|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
|
An adult can transfer any rifle across state lines if their intention is not to use it in pursuit of a crime.
Kyle was a minor and he was doing it in pursuit of committing a felony.
The gun is not the issue, the person wielding the gun and their intentions for its use are the issue.
--------------------
|
CHeifM4sterDiezL
Chief Globerts


Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 22,656
Loc: United States
Last seen: 3 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: natedawgnow] 1
#26904499 - 08/28/20 03:46 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 12 hours, 25 minutes
|
|
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
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,333
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 46 minutes, 30 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: psi]
#26904531 - 08/28/20 04:08 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psi said: What type of offense is it to break the curfew there? A misdemeanor? Something less severe like a ticket?
The curfew itself isn’t a big deal criminally but it does change how any crimes committed during the curfew can be prosecuted. A curfew takes away a citizens right to be on the street. It gets much harder to claim self defense when you are not legally present.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
CHeifM4sterDiezL
Chief Globerts


Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 22,656
Loc: United States
Last seen: 3 minutes, 36 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#26904542 - 08/28/20 04:17 PM (3 years, 5 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
Yah but he was attacked
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,333
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 46 minutes, 30 seconds
|
|
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.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (08/28/20 04:21 PM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,333
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 46 minutes, 30 seconds
|
|
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said: No it fucking doesn't koods and you know it. Thats the horseshit they've used for years Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
psi said: You have lumped a few things together here (as in your original post you quoted). What specifically would be the charge that his crossing state lines with the rifle is relevant to, if any?
Crossing state lines with a rifle is only legal if you may legally possess the rifle on both sides of the state line. Since it was illegal for him to possess his gun in at least one of the states, this opens him up to gun trafficking charges.
No there wouldn't be any evidence or any case at all for that. Ur also allowed to pass thru other states traveling with the guns are u serious. You other post over that is not how those laws work either.
YOU CANNOT CROSS STATES LINES WITH A GUN WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME OR WHILE COMMITTING A CRIME!
When he went home he was a fugitive. It’s really not debatable.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,330
Last seen: 1 hour, 18 minutes
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: koods]
#26904566 - 08/28/20 04:30 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: America has some seriously fucked up values.
I started paying more and more attention to traffic recently. See, driving in Russia is a bit of a free-for-all. Sure, there are laws, and most people follow them, but there are some that will blatantly violate traffic laws because they can get away with it. It's not India level.
On the other hand, when I went on a trip to Germany a while back, I remember seeing two lanes zipper merge quickly and quietly. One car each.
Lately, whenever there's two lanes going into one, I see people pass the "Right lane closed ahead" sign, merge into the right lane, floor it, and try to pass a bunch of cars to sneak in ahead at the merge.
America is becoming less and less a society lately. It's a group of individuals. Not a community. I see it in my own behavior as well. Everybody thinks they'll win.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 12 hours, 25 minutes
|
|
Quote:
CHeifM4sterDiezL said: Yah but he was attacked
That's why my other posts are attempts to interpret Wisconsin self-defence law - but you said that Wisconsin law allows use of force to protect a 3rd party business property. I'm explaining to you that your understanding of the law is incorrect, and clearly wouldn't apply to Kyle.
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,333
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 46 minutes, 30 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26904580 - 08/28/20 04:36 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
He also doesn’t understand that your legal right to defend yourself from an attack starts to vanish when you aren’t supposed to be where you are (curfew) and when you willfully put yourself into a dangerous situation (driving to a riot)
He was charged with 1st degree intentional homicide for a reason: it is legally appropriate
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Yellow Pants



Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: koods] 1
#26904593 - 08/28/20 04:46 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Fwiw I disagree with the law there. His killings are either in self defense or they are not. His self committed a crime possessing the gun, passing state lines, and going to a riot. That's the crime. Yet the situation arises where a violent person is attacking him. His kill shot is self defense whether its layered with a justifiable context or not. Because if him killing the guy charging him isn't self defense then the guy charging him has grounds to kill Kyle. But of course that isn't the case. Kyle can still be murdered at the scene of the riot despite him breaking the law to be there. Likewise, he can still act in self defense.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,333
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 46 minutes, 30 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Kryptos] 2
#26904596 - 08/28/20 04:49 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
Quote:
koods said: America has some seriously fucked up values.
I started paying more and more attention to traffic recently. See, driving in Russia is a bit of a free-for-all. Sure, there are laws, and most people follow them, but there are some that will blatantly violate traffic laws because they can get away with it. It's not India level.
On the other hand, when I went on a trip to Germany a while back, I remember seeing two lanes zipper merge quickly and quietly. One car each.
Lately, whenever there's two lanes going into one, I see people pass the "Right lane closed ahead" sign, merge into the right lane, floor it, and try to pass a bunch of cars to sneak in ahead at the merge.
America is becoming less and less a society lately. It's a group of individuals. Not a community. I see it in my own behavior as well. Everybody thinks they'll win.
What Americans believe is an acceptable reason to kill another person is morally bankrupt. To defend property? It’s sick. Our culture is absolute garbage. The rest of the world thinks we’re a bunch of savages.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,333
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 46 minutes, 30 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Yellow Pants]
#26904605 - 08/28/20 04:53 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said: Fwiw I disagree with the law there. His killings are either in self defense or they are not. His self committed a crime possessing the gun, passing state lines, and going to a riot. That's the crime. Yet the situation arises where a violent person is attacking him. His kill shot is self defense whether its layered with a justifiable context or not. Because if him killing the guy charging him isn't self defense then the guy charging him has grounds to kill Kyle. But of course that isn't the case. Kyle can still be murdered at the scene of the riot despite him breaking the law to be there. Likewise, he can still act in self defense.
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. This is a crime with a reasonable expectation that violence could happen. The way you defend yourself in that situation is not going to a riot.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Seriously_trippin
Cosmic Guru Ganesh



