If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
I read somewhere that a Molotov cocktail was thrown at him at first then the guy threw a garbage can at him and finally he shot /killed the first guy. I m not sure if that is 100% accurate but it does change the story if true.
I heard that too, but haven't seen either. You can clearly see 1 other person firing a gun in the parking lot and hear a few other shots not in view, and several people are chasing him. I don't think it would be to hard to argue he was in fear for his life. So comes down to why were they chasing him? If he threatened to shoot a bunch of protestors or something, then all that is on him. If not, then I think he gets off with self defense and maybe gets the gun charges.
I agree, and the lawyers are definitely going to play on the “felons were chasing him down and trying to kill him” card, especially since the guy shot in the arm is on record saying he wished he had killed him...and more especially since he had criminal gun charges already and was running after him with a pistol brandished.
My prediction: convicted of gun charges Found innocent of murder because of self defense riots/protests continue
I'm not sure what's going to happen in this case, but a few cases I'm pretty certain of, that will lead to massive rioting are...
Rayshard Brooks case: The cop is charged with felony murder. No way in hell he gets convicted of that. Brooks stole his taser. There's several instances of cops shooting the guy that stole their taser and they weren't even charged.
George Floyd case: I think Derek Chauvin gets convicted on the second-degree murder charge. But the other three cops were charged with aiding-and-abetting second-degree murder. They'll be acquitted.
What many people don’t understand about the “stealing the taser” is that an officer absolutely cannot allow themselves to be tased. If they are, then the suspect has access to their firearm, etc. The argument could be made that the officer’s negligence lead the suspect to have access to their taser, but I guarantee anyone stands the risk of being shot by reaching for an officer’s weapon.
I've made that argument myself. While scuffling with him, one of the officers says "Stop fighting, stop fighting, you're going to get tased." Well just fucking tase him!
My prediction: convicted of gun charges Found innocent of murder because of self defense riots/protests continue
I'm not sure what's going to happen in this case, but a few cases I'm pretty certain of, that will lead to massive rioting are...
Rayshard Brooks case: The cop is charged with felony murder. No way in hell he gets convicted of that. Brooks stole his taser. There's several instances of cops shooting the guy that stole their taser and they weren't even charged.
George Floyd case: I think Derek Chauvin gets convicted on the second-degree murder charge. But the other three cops were charged with aiding-and-abetting second-degree murder. They'll be acquitted.
Agree 100% with the Brooks case. I read the coroner's or ME report the other day for Floyd. I think it was just released. What is going to complicate things is he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. And according to the report it causes lungs to expand and restrict breathing, which is why he was saying he couldn't breath even when he was in the car and no one was touching him. The report still concluded that it was asphyxiation cause by pressure to his neck, but the defense will argue the phentanyl contributed to the asphyxiation and yelling "I can't breathe" when no one was touching him lead them to believe it was a hoax. Not saying its going to get him off or that it should, but that's what I foresee being the defense and could complicate it and cause the other 3 to get off.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
Was his life ever threatened? I honestly don't know. Just because you are being chased initially does not give him the right to shoot someone and kill them. Just because you brought a bigger and deadly weapon to the fight does not allow you to use it in that manner. I posted the stand your ground law info since Zimmerman was brought up and that is the only reason he got off.
Also if they put these charges forward and as fast as they did would they not have at least something to base it off of aside from a guy running for his life and shooting 3 people?
My prediction: convicted of gun charges Found innocent of murder because of self defense riots/protests continue
I'm not sure what's going to happen in this case, but a few cases I'm pretty certain of, that will lead to massive rioting are...
Rayshard Brooks case: The cop is charged with felony murder. No way in hell he gets convicted of that. Brooks stole his taser. There's several instances of cops shooting the guy that stole their taser and they weren't even charged.
George Floyd case: I think Derek Chauvin gets convicted on the second-degree murder charge. But the other three cops were charged with aiding-and-abetting second-degree murder. They'll be acquitted.
