Scum Makes Bail

[fskimospy]

Unless you're black.

Lol, conservatives have suddenly become in favor of bail reform.

 

[MrSquished]

Lol, conservatives have suddenly become in favor of bail reform.

They are so racist they can't even help it. Although if you are white and at a BLM protest, your life is not worth a full white life, but definitely more than a black man jogging.

 

[Maxima1]

Lol, conservatives have suddenly become in favor of bail reform.

This is disingenuous. If you don't think so, tell me why you think Rosenbaum had a right to try to disarm Kyle.

LOL All of sudden you guys like felony murder (even lessening it to misdemeanor in fact), citizen's arrest, and making a big deal out of criminal records.

 

[fskimospy]

They are so racist they can't even help it. Although if you are white and at a BLM protest, your life is not worth a full white life, but definitely more than a black man jogging.

The racism is a big part but it’s a proxy for the culture war. No tears shed for Reinoehl when he was killed by the police despite a similar self defense claim. (I don’t have strong opinions on that, only that the circumstances are similarly disputed)

 

[Maxima1]

The racism is a big part but it’s a proxy for the culture war. No tears shed for Reinoehl when he was killed by the police despite a similar self defense claim. (I don’t have strong opinions on that, only that the circumstances are similarly disputed)

This? How is this similar to Kyle's situation? Kyle didn't shoot at Rosenbaum until he was basically on top of him. What choice did he have for someone wanting to do suicide-by-militia?

In fact, according to Nate Dinguss, Reinoehl was clutching a cellphone and eating a gummy worm as he walked to his car outside an apartment complex in Lacey, Wash. That’s when officers opened fire without first announcing themselves or trying to arrest him, Dinguss, a 39-year-old who lives in the apartment complex, said in a statement shared with The Washington Post.

 

[nickqt]

This is disingenuous. If you don't think so, tell me why you think Rosenbaum had a right to try to disarm Kyle.

LOL All of sudden you guys like felony murder (even lessening it to misdemeanor in fact), citizen's arrest, and making a big deal out of criminal records.

Who the fuck allowed a child to carry a loaded rifle in a state he didn't live in during protests at night?

Maybe that fucking person should be held accountable for 2 preventable deaths.

 

[Pohemi]

lol You guys are now for misdemeanor murder (not just felony), making a big deal about criminal records, and citizen's arrest. Who is the racist again, haha? I didn't support the McDaniels but now you essentially support that kind of thing here...
...You irrationally think because Rosenbaum is unarmed, that it isn't a major escalation even though they are aggressively attempting to get *gasp* the weapon.

This is disingenuous. If you don't think so, tell me why you think Rosenbaum had a right to try to disarm Kyle.
LOL All of sudden you guys like felony murder (even lessening it to misdemeanor in fact), citizen's arrest, and making a big deal out of criminal records.

You make broad assumptions and put words in people's mouths that they never stated to form pointless arguments. You are a dishonest shithead. Fuck off.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Unless you're black.

Not in any case if you go by the Constitution, but i guess YOU can support any exceptions you want.

 

[MrSquished]

Not in any case if you go by the Constitution, but i guess YOU can support any exceptions you want.

The constitution codified enslaved blacks. Are you smoking the same crack finals Trump's kids are?

 

[dank69]

This? How is this similar to Kyle's situation? Kyle didn't shoot at Rosenbaum until he was basically on top of him. What choice did he have for someone wanting to do suicide-by-militia?

In fact, according to Nate Dinguss, Reinoehl was clutching a cellphone and eating a gummy worm as he walked to his car outside an apartment complex in Lacey, Wash. That’s when officers opened fire without first announcing themselves or trying to arrest him, Dinguss, a 39-year-old who lives in the apartment complex, said in a statement shared with The Washington Post.

for reference:

 

[HomerJS]

Not in any case if you go by the Constitution, but i guess YOU can support any exceptions you want.

You support a guy who violates the Constitution so your post doesn't mean shit.

 

[fskimospy]

You support a guy who violates the Constitution so your post doesn't mean shit.

Remember, to people like Taj the constitution is whatever is most convenient for him. He doesn’t actually give a shit about it.

