Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Police shooting in Wisconsin,protests erupt

Page 14 of 22 [ 340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

02 Sep 2020, 9:10 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
Gun never crossed state lines. It belongs to a friend of Rittenhouse who's a local.

Then I stand corrected.

If so, there may be no Federal laws involved at all...

Kyle Rittenhouse's friend might then face charges (2-5 years or even a 5-10 years extended term-sentence) for giving him the rifle, but that will be according to Illinois law, and not Federal law…
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/f ... 00050K24-3



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

02 Sep 2020, 10:58 am

GGPViper wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Gun never crossed state lines. It belongs to a friend of Rittenhouse who's a local.

Then I stand corrected.

If so, there may be no Federal laws involved at all...

Kyle Rittenhouse's friend might then face charges (2-5 years or even a 5-10 years extended term-sentence) for giving him the rifle, but that will be according to Illinois law, and not Federal law…
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/f ... 00050K24-3

... But if the gun didn't cross state lines in Kyle Rittenhouse's possession, then of course his friend had to have transferred the gun to Rittenhouse in Wisconsin, and not in Illinois... good thing I didn't major in geography :roll:

If so, then Rittenhouse's friend may face charges with a penalty of up to 6 years...
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 948/60/2/c



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

02 Sep 2020, 1:59 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Another interesting look at the videos and what was happening:

The prosecutor may just try to convince a jury....

1. Rittenhouse violated a local curfew
2. Rittenhouse illegally possessed a rifle

Therefore, it is Rittenhouse's illegal actions that are the cause of everything.

Such as when Rittenhouse fired off his gun in public, he recklessly endangered the people and property around him.

Kenosha chief: Shootings at protest avoidable if people obeyed curfew
https://www.insider.com/kenosha-chief-p ... few-2020-8

He's being charged with two reckless endangerment charges for 12 years max each, 24 years .


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

02 Sep 2020, 2:11 pm

Since Rittenhouse didn't shoot first, they'd have to make the case that you have no right to defend against being shot at.

Regarding the curfew, they'd have to argue that it's illegitimate to violate a curfew in defense of property in danger of a violent mob that is also violating curfew.

Whether or not the owner of the rifle risks prosecution, I couldn't say.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

02 Sep 2020, 2:20 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
Since Rittenhouse didn't shoot first, they'd have to make the case that you have no right to defend against being shot at.

Regarding the curfew, they'd have to argue that it's illegitimate to violate a curfew in defense of property in danger of a violent mob that is also violating curfew.

Whether or not the owner of the rifle risks prosecution, I couldn't say.

Rittenhouse was never shot at.

However, it's irrelevant.

He's being charged with reckless endangering other people.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

02 Sep 2020, 2:25 pm

Someone discharged a gun very close to him, behind him, in a crowd that was focused on him and intent on harming him. Whether they actually aimed at him is what's irrelevant in those circumstances.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

02 Sep 2020, 8:06 pm

Here's an unbiased review of the case (so far), along with an explanation of what the jury instructions are, to get an idea of what the jury would be working from:


No doubt other information\footage will be used in court, but this works from what is known, without trying to direct viewers towards a preferred outcome.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

02 Sep 2020, 11:29 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
Someone discharged a gun very close to him, behind him, in a crowd that was focused on him and intent on harming him. Whether they actually aimed at him is what's irrelevant in those circumstances.


Not sure how hearing a gun discharge justifies shooting into a crowd?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

02 Sep 2020, 11:49 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Someone discharged a gun very close to him, behind him, in a crowd that was focused on him and intent on harming him. Whether they actually aimed at him is what's irrelevant in those circumstances.


Not sure how hearing a gun discharge justifies shooting into a crowd?


Not sure how shooting only at the individuals who were the threat to his safety justifies an accusation of "shooting into a crowd", either...



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

02 Sep 2020, 11:57 pm

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Someone discharged a gun very close to him, behind him, in a crowd that was focused on him and intent on harming him. Whether they actually aimed at him is what's irrelevant in those circumstances.


Not sure how hearing a gun discharge justifies shooting into a crowd?


Not sure how shooting only at the individuals who were the threat to his safety justifies an accusation of "shooting into a crowd", either...


None of Rittenhouse's three victims were armed so perhaps you are suggesting he (Rittenhouse) suffers from visual hallucinations that he believed all of his victims were armed despite the fact they weren't.



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

03 Sep 2020, 1:23 am

Image

Pictured; unarmed and innocent.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

03 Sep 2020, 1:40 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
Image

Pictured; unarmed and innocent.


Who is that?



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

03 Sep 2020, 1:55 am

Gaige Grosskreutz, the third assailant.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2020, 1:58 am

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Someone discharged a gun very close to him, behind him, in a crowd that was focused on him and intent on harming him. Whether they actually aimed at him is what's irrelevant in those circumstances.


Not sure how hearing a gun discharge justifies shooting into a crowd?


Not sure how shooting only at the individuals who were the threat to his safety justifies an accusation of "shooting into a crowd", either...


None of Rittenhouse's three victims were armed so perhaps you are suggesting he (Rittenhouse) suffers from visual hallucinations that he believed all of his victims were armed despite the fact they weren't.


Well, besides the fact that one of the people killed was armed with a skateboard (which he had used as a weapon) and had a hand on the weapon which Kyle held (which, based on my understanding, counts as "armed" under the appropriate laws), and another who was shot in the arm was carrying a handgun, the actual laws applicable in this case which relate to self defence only requires a belief that he was at risk of "great bodily harm", which does not require a weapon in order to be inflicted.

But you already would have known this, had you read earlier posts...



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

03 Sep 2020, 2:02 am

cyberdad wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Image

Pictured; unarmed and innocent.


Who is that?


Here's a thought...How about educating yourself on what happened before jumping into discussions and making posts which demonstrate your total ignorance on the subject being discussed...

There are several videos linked in this thread which should provide all the information you need...



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

03 Sep 2020, 2:03 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
Gaige Grosskreutz, the third assailant.


He's the only one left alive, could he have pulled the gun out of his bag for self-defence?