Holy shit, I never realize how fricking moronic it is to have a knife for personal defense until now.
Imagine defending yourself from some inner city honor roll youths and then having to go to trial to defend something that looks like it came out of a slasher movie and have a cop testify that he saw someone's internal organs outside their body.
If you can't get a gun, then go for pepper spray or a taser or something.
>Imagine defending yourself from some inner city honor roll youths
he was up against a bunch drunk white zoomers
The zoomer in the OP is not White
reading comprehension
General comprehension issue, the OP photo is one of the zoomers who attacked the boomer
he only tried to kill the whites cuz he's a foreign boomer pos
>Holy shit, I am posting another thread on the astroturfed trial. Please come to
to follow all of the latest racist updates
Goddamn please have a nice day
It's a real trial and is relevant to self defense law in action. To those of us who own and carry weapons, it's worth discussing. You, on the other hand, are free to browse a different thread.
This trial is nothing more than an appeal to the perceived value of the people involved.
All the facts are on the defendant's side, but he forgot to consider that he's a fat old man, and is therefore societally less valuable than the slim young people of both sexes who were assaulting him.
The other thing counting against him is that he won the fight. What's he gonna tell the jury, "they started it"? As we all know it doesn't matter who's started it, it matters who lost.
>gun
Even more lethal. He'd have like 5 cases of manslaughter to deal with. How about just not be a fricking ape and escalate minor confrontations and turn them into life or death situations?
Honestly, if he had a gun, he would have either shot once and then probably scared everyone else off or he could have just brandished it earlier to get them to back off.
If they kept attacking him, he has a much better self-defense claim. The problem with the knife is that from the video it looked like half the attackers didn't even know what was happening.
And then he would have gotten jail for discharging a firearm in public and maybe even attempted murder.
Yeah, and now he's on trial for being a slasher movie villain. A single attempted or successful murder would be preferable to like 3 attempted murder and one successful.
>Slasher movie villain
Oh its this baiting moron from the other thread.
Yes, for normal people, when you stab a bunch of horny teenagers on a river/lake, that's a generic slasher movie plot.
Maybe the real horror movie was the Zoomers we met along the way...
Maybe he shouldn't have gutted that moron.
> life or death situations
Serious question; is it really that in U.S. jurisdiction, apart from the arguments of his legal defenders? In the video I saw him getting shoved into the puddle tier shallow water and slapped once or twice by a lanky zoomer. Does that fall into the „ life or death situation„ category?
>In the video I saw him getting shoved into the puddle tier shallow water and slapped once or twice by a lanky zoomer. Does that fall into the „ life or death situation„ category?
Defends on the juristiction, the prosecutor, and the jury. Often in the United States, they lean heavily towards the person claiming self-defense, because people empathize more with someone being attacked than an attacker, and it tends to be shifty minorities and poors doing the attacking. There's the law as written then the law as it is implemented.
A lot of other developed countries aren't as lax and open ended with their definitions of self-defense. In USA there's a trial and he has some chance of winning. But, for value, people are more empathetic towards a group of normal youths versus old white guy.
Thanks for the insight, good answer
>Triple heart bypass
>Old man
Legally you're talking fear of death or grievous bodily harm based on a reasonable man standard in most jurisdictions, and yea a mob of people surrounding an old man with serious health conditions, knocking him to the ground, and continuing to strike him would likely qualify
Arguably reasonable
There's an aphorism in self-defense cases like this, "there's no such thing as unarmed crowd." Being outnumbered as an old man against a gaggle of spring chickens gives him more reason to fear for his life, not less.
here's the rub, if being outnumbered was so dangerous, and all he had was a knife, how was he able to stab multiple people and then flee the scene to try and hide the evidence?
The prosecution can pretty easily point out
>if they were such a threat, why is he unharmed and they're all maimed?
because zoomers are weak and cowardly
Have you even seen a trial before? Prosecution asking dumb softballs like that which the Defense can easily tear doen is what nukes cases like this.
It is enough that he had a reasonable belief of bodily harm, even if, objectively, the danger did not exist. Scaring someone by making them think you're going to kill them, even if you do not have that intent still entitles them to use of force for self-defense. That would be a poor argument from the prosecution.
The problem is that a jury is 100% going to view a knife attack as way more egregious and disproportionate than a gunshot. You don't get crazy scars like
and your mental image of someone stabbing a person versus someone shooting a person are going to be different. A gun makes you look professional, for good or for bad, but a knife makes you look like maniac
>The problem is that a jury is 100% going to view a knife attack as way more egregious and disproportionate than a gunshot.
That all depends on how the defense paints it for the jury. The fact is that the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." And you'd be hard pressed to tell a jury made up of mostly old people that they would not be entitled to use the same means to defend themselves if placed in the same situation.
Yeah, but then you need to look on the reverse side. Do you think those old people will be more or less likely to be the victim of a knife attack?
Or what about their grandkids?
I'm not saying it makes rational sense, but our brains are just fundamentally wired by pop culture to view a knife and gun differently.
>Do you think those old people will be more or less likely to be the victim of a knife attack?
You're making two assumptions here: that they will see the stabees as victims instead of perpetrators, and that they will consider this an attack and not self-defense. If they are at that point, then he has lost the case either way. The knife doesn't factor into it.
>Or what about their grandkids?
Do you think they want to see their grandkids engaging in underage drinking, falsely accusing a man of being a pedophile, and attacking him all in a ball? They are unlikely to see their own family in these thugs if the defense can paint that picture.
>I'm not saying it makes rational sense, but our brains are just fundamentally wired by pop culture to view a knife and gun differently.
It is a very good thing that the trial process is designed to filter this out so that only the facts of the case are considered. The fact is that if even a shred of doubt exists about his intention to kill, or that he was unprovoked, he will walk. This is a hard case for the prosecution. Their biggest argument is going to be how he acted after the fact and before the police encounter. That is how they will try to establish mens rea, but that is a very long reach.
>only the facts of the case are considered.
Imagine actually believing this
>How was he able to stab multiple people?
He was presented with a situation in which he feared for his life and applied lethal force. In this case, the first application of lethal force did not completely neutralize the threat he was presented with (because there were multiple assailants), so he continued to apply lethal force until there was no longer a threat. Nothing about this violates the legal standards of self-defense.
>and then flee the scene to try and hide evidence
There's no point in us amateurs speculating on his train of thought immediately after the stabbing, but my two cents is that he realized he put a knife into several people in broad daylight and got the got the frick out of Dodge before someone shot him down for looking like a maniac.
>He was presented with a situation in which he feared for his life
Great, now I can get murdered anytime someone subjectively feels endangered. That's what this boils down to. If he just kept his cool this could be avoided.
Bait.
dont confront people and shove them and you wont get stabbed, read the testimonies and watch the video the zoomutts started it. you a are a noguns euro or thirdie anyway
Well yes.
Are you in the habit of making people fear for their lives,
Thug-kun?
>Great, now I can get murdered anytime someone subjectively feels endangered.
Yeah, it's almost like you should keep your hands to yourself and not try to tell people that they can't be in a public area.
>subjectively feels endangered
>surrounded by people who have whipped themselves into a violent fury
>pushed down and being pummelled in 1-2ft of water
He was objectively being endangered. No "feelings" about it.
>now I can get murdered anytime someone subjectively feels endangered.
Yes, that's why you don't frick with people and make them feel endangered.
So if you ever win in an altercation it's illegal? You're moronic.
>here's the rub, if being outnumbered was so dangerous, and all he had was a knife, how was he able to stab multiple people and then flee the scene to try and hide the evidence?
lol
"how was he able to stab people with the knife that he stabbed them with?"
I dunno, dude. it's a real mystery
On my way to come whoop your ass and if you try and stop it you have no legal argument. Remember it's not life or death, I'm just going to hurt you, not kill you.
