Red Mosquito

I haven't followed it very closely but I assume this pic is related?

BurtReynolds wrote:I haven't followed it very closely but I assume this pic is related?

TFW your ACLU legal observer admits he was shot only after pointing his Glock at the defendant.

Gaige was tweeting this last weekend about his upcoming testimony. The DA can't be pleased about dropping his DUI charges for this performance.

How does this change the fact that Kyle was in illegal possession of a gun, crossed states lines, and put himself into a situation where he was aware he could be forced to use lethal force?

None of which are bad things. Hope he gets off scot free.

But he traveled to another state, Burt! You can’t just do that without permission. This is America.

Imagine putting yourself in the situation that you could defend yourself in public against child rapists and other violent rioting thugs!

He shouldn't have worn that short dress.

BurtReynolds wrote:None of which are bad things. Hope he gets off scot free.

They are illegal things though and 'self defense' has limits in most states. I don't understand the laws that apply here, but in my head it seems like there is a point where the "it's coming right for us" defense breaks down and maybe illegal getting a rifle and driving to a violent riot meets that threshold. If Rittenhouse had been guarding his own neighborhood, I might think differently but he willingly entered the fight with a weapon. That has to matter.

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:None of which are bad things. Hope he gets off scot free.

They are illegal things though and 'self defense' has limits in most states. I don't understand the laws that apply here, but in my head it seems like there is a point where the "it's coming right for us" defense breaks down and maybe illegal getting a rifle and driving to a violent riot meets that threshold. If Rittenhouse had been guarding his own neighborhood, I might think differently but he willingly entered the fight with a weapon. That has to matter.

Not as much as you think. He had the same right to be there as the peaceful protestors. He was attacked, feared for his life, and defended himself...with great restraint, frankly. Pretty clear cut case of self-defense. Not guilty.

I don't think it matters at all. Whether he drove 20 minutes away, was defending his own area (which arguably he was), or drove from across the country. You have a right to defend yourself anywhere from violent people even when said violent people have declared an area a war zone.

Not speaking legally of course, but ethically. I don't know what the legalities are.

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:None of which are bad things. Hope he gets off scot free.

They are illegal things though and 'self defense' has limits in most states. I don't understand the laws that apply here, but in my head it seems like there is a point where the "it's coming right for us" defense breaks down and maybe illegal getting a rifle and driving to a violent riot meets that threshold. If Rittenhouse had been guarding his own neighborhood, I might think differently but he willingly entered the fight with a weapon. That has to matter.

How far did these other upstanding gentlemen travel to burn down storefronts and smash car windows?

Hopefully there is at least one person on the jury who believes in jury nullification.

BurtReynolds wrote:I don't think it matters at all. Whether he drove 20 minutes away, was defending his own area (which arguably he was), or drove from across the country. You have a right to defend yourself anywhere from violent people even when said violent people have declared an area a war zone.

Not speaking legally of course, but ethically. I don't know what the legalities are.

are you a gun owner?

Bi_3 wrote:How does this change the fact that Kyle was in illegal possession of a gun, crossed states lines, and put himself into a situation where he was aware he could be forced to use lethal force?

I am begging you, please stop repeating retarded falsehoods the likes of this:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ssault-st/

Is the prosecution even claiming the brought the rifle across state lines (which isn't even relevant)? I thought it was pretty established his friend Dominick Black bought the gun and it never left Wisconsin. Wisconsin law has a carve out to allow minors to go hunting, but it's not so narrow as to be restricted only to hunting, and rifles and shotguns are fine. A certain level of adult supervision or permission is required, but its not like you can only carry to and from hunting with a valid hunting permit. They may need to litigate that question, but its not clear that he did anything illegal prior to being attacked.

Which again, any criminal activity alleged has no bearing on his self defense claims.

The state lines thing is such a bizzare nonsequitur, unless Kyle was in Kenosha for the purpose of prostitution...

Plus the fact that he was 17 at the time shows we also need to work on upping the age for gun ownership/handling

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I don't think it matters at all. Whether he drove 20 minutes away, was defending his own area (which arguably he was), or drove from across the country. You have a right to defend yourself anywhere from violent people even when said violent people have declared an area a war zone.

Not speaking legally of course, but ethically. I don't know what the legalities are.

are you a gun owner?

fuck around and find out!

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I don't think it matters at all. Whether he drove 20 minutes away, was defending his own area (which arguably he was), or drove from across the country. You have a right to defend yourself anywhere from violent people even when said violent people have declared an area a war zone.

Not speaking legally of course, but ethically. I don't know what the legalities are.

are you a gun owner?

fuck around and find out!

sounds like an affirmative. why weren't you out protecting portland businesses?

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:I don't think it matters at all. Whether he drove 20 minutes away, was defending his own area (which arguably he was), or drove from across the country. You have a right to defend yourself anywhere from violent people even when said violent people have declared an area a war zone.

Not speaking legally of course, but ethically. I don't know what the legalities are.

are you a gun owner?

fuck around and find out!

sounds like an affirmative. why weren't you out protecting portland businesses?

Because fuck Portland.

And I dont think one has a moral duty to defend a place from violent assholes, but one does have the option to. It's pretty irrelevant anyway. Whether you are protecting a neighborhood or not, you still have the right to defend yourself. To put it as bluntly as I possibly can, you can literally just walk around and shoot people who violently attack you. It's perfectly fine. Crazy right? How could someone possibly believe such an outlandish notion!?