Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(08-31-2020, 12:25 PM)JaG4LyFe Wrote: [ -> ]Is mikesez JaguarsWoman? There cannot be any other explanation

(08-31-2020, 12:25 PM)JaG4LyFe Wrote: [ -> ]Is mikesez JaguarsWoman? There cannot be any other explanation

Probably, he got real active right around the time she got the boot.

(08-31-2020, 11:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 10:55 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]As usual you are wrong again.

Quote the statute.  Show me where I got it wrong.

Regardless of the misdemeanor law that he may have broken (underage with the rifle) he has every right to protect himself from great bodily harm which could possibly include his own death.  He is under no obligation to use the butt of his rifle as a means to protect himself.  In each shooting case he was not the aggressor and was in fact attempting to retreat.  There is no restriction as far as how a person can protect/defend themselves.

Regarding the claim that he had the gun illegally under Wisconsin law, that all depends.  The age limit of 18 years of age does not apply if the person has a certificate of accomplishment in order to obtain hunting approval.  It is not known at this time if Kyle Rittenhouse has such a certificate.  Either way if he is in fact guilty of that offense it is a class A misdemeanor.

I'm sure you know all of that though since you studied Wisconsin State Law so much.

All he does is read statutes, bro.

(08-31-2020, 01:44 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 11:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Quote the statute.  Show me where I got it wrong.

Regardless of the misdemeanor law that he may have broken (underage with the rifle) he has every right to protect himself from great bodily harm which could possibly include his own death.  He is under no obligation to use the butt of his rifle as a means to protect himself.  In each shooting case he was not the aggressor and was in fact attempting to retreat.  There is no restriction as far as how a person can protect/defend themselves.

Regarding the claim that he had the gun illegally under Wisconsin law, that all depends.  The age limit of 18 years of age does not apply if the person has a certificate of accomplishment in order to obtain hunting approval.  It is not known at this time if Kyle Rittenhouse has such a certificate.  Either way if he is in fact guilty of that offense it is a class A misdemeanor.

I'm sure you know all of that though since you studied Wisconsin State Law so much.

He was also supervised until he was separated by the cops in the aftermath of them clearing people out.

(08-31-2020, 01:44 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 11:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Quote the statute.  Show me where I got it wrong.

Regardless of the misdemeanor law that he may have broken (underage with the rifle) he has every right to protect himself from great bodily harm which could possibly include his own death.  He is under no obligation to use the butt of his rifle as a means to protect himself.  In each shooting case he was not the aggressor and was in fact attempting to retreat.  There is no restriction as far as how a person can protect/defend themselves.

Regarding the claim that he had the gun illegally under Wisconsin law, that all depends.  The age limit of 18 years of age does not apply if the person has a certificate of accomplishment in order to obtain hunting approval.  It is not known at this time if Kyle Rittenhouse has such a certificate.  Either way if he is in fact guilty of that offense it is a class A misdemeanor.

I'm sure you know all of that though since you studied Wisconsin State Law so much.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
[font=Times,][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:[/font]
(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.[/font]

(08-31-2020, 02:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 01:44 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of the misdemeanor law that he may have broken (underage with the rifle) he has every right to protect himself from great bodily harm which could possibly include his own death.  He is under no obligation to use the butt of his rifle as a means to protect himself.  In each shooting case he was not the aggressor and was in fact attempting to retreat.  There is no restriction as far as how a person can protect/defend themselves.

Regarding the claim that he had the gun illegally under Wisconsin law, that all depends.  The age limit of 18 years of age does not apply if the person has a certificate of accomplishment in order to obtain hunting approval.  It is not known at this time if Kyle Rittenhouse has such a certificate.  Either way if he is in fact guilty of that offense it is a class A misdemeanor.

I'm sure you know all of that though since you studied Wisconsin State Law so much.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
[font=Times,][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][b](2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:[/font][/b]
(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.[/font]

Which he did...

He was backed into a corner and was being harassed by a Child Molester (convicted in Arizona - love the irony in a minor killing a pedophile).. only until he was backed into a corner did he fire. Then he attempted to render aid and call 911 before being chased by the others he eventually shot after once again trying to escape. The proof he thought his life was in danger? All the many, many videos of people getting kicked in the head repeatedly while down.