>escalate minor confrontations
The escalation was when in response to someone being physically near them, the pack of teens whipped themselves into a frenzy with absurd accusations and shouting at the top of their lungs like hyenas.
This is done for two reasons;
>prevents any reasonable resolution by audibly drowning out normal talking, so anyone who needs to be heard needs to shout extremely loudly
>raises the adrenaline of the pack to make them more willing to act violently
And the tactic worked as intended, it ensured a violent outcome. Unfortunately for everyone involved none of them saw the knife.
the teens also took his shit and were playing keep away
TZD
[ TOTAL ZOOMER tbh ]
based
he was in the right, watch and listen to the testimonies. May Allah help this man
And who cares what htose monkies were doing he's the one who drew a knife and started stabbing people. totally disproportionate. Just get up, shove those idiots and get some distance.
When two Nogs do this, it's called a Black person Moment.
>just push them away
>he's giving me a light shove
>TIME TO GO MURDER HIM
No jury in the world will let him off. The only debate is Manslaughter or Murder 2?
A light shove or a punch. It's battery and activated SD laws.
the absolute state of eurogay thirdie posters, they hate american self defense so much because the majority of them are criminals/deviants
>Light shove
Hes angled his back into the boomer dumbfrick.
>a light shove and a punch
>fiery but mostly peaceful protest
>quietly exploding
This person has not seen the webm
the zoomers actually PUSHED THE MAN INTO THE WATER, ONE OF THEM HITTING HIS FACE WHILE HE WAS TRYING TO GET UP
HE STARTS STABBING ONCE HE GETS UP FROM THE RIVER
before that the zooms took his shit too and were hiding it
Do you have a source for this?
some chud posted it from the trial yesterday during the testimony,
well no shit, you should always pick your race and tribe first
>some chud posted it from the trial yesterday during the testimony,
Shit. I'd like to take a look at it, but I don't have the time to sift through it. I'll see if I can find it later. Thanks for the tip, though.
no worries, they had his phone and necklace and put it behind some of their shit and the cops came and found it, I dont feel like going to find it either
Could he be that lazy?
I shared the webm here:
>HE STARTS STABBING ONCE HE GETS UP FROM THE RIVER
Huh. Almost like, he can get up. Like he's not in immediate danger?
If one of the zooms got him in a choke hold and he's squeezing the life out of him while the crowd cheers and the boomer grabs a knife and stabs him to get out that would be justified. Proportional amount of violence for the situation.
Ok this has to be bait. You're just moving goalposts not even knowing how stupid you look
>yeah bro just wait until the enemy is shooting at you to shoot in a reasonable level of violence proportional to the situation
>Huh. Almost like, he can get up.
This discounts the danger how? Plenty of altercations have the victim get back up. Their life and health are in no less danger because of that.
>Like he's not in immediate danger?
He's already been assaulted. He was in danger, and the first guy he stabs is actively shoving him back down.
>Proportional amount of violence for the situation.
This is not a legal requirement in Wisconsin. The standard is that the victim felt he had a reasonable belief that he feared for his life or bodily harm.
>This discounts the danger how? Plenty of altercations have the victim get back up. Their life and health are in no less danger because of that.
Immediate danger? From unarmed skinny teenagers?
Cops can't shoot someone until they at least first attempt to draw a weapon.
>Immediate danger? From unarmed skinny teenagers?
He's a 52 year old man with heart issues, and he was surrounded by people actively hitting him and trying to shove him back down. Yes, I would call that a dangerous situation. There is no "immediate danger" standard in Wisconsin. You simply pulled that out of your ass.
>Cops can't shoot someone until they at least first attempt to draw a weapon.
In America, cops can kill you if they "think" you're about to draw a weapon.
>a group of several people getting aggressive and showing all signs of immediate violence pose no danger because they are slim
fricking silly
>Cops can't shoot someone until they at least first attempt to draw a weapon.
Who was ever killed by an "attempt to draw a weapon"? Anon, people are only killed by bullets travelling through them.
It is completely disproportionate to kill someone attempting to draw a weapon, a completely harmless act which has never so much as left a bruise on any person in history.
What is even the point of pretending to be this moronic?
So that after investing 10 times the effort that any one anon replying to him did, he can say
>lololololololoLOLOLOLOL I TROLLE U
I'm mirroring the other guy's moronation anon.
You have to be baiting, no way you're this moronic. They're football players you fricking moron, the one recording is literally a linebacker. You think a 54 year old man should of defended himself with his fists against military aged young men?
>Cops can't shoot someone until they at least first attempt to draw a weapon.
Cops can shoot a man running away from them in the back with shotgun, it's all about the circumstances and context.
Your black and white claim is factually wrong and lacks any sort of context leading me to believe you are not arguing in good faith.
>Proportional amount of violence
Not a thing. You are allowed to respond with extreme lethal force if you are threatened with injury or death.
>proportional violence
Utterly European
Some Euro countries have this expectations that a victim should be running calculations while Mohammed is swinging his machete
yes, he should have been a good sport and just politely let them beat him unconsciousness for fun
have a nice day, Black person
I really hope that you are trolling right now... if not you might as well be a FED
Imagine yourself in this situation:
>you are in a river
>if you get knock out you will not only get stomped, but you will drown
>you are knocked down by a group of men stronger then you
>you don't know their intentions, will they stop you from drowning when they will knock you out or will they just laugh and record your body floating down the river?
>they keep hitting you while you are down
>you try to get up, they try to know you down again
are YOU or are YOU not in immediate danger?
youre arguing with feds and thirdies bro
I know but you will be surprised how many people think like that, mostly women and the left.
Well most europeans are thirdies are leftwingers
Grim
Its is
>White man most adaptable
Not bad
Lmao what are you smoking, the right has a huge resurgence in europe, Italy has a right-wing government, AfD is huge in German politics, in bongland the right-wing government is about to be eclipsed the polls by another even further right ukip spawn, Viktor Orban, etc.
thats complete and utter nonsense
there is no right wing anywhere in the west that isnt directly run by the government
you've never been in a fight
This guy is either baiting or completely braindead
>HE STARTS STABBING ONCE HE GETS UP FROM THE RIVER
Funnier. They throw themselves at his knife. The only person that got a real stabby stab done to them was that meth trannie goblin.
>No jury in the world will let him off.
I would, honestly there is something wrong with zoomers sense of entitlement to act violently and confrontational without reciprocity. I have personally experience this from unknown strangers in that age group on private property them and would acquit this man in a heartbeat. However all 'justice ' like this has been bullshit drama for TV since oj simpson and the juries are picked to convict because the DAs are worthless and incompetent political appointees. I've seen the video, he was harassed and placed in fear for his own safety by a group of scumbags raised to think they can do what they like to who they like and life is some dumbfrick streamer prank immunity from consequences blanket. The moment the girl goes 'is this real' is priceless, she can't even distinguish what's happening from a fake twitch stream anymore because hey being part of a group ganging up on a stranger is just so fr fr no cap haha
>hey being part of a group ganging up on a stranger is just so fr fr no cap haha
Young males in groups always had this evil hyena spirit to them, it's hardly a zoomer thing.
I remember seeing a video where some kids with a camera went out and found a random sleeping homeless man and wrapped him up in duct tape to laugh at how terrified the poor dude was, and that was at least twenty years ago.
I don;t want to do into details but my experience is there is genuinely something wrong with under 30s when it comes to others private property, homes, farms etc and the expectation that initialing pseudo violent confrontation will not result in reciprocity. I grew up in a violent gun culture and as a kid I never even considered seeking confrontation with someone because I like being alive. There is genuinely a bizarre 'belief' that fricking with other people or their property is ok because they are meant to play along for some fricking reason. See pic related
It's called having a criminal justice system in the civilized world.
Maybe you've lived in the wild jungle for too long.
