LogFAQs > #943968867

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Kyle Rittenhouse is a thug with a criminal record
whitelytning 08/29/20 1:35:17 PM #72:	The kid is an idiot that made some bad decisions to be in that place at that time with the gun. There was no need for him to do that and the people in his life that got him to that point are included in the idiocy. But, whether or not he committed criminal murder is not that clear and anyone that suggests it is has some kind of bias one way or the other. (I'm not excusing his actions or defending him, just looking at the question of whether he could be charged with criminal murder) From what I know of the videos its not exactly clear what led up to the shooting. People that are defending him are doing so without really knowing if he was defending his life, and the people that are attacking him are doing so without really knowing if he was provoked into defending himself. IMO, people are looking at a few frames of a video and making a conclusion that is largely politically based. Legally, a person has a right to defend themselves from a legit threat to their lives. There is little doubt that he made dumb decisions to be there that night, but that doesn't mean he waives the right to claim self defense for anything that happens. If he was attacked and feared for his life he had the right to defend himself. If he wasn't attacked, and didn't have a valid fear for his life, he wasn't. MKScorpion posted... Are we all just going to pretend that he didn't go there for the sole purpose of starting trouble? This is also not very clear and may not matter. The video of him explaining that he is there to defend the property is going to be used to show that he wasn't there to murder people. As dumb and unnecessary as it was for him to go there and do that, there is a difference between going to watch, anti-protest and defend business and going there to assault someone so that you can shoot them. Most of the exceptions to self defense based on provocation are usually where someone has an issue with a specific person and does something to provoke them to get into a fight or something where the person then pulls out a gun and kills them. Again, its not really clear what happened that led up to the shooting. Bottom line for me -- its not really clear. Its a lame conclusion I guess but IMO people are using the kid to push an agenda and without more evidence its hard to really conclude one way or the other if he was justified in defending himself. He isn't a hero or patriot and his treatment by police shows the inherent injustice present in the criminal process -- the exact thing the people are protesting -- but its just not clear to me based on the videos I have seen if he was justified in the murder or not. --- ********************************************** https://imgur.com/iZdWIKJ <cite>whitelytning posted [p:943968867] in Kyle Ritte... [t:78940777]...</cite> <quote>The kid is an idiot that made some bad decisions to be in that place at that time with the gun. There was no need for him to do that and the people in his life that got him to that point are included in the idiocy. But, whether or not he committed criminal murder is not that clear and anyone that suggests it is has some kind of bias one way or the other. (I'm not excusing his actions or defending him, just looking at the question of whether he could be charged with criminal murder) From what I know of the videos its not exactly clear what led up to the shooting. People that are defending him are doing so without really knowing if he was defending his life, and the people that are attacking him are doing so without really knowing if he was provoked into defending himself. IMO, people are looking at a few frames of a video and making a conclusion that is largely politically based. Legally, a person has a right to defend themselves from a legit threat to their lives. There is little doubt that he made dumb decisions to be there that night, but that doesn't mean he waives the right to claim self defense for anything that happens. If he was attacked and feared for his life he had the right to defend himself. If he wasn't attacked, and didn't have a valid fear for his life, he wasn't. MKScorpion posted... </cite> <quote>Are we all just going to pretend that he didn't go there for the sole purpose of starting trouble?</quote> This is also not very clear and may not matter. The video of him explaining that he is there to defend the property is going to be used to show that he wasn't there to murder people. As dumb and unnecessary as it was for him to go there and do that, there is a difference between going to watch, anti-protest and defend business and going there to assault someone so that you can shoot them. Most of the exceptions to self defense based on provocation are usually where someone has an issue with a specific person and does something to provoke them to get into a fight or something where the person then pulls out a gun and kills them. Again, its not really clear what happened that led up to the shooting. Bottom line for me -- its not really clear. Its a lame conclusion I guess but IMO people are using the kid to push an agenda and without more evidence its hard to really conclude one way or the other if he was justified in defending himself. He isn't a hero or patriot and his treatment by police shows the inherent injustice present in the criminal process -- the exact thing the people are protesting -- but its just not clear to me based on the videos I have seen if he was justified in the murder or not. --- ********************************************** https://imgur.com/iZdWIKJ</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1