Current Events > Turns out the Kenosha shooter acted in self-defense

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tired-Insomniac posted...

He's been charged with murder so does it really matter at this point

charged doesnt mean convicted.

let the courts decide what his fate is.

---

Tired-Insomniac posted...

This is copied from a Facebook post:

Did he have the ability to retreat?

If one of the victims did indeed pull a gun, the charges are illegitimate.

I doubt any any self-defense claims are gonna fly in an Opportunity to Retreat state where the kid could have chosen to not be there, especially if his weapon possession was illegal.

---

Buzz Killjoy posted...

I doubt any any self-defense claims are gonna fly in an Opportunity to Retreat state where the kid could have chosen to not be there, especially if his weapon possession was illegal.

If someone pulls a gun on you and you shoot them, it's self defense. End of story.

RadiantAdolin posted...

If someone pulls a gun on you and you shoot them, it's self defense. End of story.

I don't agree with you and I don't think the law does either, but we'll see what happens.

---

Stupid kid literally drove in from out of town just to kill some people

---

Buzz Killjoy posted...

I don't agree with you and I don't think the law does either, but we'll see what happens.

The law agrees. There is no reasonable retreat from that scenario. The kid is absolutely guilty, but not for the murder

tigerslashII posted...

The two charges are independent. If you have a weapon and defend yourself, but you shouldn't have the weapon, that's not an automatic murder charge.

Self-defense is already difficult to prove in public space with a duty to retreat--if he arrived at the riot while illegally open carrying a firearm it pretty much undermines any self-defense case imaginable. Self-defense is a affirmative defense where they must prove things such as a lack of intent in order for the case to hold water. I can't imagine a success case being

The two charges are of course separate, but the illegal possession of a firearm in this context completely undermines a self-defense case and demonstrates a felonious mindset prior and related to the confrontation.

---

Buzz Killjoy posted...

I don't agree with you and I don't think the law does either, but we'll see what happens.

if someone pulls a gun on me and I have a means to defend myself Im shooting first and not taking a chance of having lead pumped into me.

---

RadiantAdolin posted...

If someone pulls a gun on you and you shoot them, it's self defense. End of story.

Did all 3 people that were shot pull a gun?

tm315 posted...

Did all 3 people that were shot pull a gun?

Doesn't matter. They were committing felonies as a group, they're guilty as a group.

tm315 posted...

Did all 3 people that were shot pull a gun?

Do only guns kill?

---

RadiantAdolin posted...

Doesn't matter. They were committing felonies as a group, they're guilty as a group.

Yeah, I'm not gonna pretend like I know law, but I'm not taking your word for it

Malcrasternus posted...

Do only guns kill?

Nope

tm315 posted...

Yeah, I'm not gonna pretend like I know law, but I'm not taking your word for it

Enjoy being wrong, he's not guilty of murder and that's fact

RadiantAdolin posted...

Enjoy being wrong, he's not guilty of murder and that's fact

Armchair lawyers are hilarious

tm315 posted...

Did all 3 people that were shot pull a gun?

Apparently one that was shot had thrown an incendiary at him before charging him. The second had just tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard; and the third was the one with the handgun.

So they might not have had firearms but they all allegedly attacked him with weapons.

---

tm315 posted...

Armchair lawyers are hilarious

Not a lawyer, just not an idiot.

All I know is Im on the side of black people no matter what. Racists can die.

TiffanyBlews posted...

All I know is Im on the side of black people no matter what. Racists can die.

what if the black people are being racist, 2020 account owner?

---

RadiantAdolin posted...

Enjoy being wrong, he's not guilty of murder and that's fact

Well of course not, he hasn't even gone to trial yet you silly goose

---

I haven't seen the videos as I really don't want to see people getting shot, but how far apart time-wise was each of the shootings?

---

Kid did nothing wrong

RadiantAdolin posted...

Not a lawyer, just not an idiot.

You're not a lawyer, but you are an idiot

---

tm315 posted...

Armchair lawyers are hilarious

I'm not surprised he's defending this murderer because he also defends cops.

---

Musourenka posted...

I haven't seen the videos as I really don't want to see people getting shot, but how far apart time-wise was each of the shootings?

looks like within a few minutes of each other. He gets chased by someone who throw something at him, it doesn't hit him and the person stops chasing, he then runs in between a few cars and you suddenly hear gun shots fired and people rushing over to help someone. At this point, he's unharmed so it's unclear why he shot the person. Then when more people rush over, he starts sprinting and a few people give chase. He falls down and gets attacked by a few people and it seems that he shoots two of them. What's unclear is why was he getting chased in the first place, why did he shoot someone else after the person chasing stops going after him, and whether or not anyone else had threatened him with a firearm as well prior to the shootings.

---

White guy tries to intimidate someone with an illegal fire arm and Republicans jump to defend him. While saying unarmed black people should have been shot because what IF they had a gun.

---

TommyG663513 posted...

charged him with murder

Charged... not convicted.

