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

mace1229 · August 2020

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?

OnWis97 · August 2020

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.

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.

mace1229 · August 2020

OnWis97 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.

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.

dignin · August 2020

mace1229 said:

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?

mace1229 · August 2020

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

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.

dankind · August 2020

dignin said:

A little off topic from OP's thread but relevant to the current point.

The FBI warned for years that police are cozy with the far right. Is no one listening?
I was an FBI agent who infiltrated white supremacists. Too many local police don’t take the far right seriously – or actively sympathize

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/28/fbi-far-right-white-supremacists-police

For the tl;dr crowd, here are the key takeaways:

https://youtu.be/bWXazVhlyxQ

PJPOWER · August 2020

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

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.

dignin · August 2020

dankind said:

dignin said:

A little off topic from OP's thread but relevant to the current point.

The FBI warned for years that police are cozy with the far right. Is no one listening?
I was an FBI agent who infiltrated white supremacists. Too many local police don’t take the far right seriously – or actively sympathize

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/28/fbi-far-right-white-supremacists-police

For the tl;dr crowd, here are the key takeaways:

https://youtu.be/bWXazVhlyxQ

Haha.

nicknyr15 · August 2020

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....

mace1229 · August 2020

nicknyr15 said:

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.

mcgruff10 · August 2020

mace1229 said:

nicknyr15 said:

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.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Ledbetterman10 · August 2020

Fledgling militia group put out call to arms in Kenosha and 5,000 people responded. Now it's banned from Facebook after fatal shootings during protests

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fledgling-militia-group-put-out-call-to-arms-in-kenosha-and-5-000-people-responded-now-it-s-banned-from-facebook-after-fatal-shootings-during-protests/ar-BB18rQRE?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

CHICAGO — After two straight nights of violent unrest, Kevin Mathewson posted a call to arms on the Facebook page of his fledgling militia group Kenosha Guard.

Formed in the days after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis, the page boasted only 87 likes. But Mathewson, a former alderman, got a wide response with his Tuesday post asking for “patriots willing to take up arms and defend (Kenosha, Wisconsin) from the evil thugs.”

Within about four hours, some 1,000 people responded they were “going” to the Kenosha event. Another 4,000 said they were “interested.”

Later in the day, Mathewson, an assault-style rifle visibly strapped around his chest, posted a 15-second clip of civilians gathered near the courthouse. That night, police say a civilian with an assault-style weapon shot and killed two men and wounded another as armed vigilantes patrolled the streets during yet another violent night of protests following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Police have released no details of the shootings, and there’s no evidence that a 17-year-old suspect taken into custody was led to Kenosha by the Facebook post. Mathewson said he does not know the suspect, Kyle Rittenhouse of Antioch, Illinois, and knows of no communication with his group.

But city and law enforcement officials have blamed the armed vigilantes who showed up Tuesday night for worsening tensions and sparking unnecessary confrontations. Mathewson says he was only trying to protect his city.

“In my view, when the government can’t protect us, that’s when we rely on the Second Amendment, which is in place just for these circumstances,” he said Thursday. “Our city was under siege, we were under attack and the government could not ensure our safety.”

That’s not how Facebook sees it. The social media giant has taken down the Kenosha Guard’s page for violating its “dangerous organizations policy.” Rittenhouse, who is facing murder charges in connection with the Tuesday night shootings, had his Facebook and Instagram accounts taken down and the company will temporarily prohibit anyone from starting a new account in his name.

Brian Fishman, who oversees Facebook’s dangerous organizations department, also posted a thread to Twitter about the situation, saying: “None of the shooter’s accounts were reported by users prior to the shooting.”

Mathewson’s personal account was also removed without notice and he was effectively banned from Facebook for life in connection with the policy, which prohibits organizations or individuals that declare a violent mission or are engaged in violence.

“He will not have been warned and (we) will not allow people who are banned under our dangerous orgs policy to have a profile,” a spokeswoman for Facebook said in an email.

Facebook also looked into any obvious links between Mathewson’s post and the arrival of Rittenhouse in Kenosha.

