2020 Civil Unrest Thread

I’m not a lawyer but doesn’t this case really depend on if the first person he shot was in self defense or if he was the aggressor?
No. The law is cut and dry here. You forfeit your right to self defense if you are in the middle of committing a crime. He was committing multiple crimes at the time he shot someone in the back for throwing a bag at him. Even if bag man was the aggressor he has no right to claim defense. Any judge/jury remotely interested in upholding the law will put him away for a long long time.
 
No. The law is cut and dry here. You forfeit your right to self defense if you are in the middle of committing a crime. He was committing multiple crimes at the time he shot someone in the back for throwing a bag at him. Even if bag man was the aggressor he has no right to claim defense. Any judge/jury remotely interested in upholding the law will put him away for a long long time.

Considering the unqualified cretins that Trump & McConnell have loaded the courts with over the last four years, I wouldn't count on that.
 
No. The law is cut and dry here. You forfeit your right to self defense if you are in the middle of committing a crime. He was committing multiple crimes at the time he shot someone in the back for throwing a bag at him. Even if bag man was the aggressor he has no right to claim defense. Any judge/jury remotely interested in upholding the law will put him away for a long long time.
That’s not correct. If I’m jaywalking or double parked when someone jumps me, I can fight back. He’s an absolute piece of shit and deserves to root in jail but bringing a gun over state lines is not (I think) enough to waive any self defense argument.
 
That’s not correct. If I’m jaywalking or double parked when someone jumps me, I can fight back. He’s an absolute piece of shit and deserves to root in jail but bringing a gun over state lines is not (I think) enough to waive any self defense argument.
Just to elaborate slightly. I am defending a civil action against a store (ignore this) where the underlying cause of action arises from theft and assault. Specifically, Plaintiff stole items from the store and stabbed our employee when confronted. He claimed at his civil trial that he acted in self-defense since (allegedly) our employee tased him first. Even thought he admitted to the theft, he was able to argue self defense. Further, unless Rittenhouse pleas to the lesser crimes prior to trial, the jury will be ruling on them as well, which begs the question on how he cannot argue self defense because he was allegedly committing crimes to which he neither admitted nor was convicted of. Just saying “hey, he was doing these crimes too” doesn’t fly.
 
Just to elaborate slightly. I am defending a civil action against a store (ignore this) where the underlying cause of action arises from theft and assault. Specifically, Plaintiff stole items from the store and stabbed our employee when confronted. He claimed at his civil trial that he acted in self-defense since (allegedly) our employee tased him first. Even thought he admitted to the theft, he was able to argue self defense. Further, unless Rittenhouse pleas to the lesser crimes prior to trial, the jury will be ruling on them as well, which begs the question on how he cannot argue self defense because he was allegedly committing crimes to which he neither admitted nor was convicted of. Just saying “hey, he was doing these crimes too” doesn’t fly.
Should have read “at his criminal trial”.

I’m on beers.
 
Top