Doesn't really mean much.

Kenneth Walker, Breona Taylor's boyfriend was charged with attempted murder immediately after the incident.

Doens't mean that's what actually happened.

---

RadiantAdolin posted...

Doesn't matter. They were committing felonies as a group, they're guilty as a group.

I love how these dumb fucking trump supporters just make up fake rules in their head and try to pass them off as real.

---

cjsdowg posted...

White guy tries to intimidate someone with an illegal fire arm and Republicans jump to defend him. While saying unarmed black people should have been shot because what IF they had a gun.

It's pretty easy to defend a lone guy facing down a violent mob of rioters who tried to kill him. Even easier to say that someone with an active arrest warrant for felony sexual assault, and a history of illegal firearm possession, should be treated as a threat when he brawls with officers and ignores commands to come quietly.

---

Null_Mime posted...

It's pretty easy to defend a lone guy facing down a violent mob of rioters who tried to kill him. Even easier to say that someone with an active arrest warrant for felony sexual assault, and a history of illegal firearm possession, should be treated as a threat when he brawls with officers and ignores commands to come quietly.

Why bring up the black guy's past when it's 100% irrelevant to his shooting?

---

---

Mark_DeRosa posted...

From a certain point of view, skateboard guy could also be seen as acting in self defense because he doesn't want to be shot or for anyone around him to be shot

Especially if this is after he's already killed someone - at that point he's become an active shooter and they're trying to stop him

I know legally it most likely wouldn't be seen that way though

---

If police officers can kill people because they think they might be a threat why would it matter if those dudes attack a guy whos intentionally showing up to intimidate them with a rifle?

---

Tired-Insomniac posted...

Why bring up the black guy's past when it's 100% irrelevant to his shooting?

Because that the "go to" defense to justify the shooting. Dude could have surrendered and have his hands up. But if he got a ticket for littering, then he was a "dangerous criminal" and deserves to be shot.

---

Tired-Insomniac posted...

Why bring up the black guy's past when it's 100% irrelevant to his shooting?

Correct. What he did in the past is for the most part meaningless.

Can't use that as a basis for current treatment.

---

Tired-Insomniac posted...

Why bring up the black guy's past when it's 100% irrelevant to his shooting?

Why say it's 100% irrelevant when it's 100% relevant? Dispatch audio has been released. The cops were made aware that the person involved was a person with an active warrant. Video shows him brawling with those same cops, as well as him pulling a knife.

This man was a criminal, who the cops had every right to arrest. He resisted, violently at that. News flash: when you have an active arrest warrant for a class g felony, coming with the cops isn't an argument. You either come along quietly, or risk getting shot up. Especially if you have a history of violence and illegal weapon possession.

---

I4NRulez posted...

If police officers can kill people because they think they might be a threat why would it matter if those dudes attack a guy whos intentionally showing up to intimidate them with a rifle?

I keep seeing this particular phrase not only here on GameFAQs but on social media.

Intimidate with a rifle, intimidate with a rifle, intimidate with a rifle... WTF does that even mean when guns are legal?

Simply having a weapon isn't wrong nor is it illegal.

Now if the person is BRANDISHING the weapon, if they're THREATENING with the weapon, or if they're AIMING the weapon that's one thing.

The weapon in and of itself is not a justification that they're a piece of shit.

This is literally the same logic that was used to demonize the Black Panthers and that is still used to this day to vilify armed black people.

I am a black gun owner and the same way I don't want someone to justify shooting or attacking me because I'm armed, I'm not going to do the same to someone else.

Notice in the news they always say "it was an unarmed black man" as if the black man being armed would justify his murder.

Philando Castile was an armed black man who was shot dead for no reason even though he was an NRA member and he legally had his weapon in the vehicle. Someone being armed is not a justification for demonizing them.

---

Null_Mime posted...

Why say it's 100% irrelevant when it's 100% relevant? Dispatch audio has been released. The cops were made aware that the person involved was a person with an active warrant. Video shows him brawling with those same cops, as well as him pulling a knife.

This man was a criminal, who the cops had every right to arrest. He resisted, violently at that. News flash: when you have an active arrest warrant for a class g felony, coming with the cops isn't an argument. You either come along quietly, or risk getting shot up. Especially if you have a history of violence and illegal weapon possession.

Lethal force is a completely unnecessary response to an unarmed guy resisting arrest. If three officers can't subdue and detain one guy without killing him then all three of them need to find a job that better suits their mental and physical attributes. If he was close enough to be "brawling" with them, he was close enough to be detained.

---

I'm sure all the people defending the shooter would have been fully backing the guy with the handgun if he had shot the shooter dead. I mean, when you see a gun, you have to shoot because otherwise you'll be dead. Literally no other context matters.

---

I4NRulez posted...

If police officers can kill people because they think they might be a threat why would it matter if those dudes attack a guy whos intentionally showing up to intimidate them with a rifle?