He's going to get off and the only reason the prosecutor is even attempting this miscarriage of justice is for BLM and Antifa brownie points. It's going to backfire.

(08-31-2020, 02:42 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 02:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
[font=Times,][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][b](2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:[/font][/b]
(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.[/font]

Which he did...

He was backed into a corner and was being harassed by a Child Molester (convicted in Arizona - love the irony in a minor killing a pedophile).. only until he was backed into a corner did he fire. Then he attempted to render aid and call 911 before being chased by the others he eventually shot after once again trying to escape. The proof he thought his life was in danger? All the many, many videos of people getting kicked in the head repeatedly while down.

He's going to get off and the only reason the prosecutor is even attempting this miscarriage of justice is for BLM and Antifa brownie points. It's going to backfire.

The first man had already thrown something at him and missed when he got shot in the head.  The first man didn't even touch him.  You think the shooter had exhausted every reasonable means to escape from the first kill? Help me understand that.  The man threw something at him, has nothing else to throw, and is closing in with just the shirt on his back.  How is that man causing imminent danger of death or great bodily harm?

(08-31-2020, 02:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 02:42 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Which he did...

He was backed into a corner and was being harassed by a Child Molester (convicted in Arizona - love the irony in a minor killing a pedophile).. only until he was backed into a corner did he fire. Then he attempted to render aid and call 911 before being chased by the others he eventually shot after once again trying to escape. The proof he thought his life was in danger? All the many, many videos of people getting kicked in the head repeatedly while down.

He's going to get off and the only reason the prosecutor is even attempting this miscarriage of justice is for BLM and Antifa brownie points. It's going to backfire.

The first man had already thrown something at him and missed when he got shot in the head.  The first man didn't even touch him.  You think the shooter had exhausted every reasonable means to escape from the first kill? Help me understand that.  The man threw something at him, has nothing else to throw, and is closing in with just the shirt on his back.  How is that man causing imminent danger of death or great bodily harm?

Lol, another spin on the Mikesez-go-round.

(08-31-2020, 02:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 02:42 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Which he did...

He was backed into a corner and was being harassed by a Child Molester (convicted in Arizona - love the irony in a minor killing a pedophile).. only until he was backed into a corner did he fire. Then he attempted to render aid and call 911 before being chased by the others he eventually shot after once again trying to escape. The proof he thought his life was in danger? All the many, many videos of people getting kicked in the head repeatedly while down.

He's going to get off and the only reason the prosecutor is even attempting this miscarriage of justice is for BLM and Antifa brownie points. It's going to backfire.

The first man had already thrown something at him and missed when he got shot in the head.  The first man didn't even touch him.  You think the shooter had exhausted every reasonable means to escape from the first kill? Help me understand that.  The man threw something at him, has nothing else to throw, and is closing in with just the shirt on his back.  How is that man causing imminent danger of death or great bodily harm?

He didn't get shot in the head. He had a graze wound to the head but died from internal bleeding from a shot to the groin.

(08-31-2020, 02:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 01:44 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of the misdemeanor law that he may have broken (underage with the rifle) he has every right to protect himself from great bodily harm which could possibly include his own death.  He is under no obligation to use the butt of his rifle as a means to protect himself.  In each shooting case he was not the aggressor and was in fact attempting to retreat.  There is no restriction as far as how a person can protect/defend themselves.

Regarding the claim that he had the gun illegally under Wisconsin law, that all depends.  The age limit of 18 years of age does not apply if the person has a certificate of accomplishment in order to obtain hunting approval.  It is not known at this time if Kyle Rittenhouse has such a certificate.  Either way if he is in fact guilty of that offense it is a class A misdemeanor.

I'm sure you know all of that though since you studied Wisconsin State Law so much.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
[font=Times,][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:[/font]
(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.[/font]

If you are going to play lawyer and read statutes and use them for your argument, you need to read the whole statute and not cherry pick a few phrases.