What many people don’t understand about the “stealing the taser” is that an officer absolutely cannot allow themselves to be tased. If they are, then the suspect has access to their firearm, etc. The argument could be made that the officer’s negligence lead the suspect to have access to their taser, but I guarantee anyone stands the risk of being shot by reaching for an officer’s weapon.
I've made that argument myself. While scuffling with him, one of the officers says "Stop fighting, stop fighting, you're going to get tased." Well just fucking tase him!
I somewhat agree, but they are probably trained to announce it to avoid some random lawsuits. Funny how that works out. Although, there have been people die from being tased, so I somewhat understand the hesitation there too...I’m just glad I’m not in a profession where I have to make that kind of split second decision on a regular basis.
Wrong. Not speculation. I know for a fact that police presence has been lessened in Chicago and there has been mayhem as a result. Fact. If you want to speculate that fewer police will lead to a eutopian city, have at it.
Chicago has not reduced its police force, which is significantly more per capital than other large cities such as NYC and LA. They have not cut their police budget either. In the past, when the city has cut the police budget and consequently the number of police, crime rates fell during the same period.
So yes, you’re speculating.
Which cities have had lower crime rates due to cutting the police budget?
I didn’t say other cities, I said that in the past when chicago has cut its budget it coincided with a reduction in crime rates.
When did this occur?
Reportedly 2011-2015.
Any link to an article (I couldn't find any)? I"m genuinely interested.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
Was his life ever threatened? I honestly don't know. Just because you are being chased initially does not give him the right to shoot someone and kill them. Just because you brought a bigger and deadly weapon to the fight does not allow you to use it in that manner. I posted the stand your ground law info since Zimmerman was brought up and that is the only reason he got off.
Also if they put these charges forward and as fast as they did would they not have at least something to base it off of aside from a guy running for his life and shooting 3 people?
I think that there is evidence of his life being threatened, especially since a criminal with a handgun (the guy shot in the arm) was chasing him down and admittedly trying to kill him. I’m just not sure about the first guy shot, but he was a real piece of work with sexual abuse of a minor charges...
My prediction: convicted of gun charges Found innocent of murder because of self defense riots/protests continue
I'm not sure what's going to happen in this case, but a few cases I'm pretty certain of, that will lead to massive rioting are...
Rayshard Brooks case: The cop is charged with felony murder. No way in hell he gets convicted of that. Brooks stole his taser. There's several instances of cops shooting the guy that stole their taser and they weren't even charged.
George Floyd case: I think Derek Chauvin gets convicted on the second-degree murder charge. But the other three cops were charged with aiding-and-abetting second-degree murder. They'll be acquitted.
Agree 100% with the Brooks case. I read the coroner's or ME report the other day for Floyd. I think it was just released. What is going to complicate things is he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. And according to the report it causes lungs to expand and restrict breathing, which is why he was saying he couldn't breath even when he was in the car and no one was touching him. The report still concluded that it was asphyxiation cause by pressure to his neck, but the defense will argue the phentanyl contributed to the asphyxiation and yelling "I can't breathe" when no one was touching him lead them to believe it was a hoax. Not saying its going to get him off or that it should, but that's what I foresee being the defense and could complicate it and cause the other 3 to get off.
Yeah the fentanyl will definitely be the defense attorney's only card to play. But still, Chauvin kept his knee on his neck for such an outrageous and unnecessary amount of time. If they cuffed him, and he died by a combination of the fentanyl, having his arms pulled behind his back, and just the panic he was experiencing, that'd be different. But the knee on the neck for so long really hurts the defense. Frankly, it'd be so much easier to convict him on the original charge of third-degree murder. A second-degree will be a little more difficult, but still likely I think. I think the other three will get off scot-free, with their defense being Chauvin was the superior officer and chain-of-command, and so on.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
Was his life ever threatened? I honestly don't know. Just because you are being chased initially does not give him the right to shoot someone and kill them. Just because you brought a bigger and deadly weapon to the fight does not allow you to use it in that manner. I posted the stand your ground law info since Zimmerman was brought up and that is the only reason he got off.
Also if they put these charges forward and as fast as they did would they not have at least something to base it off of aside from a guy running for his life and shooting 3 people?
I think that there is evidence of his life being threatened, especially since a criminal with a handgun (the guy shot in the arm) was chasing him down and admittedly trying to kill him. I’m just not sure about the first guy shot, but he was a real piece of work with sexual abuse of a minor charges...
That was the second killing though. Was he there at the start? I mean if it was even half clear that the guys life was threatened before the first killing then the charges should never have came forward as fast as they did. Going all out for first degree that fast either tells me they have something that is indisputable to them when they put the charges forward or they are terrible at their jobs.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
My prediction: convicted of gun charges Found innocent of murder because of self defense riots/protests continue
I'm not sure what's going to happen in this case, but a few cases I'm pretty certain of, that will lead to massive rioting are...
Rayshard Brooks case: The cop is charged with felony murder. No way in hell he gets convicted of that. Brooks stole his taser. There's several instances of cops shooting the guy that stole their taser and they weren't even charged.
George Floyd case: I think Derek Chauvin gets convicted on the second-degree murder charge. But the other three cops were charged with aiding-and-abetting second-degree murder. They'll be acquitted.
Agree 100% with the Brooks case. I read the coroner's or ME report the other day for Floyd. I think it was just released. What is going to complicate things is he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. And according to the report it causes lungs to expand and restrict breathing, which is why he was saying he couldn't breath even when he was in the car and no one was touching him. The report still concluded that it was asphyxiation cause by pressure to his neck, but the defense will argue the phentanyl contributed to the asphyxiation and yelling "I can't breathe" when no one was touching him lead them to believe it was a hoax. Not saying its going to get him off or that it should, but that's what I foresee being the defense and could complicate it and cause the other 3 to get off.
Yeah the fentanyl will definitely be the defense attorney's only card to play. But still, Chauvin kept his knee on his neck for such an outrageous and unnecessary amount of time. If they cuffed him, and he died by a combination of the fentanyl, having his arms pulled behind his back, and just the panic he was experiencing, that'd be different. But the knee on the neck for so long really hurts the defense. Frankly, it'd be so much easier to convict him on the original charge of third-degree murder. A second-degree will be a little more difficult, but still likely I think. I think the other three will get off scot-free, with their defense being Chauvin was the superior officer and chain-of-command, and so on.
Didn't one of the officers tap him on the shoulder and ask if he should get off of him or something along those lines? That is pretty damning if true though I am not sure I am remembering that right.
My prediction: convicted of gun charges Found innocent of murder because of self defense riots/protests continue
I'm not sure what's going to happen in this case, but a few cases I'm pretty certain of, that will lead to massive rioting are...
Rayshard Brooks case: The cop is charged with felony murder. No way in hell he gets convicted of that. Brooks stole his taser. There's several instances of cops shooting the guy that stole their taser and they weren't even charged.
George Floyd case: I think Derek Chauvin gets convicted on the second-degree murder charge. But the other three cops were charged with aiding-and-abetting second-degree murder. They'll be acquitted.
Agree 100% with the Brooks case. I read the coroner's or ME report the other day for Floyd. I think it was just released. What is going to complicate things is he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. And according to the report it causes lungs to expand and restrict breathing, which is why he was saying he couldn't breath even when he was in the car and no one was touching him. The report still concluded that it was asphyxiation cause by pressure to his neck, but the defense will argue the phentanyl contributed to the asphyxiation and yelling "I can't breathe" when no one was touching him lead them to believe it was a hoax. Not saying its going to get him off or that it should, but that's what I foresee being the defense and could complicate it and cause the other 3 to get off.
Yeah the fentanyl will definitely be the defense attorney's only card to play. But still, Chauvin kept his knee on his neck for such an outrageous and unnecessary amount of time. If they cuffed him, and he died by a combination of the fentanyl, having his arms pulled behind his back, and just the panic he was experiencing, that'd be different. But the knee on the neck for so long really hurts the defense. Frankly, it'd be so much easier to convict him on the original charge of third-degree murder. A second-degree will be a little more difficult, but still likely I think. I think the other three will get off scot-free, with their defense being Chauvin was the superior officer and chain-of-command, and so on.
