Current Events > ... sooooo you can purposely put yourself in a dumbass situation and then get to

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gladius_ posted...

Gaige thought Kyle was an active shooter and his aim was to disarm him. They would have to prove that his intent was to kill him for it to be an attempted murder charge. Also no attempt was made. You need to "attempt" a murder to be hit with an "Attempted murder." charge.

On the other hand Kyle believed Gaige to be a threat on his life and operated in self defense under that assumption given his actions.

The truth is someone doesn't need to shoot at you for it to be considered a self defense. If someone points a gun at you and you fire on them there's a good chance you can get off with a self defense charge. You can't know in that moment that the person in question just wants to intimidate you. You have to make a split second decision to determine whether or not you believe your life is in danger.

So let's assume someone pointed a fire arm at you but you don't shoot them. You later report them. They can't be hit with attempted murder (they never tried to actually kill you.) they can be slammed with charges such as reckless endangerment, or threat with a deadly weapon.

Even more so for the person to be charged someone has to file charges against them. If someone points a gun at you but you don't file any charges. No charges will be made.

In your opinion, didn't Gaige watch Huber apparently attempt to murder Rittenhouse?

So you can't violently apprehend someone who just killed someone but you can watch someone violently kill someone?

ButteryMales posted...

That doesn't answer the question. Who shot and killed someone with a gun?

If some random person points a gun at you, are you going to wait and see what they do to you first before you make a move?

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Yes, you still have the legal right to defend yourself even if you put yourself into a dangerous position.

You're literally using the "well if she didn't want to be raped she shouldn't have dressed that way" rationale

Are you seriously fucking saying rape victims put themselves in that situation?

---

TheApexPredator posted...

If some random person points a gun at you, are you going to wait and see what they do to you first before you make a move?

No. There see, I answered a quest.

Who killed someone first and why isn't Gauge on trial for supposed attempted murder or supposed not intervening in attempted murder?

ButteryMales posted...

No. There see, I answered a quest.

Who killed someone first and why isn't Gauge on trial for supposed attempted murder or supposed not intervening in attempted murder?

Maybe he should be. I mean if Kyle is not guilty of murder then Gauge is clearly guilty of assault. They can't both be not guilty. \_()_/

---

Gladius_ posted...

If you stand there and watch someone beat another person to death you can be charged for not intervening if you have the means to stop them. Note that intervening usually means calling the police which is a valid response to witnessing a crime.

Gaige didn't call the police though.

Gladius_ posted...

No because he tried to intervene by pulling his gun on kyle to get him to drop his weapon.

Aiming a gun at a supposed victim is not intervening.

This hypothetical has a lot of possibilities. If Huber knocked Rittenhouse dead on the ground and Gaige did everything the same would Gaige be considered not intervening?

Gladius_ posted...

Aiming a gun at someone is definitely intervening.

Not when it's a supposed victim.

Gladius_ posted...

As for if Gaige would be considered guilty if he watched the guy with a skateboard beat him to death and did nothing? He very well could be considered guilty for doing so.

I wasn't asking if Gaige did nothing. I'll rephrase, if Gaige walked up to a dead Rittenhouse and did everything the same.

Gladius_ posted...

Imagine for a moment someone goes to rob a cashier at a gas station. You come up behind the robber, pull a gun, and tell him to drop his gun. You are NOT committing a crime in this instance. These situations have happened and have been found not guilty as a result.

This is not even close.

A person with open carry walks into a store and the suicidal mentally ill cashier tries to take the gun gets shot, a customer with a skateboard starts beating the open carry person, then finally another person with a gun aims his gun at the open carry person.

ITT: Legal scholars giving their expert opinions.

---

Gladius_ posted...

The open carry user isn't guilty and depending on situation/intent the last person may or may not be guilty.

He thought open carry guy murdered the cashier.

cavalierking posted...

legally kill others as long as it's in "self-defense"?

