BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Anyone that runs at someone with a gun wasn't going to live long anyway. That level of stupid can't.

It was dumb to rock up with a rifle and think that'd go down well. He should have done a bit of work on being a grey man in between the rifle classes. Once things went live he handled himself well, those people weren't running up to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

He seems a bit mentally "off". There's a twitter clip earlier on the thread before the shooting and he seemed to be about to instruct people to move back? Like who the hell do you think you are? Well the man with the gun I suppose.

Deleted User wrote: »

I was going to say "this can't be true" but it checks out. The US is such a ****hole. Still doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered.

You're not the judge of that.

Feisar wrote: »

Free country and all that, strong case to say he was entitled to be there (gun aside).

However what sort of clown invites that sort of trouble on themselves?

He was free to be anywhere, but a case can be made that he went there armed and with the intent to to use it. He brought a gun to a fist fight, which makes it very difficult to claim self defense.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Because they lead into each other.

If a group of people try to chase a person they see murdering someone the murderer doesn't get to claim 'self defense' to shoot all those people trying to stop him.

Back up there a bit. There's no proof at this stage that he murdered anybody. In fact there is witness testimony that he was being chased, cornered, had someone try grab his gun in the lead up to the first shootin so that would lead to a credible argument to be made that he acted in self-defence.

I'm not saying 100% that it was self-defence but certainly an argument can be made.

I guess a judge and jury will be able to decide that if it gets that far.

Also anyone pushing this tragic incident as some sort of "white supremacy terrorist attack" should note that in the court papers the 17 year olds ethnicity is ....... Hispanic

RasTa wrote: »

Nope, as explained already

And I disagree with that explanation.

BattleCorp wrote: »

He looks white as fcuk to me.

Hispanics can be white.

Overheal wrote: »

Self defense laws are rendered null if you are already engaged in a criminal act, which he was, by illegally possessing the weapon and carrying it illegally across the state line.

Does it not depend on the level of criminality that Rittenhouse was engaged in? I doubt you'd lose your right to claim self-defence if someone attacked you just because you were parked on a double yellow line.

BattleCorp wrote: »

He looks white as fcuk to me.

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1299083068083494912?s=20

BattleCorp wrote: »

Does it not depend on the level of criminality that Rittenhouse was engaged in? I doubt you'd lose your right to claim self-defence if someone attacked you just because you were parked on a double yellow line.

Having the gun is a class A misdemeanour in Wisconsin. Not a big deal by the sounds of it.

JaCrispy wrote: »

Nice passive racism

How is it racism to say he looks white? Unless of course it is a negative slur to say someone looks white?

Cordell wrote: »

It's very hard to justify the self defense when you go somewhere where there might be trouble, and you do that by your own choice, and you bring a gun with the intent to use it.
Maybe his victims were scumbags, but he's one of those too.

No, hes a dumb kid/libertarian most likely.

Engaging in a criminal act affects your right to self defence, but it doesn't remove it and it can be fully regained if you retreat. From the state laws on self defence:

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(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,

So first point is the prosecution has to prove the crime was *likely* to provoke an attack and *did* provoke the attack. The crime in question here is the kid was 17 and crossed state lines. Even if that was accepted as reasonable provocation, the mob cant have known that so how does the prosecutor prove that was the provocation?

But even if that is somehow proven, there are exeptions:

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.

Even if proven, he still has a right to self defence if he reasonably believes he is imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape.

Given a gang of grown men were chasing him and he heard shots fired, that is a reasonable belief on his part.

939.48(2)(b)(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

And even if again, even if the court somehow rules it wasn't reasonable he still regains the right to self defence by running away from the fight. Which he clearly was doing.

So the kid is going to face total lawfare from the state, but if he has a reasonably good lawyer his self defence argument will stand and exonerate him.

Great breakdown of what happened and how certain media outlets are pushing a certain narrative of what happened similar to the narrative that a number of posters are trying to push on this thread.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Looks like the kid never had a chance. What utter terrible parenting and if it was a black or brown kid this picture would be all over the media

https://twitter.com/NotHoodlum/status/1298697814449573888?s=20

If this was a photo of a brown child the right wing would be apoplectic.