So start a thread about them. What bearing do they have on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial?
The mere presence of a weapon is not enough to claim self defense and then attack the person who has a weapon. You, and many others, are very conveniently leaving out the fact that some of the assailants were armed as well.
If I place myself in the occasion of danger, it is not self defense.
You don’t take a gun next door because the neighbors are fighting and you don’t jump in the lion pit, you don’t kick the lion and you don’t step on Supermans’ Cape.
Because that is not the topic of the OP.
Because the presence of other people and their actions is relevant. Life doesn’t occur in a vacuum.
Sounds a lot like victim blaming. People are allowed to exercise their rights regardless of rioting mobs disagree.
What bearing do they have on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial?
No, you have to have a reasonable fear you are in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm.
Open carry is protected by Wisconsins state constitution and that right has also been recognized and codified in a least 2 state statutes.
Is it reasonable to fear for your life from someone who is doing something legal as well as walking away from you?
Because walking away from a violent riot and then being pursued by the violent rioters and assaulted by the violent rioters and hearing gunshots may actually lead one to believe that the violent rioters are a reasonable threat to one’s safety and thus justify self defense.
Since Rosenbaum placed himself in the occasion of danger he’s not entitled to self defense under your claim, correct?
Are you talking about the people that directly engaged with him or the people that did the 40 million dollars worth of damage that you mentioned earlier?
If you’re talking about the people that were directly engaging with him, I don’t know why you think they haven’t been discussed in this thread.
Mod Note: Okay, now I will make it official. It is not against the rule to leave out most of the quote, but you must indicate the ellipsis if the omitted context significantly changes the intent.
[Disregard - This has been withdrawn]
As pkbites points out it has to be a reasonable fear not just a fear. The reasonable person standard is a legal construct and not just your feelings. You don’t get to chose what is reasonable. That’s why Rittenhouse is on trial. He doesn’t get to chose that his fear was reasonable. That’s up to first the prosecutor and ultimately the jury. You saying you are in fear just because someone is open carrying a gun in an open carry state is not going to be regarded as reasonable absent any other actions.
Yeah, it’s a real bummer he killed two people and injured a third. Wait a minute…
If that “something legal” is “waving around a deadly weapon”, then yes.
Well, under subsection (2), if any of those mitigating factors apply, the offense becomes second-degree intentional homicide. It looks to me like the defense could try to put all of them at issue, and then the prosecution would have to prove that they did not apply.
I haven’t yet found anything about whether the jury can be instructed on lesser included offenses that weren’t charged, or whether any lesser offenses were charged.
If they shot anyone, they should go to jail too.
(Before I get a bunch of nitpicking, I don’t mean “should” as in “that’s how the law works”, I mean “if the law wasn’t fucking stupid, it would be illegal to go pick fights armed”)
Wait a minute. Thinking that someone is going to take your gun is grounds for considering your life to be in danger? That makes no sense at all. If someone taking your gun is a cause for fear, then why would you carry? Isn’t the gun supposed to make you safer?
Of course not, why would hanging around an implement of death make you safer? That’s ridiculous. Guns raise your risk of death.
Yes. In many situations it certainly is, and has been recognized as so under the law and in court rulings.