Official Trump Thread - Winners only

[Lasherž]

Points 2 and 3 are total bullshit with implicit bias. He LEFT the scene of an angry mob that attacked him. What's the alternative? Stand there and shoot more as they attack you? You can argue the prosecution will attempt to use the point you made, but the literal evidence shows otherwise

The crowd wasn't trying to keep him there for the police, they were trying to exact revenge on him. He literally walked up to the police to turn himself in after the first self defense shot and the dumbass LEO turned him away instead of taking him somewhere secure while they figured it out.

The big takeaway here is that this guy has more balls and 99% of the people online talking shit about how they would beat some ***. He's not even white, he's apparently hispanic. He's done more for those who want to stop BLM/Antifa/Marxists than just about anyone.

It just goes to show when shit hits the fan, there's one group that is well armed and educated and another side who just want to be anarchists. It's going to be like the US invasion of Iraq with a heavily lopsided body count. I don't understand why these sheep continue to push the buttons of those who have historically been the most successful conquerors in the existence of human beings.

The difference lies with the first shots. You can't murder someone with a weapon and then proceed to declare self defense for the crowd turning against you. Mass shooters who are heroically taken down by unarmed people can't shoot them for retaliating without adding to their murder count. In criminal law it's a matter of forfeiture of your right to self defense when you commit a felony.

The greater point about this is that when you bring a gun to a protest/riot whatever you want to call it, you introduce risk not just to the people you're expecting to kill if things go badly but to yourself. It's the same deal with police when someone gets their weapon. Reaching towards police is now lethal threat because they have a gun. If they didn't have a gun it wouldn't be lethal it would just be battery. Same thing here with this guy, he brought the gun, and now he's claiming that since someone wanted to lay hands that it was a lethal force because theoretically they could have taken his gun and shot him with it. Except that if they took his gun they'd be the same lethal force he was before they did that. Legally he's on shaky ground because he shouldn't of had the gun, he shouldn't of been there after curfew, and if a hand wasn't actually making contact with the gun before he shot, even if he didn't shoot and just brandished it or pointed it near the man approaching, then both were murder in the second degree and the third was attempted murder (welcome to being a civilian, not a cop).

I don't know why it's so crazy to all of you "principled conservatives" that when you murder someone it doesn't matter if the crowd attacks you, it doesn't matter if they take your gun (which seems to be what they were attempting to do in the moment), and it doesn't even matter if they shoot and kill you. It's still your fault because you initiated lethal force first. If you don't like the law complain about that, but don't act like he's an innocent patriot going out there and killing someone because they approached him and threw a plastic bag he couldn't see, he's a murderer patriot, which seems to be an increasing demographic.

 

[wew lad 5,000+ posts]

The difference lies with the first shots. You can't murder someone with a weapon and then proceed to declare self defense for the crowd turning against you. Mass shooters who are heroically taken down by unarmed people can't shoot them for retaliating without adding to their murder count. In criminal law it's a matter of forfeiture of your right to self defense when you commit a felony.

The greater point about this is that when you bring a gun to a protest/riot whatever you want to call it, you introduce risk not just to the people you're expecting to kill if things go badly but to yourself. It's the same deal with police when someone gets their weapon. Reaching towards police is now lethal threat because they have a gun. If they didn't have a gun it wouldn't be lethal it would just be battery. Same thing here with this guy, he brought the gun, and now he's claiming that since someone wanted to lay hands that it was a lethal force because theoretically they could have taken his gun and shot him with it. Except that if they took his gun they'd be the same lethal force he was before they did that. Legally he's on shaky ground because he shouldn't of had the gun, he shouldn't of been there after curfew, and if a hand wasn't actually making contact with the gun before he shot, even if he didn't shoot and just brandished it or pointed it near the man approaching, then both were murder in the second degree and the third was attempted murder (welcome to being a civilian, not a cop).

I don't know why it's so crazy to all of you "principled conservatives" that when you murder someone it doesn't matter if the crowd attacks you, it doesn't matter if they take your gun (which seems to be what they were attempting to do in the moment), and it doesn't even matter if they shoot and kill you. It's still your fault because you initiated lethal force first. If you don't like the law complain about that, but don't act like he's an innocent patriot going out there and killing someone because they approached him and threw a plastic bag he couldn't see, he's a murderer patriot, which seems to be an increasing demographic.

Allow me to propose a hypothetical situation. Let's say someone fires a shot in your direction, but you don't know where it came from, and then you see someone charging you after stating that they will kill you. You use lethal force. You leave the scene to attempt to turn yourself in.

The crowd kills you. Is the crowd committing murder under the color of the law?

 

[Lasherž]

Allow me to propose a hypothetical situation. Let's say someone fires a shot in your direction, but you don't know where it came from, and then you see someone charging you after stating that they will kill you. You use lethal force. You leave the scene to attempt to turn yourself in.

The crowd kills you. Is the crowd committing murder under the color of the law?

That's not the definition of what happened here from what I've seen in the audio/video. His defense of "hearing gunshots behind him in the distance" is weak. Kyle's group was doing target practice all night according to tiktok videos from the militia group. Someone who's a gun nut should know a gunshot is loud as shit when it's right next to you. Why would he assume a gunshot in the distance is the guy who's 10ft away? However, once they count shell casings and if they can deduce that audio clearly, and if they can establish that the man who said it put his hand on his gun, then maybe.

It depends on what the crowd knew about it. If they couldn't hear the first gunshots and the man say "I'm going to kill you," then visually it might have been exactly the same. They had the right to make an armed citizen's arrest because witnesses relayed he committed a felony. Even if he didn't commit a crime it would have been okay to make an armed arrest without it being false imprisonment. Once he shot the second guy the third guy would likely have to right to shoot him, and 100% would if he aimed in his direction. That would turn it into a situation where the mindset of each party is different, and in those situations oftentimes if those mindsets are based on the real situational evidence that other data supports then the first guy who was shot for showing intent and then grabbing a lethal object was the only criminal, and the rest are just victims.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Well if you don't like protests then feel free to petition your senators and representative to make a change to the constitution. Good luck with that.

If you consider gunfights in the streets in this country "protests", then you and I have a much different view of things. Or are you one of those people still trying to cling to these are peaceful protests? Rittenhouse didn't just start shooting people for "protesting", he shot people that were physically assaulting him. He was foolish for putting himself in that position, but that did not give those people the right to attack him.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

My bad! I should've found a second source before posting.

It's all good. At least your reply about it was positive.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I live in Northern Wisconsin and I can tell you right now that it is not Legal for a 17 year old to own a AR. He has to be 18 and has to be 21 to buy a handgun here.

He didn't own the AR, a friend who lives in Wisconsin did. But, it is illegal for someone under 18 to "go armed" in public in that state, to which he clearly appears in violation of.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

None of the shooter's victims were technically unarmed. One man had a hand gun, the second man was using his skateboard as a weapon, and the third (first one shot) was chasing him with what appears to be a bottle and threw it at him. We can argue that throwing a bottle at someone doesn't pose a life threatening situation, but the shooter also didn't immediately shoot that person, and we cannot see (from the vids released so far) what occurred in the used car lot that occurred between the man throwing the bottle at him and chasing him behind the cars, and when he was actually shot. Those details are relevant, and probably wont be known until it goes to court.

 

[Lasherž]

None of the shooter's victims were technically unarmed. One man had a hand gun, the second man was using his skateboard as a weapon, and the third (first one shot) was chasing him with what appears to be a bottle and threw it at him. We can argue that throwing a bottle at someone doesn't pose a life threatening situation, but the shooter also didn't immediately shoot that person, and we cannot see (from the vids released so far) what occurred in the used car lot that occurred between the man throwing the bottle at him and chasing him behind the cars, and when he was actually shot. Those details are relevant, and probably wont be known until it goes to court.

The only one that matters for his innocence is what happened off camera. Witnesses had better angles, but if I were Kyle's lawyer I'd be hoping the coroner's report showed burns on the first guy's hand. Never saw the bottle, just a plastic bag.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

The only one that matters for his innocence is what happened off camera. Witnesses had better angles, but if I were Kyle's lawyer I'd be hoping the coroner's report showed burns on the first guy's hand. Never saw the bottle, just a plastic bag.

The video does make it hard to see what the man was actually chasing Rittenhouse with (and threw at him), Im going by witnesses that claimed it was a bottle. Either way, the video makes a strong case that Rittenhouse can claim 'fear for his life' even from the first person he shot.

