only because the law is fucked up. But that's what the jury has to play with. Unless they invoke Tom's nullification, but not sure that can be used to punish someone, only can be used to not-punish.As he should based on the evidence presented so far.
How is the law fucked up? Should he simply have dropped the gun and let the mob beat him to death?only because the law is fucked up. But that's what the jury has to play with. Unless they invoke Tom's nullification, but not sure that can be used to punish someone, only can be used to not-punish.
Wait, isn’t that what the Chicago gangbangers do?Two good guys could be attacking eachother, and both could reasonably fear for their lives and be entitled to self defense.
How else would you do it?
If I was writing the law, you bring a gun, that you shouldn't legally carry, after curfew, to a place where there is mayhem expected? No self defense for you. The decisions that lead to his needing to kill others to stay safe should negate his right to self defense.How is the law fucked up? Should he simply have dropped the gun and let the mob beat him to death?
I wonder why you aren't writing the laws.If I was writing the law, you bring a gun, that you shouldn't legally carry, after curfew, to a place where there is mayhem expected? No self defense for you. The decisions that lead to his needing to kill others to stay safe should negate his right to self defense.
Now, that's not wisconsin's law. For some reason, they let an attacker use lethal force IF the tables are turned on the attacker. Likely an unintended consequence, but a consequence nonetheless.
Many reasons why I am not. So, why do you think someone who is breaking laws should be entitled to self defense?I wonder why you aren't writing the laws.
More twisted logic. Has was retreating only because he inserted himself into a volatile situation with an illegally possessed assault rifle making it a violent situation. He had NO reason to be there except to look for and cause trouble. He was not defending property by going all over the area and not providing, nor could, medical care.He was retreating
So if someone is breaking the law, we can just chase them down and execute them?Many reasons why I am not. So, why do you think someone who is breaking laws should be entitled to self defense?
Now, realize that the one-armed bandit was ALSO breaking the law. He should be facing at least some of the charges Kyle is facing. But they can’t, as his breaking the law doesn’t impinge his right to self defense. Well, and he wasn’t successful in killing someone.
Because I'm not following the trial as closely as some, and don't even know the correct jurisdiction?Why Illinois
No problem. One point which I just learned in testimony. The defendant actually spoke to the guy he shot moments before. As he was running by Gaige yelled “what happened “
Bicep boy lied about this as well. He had several different stories about what Kyle said to him. Hard to imagine what witness prep they did with him as the lies get flushed out and are not even super helpful to him.No problem. One point which I just learned in testimony. The defendant actually spoke to the guy he shot moments before. As he was running by Gaige yelled “what happened “
Defendant replied that he was going to the police. He was running towards police. So if bicep boy didn’t know what happened and if the guy running by said he is GOING to the police. Why pull your gun and chase him down. Maybe follow to see if he follows through, but clearly Kyle’s intent was to surrender to the police. That’s clear on video.
Who's ignoring it? Looks like we had 2 vigilantes. Is that hard to believe?Bicep boy claimed to be a vigilante then it came out he didn't know what had transpired? Oops.
Curious how some accuse KR of being a vigilante yet ignore BB's claim to be one.