johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,594
Not that difficult to figure out. He’s a white conservative in America.
Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
Not that difficult to figure out. He’s a white conservative in America.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
He was illegally carrying a weapon, because of his age. (Note: Walking around in the street with a loaded rifle ought to be illegal, regardless of age, but this is America and we have stupid gun laws, but that's a separate issue.)
However, if you are carrying an illegal gun when someone tries to kill you, it's ok to use that illegal gun to defend yourself. Like Bernhard Goetz, you might be acquitted of attempted murder, but convicted on a weapons charge. To get off, he's going to have to say that he had reason to believe his life was in danger when he shot the first man.
I doubt he will be successful. I doubt his life was in danger, and I doubt that he will be able to convince a jury that a reasonable person would have believed his life was in danger.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,622
I am very skeptical of the police's story here.
Thermal
August Member
Coming soon to a theatre near you...Captain Kyle: Minor Mercenary.
He's young. He's dumb. He's full of...guns. When police can't maintain order, he puts on his multicolored Crocks and dispenses his own brand of street justice.
He's young. He's dumb. He's full of...guns. When police can't maintain order, he puts on his multicolored Crocks and dispenses his own brand of street justice.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,622
I feel as if that was the reason he was killed by the police.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Me too.
Thermal
August Member
I think his illegal carrying is the least of his crimes, impossibly excepting violating curfew and a host of other probable juvenile related offenses. Near the top I would have possession of a weapon with the intent to commit a crime. Unless minors have the freedom to declare public law enforcement. Which I am skeptical about.
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
Here's selectivity for you:
This guy should be in jail right now and rotting away for the rest of his life.
And in any normal country that would be the case.
But your country is exceptional, so unfortunately, according to the insane laws of your various states, he'll probably walk.
That's what I am discussing. Not the oughts, but the is's.
Okay. You're still wasting a lot more words on him then you would be on a black kid who shot a cop. Nobody rights pro-defense fan fiction for him, even with a "I'm not saying he shouldn't still go to jail" modifier attached to it.
When a cop guns down an innocent black person, we just have to... talk about it more for some reason.
When a black person shoots a cop, he goes to jail and the (metaphorical) ink is not wasted in dissecting it.
Stop acting like that's not a problem. Because you "eventually" still get to the right answer doesn't absolve you.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Did you write this post just to feel good about yourself?
I'm talking about the issue and why shouldn't I?
You want to talk about something else, then you have to raise the topic. You can't condemn me for not having talked a lot about your hypothetical. When you show me the threads you have written in which you have forcefully argued for a black kid who shot a cop then I will take your admonitions seriously.
You may talk about whatever you want.
I'm may talk about whatever you choose to talk about and what you choose not to talk about means.
Again I will call people out on this until I see them running to discussion to write the same level of pro-innocence fan fiction in other cases.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Tell me what you think you have discovered.
That when white people (especially white cops) shoot black people we, nearly without fail, just have to have a lot of talk about "in mens rea" and "reasonable people might think this" and "okay we have to prove the intent of what was going in in their real and true heart of hearts" and discussions about what the black person might have done in alternative timelines.
And when black people shoot white people (especially cops) we don't.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Oh, it is the straw we.
Earlier you were claiming "you", but now that you have clarfied, I would suggest that you don't use "we" and sound accusatory in such a manner, because you will not find one post on the whole of ISF (as far as I know) in which I have supported cops killing black people or white people killing black people, etc...
I have spent no time whatsoever trying to justify police killings in general. You have clearly mistaken me for someone else.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,992
Sentence first, trial afterward? You have pretty poor opinion of the justice system in "normal" countries. Or is it the fact that he's out on bail while awaiting trial that bothers you?
Thermal
August Member
In fact, when black people shoot white people there is no discussion at all. Maybe pointing put the black attacker was an unpleasant person or some such.
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
It just wouldn't have been legal for him to do what he was claiming to have been doing in normal countries.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I don't think his juvenile status, and the fact that it makes certain of his actions criminal, plays any role in his self defense claims. If it did, what it would amount to is, "If you were eighteen, then what you did would be justifiable self defense, and you would walk free. However, because you are seventeen, what you did is murder, so you will be imprisoned for life."
As I said earlier, I think walking the streets with a loaded rifle ought to be a crime at any age, and I think all these armed yahoos in "militia" groups ought to go home, and I would like to see law enforcement find any excuse they can for locking up the ones who insist on it. However, this is America, and we have the freedom to do some really stupid things that no sane nation would allow, like walk down the street with a loaded rifle. In the middle of a riot, no less.
Determining whether his actions were criminal independent of his age, and determining how that would impact his claims of self defense, requires both more information and more knowledge than I have right at the moment.
It wouldn't surprise me if in the end it turns up some similarities to a high profile case of claimed self defense from a couple of months ago, If the kid actually pointed the weapon at anyone prior to being attacked, then he loses the right to claim self defense. In other words, he claims to have been attacked, but if he was attacked after pointing a gun at some people then those people were acting in self defense, and Rittenhouse's self defense claim would evaporate, just as it likely will for Travis McMichael.
Last edited:
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,822
Remember, the 2nd Amendment is important because it allows the citizens to stand up against the tyranny of the government, but if they actually try to use guns in opposition of tyrannical government actions, you are wrong.
You can only use guns to stand up to the tyranny of those who are opposing the actions of the government.
You can only use guns to stand up to the tyranny of those who are opposing the actions of the government.
Thermal
August Member
Open carry is an accomidation for self defense, though. Pretty sure that willfully violating a police curfew to declare yourself law enforcement is a standalone crime.
Scope of intent is a big issue here. If the prosecution shows that he had de facto declared himself a vigilante or provacateur as opposed to simply preparing to defending himself, his self defense claim is null.