Not only was he being pursued, while he was retreating from an area where he had witnessed violent felonies and criminal looting taking place, he heard a gunshot near and in his direction, (fired into the air according to the NYT), and then observed a previously encountered raging racist lunatic charging him at full attack speed.
An eyewitness described seeing the attacker try to take the gun, but it’s unclear at what point that occurred during this event.
And there is no “impression” that the media are under — they can see the same videos plain as day. They are purposefully lying and even editing footage to falsely smear Kyle; purposefully inciting violence using propaganda and censorship, despite utilizing government-enabled monopoly access to airwaves, internet infrastructure, ‘intellectual property’, and speech protections.
Yeah, the way normal assault laws work, if someone is retreating, anyone who attacks them becomes the aggressor and they're allowed to defend themselves.
I don't claim to know the specific laws in play here, but from the evidence I've seen, he has a good claim for self-defense and possibly a few libel lawsuits against the media afterward if they don't update their coverage with facts.
I honestly think that being shot at (the rioters shot first) and surrounded with nowhere to go rightfully counts, but we'll see who they get on the jury pool.
What's the law in in Wisconsin? Is it the same - maybe the kid perceived he was trapped if there were people coming after him from the other side of the cars, or his "flight" adrenaline sort of kicked over to "fight" by the point he reached the car (like he was out of breath of something).
Need to prove "actual malice" if someone becomes a "public figure".
Nick Sandmann didn't put himself into the news in any way, shape, or form, so he was able to avoid having to prove the "actual malice" standard. Reporting on a triple shooting is newsworthy, so the media gets protected by the higher standard.
Seriously fuck the Supreme Court for its "NY Times v. Sullivan" decision and its sequels. There was absolutely no basis in law or custom for it, it was pure legislating-from-the-bench.
Well, the fix there would be to send them proof their statements were false and demand a retraction. I believe that's the normal first step before filing defamation claims anyhow.
I don’t think the issue or charges have to do with him killing in self defense. It’s that it was a riot zone and he shouldn’t have been there. Thus his self defense isn’t a defense anymore.
A common similar situation is a drunk driver (slightly over the limit) is driving properly and a sober driver/pedestrian/biker/etc does something improper causing an accident with the drunk driver and caused their own death or occupant. The drunk driver will still get an unintentional homicide every time.
Now replace dui with rioting/trespassing/breaking curfew or whatever and you have the same situation.
The case won’t be over self defense, it will be over his right to be there in the first place as it is a result of the deaths.
Unfortunately morally right isn’t always legally right.
That's wrong. Laws normally stand on their own merits and self-defense is no exception. Self-defense stands on it's own merits regardless of other infractions including even whether he legally had the right to have the gun in that situation. Good explanation here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE&t=200s
The beauty of the internet is we can get the truth from each other, we don't need these media and political gatekeepers. People everywhere can freely exchange their ideas and we can judge for ourselves. That the Left feels a need to censor because they think elections are being interfered with via Fake News only says one thing about what they think about society: they think that people are stupid and incapable of discernment. It's totally unfair.
Many people now have been rendered incapable of discernment by schools and social media censoring. Here in the Bay, you wouldn’t believe the stupid shit you hear people believe about the news. Basically everything you’ve ever heard CNN say is taken as gospel x 100. Was talking to a client the other day that started going off on the Blake shooting, the guy that was running away from the cops and then to his car. Lady I was talking to started jumping up and down saying “we deserve this, these fucking crackers keep shooting innocent black people, we fucking deserve this, these fucking crackers!!!” Damn near frothing at the mouth, then going on to call people hicks and rednecks and what not. Keep in mind she herself is an older white lady that’s overweight, and looks like the stereotype of a crazy redneck lady. You could put her in any one of these towns and she’d look like you were making fun of the people that lived there.
Since it was a work situation I wasn’t about to stir shit up, but I did say that “you saw a short video a few seconds long. The guy had a long criminal history, the cops were called there to arrest him, he started flailing around resisting arrest as everyone kept telling him not to including his family, he was mostly likely armed, and he wasn’t exactly reaching into his car to drive away, he was going for something.” She kept saying they should have tased him or used rubber bullets then. I said they probably tried that already, and if they didn’t, it’s not like all cops are covered in tasers and bean bag guns and what not. Most police departments don’t make much anyway. Low and behold, time goes on and we find they already had tried to tase him, etc.
I didn’t say it at the time, but I felt like saying “if I was a cop and some crazy asshole that was about to go away for a long time started reaching abruptly into his car and ignoring our orders after he’d just tried to attack us, I’d have unloaded on him too. Was he reaching in there for a birthday present? I doubt it.” She kept saying they should have been trained better and not shot him so many times. All I thought was “that’s what they’re trained to do. You keep shooting until the threat is eliminated. If more cops are around, they all jump in to help. Everybody shoots until somebody drops.” If you’re afraid of him dying, it’s not like he’s going to be rendered ‘more dead’ if he’s been shot 3+ times with a 45 near the center of mass. He was lucky to be alive at all in this case.
