Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#728
#728
Septic said:
Perhaps, but can you claim the cover of the law while violating the law? Not an attorney...

In other words, I wonder if it's a viable defense to shoot someone (for any reason) if you're illegally in possession of the gun to begin with?
Click to expand...
It would he similar to a felon picking up a gun to defend his life even tho legally he cannot possess a gun.
 
#729
#729
Vol8188 said:
Showing up with a gun does not equal murder. That’s not how this works. Many people were harmed. Many people protest armed.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it did. Please don't create a position or argument for me.
 
#730
#730
Septic said:
Perhaps, but can you claim the cover of the law while violating the law? Not an attorney...

In other words, I wonder if it's a viable defense to shoot someone (for any reason) if you're illegally in possession of the gun to begin with?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that would vary with circumstance and jurisdiction. I know for a fact it's happened where the gun charges were upheld but the person acquitted of murder by claiming SD.
 
#733
#733
Septic said:
Perhaps, but can you claim the cover of the law while violating the law? Not an attorney...

In other words, I wonder if it's a viable defense to shoot someone (for any reason) if you're illegally in possession of the gun to begin with?
Click to expand...

Yes. You can defend yourself even if you’re driving over the speed limit. You don’t forfeit your life to a violent mob simply because you broke a different law
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#734
#734
Vol8188 said:
Feel free to clarify. If you see this as a case of homicide, feel free to state why. I see a scared kid running from attackers
Click to expand...

I've already articulated my position that we should wait until of the evidence is examined. I'm less sure about Kyles guilt than I was about Derek Chauvin's and many here were absolutely certain that DC was innocent.

You seem to be tilting at windmills with me and I'm not sure why.
 
#735
#735
hndog609 said:
I'm guessing that would vary with circumstance and jurisdiction. I know for a fact it's happened where the gun charges were upheld but the person acquitted of murder by claiming SD.
Click to expand...

Violating a gun law does not negate your right to self defense. Even in the most liberal of states.
 
#737
#737
Septic said:
I've already articulated my position that we should wait until of the evidence is examined. I'm less sure about Kyles guilt than I was about Derek Chauvin's and many here were absolutely certain that DC was innocent.

You seem to be tilting at windmills with me and I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

Because you’re saying things like: he broke the law, can he still legally defend himself?
 
#738
#738
hndog609 said:
I'm guessing that would vary with circumstance and jurisdiction. I know for a fact it's happened where the gun charges were upheld but the person acquitted of murder by claiming SD.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I didn't know how that worked.
 
#740
#740
Vol8188 said:
Because you’re saying things like: he broke the law, can he still legally defend himself?
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? I was asking a hypothetical question.

You need to calm down and stop creating arguments to attack. It seems that you're trying to goad people into planting a flag into a position which you have pre-heated responses to.
 
#743
#743
Vol8188 said:
Violating a gun law does not negate your right to self defense. Even in the most liberal of states.
Click to expand...

That's why I included the caveats. I believe in some places when committing certain crimes the scope of just saying "Oh yeah, while doing this criminal stuff I had to defend myself." is greatly diminished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#745
#745
Septic said:
He showed up to a riot (on purpose) with a AR15, backwards cap and all. Then he ran? Maybe he thought being a hero would have been easier, probably seemed that way posing for instagram pics.
Click to expand...

You are cherry picking now , I could have said he got off of work and went to help clean the graffiti on dc the business with his hat turned forward until it got dark , but I’m not as interested in making him look good as you guys are at trying to make him look bad . Again .. natural selection took care of the idiots and we are just waiting to see the cost of it now .
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#747
#747
0nelilreb said:
You are cherry picking now , I could have said he got off of work and went to help clean the graffiti on dc the business with his hat turned forward until it got dark , but I’m not as interested in making him look good as you guys are at trying to make him look bad . Again .. natural selection took care of the idiots and we are just waiting to see the cost of it now .
Click to expand...

He showed up to a riot, ran around the streets with a AR15 and ended up shooting someone. He's an idiot for putting himself into that situation and if that synopsis makes him "look bad", oh well.

IDGAF if he skates or gets the chair, it won't change my opinion that he's an idiot.
 
#748
#748
hndog609 said:
That's why I included the caveats. I believe in some places when committing certain crimes the scope of just saying "Oh yeah, while doing this criminal stuff I had to defend myself." is greatly diminished.
Click to expand...
Id have to go back to find it but it’s somewhere waaaay earlier in this thread. Iirc Someone posted a Wisconsin statue saying a citizen has the right to pursue someone that committed a crime but they don’t have a right to assault/shoot that person, and the suspected criminal still has the right to defend himself against those attacks. (Rough interpretation from memory).

I’m on my phone so searching isn’t as easy but I know I responded to it with what I thought was an accurate interpretation.

Edit- it’s not this thread. It’s the original thread. Police shooting black man in the back. Post 3021.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#750
#750
TheDeeble said:
Id have to go back to find it but it’s somewhere waaaay earlier in this thread. Iirc Someone posted a Wisconsin statue saying a citizen has the right to pursue someone that committed a crime but they don’t have a right to assault/shoot that person, and the suspected criminal still has the right to defend himself against those attacks. (Rough interpretation from memory).

I’m on my phone so searching isn’t as easy but I know I responded to it with what I thought was an accurate interpretation.

Edit- it’s not this thread. It’s the original thread. Police shooting black man in the back. Post 3021.
Click to expand...
It was in the Jacob Blake thread.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top