Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

he was not illegally in possession of a firearm and he did not illegally brandish his weapon.. but yea he might get slapped with a curfew violation..

 

He defended himself and won.

 

A few excerpts from your source

939.48(1m)(ar)1. 1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business​

939.48(1m)(b) (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

939.48(1m)(b)1. 1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.

939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.​

To everyone acting like this is an open and shut case either for a guilty or innocent verdict — it isn't. There are too many intertwining laws and violations on all parties.

 

If he goes to prison for murder I doubt many people would call that winning. The only reason he had to “defend” himself was because of decisions he made himself.

 

False, he had to defend himself because of the decisions of terrorists attacking him. And they are now dead, 2 of them anyways. No rational court room could put him away for murder.

 

If they find his presence was unlawful he will go to prison for murder and attempted murder. He willingly placed himself in the situation which could be a violation of 939.48(2)(c) (c)

 

running away from a pedophile is now considered a criminal activity to the left now?

 

lol 939.48 (c) "(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

you just destroyed you guys own argument about the pedophile acting in self defense. The pedophile was the one who provoked the attack so nice work on ruining your fellow libs argument here..

 

Crossing state lines, using a straw purchase to acquire a weapon and then brandishing it at a declared riot when you have been ordered to leave is 100% criminal activity.

Disingenuous remarks just show your emotional investment in this case. Make legal arguments (and don’t dishonesty leave out portions you don’t like), they will go further.

 

How did Rosenbaum do this? He was armed with a plastic bag. How did he provoke an attack with the intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm?

 

you think crossing state lines is against the law? lol this isnt Nazi Germany.

No straw purchase

open carry is not brandishing a firearm

but again you might have him on a curfew violation..

 

by stealing someone's gun and using it against them. Next time you see a cop go try and grab his gun and see how that goes..

 

It was 100% a straw purchase, his friend is awaiting trial. He was not of age to have the type of weapon he did thus open carry does not apply. The moment he pointed it or acted aggressively with it, it became brandishing.

 

That didn’t happen. You should try and look at this through a less emotional lens.

 

actually he could open carry that weapon, and no pointing the gun at someone who is trying to attack you is not brandishing and its perfectly legal

941.20 (e) Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of this section, under s. 939.48 (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.

 

He didn’t willingly place himself in a situation to have someone attempt to kill him. Those terrorists made that choice themselves.

 

5:31

 

Double
Post

 

I think you should take your own advice, no rational thinking person could perceive his actions as anything but self defense, especially considering the mercy he showed the last guy.

 

His presence at a declared riot and actions prior to him joining that riot disagree.

 

941.2905  Straw purchasing of firearms.
(1)  Whoever intentionally furnishes, purchases, or possesses a firearm for a person, knowing that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29 (1m), is guilty of a Class G felony.

941.29  Possession of a firearm.
(1g)  In this section:
(a) “Violent felony" means any felony under s. 943.23 (1m), 1999 stats., or s. 943.23 (1r), 1999 stats., this section, or s. 940.01, 940.02, 940.03, 940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10, 940.19, 940.195, 940.20, 940.201, 940.203, 940.21, 940.225, 940.23, 940.235, 940.285 (2), 940.29, 940.295 (3), 940.30, 940.302, 940.305, 940.31, 940.43 (1) to (3), 940.45 (1) to (3), 941.20, 941.26, 941.28, 941.2905, 941.292, 941.30, 941.327 (2) (b) 3. or 4., 943.02, 943.04, 943.06, 943.10 (2), 943.23 (1g), 943.32, 943.87, 946.43, 948.02 (1) or (2), 948.025, 948.03, 948.04, 948.05, 948.051, 948.06, 948.07, 948.08, 948.085, or 948.30.
(b) “Violent misdemeanor" means a violation of s. 813.12, 813.122, 813.125, 940.19 (1), 940.195, 940.42, 940.44, 941.20 (1), 941.26, 941.38 (3), 941.39, 947.013, 948.55, 951.02, 951.08, 951.09, or 951.095 or a violation to which a penalty specified in s. 939.63 (1) is applied.
(1m) A person who possesses a firearm is guilty of a Class G felony if any of the following applies:
(a) The person has been convicted of a felony in this state.
(b) The person has been convicted of a crime elsewhere that would be a felony if committed in this state.
(bm) The person has been adjudicated delinquent for an act committed on or after April 21, 1994, that if committed by an adult in this state would be a felony.
(c) The person has been found not guilty of a felony in this state by reason of mental disease or defect.
(d) The person has been found not guilty of or not responsible for a crime elsewhere that would be a felony in this state by reason of insanity or mental disease, defect or illness.
941.29(1m)(e)(e) The person has been committed for treatment under s. 51.20 (13) (a) and is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 2007 stats.
(em) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 51.45 (13) (i) 1., 54.10 (3) (f) 1., or 55.12 (10) (a).
(f) The person is subject to an injunction issued under s. 813.12 or 813.122 or under a tribal injunction, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (e), issued by a court established by any federally recognized Wisconsin Indian tribe or band, except the Menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin, that includes notice to the respondent that he or she is subject to the requirements and penalties under this section and that has been filed under s. 813.128 (3g).
(g) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 813.123 (5m) or 813.125 (4m).

Buying a gun for a convicted felon or someone that is mentally insane is a strawman purchase. Besides that would NOT be a crime against Kyle anyway and that does not mean he gives up his right to self defense

 

so because he was there he has to give up his rights for self defense? lol sorry it doesnt work that way

 

It doesn’t mean he “gives it up” it does mean there are additional legal factors at play that may impact a self defense plea.

 

no there is not, a curfew violation has no bearing on your right to self defense,

If a man is trying to rape a woman and she pulls out a gun and shoots the rapist is that murder?
Now what if the woman was j walking right before that? By your logic she should go to jail..

 

He's still doing it, and it's just so weird.

It's like the argument is- Pointing a gun at someone is assault, and that's a crime, and therefore the gun pointer is guilty of a crime, and therefore it was a criminal act, and not self defense.

By that weird logic, there's no such thing as self defense, because, if a gun gets pointed at someone, the defender is guilty of assault, and the assault renders the self defense claim null and void... because reasons.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.