My boss had an opinion formulated without seeing the video. I told him it was completely justified. He said "but they shot him in the back???" I said ya, because he turned around to grab something out of his car despite being told to put his hands up.
He said "but 4 times?" Or whoever many.
I said "it doesn't take that long to fire off 7 rounds. That's how many it took to stop him."
Haha, I’d be fine legalizing and popularizing 100 caliber bullets. Walk around with absolute hand canons. Just shoot it in their general direction and the threat explodes. Everything behind it too. And whatever is behind them.
It is a hilarious contrast if you think about it. They make gun laws based on movies, but people are surprised when 4-7 shots are fired to bring someone down. In movies it’s more like hundreds.
People who scream about police brutality are, strangely enough, often perched in an ivory tower. They ignore all other context to try to make the situation look as bad as possible.
“It doesn't matter if the hoax is meant to tell a big lie to the public, trying to implant a small idea inside a larger message, or attempting to fit developing events into an existing narrative; these tactics can be observed.
These techniques apply regardless of whether a vast network works together to execute a well-planned-out long disinformation campaign, or a small group hastily assembles a reactionary counter-message to achieve a tacit goal, cover up a crime, or simply delay public awareness by a few weeks.
Every hoax will share many of these common characteristics, be it designed for the whole world to believe, directed at thought leaders to manipulate decisions, laid out to cover-up events from history, piggybacking on a real event, or even targeted at only a small audience.”
Look to the Sandman example in the linked articles for a corresponding example of that type. The characteristics are listed and described, with examples of how each expressed in the real world.
Not only was he being pursued, while he was retreating from an area where he had witnessed violent felonies and criminal looting taking place, he heard a gunshot near and in his direction, (fired into the air according to the NYT), and then observed a previously encountered raging racist lunatic charging him at full attack speed.
An eyewitness described seeing the attacker try to take the gun, but it’s unclear at what point that occurred during this event.
And there is no “impression” that the media are under — they can see the same videos plain as day. They are purposefully lying and even editing footage to falsely smear Kyle; purposefully inciting violence using propaganda and censorship, despite utilizing government-enabled monopoly access to airwaves, internet infrastructure, ‘intellectual property’, and speech protections.
Yeah, the way normal assault laws work, if someone is retreating, anyone who attacks them becomes the aggressor and they're allowed to defend themselves.
I don't claim to know the specific laws in play here, but from the evidence I've seen, he has a good claim for self-defense and possibly a few libel lawsuits against the media afterward if they don't update their coverage with facts.
NJ?
We have that same law here in NJ
I honestly think that being shot at (the rioters shot first) and surrounded with nowhere to go rightfully counts, but we'll see who they get on the jury pool.
Kyle was already retreating. He was on the ground and surrounded.
What's the law in in Wisconsin? Is it the same - maybe the kid perceived he was trapped if there were people coming after him from the other side of the cars, or his "flight" adrenaline sort of kicked over to "fight" by the point he reached the car (like he was out of breath of something).
He’s covered
Need to prove "actual malice" if someone becomes a "public figure".
Nick Sandmann didn't put himself into the news in any way, shape, or form, so he was able to avoid having to prove the "actual malice" standard. Reporting on a triple shooting is newsworthy, so the media gets protected by the higher standard.
Seriously fuck the Supreme Court for its "NY Times v. Sullivan" decision and its sequels. There was absolutely no basis in law or custom for it, it was pure legislating-from-the-bench.
Well, the fix there would be to send them proof their statements were false and demand a retraction. I believe that's the normal first step before filing defamation claims anyhow.
I hadn't thought about the libel lawsuits... I wonder if that's why Sandman's lawyer jumped on this case so fast? This kid could be set for life
I don’t think the issue or charges have to do with him killing in self defense. It’s that it was a riot zone and he shouldn’t have been there. Thus his self defense isn’t a defense anymore.
A common similar situation is a drunk driver (slightly over the limit) is driving properly and a sober driver/pedestrian/biker/etc does something improper causing an accident with the drunk driver and caused their own death or occupant. The drunk driver will still get an unintentional homicide every time.
Now replace dui with rioting/trespassing/breaking curfew or whatever and you have the same situation.
The case won’t be over self defense, it will be over his right to be there in the first place as it is a result of the deaths.
Unfortunately morally right isn’t always legally right.
By the same logic, the dead guys were there illegally since they were breaking curfew. They don’t get the same protection under the law right?