 

[UNCjigga]

I thought this was pretty funny, but also GOP hypocrisy in its purest form:

 

[QueBert]

lol You guys are now for misdemeanor murder (not just felony), making a big deal about criminal records, and citizen's arrest. Who is the racist again, haha? I didn't support the McDaniels but now you essentially support that kind of thing here.

It's funny that you people call me racist when you guys have a different opinion on Arbery and Taylor's boyfriend only because they are black. Taylor's boyfriend gets to fire a warning shot and not get punished while Kyle is being reckless and endangering others (despite all bullets in proximately of Rosenbaum's body). They both get to be scared for their life but Kyle doesn't. You irrationally think because Rosenbaum is unarmed, that it isn't a major escalation even though they are aggressively attempting to get *gasp* the weapon.

Well, there's a slight difference between the 2 in the bolded part. One was dead asleep when police with a no knock warrant busted in. And they didn't announce themselves so the boyfriend fired in self-defense. I think that's beyond reasonable. Kyle on the other hand went out of his way to illegally obtain an assault rifle so he could go play CS:GO as a good guy going against the terrorists in real life. He brought it on himself, Taylor's boyfriend was sleeping when his apartment was broken into by strangers I don't see how he brought anything on himself there. One was clearly self-defense, the other was clearly a wanna be Rambo who was in way over his head. He could have prevented what happened by not getting an illegal gun and traveling to another state with said illegal gun. Not sure how you think the boyfriend could have done anything different to prevent what happened.

Maybe I'm too liberal, but when a person goes a place they don't need to be with a gun, especially one where they know bad shit's happening I'm not seeing any scenarios where self-defense is a realistic thing. The only black and white I see in your example is one was justified and the other wasn't. I don't give 2 shits about the skin color.

 

[zinfamous]

Not in any case if you go by the Constitution, but i guess YOU can support any exceptions you want.

here you go

already linked earlier

In this country, it's especially if you are black. You don't care, and you support it. Also, way too busy grenading little babies and cheering on the systematic disenfranchisement of blacks and other minorities to give a fuck about whether or not the things you claim are actually things that you actually believe.

it's OK, we know the answer. You aren't complicated.

and I mean, if you're being honest about constitutional "purity," then you support the Electoral College, which, by pure logic, means you absolutely support the notion that blacks are inferior, semi-humans. It's purity!

 

[fskimospy]

Well, there's a slight difference between the 2 in the bolded part. One was dead asleep when police with a no knock warrant busted in. And they didn't announce themselves so the boyfriend fired in self-defense. I think that's beyond reasonable. Kyle on the other hand went out of his way to illegally obtain an assault rifle so he could go play CS:GO as a good guy going against the terrorists in real life. He brought it on himself, Taylor's boyfriend was sleeping when his apartment was broken into by strangers I don't see how he brought anything on himself there. One was clearly self-defense, the other was clearly a wanna be Rambo who was in way over his head. He could have prevented what happened by not getting an illegal gun and traveling to another state with said illegal gun. Not sure how you think the boyfriend could have done anything different to prevent what happened.

Maybe I'm too liberal, but when a person goes a place they don't need to be with a gun, especially one where they know bad shit's happening I'm not seeing any scenarios where self-defense is a realistic thing. The only black and white I see in your example is one was justified and the other wasn't. I don't give 2 shits about the skin color.

I have some bad news for you - the guy you are responding to is both stupid and dishonest.

 

[Maxima1]

You make broad assumptions and put words in people's mouths that they never stated to form pointless arguments. You are a dishonest shithead. Fuck off.

lol They just responded defending felony murder, going by criminal record etc., and you even upvoted it. People previously tried to say Kyle hitting a girl supported that he had ill-motive. This shit is comical.

I have some bad news for you - the guy you are responding to is both stupid and dishonest.

Says the guy who assigns violent motive to anyone who obtains a gun illegally. You literally said to me he was guaranteed to do multiple crimes because of it. This shit is hilarious.

Hahahaha Here is what Obama said about illegal gun possession hahahaha :

But Obama said Thursday that he now differentiates the mere illegal possession of a firearm with "a situation where somebody has engaged in armed robbery and shot somebody."

