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.
TBH, it’s getting to the point that you based NY’ers need to move to PA to secure our state. Doesn’t mean you can’t root against the Eagles and keep the Giants/Jets/Bills, or whoever. But, unfortunately, because of DeBlasio City, your state is a lost cause electorally, where surprisingly ours is back in play. Take this as an invite to liberate liberal owned property, just tell them you are refugees who crossed the border illegally, they’ll love that shit.
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.
If the cops were allowed to do their jobs, citizens wouldn’t feel like they need to be out there protecting and defending. You wanna lock someone up? Lock up the governor for letting this shit get outta hand!
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
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?
TBH, it’s getting to the point that you based NY’ers need to move to PA to secure our state. Doesn’t mean you can’t root against the Eagles and keep the Giants/Jets/Bills, or whoever. But, unfortunately, because of DeBlasio City, your state is a lost cause electorally, where surprisingly ours is back in play. Take this as an invite to liberate liberal owned property, just tell them you are refugees who crossed the border illegally, they’ll love that shit.
That's fucking retarded. Who makes the call to determine an intruder is a threat to property only?
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.
If the cops were allowed to do their jobs, citizens wouldn’t feel like they need to be out there protecting and defending. You wanna lock someone up? Lock up the governor for letting this shit get outta hand!
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