Do Democrats/ Liberals Want Self Defense Outlawed?

[Ladsin2]

The Daniel Penny/ Jose Alba/ Kykle Rittenhouse trials are the ones that recently have come to mind.

Yes D/L don't want self-defense

No they do want self defense

They don't want self defense depending on who you are

Other

[goaded]

"Hancock said that he learned during the trial that Rittenhouse had allegedly used racial slurs in messages sent to his friends and appeared to be looking for an opportunity to use a weapon.

“There was a history of things he was doing prior to Kenosha, specifically patrolling the street for months with guns and borrowing people’s security uniforms, doing whatever he could to try to get into some kind of a gunfight,” Hancock claimed. “I believed things he told me that I now understand to be one of his many lies. And that hurts.”"

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/patrolling-the-streets-for-months-kyle-rittenhouse-confidants-reveal-new-details-the-jury-never-knew/

[Ladsin2]

A guy said a thing. That's pretty convincing. On the other hand we have the actual videos which were available the same night.

[goaded]

Kyle Rittenhouse’s former bodyguard and spokesperson. And another bodyguard. Not just some random people.

Thanks for MHO.

[Ladsin2]

Thank GaG. I find the videos more convincing personally.

[goaded]

So, he was just an innocent person going about his business and not someone who'd spent months looking for a chance to shoot someone.

[Ladsin2]

Correct. Otherwise he'd have shot someone who wasn't in the process of trying to kill or otherwise attack him. Those alleged messages could have some bearing if he just shot people in town willy-nilly. As it is; however, he shot a guy trying to take his weapon from him (lethal threat), a guy hitting him in the head with a skateboard (lethal threat) and another who was pointing a gun at his head (lethal threat). All of this is on video and was released the same day.

[goaded]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=axXaBO223RI

[Avicenna]

Only self-defense for people they don’t like because they are lower on the Democrats’ DEI totem pole.

[saraupstairs]

I want to testify on behalf of Dan.

"Dan, you dirty rotten scoundrel. "

"You should have let that crazy guy kill everyone on the train. You would now be a hero! "

[saraupstairs]

Thanks for the MHO

[Anonymous]

Notice that it’s all guys on trial for this stuff

[Ladsin2]

Well yeah...

[NaultD]

So this year I was a jury member of a self defense case this year. I'm a hardcore leftist anti gun and I was saying not guilty while fighting boomers in alaska saying guilty.

So basically the case boiled down to is castle doctrine applicable for renters vs landlords. As a hardcore leftist I say this is a classic proletariat vs. bourgeoisie class division. It was a miss trial trial but I did what I could.

Let's compare this to rittenhouse. He was clearly cutting through the middle of a protest. For what? Someone to get in his face and use his gun? I'd say yes. It's closer to setting up a trap for something to be stolen and finding in the corner to gun them down.

How did rittenhouse get his legal defense? Millionaire donors. So as I see it self defense is and has been class gated. Unless you have millions you honestly don't have a right to self defense even in a republican castle doctrine state.

[Ladsin2]

Interesting case I presume the landlord walked in on the tenant and that was the cause of the shooting. Tenants are presumed to have all rights associated with homeowner's right? Should be pretty clear cut considering there's no extenuating circumstances ie squatting or advanced notice.

Wherein AK? I used to live up in Fairbanks.

Your assessment of the Rittenhouse is just way off base. He wasn't "cutting through" the middle of a protest. He was in a town he had every reason to be in taking care of the community (cleaning graffiti, providing medical aid, etc) when he was chased down by a lunatic pedophile who assaulted him multiple times and tried to disarm Rittenhouse despite (the pedophile) being a felony prohibited possessor. Then someone else hit him with a weapon (skateboard), and then someone else pointed a pistol at his head. This was all on film and available the same night in question.

[Ladsin2]

Jose Alba was/is a broke bodega worker and Penny is a broke former marine. Rittenhouse was/is a broke minor who worked as a lifeguard.

[NaultD]

Not north pole but smaller grouping similar by fairbanks.

So basically roommate/landlord is arguing with defeneded. "I'm going to kill you blaw blaw blaw" more talk blaw blaw blaw. Touches bed puts hand behind his back and girlfriend scared to death Already in tears looks at defened boyfriend and landlord is dead.

As what you're saying i though it was clear cut yet I'm a week in fighting boomers saying they should have just left. Fucking bullshit.

My biggest concern is proletariat vs. bourgeoisie class divide. so this pissed me off.

As I understand rittenhouse case he and his group was defending some random car dealership that in no way associated with them. Had a gun first aid bag and was basically antagonizing black lifes matter protest.

Once antagonized got the killing shot.

My biggest concern here is he only got away with it is because he had millionaire class fighting for him. Normal people like you and I don't get that luxury.

Took a small peek at the other two but I see a similar trend. Self defense is class gated.

[Ladsin2]

The whole bourgeoise/ proletariat conflict has nothing to do with these examples as every one of the examples I mentioned are proletariats. Rittenhouse the son of a single-mother police officer and a lifeguard who went to clean graffiti and provide first aid. Brought his rifle due to the multiple violent acts performed during the various BLM protests. One man shot at him (Zabinski I think) which alerted him, then when he turned he found another man lunging for him so he ran. He ran until cornered by a pedophile who happened to have also been released from the mental hospital the same day who continued to lunge for Rittenhouse's rifle. He defended himself. Then he tried to provide support, but people started chasing and attacking him so he ran again. When people caught up to him they hit him over the head with a weapon (skateboard) so he turned and shot before they could hit him again. Then jump kick man kicked him to the ground again and ran away. At this point another guy (Gauge) pulled a concealed pistol he was not allowed to carry and pointed it at Kyle's head. Kyle fired and neutralized the threat. He did not continue to fire once Gauge's gun was on the ground. You really should look at the footage. It was all released the same day.

