Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Foxi4]

the kid is still gonna get fucked for illegally carrying a firearm across state lines, improper discharge of a firearm, either manslaughter or criminal negligence, committing a straw purchase, and a huge host of other offenses. he's pretty damn fucked.

Apparently he didn't carry the rifle across state lines - the investigation corrected that misconception. The weapon belonged to his friend in Wisconsin. Rittenhouse will face no gun charges in Illinois. He will get screwed for carrying illegally though.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-u...osha-killer-wont-face-gun-charges-in-illinois

Again, he crossed the police line looking for conflict. He was pointing a loaded weapon at people simply for exercising their first amendment rights. That's an act of aggression, and aggression in response is to be expected.

If only a claim of "self defense" was the catch-all you're making it out to be, people getting revenge for police killing their dogs would be a much simpler matter.

By all means, continue defending an angry mob assaulting people in the middle of the street, I don't really care if you change your mind or not - I started by saying that this is a matter for the court to rule on and I finish by saying that it's for the court to decide. I hope the ruling will be sensible.

 

[omgcat]

Apparently he didn't carry the rifle across state lines - the investigation corrected that misconception. The weapon belonged to his friend in Wisconsin. Rittenhouse will face no gun charges in Illinois. He will get screwed for carrying illegally though.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-u...osha-killer-wont-face-gun-charges-in-illinois

and improper discharge of a weapon, he injured/maimed/killed someone with an improper discharge as well. there is also going to be a bunch of civil suits against him that will bankrupt him and his family for life.

 

[Foxi4]

and improper discharge of a weapon, he injured/maimed/killed someone with an improper discharge as well. there is also going to be a bunch of civil suits against him that will bankrupt him and his family for life.

It's not a negligent discharge - he was being assaulted. We'll see how things shake up for him though, he really shouldn't have been there at all.

 

[Xzi]

also i love how people are calling Rittenhouse a "kid" when he is 17. people argued that Trayvon Martin wasn't a kid because he was 17. if Rittenhouse doesn't see the inside of a jail cell, our country is going to lose it's fucking mind.

Oh don't get me wrong, he should 100% be charged as an adult. I only call him "kid" as an insult to him and all the other mentally/emotionally stunted Republicans who like to play CoD LARPer.

 

[Foxi4]

Oh don't get me wrong, he should 100% be charged as an adult. I only call him "kid" as an insult to him and all the other mentally/emotionally stunted Republicans who like to play CoD LARPer.

To be fair, his line of defense stands even if he was tried as an adult, which he most likely will be.

 

[Xzi]

To be fair, his line of defense stands even if he was tried as an adult, which he most likely will be.

His line of defense is extremely flimsy regardless of how he's charged. As is typical for America, the outcome will likely be determined by how much money his family has, and which lawyer(s) they hire.

At least one of the murders is on video, FFS. This would be an open and shut case in any sensible justice system.

 

[Foxi4]

His line of defense is extremely flimsy regardless of how he's charged. As is typical for America, the outcome will likely be determined by how much money his family has, and which lawyer(s) they hire.

Or, alternatively, guilt or innocence will be decided based upon on the law of the land. Wisconsin is not a Stand your Ground state, it's a middle ground state, meaning you have a duty to retreat, with the proviso that it only applies when you can do so with absolute safety. By the time Kyle pulled the trigger he was already falling to the ground and getting hit. Wisconsin does not require retreat when one is threatened with assault. The ruling will depend entirely on the evidence and the court's opinion on whether he was in danger, as well as the court's determination if he himself was actively posing a threat to others.

 

[omgcat]

To be fair, his line of defense stands even if he was tried as an adult, which he most likely will be.

the civil suits are going to be brutal on him, damage to public property (bullet holes in surfaces if any), damages to people near by (possible hearing damage), emotional damages to the family.

also Foxi4, the use of an illegally obtained weapon strips you of stand your ground, and can cause huge damage to a self-defense case.

also in Wisconsin, self-defense cannot be claimed when the claimant is committing an unlawful act such as illegal carry of a gun. He was not legally able to carry that gun, or buy it, so his right to self-defense is fucked.

"939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless 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."

it all hinges on whether or not he could have reasonably left the situation.

 

[Foxi4]

the civil suits are going to be brutal on him, damage to public property (bullet holes in surfaces if any), damages to people near by (possible hearing damage), emotional damages to the family.

also Foxi4, the use of an illegally obtained weapon strips you of stand your ground, and can cause huge damage to a self-defense case.

also in Wisconsin, self-defense cannot be claimed when the claimant is committing an unlawful act such as illegal carry of a gun. He was not legally able to carry that gun, or buy it, so his right to self-defense is fucked.

"939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless 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."

This is false. Let me bold the relevant section.

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless 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.

Laying down on the ground, having a grown adult sitting on you and hitting you with a blunt object is a pretty good justification, and it prevents you from escaping safely. Good try though.

 

[omgcat]

This is false. Let me bold the relevant section.
Laying down on the ground, having a grown adult sitting on you and hitting you with a blunt object is a pretty good justification, and it prevents you from escaping safely. Good try though.