1.  The unlawful conduct that he might have been engaging in was possession of the firearm.  That wasn't  "the type likely to provoke others to attack him" and not the reason why he was attacked.  Read the rest of the first sentence of the statute.  "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".  He was attacked initially for putting a dumpster fire out intended for more unlawful destruction by the assailant.  He was not attacked for possessing the firearm.  From the video evidence and testimony that I've seen I'm pretty sure that he had every reason to believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

2.  Read the second sentence fully, especially the part that says "the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense" and the part that says "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".  From the video evidence that I have seen as well as the testimony that I have read, it looks like he made every reasonable means to escape.

The fact of the matter is that the young man appeared to be very controlled and disciplined in his use of his firearm, especially in a fast high-stress environment.  I haven't seen where he ever fired randomly or at anyone not attacking him.

So again, you are wrong.

(08-31-2020, 02:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 02:42 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Which he did...

He was backed into a corner and was being harassed by a Child Molester (convicted in Arizona - love the irony in a minor killing a pedophile).. only until he was backed into a corner did he fire. Then he attempted to render aid and call 911 before being chased by the others he eventually shot after once again trying to escape. The proof he thought his life was in danger? All the many, many videos of people getting kicked in the head repeatedly while down.

He's going to get off and the only reason the prosecutor is even attempting this miscarriage of justice is for BLM and Antifa brownie points. It's going to backfire.

The first man had already thrown something at him and missed when he got shot in the head.  The first man didn't even touch him.  You think the shooter had exhausted every reasonable means to escape from the first kill? Help me understand that.  The man threw something at him, has nothing else to throw, and is closing in with just the shirt on his back.  How is that man causing imminent danger of death or great bodily harm?

The first "man" (convicted felon) attempted to cause great bodily harm by throwing an object at him.  The thug felon had caught up to him and was attempting to take his weapon.  I'm pretty sure that he perceived that as a threat and couldn't get away.  The thug was shot several times with one round grazing his head.

(08-31-2020, 03:26 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 02:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
[font=Times,][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:[/font]
(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.[/font]

If you are going to play lawyer and read statutes and use them for your argument, you need to read the whole statute and not cherry pick a few phrases.

1.  The unlawful conduct that he might have been engaging in was possession of the firearm.  That wasn't  "the type likely to provoke others to attack him" and not the reason why he was attacked.  Read the rest of the first sentence of the statute.  "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".  He was attacked initially for putting a dumpster fire out intended for more unlawful destruction by the assailant.  He was not attacked for possessing the firearm.  From the video evidence and testimony that I've seen I'm pretty sure that he had every reason to believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

2.  Read the second sentence fully, especially the part that says "the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense" and the part that says "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".  From the video evidence that I have seen as well as the testimony that I have read, it looks like he made every reasonable means to escape.

The fact of the matter is that the young man appeared to be very controlled and disciplined in his use of his firearm, especially in a fast high-stress environment.  I haven't seen where he ever fired randomly or at anyone not attacking him.

So again, you are wrong.

That kid is 1,000,000 times the man that Mikesez could dream of being.

The fact that he didn't fire on the one guy when he froze after being on the ground until he began moving towards him again showed incredible restraint. Then he got up and slowly began walking backwards to the cops keeping his enemies in front of him. Amazing kid.

---

(08-31-2020, 02:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 02:42 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Which he did...

He was backed into a corner and was being harassed by a Child Molester (convicted in Arizona - love the irony in a minor killing a pedophile).. only until he was backed into a corner did he fire. Then he attempted to render aid and call 911 before being chased by the others he eventually shot after once again trying to escape. The proof he thought his life was in danger? All the many, many videos of people getting kicked in the head repeatedly while down.

He's going to get off and the only reason the prosecutor is even attempting this miscarriage of justice is for BLM and Antifa brownie points. It's going to backfire.

The first man had already thrown something at him and missed when he got shot in the head.  The first man didn't even touch him.  You think the shooter had exhausted every reasonable means to escape from the first kill? Help me understand that.  The man threw something at him, has nothing else to throw, and is closing in with just the shirt on his back.  How is that man causing imminent danger of death or great bodily harm?

