LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[Brownshoe]

(08-27-2020, 01:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not making assumptions. I am saying that these are possible things that are currently unknowns and until they are known, we can't say whether it was self-defense or not.

From the evidence shown so far then it points toward him defending himself. Otherwise you would have to assume he assaulted a guy. What we see is that Kyle tried to retreat, shot the guy who was trying to attack him, and then ran some more until a bigger group started to attack him, and then he defended himself against lethal force, and then went to the police.

[Belsnickel]

(08-27-2020, 01:38 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: From the evidence shown so far then it points toward him defending himself. Otherwise you would have to assume he assaulted a guy. What we see is that Kyle tried to retreat, shot the guy who was trying to attack him, and then ran some more until a bigger group started to attack him, and then he defended himself against lethal force, and then went to the police.

From the evidence right now, we do not know what led up to the first shooting. As I have stated several times, if he initiated the confrontation then he has a duty to retreat. If he didn't, then he doesn't. We do not have an answer to that at this time as there is no evidence either way.

[GMDino]

Kyle Rittenhouse was armed with a fully loaded AR-15 and a dead body nearby and dozens of witnesses yelling that he was the one who murdered the guy when cops had a friendly chat with him and let him go home https://t.co/VlJslSgYS3

— Matt Oswalt (@MattOswaltVA) August 27, 2020

 

[Brownshoe]

(08-27-2020, 01:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: From the evidence right now, we do not know what led up to the first shooting. As I have stated several times, if he initiated the confrontation then he has a duty to retreat. If he didn't, then he doesn't. We do not have an answer to that at this time as there is no evidence either way.

Kyle was retreating while Joseph (the first person he shot) was attacking. Pretty cut and dry. What could have happened before that, that could have change Kyle being on the defense since he's literally trying to run away.

[Brownshoe]

(08-27-2020, 01:42 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Kyle Rittenhouse was armed with a fully loaded AR-15 and a dead body nearby and dozens of witnesses yelling that he was the one who murdered the guy when cops had a friendly chat with him and let him go home https://t.co/VlJslSgYS3

— Matt Oswalt (@MattOswaltVA) August 27, 2020

 

Wow, that's sad that you won't watch the first video even Belsnickel will acknowledge. Why is that?

[Belsnickel]

(08-27-2020, 01:43 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Kyle was retreating while Joseph (the first person he shot) was attacking. Pretty cut and dry. What could have happened before that, that could have change Kyle being on the defense since he's literally trying to run away.

I'm going to stop this back and forth. Your mind is made up even in the lack of evidence. You have no intention of seeking out the facts.

[Brownshoe]

(08-27-2020, 01:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm going to stop this back and forth. Your mind is made up even in the lack of evidence. You have no intention of seeking out the facts.

I've seen the videos of Kyle legit trying to run away from confrontation. He's running away from Joseph (the first person he shot) and Joseph is running towards him and trying to assault him by throwing things at him. Kyle: running away - retreating - defensive, Joseph - Charging - throwing things at him - aggressive. There's no lack of evidence when there's a video of Kyle trying to run away before anyone was shot.

[Belsnickel]

(08-27-2020, 01:49 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: I've seen the videos of Kyle legit trying to run away from confrontation. He's running away from Joseph (the first person he shot) and Joseph is running towards him and trying to assault him by throwing things at him. Kyle: running away - retreating - defensive, Joseph - Charging - throwing things at him - aggressive. There's no lack of evidence when there's a video of Kyle trying to run away before anyone was shot.

Alright, I lied. One last time. If Kyle initiated the confrontation, then by stopping and turning around to shoot his pursuer he potentially violated his duty to retreat. This is why what happened before the video is important to determine whether it was self-defense or not.

[BmorePat87]

(08-27-2020, 01:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Depends on how you define mass shooter.  

And number 2 and 3 as far as death counts go were not white.  

That's true, there's a lot of definitions.

[Brownshoe]

(08-27-2020, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Alright, I lied. One last time. If Kyle initiated the confrontation, then by stopping and turning around to shoot his pursuer he potentially violated his duty to retreat. This is why what happened before the video is important to determine whether it was self-defense or not.

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.




AKA: Kyle trying to retreat and Joseph still attacking him. Kyle can easily think he's in great bodily harm due to the recent riots where people are beaten almost to death, and sometimes killed.

The fact of the matter is Kyle was trying to retreat. Joseph was trying to attack, and that made it self defense.

[BmorePat87]

(08-27-2020, 01:25 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: No, my argument is that the only thing we see before the video starts is Joseph being aggressive towards the militia. When the video starts Joseph was chasing Kyle. There were gun fires shot, Kyle (being on the defense at the time) turned around and shot Joseph (being on the offense at the time) in the head. There is more than enough reason to believe at the very least serious bodily harm was going to happen to Kyle. After Kyle is running away there are more gunshots going off. You then see Kyle running away and a mob running after him, some attacking him. After getting hit and tripping up Kyle is being assaulted by getting stomped in the head, hit in the head with a skateboard, and a man running up with a pistol drawn. The only choice he has at that point is to defend himself more, shoots and kills one and wounds another. Then he went to the police, who should have arrested him and started an investigation.

There is only one assumption that I'm making and it's not a baseless one because there's evidence of aggression. There were MULTIPLE threats of serious injuries (being chased with multiple other possible aggressive people around) and lethal force (getting hit in the head with a skateboard, stomped on, and a gun pointed at him). You try to say there's no "fact that no one used or threatened to use any lethal force against him" which is untrue.

The best thing that could have happened is that no militia went out and let the police do their job. The second best thing is not to try to attack a guy with a gun who's trying to retreat. The third best thing is to let the cops deal with Kyle shooting the first guy.

The entire premise hinges on a guy chasing you with a bottle of soda requires lethal force, but even that requires the assumption that the killer did nothing prior to that. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-27-2020, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Alright, I lied. One last time. If Kyle initiated the confrontation, then by stopping and turning around to shoot his pursuer he potentially violated his duty to retreat. This is why what happened before the video is important to determine whether it was self-defense or not.

Wisconsin law on self defense:


The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.


So he has to believe this person will cause great bodily harm


but...

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.

(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.
© A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

If he engaged in criminal behavior (unlawfully brandishing a gun for starters) he loses a lot of legal outlets, especially if he did so intending to cause a situation where he could use lethal force or cause great bodily harm. 

He can also lose self defense in this situations:

The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.

When he's sitting on the ground firing at everyone around him, be they attackers or not, he is jeopardizing that claim.

and if the altercation stemmed from him threatening force to "defend property", he almost certainly is not protected:

939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.

(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2)A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.

[Belsnickel]

(08-27-2020, 02:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wisconsin law on self defense:


The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.


So he has to believe this person will cause great bodily harm


but...

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.

(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.
© A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

If he engaged in criminal behavior (unlawfully brandishing a gun for starters) he loses a lot of legal outlets, especially if he did so intending to cause a situation where he could use lethal force or cause great bodily harm. 

He can also lose self defense in this situations:

The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.

When he's sitting on the ground firing at everyone around him, be they attackers or not, he is jeopardizing that claim.

and if the altercation stemmed from him threatening force to "defend property", he almost certainly is not protected:

939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.

(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2)A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.

Yup. Context within the rest of the law is important when trying to look at the situation.

[Brownshoe]

He was still withdrawing from the conflict aka running away. That alone gives him the privileges back, but you don't want to acknowledge that. When Kyle started to retreat and Joseph started to attack that gave him self defense privileges.

You can easily say he was in fear of great bodily harm even on the first guy. The rest are obvious lethal forces used against him (which he was only targeting people who was using lethal force against him, not just randomly firing)

[GMDino]

“Why was Jacob Blake seen as a deadly threat for a theoretical gun, while this gunman, who had already shot people, was arrested the next day and treated like a human being whose life matters?”

More on the police shooting of Jacob Blake & protests in Kenosha: pic.twitter.com/cQAU5fkDsg

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) August 27, 2020

 

[Brownshoe]

(08-27-2020, 02:28 PM)GMDino Wrote:

“Why was Jacob Blake seen as a deadly threat for a theoretical gun, while this gunman, who had already shot people, was arrested the next day and treated like a human being whose life matters?”

More on the police shooting of Jacob Blake & protests in Kenosha: pic.twitter.com/cQAU5fkDsg

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) August 27, 2020

 

Nope, but if you looked at what actually happened it's a pretty open and close case. If you don't want to ever read anything that I post I"ll just do the foot notes... again (I have no idea why you don't want to read what actually happened)

-Woman calls the cops because Jacob Blake is there when he's not supposed to be there (for past domestic abuse), and when the cops get there he tries to leave.


-Cops know he has an open warrant and try to detain him by tasering him, and bringing him to the ground. He gets up and goes to the drivers side of his car where he has a deadly weapon

-Witnesses hear cops say "Drop the knife! Drop the knife!" and Jacob later admits he had a knife, and because of this he gets shot in the back

Pretty open and close. I have no idea how you can defend this.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2020, 02:34 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Nope, but if you looked at what actually happened it's a pretty open and close case. If you don't want to ever read anything that I post I"ll just do the foot notes... again (I have no idea why you don't want to read what actually happened)

-Woman calls the cops because Jacob Blake is there when he's not supposed to be there (for past domestic abuse), and when the cops get there he tries to leave.


-Cops know he has an open warrant and try to detain him by tasering him, and bringing him to the ground. He gets up and goes to the drivers side of his car where he has a deadly weapon

-Witnesses hear cops say "Drop the knife! Drop the knife!" and Jacob later admits he had a knife, and because of this he gets shot in the back

Pretty open and close. I have no idea how you can defend this.

You are repeating what the police claimed happened...three days later.

And EVEN IF they are 100% on target they shot a man SEVEN times in the back for a warrant and maybe having a knife.

If you support that I know where you stand and don't need to engage you or your ilk anymore.  Thanks.

[Brownshoe]

(08-27-2020, 02:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: You are repeating what the police claimed happened...three days later.

And EVEN IF they are 100% on target they shot a man SEVEN times in the back for a warrant and maybe having a knife.

If you support that I know where you stand and don't need to engage you or your ilk anymore.  Thanks.

There's video of them getting him to the ground and there's evidence that the call was for him? It wasn't "Maybe" having a knife. It was having a knife, which Jacob even admitted to. How can you defend a man resisting arrest and then going for a deadly weapon? Like, really?

[GMDino]

(08-27-2020, 02:41 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: There's video of them getting him to the ground and there's evidence that the call was for him? It wasn't "Maybe" having a knife. It was having a knife, which Jacob even admitted to. How can you defend a man resisting arrest and then going for a deadly weapon? Like, really?

Seven times shot in the back.


And with that...I'm done with you.

[Belsnickel]

(08-27-2020, 02:26 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: He was still withdrawing from the conflict aka running away. That alone gives him the privileges back, but you don't want to acknowledge that. When Kyle started to retreat and Joseph started to attack that gave him self defense privileges.

You can easily say he was in fear of great bodily harm even on the first guy. The rest are obvious lethal forces used against him (which he was only targeting people who was using lethal force against him, not just randomly firing)

Yeah, not acknowledging that because it's not the way it works.