Well they’re dead so they paid, dude that got his arm shot should be in jail for attempted murder.
Well I guess morally we should break him out of jail then!
That's wrong. Laws normally stand on their own merits and self-defense is no exception. Self-defense stands on it's own merits regardless of other infractions including even whether he legally had the right to have the gun in that situation. Good explanation here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE&t=200s
The beauty of the internet is we can get the truth from each other, we don't need these media and political gatekeepers. People everywhere can freely exchange their ideas and we can judge for ourselves. That the Left feels a need to censor because they think elections are being interfered with via Fake News only says one thing about what they think about society: they think that people are stupid and incapable of discernment. It's totally unfair.
Many people now have been rendered incapable of discernment by schools and social media censoring. Here in the Bay, you wouldn’t believe the stupid shit you hear people believe about the news. Basically everything you’ve ever heard CNN say is taken as gospel x 100. Was talking to a client the other day that started going off on the Blake shooting, the guy that was running away from the cops and then to his car. Lady I was talking to started jumping up and down saying “we deserve this, these fucking crackers keep shooting innocent black people, we fucking deserve this, these fucking crackers!!!” Damn near frothing at the mouth, then going on to call people hicks and rednecks and what not. Keep in mind she herself is an older white lady that’s overweight, and looks like the stereotype of a crazy redneck lady. You could put her in any one of these towns and she’d look like you were making fun of the people that lived there.
Since it was a work situation I wasn’t about to stir shit up, but I did say that “you saw a short video a few seconds long. The guy had a long criminal history, the cops were called there to arrest him, he started flailing around resisting arrest as everyone kept telling him not to including his family, he was mostly likely armed, and he wasn’t exactly reaching into his car to drive away, he was going for something.” She kept saying they should have tased him or used rubber bullets then. I said they probably tried that already, and if they didn’t, it’s not like all cops are covered in tasers and bean bag guns and what not. Most police departments don’t make much anyway. Low and behold, time goes on and we find they already had tried to tase him, etc.
I didn’t say it at the time, but I felt like saying “if I was a cop and some crazy asshole that was about to go away for a long time started reaching abruptly into his car and ignoring our orders after he’d just tried to attack us, I’d have unloaded on him too. Was he reaching in there for a birthday present? I doubt it.” She kept saying they should have been trained better and not shot him so many times. All I thought was “that’s what they’re trained to do. You keep shooting until the threat is eliminated. If more cops are around, they all jump in to help. Everybody shoots until somebody drops.” If you’re afraid of him dying, it’s not like he’s going to be rendered ‘more dead’ if he’s been shot 3+ times with a 45 near the center of mass. He was lucky to be alive at all in this case.
My boss had an opinion formulated without seeing the video. I told him it was completely justified. He said "but they shot him in the back???" I said ya, because he turned around to grab something out of his car despite being told to put his hands up. He said "but 4 times?" Or whoever many. I said "it doesn't take that long to fire off 7 rounds. That's how many it took to stop him."
He shrugged and said "we need better guns."
Lol
Haha, I’d be fine legalizing and popularizing 100 caliber bullets. Walk around with absolute hand canons. Just shoot it in their general direction and the threat explodes. Everything behind it too. And whatever is behind them.
It is a hilarious contrast if you think about it. They make gun laws based on movies, but people are surprised when 4-7 shots are fired to bring someone down. In movies it’s more like hundreds.
The old saying applies here:
Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
People who scream about police brutality are, strangely enough, often perched in an ivory tower. They ignore all other context to try to make the situation look as bad as possible.
A FATAL ERROR HAS OCCURRED WHILE RUNNING LOOTING.EXE
RESTART YOUR PEACEFUL PROTEST AND TRY AGAIN. (BLM ERROR)
(Note: this error is caused by antifa.conf and related to dnc.bat)
Sandmann all over again!!!!!
“It doesn't matter if the hoax is meant to tell a big lie to the public, trying to implant a small idea inside a larger message, or attempting to fit developing events into an existing narrative; these tactics can be observed.
These techniques apply regardless of whether a vast network works together to execute a well-planned-out long disinformation campaign, or a small group hastily assembles a reactionary counter-message to achieve a tacit goal, cover up a crime, or simply delay public awareness by a few weeks.
Every hoax will share many of these common characteristics, be it designed for the whole world to believe, directed at thought leaders to manipulate decisions, laid out to cover-up events from history, piggybacking on a real event, or even targeted at only a small audience.”
https://thedonald.win/p/FfWJSZu7/a-thedonaldwin-exclusive--anatom/c/
That second one has been the go-to in a lot of these situations.
"Hands up, don't shoot".
Look to the Sandman example in the linked articles for a corresponding example of that type. The characteristics are listed and described, with examples of how each expressed in the real world.