“At this time, we have not found evidence on Facebook that suggests the (suspect) followed the Kenosha Guard page or that he was invited on the Event Page they organized,” the Facebook spokeswoman said. “However, the Kenosha Guard Page and their Event Page violated our new policy addressing militia organizations and have been removed on that basis.”

The policy was announced Aug. 19 and comes after a summer of vigilante clashes during protests following Floyd’s killing at the end of May.

“We’ve had too many tragedies like those in Kenosha. Companies like Facebook owe it to everyone to closely examine the influence of online content on such violence — and to take action to stop it,” Fishman wrote.

Militia-style groups patrolled the streets of Minneapolis in the weeks after Floyd died. In Albuquerque, a person was shot and seriously wounded in June during a clash between protesters and a group called the New Mexico Civil Guard.

After the shootings in Kenosha, hundreds of people made clear they would like to see Mathewson face a much harsher punishment than losing his Facebook page. A petition circulating online demanding that Mathewson be charged as an accessory to murder had 1,650 signatures as of 7:30 p.m. Thursday.

Mathewson, a private investigator, said he has also been the target of death threats.

In an interview Thursday, Mathewson said he wouldn’t go so far as saying he regretted that so many people came from outside his community to guard it, saying it wasn’t his intention for the response to grow so large.

He said the posting was written up by the alt-right website Infowars run by Alex Jones, known for his conspiracy theories. Mathewson, in turn, said he promoted the Infowars article on the Kenosha Guard page, as a way to note the “event” was getting national media attention.

Soon, he started getting hundreds of messages of support from all over the world, as far away as Australia and New Zealand.

On Thursday, Mathewson said promoting the Infowars article was a mistake. “It certainly wasn’t my intention to attract people from outside the community, let alone the state,” he said.

He also acknowledged that the Infowars site is “not very credible.”

Mathewson said he made the post an “event” on Facebook but he hadn’t planned logistics for something so large. He said he didn’t have walkie-talkies or issue assignments or coordinate the turnout, other than suggesting people “go to the courthouse.”

Before returning to his neighborhood, where he spent much of the night posted at a subdivision entrance with a small group, Mathewson himself was there, standing with other openly armed men in a park as curfew neared. At the time, Mathewson told a reporter he was there to “lend support to the good guys.”

Kenosha Police Chief Dan Miskinis appeared to agree, saying Mathewson and the others were out to protect property and “exercise their constitutional right.”

Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian disagreed, saying such groups only make the situation worse. “No, I don’t need more guns on the street in the community,” he said at a news conference the day after the shootings.

But Mathewson responded that the mayor had failed to protect the city. “If I was an officer getting Molotov cocktails and rocks thrown at me, I would be scared out of my mind,” he said. “For them to say, ‘We can handle it,’ is disingenuous and reckless. It’s putting politics ahead of safety and common sense, in my opinion.

“Here in Kenosha, I can smell burning rubber and I can see the building in front of me, the probation and parole building in a big pile of ash and debris,” he continued. “We’re at war, we’re being invaded.”

cutz · August 2020

nicknyr15 said:

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....

This Post is saying that is a Molotov Cocktail.

In this video he throws something at him:

https://youtu.be/rdMTghlrFiw

Will this little shit get off?

Glorified KC · August 2020

How is it legal for a teenager to be yielding an AR-15 in public? Really anyone who isn't law enforcement or military?

mcgruff10 · August 2020

Glorified KC said:

How is it legal for a teenager to be yielding an AR-15 in public? Really anyone who isn't law enforcement or military?

It s not legal.

OnWis97 · August 2020

mcgruff10 said:

Glorified KC said:

How is it legal for a teenager to be yielding an AR-15 in public? Really anyone who isn't law enforcement or military?

It s not legal.

It might have been in a year...though not sure about the state or the "crossing state lines" issue.

brianlux · August 2020

nicknyr15 said:

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....

I totally get the anger people have toward unwarranted shooting of African Americans, people of color in general, and protesters, but I have to agree, a lot of what we are seeing now is random, disorganized chaos. There are those here who support those actions but few if any have been in the midst of the melee. I saw some of that many years ago and it's not for the faint of heart. It's brutal, it's ugly, it scars your memories, and it's dangerous. It's easy to sit at one's desk and type about it like I am right now. It's another thing to witness and/or be a part of it. No thanks.