Didn't one of the officers tap him on the shoulder and ask if he should get off of him or something along those lines? That is pretty damning if true though I am not sure I am remembering that right.
My prediction: convicted of gun charges Found innocent of murder because of self defense riots/protests continue
I'm not sure what's going to happen in this case, but a few cases I'm pretty certain of, that will lead to massive rioting are...
Rayshard Brooks case: The cop is charged with felony murder. No way in hell he gets convicted of that. Brooks stole his taser. There's several instances of cops shooting the guy that stole their taser and they weren't even charged.
George Floyd case: I think Derek Chauvin gets convicted on the second-degree murder charge. But the other three cops were charged with aiding-and-abetting second-degree murder. They'll be acquitted.
Agree 100% with the Brooks case. I read the coroner's or ME report the other day for Floyd. I think it was just released. What is going to complicate things is he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. And according to the report it causes lungs to expand and restrict breathing, which is why he was saying he couldn't breath even when he was in the car and no one was touching him. The report still concluded that it was asphyxiation cause by pressure to his neck, but the defense will argue the phentanyl contributed to the asphyxiation and yelling "I can't breathe" when no one was touching him lead them to believe it was a hoax. Not saying its going to get him off or that it should, but that's what I foresee being the defense and could complicate it and cause the other 3 to get off.
Yeah the fentanyl will definitely be the defense attorney's only card to play. But still, Chauvin kept his knee on his neck for such an outrageous and unnecessary amount of time. If they cuffed him, and he died by a combination of the fentanyl, having his arms pulled behind his back, and just the panic he was experiencing, that'd be different. But the knee on the neck for so long really hurts the defense. Frankly, it'd be so much easier to convict him on the original charge of third-degree murder. A second-degree will be a little more difficult, but still likely I think. I think the other three will get off scot-free, with their defense being Chauvin was the superior officer and chain-of-command, and so on.
Didn't one of the officers tap him on the shoulder and ask if he should get off of him or something along those lines? That is pretty damning if true though I am not sure I am remembering that right.
That I'm not aware of.
I just looked it up
"Lane then asked Chauvin if they should roll Floyd onto his side, who responded by saying: “No, staying put where we got him.”"
One of the officers checked his pulse too and told Chauvin that they could not find one.
These two instances will be huge imo in the conviction of Chauvin to whatever degree they find him on. If they find him on I should say.
We've seen enough of these to know that it's very possible that Chauvin's walking. The Cities of MPLS and St. Paul and the State of MN better prepare for the acquittal. Because if it happens, it's going to be ugly.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
Was his life ever threatened? I honestly don't know. Just because you are being chased initially does not give him the right to shoot someone and kill them. Just because you brought a bigger and deadly weapon to the fight does not allow you to use it in that manner. I posted the stand your ground law info since Zimmerman was brought up and that is the only reason he got off.
Also if they put these charges forward and as fast as they did would they not have at least something to base it off of aside from a guy running for his life and shooting 3 people?
I think that there is evidence of his life being threatened, especially since a criminal with a handgun (the guy shot in the arm) was chasing him down and admittedly trying to kill him. I’m just not sure about the first guy shot, but he was a real piece of work with sexual abuse of a minor charges...
That was the second killing though. Was he there at the start? I mean if it was even half clear that the guys life was threatened before the first killing then the charges should never have came forward as fast as they did. Going all out for first degree that fast either tells me they have something that is indisputable to them when they put the charges forward or they are terrible at their jobs.
I think the charges came out as fast as they did for the same reason they charged the cop so fast with the Rayshard Brooks case. Had nothing to do with what evidence they had or the facts, it was to prevent more rioting and lawlessness.
We've seen enough of these to know that it's very possible that Chauvin's walking. The Cities of MPLS and St. Paul and the State of MN better prepare for the acquittal. Because if it happens, it's going to be ugly.
Yeah it's not out of the realm of possibility. And it would be complete and utter chaos if he did.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
Was his life ever threatened? I honestly don't know. Just because you are being chased initially does not give him the right to shoot someone and kill them. Just because you brought a bigger and deadly weapon to the fight does not allow you to use it in that manner. I posted the stand your ground law info since Zimmerman was brought up and that is the only reason he got off.
