Kyle Rittenhouse question

Rape isn't killing humans.

I'm surprised you don't know that.

You dodged the question. That is evidence that you know I'm right.

I'm recognizing the psychological damage Kyle has endured. You want to sweep that away and I'm not going to allow you to do that.

No, you're proposing to abuse him and revictimize him.



That's a lie and you know it.

But in the hypothetical, can a bank robber who is fleeing after killing a security officer claim self-defense if he shoots a pursuer?

No.

The Difference Between Murder and Manslaughter

by James Finsweet from LawBrother Ltd
22 Jun, 2021

[Moderator note: remainder of post content removed due to copyright claim]

I remember a story as a student, probably apocryphal, about a man who killed someone and disposed of the body by throwing him in a pit.

It turned out he couldn't be done for murder because he didn't kill him when he hit him over the head although he believed he had. The victim died from falling in the pit.

So when he intended to kill him he merely knocked him out, but when he did kill him there was no intention to kill so he could only be prosecuted for manslaughter.

Like I said it's probably apocryphal.

Without looking at the specific language of some states’ Stand Your Ground laws, it would seem that since Rittenhouse went out of his way to put himself at the scene of a protest, armed, any deadly encounter wherein he killed someone would be his fault.

But then, I read my own states’ SYG law.

If his states’ language is similar, he’ll be exonerated.
He was legally hunting people.

Except of SC SYG ‘Castle’ law:

11/20/2019

(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)
A BILL

TO AMEND SECTIONS 16-11-440 AND 16-11-450, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BOTH RELATING TO IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON (STAND YOUR GROUND), BOTH SO AS TO INCLUDE DISPLAYING DEADLY FORCE IN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTES.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Section 16-11-440 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 16-11-440. (A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using or displaying deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used or displayed is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses or displays deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used or displayed has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or

(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used or displayed; or

(3) who uses or displays deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) against whom the deadly force is used or displayed is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another any place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, up to and including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder."

Hmmm....

So this guy that Bobsal posted believes that Black Lives Matters protesters are "terrorists" and "insurgents".

I wonder if Bobsal believes that the Black Lives Matters protesters are terrorists.

Stop trolling me.

Tou don't even respond to the posting. Why is it all personal with you????

Name one BLM supporter killing anyone, let alone three at a time.

Will you answer the question or troll me????

"Mom, can you take me to Wisconsin?"
"Sure, hun!"
The way there... nothing but f**kin' Breitbart, and Sean Hannity on the radio with this kids incoherent babbling about the radical left and how Trump "is the greatest president we've ever had".
They arrive.
"Mom... I'm gonna save America today."
"Okay, sweetie, have fun!"

They should lock her up too!

They are throwing molotov cocktails at police cars and burning down businesses and shooting at police officers.

There is something really crazy with the political left.

This was a violent mob, some of them were armed, that were attacking police, throwing firebombs and burning down businesses.

But somehow, no one denounces the mob or the people who started it. It is fine to burn down businesses if you have the correct political ideology?

The left has gone crazy.

Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people and severely injured a third. He is now on trial for the killings.

Just in case you didn't realize what this thread was about...

Just ignore him, he's desperate for attention.

He hates being ignored.

And life is so much easier not having to deal with all that ****.

Of course that doesn't stop others quoting him, and I might respond to that, but like Oralloy he's so utterly predictable you know what he's going to say anyway.

So why bother?

I have made my opinion pretty clear. Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent of murder and will be cleared of the most serious charges (if not all charges).

And I think the political left has gone crazy to excuse the violence of the protesters who are responsible for this volatile situation in the first place. Both of those are true.

We have had riots over here, the police are trained on how to deal with them. There are procedures in place and there is specialist equipment to be used like body amour and shields, tactics to be used like kettling.

These tactics work, they are non violent and can contain really determined rioters throwing petrol bombs and bricks.

I remember the then pm David Cameron praising the police actions and saying how proud he was that they never used water cannons or rubber bullets, although the then mayor of London Boris Johnson had a water cannon on order.

Cameron then went on to make a wider point about how rubber bullets and water cannons had never been used on British streets. That was technically true, but only the case in mainland Britain. They had both been used extensively in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

At the time there was a lot of criticism, and rightly so, of the use of such tactics. We're talking about water cannons and rubber bullets, live ammunition wasn't used to control rioters. When it did happen it was called The Bloody Sunday massacre, and the repercussions of extra judicial killings by the British army are ongoing.

This is an individual carrying out his own Bloody Sunday just for the sheer hell of it.

Ok then.

So, others who disagree with you shouldn't have a platform for their opinions?

Having fifty potentially different laws about when a person can legally kill someone is retarded. My state has a "Duty to Retreat" law. States under the influence of the Christian Taliban, on the other hand, entitle citizens to kill someone to prevent a violent crime. (I wonder, under these laws, if it's legal to shoot a person who is about to engage in a violent act of suicide?) Maybe the Supreme Court will come around and recognize the legitimacy of "honor killings" to protect one's family from shame and scandal.