploelabs

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

BLM saying it doesn't make it true though.

He was 100% justified in the actions he took that night as he was in fear for his life from the violent mob that was attacking him and chasing him down the street.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

As QuinDud says, there's no castle doctrine in Wisconsin https://milwaukee-criminal-lawyer.com/castle-doctrine-vs-stand-your-ground/ so his actions were illegal

Carfacemandog

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

"Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html

Beyond the fact that that appears to be a pool/beach lifeguard at said YMCA who hasn't worked for them in about half a year (and who have also said they abhor the violence, support equality and protest, and offer their condolences to the families), and not a "community lifeguard", you're Lindenhurst is in another city and an entirely different state to Kenosha (Illinois).

You said "he was in Kenosha to work" as a "community lifeguard". Given that the YMCA of Lindenhurst, Illinois has no jurisdiction to unleash its swimming pool lifeguards on other cities in other states strapped with AR15s, nor from their statement would they ever even wish to, who was employing him, at the age of 17, to be heavily armed in Kenosha, Wisconsin that had the authority to do so (e.g. City, state, federal bodies)?

Leroy42

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

BLM saying it doesn't make it true though.

He was 100% justified in the actions he took that night as he was in fear for his life from the violent mob that was attacking him and chasing him down the street.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Totally agree. But neither does.you claiming he was at work, or defending himself or any other claim you can think of.

You are spectacularly missing the point. The very claims you are making in defence of this guy can just as easily be used for pretty much anyone else. BLM or whatever.

But you don't think it applies to BLM, so you're entire position falls apart.

I could take it seriously if you applied it across the board, but you are not. You want to defend him and will find some excuse to do it. On the other hand, BLM or other protestors are wrong and as such deserve no benefit of the doubt.

duploelabs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not even for the people who pee in the pool?

Only the (dive) bombers

LessOutragePlz

Leroy42 wrote: »

Totally agree. But neither does.you claiming he was at work, or defending himself or any other claim you can think of.

You are spectacularly missing the point. The very claims you are making in defence of this guy can just as easily be used for pretty much anyone else. BLM or whatever.

But you don't think it applies to BLM, so you're entire position falls apart.

I could take it seriously if you applied it across the board, but you are not. You want to defend him and will find some excuse to do it. On the other hand, BLM or other protestors are wrong and as such deserve no benefit of the doubt.

It's the exact same as you and a bunch of other posters claiming he was a murderous vigilant that went out to murder some protesters.

You have no evidence or proof to back up those claims it's pure speculation just as I am speculating that he acted in self defense.

So for you to call me out on that is the pot calling the kettle black.

LessOutragePlz

namloc1980 wrote: »

Did you read the article?

1. It says: Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst. A YMCA spokeswoman told the Tribune that Rittenhouse was a part-time employee who has been furloughed since March because of the pandemic.

Uh oh. He hasn't worked there since March. Someone is telling lies.

2. Even better the YMCA is in Lindenhurst. Lindenhurst YMCA is in ILLINOIS. Not Wisconsin. https://g.page/HastingsLakeYMCA?share

Double uh-oh.

Ask his lawyer he was the one that released the statement saying he was working as a community lifeguard in Kenosha that day.

namloc1980

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Ask his lawyer he was the one that released the statement saying he was working as a community lifeguard in Kenosha that day.

But you ran with it as a valid excuse for his presence in Kenosha on that day. Thanks to the link you provided we now know that he hasn't even been working as a lifeguard since March and that his job was actually in Illinois. It blows away your argument that he had reason to be there and wasn't just looking for trouble. So any other excuses as to why he was in Kenosha?

Leroy42

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

It's the exact same as you and a bunch of other posters claiming he was a murderous vigilant that went out to murder some protesters.

You have no evidence or proof to back up those claims it's pure speculation just as I am speculating that he acted in self defense.

So for you to call me out on that is the pot calling the kettle black.

The key difference is we know that he went there armed.

We know he had no 'business' there. He wasn't law enforced or anything, it was his decision.

We know he shot and killed two people.

I have no idea what the legal outcome will be, that is for the courts to decide. But you want to, for some reason, side with him and look for reasons that he should be not treated as a person who killed others.

Again, as I have already stated, that is a perfectly fine position to take, if one takes that view across the board. But you don't. You do not take the same approach to protestors.

As with everything to do with Trump supporters, it is the hypocrisy that you are being called out on, not your position.

LessOutragePlz

namloc1980 wrote: »

But you ran with it as a valid excuse for his presence in Kenosha on that day. Thanks to the link you provided we now know that he hasn't even been working as a lifeguard since March and that his job was actually in Illinois. It blows away your argument that he had reason to be there and wasn't just looking for trouble. So any other excuses as to why he was in Kenosha?

"After Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha"

He was working as a lifeguard in Kenosha, can people not have 2 jobs anymore is that now a crime too?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kyle-rittenhouses-lawyers-release-statement/

Quin_Dub

ANYWAY - Back to the Election.

Latest polls show Biden increasing his lead in Wisconsin

The 538 polling average nows sits at Biden 49.8% , Trump 43.5% - Giving a 6.3% lead.

On August 25th the lead was at 5.9%

The latest Morning Consult poll gives Biden a 9 point lead , up from a 6 point lead in their previous poll taken on August 16th.

He's also held on to his leads in the other states , including a fairly large increase in Arizona


This shows the comparisons to 2016 in terms of the state of play. Huge difference in the "undecided" category.

4X fewer undecided voters and the Biden lead is nearly 3X the Clinton one.




** Apologies for the size of the images , couldn't find smaller ones.

namloc1980

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

"After Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha"

He was working as a lifeguard in Kenosha, can people not have 2 jobs anymore is that now a crime too?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kyle-rittenhouses-lawyers-release-statement/

Where was he working? "Community lifeguard" doesn't pass the sniff test but it should be easy to confirm right? Any links.

LessOutragePlz

Leroy42 wrote: »

The key difference is we know that he went there armed.

We know he had no 'business' there. He wasn't law enforced or anything, it was his decision.

We know he shot and killed two people.

I have no idea what the legal outcome will be, that is for the courts to decide. But you want to, for some reason, side with him and look for reasons that he should be not treated as a person who killed others.

Again, as I have already stated, that is a perfectly fine position to take, if one takes that view across the board. But you don't. You do not take the same approach to protestors.

As with everything to do with Trump supporters, it is the hypocrisy that you are being called out on, not your position.

Show me I said that:

he should be not treated as a person who killed others

He acted in self defense so yeah he did kill two people in self defense.

He did have a legitimate and genuine reason to be there as he was defending a business owners property.

LessOutragePlz

namloc1980 wrote: »

Where was he working? "Community lifeguard" doesn't pass the sniff test but it should be easy to confirm right? Any links.

How would it be easy to confirm every single persons work history isn't going to be available online especially when his is a minor.

Carfacemandog

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Because he was in Kenosha to work not to cause trouble.

It really does show up the lie that is Trump supporters and right wing media claiming Trump is rallying back in the polls over the protests, and Biden is only denouncing the violence because of this (which itself ignores the fact that Biden has denounced the violence on multiple occasions over the last several months).

namloc1980

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

How would it be easy to confirm every single persons work history isn't going to be available online especially when his is a minor.

Typical strawman response. We're not talking about "every single persons work history" quite clearly. We're talking about the guy charged with first degree intentional homicide - the same guy that you are going to extraordinary lengths to defend. I understand you're link to prove he was working as a lifeguard on that day backfired spectacularly, but no need to get defensive. If you can't show that he actually was working on that day in Kenosha then don't use it as an excuse for his presence there.

Quin_Dub

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Show me I said that:

he should be not treated as a person who killed others

He acted in self defense so yeah he did kill two people in self defense.

He did have a legitimate and genuine reason to be there as he was defending a business owners property.

Was he in the employ of a specific "Business owner" or was he simply wandering the streets with a gun (which he may or may not have been legally allowed to do)?

I'm not sure that "I saw a lad on Facebook asking for help" would count in a court of law as a "legitimate and genuine reason" to be patrolling the street with a weapon.

hotmail.com

Carfacemandog wrote: »

It really does show up the lie that is Trump supporters and right wing media claiming Trump is rallying back in the polls over the protests, and Biden is only denouncing the violence because of this (which itself ignores the fact that Biden has denounced the violence on multiple occasions over the last several months).

Not one person will have their vote influenced by these protests.

These will be forgotten if Biden gets in, as those that identify as liberals, just want to blame everything on Republicans.

LessOutragePlz

namloc1980 wrote: »

Typical strawman response. We're not talking about "every single persons work history" quite clearly. We're talking about the guy charged with first degree intentional homicide - the same guy that you are going to extraordinary lengths to defend. I understand you're link to prove he was working as a lifeguard on that day backfired spectacularly, but no need to get defensive. If you can't show that he actually was working on that day in Kenosha then don't use it as an excuse for his presence there.

I haven't gone to extraordinary lengths to defend him, pretty ironic you saying that when you and other posters have to gone to extraordinary lengths to paint him as a murderous vigilant. I've merely stated that I believe that he acted in self defense.

There's no way of proving that he wasn't working as a community lifeguard that day so I'll be taking his lawyers word for it unless proof comes out that he hasn't working as a community lifeguard that day.

duploelabs

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I haven't gone to extraordinary lengths to defend him, pretty ironic you saying that when you and other posters have to gone to extraordinary lengths to paint him as a murderous vigilant. I've merely stated that I believe that he acted in self defense.

There's no way of proving that he wasn't working as a community lifeguard that day so I'll be taking his lawyers word for it unless proof comes out that he hasn't working as a community lifeguard that day.

Does the role of community lifeguard enable someone to be armed?

LessOutragePlz

duploelabs wrote: »

Does the role of community lifeguard enable someone to be armed?

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

duploelabs

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

So he wasn't legally able to carry a firearm and there's no laws in Wisconsin for someone to be able to 'defend their castle', he was acting illegally. Grand, good to clear that up

weisses

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

It requires the national guard ... Not a teenager who watched his first Rambo movie

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but defending a business owners property would certainly require someone to be armed due to the violent mobs that were roaming the streets that night.

Isn't that why you have .police force? In fact they were there at the time doing exactly that when Rittenhouse murdered two people.

weisses

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I haven't gone to extraordinary lengths to defend him, pretty ironic you saying that when you and other posters have to gone to extraordinary lengths to paint him as a murderous vigilant. I've merely stated that I believe that he acted in self defense.

I believe he shot people who carried out a citizens arrest