>morons who has never even been in an altercation
Getting taken down is the most dangerous thing that can happen to you in a fight. Thats where people stomp you to death or stab you in the neck. Hence why alot of warrior societies and pregunpowder soldiers practice grappling.
The push did take him down and the other zoomers kept pushing him down. If the moronic zoomies had the knowledge or the intent to do so, they couldve killed him easily after he fell on his ass. But the boomer had no way to find out whether the kids were just fricking with him or actually giving him a beatdown, and thats why its self defense
>HEEEEY THEYVE COME SNUFF THE BOOMEEEEERRR AW YEEEAAAAAAHEEAAH
>OH HES IS GONNA STAB
>Just get up, shove those idiots
"bro, just stand up and overpower 6 taller males less than half your age by pushing them a bit"
Thanks for proving that your real problem is that he won the fight. He was supposed to lose, but he won "unfairly", and it has offended your sense of honor. That is all this trial is.
If the old guy was floating face-down after being hit on the head there wouldn't be a trial, because the video evidence is so conclusive about who is responsible for the altercation that everyone would have pleaded guilty pre-trial. This trial is an attempt to talk about everything BUT the instigating acts in an attempt to brainwash a jury into disregarding facts which are so strong they wouldn't even need a trial in the fight's outcome was the opposite.
>"bro, just stand up and overpower 6 taller males less than half your age by pushing them a bit"
LOL
These are skinny little zoomer nothings. Like what 135 lbs? The god damn wind will blow them over. And they're all unarmed.
If he punched one and he fell over on the rocks and died somehow? No one would question that. But he went on a stabbing spree because he couldn't control his emotions.
He can and will face a charge of assault with a deadly weapon.
He will get off scot free, charges mean nothing.
>These are skinny little zoomer nothings. Like what 135 lbs? The god damn wind will blow them over. And they're all unarmed.
You live in your little delusional world where fights are decided by imaginary stat-cards you unconsciously construct to decide who has the advantage.
He was a 50yo overweight man standing in 1-2ft of water against six 17-19yo thin males who are either as tall or taller than him. It doesn't matter how light the teenagers are, because while he attempts to shove one, another two will punch him from a direction he's not looking.
>He can and will face a charge of assault with a deadly weapon.
Please cite the relevant Wisconsin legislature passage.
"Assault" isn't even a charge in the Wisconsin legal system, nor is "Assault with a deadly weapon".
>charge
lmao good thing that isn't a conviction.
>Thanks for proving that your real problem is that he won the fight. He was supposed to lose, but he won "unfairly", and it has offended your sense of honor. That is all this trial is.
Bingo. People did this with that guy a few years ago who shot his girlfriend's ex with a KelTec Sub 2000 on his porch too. There was a shitload of "b-b-but he was h-heightmogging and jawmaxxing him, he should have won!" They're just mad that the "wrong" person won the fight.
The justice system is a complete clusterfrick. It doesn't even matter if you're in the right because your fate is ultimately decided by a bunch of randos. You just have to hope they aren't morons who are swayed by their emotions.
They are not randos, they are selected to be as racially and socially hostile as possible if its an authorized political conviction for the sake of example.
the readiness of total strangers to get loud and aggressive is disturbing, and clearly doesn't lead to anything good
true. just don't ape out in public. that goes for both parties. is it really that hard?
Yes, people are fricking moronic.
The Zoom Zooms acting like Black folk fricked around and found out. They thought they could kick him around and post it on tik tok for the likes
>PEDO IN RIVER GETS WHAT HE DESERVES
The morons didn't expect someone to answer violence with violence
It's hilarious how they jumped up and down and hollered like literal chimps.
Sometimes I forget we're apes.
saw the videos, based boomer. The zoomers deserved it
Okay, hear me out.
A hand grenade.
They'll never frick with you again and you won't survive to get tried.
The slide threads from pol subhumans are getting smarter, they at least try to tangentially make it weapons related to seethe about blacks
Calling people subhuman while crying about surface level racism is a MovieBob/10 moment
Black person
Ayo ayo,
FuhREEL mah homie!
Ma homie I gots RENT TA PAYS!
>my friends are dying
>SELFIE TIME!!!
He's got them soft, full, ample DSL...
I declare, my stars, a Buck more ripe for Breakin I have faintly never seen...
If he had gun and fired it, he wouldn't have needed to stab like 3 additional people. Everyone would have ran away from the first shot or at least backed off.
Also, he trying to just walk away and pretend he didn't do anything is gonna look so bad to the jury. Rittenhouse tried to turn himself over to the police immediately.
this, it would've been quick, an impulsive response to being surrounded.
Instead he didn't flee, he stuck around to stab a bunch of people and murdered a minor. It's hard to understate how bad sticking around to stab several people looks.
Stand your ground bucko
The problem with stand your ground is that's an affirmative defense. Good luck convincing a jury that you needed to literally gut 4 kids for self-defense
>The problem with stand your ground
Good thing the defense is not relying on that. This is standard self-defense, and according to Wisconsin statutes, it is the prosecution, not the defense that has the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the reasonable belief did not exist.
The prosecution isn't even putting forth a case to prove that the dude went over to the zoomers just to murder them (they charged for 1st degree) so all the "facts" are just appeal to emotion.
A video of what happened?
Je réfuse, Monsieur.
JE RÉFUSE
What is this... thing?
The caucasian remix of Brittany "Sid the Sloth" Venti
Anya Taylor-Joy in a 2022 movie "Menu"
This incident just proves guns, pepper spray and getting away are the best defensive tools.
the best move it to swallow your pride and if someone is talking shit just walk away. it gets way harder to justify self defense if youre arguing and escalating.
did you even watch the testimony and film?
no but i was making a generalized statement
those questions would get btfo by any good defense
this
Sincerely have a nice day if you think that argument holds up in any court. LA and New York aren't even that fricked up.
you dont even own guns lmao
Why are you so mad, anon?
because noguns thirdies and euros who have no weapons or care for self defence come here to try to talk about things they dont know, most hate the idea of self defense because theyre criminals themselves. most euros and thirdies were seething at the rittenhouse trial
So .. you're moronic AND mad?
Im niether, euros and thirdworlders hate personal freedom for the most part and self defence. the rittenhouse trial is one thing and this is another example. most supporters are Germanic White men from the USA who support freedom
Ok you angry, moronic , schizo.
Youre proving his point
If I didn't know any better, I'd think I was on /x/ with all these moronic schizo posts
i think his actions were morally justifiable, if i was attacked by 6 zoomies i would gut them motherfrickers too
t. eu pollack
Silne cerce
I apologize for the spelling, been a while since I was there.
Nah eat pepper spray or .38 broccoli boy, dont assault me.
sounds like the zoomers were bullies
this old man probably prevented a school shooting by keeping them from making another zoomer snap
Not to mention future drunk drivers
They didnt get beaten enough as children, now society has to teach them painful lessons.
getting beaten as children makes them act like this, hitting your kids frick them up mentally, just as much so as not punishing them and disciplining them
Good luck convincing any jury this twig white girl in a bikini warrants lethal force.
Good thing thats not a factor
She shoved him as well. He's surrounded and has already been attacked. Good on him for adhering to gender equality. Truly, one of our most model citizens.
how do we know she is a woman?
Her face kinda is lethal force
Equal rights, equal lefts.
Them's gonna need an extra two hours at the Breakin' Stand, I reckon....
daily reminder. If you see someone with a camera, you are being set up, entrapped. Egress, the game is stacked against you. Consider the camera man at your convenience.
I think you guys are missing the most critical aspect of this case. The victims were white. You can get away with stabbing a bunch of black kids ganging up on you, but good luck convincing a jury whole of retired white grandmothers that some guy can stab their grandkids
Oh yeah "white" kids like
Is this white to you?
>No theyre all white kids look a white girl!
Oh you are really fricking dumb...
half the kds were mutts and the guy stabbed was some latinx
The frick timeline are you in? These days being a minority is a get out of jail free card.
Get out of jail during the pretrial phase. Before a jury gets involved.
Hope he's found not guilty, the guy 100% had the right to defend himself.
Based boomer. Should've stacked all of those Black person zooms. They want to act thugs they should die like them too.
man bites dog
The problem for him is that he was already holding the knife in his hand before they attacked him. It's gonna be really hard for him to explain why he didn't brandish it to get the zoomzooms to back off.
>It's gonna be really hard for him to explain why he didn't brandish it to get the zoomzooms to back off.
All he needed to do. Show it and announce loudly that they have to back off because he has a knife. they were just rambunctious teens and would have backed off. There were soooo many off-ramps for him to choose a different solution to end the situation.
Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't. Perhaps they shouldn't randomly attack someone in the first place? That's a great "off ramp".
Well, they're not on trial, are they?
Sure, it's quite a bother being on trial and personally I'd find it a huge waste of time and prefer to avoid it. But that being said that doesn't mean he did anything wrong.
It is not illegal to do that in Wisconsin and they were impeding his path of travel.
Pretty sure the kids attacked BECAUSE they saw the knife. Anyone can see a man in boxers is holding a knife. But yeah they attacked him once they saw the knife which would make an interesting point if they bring it up in court.
Several anons have said that everyone terrified that they didn't even notice the knife, probably because they were all drunk off their asses. I haven't watched the trial though.
They said they didn't see the knife until after the stabbing, and the video seems to support this. There is definitely a bit of a delay before they realize what happened.
>Pretty sure the kids attacked BECAUSE they saw the knife.
No, they attacked because they DIDN'T see a knife. They saw someone they perceived as incapable of defending themselves, and descended upon him with a pack mentality.
And this is astoundingly a feature of the prosecution's case. They're literally arguing that not sufficiently brandishing the knife implies some kind of intent to allow further escalation, and hence an excuse to use it.
Do you seriously think if he shot a kid in the head and their brains oozed out of their empty eye socket or w/e this would somehow be better? Killing people is messy and killing regular people rather than criminals because you’re the type of dipshit who gets into bar fights, neighbor arguments, road rage, or in this case river rage, this is always going to land you in court and ruin your life.
You can have a knife, nunchucks, the cow brains from No Country For Old Men… just don’t be moronic about getting into morally ambiguous mortal struggles and you will be fine.
The biggest issue is that the boomer ran up on the group. The jury could find that he essentially started the confrontation, and unless he declined a further fight he had no recourse to self-defense. However, in my opinion from the video, it looks like he had stopped his aggression and then the group started attacking him.
Here is the full video for context. He was not randomly attacked as some in this thread has said. That may not be determinative, but it's going to weigh against him at trial.
Just to clarify for everyone, the relevant standard for self defense in the law is a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, and that the defendant actually held such a belief at the time.
Both of these questions are for the jury to decide, especially in an "edge" case like this. Obviously if he had all /k/ommandos on the jury he's getting acquitted, but it's really going to come down to how well the prosecution and defense sell their case. Prosecution is going to say his response was out of proportion to the circumstances, he started the fight, and he acted after the danger had passed. Defense is going to argue he was outnumbered, had already been attacked, and could have drowned.
>he started the fight
He started the interaction, the group escalated it to a fight.
That said, both parties are fricking morons.
He committed multiple batteries when he touched the bodies and tubes of several of the teenagers.
>He committed multiple batteries when he touched the bodies and tubes of several of the teenagers.
None of them claimed that he touched them at the start. He also only touched the tubes, and it could be argued that he simply tripped. That is not illegal, nor does it constitute battery, as the standard in Wisconsin is the intent or actual commission of "great bodily harm."
That's a fair point. I still think it's a civil battery in Wi, but you're right it's probably not legally relevant to any sort of claimed provocation.
>civil battery in Wi
Care to cite the statute? I can't find that.
I doubt it's in a statute since it's a common law tort (e.g. he can get sued over it, but not prosecuted).
>and unless he declined a further fight he had no recourse to self-defense
Not the case in Wisconsin. First of all, the only type of provocation in Wisconsin must be unlawful conduct, so the prosecution would have to show that he was firstly engaged in unlawful conduct. Second of all, you still maintain your right to self-defense even if you were engaging in unlawful conduct of the type to provoke an attack if you reasonably believe that you are in danger of death or great bodily harm.
>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
>unless he declined a further fight he had no recourse to self-defense
He walked 62 feet away from the location of the first confrontation. I asked in the last thread how far he should have gone if that wasn't enough. Should he have gone 100 feet? 100 yards? A mile? What gives a bunch of underage drunk zoomers the right to arbitrarily expel people from areas they both have equal rights to be in?
>What gives a bunch of underage drunk zoomers the right to arbitrarily expel people from areas they both have equal rights to be in?
Not a good argument, just fyi. The law HATES vigilante justice. It expects you to call the police.
I'm just curious as to the logic of the pro zoomer side, I don't expect the defense to make that argument. If a group of zoomers decide someone is creepy or le cringe or some other set of downvote words, do they at that point have the right to assault them and that person is obligated to retreat and not fight back?
Legally speaking, you always have a duty to retreat, even in states that let you stand your ground. Mind you, you don't have to retreat every fair, but you still need to demonstrate a minimal amount of willingness to disengage.
>Not a good argument
It is a good argument. It's not a good argument for winning a court case in which morons are allowed to be on the jury, but it is a good argument.
>it's a good argument except for the case where you need a good argument
mutt with a microplastic addled smooth brain?
>the case where you need a good argument
Which case is this? You can't possibly be talking about the trial, because this trial is being argued extremely badly.
The trial is the only place where your argument matters so if your argument won't help you then it's not a good argument.
>You can't possibly be talking about the trial, because this trial is being argued extremely badly.
Thats not what you said originally though
>It's not a good argument for winning a court case
so it seems like not only do you not have a good argument, but you can't even state your case without moving a goalpost.
>The trial is the only place where your argument matters so if your argument won't help you then it's not a good argument.
Oh right, so you're just refusing to acknowledge any alternate meanings or uses of "good".
The observation that people don't have a right to arbitrarily exclude other people from public places is a good argument, and you need to unwrap your ego from taking the opposite side because it's very, very silly.
That cuts both ways since his original goal was to get the teens to move out of a public place that they also had every right to be in.
Neither the prosecution nor defense have advanced that theory. Zero people in the trial are saying this, just you.
>You stated that you had a good argument but what defines a good argument?
I stated;
>
Not a good argument, just fyi. The law HATES vigilante justice. It expects you to call the police.
>>Not a good argument
>It is a good argument. It's not a good argument for winning a court case in which morons are allowed to be on the jury, but it is a good argument.
So it should be pretty fricking obvious I'm using "good" in two senses, since in one sense the argument is good, and in the other it isn't.
How you can read this and not pick this up I don't know. It's beyond my ability to teach you how to read.
The only variation of good that matters is in relation to the court case, how are you not picking that up? Your "good argument" isn't good just because there is some other irrelevant fantasy situation where it might work. By reading your posts it's obvious that you're just a low IQ mutt with a shit opinion. You just don't have a good argument, you even stated that in
and no amount of seethe and mental gymnastics will change that.
All that is needed is one man on that jury who will not find him guilty and it would be better for the right of self defense if he were. By the way, these kind of stabbings are daily events in places like London.
Apparently being literate is "mental gymnastics".
I'm not any of the people arguing about the fight. You stated that you had a good argument but what defines a good argument? In the context of your post the only place where the argument has any legal weight is in the court case so if your argument wont help you there then it obviously isn't a good one. You said a stupid thing and then tried to justify it with subjectivism and moving goalpoasts like a classic microplastic addled smoothbrain mutt.
>what gives them the right?