"What I've done is to try to screen out folks who seem to have a propensity for violence," he said. "Our focus really has been on people who we think were overcharged and people who we do not believe have a propensity towards violence."

Kyle on the other hand went out of his way to illegally obtain an assault rifle so he could go play CS:GO as a good guy going against the terrorists in real life. He brought it on himself, Taylor's boyfriend was sleeping when his apartment was broken into by strangers I don't see how he brought anything on himself there.

Using this logic, whenever burglaries happen by multiple black persons and their black buddy dies, you are for prosecuting the black guy who survived with felony murder right? This is why I said your ilk like felony murder then.

The other point is the claim that Kyle is being reckless even though most cops wouldn't even have let Rosenbaum within 20 ft after Kyle turned and shots were fired from the man with the pistol. Kyle let him get right at the barrel. Kyle's shots all near Rosenbaum. In contrast, the boyfriend didn't identify target and said that the leg hit was a "warning shot". That actually had a tangible consequence. I've said that it was a gray area with him, but it's hilarious how everyone who doesn't want to prosecute the boyfriend thinks reckless homicide and endangerment of others is open and shut with Kyle. What was Kyle suppose to do with a mentally unstable man who wanted to get at his gun? You want to just say, "misdemeanor murder!"????? Or will you give me an explanation why Rosenbaum had a right to disarm Kyle. All this discussion yet Rosenbaum's "self-defense" case is hardly established.

One was clearly self-defense, the other was clearly a wanna be Rambo who was in way over his head. He could have prevented what happened by not getting an illegal gun and traveling to another state with said illegal gun. Not sure how you think the boyfriend could have done anything different to prevent what happened.

The law allows people to go out with rifles. Kyle gets misdemeanor for straw purchase, but even then I think he might be able to make an affirmative defense on it possibly, since states have done this even for felony possession. Even if you provoke someone, Wisconsin even has an out for that. You're basically suggesting to ignore the provocation statutes etc. This is all emotional.

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.

I don't give 2 shits about the skin color.

Maybe so, but the other reasons why liberals react like this is because they don't like the idea of carrying around rifles. So if not skin color, you want to ignore Wisconsin law because it suits the feels.

 

[MrSquished]

lol They just responded defending felony murder, going by criminal record etc., and you even upvoted it. People previously tried to say Kyle hitting a girl supported that he had ill-motive. This shit is comical.



Says the guy who assigns violent motive to anyone who obtains a gun illegally. You literally said to me he was guaranteed to do multiple crimes because of it. This shit is hilarious.

Hahahaha Here is what Obama said about illegal gun possession hahahaha :

But Obama said Thursday that he now differentiates the mere illegal possession of a firearm with "a situation where somebody has engaged in armed robbery and shot somebody."

"What I've done is to try to screen out folks who seem to have a propensity for violence," he said. "Our focus really has been on people who we think were overcharged and people who we do not believe have a propensity towards violence."




Using this logic, whenever burglaries happen by multiple black persons and their black buddy dies, you are for prosecuting the black guy who survived with felony murder right? This is why I said your ilk like felony murder then.

The other point is the claim that Kyle is being reckless even though most cops wouldn't even have let Rosenbaum within 20 ft after Kyle turned and shots were fired from the man with the pistol. Kyle let him get right at the barrel. Kyle's shots all near Rosenbaum. In contrast, the boyfriend didn't identify target and said that the leg hit was a "warning shot". That actually had a tangible consequence. I've said that it was a gray area with him, but it's hilarious how everyone who doesn't want to prosecute the boyfriend thinks reckless homicide and endangerment of others is open and shut with Kyle. What was Kyle suppose to do with a mentally unstable man who wanted to get at his gun? You want to just say, "misdemeanor murder!"????? Or will you give me an explanation why Rosenbaum had a right to disarm Kyle. All this discussion yet Rosenbaum's "self-defense" case is hardly established.



The law allows people to go out with rifles. Kyle gets misdemeanor for straw purchase, but even then I think he might be able to make an affirmative defense on it possibly, since states have done this even for felony possession. Even if you provoke someone, Wisconsin even has an out for that. You're basically suggesting to ignore the provocation statutes etc. This is all emotional.

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.



