• 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

7b72b8c900973d4211434d621cebd8c5.jpg


For the record I don’t own a gun and am
a pacifist in all but the most extreme circumstances. I don’t even spank my kids. It *really* upsets me that the very foundational core of our society and judicial system is basically a challenge to commit violence. You are advantaged by killing the person who might testify against you. It’s just existentially wrong.
 
The statute is so unclear to me that I agree with dropping the gun charge. Not sure about the circumstances of purchase.

He admitted to giving the money to a 19 year old to buy the gun for him because it was an age restricted purchase.
 

Fixed
 
He admitted to giving the money to a 19 year old to buy the gun for him because it was an age restricted purchase.

Giving someone money to buy a gun that they legally purchase and then possessing said gun when the law allows it does not sound like a crime to me.
 
I hope the families sue the fuck out of this kid for wrongful death.
 
Question: why are there no federal charges? Crossing state lines with an illegal gun possession for instance. I'm no lawyer and I didn't stay at a holiday Inn express last night. An Wisconsin can f*ck right off. These gun laws in America are so broken.
 
He didn’t cross state lines with the gun. The gun was kept in Wisconsin.

And yes, I hope that his negligence is sufficient to support civil claims. But the fact that none of the lesser charges stuck does not bode well.
 
Though I have no sympathy for anyone who acts outside the law, it is obvious the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the kid shot in his own self defense. That the gun charges were dismissed is a joke, the jury verdict was not, based on the evidence they were presented.
 
7b72b8c900973d4211434d621cebd8c5.jpg


For the record I don’t own a gun and am
a pacifist in all but the most extreme circumstances. I don’t even spank my kids. It *really* upsets me that the very foundational core of our society and judicial system is basically a challenge to commit violence. You are advantaged by killing the person who might testify against you. It’s just existentially wrong.

Do lots of people spank their kids?
 
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.

How is it a different story in a way that matters legally? The basics seem the same. Somebody started some shit, “feared for their life,” and killed the person they “feared.”
 
so real-world, no troll question

as someone who researches right-wing extremism and has attended PA events where open carry right-wingers/white supremacists et al. were visible

(1) should I get a conceal permit
(2) if they level a firearm at me for any reason do I have the right to draw my weapon and fire

my understanding up to this point was that a simple threat of violence or feeling of danger is not enough to justify force and so I haven't even considered conceal carrying

(i've also generally changed research focuses to the digital sphere anyway but let's pretend i wanted to continue going to these events [and events that draw them])
 
Legal scholars say they weren’t surprised by Rittenhouse verdict.


…The reasonable fear standard for self-defense has given rise to concerns that it is affected by the same racial bias that permeates the justice system. A mountain of social science research shows that Black people, men in particular, are more likely to be seen as threatening.

“The message that this case sends is to shoot first, ask questions later,” said Kami Chavis, director of the criminal justice program at Wake Forest Law. She added, “If we change the race, the age, the victims, if we change some of these dynamics we very well could have had a different result.”…
 
How is it a different story in a way that matters legally? The basics seem the same. Somebody started some shit, “feared for their life,” and killed the person they “feared.”

I do not practice criminal law so it would be great if someone who did would chime in. I'll do my best.

If Kyle picks a fight with Joe, and Joe starts swinging, Kyle is not permitted to shoot Joe. That would violate two principles: (1) the instigator cannot claim self defense and (2) the use of force must be proportional.

If Kyle picks a fight with Joe, and Joe starts swinging, and Kyle runs away like a little bitch, and Joe follows him and is threatening his life, then Kyle may regain the right to claim that he is acting in self defense. And if he reasonably fears for his life based on Joe's actions, he can defend himself with deadly force.

In other words, Kyle is not permitted to start some shit, get the expected response, and "fear for his life" and justifiably pull out a gun and shoot the other party.
 
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/rittenhouse-jury-verdict-self-defense-legal-analysis.html

———-

Rittenhouse’s killing of Rosenbaum may have been lawful. But that was scarcely self-evident to the bystanders who heard gunshots and then saw a killer holding an AR-15. The group of protesters who proceeded to chase and attack Rittenhouse could have reasonably believed that killing the armed teenager was necessary to save others from imminent bodily harm. If Rittenhouse had a right to shoot Huber and Grosskreutz in self-defense, the latter had a similarly legitimate basis for shooting Rittenhouse dead.

Put differently: Once Rittenhouse fired his first shots, he and his attackers plausibly entered a context in which neither could be held legally liable for killing the other. Whether one emerged from this confrontation legally innocent or lawfully executed hinged on little more than one’s relative capacity for rapidly deploying lethal violence. Rittenhouse had a more powerful weapon and a quicker trigger finger than Huber or Grosskreutz. Thus, he walks free, in full health, while Huber lies in a grave and Grosskreutz gets by without the bulk of his right bicep.


As Shaila Dewan notes in the New York Times, “legally kill or legally be killed” scenarios are just one of several pathological consequences of America’s lax gun regulations, and permissive police use of force and/or self-defense laws. In much of the country, Americans have a legal right to openly carry weapons of mass murder. And yet all it takes is one suspicious bystander, a phone call to the police, and the arrival of a trigger-happy cop for the legal act of carrying an AR-15 — or a toy gun — to become a legal basis for one’s summary execution.