Also if they put these charges forward and as fast as they did would they not have at least something to base it off of aside from a guy running for his life and shooting 3 people?
I think that there is evidence of his life being threatened, especially since a criminal with a handgun (the guy shot in the arm) was chasing him down and admittedly trying to kill him. I’m just not sure about the first guy shot, but he was a real piece of work with sexual abuse of a minor charges...
That was the second killing though. Was he there at the start? I mean if it was even half clear that the guys life was threatened before the first killing then the charges should never have came forward as fast as they did. Going all out for first degree that fast either tells me they have something that is indisputable to them when they put the charges forward or they are terrible at their jobs.
I think the charges came out as fast as they did for the same reason they charged the cop so fast with the Rayshard Brooks case. Had nothing to do with what evidence they had or the facts, it was to prevent more rioting and lawlessness.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
Was his life ever threatened? I honestly don't know. Just because you are being chased initially does not give him the right to shoot someone and kill them. Just because you brought a bigger and deadly weapon to the fight does not allow you to use it in that manner. I posted the stand your ground law info since Zimmerman was brought up and that is the only reason he got off.
Also if they put these charges forward and as fast as they did would they not have at least something to base it off of aside from a guy running for his life and shooting 3 people?
I think that there is evidence of his life being threatened, especially since a criminal with a handgun (the guy shot in the arm) was chasing him down and admittedly trying to kill him. I’m just not sure about the first guy shot, but he was a real piece of work with sexual abuse of a minor charges...
That was the second killing though. Was he there at the start? I mean if it was even half clear that the guys life was threatened before the first killing then the charges should never have came forward as fast as they did. Going all out for first degree that fast either tells me they have something that is indisputable to them when they put the charges forward or they are terrible at their jobs.
I think the charges came out as fast as they did for the same reason they charged the cop so fast with the Rayshard Brooks case. Had nothing to do with what evidence they had or the facts, it was to prevent more rioting and lawlessness.
That's definitely the most plausible theory.
Can't tell if that is sarcasm or not. But seems unlikely they gathered all the video available and viewed it, interviewed people there etc before they arrested him and filed charges. Seems more plausible to me that they decided they better do something so things don't get worse rather than viewing all the footage that became available over the next day and finding out the cause, or if there is one, based on how quickly he was arrested.
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
Was his life ever threatened? I honestly don't know. Just because you are being chased initially does not give him the right to shoot someone and kill them. Just because you brought a bigger and deadly weapon to the fight does not allow you to use it in that manner. I posted the stand your ground law info since Zimmerman was brought up and that is the only reason he got off.
Also if they put these charges forward and as fast as they did would they not have at least something to base it off of aside from a guy running for his life and shooting 3 people?
I think that there is evidence of his life being threatened, especially since a criminal with a handgun (the guy shot in the arm) was chasing him down and admittedly trying to kill him. I’m just not sure about the first guy shot, but he was a real piece of work with sexual abuse of a minor charges...
That was the second killing though. Was he there at the start? I mean if it was even half clear that the guys life was threatened before the first killing then the charges should never have came forward as fast as they did. Going all out for first degree that fast either tells me they have something that is indisputable to them when they put the charges forward or they are terrible at their jobs.
I think the charges came out as fast as they did for the same reason they charged the cop so fast with the Rayshard Brooks case. Had nothing to do with what evidence they had or the facts, it was to prevent more rioting and lawlessness.
That's definitely the most plausible theory.
Can't tell if that is sarcasm or not. But seems unlikely they gathered all the video available and viewed it, interviewed people there etc before they arrested him and filed charges.
SO you think the DA viewed all the footage of the shooting and interviews and came to the conclusion this was not self defense in the few hours between this happening and him being arrested? You must think a lot of police for them to work that quickly.