Maybe so, but the other reasons why liberals react like this is because they don't like the idea of carrying around rifles. So if not skin color, you want to ignore Wisconsin law because it suits the feels.

You try so so hard talking in circles to defend your racist piece of shit self it's impressive.

Btw Trump lost. So eat shit.

 

[Maxima1]

You try so so hard to defend your racist piece of shit self it's impressive.

Btw Trump lost. So eat shit.

lol Now I'm a Trumper. This is the same idiocy that Kyle wanted to murder because: 1) He had gloves on 2) He hit a girl 3) He is in illegal possession of a gun etc. etc..

Anyway, is someone going to try to explain why Rosenbaum had a right to try to take the gun from Kyle? Or is the position going to be that Kyle's in legal jeopardy for everything (i.e. analogous to felony murder) because of the misdeamnor gun possession? That's now how this shit works FYI.

 

[MrSquished]

lol They just responded defending felony murder, going by criminal record etc., and you even upvoted it. People previously tried to say Kyle hitting a girl supported that he had ill-motive. This shit is comical.



Says the guy who assigns violent motive to anyone who obtains a gun illegally. You literally said to me he was guaranteed to do multiple crimes because of it. This shit is hilarious.

Hahahaha Here is what Obama said about illegal gun possession hahahaha :

But Obama said Thursday that he now differentiates the mere illegal possession of a firearm with "a situation where somebody has engaged in armed robbery and shot somebody."

"What I've done is to try to screen out folks who seem to have a propensity for violence," he said. "Our focus really has been on people who we think were overcharged and people who we do not believe have a propensity towards violence."




Using this logic, whenever burglaries happen by multiple black persons and their black buddy dies, you are for prosecuting the black guy who survived with felony murder right? This is why I said your ilk like felony murder then.

The other point is the claim that Kyle is being reckless even though most cops wouldn't even have let Rosenbaum within 20 ft after Kyle turned and shots were fired from the man with the pistol. Kyle let him get right at the barrel. Kyle's shots all near Rosenbaum. In contrast, the boyfriend didn't identify target and said that the leg hit was a "warning shot". That actually had a tangible consequence. I've said that it was a gray area with him, but it's hilarious how everyone who doesn't want to prosecute the boyfriend thinks reckless homicide and endangerment of others is open and shut with Kyle. What was Kyle suppose to do with a mentally unstable man who wanted to get at his gun? You want to just say, "misdemeanor murder!"????? Or will you give me an explanation why Rosenbaum had a right to disarm Kyle. All this discussion yet Rosenbaum's "self-defense" case is hardly established.



The law allows people to go out with rifles. Kyle gets misdemeanor for straw purchase, but even then I think he might be able to make an affirmative defense on it possibly, since states have done this even for felony possession. Even if you provoke someone, Wisconsin even has an out for that. You're basically suggesting to ignore the provocation statutes etc. This is all emotional.

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.



Maybe so, but the other reasons why liberals react like this is because they don't like the idea of carrying around rifles. So if not skin color, you want to ignore Wisconsin law because it suits the feels.

You are like the guy who shows up to a sorority party with rohypinol and says you are just there to be the designated driver. That's what you are trying to say about your guy Kyle here and actually, I think that's exactly the kind of person you are. Too defend this behavior as vociferously as you have, I can't put anything past you.

 

[QueBert]

The law allows people to go out with rifles. Kyle gets misdemeanor for straw purchase, but even then I think he might be able to make an affirmative defense on it possibly, since states have done this even for felony possession. Even if you provoke someone, Wisconsin even has an out for that. You're basically suggesting to ignore the provocation statutes etc. This is all emotional.

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.



Maybe so, but the other reasons why liberals react like this is because they don't like the idea of carrying around rifles. So if not skin color, you want to ignore Wisconsin law because it suits the feels.