Small world. Fairbanks was pretty cool. Pretty cold right now though. It sounds like the landlord in your case was trying to evict the tenants. Is that right?

[NaultD]

The lawyers and fundraiser are not thou. Using and abusing rittenhouse and abandoning him once he's not useful. As the bourgeoisie does with all of us.

The land lord was was an abusive drunk. Super friendly in the morning. Noon drink and gone.

With Fairbanks today. It's oddly warm. Really bad rain storm then cold snap just before Halloween. I was born here and it's the worse I've ever seen in terms of scary ice roads. Still only got to 0 degrees so far.

[NaultD]

Also circling back to the original question. How many millions does it take so defend a self defense case?

If the average boomer thinks every gun owner is a jerkoff waiting to unloaded that's a fundamental problem for everyone.

[worldscolide]

Self defense is fine according to the shitstain left as long as you're not straight, white and male.

[Ladsin2]

Jose Alba isn't white.

[IridescentWave]

Only the Alba case is classic self-defense. The others are defense of others or others' property, which attenuates the claims.

[Ladsin2]

Defense of others has also always been allowed along with self defense. Imagine forcing a woman to defend herself from a knife wielding maniac rather than allowing some bigger stronger guy to help her out.

[IridescentWave]

Defense of others is an affirmative defense charges for violent crimes, as is self-defense, but the elements of the defenses are different. I think defense of others can be a good part of a legal system if well articulated, just saying they're not the same.

[Ladsin2]

Okay.
Also Rittenhouse was defense of self. Was attacked by a pedophile multiple times who tried to disarm him. The other guy pointed a gun at him, and the other guy was in the process of hitting him with a skateboard.

[IridescentWave]

Rittenhouse isn't defense of self in the common law sense because he traveled to Kenosha. The threat didn't come to him. The judge tossed all of the contextual questions of fact out though so the jury was left with the immediate use of proportionate force question.

[Ladsin2]

His father lived in Kenosha and he worked in Kenosha. Self defense doesn't require you're in your own home. Are you thinking of the Castle Doctrine?

[goaded]

“There was a history of things he was doing prior to Kenosha, specifically patrolling the street for months with guns and borrowing people’s security uniforms, doing whatever he could to try to get into some kind of a gunfight,” Hancock claimed. “I believed things he told me that I now understand to be one of his many lies. And that hurts.” lawandcrime.com/.../

[Ladsin2]

@goaded nonsense hearsay.

[Syntosi]

No. But guns is not a synonym for self defense either so I think you are asking the wrong question here.

[Ladsin2]

2 of the people I listed didn't use guns. Jose used a knife and Penny used a submission hold.

[Syntosi]

But that is not what you are talking about now is it?

[Ladsin2]

I mentioned all three of these cases in the question...

[Syntosi]

True, but there has never been a conversation about outlawing self defense. That is such an outlandish statement that not even the fringe extremists has a meaningful opposition to it.

[Ladsin2]

Yet here we are with three recent examples where people are being prosecuted for self-defense...

[Syntosi]

The argument is not if they were allowed self defense or not. The argument was if that WAS self defense in the first place. Totally different argument.

[Ladsin2]

Self defense with sufficient evidence typically doesn't go to trial. All three of these cases were. Penny for example wasn't arrested on site due to the dozens of witnesses expressing that he was protecting self and others. Then democrat DA found out about it and charged him with murder. I think Alba case was similar.

[Syntosi]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging a claim in court or charging someone for something, that is how you start the process of finding out what actually happened. If it was actually self defense then good, that would be easily proved.

If however it turns out that there was no grounds for self defense and the suspect simply put themselves in a situation and escalated it as an excuse to murder someone, well that is something entirely different now is it not?

[Ladsin2]

I disagree, if there's a clear cut case of self-defense I don't think people should be jailed, have their names slandered, and face the financial penalties associated with a trial.
Alas, we seem to be talking in circles at this point. Thanks for the conversation.

[Syntosi]

If there is a clear-cut case of self-defense then they will not be put in jail. That is the point.

[DrPepper12]

What a stupid question. Do MAGAs want everyone aggressive?

[Ladsin2]

Why, are "MAGA" DAs prosecuting people for not being aggressive? If not then I presume not. If they are state the case as I did here.

[DrPepper12]

You stated self defense. I counted aggression - the opposite.

You make NO SENSE. How can any DA prosecute something that hasn't occurred?

[Ladsin2]

I think you need to re-read the question... Maybe slowly. Self-defense is legally protected, democrat DAs are prosecuting obvious cases of self-defense. Hence the question.

[noohair]

They want a Nanny State...

[BarryLiverstone]

Nope

[Ladsin2]

What do you think of the cases in question?

[BarryLiverstone]

They are cases legally settled

[Ladsin2]

Well... no, Penny is ongoing. My question is about whether or not this pattern is indicative of the fact that Democrats/ Liberals, aren't interested in the right to self-preservation with these three cases where Democrats demonstrate a willingness to prosecute people for doing just that. If you think these are isolated cases and Democrats are in favor of self-defense, but just not these cases then that's a pretty simple answer. Maybe there are some rogue democrat DAs who don't believe in it, but democrats in general do support self defense.

[BarryLiverstone]

In general both democrats and republicans support the constitution yes

[Ladsin2]

Democrats do? Which part of the constitution do they support?

[BarryLiverstone]

All of it

[Ladsin2]

1st and 2nd Amendments?

[BarryLiverstone]

Of course.

[Ladsin2]

Lol, well I appreciate the response.

[BarryLiverstone]

Cheers.