It's worth remembering that Donald Trump got his political start by urging that five teenagers be killed. So it's entirely consistent now that he supports the murder of two other people. This is the leader for "Christians."* A man who delights in the idea of killing his perceived enemies. * Not aimed at you, Dave. I fully agree that Donald Trump in no way exemplifies Christian values, and that true Christians owe no apologies for their faith. But you know what I mean.
Meanwhile Trump still wants the Central Park 5 executed, even though they were completely exonerated. “They admitted they were guilty,” Trump said this week in a statement to CNN’s Miguel Marquez. “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same.” - CNN 2014 I see @JohnR already mentioned this.
This has always been my issue with any self-defense law regarding gun violence. Showing up with a gun is an act of provocation regardless of any other intent. The contradictory part is what we are taught in active shooter situation. If we see somebody with a gun (depending on whether or not they have fired it) is the run/hide/fight. As I have been taught in training, if somebody is close enough to attack, than I should attack them. Delay the gunman. By doing everything possible to prevent the attack while others escape. And someone (singular or greater) should be attempting to subdue the gunman if possible. So how can we be taught to run/hide/fight when a gun appears and then have the gunman claim self defense? If I am attacking the gunman, am I not following the training I got from the police?
Well, as we have seen, more guns are always the answer. Now, let me go find the location of the graves of my former students who all were killed by gun violence so you can pee on them.
Well, this is the whole point -- these ********ers will show up at the next protest and the second a group -- armed or not -- comes at the fat******** zero-dark-thirty cosplayer, he'll start shooting and claim self-defense.
yes I agree - there is a deep inconsistency in the law, and judicial policy emerging here. Self defence is typical judged in the moment - on short transactions. it isn't really designed for situations of performative gun cosplay
These pricks never miss a chance to grift, do they? Guess who put up bail $ for Kyle Rittenhouse? This man, Mike Lindell. He’s is one of the nicest, bravest men in America, and consequently he’s hated by the Left. Support him by going to https://t.co/83houproSq and using promo code DINESH pic.twitter.com/mqMFG73yfU— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) November 20, 2021
See for example how they came a runnin' for the AOC wearing a dress fiasco, but then when a congressman makes death threats about AOC - they have nothing to say
A policy Bill signed that helps everybody they have nothing to say but murderer goes free they're here to dance
In the good ol' days such obvious race-baiting horseshit would've been disqualifying for office. The media let him get away with it.
According to the judge ? You must mean according to the law. The case wasn't focused on the final seconds. It just doesn't start where you want it to start.
Yet he didn't kill as many people as he could that night did he ? Those were things that were considered in the trial. As an example, when he falls with a bunch of the protestors chasing them, there are couple of people who were close to him who backed right away as he turned and pointed the gun and he didn't shoot them. The third victim, he didn't shoot when he raised his arm and backed away for a second. He only fired the gun as the victim moved towards him with the gun pointed at him.
So the next time I see someone (white) walking down the street, or through an airport, or down a school hallway, with an assault rifle, shooting people, I shouldn't "have a go" to try and stop him (or her) because he (or she) is entitled to shoot me in self defence. Correct?
The common law routinely adapts itself as times change. There is nothing so fixed as you claim. Indeed a different judge may have instructed the jury quite differently. I think a point you are missing is why we have the defence of justification in the first place. You want to focus on the immediate transaction. I get why you want to do that, and self defence typically does do that. But if we ignore the overall context, then you get perverse results. The most obvious hypothetical would be if 2 groups went to the riot tooled up. One Proud Boys, and the other an Anti-Proud Boys militia. They then get in a shouting match that ends in mass gunfire. Now you can make the argument, that a person returning fire, is simply acting in self defence - but that is obviously ridiculous. They went to a shootout with a gun. This is why policy matters. But unfortunately, individual court cases are not a good place to set policy. The legislature and law enforcement really need to step up.
That person is actually squarely caught by the Wisconsin legislation as they are using the gun in commission of a crime, so cannot claim justification. The Wisconsin framers clearly didn't want you to be able to claim justification when crime-ing or provoking. The issue is Rittenhouse is an edge case.
So before tackling them I should ask if they're intending to commit a crime, or just seeking out people to shoot in self defense
I mean this joke you are making squarely shows the problem in all of this. Say Rittenhouse comes on campus to "defend" the school against a student BLM meeting, so a security guard shoots at him so Rittenhouse shoots the security guard dead. Only in a bizarro world could self defence lie IMO.