Seems more likely to me they had an "o shit" moment when they realized the cops were talking with him, giving him water right before this all happened and let him walk by right afterwards and thought they better act fast to make up for how they looked. Just my impression, none of us know what they have or don't have on him right now, I could be completely wrong. First time for everything, right?
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
Was his life ever threatened? I honestly don't know. Just because you are being chased initially does not give him the right to shoot someone and kill them. Just because you brought a bigger and deadly weapon to the fight does not allow you to use it in that manner. I posted the stand your ground law info since Zimmerman was brought up and that is the only reason he got off.
Also if they put these charges forward and as fast as they did would they not have at least something to base it off of aside from a guy running for his life and shooting 3 people?
I think that there is evidence of his life being threatened, especially since a criminal with a handgun (the guy shot in the arm) was chasing him down and admittedly trying to kill him. I’m just not sure about the first guy shot, but he was a real piece of work with sexual abuse of a minor charges...
That was the second killing though. Was he there at the start? I mean if it was even half clear that the guys life was threatened before the first killing then the charges should never have came forward as fast as they did. Going all out for first degree that fast either tells me they have something that is indisputable to them when they put the charges forward or they are terrible at their jobs.
I think the charges came out as fast as they did for the same reason they charged the cop so fast with the Rayshard Brooks case. Had nothing to do with what evidence they had or the facts, it was to prevent more rioting and lawlessness.
That's definitely the most plausible theory.
I'll start by saying that I don't really know the usual speed for these things. But remember when people were doing the "Say His Name" thing with the 5-year-old boy? His alleged killer was charged within 24-hours (before the kid was used as a political lightning rod). I tend to think that was a non-political process (unless there was some local uproar immediately).
I don't like the idea of things changing to try to per-emptavily calm people down. This kid is everything I hate, but he needs the justice system to treat him the way it is supposed to. Not saying it's not...not sure.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
If "self defense" gets this kid off we need some serious changes to our justice system
1) He drove or was driven >30 minutes to be there 2) He doesn't own or have any affiliation with the property he was supposedly "protecting" 3) He was illegally carrying a firearm
I honestly don't understand how you can put yourself in a position, instigate and then call it "self-defense".
George Zimmerman pulled it off.
Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?
No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.
I don't see that being a factor in this case. He's clearly trying to run away from protestors before both shootings, and they clearly charge him. So stand your ground wouldn't apply, he tried to retreat. I think it comes down to a few things. One what Ledbetterman has said, does the fact he is illegally carrying a gun make it unlawful to use it in self defense? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. But more importantly, why were they chasing him to begin with? Did he wave the rifle around in a threatening way, or was it just flung over his shoulder? Who was the initial aggressor (and I'm not counting the fact he had a gun as being aggressive since dozens of people had guns that day, unless he was pointing it at people or something). In either case, he doesn't appear to be standing his ground. The only reason I think he probably will get off on the murder charges is you can see him running away from the people he shot and they advanced on him before he shot them.
Was his life ever threatened? I honestly don't know. Just because you are being chased initially does not give him the right to shoot someone and kill them. Just because you brought a bigger and deadly weapon to the fight does not allow you to use it in that manner. I posted the stand your ground law info since Zimmerman was brought up and that is the only reason he got off.
Also if they put these charges forward and as fast as they did would they not have at least something to base it off of aside from a guy running for his life and shooting 3 people?
I think that there is evidence of his life being threatened, especially since a criminal with a handgun (the guy shot in the arm) was chasing him down and admittedly trying to kill him. I’m just not sure about the first guy shot, but he was a real piece of work with sexual abuse of a minor charges...
That was the second killing though. Was he there at the start? I mean if it was even half clear that the guys life was threatened before the first killing then the charges should never have came forward as fast as they did. Going all out for first degree that fast either tells me they have something that is indisputable to them when they put the charges forward or they are terrible at their jobs.
I think the charges came out as fast as they did for the same reason they charged the cop so fast with the Rayshard Brooks case. Had nothing to do with what evidence they had or the facts, it was to prevent more rioting and lawlessness.
That's definitely the most plausible theory.
