Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

1…184185187189190…331

Comments

  • #5582
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,747 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    That's all based on your opinion of what happened that night.

    Just as my opinion of what happened was that he acted in self defense.

    No..

    It's based on the law - I linked to it a page or two back.

    Defending property" requires you to be ON THE PROPERTY - He wasn't on the property , he was on the public street.


    You keep talking about him having a "Legitimate and Genuine" reason for being there. Whilst he himself might think that, as you clearly do. Under the law , he did not.

    The facts under the law are - He was not "defending property" , he was on the street with a gun.

    The simple act of him being on the street with a gun may have been illegal - That remains to be clarified.

    He shot 3 people , 2 of whom died.

    Whether or not his claim of "self-defence" holds up may come down to the interpretation of Wisconsins "Duty to Retreat" laws.

    Wisconsin is not a "Stand your ground" State.

    If it is deemed that he "started" the incident by getting involved in another pre-existing fight , then he cannot claim self-defence.

    The other people there , especially the 3rd guy that was shot who had a gun, also have cases to answer.

    He might also be able to claim self defence (but unlikely).


  • #5583
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    joeguevara wrote: »
    The fact that you have stated he acted in self defence means you accept he committed a murder. There cannot be self defence without murder. Therefore he is murderous. A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands without lawful right. As you have accepted he murdered someone and he is not an officer means by definition he is a vigilante.

    Now, the fact he is a juvenile and travelled to a riot and got a phone call from a business owner and was given a rifle, could mean that it wasn’t murder. Manipulation could be at play. It is no coincidence that previous principals are saying he was severely bullied for being dumb and stupid. Also, if it transpires that he was receiving paraphernalia from third parties fuelling his blue lives matter obsession and further instructions which led to the heinous crime, then all bets are off.

    I can see a lack of duty of care defence being put forward. Honestly, I see this going to juvenile court. Media blackout. US equivalent of manslaughter bargained. If he is convicted of murder conservative gun activists will have their perfect gun control case. If he is found not guilty, it will be a Rodney king x10000000.

    Not true at all as murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.

    Therefore, he didn't murder anyone he killed 2 people in self defense killing someone and murdering someone are not the same thing.

    For instance you wouldn't say that a cop murdered an armed suspect in a shoot out you'd say he killed them.


  • #5584
    clubberlang12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭clubberlang12


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Does the role of community lifeguard enable someone to be armed?

    Does playing football after work mean you wear football boots to the office?

    Do all fire arms owners bring their fire-arms into their work place?

    Some of the comments here are ridiculous and trying to be sensational.

    To the people asking to prove Rittenhouse was working as a community life guard that day...........why don't ye show provable evidence that he definitely wasn't working as one that day?


  • #5585
    Hande hoche!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,950 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Some very poor polling coming out overnight for Trump & the Republicans. Evidence of the usual incumbent bump following a convention hasn't materialised following the RNC. Even his favourite pollsters Rasmussen who always lean for Trump don't look great.

    Race/Topic () Poll Results Spread
    2020 Generic Congressional Vote Grinnell/Selzer Democrats 48, Republicans 41 Democrats +7
    2020 Generic Congressional Vote USA Today/Suffolk Democrats 48, Republicans 42 Democrats +6
    Direction of Country USA Today/Suffolk Right Direction 30, Wrong Track 62 Wrong Track +32
    Direction of Country Politico/Morning Consult Right Direction 28, Wrong Track 72 Wrong Track +44
    General Election: Trump vs. Biden USA Today/Suffolk Biden 50, Trump 43 Biden +7
    General Election: Trump vs. Biden Grinnell/Selzer Biden 49, Trump 41 Biden +8
    President Trump Job Approval Grinnell/Selzer Approve 43, Disapprove 51 Disapprove +8
    President Trump Job Approval USA Today/Suffolk Approve 45, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +7
    President Trump Job Approval Politico/Morning Consult Approve 42, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +15

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

    From what I recall neither candidate got a particularly impressive bump post convention. A lot can happen in eight weeks.


  • #5586
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    joeguevara wrote: »
    The fact that you have stated he acted in self defence means you accept he committed a murder. There cannot be self defence without murder. Therefore he is murderous.
    You know the word murder has an actual definition right?
    joeguevara wrote: »
    A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands without lawful right. As you have accepted he murdered someone and he is not an officer means by definition he is a vigilante.
    Exactly, "without lawful right." It's not illegal to shoot someone in legitimate self-defence. He's not a vigilante.

    Kyle Rittenhouse will not do a day in prison for homicide. I guarantee you.


