Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#4,952
#4,952
BayVol7 said:
You think the two people he murdered were on the verge of killing him? If so, we have a different understanding of the facts.
Click to expand...
As I said before, you are ignorant of the law. That is not a requirement of self defense. Educate yourself on the requirements of the law. You're clueless right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, UT_Dutchman, MemphisVol77 and 2 others
#4,957
#4,957
Vol423 said:
As I said before, you are ignorant of the law. That is not a requirement of self defense. Educate yourself on the requirements of the law. You're clueless right now.
Click to expand...
Posters asked for my opinion. It is generally a requirement for SD. I am aware the state he was tried has a relaxed interpretation.
 
#4,960
#4,960
BayVol7 said:
Posters asked for my opinion. It is generally a requirement for SD. I am aware the state he was tried has a relaxed interpretation.
Click to expand...
That is not a requirement of self defense. You are either a) making up whatever you think the law should be, or b) incorrectly interpreting the law. Let me help. Here's an example. Note that the threat of injury is enough. He doesn't need to prove a threat of death.

1637723942956.png
 
#4,961
#4,961
tnmarktx said:
In other words, when you carry a firearm on your person you lose the right to self defense?
Click to expand...

People like bay are void of reality and live in a fantasy world. He’s not liked by anyone or good at anything so he took the white guilt angle in life to try and feel important at something. No doubt diagnosed with some sort of mental illness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CABVOL, Rickyvol77, InVOLuntary and 3 others
#4,964
#4,964
BayVol7 said:
You think the two people he murdered were on the verge of killing him? If so, we have a different understanding of the facts.
Click to expand...
It is certainly possible that any blow from a skateboard to the head could be lethal. Do you honestly believe that a victim is able to determine when that blow might occur, and should therefor wait until right before that blow is struck before choosing to defend themselves?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp1, UT_Dutchman, McDad and 2 others
#4,965
#4,965
C-south said:
People like bay are void of reality and live in a fantasy world. He’s not liked by anyone or good at anything so he took the white guilt angle in life to try and feel important at something. No doubt diagnosed with some sort of mental illness.
Click to expand...
It literally seems to be the same wrong legal stance the prosecutor took.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, txbo and StarRaider
#4,968
#4,968
BayVol7 said:
IMO, Rittenhouse would have had to be beaten an inch away from death by the skateboard for the gun usage to be justified. The threat of a skateboard is not enough.
Click to expand...

Thankfully this bears no resemblance to how self defense is lawfully defined. According to the FBI's UCR year after year more people are murdered by punching and kicking than all rifles combined. Attackees are not carrying the onus of calculating in the middle of an assault what their odds are regarding if they're facing the loaded chamber in some game of Russian Roulette. If there's an articulable threat of serious bodily harm (which KR for example absolutely lawfully had) then the self defense claim holds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad, MemphisVol77, 1vol8 and 1 other person
#4,969
#4,969
BayVol7 said:
IMO, Rittenhouse would have had to be beaten an inch away from death by the skateboard for the gun usage to be justified. The threat of a skateboard is not enough.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I gotta jump in here.

I’ve seen this argument made elsewhere and I just do not understand the logic behind it. I respectfully disagree.

How is someone supposed to make a rational and educated decision regarding the full intent of their attacker while they are actively being attacked? That’s just not how the human body works. Adrenaline and survival instincts kick in. Especially when it’s a stranger attacking you. We tend to react to the information we have at the time. I heard Cuomo make the same argument and it’s unrealistic. There is simply no way to know that the person attacking you is going to stop attacking you at some moment in time before they kill you. Especially if you don’t know this person and what their true intentions are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, McDad, StarRaider and 1 other person
#4,970
#4,970
Vol423 said:
...and that's an absolutely ridiculous question in the first place. For someone with the correct training, a ball point pin or a paper clip can be a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...
ayxQ6ZY_700b.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol423
#4,971
#4,971
VOLS INC. said:
Sorry. I gotta jump in here.

I’ve seen this argument made elsewhere and I just do not understand the logic behind it. I respectfully disagree.

How is someone supposed to make a rational and educated decision regarding the full intent of their attacker while they are actively being attacked? That’s just not how the human body works. Adrenaline and survival instincts kick in. Especially when it’s a stranger attacking you. We tend to react to the information we have at the time. I heard Cuomo make the same argument and it’s unrealistic. There is simply no way to know that the person attacking you is going to stop attacking you at some moment in time before they kill you. Especially if you don’t know this person and what their true intentions are.
Click to expand...

I think because bay has been beat his entire life and survived he feels that would hold true with every circumstance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#4,972
#4,972
BayVol7 said:
IMO, Rittenhouse would have had to be beaten an inch away from death by the skateboard for the gun usage to be justified. The threat of a skateboard is not enough.
Click to expand...
By that logic of waiting until beaten within an inch of his life he would be unable to defend himself at that point. So essentially you’re saying you gotta let someone carry out their full intent of killing you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol423
#4,973
#4,973
BayVol7 said:
You think the two people he murdered were on the verge of killing him? If so, we have a different understanding of the facts.
Click to expand...
Does not matter what anyone except the individual being attacked thought.

Also you slandered the person who was attacked by calling the individual... who was judged Not Guilty on each and every count that the State prosecuted the individual on... a "murderer". Do better.
 
#4,974
#4,974
Vol423 said:
That is not a requirement of self defense. You are either a) making up whatever you think the law should be, or b) incorrectly interpreting the law. Let me help. Here's an example. Note that the threat of injury is enough. He doesn't need to prove a threat of death.

View attachment 414411
Click to expand...
A lot of ways I can respond here. Not all states use the MPC. For example Wisconsin SD law states: (1) …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.
Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48
Which is less of a hurdle to clear than the rule you listed. I’d argue the kid didn’t clear the hurdle under the MPC.
 
#4,975
#4,975
BayVol7 said:
Equal threat of violence. In this instance, the two victims were not armed and words/skateboard do not equal an AR-15.
Click to expand...
A skateboard can kill, all it takes is one swing, coincidentally he swung it once. I'm curious to know how many swings before you defend yourself when attacked by a person with a skateboard you are attempting to retreat from?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top