Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
His life would not have been in danger had his attackers not created the highly volatile and dangerous situation, had they not made the conscious choice to chase, attack, and try to kill him.His life wouldn't have been in danger if he had not intentionally placed himself into a volatile and potentially dangerous situation, in violation of the law I might add.
When you start making exceptions for one person, others will expect exceptions made for them as well. That happened here in Washington state where a guy on death row appealed his sentence citing that he had "only" killed one person and the state was trying to put him to death while Gary Ridgeway, the Green River killer had killed more than 60 people and the state gave him life without the possibility of parole on a plea deal.
He was doing a good deed.His life wouldn't have been in danger if he had not intentionally placed himself into a volatile and potentially dangerous situation, in violation of the law I might add.
When you start making exceptions for one person, others will expect exceptions made for them as well. That happened here in Washington state where a guy on death row appealed his sentence citing that he had "only" killed one person and the state was trying to put him to death while Gary Ridgeway, the Green River killer had killed more than 60 people and the state gave him life without the possibility of parole on a plea deal.
Not a damn thing because boys like him without their piece, stay in the background and would never even consider attempting to confront anyone without a deadly weapon.
How was running toward the police, away from the riot, confronting anyone?
I honestly don't understand how so many people who apparently carry weapons are unable to understand that if you point a gun at someone and they respond to this act with violence, particularly non-deadly violence, then you are unable to claim lawfully self-defense.
In other words, you cannot antagonize someone or draw them into taking a swing at you so that you can shoot them and then turn around and claim self-defense even though we see this being allowed over and over again.
There are currently two cases being tried in which the defendant is claiming self-defense. In the Rittenhouse case, he shouldn't have been armed in the first place due to his age, while in the case of the McMichaels they didn't just initiate the confrontation that led to the shooting, they chased Arbery according to the prosecution for 5 minutes before finally cornering him "like a rat" according to one of the defendants.
View attachment 562793
[snipped]
"Ascertain the four elements required for self-defense.
To successfully claim self-defense, the defendant must prove four elements. First, with exceptions, the defendant must prove that he or she was confronted with an unprovoked attack. Second, the defendant must prove that the threat of injury or death was imminent. Third, the defendant must prove that the degree of force used in self-defense was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Fourth, the defendant must prove that he or she had an objectively reasonable fear that he or she was going to be injured or killed unless he or she used self-defense. The Model Penal Code defines self-defense in § 3.04(1) as “justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.”
Provocation
In general, if the defendant initiates an attack against another, the defendant cannot claim self-defense (State v. Williams, 2010). This rule has two exceptions. The defendant can be the initial aggressor and still raise a self-defense claim if the attacked individual responds with excessive force under the circumstances, or if the defendant withdraws from the attack and the attacked individual persists.
Excessive Force Exception
In some jurisdictions, an individual cannot respond to the defendant’s attack using excessive force under the circumstances (State v. Belgard, 2010). For example, an individual cannot use deadly force when the defendant initiates an attack using nondeadly force"
Entire article here: 5.2 Self-Defense | Criminal Law
The first commie chased him down and tried to take his weapon. He had also THREATENED TO KILL HIM earlier.Before or after he killed his first victim?
Don't start with the threats Mike, especially not today.
Liberals are emotionally disturbed and mentally ill; there is no talking to them.The first commie chased him down and tried to take his weapon. He had also THREATENED TO KILL HIM earlier.
All EVIDENCE in the trial.
When they said they are gonna kill you and try to take you gun, no, it's called self defense, commie. The prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self defense. Their own witnesses proved it. Know you can stop your filthy sham of deceit.You don't consider pointing a gun at someone provocation?
emotional is the key word.Liberals are emotionally disturbed and mentally ill; there is no talking to them.
Perhaps they see anyone exercising their right to bear arms as a threat to them because the weapons they are carrying makes it harder for them to kill this person if they choose to do so.Liberals are emotionally disturbed and mentally ill; there is no talking to them.
I don't understand why "people" don't understand that being 17 years old does not mean that the 17 year old can not use a gun to shoot criminals trying to do him harm.
I also don't understand why "people" don't understand that
Arbery was a druggy and convicted criminal------with no job out casing new build and other areas for theft. I don't understand why idiots don't understand that he was on THC but hadn't taken his prescribed medication to control his violence. Arbery was snagged doing what he habitual did which was commit crimes and then savagely attack those trying to stop him from doing his crimes----he was indeed a rat---who btw---ran toward the mcMichaels, tried to steal their gun............
Arbery was snagged doing what he habitual did which was commit crimes and then savagely attack those trying to stop him from doing his crimes---
Yes. I've got so much firearms training that I'm the trainer now.LOL have you ever taken a concealed carry class? Any type of defensive firearm training?
So his attackers should have been there creating a volatile and dangerous situation for all...they are not to blame in any way for PUTTING Kyle in that dangerous situation by making the conscious decision to attack, chase, stomp, and pull a gun in him in an attempt to kill him....Kyle is always the one that shouldnt have been there. He shouldnt have put himself in that situation.
What about the mother fuckers that were burning down innocent peoples lives? They caused over 11M dollars in damage to INNOCENT people. Why arent they included?
The issue I'm having with BOTH cases is the prosecutorial discretion used.I honestly don't understand how so many people who apparently carry weapons are unable to understand that if you point a gun at someone and they respond to this act with violence, particularly non-deadly violence, then you are unable to claim lawfully self-defense.
In other words, you cannot antagonize someone or draw them into taking a swing at you so that you can shoot them and then turn around and claim self-defense even though we see this being allowed over and over again.
There are currently two cases being tried in which the defendant is claiming self-defense. In the Rittenhouse case, he shouldn't have been armed in the first place due to his age, while in the case of the McMichaels they didn't just initiate the confrontation that led to the shooting, they chased Arbery according to the prosecution for 5 minutes before finally cornering him "like a rat" according to one of the defendants.
View attachment 562793
[snipped]
"Ascertain the four elements required for self-defense.
To successfully claim self-defense, the defendant must prove four elements. First, with exceptions, the defendant must prove that he or she was confronted with an unprovoked attack. Second, the defendant must prove that the threat of injury or death was imminent. Third, the defendant must prove that the degree of force used in self-defense was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Fourth, the defendant must prove that he or she had an objectively reasonable fear that he or she was going to be injured or killed unless he or she used self-defense. The Model Penal Code defines self-defense in § 3.04(1) as “justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.”
Provocation
In general, if the defendant initiates an attack against another, the defendant cannot claim self-defense (State v. Williams, 2010). This rule has two exceptions. The defendant can be the initial aggressor and still raise a self-defense claim if the attacked individual responds with excessive force under the circumstances, or if the defendant withdraws from the attack and the attacked individual persists.
Excessive Force Exception
In some jurisdictions, an individual cannot respond to the defendant’s attack using excessive force under the circumstances (State v. Belgard, 2010). For example, an individual cannot use deadly force when the defendant initiates an attack using nondeadly force"
Entire article here: 5.2 Self-Defense | Criminal Law
What difference does his choice of weapon make? He's still underage and I'm not sure about WI but in many states while the legal age to possess a long gun is 18, it's 21 for a handgun. He's be in violation of the law either way.He was doing a good deed.
Sure, having an AR wasnt the best thing, concealed would have been better. However, that doesnt take away someones right to self defense.