Melanin differential was 10log20 in Zoomers' favor; Justice Gradient is shaded 90% Zoom-positive
Did you read literally the next sentence I wrote? That's still not going to stop the prosecution from saying, look at this deranged fat frick who started a fight and then stabbed these kids to death.
IMHO the dude has a decent self-defense claim, but there is some unhelpful shit he did before and after that likely drove the state's decision to prosecute and his defense is going to have to deal with.
Nevermind, you're right and I agree both sides did things that won't help their cases like lying to the police.
>What gives a bunch of underage drunk zoomers the right to arbitrarily expel people from areas they both have equal rights to be in?
/thread
>he started the fight
Gonna be tough to prove that, considering it was all recorded and it shows that the drunk morons started it.
Did you watch the video? He approached the group and made the first physical contact.
I meant the fight obviously, they started the violent altercation.
>made the first physical contact.
This is a very big stretch, and it isn't illegal to approach a group of people.
He pushes their tubes and possibly makes bodily contact. That's an offensive battery and unlawful.
>He pushes their tubes and possibly makes bodily contact.
I saw him trip and fall on those tubes, and none of the witnesses have claimed that he touched them at this point.
>That's an offensive battery and unlawful.
The prosecution would have to prove that this event provoked the attack in order to cast doubt on his claim of self defense. Furthermore, it would have to prove that there was no reasonable belief of death or great bodily harm later when they were shoving him down and punching him in the face. Sounds like a hard case to make.
You're not arguing in good faith. Touching somebodies tubes does not give them the right to follow you, punch you, and shove you into a river. You're being disingenuous and you know it.
I'm not being disingenuous, this is all shit the prosecution is going to bring up. A good defense has to run all this shit through the wash because he's facing multiple murder charges, it's not enough to say "he wuz scared, your honor." The prosecution is going to fricking hammer into the jury this guy waddled up to a group of teenagers minding their own business and now 1 of them is dead, 3 are injured, and the rest traumatized.
>now 1 of them is dead, 3 are injured, and the rest traumatized.
The man did the world a favor
Now who's arguing in bad faith?
>Hey you gave up caring about my moronation!
We know you're just shitposting.
How is it shitposting? The other side is going to make a legal case against him. You don't think their theory of the case is going to rest heavily on the fact that he set the events in motion? The prosecution knows their probably case fails if it picks up at the point with the kids shoving him in the water. They need to get to give enough context to the jury to explain why this guy deserves to go to jail for the rest of his life. He started it is almost as effective in the courtroom as it is on the playground. That doesn't mean the prosecution is right or the jury will believe them, but it's a big minus factor for the boomer unless it gets explained away.
Stop calling them kids to frame emotions. Their parents were not escorting them. Teenagers? Yes. Kids? No.
Arguing? I stated a fact.
homie that aint me, that's some other anon
I think there's something people need to understand about the escalation of threats from a legal perspective.
With a gun, the ladder of escalation goes:
>Nogs shove you
>You brandish your gun
>Nogs see your gun and continue to attack
>You now have reason to fear for your life because not even the threat of lethal force could dissuade them
On the other hand, with a knife, the chain of escalation goes:
>Nogs shove you
>You DO NOT brandish your knife or in any way communicates the idea of imminent lethal escalation
>Nogs shove you like before
>You stab them when the prior level of violence was NOT yet at provable lethal levels
See the difference?
Not a thing. If you are attacked and shoved you can just shoot them.
Oh, you're just moronic. You really think even in the reddest of red states, you can just shoot someone for touching you?
You just moved the goal posts from "shoving - with clear attacking intent" to "just touching".
Okay, do you think you can shoot someone for shoving you?
If they are attacking you? Yes 100% you can. Fully legal.
Why are you loading the question with the word 'attack'? Can you shoot someone for shoving you?
(You) dumb Black person
It depends. Depending on the context if you have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm you absolutely can. The law has no requirements beyond that in most jurisdictions. You can fricking shoot someone without them ever touching you as long as you meet the criteria.
>reasonable
Key word.
Exactly, and a shove can be very context dependent. The idea that a shove in any real word scenario is going to be totally divorced from any context is just crazy.
Because it's relevant to the context dumbfrick. If you are just walking down the street and somebody accidentally bumps into you, someone could call that a "shove". But it's accidental and not in the context of an attack.
If someone walks up aggressively and goes toe to toe with you then shoves you, that's now in the context of an attack and you can shoot them.
Because (percieved) intent matters, moron.
Depending on the circumstances, yes. If you are trying to shove me into traffic. Yes, I can shoot you. If you're trying to shove me, and I'm an old man who could break a hip, yes, I can shoot you. If you're trying to shove me into an alley or a vehicle, then yes, I can shoot you. Do you see how you're abstracting away essential pieces of the case? You're a disingenuous c**t.
Why are you adding additional danger? Do you think shoving someone into traffic is the same as just shoving someone in an empty field?
you know you can die after falling on an empty field after being shoved?
Well, it's good thing we have a legal standard called reasonableness. Good luck convincing a jury that getting shoved in an empty field is reasonable threat to your life.
Also, reasonableness is often paired with the average person standard, so you can't just say you have fragile bone syndrome or whatever and you are especially vulnerable in a way that the majority are not.
>reasonable threat to your life
Life OR injury. Someone attacking you and shoving you is very reasonable to believe you may be injured if you don't stop him.
>reasonableness is often paired with the average person standard, so you can't just say you have fragile bone syndrome
WRONG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
Vosburg v. Putney is torts law, not criminal. It deals with damages after liability is already established.
You can't hinge a criminal case on it, because most crimes require some degree of intent.
Self defense doesn't hinge on the attackers actual intent at all. You're right that Vosburg v. Putney doesn't control, but the vast majority of jurisdictions are going to let size/frailty arguments come into play when determining the reasonableness of a fear of death/bodily injury.
>Why are you adding additional danger?
Because in this case there is additional danger, and they didn't just shove him, did they? He didn't stab a guy until after:
1. They have shoved him backwards into the water. Note that he's a 52 year old man with a heart condition.
2. They had punched him in the face.
3. Began to aggressively shove him down again while surrounding him.
Any reasonable person would interpret this as an attack intended to do harm to his person. Only after all this happens does he start to stab.
>Do you think shoving someone into traffic is the same as just shoving someone in an empty field?
Well, they didn't shove him in an empty field and they didn't do it one on one. Why do you keep trying to abstract the case away? A group of underage-drinking, belligerent, and loud teens formed a mob around this man and proceeded to assault him. That is the fact of the matter, and you can't explain that away or try to paint it as harmless. He was within his rights to defend himself.
They didn't just touch him, did they? Let's stick to Wisconsin law. They shoved him into the water, and from his perspective, he is outnumbered, currently being assaulted by being shoved down and punched in the face. You are trying to abstract this so far from the original events that it's almost comical.
>See the difference?
No. You do not have the obligation to inform your attackers of your intent to defend yourself if they continue their aggression.
>Source: my ass
>You brandish your gun
and in pretty much any state you then must discharge your firearm, or prepare to get assraped by violating "brandishing" laws. You don't pull a gun on someone unless you intend to kill them.
On the other hand, there is the difference between real life and law.
Like 99.9999% of brandishing irl never gets punished at all because it's like white dudes flashing their guns at street homies or street homies flashing their guns at each other and everyone walks away.
Very rarely would anyone be willing to call the cops.
So I think it's a false equivalence.
Just to be clear, boomer man did a lot of fishy stuff. He was aggressive in starting the interaction with the kids, fled the area, and ditched the knife. He had to do all that and he still might get acquitted in trial. Self-defense is extremely defendant friendly. So unless you plan on doing stupid shit and putting yourself into confrontational scenarios, this is a nonissue.
Doesn't the guy walk away at one point and then come back for seconds? As far as the law is concerned, if you walk away even for a second and then walk back, you are now instigating.
>Doesn't the guy walk away at one point and then come back for seconds
He walked in the opposite direction of where he came from. Getting back to his group required him to come back.
