• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

That ruling sure seems to codify that an active shooter has the right to defend himself against anyone who tries to stop him.

Let's be real here. Dylann Roof’s lawyers must be kicking themselves. They could have argued Roof was just trying to go to church and he was attacked for being white so he just defended himself by killing all those people (not “victims”). Any survivors testifying that they tried to stop him would just support the self-defense claim.
 
good point. So when the good guys with guns appear and shoot at the school shooter, the school shooter can't be charged for killing them because he was acting in self-defense. got it
 
So when we achieve our goal of a fully armed population we are all acting in self defense and there is no more murder. genius!
 
Holy overreaction. A jury found a guy acted in self defense in a specific case that you wouldn't even know about had it not been for the media overhyping this shit for profit. It's time to chill.
 
A kid bringing a gun across state lines and mass shooting protesters is a pretty unique event worth of hype.

Self-defense is so vague yet only seems to apply to white gun men or against black victims.

This “specific” case could certainly breed similar cases. And we already see self-defense applied in the Arbery case where it could also be successful.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Holy overreaction. A jury found a guy acted in self defense in a specific case that you wouldn't even know about had it not been for the media overhyping this shit for profit. It's time to chill.
Click to expand...

the only overreaction I see is a minor getting a ride from his mommy from Illinois to Wisconsin and shooting people to protect a used car lot from damage. And I live less than two hours from Kenosha, sport. I would have heard if it.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Holy overreaction. A jury found a guy acted in self defense in a specific case that you wouldn't even know about had it not been for the media overhyping this shit for profit. It's time to chill.
Click to expand...

lol this 1 particular case is just driving people crazy, certainly not an accumulation of politicized legal precedent of acquitting non-black vigilante killers acting unofficially on behalf of the state, in comparison with the accumulation of legal precedent convicting Black Americans.

If only there was some legal theory that addressed this gulf of justice between Trayvon Martins and Kyle Rittenhouses.
 
I think the jury reached the right decision based on the laws as they are written. But my god do those laws need to be rewritten.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
lol this 1 particular case is just driving people crazy, certainly not an accumulation of politicized legal precedent of acquitting non-black vigilante killers acting unofficially on behalf of the state, in comparison with the accumulation of legal precedent convicting Black Americans.

If only there was some legal theory that addressed this gulf of justice between Trayvon Martins and Kyle Rittenhouses.
Click to expand...

In your example there is no gulf of justice because one was the shooter claiming self defense and the other was the victim who was shot by a shooter claiming self defense. It’s a consistent result.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
In your example there is no gulf of justice because one was the shooter claiming self defense and the other was the victim who was shot by a shooter claiming self defense. It’s a consistent result.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree - the gulf isn’t regarding self defense, as all parties claim self defense, the gulf is between the parties who are misappropriating authority and the victims to that misappropriated authority.
 
It’s a complete indictment to the brokenness of our criminal justice system that the “self defending” survivors have total advantage over the “self defending” dead. “Better to be tried by 9 than carried by 6” codified into law.
 
PhDeac said:
A kid bringing a gun across state lines and mass shooting protesters is a pretty unique event worth of hype.

Self-defense is so vague yet only seems to apply to white gun men or against black victims.

This “specific” case could certainly breed similar cases. And we already see self-defense applied in the Arbery case where it could also be successful.
Click to expand...

I believe the part about bringing the gun across state lines is false, but has been incorrectly reported by many news organizations. They should do better.

If something like this happens in the Arbery case, I’ll personally go down there and beat someone’s ass. Completely different situation.
 
What else can be gleaned from this outcome besides “kill vigilantes before they kill you”? Neighborhood watchmen, gregarious militiamen, parking lot security, and off duty cops should all be put on notice. Conservative America has chosen to deputize every confrontation seeking gun enthusiast, and they should all be made aware of the risks that lay therein.
 
I think it’s helpful to remember that self defense only goes so far. If someone commits a crime that provokes the attack, they are not able to rely on the doctrine of self defense to continue the violence. That’s an oversimplification, but if this moron had committed a crime and his second victim was attempting to stop him, it’s a different story.
 
wakelaw13 said:
I believe the part about bringing the gun across state lines is false, but has been incorrectly reported by many news organizations. They should do better.

If something like this happens in the Arbery case, I’ll personally go down there and beat someone’s ass. Completely different situation.
Click to expand...

Arbery's shooter is also claiming self defense.
 
wakelaw13 said:
I think it’s helpful to remember that self defense only goes so far. If someone commits a crime that provokes the attack, they are not able to rely on the doctrine of self defense to continue the violence. That’s an oversimplification, but if this moron had committed a crime and his second victim was attempting to stop him, it’s a different story.
Click to expand...

He had an illegally obtained gun.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
I think the jury reached the right decision based on the laws as they are written. But my god do those laws need to be rewritten.
Click to expand...

Right, as I said earlier in the thread this appears to not be a failure of the judiciary, but a failure of the legislature. What Rittenhouse did should be against the law, but evidently it is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top