It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A tactical and legal analysis of the Kenosha shootings

page: 14
64
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: JAGStorm

I think it’s more your belief that a dude being chased by an armed mob doesn’t have a right to defend himself when the mob catches him because he ignored a curfew order and had a gun he wasn’t supposed to have that might be what’s being called disgusting.

Could be wrong though.


And Bingo was his name-o. I find it disgusting that a FELON has more of a right to a weapon and a right to defend himself in her eyes, than Kyle does.

That is some Grade A Kool-Aid Hypocrisy right there, and it's not remotely defensible. WTF.


What is really going to blow your mind is how the cops at these dangerous and violent riots let armed men walk right past them, Both Antifa and Militia with guns out in the open.

How come Jacob Blake was gunned down for a possible weapon while the rioters walk right past the cops with guns?





That is a Very Good Question to Ask the Mayor who Pays the Salaries of those Police Officers ......Hmm....




posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Ththema



0914. While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. A jury instruction to that effect was proper. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739


From Wisconsin.gov, not Wikipedia.


A common issue that is raised in self-defense cases by the prosecution is whether the defendant could have avoided intentionally using force or threatening to intentionally use force by either retreating from the situation. In Wisconsin, unlike some states, there is no duty for someone to retreat during a conflict but a jury can consider whether a defendant’s failure to retreat, if possible, demonstrates that the defendant’s belief that he or she was at risk of imminent harm from the other person or that he or she needed to use force to stop the other person from harming him or her was a reasonable belief.


From a Wisconsin law firm.

Stick with Wikipedia. It’s working out great for you.


As I said, not pure duty to retreat but is written into law, force must be reasonable and equitable, consideration to avenues of escape is given in EVERY STATE without specific stand your ground laws.

Nevermind that provocation (pointing an assault rifle) gave Kyle a specific duty to retreat under Wisconsin legislation.



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Ththema


As I said, not pure duty to retreat but is written into law, force must be reasonable and equitable, consideration to avenues of escape is given in EVERY STATE without specific stand your ground laws.


What you actually said:


as in legitimate self defense, one must instead PROVE the killer was first doing everything he possibly could to take himself OUT of harm's way.

Followed by:


You literally just posted a statute which reflects every other statute on self defense killings in the U.S.

Followed by:



You literally purposefully misrepresented a Wisconsin statute that reflects EVERY OTHER SELF DEFENSE STATUTE IN THE UNITED STATES, by copying and pasting the first part of the Castle Doctrine without the CONDITIONAL measures

All of which you said in an attempt to claim there’s a requirement to retreat when there isn’t except in certain circumstances, a point I’ve never contended. Then you said:



Literally nothing you've said here is remotely correct or reflects the actual law.
when what I said is not only correct but indeed quoted from “the actual law” and not Wikipedia. At no point did you try to argue about reasonableness and equitability until just now (a point not even in contention), nor did you limit your claims to “every state without specific stand your ground laws” until just now.

You also said:



You have a duty to retreat in Wisconsin unless you're in your home, car, or in the place of work which you both OWN and OPERATE.

Which is also entirely false.

No amount of trying to reframe your argument now erases what you’ve been trying to argue for pages and pages, nor does it change how wrong you’ve been on a multitude of points. Probably why while one of us was quoting Wisconsin state law the other was quoting Wikipedia. Good try though.



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Ththema


As I said, not pure duty to retreat but is written into law, force must be reasonable and equitable, consideration to avenues of escape is given in EVERY STATE without specific stand your ground laws.


What you actually said:


as in legitimate self defense, one must instead PROVE the killer was first doing everything he possibly could to take himself OUT of harm's way.

Followed by:


You literally just posted a statute which reflects every other statute on self defense killings in the U.S.

Followed by:



You literally purposefully misrepresented a Wisconsin statute that reflects EVERY OTHER SELF DEFENSE STATUTE IN THE UNITED STATES, by copying and pasting the first part of the Castle Doctrine without the CONDITIONAL measures

All of which you said in an attempt to claim there’s a requirement to retreat when there isn’t except in certain circumstances, a point I’ve never contended. Then you said:



Literally nothing you've said here is remotely correct or reflects the actual law.
when what I said is not only correct but indeed quoted from “the actual law” and not Wikipedia. At no point did you try to argue about reasonableness and equitability until just now (a point not even in contention), nor did you limit your claims to “every state without specific stand your ground laws” until just now.

