Gun people always say to treat every gun as if loaded, so it stands to reason that any time you see a gun to assume the bearer is willing to use it. What purpose did he have to bring it there if not to use it? To intimidate people? Like that's much better. If it was only brought there for self defense, why did he go in the first place if it was such a dangerous place that merited he come with an AR-15?
Now you are bringing up the evidentiary problem - which is always a problem. In this case there was video and testimony and the outcome would depend on what could be established.
The Trayvon Martin case was a perfect example of the evidentiary problem - no witnesses, no video, just a survivor of the interaction claiming self defense. I don't think anyone really liked that result. That punk Zimmerman walking around with the gun as the self appointed guardian of the complex (He wasn't officially a watchman or anything, was he - I forget now... whether it matters or not). He obviously initiated the interaction - why would the kid approach him? But our system requires that the state establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - that is purposely a high bar. Essentially the state had to prove B.A.R.D. that Zimmerman was not attacked and was not reasonable in his fear.
These evidentiary issues are no different than every other law that the state tried to enforce.
How do you fix that situation? I don't think you do. Self defense has to remain a concept and our system is designed such that 10 guilty people will get off before one innocent person gets put away.
I am a supporter of a person's right to own a gun but it is clear that there are too many on the streets. I have some ideas about what to do about that which I might share later - but I don't know how much they will help.
Of course you do. I don’t give a shit what people think is *cool*. It shouldn’t be legal for a non-deputized citizen to take on state authority by intimidation though open carry or threat by weapon. It was not Kyle Rittenhouse’s responsibility to protect other peoples shit by acting tough with a rifle, and it’s very clear though the consequences of his doing so why it should be illegal. Even top flight mall security guards have to be fucking licensed and credentialed, and most of them just carry around pepper spray or tazers.
I do not know what you are trying to accomplish here. It’s coming off borderline condescending when you bring up “evidence” as if I’m an idiot.
Point being, the evidence needed to successfully argue self defense has been shown to be a pretty low bar. Probably for good reason. As you acknowledge though, there are probably other laws that can be modified so that such situations can be reduced. That’s what I think most people on the thread are frustrated about.
Then your argument is with the current open carry laws, not with the results of this case. Which is exactly my point - this case had to be decided under the laws currently in force. As such, it was, by all appearances, rightly decided.
Point taken - and you are probably correct - most people are upset about some of the current laws - open carry, for instance - and the proliferation of guns - and not necessarily the result of this specific case. That makes sense and, if people feel that way, that is what they should be protesting and lobbying about - not this case.
Prosecutors plan to appeal the ruling that opened the possibility that Chrystul Kizer — accused of murdering a Kenosha man who had been filming sex with her and other underage girls — could use an affirmative defense for sex trafficking victims at her tria
Wisconsin law protects sex trafficking victims from prosecution on issues related to trafficking, but that defense has not been used in a homicide case before.
Graveley said because legal questions involved in the Kizer case are a "first impression" issue in which the statute's meaning has never been considered by the appellate courts, he thinks it is likely the Supreme Court will accept the appeal.
Arguing the affirmative defense issue at the appellate level before Kizer goes to trial will make the strategy more clear for attorneys for both sides. If Kizer is allowed to present the defense, it gives her a better path to acquittal. If she is convicted at trial, the early decisions on the issue by the appellate courts make it less likely her conviction could be overturned on appeal.
“We only want to try the case once,” Bias said.
Victim was target of probe
Kizer was 17 when she was charged in 2018 with first-degree intentional homicide for the shooting death of Volar, a man that prosecutors say had been filming sex with underage girls, including Kizer. She is alleged to have shot Volar before setting his Kenosha home on fire and fleeing to Milwaukee in his car.
Do you think that is not what people have been protesting and lobbying for oh I dunno 50 some years and is also the subject of this now 372 page thread?
This case is just yet another example of a bad situation made irrevocably, bloodily worse through the proliferation of guns and whether intended or not, your posting reads like you’re wandering in at the end of this 372 page discussion assuming it’s all about this case.
scooter, you’re posts come off as explaining how the system is designed as if that’s a reason not to complain about the system.
Presently I’m frustrated with people on this thread and this politics board attempting to summarize Kyle Rittenhouses actions based on a lack of contrary evidence. We don’t know what happened, and the failure of the prosecution doesn’t change that. There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence with which to damn Kyle Rittenhouse no matter the jury decision. Fuck him, and fuck everyone that supports what he did.
And we should be doing everything we can to get those people out of the system.
And many who read and post on the Tunnels are frustrated with those who celebrate the judicial process when it fits into their politics and damn its to all hell when it doesn't.
Well, I don't know, did Rittenhouse initiate the interaction with the guy who was shot in the arm, threatening to shoot him? To my understanding, that guy was chasing Rittenhouse and he himself testified that he was a few feet away from Rittenhouse, I guess yelling or something and Rittenhouse did not shoot him and that when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse then Rittenhouse shot him.
Honest question - do y'all think the Rittenhouse kid wanted to shoot people that night? That if the first guy had not threatened him, followed him, chased him and tried to take his gun, that he would have shot someone anyway? Because I don't. I think that if people would have left him alone he would have strutted around all night with his gun, feeling important, and then gone home and told all his friends how he protected the city.
R shot victim 1 after victim 1 lunged.
Other people chased R after first shooting. R shoots at these people.