Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He still had an AR15 in his hands, he still was an imminent threat, indeed he killed another person and injured another person. They should have hit him harder, maybe?

[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?

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.

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

[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.

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.

The McCloskeys can tell you all about the law of brandishing a gun.

[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.

Really, because it's more than enough justification for a cop to shoot someone.

[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?

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

I care about Jakob Blake and Philando Castile greatly. I don’t speak for anybody else in the other thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

An armed and suspicious looking suspected murderer is not considered an immiment threat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He was on the ground on his ass in a de-levered position. He wasn’t attempting to shoot anyone else, so they couldn’t have possibly been attempting to stop an imminent threat.

He actually had the rifle pointed at the third person he shot for about a second and he didn’t pull the trigger until the third person closed the distance between himself and shooter. Think what you will, but defense counsel would love their chances heading to trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He was on the ground on his ass in a de-levered position. He wasn’t attempting to shoot anyone else, so they couldn’t have possibly been attempting to stop an imminent threat.

He actually had the rifle pointed at the third person he shot for about a second and he didn’t pull the trigger until the third person closed the distance between himself and shooter. Think what you will, but defense counsel would love their chances heading to trial.

It was premeditated.

Defense knows what that means, if you don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

An armed and suspicious looking suspected murderer is not considered an immiment threat?

No. An imminent threat is pointing a gun at somebody without cuss. An imminent threat is moving toward somebody in a threatening position with a knife. Looking suspicious and holding a knife/gun in a non-threatening manner is not in and of itself an imminent threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

[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.

The third guy to chase the shooter and get shot DID have a gun. So he was The Good Guy With A Gun, and should be the hero. At least that's how it is supposed to work, based on right-wing precedent. Especially given the kid popped off a few rounds with his parents' AR-15 for good measure while sprawled on the ground.

[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?

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.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.