If America’s permissive self-defense laws and abundant guns open up a vast zone of permissible killing, the precise borders of that territory are shaped by white supremacy. In a 2013 study of U.S. homicides, the Urban Institute found that killings involving “a white perpetrator and a black victim are 281 percent more likely to be ruled justified than cases with a white perpetrator and white victim.”

A legal environment that favors the armed in their confrontations with the unarmed, police in their confrontations with suspects, and whites in their confrontations with Blacks is antithetical to social peace, let alone social justice. It is, however, quite favorable to the American far right.
 
I do not practice criminal law so it would be great if someone who did would chime in. I'll do my best.

If Kyle picks a fight with Joe, and Joe starts swinging, Kyle is not permitted to shoot Joe. That would violate two principles: (1) the instigator cannot claim self defense and (2) the use of force must be proportional.

If Kyle picks a fight with Joe, and Joe starts swinging, and Kyle runs away like a little bitch, and Joe follows him and is threatening his life, then Kyle may regain the right to claim that he is acting in self defense. And if he reasonably fears for his life based on Joe's actions, he can defend himself with deadly force.

In other words, Kyle is not permitted to start some shit, get the expected response, and "fear for his life" and justifiably pull out a gun and shoot the other party.

If Joe is dead who is to say whether or not Kyle picked a fight. Kyle can just say Joe instigated the who thing.

I also have a real problem with the time frame of "starting some shit." This Kid went out looking for trouble found some, got more than he could handle, then killed two people. It all started when he had a friend buy him a big boy gun (that he didn't think he was allowed to have) and he went to the protest.
 
Exactly. It’s difficult enough to determine who picked a fight when there is the word of two people. The winner of the fight can say whatever they need to legally justify their actions.
 
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.

I should stay away from this thread, but...

I'll admit that I haven't followed this situation as closely as a lot of people, but, I did watch some of the trial and I have read about it recently and I did see some of the videos... That being said, unless I am missing something, I don't see how the verdict could have been any different. I thought he was shown to be running away from these people, trying to get away? And didn't at least one of the people he shot threaten to kill him or others like him that night? It looked like there was a lot of chaos and he was being attacked by multiple people - including people trying to grab his gun... I don't know but it seemed like he clearly could have had a reasonable belief that he had no choice but to shoot?? Am I missing something that makes it more questionable? Who or what started the confrontation that led to the shooting?

That being said, he was clearly a totally immature idiot that thought he was cool by carrying an assault rifle and marching around acting tough. I don't know what you can charge him with for being an idiot... It seems like maybe there could be an exception to the open carry laws that prohibits it during highly charged atmospheres/crowds like protests? I don't know - it seems like that kind of situation is just asking for something like this to happen - highly emotional people, big crowds, darkness, potential for violence and/or property damage - throw in untrained civilians with rifles and it is probably surprising when someone doesn't get shot...
 
I don’t know if I saw this here or elsewhere but one lesson of this is that there’s no unarmed right to self-defense against someone with a gun.
 
I should stay away from this thread, but...

I'll admit that I haven't followed this situation as closely as a lot of people, but, I did watch some of the trial and I have read about it recently and I did see some of the videos... That being said, unless I am missing something, I don't see how the verdict could have been any different. I thought he was shown to be running away from these people, trying to get away? And didn't at least one of the people he shot threaten to kill him or others like him that night? It looked like there was a lot of chaos and he was being attacked by multiple people - including people trying to grab his gun... I don't know but it seemed like he clearly could have had a reasonable belief that he had no choice but to shoot?? Am I missing something that makes it more questionable? Who or what started the confrontation that led to the shooting?

That being said, he was clearly a totally immature idiot that thought he was cool by carrying an assault rifle and marching around acting tough. I don't know what you can charge him with for being an idiot... It seems like maybe there could be an exception to the open carry laws that prohibits it during highly charged atmospheres/crowds like protests? I don't know - it seems like that kind of situation is just asking for something like this to happen - highly emotional people, big crowds, darkness, potential for violence and/or property damage - throw in untrained civilians with rifles and it is probably surprising when someone doesn't get shot...

Yeah, that's what I am saying. One (1) automatic and semi automatic rifles should be illegal; Two (2), your rights to self defense should not extend to lethal force if there is no evidence of injury on the defendant; three (3), the concept of self defense has to consider the whole context of the claim. Rittenhouse was an aggressor in that he chose to go to this place he knew was dangerous with a lethal weapon, he was looking for a confrontation and he found it. That has to count for something. That should be in the law, but it's not.
 
It seems like it just goes in a circular argument as eluded to in the article Ph posted, winner is the person that remains alive at the end. A fight starts and a person is shot, you see the person shoot someone having no idea the context of the shooting and now feel threatened yourself so try to shoot the first shooter, you either are successful or fail and are shot by the first shooter the survivor of this shootout makes it to the next round of threatened, saw this shooting happen, new shooter, and so forth. Eventually run out of people with guns or people to shoot, king of the hill declared. (This only applies if you are white)
 
Back
Top