>As far as the law is concerned, if you walk away even for a second and then walk back, you are now instigating.
Not in Wisconsin. Instigation of an attack requires that he engage in unlawful conduct, which he did not do.
>in unlawful conduct, which he did not do.
Actually hard to say. Going back after already disengaging means that he is now making a conscious decision to commit assault, because the other people now have reasonable grounds to believe that he is now looking for more violence.
There wasn't any violence before they shoved him. So no, it's not hard to say. That isn't illegal in Wisconsin.
True. But the prosecution still has to prove that this is the case AND that his use of force was not consistent with a reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm.
>In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
>unlawful conduct
This is not the same as CRIMINAL conduct. Unlawful conduct applies to a bunch of shit that normal people wouldn't even know is unlawful.
Knife seems pretty effective though.
I'll stick with that and a gun.
Not really. Half of the people he stabbed didn't even notice he stabbed them until later. If they were actually trying to kill himself, he would be dead.
They certainly noticed their guts hanging out in the river, moron.
This is who was recording btw
By the way, he said he weighed in at 235, not 285 during the trial.
>records everything
>doesn't intervene
>doesn't get stabbed
>gets to testify
this, phone dude is probably the brightest one there
He's the biggest reason why it happened, he kept shouting and egging everyone on.
How come in a lot of these american self defense stories it's always some white guy attacking other whites or "whites" middle class, never thugs or criminal gangs? It kinda goes to show it's just bloodthirsty americans looking for a legal way to kill someone, but to pussy to attack real criminals who might fight back.
>real criminals who might fight back
Criminals are the biggest cowards alive. The degree of mental mediocrity from the morons ITT who think a gang of halfwits can harass and cause fear in a public place because muh zom zom is fricking incredible.
So you're a criminal.
Is this more output from the morons tryong to say that acting like animals in public areas while placing people in fear and then whining when consequences happen is 'Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo unfair'. Consider this. No matter what happens to the man it won;t resuscitate the dead idiot. Don;t be that idiot. Don't act the prick with strangers and seek confrontation because you had a helicopter parent sheltered padded childhood where no one was aloud respond to your violence with violence. You might just wind up dead because you don;t know who that stranger is. Learn.
Your logic applies to the boomer too. He can't just waddle up to a group of strangers and expect them to disperse like the red sea because he so wills it. That's not a very good legal argument. The legality of the boomer's act depends on how reasonable his fear of death or serious injury was, and if he had any role in instigating the encounter. He has pretty good facts on the former, but the latter is a lot more murky because he approached the kids.
Personally, if I'm surrounded by like 10 people trying to shove me underwater I feel in fear of my life.
But also if I walked up looking for a fight that's my fault.
He may have been in fear of his life but he caused it, they didn't come to him.
He started it.
Wisconsin doesn't care if you started it. If they're trying to kill you or seriously hurt you, you have the right to use deadly force.
That's neat to know, I actually didn't know that.
Most states it depends on who started it.
It's a bit more qualified than that. If you start it, you have a heightened duty to retreat before resorting to deadly force. Moreover it doesn't apply if the fight was started with the intent of precipating a murder.
They chose to incite violence, commence it and incite fear. Tough shit 'kids'
He incited violence by aggressively approaching them and pushing their tubes. Anybody would be pissed and suspicious of someone who did that.
Tough. That is not violence and since one of the individuals who considered it as such and started actual violence is dead, fat guy did the world a favor. If you want to live life like those people and behave like that and should insults like that with strangers in public, honestly, I would be delighted if as a consequence you wound up dead too. So would a lot of people and all the vomit inducing whining from you here won't change that one bit. or bring you back to life. Frick around and find out.
Legally it's violence. Even if you personally don't consider it as such.
It's not nice to shout insults but fat boomers who swing knives around at teens they provoke definitely should go to prison for a while.
Again, a gang makes a solitary man afraid of drowning by pushing him under water and he acts based on evident fear. Tough shit. You are dead.
He's going to prison too. Anybody could kill a teen at any time. It doesn't really matter what they do. What matters is the consequences to the killer.
>He's going to prison too. Anybody could kill a teen at any time. It doesn't really matter what they do. What matters is the consequences to the killer.
Hello? You are breaking up there and making no sense to anyone but yourself. He has not been convicted and teens die every day. Being a dead teenager does not mitigate self defense.
I don't think he has a good case for self defense here.
I do. All depends which one of us is on the jury
>Look at the /k/ dudes at that BLM protest.
>Nobody cared that they shot like 5 black dudes until someone was like "hey why do they have a public groupchat called I-want-to-go-to-a-blm-protest-and-shoot-Blacks".
On the contrary SagiaMarine went looking for trouble not a missing iphone, got it and initiated contact deliberately. I was not sympathetic to him then and am not now. The vast majority of shooting by posters from here have been criminal acts in my opinion and they are a discredit to /k./ which is a law abiding board of peace..
Dude he baneposted IRL and there were at least two videos (still kicking myself for not saving them immediately) of a crowd of people starting the actual physical violence with them. Him and plackpowderbuttfricker may have been annoying gays, but the people who actually initiated the violence were BLM. I was OP for several of those threads.
Well, the law disagree with you. The instant he walked away, the encounter was over. When he walked back, he is now the instigator of an entirely separate encounter.
That's gonna cut both ways. Reasonable minds can disagree on who incited it. Both sides have colorable arguments
>That's gonna cut both ways. Reasonable minds can disagree on who incited it. Both sides have colorable arguments
One person like me on the jury and he will walk because I don't give a shit about the judges direction. Let's stop pretending that this jury will be fair though, all cases of acquittal or conviction in high profile cases are decided before they ever reach court based on what is good for the DA, the police, the legal profession and the judiciary and the politicians who appoint them and their opinion polls.
>So you're a criminal.
Careful, in many jurisdictions that is libel and you are not anonymous.
>kinda goes to show it's just bloodthirsty americans looking for a legal way to kill someone
This. It's why he started the altercation, pushing their tubes and looking through their stuff to tell them what he's doing to provoke them into fighting him so he could legally kill. It's ultimately why he'll go to prison.
*without telling them
Frick I think I had a stroke
Its a shame if he does because he acted appropriately and if I was on that jury I would refuse to have any part in a guilty verdict..
I think that's the point.
Like if he had walked up and been like "Hey guys my phone is under the water somewhere and I can't find it" a bunch of drunk teens would probably be like "oh shit man, let's help find it".
But instead he walked up to a bunch of hormonal young men trying to swing his dick like a mature elephant seal and they clashed.
Zoomers really don't get that it was a public area and he has no obligation to explain anything to a crowd of jeering drunks. Self defense reasts ultimately on whether he could reasonably have been in fear of his life, due to the risk of drowning and the fact he was outnumbered, he had that bagged as soon as they pushed him in the water. Again the lesson is, "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." Thats MalcomX by the way. Maybe jawallah wienermuncher should have paid more attention during black history month.
Look at the /k/ dudes at that BLM protest.
Nobody cared that they shot like 5 black dudes until someone was like "hey why do they have a public groupchat called I-want-to-go-to-a-blm-protest-and-shoot-Blacks".
I would also like to add that I was 100% right about that being a suburban Black. He is going to a nice private school on his parents' dime.
Black people usually to go to private school for free on diversity scholarship though
He wasn't peaceful or courteous though he was a deranged entitled boomer and that's why he'll spend the rest of his life behind bars
I don't get why he didn't just say hey excuse me I lost my phone here, can I look for it?
Sorry about the pic of a screen.
Sir, we asked for your name, not your porn alias.
Ha his name has a wiener in it
He's got bigger breasts than the woman who got stabbed.
Interesting case.
Because if they had come up to him and acted the way they did, he would be 100% legally in the right in every US state but like NJ and CA.
