Do you think he should’ve just drawn on the kid rather than try to dive on him? Seems in the state the shooter was in he would’ve shot him if he had pulled his weapon, not surrendered. Should he have just shot him while he was down? What was tactically the best option? And legally?
I’m not sure whether it’s a weakness or a strength that for someone on the left, the non-lethal option was what he went for. You just know any CHUD would’ve shot first asked questions later, as proven by the fash baby.
Apparently the person forgot how to chamber a round, probably because shooting another human being is insanely hard for a person with actual empathy.
Most def. I’m not saying I’d be some action hero in that situation, quite the opposite I’m sure. Which makes it all the more grim that some 17 year old is willing to kill three people so easily. The natural instinct is to NOT do that.
I mean the 17 year old was a brainwashed blue lives matter neo Nazi, so he programmed the empathy out of his brain essentially
Legally its always safer to avoid shooting anyone. Morally he should have wasted the nazi youth scumbag
It's a complicated situation and dude was making decisions at a pure instinct level. It's not our place to judge our question our comrade.
Yes I think he should have shot him.
Yes it's a very bad sign for the left that in response to getting shot people would rather die trying to disarm him because he is a year away from 18. I also heard he didn't have a round already in the chamber.
All of that in my opinion is the absolute definition of larping. We need to take a good long hard look at ourselves right now.
Shooting another person, no matter what they just did, may not click automatically. Just because you carry for self-defense doesn't mean you're prepared to kill at any time, I feel.
I think the adrenaline had him leaning towards defense after the fact, if he did draw afterwards. "He shot someone and me, he's still shooting, he needs to be stopped by whatever I can muster."
Here's the thing: by not shooting the guy probably did the right thing. The state of Wisconsin requires that deadly force be used only if "such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48) A gunman fleeing the scene with his back to you will not meet this definition. The 'imminent' requirement is not met. Moreover they teach you this standard in Wisconsin's concealed carry classes. One of the hypotheticals they give is that a fleeing assailant is not a legitmate target of deadly force. Those guys made the right play as far as the law goes.
This same standard though will be deployed by cop kid. He will say that he was attacked earlier off camera, believed he was in danger and fired in self defense. This then will render his second shooting legit. He commited no crime before and was being wrongfuly attacked when he was taken to the ground. He will say he believed he was at risk of grave bodily harm and shot in self defense again. As long as the initial shooting is off screen it will be easy to obfuscate when happened and create doubt making conviction far short of a sure thing.
I really don't think you get to defend yourself when you just committed murder. Like even if you know your life is now in danger, you literally can't legitimately defend yourself with force. You basically lose the right to decide if you live or die.
That's true but that's not how the law works. I have no sympathy for the kid here. What I am trying to explain though is what I see as the most probable way this will be framed and handled within the legal system. It doesnt make it right or true or any less fucked up but, based on what I know today, this kid's defense team has a good hand. Its fucked up but its not enough to say that. We need to understand how and why things play out the way they do.
That’s true but that’s not how the law works.
Are you sure? I'm not super confident but it's not like a school shooter gets cleared on the specific murders where someone was coming at him with a chair. And you can't claim self defense when you're doing a robbery.
Someone in here said just being in the commission of a felony means you don't have access to the self defense claim
Yes school shooters dont get to claim self defense but the process of how the law actually works doesnt play out on moral or ethical grounds is more what I mean. Rather it plays out on the terrain of narrative and perception. Moreover the situations are not great comparisons. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doudt that this kid murdered someone. This means the defense just has to create doudt. In this case, the defense can claim, as some others already have, that the kid shot someone because, he says, they threw a molotove coctail at him. As such they will claim he was in danger and responded with justified lethal force. Because this is off camera it is easier to create doubt via conflicting testimony, etc. If there is doubt about what happened before he is running down the street on camera, it becomes more difficult to prove, according to the court, that this kid murdered someone and assaulted/attempted murder someone else. The defense can now create a chain of events where their client did nothing illegal and was wrongfully assaulted by protesters. Here the legal code is strucured in a way that allows such a narrative to be compelling in court. Again I dont believe any of this. I think this kid is a murderer and if he has a legally plausible defense (again not moral or ethical) we need to know that so we can apply preasure if this is the case.
As you mentioned, the above point is moot if self-defense is not a legal option while one is commiting a crime. If this is the case, the kid will be convicted. I glanced at the state's self defense statutes and nothing jumped out at me in this regard. Doesnt mean its not there just that I didnt see it and you and at least one other are right to raise that point because if its true we dont need to concern ourselves with his court case because he has no defense and a conviction, barring gross corruption, is a sure thing.
