Riots/Looting/Violence and general post-George Floyd madness

PJPOWER

mace1229 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

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.

Ledbetterman10

PJPOWER said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mcgruff10 said:

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! 

mace1229

Ledbetterman10 said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.

josevolution

mcgruff10 said:

Glorified KC said:

Rot in jail.

Do we know if he will be tried as an adult?

I hope so throw the book at him jail for life is too good 

PJNB

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

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?

PJPOWER

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJPOWER said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.

oftenreading

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

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.  

https://www.injusticewatch.org/news/2020/chicago-police-staffing/

PJPOWER

PJNB said:

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

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...

Ledbetterman10

mace1229 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mcgruff10 said:

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. 

PJNB

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

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. 

cincybearcat

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

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.

Didn't he legally have a gun at least?

PJNB

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mcgruff10 said:

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. 

Ledbetterman10

PJNB said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mcgruff10 said:

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. 

PJNB

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJNB said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mace1229 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

mcgruff10 said:

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. 

OnWis97

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.

mace1229

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

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. 

Ledbetterman10

OnWis97 said:

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.  

dignin

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

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.

mace1229

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

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. 

dignin

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

mace1229 said:

PJNB said:

dignin said:

cincybearcat said:

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.

Definitely sarcasm.