Probably time for a Kyle Rittenhouse thread.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Whale biologist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It shows his willingness to use deadly force to protect property. Doing so is murder under WI law. You'd think a professor would know that.

Good thing he didn't use deadly force to protect private property then. He used it to protect his own life, after taking every reasonable avenue to escape instead.

The rioters could have kept on rioting and kyle would have just kept on putting out their retarded garbage fires. *They* made the decision to attack him, after making the decision to go out there in the first place. He was defending property in the community in which he works and contributes.

It's not even some crazy gray area thing, he literally is completely innocent. If he's found guilty of murder it will be a complete miscarriage of justice.

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Good thing he didn't use deadly force to protect private property then. He used it to protect his own life, after taking every reasonable avenue to escape instead.

The rioters could have kept on rioting and kyle would have just kept on putting out their retarded garbage fires. *They* made the decision to attack him, after making the decision to go out there in the first place. He was defending property in the community in which he works and contributes.

It's not even some crazy gray area thing, he literally is completely innocent. If he's found guilty of murder it will be a complete miscarriage of justice.

So you're saying he used deadly force while engaged in defending property(the car lot, whatever Duramax is, a dumpster).

[myrddraal]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If anything, the status of being a minor reduces charges. It doesn't take a charge that would have ordinarily been clean self defense and go "oops nuh-uh, cause he was 17!!!". So he's guilty of murder now? Like, lol, no, please take an intro law course.

17 you can be charged as an adult.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Whale biologist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you're saying he used deadly force while engaged in defending property(the car lot, whatever Duramax is, a dumpster).

What? No, he used deadly force only when forced to, while defending his own life. It's not like he saw some rascals throwing rocks at a car lot and he just shot them.

He killed people who were openly stating that they intended to kill him and were actively trying to. Kinda different! You can't be this dense right?

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What? No, he used deadly force only when forced to, while defending his own life. It's not like he saw some rascals throwing rocks at a car lot and he just shot them.

He killed people who were openly stating that they intended to kill him and were actively trying to. Kinda different! You can't be this dense right?

In your capacity as a law professor, would you agree the use of deadly force to protect property would justify murder charges under Wisconsin law?

[Trexller]

can't you read? he used deadly force only after a clear and present danger was presented to his person, not property.

I understand that you professional couch lawyers may not understand, so ill try to help. The last thing that happens before you get shot, is the gun being pointed at you. In real life, you don't rack the slide or pull the charge handle 8 times during a tense conversation, as you may have seen from your hollywood firearms education. If you're looking at the business end of a firearm, you assume a round is chambered and ready to fire.

This is a hilarious example of why the only accurate thing about combat in films is the shout for "MEDIC!!"



Where he was and why is a different conversation.

[Gustoo]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where he was and why is a different conversation.

good post

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

can't you read? he used deadly force only after a clear and present danger was presented to his person, not property.

The clear and present danger of having a plastic bag(Rosenbaum) and a skateboard (Huber) thrown at you.

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Whale biologist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The clear and present danger of having a plastic bag(Rosenbaum) and a skateboard (Huber) thrown at you.

Yes, because if they take your gun from you, they are now armed with your gun.

And people generally do not throw shit at a person with a gun, unless they are highly unstable and unpredictable.

Kyle literally did nothing wrong, there is no case against him.

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by Ooloo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, because if they take your gun from you, they are now armed with your gun.

Think about that for 3 seconds. The threat of someone taking your gun from you would justify deadly force in any and all situations where you have a gun.

I bet you feel pretty silly right now. 😜