The defense can now create a chain of events where their client did nothing illegal
He was illegally posessing a firearm the whole time, which was an active felony, so he can't claim self defense. I'm not a lawyer but I really think he's fucked
Possesion of a deadly weapon by a minor is a class A misdemeanor in Wisconsin. The distiction might be important. As you and others have brought up he could well be fucked but only if Wisconsin explicitly prohibits self defense when someone is taking part in a criminal act which could be restricted to felonies. If not, kids got a chance of beating the murder charge.
can't claim self-defense during the commission of a crime in Wisconsin
EDIT: ok I got asked to back this up, so of course now I can't find the thread where I read this. looking it up the 1m b 1 section might not apply. but section 2 sure looks like it does
So 1m us interesting but that section is basically a castle doctrine statute and im not sure it will fly. Youre right section two looks promissing but I dont think it says that commiting a crime always negates self defense. (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) He could claim he had a molotov tossed at him, as I've seen floating around already, and say he shot the assailant in response and now his illegal possesion of a deadly weapon can be disregarded, or so the defense will argue, and now they're off to the races. This is my best reading but I wonder if there is case law that flushes this out a little. Its certainly not as good a position for the defense as I thought which us good.
I cant find the statute that says this. Can you point me in that dirrection?
I read a long thread of wrangling on it but I can't find it now, I'm sorry. I'm going over
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48
and it would appear section 2 is relevant
So in Wisconsin, somebody else couldn't have shot the kid, like a bystander who was armed? Specifically because THEY THEMSELVES weren't in danger? Is there any legal recourse for protecting the community at large by taking down a threat? I would GUESS if someone took him out after he fired shots, it would be legal… if they're protecting the larger community, but I have no idea.
Not according to the case the defense will make. They will say that,despite possesing a deadly weapon illegaly, the kid was justified in his actions. Thus an attack on hin, according to this narrative, renders an attack on him illegal. Not saying its right but this is probably the defense that's going to be used and as far as I can tell, its got a chance because wisconsin's self defense law appears to have a carve out for self defense despite illegal actions. (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 was thinking about how I would personally handle carrying a firearm at a protest. Purely hypothetical, as in my situation it would be irresponsible. Here's my question: Would it be a good or a bad idea to come with a gun but no ammunition?
If or when a leftist shoots back, I cannot see this ending well for any of us. The media will most likely react negatively, narratives will be pushed, the government could use it as an excuse to crack down. Imagine what would have happened if the guy shot in the arm actually managed to kill the shooter, how much more charged the situation would be. The way I currently see it, no one is ready for firefights taking place in the streets, especially not at the protests where things are confusing and people are everywhere. But these right-wing militias still need to be deterred, and an armed left-wing group standing opposite them is generally considered as best option available.
If an armed left-wing group were to show up to the protests, would it be in their best interest to come ready to actually shoot somebody? You know that if you shoot someone, you're going to be subject to immense scrutiny, and even if you were acting in self-defense/defense of others, it will still be twisted and used against both you, the left, and the protests in general. Every action might have consequences far beyond just you. It's what I always remind myself any time I catch myself fantasizing about violent retribution or street justice (like I'm sure many of us do): it'd do far more harm than good, and should stay fantasy. Shit, even just talking about that feels scary and gross.
Is the appearance of being ready to shoot back not enough of a deterrence? Do you have to be ready to fully respond? I mean I don't blame anyone if they bring a loaded magazine or a few rounds just in case, since that's supposedly all you'd ever shoot in a real situation anyways. I'd like to hear some thoughts on this, lemme know if I'm being a scaredy-cat lib.
You know that if you shoot someone, you’re going to be subject to immense scrutiny, and even if you were acting in self-defense/defense of others, it will still be twisted and used against both you, the left, and the protests in general.
Counterpoint: we had a sitting U.S. senator call for using the military to slaughter protesters maybe a month ago, and we now have fascists actually killing people. "The optics will be bad" is kind of the same argument as "we can't nominate Bernie because Republicans will call him a socialist." The cat's already out of the bag, and it's not like these folks need reality to match their rhetoric anyways.
I suppose you're right. Fascists don't care about being discredited or accused of hypocrisy or the optics of anything, and for that matter neither do much of the liberals. We shouldn't hold ourselves to the standards they don't adhere to themselves.
We shouldn’t hold ourselves to the standards they don’t adhere to themselves.
It's OK to have higher standards that shitty people; we just can't import those standards onto them to predict their behavior. I.e., we can't assume they'll attempt to put reality before their political goals and propaganda.
If you bring a gun that you're not ready to use, you'll wind up like the guy in
portlandAustin. Seemingly brandishing his gun and a chud shot him for it.Do you have any more information on that? I don't think I heard about that case.
Was in Austin, my bad. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/us/austin-shooting-texas-protests.html
Mr. Casaday wrote: “This is the guy that lost his life last night. He was looking for confrontation and he found it.”
Wonder what the guy thinks about Rittenhouse.
Considering that the Austin murderer also drove in from his active duty station an hour north...probably much the same.
Bring a weapon only if you are completely prepared to use it. Willing, trained, and equipment in good working order. Anything less is playing pretend, and will make you a target with no capacity to retaliate. People will expect you to be able to defend yourself and others and find out you just hoped looking tough would protect you. Please please please do not bring an unloaded weapon to anything.
Here’s my question: Would it be a good or a bad idea to come with a gun but no ammunition?
Awful. Terrible. No good, very bad. You'd basically have all the downsides of carrying (attracts attention, legality issues) with none of the benefits.
The downside of trying to shoot a particular person is you might miss and hit someone else. Or having a gunfight might be chaotic and make it hard for other people.
Cold logic says pull the gun and waste the fucker.
Regular brain says there is a chance of that going wrong and causing more harm.