This is false. Let me bold the relevant section.
Laying down on the ground, having a grown adult sitting on you and hitting you with a blunt object is a pretty good justification, and it prevents you from escaping safely. Good try though.

except for the part where he put himself in that situation to begin with. he didn't need to bring and brandish a weapon to a protest during a lock down. he was in the situation voluntarily, while illegally owning and carrying a weapon all while past curfew as a minor, in a state he doesn't even live in.

 

[Xzi]

The ruling will depend entirely on the evidence and the court's opinion on whether he was in danger, as well as the court's determination if he himself was actively posing a threat to others.

So basically his case hinges on the jury determining that a skateboard is a more deadly threat than a fully-loaded hunting rifle? Again, I'd say good luck with that in any non-corruptible, sensible justice system. In America where white supremacists, cops, and judges are all in bed together though? That defense might just be stupid enough to work.

 

[Foxi4]

except for the part where he put himself in that situation to begin with. he didn't need to bring and brandish a weapon to a protest during a lock down. he was in the situation voluntarily, while illegally owning and carrying a weapon all while past curfew as a minor.

This is correct, and a separate matter altogether that's waived by the very same statute you posted. Again, for the courts to ponder over - my point was that the statute you posted doesn't preclude him from using self-defense, even with an illegal weapon. He'll still get weapons charges though, and possibly manslaughter.

So basically his case hinges on the jury determining that a skateboard is a more deadly threat than a fully-loaded hunting rifle? Again, I'd say good luck with that in any non-corruptible, sensible justice system. In America where white supremacists, cops, and judges are all in bed together though? That defense might just be stupid enough to work.

It's not about what's more dangerous, it's about whether his life was threatened or not. I say it was, judging by the publically available evidence.

 

[omgcat]

This is correct, and a separate matter altogether that's waived by the very same statute you posted. Again, for the courts to ponder over - my point was that the statute you posted doesn't preclude him from using self-defense, even with an illegal weapon. He'll still get weapons charges though, and possibly manslaughter.

Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state, so he had a legal duty to exhaust all avenues of safety before discharging his weapon. participating in an illegal protest voids that as he should not have been there in the first place, thus he didn't exercise all avenues of safety. in Wisconsin having his gun out like that could also be considered provocation in the scenario that played out.

he will most likely get manslaughter, or possibly 3rd degree murder which caps at 25 years.

 

[Foxi4]

Wisconsin is not a stand your ground state, so he had a legal duty to exhaust all avenues of safety before discharging his weapon. participating in an illegal protest voids that as he should not have been there in the first place, thus he didn't exercise all avenues of safety.

The time frame is important. You're interested in the encounter specifically, not what he was doing beforehand. He has the same freedom of movement as everybody else and can in fact travel across state lines. His "avenues of escape" are considered from the moment the clash started, not prior - he's not Doctor Who, he didn't have a Tardis to travel in time with and figure out that he was going to get assaulted.

 

[Xzi]

It's not about what's more dangerous, it's about whether his life was threatened or not. I say it was, judging by the publically available evidence.

As we've established, he was only ever threatened in response to threats he made initially (by pointing a gun at people carelessly). Personally I'd call it hyperbolic at best to suggest a skateboard was a threat to his life. He might've been knocked out, and then the cops or EMTs would've picked him up. A firearm being part of the equation at all leads to escalation from both victim and attacker, as the stakes are immediately raised.

 

[Sicklyboy]

So much for the Supreme Court being the ace in the hole, eh?

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/9442...-bid-to-reverse-pennsylvania-election-results

 

[Foxi4]

As we've established, he was only ever threatened in response to threats he made initially (by pointing a gun at people carelessly). Personally I'd call it hyperbolic at best to suggest a skateboard was a threat to his life. He might've been knocked out, and then the cops or EMTs would've picked him up. A firearm being part of the equation at all leads to escalation from both victim and attacker.

You must've never been hit over the head then. Like I said, I think this is a matter for the courts to decide upon. In complete isolation, looking at just the incident alone, I can completely understand why he would feel threatened and why he'd fire. To me it's textbook self-defense, which doesn't change the fact that he did break the law and should be charged appropriately. What I don't like is trying to crucify him for doing what comes to everyone naturally - fight or flight. When someone pushes you to the ground and starts hitting you, you have a reasonable justification for defending yourself, at least in my eyes, and your avenues of escape have been cut off.

 

[Doran754]

Texas is suing 4 states over election results.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/brea...4-states-at-supreme-court-over-election-rules

 

[Foxi4]

Texas is suing 4 states over election results.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/brea...4-states-at-supreme-court-over-election-rules

Well, more specifically, Texas is suing over the manner in which those states have changed their election rules, which could be considered unconstitutional. The rules for selecting electors are supposed to be set by the legislature, not by the courts or other governmental bodies.

 

[Xzi]

What I don't like is trying to crucify him for doing what comes to everyone naturally - fight or flight. When someone pushes you to the ground and starts hitting you, you have a reasonable justification for defending yourself, at least in my eyes.

Again that's assuming you weren't first pointing a loaded gun at the person who shoved you, as Rittenhouse was. Self-defense goes both ways, and the people who actually live and work in Wisconsin have a much more legitimate claim to it than an angry teenage incel who crossed state lines specifically to target protestors with opposing political views.