I'm ignoring the law here because I fully support open carry, I do not however support the carrying of an illegal weapon and a person taking it to a place where he expected to find violence. He wasn't just every day carrying a registered fire arm and encountered trouble at the local Krogers out of nowhere. Looking at who bailed him out and how much it cost them, I can safely say he's not a good person. And the law you cited here doesn't apply as they would prosecute him in WI because he was illegally carrying. I don't need to read law books to know there's not a state where you can open carry an illegal firearm. At absolute best this kid's a complete dipshit who got in way over his head. And it's very possible he'll be going to prison for murder 1. He's a prime example of why not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. Hope the person who got the gun for him gets in trouble too. Some Trumper was just telling me he was defending himself and it was a good kill. If I see someone with an AR-15 I'm not going to attack them with a skateboard, that's a fight I'd certainly lose. While I can't speak for the people he shot and killed, they just up and attacked a person who had a fucking assault rifle with their fists and a skateboard? Uh huh, that's a likely senario. Remember it's not like he was concealing a pistol they didn't see until they had already started to attack him and he pulled it out. He had a big ass AR15 on display for all to see. Yet Trumpers are expecting me to believe multiple people still decided to attack him, awesome sauce.

 

[Maxima1]

You are like the guy who shows up to a sorority party with rohypinol and says you are just there to be the designated driver. That's what you are trying to say about your guy Kyle here and actually, I think that's exactly the kind of person you are. Too defend this behavior as vociferously as you have, I can't put anything past you.

This is like saying because Kyle hit a girl, he must have wanted to kill. This black and white categorization is puerile.

I'm ignoring the law here because I fully support open carry, I do not however support the carrying of an illegal weapon and a person taking it to a place where he expected to find violence. He wasn't just every day carrying a registered fire arm and encountered trouble at the local Krogers out of nowhere. Looking at who bailed him out and how much it cost them, I can safely say he's not a good person.

There's your problem.

And the law you cited here doesn't apply as they would prosecute him in WI because he was illegally carrying. I don't need to read law books to know there's not a state where you can open carry an illegal firearm.

The provocation statute I posted was Wisconsin. Yes, I'm aware that he's only getting charged in Wisconsin for the gun possession.

At absolute best this kid's a complete dipshit who got in way over his head. And it's very possible he'll be going to prison for murder 1. He's a prime example of why not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. Hope the person who got the gun for him gets in trouble too. Some Trumper was just telling me he was defending himself and it was a good kill. If I see someone with an AR-15 I'm not going to attack them with a skateboard, that's a fight I'd certainly lose. While I can't speak for the people he shot and killed, they just up and attacked a person with a fucking assault riffle with their fists and a skateboard? Uh huh, sounds believable.

If it's so open and shut that merely having illegal gun possession meets the criteria of contributing significantly to the death of Rosenbaum for first degree reckless homicide, then why are there articles like this?

Could Kyle Rittenhouse show he was acting in self-defense in Kenosha shooting? Lawyers say question of provocation, other evidence could sway case.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyers have argued that he clearly acted in self-defense when he shot three people — two fatally — at a protest in Kenosha late last month. The success or fail…

www.chicagotribune.com

The success or failure of a potential courtroom self-defense claim, however, could hinge on questions about the teen’s actions before he fired and details that have yet to emerge, defense lawyers in Wisconsin said. As in other states, the law in Wisconsin allows people to use guns to defend themselves against serious threats, but there are exceptions to that right.

One potential key issue: Could prosecutors show that Rittenhouse, 17, of Antioch, committed an unlawful act that provoked attacks on him? If so, the law holds that he would have to show he exhausted his chances to flee or otherwise avoid being harmed before shooting, attorneys said. And whomever was the aggressor, Rittenhouse would have to show he reasonably believed he had to shoot to prevent his death or serious injury.

[...]

Several attorneys said the case could come down to whether Rittenhouse provoked attacks. The law states that a person who “engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her” can’t make a valid claim of self-defense 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.”

 

[Maxima1]

for reference:

lol It's baffling to me that you got so much likes for that.

Noah Feldman: Think the Kenosha shooting case is simple? It isn't, because of the gun Kyle Rittenhouse brought with him

When gun rights get involved, the law tends to depart radically from common sense, the column says.

tulsaworld.com

The upshot is that Rittenhouse’s self-defense arguments may well go to a jury; and it’s not at all impossible that a jury might acquit him, except on the illegal underage possession of firearms charge. If that happens, the law on the books will have more or less been followed. But the gravitational pull of the right to bear arms will have made a mockery of our aspiration for the laws to make common sense. When there are guns involved, common sense goes out the window.