 

[Lasherž]

The video does make it hard to see what the man was actually chasing Rittenhouse with (and threw at him), Im going by witnesses that claimed it was a bottle. Either way, the video makes a strong case that Rittenhouse can claim 'fear for his life' even from the first person he shot.

Fear of life has a pretty constrained legal definition, we'll see. I still say the only lethal escalation possible for him to match in this situation with an unarmed man against an armed man is either a weapon of his own which he didn't have or grabbing the gun. He's still got the butt of a rifle vs fists and the law requires an escalation of resources to be completely exhausted. So nice of the police to let him walk through their ranks. Hopefully the fingerprints on the gun are still intact after returning to Illinois. I wonder what happened with the gun actually, because people are claiming it's his friend's gun and it never crossed the border which would have been illegal. So I guess he gave his murder weapon back to its owner like the police weren't going to want it? He was arrested in Illinois.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

That's true, fear for your life isn't a blanket defense, there also has to be imminent danger. There are many recent examples of these rioters beating people unconscious or to death, often using nothing other than their fists and feet. And this certainly isn't the first case of a skateboard being used as a weapon by one of these rioters. What level of beating would you allow yourself to take before deciding your attacker(s) isn't going to stop until you are dead, so you use your gun?

I'm no lawyer. But imo Rittenhouse's biggest legal problem will be the skateboarder he shot (and killed), because by that point he had turned and was running away, albeit only a couple steps.

 

[Lasherž]

If you consider gunfights in the streets in this country "protests", then you and I have a much different view of things. Or are you one of those people still trying to cling to these are peaceful protests?

My position is that it's a shame how people are. Civil strife attracts all sorts to protest and those protests attract all sorts to test the line. It's very easy to assume that everyone at the protests has the same thing in mind but that's lazy. The only thing you can say about a protest is that the vast majority of the people there have strong views and most of them are directed at the central message of the protest, which is that black lives matter too. When it comes to the troublemakers you've got either people with a more anarchic view of politics, people trying to damage the rich to affect the urgency of the protests (likely based on the riots after MLK's death that led to the CRA), people on drugs, mentally ill people, or people purposefully trying to damage the movement. I promise you there's many examples of all of these in every large protest/riot. Regardless of any of these things what you end up with is a sludge of well-intentioned people mixed in with a minority of vastly different and less helpful people. Put simply, you're not going to have a protest without these elements, so at a certain point you just have to accept that they're there and that the media's wrong to color the movement based solely on them. The media isn't out to help the BLM movement's cause, not even the most liberal media, they're out there to film distress in all of its forms. Chaos is better for viewership. Maybe if we didn't financially incentivize every media outlet with ratings or government funding controlled by people who want to characterize it their own way then we'd understand. That's why I watch all gas no brakes on Youtube. He just shows up and asks questions, nothing complicated about that. No filming burning buildings and letting the audience piece it together. He'll just go up to the people who laid down the gas and ask why they're doing this.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Basically, for the left, if he had killed them with his bare hands then there wouldn't be an issue? But then again, I am sure they would still be talking about "The violence that a Trump supporter caused."

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Put simply, you're not going to have a protest without these elements, so at a certain point you just have to accept that they're there and that the media's wrong to color the movement based solely on them.

So we just have to accept riots, looting, violence and murder. Because we just have to accept these people trying to bully their opinions onto the rest of us with their threats (and actions) of civil unrest until their political demands are met? That is not how this country works. Or, it's not how it is suppose to work.

It's funny. In Charlottesville the left refused to believe there were any peaceful protesters in the crowd, so they could twist Trump's statement to mean he was referring to neo nazi's. But now that the tables are turned, we are suppose to not talk about the weekly fires, explosions, shootings, looting, etc... because that's just as minority of the over all group. Even if I agree to that logic, at what point do we shut down the good intended several-month-long protests in order to protect our citizens from the radicals that are using those well intended people as cover? It's easy to say we just have to accept these things, until it's your home or business they are burning down.

And we will just have to agree to disagree on the left-biased media helping the BLM movement. My list of examples would be exhaustingly long, and I suspect would fall on deaf ears (no offense).

 

[Firewalker]

He didn't own the AR, a friend who lives in Wisconsin did. But, it is illegal for someone under 18 to "go armed" in public in that state, to which he clearly appears in violation of.

I can tell you right now that in this state that "friend" who gave him the AR is also going to be charged sooner or later as an accessory and rightfully so. He knowingly broke a law.