... man, this country is so cool

Yes. Otherwise youd be up for murder after defending yourself against a car jacking just because you decided to drive through a bad neighborhood.

---

BeyondWalls posted...

Yes. Otherwise youd be up for murder after defending yourself against a car jacking just because you decided to drive through a bad neighborhood.

You could also say someone you asked for directions tried to carjack you.

ButteryMales posted...

Gaige

You want to talk about reckless endangerment and a bad gun owner? Then look no further than Gaige. Forget his expired concealed permit. The dude was previously busted for walking around drunk with that gun and a bullet in the chamber.

Gaige is the poster child for white privilege and probably the only worse gun owner than Rittenhouse out there that night.

---

BeyondWalls posted...

You want to talk about reckless endangerment and a bad gun owner?

I didn't even imply I did. What does any of that have to do with why he would or wouldn't go to jail if he killed Rittenhouse?

cavalierking posted...

legally kill others as long as it's in "self-defense"?

... man, this country is so cool

this has been the case forever

---

ButteryMales posted...

You could also say someone you asked for directions tried to carjack you.

You don't really understand how investigations and trials work if you think you can just say this and get away with it.

MGS_4_evah posted...

You don't really understand how investigations and trials work if you think you can just say this and get away with it.

Enlighten me.

ButteryMales posted...

Enlighten me.

They're going to ask a lot of questions. They're going to poke holes in your story. They're going to collect evidence. They're going to find witnesses. They're going to look at your car and see if there's any evidence of a scuffle. They're going to look at the position of the victim's body to see if your story lines up. They're going to check the victim for weapons/means of intimidation. They're going to ask you why you pulled over to a stop by the curb, because you probably won't be asking for directions in a common carjacking spot.

They're going to look at the victim's criminal record to see if there are priors. They're going to investigate people who knew them, learn of their character, etc.

There are a thousand things they're going to look at and you're probably not going to be able to come up with an answer for every question they ask.

MGS_4_evah posted...

They're going to ask a lot of questions. They're going to poke holes in your story. They're going to collect evidence. They're going to find witnesses. They're going to look at your car and see if there's any evidence of a scuffle. They're going to look at the position of the victim's body to see if your story lines up. They're going to check the victim for weapons/means of intimidation. They're going to ask you why you pulled over to a stop by the curb, because you probably won't be asking for directions in a common carjacking spot.

They're going to look at the victim's criminal record to see if there are priors. They're going to investigate people who knew them, learn of their character, etc.

There are a thousand things they're going to look at and you're probably not going to be able to come up with an answer for every question they ask.

Or the thing that happens a lot and they just let you go.

Yep. Apparently I can intentionally go to a Trump Rally carrying heat, provoke them into attacking me and then cap them in self defense.

Im sure nobody would have an issue with that. Im sure Id get the same amount of support Rittenhouse got from the right

---

SSJPurple posted...

Yep. Apparently I can intentionally go to a Trump Rally carrying heat, provoke them into attacking me and then cap them in self defense.

Im sure nobody would have an issue with that. Im sure Id get the same amount of support Rittenhouse got from the right

Like this:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/18/corey-long-protest-photo-charlottesville-sot-ctn.cnn


---

ButteryMales posted...

Or the thing that happens a lot and they just let you go.

lol just making stuff up I see

SSJPurple posted...

provoke them into attacking me

This is where the problem would lie. You can't provoke somebody before killing them, because then you would have been at fault for the altercation. At the very least you'd get something like assault or manslaughter.

MGS_4_evah posted...

lol just making stuff up I see

Yeah, there's never been a person who was let go.

ButteryMales posted...

Yeah, there's never been a person who was let go.

Even when they get 'let go' they can still come back up on charges after the investigation. They never just take somebody at their word. There is always an investigation when somebody kills another person.

MGS_4_evah posted...

Even when they get 'let go' they can still come back up on charges after the investigation. They never just take somebody at their word. There is always an investigation when somebody kills another person.

