Wearing a hat. Not chasing anyone. Not assaulting anyone. Anybody on this board going to rationalize why a man should be shot for wearing a hat? This is all brought about by leftist ideology. Words are violence, right?

I can't make out what is being shouted before the gunshots. I've seen no context to the incident yet, although it probably doesn't justify the killing.

First hand eyewitness account from the victim's friend on what happened and what was said..



I hope all these dumbarsse wacko liberals realize that all of this! The "protests", the rioting, the 4 years of treasonous fallacious investigations/attack on our constitution and democracy, and hate mongering is about to blow up in their face in a HUGE WAY!  Congratulations "democrats" (I feel like even calling them that is a insult to actual democrats, these people aren't democrats.), you have finally awoken the sleeping majority and it's not in your favor at all.  See you in November morons.

But hey, in the meantime, keep doing what you're doing.. Keep shooting/attacking inoccent civilians and keep raping, burning, and pillaging our cities.  Keep self-sabotaging your warped evil plans. Because what y'all are doing is working GREAT!.....

For Trump..

---

Taking the bullets out of the gun would be the dumbest possible thing you could do there lol

Each time you make a dumb choice, your best possible future choices get dumber and dumber.
Taking the bullets out might have given him some broken bones at worst, but he wouldn't have gotten arrested, and he wouldn't be facing charges.
He chose the old "better tried by 12 than carried by 6".
And now he's going to be tried by 12.

Yes, and he'll walk free. I swear you must be French.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Each time you make a dumb choice, your best possible future choices get dumber and dumber.
Taking the bullets out might have given him some broken bones at worst, but he wouldn't have gotten arrested, and he wouldn't be facing charges.
He chose the old "better tried by 12 than carried by 6".
And now he's going to be tried by 12.

Yes, and he'll walk free. I swear you must be French.

No backbone in that bunch (and I'm not talking about the French).



Not just beautiful, she's smart as a whip..

Their house of cards are folding in on them.. I LOVE the complete silence as she puts them in their place and walks off  They couldn't even respond! COMPLETE SILENCE! First time in 4 years! They're going to have to go back to "headquarters" and come up with a new plan. Sadly to their dismay.. this is the only plan they've ever had and now it's blowing up in their face. 

---

I can't make out what is being shouted before the gunshots. I've seen no context to the incident yet, although it probably doesn't justify the killing.

First hand eyewitness account from the victim's friend on what happened and what was said..



I hope all these dumbarsse wacko liberals realize that all of this! The "protests", the rioting, the 4 years of treasonous fallacious investigations/attack on our constitution and democracy, and hate mongering is about to blow up in their face in a HUGE WAY!  Congratulations "democrats" (I feel like even calling them that is a insult to actual democrats, these people aren't democrats.), you have finally awoken the sleeping majority and it's not in your favor at all.  See you in November morons.

But hey, in the meantime, keep doing what you're doing.. Keep shooting/attacking inoccent civilians and keep raping, burning, and pillaging our cities.  Keep self-sabotaging your warped evil plans. Because what y'all are doing is working GREAT!.....

For Trump..

Once again, the left totally dismisses the intelligence of Middle America. They are playing to their base in major urban areas - but guess what, they'll always vote D - they're losing every single independent swing voter in the country.

The democrats refuse to denounce or condemn rioting - refuse to let the police do their jobs - and the people that matter in elections see it and are angry. Landslide for Trump.

---

I don't know if he was a white supremacist, but, per Wisconsin law, he was obligated to retreat and to use the least lethal means available to him if he wants to claim self-defense.  Should have used the butt end of his rifle if he didn't want to be on trial for murder.

No, he doesn't.

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]

Simply put, you don't understand the meaning of this statute. 

1. Violating curfew isn't considered the 'type likely to provoke' an attack. Otherwise, every protester is provoking someone else to attack them. The possession of a weapon, in a public place, is not provoking another person--17-year-old or otherwise. Provocation is considered an offensive act or verbal threats against another person, and that kid didn't do that. It isn't simply committing a crime. 

2. The statement about exhausting other use-of-force options doesn't require that they exhaust every other option every time. It says he must exhaust every other 'reasonable' option. If you're being chased by a mob, it isn't reasonable to using fists, kicks, etc. One person is unlikely to win a fight against a mob. He ran until he couldn't run and then he shot his attackers. What other 'reasonable' option did he have? If he listened to you, then he most certainly wouldn't be on trial for murder--he'd be dead. Even if you consider him the provocateur, that code section still allows him the right to defend himself.