PJNB · August 2020

OnWis97 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Glorified KC said:

How is it legal for a teenager to be yielding an AR-15 in public? Really anyone who isn't law enforcement or military?

It s not legal.

It might have been in a year...though not sure about the state or the "crossing state lines" issue.

Pretty sure the gun was his friends who lived in the state.

static111 · August 2020

PJPOWER said:

static111 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Glorified KC said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJPOWER said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

He likely will face those charges as an adult. I'm not sure how the system works out there, but here in Pennsylvania, the juvenile probation office would request a "Certification Hearing" to "certify him" up to adult court. The JPO office would argue why they think he should be certified, and his defense attorney would argue against it. It'd be a pretty easy case to certify given not only his age, but the nature of the offense, and fact that he drove some distance to get there. The defense attorney will make some sort of mental health argument and request an evaluation. It won't help his case though. He very much knew what he was doing.

Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."

I’m thinking that the weapons charges will stick. The 1st degree intentional homicide, I’m not sure.

Yeah the weapons chargres definitley. I'm not sure about 1st degree homicide either.

I'm pretty cynical any murder charge will stick to this kid as well.

Well the argument that I've been making suggesting he will be convicted is that he broke several serious gun laws. So if you're breaking gun laws, and you end up shooting and killing someone, maybe that can be murder because you shouldn't have had the gun to begin with.

The argument his defense attorney will certainly make is that in both shootings, at least by the videos I've seen, the person he shot was aggressively charging at him. Let's be real, that's probably exactly what he wanted. And he might have even verbally provoked an attack in hopes he'd have a reason to shoot. But that's unclear at this point.

At what point is a person allowed to fear for their life and be aggressive toward a vigilante with an AR or other long rifle? Especially someone that fits a profile of a white domestic terrorist school shooter type?

I would suggest refraining from being aggressive towards anyone merely based off of how they look and the color of their skin
If he was out there shooting at random people trying to shoot as many as possible, then I would commend his aggressors. But that’s not what was happening from the videos I saw...And where were all of those other gunshots coming from? Has anyone verified the source of the rest of the gunfire out there?

gimmesometruth27 · August 2020

static111 said:

PJPOWER said:

static111 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Glorified KC said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

PJPOWER said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

He likely will face those charges as an adult. I'm not sure how the system works out there, but here in Pennsylvania, the juvenile probation office would request a "Certification Hearing" to "certify him" up to adult court. The JPO office would argue why they think he should be certified, and his defense attorney would argue against it. It'd be a pretty easy case to certify given not only his age, but the nature of the offense, and fact that he drove some distance to get there. The defense attorney will make some sort of mental health argument and request an evaluation. It won't help his case though. He very much knew what he was doing.

Edit: Well this is all moot considering Mace's post above stating "Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system."

I’m thinking that the weapons charges will stick. The 1st degree intentional homicide, I’m not sure.

Yeah the weapons chargres definitley. I'm not sure about 1st degree homicide either.

I'm pretty cynical any murder charge will stick to this kid as well.

Well the argument that I've been making suggesting he will be convicted is that he broke several serious gun laws. So if you're breaking gun laws, and you end up shooting and killing someone, maybe that can be murder because you shouldn't have had the gun to begin with.

The argument his defense attorney will certainly make is that in both shootings, at least by the videos I've seen, the person he shot was aggressively charging at him. Let's be real, that's probably exactly what he wanted. And he might have even verbally provoked an attack in hopes he'd have a reason to shoot. But that's unclear at this point.

At what point is a person allowed to fear for their life and be aggressive toward a vigilante with an AR or other long rifle? Especially someone that fits a profile of a white domestic terrorist school shooter type?

I would suggest refraining from being aggressive towards anyone merely based off of how they look and the color of their skin
If he was out there shooting at random people trying to shoot as many as possible, then I would commend his aggressors. But that’s not what was happening from the videos I saw...And where were all of those other gunshots coming from? Has anyone verified the source of the rest of the gunfire out there?

fucking incels.

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

Comments

Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?

Does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law?

The FBI warned for years that police are cozy with the far right. Is no one listening?

The FBI warned for years that police are cozy with the far right. Is no one listening?

Categories