The bullet grazed his forehead... it was the four other shots that actually killed him.

(08-31-2020, 03:35 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]That kid is 1,000,000 times the man that Mikesez could dream of being.

The fact that he didn't fire on the one guy when he froze after being on the ground until he began moving towards him again showed incredible restraint. Then he got up and slowly began walking backwards to the cops keeping his enemies in front of him. Amazing kid.

The other thing that stood out to me was there was another attacker that stopped and had his hands up while the young man was on the ground, roughly 20 or so feet away.  He never pointed the weapon at the attacker nor fired at him.  From what I saw every shot that he fired was in self-defense.

I'm not blindly supporting all cops and I do believe there is a systemic problem that better training and recruiting needs to overcome. But with that said, here's a taste of what they face. This is the attempted arrest of a person wanted for attempted murder. You get a first hand view of what it's like to get shot in the chest. 

Graphic language and footage. The mods might, understandably, squelch this one.

https://www.facebook.com/DBCops/videos/3...rect=false

(08-31-2020, 03:26 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 02:39 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
[font=Times,][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:[/font]
(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.[/font]

If you are going to play lawyer and read statutes and use them for your argument, you need to read the whole statute and not cherry pick a few phrases.

1.  The unlawful conduct that he might have been engaging in was possession of the firearm.  That wasn't  "the type likely to provoke others to attack him" and not the reason why he was attacked.  Read the rest of the first sentence of the statute.  "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".  He was attacked initially for putting a dumpster fire out intended for more unlawful destruction by the assailant.  He was not attacked for possessing the firearm.  From the video evidence and testimony that I've seen I'm pretty sure that he had every reason to believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

2.  Read the second sentence fully, especially the part that says "the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense" and the part that says "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".  From the video evidence that I have seen as well as the testimony that I have read, it looks like he made every reasonable means to escape.

The fact of the matter is that the young man appeared to be very controlled and disciplined in his use of his firearm, especially in a fast high-stress environment.  I haven't seen where he ever fired randomly or at anyone not attacking him.

So again, you are wrong.

1) No, there was more unlawful conduct than mere firearms possession.  The first unlawful conduct was openly carrying a loaded firearm while underage. The second was violating curfew.  These two together are likely to provoke attack, although neither is provocative by itself.  Then you have where he unloaded 5 rounds into someone who was not imminently threatening him with great bodily harm, while he had better options to de-escalate with that man.  You guys keep on brushing past that point - why does this shooter get to assume that the man who hasn't touched him yet is imminently going to cause him great bodily harm? 

2) Now you're cherry-picking.  Yes, he was privileged to act in self defense, but, because he had provoked the attack with prior unlawful conduct, his privilege is reduced in two ways.  One is he can only defend himself if he believes he's in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; before he could defend himself from any harm.  And now he can only use lethal force if all other means of ending the threat are exhausted.  Before, he was only obligated to try to escape, not to use non-lethal weapons he may have.

(08-31-2020, 04:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 03:26 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]If you are going to play lawyer and read statutes and use them for your argument, you need to read the whole statute and not cherry pick a few phrases.

1.  The unlawful conduct that he might have been engaging in was possession of the firearm.  That wasn't  "the type likely to provoke others to attack him" and not the reason why he was attacked.  Read the rest of the first sentence of the statute.  "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".  He was attacked initially for putting a dumpster fire out intended for more unlawful destruction by the assailant.  He was not attacked for possessing the firearm.  From the video evidence and testimony that I've seen I'm pretty sure that he had every reason to believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

2.  Read the second sentence fully, especially the part that says "the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense" and the part that says "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".  From the video evidence that I have seen as well as the testimony that I have read, it looks like he made every reasonable means to escape.

The fact of the matter is that the young man appeared to be very controlled and disciplined in his use of his firearm, especially in a fast high-stress environment.  I haven't seen where he ever fired randomly or at anyone not attacking him.

So again, you are wrong.