I'll start by saying that I don't really know the usual speed for these things. But remember when people were doing the "Say His Name" thing with the 5-year-old boy? His alleged killer was charged within 24-hours (before the kid was used as a political lightning rod). I tend to think that was a non-political process (unless there was some local uproar immediately).
I don't like the idea of things changing to try to per-emptavily calm people down. This kid is everything I hate, but he needs the justice system to treat him the way it is supposed to. Not saying it's not...not sure.
I also think there's a lot less to consider when someone kills a 5 year old. Can't really be considering self defense.
SO you think the DA viewed all the footage of the shooting and interviews and came to the conclusion this was not self defense in the few hours between this happening and him being arrested? You must think a lot of police for them to work that quickly.
Seems more likely to me they had an "o shit" moment when they realized the cops were talking with him, giving him water right before this all happened and let him walk by right afterwards and thought they better act fast to make up for how they looked. Just my impression, none of us know what they have or don't have on him right now, I could be completely wrong. First time for everything, right?
So you're saying they couldn't have come up with any other evidence from witnesses or video in the hours that passed before his arrest?
I really don't see why that isn't plausible at all. There were a lot of people around, a lot of cameras. Probably a highly motivated police force given the national attention, can throw a lot of resources at the case.
And who knows what the kid said to other people and the police.
Arrests and charges can come really fast in countless of other cases. Why not this one too. Why the skepticism?
SO you think the DA viewed all the footage of the shooting and interviews and came to the conclusion this was not self defense in the few hours between this happening and him being arrested? You must think a lot of police for them to work that quickly.
Seems more likely to me they had an "o shit" moment when they realized the cops were talking with him, giving him water right before this all happened and let him walk by right afterwards and thought they better act fast to make up for how they looked. Just my impression, none of us know what they have or don't have on him right now, I could be completely wrong. First time for everything, right?
So you're saying they couldn't have come up with any other evidence from witnesses or video in the hours that passed before his arrest?
I really don't see why that isn't plausible at all. There were a lot of people around, a lot of cameras. Probably a highly motivated police force given the national attention, can throw a lot of resources at the case.
And who knows what the kid said to other people and the police.
Arrests and charges can come really fast in countless of other cases. Why not this one too. Why the skepticism?
Not saying they couldn't have. Wasn't it only like 10 or 12 hours before they arrested him? If this was a robbery or something, then yes I could see it, identify the person and you're done. But this wasn't a who done it, but a why done it. And its because of all the national attention that I think they acted aggressively. I think the proper way to handle it would be to detain him, hold him for questioning so he's not out running around, and wait a day or 2 before formerly pressing charges so you have time to view all the footage. But that isn't what happened. I doubt all the footage was even out there to view before they arrested him. And not doing that could possibly even hurt their case. He's going to get a fancy lawyer either for free or paid for by some fund whos going to comb through every little thing. Making a rush to judgement without facts or evidence is probably just one of many things the lawyer is going to accuse the prosecution of. But like I said, no one knows what they knew or didn't know. I'm just speculating and those are my reasons why.
SO you think the DA viewed all the footage of the shooting and interviews and came to the conclusion this was not self defense in the few hours between this happening and him being arrested? You must think a lot of police for them to work that quickly.
Seems more likely to me they had an "o shit" moment when they realized the cops were talking with him, giving him water right before this all happened and let him walk by right afterwards and thought they better act fast to make up for how they looked. Just my impression, none of us know what they have or don't have on him right now, I could be completely wrong. First time for everything, right?
So you're saying they couldn't have come up with any other evidence from witnesses or video in the hours that passed before his arrest?
I really don't see why that isn't plausible at all. There were a lot of people around, a lot of cameras. Probably a highly motivated police force given the national attention, can throw a lot of resources at the case.
And who knows what the kid said to other people and the police.
Arrests and charges can come really fast in countless of other cases. Why not this one too. Why the skepticism?
