5 People Shot Within 24 Hours In Allegheny County (Pittsburgh: legally, retired)

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by norcider

BINGO! LOLZ!! Mentally challenged people in here these days, sheesh...

Bingo…especially since they can’t admit it was self defense, lol.

[Reggiezz]

Originally Posted by Merge

LMAO. This is LITERALLY what happened with the Rittenhouse shootings.

Yes it is, but for whatever reason, you are unable to learn from it.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by norcider

Chief Wiggum Junior looking homeboy straight up didn't even own the gun. It was a straw purchase but I know all you guys knew that. The guy who bought the gun is waiting for his trial for purchasing a gun and handing it off to a kid who went on to kill 2 people with it. That is highly illegal. No matter how you want to portray it that kid ****ed up, decisions have consequences. Hope the jury makes the right decision.

Did the court rule that Rittenhouse was a kid who illegally had a gun?

He acted in self defense and killed them. They chose poorly by attacking him.

Just think, if there weren’t thugs causing violence, burning it down, looting, etc…, to the tune of $1B+ in damages, Rittenhouse wouldn’t have been there defending property. Just like if there’s no criminals, no police would be needed, but thugs gonna thug.

[Charley Barker]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Did the court rule that Rittenhouse was a kid who illegally had a gun?

He acted in self defense and killed them. They chose poorly by attacking him.

Just think, if there weren’t thugs causing violence, burning it down, looting, etc…, to the tune of $1B+ in damages, Rittenhouse wouldn’t have been there defending property. Just like if there’s no criminals, no police would be needed, but thugs gonna thug.

I haven't been following the trial closely, but here's my take. You can't:

a. claim self-defense in a situation that you inserted yourself into with a lethal weapon, or
b. defend property that you have no legal interest in.

If the civil authorities, local Kenosha police and Wisconsin state police, didn't see fit to disband the protesters, then they are the ones that are accountable to the elected officials who ultimately are accountable for their action/inaction at the next election or before by virtue of a recall process. Anything else leads to vigilantism, even more civil unrest, and ultimately anarchy.

[norcider]

Originally Posted by Charley Barker

I haven't been following the trial closely, but here's my take. You can't:

a. claim self-defense in a situation that you inserted yourself into with a lethal weapon, or
b. defend property that you have no legal interest in.

If the civil authorities, local Kenosha police and Wisconsin state police, didn't see fit to disband the protesters, then they are the ones that are accountable to the elected officials who ultimately are accountable for their action/inaction at the next election or before by virtue of a recall process. Anything else leads to vigilantism, even more civil unrest, and ultimately anarchy.

This. Also, the gun was a product of a straw purchase. That right there should stop everybody in their tracks who are making a martyr of this jackass. Also, he was NOT invited to protect the Car Sense, google it. The person who did ask him to come was a FORMER employee who no longer worked for the store at the time of the killings. He knowingly trespassed into a restricted area, under age, with a gun he didn't own, and drove there with a suspended license no less. Oh, how about the lying that he was an EMT? Yep, kid is a punk, go straight to jail do not collect $200.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Charley Barker

I haven't been following the trial closely, but here's my take. You can't:

a. claim self-defense in a situation that you inserted yourself into with a lethal weapon, or
b. defend property that you have no legal interest in.

If the civil authorities, local Kenosha police and Wisconsin state police, didn't see fit to disband the protesters, then they are the ones that are accountable to the elected officials who ultimately are accountable for their action/inaction at the next election or before by virtue of a recall process. Anything else leads to vigilantism, even more civil unrest, and ultimately anarchy.

Are you saying he can’t defend himself while being attacked? Folks carry lethal weapons everyday, and they can certainly defend themselves.

Yep, they let it happen, and he was attacked and still had the right to defend himself.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by norcider

This. Also, the gun was a product of a straw purchase. That right there should stop everybody in their tracks who are making a martyr of this jackass. Also, he was NOT invited to protect the Car Sense, google it. The person who did ask him to come was a FORMER employee who no longer worked for the store at the time of the killings. He knowingly trespassed into a restricted area, under age, with a gun he didn't own, and drove there with a suspended license no less. Oh, how about the lying that he was an EMT? Yep, kid is a punk, go straight to jail do not collect $200.

Did the court say he wasn’t allowed to have the gun?

He’s not a martyr, he simply defended himself. The martyrs are those that suffered the consequences along with the person that was shot in the arm. They chose poorly by attacking him.

The streets were restricted? What we’re all the opportunistic thugs doing there?

Nah, he won’t go to jail for any period of time if at all…and he’s going to end up extremely wealthy with all of the defamation lawsuits, interviews, etc…

[Charley Barker]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Are you saying he can’t defend himself while being attacked? Folks carry lethal weapons everyday, and they can certainly defend themselves.

Yep, they let it happen, and those attacked still have the right to defend themselves.

No. I'm saying that he has some "contributory negligence", for lack of a better term in this particular scenario. Like I said, I am not following it closely, but the images I saw didn't show anyone else, in particular the victims, armed with a comparable level of lethal weaponry. Proportionality is an important concept in self-defense argument I would guess.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by Charley Barker

No. I'm saying that he has some "contributory negligence", for lack of a better term in this particular scenario. Like I said, I am not following it closely, but the images I saw didn't show anyone else, in particular the victims, armed with a comparable level of lethal weaponry. Proportionality is an important concept in self-defense argument I would guess.

How does holding a gun instigate attacking and shooting by someone else?

Is there a law against holding a gun?

[Charley Barker]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Who attacked and shot at who first?

Like I said not following this closely (not retired yet, and with every letter I type my work email is mounting), but, yeah if he was attacked first then self-defense is viable, but there are contributing factors so . . . that's why we have juries and criminal procedure. I just don't see this as some kind of clear-cut, open and closed case.