But since he came up to them/invaded their space, he's going to be seen as the aggressor even though they pushed him first.
Like how if a black guy walks up to you aggressively and tries to fight you can blow his brains out, but if you call him a Black person and walk up to him it's your fault.
>But since he came up to them/invaded their space
Its not their space, its a public area and he had a legitimate and good reason to be there unrelated to them. That is, he did not enter the area to start an altercation but quite obviously to search for a phone. There was no private property here. Calling him a pedo is provably enough to count as incitement to violence to begin with in context.
That's an alright point, but idk how it would roll.
Like if you walk up to a 7/11 to buy a beer and a black dude chest bumps you and tries to fight you, you can kill him in most places.
But if you walk up to the 7/11 angry and focused on a black guy, and chest bump him and try to fight him, then shoot him, you go to jail.
So it'll depend on how the jury sees the reason for him being there I guess.
Legally speaking, people definitely have a "personal space" bubble around them that absolutely comes into play when dealing with matters like assault
That "bubble" is your own flesh which those young adults violated.
A gun and make sure they're dead. Otherwise they get to lie through their teeth on the stand in your attempted murder trial and the subsequent civil suits. And that'll be in addition to them lying to every reporter that finds them for an interview.
I actually snort-laughed at my desk watching the footage of this dumb frick jump into the knife gut first.
Frick these kids for their shit behavior, but the old guy was ready for a fight. It's a classic Zimmerman case where there were two idiots meeting in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Dude is gonna get so much pussy from that scar, meanwhile fat old guy will be getting railed by Black folk in cell block D lmao
Yeah a knife is one of those meme weapons like a "backpack gun" where you would only be able to get away legally clean on the infinitesimally small chance you use it to go Rambo on a schizo mass shooter who happened to attack Wal-Mart while you were shopping there, or some other equally-fantastical scenario where you would be so obviously in the right that it would never go to court in the first place. Not saying you shouldn't carry a knife or a backpack gun, but the perception is usually going to be that if you had the opportunity to use one of those weapons to kill someone, then you also had the opportunity to escape or de-escalate. The fact that an old man can get put on trial for murder after defending himself from an angry mob of over a dozen young people is proof that our so-called "justice system" is already too far gone and anathema to common sense. This case is like Rittenhouse 2.0 where the use of a weapon itself is being put on trial regardless of how justified it actually was in that situation. Blue states/cities are effectively operating like yurop/ausfailia where self-defense is becoming de facto illegal, and the first person to use a weapon is considered automatically in the wrong.
>Blue states/cities are effectively operating like yurop/ausfailia where self-defense is becoming de facto illegal, and the first person to use a weapon is considered automatically in the wrong.
This is the heart of it.
If he's so old and frail why isn't he in a fricking old age home instead of starting fights?
You are really making your generation look both moronic and incapable of moral reasoning. I think most people already nknow that a generation characterized by abusing their parents and aged grandparents continuously in adulthood are shit. You don't need to keep demonstrating it.
Moral reasoning says an old fart can just walk away from whatever "conflict" some heckling Black was starting
He had no obligation to do anything do you understand Y/N
He was a lone individual facing a hostile group who pushed him underwater, creating a fear of drowning and death. Do you understand Y/N
If Y to the above, he walks. That simple.
>obligation
doesn't matter, a reasonable person wouldn't have stayed to fight
irrelevant otherwise you are granting a licence to gang intimidation in public by law, which cannot be allowed.
>facing
? This isn't a fight, he's just an old fart who won't articulate anything or go away
The water is not deep enough to drown in
Legal self-defense rests on fricking technicalities like who punched first? Thats a joke, no wonder the country is going to hell
If you walk up to a group of people and start punching, the law is going to look on that a lot differently than if the reverse happens.
The value of a boomer who had a heart attack is inherently far less than the 2 white children he tried to kill
>The value of a boomer who had a heart attack is inherently far less than the 2 white children he tried to kill
A)Says who?
B)So what, that is NOT the basis of law if it was most Blacks in America would be dead.
To a health insurance company, but that has nothing to do with deciding how fault is determined in a criminal case.
I'm sorry, you are dumb, wise up and don't start trouble. This man was obviously afraid for good reason. Therefore he had the right to use violence. Stupid teens win special prizes.
>>The state has to prove that he did not have a reasonable belief of danger of death or great bodily harm. They're not going to be able to do that.
I think you're using a case to reinforce your worldview rather than approaching the case on its own merits
basically the same thing as libs latching onto the rittenhouse trial as
>EBIL AR-15 NAZIS ARE SHOOTING BLACK PROTESTORS IN THE STREETS THE COUNTRY IS OVER
> The fact that an old man can get put on trial for murder after defending himself from an angry mob of over a dozen young people is proof that our so-called "justice system" is already too far gone
This board is insane. The dude walked up to them and then never deescalated after being told to go away, took out his knife, punched someone, and then started stabbing once he realized he started a physical fight with a group. This dude did not commit self-defense as he wasn’t in trouble until he initiated violence. And then to top it off he LIED to the fricking police about what happened. You delusional homosexuals need to get a grip on reality.
I would find him not guilty, your opinion differs all he needs is reasonable doubt this thread itself shows that is there for many jurors. You can be upset at that but it is what it is.
you're the reason we do jury selections anon, because the populace is filled with deranged and irrational actors.
Reasonable doubt? Black person he either did or did not defend himself justly. There is no doubt that he killed a dude.
The state has to prove that he did not have a reasonable belief of danger of death or great bodily harm. They're not going to be able to do that.
>The state has to prove that he did not have a reasonable belief of danger of death or great bodily harm. They're not going to be able to do that.
/thread
>punched someone,
There is no evidence of this, and is not consistent across the testimony.
> There is no evidence of this
Except for her injured face that the cops took pictures of and the testimony of her friends. Why are you queers trying to carry water so hard for some dude who stabbed some drunk kids?
>Why are you queers trying to carry water so hard for some dude who stabbed some drunk kids?
He represents the sexless loser who finally got his revenge against his sex having normie bullies
he was married. you are clearly projecting.
>Except for her injured face that the cops took pictures of and the testimony of her friends.
You don't know when those injuries occurred. They're not on the video, and the testimony does not consistently show this. There is room for doubt. Get over it. He's going to walk.
there's always room for doubt, the standard is
>REASONABLE doubt
just "doubt" could be
>maybe a martian slapped her a few minutes before the police took pictures
Yes, and the reasonable doubt is that it might have happened after they started hitting him. Since you can't provide a timeline, I'll go ahead and say that's reasonable doubt.
The guy is going to get fricked. He lied in his initial statement to the police. Claimed he wasn't involved, claimed it wasn't his knife, claimed they stole his snorkel off his head and pulled his pants down. Having your dishonesty on record is the exact sort of thing that gets you fricked in trial because it makes any possible statement you can make suspect.
It's particularly telling that despite trying to weasel out of it, he didn't claim that they got physical first. That's the clearest sign to me that he was the one who started the fight.
Oh wait what the frick, he tried to say he wasn't even involved? That's going to be more acidic to his self-defense claim than anything. The self-defense claim is just a
>"i'm caught oh frick backpedal"
reflex then
He even claimed that the kid came at him with the knife and he grabbed it off of him in the fight, but later admits he brought the knife to cut twine.
Yeah I agree that lying to the police fricked him and made him look guilty when, based on the video alone, he would have been very obviously in the right if he had just kept his mouth shut. At the end of the day, it was a 13 vs 1 violent mob attack on an old man.
> he would have been very obviously in the right
You obviously watched a totally different video
Just conduct yourself properly during self-defense.
Courts generally won't show bias to one party or the other, but what they will definitely pick up on is who had control of the fight, and who used appropriate force.
If you're on equal force parity, or less, you can get away with a lot. However if you've got either training in fighting, or a technological edge, you'll be expected to exercise control of the engagement.