Not saying they couldn't have. Wasn't it only like 10 or 12 hours before they arrested him? If this was a robbery or something, then yes I could see it, identify the person and you're done. But this wasn't a who done it, but a why done it. And its because of all the national attention that I think they acted aggressively. I think the proper way to handle it would be to detain him, hold him for questioning so he's not out running around, and wait a day or 2 before formerly pressing charges so you have time to view all the footage. But that isn't what happened. I doubt all the footage was even out there to view before they arrested him. And not doing that could possibly even hurt their case. He's going to get a fancy lawyer either for free or paid for by some fund whos going to comb through every little thing. Making a rush to judgement without facts or evidence is probably just one of many things the lawyer is going to accuse the prosecution of. But like I said, no one knows what they knew or didn't know. I'm just speculating and those are my reasons why.
This is going to be an interesting case. The officers already somewhat bungled the evidence by not detaining him immediately and confiscating his weapon to gather physical evidence. They seemed pretty close to not see what was happening, but maybe their attention was directed elsewhere with all of the chaos. I’m hoping they did at least treat it as a crime scene and gathered physical evidence accordingly at some point...Defense lawyers love it when they don’t.
Now there’s video of someone throwing a Molotov cocktail at the shooter before he shot. I’m starting to really not feel bad for anyone. I feel nobody out at that point has any good intentions, including the shooter and victims. All the videos are very disturbing. It looks like a war torn third world country , an absolute free for all where everyone is in way over their heads. This isn’t Call of Duty, you don’t respawn....
Now there’s video of someone throwing a Molotov cocktail at the shooter before he shot. I’m starting to really not feel bad for anyone. I feel nobody out at that point has any good intentions, including the shooter and victims.
Exactly why you detain him, get a statement, review all footage, then press charges. They're doing this kind of backwards. It doesn't sound like they asked for his side at all as all the reports say they arrested him at his house. They have 48 hours to press charges, really no reason they had to do it so quickly with so much still out there. Every piece of evidence that surfaces now is just 1 more thing his lawyers are going to use to show this was a rush to judgement for publicity and not about justice.
Comments
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
I read the coroner's or ME report the other day for Floyd. I think it was just released. What is going to complicate things is he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. And according to the report it causes lungs to expand and restrict breathing, which is why he was saying he couldn't breath even when he was in the car and no one was touching him. The report still concluded that it was asphyxiation cause by pressure to his neck, but the defense will argue the phentanyl contributed to the asphyxiation and yelling "I can't breathe" when no one was touching him lead them to believe it was a hoax.
Not saying its going to get him off or that it should, but that's what I foresee being the defense and could complicate it and cause the other 3 to get off.
Also if they put these charges forward and as fast as they did would they not have at least something to base it off of aside from a guy running for his life and shooting 3 people?
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
"Lane then asked Chauvin if they should roll Floyd onto his side, who responded by saying: “No, staying put where we got him.”"
One of the officers checked his pulse too and told Chauvin that they could not find one.
These two instances will be huge imo in the conviction of Chauvin to whatever degree they find him on. If they find him on I should say.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Seems more likely to me they had an "o shit" moment when they realized the cops were talking with him, giving him water right before this all happened and let him walk by right afterwards and thought they better act fast to make up for how they looked. Just my impression, none of us know what they have or don't have on him right now, I could be completely wrong. First time for everything, right?
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I really don't see why that isn't plausible at all. There were a lot of people around, a lot of cameras. Probably a highly motivated police force given the national attention, can throw a lot of resources at the case.
And who knows what the kid said to other people and the police.
Arrests and charges can come really fast in countless of other cases. Why not this one too. Why the skepticism?
I think the proper way to handle it would be to detain him, hold him for questioning so he's not out running around, and wait a day or 2 before formerly pressing charges so you have time to view all the footage. But that isn't what happened. I doubt all the footage was even out there to view before they arrested him. And not doing that could possibly even hurt their case. He's going to get a fancy lawyer either for free or paid for by some fund whos going to comb through every little thing. Making a rush to judgement without facts or evidence is probably just one of many things the lawyer is going to accuse the prosecution of.
But like I said, no one knows what they knew or didn't know. I'm just speculating and those are my reasons why.
Every piece of evidence that surfaces now is just 1 more thing his lawyers are going to use to show this was a rush to judgement for publicity and not about justice.