1) No, there was more unlawful conduct than mere firearms possession.  The first unlawful conduct was openly carrying a loaded firearm while underage. The second was violating curfew.  These two together are likely to provoke attack, although neither is provocative by itself.  Then you have where he unloaded 5 rounds into someone who was not imminently threatening him with great bodily harm, while he had better options to de-escalate with that man.  You guys keep on brushing past that point - why does this shooter get to assume that the man who hasn't touched him yet is imminently going to cause him great bodily harm? 

2) Now you're cherry-picking.  Yes, he was privileged to act in self defense, but, because he had provoked the attack with prior unlawful conduct, his privilege is reduced in two ways.  One is he can only defend himself if he believes he's in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; before he could defend himself from any harm.  And now he can only use lethal force if all other means of ending the threat are exhausted.  Before, he was only obligated to try to escape, not to use non-lethal weapons he may have.

Once again Mikey you are wrong.

1.  Just for the sake of playing along with your fantasy let's take a look at the first part.  First, openly carrying a loaded firearm is not likely to provoke an attack (unless the attacker is a complete idiot).  The fact that he is underage at this point is irrelevant because it is possible that he was legally carrying the firearm (it's not known at this point).  Violating curfew is not likely to provoke an attack.  Let me remind you that the attacker(s) were violating the same order (not a law).  So that throws your whole theory of him "being limited" in how he defends himself is out.

The "man" caught up to him and was attempting to take his firearm from him.  The "man" was violent and demonstrated that by attempting to destroy more property.  The "man" attempted to assault him already by throwing an object at him.  This happened as he was trying to get away.  I'm sure that even a weaker person like you would believe that you were in imminent danger of bodily harm or death. He had every right to defend himself.

2.  He never provoked the attack(s) on him with unlawful conduct.  The first attack was because he put a fire out.  The second attack was because the peaceful protesters rioters were going after him and attempting to cause great bodily harm to him.

No matter how you attempt to spin it with your fantasy, the young man was justified in using whatever means necessary to protect himself.

Try to convince a jury otherwise.

(08-31-2020, 04:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 03:26 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]If you are going to play lawyer and read statutes and use them for your argument, you need to read the whole statute and not cherry pick a few phrases.

1.  The unlawful conduct that he might have been engaging in was possession of the firearm.  That wasn't  "the type likely to provoke others to attack him" and not the reason why he was attacked.  Read the rest of the first sentence of the statute.  "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".  He was attacked initially for putting a dumpster fire out intended for more unlawful destruction by the assailant.  He was not attacked for possessing the firearm.  From the video evidence and testimony that I've seen I'm pretty sure that he had every reason to believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

2.  Read the second sentence fully, especially the part that says "the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense" and the part that says "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".  From the video evidence that I have seen as well as the testimony that I have read, it looks like he made every reasonable means to escape.

The fact of the matter is that the young man appeared to be very controlled and disciplined in his use of his firearm, especially in a fast high-stress environment.  I haven't seen where he ever fired randomly or at anyone not attacking him.

So again, you are wrong.

1) No, there was more unlawful conduct than mere firearms possession.  The first unlawful conduct was openly carrying a loaded firearm while underage. The second was violating curfew.  These two together are likely to provoke attack, although neither is provocative by itself.  Then you have where he unloaded 5 rounds into someone who was not imminently threatening him with great bodily harm, while he had better options to de-escalate with that man.  You guys keep on brushing past that point - why does this shooter get to assume that the man who hasn't touched him yet is imminently going to cause him great bodily harm? 

2) Now you're cherry-picking.  Yes, he was privileged to act in self defense, but, because he had provoked the attack with prior unlawful conduct, his privilege is reduced in two ways.  One is he can only defend himself if he believes he's in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; before he could defend himself from any harm.  And now he can only use lethal force if all other means of ending the threat are exhausted.  Before, he was only obligated to try to escape, not to use non-lethal weapons he may have.

He  chased him, threw a projectile at him, and then went after his rifle there J-Dub. The others chased him down and were beating him while he was on the ground. You trying to spin it any other way just shows your desire to be the King Contrarian.

