Remove this Banner Ad

Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

  • Thread starter Thread starter RedVest4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Malifice said:
'A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self-defense against that attack.''

''However, if the attack which follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he or she may lawfully act in self-defense. But the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause death unless he or she reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm''

https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf

Taylor the above is the relevant law.

Read it and try and understand why he (and our mass shooter example) get off on self defence in this case.

A mass shooter is clearly ''a person engaging in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke an attack.''

However as long as our mass shooter (after shooting the person trying to disarm him) can prove he 'reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm (from the person disarming him)' he can shoot that heroic person dead and not be convicted of murder (homicide in this case).

Understand?
Click to expand...
Malifice thats not right. Unless the incidence of mass shooting is well over.

If Bob shoots Joe, Barry, Kev, Andy and Gav he doesn’t get to claim self defence against Bruce because Bruce has a gun pointed at him.

If Bruce rocks around to his house later that day or the next to execute Bob then Bob can raise the self defence argument. But not in the midst of the mass shooting.

KR isn’t a mass shooter. You need to stop using that. You can’t play the lawyer card on here and be that loose with your language (and yes I know I got nailed earlier on vigilante).
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Malifice thats not right. Unless the incidence of mass shooting is well over.
Click to expand...

Presume in this case KR had (5 minutes prior) gunned down a dozen people in a rampage. Now presume the remaining facts are otherwise the same (he's withdrawing from the scene, trying to get away, and being chased by an angry mob, two of whom try and disarm him, causing him to fear for his life, shoot and kill them).

He would get off under these laws.

Im not being critical of KR here. Im being critical of the way those laws are written.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

RookiePick said:
It's irrelevant to Rittenhouse's self defence claims. People are still going to talk about it. Rosenbaum being a convicted paedo is interesting/titillating/bizzaro
Click to expand...
And it places Rittenhouse at the top of the hierarchy. The alt-rights love it. He stormed in and took out a leftist BLM paedo, and will suffer no legal consequences.
 
Malifice said:
Presume in this case KR had (5 minutes prior) gunned down a dozen people in a rampage. Now presume the remaining facts are otherwise the same (he's withdrawing from the scene, trying to get away, and being chased by an angry mob, two of whom try and disarm him, causing him to fear for his life, shoot and kill them).

He would get off under these laws.

Im not being critical of KR here. Im being critical of the way those laws are written.
Click to expand...
If 5 minutes have passed and he’s running towards the police “I surrender” then yes in that ridiculous hypothetical self defence would apply.

But KR had shot one bloke who had attacked him. There was no justification, when he was running defensively towards the cops, for the vigilantes to go in with their fly kicks and their skateboards.

It’s not guilty by virtue of self defence. As it should be. The law is right and hopefully it’s correctly applied.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
If 5 minutes have passed and he’s running towards the police “I surrender” then yes in that ridiculous hypothetical self defence would apply.

But KR had shot one bloke who had attacked him.
Click to expand...

What part of 'Im not being critical of KR here. Im being critical of the way those laws are written' are you struggling to understand?

I've already said that I think KR will get off on the homicide charges under the relevant laws of his State. It's a dead issue for me. Im not even talking about him anymore.

My issue here is with the laws. Laws that as written (and as you agree above) allow a mass shooter fleeing the scene of a crime to literally shoot dead a member of the public trying to disarm him.
 
Malifice said:
What part of 'Im not being critical of KR here. Im being critical of the way those laws are written' are you struggling to understand?

I've already said that I think KR will get off on the homicide charges under the relevant laws of his State. It's a dead issue for me. Im not even talking about him anymore.

My issue here is with the laws. Laws that as written (and as you agree above) allow a mass shooter fleeing the scene of a crime to literally shoot dead a member of the public trying to disarm him.
Click to expand...
And I responded precisely on that.

There was far less justification for the “vigilantes” to “disarm” KR than there was for KR to shoot them in response. Chief has had plenty to say about KR playing the hero. He was running away from trouble towards the cops. What were Hubert et al thinking?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
There was far less justification for the “vigilantes” to “disarm” KR than there was for KR to shoot them in response.
Click to expand...

No, I dont agree there. As impartial as I can be, I cant know the motivations of the victims in seeking to disarm him, and neither can you.

They may very well have simply been trying to protect people around them from someone they thought was dangerous, or a criminal fleeing from the scene of a prior shooting (particularly in the case of Mr Huber who had been told by the crowd that he had just shot someone).

They may instead have been trying to disarm him to turn the rifle on him and shoot him dead.

They may instead have been trying to disarm him, so the mob could beat him up. Or even for some other reason.

Neither you nor I can know what their intent was for certain (and its not relevant to the legal arguments either), but I do think it's more likely it was a combination of 1 and 2 (they were trying to disarm him, and had no intention of killing him) as opposed to 2 (they were disarming him with the intent of turning his rifle against him and shooting him dead).
 
Malifice said:
No, I dont agree there. As impartial as I can be, I cant know the motivations of the victims in seeking to disarm him, and neither can you.

They may very well have simply been trying to protect people around them from someone they thought was dangerous, or a criminal fleeing from the scene of a prior shooting (particularly in the case of Mr Huber who had been told by the crowd that he had just shot someone).

They may instead have been trying to disarm him to turn the rifle on him and shoot him dead.

They may instead have been trying to disarm him, so the mob could beat him up. Or even for some other reason.

