Man convicted by jury for defending himself

[RX-79G]

Yup, If Abbot secures a pardon this will hurt self defense rights badly. This is not a clear case of self defense.

You just need to shoot the right people.

 

[titsonritz]

It's funny but not really. The guy killed brought an AK to the riot and was shot after he allegedly pointed it at someone. What did he bring the rifle to a riot for? Who was he looking to shoot? You don't know because he is dead but by the videos he sure seemed like he was just hoping for the chance to use his AK.

Ymmv.

https://www.bubblegumute.com/video/MT5Qes1wlgUE/

Replace bubblegumute with bit chute (without the space)

 

[RX-79G]

Not likely, but a conservative backed DA might not weigh smack talk as heavily and base it soley on the actions of both parties in that moment... not convict on the theory that he said what he was going to do and then he did it.... then bury any details that might not fit that narrative.

All DAs have a mandate to convict people that kill. And they do whatever to do that. Conservative DAs are certainly not the ones suggesting more leniency.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Like Rittenhouse.

Anyone who brings a firearm into a crowd on purpose is the equivalent of reckless driver. It isn't an expression of liberty but playing with fire at the gas station.

Very similar , yet Rittenhouse didn't point the rifle until he was threatened. The dead man is seen pointing his rifle in the driver's direction. One could say that Rittenhouse brought his rifle for self defense while the dead man brought his to force his will on others. Depends I guess on how we see the world.

 

[Yarome]

Like Rittenhouse.

Anyone who brings a firearm into a crowd on purpose is the equivalent of reckless driver. It isn't an expression of liberty but playing with fire at the gas station.

Meh..... as a show of force to put protestors on notice that wanton destruction of property is not going to be tolerated... I can see it being valid. I mean... they weren't breaking any laws and it's not like LE and the feds were strolling around unarmed.

The same argument can be said about congregating unarmed to oppose protestors. Even without a weapon it's still a powder keg and people can still be mortally injured.

Deterrents do work.

 

[Koda]

The dead man is seen pointing his rifle in the driver's direction.

Im still waiting to see this critical piece of evidence.

 

[RX-79G]

Very similar , yet Rittenhouse didn't point the rifle until he was threatened. The dead man is seen pointing his rifle in the driver's direction. One could say that Rittenhouse brought his rifle for self defense while the dead man brought his to force his will on others. Depends I guess on how we see the world.

It shouldn't be how you see the world. It should be what you do - and what you said you would do. If there is a video of the dead guy pointing a gun at the shooter - that's clear self defense. But that video apparently doesn't exist.

The problem with guns and crowds is that bullets don't always stop where they should, or go where you hoped. Being in a crowd pointing a gun violates the backstop rule, at the very least.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Im still waiting to see this critical piece of evidence.

It's there, there is a picture of the driver's car fully stopped and the dead man pointing a AK . Keep searching if you want to see it.

 

[Yarome]

All DAs have a mandate to convict people that kill. And they do whatever to do that. Conservative DAs are certainly not the ones suggesting more leniency.

They certainly aren't. However, they are more likely to convict and punish harshly based on the facts of the case... not "feelings" and a "screw the law" perspective. The other side is vastly more likely to convict on feelings and then twist the law accordingly into the way they want it to be to make it stick.

 

[Koda]

It's there, there is a picture of the driver's car fully stopped and the dead man pointing a AK . Keep searching if you want to see it.

I've looked and its not there. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Until then it doesnt exist.

 

[RX-79G]

Meh..... as a show of force to put protestors on notice that wanton destruction of property is not going to be tolerated... I can see it being valid. I mean... they weren't breaking any laws and it's not like LE and the feds were strolling around unarmed.

The same argument can be said about congregating unarmed to oppose protestors. Even without a weapon it's still a powder keg and people can still be mortally injured.

Deterrents do work.

Deterrents can work. The problem is when they don't, and what that means for people downrange of the guy who decided to deter with a loaded gun.

In Rittenhouse's case his rifle escalated the situation, and he ended up killing at least one person who was largely innocent because of the chain of events that got set in motion when a fool was challenged by an a hole.


And maybe "challenging protestors" is a highly stupid act. Protesting is an act of public messaging, not an activity that is supposed to be about confrontation. So if you''re going to a protest to interfere with the protestors, you are looking for escalation. And are also an a hole.

 

[Yarome]

Its true that people sometimes say things they dont mean literally. But his texts were quite literal....
""I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," he wrote on another occasion"

And then a few days later it happens.

All I know is the evidence doesn't stack up on this story, so its looking like not one I can use...

And those are direct quotes from verified text records... or is there possibly some parapharsing media spin going on? I dunno, but I tend to not take everything in a news report at face value. Bad reporting and failure to fact check is the status quo these days.

I'm not defending his statments, if true. I'm just saying that I take the news reports of what he actually said with a grain of doubt.