 

[QueBert]

This is like saying because Kyle hit a girl, he must have wanted to kill. This black and white categorization is puerile.



There's your problem.



The provocation statute I posted was Wisconsin. Yes, I'm aware that he's only getting charged in Wisconsin for the gun possession.



If it's so open and shut that merely having illegal gun possession meets the criteria of contributing significantly to the death of Rosenbaum for first degree reckless homicide, then why are there articles like this?

Could Kyle Rittenhouse show he was acting in self-defense in Kenosha shooting? Lawyers say question of provocation, other evidence could sway case.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyers have argued that he clearly acted in self-defense when he shot three people — two fatally — at a protest in Kenosha late last month. The success or fail…

www.chicagotribune.com

The success or failure of a potential courtroom self-defense claim, however, could hinge on questions about the teen’s actions before he fired and details that have yet to emerge, defense lawyers in Wisconsin said. As in other states, the law in Wisconsin allows people to use guns to defend themselves against serious threats, but there are exceptions to that right.

One potential key issue: Could prosecutors show that Rittenhouse, 17, of Antioch, committed an unlawful act that provoked attacks on him? If so, the law holds that he would have to show he exhausted his chances to flee or otherwise avoid being harmed before shooting, attorneys said. And whomever was the aggressor, Rittenhouse would have to show he reasonably believed he had to shoot to prevent his death or serious injury.

[...]

Several attorneys said the case could come down to whether Rittenhouse provoked attacks. The law states that a person who “engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her” can’t make a valid claim of self-defense 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.”

Did you read the article? Various lawyers said it would be hard for his lawyers to prove he acted in self-defense. Not surprisingly his lawyers paint a picture of an all American kid who was fearing for his life. And Trump himself basically saying he had to shoot or else the thugs would have killed him. It's not an open and shut case because he's caucasian. If he was a 17 year old black teen he would be getting absolutely no leeway for plausible "self-defense" arguments. His lawyer also brought up he was exercising his god-given right to defend himself. If he was a black teen named Tyrone from Chicago and shot and killed 2 people with an illegal firearm would you be supporting him? Does a person even legally have a right to defend themselves when they don't legally possess the weapon they have? I tell you what, if it was a black teen killing 2 whites the Trumpers wouldn't be investigating the people who died looking for any criminal pasts.

 

[Maxima1]

Did you read the article? Various lawyers said it would be hard for his lawyers to prove he acted in self-defense.

If someone is trying to get into a wrestling match over your rifle, it's easy to claim self-defense, especially since there is no concrete evidence establishing why Rosenbaum himself would have been fearing for his life. I'm not sure why those lawyers think that, but it's very stupid if there was no initial provocation.And this is why it states towards the end it might boil down to whether he provoked an attack or not which would come down to other considerations.

Regardless, the point of the article was that illegal gun possession doesn't factor into the contributing to his death and would be dumb in concept if it did.

Not surprisingly his lawyers paint a picture of an all American kid who was fearing for his life. And Trump himself basically saying he had to shoot or else the thugs would have killed him. It's not an open and shut case because he's caucasian. If he was a 17 year old black teen he would be getting absolutely no leeway for plausible "self-defense" arguments.

You don't think they would have defended a black Trumper?

His lawyer also brought up he was exercising his god-given right to defend himself. If he was a black teen named Tyron from Chicago and shot and killed 2 people with an illegal firearm would you be supporting him? Does a person even legally have a right to defend themselves when they don't legally possess the weapon they have?

The reason why I think Kyle acted in self-defense is because Rosenbaum's actions are so laughable from a self-defense standpoint from the extensive video evidence showing a lot of the situation. Maybe something happened off video, but Rosenbaum apparently tries to go find him and then picks up the pace when he sees him. If provocation exception doesn't apply there, then when?

For the second part, I think this is similar to the no-knock warrants. Okay, go be dummies and try to chase him down as a mob without really knowing the context. There's definate legit fear that he could suffer serious bodily harm if they descended upon him, and it's reasonable considering the other crap that has happened in these protests when people want to do harm to someone because of something they are accused of doing.