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.

You ignore words in the code section to fit your narrative.

1. The unlawful conduct has to be 'of a type likely to provoke'. Open carry, even if the person isn't allowed, isn't of the type to provoke others. They don't know if it's loaded. They don't know if he's allowed to carry it. They don't know the weapon carrier qualifications. The mere act of possessing the weapon isn't of the type to provoke others. You're legally allowed to carry a weapon during a curfew; the violation of curfew is another offense entirely separate. Are you truly suggesting that everyone that carried a weapon is provoking others into attacking them? You can't just say it's provoking; you need to be capable of explaining how carrying a rifle in public is provoking you into attacking someone.

2. He clearly did believe he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm as evidenced by multiple people hitting him as he ran. That doesn't include getting shot at, things thrown at him, hit in the head with a skateboard, curb stomped, etc. Being chased by a mob is de facto imminent danger of great bodily harm and there are dozens of videos proving as much. You keep saying he has to use all other means to defend himself and that's incorrect. He only needed to use other reasonable means. It isn't reasonable to use the butt of the rifle to defend yourself against getting hit in the head or as a dude is approaching you with a handgun in his hand.

---

The Mikesez Method of Deescalation: Let them kill you.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Why do you guys engage this clown? Mikesez doesn't think.

---

I don't know if he was a white supremacist, but, per Wisconsin law, he was obligated to retreat and to use the least lethal means available to him if he wants to claim self-defense.  Should have used the butt end of his rifle if he didn't want to be on trial for murder.

No, he doesn't.

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]

Simply put, you don't understand the meaning of this statute. 

1. Violating curfew isn't considered the 'type likely to provoke' an attack. Otherwise, every protester is provoking someone else to attack them. The possession of a weapon, in a public place, is not provoking another person--17-year-old or otherwise. Provocation is considered an offensive act or verbal threats against another person, and that kid didn't do that. It isn't simply committing a crime. 

2. The statement about exhausting other use-of-force options doesn't require that they exhaust every other option every time. It says he must exhaust every other 'reasonable' option. If you're being chased by a mob, it isn't reasonable to using fists, kicks, etc. One person is unlikely to win a fight against a mob. He ran until he couldn't run and then he shot his attackers. What other 'reasonable' option did he have? If he listened to you, then he most certainly wouldn't be on trial for murder--he'd be dead. Even if you consider him the provocateur, that code section still allows him the right to defend himself.

1.  It's the combination of the two that is provocative.  Plus it's the way he was holding his weapon.  There is a lot of other video out from that night showing the other militia dudes carrying their weapons strapped behind them.  That's a lot less provocative.

2. If he demonstrated to the mob that his weapon was unloaded, the threat of death or great bodily harm is gone for everyone and the whole statute becomes inapplicable.  I disagree that he would be dead.  If the mob believed that he wasn't about to shoot anyone else, they would have surrounded him and called the cops to pick him up.  They beat on him because he was still shooting them.  Just like all those internet tough guys said they would have done to James Holmes or Patrick Crusius, had they been there.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No, he doesn't.


Simply put, you don't understand the meaning of this statute. 

1. Violating curfew isn't considered the 'type likely to provoke' an attack. Otherwise, every protester is provoking someone else to attack them. The possession of a weapon, in a public place, is not provoking another person--17-year-old or otherwise. Provocation is considered an offensive act or verbal threats against another person, and that kid didn't do that. It isn't simply committing a crime. 

2. The statement about exhausting other use-of-force options doesn't require that they exhaust every other option every time. It says he must exhaust every other 'reasonable' option. If you're being chased by a mob, it isn't reasonable to using fists, kicks, etc. One person is unlikely to win a fight against a mob. He ran until he couldn't run and then he shot his attackers. What other 'reasonable' option did he have? If he listened to you, then he most certainly wouldn't be on trial for murder--he'd be dead. Even if you consider him the provocateur, that code section still allows him the right to defend himself.

1.  It's the combination of the two that is provocative.  Plus it's the way he was holding his weapon.  There is a lot of other video out from that night showing the other militia dudes carrying their weapons strapped behind them.  That's a lot less provocative.