You also said:



You have a duty to retreat in Wisconsin unless you're in your home, car, or in the place of work which you both OWN and OPERATE.

Which is also entirely false.

No amount of trying to reframe your argument now erases what you’ve been trying to argue for pages and pages, nor does it change how wrong you’ve been on a multitude of points. Probably why while one of us was quoting Wisconsin state law the other was quoting Wikipedia. Good try though.


I appreciate all the gibber jabber, but the reality is that Wisconsin law was written for REASONABLE human beings to determine what is self defense.

In this case, Kyle could have left AT ANY POINT, but instead decided to turn to shoot an unarmed civilian in the face.

Not complicated stuff here

That is why he is sitting in jail right now on two first degree murder charges.

I know you're smarter than the D.A. and everything, but this is really not complicated stuff.



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Ththema


As I said, not pure duty to retreat but is written into law, force must be reasonable and equitable, consideration to avenues of escape is given in EVERY STATE without specific stand your ground laws.


What you actually said:


as in legitimate self defense, one must instead PROVE the killer was first doing everything he possibly could to take himself OUT of harm's way.

Followed by:


You literally just posted a statute which reflects every other statute on self defense killings in the U.S.

Followed by:



You literally purposefully misrepresented a Wisconsin statute that reflects EVERY OTHER SELF DEFENSE STATUTE IN THE UNITED STATES, by copying and pasting the first part of the Castle Doctrine without the CONDITIONAL measures

All of which you said in an attempt to claim there’s a requirement to retreat when there isn’t except in certain circumstances, a point I’ve never contended. Then you said:



Literally nothing you've said here is remotely correct or reflects the actual law.
when what I said is not only correct but indeed quoted from “the actual law” and not Wikipedia. At no point did you try to argue about reasonableness and equitability until just now (a point not even in contention), nor did you limit your claims to “every state without specific stand your ground laws” until just now.

You also said:



You have a duty to retreat in Wisconsin unless you're in your home, car, or in the place of work which you both OWN and OPERATE.

Which is also entirely false.

No amount of trying to reframe your argument now erases what you’ve been trying to argue for pages and pages, nor does it change how wrong you’ve been on a multitude of points. Probably why while one of us was quoting Wisconsin state law the other was quoting Wikipedia. Good try though.


I appreciate all the gibber jabber, but the reality is that Wisconsin law was written for REASONABLE human beings to determine what is self defense.

In this case, Kyle could have left AT ANY POINT, but instead decided to turn to shoot an unarmed civilian in the face.

Not complicated stuff here

That is why he is sitting in jail right now on two first degree murder charges.

I know you're smarter than the D.A. and everything, but this is really not complicated stuff.



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Ththema

The reality is you came in, made some claims, cited Wikipedia, and got shown you were wrong on what you were trying to argue about and are now shifting direction entirely in an effort to save face.

You’re clearly an “expert” on law and while I’m certainly glad you’re not the prosecutor for Kyle’s case, his attorney seems to disagree with your opinion of things. I know you’re smarter than him and everything, but this is really not complicated stuff.



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 04:44 PM
link   
95% of the protesters/rioters seems to have criminal histories of violence, sexual assaults and drug abuse.

Such a complete opposite lifestyle of the otherside and kids like Kyle rittenhouse who volunteer and give back to the community



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Ththema

The reality is you came in, made some claims, cited Wikipedia, and got shown you were wrong on what you were trying to argue about and are now shifting direction entirely in an effort to save face.

You’re clearly an “expert” on law and while I’m certainly glad you’re not the prosecutor for Kyle’s case, his attorney seems to disagree with your opinion of things. I know you’re smarter than him and everything, but this is really not complicated stuff.


That's great you did an hour of Google research and now you understand Wisconsin law better than the d.a.

LOL.



