Black man shot in Kenosha, riots starting all over again...

[Alpo]

It reeks of selective prosecution. The moron with the bullhorn in the video was alluding to the fact that the mob was armed, which of course cannot be seen in the video clips I've seen because they are focused on the homeowner. One wonders if intimidation is breaking the law in WI

Also your laddlaw cite has this to say:



Is leaf a controlled substance in WI? One wonder's how INGO would react (or progressives, for that matter) if he was charged due to being 'intoxicated' with Mary Jane

I'm all for the police rounding up the protesters for disturbing the peace in a neighborhood. But, the police have done an abysmal job (perhaps as directed by the mayor or COP) in managing these protests across the USA. Block a street? Get arrested. Throw a firebomb? Everyone gets arrested. Vandalize? Everyone gets arrested.

Surround a home? Get arrested.

As to the Elmer Fudd getting arrested, he apparently broke the terms of his bail (at least that was one of the charges). So, no sympathy for him either.

Drink all you want, turn the music up. Call the cops. If they break into the house or throw a firebomb, commence shooting.

 

[foszoe]

What if they are just beating on the siding?

I'm all for the police rounding up the protesters for disturbing the peace in a neighborhood. But, the police have done an abysmal job (perhaps as directed by the mayor or COP) in managing these protests across the USA. Block a street? Get arrested. Throw a firebomb? Everyone gets arrested. Vandalize? Everyone gets arrested.

Surround a home? Get arrested.

As to the Elmer Fudd getting arrested, he apparently broke the terms of his bail (at least that was one of the charges). So, no sympathy for him either.

Drink all you want, turn the music up. Call the cops. If they break into the house or throw a firebomb, commence shooting.

 

[BigRed]

Felt like a little Marty Robbins again....

[video=youtube;_EpCXd4Dpm8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EpCXd4Dpm8[/video]

 

[Alpo]

What if they are just beating on the siding?

If it's my siding, they get a beating. If they set fire to it, they get shot.

 

[foszoe]

They get that close, it's Leiningen vs the Ants time.

If it's my siding, they get a beating. If they set fire to it, they get shot.

 

[Alpo]

They get that close, it's Leiningen vs the Ants time.

I don't think Millennials would get the reference. That's like mentioning Joyce or Dos Passos or Thornton Wilder. Just words, dude.

 

[BigRed]

I don't think Millennials would get the reference. That's like mentioning Joyce or Dos Passos or Thornton Wilder. Just words, dude.

I got it... but then again, I'm not a "millennial".

 

[chipbennett]

And the day before, he threatened his neighbor with a chain saw. Drunk and disorderly. Arrested.

Go ahead Señor Quixote. Take the case.

Where did I ever say that I defended his actions in threatening his neighbor with a chainsaw the day before?

 

[chipbennett]

No. Of course the right of self defense is basic.

But, do it drunk and there could be serious legal consequences. Did the drunkenness contribute to an escalating conflict that might have been avoided if sober?

Good question. Did the conflict escalate? What was said escalation?

Was the drunk mentally impaired in his assessment of the situation and saw a threat where a sober individual might not?

Good question. Would he have assessed the situation differently if sober? How might he have assessed the situation differently?

Do the facts support an actual threat of great bodily harm to the man?

Good question. Does an angry, rioting mob pointing surrounding someone's home, pointing spotlights into the windows of that home, and shouting threats at the homeowner support a reasonable belief or fear of great bodily harm?

There are so many possibilities that could come about that might mitigate the "right" to self defense because of intoxication. A prosecutor's field day, if you will.

Most of the questions above are rhetorical. I fail to see how his state of sobriety changes the calculus of the situation or the legal justification of his actions in any way, whatsoever.

In this circumstance, there was no immediate threat of entry by the protesters afaik.

A reasonable person would reasonably disagree with you. The very presence of the mob, targeted at that home and at that homeowner, is prima facie evidence supporting reasonable fear of immediate threat of great bodily harm.

The man had been arrested on the prior day for disorderly conduct and a threat with a deadly weapon. Within 24 hours, he is apparently drunk again with another deadly weapon in hand. Was it appropriate to separate this man from another deadly weapon?

I think it's reasonable.

The incident the day before has precisely zero bearing on the incident that night. I doubt it would even be allowed to be entered as evidence at trial, because it is prejudicial.

 

[Mikey1911]

I don't think Millennials would get the reference. That's like mentioning Joyce or Dos Passos or Thornton Wilder. Just words, dude.

Maybe like the “foo gas” (fougasse) scenes in “The Green Berets”?
That was pretty much Leinigen’s plan for his inner line of defense.

 

[Mikey1911]

I got it... but then again, I'm not a "millennial".

OK, fellow Boomer!

 

[Alpo]

Where did I ever say that I defended his actions in threatening his neighbor with a chainsaw the day before?

The thread has evolved and mutated since last you graced us with your presence.

We are now onto music licensing.

We were about to discuss the licensing tree and fees associated with playing a youtube video of Greensky Bluegrass covering Pink Floyd.

[video=youtube_share;Uw1bJrFdCjY]http://youtu.be/Uw1bJrFdCjY[/video]

 

[Alpo]

The incident the day before has precisely zero bearing on the incident that night. I doubt it would even be allowed to be entered as evidence at trial, because it is prejudicial.

Ahhh, but what if said drunk hadn't sobered up? What if he continued in the same state of inebriation from the prior day? Wouldn't all of his actions while in that state appear to be admissable....and judging by the state of his Trump support, he's likely been drunk since 2016.

 

[chipbennett]

The thread has evolved and mutated since last you graced us with your presence.

We are now onto music licensing.

We were about to discuss the licensing tree and fees associated with playing a youtube video of Greensky Bluegrass covering Pink Floyd.

I will have to watch that video later. Bluegrass and Pink Floyd sounds like a mighty fine combination.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I will have to watch that video later. Bluegrass and Pink Floyd sounds like a mighty fine combination.

Bluegrass and Zeppelin go well together too.

[video=youtube;jhMa-ED_9bk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhMa-ED_9bk[/video]

 

[Leadeye]

They get that close, it's Leiningen vs the Ants time.

That can be solved with the proper rate of fire.

 

[Leadeye]

I don't think Millennials would get the reference. That's like mentioning Joyce or Dos Passos or Thornton Wilder. Just words, dude.

There was the movie The Naked Jungle with Chuck Heston, that's at least more recent and has been on TV.

 

[KellyinAvon]

On Tucker Carlson, video lays out Kyle Rittenhouse timeline. First degree murder? Seriously??

 

[red_zr24x4]

The thread has evolved and mutated since last you graced us with your presence.

We are now onto music licensing.

We were about to discuss the licensing tree and fees associated with playing a youtube video of Greensky Bluegrass covering Pink Floyd.

[video=youtube_share;Uw1bJrFdCjY]http://youtu.be/Uw1bJrFdCjY[/video]

Bluegrass and Zeppelin go well together too.

[video=youtube;jhMa-ED_9bk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhMa-ED_9bk[/video]

Bluegrass and Snoop go together too
[video=youtube;iNd2GvhvHkY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNd2GvhvHkY[/video]

 

[Super Bee]

On Tucker Carlson, video lays out Kyle Rittenhouse timeline. First degree murder? Seriously??

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-of-kyle-rittenhouse-and-the-kenosha-shooting