whose sock is this?

I'm confused. Was this a "protest?" or a "riot?" Was there, or was there not looting and arson? Lastly, can you define whether private militia action in public spaces can be authorized or legal? What I said is the main question, whether you like it or not. There are good arguments on both sides on whether or not, under WISCONSIN LAW (not, what you think is right) Kyle was or was not an aggressor. If it is determined that he was, then he cannot claim self defense. If it's determined that he wasn't. he will likely walk. I think the needle is pointed towards that he was, but no one here has heard all the evidence or arguments, so I will reserve that judgement.

Yankee_Bass said:

---

I'm confused. Was this a "protest?" or a "riot?" Was there, or was there not looting and arson? Lastly, can you define whether private militia action in public spaces can be authorized or legal? What I said is the main question, whether you like it or not. There are good arguments on both sides on whether or not, under WISCONSIN LAW (not, what you think is right) Kyle was or was not an aggressor. If it is determined that he was, then he cannot claim self defense. If it's determined that he wasn't. he will likely walk. I think the needle is pointed towards that he was, but no one here has heard all the evidence or arguments, so I will reserve that judgement.

---

He ventilated some commies who were rioting, I am good with him walking.

Yankee_Bass said:

---

Then define "aggressor" in the context of Wisconsin statute. You can't. It's ambiguous, which is why we have lawyers arguing over it. Make no mistake though, that *is* the question.

---

We have lawyers arguing over it because the prosecutors in Kenosha want to make a political statement. Justice for the human refuse has already been served.

It could be Sunday school. It doesn't matter if it's a riot or a protest. Being there does not negate ones right to self defense. If you could prove Rittenhouse went with the intent to cause trouble, then sure, he would be in a bigger pickle. Thus far, there has been no evidence he was there to cause trouble, either from witness testimony or existing videos.

Militia? Strapping a gun on and standing in a parking lot makes you a part of a militia? That's an absurd take. Even so, are militia members afforded the right to self defense or do they forfeit it when they arrive to some gathering because being in a militia makes you an aggressor? Does being in a militia make you aggressor?

You clearly don't understand the doctrine of self defense.

I understand it fine.
I understand perfectly your premise. Does inserting yourself into a hostile situation while armed make one an aggressor thereby forfeiting your right to self defense. I get it. That's what the state is trying to prove Rittenhouse was- the aggressor. Though, as of yet, the state has not tried to present the case that the mere attendance of Rittenhouse at the rally is forfeiture of his rights to defense or that his attendance alone constitutes him being the aggressor.

My questions to you, since you brought it up, and separate from this case-

does being in a "militia" make you an aggressor automatically?

What constitutes a militia and membership thereof?

Does being armed make you an aggressor?

I never said his mere presence was the issue. It's when he voluntarily inserted himself into confrontation. He literally ran towards it. Is that enough to make him an aggressor? Perhaps. That's what's being argued.

All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized militias and military units from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. Texas's laws are described below:

Texas Constitution: The Texas Constitution forbids private military units from operating outside state authority,providing that "[t]he military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority." Tex. Const. art. I, 24.
Texas Statutes
Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state. Tex. Gov't Code 437.208 provides that "a body of persons other than the regularly organized Texas military forces, the armed forces of the United States, or the active militia of another state may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state."

Being armed, of itself, does not cause a person to be an aggressor. It's a question of one's conduct, while armed.

The judge backhandedly slamming Toobin/CNN was funny.

Kyle Rittenhouse judge just lit up CNN and Jeffrey Toobin for not understanding the law pic.twitter.com/ovnjGfWwWR

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 3, 2021

Yankee_Bass said:

---

I never said his mere presence was the issue. It's when he voluntarily inserted himself into confrontation. He literally ran towards it. Is that enough to make him an aggressor? Perhaps. That's what's being argued.


Being armed, of itself, does not cause a person to be an aggressor. It's a question of one's conduct, while armed.

---

Here's what you said.

