Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m very curious about how this conversation would go if the guy who chased the shooter had had a gun. In that scenario he would've been the proverbial Good Guy With A Gun, no? Isn’t that what you gun nuts always support? Are you now arguing the Good Guy With A Gun deserves to get shot? So his value and worth derives from the Gun part and not the Good Guy part?

So confusing.

No.

In the first incident shooter was clearly running away and had not fired. Absent additional facts, that would not make chaser a good guy with a gun. Once shooter disengaged and ran away, that should have been the end of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

That idiot kid shouldn't have been there or armed, but he was also being chased by someone with a gun in hand.

See picture 19. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8665383/One-shot-dead-two-wounded-BLM-protesters-defy-curfew-Kenosha.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Open carry is legal is the vast majority of states. Tens of thousands of people open carry in public on at least a early basis without causing fight or flight response. Calling it an aggressive act that in and of itself triggers self defense is contrary to experience. And for the record, open carry has been exercised by both sides of this current protest climate without resulting in gun battles. From Africa. American groups in Georgia to COVID lockdown protestors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m very curious about how this conversation would go if the guy who chased the shooter had had a gun. In that scenario he would've been the proverbial Good Guy With A Gun, no? Isn’t that what you gun nuts always support? Are you now arguing the Good Guy With A Gun deserves to get shot? So his value and worth derives from the Gun part and not the Good Guy part?

So confusing.

No.

In the first incident shooter was clearly running away and had not fired. Absent additional facts, that would not make chaser a good guy with a gun. Once shooter disengaged and ran away, that should have been the end of it.

He had already killed someone. That’s why they were chasing him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Open carry is legal is the vast majority of states. Tens of thousands of people open carry in public on at least a early basis without causing fight or flight response. Calling it an aggressive act that in and of itself triggers self defense is contrary to experience. And for the record, open carry has been exercised by both sides of this current protest climate without resulting in gun battles. From Africa. American groups in Georgia to COVID lockdown protestors.

Bringing the firearm across state lines into Wisconsin was illegal. Everything digresses from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Look at the argument you are making- it is a tautology.

Not quite. If we know that open carry is a codified lawful exercise of rights then that in and of itself cannot trigger legally justified self defense. The law tries to be in harmony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Yes. They were trying to prevent more deaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Oh, now you care about rights? Funny how no one on the Jacob Blake thread does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Uh...yeah. Isn’t that the whole premise of the good guy with a gun argument? Or is there now suddenly some addendum related to needing absolute proof that he will shoot again?

If a shooter shoots kids in a classroom and then walks down the hall, is he leaving or going to another classroom to kill more people? How is anyone supposed to answer that? Where did this requirement come from? You stop the murderer however you can. That’s what sane, brave people do.

Do you even hear yourself?! Really, stop, I’m genuinely concerned for your soul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m very curious about how this conversation would go if the guy who chased the shooter had had a gun. In that scenario he would've been the proverbial Good Guy With A Gun, no? Isn’t that what you gun nuts always support? Are you now arguing the Good Guy With A Gun deserves to get shot? So his value and worth derives from the Gun part and not the Good Guy part?

So confusing.

No.

In the first incident shooter was clearly running away and had not fired. Absent additional facts, that would not make chaser a good guy with a gun. Once shooter disengaged and ran away, that should have been the end of it.

He had already killed someone. That’s why they were chasing him.

The group of five chasing him was fine. Where they crossed the line was in:

Person 1 trying to kick shooter in the head when shooter was on the ground.

Person 2 trying to hit in the head at full force with a skateboard.

Person 3 rushing him with what appeared to be a gun in hand.

The chasing want the problem. The trying to physically harm him (the first 2 at least) is what his defense will argue justified self defense.

He’s absolutely going to get popped for having the firearm (as he should).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Look at the argument you are making- it is a tautology.

Not quite. If we know that open carry is a codified lawful exercise of rights then that in and of itself cannot trigger legally justified self defense. The law tries to be in harmony.

But open carry does not mean in the hands. It means holstered or strapped. By unholstering a gun, or in this case, weilding the AR-15, one is in effect unsheathing a.sword. An act, that has for a very long time been considered a deadly threat in an of itself, if Westerns and Fantasy movies have taught me anything. Although I'm willing to bet that there's a ton of old timey case law on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Yes. They were trying to prevent more deaths.

By killing him when he didn’t apparently pose an IMMINENT threat to anyone? Please tell me why you think that is lawful? That’s literally the definition of vigilantism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


The group of five chasing him was fine. Where they crossed the line was in:

Person 1 trying to kick shooter in the head when shooter was on the ground. he had already shot someone, they were trying to stop him from shooting more

Person 2 trying to hit in the head at full force with a skateboard. he had already shot someone, they were trying to stop him from shooting more

Person 3 rushing him with what appeared to be a gun in hand. he had already shot someone, they were trying to stop him from shooting more

The chasing want the problem. The trying to physically harm him (the first 2 at least) is what his defense will argue justified self defense. He will lose that argument

He’s absolutely going to get popped for having the firearm (as he should).

And he will get popped for open homicide.