November 2021 Current Events

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > November 2021 Current Events

Hannibal Rex: Feb 13, 2010

TheWeedNumber posted:

Is there a country that isn’t insane I should move to? Please advise tia

https://youtu.be/g1Sq1Nr58hM

# ¿ Nov 2, 2021 18:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 10:59

Hannibal Rex: Feb 13, 2010

I'm not following the Rittenhouse shooting closely at all, but last year after the Denver shooting, I did some reading up on self-defense law. The law varies and I haven't looked at whichever state Rittenhouse was in, but one key point is, that even if you start poo poo originally, if you attempt to run away from a confrontation, you're no longer legally the aggressor. So yeah, I'm not seriously counting on Rittenhouse to be convicted.

There's a self-defense lawyer, Andrew Braca, who's supposedly a real expert on the subject, and he's got a members only blog where he writes a ton about Rittenhouse. He's also a right-wing shithead who rails about Soros-funded prosecutors, so YMMV. I took the two weeks trial membership to read what he had to say about Denver, and then refunded.

Wasn't a bad way to get an overview, rather than just going by gut feeling.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2021 19:39

Hannibal Rex: Feb 13, 2010

Stultus Maximus posted:

This isn't true, but even if it were this is the scenario you're describing:

Two people go into a place armed in order to "protect others." It's a tense situation and they both have their weapons out. Each one sees the other as a potential "active shooter situation" and engage. Which one legally acted in self defense?
The answer is "whichever one has more of the following characteristics: white, male, conservative."
That's why he's gonna walk. Because the system presumes the right to self defense for people like him and presumes criminal intent for people who aren't.

The question will only come up for whichever of the two is left standing. If Grosskreutz would have shot and killed Rittenhouse, he would have had a credible claim of killing him in self-defense/defense of others because he thought he was stopping an active shooter. The law protects the last one standing, because dead people don't get to tell their side.

But as I said before, one key legal aspect seems to me that Rittenhouse was trying to run away, and was being chased down by multiple people, before he started shooting. That means he legally wasn't the aggressor. If he had a "reasonable belief" of being in danger of "great bodily harm" from the people he shot, he's in the clear.

quote:

939.22(14) (14) "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.

939.48(1) (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

...

939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

So, I don't know, unless the prosecution can somehow show that Rittenhouse wasn't seriously trying to withdraw, but deliberately got himself cornered as an excuse to shoot people, I really don't see the charges sticking.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2021 13:50

Hannibal Rex: Feb 13, 2010

ASAPI posted:

Ah yes, the infamous "I was going to hunt" defense.

I get that, technically, a 17 year old can own a "hunting" rifle in WI, but he wasn't from WI, brought the weapon across state lines illegally, and totally was NOT using the weapon for "hunting."

Having actually looked at the paragraphs in question, the law isn't about hunting or hunting rifles, but that you can legally possess guns, except short-barrel rifles and shotguns, under the age of 18, if you have a hunting license (from any state), or basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard. This is so you're proven to know how to handle firearms, despite not being of age. Nothing more, nothing less. If that applies to Rittenhouse, which, I assume, they checked, then yeah, the prosecutor shouldn't even have brought the charge.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2013/chapter-948/section-948.60/

quote:

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-941/section-941.28/
Section 29.304 is about ages 16 and younger, so it doesn't apply.
https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2012/chapter-29/section-29.593/

# ¿ Nov 15, 2021 19:01

Hannibal Rex: Feb 13, 2010

facialimpediment posted:

To follow-up on what was posted earlier, it appears that the prosecutor and judge are having a dumb-off in the Rittenhouse trial and the judge was actually right.

Turns out I was wrong myself earlier, and it's a case of law-makers not knowing how to write law.

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/11/13/kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge/

quote:

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

Let�s unpack it further. It�s the �and� that makes Rittenhouse�s carrying of the rifle legal.

Rittenhouse is not in violation of s.941.28 because that�s the statute that explains that the rifle must be short-barreled to be illegal, and no one presented evidence to the jury that his gun was short-barreled, not even prosecutors. Moving on, then, the �and� means the state must show he was in violation of BOTH 29.304 and 29.593. That�s how we, the defense, and the judge read it. 29.304 makes it illegal for anyone under 16 to carry a gun. In fact, that statute is headlined, �Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.�

But Rittenhouse was 17. The last part, 29.593, relates to not having a hunter�s safety certificate. Rittenhouse concedes he did not.

Thus, he does not meet 2 of the 3 violation requirements, but because of the way the law is worded (�and�), the state needed to show he was either in violation of the short-barreled provision OR both the age and hunter�s safety certificate elements. They have not, and can not, do so because he�s not under 16.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2021 04:28

Hannibal Rex: Feb 13, 2010

CommieGIR posted:

Yeah, I fully suspect this will be used as justification by Proud Boys and others to get more violent and place themselves in situations where they can kill people.

The trial for the Denver shooting will be interesting. Aka the Pinkerton Antifa space invader supersoldier assassination of a True American Patriot.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2021 22:08

Hannibal Rex: Feb 13, 2010

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/rittenhouse-jury-verdict-self-defense-legal-analysis.html

quote:

Put differently: Once Rittenhouse fired his first shots, he and his attackers plausibly entered a context in which neither could be held legally liable for killing the other. Whether one emerged from this confrontation legally innocent or lawfully executed hinged on little more than one’s relative capacity for rapidly deploying lethal violence.

Decent article. That's pretty much my takeaway from the trial, and the state of American self-defense law.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2021 00:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 10:59

Hannibal Rex: Feb 13, 2010

McNally posted:

Imagine I lazily pasted Gowron's eyes onto Troi's face here.jpg

# ¿ Nov 21, 2021 19:31

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Internet VFW > November 2021 Current Events