Registered: 07/12/13
Posts: 14,536
Last seen: 34 minutes, 49 seconds
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Yellow Pants]
#26904622 - 08/28/20 05:07 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said: Fwiw I disagree with the law there. His killings are either in self defense or they are not. His self committed a crime possessing the gun, passing state lines, and going to a riot. That's the crime. Yet the situation arises where a violent person is attacking him. His kill shot is self defense whether its layered with a justifiable context or not. Because if him killing the guy charging him isn't self defense then the guy charging him has grounds to kill Kyle. But of course that isn't the case. Kyle can still be murdered at the scene of the riot despite him breaking the law to be there. Likewise, he can still act in self defense.
There's just no proof that he was attacked first. He went in shot someone in the head and then he was an active shooter and needed to be "attacked" to subdue him on the ground. The cameras started rolling after he shot someone in the head. The police thinks it's murder enough to charge him with 2 counts of murder and injuring another with a smattery of other felony charges. Do you only support the police when they come out with findings that vindicate your agenda?
-------------------- 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
|
Yellow Pants



Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: koods]
#26904634 - 08/28/20 05:12 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Yellow Pants said: Fwiw I disagree with the law there. His killings are either in self defense or they are not. His self committed a crime possessing the gun, passing state lines, and going to a riot. That's the crime. Yet the situation arises where a violent person is attacking him. His kill shot is self defense whether its layered with a justifiable context or not. Because if him killing the guy charging him isn't self defense then the guy charging him has grounds to kill Kyle. But of course that isn't the case. Kyle can still be murdered at the scene of the riot despite him breaking the law to be there. Likewise, he can still act in self defense.
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. This is a crime with a reasonable expectation that violence could happen. The way you defend yourself in that situation is not going to a riot.
How are the rioters in this case the noble civil servant trying to stop a grand theft (Kyle) ? I think you are mixing roles here perhaps.
And what grounds do the rioters have ? I don't see any reason to give them the moral leverage. Which is why a killing in this instance be judged in itself.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: koods] 1
#26904639 - 08/28/20 05:13 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
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 am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
|
He was obviously a willing participant in a riot.
Again, for the 10th time, participating in a riot does not mean he was rioting, at first at least.
It doesnt matter if he was there to riot or not, it was deemed a riot and he showed up knowing it would be a riot to be a counter protester. He participated. This is fact. It doesnt matter which team youre on, both teams are still participating.
He became AN ACTUAL RIOTER the moment he raised his weapon and pointed it at someone.
--------------------
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,330
Last seen: 1 hour, 18 minutes
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Yellow Pants]
#26904662 - 08/28/20 05:27 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Yellow Pants said: Fwiw I disagree with the law there. His killings are either in self defense or they are not. His self committed a crime possessing the gun, passing state lines, and going to a riot. That's the crime. Yet the situation arises where a violent person is attacking him. His kill shot is self defense whether its layered with a justifiable context or not. Because if him killing the guy charging him isn't self defense then the guy charging him has grounds to kill Kyle. But of course that isn't the case. Kyle can still be murdered at the scene of the riot despite him breaking the law to be there. Likewise, he can still act in self defense.
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. This is a crime with a reasonable expectation that violence could happen. The way you defend yourself in that situation is not going to a riot.
How are the rioters in this case the noble civil servant trying to stop a grand theft (Kyle) ? I think you are mixing roles here perhaps.
And what grounds do the rioters have ? I don't see any reason to give them the moral leverage. Which is why a killing in this instance be judged in itself.
Let's say you scratch my car. So I bust into your house with a gun. You point a gun at me. I shoot you in self defense.
Under your logic, I should have the right to self defense, and your grieving family should not judge me for that.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 12 hours, 25 minutes
|
|
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'.
--------------------
|
Yellow Pants



Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Kryptos]
#26904677 - 08/28/20 05:39 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said: Let's say you scratch my car. So I bust into your house with a gun. You point a gun at me. I shoot you in self defense.
Under your logic, I should have the right to self defense, and your grieving family should not judge me for that.
No, because it's not Kyle's property. I am not scratching your car. I am scratching your ex-girlfriends car whom you still care about. And you are not busting into my house because I (rioters) do not own the place where I am living. I THEN proceed to point a gun at you where you kill me in self defense. Under this logic I give you the right to kill me.
|
|