Kyle Rittenhouse trial...already disproving SO MANY LIES from the left

[YoursTruly]

Sure you did. You asked me, "what did it provoke Rosenbaum to do?" I can't possibly answer that without guessing.

The real statue on this subject, Mr. Binger. (To prove you wrong)
939.22(10)

“Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

 

[BackAgain]

Sure you did. You asked me, "what did it provoke Rosenbaum to do?" I can't possibly answer that without guessing.

That is because the law on provocation requires that question. If a person’s conduct could be said to be a “provocation” at all, it must be (under Wisconsin Law) used or sought to be used by the actor as a basis upon which he seeks to rely on justification.

if I threaten to break your neck, maybe brandishing a two by four, and I thereby induce you to pull out a shank, I can’t then resort to justification by claiming that you were threatening me with death or great bodily injury. Dude. That’s the essential legal meaning of provocation. I provoked your action which I thus can’t use as a basis for self defense because I fuckin’ provoked it.

you are the one arguing provocation. So again. What action by the victim did the defendant provoke?

 

[BackAgain]

The real statue on this subject, Mr. Binger. (To prove you wrong)
939.22(10)

“Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

Yes sir! Bullseye.

 

[YoursTruly]

Hey Faun . Where did you run off to? A safe place? Just in case you might've missed post #2281...

Where'd you go?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey Faun . Where did you run off to? A safe place? Just in case you might've missed post #2281...

Where'd you go?

He's probably waiting for another Rittenhouse thread to spring up.

 

[YoursTruly]

That is because the law on provocation requires that question. If a person’s conduct could be said to be a “provocation” at all, it must be (under Wisconsin Law) used or sought to be used by the actor as a basis upon which he seeks to rely on justification.

if I threaten to break your neck, maybe brandishing a two by four, and I thereby induce you to pull out a shank, I can’t then resort to justification by claiming that you were threatening me with death or great bodily injury. Dude. That’s the essential legal meaning of provocation. I provoked your action which I thus can’t use as a basis for self defense because I fuckin’ provoked it.

you are the one arguing provocation. So again. What action by the victim did the defendant provoke?

The prosecution couldn't prove provocation. And yet the lefties here are still claiming Kyle provoked at least the 1st thug.

Holy hell, I watch some left leaning MSM youtube a few minutes ago, where they actually said the people that attacked Kyle, after he shot the first guy, were "hero's." Can you believe that crap?

 

[YoursTruly]

He's probably waiting for another Rittenhouse thread to spring up.

I love your "political atheist" thing. I'm politically agnostic myself. But getting more and more atheist all the time.

 

[BackAgain]

The prosecution couldn't prove provocation. And yet the lefties here are still claiming Kyle provoked at least the 1st thug.

Holy hell, I watch some left leaning MSM youtube a few minutes ago, where they actually said the people that attacked Kyle, after he shot the first guy, were "hero's." Can you believe that crap?

It is amazing. But it’s not unprecedented. When we decided after 9/11/2001 that we would fight terrorists, before long the worm turned. The far left started to attack our efforts because we were killing some of the mutant militant jihadist scumbags. The jihadists fighting us became (to many of the liberals) a matter of the jihadists’ “self defense.”

 

[TemplarKormac]

I love your "political atheist" thing. I'm politically agnostic myself. But getting more and more atheist all the time.

They don't have our interests in mind either, R or D. I've seen enough over 10+ years to justify that sentiment.

 

[Faun]

You are quoting from a different section of law. For purposes of crimes against children “this section” you’d have a point. But for justification you need to cite the correct law.

Fair enough.

 

[YoursTruly]

It is amazing. But it’s not unprecedented. When we decided after 9/11/2001 that we would fight terrorists, before long the worm turned. The far left started to attack our efforts because we were killing some of the mutant militant jihadist scumbags. The jihadists fighting us became (to many of the liberals) a matter of the jihadists’ “self defense.”

Those Jihadist are all watching our social media and political forums and thinking "Hell, they're killing themselves"

 

[Faun]

That is because the law on provocation requires that question. If a person’s conduct could be said to be a “provocation” at all, it must be (under Wisconsin Law) used or sought to be used by the actor as a basis upon which he seeks to rely on justification.

if I threaten to break your neck, maybe brandishing a two by four, and I thereby induce you to pull out a shank, I can’t then resort to justification by claiming that you were threatening me with death or great bodily injury. Dude. That’s the essential legal meaning of provocation. I provoked your action which I thus can’t use as a basis for self defense because I fuckin’ provoked it.

you are the one arguing provocation. So again. What action by the victim did the defendant provoke?

I don't see that requirement in the law. Post the law of which you speak...

 

[Faun]

Hey Faun . Where did you run off to? A safe place? Just in case you might've missed post #2281...

Where'd you go?

For the record -- I don't live on this forum.

 

[Faun]

He's probably waiting for another Rittenhouse thread to spring up.

Nope. Guess again.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't see that requirement in the law. Post the law of which you speak...

I will. It may take a moment. I’m multi tasking.

 

[YoursTruly]

They don't have our interests in mind either, R or D. I've seen enough over 10+ years to justify that sentiment.

The last republican I voted for was Ron Paul. I don't remember the last democrat I voted for. Maybe Clinton. I turned 18 in Feb of 88. So I don't think I voted until 92. That may have been Clinton. But I'm almost positive I voted for Perot both times.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

I did know that the ejector port is on one side of an automatic firearm. But I had no idea that guns could have a handedness.

I didn't either in all honesty.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Dirk the Daring]

They're not.

948.60​

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. [URL='https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/941.295(1c)(a)']941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.[/indent]

You see "skateboard" in there??

Chapter 948 - Crimes Against Children

Section 948.60 - Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Anthony Huber was 26.

Geezus...

 

[BackAgain]

I don't see that requirement in the law. Post the law of which you speak...

939.48 …
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.