Cops can do no wrong, and if you get shot by a cop then you probably deserved it since everyone will pull out the "he wasn't an angel" response to try and justify it.

De Evolution posted...

Intimidate with a rifle, intimidate with a rifle, intimidate with a rifle... WTF does that even mean when guns are legal?

Simply having a weapon isn't wrong nor is it illegal.

Illegally open carrying a weapon could be considering intimidation

---

Tired-Insomniac posted...

Lethal force is a completely unnecessary response to an unarmed guy resisting arrest. If three officers can't subdue and detain one guy without killing him then all three of them need to find a job that better suits their mental and physical attributes. If he was close enough to be "brawling" with them, he was close enough to be detained.

I agree, but just like Mike Brown, this is NOT the hill for anti-police or BLM people to be dying on.

Which is exactly why it was publicized.

Notice the open and shut cases like Tamir Rice never get publicized like this nationally. Police assassinate a 12 year old in a park before even getting close, they issue no commands, make zero attempts to arrest, and just gun him down as if we were in Afghanistan.

But they use cases like this where both sides were in the wrong to publicize and throw out so people can fight over.

Unfortunately based on the footage, despite the fact the officers did a piss poor job detaining him before he got to his vehicle, he did indeed ignore police, resist them, and reach inside his vehicle. It was incredibly stupid on his part as well.

Plenty of cops have been shot by people who went to their vehicle to grab a weapon. I honestly don't understand what he was thinking at that point.

---

De Evolution posted...

I keep seeing this particular phrase not only here on GameFAQs but on social media.

Intimidate with a rifle, intimidate with a rifle, intimidate with a rifle... WTF does that even mean when guns are legal?

Simply having a weapon isn't wrong nor is it illegal.

Now if the person is BRANDISHING the weapon, if they're THREATENING with the weapon, or if they're AIMING the weapon that's one thing.

The weapon in and of itself is not a justification that they're a piece of shit.

This is literally the same logic that was used to demonize the Black Panthers and that is still used to this day to vilify armed black people.

I am a black gun owner and the same way I don't want someone to justify shooting or attacking me because I'm armed, I'm not going to do the same to someone else.

Notice in the news they always say "it was an unarmed black man" as if the black man being armed would justify his murder.

Philando Castile was an armed black man who was shot dead for no reason even though he was an NRA member and he legally had his weapon in the vehicle. Someone being armed is not a justification for demonizing them.

Cool, but guns are for intimidation. Their sole purpose is to hurt and kill things. This isn't like they had guns to go hunting. If i have a baseball bat on a baseball field its not intimidating. If you owe someone money and they show up with a bat its for intimidation. We arent talking about gun ownership overall here its about why this kid had a gun and what he was doing with it there.

Those guys were there for one reason and one reason only. To intimidate and look for conflict.

And for the record im black too and one of the reasons the black panthers did have guns was to intimidate their oppressors to let them know they couldn't be fucked with. It was part of the reason why they were so bad ass.

So dont come at me with that "I'm a black gun owner" bs

---

mods, the dipshit was arrested on first degree murder charges. This dumb ass thread can be deleted now.


---

StarReaper13 posted...

Cops can do no wrong, and if you get shot by a cop then you probably deserved it since everyone will pull out the "he wasn't an angel" response to try and justify it.

Illegally open carrying a weapon could be considering intimidation

Open carry is generally legal in the state, it was only illegal because he was underage. Whether someone is 17 or 18, however, is not a relevant factor in whether or not the act was intimidation, nor would the victims even know the persons' age (Or that he was illegally open carrying).

---

I4NRulez posted...

We arent talking about gun ownership overall here its about why this kid had a gun and what he was doing with it there.

Those guys were there for one reason and one reason only. To intimidate and look for conflict.

I agree.

And you can arguably say the same of his attackers, 2 of which are now deceased.

This isn't a good guy, bad guy situation. It's honestly just sad all around.

---

Trigg3rH4ppy posted...

I love how these dumb fucking trump supporters just make up fake rules in their head and try to pass them off as real.

Not a Trump Supporter and smarter than you, sorry kid.

RadiantAdolin posted...

Not a Trump Supporter and smarter than you, sorry kid.

I don't think "because they were together they all get charged" is a valid accusation in a court of law unless you can prove they were accessories to the crimes committed.

Otherwise literally any time a party got rowdy and someone did something illegal, EVERYONE they could prove that was at said party would be charged the same regardless of involvement.

---

StarReaper13 posted...

I don't think "because they were together they all get charged" is a valid accusation in a court of law unless you can prove they were accessories to the crimes committed.

Otherwise literally any time a party got rowdy and someone did something illegal, EVERYONE they could prove that was at said party would be charged the same regardless of involvement.

No. If multiple people are engaged in a violent, coordinated felony such as this and one of the people engaged pulls a weapon, they're all guilty of it.

Stewman_Magoo posted...

mods, the dipshit was arrested on first degree murder charges. This dumb ass thread can be deleted now.

They'll be dropped.