jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,176
- 29,132
can you prove that? you need to be able to. you know that right? you know about the US constitution? you should learn it. You don't get to make shit up.All of that is meaningless in this case. The kid left his home with a rifle to find someone to shoot.Hey Faun. You have misinterpreted a statutory presumption.It's not self defense when the actor is in the commission of a crime...You don't commit MURDER in self defense.And illegally
and illegally carrying a firearm.He was responding to the violence on the leftWhy was Rittenhouse running down the street with an AR-15?
You don't respond to crime by committing crime
(1m) (a) In this subsection:2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...
He had no legal authority to threaten lethal force to protect someone else's property and he was "engaged in a criminal activity" when he fired his weapon. A self defense case will fail him if the law is upheld in court.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
Now ready what you quoted again.
THE PRESUMPTION does not apply...
Which means he must prove that he had no opportunity to flee. The video pretty much shoots that shit down and proves it for him. He was on the ground against multiple attackers who were also carrying weapons.