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Ththema

Nah, just better than you. And now you’re doing that thing where you try to keep going so you can have the last word and feel better about how this went. That’s fine, I can tell you need that L to turn into a W for you by any means necessary. Have at it



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OwwMyHead
Each year on opening day of deer hunting season, Wisconsin alone fields 750,000 armed serious hunters who are willing to sit motionless in a tree for eight hours with the sole intent of shooting and killing their prey.

750,000 armed serious hunters



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Ththema

Nah, just better than you. And now you’re doing that thing where you try to keep going so you can have the last word and feel better about how this went. That’s fine, I can tell you need that L to turn into a W for you by any means necessary. Have at it


If you can just leave, and you aren't under imminent threat, that's not called DEFENSE.

In any state.

Very simple stuff.

Which is why The badly written article you love claims that Kyle was "cornered". Which was bull#.

Have your win big guy, you did great



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: putnam6
Not another planet, (a logical fallacy of ad hominum attack BTW), just a practical objective rational paradigm that has decided that I am prepared to meet aggression with sufficient force to stop the aggression, and if that means using a firearm then so be it. There are a plethora of thugs rioting and burning and terrorizing openly in the past few months that are begging to take the ROOM TEMPERATURE CHALLENGE



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001
Blake had a knife in his left hand as he went around the car and was reaching into the car for his Kool cigarettes and Zippo lighter when the two police shot him in the back seven times. Right. ??



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

Jay the Patriot Prayer who died was a convicted felon. Kyle is on video beating a girl. Serial killer Gacy was involved in a lot of charities and Manson played guitar at a church. Doing something good does not automatically make you a great person.

It's already been made clear that the victims in the Kenosha shooting had convictions too. ALL of the victims were not perfect. I don't know about last night's shooter but we can probably say both shooters are not perfect.

How does no one see there are bad people everywhere. There is no winning on this issue. Both sides will lose lives.
Does anyone else see this? How are you determining a winner? Who has the most body count? Convicted or set free? This will not end up well.
edit on 30-8-2020 by frogs453 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ththema

Please tell me off the top of your head, without searching the internet, what the CONTINUUM OF FORCE guidelines are in a specific stair step. Hint, the first one is COMMAND PRESENCE and the last one is LETHAL DEADLY FORCE. List as best you can all the steps between the first and the last please.



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: frogs453

I think plenty of people see it. They’re just not going to lose sleep over it. Not in this instance, at least.



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ontogeny55
a reply to: putnam6
Not another planet, (a logical fallacy of ad hominum attack BTW), just a practical objective rational paradigm that has decided that I am prepared to meet aggression with sufficient force to stop the aggression, and if that means using a firearm then so be it. There are a plethora of thugs rioting and burning and terrorizing openly in the past few months that are begging to take the ROOM TEMPERATURE CHALLENGE


When did I say another planet? Think you have me confused with some one else

LOL it looked like self defense to me too especially victim #1



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Bloodworth

Jay the Patriot Prayer who died was a convicted felon. Kyle is on video beating a girl. Serial killer Gacy was involved in a lot of charities and Manson played guitar at a church. Doing something good does not automatically make you a great person.

It's already been made clear that the victims in the Kenosha shooting had convictions too. ALL of the victims were not perfect. I don't know about last night's shooter but we can probably say both shooters are not perfect.

How does no one see there are bad people everywhere. There is no winning on this issue. Both sides will lose lives.
Does anyone else see this? How are you determining a winner? Who has the most body count? Convicted or set free? This will not end up well.


JUST DONT KILL PEOPLE.

Im not out there trying to make the #ing idiotic argument that the Patriot Prayer murder was self-defense. Despite the fact that the dude was going around macing people in the face.

All murderers are ghouls and should sit before they fry in hell.



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: putnam6
you are correct. my bad. am new to this format less than two weeks into it. i will be more careful and amend my errors.



posted on Aug, 30 2020 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong
Not another planet, (a logical fallacy of ad hominum attack BTW), just a practical objective rational paradigm that has decided that I am prepared to meet aggression with sufficient force to stop the aggression, and if that means using a firearm then so be it. There are a plethora of thugs rioting and burning and terrorizing openly in the past few months that are begging to take the ROOM TEMPERATURE CHALLENGE




top topics



 
64
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join