Quote:

---

, the question is: Was Kyle the original aggressor by voluntarily inserting himself, armed, into a dangerous situation just by being present?

---

Now your saying it's the behavior that matters, which was my point.

Further, the militia thing is a non sequitur, unless one can unknowingly join a militia.

That's always what I said. I never said merely being armed makes someone an aggressor. If it did, any carry law would carry that liability, and that's clearly not the case.

Run into a violent confrontation not intending to protect someone's life while armed is something else.

Quote:

---

into a dangerous situation just by being present?

---

So you didn't say "just by being present?"

The argument one can be an aggressor without exhibiting any aggressive behavior seems nonsensical.

To this case in particular- nothing thus far show Rittenhouse doing anything except reacting to people being aggressive towards him.

But if it is determined that, by voluntarily inserting himself into a dangerous situation while armed meets the definition of aggressor, then under Wisconsin law it makes no difference if he was later attacked and in fear of his life.

This whole thing boils down to whether or not he was the original aggressor. Until all the evidence and testimony comes out, no one here can determine that.

Quote:

---

But if it is determined that, by voluntarily inserting himself into a dangerous situation while armed meets the definition of aggressor, then under Wisconsin law it makes no difference if he was later attacked and in fear of his life.

This whole thing boils down to whether or not he was the original aggressor. Until all the evidence and testimony comes out, no one here can determine that.

---

I get your point, but this would be a terrible precedent or policy. People have guns in case there is a dangerous situation, like arson and looting going on while the police stand aside and watch. The argument that simply being present while armed removes your ability to defend yourself from mob aggression is ridiculous.

But if his intent was to create a dangerous situation, or to escalate the situation, that changes things. That's what they need to answer.

For example, if you see two guys fighting, and you run over and pull a knife and one of the guys pulls his own knife and you stab him, you probably don't get to claim self defense. You were the aggressor. You escalated.

Yankee_Bass said:

---

But if it is determined that, by voluntarily inserting himself into a dangerous situation while armed meets the definition of aggressor, then under Wisconsin law it makes no difference if he was later attacked and in fear of his life.

This whole thing boils down to whether or not he was the original aggressor. Until all the evidence and testimony comes out, no one here can determine that.

---

That precedent would make any concealed holder an aggressor

No! In my hypo, you RUN TO the fight. Unless you are defending a life, that may be aggression. If one guy was beating a woman with a stick, and you intervened, you would not be an aggressor.

Quote:

---

But if his intent was to create a dangerous situation, or to escalate the situation, that changes things. That's what they need to answer.

---

Should warning someone not to burn down a building count as "creating a dangerous situation"?

If Rittenhouse was out making random threats and/or pointing his weapon in order to threaten random people on the street you may have a point.

Yankee_Bass said:

---

No! In my hypo, you RUN TO the fight. Unless you are defending a life, that may be aggression. If one guy was beating a woman with a stick, and you intervened, you would not be an aggressor.

---

You said nothing about running to a fight. That would change the original premise.

In other words, this is a pretty ordinary self defense case. Did Rittenhouse cause the situation which led to him killing people or was he reacting to people threatening his well being. I agree that is the point of the trial and is an important distinction to be proved in any self defense case.

Yankee_Bass said:

---

You clearly don't understand the doctrine of self defense.

---

Your the expert, lol

Ag_Wolverine said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

A warning shot. Horse ***** More like recklessly discharging a firearm. Kyle was disengaging from the threat. He was running from a man who had just vehemently yelled he was going to kill him. Then he hears a shot/s and turns to face the threat. It is not unwarranted at that point to defend yourself especially when the person is trying to take your rifle away from you.

This trial may play out where this young man is wrongfully convicted. But to white knight for the scum that died that night is disgusting.

---

Ziminski is being charged with that exact charge, and agreeably so.

White knight? Please, when I have ever said anything favorable about him? I actually think Rosenbaum's murder is probably the nearest one to justifiable, but don't believe it's justifiable in this case.

Anyways, gotta go pick up the kiddo and can continue this later.

---