Neither you nor I can know what their intent was for certain (and its not relevant to the legal arguments either), but I do think it's more likely it was a combination of 1 and 2 (they were trying to disarm him, and had no intention of killing him) as opposed to 2 (they were disarming him with the intent of turning his rifle against him and shooting him dead).
Click to expand...


Maybe people should use their words more.
 
BruceFromBalnarring

Do you honestly (in your heart of hearts) think Mr Huber was trying to disarm KR because either:

1) He genuinely thought KR was a threat (as the crowd were yelling out he had just shot another person), and was fleeing the scene of a crime, or

2) To turn the rifle on KR, and shoot him dead, or

3) Some other reason.

It doesnt matter in a legal sense (what Mr Huber thought at the time is not relevant to the case, only what KR thought) but I am genuinely interested in why you think Mr Huber was trying to disarm KR.
 
Malifice said:
BruceFromBalnarring

Do you honestly (in your heart of hearts) think Mr Huber was trying to disarm KR because either:

1) He genuinely thought KR was a threat (as the crowd were yelling out he had just shot another person), and was fleeing the scene of a crime, or

2) To turn the rifle on KR, and shoot him dead, or

3) Some other reason.

It doesnt matter in a legal sense (what Mr Huber thought at the time is not relevant to the case, only what KR thought) but I am genuinely interested in why you think Mr Huber was trying to disarm KR.
Click to expand...
I think the intention was to disarm him then kick the shit out of him.

Do you think they were trying to save the police he was running to? That they were rioting against?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I think he was swept up in the swell of the mob, the passion of the moment. Emotional and intense moments. Mistakes made and in a moment it's over for him.

Most people would think they can swipe past someone to strike them and it won't come back to them when in a big group like that, like an aggressive herd mentality - the person who threw a boot hasn't even been identified, he just took off away from the scene right away.

That guy got to drop in and get away.
 
Malifice said:
Do you think it should be lawful to use lethal force in response to getting the sh*t kicked out of you?
Click to expand...

Should he just say. 'Come on guys. quit it.'

One kick or skateboard to the head can kill or severely impair a person.

What would you do if you were getting the shit kicked out of you?
 
Malifice said:
No, that wasnt the question.

Do you support a law that lets a person respond with lethal force in response to getting the sh*t kicked out of them?

Yes or No?
Click to expand...

Yes. If there are half a dozen beating up on one. What other force should the one use?
 
Malifice said:
Do you think it should be lawful to use lethal force in response to getting the sh*t kicked out of you?
Click to expand...
Um…yes. But you need to be more precise with “in response to”. You can’t go back the next day with your black eye and execute them.

Edit: There’s video going around today of some ex American Football player ragdolling his ex. If I walk in and I’m armed and he’s doing that then I’m putting a cap in his arse.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

In complete fairness, I think Rittenhouse's mum bears as much responsibility and deserves more scrutiny.

What kind of mum drives their son into a heated protest to have him join counter-protesters while armed with a ****ing assault rifle? What a complete dumbarse who is now partly responsible for 2 people's deaths as well as the charges her son faces.

EDIT: I stand corrected. Still think she's a garbage parent, but Kyle drove himself to the protest
 
Last edited:
It’s interesting that the deaths of these white crooks seem to have people clutching at pearls yet the over 300 black kids shot in Chicago in the last year seems not to be an issue. And don’t blame gun laws and the NRA, these are kids shot by gang bangers with illegal weapons.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
It’s interesting that the deaths of these white crooks seem to have people clutching at pearls yet the over 300 black kids shot in Chicago in the last year seems not to be an issue. And don’t blame gun laws and the NRA, these are kids shot by gang bangers with illegal weapons.
Click to expand...
Not really, it's human nature.

People can't fight every battle that is going on in the world. They pick the ones they want to fight.
 
SSwans2011 said:
In complete fairness, I think Rittenhouse's mum bears as much responsibility and deserves more scrutiny.

What kind of mum drives their son into a heated protest to have him join counter-protesters while armed with a ******* assault rifle? What a complete dumbarse who is now partly responsible for 2 people's deaths as well as the charges her son faces.
Click to expand...
You should try to remove your Australian bias and be more accepting of other cultures.
Also, it wasn't an "assault rifle", no matter how much more scary you think it makes it sound, it was just a rifle.
 
Alberto_Magnifico said:
You should try to remove your Australian bias and be more accepting of other cultures.
Also, it wasn't an "assault rifle", no matter how much more scary you think it makes it sound, it was just a rifle.
Click to expand...
Of course, Kyle's *mum has every cultural right to be a crap parent.

And let's be honest, it wasn't even a real rifle, it was a pop gun.

*Whoops - I meant "mom", we need to be culturally respectful here.
 
SSwans2011 said:
In complete fairness, I think Rittenhouse's mum bears as much responsibility and deserves more scrutiny.

What kind of mum drives their son into a heated protest to have him join counter-protesters while armed with a ******* assault rifle? What a complete dumbarse who is now partly responsible for 2 people's deaths as well as the charges her son faces.
Click to expand...

Except it appears she didn't, and his rifle was stored in Kenosha. But hey it's good to see you have joined the crew on here spreading misinformation. I see this threads biggest twits have liked your posts. Well done again big Chief. Clap, clap

I thought facts mattered?

I thought you guys could internet?

www.politifact.com

Mom of shooter Kyle Rittenhouse did not bring him to Kenosha

With the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse nearing its end, a viral image on social media attacked the mother of the Illinois te
www.politifact.com www.politifact.com

Edit: May have posted with a higher level of pompous w***er than required.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom