Police shooting black man in the back ... again (Kenosha, WI)

[MontyPython]

have you been hanging out with Luther?

Come on, LEO. Instead of deflecting, stay on point: If you want to insert yourself into the conversation, answer the question.

 

[McDad]

Yeah it's unfortunate the white kid had to shoot 3 white guys in self defense. Where's the privilege?

I didn't know he shot white guys. Why is this even in the news, then?

 

[Hoosier_Vol]

 

[Hoosier_Vol]

 

[hog88]

Come on, LEO. Instead of deflecting, stay on point: If you want to insert yourself into the conversation, answer the question.

No, and again you posted a scenario completely opposite of what happened and are trying to correlate them.

 

[Rickyvol77]

So scenario for ya, Ricky:

Man rapes your daughter. Three guys witness this happen and chase the rapist. Rapist pulls out gun and shoots the witnesses.

You good with this? After all, the rapist was just acting in "self-defense".

Except Rittenhouse was chased and assaulted by the sex offender first who had him on the ground trying to hurt him (Bang, one felon down)

Rittenhouse gets up and reassesses the threats in the area, and the domestic violence felon, comes up and knocks him down and hits him to the head several times with a skateboard trying to kill him (bang, two felons down)

Felon #3 approaches Rittenhouse on the ground with a gun he is carrying illegally in his hand and aims it at him (Bang, unarmed felon) This guy later states his intent was to kill Rittenhouse.

So please explain to me what horrible crime (especially one compared to child rape in your opinion) did Rittenhouse do that you are trying to say he deserved to be assaulted?

 

[JOEY'S ALL VOL !!!]

So scenario for ya, Ricky:

Man rapes your daughter. Three guys witness this happen and chase the rapist. Rapist pulls out gun and shoots the witnesses.

You good with this? After all, the rapist was just acting in "self-defense".

Exactly who did this Kyle kid rape ?

Dumbest post in VN history to date! Congratulations on that miraculous distinction!

 

[NorthDallas40]

Christ, can you not follow the actual thread? @JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! is making the assertion that a jury in TN can, of it's own volition, choose to consider self-defense on charges regardless of the jury instructions when it comes to a murder charge for shooting someone who is destroying property alone.

And this is the TN supreme court, since he's in TN and not TX, stating that the court is the gatekeeper for allowing the jury to consider self-defense, and will only do so if proof at trial exists.

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you really struggling this much?

Here’s a bit more expanded picture for you to chew on. @RockyTop85 if you read the other link you might want to consider all the background in this link also.

Honestly it reads to me not that the jury wasn’t allowed to consider self defense but rather the circumstances under which an affirmative defense of self defense can be considered. That’s very different from a judge telling a jury that they may not even consider it.

And a better point is that the defendant was a convicted felon and thus his ability to even be able to shoot someone requires possession of a firearm and thus by definition is “engaged in unlawful activity” which precludes the ability to claim self defense

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Tennessee case and opinions.

 

[BeecherVol]

Come on, LEO. Instead of deflecting, stay on point: If you want to insert yourself into the conversation, answer the question.

Thats hard to do when you skip through the first chapter of the situation to create a different starting point.

 

[NorthDallas40]

have you been hanging out with Luther?

What’s more astonishing is that tripe post got a like

 

[508mikey]

18 is 18 just as 21 is 21. But, by your rationalization that he was almost an adult, the prosecutor in the case should try the shooter as an adult. Oops, that kind of 'backfired' on you.

We live under the rule of law.

Again, there's no way on god's green earth that some 17 YO lifeguard armed with an AR15 should be even within the same zip code as angry demonstrators.

Now, he'll spend the next... what... 10-20 years in prison.

move on from this tired story -- here is a new one to talk about Police: 1 dead, 4 wounded after shooters target diner sitting outside Morgan Park pancake house | WGN-TV or how about this one 3 charged in ‘shockingly violent’ armed home invasions in west suburbs | WGN-TV

 

[BeardedVol]

I see what the problem here is ... I'm speaking in English and you're listening in dumbass !

Who said anything about murder ? A lot of people around here have pretty good aim. Not to mention that most cases of this type wouldn't even see the courtroom here to start with. But anyway ...

does this mean you aren't coming to test your theory? Perfect opportunity for you to show just how right you are. Talk about an E cred opportunity of a lifetime !

Lol...the irony if you calling anyone a 'dumbass'

Have you realized that your argument is so poorly formed and divorced from reality that you are subconsciously trying to distance yourself? Or are you just choosing to be wholly disingenuous in your posting?

I'm not asking for the right or permission. I guarandamntee you that there isn't a judge or jury in Upper East TN going to convict me of any crime whatsoever if I put a round or 2 in someone's ass that is destroying my property or threatening me and my family while on my property.

Unless a person is justified in using deadly force as otherwise provided by law, a person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property.
Tennessee Code Title 39. Criminal Offenses § 39-11-614 | FindLaw

I'd say that I hope you don't find yourself in a position to find out how wrong you are, but I have the feeling that your the type of guy who'd manage to shoot himself in the junk trying to draw his weapon because you insist on appendix carry and don't do it properly, so it's probably a moot point.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I had flood insurance for a few years after the story of the Wolf Creek dam came out, dropped it when they said it was fixed.

If you had a certain product manufactured by a certain poster you would have to worry about a dam flood.

 

[hog88]

If you had a certain product manufactured by a certain poster you would have to worry about a dam flood.

Very true, I couldn't afford a house to worry about flood insurance.

 

[JOEY'S ALL VOL !!!]

Lol...the irony if you calling anyone a 'dumbass'

Have you realized that your argument is so poorly formed and divorced from reality that you are subconsciously trying to distance yourself? Or are you just choosing to be wholly disingenuous in your posting?


Unless a person is justified in using deadly force as otherwise provided by law, a person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property.
Tennessee Code Title 39. Criminal Offenses § 39-11-614 | FindLaw

I'd say that I hope you don't find yourself in a position to find out how wrong you are, but I have the feeling that your the type of guy who'd manage to shoot himself in the junk trying to draw his weapon because you insist on appendix carry and don't do it properly, so it's probably a moot point.

Sigh

You could have just answered "no" It would have saved you the typing and made you look a little better on the whole.

 

[BeardedVol]

Here’s a bit more expanded picture for you to chew on. @RockyTop85 if you read the other link you might want to consider all the background in this link also.

Honestly it reads to me not that the jury wasn’t allowed to consider self defense but rather the circumstances under which an affirmative defense of self defense can be considered. That’s very different from a judge telling a jury that they may not even consider it.

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Tennessee case and opinions.

An affirmative defense in the case of 'self-defense'is one where you admit do the crime, but claim legal justification by order of legal self-defense.

In @JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! assertion that he can "put a round or 2 in someone's ass that is destroying my property", he'd be admitting to the crime, and have no legal basis for actual self-defense under Tennessee law, as you cannot use lethal force to defend property alone.

No attorney is going to attempt an active 'self-defense' case where @JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! walked out side and saw his methhead neighbor trashing his jazzy scooter, and just unloaded in him.

@JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! seems to think that he could represent himself, and provide no evidence to support a self-defense claim, and that the that that a jury could consider 'self-defense' regardless of whether it is supported by evidence, and they cannot, as per the TN supreme court ruling.

 

[BeardedVol]

Sigh

You could have just answered "no" It would have saved you the typing and made you look a little better on the whole.

I feel for you man, reading what you type out as a representation of actual reality is painful for me as well.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I feel for you man, reading what you type out as a representation of actual reality is painful for me as well.

I can promise you, if you come to my house and you look like like your AVI, I will shoot you. I'd rather take my chance with the judicial system.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

An affirmative defense in the case of 'self-defense'is one where you admit do the crime, but claim legal justification by order of legal self-defense.

In @JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! assertion that he can "put a round or 2 in someone's ass that is destroying my property", he'd be admitting to the crime, and have no legal basis for actual self-defense under Tennessee law, as you cannot use lethal force to defend property alone.

No attorney is going to attempt an active 'self-defense' case where @JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! walked out side and saw his methhead neighbor trashing his jazzy scooter, and just unloaded in him.

@JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! seems to think that he could represent himself, and provide no evidence to support a self-defense claim, and that the that that a jury could consider 'self-defense' regardless of whether it is supported by evidence, and they cannot, as per the TN supreme court ruling.

Please attempt to damage Joey’s property & STFU. A permanent STFU.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Very true, I couldn't afford a house to worry about flood insurance.

Well technically you wouldn't need the house.

 

[NorthDallas40]

An affirmative defense in the case of 'self-defense'is one where you admit do the crime, but claim legal justification by order of legal self-defense.

In @JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! assertion that he can "put a round or 2 in someone's ass that is destroying my property", he'd be admitting to the crime, and have no legal basis for actual self-defense under Tennessee law, as you cannot use lethal force to defend property alone.

No attorney is going to attempt an active 'self-defense' case where @JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! walked out side and saw his methhead neighbor trashing his jazzy scooter, and just unloaded in him.

@JOEY'S ALL VOL !!! seems to think that he could represent himself, and provide no evidence to support a self-defense claim, and that the that that a jury could consider 'self-defense' regardless of whether it is supported by evidence, and they cannot, as per the TN supreme court ruling.

You cherry picked this and purposely mis-stated the circumstances. It’s in the link I provided. The key is not being engaged in unlawful activity which the defendant was not allowed due to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.

It’s fairly clear we are all speaking in generalities here and you cherry picked a corner case to make a shiite point. You’ve proved nothing. Your diatribe is meaningless. A convicted felon in possession of a firearm is by definition engaged in unlawful activity. Which is a topic for another thread.

 

[hog88]

Well technically you wouldn't need the house.

Good point. I'll use that logic with the Mrs and see where it gets me.

 

[0nelilreb]

What’s more astonishing is that tripe post got a like

Yeah.. but you see who it was that thought it was clever . Lol

 

[n_huffhines]

Turns out, everybody involved is an *******. Kyle Rittenhouse throwing bombs at a girl in a girl fight

 

[BeardedVol]

I can promise you, if you come to my house and you look like like your AVI, I will shoot you. I'd rather take my chance with the judicial system.

I'm sure you are already subscribed, but in the off-chance you aren't this seems to be pertinent to your interests.