|
Ovoidhunter
Buttery Crescent



Registered: 09/17/16
Posts: 2,016
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Kryptos]
#26904809 - 08/28/20 07:09 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Wether he legally owned it or not he still used it appropriately for self defense. Could of gotten killed if they got his gun.
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,201
Last seen: 9 minutes, 15 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Ovoidhunter]
#26904811 - 08/28/20 07:11 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ovoidhunter said: Wether he legally owned it or not he still used it appropriately for self defense. Could of gotten killed if they got his gun.
Lol yeah. That was a close one.
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: christopera]
#26904815 - 08/28/20 07:14 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Have you seen my baseball?
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
mycosis


Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 19,727
Loc: USSA
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Kryptos]
#26904835 - 08/28/20 07:32 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: Eh, it's illegal to give a 'tard a gun, and it's illegal for a 'tard to have a gun.
Might be worth mentioning at trial.
|
Seriously_trippin
Cosmic Guru Ganesh



Registered: 07/12/13
Posts: 14,471
Last seen: 39 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Ovoidhunter] 1
#26904907 - 08/28/20 08:22 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ovoidhunter said: Wether he legally owned it or not he still used it appropriately for self defense. Could of gotten killed if they got his gun.
No one would've died if he didn't bring his gun, if he'd didn't go there looking for trouble it wouldve just been property damage not 2 deaths and 1 injured. He wouldn't have had to defend himself if you didn't shoot someone in the head. Normally when domestic terrorist kill American citizens the people trying to bring down the shooter are hailed as Heroes. Hypocrisy at its finest
-------------------- R.I.P Zombi3, Blue Helix Modest Mouse Zappa Slothie That Kid With The face ShLong Le Canard split_by_nine & Big Worm Forever Etched in the sands of time in the shroomery and ever so beloved and deeply missed by many
|
CHeifM4sterDiezL
Chief Globerts


Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 22,535
Loc: United States
Last seen: 2 minutes, 2 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: koods]
#26904909 - 08/28/20 08:23 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said: What felont did he intend to commit? Wheres any evidence of that? BTW koods interpretation of what the riot thing is horseshit. Wisconsin law u can use force or threat of force to protect a 3rd party business property.
Kyle didn’t have the legal right to even be on the streets of Kenosha. That’s what a curfew means. The curfew exists because of rioting. Kyle intended to go to Kenosha, where there was rioting to protect property from rioters. That is clearly intent to participate in a riot. It’s pretty clear cut.
I can’t believe people are more outraged by rioters looting and burning then they are by a rioter murdering two people - and desperately grasping for a rationale to justify the actions of the murderer. America has some seriously fucked up values.
Flip flop flip flop tell us again flakey flop tell us gain how curfew totally aside shit transpired. Those other people were out against curfew too mother fucker now where are we?
|
CHeifM4sterDiezL
Chief Globerts


Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 22,535
Loc: United States
Last seen: 2 minutes, 2 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26904916 - 08/28/20 08:26 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: He became AN ACTUAL RIOTER the moment he raised his weapon and pointed it at someone.
IF what koods said is correct. I don't believe everything koods says is true based on his history. 
I didnt base my comment on anything koods said. A riot is an event of violent mayhem.
Rioting is carrying on said mayhem. Pretty sure pointing a loaded rifle at someone constitutes carrying on violent mayhem. He was merely participating in a unlawful assembly deemed a riot until that moment in which he himself began rioting. This is pretty easy to understand and I explained it in either this thread or another many pages back.
Showing up to a riot armed with intent to possibly use your weapon most certaintly constitutes participation. Actually using said weapon is full blown rioting if it incites more violence, which it did.
Thats simply a threat of violence to protect property thats all it was until the attack in which witnesses have claimed the barrel was grabbed after being chased and then mysterious pops he turned from his gate screamed fuck you and was met by an attacker closing rapidly and by witnesses statement had hand grabbing barrel when a rapid succession of fatal shots were fired.
Edited by CHeifM4sterDiezL (08/28/20 08:28 PM)
|
CHeifM4sterDiezL
Chief Globerts


Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 22,535
Loc: United States
Last seen: 2 minutes, 2 seconds
|
|
From there all hell broke lose
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: illuminati] 1
#26904932 - 08/28/20 08:32 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
illuminati said:
Quote:
koods said:
These are federal laws. The crossing of state lines is how the feds get involved.
One clear cut violation of federal law is transporting a weapon across state lines while being a fugitive of justice.
I think you guys are missing my point. The person I was originally replying to phrased their statement in such a way that it appeared they believe it's simply illegal to cross state lines with a weapon.
This is what was said:
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I sure think this kid is guilty, but what felonies do you think he committed with those actions? If we can prove he went to "participate in a riot", sure there's probably something there, but there's nothing felonious about crossing state lines with a rifle.
LOL, dude you have to agree with them on EVERYTHING or you're not an honest debater. Don't you know??
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: koods] 1
#26904935 - 08/28/20 08:34 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: It is not illegal to transport weapons across state lines for lawful purposes. Participating in a riot is not a lawful purpose.
Oh NOW the conflating comes out. This entire time you should have said that, because you got me thinking something completely different with your half truth.
So you're saying the possession of the firearm across a border only becomes illegal with the INTENT to RIOT?
HA!
Quote:
He admitted his intent to participate in a riot.
Quote or make believe.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/28/20 08:34 PM)
|
CHeifM4sterDiezL
Chief Globerts


Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 22,535
Loc: United States
Last seen: 2 minutes, 2 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Vahn421]
#26904940 - 08/28/20 08:37 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
proving intent is especially tricky especially when the kid is seen scrubbing off graffiti and saying how he's there to provide medical aid and only had the rifle for personal defense
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26904941 - 08/28/20 08:37 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said: Wisconsin law u can use force or threat of force to protect a 3rd party business property.
This is true but it doesn't grant the ability to use lethal force in protection of property; and this privilege is only extended to protecting your property, or the property of an immediate family member or employer.
Relevant passage:
Quote:
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48
By the time Kyle shot, he was protecting his LIFE, not property. The property stuff all faded away the moment a man charged him yelling, "FUCK YOU!"
I don't understand why we're having a conversation about property in the first place.
EDIT: Shiva, as an anarchist, how do you feel about law? You quote it a lot so I am curious.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/28/20 08:39 PM)
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said: proving intent is especially tricky especially when the kid is seen scrubbing off graffiti and saying how he's there to provide medical aid and only had the rifle for personal defense
I agree. And as I said, Kyle never shot anyone to defend property. He shot to defend his life from a charging psycho who though rushing someone wielding a gun was a good idea.
Darwinism just doing it's thing, in my opinion. One less gas station attendant in the world. We didn't lose a cancer cure, I promise.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/28/20 08:41 PM)
|
CHeifM4sterDiezL
Chief Globerts


Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 22,535
Loc: United States
Last seen: 2 minutes, 2 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Vahn421]
#26904951 - 08/28/20 08:44 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
its important to not be petty and mean but stand by the truth and the rule of law. Its about integrity and trust.
|
Seriously_trippin
Cosmic Guru Ganesh



Registered: 07/12/13
Posts: 14,471
Last seen: 39 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Vahn421]
#26904953 - 08/28/20 08:44 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vahn421 said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said: Wisconsin law u can use force or threat of force to protect a 3rd party business property.
This is true but it doesn't grant the ability to use lethal force in protection of property; and this privilege is only extended to protecting your property, or the property of an immediate family member or employer.
Relevant passage:
Quote:
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48
By the time Kyle shot, he was protecting his LIFE, not property. The property stuff all faded away the moment a man charged him yelling, "FUCK YOU!"
I don't understand why we're having a conversation about property in the first place.
EDIT: Shiva, as an anarchist, how do you feel about law? You quote it a lot so I am curious.
Where is any evidence saying he didn't shoot first? The police certainly don't agree with you.
-------------------- R.I.P Zombi3, Blue Helix Modest Mouse Zappa Slothie That Kid With The face ShLong Le Canard split_by_nine & Big Worm Forever Etched in the sands of time in the shroomery and ever so beloved and deeply missed by many
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: koods]
#26904955 - 08/28/20 08:45 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
koods said: You think you can rob a bank and if someone tries to stop you with deadly force you have a right to kill them? Kyle was willfully participating in a riot.
To be more accurate, he was defending private property from the rioters. I don't know if that makes him a 'willful participant in the riot' legally.
Chief made the point that under "Wisconsin law u can use force or threat of force to protect a 3rd party business property."
Shivas was then correct in stating that you can't lethal force to protect property, but chief's counter point to that was that he used lethal force not to protect the property, but to protect himself.
I'm not saying Kyle was right, I'm just saying I understand both sides.
I also made the point that, under Wisconsin law, the privilege to protect property only extends to your property, the property of your immediate family, or the business property of your employer. If Kyle's initial justification to be present that night was the protection of property, his presence would not be considered lawful.
If his presence was not lawful, the privilege to claim lethal force in self-defense requires that 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. I'm not sure if 'stopping in a parking lot after running for a few seconds' would constitute 'every other reasonable means to escape'.
Considering he left the scene after shooting three people without any problem tells you there was no impediment for him getting out of harms way. In this case, that means leaving the scene of a riot.
He was assaulted first by a charging man, then a man hit him with a skateboard and smacked him with it, then another man had a handgun. These are the people that attacked Kyle and these are the people Kyle shot.
When a man is charging you, you don't have time to analyze and ask, "is there any other way I can get out of this?"
No. You fuckin' shoot.
--------------------
|
CHeifM4sterDiezL
Chief Globerts


Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 22,535
Loc: United States
Last seen: 2 minutes, 2 seconds
|
|
Most importantly now adays admitting when ur wrong like a big boy (koods)
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 55 minutes
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Vahn421]
#26904959 - 08/28/20 08:47 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Defending property, according to Kyle's statement in his video interview, was his initial reason to be present that night. It was part of answering the question of whether Kyle's conduct that night was lawful or not. Unlawful conduct has a higher requirement before lethal force is justified; particularly requiring that the person has first exhausted every other reasonable means to escape.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said: its important to not be petty and mean but stand by the truth and the rule of law. Its about integrity and trust.
Don't take my shadow side on an online forum seriously, I revel in dark comedy when I know it's going to freak someone else out.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/28/20 08:48 PM)
|
CHeifM4sterDiezL
Chief Globerts


Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 22,535
Loc: United States
Last seen: 2 minutes, 2 seconds
|
|
OK so do people not get that cops can't just come out and confirm this that and the third on twidder 90 seconds after it happens? Its all legal af shit. Have u ever thought hey maybe it takes more time than that to conduct and polish and confirm 1000% wtf is going on v4 innocent ppl go to jail? Not only that but im mean hello have u ever heard of tryimg to not influence a jury? In this political climate? Do u want the guy to walk? Do u want justice? Or do u want the world to fit ur own view distpite maybe what actually happened?
|
|