  • Advertisement
  • #5587
    randd1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭randd1


    I honestly cannot fathom how anyone, on either side of the US political divide, cannot see that a 17 year old out on a public street with a gun that you intend to use, that shoots 2 people dead and injures another, is not a murderer.

    Is the political divide in America so bad that people can't see a 17 year old vigilante shooting people dead is not murder based on who you support for president?

    What a *ucked up country.


  • #5588
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,747 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Not true at all as murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.

    Therefore, he didn't murder anyone he killed 2 people in self defense killing someone and murdering someone are not the same thing.

    For instance you wouldn't say that a cop murdered an armed suspect in a shoot out you'd say he killed them.

    Self-Defence is a legally reasonable (and the only) defence for his lawyers to contend.

    However , the people who he was involved in the scuffles with that led to the shootings could equally put forward the same defence.

    It remains to be seen how the judge and jury decide , but your willingness to absolve one person from all guilt and convict the others in confusing.

    None of the people involved that night had a "legitimate and genuine" reason for being there.


  • #5589
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    randd1 wrote: »
    I honestly cannot fathom how anyone, on either side of the US political divide, cannot see that a 17 year old out on a public street with a gun that you intend to use, that shoots 2 people dead and injures another, is not a murderer.
    How do you know that he went there with the intent to kill someone?

    Seriously, you actually have to substantiate a claim like that.

    randd1 wrote: »
    Is the political divide in America so bad that people can't see a 17 year old vigilante shooting people dead is not murder based on who you support for president?
    His only crime was having a gun he shouldn't have had.


  • #5590
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,856 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Do you consider the burning down of buildings and the destroying of businesses as non-violent?

    As you said you, it's a subjective term and not a legal definition.

    I would certainly call someone shooting dead 2 people and injuring another violent, but thats my subjective definition apparently.


  • #5591
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,448 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Hande hoche! wrote: »
    From what I recall neither candidate got a particularly impressive bump post convention. A lot can happen in eight weeks.

    Biden did get a bump in fairness https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-enjoys-post-convention-bump-favorability-poll/story?id=72544897

    Post convention bumps are of little use as they usually settle back down after a few weeks but the fact Trump got none at all is very unusual - if anything his favourability went down according to Rasmussen polling (which Trump often cites).

    Of course there's a long way to go and anything could still happen but the Trump side have been claiming over the last few days that Biden is collapsing in the polls which isn't the case at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #5592
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,044 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Hande hoche! wrote: »
    From what I recall neither candidate got a particularly impressive bump post convention. A lot can happen in eight weeks.

    It seems the only two states with significant movement were Arizona and Wisconsin, though they do represent 21 of the EC votes which isn't insignificant given that a lot of states seem almost set in stone, along with there being extremely low numbers of undecided voters remaining and Trump's "path to 270 seats" being increasingly difficult to see, outside of limiting access to people's ability to vote by messing with the mail service further or continuing the republican tradition of strategically closing polling centres in order to make lines at those still open take hours and hours to get through.

    A lot can happen in 8 weeks indeed, but with Trump already behind by a noticeable margin, he would have been the one looking for a bump from the convention more than Biden. This was an opportunity for something to happen for Trump, and quite a big one at that, but it didn't. He will need more to go in his favour now than he otherwise would have if the RNC had gone better, or the DNC had gone worse.

    All in all, not a resounding victory for Biden, but it was definitely a missed opportunity for Trump.


  • #5593
    randd1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭randd1


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    How do you know that he went there with the intent to kill someone?

    What else would you need a gun for? Planting tulips? Paddling a canoe? Measuring the length of a car?

    Bringing a gun to a protest/riot, you're not doing it unless you intend to use it. Which, tragically, he did.


  • #5594
    clubberlang12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭clubberlang12


    randd1 wrote: »
    I honestly cannot fathom how anyone, on either side of the US political divide, cannot see that a 17 year old out on a public street with a gun that you intend to use, that shoots 2 people dead and injures another, is not a murderer.

    Is the political divide in America so bad that people can't see a 17 year old vigilante shooting people dead is not murder based on who you support for president?

    What a *ucked up country.

    How do you prove intend? Does every single gun owner in the US have the intend to use it to shoot someone? Or do some own for safety and protection purposes?

    If he wasn't attacked..........would he still have fired at someone?

    This has nothing to do with "support for president", it's actually about using some critical thinking on the event. Ironically, it seems more that the hatred for a president is driving peoples opinion of the incident.


  • #5595
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,448 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    A lot can happen in 8 weeks indeed, but with Trump already behind by a noticeable margin, he would have been the one looking for a bump from the convention more than Biden. This was an opportunity for something to happen for Trump, and quite a big one at that, but it didn't. He will need more to go in his favour now than he otherwise would have if the RNC had gone better, or the DNC had gone worse.

    All in all, not a resounding victory for Biden, but it was definitely a missed opportunity for Trump.

    The Trump side playing up that Biden would be practically unable to give his speech at the DNC but ended up giving a perfectly serviceable coherent political speech was probably the biggest win for Biden. Many people believed the Trump hyperbole and genuinely thought Biden would be unable to speak and come out drooling but he came across like a normal politician.


  • #5596
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    You know the word murder has an actual definition right?


    Exactly, "without lawful right." It's not illegal to shoot someone in legitimate self-defence. He's not a vigilante.

    Kyle Rittenhouse will not do a day in prison for homicide. I guarantee you.

    You can’t ask a question about a definition and not state it. Yes I am aware of the definition. It requires an actual reus and a men’s rea. First is the act, which you have agreed as you raise the self defence argument. The second is the mens rea which is the mental element. His lawyer has said he brought his rifle into the riot with a specific reason to use force to protect a business owner. Now, if you make such a decision you have reasonably accepted the consequences of what could happen. You can’t raise the self defence argument at this stage as you are not in fear of your life. So someone who decides to go into a dangerous situation with an armed weapon has the mens rea if an actus reus is committed.

    Now, the fact he is claiming self defence does not stop him being a vigilante. Are you saying a vigilante can’t claim self defence. A vigilante does not automatically mean they are going to murder someone. A citizen who takes law into their own arms is a vigilante.

    As an analogy, if an anti drugs group storm a dealers house to give them a warning/beating they are vigilantes. If one is about to be shot by a dealer and in fear of their life stabs them in self defence, are they still not a vigilante?


  • #5597
    clubberlang12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭clubberlang12


    randd1 wrote: »
    What else would you need a gun for? Planting tulips? Paddling a canoe? Measuring the length of a car?

    Bringing a gun to a protest/riot, you're not doing it unless you intend to use it. Which, tragically, he did.

    Does that count for the protesters who brought guns? One of whom can be seen with one approaching Rittenhouse.


  • #5598
    clubberlang12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭clubberlang12


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Self-Defence is a legally reasonable (and the only) defence for his lawyers to contend.

    However , the people who he was involved in the scuffles with that led to the shootings could equally put forward the same defence.

    It remains to be seen how the judge and jury decide , but your willingness to absolve one person from all guilt and convict the others in confusing.

    None of the people involved that night had a "legitimate and genuine" reason for being there.

    Probably the most common sense thing said on here so far.


  • #5599
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Self-Defence is a legally reasonable (and the only) defence for his lawyers to contend.

    However , the people who he was involved in the scuffles with that led to the shootings could equally put forward the same defence.

    Kyle was running away from Rosenbaum (the first guy to get shot). There's footage of Rosenbaum earlier being confrontational with the guys who were part of Kyle's group. He was saying "shoot me nigga!"

    The main argument against Kyle Rittenhouse seems to be he was "looking for trouble". We have no proof of that. We do have proof that the first guy he shot was behaving confrontationally with the people defending private property and later chased on of them and tried to take his gun.

    In order to invalidate Rittenhouse's self defence case, you have to prove he was the initial aggressor. We have evidence to the contrary.


  • #5600
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,747 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    clubberlang12 wrote: »
    How do you prove intend? Does every single gun owner in the US have the intend to use it to shoot someone? Or do some own for safety and protection purposes?

    If he wasn't attacked..........would he still have fired at someone?

    This has nothing to do with "support for president", it's actually about using some critical thinking on the event. Ironically, it seems more that the hatred for a president is driving peoples opinion of the incident.

    What did he "intend" then .

    We've already proved that he wasn't "Protecting Property" he was there to intimidate people with a gun. Why else would someone go to a riot with a gun?

    People like Rittenhouse and the other "Militia" types that were on the street that night were not helping , they were inflaming an already bad situation.

    Unless they were explicitly standing on Private property and remained there , they are no different to the Rioters - There to cause trouble.

    That is not a defence of the rioters, they are also guilty without question. Anyone that threw a rock at a window or any other act of vandalism or criminal damage etc. should also be prosecuted.


  • #5601
    randd1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭randd1


    clubberlang12 wrote: »
    Does that count for the protesters who brought guns? One of whom can be seen with one approaching Rittenhouse.

    Of course. It's not limited to Trump supporters or right leaning groups. There's been plenty of evidence that the BLM/Antifa "protesters" have been little more than violent thugs, some of whom committed murders and serious assault, and should see hefty sentences for it.

