Page 56 of 93 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 923

Thread: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial.

  1. #551
    Quote Originally Posted by whomever View Post
    There isn't a rule 'if he points a gun at you you can shoot him' rule that is true in all contexts.
    That is not what I meant. Am saying that if somebody walked up to you like that and pointed a gun at you like that, it would be reasonable to consider it a deadly threat.
    Also, do you need to be in fear of your life to be assaulted? He was trying to make the jury afraid, probably ought to at least be menacing (if that is a law there).
    0
     

  2. #552
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    To push to the ridiculous, I was once in a discussion about a guy in TX who was setting fire to people's dogs. Could you shoot him to stop him from lighting the dog up. People are more important that dogs but was it arson. Was a dog replaceable but is a specific, beloved dog replaceable? Morally, is a person who burns dogs alive worthy of life? Angels on the head of a pin!

    I do think the meta problem of efficient defense of major property and abandonment of enforcement as HCM mentioned for Seattle or Portland on the long term will cause a rethink. The Korean shopowner paradigm is an example. If you occupy the property, you can argue that the 'attack' on the property threatens you. If it is not your property and you want to 'patrol' - that's an issue.
    You mean patrol it without consent or request of the owner? What if the owner is an acquaintance and offers or the owner requests? Or perhaps not associated with the owner but perhaps a member of a group or even a concerned individual. I recall photos of groups of people protecting property during riots.
    How long does this go on before its not just businesses but neighborhoods. Or multi unit complexes.
    I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
    The lunatics are running the asylum
    2
     

  3. #553
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    To push to the ridiculous, I was once in a discussion about a guy in TX who was setting fire to people's dogs. Could you shoot him to stop him from lighting the dog up. People are more important that dogs but was it arson. Was a dog replaceable but is a specific, beloved dog replaceable? Morally, is a person who burns dogs alive worthy of life? Angels on the head of a pin!
    Totally OT, but, there was a case local to me where a landowner shot a neighbor’s off-leash dog that was aggressing him on his own property, and it broke into low 6-figures to defend against the suit.

    Probably worth saying out loud again: shooting anything living “out of season” is something to be avoided, even some asshole’s off-leash dog.

    As to witnessing overt cruelty to animals in real time, that is a problematic question. I sure wouldn’t be happy watching someone light a dog on fire. A possible reason to legalize saps in my area, and that’s all I will say about that.
    ”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
    1
     

  4. #554
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    All that will be up for discussions if such discussions happen. I would hazard a guess that patrols not sanctioned by the property owners will not be seen positively and probably a risk for the participants in such.

    Arson in residences is a different beast as it is reasonable to state that this is a direct threat to life as compared to a big box store or car dealership.
    0
     

  5. #555
    Depends on state laws and whether the building is occupied or not.
    1
     

  6. #556
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    All that will be up for discussions if such discussions happen. I would hazard a guess that patrols not sanctioned by the property owners will not be seen positively and probably a risk for the participants in such.

    Arson in residences is a different beast as it is reasonable to state that this is a direct threat to life as compared to a big box store or car dealership.
    The big question is occupied vs in occupied.
    0
     

  7. #557
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
    To push to the ridiculous, I was once in a discussion about a guy in TX who was setting fire to people's dogs. Could you shoot him to stop him from lighting the dog up. People are more important that dogs but was it arson. Was a dog replaceable but is a specific, beloved dog replaceable? Morally, is a person who burns dogs alive worthy of life? Angels on the head of a pin!
    IANAL. This is my OPINION.
    Short answer, yes. Good luck with the legal costs though.

    In TX, your dog is considered property.

    Emphasis mine.

    Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
    (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
    (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
    (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
    (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
    A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
    (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
    (3) he reasonably believes that:
    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
    0
     

  8. #558
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyGBiv View Post
    IANAL. This is my OPINION.
    Short answer, yes. Good luck with the legal costs though.

    In TX, your dog is considered property.

    Emphasis mine.
    It could well be financially expensive but what would the moral cost be of standing down on such a thing?

    A few factors:

    All property is not equal. Most people like dogs. There no form of property which will generate more sympathy for use of deadly force than a dog or other non livestock animal. Good luck finding a jury to convict or render a judgement against the guy who shot a psycho setting fire to a dog. Even for a layman /potential juror it’s not a big leap from setting someone’s dog on fire to setting someone’s children on fire.

    In particular, I am aware cruelty to animals and fire starting are two of the three classic precursors of violent psychopath/serial killers. Someone who would do that to a dog would do it to me or other people and I would consider them an imminent threat.

    Plus, if I see them setting a dog on fire I am now a witness against them and as such they are also an imminent threat to me.
    Last edited by HCM; 11-16-2021 at 02:12 PM.
    6
     

  9. #559
    Site Supporter 0ddl0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Jefferson
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerrero View Post
    As I understand it, a friend legally purchased it, then lent it to KR for the riots.

    So... "straw purchase"? I guess if you squint a little. I'm not sure there's any evidence that the friend was going to let KR have it "permanently."
    I didn't watch much of the testimony, but apparently:

    according to the statement Kyle made he gifted the money and bought Dominic a firearm that would later be gifted to him. This makes it clear that Kyle did not ask Black to buy a firearm FOR him only to hold it for him until he was of age.
    https://www.tacticalshit.com/did-kyl...traw-purchase/
    0
     

  10. #560
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Totem Polar View Post
    As to witnessing overt cruelty to animals in real time, that is a problematic question. I sure wouldn’t be happy watching someone light a dog on fire. A possible reason to legalize saps in my area, and that’s all I will say about that.


    Would a reasonable person want to be looking over their shoulder after a psycho who sets dogs on fire is tuned up with a sap and makes bond or has their charges declined?

    Plus, regardless of the technical principle that “force is force” regardless of type, the reality is in our society shooting a threat is more socially acceptable to layman than other forms of deadly physical force such as stabbing, beating etc. Rightly or not, in America shooting a threat conveys to the layman (I.e. potential juror) that you believed the subject was a deadly threat.
    2
     

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •