Self defense?

[guncrasher]

Someone always wins

but as a country nobody does.


semp

[Brooke]

because he put himself in a situation where he had to use his rifle. 

The "Well, he was asking for it" argument isn't valid.

You don't lose your right to defend yourself just because you went into some sketchy situation, or because someone disagrees with your motives.  None of that negates your right to defend yourself.  None of that gives other people legal right to assault or to kill you.

If a girl dresses in skimpy clothes and goes into a sketchy night club -- that is unwise -- but it still is not legal to molest her, and she doesn't lose her right to defend herself.

[decoy]

Except that his mother did not drive him there.  She thought he went to work.  The narrative of she drove him there is a media talking point and not based on the known facts.

I was not aware of that, but I am neither shocked nor appalled.  Of course, in this day and age, the media does not often concern itself with facts.  Y'all go and debate this some more, but I'm done.

[guncrasher]

The "Well, he was asking for it" argument isn't valid.

You don't lose your right to defend yourself just because you went into some sketchy situation, or because someone disagrees with your motives.  None of that negates your right to defend yourself.  None of that gives other people legal right to assault or to kill you.

If a girl dresses in skimpy clothes and goes into a sketchy night club -- that is unwise -- but it still is not legal to molest her, and she doesn't lose her right to defend herself.

it's not the same thing.  girls no matter what they wear have the right no say no.  kyle didnt get molested. not the same thing.  just like the other 3 hillbillies that killed the guy while chasing him in trucks.  him shooting them would be self defense.  them chasing him while saying I am gonna blow your head off is murder.  they cant claim self defense.  not the same thing as kyle, totally different, but not the same as the girl you mentioned.


semp

[Chris79]

it's not the same thing.  girls no matter what they wear have the right no say no.  kyle didnt get molested. not the same thing.  just like the other 3 hillbillies that killed the guy while chasing him in trucks.  him shooting them would be self defense.  them chasing him while saying I am gonna blow your head off is murder.  they cant claim self defense.  not the same thing as kyle, totally different, but not the same as the girl you mentioned.


semp

Who knows what that registered sex offender may have done. Also countries like the United Staes are not organic, I think you may have the the concept of nation and state slightly confused.

[Guppy35]

So what many of you are saying is I can shoot anyone that I feel is a threat to me or my family?  Kinda frightening as the list of people out there who I see as a threat to the future of my family is long.  I don't believe that is how this works, and I'm disappointed that somehow it was OK for a 17 year old kid from out of town to get away with walking around with an AR pretending to  be the law and shoot three people, killing two.  I see the BS excuse trying to justify it because of the history of one of the dead.  Rittenhouse didn't know anything about that man.  If that's a viable excuse I can shoot first and ask questions later anytime I want.

I'd have crucified my son if when he was 17 he went somewhere with an AR to play cop.  It's not a toy.  And before you tell me I have no clue, I had my first AR in 1979 and my son knew them inside and out.  He also knew it was not for playing with and if he crossed the line, he would no longer be able to go to the range with an AR etc.  It's idiots like Rittenhouse and all those basement commandos that walk around with there combat vests on with every last enhancement attached to their ARs, as they hang from their tactical slings so they can think they are Rambo, that have made the AR such a lightning rod for the gun debate.

[CptTrips]

Let the games begin....

Civil suits have a lot more flexibility.   Ask O.J.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/11/19/denver-attorney-files-civil-action-in-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting/

[DmonSlyr]

First of all, Kyle was well coordinated with a group who were hired to protect a store. His team left him to guard the store by himself. Then he began to get attacked and chased by "protestors". Protestors who were also very coordinated and part of a group. There are probably much deeper communications on both sides that we aren't seeing.

I guess my question to all of you is. Where were the forces that were suppose to be there to protect the city from hooligans at? Filming the whole thing in their drone? Really? Are you saying it's okay for a gang to March down the streets and burn the city down? Attacking anyone who guards those stores? Is that what you are saying? If there are no protective forces to protect the city? What do you expect people to do. Sit there and let them? Not take justice into your own hands? What country do you think we live in? This whole case is a disgrace.

Where where the authorities to protect the city? The society left it up to a 17 year old. We did that. Society did that.

[guncrasher]

The "Well, he was asking for it" argument isn't valid.

You don't lose your right to defend yourself just because you went into some sketchy situation, or because someone disagrees with your motives.  None of that negates your right to defend yourself.  None of that gives other people legal right to assault or to kill you.

If a girl dresses in skimpy clothes and goes into a sketchy night club -- that is unwise -- but it still is not legal to molest her, and she doesn't lose her right to defend herself.

you ask me what I thought. and responded why.  that's what I believe, like I said I accept that he was found innocent. if you want to know if I would have myself shot, yes I would have.  would I claim self defense, yes I would have.  but it wasnt me, I would never put myself into a situation where I have to use a gun.  that's not how it works.  if somebody came into my house, I wouldnt hesitate to shoot.  on the other hand, I wouldnt put myself into a situation where I have to use guns.


semp

[guncrasher]

First of all, Kyle was well coordinated with a group who were hired to protect a store. His team left him to guard the store by himself. Then he began to get attacked and chased by "protestors". Protestors who were also very coordinated and part of a group. There are probably much deeper communications on both sides that we aren't seeing.

I guess my question to all of you is. Where were the forces that were suppose to be there to protect the city from hooligans at? Filming the whole thing in their drone? Really? Are you saying it's okay for a gang to March down the streets and burn the city down? Attacking anyone who guards those stores? Is that what you are saying? If there are no protective forces to protect the city? What do you expect people to do. Sit there and let them? Not take justice into your own hands? What country do you think we live in? This whole case is a disgrace.

Where where the authorities

they werent hired, the guy said that in court.  he never asked, he said that in court.  stop with the bs.


semp

edit: and btw the shooting didnt happen next to the dealership.

another edit: just to add to your previous post that he was set up by the fbi. if he was with a well coordinated group of people, why they didnt ask him and dork stay here with us dont go there.  so was that well coordinated group part of the fbi set up?  you ever think by yourself?

[DmonSlyr]

they werent hired, the guy said that in court.  he never asked, he said that in court.  stop with the bs.


semp

edit: and btw the shooting didnt happen next to the dealership.

He was chased. Why is there even an argument? Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to protect their stores from gangs when the police forces won't?

Again, I think the kid was set up from the start. But he also had some really solid training that he took seriously.

[guncrasher]

He was chased. Why is there even an argument? Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to protect their stores from gangs when the police forces won't?

Again, I think the kid was set up from the start. But he also had some really solid training that he took seriously.

read above and dont contradict yourself.


semp

[Brooke]

it's not the same thing. 

You can delete the last paragraph of my post, and the point still stands.

You don't lose your rights because you went to the wrong place or because someone doesn't like your reasons for being in a place.

[Brooke]

So what many of you are saying is I can shoot anyone that I feel is a threat to me or my family? 

Don't know if this is directed at me or not, but, no, that's not the legal definition of self defense.

It varies state to state, but for Wisconsin:
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48/1

[fd ski]

good thing he didn't buy a beer or an alcohol.....