I said let go no single quotes. Many times there needs to be public outrage before they do anything and that's just the let goes we know about.

Lotta people didn't watch the trial ITT

---

s0nicfan posted...

Like this:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/18/corey-long-protest-photo-charlottesville-sot-ctn.cnn

Goddamn, this is an awesome photo. You have the awesome framing of the conflict in the center and then Ol' flower dick just chillin' off to the right providing unintentional levity. I can only hope this winds up in school textbooks 5 years from now.

---

The right wing has got ahold of a meme generator

---

Every time I see a topic like this, I always picture the poster blaming the clothes that a rape victim was wearing...

---

The biggest issue is the fact that you can carry a gun openly like that in that state and other states do that too as law. As far as I'm concerned if you're carrying a gun and not law enforcement or military, you're looking for trouble.

---

M_Live posted...

Yep, that's my takeaway. I truly don't understand how people can absolve Kyle from any blame, and it's so fucking dumb that this became a political debate. Guess vigilantism is legal now

Thats my whole thing. Even if you want to argue it was self defense and legal, he shouldnt have been there. Someone literally tried to say I was victim blaming and that me saying that was equivalent of saying well what was she wearing about a rape victim. Its absurd. They made it so political that they arent even able to see any nuance in it.

---

VipaGTS posted...

Thats my whole thing. Even if you want to argue it was self defense and legal, he shouldnt have been there. Someone literally tried to say I was victim blaming and that me saying that was equivalent of saying well what was she wearing about a rape victim. Its absurd. They made it so political that they arent even able to see any nuance in it.

NOBODY was supposed to be there, though. It was a riot during a curfew. Why is it that Rittenhouse's right to self defense is negated because he "wasn't supposed to be there", but the rioters who brought illegal guns with them, at least one of which who came from even further away, aren't a part of that equation? Does his right to self defense get restored if it's against someone else who ALSO wasn't supposed to be there?

---

VipaGTS posted...

Thats my whole thing. Even if you want to argue it was self defense and legal, he shouldnt have been there.

Ok so who should have been at the riot?

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Ok so who should have been at the riot?

no one? But I dont see why that question is relevant. The riot already started. He wasnt there. He was wrong for going and trying to be the police. He was a 17 year old kid not some undercover cop or retired vet. Thats not his place. He knew a riot was happening and chose to enter it. That opens him up to potential issues. Yes, he has the right to defend himself, but he isnt absolved of blame for putting himself in that situation.

---

VipaGTS posted...

no one? But I dont see why that question is relevant. The riot already started. He wasnt there. He was wrong for going and trying to be the police. He was a 17 year old kid not some undercover cop or retired vet. Thats not his place. He knew a riot was happening and chose to enter it. That opens him up to potential issues. Yes, he has the right to defend himself, but he isnt absolved of blame for putting himself in that situation.

So what's he guilty of? Wrong hombre in the wrong saloon?

---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

So what's he guilty of? Wrong hombre in the wrong saloon?

You guys are still talking about this legally. That parts over. You dont have to be wrong in a court of law to be wrong. He was wrong to go there.

---

This is what racists want. They already tried to pull off a terror attack and barely got any punishment for it.

---

I would say that the ppl who tried to attack him were the ones putting themselves in a stupid situation.
I mean how dumb are you to attack a guy with a gun.

---

VipaGTS posted...

You guys are still talking about this legally. That parts over. You dont have to be wrong in a court of law to be wrong. He was wrong to go there.

So yes. Dont step where the crips be if you got red on either

---

Unsugarized_Foo posted...

So yes. Dont step where the crips be if you got red on either

I mean sure but lets stop acting like he was just visiting a neighborhood. He was actively walking into a full blown riot underway. People were already fighting, fires were already lit. This wasn't a case of him just trying to go to a restaurant and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was going there specifically to regulate, and people picked up on that.

---