Leftwing Antifa domestic terrorist shoots man for not getting Covid vaccine.

[Turtlesoup]

From what I read the Proud Boys were chasing these ANTIFA characters.

There's actually a case for self defense here

Pull your head out of your behind and you might understand what you read---there is nothing said of the proud boys chasing the dem thugs...in fact the article states clearly that the proud boys were 50 feet away as the antifa turned and shot at them.

 

[Lesh]

Tell us about how Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer.

You still confused about what thread you’re posting on ADD boy?

 

[Lesh]

Pull your head out of your behind and you might understand what you read---there is nothing said of the proud boys chasing the dem thugs...in fact the article states clearly that the proud boys were 50 feet away as the antifa turned and shot at them.

Read it again dumbass. Or get someone with a brain to read it to you

 

[Lesh]

Read it again dumbass. Or get someone with a brain to read it to you

They were “running to the transit station” and “somehow” the proud boys mob was 50 feet behind them.

They were being chased

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Kyle was a hero idiots won’t accept that he was committing a crime in being there.

Which crime was that?
How does this negate his claim of defense agianst those chasing him with the intent to cause harm?

He was also committing a crime in being in possession of a weapon underage

Even if true...
How does this negate his claim of defense against those chasing him with the intent to cause harm?

And he is now looking at most of the rest of his life in prison from his gamer in real life attitude.

This depend entirely on the prosecutors ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittehouse, at the time of the shooting, had no reasonable fear of injury or death.
Good luck with that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You still confused about what thread you’re posting on ADD boy?

I already accepted your surrencder, but I'll accept it again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They were being chased

Just like Rittenhouse.
Good to see you agree he acted in self-defense.

 

[SavannahMann]

Which crime was that?
How does this negate his claim of defense agianst those chasing him with the intent to cause harm?

Even if true...
How does this negate his claim of defense against those chasing him with the intent to cause harm?

This depend entirely yon the prosecutors ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittehouse, at the time of the shooting, had no reasonable fear of injury or death.
Good luck with that.

Prove the second shooting was not an effort to detain or perform a citizens arrest.

As far as negating his claim. It is the same problem the McMichaels are facing. When committing a crime your claim of self defense gets weaker. Out in violation of curfew. Trespassing. Being armed in violation of the law. All of these may seem minor but collectively they mean his claim of self defense will be weakened dramatically.

Kyle was running around claiming to be a paramedic. He wasn’t. Not by any stretch of the imagination. So how hard will it be to convince the jury that Kyle was a boy running around pretending to be a man, and a heroic guy who saw himself as a hero.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Prove the second shooting was not an effort to detain or perform a citizens arrest.

That's for the DA. And he can't.

As far as negating his claim. It is the same problem the McMichaels are facing. When committing a crime your claim of self defense gets weaker. Out in violation of curfew. Trespassing. Being armed in violation of the law. All of these may seem minor but collectively they mean his claim of self defense will be weakened dramatically.

But you agree - none of that, in this instance, negates his claim - because even if all of that is true he right to self-defense still exists.
Don;t forget -- the burden here in on the DA to prove Rittemhouse did not have a reasonable fear for his life , or bodily harm.
If he can't then under WI law, the claim of self-0defense stands.

Kyle was running around claiming to be a paramedic. He wasn’t. Not by any stretch of the imagination. So how hard will it be to convince the jury that Kyle was a boy running around pretending to be a man, and a heroic guy who saw himself as a hero.

If that's all the DA convinces the jury of, Rittemhouse goes free - because none of that negates the fact he shot people who were chasing him with the intent to harm him.

 

[SavannahMann]

That's for the DA. And he can't.

But you agree - none of that, in this instance, negates his claim - because even if all of that is true he right to self-defense still exists.
Don;t forget -- the burden here in on the DA to prove Rittemhouse did not have a reasonable fear for his life , or bodily harm.
If he can't then under WI law, the claim of self-0defense stands.

If that's all the DA convinces the jury of, Rittemhouse goes free - because none of that negates the fact he shot people who were chasing him with the intent to harm him.

No. The burden on the DA is to use precedents which exist and no I don’t know them all I’m not a lawyer. However those precedent cases determine what is and isn’t legal.

And the DA will use those precedents to show that the claim of self defense will not apply.

The same way it doesn’t apply for the McMichaels.

 

[WEATHER53]

What latest, socialistic “common good” Nazism are lib loons trying to force today?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. The burden on the DA is to use precedents which exist...

Not according to WI law.
Once the defendant claims self-defense, the prosecutor needs to prove the defendant did not have a reasonable fear.
If he cannot, then the claim stands, and the judge, in his instructions to the jury, will specify this.

 

[SavannahMann]

Not according to WI law.
Once the defendant claims self-defense, the prosecutor needs to prove the defendant did not have a reasonable fear.
If he cannot, then the claim stands, and the judge, in his instructions to the jury, will specify this.

And your law classes covered that? Or are you merely an internet expert?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And your law classes covered that? Or are you merely an internet expert?

Says the guy talking out his butt about precedent etc.

I'm sorry you do not like the truth - but the truth it remains.
It might help if you actually read the WI laws on self-defense - or, you can continue to argue from ignorance.

 

[SavannahMann]

Says the guy talking out his butt about precedent etc.

I'm sorry you do not like the truth - but the truth it remains.
It might help if you actually read the WI laws on self-defense - or, you can continue to argue from ignorance.

I’ve read the laws. And here is the thing. They aren’t annotated with the precedents.

For one example. I mentioned the McMichaels. A precedent precluded their ability to legally execute a citizens arrest. So their entire defense is essentially he did it don’t blame me.

But let’s talk self defense. A gang banger drives down a street and opens fire. Other gang bangers shoot at the car. The gang bangers on the street have illegal weapons. Illegal because they are not allowed by law to have them. Is that self defense? By your argument it would be.

A clerk chases an armed robber out of his store. The robber shoots the clerk. Self defense?

I am certain that these cases have been adjudicated in Wisconsin. And I’m certain the DA and other lawyers know them. As for the law. The Judge did not dismiss the charges. The Grand Jury indicted after having the law and precedents explained to them.

KR is screwed. By his own fantasies of being a hero.