ADVERTISEMENT

Place to put my Nonsense Thread.

My disagreement with the verdict comes from watching the videos.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim self defense if you stop running, have a clear path to continue running, turn around and shoot an unarmed guy who hasn’t even grabbed your gun. That’s what the drone footage showed happened.

The message this verdict sends is pretty chilling. Show up, instigate violence with your weapon, use your weapon, face zero consequences.

Just yikes

The biggest libs on The Main Board aren’t even running with this troll.

@Ticket2ride06
 
He said it to the same post that you quoted. It has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case.
Well aware, giving you reasoning to why I might have missed it. Haven’t been in the thread and just skim thru.

I’m guessing you had a great retort to his post tho!
 
My disagreement with the verdict comes from watching the videos.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim self defense if you stop running, have a clear path to continue running, turn around and shoot an unarmed guy who hasn’t even grabbed your gun. That’s what the drone footage showed happened.

The message this verdict sends is pretty chilling. Show up, instigate violence with your weapon, use your weapon, face zero consequences.

Just yikes
Come on, man. Your second paragraph alone proves it was self defense because someone was chasing after him. You're a smart guy, it was the right verdict.
 
My disagreement with the verdict comes from watching the videos.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim self defense if you stop running, have a clear path to continue running, turn around and shoot an unarmed guy who hasn’t even grabbed your gun. That’s what the drone footage showed happened.

The message this verdict sends is pretty chilling. Show up, instigate violence with your weapon, use your weapon, face zero consequences.

Just yikes
Holy shit what a reeetard
 
  • Like
Reactions: bMORE607
My disagreement with the verdict comes from watching the videos.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim self defense if you stop running, have a clear path to continue running, turn around and shoot an unarmed guy who hasn’t even grabbed your gun. That’s what the drone footage showed happened.

The message this verdict sends is pretty chilling. Show up, instigate violence with your weapon, use your weapon, face zero consequences.

Just yikes
Apparently you haven’t watched the video. He ran into a dead end. Then was chased down as he tried to run towards the police.
 
It wasn’t a dead end. He was between two cars
Let's say your lie is actually the truth. He's supposed to keep running until he is too tired to adequately defend himself? Just throw in the towel brook. You're under water here.
 
Come on, man. Your second paragraph alone proves it was self defense because someone was chasing after him. You're a smart guy, it was the right verdict.
Somebody chasing you doesn’t earn you self-defense automatically. In NY there is more of a duty to retreat and more of a duty not to escalate violence. Basically, you can’t shoot an unarmed guy unless you are very sure he is totally going to kill you. This case would be different in much of the northeast.

Wisconsin removes the ‘reasonable’ qualifier, so if you unreasonably but genuinely fear for your life (think an unarmed guy is going to kill you with your own gun that you are holding) then you are still entitled to self defense. Rittenhouse is innocent in Wisconsin ( and probably a lot of the south) because the jury determined his fear was genuine, without consideration of whether it’s reasonable.
 
Are you serious? The very first sentence in Wisconsin's self defense law....



"A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person."

Next few sentences....
"The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. 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."


Also, how did he instigate violence with his weapon? By simply having it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoosierstuckinIowa
Somebody chasing you doesn’t earn you self-defense automatically. In NY there is more of a duty to retreat and more of a duty not to escalate violence. Basically, you can’t shoot an unarmed guy unless you are very sure he is totally going to kill you. This case would be different in much of the northeast.

Wisconsin removes the ‘reasonable’ qualifier, so if you unreasonably but genuinely fear for your life (think an unarmed guy is going to kill you with your own gun that you are holding) then you are still entitled to self defense. Rittenhouse is innocent in Wisconsin ( and probably a lot of the south) because the jury determined his fear was genuine, without consideration of whether it’s reasonable.
Not true. More lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoosierstuckinIowa
Somebody chasing you doesn’t earn you self-defense automatically. In NY there is more of a duty to retreat and more of a duty not to escalate violence. Basically, you can’t shoot an unarmed guy unless you are very sure he is totally going to kill you. This case would be different in much of the northeast.

Wisconsin removes the ‘reasonable’ qualifier, so if you unreasonably but genuinely fear for your life (think an unarmed guy is going to kill you with your own gun that you are holding) then you are still entitled to self defense. Rittenhouse is innocent in Wisconsin ( and probably a lot of the south) because the jury determined his fear was genuine, without consideration of whether it’s reasonable.

Death or great bodily harm*
 
Somebody chasing you doesn’t earn you self-defense automatically. In NY there is more of a duty to retreat and more of a duty not to escalate violence. Basically, you can’t shoot an unarmed guy unless you are very sure he is totally going to kill you. This case would be different in much of the northeast.

Wisconsin removes the ‘reasonable’ qualifier, so if you unreasonably but genuinely fear for your life (think an unarmed guy is going to kill you with your own gun that you are holding) then you are still entitled to self defense. Rittenhouse is innocent in Wisconsin ( and probably a lot of the south) because the jury determined his fear was genuine, without consideration of whether it’s reasonable.

@WeAreDePaul it always amazes me you let this nonsense slide
 
  • Like
Reactions: shadyoak81
Also, how did he instigate violence with his weapon? By simply having it?
This is what all the people who run with this narrative are saying. By him simply having a gun, he is instigating violence. These people don't believe in your right to protect yourself or defend yourself. They side with the criminals in every one of these situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdbearde
Are you serious? The very first sentence in Wisconsin's self defense law....



"A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person."

Next few sentences....
"The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. 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."


Also, how did he instigate violence with his weapon? By simply having it?
There’s another conflicting law. Which is the point. Give me a second
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoosierstuckinIowa
This time it is the furthest left on Rivals. He's basically Cori Bush.

Like I said, most libs like Ticket and UL1986 agree it was self defense but have transitioned to just making fun of Kyle for being a loser. Brooky is the only one I’ve seen on either forum still pushing a murder angle.
 
Found it. Imperfect self-defense is what it’s called @I am stupid . It might not be as unique to Wisconsin as I had read before, but I couldn’t find the original article. It allows for the charge to be reduced and then that reduced charge can be assessed separately and a person who acted unreasonably but genuinely can get off.
 
Found it. Imperfect self-defense is what it’s called @I am stupid . It might not be as unique to Wisconsin as I had read before, but I couldn’t find the original article. It allows for the charge to be reduced and then that reduced charge can be assessed separately and a person who acted unreasonably but genuinely can get off.

Be honest: how much of this trial did you watch?
 
And I'm proud to be am American where at least I know I'm free................to shoot white trash scumbags that try and step to me....and I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her to this day, because there ain't no doubt I love this land, God Bless the USA

I am listening to Lee Greenwood right now.
 
Last edited:
And I'm proud to be am American where at least I know I'm free................to shoot white trash scumbags that try and step to me....and I'll gladly stand up

I am listening to Lee Greenwood right now.
so-beautiful-shia-la-beouf.gif
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT