Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So somehow Kyle knew the assailant was a child molester? And what is it that you think made a fatal attack warranted?
An assailant approaches you swinging a large powder puff in your direction. So shoot him? Or he has a plastic bag filled with water he throws at you...an immediate license to kill?
He doesn't have to know that his assailant is a suicidal convicted child rapist fresh out of a mental hospital to be allowed to defend himself using deadly force....it's just something we now know.
If I'm armed and a crazy person that previously that night threatened my life if he found me alone charges me while shouting obscenities while reaching for my gun, that would be their last official act.... and there wouldn't even be a trial.
And the obvious answer is there is no reason Kyle was afraid of losing his life? If a lady came up and licked his arm could he shoot her? Well she was trying to get close enough to infect him with a disease. So he could shoot her?
And I would point out in my youth I ran away from irrational confrontations. But in at two cases I got one chasing me far enough away from his friends that I turned around and clobbered his ass. Rumors say I sent one guy to the hospital.
I would never have considered killing one of them. We just did not do that.
This isn’t a discussion about some random lady licking a teenager. It’s a discussion about an obviously unhinged street goblin who had made threats to kill people attempting to take KR’s rifle away from him and being sent on his merry way to the Promised Land through the justified use of deadly force. Why do you keep trying to go off topic?
And the obvious answer is there is no reason Kyle was afraid of losing his life? If a lady came up and licked his arm could he shoot her? Well she was trying to get close enough to infect him with a disease. So he could shoot her?
And I would point out in my youth I ran away from irrational confrontations. But in at two cases I got one chasing me far enough away from his friends that I turned around and clobbered his ass. Rumors say I sent one guy to the hospital.
I would never have considered killing one of them. We just did not do that.
Not everybody is a UFC fighter or as bad ass as you otherwise I would be out of the job as a firearm instructor
In the first shooting the question is did Kyle have the right to use deadly force. The other guy was not physically imposing and Kyle could have hit him with the gun or his fists.
The second and third shooting the assailants were attempting to stop what they believed was an armed and escaping killer. Did that provide the right to kill to Kyle?
Well why aren't you citing the law?
He met the duty to retreat.
What other things does the law require in Wisconsin?
You seem to fit in well with the people that have made all kinds of wild, emotional claims and the minute we start discussing the actual law....*poooooof* you stop responding and won't discuss the relevant facts.
P.S. The 3rd shooting involved someone that testified that they were attempting something other than stopping Rittenhouse, so you're calling them a liar lol. You might want to arm yourself with facts, the law and reality instead of partisan rancor before your next post.
In the first shooting the question is did Kyle have the right to use deadly force. The other guy was not physically imposing and Kyle could have hit him with the gun or his fists.
The second and third shooting the assailants were attempting to stop what they believed was an armed and escaping killer. Did that provide the right to kill to Kyle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1
You're really misrepresenting what happened and should watch the trial before trying to weigh in.
That poster and several others have already decided they do not want to deal in facts, the law or reality.
They just want to make unsourced emotional arguments and then hide like children under their beds when called on it.
There is a word for people that want to set aside the law when convenient and punish people according to their personal wishes....and we have several in this thread.
That poster and several others have already decided they do not want to deal in facts, the law or reality.
They just want to make unsourced emotional arguments and then hide like children under their beds when called on it.
There is a word for people that want to set aside the law when convenient and punish people according to their personal wishes....and we have several in this thread.
Yeah, it's the typical knee jerk response: Guns bad. No matter what.
I'm not even a gun owner and I can see it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