2. If he demonstrated to the mob that his weapon was unloaded, the threat of death or great bodily harm is gone for everyone and the whole statute becomes inapplicable.  I disagree that he would be dead.  If the mob believed that he wasn't about to shoot anyone else, they would have surrounded him and called the cops to pick him up.  They beat on him because he was still shooting them.  Just like all those internet tough guys said they would have done to James Holmes or Patrick Crusius, had they been there.

1. Lol
2. BWAAAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaa

Don't ever stop bro, you are the best entertainment going during this scamdemic.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No, he doesn't.


Simply put, you don't understand the meaning of this statute. 

1. Violating curfew isn't considered the 'type likely to provoke' an attack. Otherwise, every protester is provoking someone else to attack them. The possession of a weapon, in a public place, is not provoking another person--17-year-old or otherwise. Provocation is considered an offensive act or verbal threats against another person, and that kid didn't do that. It isn't simply committing a crime. 

2. The statement about exhausting other use-of-force options doesn't require that they exhaust every other option every time. It says he must exhaust every other 'reasonable' option. If you're being chased by a mob, it isn't reasonable to using fists, kicks, etc. One person is unlikely to win a fight against a mob. He ran until he couldn't run and then he shot his attackers. What other 'reasonable' option did he have? If he listened to you, then he most certainly wouldn't be on trial for murder--he'd be dead. Even if you consider him the provocateur, that code section still allows him the right to defend himself.

1.  It's the combination of the two that is provocative.  Plus it's the way he was holding his weapon.  There is a lot of other video out from that night showing the other militia dudes carrying their weapons strapped behind them.  That's a lot less provocative.

2. If he demonstrated to the mob that his weapon was unloaded, the threat of death or great bodily harm is gone for everyone and the whole statute becomes inapplicable.  I disagree that he would be dead.  If the mob believed that he wasn't about to shoot anyone else, they would have surrounded him and called the cops to pick him up.  They beat on him because he was still shooting them.  Just like all those internet tough guys said they would have done to James Holmes or Patrick Crusius, had they been there.

I don’t post much, but mikesez; you’re a clown. I really hope you’re not a lawyer because I’d rather take the greenest public defender or represent myself than allow myself in your presence in a courtroom. Holy crap

---

1.  It's the combination of the two that is provocative.  Plus it's the way he was holding his weapon.  There is a lot of other video out from that night showing the other militia dudes carrying their weapons strapped behind them.  That's a lot less provocative.

2. If he demonstrated to the mob that his weapon was unloaded, the threat of death or great bodily harm is gone for everyone and the whole statute becomes inapplicable.  I disagree that he would be dead.  If the mob believed that he wasn't about to shoot anyone else, they would have surrounded him and called the cops to pick him up.  They beat on him because he was still shooting them.  Just like all those internet tough guys said they would have done to James Holmes or Patrick Crusius, had they been there.

I don’t post much, but mikesez; you’re a clown. I really hope you’re not a lawyer because I’d rather take the greenest public defender or represent myself than allow myself in your presence in a courtroom. Holy crap

Hopefully he figures out what your user name means before he responds. But then again, that won't stop his inanities.

---

I don’t post much, but mikesez; you’re a clown. I really hope you’re not a lawyer because I’d rather take the greenest public defender or represent myself than allow myself in your presence in a courtroom. Holy crap

Hopefully he figures out what your user name means before he responds. But then again, that won't stop his inanities.

He's a government lawyer.  United States Coast Guard Judge Advocate General.  And maybe he's not lying about it.  Guess what? Who do you think knows Wisconsin law better?  Him, or the Kenosha County District Attorney?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Stop.

---

Hopefully he figures out what your user name means before he responds. But then again, that won't stop his inanities.

He's a government lawyer.  United States Coast Guard Judge Advocate General.  And maybe he's not lying about it.  Guess what? Who do you think knows Wisconsin law better?  Him, or the Kenosha County District Attorney?

Which one is under political pressure to press charges?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

You know...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm about to that point as well.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

You could always remove and throw your "Clip" at him.  Buuuwwaaahhaaaaa

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Bring back the vote buttons.

---

He's a government lawyer.  United States Coast Guard Judge Advocate General.  And maybe he's not lying about it.  Guess what? Who do you think knows Wisconsin law better?  Him, or the Kenosha County District Attorney?

Which one is under political pressure to press charges?

All County attorneys in Wisconsin are elected.
Most of the counties in Wisconsin are rural, and lean strongly in favor of gun rights.
Find one who disagrees.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.