(08-31-2020, 04:47 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 04:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1) No, there was more unlawful conduct than mere firearms possession.  The first unlawful conduct was openly carrying a loaded firearm while underage. The second was violating curfew.  These two together are likely to provoke attack, although neither is provocative by itself.  Then you have where he unloaded 5 rounds into someone who was not imminently threatening him with great bodily harm, while he had better options to de-escalate with that man.  You guys keep on brushing past that point - why does this shooter get to assume that the man who hasn't touched him yet is imminently going to cause him great bodily harm? 

2) Now you're cherry-picking.  Yes, he was privileged to act in self defense, but, because he had provoked the attack with prior unlawful conduct, his privilege is reduced in two ways.  One is he can only defend himself if he believes he's in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm; before he could defend himself from any harm.  And now he can only use lethal force if all other means of ending the threat are exhausted.  Before, he was only obligated to try to escape, not to use non-lethal weapons he may have.

Once again Mikey you are wrong.

1.  Just for the sake of playing along with your fantasy let's take a look at the first part.  First, openly carrying a loaded firearm is not likely to provoke an attack (unless the attacker is a complete idiot).  The fact that he is underage at this point is irrelevant because it is possible that he was legally carrying the firearm (it's not known at this point).  Violating curfew is not likely to provoke an attack.  Let me remind you that the attacker(s) were violating the same order (not a law).  So that throws your whole theory of him "being limited" in how he defends himself is out.

The "man" caught up to him and was attempting to take his firearm from him.  The "man" was violent and demonstrated that by attempting to destroy more property.  The "man" attempted to assault him already by throwing an object at him.  This happened as he was trying to get away.  I'm sure that even a weaker person like you would believe that you were in imminent danger of bodily harm or death. He had every right to defend himself.

2.  He never provoked the attack(s) on him with unlawful conduct.  The first attack was because he put a fire out.  The second attack was because the peaceful protesters rioters were going after him and attempting to cause great bodily harm to him.

No matter how you attempt to spin it with your fantasy, the young man was justified in using whatever means necessary to protect himself.

Try to convince a jury otherwise.

1) I said the combination of the two together is provocative.  Both are unlawful on their own, but neither is provocative on its own.  The combination together indicated he was looking for trouble.
2) The man who threw something at him, never touched him. The bolded text is you making an assumption without justification.  But we're getting closer to the real problem with his behavior.

(08-31-2020, 04:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-31-2020, 04:47 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Once again Mikey you are wrong.

1.  Just for the sake of playing along with your fantasy let's take a look at the first part.  First, openly carrying a loaded firearm is not likely to provoke an attack (unless the attacker is a complete idiot).  The fact that he is underage at this point is irrelevant because it is possible that he was legally carrying the firearm (it's not known at this point).  Violating curfew is not likely to provoke an attack.  Let me remind you that the attacker(s) were violating the same order (not a law).  So that throws your whole theory of him "being limited" in how he defends himself is out.

The "man" caught up to him and was attempting to take his firearm from him.  The "man" was violent and demonstrated that by attempting to destroy more property.  The "man" attempted to assault him already by throwing an object at him.  This happened as he was trying to get away.  I'm sure that even a weaker person like you would believe that you were in imminent danger of bodily harm or death. He had every right to defend himself.

2.  He never provoked the attack(s) on him with unlawful conduct.  The first attack was because he put a fire out.  The second attack was because the peaceful protesters rioters were going after him and attempting to cause great bodily harm to him.

No matter how you attempt to spin it with your fantasy, the young man was justified in using whatever means necessary to protect himself.

Try to convince a jury otherwise.

1) I said the combination of the two together is provocative.  Both are unlawful on their own, but neither is provocative on its own.  The combination together indicated he was looking for trouble.
2) The man who threw something at him, never touched him. The bolded text is you making an assumption without justification.  But we're getting closer to the real problem with his behavior.

1. Bull [BLEEP].
2. More bull [BLEEP], the video showed otherwise, as do the witnesses: "Prosecutors said Rosenbaum followed Rittenhouse into a used car lot, where he threw a plastic bag at the gunman and attempted to take the weapon from him."