|
psi
TOAST N' JAM


Registered: 09/05/99
Posts: 31,458
Loc: 613
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26904679 - 08/28/20 05:40 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
He kept claiming it was his "job" to do xyz, would be an interesting twist if he literally was employed to defend the family friend's property. Though not a likely one I think. And it's not like any of the action happened there anyway.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 12 hours, 25 minutes
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: psi]
#26904696 - 08/28/20 05:51 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psi said: He kept claiming it was his "job" to do xyz, would be an interesting twist if he literally was employed to defend the family friend's property. Though not a likely one I think. And it's not like any of the action happened there anyway.
An outlier but definitely a possibility I considered. But yeah, then he decided to go walking down the street for reasons still unclear.
--------------------
|
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: shivas.wisdom]
#26904701 - 08/28/20 05:54 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: 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'.
Fair enough.
-------------------- 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.
|
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: natedawgnow]
#26904704 - 08/28/20 05:55 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
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 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.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 12 hours, 25 minutes
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Yellow Pants]
#26904709 - 08/28/20 05:57 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
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.
This is my understanding of Wisconsin law:
Unlawful conduct causes a person to lose the privilege of self-defence; unless threatened with imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to use lethal force in self-defense only if the person reasonably believes they have exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm first.
--------------------
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,270
Last seen: 3 hours, 37 minutes
|
|
I don't think raising a weapon has anything to do with it. He wasn't a protester, was he? So what was he doing out after curfew?
I think the irony here is that the people "protecting" things just are automatically criminals according to the people they think they agree with, that being the police. They were guilty simply by being there.
It makes me laugh to think about it that way, but it's pretty sick really.
-------------------- 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.
|
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]
#26904715 - 08/28/20 06:01 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
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.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
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: natedawgnow]
#26904719 - 08/28/20 06:03 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: He was obviously a willing participant in a riot.
I love how these guys were defended as protesters, not rioters, until it became convenient to call them rioters.
-------------------- 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.
|
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: koods]
#26904723 - 08/28/20 06:05 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Aside from any legal argument, bringing a loaded weapon to a riot is incredibly irresponsible behavior.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,523
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 2 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: koods]
#26904725 - 08/28/20 06:05 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Plastic bags are grounds for deadly force. We got to ban plastic bags....others cities have already lead this charge.
-------------------- “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.”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,333
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 46 minutes, 30 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: He was obviously a willing participant in a riot.
I love how these guys were defended as protesters, not rioters, until it became convenient to call them rioters. 
I didn’t identify anyone as a rioter. They were participating in a riot. Rioting is an act of violence and mayhem. A riot is the event. You can be at a riot without being a rioter.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
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]
#26904737 - 08/28/20 06:15 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Now that's some convoluted logic.
-------------------- 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.
|
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]
#26904738 - 08/28/20 06:15 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Yellow Pants said:
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.
This is my understanding of Wisconsin law:
Unlawful conduct causes a person to lose the privilege of self-defence; unless threatened with imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to use lethal force in self-defense only if the person reasonably believes they have exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm first.
And just to be clear his unlawful conduct was:
Being on the street in violation of curfew Being in possession of a weapon he was not legally permitted to carry Driving from Illinois to participate in a riot
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,333
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 46 minutes, 30 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Now that's some convoluted logic. 
Maybe mulling around on the street like most of the people were doing at the time wouldn’t be considered participating in a riot, but the federal riot law actually says “intent to” and Kyle absolutely had the intent to participate in the riot. He said he was there to defend property that he had no legal right to defend on streets he had no legal right to be. He intended to face off against looters and vandals with the threat of violence. How is that not participating in a riot?
--------------------
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: koods] 1
#26904750 - 08/28/20 06:23 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think we can easily infer from his charges that the district attorney does not believe Kyle has any legal avenue to claim self defense
--------------------
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: psi]
#26904770 - 08/28/20 06:42 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psi said: He kept claiming it was his "job" to do xyz, would be an interesting twist if he literally was employed to defend the family friend's property. Though not a likely one I think. And it's not like any of the action happened there anyway.
This is the saddest part, for me at least.
Quote:
koods said: The kid is a minor. There are adults who are involved in facilitating these murders
As Koods said earlier, I honestly doubt that Kyle shithouse or whatever his name is was the instigating individual. He was a trigger man, not a shot caller. His job was to pull the trigger, someone else likely manipulated him into doing so. Of course, he should still take the fall for it, being the guy that committed a murder, but I really doubt that this was entirely his idea. He was talked into putting himself into a stupid situation, likely along with dozens of other kids. He was just the one that happened to pull the trigger, instead of backing out like the others.
It's a bit like the 419 scam. You start off with bad grammar, and you shotgun out emails. You intentionally use bad grammar and red flags, because 99.99% of the people are going to see it and not respond. You want to focus on the people too dumb to see the red flags. Those are the people that will lead to a payday.
|
mycosis


Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 19,751
Loc: USSA
|
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse: guilty or not guilty? [Re: Kryptos]
#26904774 - 08/28/20 06:48 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
There are reports that Kyle is special ed.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
|
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.
--------------------
|
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: mycosis]
#26904798 - 08/28/20 07:00 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mycosis said: There are reports that Kyle is special ed.
Lol here we go again
Muslim kills people: terrorist black guy kills people: gangbanger/thug White guy kills people: he’s “special”
--------------------
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]
#26904803 - 08/28/20 07:04 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
|