 

[RX-79G]

They certainly aren't. However, they are more likely to convict and punish harshly based on the facts of the case... not "feelings" and a "screw the law" perspective. The other side is vastly more likely to convict on feelings and then twist the law accordingly into the way they want it to be to make it stick.

The "fact" is that the shooter listed his plans and motive in messages. You don't get convicted for violent text messages alone. They are only a factor when you are violent.


At this point I have no sympathy for the shooter, whether the guy with the AK pointed the gun at him or not. He put himself there with a bad attitude, a weapon and forethought. Gasoline and fire = recklessness.

 

[Longwalkhome]

It shouldn't be how you see the world. It should be what you do - and what you said you would do. If there is a video of the dead guy pointing a gun at the shooter - that's clear self defense. But that video apparently doesn't exist.

The problem with guns and crowds is that bullets don't always stop where they should, or go where you hoped. Being in a crowd pointing a gun violates the backstop rule, at the very least.

A man's intent to go armed is what I consider. Some men carry to defend themselves from threats while others carry to threaten others. The way we see the world is to put ourselves in the shoes of that armed man.

The dead man was reported as an Antifa member who is armed for the protest march. What would the ANTIFA member be thinking? If folks read some it's pretty obvious what Antifa thinks, they march for riots and revolution, anarchy.

Compare with the Uber driver, what did he arm himself for? Did he go to the march to kill people? If he was there to murder then why not just drive over them? Did he seek confrontation? The spin from his social media said he was concerned about rioters.

Anyway you guys will pick what you believe just the same as I do, I just offer a point of view.

 

[Koda]

Deterrents can work. The problem is when they don't, and what that means for people downrange of the guy who decided to deter with a loaded gun.

In Rittenhouse's case his rifle escalated the situation, and he ended up killing at least one person who was largely innocent because of the chain of events that got set in motion when a fool was challenged by an a hole.


And maybe "challenging protestors" is a highly stupid act. Protesting is an act of public messaging, not an activity that is supposed to be about confrontation. So if you''re going to a protest to interfere with the protestors, you are looking for escalation. And are also an a hole.

Rittenhouse didnt go there to challenge protesters. It was documented he went there to help protect buisnesses and provide first aid. Rittenhouses rifle was not the cause of escalating the situation, him being attacked started the situation, none of the people that died were innocent... they attacked him, and that was proven in court as well. On the flipside the guy with the AK had a right to be there armed too but these two cases are not even close to the same. I wish wed drop the Rittenhouse analogy here, but I think your comment will end up going down the rabbit hole here.

 

[Koda]

And those are direct quotes from verified text records... or is there possibly some parapharsing media spin going on? I dunno, but I tend to not take everything in a news report at face value. Bad reporting and failure to fact check is the status quo these days.

I'm not defending his statments, if true. I'm just saying that I take the news reports of what he actually said with a grain of doubt.

Thats a fair statement and I agree. So I had checked media from both liberal and conservative sources and the both quoted the same text messages so I tend to think what he said is true.

""I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," he wrote on another occasion."

 

[SonicBlue03]

Rittenhouse didnt go there to challenge protesters. It was documented he went there to help protect buisnesses and provide first aid. Rittenhouses rifle was not the cause of escalating the situation, him being attacked started the situation, none of the people that died were innocent... they attacked him, and that was proven in court as well. On the flipside the guy with the AK had a right to be there armed too but these two cases are not even close to the same. I wish wed drop the Rittenhouse analogy here, but I think your comment will end up going down the rabbit hole here.

Agree.

Once we allow "he was armed so he was looking for trouble" to be normalized we're all screwed. "You shouldn't have worn that skirt if you didn't want to give it up" for gun owners, except the left and their media dogs will shame us the entire way.

 

[American123]

Im still waiting to see this critical piece of evidence.

At the car, hand on grip, muzzle is closer to being pointed at the car than it is being away from the car, mind you this is just a single photo and it may have been angled more at the car in the seconds afterward before he was shot.

If a police officer was in this same situation it would easily be deemed lawful self defense.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Agree.

Once we allow "he was armed so he was looking for trouble" to be normalized we're all screwed. "You shouldn't have worn that skirt if you didn't want to give it up" for gun owners, except the left and their media dogs will shame us the entire way.

If a man goes armed it will be his own history as much as the shooting that gets him hung. Cops are armed and kill but unless the cop has a history of unlawful killing he won't be charged.

Look at both people's history in the killing.

 

[Longwalkhome]

At the car, hand on grip, muzzle is closer to being pointed at the car than it is being away from the car, mind you this is just a single photo and it may have been angled more at the car in the seconds afterward before he was shot.

If a police officer was in this same situation it would easily be deemed lawful self defense.

View attachment 1400291

And there it is, a picture showing the dead man being a threat. Notice the vehicles brake lights on full meaning the driver is stopped and not threatening. Glad somebody posted this.