There's also the verbal component afterwards. If you (or your lawyer) drop the ball and spill the spaghetti explaining your side of things, or aren't persuasive enough, and the prosecutor-attacker is, then yeah a room of people who didn't see shit won't look favourably on you. Just stick to the facts that you got jumped, show some emotion about it, and that you were terrified (no stonewalling if you're arguing self defense). Explain that in that situation you didn't have force superiority, why you felt justified slitting bellies (in desperation), and that they could have avoided it all by not approaching the man giving off warnings that he's uncomfortable.
Shootings go down nicer because they make less dramatic scars for the Jury to sympathize with, they're less 'intimate' than a knife, which implies combat confidence, and they also tend to kill the assailant more, so the defendant is pretty much the undisputed source for the event, and will either explain why it was justified, or provide partial truths to suggest it was.
when you fix for IQ a knife or gunshot wound are equally lethal. if you carry a knife, don't stab anything other than major arteries
this is legal advice
Are you guys still going on about this?
a group of weirdos have really latched onto an old gypsy as their messiah, come to save them from hordes of children with social lives
Is that why they keep spamming it on the board and are also expert defense lawyers (the worst people to get advice from)
Lmao
So what? The stress of that situation would destroy most couples. Do you have a point beyond drooling on yourself zom zom?
>gut multiple people after starting an altercation
>hide the evidence
>slink back to your group and resume tubing like it's nothing
>later lie to the police that you weren't involved
what a psycho, it's a good thing she divorced him before he decided he needed to "defend himself" from her lmao
There is literally no law in Wisconsin that states that you are required to report a self defense shooting.
You can kill a guy who attacked you in the woods, and not tell a soul.
In a perfect world, once the body is found, enough evidence will exist to prove that you were attacked.
That doesn't prove 1st-degree murder.
The prosectution overcharged either because their dumb sacks of lard (Does Binger still work in Wisconsin?) or they thought that Miu(two) was going to plead guilty and never take this to trial.
>I have to say something because he insulted my Messiah!
>I'll call him a zoomer and spell it wrong!
Tourist
If the boomer immigrant turns out to be a wife beater too, he's really fricked.
You're a fricking moron. This is a move to protect assets in case there's a civil trial.
Romanians understand how to fully utilize divorce.
There are going to be civil trials after this. Give the "ex" everything so when the zoomers and their families sue Nick for everything, all he has to offer is pocket lint.
>every single one of these people arguing against the stabbings is because they personally relate to the zoomer kids and don't want to accept that they could get stabbed and die themselves
>projecting
>outing that the only reason you care about the boomer is you relate to him
>no u
Nice post
>boomer his own business
>gets surrounded by some zoomers
>gets harassed by chimping zoomers
>zoomers close in and gets stabbed
Im not so sure that its really such a bad thing to relate to the boomer minding his own business compared to the chimping zoomers
>inserting yourself into a crowd of strangers is minding your own business
insane lead-addled boomer logic
>go to crowd to ask for missing cellphone
>immediately accused of pedophilia
>gets surrounded
yeah. Id say hes minding his own business. he didnt go to the group with intent to stab. I know severe autists have no theory of mind but seriously mate this is embarassing
He didn't ask he just started pushing them out of the way and looking under their tubes where they were sitting
>he didnt go to the group with intent to stab
This is what these people/bots don't understand. The prosecution has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that when the defendant went up to the group of teenagers his intent was to kill them. That is what first degree intentional homicide means.
He pulled out his knife before they started attacking him, indicating he already formed the intent to kill before he was attacked
Again you dumb Black person. That is not illegal in Wisconsin
Killing some with intent to kill is in fact illegal in wisconsin
Do you know what justifiable homicide is, anon?
That doesn't prove anything. You know that right? By this point you have to know that. Lets say even in that exact moment he took out the knife with the intent to kill them. Lets just say that happened even though there is no way to prove that. It still wouldn't be first degree intentional homicide because he didn't go up to the group with that intent. What are you not understanding?
It proves intent to kill
It was not justified because he struck Maddison first before the zoomers hit him
>It proves intent to kill
Holding a knife does not prove intent to kill beyond any reasonable doubt. It simply doesn't. There is no other way to explain that any better than to just say you're wrong.
>t was not justified because he struck Maddison first before the zoomers hit him
There is no proof of that. There is no evidence of that. The police officer that interviewed her said on the stand that he saw no signs of damage to her face. Again you are just wrong.
>Holding a knife does not prove intent to kill beyond any reasonable doubt.
Uh it does when you pull it out and then stab someone with it moron
He stabbed someone after he was attacked. That is self defense. Him holding a knife does not prove intent to kill. Once again you're wrong.
You can intend to kill someone and it be self defense
That's called justifiable homicide which is what he did. The prosecution has to prove he didn't do that which they have not and can't.
They can prove it because they all testified that he struck Maddison first. They say so in the video. The fact that they're all drunk doesn't disprove that he struck first.
Read
Maybe you're not mentally equipped to understand how that doesn't prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Him only stabbing after he was attacked lays foundation to discredit any claim that he was planning to use it to murder them.
He was ready to stab before he was attacked
>There is no proof of that
The proof is her testimony and everyone yelling "you hit a woman?" Before attacking him
The testimony of drunk teenagers who all tell a different story? Most of which have told more than one different story? One going as far as to say he pulled her hair with his right hand which we know is impossible since he had a knife in it? That testimony doesn't mean much of anything since it can't be calibrated.
Everybody agreeing that she was hit is solid evidence that he did. It was the reasoned they attacked him and they all agree about that.
Some say she was hit on the left side. Some say she was hit on the right side. Some say with an open palm. Some say with a closed fist. The police officer who interviewed her said he didn't see any damage or signs of being hit. The photo she said she took she deleted. This is not strong evidence and raises doubts to it actually happening. And we all know in order to convict you can't have doubts.
>you can't have doubts.
No you can't have reasonable doubts. There is a question which hand he struck her with or which side of the face. The fact that he struck is undisputed.
>The fact that he struck is undisputed
I think I'm just arguing with a bot at this point so I'll leave at at this. If multiple people are giving multiple different accounts to an event then the event in question is not undisputed.
How the event happened is disputed. Not that it occurred.
No, the occurrence itself is disputed by several witnesses.
Such as?
>The next person to take the witness seat was 50-year-old Quinton Carlson. Carlson told prosecutors he didn't see Miu strike Cohen, but he did she his son Dante strike Miu, a move he says was out of character for him.
>Tony Carlson was the first witness to take the stand on Wednesday. He says he didn't see Miu punch his friend Madison Cohen, and he didn't see his brother subsequently punch Miu, but he heard his brother scream, "You don't ever hit a woman!"
>a stranger punches me and immediately after kills one of my friends and disembowels another.
>i document the injury that began the entire altercation.
>teehee, guess ill just delete this idc.
He was already surrounded and being called a pedophile looking for lil girls, what does a mob of people do to pedophiles?
They were announcing their intention to lynch him essentially.
What does somebody do when they take their knife out in a confrontation? Stab people. He announced his intent to kill.
There's no fricking way they're charging him with first degree homicide. A prosecutor trying that is just asking for their case to be thrown out.
That's the charge they have laid against him. That along with multiple counts of first degree attempted homicide. Why are people missing this part?
They've also charged him with the lesser included offenses
Which he will choose to opt out of the exact way Rittenhouse did leaving only the first degree on the board. This is why you don't over charge because the defense can choose to stick with only the highest charge. It work wonders for Rittenhouse.
>mind his own business
>pushes there tubes and gets in their face
>punches girl in the face asking him to leave
>has his knife out trying to act tough
>has his knife out trying to act tough
What do you mean? It was the opposite. The youths were acting tough while the guy just did the deed.
looks like it wasn't an act lmao
also when a dude draws a knife just run
They said they didn't see the knife
>it's okay to frick with unarmed peop--ACK