    I would see no difference in their attitude to human life than I would in the 17 years old. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who brings a gun to a riot/protest zone that isn't a police officer is only doing it with the knowledge and intent of using it, regardless of who they support politically. And when they use it, they're nothing more than murderers.


  • Advertisement
  • #5602
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,448 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    Kyle was running away from Rosenbaum (the first guy to get shot). There's footage of Rosenbaum earlier being confrontational with the guys who were part of Kyle's group. He was saying "shoot me nigga!"

    The main argument against Kyle Rittenhouse seems to be he was "looking for trouble". We have no proof of that. We do have proof that the first guy he shot was behaving confrontationally with the people defending private property and later chased on of them and tried to take his gun.

    In order to invalidate Rittenhouse's self defence case, you have to prove he was the initial aggressor. We have evidence to the contrary.

    Being confrontational doesn't mean that he should be shot. Did the guy represent a deadly threat to Rittenhouse that warranted him shooting him in the head?


  • #5603
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,747 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    Kyle was running away from Rosenbaum (the first guy to get shot). There's footage of Rosenbaum earlier being confrontational with the guys who were part of Kyle's group. He was saying "shoot me nigga!"

    The main argument against Kyle Rittenhouse seems to be he was "looking for trouble". We have no proof of that. We do have proof that the first guy he shot was behaving confrontationally with the people defending private property and later chased on of them and tried to take his gun.

    In order to invalidate Rittenhouse's self defence case, you have to prove he was the initial aggressor. We have evidence to the contrary.

    What else do you call walking around the street in the middle of a Riot with a weapon??

    He was NOT defending property , he was looking for trouble. He was attempting to fulfill the role of the police/national guard. A role he had absolutely no legal authority to do.

    The whole thing is tragic and an appalling indictment of the state of the US right now.


  • #5604
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    randd1 wrote: »
    What else would you need a gun for? Planting tulips? Paddling a canoe? Measuring the length of a car?
    "What else would you need a gun for"
    That's not evidence. That's conjecture.

    The onus is on you to prove he had premeditated killing someone.

    randd1 wrote: »
    Bringing a gun to a protest/riot, you're not doing it unless you intend to use it. Which, tragically, he did.

    Yes but you're begging the question. USE IT FOR WHAT? He went there to help defend private property from rioters. There's no evidence he went there because he wanted to kill people.

    He may not have anticipated being chased away by a lunatic trying to take his gun but once that happened, his right to self defence still stands.


  • #5605
    clubberlang12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭clubberlang12


    randd1 wrote: »
    Of course. It's not limited to Trump supporters or right leaning groups. There's been plenty of evidence that the BLM/Antifa "protesters" have been little more than violent thugs, some of whom committed murders and serious assault, and should see hefty sentences for it.

    I would see no difference in their attitude to human life than I would in the 17 years old. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who brings a gun to a riot/protest zone that isn't a police officer is only doing it with the knowledge and intent of using it, regardless of who they support politically. And when they use it, they're nothing more than murderers.

    In a perfect setting that is all very true, and i would generally agree. But what we have to try and assess here is the context in which the fire-arm was used, regardless of whether he should have brought one there.
    In the context of this situation.........you have a fire-arm, you are in a hostile environment, you get chased by someone seeming to be aggressive, he throws something at you, you are running away and stumble, said chaser tries to remove your weapon from you physically(not through verbal reasoning), and you potentially fear for your own safety should he remove it.

    What do you do in said situation? And lets be real, you are most likely fearing for your life.


  • #5606
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    What else do you call walking around the street in the middle of a Riot with a weapon??

    He was NOT defending property , he was looking for trouble. He was attempting to fulfill the role of the police/national guard. A role he had absolutely no legal authority to do.

    The whole thing is tragic and an appalling indictment of the state of the US right now.

    Wrong he was there to provide medical assistance to people that needed it since he is a trained medic as can be seen from this video in which helped a wounded protester.

    https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1300970053307740160?s=09

    He was there to help people and the reason he had his rifle was because he would be running into harms way in doing so.

    https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1298776265197985799?s=09


  • #5607
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,448 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    This is a pretty disgusting move by the Trump campaign but not at all surprising. Very dishonest.

    Kenosha business owner declines President Trump photo-op, former owner replaces him who Trump claims is still the business owner

    https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/kenosha-business-owner-declines-president-trump-photo-op-former-owner-replaces-him


  • #5608
    clubberlang12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭clubberlang12


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    What did he "intend" then .

    We've already proved that he wasn't "Protecting Property" he was there to intimidate people with a gun. Why else would someone go to a riot with a gun?

    People like Rittenhouse and the other "Militia" types that were on the street that night were not helping , they were inflaming an already bad situation.

    Unless they were explicitly standing on Private property and remained there , they are no different to the Rioters - There to cause trouble.

    That is not a defence of the rioters, they are also guilty without question. Anyone that threw a rock at a window or any other act of vandalism or criminal damage etc. should also be prosecuted.

    None of your post can determine his intentions?

    Who was the agitator in this sequence of events? Rittenhouse? The persons chasing him in both instances of shooting? And don't say he was because he carried a fire-arm? Did every person carrying a fire-arm shoot someone that night, or any other night? If not, then what was their intentions for carrying a fire-arm with them?

    Do you consider the people carrying fire-arms who conversed with rioters saying they were only there to protect private property and owners but agreed with them about some of the civil rights issue, to be just as incendiary as the rioters who damaged and looted?


  • #5609
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Being confrontational doesn't mean that he should be shot.
    No but it undermines the case that he chased down Rittenhouse and tried to take his gun in some convoluted effort to defend himself. As though Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor (which we still have no evidence for).
    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Did the guy represent a deadly threat to Rittenhouse that warranted him shooting him in the head?
    Wrong question. Was it reasonable for Rittenhouse to believe he represented a deadly threat.

    Well if someone with a shirt tied to their head chases you down while throwing things and tries to grab your gun and you let them take your gun. What might happen next? It wouldn't be unreasonable for Rittenhouse to see this as a threat. Especially when you've got someone firing a pistol into the air in the background.


  • #5610
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    What did he "intend" then .

    We've already proved that he wasn't "Protecting Property" he was there to intimidate people with a gun. Why else would someone go to a riot with a gun?

    People like Rittenhouse and the other "Militia" types that were on the street that night were not helping , they were inflaming an already bad situation.

    Unless they were explicitly standing on Private property and remained there , they are no different to the Rioters - There to cause trouble.

    That is not a defence of the rioters, they are also guilty without question. Anyone that threw a rock at a window or any other act of vandalism or criminal damage etc. should also be prosecuted.

    Intention to murder also includes the probable outcome of the action. For instance there is a famous case of a guy shooting a gun in a crowded bar. He tried to plea that he didn’t mean to kill anyone. But he was convicted of murder because of the probable outcome of his actions or his disregard of same. In the current situation, bringing a loaded rifle to a situation where there was a likelihood that he would discharge it, would on the face of it satisfy the disregard Mens rea. Of course, it could be raised that he was only going to use it to intimidate. The fact it was loaded is the disregard. Also, if intimidation was the desired outcome a bat or stick has the same outcome. One of the most damning things is the fact it was stated that if he didn’t bring a loaded rifle he would have died. Preemption of self defence is considered not justifiable in US law. There is a defence of same in international law but is restricted to armed conflict or terrorism but I have never seen it argued when a person travels with a lethal weapon.

    Listen, this case is a lawyers dream. It has everything. Also, a jury is a wildcard. Chances of allowing such a powder keg case to go to trial is zero. Everything above is my opinion. Who knows what will come out.


  • Advertisement
  • #5611
    randd1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭randd1


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    "What else would you need a gun for"
    That's not evidence. That's conjecture.

    The onus is on you to prove he had premeditated killing someone.




    Yes but you're begging the question. USE IT FOR WHAT? He went there to help defend private property from rioters. There's no evidence he went there because he wanted to kill people.

    He may not have anticipated being chased away by a lunatic trying to take his gun but once that happened, his right to self defence still stands.
    Conjecture or not, guns are designed for the purpose of killing. Having a gun on your person for use therefore denotes the very possibility of using it to kill. Knowing you have an instrument designed to kill on you person would denote the willingness to use it.

    As for conjecture, unless you've spoken directly to the chap himself, you have no clue as to his motive for being there either.

    As for not anticipating someone chasing him, why did he bring the gun then? If he was there to "protect property", then he would have anticipated confrontation, meaning he went there with the intent to shoot. A premeditation to shoot means murder. not self defence. And as much as "there's no evidence he went there because he wanted to kill people", equally there's no evidence to suggest that he wasn't intending on killing people either, American youngsters of course being in no way infamous for random, deadly shootings.

    And as you're going down the "there's no evidence route", there's no evidence the person attempting to take his gun may have being someone genuinely attempting to prevent the murder of an innocent person. It wouldn't be the first time someone wielding a gun in public was tackled by a fellow citizen to prevent them killing someone.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement