Self defense?

[guncrasher]

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.

when you have a gun, you have to have responsibility for it.  you cant put yourself at risk then claim self defense.  if I wore a hat saying mongol supporter and walk into a hell's angels bar and shot people who attacked me, I would expect to be attacked I created that situation.  self defense is not at issue. would I shoot, yes, but I created that situation.


semp

[zack1234]

You Americans get your world view from individuals such as James Corbyn a fat creepy Englishman.

No wonder the Russians and Chinese despise the US.

The US invested trillions of dollars in China and its the enemy?

 

So you people are going to have a war with a country you have supported?

 

Biden gives wirthers originals to kids in the park since jefferey Epstein was rumbled

It was warmer in the UK 600 years than now……fact

[Brooke]

you cant put yourself at risk then claim self defense. 

Sure you can.  People willfully go into risky areas all the time.  Doesn't mean they can't defend themselves there.

if I wore a hat saying mongol supporter and walk into a hell's angels bar and shot people who attacked me, I would expect to be attacked I created that situation.  self defense is not at issue. would I shoot, yes, but I created that situation.

Here are the self-defense statutes in Wisconsin:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48/1

If you aren't doing anything illegal, you can provoke an attack, and still defend yourself.  So, yes, you would be within the law in Wisconsin doing what you said.  They don't have the right to attack or kill you because you are wearing a hat that offends them.

In Wisconsin, you can even be doing something illegal that is likely to provoke the attack, and as long as you try all other reasonable ways to avoid what you reasonably believe to be imminent death or serious harm, use lethal force to defend yourself.  So, seemingly in Wisconsin, you could be stealing one of the bikes out front, try to run away but get cornered into an alley, and still be within your legal right to shoot your attackers.  I'm not sure I like everything about this one.

Anyway, what you think the law says and what the law actually says are very different.

Disclaimer:  I am not licensed to practice law and am not offering legal advice to anyone.  The above are my opinions only.

[Brooke]

You Americans get your world view from individuals such as James Corbyn a fat creepy Englishman.

I like Nigel better.

[FLOOB]

when you have a gun, you have to have responsibility for it.  you cant put yourself at risk then claim self defense.  if I wore a hat saying mongol supporter and walk into a hell's angels bar and shot people who attacked me, I would expect to be attacked I created that situation.  self defense is not at issue. would I shoot, yes, but I created that situation.


semp

so you think the guy wearing the mongel hat in a bar where he knew there would be hells angels should be charged with murder for defending his self??

No. We all have a right to be in public without being assaulted.

[FLOOB]

Also your example is exactly like the rape scenario.

Person is assaulted because of the clothes the person is wearing. Person is assaulted for where the person is wearing the clothes.

Just put the word sexual in front of the word assaulted.

[Eagler]

Not sure what is crazier..open carry for a 17 year old or calling murderous arsonist looting riots peaceful protests...

Please see these gang lootings as the path America is now on..they just gang up to overwhelming numbers and take what they want now..

I think that behavior will lead to more of the Ritterhouse behaviour...its not the other way around..

Sounds like some of you would rather of seen the kid killed by the rioters..or at least charged for their deaths..

I am glad he was not but fear much more of the same is on its way...fast.

Eagler

[SIM]

It's ok semp, at this point most people expect you to open your pie-hole and stick your foot in it. The comedy is that you never fail to entertain someone. Others just think what a pitifully decrepit soul you have shown yourself to be.


 You've been caught in lie, exaggeration, lie, exaggeration, lie, exaggeration so many times that no one believes a word you say. They just string you along for the hell of it.


 

[Guppy35]

Not sure what is crazier..open carry for a 17 year old or calling murderous arsonist looting riots peaceful protests...

Please see these gang lootings as the path America is now on..they just gang up to overwhelming numbers and take what they want now..

I think that behavior will lead to more of the Ritterhouse behaviour...its not the other way around..

Sounds like some of you would rather of seen the kid killed by the rioters..or at least charged for their deaths..

I am glad he was not but fear much more of the same is on its way...fast.

Eagler

Combining to two to justify a 17 year old to be out there with an AR doesn't work.  Note the Wisconsin National Guard was on standby for the end of the Rittenhouse trial.  They should have been there to help when the rioting was going on.  I despise idiots who look for excuses to destroy and loot places as much as I despise idiots who look for excuses to go out with their ARs and pretend to be the law.  The powers that be should have done more to deal with the rioters. 

I'd rather be complaining about the screw ups by the powers that be for not dealing with rioters with no people shot, than dealing with this situation where two people died and one was wounded.

There is no excuse for a 17 year old kid to be out on the streets carrying an AR playing cop.

[LCADolby]

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.

1st bold; No one is saying that you are playing reductio ad absurdum to poor effect.
2nd; It's much more complex then you present it, Kyle was seen providing first aid and putting out fires, cleaning up after rioters.
3rd; NO absolutely not, yet again reductio ad absurdum. But 1 less pedo in the world is a huge plus.
4th; He didn't treat it as a toy, he showed great restraint and intelligence in only using his firearm in self defence and only that. All footage shows this.


There has been so much reductio ad absurdum in play I'm getting annoyed spelling it i've got it on cntl v, but at least we are dealing with piss poor argumentation from Rittenhouse's detractors than the usual mud slinging contest it usually devolves into.





Any person of sound mind and thought, having viewed the footage, and seen the trial evidence can see that Rittenhouse was and is innocent of murder. There was only a trial to please the Mob. There shouldn't have even been a trial in my view, the footage made it open and shut.

Gaige was my favourite, sat under oath; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI3yrcLbQvc go to 9min mark and watch to the end.

The state had only facts to fight it's case against Rittenhouse and lost. It's that simple. Facts and Justice won, God Bless America for that.
People want a Court system that works, and there is was, working absolutely morally correct.

[Guppy35]

Also your example is exactly like the rape scenario.

Person is assaulted because of the clothes the person is wearing. Person is assaulted for where the person is wearing the clothes.

Just put the word sexual in front of the word assaulted.

Since when have clothes been a threat to others like a gun can be seen as?  A kid with an AR walks into a crowd of people and we are supposed to accept that?  Again, I had a kid who at 17 knew ARs and AKs inside out.  That was part of the deal in my allowing him to shoot them.  He also knew that it wasn't a toy, and you don't go out and pretend to be Rambo with it.  I'd have crucified him for that. He was able to enjoy the privilege because he understood the responsibility.  If Rittenhouse had been trained as some folks claim, he'd have known it was not a place he should have been with an AR. 

[Guppy35]

1st bold; No one is saying that you are playing reductio ad absurdum to poor effect.
2nd; It's much more complex then you present it, Kyle was seen providing first aid and putting out fires, cleaning up after rioters.
3rd; NO absolutely not, yet again reductio ad absurdum. But 1 less pedo in the world is a huge plus.
4th; He didn't treat it as a toy, he showed great restraint and intelligence in only using his firearm in self defence and only that. All footage shows this.


There has been so much reductio ad absurdum in play I'm getting annoyed spelling it i've got it on cntl v, but at least we are dealing with piss poor argumentation from Rittenhouse's detractors than the usual mud slinging contest it usually devolves into.





Any person of sound mind and thought, having viewed the footage, and seen the trial evidence can see that Rittenhouse was and is innocent of murder. There was only a trial to please the Mob. There shouldn't have even been a trial in my view, the footage made it open and shut.

Gaige was my favourite, sat under oath; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI3yrcLbQvc go to 9min mark and watch to the end.

The state had only facts to fight it's case against Rittenhouse and lost. It's that simple. Facts and Justice won, God Bless America for that.
People want a Court system that works, and there is was, working absolutely morally correct.

Nothing would have stopped him from providing first aid and medical care.  You are suggesting he would have been assaulted for that?  Nothing justified him walking around with an AR.  This conversation isn't happening if he hadn't been carrying a gun.

[LCADolby]

Nothing would have stopped him from providing first aid and medical care.  You are suggesting he would have been assaulted for that?  Nothing justified him walking around with an AR.  This conversation isn't happening if he hadn't been carrying a gun.

Absolutely, they were rioting, rioters and mobs don't need a valid reason for assault, they began assaulting for putting out the dumpster fire by a gas station though.

I think Rioting and Mob Violence is as good justification for any self defence weaponry.

No, this conversation wouldn't be happening if protesters stay peaceful.

[Eviscerate]

This conversation isn't happening if he hadn't been carrying a gun.

I am curious of your thoughts of the fellow he shot who pointed his illegally possessed Glock at KR's head?

[Eagler]

When the choice is open carry and what goes with that or this...I'll take civilians trying to keep the animals under control if the law is too scared or prevented from doing their jobs.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/11/22/it-was-insane-dozens-of-looters-ransack-walnut-creek-nordstrom-store/

Eagler